am+dg

Dear fellow student, hello. This reviewer is sourced from Boado’s book,  But they may be temporarily restrained
some stuff from Reyes, Glenn Tuazon’s notes, Justice Callejo’s if they do stuff that threaten public
lectures and recitations, and case doctrines. Enjoy. And no stamping
order.
please!
o Varying degrees of immunity depending on the
status of the person (based on the enlightened
Fundamental Principles
discussion of the esteemed Justice Puno in Liang
 Criminal law is that branch of public law which defines
v People):
criminal offenses and prescribes specific punishments for
 Diplomatic agent: inviolable, not liable
them.
to any form of arrest or detention;
o Penal law: acts of the legislature which prohibit
blanket immunity
certain acts and establish penalties for their
 Consular officials: immune for acts
violations; or those that define crimes, treat of
performed in the exercise of consular
their nature and provide for their punishment
functions; not liable to arrest or
 All felonies in the RPC are public wrongs, as distinguished
detention pending trial, except in the
from private wrongs, the latter is just a breach of duty or
case of a grave crime
contract of 2 private parties.
 Officials of specialized
o While the State has the power to prosecute
agencies/international officials:
persons for private crimes, the law gives the
immune only for acts performed by
victim the privilege of not instituting actions for
them in their official capacity
private crimes (adultery, seduction,
(functional immunities)
abduction,etc) to protect the latter from shame
 Compared to diplomats,
and humiliation. There must be a complaint
international officials are
initiated by the offended party.
granted less immunity. Why?
 Rape no longer a private crime. It‟s a
Because the privileges and
crime against persons.
immunities of diplomats and
 Ex post facto law is a penal law which is given retroactive
those of international officials
application to the prejudice of the accused.
rest upon different legal
o Makes an act or omission criminal which when
foundations.
committed was not yet so
 Diplomatic agents: based on
 Bill of attainder: law/act which inflicts punishment without
customary international law
judicial trial
 International agents: based
 Characteristics of penal law
on treaties, legislation, or
o Generality
both
 Refers to the persons covered
o In Minucher v CA, Scalzo, the DEA agent, was not
 Binding on all person who reside or
considered a diplomatic agent. But, he was still
sojourn in the Philippines, whether
immune because he was acting within the
citizens or not
directive of the United States which placed him
 Ex: those who are covered
under state immunity from suit, following the
by treaties and laws of
doctrine of State Immunity from Suit.
preferential application
 A foreign agent, operating within a
(example: Vienna
territory, can be cloaked with immunity
Convention on Diplomatic
from suit but only as long as it can be
Relations, see discussion on
established that he is acting within the
immunities)
directives of the sending state.
o Territoriality
o The DFA initially determines immunity, but the
 Refers to the situs of the act or the
final determination is still with the Courts.
place where the penal law is applicable
(although in the WHO case, the Court said it was
 Applicable to all crimes committed
bound.)
within the limits of the Philippine
o In the VFA, before the American accused is
territory
convicted, he is under the custody of the
 Ex: treaties, laws of
Americans. However, once convicted, he will be
preferential application, and
detained by the Philippine authorities, with the
Article 2
Americans having visitation rights. Hence,
o Prospectivity
detention in the US embassy after conviction was
 Penal laws have prospective application
held violative of the VFA. (Nicolas v Romulo)
unless they are favorable to the
By local legislation
offender who is not a habitual
o Transactional immunity (Tanchangco v
delinquent
Sandiganbayan)
 Covers also penal circulars
o Omnibus Election Code: one who reports to the
 Immunities from criminal prosecution by certain individuals
Comelec any incident of vote buying/selling and
By international comity/law/relations
testifies is immune, even if he took part in the
o Heads of diplomatic missions (Vienna Convention
crime
on Diplomatic Relations):
o PD 749: immunity granted to those furnishing
 Ambassadors or nuncios
information regarding bribery, indirect bribery,
 Envoys, ministers or internuncios
corruption
 Charges d‟ affairs
o Parliamentary/Presidential immunity
o Staff of the mission are comprised of:
 Is there any law which does not care for immunity? Is there
 Diplomatic
any law which is immune from immunity statutes?
 Administrative, technical, and
o Yes. RA 9851, or The Law against Crimes against
administrative staff
Humanity/Genocide.
o Important: Immunity is granted only to the
o It says that the law applies equally to all persons
“diplomatic agents” which are made up of the
without any distinction based on official capacity.
heads of the diplomatic missions and the
 It, however, makes exceptions. 1
diplomatic staff. (Minucher v CA – test: does he
perform duties of a diplomatic nature?)
o Not subject to local penal laws. Immune from
arrest and prosecution for local laws. 1
Section 9. Irrelevance of Official Capacity. - This Act shall apply
equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

1
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
 What about members of the AFP, who has jurisdiction over
them?
o Who are the members and officers of the AFP
 Members of the AFP
 Those subject to military law
 Members of the CAFGU
o GR: Civilian courts have jurisdiction over crimes
(RPC, SPL, ordinances) committed by members
of the AFP
 EXCEPT: when it comes to service-
connected offenses (like conduct
unbecoming an officer, disrespect
towards superior officer, etc), courts
martial have jurisdiction over them
 EXCEPTION to the
EXCEPTION (when can a
service oriented crime be
tried by the civilan court?):
the president, before
arraignment, in the interest
of justice, may refer the
crime to a civilian court as
long as it is covered by the
RPC or any other SPL2
(Gonzales v Abaya, Navales
v Abaya)
o Justice Callejo: Service-oriented offenses are not
absorbed by rebellion or coup d‟etat because the
former are disciplinary in nature. Hence, erring
military men can be tried separately and
independently under the RPC for the same act.
 Justice Tinga does not agree with this.
o Justice Tinga: The civilian court is required to
make a determination, independent of that of the
court-martial, that the acts charged constitute a
service-oriented offense.
 Why? The general purpose of RA 7055
is to deprive the court-martial of
jurisdiction to try cases which are
properly cognizable before the civilian
courts.
 How about members of the PNP, which entity of the
government has jurisdiction over them?
o The civilian courts since PNP is civilian in
character. (And because of RA 69753)
 Four schools of thought/philosophies:
o Classical/juristic
 Basis of criminal liability: human free
will – man has the capacity to choose
good and evil
 Purpose of penalty: retribution
 Determination of penalty: specific and
predetermined
In particular, official capacity as a head of state or government, a
member of a government or parliament, an elected representative or a
government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal
responsibility under this Act, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a
ground for reduction of sentence. However:
(a) Immunities or special procedural rules that may be attached to the
official capacity of a person under Philippine law other than the
established constitutional immunity from suit of the Philippine
President during his/her tenure, shall not bar the court from exercising
jurisdiction over such a person; and
(b) Immunities that may be attached to the official capacity of a person
under international law may limit the application of this Act, nut only
within the bounds established under international law.
2
xxx provided, that the President of the Philippines may, in the interest
of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any such
crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
3
Section 46. Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases. – Any provision of law
to the contrary notwithstanding, criminal cases involving PNP
members shall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts…
xxx
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 Emphasis of the law: on the offense
and not on the offender
o Positivist/realistic
 Basis of criminal liability: man
inherently good, but offender is socially
sick; influenced by society
 Purpose of penalty: reformation
 Determination of penalty: arrived after
an examination of the offender
 Emphasis of the law: on the offender
and not on the offense
 Samples of the influence of
the positivist theory to our
criminal laws:
o ISL
Modifying
Circumstances
Probation
o Habitual
delinquency law
Extenuating/A
bsolutory
Circumstances
o 3-fold rule 40-
year max limit for
penalty
Pardon
Impossible
crimes
o Eclectic – combines both
o Utilitarian – primary function of punishment in
criminal law is to protect society from potential
and actual wrongdoers
 Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime
when there is no law that defines and punishes it.
o We follow this here, so we don‟t have common
law crimes.
 All laws must be interpreted liberally in favor of the accused
and strictly against the state.
 Equipoise rule: if the inculpatory facts and circumstances
are capable of two or more explanations, one consistent
with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, then no conviction.
 Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – the act cannot be
criminal unless the mind is criminal.
o Applies only to intentional felonies. Not to
culpable felonies or mala prohibita where good
faith or lack of intent are immaterial.
 Sources of criminal law (Perez v NPG Refillers):
o RPC
o SPL
o Municipal ordinances
o Admin regulations/IRRs
 Violation of admin regulation must be
made a crime by the delegating statute
 Penalty for violation must be provided
by the statute itself
 Regulation must be published
o What about decisions of the SC interpreting
criminal statutes? Not penal laws per se, merely
interpretative.
 What happened in Bayan Muna v Romulo (Feb 1, 2011)?
o Bayan Muna was assailing the RP-US Non-
Surrender Agreement. The Agreement basically
said that persons found in the territory of the
other will not be surrendered to any international
tribunal without the consent of the other State.
Bayan Muna claim that the Agreement violated
the Rome Statute which created the International
Criminal Court which had jurisdiction over
persons for the most serious crimes of
international concern.
o Issue 1: Was the President GADLEJ for signing it,
even if the Rome Statute has not yet been
ratified by the Senate? No.
o Issue 2: Is the Agreement void for being immoral
and against recognized principles of IL? No.
2
 am+dg
o Issue 3: Was the Agreement valid even without
concurrence of Senate? Yes. It‟s not a treaty.
o The Agreement is but a form of affirmance and
confirmance4 of the Philippines‟ national criminal
jurisdiction. National criminal jurisdiction being
primary, it is always the responsibility and within
the prerogative of the RP either to prosecute
criminal offenses equally covered by the Rome
Statute or to accede to the jurisdiction of the
ICC. Thus, the Philippines may decide to try
"persons" of the US, as the term is understood in
the Agreement, under our national criminal
justice system. Or it may opt not to exercise its
criminal jurisdiction over its erring citizens or
over US "persons" committing high crimes in the
country and defer to the secondary criminal
jurisdiction of the ICC over them. As to "persons"
of the US whom the Philippines refuses to
prosecute, the country would, in effect, accord
discretion to the US to exercise either its national
criminal jurisdiction over the "person" concerned
or to give its consent to the referral of the matter
to the ICC for trial. In the same breath, the US
must extend the same privilege to the Philippines
with respect to "persons" of the RP committing
high crimes within US territorial jurisdiction.
o With respect to RA 9851 (Crimes against
Humanity), the jurisdiction of the ICC is clearly
and unmistakably complementary to the national
jurisdiction of the signatory states.
o Further, the Rome Statute itself rejects the
concept of universal jurisdiction over the crimes
enumerated therein as evidenced by it requiring
State consent.
Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect
on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the
treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this
Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
presiding number;

 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or 
 occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; (5) to
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and
the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
 This article gives the exceptions to the territoriality
principle of criminal law. Hence, the following acts can be
prosecuted in the country, even if done abroad:
o Offenses committed while on a Philippine ship or
airship
o Forgery or counterfeit of any coin or currency
note of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the
Philippines
o Connection with the introduction into the country
of the obligations and securities mentioned
o Offenses committed by public employees or
officers in the exercise of their functions
o Crimes of national security and the law of nations
defined in Title One of Book 2
 Can there be crimes committed here but can not be
prosecuted?
o Yes, those provided in treaties and laws of
preferential application.
o See immunity discussion above.
 How about terrorism? What does the law say about that?
o Terrorism is the commission of the enumerated
acts in the law which sow and create a condition
4
Should be ―affirmation and conformation‖
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
of widespread and extradordinary fear and panic
among the people, in order to coerce the
government to give in to a lawful demand.
o The Human Security Act (RA 9372) says that
even if committed abroad, the individual can still
be prosecuted here if:
 He commits, conspires or pots to
commit terrorism inside the Philippines
 Commit said crimes against Philippine
citizens or persons of Philippine
descent, where their citizenship or
ethnicity was a factor to the
commission of the crime
 Commit crimes directly against the
Philippine government5
o Also, prosecution under the Human Security Act
is a bar to another prosecution under the RPC or
any SPLs
o The provisions of Book 1 of the RPC is also
applicable to the Human Security Act.
 How about crimes against humanity, genocide?
o In RA 9851, the law provides for extra-territorial
jurisdiction in the following cases:
 Where the accused is a Filipino
 The accused, regardless of citizenship
and residence, is present in the
Philippines, or
 The accused ahs committed the said
crime against a Filipino citizen.
o See footnote for the options of the Philippine
government.6
5
SEC. 58. Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. - Subject to the
provision of an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory
and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the
provisions of this Act shall apply: (1) to individual persons who
commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act within the
terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone, and airspace of the
Philippines; (2) to individual persons who, although physically outside
the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire or plot to
commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act inside the
territorial limits of the Philippines; (3) to individual persons who,
although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine ship or Philippine
airship; (4) to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within
any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or
individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial
limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens
or persons of Philippines descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity
was a factor in the commission of the crime; and (6) to individual
persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine
government.
6
Section 17. Jurisdiction.- The State shall exercise jurisdiction over
persons, whether military or civilian, suspected or accused of a crime
defined and penalized in this Act, regardless of where the crime is
committed, provided, any one of the following conditions is met:
(a) The accused is a Filipino citizen;
(b) The accused, regardless of citizenship or residence, is present in the
Philippines; or
(c) The accused has committed the said crime against a Filipino citizen.
In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may
dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable
under this Act if another court or international tribunal is already
conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such
crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or
accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international
court, if any, or to another State pursuant to the applicable extradition
laws and treaties.
No criminal proceedings shall be initiated against foreign nationals
suspected or accused of having committed the crimes defined and
penalized in this Act if they have been tried by a competent court
3
 am+dg

o It also says that the RPC have a suppletory o Is it possible that a crime be committed beyond
application to the Act and that in interpreting the the territorial sea, but prosecuted here?
act, the Philippine courts can be guided by the  Yes, if it is a continuing crime. If it
judicial decisions of international courts and began in the high seas and continued
tribunals, among others. (Sec 15 – Justice Callejo here. (US v Bull, kalabaws weren‟t
asked this in recit.)7 secured properly. Began in Taiwan, I
 Territory of the Philippines: within Philippine archipelago, think, and ended here)
atmosphere, interior waters, maritime zone o Does the Philippines have ability to legislate on
o Territorial sea: 12 nm; Contiguous zone: 24 nm; crimes applying to the high seas?
EEZ: 200 nm  Yes. PD 532 on piracy.
o In the contiguous zone, the State may enforce o In People v Tulin, the pirates boarded a ship
laws which relate to customs, immigration, taxes, within the Philippines and brought the ship to
sanitary laws Singapore waters. Justice Callejo, who was still a
 English rule: territorial State has jurisdiction, except when young and dashing RTC judge, said the attack
it merely concerns internal management of the vessel (ET – was committed here in our waters, hence the
English-territory) court had jurisdiction. The SC affirmed him and
 French rule: flag of registry has jurisdiction, as long as it added that either way, piracy is an exception to
does not disturb the peace of the country (French-flag) the territoriality in criminal law.
 We follow the English rule. o Same was applied in People v Lol-lo where the
o Hence, when the accused was caught smoking piracy was committed outside the Philippines.
opium in a English vessel in Philippine waters, the  The purpose of penal laws involving national security is to
Courts have jurisdiction over him. Drugs disturb protect the domestic order and economic security of the
the peace of the country. Philippines. Hence, it should extend beyond the territory of
o What if he did not smoke the opium or sell it, the Philippines, to the perpetrators wherever they may be
does it still disturb the peace? found. (Dillars v US)
 Suggested answer from Glenn‟s
reviewer: In the DDA, mere attempt to Title One
transport marijuana is a crime. If a
commercial vessel passes by the FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
territorial sea, the general rule under
UNCLOS is that the ship cannot be Chapter One
boarded. The criminal law of a State FELONIES
may not be enforced on board the
vessel to prosecute indidivuals except if Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are
felonies (delitos).
measures are necessary to suppress
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also
illegal traffic of drugs. Hence, if mere by means of fault (culpa).
passing through the territorial sea can There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and
lead to boarding and prosecution, what there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
more if the ship is docked? negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
o But the Courts can disregard the rule if they  Felonies are committed by dolo or culpa.
want.  Deceit when act is performed by deliberate intent.
 In a CA case (P v Toboto), a person in  Fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
a Philippine ship in Vietnamese waters negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
got drunk and shot three people. He  In both cases, it is necessary that there is voluntariness.
was not prosecuted in Vietnam. CA:
There is nothing preventing the Dolo Culpa
Philippines from deviating from English Freedom of action Freedom of action
rule. (me: either way, it was on a Intelligence Intelligence
Philippine ship, so we had jurisidiction) Intent Negligence, imprudence, lack of
 Register your ship in the Philippine Maritime Authority. foresight, lack of skill
 High seas, free for all. Do what you want. (except be a
pirate)  In a felony by dolo, there must be a confluence of the
act/omission punishable by law and the mens rea (physical
act + act of the mind)
o A felony by dolo is a voluntary act. It is a free,
outside the Philippines in respect of the same offense and acquitted, or voluntary and intentional act; one acts with
having been convicted, already served their sentence. intelligence if he can distinguish right from
7
Section 15. Applicability of International Law.- In the application and wrong, moral from not, licit fro not
interpretation of this Act, Philippine courts shall be guided by the o For felonies by dolo, one is not criminally liable if
following sources: there is no criminal intent
(a) The 1948 Genocide Convention; o Intent refers to the use of a particular means to
(b) The 1949 Genava Conventions I-IV, their 1977 Additional bring about the desired result. It is manifested by
Protocols I and II and their 2005 Additional Protocol III; the overt acts of a person.
(c) The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property  GR: criminal intent is presumed
(general intent)
in the Event of Armed Conflict, its First Protocol and its 1999 Second
 EX: if intent an element of
Protocol; the crime (specific criminal
(d) The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child and its 2000 intent: intent to kill, intent to
Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict; gain), intent cannot be
(e) The rules and principles of customary international law; presumed and must be
(f) The judicial decisions of international courts and tribunals; established
(g) Relevant and applicable international human rights instruments; o Specific intent is
(h) Other relevant international treaties and conventions ratified or important for the
acceded to by the Republic of the Philippines; and attempted and
(i) Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists and authoritative frustrated stages,
commentaries on the foregoing sources as subsidiary means for the to find out what
determination of rules of international law.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

4
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

crime to peg the  GR: Immaterial in incurring criminal

guy with liability, not an essential element of
 It‟ll be crime
the  EX:
differenc o in cases of political
e crimes, where
between common crimes
attempte are absorbed by
d rape the political crime
and acts if it were done in
of pursuance of the
lasciviou political motive
sness. o when the husband
o But when the catches the wife
crime has been making love with a
done, specific paramour. Not
intent becomes criminally liable for
general intent, homicide if motive
which is now was to avenge his
presumed. Hence, dishonor. But if he
when someone killed the wife for
dies (even when some other
the wound inflicted motive, liable.
is not a mortal o For evidentiary
wound), the issues
accused is  In a felony by culpa, culpa is a mode of committing a
presumed to have crime.
intent to kill. When o It is the mental attitude which is benig penalized.
the thief has o In Art 365 (Reckless Imprudence), culpa is itself
possession of the the crime punished. The crime is properly
stolen material, he denominated as “reckless imprudence resulting
is presumed to to homicide.”
have intent to  “Homicide” does not refer to Art 249,
gain. but merely indicates that the victim
 Justice died. There is no intent to kill.
Callejo  This was applied in P v Carmen, where
actually the faith healers tried to cure a boy by
said that beating him up and other folksy stuff.
the Boy died, but Court said no intent to
intent to kill, so just reckless imprudence
kill is resulting to homicide.
conclusiv o Can there be a crime of reckless imprudence
ely resulting into frustrated homicide?
presume  Uh, no. frustrated homicide requires
d. (I‟m intent to kill. This is incompatible with
not sure recklessness, negligence or
about imprudence. Kalokohan yan.
this o Cant here be conspiracy resulting from
generaliz negligence?
ation  No. Conspiracy is the product of intent.
because Ay talaga naman.
there are o Can more than one person be liable for killing the
some same person, one by dolo and one by culpa?
cases  Yezzir. Remember P v Pugay. A poured
where gasoline on mental retardate. B lit him
the up with a match. SC: A liable for
victim reckless imprudence resulting in
died yet homicide (he should‟ve foreseen that
the someone will light the guy up). B liable
Court for homicide (victim died, so intent to
said no kill presumed, but he was given a MC
intent to here)
kill, o What about mistake in the identity of the victim,
that‟s does this constitute reckless imprudence?
why only  No. Dolo, the killing was deliberate.
Art 365 Mistake in identity is not culpa. It was
was an unlawful act willfully done. (P v
applied.) Oanis – policeman shot a man
 In specific intent felonies (where intent sleeping, without ascertaining first if it
is essential), the prosecution must was the escapee they were looking
allege in the information and prove for.)
beyond a reasonable doubt the specific  Malum in se, or malum prohibitum, how can we tell?
intent. (P v Delim) o Is lack of criminal intent a defense on SPL?
o Motive is the moving power of force which impels Depends if mala in se, or mala prohibitum.
a person to commit acts. o In answering whether plunder was malum in se
or prohibitum, the Court used the following
questions:

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

5
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

 Is the crime inherently immoral and  No. A felony by dolo or cupla cannot
wrong? absorb a malum prohibitum crime.
 Are the predicate crimes/felonies mala (Loney v People. But what about illegal
in se? firearms?)
 Do the penalties imposed follow the o Can there be a conspiracy to commit malum
nomenclature of the RPC? (Boado prohibitum?
doesn‟t agree with this one because of  Yes. In Tigoy v People, the accused
the old DDA which applied RPC were charged with violation of a malum
penalties to drugs which are malum prohibitum (Forestry Code) because
prohibitum) they cut some timber and transported
 Court answered yes to all 3 it. Court applied conspiracy.
questions and thus  The all-knowing Justice does not agree.
categorized plunder (under Art 8 states that conspiracy must be to
Art 9372) as mala in se. commit a felony which is RPC crimes.
o A member of the BEI tampers with election
results. Mala in se or prohibitum? In se Prohibitum
 In se, even if the crime is defined by Basis of liability Moral trait Offender‟s
SPL. It is inherently immoral and voluntariness
wrong to tamper with election results. Modifying Taken into Not considered
o Is genocide malum in se? circumstances account
 Yes. It is inherently wrong and Degree of Taken into Not considered
immoral. participation account
o How about possession of unlicensed firearms? Stage of Taken into Only when
 Prohibitum. accomplishment account consummated
 Interestingly, the intent considered Moral turp? Generally Generally no moral
here is the intent to possess the involve moral turpitude
firearm (intent to perpetrate the act turpitude
versus intent to commit a crime).
Where can we find Generally in the Generally in SPL
Fajardo v People (2011). 8
them? RPC
 Hence, transient/temporary possession
of an illegal firearm is not a violation of
Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:
the law. 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
o Trust Receipts Law? Prohibitum. wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
o BP 22? Prohibitum.
o Can one be liable for both a felony and a SPL for 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
one delictual act? Yes. BP22 and Estafa. Illegal against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
recruitment and estafa. impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
o Can one be liable for a crime defined by SPL and
a felony under a special complex crime?  Who are liable for felonies?
 Yes. Anti-carnapping Law. if the o Those who commit a felony, although the
offender kills the driver or occupant to wrongful act done is different from that intended
take the car, guilty of special complex o Those commit impossible crimes
crime of carnapping with murder. First paragraph
o May a felony by dolo or culpa absorb a crime  Boado says applies to both dolo and culpa (since “felony” is
which is malum prohibitum? used)
 But the brilliant Justice Callejo says it applies to only dolo
(since “intended” is used). Follow Justice Callejo, it‟s his
test.
o Accused was attacked by assailant with a bolo.
8
When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to He managed to wrestle the bolo away from the
commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has assailant but as he yanked it away, it hit his wife.
the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. Intent to Accused not liable, his act of wrestling the bolo
commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. away was not a felony, it was a legal act. (P v
A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he Bindoy)
did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things,  A person is liable for the natural and logical consequences
the crime itself. In the first (intent to commit the crime), there must be of his criminal act
o Natural – occurrence in ordinary course of things
criminal intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act) it is enough
o Logical – there must be a reasonable connection
that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously. between the act done and the consequence
In the present case, a distinction should be made between criminal  In other words, the act must be the proximate cause of the
intent and intent to possess. While mere possession, without criminal effect.
intent, is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a o Proximate cause – the cause, which in its natural
firearm, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
intent to possess on the part of the accused. Such intent to possess is, efficient intervening cause, produces the injury
however, without regard to any other criminal or felonious intent which and without which the result would not have
the accused may have harbored in possessing the firearm. Criminal occurred
intent here refers to the intention of the accused to commit an offense  Accused is deemed to know the consequences of his
with the use of an unlicensed firearm. This is not important in criminal act. (P v Moldes)
convicting a person under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Hence, in o Neglect of the wound or its unskillful and
improper treatment are deemed to have been
order that one may be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is
among those which were in contemplation of the
sufficient that the accused had no authority or license to possess a guilty party.
firearm, and that he intended to possess the same, even if such  Even if the resulting wrongful act was different from the
possession was made in good faith and without criminal intent. offender‟s intention, he is liable for that resulting act.
Concomitantly, a temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless possession  Praeter intentionem – so grave a
or control of a firearm cannot be considered a violation of a statute wrong caused that that intended
prohibiting the possession of this kind of weapon, such as Presidential  Aberratio ictus – mistake in the blow
Decree No. 1866. o Examples:

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

6
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

o Inserting vibrator in anal orifice of victim and  Yes, because reckless imprudence is a
victim died because it was rusty. (P v Buyco, felony under Art 3 and Art 48 talks
considered complex crime of sexual assault with about felonies as component crimes.
homicide under RA 8353)  A person is presumed to contemplate the ordinary
o Accused threw a grenade at person. It killed consequences of his acts. (Rule 131, Sec 5c)
target and the accused‟s wife and SPI 3 childern.
(P v Magalone, complex crime of murder and Factors which affect the intent and criminal liability of the offenders
parricide) Definition Notes Effect on Effect on
o Accused robbed a store and shoved a pandesal intent liability
into old lady‟s mouth to keep her quiet. Old lady Mistake of Had the Ah Chong. No No criminal
died. (P v Ofero, robbery with homicide) Fact facts been Accused criminal liability
o Accused threatened victim with a knife. They true to must not be intent
were in a boat. Victim got scared and jumped off. the belief negligent in
He drowned. Accused guilty since he created a of the ascertaining
sense of fear in the mind of the victim. (US v offender, facts.
Valdez)9 his act
o Accused wanted to rape the victim, so she would
jumped out of the window and died. Accused have been
guilty even fro r the death. Rape with homicide. justified;
(P v Castromero) Mistake in
o Accused stabbed the victim so doctor put a the
drainage on the wound. Victim was in pain and situation
because of his state of nervousness removed the Aberratio Mistake in A shoots B. Intended Increases
drainage. Victim died. Accused liable. (P v Ictus the blow; He instead result criminal
Quianzon) offender hits C who falls on liability
 Even if the doctor is negligent, so long as the accused intends was another which may
inflicted mortal wounds on the victim, the negligence of the the injury standing by person, result to a
doctor is not an active intervening force that exculpates the on one B. or may complex
accused. person, (three be in crime
o But in some cases the doctor‟s acts are but the persons addition
exculpatory for the accused. harm fell present – to the
 Like when doctor is so drunk that he on actual injury on
gave the victim poison, instead of another victim, the
medicine. intended intended
 Cause and effect between act of the accused and the victim, and victim
resulting injury is not altered by: accused)
o Pre-existing conditions of the victim Treachery
(pathological) can be
o Predispositions of victim appreciated.
 If victim likes drinking and its part of Error in Mistake in A wants to Intended Extenuating
his culture, and then after being personae the kill B. He result if the
stabbed, the doctor told him not to identity of instead kills falls on resulting
drink anymore, but still he drinks, the the victim C, who was another crime is
stabber is liable. (US v Bayutas) his father due to greater
o Physical condition of the victim and who he error in than
 Punching Steve Rogers before he thought was the intended
becomes Captain America. And then he B. identity (parricide
dies. His scrawniness can not be taken (two of the when what
against him. persons victim was
o Incompetence of the doctor involved – intended
o Refusal of the victim to get medical help actual & was
o Infection of the wound unintended homicide);
 But the infection should not be due to victim and no effect if
the malicious act of the offended party accused) the
(US v delos Santos) resulting
 Hence, act is not the proximate cause if: crime is the
o There is an active force that intervened between same as
the felony committed and the death of the that
victim; active force must be foreign to the act of intended
the perpetrator Praeter So grave A punched Actual Mitigating
o Resulting injury or damage is the intentional act intentionem a wrong B. B died. crime is under Art
of the victim that what greater 13
o Fault of the doctor (not sure, Sir just mentioned was than
it) intended; intended
 So, what applies for culpa? need for a
o Art 365. Offender is liable for whatever damage great
or injury caused by him. disparity
o Can there be reckless imprudence resulting to between
double homicide if two people died? May reckless the
imprudence result into a complex crime under Art intended
48? felony and
actual
felony
9
"If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger committed
which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injuries Proximate Cause of Results Results in
himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for cause the cause in crime criminal
the injuries which result. is the although liability

