Criminal Law Book I Handout

Criminal Law (Book I) Handout For DCCP Bangued BS Crim 2, 2nd Sem, SY 2022-2023
By Atty. ARNALDO D. DACQUEL, CPA

___________________________________________________________________________________________
LAW Sources of Law:

The mass of obligatory rules established 1. Constitution
for the purpose of governing the relations of 2. Legislation
persons in a society. 3. Administrative or executive orders,
A rule of conduct, just, obligatory, regulations and rulings
promulgated by legitimate authority, and of 4. Judicial decisions or jurisprudence
common observance and benefit. 5. Custom
6. Other sources
Characteristics of Law:
1. It is a rule of conduct – Law tells us what CRIMINAL LAW
should be done and what shall not be It is that branch or division of law which
done. As a rule of human conduct, law defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
takes cognizance of external acts only; provides for their punishment (REYES, The Revised
Penal Code, Book One, (2017), p. 1) [hereinafter REYES,
2. It is obligatory – Law is considered a
Book One].
positive command imposing a duty to
Distinctions Between Criminal Law and
obey and involving a sanction which
Criminal Procedure
forces to be obedience;
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure
3. It is promulgated by legitimate authority
As to Nature
– In democratic country, like the
It is substantive in It is a remedial in
Philippines, the legitimate or competent
character. character.
authority is the legislature. Under the
It defines crimes, It regulates the steps
constitution, laws are enacted by
treats of their nature, in the apprehension,
Congress which is the name of the
and provides for prosecution, and
legislative branch of our government;
their punishment. conviction of accused
and
if found guilty.
4. It is of common observance and benefit
As to Application
– It regulates the relations of men to
Prospective, unless Retroactive; in favor of
maintain harmony in society and to
favorable to the the ends of substantial
make order and co-existence possible.
accused, provided justice.
Law must, therefore, be observed by all
that the accused is
for the benefit of all.
not a habitual
delinquent.
What Does Law Do?
As to Authority who may Promulgate
It has been said that law secures justice,
It is enacted by It is promulgated by
resolves social conflict, orders society, protects
Congress. the judiciary.
interests, controls social relations. Life without
basic laws against theft, violence, and (AMURAO, Commentaries on Criminal Law RPC Book
destruction would be solitary, nasty, brutish and One, (2013), p. 1) [hereinafter AMURAO, Book One]
short. Life without other laws such as those
regulating traffic, sanitation, employment,
business, redress of harm or broken
agreements – would be less orderly, less
healthful and less wholesome.
1
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Terms Law, (2016), p. 10) hereinafter BOADO, Compact
1. Crime – a generic term that embraces Reviewer]
any violation of the Revised Penal Code, FOUR THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW:
special penal laws, and municipal or city 1. Classical or Juristic Theory
ordinances (Id. At 47). a. The basis of criminal liability is human
2. Felony – an act or omission violative of free will and the purpose of the penalty
the Revised Penal Code committed is retribution.
either intentionally or negligently (RPC, Art. b. Man is essentially a moral creature
3; AMURAO, Book One, supra at 46). with an absolutely free will to choose
3. Offense – an act or omission violative of between good and evil thereby placing
a special law, i.e. any law other than the more stress upon the effect or result of
Revised Penal Code (Id). the felonious act than upon the man,
4. Misdemeanor – a minor infraction of law. the criminal himself.
Sources of Criminal Law c. it has been endeavored to establish a
1. The revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) mechanical and direct proportion
and its amendments; between crime and penalty.
2. Special Penal Laws passed by: d. There is scant regard to the human
a. Philippine Commission; element (REYES, Book One, supra at 23).
b. Philippine Assembly; 2. Positivist or Realistic Theory
c. Philippine Legislature; a. Man is subdued occasionally by a
d. National Assembly; strange and morbid phenomenon
e. Congress of the Philippines; and the which constrains him to do wrong, in
f. Batas Pambansa; and spite of or contrary to his volition.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during b. The crime is essentially a social and
Martial Law (REYES, Book One, supra at 1). natural phenomenon and as such, it
Police Power as Basis cannot be treated and checked by
The State has the authority, under its police applying law and jurisprudence nor by
power, to define and punish and to lay down imposition of a punishment, fixed and
the rules of criminal procedure (REYES, Book One, determined a priori.
supra at 2). c. The purpose of the penalty is
reformation (Id. At 24).
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA 3. Eclectic or Mix Theory
1. Mala in se (‘evil in itself”) – A crime or an A combination of both the classical and
act that is inherently immoral, such as positive theories. Our Code is
murder, arson, or rape (Black’s Law considered eclectic i.e., the age of the
Dictionary, 9th Ed.). offender is considered a mitigating
2. Mala prohibita (“prohibited evil”) – An circumstance unless it is habitual or
act that is a crime merely because it is intentional (BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra
prohibited by statue, although the act at 7).
itself is not necessarily immoral (Id.). 4. Utilitarian or Protective Theory
It is really the nature of the act or omission that The primary function of punishment is
makes a crime either Malum in se or Malum to protect society from potential and
prohibitum (BOADO, Compact Reviewer in Criminal actual wrongdoers. The retributive
2
___________________________________________________________________________________________
aspect of penal laws should be directed with respect to offenses, including
against them (Ibid). offenses relating to the security of the
Philippines, punishable under the law of
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW: the Philippines, but not under the laws
1. General of the US.
2. Territorial b. US authorities exercise exclusive
3. Prospective jurisdiction over US personnel with
(REYES, Book One, supra at 6)
respect to offenses, including offenses
GENERAL relating to the security of the US,
Penal laws and those of public security and punishable under the laws of the US,
safety shall be obligatory upon all who live and but not under the laws of the
sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the Philippines.
principles of public international law and to c. An offense relating to security means:
treaty stipulations (CIVIL CODE, Art. 14). i. treason
ii. sabotage
Exception to the General Application of Criminal iii. espionage
Law: iv. violation of any law relating to
1. Treaties or Treaty Stipulations (RPC, Art. national defense.
2) 3. In cases where the right to exercise
a. The Bases Agreement entered into by jurisdiction is concurrent, the following
and between the Republic of the rules shall apply:
Philippines and the USA on March 14, a. Philippine authorities shall have the
1947, which expired on September 16, primary right to exercise jurisdiction
1991. over all offenses committed by US
b. The Agreement between the USA personnel, except in cases provided for
and the Republic of the Philippines in paragraphs 1 (b), 2(b), and 3 (b) of
Regarding the Treatment of United this Article.
States Armed Forces Visiting the b. US military authorities shall have the
Philippines (RP-US Visiting Forces primary right to exercise jurisdiction
Accord). over US personnel subject to the
Rules on Jurisdiction (Art. V) military law of the US in relation to:
1. a. Philippine authorities shall have i. offenses solely against the
jurisdiction over US personnel with property or security of the United
respect to offenses committed within States or offenses solely against the
the Philippines and punishable under property or person of United States
the law of the Philippines. personnel; and
b. US military authorities shall have the ii. offenses arising out of any act or
right to exercise within the Philippines omission done in performance of
all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction official duty.
conferred on them by the military law c. The authorities of either government
of the US over US personnel in the may request the authorities of the other
Philippines. government to waive their primary
2. a. Philippine authorities exercise right to exercise jurisdiction in a
exclusive jurisdiction over US personnel
3
___________________________________________________________________________________________
particular case (REYES, Book One, supra at protection to our diplomatic representatives
10-11). (R.A. No. 75, Sec. 7).
2. Law of Preferential Application (RPC, Art. 2)
R.A. No. 75 penalizes acts which impair the 3. Principles of Public International Law (CIVIL
CODE, Art. 14)
proper observance by the Republic and its
The following persons are not subject to the
inhabitants of the immunities, rights, and
operation of our criminal laws:
privileges of duly-accredited foreign diplomatic
a. Sovereigns and other heads of state;
representatives of the Philippines (REYES, Book One,
supra at 11). b. Charges d’affaires;
What the Law Prohibits c. Ambassadors;
Sec. 4. Any writ or process issued out or d. Ministers’ plenipotentiary; and
prosecuted by any person in any court of the e. Ministers’ resident (AMURAO, Book One,
Republic of the Philippines, or by any judge or supra at 21).
justice, whereby the person of any ambassador General Rule: Diplomatic representatives, such
or public minister of any foreign State, as ambassadors or public ministers and their
authorized and received as such by the official retinue, possess immunity from the
President, or any domestic or domestic servant criminal jurisdiction of the country of their
of any such ambassador or minister is arrested sojourn and cannot be sued, arrested, or
or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are punished by the law of that country (II Hyde,
International Law as cited in REYES, Book One, supra at
distrained, seized, or attached, shall be deemed 13; 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
void, and every person by whom the same is Article 29 and 31).
obtained or prosecuted, whether as party or as Note: The basis for granting immunity for
attorney, and every officer concerned in diplomatic heads is par in parem, non habet
executing it, shall upon conviction, be punished imperium – that all States are sovereign equals
by imprisonment for not more than three years and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.
and a fine of not exceeding two hundred pesos The proscription is not for the benefit of an
in the discretion of the court. individual, but for the State, in whose service he
Exceptions: is the diplomatic head (BOADO, Notes and
a. Citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of Cases on the Revised Penal Code, Books 1 and
the Philippines provided: 2 and Special Penal Laws, (2012), p. 29) [hereinafter
i. in service of an ambassador; BOADO].
ii. process is founded upon a debt, and Consuls, vice-consuls, and consular officials do
iii. the debt is contracted before he not enjoy the immunity from criminal
entered upon such service (R.A. No. 75, Sec. prosecution under Philippine laws because they
5). merely represent their state’s commercial,
b. Domestic servants of an ambassador or mercantile or business interest (AMURAO Book
a public minister unless: One, supra at 21).
i. name of the servant has been Note:
registered in the DFA; and The main yardstick in ascertaining whether a
ii. such registration was made before the person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is the
issuance of the process against the determination of whether or not he performs
servant (R.A. No. 75, Sec. 5). duties of diplomatic nature ((Minucher vs. Court of
Note: Not applicable when the foreign country Appeals, G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003).
adversely affected does not provide similar
4
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Exception: The doctrine of immunity from suit securities issued by the
will not apply and may not be invoked where Philippine Government;
the public official is being sued in his private and c. Should be liable for acts
personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The connected with the introduction
cloak of protection afforded the officers and into the Philippines of
agents of the government are removed the obligations and securities issued
moment they are sued in their individual by the Philippine Government;
capacity (Shauf vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90314, d. While being public officers or
November 27, 1990). employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their
TERRITORIAL functions; or
Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes e. Should commit any of the
committed within the Philippine territory (REYES, crimes against national security
Book One, supra at 13).
and the law of the nations,
General Rule: Penal laws of the Philippines have
defined in Title One of Book two
force and effect only within its territory (Id).
of the RPC.
National Territory
Jurisdiction over crimes committed within the
The national territory comprises the Philippine
grounds of an embassy:
archipelago, with all the islands and waters
1. First View: A crime committed within
embraced therein, and all other territories over
the grounds of Philippine embassy on
which the Philippines has sovereignty or
foreign soil shall be subject to
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial
Philippine penal laws, although it may
and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
or may not have been committed by a
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and
public officer in relation to his official
other submarine areas. The waters around,
duties. Embassy grounds are
between, and connecting the islands of the
considered as extensions of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
sovereignty of the country occupying
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of
them (AMURAO, Book One, supra at 22).
the Philippines (CONST. Art. 1).
2. Second View: The ground occupied by
Extraterritoriality – the Application of the RPC
an embassy is not in fact the territory of
outside the Philippine territory (RPC, Art. 2).
the foreign State to which the premises
Exceptions:
belong through possession or
1. RPC shall not be enforced within or
ownership. The lawfulness or
outside the Philippine territories if so
unlawfulness of acts there committed is
provided under:
determined by the territorial sovereign.
a. Treaties; or
If an attache commits an offense within
b. Laws of preferential Application (RPC,
Art. 2 and CIVIL CODE, Art. 14).
the precincts of an embassy, his
2. RPC, Art. 2: immunity from prosecution is not
a. Should commit an offense while because he has not violated the local
on a Philippine ship or airship; law, but rather for the reason that the
b. Should forge or counterfeit any individual is exempt from prosecution.
coin or currency note of the If a person not so exempt, or whose
Philippines of obligations and immunity is waived, similarly commits a
5
___________________________________________________________________________________________
crime therein, the territorial sovereign, punishable, the offense ceases to be
if it secures custody of the offender, criminal (REYES, Book One, supra at 15).
may subject him to prosecution, even 4. When the new law and the old law
though its criminal code normally does penalize the same offense, the offender
not contemplate the punishment of can be tried under the old law (Id. At 16).
one who commits an offense outside of 5. When the repealing law fails to penalize
the national domain (Reagan vs. the offense under the old law, the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L- accused cannot be convicted under the
26379, December 27, 1969). new law (Id).
6. A new law which omits anything
PROSPECTIVITY contained in the old law dealing on the
General Rule: Criminal law cannot penalize an same subject, operates as a repeal of
act that was not punishable at the time of its anything not so included in the
commission (AMURAO, Book One, supra at 29). amendatory act (Id. at 17)
As provided in Art. 366, RPC, crimes are
punished under the laws in force at the time of Self-repealing law
their commission (REYES, Book One, supra at 14). Self-repeal is one where the law expires on its
Exception: Whenever a new statute dealing with own terms and provisions (AMURAO, Book One, supra at
crime establishes conditions more lenient or 17). The expiration of a self-repealing law has the
favorable to the accused, it can be given same legal effect as an absolute appeal (Id. at
retroactive effect (Id at. 15). 18).
Exceptions to the Exception: When an act expires by its own limitations, the
1. Where the new law is expressly made effect is the same as though it has been
inapplicable to pending actions or repealed at the time of its expiration. It is a
existing causes of action (Tavera vs. Valdez, recognized rule that the repeal of a law carries
G.R. No. 922, November 8, 1902, as cited in
REYES, Book One, supra at 15).
with it the deprivation of the courts of their
2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence persons
(RPC, Art. 22). charged with violations of the law prior to the
Effects of Repeal on Penal Law repeal. (People vs. Jacinto, C.A., 54 O.G. 7857, as cited in REYES, Book
One, supra at 18).
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in
the new law, the new law shall be
Construction of Penal Laws
applied, except when the offender is a
Penal laws are strictly construed against the
habitual delinquent or when the new law
Government and liberally in favor of the
is made not applicable to pending action
accused. (U.S. vs. Abad Santos, G.R. No. L-12262,
or existing causes of action. February 10, 1917; People vs. Yu Hai, G.R. No. L-9598,
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, August 15, 1956, as cited in REYES, Book One, supra at 18).
the law in force at the time of the This interpretation can only be invoked where
commission of the offense shall be the law is ambiguous and there is doubt as to
applied. its interpretation (Id).
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing
law so that the act which was penalized
under the old law is no longer
6
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Pro Reo Doctrine Ex post facto law
Whenever a penal law is to be construed or A law which:
applied and the law admits of two a. Makes criminal an act done before the
interpretations – one lenient to the offender passage of the law and which was innocent
and one strict to the offender – that when done, and punishes such an act.
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to b. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater
the offender will be adopted (BOADO, supra at 12). than it was, when committed.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts shall c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a
be construed in favor of the accused and greater punishment than the law annexed
presumption of innocence of the accused. to the crime when committed.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be d. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved authorizes conviction upon less or different
(CONST. Art. III, Sec. 14, par. 2). testimony than the law required at the time
Spanish text of the RPC prevails overs its English of the commission of an offense.
translation e. Assumes to regulate civil rights and
In the construction or interpretation of the remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
provision of the RPC, the Spanish text is deprivation of a right for something which
controlling, because it was proved by the when done was lawful.
Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text (People f. Deprives a person accused of a crime
vs. Manaba, G.R. No. L-38725, October 31, 1933, as cited some lawful protection to which he has
in REYES, Book One, supra at 18).
become entitled, such as the protection of
Legal Maxims
a former conviction or acquittal, or
1. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege –
proclamation of amnesty (In Re: Kay Villegas
There is no crime when there is no law Kami, Inc., G.R. No. L-32485, October 22, 1970).
that punishes it. Note: The prohibition applies only to
2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – criminal legislation, which affects the
The act cannot be criminal unless the substantial rights of the accused.
mind is criminal. Bill of attainder
3. Actus me invito factus non est meus It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment
actus – An act done by me against my without judicial trial, its essence being the
will is not my act. substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial
4. El que es causa de la causa es causa del determination of guilt (BOADO, supra at 5).
mal causado – He who is the cause of 2. No person shall be held to answer for a
the causes is the cause of the evil criminal offense without due process of
caused. law (CONST. Art. III, Sec. 14, par. 1).
5. In dubio, pro reo – When in doubt, for 3. It should not impose cruel and unusual
the accused. punishment nor should it impose
Limitations on the Power of Congress to Enact excessive fines (CONST. Art. III, Sec. 19, par.
Penal Laws: 1).
The Congress, in enacting penal laws are R.A. No. 9346, which was approved on June
restricted by the following Constitutional 24, 2006 prohibits the imposition of death
limitations: penalty therefore repealing R.A. No. 7659,
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder which was approved on December 13,
shall be enacted (CONST. Art. III, Sec. 22).
7
___________________________________________________________________________________________
1993. In lieu of the death penalty, the 1. Extraterritoriality – RPC is applicable
following shall be imposed: even though outside the Philippine
a. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, Territory (See discussion under territorial
when the law violated makes use of the as a characteristic of criminal law).
nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC; 2. Exterritoriality – a term of international
or law which signifies the immunity of
b. The penalty of life imprisonment, certain persons who, although in the
when the law violated does not make use state, are not amenable to its laws (e.g.
of the nomenclature of the penalties of the ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary
Revised Penal Code (R.A. No. 9346, Sec. 2). etc.).
4. It must be general in application and 3. Intraterritoriality – RPC is made
must clearly define the acts and applicable within the Philippine territory
omissions punished as crimes (REYES, Book (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 15)
One, supra at 3). The provisions of the RPC are enforceable even
outside Philippine territory against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on
Philippine ship or airship;
PRELIMINARY TITLE Requisites:
Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815, as a. The crime must be committed on
Amended) board a private or merchant ship;
An Act Revising the Penal Code and other Penal b. The ship or airship must be registered
Laws. in the Philippines under Philippine laws;
Note: The RPC consists of two Books. and
Book One consists of two parts: c. The crime must be committed while
1. Basic principles affecting criminal the registered Philippine ship is on
liability (Arts. 1-20). international waters (AMURAO, Book One,
2. Provisions on penalties including supra at 39).
criminal and civil liability (Arts. 21-113).

Book Two defines felonies with the Philippine vessel or aircraft – one which
corresponding penalties, classified and grouped is registered with the maritime Industry
under 14 different titles (Arts. 114 to 365). Authority (MARINA) or with the Civil
ARTICLE 1 Aeronautics Board (CAB) in accordance
TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT with Philippine laws.
The Revised Penal Code was approved on The RPC applies when such Philippine
December 8, 1930. It took effect on January 1, vessel is found within:
1932. a. Philippine waters; or
ARTICLE 2 b. The high seas.
APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS Note: Just as our merchant ship is an
Art. 2 sets forth the instances where the extension of our territory, foreign ship is
provisions of the Revised Penal Code are considered an extension of the territory
applicable although the felony is committed of the country to which it belongs. An
outside the Philippine Territory. offense committed on the high seas on
board a foreign merchant vessel is not
triable by our courts.
8
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Foreign Merchant Vessels Exception
Rules as to Jurisdiction over Crimes When their When the crimes
Committed therein while in the territorial commission merely affect
waters of another country: affects the peace things within the
a. French Rule – such crimes are not and security of vessel or when
triable in the courts of that country, the territory or they only refer to
unless their commission affects the when the safety the internal
peace and security of the territory or the of the state is management
safety of the state is endangered. endangered. thereof.
b. English Rule – such crimes are triable (REYES, Book One, supra at 29)
in that country, unless they merely affect
things within the vessel or they refer to A distinction must be made between
the internal management thereof. merchant ships and warship; the former
are more or less subjected to the
The Philippines follows the English Rule territorial laws (U.S. v. Bull, G.R. No. 5270,
(REYES, Book One, supra at 29). January 15, 1910, as cited in AMURAO, Book One,
supra at 41).
Note: when a merchant ship of
Note: An offense committed on the high
Philippine nationality is in the Philippines
seas on board a foreign merchant vessel
and a crime is committed therein, there
is not triable by our courts (U.S. v. Fowler,
G.R. No. 496, December 31, 1902, as cited in is no question as to the jurisdiction over
REYES, Book One, supra at 28). the crime, it being within the Philippine
But, a continuing crime committed on territory. If it is in the high seas where no
board such vessel sailing to the country has jurisdiction, the Philippines
Philippines is triable in our courts (Id. at still has jurisdiction. But if it is within the
28-29). territory of another country, the
jurisdiction is generally with that foreign
Distinctions between the French Rule State because penal laws are primarily
and the English Rule territorial in application. But if that
French Rule English Rule country will not take cognizance,
(Flag or (Territoriality or pursuant to Art. 2 of the RPC, the
Nationality) Situs of the Philippines can assume jurisdiction
Crime) (BOADO, supra at 32).
General Rule a. Foreign merchant vessel in transit:
Crimes Crimes committed possession of dangerous drugs is not
committed aboard a vessel punishable, but use of the same is
aboard a vessel within the punishable (REYES, Book One, supra at 30).
within the territorial waters b. Foreign merchant vessel not in transit:
territorial waters of another mere possession of dangerous drugs is
of another country are triable punishable because it can already be
country are not in that country. considered as illegal importation (U.S. vs.
triable in the Ah Sing, G.R. No. L-13005, October 10, 1917, as
cited in REYES, Book One, supra at 30).
courts of that
country.
9
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Foreign Warships same, to the economic interest of the
Warships are always reputed to the country (REYES, Book One, supra at 26).
territory of the country to which they
belong and cannot be subjected to the 4. While being public officers or
laws shall apply to such vessels wherever employees, should commit an offense in
they may be found (REYES, Book One, supra the exercise of their functions like:
at 31). a. Direct Bribery (Art. 210);
b. Indirect Bribery (Art. 211);
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or c. Qualified Bribery (Art. 211-A);
currency note of the Philippines or d. Failure to Render Accounts (Art. 218);
obligations and securities issued by the e. Failure to Render Account before
Government (RPC, Arts. 163 & 166). leaving the Country (Art. 219);
Forgery is committed by giving to a f. Illegal use of Public Funds or Property
treasury or bank note or any instrument (Art. 220);
payable to bearer or to order the g. Failure to make Delivery of Public
appearance of a true genuine document Funds/Property (Art. 221);
or by erasing, substituting, h. Falsification (Art. 171);
counterfeiting or altering, by any means, i. Fraud Against Public Treasury and
the figures, letters, words or signs Similar Offenses (Art. 213);
contained therein (RPC, Art. 169). j. Malversation of Public Funds or
Property (Art. 217);
if forgery is perpetrated abroad, the k. Possession of Prohibited Interest (Art.
object of the crime must be a coin, 216); and
currency note or obligations and l. Corruption (Art. 212)
securities issued by the Government of (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 17).
the Philippines (ESTRADA, Criminal Law: Book
One of the Revised Penal Code: Made Easy for 5. Should commit any of the crimes against
Students, Examinees & Practitioners, (2008), p. national security and the law of nations
15) [hereinafter ESTRADA, Book One].
defined in Title One of Book Two (RPC,
3. Should introduce into the country the Arts. 114-123).
above-mentioned obligations and Examples of crimes against national
securities. security:
Those who introduce or brought the a. Treason (Art. 114);
counterfeit items in the PH are criminally b. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit
liable even if they were not the ones who Treason (Art. 115);
counterfeited the same because c. Misprision of Treason (Art. 116);
introduction and counterfeiting are d. Espionage (Art. 117);
separately enumerated under Art. 2. e. Inciting to war and giving motives for
reprisals (Art. 118);
Rationale: the introduction of forged or f. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);
counterfeited obligations and securities g. Correspondence with hostile country
into the Philippines is as dangerous as (Art. 120).
the forging or counterfeiting of the h. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121);
10
___________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas (Art. offenses also. On the other hand, crimes
122); and penalized by special laws are termed offenses
j. Qualified Piracy (Art. 123) but they cannot be called interchangeably as
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 18). felonies. (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 19).
Note: Terrorism as defined by R.A. No. 9372,
otherwise known as the Human Security Act of ELEMENTS OF FELONIES (GENERAL):
2007, is now a crime against national security a. There must be an act or omission, i.e.
and the law of nations (Id. at 19). there must be external acts;
Act – any bodily movement tending to
Human Security Act of 2007 has extraterritorial produce some effect in the external
application. world. It must be external as internal acts
Sec. 58 of R.A. No. 9372 provides that the Act are beyond the sphere of penal law
shall apply to individual persons who, although (People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 80762, March 19,
physically outside the Philippines shall: 1990; People v. Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71.
a. Conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes January 24,2003).
punished in the Act; Omission – there is a law requiring a
b. Commit any of said crimes on board certain act to be performed and the
Philippine Ship or airship; person required to do the act fails to
c. Commit any of said crimes within the perform it (REYES, Book One, supra at 34).
embassy, consulate or diplomatic premises b. The act or omission must be punishable
belonging to or occupied by the Philippine by the RPC; and
government in an official capacity; Rationale: nullum crimen, nulla poena
d. Commit said crimes against Philippine sine lege – there is no crime where there
citizens or persons of Philippine descent where is no law punishing it.
their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the c. The act is performed or the omission is
commission of the crimes; and incurred by means of dolo (malice) or
e. Commit said crimes directly against the culpa (fault) (Id. at 36).
Philippine government.
Felonies under this Article shall be cognizable CLASSIFICATIONS OF CRIMES
by the proper court where the criminal action a. As to commission (RPC, Art. 3);
was first filed (RULES OF COURT, RULE 110, Sec. i. Dolo – felonies committed with
15, par. d). deliberate intent.
ii. Culpa – those committed by means of
TITLE ONE: FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES fault.
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY iii. Crimes penalized by special laws,
Felonies municipal and city ordinances (REYES,
Acts and Omissions punishable by the Revised Book One, supra at 52)
Penal Code (RPC, Art. 3). b. As to stage of execution (RPC, Art. 6)
Note: Crime is a generic term that embraces any i. Attempted
violation of the Revised Penal Code, special ii. Frustrated
penal laws, and municipal or city ordinances iii. Consummated
(AMURAO, Book One, supra at 47). Related to this is the classification of
Crimes under the RPC are called felonies felonies as to:
although it is not wrong to call felonies as
11
___________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Formal Felonies – those which are Requisites of DOLO or MALICE:
always consummated because the a. Freedom
offender cannot perform all the acts b. Intelligence
necessary for their execution without c. Intent (Id. at 40)
consummating the offense.
ii. Material Felonies – those which have a. Freedom
various stage of execution. Voluntariness on the part of the person
iii. Crimes with no frustrated stage – such to commit the act or omission (ESTRADA,
as Rape, Arson, Theft, and Robbery. Book One, supra at 25). When a person acts
c. As to gravity (RPC, Art. 9) without freedom, he is no longer a
i. Grave – those to which the law attaches human being but a tool (Id.)
the capital punishment or penalties When there is lack of freedom, the
which in any of their periods are afflictive offender is exempt from liability (RPC, Art.
ii. Less grave – those to which the law 12, par. 5) or uncontrollable fear (RPC, Art. 12,
punishes with penalties which in their par. 6)
maximum period is correctional (REYES, Book One, supra at 41).
iii. Light felonies – those infractions of b. Intelligence

law for the commission of which the It is the capacity to know and understand
penalty is arresto menor, or a fine not the consequences of one’s act (ESTADA,
Book One, supra at 25). Without this power
exceeding P200, or both.
d. As to count necessary to determine the morality of
i. Composite human acts, no crime can exist (REYES,
ii. Compound
When there is lack of intelligence, the
iii. Complex
offender is exempt from liability (i.e.
iv. Continued
offender is an imbecile, insane, or 15
v. Continuing
years of age or under (RPC, Art. 12, pars. (1),
e. As to nature (2), and (3)).
i. Mala in se (singular – malum in se) c. Intent (Criminal)
ii.Mala prohibita (singular – malum Intent is a mental state, the existence of
prohibitum) which is shown by the overt acts of a
(BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at 9)
person (Soriano vs. People, G.R. No. L-3008,
March 19, 1951).
1. According to the Means by which they are Intent to commit an act with malice,
Committed being purely a mental process, is
a. Intentional felonies presumed. Such presumption arises
b. Culpable felonies from the proof of commission of an
c. Crimes penalized by special laws, unlawful act (REYES, Book One, supra at
municipal and city ordinances 41). But the presumption of criminal
(REYES, Book One, supra at 36, 52)
intent does not arise from the proof of
Intentional Felonies
the commission of an act which is not
The act is performed or the omission is incurred
unlawful (U.S. vs. Catolico, G.R. No. L-6486,
with deliberate intent or malice to cause an March 2, 1911).
injury to another (Id. at 36).
12
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The purpose to use a particular means to Requisites of CULPA:
effect such result (BOADO, supra at 36). a. Freedom;
When there is lack of intent, the act is b. Intelligence;
justified. Offender incurs no criminal c. Negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, or
liability (i.e. existence of a lawful or lack of skill (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 25).
insuperable cause, commission by mere
accident) (REYES, Book One, supra at 40-42). Negligence
Criminal Intent is necessary because: Indicates a deficiency of perception; failure to
i. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – pay proper attention and to use diligence in
The act itself does not make a man guilty unless foreseeing the injury or damage impending to
his intentions were so (U.S. vs. Catolico, G.R. No. L- be caused; usually involves lack of foresight (Id.
6486, March 2, 1911). at 26).
ii. Actus me invito factus non est meus
actus – an act done by me against my will is not Imprudence
my act (U.S. vs. Chong, G.R. No. 5272, March 19, 1910). Indicates a deficiency of action; failure to take
the necessary precaution to avoid injury to
Distinctions between General Intent and person or damage to property; usually involves
Specific Intent lack of skill (Id.)
General Criminal Specific Criminal Rationale for punishing negligence: A man must
Intent Intent use his common sense, and exercise due
An intention to do a An intention to reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be
wrong commit a definite act cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from
Presumed to exist Existence of the intent instinct, then thru fear of incurring punishment
from the mere doing is not presumed (U.S. vs. Maleza, G.R. No. L- 5036, November 17, 1909).
of a wrongful act because it is an Note:
ingredient or element Acts executed negligently are voluntary.
of a crime. An intentional felony is committed when the act
The burden of The burden of proving is performed with deliberate intent, which must
proving the absence the existence of the necessarily be voluntary. On the other hand, in
of intent is upon the intent is upon the culpable felony, which is committed when the
accused. prosecution, as such, wrongful act results from imprudence,
intent is an element of negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill, the
the crime. act is also voluntary (REYES, Book One, supra at 38).