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

7
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
cause of was not whether
the evil intended acting with
caused intent (Art
4) or
negligence
(Art 365)
Impossible crimes
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
 Impossible crimes won‟t apply if another crime had been
committed by the acts of the offender
 Not a crime, it would have been a crime
 Elements:
o Offender performed an act which would be an
offense against persons or property
o Act done with criminal intent
o Accomplishment of the act is
 Inherently impossible
 Means employed were inadequate or
ineffectual (Intod v CA)
 There is intent, but actually no crime committed
 Impossibility may be:
o Legal impossibility
 Elements:
 motive, desire and
expectation was to violate
the law
 intention to perform the act
 actual performance of the act
 Consequence resulting from
the intended act does not
amount to a crime
 Example: killing a dead person,
stealing something that it is yours pala
o Factual or physical impossibility of accomplishing
the intended act
 The factual condition must be unknown
to the offender
 An extraneous circumstance prevented
the consummation of the crime
 Example: offender bribes someone who
he thinks is Pnoy, it‟s not Pnoy, just a
look-a-like; pointed a gun to victim,
but empty pala;
 accused fired guns into the
empty bedroom of the
intended victim, but the
victim was out of town,
sipping margaritas in a beach
with his homies (Intod v
CA);
 stealing a check which was
subsequently dishonored
because of lack of funds
(Jacinto v P – although sir
does not agree with this
since intent to gain (with
momentary possession) will
suffice in theft/robbery)
 compare with P v Balmores
where the accused made a
really really really bad
falsification of a sweepstakes
ticket. SC convicted him of
falsification. But Paras
dissented and said that the
falisification was so bad that
it was inherently inadequate
in the means employed. No
one in their right mind would
have thought it was a real
sweepstakes ticket.
 Rape can now be an impossible crime since crime against
persons.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 Is conspiracy applicable to impossible crimes? No.
 Is art 6 applicable to impossible crimes? No.
 Justice Regalado: Under Art 59, the imposable penalty for
impossible crime is arresto mayor. If I saw a person on a
bed, thought he was my bitter rival and I punched him, and
because of my weak arms, he only sustained slight PI, I
would‟ve been sentenced to arresto menor.
o But if he turns out that he was already dead, my
penalty would be arresto mayor because of the
impossible crime.
o How odd! Just like how salmon swim up the
current, and not downward. (Sabaw man.)
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be
repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of
excessive penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act
which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable
by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons
which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the
subject of legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be
deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence,
when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the
offense.
 If no law punishing act, court should dismiss the case
(because of Art 21 and 22)
 Art 5 does not apply to crimes defined by SPL because of
the use of the words “degree of malice”
o This brings to mind BP 22, in relation to AC 12-
2000, as clarified by AC 13-2001:
 SC noticed that people are using the
courts as collection agencies and are
clogging up the dockets
 So the SC issued a circular dissuading
people from filing BP 22 and for judges
to just impose fines
 For libel, even if imposable penalty is imprisonment or fine,
the SC prefers fine over imprisonment. (Brillante v CA)
 If the penalty is too excessive, remedy is executive
clemency. But judge should still impose the penalty. (P v
Veneracion)
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. —
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission
of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
 Applies only to dolo, since intent is essential for this article
 Consummated
o All acts necessary for the felony‟s
accomplishment and execution are present
o Formal crimes are always consummated because
the offender cannot perform all the acts
necessary to consummate the offense without
consummating it
 Physical injuries, slander
 Stages:
o Subjective – accused still has control of his acts
o Objective – all the acts of execution are already
there
 Frustrated
o Offender performs all the acts which would
produce the felony as a consequence,
 BUT the felony was not produced by
reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator
 If the cause of the frustration
is due to the will of the
8
 am+dg

offender, crime is not cause or accident other than his own

frustrated, but could be
another crime
o Example: Scott
gives Jean poison.
Jean drinks it.
However, before
Jean dies, Scott
feels bad and gives
Jean the antidote.
Not frustrated
murder, but
consummated
physical injuries.
o Reached the objective stage of the offense
because no further action is required on his part.
o Crimes with no frustrated stage:
 Rape
 As long as the penis
enters/penetrates the labia
majoria, already
consummated.
(bombardment of the
drawbridge doctrine)
o Penis must be
erect (P v Brioso)
 But touching not enough, the
touching must be in relation
with the intent to have carnal
knowledge of the woman and
there must have been
penetration, however slight.
Hence, grazing and mere
stroking not enough. 10 (P v
Campuhan)
o If just in the mons
pubis – merely
attempted, (mere
strafing of the
citadel of passion
doctrine)
 Arson
 Corruption of public officers
 Adultery
 Theft/Robbery
 One is liable for
consummated robbery if one
takes possession of the
personal property of the
other, however brief it may
be.
 Dude goes into lot of the
owner, and steals three
cows. He is still in the lot
when the owner catches him
with the three cows in tow.
Consummated theft.
 Felonies by omission (no attempted
and frustrated)
 Falsification of public document (no
attempted and frustrated) unless
falsification is so imperfect
 Attempted
o Offender commences the commission of an
offense directly by overt acts, and
o Does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some
10
Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean
epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a
scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the
mons pubis – there must be sufficient and convincing proof that the
penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not
merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be
convicted of consummated rape.
spontaneous desistance.
o Still in subjective phase
o Elements:
 Offender commences the commission
of the felony directly by overt acts
 Does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the
felony
 Offender‟s act not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance
 Non-performance of all acts of
execution was due to cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous
desistance (P v Lizada, penned by the
good justice Callejo himself)
o “Directly by overt acts”
 Elements:
 There must be external acts
 Such external acts have
direct connection with the
crime intended to be
committed
 There should be an immediate and
necessary connection between the
overt acts and the crime intended to be
committed.
 It can be the first of a series of acts
that would produce the intended crime,
as long as the intended crime is
established or known.
 In P v Lamahang, the police
caught a man entering a
house through a hole in the
wall. His body was halfway
inside the house. Charged
with attempted robbery. SC:
Wrong. Guilty of attempted
trespass to dwelling. His act
of making a hole in the wall
was not reasonably
connected to robbery. You
can‟t really tell what he was
going to do inside the house,
he could‟ve raped or
murdered someone.
 In P v Lizada, the accused
was caught by the brother of
the victim without his shirt
on. The accused was on top
of the victim, held her hands
and was mashing her breasts
and touching her vajayjay.
The victim was naked. Acts
of lasciviousness or
attempted rape? SC:
Attempted rape. By the
series of acts committed by
the accused, he had
commenced the execution of
rape, which, if for the arrival
of the brother, would have
produced the rape.
 In P v Campuhan, the citadel
was merely strafed. Only
attempted.
 Overt acts are different from
preparatory acts.
 Overt acts: external acts
which if continued will
logically result in a felony
 Preparatory acts: acts which
still require another act so
that a felony will result; not
punishable unless the act
itself is a crime

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

9
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

o Example of a o No. The august Justice Callejo suggests a

preparatory act: different test:
buying poison,  First: Was there intent to kill?
buying a gun,  Second: Was the wound serious, less
surveillance of a serious, fatal?
store which you  If there was intent to kill and
will rob wound inflicted was fatal:
o “Offender did not perform all the acts of frustrated
execution”  If there was intent to kill and
 Still at the subjective phase of the wound inflicted was not
commission of the crime. mortal/fatal: attempted
 Still has full control of acts, and has o A non-fatal/slight
not completed the needed acts yet. wound can‟t
o “Due to cause or accident other than possibly produce
spontaneous desistance.” death.
 Desistance has legal effect only in the o Why isn‟t the subjective/objective phase used?
attempted stage. Because even if the accused had lost control of
 If the person desists on his own, he is all his acts (bumaril na siya eh!), the
not guilty of the attempted crime. determination is still with the nature of the
 Hence, as long as you desist wound. (Rivera v People)
while still in the subjective o There were old rulings before (P v Eduave, P v
phase, you are not liable for Borinaga12) where the test was the belief of the
the crime. offender. If he believed that the wound was
 The desistance can be for mortal, frustrated.
whatever reason (fear,  No longer the rule. Now, even if the
conscience, hunger, needed accused believed that he inflicted a
to go poop). As long as you mortal wound, but he did not, it is
desist voluntarily, no liability merely attempted, not frustrated. The
for the attempted crime. nature of the wound controls, not the
o BUT: you can be belief of the person.
liable for any other o Justice Callejo warns not to be in a hurry in
felony already categorizing if mortal/fatal wound or not, wait for
committed. the results. He said this in critique of a case
o Example: Emma wherein a doctor removed the feeding tube of the
aimed gun at victim. The SC only considered it attempted
Johnny and fired, homicide.
missed. Emma
aimed again but Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable.— Light felonies are
Johnny pleaded for punishable only when they have been consummated, with the
exception of those committed against person or property
his life, so Emma
felt sorry for him  Light felonies – penalty not exceeding arresto menor or a
and desisted from fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both
firing. Emma liable  GR: Punishable only when consummated
for first shot, but o EX: crimes against persons or property (all
not liable for the stages)
second act of  Only principals and accomplices are liable
aiming.
o Take note that in RA 9851, a person is criminally Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and
proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which
liable for a crime defined and penalized therin if
the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
he/she attempts to commit such a crime by A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
taking action that commences its execution by agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
means of a substantial step, but the crime does commit it.
not occur because of circumstances lindependept There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a
of the person‟s intention. (Sec 8) felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
 There is conspiracy where two or more persons come to an
Frustrated Attempted agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
Acts of execution All acts have been Not all acts had decide to commit it.
performed been done  Must proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Cause of non- Cause independent Cause or accident o But no need for direct proof. May be inferred
accomplishment of the will of the other than from the acts of the accused before, during and
perpetrator offender‟s after the commission of the crime, all o which
spontaneous point to or indicate a joint purpose, a concert of
desistance action and a community of interest.
Phase Objective Subjective  Art 8 does not define a penalty!
 Requirements for conspiracy:
Included? Necessarily
o Singularity of intent, and
included in the
o Unity in the execution of the unlawful objective
frustrated stage
(P v Pagalasan)
Intent Inherent
 There must be criminal intent. No such thing as conspiracy
Homicide/murder Wound fatal Wound not fatal
as a product of negligence. No conspiracy to commit an
unintentional act.
 Does the subjective and objective phase apply to crimes  Conspiracy does not apply to crimes defined in SPL
against persons (specifically, homicide/murder)? 11

11 12
Test should be limited to homicide/murder. Because rape is now a dude stabbed the chair where his victim was sitting. He ended up
crime against persons and the ―nature of the wound‖ test does not apply stabbing the back of the chair, but he thought he dealt the blow and
to rape. then ran away

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

10
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

o Unless the SPL provides that conspiracy to  EXCEPT:

commit a crime under that law is a crime in itself.  if he is a mastermind, he
 DDA – conspiracy to commit acts like doesn‟t have to be in the
sale, importation, distribution of scene of the crime to be a
drugs13 co-conspirator (Boado)
 Access Devise Regulations (RA 8484) –  if he performs an overt act in
conspiracy to commit access devise performance of the
fraud14 conspiracy, even if it is not in
 Anti-terrorism Law (RA 9372)15 the scene of the crime per se
o What if no provision in SPL? Can Art 8 still be a (Justice Callejo – like the
mode to commit a crime (not a crime in itself)? driver of a get-away car who
 In Andan v People, SC held that 2 or planned the crime as well, or
more persons who conspire to commit the man who pressed the
a crime of BP 22 are liable for such button of a remote control
crime, applying Art 8 of the RPC. bomb and the bomb
 In Tigoy v CA, accused were guilty of exploded a few streets away)
violating the Forestry Code. SC applied o Unless he is the mastermind, the conspirator
Art 8 to the accused. must have committed or performed some over
 So, apparently, yes, it can be applied act as a direct or indirect contribution in the
as a mode to commit a crime. execution of the crime planned to be committed.
 There are two concepts of conspiracy: The overt act may be: (not exclusive list)
o Conspiracy as a crime by itself (conspiracy  Active participation in the actual
statutes) commission of the crime itself (held the
 Conspiracy to commit treason, hands of a guy who was shot),
conspiracy to commit rebellion (and the  Moral assistance to his co-conspirators
SPLs above) by being present at the commission of
 In these two conspiracy the crime (cheering them on), or
crimes, one the  By exerting moral ascendancy over the
traitors/rebels actually other co-conspirators (Mayor lording
commit treason/rebellion, over his minions while they chop the
conspiracy loses its juridical head off of some poor fellow)
personality and it becomes a o Is Art 4, paragraph 1 applicable to conspiracy?
mere mode to commit a (Justice Callejo)
crime. (Remember this!)  Yes. Each conspirator is responsible for
o Conspiracy as a mode of committing a crime or everything fone by his confederates,
mode of incurring criminal liability which follow incidentally in the
 Pre-arranged conspiracy (there was execution of the common design, as
actual planning), or one of its probable and natural
 Implied conspiracy (implied from the consequences even though not
concerted acts of the offenders) intended as part of the original design.
 Pre-arranged conspiracy  Conspirators are held to have intended
o The conspiracy that we are all familiar with - the consequences of their act by
there was planning, prior agreement on how to engaging in conspiracy.
commit the crime  Conspirators are necessarily liable for
o GR: as long as he appeared in the scene of the the acts of another conspirator unless
crime, he is liable as co-conspirator such act differs radically and
substantively from that which they
intended to commit. (P v Bisda)
 It extends to collateral acts
13
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or conspiracy to incident to and growing out
commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same of the conspiracy.
penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under o Example: Scott
this Act: and Emma agreed
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and to kidnap Magneto.
essential chemical; They pointed a
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution rubber gun at him.
and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor He suffered a heart
and essential chemical; attack and died.
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is Scott and Emma
used in any form; are both liable for
kidnapping with
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
homicide. (Even if
essential chemical; and they only agreed
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous to kidnpap
drugs. Magneto)
14
Section 11. Conspiracy to commit access device fraud. – If two (2) o Example: Kitty and
or more persons conspire to commit any of the offenses listed in Logan agreed to
Section 9 and one or more of such persons does any act to effect the rob Jean. Jean
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be resisted, so Kitty
punished as in the case of the doing of the act, the accomplishment of shot and killed her.
which is the object of such conspiracy. Kitty and Logan
15
SEC. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. – Persons who both guilty of
robbery with
conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall suffer the penalty
homicide. (Same
of forty (40) years of imprisonment.
will apply with
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an robbery with rape)
agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism
as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

11
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
 Why? Well, the resistance of
the victim is expected. It‟s a
necessary consequence of
the crime they agreed upon.
o But the
conspirators are
not liable for the
acts of the other
conspirators which
are products of
afterthought or
extraneous to the
conspiracy.
(robbery was
finished, then one
of the robbers
went back to rape
the maid)
o Who should be liable for a second unplanned
crime committed by one or some of the
perpetrators? (Boado)
 Only the actual perpetrator, not the
other conspirators.
 GR: conspirators‟ liability only for the
crime agreed upon.
 EXCEPT:
o Other crime was
committed in their
presence and they
did not prevent its
commission
indicating their
approval thereof
o When the other
crime is the
natural
consequence of the
crime planned (Art
4)
 homicide
resulting
from
physical
injuries
inflicted
o Resulting crime
was a composite
crime because a
composite crime or
special complex
crime is indivisible
 Robbery
with
homicide
, robbery
with
rape
 In these 3 exceptions,
although there was a crime
committed which is not part
of the plan or prior
agreement, all the
conspirators are liable
therefor. In other cases, an
unplanned crime committed
will be the liability only of the
one who committed it.
 Remember: Conspirators are
necessarily liable for the acts
of another conspirator unless
such act differs radically and
substantively from that
which they intended to
commit. (P v Bisda)
 Examples:
 If one of the robbers
prevented the others from
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
committing the extra act of
homicide or rape, then he is
only liable for robbery, and
not robbery with
rape/homicide. It does not
matter if he succeeds in
preventing them or not. (P v
de Jesus)
 One of the conspirators who
committed robbery, after
they all escaped, saw a car
and carnapped it. Only he
was liable for carnapping. (P
v Mapalit)
 Agreed to rob victim. After
the robbery, one of the
conspirators went back to
the house to rape the maid.
Only the rapist is liable for
the rape. (P v Angeles)
o Conspiracy continues until the object of the
conspiracy is attained. It is a continuing event,
unless in the meantime, they abandon the
conspiracy or the conspirators are arrested.
 For a conspirator to escape liability
from the planned crime, he must
perform an overt act to disassociate
himself before the crime is actually
committed.
 Example: trying to prevent
the crime, even if
unsuccessful.
 Example: agreement to
commit robbery. One
conspirator stabbed the
victim and ran. The accused
did not run and was caught.
He claimed he was not guilty
since he desisted when did
not run. SC held that the
mere failure or refusal to flee
after the commission of the
crime does not amount to a
disavowal of the conspiracy.
There must be an overt act
to disassociate himself from
the liability.
 In other words, for a conspirator to
disclaim liability, he must, before the
crime occurs:
 Disassociate by an overt act,
or
 Try to prevent the crime.
o Not necessary for the co-conspirators to perform
equally each and every part of the acts
constituting the offense.
 As long as the parts played by each of
the principals in the conspiracy
contribute to the realization of the
common design, they are all liable
equally.
 The act of one becomes the act of all.
o A co-conspirator may be acquitted while others
are convicted.
 Conspiracy is only a means by which a
crime is committed. The mere act of
conspiring is not by itself punishable.
 The acquittal of a conspirator does not
absolve the other co-conspirators from
criminal liability.
 If the prosecution fails to prove
conspiracy, the alleged conspirators
should be individually responsible for
their respective acts.
 Remember, mere knowledge,
acquiescence or agreement to
cooperate is not enough to constitute
12
 am+dg
one as a conspirator (unless
mastermind), absent any active
participation in the commission of the
crime, pursuant to the common design
and purpose.
 Mere fact that he knew of the criminal
design does not ipso facto make him a
co-conspirator (unless mastermind
nga).
 Implied conspiracy
o Deduced from the acts of the offenders
o No planning, they acted in concert during the
commission of the crime
o The agreement to pursue a common design and
united purpose was instantaneous
o GR: accused must have participated in the
commission of the crime to be considered a co-
conspirator
 Mere presence or approval of the crime
without more will not make the alleged
conspirator liable because there would
be no basis for deducing conspiracy as
to him as there is absent criminis
particeps (criminal participation)
 Three kinds of conspiracy according to Estrada v
Sandiganbayan:
o Wheel conspiracy – one person is the hub and his
underlings are the spokes
 This was used against Jinggoy. SC said
that the hub was Erap while the spokes
are all the accused, and the rim that
enclosed the spokes was the common
goal in the overall conspiracy (the
amassing of wealth). Jinggoy was a
spoke.
o Chain conspiracy – involving the distribution of
drugs in a way that there is successive
communication and cooperation in the same way
as with legit businesses conduct their business
with suppliers, etc
o Enterprise conspiracy – usually seen in organized
crime, involves racketeering
 Is evident premeditation automatic in conspiracy?
o No. it depends on what kind of conspiracy.
 If pre-arranged conspiracy, it can be
appreciated. Planned eh.
 If implied conspiracy, generally, it
cannot be appreciated, absent any
proof showing how and when the plan
to kill the victim was hatched or the
time that elapsed when it was carried
out.
 How about price or reward?
o Not sure. Original case of P v Tiguman (GR
130144, May 24, 2001) was malabo. See
footnote for decision.16
 Boado and the Arias doctrine
o The head of office may be found liable for the
acts of his subordinates either due to conspiracy
or by an act of reckless impurdence which
allowed the commission of estafa thru
falsification or malversation through falsification,
without such act of negligence the crime could
not have been accomplished. But since
negligence cannot co-exist with conspiracy, his
liability shall be thru culpa but that of his
subordinates thru dolo, if there is no conspiracy.
o When, however, the infraction consists in the
reliance in good faith, albeit misplace by a head
of office on a subordinate upon whom the
primary responsibility rests, absent a clear case
16
As to the circumstance of price or reward, it can only be appreciated
against appellant Tiguman since it was he who committed the felonious
act for money. the same evidence on price established conspiracy
between the appellants. Consequently the act of one is the act of all.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
of conspiracy, the head of office must be
exculpated.
o There has to be some added reason why the
head must be compelled to examine each
voucher/paper that comes his way. There are so
much to sign and go over, he can‟t be expected
to go through all the paperwork. 17 (Arias v
Sandiganbayan, Arias was acquitted.)
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. —
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive,
in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with
the above-mentioned Art..
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of
which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos
or both; is provided.
 Grave felonies
o Capital punishment or afflictive penalties in any
of its periods (as long as min, med, max is within
the afflictive penalty, grave!)
 PM, dq, RT and RP
 Less grave
o Maximum period is correctional, the max period
of the penalty must be correctional
o Destierro, suspension, AMayor, PC
 Example: penalty imposed by law is
AMenor Max to AMayor Min, less grave
since max period of the penalty is
within the penalty of Amayor
 Light felonies
o Amenor or fine not exceeding P200
 Compare with Art 26 where a fine of
P200 is correctional. See Art 26 for
reconciliation
 Use this article to determine:
o Whether a complex crime was committed (Art 48,
requires grave or less grave felonies)
o Duration of the subsidiary penalty to be imposed
(Art 39, 2) where the subsidiary penalty is based
on the severity of the penalty
o Duration of the detention in case of failure to
post the bond to keep the peace (Art 35)
o Whether the crime has prescribed (Art 90)
o Whether the person in authority or his agents
have committed delay in the delivery of detained
persons (Art 125)
o The proper penalty for quasi-offenses (Art 365)
 How do you categorize reckless
imprudence resulting into slight PI?
 Light felony since only
punishable by public
censure. (Riodica v CA)
Offenses not subject to the provisions of the Code
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. —
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under
special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary.
 GR: SPLs are not subject to the provisions of the RPC.
o EX: when it uses the nomenclature of the RPC
 Like in Child Abuse Act (RA
7610) – when victim is 12
years old, penalty shall be RP
17
There has to be some added reason why he should examine each
voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small government
agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must
be signed. There are hundreds of document , letters and supporting
paper that routinely pass through his hands.
13
 am+dg


VAWC – follow RPC in certain  Rule now: Stand ground when in the right. No longer
cases18 “retreat to the wall.” (US v Domen)
 EX to EX: when it specially provides  Requisites:
that the RPC will not be supplementary o Unlawful aggression
to the SPL. o Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
 Examples: prevent or repel it
o DDA – RPC shall o Lack of sufficient provocation on part of person
not apply to defending himself
violations of DDA,  Unlawful aggression must always be there. Without it,
except in case of nothing to prevent or repel. No unlawful aggression? No
minors19 self-defense.
o Anti-hazing law – o Actual and real peril, or at least an imminent
mitigating threat to one‟s:
circumstance of  Life
lack of intent to  Limbs
commit so grave a  Honor/Chastity
wrong not  Property
applicable  Liberty
o Anti-terrorism – o Can‟t be simply imagined. Nor should it be a
conviction under mere threatening or intimidating attitude.
this law is a bar to o If there is an agreement to fight, no unlawful
prosecution of that aggression, hence no self-defense.
person under the  Unless one attacked ahead of time. The
RPC or another one who attacked ahead of time:
SPL for the unlawful aggression.
predicate crime20 o Slapping held to be unlawful aggression. Against
 When supplementary, the following shall apply: honor since the face of a person is akin to his
o ISL dignity and honor. (P v Sabio)
o Art 11 to 15 o When the aggression has ceased to exist, no
o Conspiracy (at least for BP 22, in Ladonga v P) more necessity for self-defense. The aggression
must continue up to the point where the
Justifying Circumstances aggressor is killed.
 Acts of the actor are in accordance with law and hence, he  The right to self-defense begins where
incurs no criminal liability the necessity exists, and ends when
 No civil liability on the actor either necessity ends. It is limited by that
necessity. (P v Adlawan)
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any  Like when the aggressor ran away after
criminal liability: the attack, accused can no longer run
after him and kill him and then invoke
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that
self-defense.
the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression.  Retaliation is not self-defense. (P v
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or Decena)
repel it. 
  Here, the retaliation
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person becomes the unlawful
defending himself. aggression. Hence, the
original aggressor can invoke
self-defense (at least partial
18 since there will be sufficient
(a) Acts falling under Section 5(a) constituting attempted, frustrated
provocation on his part for
or consummated parricide or murder or homicide shall be punished in initially attacking)
accordance with the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.  When the attacker was already
If these acts resulted in mutilation, it shall be punishable in accordance disarmed, unlawful aggression has
with the Revised Penal Code; those constituting serious physical ceased. (Gusto v CA)
injuries shall have the penalty of prison mayor; those constituting less  Reasonable necessity of the means employed
serious physical injuries shall be punished by prision correccional; and o Depends upon the circumstances surrounding the
those constituting slight physical injuries shall be punished by arresto aggression, the state of mind of the aggressor
mayor. and the available weapon at the defender‟s
Acts falling under Section 5(b) shall be punished by imprisonment of disposal
two degrees lower than the prescribed penalty for the consummated o Law requires rational equivalence, not material
crime as specified in the preceding paragraph but shall in no case be commensurability
 Look at sex, size, circumstances,
lower than arresto mayor.
weapons
19
Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. –  Hence, when a big, strong, and
Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the powerful American negro attacked a
provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, Filipino, and the Filipino shot him 4
shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor times, the SC stated that the Filipino
offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts employed reasonable means. (US v
punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be Paras)
reclusion perpetua to death. o Self-preservation is the paramount consideration
20
SEC. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall Be a Bar to Another  Lack of sufficient provocation
Prosecution Under the Revised Penal Code or Any Special Penal Laws. o There can be provocation on the part of the
– When a person has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, accused, but it should not be suffient
upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient o Sufficient provocation is unjust or improper
conduct/act of the offended party, capable of
in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had
exciting, inciting or irritating anyone. It must be
pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of adequate enough to excite a person to commit a
the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony wrong.
which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

14
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
 Defense of property rights
o In P v Ignacio, the dissent said that there must
be an attack on the person in possession of
property as well, and not just the property for
self-defense to be invoked. Follow this.
o The person may use such force as reasonably
necessary to prevent or repel the unlawful
physical invasion of his property. This does not
seem to involve the taking of human life.
o The preservation of human life and limb is of
more importance to society than the protection of
property. (State v Green)
o Fencing of a person‟s land which will cut him off
to the highway is unlawful aggression. (P v
Narvaez)
 Can there be self-defense in libel?
o Apparently, yes. (P v Hiong, the person libel may
hit back with another libel which, if adequate, will
be justified)
 Defense of honor/chastity
o Girl stabbed man who embraced her in a dark
alley. Self-defense! (P v dela Cruz)
o Girl stabbed man who touched her thigh in a
well-lit church. No self-defense. (P v Jaurige)
 Relate with Art 24721
o Art 247 is an absolutory circumstance. The
penalty imposed is only destierro, and it‟s more
for the protection of the accused more than it is a
punishment.
o For instance, the accused arrived and saw his
wife in the act of sexual intercourse. The
paramour and the wife ran away. Accused went
out. He heard rustling of leaves and saw his wife
putting on her panties. He stabbed his wife. SC:
Can‟t invoke 247 because at that time, the wife
was already putting on her panties.
 Dissent (follow this): it‟s asking too
much to actually catch them in the act
of actual sexual congress. What else
can you deduce when you see your
wife putting on her panties and her
paramour is right there?
o Accused saw his wife making lust with someone
else. He told her to leave. But in a rage she
rushed and attacked the husband with a knife. In
defense, husband stabbed the wife.
 Art 11 should be applied, not Art 247.
o So when should you invoke Art 11, Art 247? Can
you invoke both at the same time? (Justice
Calljejo likes asking this raw)
 Husband has the right to invoke his
honor and defend it, so he can invoke
Art 11.
 He can also invoke 247 if he discovers
his wife and some dude making love.
 If you were the husband, invoke 11
over 247.
 247 will get you banished, 11
will bring you home scot-
free.
21
Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. — Any legally married person who having surprised his
spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person,
shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall
suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall
be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to
parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and
their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife
or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the
other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 Moreover, no civil liability
under 11. Not sure about
247.
o Can mistake of fact be invoked under Art 247?
(Misled by movement of buttocks, but no
penetration; or woman/spouse forced by
another)
 Yes. Apply Ah Chong by analogy.
o If the brother-in-law catches his sister-in-law, Art
247 won‟t apply.
 If self-defense is invoked, the burden of evidence shifts to
the accused. Burden of proof never shifts.
 If the accused pleads self-defense, it is not a judicial
confession, merely a judicial admission. He does not penal
liability, merely that he killed the victim.
 Mistake of fact available in self-defense.
 Relate with VAWC, Battered Woman Syndrome
o In Genosa, the BWS was not considered
justifying because the elements of self-defense
were not present. VAWC was not yet enacted
then. She was granted passion/obfuscation and
diminished will power.
o However, now, women who suffer from BWS are
not criminally or civilly liable even if the elements
are not present.22
o Cycle of violence in BWS
 Tension-building phase
 Acute battering incident
 Tranquil, loving, nonviolent phase
o Women suffering from BWS are under the mental
impression that their lives are at risk of harm.
Hence, still a defense even if no imminent
unlawful aggression.
o Applies only to women.
 In the US, even men can avail of it. it‟s
called “battering and its effects”
o Does not amend Art 11, but simply adds a new
element/defense
Defense of Relatives
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees
and those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided
that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making
defense had no part therein.
 Elements:
o Unlawful aggression
o Reasonable necessity of the means employed
o In case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, the person defending had no part
therein
 Relatives included:
o Spouse
o Ascendants/descendants
o Legit, natural or adopted bros or sisters, or
relatives by affinity in the same degrees
o Consanguinity within 4th civil degree
 What if your spouse has died, will SD still be applicable to
your inlaws?
o Yes. relationship by affinity between surviving
spouse and kindred of deceased continues
regardless if there is offspring or not.
Defense of Strangers
22
SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a Defense. – Victim-
survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered
woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman who was
suffering from battered woman syndrome at the time of the commission
of the crime, the courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/
psychologists.
15
 am+dg
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger,
provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first
circumstance of this Art. are present and that the person defending
be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
 Elements
o Unlawful aggression
o Reasonable necessity of the means employed
o Person defending is not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motives
State of necessity
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act
which causes damage to another, provided that the following
requisites are present; 

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

 Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
 Elements
o Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
o Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it
o No other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it
 Civil liability on the person who benefited (Art 101)
 If incomplete, see Art 69.
 The state of necessity must not be brought about by the
intentional provocation of the party invoking the same. (P v
Retubado)
 The evil should not have been created by the accused or his
own negligence.
o For example, you drive recklessly, you swerve to
avoid a child, but end up killing someone else.
You are still liable for Art 365.
 Invoked in a BP 22 case wherein the accused said that she
was forced to issue bouncing checks to save her mother
from the harsh treatment of the hospital she was confined
in. SC said the predicament was brought about by her own
failure to pay the hospital bills.
Lawful exercise of right or duty
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.
 Elements:
o Acted out of duty or office
o Injury caused is consequence of that duty or
right
 Judgment and discretion of public officers in the
performance of duties must be exercised neither
capriciously nor oppressively but within reasonable limits.
In the absence of clear legal provisions, they must act in
conformity with exercise of sound discretion.
 When the victim was a deranged man who was already
subdued as he was lying on the ground, and the policeman
walks up to him, and unloads a bullet on the man‟s
forehead, causing his brains to splatter all over the wet
pavement and on the policeman‟s shoe, there is no lawful
exercise. There was no need for such. (P v Pule)
 Police can use force to prevent the escape of the victim
who snatched their armalite. (Cabanlig v Sandiganbayan)
o If the victim pointed the gun at the policeman,
the policeman can invoke both self-defense and
lawful exercise of duty.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose.
 Elements:
o Order issued by superior
o Order is for a legal purpose
o Means used to carry out such order is lawful
 If the order is illegal but is apparently legal and the
subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is
not liable. (Tabuena v Sandiganbayan, Tabuena disbursed
money of Marcos) (But aren‟t we all presumed to know the
law?)
Exempting Circumstances
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 While crime is still criminal, the law exempts the actor from
liability.
o But not from CIVIL LIABILITY.
 Except in accident and insuperable
cause which strictly are not criminal.
Justifying Exempting
Act legal Act criminal
No crime, no criminal There‟s a crime and a criminal
No civil liability Civil liability
Emphasis of the law is on the Emphasis of the law is on the
act actor
Insanity/Imbecility
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the
following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted
during a lucid interval. When the imbecile or an insane person has
committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the
court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the
same court.
 Insanity: complete deprivation of intelligence in committing
the act, deprived of rason, total deprivation of freedom of
will
o Exempt, unless acted during a lucid interval
o Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not
exclude imputability
o Must relate to period immediately before or at
the precise moment of doing the act which is the
subject of the inquiry
 If sane when act was done, but insane
during trial, he can still be criminally
liable
o Distinguish between lack of reason (insanity) and
failure to use good judgment due to anger
(passion)
o Burden of proof: accused (because of
presumption of sanity)
 But if already known that he was
insane at that time: prosecution must
prove he was sane at time of
commission
o Quantum of proof to overthrow presumption of
sanity: beyond reasonable doubt
 Imbecile: mental development to that of children between
2-7 years of age
o Always exempt
 Two tests to determine complete deprivation of intelligence
in the commission of the act:
o Cognition test – deprivation of intelligence in
committing the criminal act (awareness of right
or wrong)
 Usually applied here
o Volition test – deprivation of the freedom of will
(control over acts)
 Not appreciated in P v Valledor, where accused killed
people (but didn‟t harm others) in a room, and after said,
“I‟ve had my revenge.”
Minority
 Amended by Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, RA 9344
 15 and under: exempt
o they‟ll be subject to intervention
 over 15 – under 18: exempt unless acted with discernment
o those who acted with discernment are entitled to
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority
 they will undergo diversion programs
 Exemption does not include exemption from civil liability.
 Applied retroactively (May 20, 2006). Hence, minors
convicted at that time were ordered released or their cases
were dismissed or they were brought to diversion programs
o 13-year old accused raped 6-year old girl before
the law was passed. Once law was passed, he
was ordered released and referred to the local
DSWD unit. (Ortega v people)
16
 am+dg
 Applies even to heinous crimes, since the law did not make
a distinction.
 Reckoning point is the age of the child when the offense
was allegedly committed.
 What if the act was done while still a minor but the
promulgation of the sentence was after he reached 21?
o He will be sent to an agricultural camp. 23 The
promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with
the law should extend even to one who has
exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years,
so long as he/she committed the crime when
he/she was still a child. The offender shall be
entitled to the right to restoration, rehabilitation
and reintegration. The age of the child in conflict
with the law at the time of the promulgation of
the judgment of conviction is not material. What
matters is that the offender committed the
offense when he/she was still of tender age. (P v
Jacinto, 2011, accused was a minor who, with
discernment, raped a 5-year old child. He was
convicted and sentenced to an agricultural camp
for a period of reclusion perpetua. Sir likes this
case)
o Same ruling was applied in the earlier case of
Sarcia. There, the accused was 31 when the SC
decision came out. They sent him to an
agricultural camp.
 If the minor is convicted, can the sentence be suspended?
o Yes. Even if the minor is above 18 he is
convicted.
 But the maximum age to suspend the
sentence is only until 21 years old.24
 2 presumptions under RA 9344:
o presumption of minority
o presumption of no discernment (if 15-18)
 applies even in:
 conspiracy with adults (P v
Estefano)
23
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps
and Other Training Facilities. – A child in conflict with the law may,
after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an
agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established,
maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination
with the DSWD.
24
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who
is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the
offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine
and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the
offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of
conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under
suspended sentence, without need of application: Provided, however,
That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various
chcumstances of the child, the court shall impose the appropriate
disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If
the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed
upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the
child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the
conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in
conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of
judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of
age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether
to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of
sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified
period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21)
years.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 reckless imprudence (say, a
15 ½ year old boy drives a
car and hits someone)
 A child under 9 is conclusively presumed to have no
discernment. (Jarco Marketing v CA)
o With RA 9344, it‟s now 15
 What is discernment?
o The mental capacity to understand the difference
between right and wrong.
o Prove by evidence of physical appearance,
attitude or deportment not only before and
during the commission of the act, but also after
and during the trial. The surrounding
circumstances must demonstrate that the minor
knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.
o Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature
of the crime and the minor‟s cunning and
shrewdness. (Llave v P, where the minor was
deemed with discernment because he was an
honor student and made sure that his rape of
another minor was in a secluded area; see also P
v Doquena where the minor was the brightest of
his class. Tsk tsk to the smarties!)
o Intelligence, on the other hand, is the power
necessary to determine the morality of human
acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act.
 Offenses not applicable to children:
o Vagrancy and prostitution
o Mendicancy
o Sniffing of rugby
 Read codal na lang for stuff on diversion, etc.
Accident
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care,
causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it.
 Accident: happens outside the sway of our will, lies beyond
the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences
 Elements:
o Performance of a lawful act with due care
o Injury to another was by accident
o Without intent or negligence/no fault or no intent
 Appreciated in Pomoy v People. Pomoy was a policeman
who struggled with the victim who was under investigation.
Gun accidentally went off during the struggle.
 The accident must not be foreseeable or else there will be
fault or criminal negligence
 Accident and negligence are mutually exclusive
o Negligence presupposes some degree of fault or
foreseeableness in the fault of the person
 No such thing as accidental self-defense. NO SUCH THING.
(Tamboong v People)
 No civil liability
Irresistible Force
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force. 

 Elements:
o Force must be physical, come from an outside
force and accust must act not only without a will
but even against his will
o Actor reduced to a mere instrument, no more
freedom
o Duress, force, fear or intimidation must be
present, imminent and impending, and of such a
nature as to induce a well-grounded fear of death
or serious bodily injury
 Accused must have had no opportunity to leave or escape
or self-defense
Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury.
 Elements
o Fear of an evil greater than or at least equal to
that which the accused was required to commit
o Evil was os such gravity and imminence that the
ordinary man would have succumbed to it
17
 am+dg

 Founded on duress or lack of voluntairness on the part of  Lowering penalty to the minimum
the actor period
 Same rule with irresistible force, if accused had chance to o Privileged
run away or escape, this EC won‟t be appreciated (P v  Effect of lowering the imposable
Morales, where the accused, in a kidnapping case, were a penalty (divisible or indivisible) by one
good kilometer from where the co-accused were. They or more degrees
could‟ve just ran away)  Can‟t be offset
 Not appreciated when one of two rapists claimed he was o Specific
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear from the other,  Applies to a specific felony like
but yet he raped the victim while the other was no longer concealment of dishonor in case of
there. (P v Tami) abortion by the preggy woman herself
 Civil liability on the principal  Not applicable to Art 365 since it‟s culpa, no intent.
 Application of MCs and ACs to SPLs will depend on the SPL.
Insuperable cause o If it uses the nomenclature of penalties of the
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when RPC, then they will apply.
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.  Unless, they specifically state that they
 Applies in felonies by omission (like Art 125 and then won‟t apply.
holidays pala!)
 No civil liability Ordinary Privileged
Can be offset by a generic AC Can‟t be offset
Anymore? Lowered to minimum period Penalty lowered by one or two
 Yes. Relatives in theft, swindling, malicious mischief.25 (except if 2 or more MCs and degrees
 Spontaneous desistance in the attempted stage (unless no AC, then lower degree by
overt act was a crime in itself) one)
 Attempted/frustrated light felonies (except those against Not considered in single Always considered no matter
persons or property) indivisible penalties the penalty imposed
 Accessories in light felonies
 Relatives who are accessories under Art 20 Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances
 Physical injuries under Art 247 (nahuli yung misis!) Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating
 Somnambulism (sleep walkers) circumstances:
 Mistake of fact
 Repeal of a penal law 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
 Zombies requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal liability in
the respective cases are not attendant.
 Also, those victims of instigation. They are exempt from
liability.  Incomplete justification of defense
Entrapment Instigation o Must always have unlawful aggression
 Without unlawful aggression, no
Mens rea originated from Evil idea originated from peace
complete nor incomplete defense
accused who was merely officer who induced the
o Becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance if
trapped by police in flagrante accused to commit the act
unlawful aggression is present with another
delicto
element of self-defense
Not absolutory Absolutory
 Only unlawful aggression: ordinary
Consistent with public policy Contrary to public policy
 Unlawful aggression + another
Trap for unwary criminals Trap for unwary innocent element: privileged (see Art 69)
Peace officer not liable Peace officer is principal by  Accident
inducement o Due care and lack of fault are indispensable
without which negligence will be present giving
rise to culpable felony
Mitigating Circumstances o If lawful act and lack of intention of causing the
 Show the lesser perversity of the offender and thus injury are absent, an intentional act results
considered to lower the penalty prescribed for the offense taking the case out of the benefit of this
 Matters of defense which do not have to be alleged in the mitigating circumstance
information
 Analogous circumstances are allowed under Art 13 Minority/Oldies
 There are other circumstances which also reduce the 2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy
penalty but are not under Art 13 years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in
o These are the extenuating circumstances like accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
concealment of dishonor on the part of the  RA 9344 did not repeal Art 68. It merely amended it.
mother in infanticide  If the minor is between 15-18 and acted with discernment,
 Classifications of mitigating circumstances he is still entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance
o Ordinary under Art 68 (2).
 Minority is always a privileged MC.
 Personal to the an accused and can‟t be extended to other
25
Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No criminal, but co-accused.
only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the crime of o 16-year old and 30-year old killed someone.
theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually Minority only appreciated to 16-year old.
by the following persons:  What about old age?
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the o Accused was charged with rape. He was 83 years
same line. old. Convicted but old age considered as MC.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to
Praeter Intentionem
the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong
possession of another; and 
 as that committed.
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living  Lack of intention to commit so grave as tthat committed
together.  Disparity between intent and consequences
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to  Appreciated when accused had no intent to kill but only to
strangers participating in the commission of the crime. inflict injuries, but the victim died.
 Not appreciated:

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

18
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
o when acts are sufficient to bring the result
intended,
o when the means employed would naturally result
to the felony committed,
 like when the accused hit the victim in
the eyebrow with a LEAD PIPE. SC did
not apply this MC because of the brute
force used and the part of the body
where the blow was struck. (Oriente v
P)
o hazing incidents26 under the Anti-Hazing Law
(RA 8049), or
o culpa or to crimes not involving intent.
Intentionem nga eh.
 Usually applied to physical acts
o Accused poured gasoline on a mental retardate,
and latter burned to death. (P v Pugay, accused
only meant to burn the clothes of the guy, not
the guy himself)
o Husband punched wife. Wife broke her ribs and
died. (P v Ulep)
 But has been applied in malversation.
o Petitioner was a municipal treasurer and the
audit team discovered he was short P72k in
funds. After a few months, he returned the
money he “borrowed.” SC gave him two MCs:
voluntary surrender and lack of intent to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed.
 Intent is determined at the time of the commission of the
crime.
o Intent determined by weapons, words, conduct
before, during, and after (immediately?) the
incident.
 What if 2 persons conspired to commit a felony, and one
intended to commit the grave wrong, but the other did not,
what happens?
o Conspirator who did not indeed to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed CAN NOT
invoke the MC. (Act of one, act of all!)
 But if both of them did not intend to
commit so grave a wrong, they both
can invoke the MC.
 Can both treachery and praeter intentionem coexist? Can
they hold hands and skip?
o Yes. They may coexist. reachery refers to the
manner or method used to kill the victim. Lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed refers to the state of mind of the
person. (P v Flores)
Sufficient Provocation
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended
party immediately preceded the act.
 Provocation must:
o Be sufficient
o Be immediate to the commission of the crime (no
interval of time elapsed between provocation and
commission of the crime)
o Originate from the offended party
 Sufficient provocation is unjust or improper conduct/act of
the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating
anyone. It must be adequate enough to excite a person to
commit a wrong. (Licayo v P, Oriente v P)
 Offended shouted and told the accused to leave. Accused
killed him. No MC.
 Even if the act of the victim may not constitute unlawful
aggression to invoke SD, the same act may still be invoked
by the offended as sufficient provocation on the part of the
victim. (Gotis v P)
o Deceased struck accused then ran away like a
scared dog. Accused caught up with him and
killed him. Accused actually could have two MCs
26
Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the
mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave
a wrong.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
in his favor: sufficient provocation and
passion/obfuscation. But he can‟t be entitled to
both, since both are based from the same facts.
o Same rule applies when same facts give rise to
vindication of grave offense and sufficient
provocation. Only entitled to one MC.
 Provocation need not be in words, but can also be in action.
When the victim entered the accused person‟s property and
started gathering crops, this constituted sufficient
provocation. (P v Arquiza)
Immediate vindication of grave offense
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a
grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
 “Immediate” in this case means proximate and allows for a
lapse of time
o As long as the offender is still suffereing from the
mental agony brought about by the “offense” to
him
 “Grave offense” is not the grave offense in Art 9. Here, it
might not even be a felony at all. It can be an assault to
one‟s honor.
o Includes insult – “You‟re just living out of the
pockets of your wife!”
 Committed against spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees
 Test if the assault is grave depends on:
o Social standing of parties
o Time and place and occasion when offense
committed
 Can not be appreciated if sufficient time had lapsed for the
accused to recover his serenity.
o 30 mins? Pwede pa.
o 1 day lapse? No na. (P v Palabrica)
o Hours? Pwede pa. (P v Ignas)
 Lesson? All depends on the facts.
 Not appreciated when offended party hit the accused with a
bamboo stick and the accused killed him. (Bacabac v P)
 Interesting case of P v Diokno. Daughter eloped with a
Chinaman. When father found the daughter, the Chinaman
didn‟t mind him and went up the stairs to his house. Diokno
stabbed the Chinaman.
o Immediate vindication – elopement deemed
continuous.
o Passion/obfuscation – because Chinaman didn‟t
mind him, nabastos, pumatay!
 Both were appreciated together
because based on different facts.
o Still applicable today? Probably not, but the fact
that some families are still conservative should
not be discounted so easily.
 What if your spouse has died, will this MC still be applicable
to your inlaws?
o Yes. relationship by affinity between surviving
spouse and kindred of deceased continues
regardless if there is offspring or not.
Passion and Obfuscation
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
have produced passion or obfuscation.
 Must arise from lawful sentiments
o Must not be based on an illegitimate relationship
(P v Hicks and P v Salazar)
 EXCEPTION in case of P v Bello (1964)
 Accused had a common law wife who
worked as a hostess/GRO. He told her
to stop her job, she refused. She also
refused to stay with Bello because she
wanted to continue her work of dancing
scantily clad in front of drunk people.
SC held that passion/obfuscation
present, saying, “We can not see how
the accused's insistence that she live
19
 am+dg
with him again, and his rage at her
rejection of the proposal, can be
properly qualified as arising from
immoral and unworthy passions. Even
without benefit of wedlock, a
monogamous liaison appears morally
of a higher level than gainful
promiscuity.”
o Exercise of a lawful right by the offended party
cannot be a proper source of
passion/obfuscation.
o As when the offended party came to regain his
land. (P v Lopez)
 Act which produced the passion/obfuscation must not be far
removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time during which the accused might
have regained his normal equanimity
o Lapse of 1 week? No, accused was already
expected to recover his equanimity. (P v Ventura
where he found out that his wife had an affair
with her amo)
o 3 days? No, same reason. (P v Caber, offended
allegedly raped wife of accused 3 days before the
stabbing)
 Appreciated in case where the husband killed a witch who
cast a spell on the accused‟s wife. (P v Tubadeza,
Longbottom v Lestrange)
 Treachery cannot exist with passion and obfuscation. In the
latter, the accused loses his reason and self-control. It‟s
inconsistent with treachery.
 Sufficient provocation, immediate vindication,
passion/obfuscation cannot be credited separately, must
only appreciate one of them. Unless arising from different
factual bases.
Voluntary Surrender, Plea of Guilty
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a
person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution;
 Elements:
o Surrendered to a person in authority or his agent
o Surrendered before arrest is effected
o Surrendered must be voluntary (spontaneous and
unconditional)
 GR: doesn‟t matter whether there was an arrest warrant or
not. As long as he voluntarily surrenders, MC will be
appreciated.
o Except if the arrest is imminent. If that‟s the
case, voluntary surrender not appreciated.
 Not necessary to surrender to authorities where the
incident happened. (P v Diva, crime happened in place A,
but surrendered in nearby barrio)
 Not appreciated when:
o Surrender was to disclaim liability. (P v Luces)
o Merely to escape the wrath of relatives who
wanted to extract revenge (P v Basite, but see
Boado p 140)
o Surrender was to clear their names. (P v Abella,
where deaths occurred after a basketball game)
o No surrender but merely reported that a crime
occurred (P v Rogales)
 Appreciated when before being charged of malversation,
the accused returned the amount before he was even
charged. He was deemed to have voluntarily surrendered.
The return of the money must be spontaneous. (Perez v P)
o Compare to Davalos v P, where the MC was not
appreciated because the return of the money was
7 years later.
Plea of Guilt
 Must be:
o In open court
o Spontaneously and unconditionally
o Prior to the presentation of the evidence of the
prosecution
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 Accepted plea to a lesser offense counted as MC (no need
to amend information)
 Voluntary plea of guilty and voluntary surrender can be
both appreciated in one case
Physical defects
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action,
defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
 Defect must relate to the offense committed
 Illness or defect must have moved him to commit the
offnse
 Not automatic that he should be credited with this MC. Must
show that it restricts his means of action, defense, or
communications with fellow beings,
 Accused had one hand, but stabbed the victim. No MC.
Illness
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the
will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.
 If illness deprives the offender of his consciousness of his
acts, he will be exempt from liability.
 Illnesses considered:
o Psychosis (P v Antonio)
o Schizophrenia
Analogous circumstances
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to those above mentioned.
 Restitution of malversed funds considered analogous
 Voluntary return of a stolen cow
 Mere membership in a cultural minority not considered
analogous
 Mistake in identity MC? No. Neither exempting nor
mitigating.
 Error in personae MC? No. Neither exempting nor
mitigating.
 Abberatio ictus MC? No. Neither exempting nor mitigating.
(P v Genoya, wherein a girl was hit by an arrow)
Aggravating Circumstances
 Unlike mitigating circumstances, the list in Article 14 is
exclusive. No analogous circumstances.
 Must be alleged in the information.
 Different kinds of aggravating circumstances (AC)
o Generic
 Apply generally to all crimes
 Can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
 Increase the penalty to the MAX period
 Must be alleged in the information
o Qualifying
 Cannot be offset
 Changes the nature of the crime and
the designation of the offense
 Must be alleged in the information
 Must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt
 The penalty does not per se increase,
but the nature of the crime is changed
(along with the corresponding penalty)
 Hence, from homicide (r.t.) it
becomes murder (r.p.)
o Special or specific aggravating
 Apply to particular felonies
 Found elsewhere than art 14
 Do not change the character of the
offense charged but guides the court in
imposing the proper penalty
 Can‟t be offset either
o Inherent circumstance
 Element of the felony committed thus
no longer considered against the
offender in the determination of the
penalty (Art 62)
20
 am+dg
 “abuse of public position”
inherent in crime of
falsification of document by
public authority, and also in
malversation (and other
crimes committed by public
officers). Accused must have
used his influence or prestige
of his office to commit the
crime.
 The ones in Article 14 are generally generic, but some are
qualifying and even special
 No law providing that additional rapes/homicides are
considered as aggravating because list is exclusive
 Where of the aggravating circumstances has been used as
a qualifying circumstance, the others will be deemed as
generic.
o Hence, treachery qualifies homicide into murder.
Evident premeditation becomes a generic
circumstance na lang.
 RA 7659 added a new aggravating circumstance of
“organized/syndicated group” in Art 62 (1a).
o It‟s a special aggravating circumstance because
Art 14 (which are generally generic) was not
correspondingly amended.
o An organized/syndicated crime group means a
group of 2 or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another for
purposes of gain in the commission of any crime
(not exclusive to robbery – as long as there is
profit, so estafa, kidnapping for ransom, etc).
 Conspiracy is not an aggravating circumstance.
 Not applicable to Art 365 since it‟s culpa, no intent.
Abuse of official position
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are
aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
 Test: did the accused abuse his office in order to commit
the crime?
 Public official must use the influence, prestige, and
ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing his
purpose.
 There must be an intimate connection between the offense
and office of the accused.
 The offender‟s being a public officer does not ipso facto
make it aggravating. If the public officer could have
committed the crime without the use of public position, it is
not aggravating.
o Using one‟s service firearm in shooting someone
does not fall under this AC.
 In P v Villamor, accused used a gun
officially issued to him by virtue of
office. Court said he could have shot
him even without a gun from the
police.
 When a policeman keeps quiet while his other police
officers were robbing a polio guy and his sister, the quiet
policeman is guilty of abuse of public position. He could
have prevented the others from robbing the victim, but he
didn‟t. His silence made him liable. (Fortuna v People, a
beautiful case.)
 Does not apply if inherent in crime.
o Example: Falsification by a public officer of a
public document.
 Considered special aggravating because of RA 7659, Sec
27
23. See Art 62 of RPC. Can‟t be offset!
Insult to Public Authorities
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the
public authorities. 
 appreciated. (If charge only murder,
27 1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by
the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in
its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 Covers only persons in authority, not agents of persons in
authority and other public officers
o One vested with jurisdiction or authority to
maintain peace and order
 Elements:
o Public authority is engaged in the discharge of his
duties
o Not the person against whom the crime is
committed
o Offender knows that he is a public authority
 If public authority is the victim, then crime is direct assault
(AC deemed absorbed).
 Barangay captain is a person-in-authority. He was playing
cards, then accused shot him. Insult to public authorities?
No. Barangay captain was the victim, and he was not
performing his duty at that time time. He was playing tong-
its. (P v. De Mesa)
 If crime committed in the presence of an agent of a person
in authority, the provision doesn‟t apply. (P v. Siojo, but
Boado says the opposite)
 If in the presence of a policeman, not aggravating because
the policeman is only an agent of a person in authority. (P
v Magbueno)
 What if crime committed in the presence of a professor
while the latter was teaching?
o Not aggravated. A teacher or professor is only a
person in authority for purposes of Art 148
(direct assault) and Art 151 (resistance and
disobedience).
 EXCEPT under the Dangerous Drugs
Act. A teacher of professor is a person
in authority for the purpose of the
enforcement of the DDA.
 If you smoke weed in the presence of a
professor, the professor is a person in
a authority.
 What if you‟re confined in the National Penitentiary, and
you kill each someone? Aggravating. Yes. Talaga naman! (P
v Mendoza, contempt of public authority)
Age, sex, rank, dwelling
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex,
or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the
latter has not given provocation.
 Common factor: disrespect to the offended
 Rationale: need for respect
 Need for proof that offender deliberately intended to offend
or insult the offended
o There must be deliberate intent to insult or show
manifest disregard for the age, rank, sex. Not
merely because the victim is a female or has a
rank. (P v. Reyes, killing of spinster case)
 Can NOT co-exist with passion or obfuscation where the
offended lost his control or reason.
 AGE, SEX, RANK: considered in crimes against persons,
security or honor; but NOT in crimes against property
o Hence, not applicable to complex crime of
robbery with homicide (P v. Cabiles)
 Sex: not considered in crimes where being a woman is an
element (rape, etc)
o Mere fact that victim is woman does not give rise
to the AC of sex. Must be some specific insult or
disrespect shown to her womanhood.
 Rank: high social position/standing
o Teacher, judge, consul, general, etc
o Charge should not include rank as an inherent
element thereof
 So if charge is complex crime of
murder with assault against an agent
of a person in authority, AC can‟t be
than AC can be appreciated)
o Accused was conversing with the barangays
captain and then suddenly killed him. AC? No.
mere fact that victim was a person with a rank,
such as a barangays captain does not necessarily
21
 am+dg
mean it‟s aggravating, absent evidence that the
killing was deliberately intended to disregard or
insult or threaten to insult the rank of the victim.
(P v Samudio)
o Accused raped a 70-year old woman, his teacher
in grade 1. The victim was already retired when
the dude raped her. SC held that the fact that the
offended party was already retired did not
diminish the respect due her rank as his former
teacher in grade 1. (P v. Nerio)
 Age: includes tender age
 Dwelling: includes dependencies, staircase, and enclosures
under the house.
o Must be a building or structure exclusively used
for rest and comfort
 Hence, a combination of video store
and dwelling is not a “dwelling” for
purposes of this AC (P v. Tano)
 Not necessarily owned by the offended.
 Home is that which the law seeks to
protect or uphold whether the dweller
is a lessee, a boarder or a bed spacer
 Held to include:
 room in a boarding house (P
v Daniel)
 room of stay-in
laundrywoman in house of
amo (P v. Sapinoso,
compare with P v. Punzalan,
where no AC appreciated
because accused and victim
lived together)
 house of a squatter since law
does not distinguish validity
of title
 little rooms separated by
curtains (sir‟s example of his
dorm with his brothers)
o Appreciated when:
 Victim stood in the terrace of his house
(P v. Rios)
 Victim was stepping on the first rung of
the stairs connected to his house
 But if he has yet to step, no
AC. (P v. Sespene)
o Offended must not have given any provocation
(sufficient and immediate)
o Not necessary that the accused actually entered
the house. Enough that the victim was attacked
inside his own house. (P v. Villanueva)
o Not appreciated when:
 Both the offended and the offender live
in the dwelling
 EXCEPT in ADULTERY, and
the bad spouse did the deed
in the conjugal dwelling (P v.
Ibanez)
 See case of P. v. Punzalan
where the house and the
servants‟ quarters were
separate but within the same
compound. The houseboy
went to the house of the
amo and killed him there. SC
said no AC because the
servants quarters located in
the same compound, hence
part of the dwelling of the
offended party. (Sir doesn‟t
agree with this. Basta
separate and distinct places,
dapat separate dwellings.)
 Inherent in the crime (trespass,
robbery with force upon things,
destructive arson)
 Does dwelling apply in
robbery?
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
o Depends. If
robbery with
homicide or
robbery with
intimidation of
persons, yes,
appreciated. But if
robbery with force
upon things,
dwelling is
inherent.
 Inherent also in destructive
arson
 Offended has given provocation
 Can‟t be absorbed by treachery. Treachery pertains to
manner of commission. Age, sex, rank, refers to
relationship. (P v. Lopez)
o But see P v. Malolot, where accused hacked to
death an 11-month old child and the SC
considered age absorbed by treachery. Sir
doesn‟t agree with this case, but it‟s the latter
case, so it shold prevail.
 All 4 can be appreciated separately from treachery.
o Accused killed a 3-day old child. SC considered
treachery and age of victim separately. (P v Lora)
o Dwelling and treachery treated separately,
appreciated together in the same case. (P v.
Almohera)
Abuse of Confidence or obvious ungratefulness
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness.
 Requisites:
o Offended had trusted the offender
o Offender abused such trust (P v. Ostia)
o Such abuse of confidence facilitated the
commission of the crime
 Essential that the confidence is IMMEDIATE and PERSONAl
such that it gives the accused some advantage and makes
it easier to commit the crime (P v. Arojado, where accused
was the first cousin of the victim)
o Also applied in P v. Villanueva, where common-
law husband (whom the victim called “papa”)
raped the victim.
 Inherent in:
o Qualified theft
o Estafa
 For obvious ungratefulness, the offended received favors
from the victim but still committed the crime (e.g. kupal)
Palace of Chief Executive/Worship
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive
or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
 Only in the third circumstance (public authorities engaged
in the discharge) is performance of function necessary.
 If done in the palace of the President, in his presence, or in
a place dedicated to religious worship, performance of
function not necessary.
 Must show that offender sought the above places for the
commission of the crime (lack of respect!)
o That‟s why it wasn‟t appreciated in P. v. Jaurige,
where the young lass stabbed the dude‟s neck in
church after he placed his hand precariously on
her thigh
Night time, uninhabited place, by a band
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances may
facilitate the commission of the offense. 

Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to
have been committed by a band.
 If all three are present, are these separate ACs or only
one?
o GR: Only one.
22
 am+dg

 EXCEPT: when the three can be  Destructive arson by 2 or more people (Art 320, amended
distinctly perceived and can subsist by PD 1744): qualifying circumstance29
independently of each other, revealing  When conspiracy is proved, band can be appreciated. It is
greater perversity. (P v. Librando) not absorbed by conspiracy, since the latter is only a
means to commit a crime.
Night time (Nocturnity)
 Becomes an AC only (requisites) Calamity or misfortune
o when sought by the offender, 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,
o taken advantage by him to facilitate the shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
commission of the crime,  Does not refer to acts of men
o ensured his immunity from capture, and  Refers to the occasion of the crime, not the means (which
o place where the crime was committed was not is Par 12)
illuminated  Rationale: instead of helping, you took advantage pa!
 Objective test: did it facilitate the commission of the crime?  Accused must take advantage of the calamity to ensure
 Subjective test: was it purposely sought out by the accused success of the crime. (People v Arpa 27 SCRA 1037)
to afford impunity?  Dude who burned down his own house and others
o Yes to either question will suffice to appreciate considered guilty of arson with AC of on occasion of
night time. conflagration. (?) (People v Sing)
 Nighttime: sunset to sunrise
o Crime must have been committed exclusively at Aid of armed men
nighttime 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or
 There must be evidence that night time was sought for, or persons who insure or afford impunity.
the nocturnity facilitated the commission of the offense. (P  Elements:
v. Dela Cruz) o Armed men took part in the commission of the
 Absorbed in treachery if it is part of the treacherous means crime, directly or indirectly,
to insure execution of crime o Accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon
them when the crime was committed
Uninhabited Place (Despoblado)  Not appreciated when:
 Test: whether or not in the place of the commission of the o all the accused acted under the same plan and
offense, there was reasonable possibility of the victim for the same purpose.
receiving some help  If so, they are all principals in the
 It is not the distance, but the possibility or impossibility of commission of the crime.
immediate aid to be obtained. (P v. Ostia, P v. Cabiles) o principal was not aided
o The more important consideration is if the o not taken advantage of.
commission of the crime makes it possible for the  The armed men are accomplices who take part in a minor
victim to receive aid. capacity, directly or indirectly.
 If the distance is not so great, but you o Minimal participation as compared to
have to climb a hill to reach the house accomplices.
to render aid, despobado is considered.  There should not be any conspiracy nor should the armed
 Casual encounter at night in an uninhabited bukid? Not AC. men be principals. (People v Berayon)
The prosecution must show that the remoteness of the  Absorbed by band
place was chosen by the accused to facilitate the crime, or  Aggravating in kidnapping. Men also means “women.”
conceal it. (People v. Licop)

Band Band Organized Aid of Armed

 Consists of: Crime Men
o Four or more persons Syndicate (Art
o Armed malefactors (at least four must be armed) 62)
o Shall have acted together in the commission of Liability All principals All principals Armed men
an offense are
 “Armed”: any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic accomplices
nature or purpose is capable of inflicting serious injuries Number 4 or more 2 or more 2 or more
(bolo, club, guns, grenades, cupcake.) Specificity Crime not Crime for Crime not
 Must prove that 4 or more persons had weapons. specified GAIN specified
o If proven that only 2 had weapons, not AC (P v.
Nature Generic Special Generic
Oco)
aggravating
o Weird case: P v Estante – 4 accused. 1 acquitted.
Can‟t be offset
1 jumped bail. But SC still considered band as
AC.
Habituality
 Justices Aquino and Abad Santos said
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
NO AC. 4 – 2 = 2.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
 Art 14: generic aggravating
o Generic aggravating in robbery with homicide,
rape, intentional mutilation, PY resulting in
insanity, impotency, blindness. (Art 294) compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers
 But remember Art 226-B: Rape committed by 2 or more thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road,
persons, offender is sentenced to RP (to death). highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of a
 Art 295, with relation to 2,3,4 of Art 294: qualifying firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the
circumstance28 proper penalties.
In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed
upon the leader of the band.
28 Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an 29 Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated qualifying
uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, circumstances, the penalty of death shall likewise be imposed when the
road or alley. — If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, arson is perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by a
and five of the next preceding article shall have been committed in an group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn
uninhabited place or by a band, or by attacking a moving train, street or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in
car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passenger's the commission or another violation of law.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

23
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime s

embraced in the same title of this Code. h
e
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or s
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
 Different forms of habitiluality e
o Recidivist is one who n
 At the time of his trial for one crime t
 Shall have been previously convicted i
 By final judgment, r
 Of another crime embraced in the e
same title of the Code
 Hence, there‟s a need for two c
convictions (first by final r
judgment, and must take i
place prior to the second m
convication) e
o What if 3 separate .
informations, but
only one (
judgment, M
recidivist? No. No o
prior judgment in n
that case. (People s
v Rivera) a
 No requirement that it be n
consummated. Can be t
attempted or frustrated. Law o
does not distinguish.
 Generic aggravating v
circumstance
 No time limit either. F
 What if pardoned for first a
crime? c
o Recidivist still. t
Effects still remain. o
 But if r
amnesty a
? n
 N )
o  What if judgment is
t suspended because of RA
9344, and then accused
r commits another crime under
e the same title, recidivist? No.
c Decision not promulgated,
i hence no final judgment.
d  Accused committed robbery
i on December 23. He then
v committed theft on
i December 30. He was
s convicted for theft. After, he
t was charged for robbery.
, Recividist? No. Second crime
must be committed after the
s first conviction. (P v.
i Baldera)
n o Reiteracion
c  Offender has previously served
e sentence
 First offense must have been punished
a with an equal or greater penalty, or
m  He has committed two or more crimes
n previously to which the law attaches a
e lighter penalty (penalty imposed by
s law, not penalty which judge eventually
t metes out)
y  Does not require that the offenses be
covered under the same title of the
e Code
x  Generic aggravating
t circumstance
i  Reiteracion is concerned with
n the penalty imposed by law,
g and not the nature of the
u crime
i

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

24
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

Recidivism Reitreacion someone in prison. He‟ll get

Antecedent Previous conviction by final Service of the max period for his
judgment sentence second homicide.
Offense Under the same Title of Need not be under
the Code the same Title Price, Promise, Reward (yeay!)
Penalty No requirement as to Prior crime must 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,
penalty imposed in the have been reward, or promise. 

prior conviction penalized with an  Equally affects the offeror (principal by inducement) and
equal or greater the acceptor (principal by direct participation). (People v.
penalty or 2 or Alincastre, Mayor Gordon case)
more crimes with  Those who did not benefit from the PPR will not have his
lighter penalty penalty increased because this AC is personal to the giver
and the receiver.
o Habitual delinquency  Inducement must be the primary consideration in the
 Within a period of 10 years from the commission of the crime for it to be aggravating.
date of his release or last conviction,  Need not be money. Services pwede!
 Of the crimes of falsification, robbery,  Mere promise will suffice, as long as it induced!
estafa, theft, serious or less serious  Dude tells accused to kill X for P5. Accused kills B. (Error in
physical injuries (FRETSeL) personae) What happens?
 Found guilty of said crimes a third time o Offeror no AC, acceptor AC.
or oftener. o Person different from intended! (People v. dela
 Special aggravating Serna)
circumstance for which an  Dude gives money after the crime. No promise before
additional penalty is imposed crime. No AC. (US v Flores)
which escalates with increase  Qualifies homicide to Mordor, em, murder.
in the number of convictions
(Art 62) Inundation, Fire, etc
o Boado says in 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire,
effect a crime by poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage
thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other
itself because it
artifice involving great waste and ruin.
has its own
penalty.  When is it arson, murder, or both? (People v. Malngan)
 Need for 3 convictions. Third o If intent to burn the building and death is a
conviction must be result, just arson. Resulting homicide is
committed within 10 years absorbed.
from the second conviction. o If intent to kill and fire resorted to as means to
 An offender can be a kill, murder only.
recidivist and habitual o If intent to kill (and he has done so) then fire
delinquent at the same time. used to cover up the killing, then two distinct
(RET are all under the same crimes, homicide/murder and arson.
title; so with SeL) o No such thing as complex crime of arson with
multiple homicide.
 Intent PIVOTAL.
Recidivism Habitual
Delinquency  See discussion of Comadre case in the special penal laws
part.
Convictions Two are enough Three are required
Crimes covered Must be both FRETSeL
Evident premeditation
under the same
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation. 

Title of the Code
Prescription None as no time Prescribes if the  Elements:
limit given by law 10-year limit o Time when the offender determined to commit
between the 1st between the second the crime
and 2nd convictions and third o An overt act manifestly indicating that he has
convictions are clung to his determination
exceeded o Sufficient lapse of time between such
determination and execution to allow him to
Nature Generic, can be Special, can not be
reflect upon the consequences of his act (People
offset offset
v. Annibong)
Penalty Increase is to the Entails additional
 Connotes adherence to a plant to commit a crime
max period penalty which
 Essence: execution of the criminal act must be preceded by
increases with the
cool thought and reflection of the resolution to carry out the
number of
criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive
convictions
a calm judgment.
o Must show when the plan to execute the crime
o Quasi-redivisim (Art 160)
was hatched or what time elapsed before it was
 Offender has been previously convicted
carried out
by final judgment
 How much times must elapse?
 Before beginning to serve such
 Law does not give formula.
sentence, or while serving the same,
Case to case basis. (P v
 He commits a felony.
Rodas)
 Special aggravating, can not
 Not appreciated when:
be offset
o Inherent part of the crime (since already
 Penalizes the convict with
considered by the law – Art 62)
the max period for the new
 Generally, inherent in specific intent
felony committed.
felony.
 Recidivism inherent in quasi-
o Why? These crimes
recidivism.
are not really
 Accused is serving sentence
decided at the sput
for homicide. Then kills

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

25
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
of the moment.
Iisipin mo yan eh!
 Kidnapping
 Robbery
 Estafa (intent to gain)
 Piracy in Philippine waters
o Attack was made in the heat of anger, or in a
chance encounter
 Is there evident premeditation when he wanted to kill
President Roxas, threw a grenade but he ended up killing
someone else? (Error in personae) No, because he did not
intend to kill the other guy. (P v. Guillen)
o But if one decided to kill a class of persons (like
any Ilocano) or anybody he encounters, and he
does, then this AC applies.
 If in addition to the crime of robbery, the accused intended
to kill a person (robbery with homicide), evident
premeditation is aggravating.
o But if he had no plan to kill a person, but ends up
killing a person in the house who put up some
form of resistance, no evident premeditation. (P v
Curachia)
 Hiding things for one‟s escape under a tree does not prove
evident premeditation in the crime of murder and
kidnapping because of the possibility that the things could
have been used for something other than the murder or
kidnapping. (P v. Baldogo, where Court said that they could
have just hid the stuff to facilitate their escape from the
penal colony. It did not prove that they coolly thought of
murdering and kidnapping the victims.)
 Proof of conspiracy does not imply the existence of evident
premeditation.
o Evident premeditation can be presumed only
where conspiracy is directly established (pre-
arranged), not where, conspiracy is merely
implied (instant).
 If two or more persons conspire to
commit a crime, and they decide to
commit it, there may be evident
premeditation if the conspiracy allowed
the conspirators to ponder upon and
reflect on their decision to commit a
felony.
Craft, Fraud, Disguise
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed. 
 juridical existence.
 Craft: cunning or intellectual trickery or chicanery resorted
to by the accused to carry out his evil design
o Assuming position of authority to gain entry in a
house
 Fraud: deceit, manifested by insidious words or
machinations
 Disguise: resorted to conceal one‟s identity
o If disguise sucked and offender was still
recognized, cannot be aggravating
 These cannot be AC if did not facilitate the commission of
the crime, or not take advantage of by the offender in the
course of the assault
 If they were used to insure the commission of the crime
against persons without risk to offender, absorbed by
treachery (usually absorbed by treachery)
o But can be appreciated separately if based on
different facts.
 For example, guy pretends to hire a
jeep because he wants to rob it.
Jeepney driver gets loko. While on the
jeep, accused kills accused by hitting
him behind the head. SC considered
craft in the plan in the robbery scheme.
Treachery in the killing of the driver. (P
v San Pedro, 1980).
 Posing as customers of a restaurant, and the robbing it =
craft. (P v. Empacis)
 Aggravating in robbery with homicide.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
o Inducing a buyer of cows to a visit a pen of cows,
and then killing him = craft. Intellectual trickery.
(P v. Labaguen)
Abuse of superior strength or means taken to weaken the
defense
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be
employed to weaken the defense.
 Abuse of superior strength: where offenders intentionally
employ excessive force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the victim.
o Must be a notorious inequality of forces between
the victim and the aggressor. Consider the
relative strength versus the victim.
o Superiority in number does not necessarily mean
this AC will be appreciated
 Must still be proved that the attackers
cooperated in such a way as to secure
advantage from superiority of strength
 There must be proof of deliberate
intent to take advantage of superior
strength (P v Alarcon [three guys
raped a girl], but SC here did not
consider the AC because was not
alleged in the information of the two
other accused)
 Not appreciated when:
o Assault characterized with passion or obfuscation
o Made during a quarrel
o When the attack was made on the victim
alternately and not simultaneously
o Inherent in crime (parricide, rape by force)
 Generally accepted that the husband is
physically stronger than the wife (P v
Galapia, where horny husband couldn‟t
get some from his estranged wife, so
he killed her.)
 An attack made by an armed man upon a woman, who died
as a result, is murder because his sex and weapon gave
him superiority of strength. (P v Olivio, where an Igorot
woman was killed)
 Absorbs band
 Absorbed by treachery (P v. Demo, P v. Suyum [2 people
killed a guy with a bolo G.R. No. 137518, 2002])
o If an AC is absorbed by another, then it loses its
Treachery
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). 

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.
 Conditions:
o Employment of means, manner, method or
execution that would ensure the safety of the
offender from any defense or retaliation of the
offended party, and
o The means, manner, and form were consciously
and deliberately chosen.
 Shown through prior conduct,
motive/relationship of the parties, or
nature of the killing (dissent in People
v. Antonio)
 The attack must be intended to facilitate the perpetration of
the killing without risk to the offender from a defense that
the other party might offer.
 Essence: swiftness and the unexpectedness of the attack
o However, the suddenness of the attack must be
preconceived by the accused, unexpected by the
victim and without provocation on the part of the
latter.
o Mere suddenness does not by itself suggest
treachery. (P v. Antonio, when accused suddenly
shot victim after a game of pusoy-dos)
26
 am+dg
 That‟s why chance encounters, impulse
killings, or those preceded by heated
altercations are generally not attended
by treachery
 May treachery be considered in carnapping with killing of a
person? Before, no. (P v. Lovitania, because it‟s a crime
against property).
o Now, yes. Because of P v. Escote (hold-up in bus,
holduppers shot passenger-policeman with his
own gun).
 In this case, J Callejo, using Spanish
decisions, said that treachery is not an
element of robbery with homicide. It is
neither inherent in the said crime, and
thus should be considered as a generic
aggravating circumstance. The law
looks at the constituent crime of
homicide which is a crime against
persons, and not at the constituent
crime of robbery which is a crime
against property. Reason? When
robbery is coupled with crimes against
persons, the crime is not only an
assault of the property, but also of the
victims themselves.
 It is not qualifying because crime of
robbery with homicide is a unique
crime. There is no robbery with
murder. Homicide is used as a generic
term, even if the second component is
actually murder.
o This was reiterated in P v. Ancheta (GR 143935),
where the six accused robbed palay and then
murdered the victims using guns and a grenade.
(generic!)
 Can treachery be considered as qualifying in rape with
homicide (to make it rape with murder)?
o No. Homicide used in generic sense. Treachery
only considered as generic aggravating. No such
crime as rape with murder.
 Examples:
o Killing a guy who was drunk and sleeping. (P v.
Vallespin)
o The accused shooting the major as the former hid
in his house as the latter proceeded to effect a
warrant of arrest on him. (P v. Garcia)
o Victim hogtied before he was stabbed with
icepicks (P v. Ong, mahjong case, ala Chinese
mafia movie, yu don‟t want pay me mah maney,
ay kill u)
o Attacking an unconscious victim
o Victim a child of tender age
 May treachery be considered if the wrongful act done be
different from that intended by the offender?
o Yes. Treachery is present even if the victim killed
is different than the one intended to be killed. (P
v. Castillo, where the victim was killed because
he was wearing the target‟s shirt. Compare with
P v. Hilario, where the court said that evident
premeditation can not be appreciated)
 Does it have to be consummated to appreciate treachery?
o No. treachery doesn‟t depend on success. It can
be considered even if not consummated.
Sufficient that it tends to this end. (People v.
Abendan)
 No treachery if attack is an impulse, or due to passion, or
when accused did not do any preparations
 Treachery may be appreciated even when the victim is
warned of the danger to his person, for what is decisive is
that the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend
himself or retaliate
 The retaliation, if ever, must come from the victim, not
from anyone else
 In a continuous aggression, treachery must be shown
present at the inception of the attack, not in some
subsequent stage of the attack.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
o Treachery must be present and preceded the
commencement of the act which caused the
injury complained of
o After the commencement of such an attack, and
before its termination, an accused person may
have employed means or methods which were of
a treacherous character, and yet such would not
constitute treachery.
 One continuous attack cannot be
broken up into parts and made to
constitute separate, distinct attacks so
that that treachery may be injected
therein
 Seen in P v. Dela Cruz, where a
commotion occured before the
stabbing.
 Treachery may not be assumed from the mere fact that the
fatal wounds were found at the back of the deceased.
Treachery must be proven, and cannot be presumed.
 GR: Frontal attack, no treachery.
o EX: when attack is sudden and made in such a
manner that insures its execution free from
danger and without risk to oneself on account of
what the victim might make to defend himself (P
v. Base, where barangay captain was suddenly
shot in the head after opening the door of his
residence to the accused)
 Generic only for crimes other than killing.
o Special aggravating in serious physical injuries
because it increases the penalty.
o Generic in less serious physical injuries.
o Generic in parricide and infanticide. (?)
o Special qualifying in serious physical injuries.
(higher degree given!)
o Primordial qualifying circumstance: qualifies
homicide into murder.
o Special in the sense that applies only to crimes
against persons.
 Treachery absorbs:
o Nighttime
o Superior strength (P v Go-od, where victim was
ganged up by accused while looking for his goat)
o Evident premeditation.
o Superior strength
o Craft
o Band
 But can they be considered separately?
 Yes! If based on different
factual settings.
 For example, accused took
victim at night, walked all
night in the mountains, then
tied victim to the tree in
morning, and then killed
him. Consider night time and
treachery separately. (People
v Bernidad)
 Treachery inherent in murder by poisoning.
Ignominy
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which
add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
 Moral attribute, adds disgrace to the material injury caused
by the crime
 Relates to moral suffering (whereas cruelty refers to
physical suffering)
 Circumstance pertaining to a moral order which adds
disgrace to the material injury caused to the offended
party; makes crime more humiliating
 Victim must still be alive (P v. Fuertes, where accused
sliced off flesh of the victim after the death. But should
have been discussed in cruelty. But either way, won‟t be
appreciated, patay na eh)
o Same ruling in P v. Cachola, where victim‟s
privates were severed off after he was shot.
 Examples:
27
 am+dg
o Lighting a cigarette on the pubic area of an 8-
year old victim (P v. Valla)
o Raping doggy-style (People v Saylan, and in the
sick twisted case of P v Siao)
 Rape before father or spouse (this has
been amended by RA 8353, which
made it a special qualifying
circumstance, see discussion below)
 Forcing victim to exhibit herself in her
full nakedness before the rape
 Raping a preggy victim (this has also
been amended by RA 8353, which
made it a special qualifying
circumstance)
 Tying a banana fiber around his junk
before raping the victim (enumerated
in P v. Bacule, where sodomy, to
appreciate ignominy, was not proven
by the prosecution)
o Note: Glenn‟s notes state that Art 266-A has
changed the rulings of the doggy-style cases
from rape to sexual assault. However, sexual
assault talks of inserting one‟s penis into
another‟s mouth or anal orifice. In the two
doggy-style cases, the penis was inserted into
the vagina of the victims. Hence, it should still be
covered under rape, not sexual assault.
Unlawful entry/breaking of wall
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. 

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof,
floor, door, or window be broken.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor,
door, or window be broken.
 Qualifies theft into robbery
 Inherent in trespass and robbery with force upon things
 Par 18 will not apply when ingress is made by breaking; it
will go under Par 19.
Aid of minors/use of motor vehicles
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under
fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized
watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA
5438). 
 possession of firearms or ammunition or instruments used or
 Use of minor: minor is under 15 years old
o Conspiracy with minor? Minor exempt, adult
punished with AC.
 Use of motor vehicles: motor vehicles facilitated the
commission of the crime
o Using a get-away car in a bank robbery: no,
because crime already committed
Cruelty
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for
its commissions.
 Must be done while victim was alive and the offender
delighted in the suffering of the victim
o Offender enjoys and delights in making his victim
suffer slowly and gradually causing him
unnecessary physical pain in the consummation
of the criminal act
 Test: whether accused deliberately and sadistically
augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not
necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased the
victim‟s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or
corpse (P v. Sitchon, where bad common-law dad beat to
death his 2-year old son for spreading his poo around the
floor. The Court did not consider cruelty because no proof
that common-law dad enjoyed the beating)
 Multiple wounds not per se cruelty
 Chopping off head of victim – cruelty
 In robbery with homicide, can the extra (2nd or 3rd) killing
be counted as an aggravating circumstance analogous to
cruelty? (Keep in mind that there‟s no such thing as
robbery with multiple homicide/rape)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
o P v. Abdul (1999), robbery which resulted to 2
dead and 3 mortally wounded, Court said yes,
extra killings should be appreciated as an AC, to
avoid the anomalous situation where from the
standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery
with one killing would be on the same level as
robbery with multiple killings.
o P v. Regala (2000), robbery occasioned with 2
rapes, Court said no. Enumeration of Art 14
exclusive. Additional rapes absorbed by robbery
with rape. Remedy to the anomalous situation
lies with legislature. [en banc decision!]
o P v. De Jesus (2004), robbery with 2 dead (hold-
up cases, tapos P5000 lang nakuha), no,
additional killing not an aggravating
circumstance.
 Weird case: accused robbed victim,
raped her and then killed her. Court
convicted him of robbery with
homicide, and counted the rape as
ignominy. WRONG. Should not prevail
over P. v Regala. It was only a division
ruling.
Special Laws Relating to Aggravating Circumstances
Dangerous Drugs Act
Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission
of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs.
– Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a
positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an
offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the
Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.
 Qualifying aggravating.
 Used in P v. Belgar, rape of mental 12-year old mental
retardate
 Not used in P v. Sitchon, because prosecution used drugs
under intoxication. It was not considered.
 Teacher considered a person-in-authority under DDA
Illegal/Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Explosives
Section 1. Sec. 1 Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is
hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or
intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition.
— The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a
fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000) shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal
in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low powered firearm, such as
rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower,
part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used
or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or
ammunition: Provided, That no other crime was committed.
"The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine of
Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is
classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores
bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber
.40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered firearms but considered
powerful such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum
and other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by
burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other crime was
committed by the person arrested.
"If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
"If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d'etat.
"The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president,
manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or
private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or
knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company,
corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found
guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs or
willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms
or firearms without any legal authority to be carried outside of their
28
 am+dg
residence in the course of their employment.
"The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person
who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without
legal authority therefor."
Sec. 2. Sec. 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, is
hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 3. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition or
possession of explosives. — The penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period to reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire,
dispose or possess hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other
explosives, including but not limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail
bombs,' 'fire bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable of
producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing
injury or death to any person.
"When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised
Penal Code or special laws with the use of the aforementioned
explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices, which results
in the death of any person or persons, the use of such explosives,
detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
"If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or
attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or
attempted coup d'etat.
"The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president,
manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or
private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or
knowingly allow any of the explosives owned by such firm,
company, corporation or entity, to be used by any person or
persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding
paragraphs."
 What happens?
Unlicensed Firearms
Homicide or murder Special AC
Political crimes Absorbed
Used in other crime Not AC, not even separate
offense
 For unlicensed explosives, becomes a special AC only
when:
o Used to commit ANY crime (RPC or SPL), and
o Someone dies.
 What if no one dies?
 Mickey Note: This was the
ruling before RA 9516. Now,
RA 9516 has removed any
mentioned of explosives
being absorbed by political
crimes or being aggravating
only when death arises.
 Intent to possess firearm essential (P. v Dela Rosa)
o Temporary possession not covered.
o So if you grabbed the gun from an assailant to
protect yourself, you‟re not guilty of illegal
possession.
 In P v. Comadre, the Court said that 8294 amended Art 14
(12) by adding the use of unlicensed explosives as an
aggravating circumstance.
o Dissent: Absurd. If illegally possessed, only
aggravating. But if legally possessed, qualified to
murder.
 Use of an unlicensed explosives is
aggravating, because it says any crime
in the RPC. So that should include
murder, it shouldn‟t be qualifying.
 Take note that if unlicensed firearm is used to commit
murder or homicide, it is merely an aggravating
circumstance.
o The murder or homicide must be consummated.
If crime merely attempted or frustrated, this AC
does not apply.
o Take note of the phrase “that no other crime was
committed.” This means that if an unlicensed
firearm is used in the commission of any crime
(not murder or homicide since it has its own
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
paragraph), there can be no separate offense of
simple illegal possession of firearms.
 Hence, if the crime was direct assault
and multiple attempted homicide, the
accused can no longer be charged with
the separate offense of illegal
possession of firearms, even if its
penalty is heavier than direct assault.
(P v Ladjaalam)
 Nor can use of an unlicensed firearm
be used as an AC against him (since it
only pertains to murder and homicide).
But the use of arms can be used
against him  homicide with use of
weapon. (P v Ladjaalam)
 Moreover, an accused may evade
conviction for illegal possession by
using such weapons in committing an
even lighter offense, like alarm and
scandal or slight physical injuries.
Remedy is with Congress.
o Note that the person must first be convicted for
that other crime, before this anomaly in the law
can be used by the accused.
o “Murder or homicide” includes parricide or
infanticide. (P v. Mendoza, where husband shot
wife. But can be argued that the broad
interpretation is wrong. Interpretation of doubts
must be always for the accused.)
 It is a special AC, not merely generic. Can‟t be offset.(P v.
de Leon, P. v Palaganas)
 What if robbery with homicide? The use of illegal firearms is
not an AC. Only considered if murder or homicide. That‟s it.
(P v. Sabadao)
o But in People v. Abdul (2000), the SC 1st division
affirmed the RTC ruling which considered it as an
AC. This is wrong.
o In People v. Domacyong (2003), the SC ruled
that that the AC of illegal possession can be
considered in robbery with homicide. This is
wrong. (The Court was right though for acquitting
them of the separate charge of illegal possession)
 Security agency has license to possess firearm, guard does
not. Guard uses gun to commit murder. AC? Yes, guard has
no license to possess that firearm, only the employer.
(Catalina v Decano, “Pursuant to Section 1 in relation to
Section 5, the firearm used in an unauthorized manner
shall be considered an aggravating circumstance. We are in
agreement that even if the firearm used was properly
licensed to the security agency, its unauthorized use by the
appellant aggravated his offense.”)
o Compare to Cuenca v People (1970), where
security guard was charged for illegal possession.
He did not know that agency did not have the
proper license. He was acquitted.
 Does the firearm have to be presented during trial?
o No! The corpus delicti is the possession of the
firearm. Not the firearm. You just have to prove
possession without license. You can do this
through a certification from the PNP that accused
did not have a license.
 Are paltiks covered? Yes.
 You have a license, but no permit to bring it out of your
house, and then you bring it out. What happens? Liable ka
boy. (Pastrano v CA)
 Accused in possession of two guns, one high-powered and
the other low-powered. Can he be charged for 2 crimes?
Yes! Different penalty for high-powered and low-powered
eh!
o What if he has 3 high-powered guns, can he be
charge for 3 crimes? No, just 1 crime. Since it
only has one penalty!
 Gun ban during election, right? Accused brings out his
unlicensed firearm. Solve.
o Not AC (not murder or homicide) and not even
considered separate (used in other crime eh!)
o Guilty of violating the gun ban.
29
 am+dg

 Ascendant
Anti-Rape Law  Descendant
Article 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next  Legit, natural or adopted Brother or
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Sistah
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon  Relative by affinity in the same degrees
or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua  Stepparents and stepchildren
to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason included by analogy
or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua o But the step
to death. spouse and the
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is parent of the child
committed, the penalty shall be death. must be legally
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
married.
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:  Do they
When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the always
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by have to
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the be
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
 
 married
When the victim is under the custody of the police or military
for
authorities or any law enforcement or penal institution;
 

When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any relations
of the children or relatives within the third civil degree of hip to be
consanguinity;
 
 consider
When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious ed
vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the aggravat
offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;
 

ing?
When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
 

When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-  N
Deficiency Virus (HIV) Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome o
(AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or .
disease is transmitted to the victim;
 

When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the S
Philippines of para-military units thereof or the Philippine National
e
Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when
the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the e
commission of the crime;
 

When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at 2
the time of the commission of the crime; and
 
 6
When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional 6
disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time
-
of the commission of crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be B
punished by prison mayor. ,
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon
or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to w
reclusion temporal. h
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has
e
become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua. r
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is e
committed , the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the rape is committed e
with any of the ten aggravating/qualifying circumstances v
mentioned in this article. e
 RA 8353 is found in Art 266-B of the RPC. Crime of simple n
rape becomes qualified, becomes RP to death.
 Did RA 8353 amend Art 14? t
o In sense, RA 8353 amended Art 14. h
o In 266-B, the use of a deadly weapon to commit e
rape is a special qualifying circumstance. It is not
anymore an AC under Art 14, but is under 266-B. c
o
Alternative Circumstances m
Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which m
must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating o
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship,
n
intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the -
offender. l
a
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into w
consideration when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
s
relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
p
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as o
a mitigating circumstances when the offender has committed a u
felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or s
subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the e
intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
i
 Always generic
s
 Denominated as AC or MC, as the case may be
 Relationship
i
o Exclusively: (SADBRoSA)
n
 Spouse

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

30
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

c o GR: in crimes against chastity, relationship

l AGGRAVATING, whether the offender is a higher
u or a lower degree relative of the offended party.
d  What about rape, since it‟s now crime
e against persons?
d  Since Art 15 does not say
. when relationship is an AC
and when it‟s an MC, and
H rape was punishable by
o death, relationship should
w not be deemed an AC. In
e case of doubt, you must
v favor the accused, hence, it
e should not be considered an
r AC. (discussion academic
, since no more death penalty
and because of 266-B)
t o But see Art 266-B
h which now makes
i relationship in rape
s cases a special
qualifying
i circumstance.
s  However, for civil liability,
consider it as an AC.
c o GR: in crimes against persons, relationship
o AGGRAVATING.
n  In sexual assault, relationship
s aggravating. (People v Abello, 2009)
i  But see People v Velarde (36 Phil 991),
d where dude struck his brother in law.
e Court considered it mitigating since it
r was for a laudible purpose.
e (exceptional case!)
d o In crimes against property, it depends.
 If robbery with homicide, aggravating.
a (P v. Larosa)
 If theft, estafa, malicious mischief,
s exempting because of Art 332.
p o In Child Abuse cases, relationship
e AGGRAVATING, because of Sec 31 (c) of RA
c 7610.30
i o When does relationship become exempting?
a  Art 20 (accessories exempted)
l  Art 247 (legally married spouse
catching spouse having sex with
q another)
u  Art 332 (theft, swindling, or malicious
a mischief by relatives, see codal)
l  Sec 6, RA 9372 (relatives who are
i accessories in the Human Securities
f Act except those who profited)31
y
i
n 30 The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum
g period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent guardian, stepparent
or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or
c affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment which has no
i license to operate or its license has expired or has been revoked
r 31 Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime
c
of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having
u
m
participated therein, either as principal or accomplice under Articles 17
s and 18 of the Revised Penal Code, takes part subsequent to its
t commission in any of the following manner: (a) by profiting himself or
a assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (b) by
n concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or
c instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; (c) by harboring,
e concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal or conspirator of
. the crime, shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to
 Uncles and nieces: NO. twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
 No other relatives by Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the penalties prescribed for
consanguinity included. accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect
(hence first cousins not
to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and
included)
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of subparagraph (a).