(BOADO, supra at 37) The only difference between intentional and
culpable felonies is that, in the first, the offender
Culpable Felonies acts with malice; whereas in the second, the
The act or omission is not malicious. The injury offender acts without malice (Id. at 39).
caused by the offender to another person is
“unintentional”, it being simply the incident of
another act performed without malice (REYES,
13
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Three reasons why the act or omission in foresight, or lack of
felonies must be voluntary: skill.
1. The RPC is based on the Classical Theory, (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 27).
according to which the basis of criminal
liability is human free will; Mistake of fact
2. Acts or omissions punished by the law It is misapprehension of fact on the part of the
are always deemed voluntary, since man person causing injury to another. Such person is
is a rational being; and not criminally liable as he acted without criminal
3. In felonies by dolo, the act is performed intent (Ignorantia facti excusat) (REYES, Book One,
with deliberate intent which must supra at 44).
necessarily be voluntary; and in felonies An honest mistake of fact destroys the
by culpa, the imprudence consists in presumption of criminal intent which arises
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or upon the commission of a felonious act (People
vs. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, July 27, 1943).
failing to do an act from which material
Honest mistake of fact is not applicable in
injury results (REYES, Book One, supra at 40).
culpable felonies.
In Art. 3, culpa is a mode of committing a crime;
hence, killing is denominated “homicide
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
through reckless imprudence.” In Art. 365
a. That the act done would have been
(quasi-offenses), culpa itself is the crime
lawful had the facts been as the accused
punished; hence, the crime is denominated
believed them to be;
“reckless imprudence resulting in homicide”
(BOADO, supra at 45). b. That the intention of the accused in
Thus, supposing a person committing suicide performing the act should be lawful; and
jump off the seventh floor of a building but fell c. That the mistake must be without fault or
on a pedestrian innocently walking along the carelessness on the part of the accused
(REYES, Book One, supra at 44).
sidewalk below and died, the survivor is liable
Because of having no time or opportunity to
because of criminal negligence arising from his
make any further inquiry, and being pressed by
failure to observe the standard of care required
circumstances to act immediately, the accused
by the circumstance of place, time and persons.
(AMURAO, Book One, supra at 85). had no alternative but to take the facts as they
Distinctions between Intentional and Culpable appeared to him, and such facts justified his act
Felonies of killing his roommate (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, supra).
Intentional Felonies Culpable Felonies There was no mistake of fact when the accused
Act is malicious Not malicious police officers shot Tecson, whom they thought
With deliberate Injury caused is to be Balagtas (a notorious criminal) who was
intent unintentional being sleeping in his bed, despite having ample time
incident of another act and opportunity to ascertain his identity without
performed without hazard to themselves (People vs. Oanis, G.R. No. L-
47722, July 27, 1943).
malice.
There is an intention Wrongful act results
to cause an injury from imprudence,
negligence, lack of
14
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When the Defense of Mistake of Fact Not Crimes mala in se are essentially the acts or
Applicable: omissions punishable by the Revised Penal
a. When there is mistake in identity (error Code (AMURAO, Book One, supra at 54).
in personae); that the accused made a
mistake in killing one man instead of MALA PROHIBITA
another cannot relieved him from It is punishable because the prohibited act is so
criminal responsibility, he having acted injurious to the public welfare that it is the crime
maliciously and willfully (People vs. Gona, itself (REYES, Book One, supra at 56).
G.R. No. L- 32066, March 15, 1903); These are acts made evil because there is a law
b. When there is negligence on the part of punishing it. The basis of criminal liability is the
the accused (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at offender’s voluntariness. Hence, good faith or
33); and lack of criminal intent is not accepted as a
c. When the accused committed a defense, unless this is an element of a crime.
culpable felony (The essence of honest The act prohibited is not inherently evil but
mistake of fact is lack of intent on the made evil only by the prohibition of the statute
part of the accused) (Id.). (BOADO, supra at 16).
The term mala prohibita refers generally to acts
Crimes punished by special laws made criminal by special laws (REYES, Book One,
When the crime is punished by special law, as a supra at 57). There are, however, crimes which
rule, intent to commit the crime is not although punished under special laws are
necessary. It is sufficient that the offender has deemed mala in se, such as those which are
the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by mere modifications to the Cod like cattle
special law. In the first (intent to commit the rustling which modifies Arts. 308, and 310 on
crime), there must be criminal intent; in the qualified theft (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at
second (intent to perpetrate), it is enough that 10-12)Note: When the acts are inherently
the prohibited act is done freely and consciously immoral, they are mala in se, even if it is
(REYES, Book One, supra at 52). punished by special law.
Reason: when the doing of an act is prohibited
by a special law, it is considered that the act is General Rule: As a rule, mere commission of
injurious to the public welfare and the doing of crimes classified as mala prohibita, even without
the prohibited act is the crime itself (REYES, Book criminal intent, is punishable.
One, supra at 55). Exceptions:
a. Accused was entitled to assume that his
2. According to Nature employer had the requisite license to
a. Mala in Se possess said firearm and ammunition
b. Mala Prohibita and to turn them over to him while he
(BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 10)
was on duty as one of the regular
MALA IN SE
security guards of a duly licensed
Crimes mala in se are those crimes which are
security agency (Cuenca vs. People, G.R. No.
so serious in their effects on society as to call for L-27586, June 26, 1970).
almost unanimous condemnation of its b. It was imperative that the persons
members itself (REYES, Book One, supra at 56). collecting and surrendering loose
firearms should have temporary and
incidental possession thereof. The
15
___________________________________________________________________________________________
doctrine of the immateriality of animus vileness of the penalized act. If the
possidendi should be relaxed in certain punishable act or omission is immoral in
way. Otherwise, the avowed purpose of itself, then it is a crime mala in se. On the
the government’s policy cannot be contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but
realized (People vs. Landicho, CA 55 OG 842). there is a statute prohibiting its commission
c. Where the accused had a pending by reasons of public policy, then it is mala
application for permanent permit to prohibita. Whether or not a crime involves
possess a firearm, and whose possession moral turpitude is ultimately a question of
was not unknown to an agent of the law fact and frequently depends on all the
who advised the former to keep it in the circumstances surrounding the violation of
meantime, any doubt as to his claim the statute (People vs. Dungo, G.R. No. 209464,
should be resolved in his favor (People vs. July 1, 2015).
Mallari, CA 55 O.G. 1394).
d. Mere transient possession of unlicensed Distinctions Between Mala in Se and Mala
firearm. While in stealing a firearm the Prohibita
accused must necessarily come into Mala in Se Mala Prohibita
possession thereof, the crime of illegal As to Basis
possession of firearms is not committed The moral state of The voluntariness
by mere transient possession of the the offender of the offender
weapon. Thus, stealing a firearm with no As to nature
intent to use but to render the owner Wrong from its very Wrong because it
defenseless, may suffice for purposes of nature is prohibited by
establishing a case of theft. It would not law
justify a charge for illegal possession of Use of good faith as a defense
firearm, since intent to hold and Good faith is a valid Good faith is not a
eventually use the weapon would be defense; unless the defense
lacking (People vs. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 84857, crime is the result of
January 16, 1998, citing People vs. Remereta, G.R. culpa
No. L-6971, February 17, 1956).
Intent as an element
Note: A common misconception is that all
Intent is an element Criminal intent is
mala in se crimes are found in the Revised
immaterial
Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita
Degree of accomplishment of the crime
crimes are provided by special penal laws. In
The degree of The act gives rise
reality, however, there may be mala in se
accomplishment of to a crime only
crimes under special laws, such as plunder
the crime is taken when it is
under R.A. No. 7080, as amended. Similarly,
into account in consummated
there may be mala prohibita crimes defined
punishing the
in the RPC, such as technical malversation.
offender
The determination of whether an offense is
As to mitigating and aggravating
mala in se or mala prohibita is a question of
circumstances
fact.
Rules on mitigating Rules on
The better approach to distinguish between
and aggravating mitigating and
mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the
circumstances apply aggravating
determination of the inherent immorality or
16
___________________________________________________________________________________________
circumstances do imposing the discourage the
not apply, unless penalty because of commission of the
provided for by the the offender’s moral act especially
special law itself trait is the basis of prohibited.
Degree of participation the crime.
When there is more Degree of Hence, greater
than one offender, participation is perversity deserves a
the degree of generally not higher penalty, while
participation of each taken into account. lesser depravity
in the commission of All who deserves mitigation.
the crime is taken participated in the As to moral turpitude
into account act are punished to Crimes mala in se Generally, not
the same extent generally involves involved in crimes
As to penalty moral turpitude. mala prohibita.
Penalty is computed The penalty (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 10-12)
on the basis of imposed on the
whether the offenders are the Absorption Rules
offender is a same whether they 1. General rule: A mala in se felony
principal, are merely cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes
accomplice, accomplices or (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 12).
accessory accessories. Exception: When the special law
Laws violated allows absorption, such as sexual
Violation of the RPC Violation of Special abuse of a minor under R.A. No. 7160
(General rule) Laws (General rule) and statutory rape, acts of
As to stages in execution lasciviousness, etc. (Id.).
There are three No such stages of 2. The absorption rule can result to the
stages: attempted, execution greater absorbing the lesser such, as
frustrated, terrorism which absorbs the
consummated. predicate act, or the lesser may
As to persons criminally liable absorb the greater, such as in
rebellion which absorbs destructive
There are three Generally, only the
arson (Id.).
persons criminally principal is liable
3. A felony cannot be complexed with
liable: principal,
an offense (People vs. Optana, G.R. No.
accomplice, and
133922, February 12, 2001 as cited in BOADO,
accessory. Compact Reviewer, supra at 13).
As to division of penalties 4. When an act offends against the
Penalties may be There is no such provision of the RPC and a special
divided into degrees division of law, the offender can be prosecuted
and periods penalties for:
As to modifying circumstances a. Two crimes – because they do not
Modifying Not considered absorb each other, such as estafa and
circumstances are because the law violation of B.P. 22;
taken into account in intends to
17
___________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Only one crime – when the special c. In ascertaining the truth between two
law bars the prosecution for other antagonistic theories or versions of the
offenses, e.g., terrorism absorbing killing;
the predicate crimes; or d. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the
c. One crime absorbing the others as crime, and where suspicion is likely to fall
an element, or as an aggravating upon a number of persons;
circumstance – such as illegal e. When there is doubt as to the identity of
possession of firearms absorbed by the assailant (REYES, Book One, supra at
rebellion or aggravating murder or 58); and
homicide (Id. at 12-13). f. When the act is alleged to be committed
Note: A malum in se felony, such as reckless in defense of a stranger but it must not
imprudence resulting in damage to property be induced by revenge, resentment or
cannot absorbed a malum prohibitum crime, other evil motive (RPC, Art. 11, par. 3).
such as violations of P.D. No. 1067 (Water Code),
P.D. No. 984 (Pollution Control Law) and R.A. Distinction between Intent and Motive
No. 7942 (Mining Act). What makes the former Intent Motive
a felony is the criminal intent (dolo) or The purpose to The reason or
negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes use a particular moving power
are the special laws enacting them (Loney vs. means to effect which impels one
People, G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006). such result. to commit an act
Note: Laws that merely amend the provisions of for a definite
the RPC, such as P.D. No. 533 (Anti-Cattle result.
Rustling Law of 1974) which amended Arts. 308, An element of the Not an element
309, 310, do not convert their violations into crime, except in of the crime
mala prohibita (Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. unintentional
85204, June 18, 1990). felonies.
Essential in Essential only
Motive intentional when the identity
It is the moving power which impels one to felonies. of the
action for a definite result (REYES, Book One, supra perpetrator is in
at 57). Motive is not an essential element of a doubt.
crime and need not be proved for purposes of (REYES, Book One, supra at 59-60).
conviction (Id. at 58). Note: Mere proof of motive, no matter
Illustration: how strong, is not sufficient to support a
A, who is jealous of B shot the latter as a result conviction if there is no reliable evidence
of which B died. The intent is to kill while the from which it may be reasonably
motive is jealousy. deduced that the accused was the
Motive: when Relevant malefactor (REYES, Book One, supra at 60).
a. If the evidence is merely circumstantial;
b. Where the identification of the accused
proceeds from an unreliable source and
the testimony is inconclusive and not
free from doubt;
18
___________________________________________________________________________________________
vs. Sornito, G.R. No. 1726, March 29, 1905, as
Article 4 cited in REYES, Book One, supra at 69).
Criminal Liability
Par. 1: Criminal liability shall be incurred by any b. When the act is covered by any of the
person committing a felony (delito) although justifying circumstances in Art. 11 of RPC.
the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended. 2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved
Rationale: El que es causa de la causa es causa party be the direct, natural and logical
del mal causado – he who is the cause of the consequences of the felony committed.
cause is the cause of the evil caused (People vs. “Natural” refers to an occurrence in the
Ural, G.R. No. L-30801, March 27, 1974). ordinary course of human life or events
Requisites: (REYES, Book One, supra at 73).
1. That an intentional felony has been

committed; and “Logical” means that there is a rational
No Intentional Felony: connection between the act of the
a. When the act or omission is not accused and the resulting injury or
punishable by RPC; or damage. (Id.)
Proximate Cause
Note: The act or omission should not be It is that cause, which, in the natural and
punished by a special law because the continuous sequence, unbroken by any
offender violating a special law may not efficient intervening cause, produces the
have the intent to do any injury to injury, and without which the result
another. In such case, the wrongful act would not have occurred (Vallacar Transit,
Inc. vs. Catubig, G.R. No. 175512, May 30, 2011.)
done could not be different, as the
offender did not intend to do another
Cause and effect relationship
injury (REYES, Book One, supra at 63).
There must be a relation of “cause and
Note: Any person who creates in another
effect”, the4 cause being the felonious
person’s mind an immediate sense of
act of the offender, and the effect being
danger, which causes the latter to do
the death of the victim (REYES, Book
something resulting in the latter’s
One, supra at 73).
injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries
(People vs. Page, G.R. No. L-37507, June 7, 1997,
citing People v. Toling, G.R. No. L-27097, January This is not altered or changed by the
17, 1975, as cited in REYES, Book One, supra at following pre-existing conditions:
68-69). The reason for the ruling is that i. Pathological condition of the victim;
when the culprit demanded money from ii. Predisposition of the offended party;
the women, threatening to shoot if they iii. Concomitant or concurrent conditions
would not bring out their money, a (negligence or fault of the doctors); or
felony was being committed (Id. at 69). iv. Other condition supervening the
It is an established rule that a person is felonies such as tetanus, pulmonary
criminally responsible for acts infection or gangrene (Id).
committed by him in violation of the law
and for all the natural and logical
consequences resulting therefrom (U.S.
19
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Felony is not the proximate cause wrong person who died as a
a. If there is an Efficient Intervening consequence. It turned out that the
Cause- It is the cause which interrupted person whom he shot and killed was not
the natural flow of events leading to B but his own father. In this case, A is
one’s death. This may relieve the liable for parricide, the crime which was
offender from liability. actually committed. When he fired his
gun, he acted with intent. He is liable for
The following are not efficient all the direct, logical, and natural
intervening causes: consequences of his felonious act,
1. The weak or diseased physical whether foreseen, intended, or
condition of the victim; unintended. The fact that the victim is
2. The nervousness or temperament of different from the victim is different from
the victim; the one A intended to kill does not
3. Causes which are inherent in the exculpate him from criminal liability.
victim; Applying Art. 49 of the RPC, the penalty
4. Neglect of the victim or third person imposable is not the penalty for parricide
(e.g. refusal of medical attendance); and which was the one committed, but the
5. Erroneous or unskilled medical or penalty of homicide which is the crime
surgical treatment (unless the wound is intended to be committed, the penalty
slight or not mortal) (Id. at 77). being lesser than the penalty for
Note: A supervening event can be still be parricide which was actually committed.
the subject of the amendment or of a But the penalty for homicide which is
new charge without necessarily placing reclusion temporal shall be imposed in
the accused in double jeopardy (People vs. its maximum period (ESTRADA, Book One,
Petilla, G.R. No. L-5070, December 29, 1952). supra at 37).
2. Aberratio Ictus- mistake in the blow,
b. The resulting injury is due to the that is, when the offender intending to
intention act of the victim. do an injury to on person actually inflicts
it on another. The penalty for graver
THREE CAUSES WHICH PRODUCE A DIFFERENT offense in its maximum period pursuant
RESULT to Article 48 of the RPC (ESTRADA, Book
The person is still criminally liable One, supra at 37-38).
although the wrongful act done be Illustration: A, with intent to kill, hacked
different from that which he intended: B. B was not hit but C, who was also
1. Error in Personae- mistake in the behind B, was hit. C died. A is liable for
identity of the victim. The penalty is that his attempt to kill B. A is also liable for
provided for in Art. 49 of RPC, that is, the the death of C. The death of C is the
penalty for the lesser crime in its natural consequence of the felonious
maximum period (ESTRADA, Book one, supra act of A (Id. at 38).
at 37). 3. Praeter Intentionem- injurious result
Illustration: A intended to kill B. One is greater than that intended (Art. 13-
night, A shouted at the person whom he Mitigating Circumstance) (REYES, Book One,
thought to be B. An altercation ensued. supra at 65).
In the process, A fired his gun at the

20
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Illustration: A boxed B with the intention however, there can be no complex
of inflicting a lump on B. As a result of crime if C sustained slight physical
the blow, B lost his balance and fell to injuries as the same is only a light felony.
the ground with his head hitting the Note: There is no intent to kill insofar as
pavement causing his death. A is liable the case of C is concerned.
for Homicide (Id. at 38-39).
When death is presumed to be the
Distinctions Between Aberratio Ictus natural consequence of physical injuries
and Error in Personae inflicted: (NER)
Aberratio Ictus Error in 1. The victim, at the time the physical
Personae injuries were inflicted was in Normal
The victim, as well The supposed health;
as the actual victim may or 2. the death may be Expected from the
victim, is both in may not be in physical injuries inflicted; and
the scene of the the scene of 3. The death ensued within a
crime. crime. Reasonable time (People v. Datu Bagidna,
The offender The offender C.A. 44 O.G. 2287).
delivers the blow delivers the Note: The offended party is not obliged
to his intended blow not to is to submit to a surgical operation or
victim but because intended victim. medical treatment to relieve the
of poor aim landed accused from liability (U.S. v. Marasigan, G.R.
No. L-9426, August 15, 1914).
on someone else.
Felony committed is not the proximate
Generally, gives There is no
cause of the resulting injury when:
rise to complex complex crime.
1. There is an active force between the
crime unless the
felony committed and the resulting
resulting
injury, such active force is distinct from
consequence is not
felony committed.
a grave or less
2. The resulting injury is due to the
grave felony.
intentional act of the victim, i.e. fault or
(BOADO, supra at 43)
carelessness of the victim to increase the
Illustration at Aberratio Ictus:
criminal liability of the assailant (REYES,
1. A intended to shoot B but because of
lack of precision, it was C, a bystander,
who was hit, causing his death. In this
case, there is a complex crime or
attempted or frustrated Murder,
Homicide, Parricide or Infanticide and
Murder, Homicide, Parricide or
Infanticide (MHPI), as the case may be.
2. If C did not die but sustained injuries,
there is still a complex crime of
attempted or frustrated MHPI and
serious or less serious physical injuries;
21
___________________________________________________________________________________________
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES have been an offense against person or
Par. 2: Criminal liability shall be incurred property. But a felony against persons
by any person performing an act which or property should not be actually
would be an offense against persons r committed, for, otherwise, he would be
property, were it not for the inherent liable for the felony (Id. at 82).
impossibility of its accomplishment or Felonies against persons are: (MHPI-
on account of the employment of DRAP)
inadequate or ineffectual means. 1. Murder (Art. 248);
An impossible crime is one where the 2. Homicide (Art. 249);
acts performed would have been a 3. Parricide (Art. 246);
crime against persons or property but 4. Infanticide (Art. 255);
which is not accomplished because of its 5. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261);
inherent impossibility or because of the 6. Rape (Art. 266-A);
employment of inadequate or 7. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258, and
ineffectual means (BOADO, supra at 49). 259);
Requisites: 8. Physical Injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264,
1. That the act performed would be an 265, and 266).
offense against Persons or property;
2. That the act was done with Evil intent; Felonies against property are: (BRUCT-
3. That its accomplishment is Inherently SCAM)
impossible, or that the means employed 1. Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307);
is either inadequate or ineffectual; and 2. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300,
4. That the act performed should Not 302 and 303);
constitute a violation of another 3. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313);
provision of the RPC (REYES, Book One, 4. Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314);
supra at 82). 5. Theft (Arts. 308, 310, and 311);
Reason and purpose: 6. Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315,
According to the positivist thinking, the 316, 317, and 318);
community must be protected from 7. Chattel Mortgage (art. 319);
anti-social activities, whether actual or 8. Arson and other crimes involving
potential, of the morbid type of man call destruction (Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323,
“socially dangerous person” (REYES, 324, 325 and 326); and
Book One, supra at 81). 9. Malicious Mischief (Arts. 327, 328,
Hence there is a need to suppress 329, 330, and 321).
criminal propensity or criminal Inherent Impossibility
tendencies (BOADO, supra at 50). In impossible crime, the act performed
Objectively, the offender has not by the offender cannot produce an
committed a felony, but subjectively, he offense against persons or property,
is a criminal (REYES, Book One, supra at 87). because:
In committing an impossible crime, the 1. The commission of the offense is
offender intends to commit a felony inherently impossible of
against persons or a felony against a accomplishment; or
property, and the performed would
22
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. The means employed is either:
a) Inadequate; or
b) Ineffectual (Intod v. Court of Appeals, Purpose of Punishing Impossible
G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992). crimes: To suppress criminal
The act intended by the offender is propensity or criminal tendencies
by its nature one of impossible (REYES, Book One supra at 87).
accomplishment. Notes:
There is no attempted or frustrated
There must be either be: impossible crime. It is always
1. Legal Impossibility- where the consummated and applies only to
intended acts even if completed grave or less grave felonies.
would not amount to a crime, (e.g. Under Art. 59 of the RPC, the penalty
killing a person already dead) for impossible crimes is arresto
(BOADO, supra at 49). mayor or a fine ranging from 200-
2. Physical or Factual Impossibility- 500 pesos.
when extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or beyond his ARTICLE 5
control prevent the consummation DUTY OF THE COURT
of the intended crime (e.g. when a Par. 1. Acts which should be
man with the intention to steal repressed but which are not covered
another’s wallet and finds the pocket by law.
empty; when a person steals a check, Requisites:
which was later dishonored). (Id.). 1. The act committed by the accused
Illustration: appears not punishable by any law;
The accused fired at the room of the 2. But the court deems it proper to
supposed victim but no one was repress such act;
actually in the room, thus no one 3. In that case, the court must render
was shot. There is factual the proper decision by dismissing
impossibility in this case. The crime the case and acquitting the accused;
committed is an impossible crime and
and not attempted murder. It occurs 4. The judge must then make a
when extraneous circumstances report to the Chief Executive,
unknown to the actor or beyond his through the Secretary of Justice,
control prevent the consummation stating the reasons which induce
of the intended crime. In this case, him to believe that the said act
petitioner shoots the place where he should be made the subject of penal
thought his victim would be, legislation (Id.at 88).
although in reality, the victim was Note: The basis of par. 1 of Art. 5 is
not present in said place and thus, the legal maxim, nullum crimen,
the petitioner failed to accomplish nulla poena sine lege, that is, tehre is
his end (Id.). no crime i9f there is no law that
punishes the act.
23
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Par. 2. Excessive Penalties b. There is no injury or the injury
Requisites: caused is of lesser gravity;
1. The court after trial finds the 3. The court should not suspend the
accused guilty; execution of the sentence; and
2. The penalty provided by law and 4. The judge should submit a
which the court imposes for the statement to the Chief Executive,
crime committed appears to be through the Secretary of Justice,
clearly excessive because: recommending executive clemency
a. The accused acted with lesser (Id).
degree of malice; and/or The court must impose the penalty
b. There is no injury or the injury prescribed for the crime committed
caused is of lesser gravity; although it finds the penalty too
3. In that case, the court must render harsh considering the conditions
the proper decision by dismissing surrounding the commission of the
the case and acquitting the accused; crime.
and Note: The basis of par. 2 of the Art.
4. The judge must then make a 5 is the principle dura lex sed lex,
report to the Chief Executive, that is, the law may be harsh, but the
through the Secretary of Justice, law is the law. The most the judge
stating the reasons which induce could do is to recommend to the
him to believe that the said act Chief Executive to grant executive
should be made the subject of penal clemency.
legislation (Id. at 88). The duty of the court is to apply the
law, disregarding their feeling for
sympathy or pity for an accused.
Dura lex sed lex (People v. Amigo,
G.R. No. 116719, January 18, 1996).
Note: Executive Clemency-power of the
The basis of par. 1 of Art. 5 is the President to pardon a person
legal maxim, nullum crimen, nulla convicted of a criminal offense, or to
poena sine lege, that is, there is, no commute the related sentence or
crime if there is no law that punishes reduce it to a lesser sentence (Blacks’s
the act. Law Dictionary).
Par. 2. Excessive Penalties Note: Par. 2 is not applicable to
Requisites: offenses defined and penalized by a
1. The court after trial finds the special law.
accused guilty:
2. The penalty provided by law and
which the court imposes for the
crime committed appears to be
clearly excessive because:
a. The accused acted with lesser
degree of malice; and/or
24
___________________________________________________________________________________________
any link. Thus, in slander, there is
ARTICLE 6 either a crime or no crime at all,
CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED depending upon whether or not
& ATTEMTED FELONIES defamatory words were spoken
publicly (REYES, Book One, supra at 120).
Consummated Felony
A felony is consummated when all Material Crimes
the elements necessary for its These are crimes which involve the
execution and accomplishment are three stages of execution (Id. at 121).
present (REYES, Book One, supra at 95).
Stages of development of a Crime
Frustrated Felony 1. Internal acts:
A felony is frustrated when the a. Such as mere thoughts or ideas in
offender performs all the acts of the mind of person.
execution which would produce the b. Not punishable (Id. at 96).
felony as a consequence but which, 2. External acts cover:
nevertheless, do not produce it by a. Preparatory Acts
reason of causes independent of the i. These are initial acts of a person
will of the perpetrator (RPC, Art. 6; Id.). who has conceived the idea of
committing a crime, but which
Attempted Felony cannot by themselves logically and
There is an attempt when the necessarily ripen into a concrete
offender commences the offense. They are not even an overt
commission of the felony directly by act and hence, they do not
overt acts, and does not perform all constitute the attempted stage of
the acts of execution which should the acts of execution (ESTRADA, Book
One, supra at 48).
produce the felony by reason of
ii. Ordinarily not punished except
some cause or accident other than
when considered by law as
his own spontaneous desistance
(RPC, Art. 6; Id.). independent crimes (e.g. Art. 304,
Possession of Picklocks and similar
Formal Crimes of Crimes of Effect tools) (REYES, Book One, supra at 96).
These are felonies which by a single
act of the accused consummates the b. Acts of Execution- punishable
offense as a matter of law (i.e. under the RPC (REYES, Book One, supra
at 96).
physical injuries, acts of
The three stages of acts of
lasciviousness, attempted flight to
execution:
an enemy country, coercion, slander,
1. Attempted
illegal exaction.)
2. Frustrated
As a rule, there can be no attempt of
3. Consummated (ESTRADA, Book One,
a formal crime, because between the
supra at 49)
thought and the deed, there is no
chain of acts that can be served in
25
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The stages of execution do not apply offender reached the objective
to the following; phase of the crime (Id.).
1. Offenses punished by special laws; In other words, in frustrated felony,
2. Formal crimes- consummated by the offender has reached the
a single act objective phase; in attempted
3. Impossible crimes- as the crimes felony, the offender has not passed
cannot even be consummated; the subjective stage (ESTRADA, Book One,
supra at 59).
4. Crimes consummated by mere
attempt (attempt to flee to an 2.Objective Phase- It is that portion of
enemy country, treason, corruption the acts of the offender, where he has
of minors); no more control of the same. All acts
5. Felonies by omission; and have been performed by him (Id. at 51).
6. Crimes committed by mere
agreement (betting in sports, ATTEMPTED STAGE
corruption of public offenders) There is an attempt when the offender begins
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 50). the commission of a felony directly by overt
Factors in determining stage of acts. He has not performed all the acts of
execution of felony: (MEN) execution which should produce the felony (Id.
1. Manner of committing the felony; at 97). It marks the commencement of the
2. Elements constituting the felony; subjective phase.
and Elements:
3. Nature of the offense (REYES, Book 1. The offender commences the
One, supra at 113). commission of the felony directly by
overt acts;
Two Phases of Felony: 2. He does not perform all the acts of
1. Subjective Phase- It is that portion execution which should produce the
of the acts constituting the crime, felony;
starting from the point where the 3. The non-performance of all acts of
offender begins the commission of execution was due to a cause or accident
the crime to that point where he has other than the offender’s own
still control over his acts, including spontaneous desistance (RPC, Art. 6; REYES,
their (acts) natural cause (Id. at 105). Book One, supra at 97).
If between those two points the Felony is deeded commenced by overt acts
offender is stopped by reason of any when the following are present:
cause outside of his own voluntary 1. That there be external acts; and
desistance, the subjective phase has 2. Such external acts have direct
not been passed and it is an attempt. connection with the crime intended to
This is because in attempted felony, be committed (REYES, Book One, supra at 97).
the offender never passes the Note: Overt act may not be a physical activity.
subjective phase of the offense (Id.). There are felonies where, because of their
If he is not so stopped but continues nature or the manner of committing them, the
until he performs the last act, it is overt acts are not performed with bodily
frustrated, provided the crime is no movement or by physical activity (U.S. v. Gloria, G.R.
No. 1740, March 27, 1`905).
produced. The acts then of the
26
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Preparatory Act vs. Overt Act once he succeeded in entering the store, may
Preparatory Act be to rob, to cause physical injury to the
Those initial acts of a person who has conceived inmates, or to commit any other offense. In such
the idea of committing a crime, but which case, there is no justification in finding the
cannot by themselves logically and necessarily offender guilty of attempted robbery by the use
ripen into a concrete offense. They are not even of force upon things (Id. at 100-102 citing People v.
an overt act and hence, they do not constitute Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530, August 23, 1935).
the attempted stage of the acts of execution
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 48). Note: To be an attempted crime, the purpose of
the offender must be thwarted by a foreign
Overt Act force or agency which intervenes and compels
An overt or external act is defined as some him to stop prior to the movement when he has
physical activity or deed, indicating the performed all the acts which should produce
intention to commit a particular crime, more the crime as a consequence, which act it is his
than a mere planning or preparation, which if intention to perform (People v. Caballero, G.R. No.
carried out to its complete termination 149028-30, April 2, 2003).
following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the Desistance
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will It is an absolutory cause which negates criminal
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete liability because the law allows a person to
offense (People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January desist from committing a crime (ESTRADA, Book
24, 2003; ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 51). One, supra at 55). The desistance should be made
The overt act must be directly related to the before all acts of execution are performed.
offense committed (BOADO, supra at 55). Note: the desistance which exempts from
criminal liability has reference to the crime
Indeterminate Offense intended to be committed, and has no
It is one where the purpose of the offender in reference to the crime actually committed by
performing an act is not certain. Its nature in the offender before his desistance (People v.
relation to its objective is ambiguous (REYES, Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003).