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

31
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
 What about if theft with falsification?
ABANGAN!
o When should relationship not be considered?
 If inherent in the crime. Like parricide.
 Intoxication
o To be mitigating:
 Actually intoxicated/drunk (self-control
diminished), and
 Not a habitual drinker and did not take
the alcoholic drink with the intention to
reinforce his resolve to commit the
crime
o To be aggravating:
 Habitual drunk
 Drank to strengthen resolve
o What about in VAWC (Art 9262), can you use
intoxication as a defense?
 Hell no.32 But can you use it as
mitigating? Dandandan!
 Degree of instruction or education
o If crime is basically wrong, like parricide, robbery
or rape, it is immaterial whether the offender is
schooled or not. It‟s not mitigating.
 But see People v Limaco (83 Phil 85)
where dude butchered his kids and he
only finished grade 1. Court considered
mitigating.
 Also People v. Ramos where robbers
killed a 96 year old man. Court
considered lack of education
mitigating. Both are unusual cases.
o It is not illiteracy alone but the lack of
intelligence of the offender that is considered.
o The high degree of learning should be taken in
relation to the crime committed whether his
education puts him into a better position than the
ordinary offenders.
 Like estafa or malversation committed
by a lawyer should be considered
aggravating.
 Slander by a medical student? AC
according to P. v. Roque (40 OG 1710).
Don‟t know how the crime committed
put him in a better position to commit
the slander though.
 High degree of instruction
was considered AC when a
judge was smoking opium.
Again, don‟t know how that
put him in a better position.
(P v. Gabud, old case!)
 But if a lawyer punches an annoying
person, high degree of learning should
not be considered aggravating. Walang
kinalaman eh.
o High degree of learning should also not be
considered aggravating for abortion practiced by
a physician or midwife, since their skills are
already inherent in that crime.
o GR: Low degree of learning may be mitigating,
never aggravating.
o GR: High degree of learning may be aggravating,
never mitigating.
Title Two
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally
liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.

 3. Accessories.
32 SECTION 27. Prohibited Defense. – Being under the influence of
alcohol, any illicit drug, or any other mind-altering substance shall not
be a defense under this Act.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals 2. Accomplices.
 For light felonies, accessories are not liable because the
light felonies are punished with arresto menor. Accessories
are given the penalty two degrees lower than the
principals. There is nothing two degrees below arresto
menor.
Special stuff for special students
 First off, may a private corporation, partnership or
association or other juridical entity be criminally liable?
o Yes, if the law provides a penalty for the
corporation. Or even if the crime is committed by
a corporation, but prescribes a penalty on the
officers or directors or employees. The state is
not prevented from penalizing a corporation for
violation of a penal law, even if the crime is
committed by its agents. (P. v Chow Duri and
Ching v Sec of Justice)
o Principle applied in the Trust Receipts Law, and
the Labor Code (where the license of one found
to be an illegal recruiter can be revoked).
o Also applied in the Dangerous Drugs Act (Sec
30). Officers liable.33
 What about in the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 8049), what are the
rules?
o Principals:
 Those who actually participated in the
hazing
 Parent of a frat/sorority member who
owned the place where the hazing
occurred, knew of it but still did not do
anything to stop it
 Officers, former officers, alumni who
planned it, even if they weren‟t there
 Frat/sorority advisor who was present
but didn‟t stop it
 Anyone there who did not prevent it
o Accessory
 Owner of the place where the hazing
occurred and who knew of the hazing
and did not stop it
 School authorities who actually knew
and consented to it
 Is there command-responsibility in Philippine Law?
o GR: No.
 EXCEPT: in the Genocide Law (RA
9851), the superiors are liable for the
acts of their subordinates. 34 Keep in
mind that this only applies to RA 9851.
33
Section 30. Criminal Liability of Officers of Partnerships,
Corporations, Associations or Other Juridical Entities. – In case any
violation of this Act is committed by a partnership, corporation,
association or any juridical entity, the partner, president, director,
manager, trustee, estate administrator, or officer who consents to or
knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as a
co-principal.
The penalty provided for the offense under this Act shall be imposed
upon the partner, president, director, manager, trustee, estate
administrator, or officer who knowingly authorizes, tolerates or
consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment or other
facility, as an instrument in the importation, sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, transportation or
manufacture of dangerous drugs, or chemical diversion, if such vehicle,
vessel, aircraft, equipment or other instrument is owned by or under the
control or supervision of the partnership, corporation, association or
juridical entity to which they are affiliated.
34 Section 10. Responsibility of Superiors. - In addition to other
grounds of criminal responsibility for crimes defined and penalized
under this Act, a superior shall be criminally responsible as a principal
for such crimes committed by subordinates under his/her effective
command and control, or effective authority and control as the case
may be, as a result of his/her failure to properly exercise control over
such subordinates, where:
32
 am+dg

 Also in the Anti-Torture Act. See Sec  Active participation (dude

13. shot the other guy),
 In the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, senior officers who give  Moral assistance to the other
orders to their minions to torture people are liable as conspirators (other dudes
principals.35 cheered him on). Also, moral
support or exercising moral
Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals: ascendancy.
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; o But keep in mind
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; 

that mere
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been accomplished.
presence doesn‟t
make him PDP
 Direct participation (PDP)
unless he gave
o Those who materially execute the crime
moral assistance
o Those who carried out the plan and directly
or exercised moral
participated in the execution of the crime
ascendancy. (P. v.
o Usually, there‟s consiparcy.
Flores)
 But can there be PDP without
 Can someone not be in the scene of
conspiracy?
the crime and still be a principal?
 Yes! Two guys, who don‟t
 Opowz koyah/ateh.
know each other, get pissed
 The general rule is that the
at some dude at a bar. They
PDP must be at the place of
shot him at the same time.
the commission of the crime.
Nagkataon lang. Both are
However, the law does not
liable as PDP. (P. v.
require that PDP is there in
Figueroa)
the scene of the crime (locus
 What about the mastermind, does he
ciminis).
have to commit an overt act in the
 For as long as the
execution of the planned conspiracy?
conspirators perform specific
 No. enough to be held as co-
acts that were coordinated
principal through conspiracy,
pursuant to the conspiracy,
as long as there is
they are all principals. Even
involvement in the planning
if their acts are performed in
and commission.
different places.
 What do you mean by an overt act, or
 Masterminds are principals
an act which materially executes the
even if they‟re not actually
crime?
there. Look-outs who are
conspirators are also
principals are also principals
even if they just stand
(a) That superior either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the outside the scene of the
time, should have known that the subordinates were committing or crime.
about to commit such crimes;  Must conspirator know every single
(b) That superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures detail of the crime?
within his/her power to prevent or repress their commission or to  No. As long as he knows his
submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and role. (P. v. Masagnay)
prosecution.  Three guys killed a victim by all
stabbing him. Is it a complex crime?
 No. Only one crime of
35 Section 13. Who are Criminally Liable. - Any person who actually
homicide. Number of crimes
participated Or induced another in the commission of torture or other committed is not dependent
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment or who on the number of
cooperated in the execution of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman conspirators, but on number
and degrading treatment or punishment by previous or simultaneous of victims. (P. v. Verayon)
acts shall be liable as principal  Rape committed by 2 or more persons,
Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior what happens?
government official who issued an order to any lower ranking  Qualifying circumstance. If
personnel to commit torture for whatever purpose shall be held equally husband rapes the victim,
liable as principals. while sick wife holds the
The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP victim‟s arms, husband PDP,
or the immediate senior public official of the PNP and other law wife PIC. (P. v. Hofilenia)
 Is it possible that 2 persons are
enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal to the crime of
conspirators but are liable for different
torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment or crimes? i.e. same over act, but
punishment for any act or omission, or negligence committed by different liabilities.
him/her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether  Yes.
directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by his/her subordinates. If o Private individual
he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, liable for delivery
should have known that acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman and of prisoner, while
degrading treatment or punishment shall be committed, is being escapee liable for
committed, or has been committed by his/her subordinates or by others evasion of
within his/her area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did sentence.
not take preventive or corrective action either before, during or o Husband and
immediately after its commission, when he/she has the authority to friend killed wife.
Husband parricide.
prevent or investigate allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
Friend homicide.
degrading treatment or punishment but failed to prevent or investigate  Can a private person be liable for
allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall malversation?
also be liable as principals.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

33
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

 Yes. By conspiring with a  By directly forcing another to commit a

public official. crime
 Review of conspiracy doctrines for  Though irresistible force or
complex crimes. causing uncontrollable fear
 GR: in robbery with  By directly inducing another to commit
homicide, when persons a crime
conspire to commit robbery,  By giving a price, offering a
they expect that it can be reward or promise
attended by violence.  By using words of command
o EX: one desisted o Requisites:
before the  Inducement be made directly with the
homicide was intention of procuring the commission
committed. (P. v. of the crime, and
Napalit). Hence,  Inducement be the determining cause
it‟s possible that of the commission othe crime by the
one is liable for material execution.
robbery only, while o As to the first requisite, the PDI must intend that
the others are his inducement should be obeyed. Mere careless
liable for robbery comment made by one who does not possess
with homicide. dominance or moral ascendancy over the
 Same rule with robbery with offender will not make the former a PDI. The one
rape. All are liable for who made the careless comment is not even
robbery with rape, even criminally liable. Masama bang magcomment?
those who didn‟t put their o It is essential that the inducement must be the
peepees in the victim‟s sole cause that the crime was committed.
vajayjays. (P v Verseles, P v  A offered B P50 to kill C. B accepted it,
Punsalan) but in truth, he had been wanting to
o EX: those who kill C ever since. B killed C. B was not
endeavored to paid. Is A a PDI?
prevent the rape  No. A‟s offer was not the
by overt acts will determining cause. B had
not be liable for two motives – money and
the rape, just revenge. Inducement must
robbery. be the sole cause. (P. v.
 Mere Laohas)
silence is  If PDP does it for his own
not reason, PDI not liable.
enough, o What if the PDP is not paid by the PDI after the
nor is inducement? What if PDI reneged on his
running promise?
away.  Doesn‟t matter, as long as he was
 But induced in the first place.
totally o Remember price, reward or promise? It‟s a
different qualifying circumstance in murder. It‟s imputed
when both on the PDI and the PDP.
they o The use or words must have actually moved the
robbed, hands of the PDP, such that the PDP has no other
went on recourse but to obey the command. PDI must
their have moral dominance over the PDP.
merry  Moral ascendancy, however, is not
way, but enough. (P v. Dumanacas 320 SCRA
horny 600).
robber o Does PDI have to be in the scene of the crime to
went be liable?
back to  No. they are liable even if they did not
rape the appear in the scene. The reason they
victim. induce people to do their dirty work is
Only so that they don‟t have to be there in
horny the first place.
robber o Can the PDP be exempt, while the PDI/PIC still
guilty of held liable?
robbery  Yes! Under Article 332. (P v Po, PDP
with exempt, PIC liable.)
rape.  Also when a guy lies about this details
(gulo ng to a clerk to get his residence permit.
crim Clerk is not liable because he was in
putek.) good faith, but liar liable as a PDI.
o May one be a PDP on the basis of a presumption?  Also when the PDP can make use of
 Yes. One caught in possession of exempting circumstances. (bad dude
recently stolen property is presumed to induces 8-year old kid to do some
be author of the theft or robbery. crime.)
 Direct Inducement (PDI) o How does error in personae affect the PDI?
o Difference between PDP and PDI: in the former,  A induced B to kill C. B killed D by
the PDP does an overt act. In PDI, the PDI mistake.
induces, doesn‟t really do the overt act.  A not PDI in the killing of D.
o Two ways of becoming a PDI: B is PDP for death of D.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

34
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
 Crime committed must be
the crime A induced B to do.
o How does Art 4 affect the PDI?
 A told B to punch C in the back. C dies.
 A is PDI in the death of C.
Article 4 applies.
o Can love be used to induce?
 Yes. A has a paramour B, who loved C.
A told D to kill B with the promise that
if he does, “ako ay sa iyo na, buong
buo.” D killed B. A is PDI. (P v Ramos,
91 Phil 678).36
 What if A does not give
herself buong buo to D?
 Indispensable cooperation (PIC)
o Difference from PDP: PIC‟s act is different from
the overt act of the PDP
o Direct participation in the criminal design by
another act which the crime could not have been
committed.
o The PIC need not be a party in the planning stage
of a conspiracy for he may become a principal at
the moment of the execution of the crime with
the other principals, if his act was indispensable
to the crime.
 Hence, even if he wasn‟t there while
the others were planning, if his act
showed that it was indispensable to the
criminal design of the PDPs, he will be
liable as a PDI.
o Does the PIC have to be in the scene of the
crime?
 No.
 A, who lives in the US, gives B poison
to kill C. B used the poison to kill C
here in the Philippines. A is PIC. B is
PDP.
o Can a PIC commit a crime different from the
PDP?
 Yes. Malversation through falsification
of public documents committed by a
public offier in conspiracy with a
private individual. Private individual
may be liable for malversation. (P v.
Sandaydiego).
 Husband gives poison to friend to kill
wife. Friend homicide. Husband
parricide.
o Can the PDP be liable by dolo, yet the PIC by
culpa?
 Yes. (Andan v People, People v
Samson, People v Magsuci)
 A made check payable to “X.” A went
to the drawee bank, talked to
employee B, and convinced B that she
was “X.” B allowed without verifying
the identity. A got to encash the check.
 A liable for dolo. B by culpa.
A would not have been able
to achieve his criminal
scheme were it not for B‟s
negligence.
 A convinced B to give him a check
worth P500. B gave it to him, telling
him that he didn‟t have any money it
that account. A said, “ako bahala sa iyo
pre.” A negotiated the check to C for
P1m. Both are liable for estafa. A as
PDP. B as PIC, even if he was only
negligent.
36 "Ahas na kung ahas, mali na rin kung mali. Pero sinunod ko lang
ang puso ko. Mali ba un?" - Angelu de Leon, Wala Na Bang Pag-ibig?
(1997) @PinoyMovieQuotes
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not
being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts.
 An accomplice is one who:
o Not being a principal
o Cooperates in the execution of the offense by
previous or simultaneous acts
o Role in perpetration of the crime is of a minor
character
 To be an accomplice:
o Offender should take part in the execution of the
crime by previous or simultaneous acts, and
o Intends to take part in the commission of the
crime
 Conspiracy not needed for he is not a principal but he
supplies material or moral aid to the principal in an
efficacious way
o If there‟s conspiracy, he becomes a principal
 His cooperation is not indispensable to the commission of
the crime
o His prior or simultaneous acts not indispensable
for commission of crime, not over acts for
commission
 An accomplice agrees to contribute or to assist. His acts
must have a relation to the crime of the principal.
o A killed B. C was the lookout. But while B was
being stabbed by A, C stole from B. What‟s the
liability of C?
 Accomplice to the murder of B.
 Principal of the robbery of B.
o A and B agreed to rob C. B killed C. Liabilities?
 A – robbery with homicide.
 B – robbery with homicide.
 When does the accomplice acquire knowledge of the
commission of the crime by the PDP?
o Accomplices come to know of the criminal
resolution of the principals after the latter have
reached a decision to commit a crime. The
accomplice does not decide the commission of a
crime. The accomplice just agrees after the
criminal resolution is accomplished, he does not
conspire. But if the accomplice commits an act of
execution, he becomes a PDP.
As to… Principals Accomplices
Inducement Without such Inducement or
inducement, crime utterance is not
would not be indispensable; with
committed or without such, the
crime would still be
committed (since
principal already
determined to
commit the crime)
Cooperation Indispensable Minor
When acts are Both act before or during the commission
committed of the crime
Conspiracy Decide that the Merely concur it in
crime should be and cooperate in the
committed accomplishment
Authors of the Mere instruments
crime who perform acts
not essential to the
perpetration
 Mere knowledge and participation therefore do not suffice
to make one a conspirator, for such are elements also of an
accomplice, especially if even without his participation (like
a look-out), the crime could have been accomplished.
 However, where the acts of the accused show that he
shared in the community of purpose with the principals and
their acts collectively demonstrate the existence of a
common design, conspiracy becomes evident and all will be
liable as principals.
 Principals and accomplices both know and agree with the
criminal design. They have that in common.
35
 am+dg

o Difference lies in the fact that conspirators know  Are there accomplices in bigamy?
the criminal intention because they themselves o A, a married man, marries B who knew of A‟s
have decided to commit the crime; accomplices subsisting marriage.
just come to know about it after.  One case (P v. Arcilla) said A is a PDP,
 May one be charged and convicted as accomplice/accessory while B is an accomplice.
even before the principal is charged or convicted? Should  Another case (P v. Nepomuceno) said A
the PDP first be convicted before the accomplice/accessory is a PDP, while B is a PIC.
be charged or convicted?
o As long as the commission of the crime is proven
beyond reasonable doubt, determination of Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having
criminal responsibility of accessory/accomplice knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having
may be determined independently of and participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
separately from liability of PDP. (P v. Rafael)
 But if the case is dismissed against the 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the
PDP, the case against the effects of the crime.
accessory/accomplice must also be 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects
dismissed because the liability of the or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
accomplice/accessory is subordinate to 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of
that of the PDP. The
his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
accomplice/accessory is like a shadow treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
that follows the PDP and not the other Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other
way around. (PCGG v Desierto) crime.
 BUT if the PDP is exempted  Accessories are those who:
from the crime, it does not o Have knowledge of the commission of the crime
follow that the o Without having participated therein
accomplice/accessory is o Take part subsequent to its commission in any of
exempted, or that the case the following manners:
against the  Profiting or assisting the offender to
accomplice/accessory should profit from the effects of the crime
be dismissed as well.  Concealing the body of the crime or
 AND dismissal of the case effects or the instruments thereof to
against the prevent its discovery
accomplice/accessory does  Harboring, concealing or assisting the
not result to the dismissal of escape of the principal (see two kinds
the case against the PDP. below)
o PDP acquitted because crime was not committed  By a public officer who acts
at all. What happens to accomplice/accessory? with abuse of public
 They can‟t be charged. Crime was not functions, he is liable
committed. whatever crime may have
o PDP is dead. Can accomplice/accessory still be been committed by the
charged? offender
 Yes, they can still be prosecuted.  By a private individual and
 In PD 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law), only when the author of the
anyone who aids or abets piracy or robbery in the highway crime is guilty of treason,
is considered an accomplice, not an accessory. 37 attempt on the life of the
 In Human Securities Act (RA 9372), an accomplice basically Chief Exec, murder, parricide
follows the same definition of the RPC. 38 or is known to be habitually
 In the Genocide Law (RA 9851), an accomplice is one who guilty of some other crime
facilitates the commission of the crime. 39 o So a private
 In the Anti-Torture Act (RA 9745), there is no definition of individual will only
an accomplice. (So I guess follow the RPC definition? Since be liable as an
suppletory?) accessory for
harboring the
escape of the
37 Section 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting offender for those
piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. Any person who knowingly and crimes
in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway robbers/brigands, enumerated.
such as giving them information about the movement of police or other Compare this to
peace officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken the public officer
by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives any benefit who is guilty for
therefrom; or any person who directly or indirectly abets the whatever crime.
o Take note that in
commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage, shall be
the second
considered as an accomplice of the principal offenders and be punished
instance, the
in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. principal must
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the acts provided have been
in this Section has performed knowingly, unless the contrary is proven. adjudged guilty.
38 Section 5. Any person who, not being a principal under Article 17 of  Profiting or assisting the offender to profit
the Revised Penal Code or a conspirator as defined in Section 4 hereof, o Intent to gain not enough, there must have been
cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or some gain or material benefit.
conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts shall o A person who received any property from another
suffer the penalty of from seventeen (17) years, four (4) months one and used it, knowing the property was stolen, is
day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment. guilty as an accessory by profiting.
39 Section 8 (b) A person shall be criminally liable as accomplice for
facilitating the commission of a crime defined and penalized in this Act
if he/she aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or attempted
commission, including providing the means for its commission.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

36
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

o If the crime is robbery/theft and one bought, Acts Provides material or Acts in the 3 ways
sold, possessed, or profited from the goods moral aid in an in Art 19
stolen, what is he guilty of? efficacious way but
 Principal for crime of fencing. 40 (SPL) not in a manner
 Accessory to the principals in the crime indispensable to the
of robbery or theft. offense
 Prosecution has option of Liability No exemption Exempted under
choosing what to charge. Art 20 and for light
o One who receives part of the ransom/loot from felonies (Art 16)
kidnapper/robbery with homicide is an accessory Penalty 1 degree lower than 2 degrees lower
to the crime of kidnapping/robbery with principal‟s than principals‟
homicide.
 Concealing the body of the crime/effects/instruments
thereof to prevent its discovery Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. — The
o Body of the crime/corpus delicti is the substance penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon
of the crime. The fact that a crime has actually those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
been committed. Made up of 2 things: descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters,
 Existence of a certain act or result or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph
forming the basis of the criminal
1 of the next preceding article.
charge, (criminal event) and
 Who are exempt? (SADBroSA)
 Existence of a criminal agency as the
o Spouse
cause of this act or result. (criminal
o Ascendant
responsibility)
o Descendant
 Harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
principal o Legitimate, natural, and adopted bros and sis
o Relatives by affinity within the same degrees
o See notes above
 Why? Natural affection for the offender.
o The offender to be assisted must be the principal.
 Exempt for acts in art 19 EXCEPT if they profit or assist the
No assisting of an accomplice.
offender to profit (because no longer natural affection, but
o Accused policemen witnessed the killing of the
because of greed).
victim by co-accused. Policeman failed to arrest
culprit and even told co-accused not to tell the  A killed B, told sister C to hide body of B. A and C buried B.
SC: Sister exempt. Got to preserve the cleanliness of one‟s
other policeman. Was policeman an accessory?
name. it compels one to conceal crimes by relatives.
Damn right he was, under 3rd paragraph. It was
o Justice Callejo: I don‟t agree with that shiznit.
his duty to arrest culprit and not to conceal
 What if policeman furnishes means for his brother to
commission of crime by silence or misleading
escape with abuse of public position? Is the policeman
authorities that accused was really culprit. By his
acts, he abused his public position. (P v. Antonio, exempt?
o Pacheco: Yes, ties of blood constitute a more
July 2000)
o Policeman helps Leviste (serving time for powerful incentive than call of duty (modern
warfare).
murder) escape. Liabilities?
o Law does not distinguish between private
 Policeman principal for infidelity.
individuals and public officers either.
 Leviste principal for evasion of
o Justice Callejo: I agree with that shiznit.
sentence.
 Is the policeman accessory to murder
 Does the pari delicto rule apply in criminal cases?
or evasion?
o No. if two people agree to fight, and one gets
 Justice Callejo: evasion!
o But isn‟t the beaten up. He can sue the other for physical
injuries.
policeman a PDP or
PIC? Leviste  Does estoppel apply?
o No. Estoppel does not apply against the State.
couldn‟t have
escaped were it
Penalties
not for the actions
Title Three
of the policeman.
(ewan.) PENALTIES
 Boado: those who assist the
principal to escape maybe Chapter One
prosecuted under PD 1829 PENALTIES IN GENERAL
on obstruction of justice not
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be
as accessory but as a punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
principal, provided that a commission.
separate information shall be  Only penalties prescribed by law prior to its commission can
prepared for the crime of be imposed on the offender.
obstruction.  No imprisonment at the discretion of the court. There must
be limits imposed by law.
Accomplice Accessory  In BP22 and libel, the SC issued admin orders giving
Participation Before or during the Subsequent to the preference to fine over imprisonment. This doesn‟t mean
commission of the commission of the that the SC abolished imprisonment.
offense offense  The favorable judgment by the appellate court on an
Knowledge Knows the criminal Knows the accused will be applied to his co-accused if it is favorable
design of the commission of the and applicable to the latter.
principal offense  Court can impose either fine or imprisonment. But it can
never imposed “fine and/or imprisonment.” Accused can‟t
choose how he wants to serve his sentence.
40 Elements of Fencing: robbery or theft committed, accused does not
participate in the robbery or theft, accused acquires proceeds of robbery Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a
or theft, has actual knowledge or should have known subject is from retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule
robbery or theft, intent to acquire.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

37
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication Capital punishment:
of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict Death.
is serving the same. Afflictive penalties:
 RA 9346 which prevents the imposition of the death penalty Reclusion perpetua, 
 Reclusion temporal, 
 Perpetual or temporary
absolute disqualification, 
 Perpetual or temporary special
could be apply retroactively because it favors the accused.
disqualification, 
 Prision mayor.
o Even if no more death penalty, the classification Correctional penalties:
of heinous crimes still remains because of the Prision correccional, 
 Arresto mayor, 
 Suspension, 
 Destierro.
possibility that it will once again be revived. Light penalties:
Moreover, civil liability is still dependent on the Arresto menor, 
 Public censure.
nature of heinous crimes. (P v Bon) Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
Fine, and 
 Bond to keep the peace.
o Even if the offender is a habitual delinquent, RA
Accessory Penalties
9346 will still benefit him. Congress intended it to Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, 
 Perpetual or
benefit even the habitual delinquent. temporary special disqualification, 
 Suspension from public office,
 This article applies equally to the RPC and to SPLs. the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling. 
 Civil
o See Juvenile Justice Act (RA 9344) which was interdiction, 
 Indemnification, 
 Forfeiture or confiscation of
applied retroactively to kids who were below 18 instruments and proceeds of the offense, 
 Payment of costs.
at the commission of the crime  General characteristics of penalties in the RPC:
o Sir also mentioned VAWC (RA 9262), I don‟t o Graduated according to ceverity
know why. o Divided into periods (except RP)
 Court can apply even if not invoked by the accused. o Classified into principal or accessory
 What is the effect of an absolute repeal of penal laws? o Deemed imposed for consummated crimes
o Extinguishes liability of accused, EXCEPT o Imposed against the principal offenders
 Saving clause in the repealing statute o Max imposable for the particular crime to which
 When repealing statute re-enacts the they are respectively prescribed
former statute and punishes the act o Understood to be a degree for purposes of
previously penalized under the old law lowering the penalty under the ISL, privileged
 What if implied repeal or repeal by re-enactment? mitigating, and for applying Art 50-57
o The first law will govern if the accused is a  Death penalty
habitual delinquent or the favorable second law o Can no longer be imposed, but RA 9346 did not
prohibits retroactivity. abolish it since the Constitution allows it to be
o While the second law will govern if favorable to imposed in heinous crimes
the offender who is not a habitual delinquent or  Reclusion perpetua
the law is silent as to its retroactivity. o Court should use proper RPC nomenclature
o Indivisible penalty (RP, Perpetual absolute or
Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the special DQ, public censure)
offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as  Not affected by mitigating or
provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to aggravating circumstances
the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express  Impose penalty in its entirety, even if
waiver. there is special aggravating or two
 Amended by RA 8353 mitigating, it will not be affected
 See Art 89  But if PRIVILEGED
mitigating, it may be reduced
Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered by 1 or 2 degrees
penalties. — The following shall not be considered as penalties: o After imprisonment of 30 years, eligible for
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well
pardon.
as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness
requiring their confinement in a hospital.  Court may not impose “30 years of
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned RP”, they should just impose RP. There
in Article 80 and for the purposes specified therein. (repealed! See Art 30 years doesn‟t refer to the duration
9344) of RP, but to the eligibility of parole

 3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the and for purposes of computing the 3-
trial or in order to institute proceedings. 