Book One, supra at 100). The accused may be When the cause of the non-performance of all
convicted of a felony defined by the acts the acts necessary for the commission of the
performed by him up to the time of desistance. offense is other the offender’s spontaneous
desistance, the felony is attempted (People v.
Illustration: Pareja, G.R. No. 88043, December 9, 1996).
The accused was caught opening with an iron

bar a wall of a store of cheap goods. He broke Kinds of Desistance
one board and was unfastening another when 1. Legal Desistance – It is a desistance
patrolling police caught him. He was charged referred to in law which would obviate
with attempted robbery. criminal liability, unless the overt or
The crime committed is only attempted trespass preparatory act already committed in
to dwelling based on the acts performed by him themselves constitute a felony other
before being caught. There is something yet for than what the actor intended. It is made
him to do to make him liable for the offense during the attempted stage.
charged. The final objective of the accused,
27
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Factual Desistance – It is the actual consummated (People v. Orita, G.R. No.
desistance of the actor; the actor is still 88724, April 3, 1990);
liable for the attempt. It is one made b. Indirect Bribery, because it is committed
after the attempted stage of the crime. by accepting gifts offered to the public
It has no legal effect because the law officer by reason of his office. If he does
recognizes desistance only at the not accept, he does not commit a crime.
attempted stage (BOADO, supra at 56). If he accepts, it is consummated
The spontaneous desistance of the accused is (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 58);
exculpatory only; c. Direct Bribery (BOADO, supra at 572);

1. If made during the attempted stage; and d. Corruption of Public Officers, because
2. Provided, that the acts already the offense requires the concurrence of
committed do not constitute any the will of both parties, such as that when
offense. the offer is accepted, the offense is
consummated. But when the offer is
FRUSTRATED STAGE – A felony is frustrated rejected, the offense is merely attempted
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 58);
when the offender performs all the acts which
e. Adultery, because the essence of the
would produce the felony as a consequence,
crime is sexual congress (Id.);
but the felony was not produce by reason of
f. Physical Injury, since it cannot be
cause independent of the will of the perpetrator
(BOADO, supra at 53).
determined whether the injury will be
Elements: slight, less serious, or serious unless and
1. The offender performs all the acts of until consummated (BOADO, supra at 693);
execution; and
g. Theft, because the unlawful taking
2. All the acts performed would produce
the felony as a consequence (belief of immediately consummates the offense
accused as to whether he had or not and the disposition of the thing is not an
performed all acts of execution is element thereof (Valenzuela v. People, G.R.
No. 160188, June 21, 2007).
immaterial);
3. But the felony is not produced; and
CONSUMMATED STAGE – In consummated
4. By reason of causes independent of the
felony, all the elements necessary for its
will of the perpetrator (ESTRADA, Book One,
supra at 57).
execution and accomplishment must be
present. Every crime has its own elements which
Crimes Which Do Not Admit of a Frustrated must be preset to constitute a culpable violation
Stage of a precept of law (REYES, Book One, supra at 112).
They are those which, by the definition of a
frustrated felony, the offender cannot possibly Note: The offender does not have to do
perform all the acts of execution to bring the anything else to consummate the offense. He
desired result without consummating the has already reached the objective stage of the
offense. offense that he no longer has control of his acts
Examples: having already performed all that is necessary
a. Rape, since the gravamen of the offense to accomplish his purpose (Id.).
is carnal knowledge, hence, no matter If the subjective and objective phases are
how slight the penetration, the felony is present, there is a consummated felony (Id.).
28
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Murder/Homicide/Parricide/Infanticide: Distinction Between Robbery and Theft (RPC,
1. With intent to kill, but no mortal wound Arts. 293 and 309)
is inflicted – attempted. Robbery Theft
2. With intent to kill, and mortal wound is How committed
inflicted but victim does not die – Bothe crimes are committed by the taking of
frustrated. the personal property of another and with the
3. The moment the victim dies, intent to intent to gain. The difference is that in
kill is conclusively presumed – robbery, there is the use of force or violence
consummated. When consummated
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 64). By the use of force So long as there is
upon things, since possession of the
the offender must property, no matter
Rules On Crimes Against Persons and
enter the building to how momentary it
Stages of Execution:
commit the crime, he may be, the crime is
Death Intent to Gravity Crime
must be able to carry consummated
Results Kill of the Committed
out of the building In theft, it is deemed
wound
the thing taken to complete from the
Yes Presumed Mortal MHPI
consummate the moment the offender
No Yes Mortal Frustrated
crime (REYES, Book gains possession of
MHPI
One, supra at 118) the thing, even if he
No Yes Non- Attempted In robbery with has no opportunity to
mortal MHPI violence against or dispose of the same
No Yes Overt Attempted intimidation of (People v. Ellasos, G.R. 139323,
June 6, 2001).
act MHPI persons, the crime is
only – consummated the
no moment the offender
wound gets hold of the thing
no No Mortal Serious taken and/or is in a
wound physical position to dispose of
injuries it freely (Id. at 119)
No No Non- Less
mortal serious/slight
wound physical
injuries
29
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Rape December
The crime of rape is consummated by mere 10, 1918).
penetration of the male organ no matter how Estafa (RPC, Art. 315)
slight or superficial (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 65; Deceit and The money No money
BOADO, supra at 713). Damage on the taken has has taken
Note: The mere introduction of the penis into victim are not been yet, only
the labia majora of the victim’s genitalia present. “damaged” deceit is
engenders the crime of rape. Hence, it is the or spent. present.
“touching” or “entry” of the penis into the labia
majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of Distinction among Attempted, Frustrated and
the victim’s genitalia that consummates rape Impossible Felonies
(People v. Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004).
Attempted Frustrated Impossible
When there is attempted rape:
General Distinctions
1. When the skirt of the victim has been
Evil intent is not accomplished.
lifted no matter what position;
Evil intent is possible of Evil intent
2. When the accused mounted on the body
accomplishment. cannot be
of the victim; and
accomplishe
3. When there is epidermal touching of the
d.
genital organs of the accused and the
What What Evil intent
victim.
prevented prevented cannot be
In attempted rape, there is intent to have carnal
accomplishm accomplishm accomplishe
knowledge or sexual intercourse. In acts of
ent is the ent are d because it’s
lasciviousness there is none (RPC, Art. 266-A as
amended and Art. 336). intervention causes inherently
Note: There is no crime of frustrated rape. The of certain independent impossible of
case of People v. Erina (G.R. No. 26298, January causes or of the will of accomplishm
20, 1927) was an exception since the victim was accident in the ent or the
only three years old. which the perpetrator. means
Common Crimes and their Stages of Execution offender had employed by
Consummated Frustrated Attempted no part. the offender
Arson (RPC, Art. 320) is inadequate
Any part of the The tools The tools to or ineffectual.
building used alone be used for
burned, even if are on fire, committing Distinctions between Attempted and
only a small or a the crime Frustrated Crimes
portion. furniture or are in the Attempted Frustrated
thing not building. As to acts of execution
attached to Not all acts of All acts of execution
the building execution had been had been done.
is on fire done.
(U.S. v. As to causes of non-accomplishment
Valdez, G.R. The felony was not The reason for the
No. L-14128, produced by reason frustration is some
of some cause or cause independent of
30
___________________________________________________________________________________________
accident other than the will of the accomplices are criminally liable while
the offender’s own perpetrator. accessories are exempt (Id.).
spontaneous
desistance. Light Felonies under RPC:
As to the phase of the felony involved 1. Slight physical injuries (Art. 266);
The offender is still in The offender is 2. Theft (Art. 309, pars. (7) and (8)), when
the subjective phase already in the the value of thing stolen is less than five
as he has still control objective phase (5) pesos and theft is committed under
of his acts. because all the acts the circumstances enumerated under
of execution were Art. 308, par. 3;
already there. 3. Alteration of boundary marks (Art. 313);
4. Malicious mischief (Art. 328, par. 3; Art.
329, par. 3), when the value of the
ARTICLE 7 damage does not exceed two hundred
LIGHT FELONIES pesos or cannot be estimated; and
Light Felonies 5. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).
These are infractions of law for the commission Note: For light felonies, the only ones who can
of which the penalty of arresto menor or fine be held liable are the principals and
not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided accomplices.
(RPC, Art. 9, par. 3).
General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only ARTICLE 8
when they have been consummated (REYES, Book CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
One, supra at 124). FELONY
Reason: They produce light, insignificant moral General Rule: Mere conspiracy or proposal to
and material injuries that public conscience is commit a felony is not punishable since they are
satisfied with providing a light penalty of their only preparatory acts.
consummation. If they are not consummated, Exception: Punishable in cases where the law
the wrong done is so slight that there is no need specially provides a penalty therefor.
of providing a penalty at all (Id.). Conspiracy
Exception: If committed against persons or It exists when two or more persons come to an
property, punishable even if attempted of agreement concerning the commission of a
frustrated (Id.). felony and decide to commit it.
Reason for the Exception: Such commission Agreement may be oral or written, express or
presupposes moral depravity (Id. at 125). implied. (REYES, Book One, supra at 128)
1. The exception with regard to crimes Requisites of Conspiracy:
against persons is actually unnecessary, 1. That two or more persons came to an
as the only light felony against persons agreement;
is slight physical injuries which in the first 2. That the agreement concerned the
place is always consummated (BOADO, commission of a felony; and
supra at 58).
3. That the execution of the felony be
The exception can apply however to
decided upon (REYES, Book One, supra at
attempted or frustrated light felonies 131).
against property but only principal and
31
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: Direct proof is not essential to establish Conspiracy as a Felony vs. Conspiracy
conspiracy, and may be inferred from the as a Manner of Incurring Criminal
collective acts of the accused before, during and Liability
after the commission of the crime (People v. As a Felony As a Manner of
Buntag G.R. No. 123070, April 14, 2004 as cited in REYES, Incurring Criminal
Liability
Conspiracy can be presumed from and proven
Conspirators If the conspirators
by acts of the accused themselves when the said
should not commit a felony,
acts point to a joint purpose and design,
actually commit say, treason, they
concerted action and community of interests
treason, rebellion, will be held liable
(Id.).
etc., it being for treason, and
It is not necessary to show that all the
sufficient that two the conspiracy
conspirators actually hit and killed the victim.
or more persons which they had
Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as co-
agree and decide before
principals regardless of the extent and character
to commit it. committing
of their participation because in contemplation
treason is only a
of law, the act of one conspirator is the act of all
manner of
(Id.).
incurring criminal
There must be participation with a criminal
liability, not
resolution because simple knowledge thereof
treated as a
by a person may only make him liable as an
separate offense.
accomplice (People v. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, June
8, 2004).
Felony relates to a Conspiracy is not
The law specially provides penalty for mere
crime actually treated as a
conspiracy in:
committed. separate offense
Under RPC:
but used to
1. Treason, (Art. 115);
determine the
2. Rebellion, (Art. 136);
liability of the
3. Insurrection, (Art. 136);
offenders.
4. Coup d’ etat, (Art. 136);
5. Sedition, (Art. 141); and
In conspiracy, the
6. Monopolies and combinations in
act of one is the
restraint of trade (Art. 186).
act of all.
Under special laws:
1. Selected acts committed under the
Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165);
2. Espionage;
3. Illegal Association;
4. Highway Robbery;
5. Arson; and
6. Terrorism under the Human Security Act
(R.A. No. 9372)
32
___________________________________________________________________________________________
General Rule: Once conspiracy is common design and purpose – conspiracy
established, each and every one of the transcends companionship (People v. Patano, G.R.
conspirators is made criminally liable for No. 129306, March 14, 2003).
the crime committed by anyone of them In determining whether there is an implied
(People v. Monroy, G.R. L-11177, October 30, conspiracy, it must be based on:
1958). 1. Overt acts done before, during, or after
Exception: Unless one or some of the the commission of the crime; or
conspirators committed some other 2. Words, remarks, or language used
crime which is not part of the intended before, during or after the commission
crime (People v. Valdez, G.R. No. L-75390, of the crime.
March 25, 1988). a. They must be distinct from each
Exceptions to the exception: other, independent, or separate.
1. When the other crime is b. They must be closely associated,
committed in their presence and closely related, closely linked, and
they did not prevent its coordinated.
commission indicating their c. they must be for a common criminal
approval thereof; design, joint criminal interest, unity of
2. When the other crime is the criminal purpose, or concerted action,
natural consequence of the geared towards the attainment of the
crime planned; and felony (People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
3. When the act constitutes a 158754, August 10, 2007).
“single indivisible offense”
(BOADO, supra at 63). Note: in conspiracy, direct proof of a previous
agreement to commit a crime is not necessary.
Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy It may be deduced from the mode and manner
There is implied conspiracy if it is proven that by which the offense was perpetrated, or
two or more persons aimed their acts towards inferred from the acts of the accused
the accomplishment of the same unlawful themselves when such point to a joint purpose
object, each doing a part so that their acts and design, concerted action, and community
although apparently independent where in fact of interest (People v. Liad, G.R. No. 133815-17, March
connected and cooperative, thus indicating a 22, 2001).
closeness of personal association and a Note: IN the absence of conspiracy or unity of
concurrence of sentiment (ESTRADA, Book One, criminal purpose and intention immediately
supra at 68). before the commission of the crime, or
It is enough that at the time of the commission community of criminal design, the criminal
of the offense, the offenders acted in concert, responsibility arising from the acts directed
each doing his part to fulfill their common against one and the same person is individual
design (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 90641, February and not collective (Tapalla v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
27, 1990).
No. 100682, May 31, 1993).
Note: Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one as party to conspiracy, absent
any active participation in the commission of
the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the
33
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Proposal to Commit a Felony 4. Perpetual or Temporary Special
It is committed when the person who has Disqualification;
decided to commit a felony proposes its 5. Prision mayor; and
execution to some other person or persons (RPC, 6. Fines of more than six thousand pesos
Art. 8, par. 1). (RPC, Art. 9, par. 1).
Requisites of Proposal: 7.
1. That a person has decided to commit a Less Grave Felonies
felony; and Felonies which the law punishes with penalties
2. That he proposes its execution to some which in their maximum period are correctional,
other person or persons (REYES, Book in accordance with Art. 25 of the Code. These
One, supra at 133). are:
1. Prision correccional;
Proposals punished under the RPC: 2. Arresto mayor;
1. Treason, (Art. 115); 3. Suspension;
2. Rebellion, (Art. 136); 4. Destierro; and
3. Insurrection, (Art. 136); 5. Fines equal to or more than two hundred
4. Coup d’ etat, (Art. 136) (REYES, Book pesos but less than six thousand pesos
One, supra at 133). (RPC, Art. 9, par. 2).
Note: There is no crime of proposal to commit
sedition. Light Felonies
There is no criminal proposal when: Infraction of law for the commission of which
1. The person who proposes is not the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
determined to commit the felony; exceeding two hundred pesos, or both, is
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal provided (RPC, Art. 9, par. 3).
proposal but a mere suggestion; and Importance of Classification
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is 1. To determine whether these felonies can
proposed (Id. at 134). be complexed or not;
It is not necessary that the person to whom the 2. To determine the prescription of the
proposal is made agrees to commit TRIC, what crime and the prescription of the
constitutes the felony is the making of the penalty;
proposal (Id. at 135). 3. To determine the duration of subsidiary
penalty to be imposed (RPC, Art. 39(2)),
ARTICLE 9 where the subsidiary penalty is based on
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES ACCORDING severity of the penalty;
TO GRAVITY 4. To determine the duration of the
Grave Felonies detention in case of failure to post the
They are those felonies to which the law bond to keep the peace (RPC, Art. 35);
attaches the capital punishment or penalties 5. To determine whether or not the person
which in any of their periods are afflictive, in in authority or his agents have
accordance with Art. 25 of the Code. These are: committed delay in the delivery of
1. Reclusion perpetua; detained persons to the judicial authority
2. Reclusion temporal; (RPC, Art. 125); and
3. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute 6. To determine the proper penalty for
Disqualification; quasi-offenses (BOADO, supra at 65-66).
34
___________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Principle of Conspiracy – Art. 8 was
ARTICLE 10 applied to B.P. Blg. 22 (REYES, Book One,
OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT TO THE supra at 147).
PROVISIONS OF THE RPC

General Rule: RPC provisions are CHAPTER TWO
supplementary to special laws (REYES, Book JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND
One, supra at 139). CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM
Exceptions: CRIMINAL LIABILITY (ARTS. 11-12)
1. Where the special law provides Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liability:
otherwise; and 1. Justifying circumstances – RPC, Art. 11,
2. When the provisions of the RPC are (6); R.A. No. 9262 (VAWC), Sec. 26
impossible to apply, either by express (Battered woman syndrome);
provision or by necessary implication 2. Exempting circumstances (7) – RPC, Art.
(BOADO, supra at 75).
12;
Thus, when the special law adopts the
3. Mitigating circumstances (10) – RPC, Art.
nomenclature of penalties imposed in the RPC,
13;
such as reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
4. Aggravating circumstances (21) – RPC,
etc., the provisions of the RPC and the rules and
Art. 14; and
application of the attendance of mitigating and
5. Alternative circumstances (3) – RPC, Art.
aggravating circumstances may be applied
15
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 81).
Suppletory Application of the Revised Penal
Other circumstances or factors which affect
Code
criminal liability:
Only finds relevance when the provisions of the
1. Absolutory cause – the effect is to
special laws are silent on a particular matter.
absolve the offender from criminal
1. Subsidiary penalty – applied when in
liability, although not from civil liability
violations of the Revised Motor Vehicle
Law (Act No. 3992) and B.P. Blg. 22
2. Extenuating circumstances – the effect is
because they did not contain any
to mitigate the criminal liability of the
provision on subsidiary imprisonment.
offender circumstances (i.e. concealment
2. Civil liability – Art. 100 on civil liability
of dishonor in the crime of infanticide
was applied to a case for a violation of
insofar as the mother and maternal
Act No. 3992.
grandparents are concerned, the penalty
3. Rules on Service of Sentence – Art. 70
is lowered by two degrees; the crime of
was applied in favor of the accused who
adultery committed by a married woman
was found guilty of multiple violations of
abandoned by her husband) (Id.).
the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425).
Imputability
4. Definition of principals, accomplices and
It is the quality by which an act may be ascribed
accessories – Arts. 17, 18, and 19 were
to a person as its author or owner (Id. at 86). It
used suppletorily to define the words
implies that the act committed has been freely
principal, accomplices, and accessories
and consciously done and may therefore be put
under the Migrant Workers and
down to the doer as his very own (REYES, Book
Overseas Filipino Act (R.A. No. 8042). One, supra at 149).
35
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Responsibility justifying circumstance (AMURAO, Book One, supra
It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil at 147).
consequences of the crime (Id.).
Guilt Par. 1 Self-Defense
It is an element of responsibility, for a man Requisites:
cannot be made to answer for the 1. Unlawful aggression (condition sine qua
consequences of a crime unless he is guilty (Id.). non);
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it (if by a
ARTICLE 11
peace officer, reasonable necessity of
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES the means employed to overcome
1. Self-defense opponent); and
2. Defense of relatives 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
3. Defense of stranger of the person defending himself.
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury Rights Included in Self-Defense:
5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of Self-defense includes not only the defense of
right or office the person or body of the one assaulted but
6. Obedience to an order issued for some also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is
lawful purpose protected by law. Thus, it includes:
7. Battered woman syndrome (R.A. 9262) 1. Right to Honor – A slap on the face is
considered as unlawful aggression since
Justifying Circumstances
the face represents a person and his
Those where the act of a person is said to be in
dignity. It is a serious personal attack; a
accordance with law, so that such person is
physical assault, coupled with a willful
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is
disgrace; and it may, therefore, be
free from both criminal and civil liability (REYES,
frequently regarded as placing in real
Imposition of Civil Liability danger a person’s dignity, rights, and
General Rule: There is no civil liability when the safety (Rugas v. People, G.R. No. 147789,
January 14, 2004).
act or omission is considered justified.
2. Defense of Property Rights – It can be
Exception: Par 4 (Avoidance or greater evil or
invoked if there is an attack upon the
injury) of Art. 11 where the civil liability is borne
property although it is not coupled with
by the persons benefited by the act (Id.).
an attack upon the person of the owner
It is an affirmative defense; hence, the burden
of the premises. All the elements for
of proof is on the accused who must prove it by
justification must however be present
clear and convincing evidence (Id.). (People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April
There is both no crime hence there is no 20, 1983).
criminal (REYES, Book One, supra at 151).
Basis: Lack of Criminal Intent Subjects of Self-Defense:
In raising justifying circumstance as a defense, 1. Defense of Person;
the accused must first admit the act that he is 2. Defense of Rights;
being charged with because he cannot deny the 3. Defense of Property; and
act and then claim in his defense that he 4. Defense of Honor (REYES, Book One, supra at
committed the act but only did so under 153).
36
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Reasons for Recognizing Self-Defense as a aggression against the person defending
Justifying Circumstance: himself (REYES, Book One, supra at 154).
1. Impulse of self-preservation; and If there is no unlawful aggression, there is
2. State cannot provide protection for each nothing to prevent or repel. The second
of its constituents (Id.). requisite of defense will have no basis (Id.).
Stand Ground When in the Right Peril to one’s life
The law does not require a person to retreat 1. Actual – the danger must be present,
when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon that is actually in existence (Id. at 157).
him with a deadly weapon (U.S. v. Domen, G.R. No. 2. Imminent – the danger is on the point of
L-12963, October 25, 1917). happening. It is not required that the
Reason: He runs the risk of being attacked in the attack already begins, for it may be too
back by the aggressor (REYES, Book One, supra at late (Id. at 158).
171). Peril to one’s limb
FIRST REQUISITE: UNLAWFUL AGGRESSIION It may be actual or only imminent. It includes
Equivalent to assault or at least threatened peril to the safety of one’s person from physical
assault of an immediate and imminent kind injuries. The blow aimed at the vital parts of the
(People v. Alconga, G.R. No. L-162, April 30, 1947, as cited
body or at other parts of the body constitute a
There is unlawful
in REYES, Book One, supra at 156).
danger only to his limb.
aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb or
The person defending himself must have been
right is either actual or imminent (Id. at 157).
attacked with actual physical force or with actual
Two kinds of Unlawful Aggression:
use of weapon (Id. at 159).
1. Actual unlawful aggression – means an
Note: Mere belief of an impending attack is not
attack with physical force or with a
sufficient.
weapon which shows the positive
Slapping of a face constitute an unlawful
determination of the aggressor to cause
aggression because the face represents a
injury; and
person and his dignity and is considered as a
2. Immediate or Imminent unlawful
serious personal attack. It is a physical assault
aggression – an attack that is impending
coupled with a willful disregard or a defiance of
or at the point of happening. It is not
an individual’s personality (People v. Sabio, G.R. No.
required that the attack already begins L-23734, April 27, 1967 as cited in REYES, Book One, supra
for it may be too late (ESTRADA, Book One, at 160).
supra at 88). Retaliation
Note: In case of threat, the same must be The aggression that was begun by the injured
offensive and positively strong, showing the party already ceased to exist when the attack
wrongful intent to cause an injury (Id.). happened hence, it is different from an act of
A mere threatening or intimidating attitude, not self-defense (REYES, Book One, supra at 161).
preceded by an outward and material When the unlawful aggression ceases, the
aggression, is not unlawful aggression (Id.). defender no longer has the right to kill or even
Indispensable Requirement wound the former aggressor (Id. at 162).
The presence of unlawful aggression is a
condition sine qua non and there can be no
self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless
the victim has committed an unlawful
37
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Distinction Between Retaliation and Self 6. There is no unlawful aggression when
Defense there is agreement to fight and the
Retaliation Self-Defense challenge was accepted by the deceased
The unlawful Unlawful aggression (Id.). There must be an agreement to
aggression begun by was still existing when fight and such challenge must be
the injured party had the aggressor was accepted.
already ceased when injured by the person Rationale: Each of the protagonists is at once
the accused attacked making the defense. assailant and assaulted and aggression, as an
him. There must be no incident in the fight, is bound to arise from one
appreciable time or the other of the combatants.
interval between the
unlawful aggression Note: But an aggression ahead of the stipulated
and the killing. time and place of the mutual agreement to fight
(REYES, Book One, supra at 161-162) would be unlawful (Id.).
7. There is self-defense even if the
Guidelines on Unlawful Aggression: aggressor used a toy pistol, provided the
1. The unlawful aggression must come accused believed it was a real gun (Id. at
from the person attacked by the accused 177).
(Id. at 163). 8. When intent to attack is manifest, picking
2. A public officer exceeding his authority up a weapon is sufficient to be an
may become an unlawful aggressor (Id. unlawful aggression (Id. at 179).
at 164).
3. Nature, character, location and extent of SECOND REQUISITE: REASONABLE NECESSITY
wound of the accused allegedly inflicted OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED
by the injured party may belie claim of This requisite presupposes the existence of
self-defense (Id.). unlawful aggression, which is either imminent of
4. Physical fact may determine whether the actual (REYES, Book One, supra at 180).
accused acted in self-defense (Id. at 166). A threat to inflict real injury places us in
5. When the aggressor flees, unlawful imminent danger. An actual physical assault
aggression no longer exists. When places us in actual danger. Hence the phrases
unlawful aggression which has begun no used in the provision is “to prevent” and “to
longer exists, because the aggressor repel” (Id.).
runs away, the one making a defense has This requisite means that (1) there be a necessity
no more right to kill or even to wound of the course of action taken by the person
the former aggressor (Id. at 167). making a necessity of the course of action taken
Note: But if it is clear that the purpose of the by the person making a defense and (2) there
aggressor in retaliating is to take a more be a necessity of the means used. Both of which
advantageous position to ensure the success of must be reasonable (Id.).
the attack already begun by him, the unlawful
aggression is considered still continuing and the
one making a defense has a right to pursue him
in his retreat and to disable him (Id. at 168).
38
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Factors to consider the reasonableness of the the person defending at the time when
means used: the blow was struck (Cano v. People, G.R. No.
1. Presence of imminent danger; 155258, October 7, 2003).
2. Impelled by the instinct of self- 8. In repelling or preventing an unlawful
preservation; aggression, the one defending must aim
3. Nature and quality of the weapon used at his assailant, and not indiscriminately
by the accused compared to the weapon fire his deadly weapon (People v. Galacgac,
of the aggression; C.A., 54 O.G. 1027).
4. Emergency to which the person 9. The means employed by the person

defending himself has been exposed to; making a defense must be rationally
5. Size and/or physical character of the
necessary to prevent or repel the
aggressor compared to the accused and unlawful aggression (People v. Boholst-
Caballero, G.R. No. L-23249, November 25,
other circumstances that can be 1974).
considered showing disparity between 10. Whether the means employed is
aggressor and accused (ESTRADA, Book reasonable, will depend upon the nature
One, supra at 90).
and quality of the weapon used by the
Doctrinal guidelines:
aggressor, his physical condition,
1. The reasonableness of the necessity
character, size, and circumstances, and
depends upon the circumstances (People
v. Ocana, C.A., 67 O.G. 3313).
those of the person defending himself,
2. The necessity of the course of action and also the place and occasion of the
depends on the existence of unlawful assault (People v. Padua, C.A., 4 O.G. 998, as
aggression (REYES, Book One, supra at 181).
3. The place, occasion, darkness of the
THIRD REQUISITE: LACK OF SUFFICIENT
night, and the surprise of the assault are
PROVOCATION
also considered (U.S. v. Ah Chiong, G.R. No.
L-5272, March 19, 1910).
Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct
4. When the danger or risk on his part has or act of the offended party, capable of exciting,
disappeared, his stabbing of the inciting or irritating anyone. It is sufficient when
aggressor while defending himself it is adequate to steer one to its commission
(AMURAO, Book One, supra at 183).
should have stopped (People v. Calavagan,
C.A. G.R., No. 12952-R, August 10, 1955).
Rationale: when the person defending himself
5. When only minor physical injuries are from the attack by another gave sufficient
inflicted after unlawful aggression provocation to the latter, the former is also to
ceased to exist, there is still self-defense be blamed for having given cause for the
if mortal wounds were inflicted at the aggression (REYES, Book One, supra at 192).
time the requisites of self-defense were The provocation must be sufficient, which
present (People v. Del Pilar, C.A., 44 O.G. 596). means that it should be proportionate to the act
6. The person defending is not expected to
of aggression and adequate to stir the
control his blow (Brownell v. People, 38 Mich. aggressor to its commission.
732, cited in the case of People v. Sumicad, G.R. To engage in a verbal argument cannot be
No. L-35524, March 18, 1932). considered as a sufficient provocation.
7. The measure of rational necessity is to be
found in the situation as it appeared to
39
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When provocation is sufficient: Note: the defense should prove all three phases
1. When one challenges the deceased to of cycle of violence characterizing the
come out of the house and engage in a relationship of the parties.
fist fight with him and prove he is a The existence of battered woman syndrome in
better man; a relationship does not in itself establish a legal
2. When on hurls insults or imputes to right of a woman to kill her partner. Evidence
another the utterance of vulgar must still be considered in the context of self-
language; and defense (Id.).
3. When the accused tried to forcibly to Four Characteristics of the Syndrome:
kiss the sister of the deceased (REYES, 1. The woman believes that the violence
Book One, supra at 193-194). was her fault;
Flight, incompatible with self defense 2. She has an inability to place the
Flight after the commission of the crime is responsibility for the violence elsewhere;
highly evidentiary of guilt, and incompatible 3. She fears for her life and/or her
with self-defense (People v. Maranan citing People v. children’s life; and
Maruhom). 4. She has an irrational belief that the
Anti-Violence against Women and their abuser is omnipresent and omniscient
Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262) (BOADO, supra at 92).
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to Only a certified psychologist or psychiatrist can
be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome prove the existence of the Battered Woman
do not incur any criminal or civil liability Syndrome in a woman (R.A. No. 9262, Sec. 6(2)).
notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self- Par. 2. Defense of Relatives
defense under the RPC (Sec. 26). The law Requisites:
provides for an additional justifying 1. Unlawful aggression;
circumstance. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means
Battery employed to prevent or repel it; and
It is any act of inflicting physical harm upon the 3. In case the provocation was given by the
woman of her child resulting to physical and person attacked, the one making the
psychological or emotional distress (R.A. No. 9262, defense had no part therein.
Sec. 3(b)). Relatives that can be defended:
Battery Woman Syndrome 1. Spouse;
It is a scientifically defined pattern of 2. Ascendants;
psychological and behavioral symptoms found 3. Descendants;
in women living in battering relationships as a 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
result of cumulative abuse (R.A. No. 9262, Sec. 3(c)). and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the
“Cycle of Violence” has three phases: same degrees; and
1. The tension building phase; 5. Relatives by consanguinity within the
2. The acute battering incident; and fourth civil degree (REYES, Book One, supra
3. The tranquil, loving (or at least non- at 201).
violent) phase (People v. Genosa G.R. No. Death of one spouse does not terminate the
135981, January 15, 2004. relationship by affinity established between the
surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the
deceased (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda.