4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of
fold rule.
their administrative disciplinary powers, superior officials may o Different from life imprisonment
impose upon their subordinates.  Except in PD 818 Syndicated Estafa:

 5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws max of 30 years, with accessory
may establish in penal form. penalties provided by RP for 30 years
 Not imposed after trial but mere preventive measures Life Imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua
 Paragraph 2 has been repealed by the Juvenile Justice Act. SPL RPC
Not a penalty but a measure to enhance the person of a No fixed duration (through Fixed duration (20 years, 1
minor. lifetime of convict) day to 40 years)
 Other relevant special laws: No accessory penalties With accessory penalties
o PNP Act (RA 6975) – preventive suspension of o In P v Canales, court imposed 40 years of RP,
policemen during criminal trials (Sec 41 and 47) with accessory penalties of death and cannot be
o Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) – pardoned until after 40 years. How come?
suspension of public official after filing of a valid  Under Art 309, theft is punishable by
information RT. But for qualified theft, penalty is 2
o Plunder Act (RA 7080) - suspension of public degress higher, which is death.
official after filing of a valid information  But under Art 74, if the next higher
o VAWC (RA 9262) – offended party entitled to penalty is death, then it becomes RP,
protection orders, or accused must file a bond to with accessory penalty of death. This is
keep the peace also the reason why he can‟t be
pardoned before 40 years, instead of
Chapter Two the usual 30 years.
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES
 Dual personality of disqualification and suspension
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The penalties which o It can be a principal penalty
may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes,  Temporary DQ – 6 years, 1 day to 12
are those included in the following: years
Scale
Principal Penalties

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

38
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
 Suspension – 6 months, 1 day to 6
years
o It can also be an accessory penalty
 Follow the period of the principal
penalty.
 Court can not extend the DQ or
suspension if it merely follows the
principal penalty, can‟t extend beyond
principal penalty.
 Suspension
o All prisoners whether under preventive detention
or serving final sentence, cannot practice their
profession or engage in any business or
occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive,
while in detention.
 Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty yet there is
no crime in Book II which imposes it. No occasion to mete
this penalty on a convict.
o Compare with bond for good behavior (Art 248
for grave and light threats only). Failure to post
bond for good behavior means destierro for
accused. Failure to post bond to keep the peace
means detention for accused.
 What are some instances when a lesser offense absorbs the
graver offense?
o Rebellion (RT) absorbs murder (RP)
o Forcible abduction (RT) absorbs illegal detention
of a woman (RP)
o Slavery involving kidnapping of a person (PM)
absorbs kidnapping (RP)
Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. — A fine,
whether imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall be
considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a
correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not
less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
 Read in conjunction with Art 38 (order of payment of
pecuniary liabilities)
 Fine is not given to the complainant, it is given to the
State. Fine is for vindication!
 Accused can use his cash bail bond to pay his fine, if he is
convicted. Law does not prohibit him from using his cash
bail bond to pay his fine. It is only meant to ensure his
attendance during the process.
 Fine is not a substitute for imprisonment. It‟s completely
independent.
 What if exactly P200, how do you reconcile Art 9 and Art
26?
o Art 9 should prevail when the issue is prescription
of crime. It‟s considered a light felony and
prescribes in 2 months.
o But Art 26 should prevail when the issue is
prescription of penalty. It‟s considered
correctional, and prescribes in 10 years.
Chapter Three
DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES
Section One. — Duration of Penalties
Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — Any person sentenced to any of the
perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty
for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or
some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive
as unworthy of pardon.
Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
from twelve years and one day to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the
penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be
from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the
penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in
which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of
the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall
be from six months and one day to six years, except when
suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its
duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall
be from one month and one day to six months.
Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall
be from one day to thirty days.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be
required to cover such period of time as the court may determine.
Art. 28. Computation of penalties. — If the offender shall be in
prison, the term of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be
computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall
have become final.
If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the
penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from
the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial
authorities for the enforcement of the penalty. The duration of the
other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the
defendant commences to serve his sentence.
 How do you compute the penalty if the accused is not in jail
during trial?
o If absent during trial, time from arrest
 What if he was in prison?
o From finality of date of conviction. If he appeals,
he has to wait until the finality of conviction.
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of
imprisonment. — Offenders who have undergone preventive
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which
they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention
prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the
following cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously
twice or more times of any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence
they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be
credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time
during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As
amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for
a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment
of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case
is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without
prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding
on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum
penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he
shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.
(As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).
 Preventive imprisonment is not a penalty. It usually occurs
if the accused is unable to post bond, or the crime charged
is not bailable.
 If accused is preventively detained during trial, he can get
full credit for the time he spent there if he voluntarily
agrees in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed on convicts.
o He can‟t get full credit if:
 He‟s a recidivist or a habitual
delinquent (P v Gana)
 He fails to surrender voluntarily upon
being summoned for the execution of
the sentence.
 In these cases, he‟ll only be
credited 4/5 of the time
spent.
 If he‟s served the max time, file a petition for habeas
corpus.
 Preventive imprisonment applies to destierro.
 If the convict is sentenced to life imprisonment, rp or
death, he is still entitled to benefit from this provision.
 What if the accused is detained, then sentenced to
imprisonment and fine, and he has already served his
sentence but has not yet paid the fine, may he be released?
No. He has to pay the fine first.
 See Juvenile Justice Act, Sec 41 – Any form of physical
restraint imposed on a child in conflict with the law
including his community service or commitment to a rehab
center shall be considered as preventive imprisonment.
o If the minor juvy is imprisoned pending trial, he
shall be credited with the service of the sentence
with the full time in which the child was
preventively imprisoned.
o If the child has served the full time, director can
determine if child still has to stay in rehab.
39
 am+dg
Section Two. — Effects of the penalties
according to their respective nature
Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the
offender may have held even if conferred by popular election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any
popular office or to be elected to such office.

 3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and
for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned. 
 
 In case of
temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall last during the term of the
sentence.

 4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any
office formerly held.
Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special
disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or temporal special
disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce
the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling
affected; 2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or
employments either perpetually or during the term of the sentence
according to the extent of such disqualification.
Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special
disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage. — The
perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of
the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or
during the term of the sentence, according to the nature of said
penalty, of the right to vote in any popular election for any public
office or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the offender shall
not be permitted to hold any public office during the period of his
disqualification.
Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public
office, profession or calling, or the right of suffrage. — The
suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the
exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from
holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or right
of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold
another having similar functions during the period of his
suspension.
Art. 34. Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction shall deprive the
offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of parental
authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of
any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his property
and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos.
 Convict can prepare a will since it‟s not a donation inter
vivos
 Read codal na lang.
Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. — It shall be the duty of
any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present
two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will
not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case
such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by
the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in
the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking.
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of
duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he
shall be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six
months, is he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave
felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if for a light felony.
Art. 37. Cost; What are included. — Costs shall include fees and
indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether they
be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or
regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. — In case the
property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of
all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following
order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused. 2. Indemnification of
consequential damages. 
 3. The fine. 
 4. The cost of the
proceedings.
 Order for pecuniary liability: reparation, indemnification,
fine, costs.
 First to the offended (reparation and indemnification), and
then to the government (fine and costs)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 If guilty of several offenses, follow the chronological order
of the dates of final judgment rendered against the convict,
beginning with the first final judgment.
 Fine is actually a pecuniary penalty, according to Art 25.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with
which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest
preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal
liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the
following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or
arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine
referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of
the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one
year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the
prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary
imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have
been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not
exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.

 3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional,
no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.

 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by
confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed
duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the
preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as
those of which the principal penalty consists.

 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have
suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him, from the
fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As
amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
 Subsidiary imprisonment can only be imposed if the
accused is penalized with a fine (either fine only, or fine
and imprisonment) and because of insolvency, he cannot
pay it.
 Since it is a penalty, Court must EXPRESSLY state that
subsidiary imprisonment shall be served in case of
insolvency.
o It is not an accessory penalty that follows the
principal penalty as a matter of course.
 He can‟t be ordered to serve subsidiary imprisonment for
failure to pay pecuniary liability (reparations), but he can
serve for pecuniary penalty (fine).
 Subsidiary penalty not proper in the following cases:
o Principal penalty imposed is more than PC (6
years and 1 day or more)
o Principal penalty is other than prison sentence
which is not of fixed duration
o Subsidiary penalty is not expressly stated in the
sentence
o Sentence imposed does not include fine
o Convict has the means to pay the fine
 Follow the actual penalty meted out in determining whether
subsidiary imprisonment can be applied. Not the penalty
prescribed by law.
 Can the accused, who has money, choose not to pay the
fine and go to jail instead? No. He has no choice but to pay
the fine.
o But see P v Subido where the court allowed him
to choose. Justice Callejo doesn‟t agree with that.
 Subsidiary imprisonment also applies to SPL, like BP 22 or
possession of illegal firearms.
 Supposing the accused is charged with 2 or more offenses
and there was just 1 decision which convicted him of all the
charges. How do we determine the 6-year limit?
o The 6-year period shall be based on the total
duration of the penalties imposed by court (after
joint trial) based on the 3-fold rule under Art 70.
Hence, if the total of the penalties exceed 6
years, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imposed, even if the penalty for each of the
crimes is less than 6 years.
Section Three. — Penalties in which other accessory penalties
are inherent
Art. 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. — The death penalty, when
it is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry
with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil
interdiction during thirty years following the date sentence, unless
such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the
40
 am+dg
pardon.
Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory
penalties. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or
during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of
perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer
even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
 When the penalty imposed is RP as a penalty next higher in
degree, the accessory penalty shall be that under Art 40
but the offender shall not be given the benefit of the
provision of Art 27 until 40 years have elapsed, otherwise,
there could be no difference at all between RP when
imposed as apenalty next higher in degree and when it is
imposed as a penalty fixed by law. (P v Bago)
Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of
prision mayor, shall carry with it that of temporary absolute
disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from
the right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer although
pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty
of prision correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from
public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and
that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage,
if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months.
The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in the article
although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto
shall carry with it that of suspension of the right too hold office and
the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments
of the crime. — Every penalty imposed for the commission of a
felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime
and the instruments or tools with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be property of a
third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are
not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
 Only the trial court who convicted the accused may order
the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the
instruments or tools used in the crime.
o But before the court may do so, the
tools/instruments must be presented to the court
as evidence. Otherwise, the court has no jd to
order the forfeiture or destruction of such. (P v
Singson)
o In case of bribery, the money used may be
forfeited in favor of the state.
 The tool/instrument must belong to the accused himself. If
it belongs to someone else and he has no involvement in
the crime, there can be no such declaration. (P v. Elona)
 Applicable also to SPL.
 The court may order destruction nonetheless if the items
are contraband.
 Dangerous Drugs Act, Sec 20 – those subject of the crime,
including proceeds derived from drug trafficking and even
money and assets acquired in violation of the DDA, can be
ordered forfeited in favor of the government, unless
belonging to the third persons without involvement of the
crime.
o EXCEPTION to the third person rule – if the items
are beyond lawful commerce, still forfeited
o Proceeds of sale or disposition of the property
forfeited must be used to pay the expenses
incurred in the proceedings including cost of the
proceedings
Chapter Four
APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
Section One. — Rules for the application of penalties
to the persons criminally liable and for the graduation of the same.
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. — The
penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be
imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general
terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated
felony.
Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed. —
The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be
imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases:
1. When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age.
2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme court,
all the members thereof are not unanimous in their voting as to the
propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. For the imposition
of said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior
court imposing the death sentence, the Supreme Court shall render
its decision per curiam, which shall be signed by all justices of said
court, unless some member or members thereof shall have been
disqualified from taking part in the consideration of the case, in
which even the unanimous vote and signature of only the remaining
justices shall be required.
 RA 9346 has proscribed the imposition of the death penalty
and in its steal shall be RP or life imprisonment as the case
may be without any right of the offender to avail of the
benefit of parole under Act 4103, the ISL.
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an
offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty
for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied
in its maximum period.
 There are two kinds of complex crimes under Art 48
o Compound crimes, or delito compuesto: when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies
o Complex crime proper, or delito complejo: when
an offense is a necessary means for committing
the other
 Art 48 is actually for the benefit of the offender under the
pro reo principle.
o Since even if two crimes are committed, the law
only punished the offender for one, although it is
in the maximum. In the eyes of the law, the two
crimes stem from one criminal intent – this is
less perverse in the crimes of the law compared
to punishing him for two crimes. This applies to
both compound crimes and complex crime
proper.
o The reason for the single penalty is that the basis
of the felony is the singularity of the act.
 Only one information must be filed charging the complex
felony.
o If you want to charge someone with forcible
abduction with rape, you have to allege the
elements of both forcible abduction and rape.
 Compound crimes (delito compuesto)
o Committed when a single act results to two or
more grave or less grave felonies
 Either two or more grave felonies
 Two or more less grave felonies
 One or more grave and one or more
less grave
 If a light felony likewise resulted, the
light felony shall be treated as a
separate offense. A separate
information must be filed for them.
o Take note of the word „felonies.‟ This precludes
application to ordinances and SPLs.
 The felonies resulting from the single
act must be felonies in the RPC.
 If punishable under the RPC and an
SPL (or an ordinance), Art 48 will not
apply. The offender may be charged
and convicted for both crimes,
separately without double jeopardy.
 Estafa and illegal recruitment
 Estafa and BP 22
 Rape and sexual assault
(SPL) (P v Abay)
o Accused inserted
his fingers, and
then his penis to
victim‟s vagina.
41
 am+dg
NOT complex
crime. One count
rape, one count
sexual assault. Not
a complex crime.
(P v Nequia)
o Can be either dolo or culpa
 Person was convicted for reckless
imprudence resulting into homicide and
destruction of property (P v de los
Santos)
 Reckless imprudence is a
felony, so Art 48 will apply to
it.
o Examples:
 Man threw a grenade, killed two
people. Complex crime of double
murder. (P v Comadre)
 Man threw a pillbox, killed some
people, injured others. Complex crime
of murder with attempted murder. (P
v. dela Rosa)
 Can it be two different
crimes, and still complex?
Yes. Man threw a grenade,
killed his father and his
father‟s friend. Complex
crime of parricide with
murder.
o Does it have to be consummated? No. Man threw
hand grenade to a group of people. Some died,
some didn‟t. Complex crime of multiple murder
with double frustrated murder and double
attempted murder. (P v Magalona)
o What if only one victim, will Art 48 apply? Yes.
Governor was performing duties and was killed
by accused. Complex crime of direct assault with
homicide.
o Supposing one wants to kill another with
treachery, but there abberatio ictus or error in
personae, can the crime committed by the
accused be a complex crime?
 Yes. Homicide with attempted
homicide.
 Dude stabbed victim with a bolo, the
bolo hit both the victim and the person
behind him. Complex rime of murder
and serious physical injuries. (P v
Patrolla)
 Accused forcibly inserted his penis into
the vagina of the woman. She
sustained less serious physical injuries
in her vagina. Complex crime of rape
with less serious physical injuries. (P v.
Andaya)
o What if there was no intent to kill, but two people
died because of the acts of the accused, will Art
48 apply?
 Yes. Art 48 applies even to praeter
intentionem.
 Example: dude stabbed wife who was 7
months pregnant. Both wife and baby
died. Complex crime of parricide with
unintentional abortion. (P v Paycana,
Jr)
o BUT remember: NO COMPLEX CRIME of ARSON
with MURDER (P v Malngan, look at intent)
o What is the test to determine whether Art 48 will
apply – single criminal act or single criminal
intent/impulse?
 Law is clear: SINGLE ACT.
 The SC, however, has
applied the single impulse
test in some cases, as in the
following:
o Stealing of 13
cows (P v Tulos)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
o Taking two
roosters on one
occasion (P v de
Leon, convicted of
just one theft)
o Raped niece at 10
am, 11 am, 12 pm
at same grassy
area. (P v Obrique.
This is a unique
case)
o For cases of RAPE, SC has used the single act
test.
 Hence, when accused inserted private
organ and raped the victim, and then
inserted his finger twice into the vagina
at the same place and same occasion.
SC said no complex crime. Accused
guilty of one count of rape and two
counts of sexual assault, even if same
place and same occasiln. (P v Intong)
 Hence, when the accused inserted his
penis into the vagina of the victim and
made several push and pull
movements but without removing his
organ until he reached orgams, the
accused is guilty of only one count of
rape. (P v Avaron wherein the
prosecutor argued that there should be
as many crimes of rape as to the
number of pushes and pulls) [don‟t
remove it!]
 One count of rape = putting
it in. if you take it out, then
put it back in, how many
counts of rape?
 Accused raped his niece once a day,
inserting his finger once a day, for 16
consecutive days in different locations.
SC held as many crimes of rape and
sexual assault equal to how many
times he inserted his organ and finger.
 No single criminal intent
because each time he
committed the crime was on
different days, he was
animated by separate
criminal intents on each
occasion. (P v. Sollano)
 Accused raped his daughter every day
for a week against the wishes of his
wife. SC held 7 counts of rape. (P v
Gorbida)
 Accused raped victim 5 times in the
same place and on the same night.
Convicted of 5 counts of rape. (P v
Escoton)
o For cases of KIDNAPPING, SC has used the single
act test.
 Even if the persons were kidnapped on
the same occasion and place, there
was as many crimes of kidnapping as
there were persons. (P v Laranaga)
 Hence, if accused kidnaps 5
kids, he is liable for 5 counts
of kidnapping. Not a complex
crime.
 Kidnapping with murder,
kidnapping with rape,
kidnapping with homicide –
these are all special complex
crimes, and not complex
crimes under Art 48. Even if
the homicide or rape was a
mere afterthought, this
would still be the name of
the crime.
42
 am+dg
o For example,
kidnapped victim
was raped. How
many special
complex crimes?
As many as the
number of persons
kidnapped and
raped. (P v
Rimurin [?])
o Strange case: 7
persons kidnapped
and two died. SC
DIVISION said only
1 crime of
kidnapping with
homicide. (Justice
Calljo does not
agree with this,
naturally.)
 Same rule for kidnapping for
ransom. Even if it is in the
same situs, the number of
crimes of kidnapping will
depend on the number of
persons kidnapped.
o What test will you apply to BP 22?
 Single act. Can‟t apply criminal intent
test because it‟s mala prohibita and a
SPL. Hence, number of bouncing
checks equals number of violations of
BP 22.
o For cases of FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS, SC
has used the single act test.
 There as many crimes as the vouchers
falsified. (P v Gonzales)
 Accused falsified three money orders
separately. Each constitutes separate
crimes. (P v Villanueva)
 Accused falsified the roll of attorneys
by including 3 names. Each constitutes
separate crimes. (P v Segovia)
 Important case: relatives died leaving
3 parcels of land. Accused executed
three separate deeds of sale on the
same day, making it appear that the
relatives-vendors were still alive at
time of sale. Convicted of 3 charges of
falsification because 3 documents
falsified. (Lastrilla v Granda)
 Accused did it by antedating,
forging and making it appear
that the relatives were still
alive. In other words, he
falsified each document in 3
modes. Is he guilty of 3
counts of falsification per
document? NO. Only one
crime of falsification of public
document even if there were
multiple modes.
 Accused committed estafa by
withdrawing from account. Number of
counts of estafa = number of
withdrawals. Not continuing. Moment
that withdrawal was made, the crime
was committed. Accused did not intend
to commit just one crime. (Gamboa v
CA)
 In Ilagan v CA, the accused swindled
both the lot buyers and the corporation
he was working for.
 As far as the lot buyers were
concerned, there were as
many crimes of estafa as the
number of times the accused
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
fraudulently collected from
the victims.
 As far as the corporation is
concerned, it depends on the
obligation to account. If he is
obliged to account everyday
and he fails to do so, there
are as many crimes of estafa
as the number of days he
failed to account. If he is
obliged to account every
month, he is guilty for every
month he fails to account.
 There are as many crimes of estafa
through forgery as there are acts.
o For cases of LIBEL, SC has used the single act
test.
 One count of libel doesn‟t depend on
persons damaged, but on the number
of publications.
 Even if two or more persons were
subject to libel, if there was only one
publication, there is only one crime of
libel. (P v Aquino)
o For crimes against persons, the court has applied
both, but the correct test is the single act test.
 When the constabulary officers killed
around 50 Maranaws with guns, the
Court convicted them all under the
complex crime of multiple murder,
using the single impulse test. But the
Court only did this because it was
impossible to determine who killed
who. (P v Lawas)
 When there were several killings inside
Bilibid prison, the Court held the
accused guilty for multiple murder with
multiple frustrated/attempted murder,
applying the single impulse test (P v
Pingcalin)
 J Makasiar dissented, saying
it should be single act.
 On MR, the Court reneged,
followed J Makasiar.
 In P v Pineda, wherein the accused
shot once and killed two people with
one bullet, the SC finally said that Art
48 talks of a single act. Do not apply
the single impulse test.
 Hence, when with one thrust of a knife,
two people get hurt, Art 48 will apply.
 So with the use of one bomb and lots
get injured, Art 48 will apply.
o For automatic weapons, what is the rule?
 According to Boado and Reyes, in view
of the special characteristic or
mechanism of automatic machine
guns, there are as many offenses as
the numbers of victims of the bullets
fired. So, single act of pulling trigger,
but lots of bullets fired, Art 48 won‟t
apply, separate crimes for each victim.
 This was also the case of P v
Pacificador, Dalmacio [2002,
division], et al, where the
victims were killed after a
series of gunshots (armalites
fired successively). The
accused were guilty of as
many crimes as how many
people were injured.
 According to Justice Callejo, the single
act of pulling the trigger, even if lots of
bullets are fired, will place it under Art
48.
 See P v Sanidad [2003 en
banc]. In that case, the
43
 am+dg

accused ambushed a jeepney shall be absorbed

with their armalites and by the latter (like
other guns. The accused trespassing which
showed a single criminal is an element of
impulse when he said “oh my robbery)
gosh, we were not able to kill o A crime which has
all of them.” 85 empty the same element
armalite shells were as the other crime
recovered in the scene of the committed
crime. The court applied Art  Estafa
48 for two reasons. First, it and
was impossible to determine falisficati
who killed the victim. And on of
there was a single criminal private
impulse which showed a documen
conspiracy to kill, hence, it ts have
was seen as a single act. 41 the
 Justice Callejo also cited the same
cases of Manghoy and element
Mision, but I can‟t find it. of
o For cases of malversation damage.
 If there are different kinds of property One
malversed in one occasion, there‟s only damage
one crime cannot
 Accused malversed money give rise
and personal property in one to two
occasion crimes.
 If on different occasions, then different Hence,
counts of malversation there is
 Complex crimes proper (delito complejo) no
o These are felonies where one offense is complex
necessary to commit another, the two crimes crime of
comprise one complex crime estafa
o The first crime must be a necessary means to thru
commit the other falsificati
 The first is committed to insure and on of
facilitate the commission of the next private
crime documen
 The first is necessary but not ts.
indispensable (because if  B
indispensable, element na siya) u
 Hence, the following are not t
complex crimes:
o A crime to conceal i
another because n
such is not to
commit but to f
conceal the other a
crime l
o A crime which is s
an element of the i
other for in that f
case, the former i
c
a
41 We fully agree with the lower court that the instant case comes t
within the purview of Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code which, i
speaking of complex crimes, provides that when ―a single act o
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense n
is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
o
serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.‖ In a complex
f
crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they
constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the p
conscience of the offender. u
Although several independent acts were performed by the accused in b
firing separate shots from their individual firearms, it was not possible l
to determine who among them actually killed victim Rolando Tugadi. i
Moreover, there is no evidence that accused-appellants intended to fire c
at each and every one of the victims separately and distinctly from each ,
other. On the contrary, the evidence clearly shows a single criminal
impulse to kill Marlon Tugadi’s group as a whole. Thus, one of o
accused-appellants exclaimed in frustration after the ambush: ―My f
f
gosh, we were not able to kill all of them.‖ Where a conspiracy
i
animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts c
done in pursuance of that purpose are looked upon as a single act, the i
act of execution, giving rise to a single complex offense

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

44
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

a n
l
h
o a
r v
e
c
o a
m
m c
e o
r m
c p
i l
a e
l x

d c
o r
c i
u m
m e
e
n o
t f
s
e
d s
o t
e a
s f
a
n
o t
t h
r
h o
a u
v g
e h

t f
h a
e l
s
e i
l f
e i
m c
e a
n t
t i
o
o n
f
o
d f
a
m p
a u
g b
e l
. i
c
H ,
e
n o
c f
e f
, i
c
y i
o a
u l
,
c
a o

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

45
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

r  Abducted to place 100m

from her house. Court said
c forcible abduction with rape.
o (P v Abarquez)
m  Main determinant is the specific
m intention of the offender, and not the
e distance.
r  What if there was abduction (which
c was necessary to commit the rape) and
i then there were three rapes done
a after?
l  The moment the first rape
was committed, then forcible
d abduction with rape was
o consummated. The second
c and third rapes were
u separate crimes. Hence, one
m complex crime of forcible
e abduction with rape, and
n then two separate simple
t crimes of rape. (P v Garcia, P
s v Caraang)
.  But isn‟t abduction a
o Where the intent is continuing crime? Dandan!
really to commit  If accused abducted two women at the
the second crime same time, and then raped both, how‟s
but the first act that?
although also a  He‟s guilty of two counts of
crime is incidental forcible abduction with rape.
to the commission  It depends on the number of
of the second women he abducted.
crime. (Taking  Compare with kidnapping with rape
away a woman to which is a special complex crime (not a
rape here. The complex crime under Art 48). (P v
taking is merely Laranaga)
incidental. No  Can there be forcible abduction with
complex crime of acts of lasciviousness?
abduction with  Before, no. Now, yes.
rape but only (Justice Callejo)
simple rape)  Boado breaks it down:
o Special complex  Intent to rape: simple rape.
crimes Taking incidental.
o Is it possible that one crime is dolo and the other  Intent to take woman
is culpa? against her will with lewd
 Yes. accused cashed check on behalf of designs: forcible abduction
an impostor. The employee of the bank with rape (information must
did not bother to check since they were allege lewd designs)
friends. The employee‟s failure to o If multiple rapes,
ascertain the identity of payee was complex crime of
falsification by culpa. It was the means forcible abduction
to commit estafa. Hence, estafa, with rape, then
through falsification by culpa. (Samson other rapes file
v CA) separately.
 Is there falsification through culpa of  Intent was to kidnap for
private documents? No, because as ransom, but after rape was
stated earlier, damage is already an committed as an
element of falsification of private afterthought: special
documents, hence you can‟t have a complex crime of kidnapping
complex crime. with rape
o More on forcible abduction with rape vs simple o Give examples of crimes that look complex, but
rape: are not complex under Art 48:
 If the intent was to rape, and the  Usurpation of private property with
victim was brought to a place to rape violence
her, no complex crime. Only rape.  Art 48 won‟t apply because
Abduction is absorbed by rape. (P v the law provides a penalty
Almanzor) for it already.
 Victim was abducted and  Malicious procurement of search
brought to a grassy area warrant through perjury
near her house. She was  Art 48 won‟t apply because
raped. Abduction was Art 129 already provides a
absorbed. (P v Mojerada) penalty for it.
 Victim brought 600m from  Trespass to dwelling with murder
her house where she was  Art 48 won‟t apply because
raped. Abduction still trespass already absorbed
absorbed by rape. (P v  Political crimes with common crimes
Godinez)  Art 48, you ain‟t gonna be
 But when is it not absorbed?! bringin yo shiznat to these

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

46
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
crimes. Common crimes are
absorbed in political crimes.
(P v Hernandez)
 Even SPLs are absorbed in
political crimes.
 Important to know the
motive to determine if
absorbed or not.
 May torture by persons-in-authority be
absorbed?
 NEVER. Always a separate
crime.
 It can‟t absorb other crimes
either.42
 Art 48 won‟t apply.
 Robbery with homicide/rape/intentional
mutilation, kidnapping with
murder/rape/homicide (special
complex crimes)
 Kidnapping and torture
 Torture considered special
aggravating (torture here
done by kidnappers, not by
persons-in-authority, so
Anti-Torture Law won‟t
apply)
 Stuff under 266-B
 They have their own
penalties
 For rape with homicide, if 2
people raped victim, but only
one killed her, both will still
be liable for rape with
homicide (even if only one
killed the victim)
 Special complex crimes under the Anti-
Torture Act
 Torture with homicide
 Torture with rape
 Torture with mutilation
 Torture with sexual abuse
 Torture against kids
 Plunder
 Art 48 won‟t apply. Other
crimes are merely predicate
crimes. Only one crime is
committed.
o Will Art 332 (exempting relatives from certain
crimes) still lie in complex crimes?
 No. If the accused swindles her
brother-in-law by falsifying a public
document, she can be guilty of estafa
through falsification of a public
document. The exemption will not lie.
If constitutive of a complex crime, Art
332 will no longer apply. Hence the
relative will be liable of estafa through
falsification of a public document.
 Break muna.
 Okay, besides complex crimes and compound crimes, what
are the other kinds of plurality of crimes where a single
penalty is imposed? (Take note that these aren‟t covered
by Art 48, but only bear a semblance to complex crimes,
hence commentators usually discuss them together)
o Composite crimes or special complex crimes
o Continued crime or delito continuado
o Continuing crimes or transitory crimes
42 Section 15. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime. - Torture
as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime
or felony committed as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or
commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate
and independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable
without prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by
domestic and international laws.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 NOTE: Justice Callejo did not
distinguish between continued crimes
and continuing crimes, he lumped
them together as delito continuado.
Boado, however, distinguished between
the two. The distinction it seems is
academic, the effect being the same –
that only one crime is considered
committed.
 Composite crimes
o those which in the eyes of the law are treated as
single indivisible offenses although in reality are
made up of more than one crime.
Composite Complex
Combo of offenses is fixed by Combo is not specified but
law generalized
Penalty is specific Not specific, but for the most
serious offense in the max
period
Even if there are more than If more than one count of the
one count of the component crime forming part of the
crime (like several rapes), still complex crime, the first shall
just one composite crime to be be complexed, while the other
charged counts are treated as separate
crimes (forcible abduction
with rape, with subsequent
rapes charged separately)
If light felony accompanies the Light felonies are not
commission of the composite absorbed, they have to be
offence, such is absorbed filed separately
 Continued crimes (delito continuado)
o Impelled by a single criminal impulse but
commited by a series of overt acts at about the
same time in about the same place and all the
overt acts violate one and the same provision of
law
o Apparently, this is where the single criminal
impulse test applies
o Single larceny rule: taking of several things
belonging to the same or different owners at the
same time and place constitutes but one larceny.
o Applied in:
 Theft of 13 cows at same place and
time
 Theft of 6 roosters belonging to 2
different owners from the same coop
and at the same time
 Mallari v People. Mallari wanted to
borrow P300k, but the lender only
wanted to give him P150k. he
mortgaged two lots to secure the debt,
went to the aunt to borrow instead,
and mortgaged the same two lots. The
titles were falsified. (Not sure about
the facts, just copied from Glenn).
There was delito continuado even if
there were two transactions because
there was a single criminal resolution
leading to a single crime of estafa
throught falsification of public
document.
o Does NOT apply to formal/instantaneous crimes.
Adultery is not a delito continuado. Each sexual
act is an offense. It is consummated and
exhausted (like the accuseds) at the time of
carnal union.
 Continuing Crime
o One where any of the elements of the offense
was committed in different localities such that the
accused may be indicted in any of those localities
o Only considered as one crime.
o May also refer to any offense which is continuing
in time
 Rebellion
 Squatting
 Violation of BP 22
 Abduction, kidnapping, illegal detention
47
 am+dg
o Applicable to SPL? Yes. See Santiago v
Garchitorena, where Court said that Miriam‟s
signing the order to allow 32 aliens to stay was a
continuing crime. She was charged only once.
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime
committed is different from that intended. — In cases in which the
felony committed is different from that which the offender intended
to commit, the following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than
that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to
commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in
its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than
that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to
commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum
period. 