40
___________________________________________________________________________________________
De Crungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, Febuary 11,
2010). Par. 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
The fact that the relative defended gave Requisites:
provocation is immaterial (ESTRADA, Book One, 1. That the evil sought to be avoided
supra at 99).
actually exists;
There is no distinction in the Revised Penal
2. That the injury feared be greater than
Code whether the descendant should be
that done to avoid it; and
legitimate or illegitimate; when the law does not
3. There is no other practical and less
distinguish the courts cannot distinguish.
harmful means of preventing it (Id. at
Rationale: It is found not only upon a
209).
humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the
It is only in Paragraph (4) that the person
impulse of blood which impels men to rush, on
defending himself incurs civil liability, since
the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of
generally in this article there is no civil liability
those close to them by ties of blood (REYES, Book
One, supra at 202).
on the part of the accused. Such liability is borne
The third requisite does not mean that the by the person benefited (Id. at 211).
relative defended should give provocation to Greater evil must be brought about by the
the aggressor. The clause merely states an even negligence or imprudence or violation of law by
which may or may not take place. the actor (Id. at 210).
The fact that the relative defended gave
provocation is immaterial. The term “damage to another” covers:
1. Injury to persons and;
Par. 3. Defense of Stranger 2. Damage to property (Id. at 209).
Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression; State of Necessity v. Accident
2. Reasonable necessity of the means Art. 11, Par. 4 Art. 12, Par. 4
employed to prevent or repel it; and Offender deliberately Offender accidentally
3. The person defending was not induced caused damage. caused damage.
by revenge, resentment or other evil
(REGALADO, Criminal Law Conspectus, (2009), p. 157)
motive (Id. at 207).
[hereinafter REGALADO].
Stranger
Any person not induced in the enumeration of Par. 5. Fulfilment of duty or lawful exercise of
relatives under par. 2 of Art. 11 (Id at 208). right or office
Damage to another includes injury to persons Requisites:
and damage to property (Id. at 209). 1. That the accused acted in the
A person defending his common-law spouse or performance of a duty or in the lawful
adopted child will fall under this paragraph. exercise of a right or office; and
Motive is relevant only in this kind of defense. 2. That the injury caused or the offense
Rationale: The ordinary person would not stand committed be the necessary
idly by and see his companion killed without consequence of the due performance of
attempting to save his life (Id at 207). duty or the lawful exercise of such right
Third Requisite: or office (People v. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, July
The law requires that the defense of stranger be 27, 1943).
actuated by a disinterested or generous motive.
41
___________________________________________________________________________________________
In People v. Delima (G.R. No. 18660, December 22, 1922), physical injuries. Is A liable for the injuries
the deceased who escaped from prison while sustained by B?
serving sentence was the obligation to ANS: No, A is not liable. Under the law, he has
surrender, and had no right, after evading the the right to employ reasonable force to prevent
serviceof his sentence to commit assault and or repel actual or threatened assault on his
disobedience with a weapon on his hand, which property. His act of pulling B was reasonably
compelled the policeman to resort to such necessary to protect his possessory rights over
extreme means, which although it proved to be his property (People v. Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67,
fatal, was justified by the circumstances. April 20, 1983).
The executor of death convicts at the Bilibid Q: Suppose in the same problem, A shot B with
Prison cannot be held liable for murder for the his caliber gun instead of pulling down B and B
executions performed by him because he was dies as a result. Will your answer be the same?
merely acting in lawful exercise of his office. ANS: No, this time A is criminally liable for the
death of B. his act of shooting B to death is not
Doctrine of “Self-help” reasonably necessary to prevent the invasion of
Art. 429 of the Civil Code provides “The owner his property (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 103).
or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and Par. 6 Obedience to an order issued for some
disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use lawful purpose
such force as may be reasonably necessary to Requisites:
repel or prevent an actual or threatened 1. That an order has been issued by a
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his superior;
property.” 2. That such order must be for some
The actual invasion of property may consist of a lawful purpose; and
mere disturbance of possession or of a real 3. That the means used by the
dispossession. If it is a mere disturbance of subordinate to carry out said order is
possession, force may be used against it at any lawful.
time as long as it continues, even beyond the Par. 6 presupposes that what was obeyed by the
prescriptive period of forcible entry. If the accused was a lawful order (REGALADO, supra at
invasion consists of a real dispossession, force 58).
to regain possession can be used only When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the
immediately after the dispossession (REYES, Book subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable
One, supra at 219).
Illustrations: The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an
Q. A constructed a small house in a piece of illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of
land which he believed to be a disposable the illegality of the order and he is not negligent
(People v. Beronilla as cited in REYES, Book One, supra at
public land. He had been occupying the lot over 221).
a year. One day, B came and claimed ownership
over the land. B proceeded in dismantling the
house of A. the latter pleaded B to stop but his
plea fell on deaf ears. Thereupon, A pulled B to
prevent him from further dismantling the house.
In the process, B fell on the ground and suffered
42
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 12 without
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES voluntariness, there is
1. Imbecility/Insanity no dolo nor culpa.
2. Minority No crime There is a crime
3. Accident No criminal No criminal
4. Compulsion of irresistible force No criminal liability No criminal liability
5. Impulse of uncontrollable fear No civil liability there is civil liability
6. Insuperable or lawful cause (except Art. 11, par. 4, (except Art. 12, pars. 4
where there is civil and 7, where there is
Exempting circumstances (Circumstances for liability). no civil liability).
Non-Imputability)
Those grounds which free the offender from Contemplates May be invoked in
criminal liability but does not relieve him of civil unintentional acts culpable felonies.
liability except in par. 4 (accident) where he is and hence, are
relieved of both civil and criminal responsibility incompatible with
(AMURAO, Book One, supra at 260). dolo.
There is a crime but the person who committed (BOADO, supra at 99)
the act is not subjected to criminal liability
(REYES, Book One, supra at 223). Par. 1. Imbecility or Insanity
The burden of proof to prove the existence of Basis: Complete absence of intelligence
an exempting circumstance lies with the Imbecility
defense (Id.). It exists when a person, while of advanced age,
Basis: Complete absence of intelligence, has a mental development comparable to that
freedom of action, or intent, or the absence of of children between 2 and 7 years of age (Id. at
negligence on the part of the accused (Id.). 226).
Insanity
Distinctions Between Justifying and Exempting It exists when there is a complete depravation
Circumstances of intelligence or freedom of the will. Mere
Justifying Exempting abnormality of mental faculties is not enough
Circumstances Circumstances especially if the offender has not lost
It affects the act, not It affects the actor, consciousness of his acts (People v. Puno, G.R.
the actor. not the act No. L-33211, June 29, 1981). Insanity and
The act is considered The act complained imbecility, to exempt the actor under Par. 1,
to have been done of is actually must be complete, and they cannot be
within the bounds of wrongful, but the graduated in degrees of gravity (REGALADO, supra
law; hence, legitimate actor is not liable. at 60).
and lawful in the eyes An insane person is not so exempt if it can be
of the law. shown that he acted during a lucid interval. But
Since the act is Since the act an imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal
considered lawful, complained of is liability (REYES, Book One, supra at 223).
there is no crime. actually wrong there Dementia Praecox or Schizophrenia
is a crime but since Dementia praecox is a form of psychosis where
the actor acted homicidal attack is common, because of
43
___________________________________________________________________________________________
delusions that he is being interfered with Occurrence of Insanity and its Effects on
sexually, or that his property is being taken. Criminal Liability
During the period of excitement, such person Time when accused Effect on criminal
has no control of his acts (People v. Bonoan, G.R. suffers insanity liability
No. L-45130, February 17, 1937). At the time of the Exempt from the
Somnambulism or Sleepwalking commission of the liability.
Somnambulism or sleepwalking must be clearly crime.
proven to be considered as an exempting During trial Proceedings will be
circumstance under this Article (People v. Gimena, suspended and
G.R. No. 33877, February 6, 1931).
accused is committed
Feeblemindedness not Imbecility
to a hospital.
Feeblemindedness is not exempting but can be
considered as mitigating (People v. Formigones, G.R.
After judgment or Execution of
No. L-3246, November 29, 1950).
while serving judgment is
Malignant Malaria
sentence suspended; the
It affects the nervous system and causes among
accused is committed
others such compilation as acute melancholia
to a hospital. The
and insanity at times, and if clearly proven will
period of
be considered as an exempting circumstance
confinement in the
under thins paragraph (People v. Lacena, G.R. No.
46961, January 15, 1940). hospital is counted
Epilepsy for the purpose of the
Epilepsy is not a pervading disease but a prescription of the
nervous disorder. Hence, after a seizure, the penalty
victim is normal for all intents and purposes (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 107).
(People v. Teves, G.R. No. 97435, July 14, 1995). It may be Note: The fact that a person behave crazily is
covered by the term insanity (REYES, Book One, supra at not conclusive that he is insane. The prevalent
230). meaning of the word “crazy” is not synonymous
Two tests of insanity: with the legal terms “insane,” “non compos
1. Test of Cognition – complete deprivation mentis,” “unsound mind,” “idiot,” or “lunatic.”
of intelligence in committing the crime. The popular conception of the word “crazy” is
2. Test of Volition – total deprivation of being used to describe a person or an act
freedom of the will (People v. Rafanan, Jr., unnatural or out of the ordinary. A man may
G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991). behave in a crazy manner but it does not
In the Philippines, both cognition and volition necessarily and conclusively prove that he is
tests are applied. There must be complete legally so (People v. Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October
deprivation of the intellect (cognition) and will 8, 2003).
of freedom (volition).
The defense must prove that the accused was
insane at the time of commission of the crime
because the presumption is always in favor of
sanity (People v. Bascos, G.R. No. 19605, December, 19
1922).
44
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Pars. 2 and 3. Minority (Amended and of the child to a youth care facility or “Bahay
superseded by R.A. No. 9344) Pag-asa” managed by LGUs or licensed and/or
accredited NGOs monitored by the DSWD (R.A.
JUVINILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 No. 9344, Sec. 20).
(R.A. No. 9344) as further amended by R.A. No.

Neglected Child
10630 (AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE
A child who is above 12 years of age up to 15
JUVINILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE
years of age and who commits parricide,
PHILIPPINES)
murder, infanticide, kidnapping, and serious
Basis: Complete absence or lack of intelligence.
illegal detention where the victim is killed or
Child in Conflict with The Law raped, robbery with homicide or rape,
It refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, destructive arson, rape or carnapping where the
or adjudged as, having committed an offense driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses
under Philippines laws (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 4, par. e). under R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Person who at the time of the commission of Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by
the offense is below 18 years old but not less more than 12 years of imprisonment, shall be
than 15 years old and 1 day (Revised Rules on deemed a neglected child under P.D. No. 603,
Children in Conflict with the Law, A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, as amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in
Sec. 1). a special faculty with in the youth care faculty or
1. Minimum age of Responsibility – Under ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the Intensive Juvenile
R.A. No. 9344 as amended, the following Intervention and support Center (IJISC) (R.A. No.
are exempt from criminal liability: 9344, Sec. 20-A as amended by R.A. No. 10630).
a. Child fifteen years of age or under at A child who is above 12 years or age up to 15
the time of the commission of the years of age and who commits an offense for
offense. The child shall, however, be the second time or oftener: Provided, that the
subject to an intervention program child was previously subjected to a community-
pursuant to Sec. 20 of the Act. based intervention program, shall be deemed a
If after the intervention, there is no reform, the neglected child under P.D. No. 603, as
minor shall be returned to the court for the amended, and shall undergo an intensive
promulgation of the decision against the minor; intervention program supervised by the local
and then the court shall either decide on the social welfare and development officer:
sentence or extend the intervention. Provided, further, that, if the best interest of the
If it has been determined that the child taken child requires that he/she be placed in a youth
into custody is 15 years old or below; the care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa,’ the child’s
authority which will have an initial contact with parents or guardians shall execute a written
the child, in consultation with the local social authorization for voluntary commitment, the
welfare and development officer, has the duty proper petition for involuntary commitment
to immediately release the child to the custody shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the
of his/her parents or guardian, or in the absence LSWDO pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
thereof, the child’s nearest relative. The child 603, as amended (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 20-B).
shall be subjected to a community-based
intervention program supervised by the local
social welfare and development officer, unless
the best interest of the child requires the referral
45
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: A child is deemed to be 15 years of age 2. Exemption from criminal liability herein
on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her establish does not include exemption
birthdate (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 6). from civil liability (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 6,
c. Child above 15 but below 18 who acted par. 4).
without discernment. 3. Determination of age – The child in
Discernment conflict with the law shall enjoy the
It is the mental capacity to understand the presumption of minority until he/she is
difference between right and wrong as proven to be 18 years old or older (R.A.
determined by the child’s appearance, attitude, No. 9344, Sec. 7, par. 1).
comportment and behavior not only before and The age of a child may be determined from:
during the commission of the offense but also a. Child’s birth certificate;
after and during the trial (Guevara v. Almodovar, b. Baptismal certificate; or
G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989). c. Any other pertinent documents (R.A. No. 9344,
It manifested through: Sec. 7; A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, Sec. 5).
i. Manner of committing the crime; and In the absence of these documents, age may be
ii. Conduct of the offender. based on information from the child
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons,
Distinction between Discernment and Intent the physical appearance of the child and other
Discernment Intent relevant evidence.
Refers to moral Refers to the
significance the person desired act of the In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it
ascribes to the act person shall be resolved in his/her favor (R.A. No. 9344,
(REYES, Book One, supra at 235) Sec. 7)
After initial investigation, the local social worker Any person contesting the age of the child in
may: conflict with the law may:
a. Proceed in accordance with Sec. 20 if the child a. If the case against the child has not yet been
is 15 years or below or above 15 but below 18 filed – file a case in a summary proceeding for
years old, who acted without discernment (R.A. the determination of age prior to the filing of
No. 9344, Sec. 22; BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at the information in any appropriate court before
65); and the Family Court which shall decide the case
b. If a child is above 15 years old but below 18 within 24 hours from receipt of the appropriate
and who acted with discernment, proceed to pleadings of all interested parties (A.M. No. 01-1-
diversion under the following without 18-SC, Sec. 6 in relation to R.A. No. 9344).
undergoing court proceedings subject to the b. If a case has been filed against the child in
following conditions: (R.A. No. 9344: Sec. 23) conflict with law and is pending in the
i. Where the imposable penalty is not appropriate court – file a motion to determine
more than 6 years of imprisonment, the Punong the age of the child in the same court where the
Barangay or law enforcement officer shall case is pending. Pending hearing on the said
conduct mediation, family conferencing and motion, proceedings on the main case shall be
conciliation. suspended.
ii. Where the imposable penalty exceeds In determining the age for purposes of
6 years imprisonment, diversion measures may exemption from criminal liability, the law clearly
be resorted to only by the court. refers to the age as determined by the
anniversary of one’s birth date and not the
46
___________________________________________________________________________________________
mental age as argued by the accused (People v. 7. Status Offenses – refers to any conduct
Roxas, G.R. No. 200793, June 4, 2014). not considered an offense or not
Burden of proof of age: Any person alleging the penalized if committed by an adult shall
age of the child in conflict with the law has the not be considered an offense and shall
burden of proving the age of such child (REYES, not be punished if committed by a child
Book One, supra at 239). (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 4(r)).