3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not
be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also
constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law
prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in
which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated
crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
 Applies to error in personae only.
o If intended crime was homicide but due to error
in personae, parricide was committed, the lower
penalty for homicide will be imposed. Same if
vice versa. It‟s an extenuating circumstance.
 Doesn‟t apply to pareter inentionem (covered by Art 13).
 Doesn‟t apply to abberatio ictus (covered by Art 48)
Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated
crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by
law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
principal in a frustrated felony.
Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes.
— A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for
the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an
attempt to commit a felony.
Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated
crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by
law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in
the commission of a consummated felony.
Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission
of a consummated felony. — The penalty lower by two degrees than
that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be
imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated
felony.
Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime.
— The penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by law for the
frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the
commission of a frustrated felony.
Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated
crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by
law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories
to the commission of a frustrated felony.
Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted
crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by
law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the
accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.
Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted
crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by
law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories
to the attempt to commit a felony.
Art. 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories.
— Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of
Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public
functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual
disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave
felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be
guilty of a less grave felony.
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the
crime because the means employed or the aims sought are
impossible. — When the person intending to commit an offense has
already performed the acts for the execution of the same but
nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that
the act intended was by its nature one of impossible
accomplishment or because the means employed by such person
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the
court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of
criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the
penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. —
The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code
shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly
prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted
felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
How to Consummated Frustrated Attempted
apply, in
degrees
Principal As provide by -1 -2
law
Accomplice -1 -2 -3
Accessory -2 -3 -4
 Sample: simple rape, penalty is reclusion perpetua.
o If accomplice and consummated, -1, hence
reclusion temporal.
o If accomplice and attempted, -3, prison
correccional.
 For Art 59 (impossible crimes), it does not apply if the
intended crime is a light felony.
 So death penalty cannot be imposed anymore, right? If the
penalty prescribed by law is death, where do we start
counting from, death or rp?
o In People v Bon (2003), court counted from RP.
o HOWEVER, in P v Sarcia (2009) and P v Jacinto
(2011), both cases were for qualified rape by a
minor on a minor, in appreciating the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority (Art 68) court
counted from DEATH.43
 So start counting from DEATH. Sarcia
was en banc. Jacinto was by division.
Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties. — For the purpose of
graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of
Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon
persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony,
or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and
indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that
immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective
graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two
indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible penalties to be
impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed
in the respective graduated scale. 

3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or
two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another
divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper
divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper divisible
penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in
said respective graduated scale.

 4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of
several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period
immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next
following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if
possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the
above mentioned respective graduated scale.

 5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner
not especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts,
proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon
those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to
commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.

 Just read the codal for the rules. Sir didn‟t really discuss
this anyway.
 Read with Art 71.
43
Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a
minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by
law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. However, for
purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of
death is still the penalty to be reckoned with. Thus, the proper
imposable penalty for the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.
48
 am+dg

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances

Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall
circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or be applied.
aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken 
 3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating
into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty in conformity with the following rules: penalty shall be applied. 

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended
crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to
in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be offset one another in consideration of their number and
taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance
1 (a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken with the preceding rules, according to the result of such
by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be imposed compensation.
shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.  Inoperative because of RA 9346.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed it the offense  Now, only RP is indivisible.
was committed by any person who belongs to an o Cannot be affected by generic mitigating
organized/syndicated crime group.
circumstances.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of
2 or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping o However, it can be affected by privileged
one another for puposes of gain in the commission of any crime. mitigating circumstances (like Art 68, 69).
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating  Privileged mitigating always considered
circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of whether divisible or indivisible penalty.
necessity accompany the commission thereof. 

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the
Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three
moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with
periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law
the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only
contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or
serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the principals,
composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a
accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are
period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the
attendant. 

court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following
4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the
rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or
act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to
aggravating circumstances:
aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in
cooperation therein.
its medium period.

 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: 

2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum
penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found
period.
guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its

 3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the
medium and maximum periods;
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the
maximum period. 

penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and
present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against
medium periods; and
the other according to their relative weight. 


 (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two
circumstances. 

penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith,
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating
shall in no case exceed 30 years.
circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty than
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be
that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. 

habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the
his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and
guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
 This article gives the rules on when not to consider stuff as
 Rules when penalty is divisible:
aggravating:
o No aggravating and no mitigating – medium
o If element of the crime (included by the law in
o Mitigating only – minimum
defining the crime and prescribing its penalty)
o Aggravating only – maximum
o Inherent in the crime
o Some of both – offset, then apply the above rules
 Additional rule: those which are caused by the moral
o Two or more mitigating with no aggravating –
attributes of the offender or his relations with the offended
lower the penalty one degree but always in the
or any other personal causes will only affect the offender
proper period
having such attribute.
 If there are a lot of aggravating but no mitigating, can the
o Passion and obfuscation will only apply to the one
courts increase the penalty to one greater than that
who was actually enraged; so with relationship
prescribed by law? NO.
 Take note that this article made the following SPECIAL
 If after offsetting (meaning there was aggravating and
aggravating circumstances:
mitigating), there are 2 mitigating left, can the penalty be
o Abuse of public position
lowered by one degree? NO. as long as there was
o Committed by organized/syndicated crime group
aggravating, can‟t lower penalty by degree.
 CAN NOT BE OFFSET by generic
 If there are four mitigating circumstances, you use two to
mitigating
lower the penalty by one degree. The remaining two are
 If policeman uses his gun to murder someone, the use of
used to find the period. You can‟t use the remaining two to
his gun is a special aggravating circumstance under the
lower the penalty by another degree.
Illegal Firearms Law, but can his abuse of position be
o Imposed by law: RT. 4 mitigating.
appreciated as well?
 Lower to PM. Then use the 2 remaining
mitigating to find the period. So PM
Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all
minimum.
cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or  Art 64 is important in the ISL because the modifying
aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission circumstances are first considered in the determination of
of the deed. the maximum penalty in the ISL. (sir won‟t ask to compute
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two ISL)
indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the o Art 64 is not considered in the determination of
application thereof:
the minimum penalty in the ISL. The minimum
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one
aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

49
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
penalty in the ISL must be within the whole
range of the penalty next lower in degree.
 If the accused is sentenced to RP and has two generic
mitigating circumstances (and no AC), penalty can NOT be
lowered by one degree since it‟s an indivisible penalty.
(Only a privileged mitigating can give a penalty lower for an
indivisible penalty)
 This article doesn‟t apply to Art 365 because modifying
circumstances don‟t apply to quasi-offfenses.
Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three
periods. — In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not
composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules
contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal
portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming
one period of each of the three portions.
 This is applied when the law prescribes a penalty not
composed of three periods (like robbery in an uninhabited
place whose penalty is PC in medium to maximum.)
o Just divide the period given by 3 to get the min,
med and max.
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix
any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the
amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to
the wealth or means of the culprit.
 Study with Art 75.
 The LAW can prescribe the following:
o Fine only
o Fine AND imprisonment
o Fine OR imprisonment
 The court can‟t give the accused a penalty of fine OR
imprisonment. The court has to make a choice, it can‟t
leave to the accused the choice on what penalty he wants
to serve.
 If the law states “fine of P50k to 150k”, the court can
choose between those bounds.
 If the law states “fine of P15k”, that‟s it, court must impose
the definite fine.
 If the law states “fine not less than P15k”, court must be
judicious. They can‟t just fine the accused for P1m.
 Increase or reduction in the degree of the fine. (See Art 75)
 Fine cannot be used as substitute penalty to imprisonment.
Penalty of fine is independent from penalty of
imprisonment.
 If the accused drew and issued a check but it bounced, and
during trial he pays the value of the check, should he still
be convicted for a fine? Yes. Penalty of the fine goes to the
State, not the offended party.
Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of
exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present.—
When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of
Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not
present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon
the culprit if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.
 Lack of requisites in performance of lawful act – AM max to
PC minimum (if grave), AM min to med (if less grave)
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years
of age. — When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and
his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next
to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is
not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared
that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be
imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that
prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed,
but always in the proper period.
 Paragraph 1 implied repealed by Juvenile Justice Act.
o As long as below 15 or 18 (without discernment),
criminally exempt.
 Paragraph 2 modified.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
o If between 15-18 and acted with discernment,
criminally liable.
 If child is determined to be criminally
liable and the diversion program is not
consented to, the case shall proved.
The child shall enjoy the privileged
mitigating circumstance under Art 68
but shall nevertheless be entitled to
suspension of sentence whether or not
he is no longer a minor.
 As long as child was under 18 when he did the crime,
suspension of sentence will apply.
o Suspension can apply until he‟s 21 (discretion of
court).44
 After the suspension, child may serve
his sentence in agricultural camps or
other training facilities. 45
 After the suspension, he can also be
granted probation.46
 Remember: even if minor criminally exempt, he is still
civilly liable.
 Even if minor is charged with a heinous crime, he is still
entitled to suspension of conviction. RA 9344 does not
distinguish. (P v Garcia)
 What if SPL which does not follow nomenclature of RPC?
Minor not entitled to privileged MC.
o Like life imprisonment in illegal recruitment.
Can‟t be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees.
 Recommendation of social worked not binding on the court.
(P v Candelario)
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not
wholly excusable. — A penalty lower by one or two degrees than
that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly
excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required
to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the
several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the
majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the
penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the
number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or
lacking.
 Art 69 applies when the majority of requisites for justifying
and exempting circumstances are present.
 Art 69 makes it privileged mitigating because the penalty is
lowered by one or two degrees.
o Hence, incomplete self-defense (for example)
can‟t be offset by any aggravating circumstances.
44
SEC. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If
the court finds that the objective of the disposition measures imposed
upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the
child in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the
conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in
conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of
judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of
age while under suspended sentence, the court shall determine whether
to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of
sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified
period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21)
years.
45
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural
Camps and other Training Facilities. - A child
in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the
court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a
regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training
facilities that may be established, maintained, supervised and controlled
by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
46
SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court
may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with
the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation
in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best
interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of Presidential Decree
No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby
amended accordingly
50
 am+dg

 Remember, however, that for incomplete self-defense to be
privileged mitigating, there must be unlawful aggression for
Art 69 to apply.
o Unlawful aggression in self-defense is a condition
sine qua non to justify the act.
 What if not majority of requisites, like isa lang? Ordinary
mitigating only. Lower to minimum period.
 Example: guilty of homicide, RT. But incomplete self-
defense, plus two generic mitigating circumstances.
o Lower by two degrees (don‟t know why 2, but
basta lowered degree) to PC.
o Then since there are 2 generic mitigating, lower
by another degree (Art 64) to AM. (People v
Narvaez)
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to
serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if
the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following
rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective
severity shall be followed so that they may be executed
successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have
been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should
they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding
paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be
determined in accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,

 3. Reclusion temporal, 
 o
4. Prision mayor, 
 eligibility for pardon or
5. Prision correccional,

 6. Arresto mayor, 
 service of multiple penalties.
7. Arresto menor, 

8. Destierro, 

9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 
 penalties even if these would exceed the limitation of
10 Temporal absolute disqualification. 
 penalties in this article.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and 
 with imposition.
12. Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the
maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than
three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of
the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may
be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed
equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual
penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years. (As
amended).
 When a convict is given multiple sentences, he shall serve
them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties permits
simultaneous service of sentence.
 Otherwise, the penalties shall be served successively in the
order of severity as prescribed above.
o You can‟t serve 3 reclusion perpetuas
simultaneously. Hence they should be served
successively, starting from the most severe, if
penalties of different degrees of severity are
imposed.
 Limitations on the service of sentence:
o 3-fold rule: maximum duration of the convict‟s
sentence shall not be more than 3-fold of the
length of time corresponding to the most severe
of the penalties imposed upon him.
 i.e. the maximum penalty is three
times the most severe or the total of
the penalties imposed, whichever is
lower.
o Such max period shall not exceed 40 years.
Whatever is lower between the total penalties
and 3x the most sever, it shall not be more than
40 years.
 How to compute:
o Step 1: get the most severe penalty meted out
as listed in Art 70
o Step 2: Multiply the duration of that by 3
o Step 3: Add the duration of all the different
sentences
o Step 4: Compare the results of 2 and 3
o Step 5: Accused to serve the lesser period,
unless it is in excess of 40 years in which case
the culprit shall serve only 40 years.
 Do not include subsidiary imprisonment penalty in the
computation of the 40 years because subsidiary liability is
uncertain if it will even happen. (Director v Bagtas)
 If the penalty is complex, the three-fold penalty is three
times the indeterminate sentence also. (see boado for
example)
 If ISL is imposed, use the max period in computing because
the max period is the most severe.
 What are the penalties that can be served simultaneously
with penalty of imprisonment?
o Perpetual absolute DQ
o Perpetual special DQ
o Temporary absolute DQ
o Temporary special DQ
o Suspension
o Public censure
o Fine
o Bond to keep the peace
o Civil interdiction
o Confiscation and payment of costs
 Destierro can NOT be served simultaneously with
imprisonment.
 The imputation of the 30-year duration to reclusion
perpetua in this article is only to
serve as a basis for determining the convict‟s
o for the application of the three-fold rule in the
 The judge should NOT refrain from imposing the correct
o This article deals with SERVICE of sentence, not
o The court should impose the correct penalties
even if these will amount to more than the
lifetime of the prisoner.
o Why? Because when the convict is pardoned, he
should still serve the other sentences meted on
him.
 Accused is convicted for 10 counts of rape, all RP. How long
should he remain in jail? 40 years.
o What sentence should accuse serve first?
Parepareho lang naman eh. Justice Callejo:
Follow order of docket numbers. Article 70
doesn‟t strictly apply. (P v Conte)
 The second sentence should only commence after the 1st.
Successive nga eh.
 Does Art 70 apply to SPL?
Art. 71. Graduated scales. — In the case in which the law
prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than
another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be
observed in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale
in which is comprised the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe
the following graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,

 3. Reclusion temporal, 

4. Prision mayor, 

5. Prision correccional, 

6. Arresto mayor, 

7. Destierro, 

8. Arresto menor, 

9. Public censure, 

10. Fine. 

SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
2. Temporal absolute disqualification 

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

4. Public censure,

 5. Fine.
 Note that in Art 71, the penalty next lower than arresto
mayor is destierro, not arresto menor. But in Art 70,

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

51
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

destierro follows arresto menor in the degree of severity.

Why? Prision 6 months 6 months 2 years, 4 years,
o Arresto mayor is imprisonment or complete correccional, and 1 and 1 day 4 months 2 months
suspension and day to 6 to 2 years and 1 and 1
deprivation of liberty. Destierro means
destierro years. and 4 day to 4 day to 6
banishment for a specified length of time. They months. years years.
must not be judged by the duration of each of and 2
these penalties, but by degree of deprivation of months.
liberty involved. Destierro is considered lighter Arresto mayor 1 month 1 to 2 2 months 4 months
than arresto mayor. and 1 months. and 1 and 1
day to 6 day to 4 day to 6
months. months. months.
Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — The civil Arresto menor From 1 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30
liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more offenses shall be to 30 days. days. days.
satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the days.
judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order
of time.
 If you forget the periods, just follow the steps:
o Step 1: get the duration of each period
o Step 2: divide that by 3
Section Three. — Provisions common in the last two o Step 3: add the quotient to the beginning of each
preceding sections period starting with the minimum
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory
penalties. — Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by
provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three
provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it must be distinct penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period;
convict. the lightest of them shall be the minimum the next the medium,
and the most severe the maximum period.
 The accessory penalties are automatically imposed because
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms
of this article, even if not indicated in the decision. specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be distributed,
o Compare this with subsidiary imprisonment, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
which must be in the decision for it to be  For example, law says penalty is RT, PM, and PC. RT will be
imposed. max, PM medium, PC minimum.

Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. — Chapter Five
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
given penalty, without specially designating the name of the
former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the same Section One. — General Provisions
penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be
considered as the next higher penalty. (REPEALED) Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No penalty
shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment.
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that
degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents
penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or than those expressly authorized thereby.
reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations
maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing prescribed for the government of the institutions in which the
the minimum. penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the
The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance,
consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional. and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the
 This deals with the reduction of fines when the felony is convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which they
attempted or frustrated or when imposed upon the may receive, and their diet.
accessory or the accomplice. The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes
in different institutions, or at least into different departments and
 For each degree, ¼ of the max amount is taken. also for the correction and reform of the convicts.
 In no case shall the penalty computed be lower than the
 No penalty to be executed except by virtue of final
minimum prescribed by law.
judgment
o Fine by law is 200-600.
 If the person is acquitted, he can‟t be subjected to public
o Example, it has to be reduced by two degrees.
censure (P v. Abellera)
(So get ¼ of 600, then subtract it twice from
 If the judge sentence accused to 25 years of RP, he can not
600, that‟ll be your penalty.)
be compelled to serve sentence because no such thing as
o You‟ll end up with 200-300, that‟s the range of
25 years of RP. Remedy is writ of habeas corpus.
the fine.
 Sir said he won‟t ask this.
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in
case of insanity. — When a convict shall become insane or an
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of
period of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the personal
divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance
medium, and the maximum in the manner shown in the following number 1 of Article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases.
table: If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence
TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in
THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR PERIODS accordance with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if
Penalties Full Minimum Medium Max the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his
Period sentence.
Reclusion 12 years 12 years 14 years, 17 years,  If the convict becomes insane or an imbecile: suspend service of
Temporal and 1 and 1 day 8 4 months sentence and send to hospital for treatment
day to 20 to 14 months, and 1  But civil liability shall still be enforced in spite of insanity and
years years and 1 day to day to 20 imbecility.
8 months 17 years years o Guardian can be appointed to administer the property, so
and 4 civil liability can be imposed.
months
Prision mayor, 6 years 6 years 8 years 10 years Art 80 – repealed.
absolute and 1 and 1 day and 1 and 1
disqualification day to 12 to 8 day to 10 day to 12
Section Two. — Execution of principal penalties.
and special years. years. years. years.
temporary Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed. — The
disqualification

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

52
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

death sentence shall be executed with reference to any other and

shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death by Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal
electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed under the liability is totally extinguished:
authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to
to mitigate the sufferings of the person under sentence during pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the
electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
execution. 2. By service of the sentence; 

If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be anaesthetized 3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all
at the moment of the electrocution. its effects; 

4. By absolute pardon; 

Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance 5. By prescription of the crime; 

to the culprit. — The court shall designate a working day for the 6. By prescription of the penalty; 

execution but not the hour thereof; and such designation shall not 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article
be communicated to the offender before sunrise of said day, and 344 of this Code.
the execution shall not take place until after the expiration of at
least eight hours following the notification, but before sunset. Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. — A pardon shall not work the
During the interval between the notification and the execution, the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage,
culprit shall, in so far as possible, be furnished such assistance as unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the
he may request in order to be attended in his last moments by pardon.
priests or ministers of the religion he professes and to consult A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of
lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and confer with members the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
of his family or persons in charge of the management of his
business, of the administration of his property, or of the care of his
descendants. Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. — A pardon of the
offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. — The provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to
death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman within the the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express
three years next following the date of the sentence or while she is waiver.
pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this
last case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty of  Crim liability is extinguished by:
reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article o Death of convict (pecuniary liability extinguished
40. if death occurs before final judgment)
o Service of sentence
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same. o Absolute pardon
— The execution shall take place in the penitentiary of Bilibid in a
space closed to the public view and shall be witnessed only by the
o Amnesty
priests assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by his o Prescription of crime
relatives, not exceeding six, if he so request, by the physician and o Prescription of penalty
the necessary personnel of the penal establishment, and by such o Marriage of the offended woman under 266-C
persons as the Director of Prisons may authorize. and 344
o Express repeal of penal law
Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person executed
and its burial. — Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of the
 Death of convict extinguishes criminal liability at any stage
culprit shall, upon the completion of the legal proceedings of the proceeding. Nobody will be there to serve the
subsequent to the execution, be turned over to the institute of penalty.
learning or scientific research first applying for it, for the purpose o But to extinguish civil liability, death must be
of study and investigation, provided that such institute shall take before final judgment.
charge of the decent burial of the remains. Otherwise, the Director o The civil liability extinguished by death before
of Prisons shall order the burial of the body of the culprit at
government expense, granting permission to be present thereat to
final judgment includes duty to restitute the
the members of the family of the culprit and the friends of the proceeds of the crime. (P v Bayotas)
latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a person sentenced  Whether asserted in a criminal action
to death be held with pomp. or in a separate civil action, civil
liability ex-delicto is extinguished by
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor,
the death of the accused while is his
prision correccional and arresto mayor. — The penalties of reclusion
perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional conviction is on appeal.
and arresto mayor, shall be executed and served in the places and o But if civil liability predicated on a source other
penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force than the delict, then it survives. It can be
or which may be provided by law in the future. executed against the estate. (de Guzman v
 Consti policy: no excessive fines or cruel or inhuman People)
punishment shall be imposed.  Final judgment – judgment beyond
recall.
Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be  Service of sentence
permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, o Period during which convict was not inside prison
nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more walls cannot be regarded as service of sentence.
than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place Service of sentence must be in a penal
designated.
institution.
 Memorize this.  Pardon
 Destierro is a correctional penalty (6 months – 6 years) o Does not look back, looks to the future and is not
 Violation of destierro will give rise to evasion of sentence retrospective
(Art 156-159).  Civil liability NOT extingiushed
o Pardon by offended party does not extinguish
Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be criminal liability.
served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant
 EX: Art 266-C (valid marriage between
himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the
court so provides in its decision, taking into consideration the offender and victim in rape), and Art
health of the offender and other reasons which may seem 344 (seduction, acts of lasciviousness,
satisfactory to it. adultery, concubinage, abduction)
 Art 266-C: VALID marriage
between offender and
Extinction of Criminal Liability offended party in rape or
Title Four sexual assault will extinguish
o criminal liability
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
and
Chapter One o even the penalty
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY already imposed.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

53
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

 So even  Art 344: Offended party may

if the pardon before institution of
convict criminal case (filing of
is complaint)
already  Can the President pardon
serving even if it‟s a private crime?
sentence Yes.
,  What is the effect of an
marriage affidavit of desistance?
with the Simply an additional ground
victim to buttress the accused‟s
will defenses, not the sole
extinguis consideration that can result
h his in acquittal.
criminal o Pardon by the President
liability.  Private act of the President and must
o If there are 3 be proved by the accused
accused: PDP, PIC,  Must be done after final judgment
and an accomplice,  Does not extend to cases of
will the marriage impeachment
between the victim  Absolute pardon by the President
and the PDP restores all civil rights, EXCEPT
extinguish the  Right to suffrage
liability of the  Right to hold public office
other accused? o These two rights
 Yes. This must be
was the specifically granted
intent of by the pardon of
the the President
Senate
when Pardon by Offended Party President
they General rule Can‟t pardon, Any crime
removed except in Art 266-C
the and Art 344
original When Before institution of After final judgment
proviso criminal action
stating Civil liability GR: doesn‟t Doesn‟t extinguish
that the extinguish but can civil liability
co- be waived by
principal, offended party
etc are
not  Amnesty
benefite o Act of grace, relieves the offender not only from
d, as suffering the penalty but obliterates the effects of
manifest the conviction as if the act were not criminal
ed by o Usually given to political offenders
Senator o Looks backward, abolishes and puts into oblivion
Enrile‟s the offense itself, as if no offense ever happened
stateme o Public act, must be concurred to by the Congress
nt in SB o Ramos issued a proclamation granting amnesty
950. to Honasan, Kapunan, etc. Does the amnest
o Marriage must be cover other members of the AFP (“any person
valid. If void, no who may have been involved in the rebellion?”)
extinguishment of  Yes. But the amnesty does not include
crim liability. any crime not covered by the
(Upon declaration proclamation itself. The latter msut
of the court that it specify the crimes to which amnesty is
was void, does the extended.
accused go back to
prison?) Amnesty Pardon
o In rape cases, is
Application Generally to Generally to
the pardon of the
political crimes and ordinary crimes and
parents of the
offenders offenders
victim without the
Effect Obliterates the Relieves the
concurrence of the
effects of conviction offender of penalty
minor victim
as if the act were but the effects of
herself effective?
not criminal conviction stay
 Boado
Congress Concurrence Concurrence not
says no.
required needed
Offended
When given Even before After final
minor
conviction conviction
must
also give To whom given Class of persons Specific individual
her Nature Public act of the Private act of the
express President, courts President, no
pardon. can take judicial judicial notice
notice

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

54
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
 Suppose an accused made perjurious statements in petition
for naturalization, and it‟s discovered. He withdraws the
petition for naturalization. Does this extinguish liability?
o No. crime already committed. Application is the
only one extinguished. (Chua v People)
 Take note of BP 22: there‟s an amnesty period of 5 days
from notice of dishonor for the issuer to pay. If he pays
within this period, he has no liability.
 What if accused returns property in malversation?
o Not extinguished. It can be mitigating if done
before the institution of the criminal complaint
(analogous to voluntary surrender) (Sajop v
People)
 Public officer charged with Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act (RA 3019), but returns money. What happens?
o Crim liability remains. But civil liability
extinguished.
Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty
years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in
fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten
years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor,
which shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one
year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in
six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest
penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules
contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article.
(As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966).
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of
prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the
crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their
agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or
information, and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or
acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable
to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent
from the Philippine Archipelago.
 When a crime has prescribed, the State loses its right to
prosecute.
 If the penalty imposed on the convict is a compound one,
the basis for prescription is the highest penalty.
 Destierro is correctional, so it prescribes in 10 years.
 Consider the following to determine if a crime has
prescribed:
o Period of the offense charged
o Period when it begins to run
o Period when it is interrupted
 When does the period begin to run?
o Upon discovery of the crime by the offended
party, the authorities, or their agents
 How do you “discover” a crime? By
learning of the corpus delicti, even if
you don‟t know who did it. (Domingo v
Sandiganbayan)
 For a continuing crime, when does it
start? Prescription period runs after the
occurrence of the last act.
 See the Ad Hoc Commission v
Ombudsman Desierto, where the court
said that the crimes could not have
been discovered because of the unique
situation of the Marcos era.
 When is the period interrupted?
o Upon filing of the complaint for filing of
preliminary investigation with the public
prosecutor or Ombudsman.
 When does it resume again?
o When the proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or
o When the proceedings terminate for any reason
not imputable to the accused
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
o Duration of the resumed period should be the
unexpended portion only for to give the period a
fresh start every time it is interrupted is
prejudicial to the offender.
 When does it not run?
o When the offender is absent from the Philippines
 Supposing a real estate document is executed (like a REM,
deed of sale) and it is falsified. When does the period run?
o For documents required to be filed with the
Register of Deeds, the period begins to run upon
filing with the RD. Why? Because PD 1529 says
that filing with the RD is constructive notice to all
persons. (P v Reyes)
 Can the period start earlier?
 Yes. If the falsification is
discovered before filing with
the RD. (P v. Pacifacador)
 Does this apply to marriages for bigamy? Since The
marriage certificate is registered with the civil registrar
anyway.
o No. The prescriptive period should begin to run
from when the offended party, State or its
agents, acquired actual knowledge of the second
marriage. There is no counterpart provision in the
Civil Register Act which states that filing with the
civ register is constructive notice. Moreover,
bigamous marriages are usually done in a
concealed manner. Hence, the period will only
begin to run upon discovery of the bigamous
marriage.
 For SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, ACT 3326 will apply. 47
o But there are some SPLs which provide for their
own prescription rules.
 Omnibus Election Code – 5 years
 Genocide Law (RA 9851) – never
prescribes48
 Human Security Act (RA 9372) – RPC
to apply suppletorily (RPC prescription
will apply)
o In Act 3326, what does “proceedings” mean?
 It includes judicial proceedings, and
 It also includes executive proceedings.
This means investigation by the
executive department.
 Hence, when a criminal
complaint is filed in SEC for
the investigation of a crime,
the period is interrupted.
(SEC V Interport, wherein
the Court said that the
investigation of the SEC for a
crime under the Revised
Securities Act interrupted the
47 Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless
otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the
following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or
by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four
years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but
less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by
imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; and (d)
after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment for
six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe
after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall
prescribe after two months.
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission
of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time,
from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for
its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted
against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings
are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
48 Section 11. Non-prescription. - The crimes defined and penalized
under this Act, their prosecution, and the execution of sentences
imposed on their account, shall not be subject to any prescription.
55
 am+dg

period. See footnote on extinguished partially:

exact words of SC.49) 1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
 Hence, in a complaint under

 3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while
the Intellectual Property Law, he is serving his sentence.
the prescription period is
 Causes of partial extinction:
interrupted when the
o Conditional pardon
complaint is filed with the
o Commutation
DOJ for preliminary
o Good conduct allowances
investigation.
o Parole under the ISL
 See also Panaguiton v DOJ
o Probation
(2008) which said the same
o Partial repeal of a penal law
thing.
 For cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the
Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon.
prescriptive period is interrupted when the information is — Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur
filed in the MTC (no preliminary investigation eh.) the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed
therein otherwise, his non-compliance with any of the conditions
Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties specified shall result in the revocation of the pardon and the
imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows: provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him.
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;  Must be given after final judgment and must be accepted
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years; 
 by accused
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the
penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years; 

 Does not extinguish civil liability
4. Light penalties, in one year.  If one violates his conditional pardon, two things can
happen:
Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period o President orders his rearrest and incarceration
of prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date (no need for judicial determination of guilt), and
when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it o Prosecuted under 159 of the RPC
shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be
captured, should go to some foreign country with which this
 Suppose dude was given conditional pardon. Condition, he
Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit another shouldn‟t kill no more. He kills an annoying person. What
crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. are his liabilities?
 Loss of the State of the right to make the convict serve his o Article 159
sentence by the lapse of time. o Homicide
 When does it start?  Not complex crime! Different crimes!
o When the culprit evades the service of his
sentence Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. — The commutation of
 When is it interrupted? the original sentence for another of a different length and nature
shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of
o Convict gives himself up the former.
o He‟s captured
o Goes to a country which has no extradition treaty Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The good conduct of any
 If it has an extradition treaty, but does prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle him to the following
not cover the said crime, period is deductions from the period of his sentence:
interrupted 1. During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a deduction of five days for each month of good behavior;
o Commits another crime (other than evasion of 2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment,
sentence) before the expiration of the period of he shall be allowed a deduction of eight days for each month of
prescription good behavior; 

o Acceptance of conditional pardon (Pontillas) 3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his
 Applicable to destierro imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of ten days for each
month of good behavior; and 

4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment,
Prescription of Crime Prescription of Penalty he shall be allowed a deduction of fifteen days for each month of
Loss of right to proscute Loss of right to enforce the good behavior.
penalty
Prosecution has yet to begin Trial on the merits already Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. — A deduction of one-
fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner
concluded
who, having evaded the service of his sentence under the
Convict may not have been Convict already was in custody circumstances mentioned in Article 58 of this Code, gives himself
under custody up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a
Begins when corpus delicti Begins when crime of evasion proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or
discovered of service of sentence is done catastrophe to in said article.

Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever lawfully justified,

Chapter Two
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is
49 ―Indubitably, the prescription period is interrupted by commencing
the proceedings for the prosecution of the accused. In criminal cases,
this is accomplished by initiating the preliminary investigation. The
prosecution of offenses punishable under the Revised Securities Act
and the Securities Regulations Code is initiated by the filing of a
complaint with the SEC or by an investigation conducted by the SEC
motu proprio. Only after a finding of probable cause is made by the
SEC can the DOJ instigate a preliminary investigation. Thus, the
investigation that was commenced by the SEC in 1995, soon after it
discovered the questionable acts of the respondents, effectively
interrupted the prescription period. Given the nature and purpose of
the investigation conducted by the SEC, which is equivalent to the
preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases, such
investigation would surely interrupt the prescription period.‖
the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct.
Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.
 Good conduct allowance given when:
o There was an occurrence of a disorder/calamity
which the prisoner did not participate
o Convict escapes
o He gives himself up 48 hours after proclamation
that no more calamity
 He gets 1/5 deduction of his service!
 He must escape and then return. If he doesn‟t escape, just
stays put in the prison, he doesn‟t get any good conduct
allowance. Lesson: escape, but return.
 If he escapes for good, but gets captured, or doesn‟t return
within 2 days, he will get 1/5 addition to the remaining
sentence which shouldn‟t be more than 6 months.
Indeterminate Sentence Law
ACT NO. 4103

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

56
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
(As Amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203 [June 19,
1965])
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND
PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY
THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR;
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules
of the said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range
of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by
said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
prescribed by the same.
.
Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses
punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those
convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to
those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or
espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual
delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or
evaded sentence; to those who having been granted conditional
pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof;
to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed
one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the
time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof.
 The venerable Justice won‟t ask us to compute.
 The ISL is for the benefit of the convict, and to increase his
economic contribution. It stems from the positivist theory.
 It looks at the convict as private individual and a member
of society as a whole.
 The state is interest in redeeming the individual for
economic usefulness and other social ends.
 Court must determine the max of the indeterminate penalty
first, and then the minimum.
o With the minimum the court has unlimited
discretion within the range of the minimum of the
penalty one degree lower than the penalty
imposed by law.
 The following can NOT avail of the benefits of the ISL:
o Based on Penalties
 Convicted and punished with death, LI,
RP (for purposes of ISL: LI and RP are
synonymous)
 Maximum term of imprisonment does
not exceed one year
 Non-prison sentences of fine, destierro,
disqualification, etc
o Based on Offenses
 Convicted of treason, misprision of
treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage,
piracy
o Based on Offenders
 Habitual delinquents
 Those who escaped from confinement
or evaded sentence
 Committed crimes while on parole
 Violated conditional pardon
 Those already sentenced upon passage
of Act
 If the court imposes a penalty of fine (if alternative
between imprisonment and fine), the ISL does not apply
because it applies only to penalty of imprisonment with
divisible penalty.
 There are some laws which expressly provide that the
convict is not entitled to the benefits of the ISL and parole
(like the anti-terrorism law)
 Offenders who commit crimes while on parole are
disqualified from the ISL.
 When the penalty is originally exempt from the ISL and
after the lowering due to privileged mitigating
circumstances it becomes within the law, the law should
apply. What controls is the penalty imposed, not what is
imposable.
 If crime is a complex one, to determine the penalty next
lower in degree, the full range of the penalty prescribed by
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
law for the offense must be the starting point, not merely
the imposable penalty. The reason is the complex nature of
the offense.
 When can a court impose a straight penalty?
o When both the minimum and maximum durations
of imprisonment are less than 1 year. In one
case, the maximum was 4 months and a day.
The court can impose a straight penalty of 60
days.
Parole50
 When the person serves the minimum of the ISL, he may
apply for parole. He will be allowed to leave the penal
institution under certain conditions.
 Parole lasts for a certain period of time.
50
Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence to
look into the physical, mental and moral record of the prisoners who
shall be eligible to parole and to determine the proper time of release of
such prisoners. Whenever any prisoner shall have served the minimum
penalty imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence, from the reports of the prisoner's work and
conduct which may be received in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed, and from the study and investigation made by
the Board itself, that such prisoner is fitted by his training for release,
that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live and
remain at liberty without violating the law, and that such release will
not be incompatible with the welfare of society, said Board of
Indeterminate Sentence may, in its discretion, and in accordance with
the rules and regulations adopted hereunder, authorize the release of
such prisoner on parole, upon such terms and conditions as are herein
prescribed and as may be prescribed by the Board. The said Board of
Indeterminate Sentence shall also examine the records and status of
prisoners who shall have been convicted of any offense other than those
named in Section 2 hereof, and have been sentenced for more than one
year by final judgment prior to the date on which this Act shall take
effect, and shall make recommendation in all such cases to the
Governor-General with regard to the parole of such prisoners as they
shall deem qualified for parole as herein provided, after they shall have
served a period of imprisonment not less than the minimum period for
which they might have been sentenced under this Act for the same
offense.
Sec. 6. Every prisoner released from confinement on parole by virtue
of this Act shall, at such times and in such manner as may be required
by the conditions of his parole, as may be designated by the said Board
for such purpose, report personally to such government officials or
other parole officers hereafter appointed by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining
portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon him or until final
release and discharge by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence as herein
provided. The officials so designated shall keep such records and make
such reports and perform such other duties hereunder as may be
required by said Board. The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner
during his parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by the
said Board in its discretion. If during the period of surveillance such
paroled prisoner shall show himself to be a law-abiding citizen and
shall not violate any of the laws of the Philippine Islands, the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of release in his
favor, which shall entitle him to final release and discharge
Sec. 7. The Board shall file with the court which passed judgment on
the case, and with the Chief of Constabulary, a certified copy of each
order of conditional or final release and discharge issued in accordance
with the provisions of the next preceding two sections.
Sec. 8. Whenever any prisoner released on parole by virtue of this Act
shall, during the period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of
his parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue an order for
his re-arrest which may be served in any part of the Philippine Islands
by any police officer. In such case the prisoner so re-arrested shall
serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for
which he was originally committed to prison, unless the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a new parole to the
said prisoner
57
 am+dg
 If he complies with the conditions of the parole, the Board
of Pardons and Parole will give out final release and
discharge.
Parole Pardon
Minimum sentence must be Service not required for grant
served
Granted by law By Pres
Probation Law
Section 1. Title and Scope of the Decree. — This Decree shall be
known as the Probation Law of 1976. It shall apply to all offenders
except those entitled to the benefits under the provisions of
Presidential Decree numbered Six Hundred and three and similar
laws.
Sec. 2. Purpose. — This Decree shall be interpreted so as to:
(a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by
providing him with individualized treatment;
(b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent
offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison
sentence; and
(c) prevent the commission of offenses
Sec. 3. Meaning of Terms. — As used in this Decree, the following
shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be construed thus:
(a) "Probation" is a disposition under which a defendant, after
conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed
by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer.
(b) "Probationer" means a person placed on probation.
(c) "Probation Officer" means one who investigates for the court a
referral for probation or supervises a probationer or both.
Sec. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this
Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant,
suspend the execution of said sentence and place the defendant on
probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it
may deem best.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of
imprisonment or a fine only. An application for probation shall be
filed with the trial court, with notice to the appellate court if an
appeal has been taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of
the application shall be deemed a waver of the right to appeal, or
the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.
Sec. 5. Post-sentence Investigation. — No person shall be placed
on probation except upon prior investigation by the probation
officer and a determination by the court that the ends of justice and
the best interest of the public as well as that of the defendant will
be served thereby.
Sec. 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. — In
determining whether an offender may be placed on probation, the
court shall consider all information relative, to the character,
antecedents, environment, mental and physical condition of the
offender, and available institutional and community resources.
Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:
(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be
provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or
(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the
offender will commit another crime; or
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense
committed.
Sec. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall
not be extended to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more
than six years;
(b) convicted of any offense against the security of the State;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and
one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos;
(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this
Decree; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33
hereof.
Sec. 10. Conditions of Probation. — Every probation order issued by
the court shall contain conditions requiring that the probationer
shall:
(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake
his supervision at such place as may be specified in the order
within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such
time and place as specified by said officer.
The court may also require the probationer to:
(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;
(b) meet his family responsibilities;
(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said
employment without the prior written approval of the probation
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
officer;
(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and
treatment and enter and remain in a specified institution, when
required for that purpose;
(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;
(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction,
recreation or residence of persons on probation;
(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;
(i) permit the probation officer or an authorized social worker to
visit his home and place of work;
(j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his
residence without its prior written approval; or
(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the
defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or incompatible
with his freedom of conscience.
Sec. 11. Effectivity of Probation Order. — A probation order shall
take effect upon its issuance, at which time the court shall inform
the offender of the consequences thereof and explain that upon his
failure to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said
order or his commission of another offense, he shall serve the
penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on
probation.
Sec. 14. Period of Probation. —
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than one year shall not exceed two
years, and in all other cases, said period shall not exceed six years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is
made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the
period of probation shall not be less than nor to be more than twice
the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed
at the rate established, in Article thirty-nine of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.
Sec. 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequent Disposition. — At any
time during probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest
of a probationer for violation of any of the conditions of probation.
The probationer, once arrested and detained, shall immediately be
brought before the court for a hearing, which may be informal and
summary, of the violation charged. The defendant may be admitted
to bail pending such hearing. In such a case, the provisions
regarding release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be
applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. If the
violation is established, the court may revoke or continue his
probation and modify the conditions thereof. If revoked, the court
shall order the probationer to serve the sentence originally
imposed. An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the
terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Sec. 16. Termination of Probation. — After the period of probation
and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the
probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and
conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed
terminated.
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to
him all civil rights lost or suspend as a result of his conviction and
to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense
for which probation was granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished
with a copy of such order.
 Probation is a mere privilege, not a right.
 REMEMBER: if you file an appeal, you lose probation. If you
file for probation, you cannot appeal.
o Appeal and probation are mutually exclusive.
 Except under RA 9344, which allows
probation even if you appeal.
 If you apply for probation, judgment is suspended, the
accessory penalty included.
o But the civil liability is NOT suspended.
 Even when the probation is granted, a
writ of execution for the civil liability
can still be enforced. Civil liability is not
extinguished by a grant of probation.
 Following are disqualified from applying for probation:
o Sentenced to a max term of more than 6 years
imprisonment
o Convicted of subversion or any crime against
national security or the public order
o Previously convicted by fj of offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than 1 month and 1 day
and/or fine of not less than P200
o Once been on probation (you can do probation
once)
o Convicted of drug pushing (DDA)
o Convicted of terrorism (Anti-Terrorism Act)
o Already serving sentence upon the effectivity of
the law
58
 am+dg

o Those who already perfected appeals

 6 years lang, right? What if he was sentenced for 3 crimes
tried jointly, each having less than a 6 year penalty, but if
you add them, the penalties exceed 6 years.
o Accused still entitled to probation. Consider the
penalty for each crime, not the aggregate. (Pablo
Francisco v CA)
 What if on appeal, the CA reduces the penalty?
o Can‟t apply for probation. You already appealed.
Even if purpose of appeal is to reduce the
penalty, the moment one appeals, you lose
probation.
o If you file for probation, judgment is deemed
final.
o If you file for appeal, it forecloses application to
probation.
 You can‟t have your red velvet cake
and eat it too.
o The “appeal” here is the appeal from the trial
court to the CA. (P v Evangelista)
 What if you withdrew the appeal within 15 days, pwede pa
ba? Pwede! Should be a perfected appeal. (Llamado v CA)
 If the application for probation is sufficient in form, the
convict may be allowed to post bail.
o But the court cannot extend beyond the period
beyond the period to study the application.
 Court can give conditions for the probation. (Mandatory
conditions are to present himself to probation officer and
report to prob officer once a month)
o Condition was to submit a program for payment
of the civil liability. Accused didn‟t pay and his
probation was revoked. He claimed he was being
imprisoned for nonpayment of debt. SC: Mali ka
boy. Imprisoned for not complying with condition,
not for nonpayment. (Salgado v CA)
o But a condition which prohibits a teacher from
teaching again is wrong. Court must think of the
accused. (Baclayon v Mutia)
 If the court approves/denies the application, is it
appealable? No. it‟s an order. So, go for Rule 65.
 Can court grant shorter periods of probation?
o Yes. but they cannot extend it.
o Imprisonment of not more than one year,
probation shall not exceed two years.
o More than one year, probation period shall not
exceed 6 years.
o Fine only (with subsidiary imprisonment),
probation shall be twice the number of days of
subsidiary imprisonment.
 Mere expiry of probation period does NOT automatically
terminate probation. (Bala v Martinez)
o Court must still determine if accused complied
with the conditions of the probation. Need for a
final discharge from the court.
o Once discharged, ok na! he can‟t be compelled to
do the conditions or go back to jail. Moreover, he
recovers whatever he lost due to his accessory
penalties.
Probation ISL
Sentence Must not be more Max must be more
than 6 years than 1 year
Penalty Imprisonment or fine Imprisonment only
Disposition Sentence is Minimum to be served
suspended
Violation Entire sentence shall Unexpired portion only
be served to be served
Appeal Forecloses privilege No effect on the
of probation operation of the law
Availability Only once Everytime as long as
the offender is not dq‟d
Nature Mere privilege, must Mandatory, need not
be applied for by the be applied for by the
convict convict
Civil Liability
Title Five
CIVIL LIABILITY
Chapter One
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
 Civil liability can be incurred whether the act is punishable
by law or not (since it can be based on felonies or quasi-
delicts/torts)
 The moment the criminal action is instituted, the civil action
is instituted along with it.
o Remember torts principles and independent civil
actions.
 Possible that there‟s a crime but no civil liability, like in
victimless crimes.
o But if the state is the one aggrieved, the state
can recover civil liability. (Malversation)
 Also possible that there‟s no crime, but there‟s still civil
liability. (Art 332 – swindling relatives)
 What if the accused is acquitted?51
o If based on the ground that accused was not the
author of the act/omission complained of: no civil
liability based on delict
o If based on reasonable doubt: civil liability still
possible by a preponderance of evidence
 If SPL, is there civil liabilities?
o Yes. there must be evidence that a party
including the government sustained substantial
injury so that the accused may be civilly liable.
 BP 22
 Anti-Fencing (PD 1612) – Sec 3(a)
includes accessory penalty of RPC
(hence, civil liability under Art 104
[restitution])52
 VAWC (RA 9262) – accused liable to
battered woman.
 If crime is absorbed by another crime, can there be civil
liability in the absorbed crime?
o Yes. For example, you murder someone in
furtherance of rebellion. You will still be civilly
liable for the murder, even if it lost its juridical
existence. Liable for civil indemnity and moral
damages. (P v Hernandez)
o Also when homicide is absorbed by arson. Still
liable for civil indemnity and moral damages for
the homicide. (P v Malngan)
 If a check bounces, accused can be liable for BP22 and
estafa. Will the accused pay the value of the check twice, or
just once?
o Although there are two crimes, there is only one
check. Thus, there should only be one payment
of the payment. (Rodriguez v Pomferada)
 If there is a complex crime (2 crimes), can there be more
than 1 civil liability?
51
Civil Code Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance
of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the
plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint
should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable
doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to
that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or
not the acquittal is due to that ground.
52
a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property
involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if
the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided
in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one
year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may
be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty
shall be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining
thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

59
Justice Callejo
 am+dg
o Yes. Number of civil liabilities for as many
victims.
 Dude shot one bullet, killed two people.
Civilly liable to both victims.
 If two crimes (one SPL and one RPC), can there be more
than 1 civil liability?
o No. See BP22/estafa example.
o Same when estafa and illegal recruitment, just
one civil liability.
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The
exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3,
5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil
liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by
a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under
fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall
devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority
or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence
on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor
under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person
be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with
their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in
accordance with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the
persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be
civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have
received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate
amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even
approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the
Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and,
in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the
consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be
made in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the
persons using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable
and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act
shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their
property exempt from execution.
 If justifying circumstance, no civil liability
o EXCEPT Art 11, Par 4 (person who avoided a
greater evil or injury): primary liability is on the
one who benefited from such avoidance. If there
were several benefited, they will all bear the
liability proportionately.
 If exempting circumstance
o Insane person, imbecile, or under 18 with no
discernment53 (Art 12, Par 1-3): primary liability
on the person who has control or authority over
them, unless he is without fault or negligence
 If no fault or negligence, then property
of minor or insane (except property
exempt from liability)
o Acting because of an irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear (Art 12, Par 5-6): primary
liability on the person employing the force or
causing the fear
 Secondary liability is on the person
doing the act, save for their property
exempt from execution
o Doing a lawful act, failure to do an act because of
some lawful insuperable cause (Art 12, Par 4 and
7): no civil liability!
 The great Justice Regalado says these
are actually justifying circumstances
and should‟ve been under Art 11.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and
proprietors of establishments. — In default of the persons
criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons
or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal
ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have
53
RA 9344: The exemption from criminal liability herein established
does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced
in accordance with existing laws.
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging
therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such
guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the
person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the
inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect
to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in
case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
 Elements under Par 1:
o Innkeeper, tavernkeeper or proprietor of
establishment or his employee committed a
violation of municipal ordinance or some general
or special police regulation
o Crime committed in such tavern, inn,
establishment
o Person criminally liable is insolvent
 All three present? Then keepers/props
civilly liable.
 Elements under Par 2:
o Guests notified in advance the innkeeper or the
person representing him of the deposit of their
goods within the inn or house
o Guests followed the directions of the innkeeper or
his representative with respect to the care of and
vigilance over such goods
o Such goods were taken by robbery with force
upon things or theft committed within the inn or
house
 All three present? Innkeeper
subsidiarily liable.
 No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons.
o EXCEPT when committed by the innkeeper‟s
employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary
liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils,
workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their
duties.
 Is the adopter civilly liable for the damage caused by the
adopted minor? Yes.
 Requirements for subsidiary civil liability of the employer:
o EE-ER Relationship
o ER engaged in some kind of industry
 “engaged in some kind of industry”:
capital and labor are habitually
employed for the purpose of gain/profit
o EE guilty of the wrongful act and found to have
committed the offense in the discharge of his
duties (not necessarily any offense he commits
while in the discharge of such duties)
o EE is insolvent as shown by the non-satisfaction
of the execution against him
o Conviction attained finality
 No need for court to pronounce subsidiary liability of the
employee. It is deemed written into the judgments of the
cases.
 Can the ER challenge the sheriff‟s return which showed
non-satisfaction? Yes! He must do it upon submission of the
sheriff‟s return.
 Is teacher liable for student‟s acts? Only when engaged in
industry. (Compare with 2180 which talks of quasi-delicts)
 Visiting doctor left gauze in stomach of patient. Patient
died. Are hospitals liable for consulting/visiting doctors?
(Ramos v CA/Pro Services v Agana)
o Yes, because of:
 Control in hiring and firing of these
consultants/doctors
 Performance of duties within hospital
premises.
 Consultants‟ acts subject to review by
hospital
 Hospital controlled staff of consultants.
60
 am+dg
o Moreover, private corporation who owned the
hospital was subsidiarily liable under corporate
responsibility.
 Important doctrines from the Philippine Rabbit Bus case:
o Filing of criminal action necessarily includes
subsidiary liability of employer. He may not be a
party but in effect, he is bound by the judgment.
ER may assist in the defense of his employee, but
he may not actually participate in the criminal
case.
o The judgment binds the ER.
 Except if there‟s collusion between the
offended and the erring EE.
o Extent of liability of ER: only in terms of civil
liability (he can‟t be jailed) and the amount of the
civil liability. His civil liability can‟t be separated
from his EE.
 If the employee is acquitted based on reasonable doubt, is
there civil liability for the employer?
o Yes. Only time when no civil liability is when the
court says that he did not actually commit the
acts on which the charge is based on.
 Regardless as to who the actual owner of the car is, the
registered owner is the operator of the same with respect
to the public or 3rd persons.
o Registered owner liable, but can recover from the
actual owner. (transpo cases)
Chapter Two
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability
established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;

 3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
Art. 105. Restitution; How made. — The restitution of the thing
itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any
deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the
possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means,
saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may
be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been
acquired by the third person in the manner and under the
requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
Art. 106. Reparation; How made. — The court shall determine the
amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing,
whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured
party, and reparation shall be made accordingly.
Art. 107. Indemnification; What is included. — Indemnification for
consequential damages shall include not only those caused the
injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third
person by reason of the crime.
 Civil liability includes:
o Restitution (return of the thing itself)
o If restitution not possible, reparation of the
damage caused
o Indemnification for consequential damages
(based on Civil Code)
 Restitution
o Includes return of ransom in kidnapping with
ransom
o What if a third person acquired property subject
of crime?
 Can still recover the item from that
person
 But the buyer in good faith is
entitled to reimbursement
from thief or criminal
 If stolen property cannot be returned
anymore, the value of the thing taken
will do
 What is basis for the value?
Value at the time of the
commission of the crime.
 In illegal recruitment, money paid by
the applicant must be returned (P v
Billaber)
Mickey Ingles 4C 2012
Justice Callejo
 With 12% interest from the
time of filing of the case until
amount has been paid.
 In BP 22, 6% from filing of information
until finality of decision, then get the
whole amount then 12% until amount
was paid (Palana v P)
 Damages
o Actual, moral, exemplary, temperate, nominal
o In crimes and quasi-delicts, liable for all natural
and probable consequences of act or omission 54
o May be increased or decreased depending on
aggravating or mitigating circumstances55
o Also includes lost profits, not only value lost56
 Civil indemnity
o As long as the crime results to death, civil
indemnity will be awarded
o Also been granted in rape
 Actual damages
o Must be proved
 Moral damages
o Because of physical suffering, besmirched
repuration, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, wounded feelings
o Recovered in:
 Crimes leading to physical injuries
(includes DEATH)
 Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries
(includes DEATH)
 Seduction, abduction, rape (even
attempted rape), lascivious acts
 Parents may also recover
moral damages
 Adultery, concubinage
 Illegal/arbitrary detention/arrests
 Illegal search
 Libel, slander, defamation
 Malicious prosecution
 Others are based on civil code na
o If raped three times, there must be a separate
award for each crime. Can‟t be lumped together.
o In the cases enumerated, no need to allege
emotional suffering in the information. Given na
yon.
 However, there are some cases which
say that heirs must prove that they
suffered emotional pain, etc.
 But basta ikaw yung victim, you can
get moral damages.
 Exemplary damages
o Imposed, by way of example or correction for the
public good, in addition to the moral, temperate,
liquidated or compensatory damages.
o To serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings
and vindication
o No need for proof of actual loss
o Distinct and separate from penalty of fine.
o When a crime has one or more ACs, exemplary
damages may be imposed (Civ Code, 2230)
o What if the AC was not alleged in the information
(hence, can‟t be used against accused for his
penalty), but proved during trial, can exemplary
damages still be imposed?
54
Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be
liable for all damages which are the natural and probable
consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not
necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have
reasonably been foreseen by the defendan
55
Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be
respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances.
56
Art. 2200. Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not
only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which
the obligee failed to obtain
61
 am+dg

 Yes. even if not alleged in the omniscient

complaint or information, as long as Justice
proven. Regalado. He
o “Aggravating” should be applied in its generic claims that the
sense, includes specific, qualifying, general, etc. offender must
 Hence, even if treachery is qualifying in still pay,
Art 248, it can still be treated as provided that
aggravating for imposing exemplary the paternity
damages. is established.
 Same with kidnapping with But the
ransom (demand for ransom offender
is qualifying), exemplary cannot be
may still be imposed. obliged to
 Also, relationship may be a basis for acknowledge
granting exemplary damages even if it offspring in
is an inherent element of the crime. adultery and
(parricide) concubinage
o Does set-off apply in terms of exemplary when the
damages? No. As long as there‟s an AC, offended party
exemplary may be imposed. is married and
o Can exemplary damages be awarded in arson? paternity
Yes. It‟s an anti-social act. To correct the cannot be
behavior. determined.
o Two separate crimes of rape, but same victim, Sexual assault 30k 30k
how many exemplary? (fingered)
 As many as the number of crimes Attempted rape 30K 25k 10k exemplary
committed, even if the victim was the Acts of None 5k 2k exemplary
same. lasciviousness
o In reckless imprudence, exemplary damages may (for each count)
be imposed if shown to have had gross Murder 75k 75k
negligence. Parricide 50k 50k Shouldn‟t
 Temperate damages there be
o More than nominal but less than compensatory exemplary
damages, may be recovered when the court finds here?
that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but
Homicide 50k 50k
its amount can not, from the nature of the case,
Frustrated None, no 30k
be provided with certainty
homicide one died
o Must be reasonable
Attempted None 30k (one
o For example, the heirs of a deceased in homicide,
homicide case 10k,
murder, parricide are entitled to actual damages.
depends
 But if they can‟t prove actual damages,
talaga!)
the court may give temperate
Robbery with 75k (if 75k (death)
damages.
 Attorney‟s fees homicide death) 50k 50k (RP)
(if RP)
o Must be reasonable
o Discretionary upon the court Forcible 75k 50k If multiple
 Interest abduction with rape, extra
o 12% from date of final judgment rape (for each P50k
count) indemnity and
 Even with RA 9346, the classification of crimes as heinous 50k moral
(death) and quasi-heinous (RP) still remains. It is important damages, per
in determining the civil indemnity and moral damages of extra rape
the crime. Kidnapping with 75k 75k
o Heinous: rape
 Indemnity: P75k Kidnapping with 75k 75k
 Moral damages: P50k homicide
o Quasi-heinous: Kidnapped was 50k 200k 100k
 Indemnity: P50k 8 years old exemplary
 Moral damages: P50k (Kidnap for (because of
 ransom) ransom)
Crime Indemnity Moral Others Qualified 75k 50k
Damages carnapping
Rape with 100k 50k RA 7610 20k 15k Not sure, just
homicide got this from
Qualified rape 75k 50k J. Callejo
Simple rape 50k 50k If a child is Zombie 0k 0k Eow powz.
born out of the apocalypse
rape, also
liable for Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or
support indemnification for consequential damages and actions to demand
the same; Upon whom it devolves. — The obligation to make
(except if
restoration or reparation for damages and indemnification for
woman is consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person
already liable.
married.) The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification
This exception likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured.
is dissented to
Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If there are two or
by the
more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

62
Justice Callejo
 am+dg

the amount for which each must respond.

Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices

and accessories of a felony; Preference in payment. —
Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the
principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their
respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among
themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other
persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property
of the principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly,
against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been
enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall have a
right of action against the others for the amount of their respective
shares.

Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any

person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a
felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent
to the extent of such participation.

Mickey Ingles 4C 2012

63
Justice Callejo