4. The prosecutor shall conduct a 8. Offenses not applicable to children –
preliminary investigation and file an persons below 18 years of age shall be
information upon determination of exempt from prosecution for the crime
probable cause in the following of:
instances (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 33): a. Vagrancy and Prostitution (RPC, Art.
a. When the child in conflict with the law 202);
does not qualify for diversion; b. Medicancy (P.D. No. 1563); and
b. When the child, his/her parents or c. Sniffing of rugby (P.D. No. 1619).
guardian does not agree to diversion; Provided that said persons shall undergo
and appropriate counseling and treatment
c. upon determination by the prosecutor program.
that diversion is not appropriate for the Note: Vagrancy has already been
child in conflict with the law. decriminalized by R.A. No. 10158 effective
5. Automatic Suspension of Sentence – March 27, 2012.
Once the child who is under 18 years of
age at the time of commission of the Summary of Rules
offense is found guilty of the offense If the judgment is an acquittal, the decision shall
charged, the court shall determine and immediately take effect without suspension and
ascertain any civil liability which may the decision shall be promulgated and
have resulted from the offense pronounced.
committees. However, instead of If the judgment is conviction, the promulgation
pronouncing the judgment of of the decision and the sentence shall be
conviction, the court shall place the child suspended by the court, the minor shall be
in conflict with law under suspended ordered to undergo intervention, which shall
sentence, without need of application have the following effects:
and impose the appropriate disposition 1. If after the intervention, there is reform
measures as provided in the Supreme on the part of the minor, the minor shall
Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with be returned to the court to dismiss the
the Law (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 38). criminal case and dismiss the charges
6. Upon recommendation of the social against the minor.
worker who has custody of the child, the 2. If after the intervention, there is no
court shall order the final discharge of reform, the minor shall be returned to
the child. The discharge of the child in the court for the promulgation of the
conflict with the law shall not affect the decision against the minor; and then the
civil liability resulting from the court shall either decide on the sentence
commission of the offense (R.A. No. 9344, or extend the intervention.
Sec. 39).
47
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: Only when there is (1) refusal to be Par. 5. A person who acts under the compulsion
subjected to reformation or (2) when there is of an irresistible force
failure to reform can the child be subjected to Basis: Complete absence of freedom. (REYES,
criminal prosecution and the judicial system. Book One, supra at 244)
Elements:
Par. 4. Accident without fault or intention of 1. That the compulsion is by means of
causing it physical force;
Basis: Lack of negligence and Intent (REYES, Book 2. That the physical force must be
One, supra at 242). irresistible; and
Accident 3. That the physical force must come from
An occurrence that happens outside the sway of the third person. (Id. at 243).
our will, and although it comes about through Passion and obfuscation cannot amount to
some act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds irresistible force (Id. at 244).
of humanly foreseeable consequences (Id. at The force must be so irresistible as to reduce the
240). actor to a mere instrument who acts not only
Elements: without will but against his will (People v. Loreno,
1. A person is performing a lawful act; G.R. No. L-54414, July 9, 1984).
2. With due care; The person who used the force or created the
3. He causes injury to another by mere fear is criminally and primarily civilly liable, but
accident; and the accused who performed the act involuntarily
4. Without fault or intention of causing it and under duress is still secondarily liable (RPC, Art. 101 ).
(Id. at 237). Par. 6. Uncontrollable Fear
Distinction between Accident and Negligence Basis: Complete absence of freedom.
Accident Negligence Actus me invicto non est mues actus – An act
Definition done by me against my will is not my act. (REYES,
Unforeseen event in Failure to observe for
Elements:
which no fault or the protection of the
1. The existence of an uncontrollable fear;
negligence attaches interest of another
2. That the fear must be real and imminent;
to the defendant. It is person, that degree
and
an event without any of care, precaution
3. The fear of an injury is greater than, or at
human agency, or if and vigilance which
least equal to, that committed (People v.
happening wholly or the circumstances
Anticamara, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011).
partly through justly demand
human agency, an without which such Duress as valid defense should be based on real,
event which under other persons suffers imminent, or reasonable fear for one’s life or
the circumstance is injury. limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or
unusual or remote fear (People v. Borja, G.R. No. L-22947, July 12,
unexpected by the 1979).
person to whom it The compulsion must be of such character as to
happens. leave no opportunity to the accused for escape
or self-defense in equal combat (People v.
(Jarco Marketing v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003).
December 21, 1999, as cited in REYES, Book One, supra at
241).
48
___________________________________________________________________________________________
It must presuppose intimidation or threat, not for three days by boat as there was no other
force or violence (REYES, Book One, supra at 244). means of transportation. The distance which
Irresistible Force v. Uncontrollable Fear required a journey for three days was
Irresistible Force Uncontrollable Fear considered an insuperable (U.S. v. Vicetillo, G.R. No.
As to offender’s act 6082, March 18, 1911).
Offender uses Offender employs Note: under the law, the person arrested
violence or physical intimidation or threat incident to arrest must be delivered to the
force to compel in compelling another nearest judicial authority at most within 36
another person to to commit a crime. hours under Art. 125 RPC; otherwise, the public
commit a crime. officer will be liable delay in the delivery to
As to who the act is directed judicial authorities (id).
Must have been May be generated by a A mother, who at the time of childbirth was
made to operate threatened act directed overcome by severe dizziness and extreme
directly upon the to a third person, e.g. debility, and left the child in a thicket where said
person of the the wife of the accused child died, is not liable for infanticide because it
accused. who was kidnapped. was physically impossible for her to take home
As to the act feared the child (People v. Bandia, G.R. No. 45186, September
30, 1936).
The injury feared The evil feared must be
The severe dizziness and extreme debility of the
may be of a lesser greater or at least
woman constitute an insuperable cause (id).
degree than the equal to the damage
Absolutory causes are those where the act
damage caused by caused to avoid it.
committed is a crime but for reasons of public
the accused.
policy and sentiment, there is no penalty
imposed (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 115).
Par. 7. Insuperable cause
Basis: Lack of intent Examples of Absolutory Causes:
Insuperable cause 1. Spontaneous Desistance Art. 6);
It is some motive which has lawfully, morally, or 2. Slight or less serious physical injuries
physically prevented a person to do what the inflicted under exceptional
law commands. circumstances (Art. 247);
It applies to felonies by omission (BOADO, supra 3. Attempted or frustrated light felonies
at 130). (Art. 7);
4. Instigation;
Elements: 5. Marriage of the offender and the
1. That an act is required by the law to be offended party in cases of seduction,
done; abduction, acts of lasciviousness and
2. That a person fails to perform such act; rape (Art. 344);
and 6. Accessories who are exempt from
3. That his failure to perform such act was criminal liability by reason of
due to some lawful or insuperable cause. relationship (Art. 20) and in light
Illustrations: felonies;
The municipal president detained the offended 7. Adultery and concubinage if the
party for three days because to take him to the offended party shall have consented or
nearest justice of the peace required a journey pardoned the offenders (Art. 344);
49
___________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Persons exempt from criminal liability If the one who made the instigation is a private
for theft, swindling and malicious individual, not performing public function, both
mischief (Art. 332); he and the one induced are criminally liable for
9. Trespass to dwelling when the purpose the crime committed: the former, as principal by
of entering another’s dwelling against inducement; and the latter, as principal by direct
the latter’s will is to prevent some participation (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 115).
serious harm to himself, the occupants
of the dwelling or a third person, or for CHAPTER 3
the purpose of rendering some service CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE
to humanity or justice, or when CRIMINAL LIABILITY
entering cafes, taverns, inns and other ARTICLE 13
public houses, while the same are open
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
(Art. 280, par. 3).
1. Incomplete justification and exemption
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. A buy-
2. Under 18 or over 70 years of age
bust operation conducted in connection with
3. No intention to commit so grave a
illegal drug-related offenses is a form of
wrong
entrapment (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 115).
4. Sufficient provocation or threat
It is instigation that is considered an absolutory
5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense
cause (People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009).
6. Passion or obfuscation
Distinction between Entrapment and
7. Voluntary surrender
Instigation
8. Voluntary plea of guilt
Entrapment Instigation
9. Plea to a lower offense
As to nature
10. Physical defect
Ways and means are Instigator induces the
11. Illness
resorted to for the would-be accused to
12. Analogous circumstances
capture of lawbreaker commit the crime,
in the execution of his hence he becomes a
Mitigating circumstances
criminal plan. co-principal.
Those which if present in the commission of the
As to origin
crime, do not entirely free the actor from
The means originates The law enforcer
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the
from the mind of the conceives the
penalty (REYES, Book One, supra at 258).
criminal. commission of the
Only the mitigating circumstance can arise out
crime and suggests
of one and the same act (People v. De los Santos, 85
to the accused who Phil. 870).
adopts the idea and Kinds of Mitigating Circumstances
carries it into 1. Ordinary mitigating circumstance
execution. It lowers the penalty to the minimum
As to liability period. The penalty must be divisible, for
Not a bar to the It will result in the an indivisible penalty has no minimum,
prosecution and acquittal of the medium or maximum period (BOADO,
conviction of the accused. Compact Reviewer, supra at 81-82).
lawbreaker. Article 13 enumerates ordinary
(REYES, Book One, supra at 155) mitigating as well as provisions on
50
___________________________________________________________________________________________
specific felonies where the penalty is Distinctions between Ordinary and Privileged
lowered to the minimum period (BOADO, Mitigating Circumstances
supra at 144). Ordinary Mitigating Privileged Mitigating
2. Privileged mitigating circumstance Circumstances Circumstances
It lowers the penalty prescribed by one As to source
or more degrees (divisible or indivisible) Subsections 1-10 of Subsection 1 of Art. 13
(BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 82).
Art. 13 (RPC) of RPC, Arts. 68, 69
Par. 1 of Art. 13 is and 64 of RPC
PMC in Particular Crimes:
ordinary mitigating Art. 64 applies only
1. In slight illegal detention, if the offender shall
circumstance, if Art. when there are two or
voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or
69, for instance, it not more ordinary
detained within 3 days from commencement of
applicable. mitigating
the detention, without having attained the
circumstances
purpose intended, and before the institution of
without any generic
criminal proceedings against him (RPC, Art. 268,
par. 3). aggravating
2. In adultery, if the person guilty of such crime circumstances.
committed this offense while being abandoned As to effect
without justification by the offended spouse If not offset by an Produces the effect of
(RPC, Art. 333, par. 3; AMURAO, supra at 358). aggravating imposing upon the
3. Specific mitigating circumstance circumstance, offender the penalty
It only applies to a specific felony (e.g. produces only the lower by one or two
concealment of dishonor in case of effect of applying the degrees than that
abortion by the pregnant woman, and penalty provided by provided by law for
could either be ordinary or privileged law for the crime of the crime.
depending upon the extent of the its minimum period,
reduction of the penalty authorized by in case of divisible
law (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 82). penalty.
Specific Mitigating Circumstances As to availability of being offset
1. Illegal detention (voluntary release Susceptible of being Cannot be offset by
within 3 days; without attaining purpose; offset by any aggravating
before criminal action); aggravating circumstance.
2. Adultery (abandonment of spouse); and circumstance.
3. Infanticide/abortion (intent to conceal (REYES, Book One, supra at 259-260)
dishonor of mother).
Par. 1. Incomplete justifying or exempting
circumstances
This applies when all the requisites necessary to
justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability
are not attendant (RPC, Art. 13, par. 1).
1. “Incomplete self-defense, defense of
relatives, and defense of a stranger” –
unlawful aggression is an indispensable
requisite. When two of the three
51
___________________________________________________________________________________________
requisites mentioned therein are present 4. “Incomplete justifying circumstance of
(i.e., unlawful aggression and any one of obedience to an order” – the order must
the other two), the case should be always be from a superior (Id. at 268).
considered a privileged mitigating 5. “Incomplete exempting circumstance of
circumstance referred to in Art. 69 of the minority over 9 and under 15 years of
RPC (REYES, Book One, supra at 264). age” – under R.A. No. 9344, a child
above 15 years but below 18 years of age
Note: In the three classes of self-defense, shall be exempt from criminal liability
unlawful aggression must be present, it unless he/she acted with discernment
being indispensable requisite. What is (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 6).
absent is either one or both of the last In other words, where before, an
two requisites (Id.). offender above 15 but under 18 years of
age is entitled only to the benefits
Under Art. 69 of the RPC, when only provided under Art. 68 of RPC, under
unlawful aggression is present, the R.A. No. 9344 or the “Juvenile Justice and
accused is entitled to a penalty lower in Welfare Act of 2006”, such offender may
degree. If unlawful aggression and any be exempt from criminal liability if
of the remaining two elements are he/she acted without discernment (REYES,
present, the accused is entitled to two Book One, supra at 271).
degrees lower (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at

120). On the other hand, if such offender
But if there is no unlawful aggression, acted with discernment, such child in
there could be no self-defense, whether conflict with the law shall undergo
complete or incomplete (REYES, Book One, diversion programs provided under
supra at 265). Chapter 2 of R.A. No. 9344 (REYES, Book
2. “Incomplete justifying circumstance of One, supra at 272).
avoidance of greater evil or injury” – if
any of the last two requisites is absent Diversion
(i.e., injury feared be greater than that to It is an alternative, child-appropriate
avoid it or there be no other practical process of determining the responsibility
and less harmful means of preventing it) and treatment of child in conflict with the
(Id. at 266). law on basis of his/her social, cultural,
3. “Incomplete justifying circumstance of economic, psychological or educational
performance of duty” – in People v. background without resorting to formal
Oanis, supra, where one of the two court proceedings (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 4, par.
requisites under par. 5 of Art. 11 was j).
present, Art. 60 (privileged mitigating 6. “Incomplete exempting circumstance of

circumstance) was applied. The Supreme accident” – under par. 4 of Art. 12 there
Court held that there is no ordinary are four requisites, namely:
mitigating circumstance under Article 13 a. A person is performing a lawful act;
(par. 1) when the justifying or exempting b. With due care;
circumstance has two requisites only (Id. c. He causes an injury to another by mere
at 268). accident; and
52
___________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Without fault or intention of causing it Legal effects of various ages of offender
(REYES, Book One, supra at 268-269). 15 and below Exempting
Above 15 but below Exempting, unless
Felony By Negligence or Imprudence 18 acted with
If the requisites (b) with due care and (d) without discernment. But even
fault or absent, it will fall under Art. 365 (which with discernment,
punishes a felony by negligence or penalty is reduced by
imprudence), in effect there is a mitigating one degree lower than
circumstance because the penalty is lower than that imposed (RPC, Art.
that provided for in intentional felonies (Id. at 68, par. 2, amended by R.A.
269). No. 9344).
Intentional Felony Child in conflict with Sentence is suspended
If the requisites (a) A person is performing a the law under 18 (RPC, Art. 192, R.A. No.
years of age who 9344 as amended by R.A.
lawful act and (b) without intention of causing
No. 10630).
the accident or absent, (positively stated, the acted with
person committed an unlawful act and had the discernment
intention of causing the injury), it is an 18 years or over Full criminal
intentional felony (Id). responsibility (ESTRADA,
7. “Incomplete exempting circumstance of Book One, supra at 121).
uncontrollable fear” – if only one of the 70 years or over Mitigating, no
two requisites are present, there is only a imposition of death
mitigating circumstance (Id). penalty; if already
In People v. Magpantay (C.A., 46 O.G. imposed, execution of
1655) the accused was entitled to the death penalty is
mitigating circumstance of grave fear, suspended and
not entirely uncontrollable, under par. 1 commuted (Id.).
of Art. 13 in connection with par. 16 of
Art. 12 of the RPC. The fear of the Child in Conflict with the Law
accused was not entirely uncontrollable It refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of,
for had he not been so hasty and had he or adjudged as, having committed an offense
stopped a few seconds to think, he under Philippine Laws (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 4(e)).
would have ascertained that there was Basis: Diminution of intelligence.
no imminent danger. Par. 3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong
(Praeter Intentionem)
Par. 2. Over 15 and under 18, acting without Rule for application: Can be taken into account
discernment, or over 70 years old only when the facts proven show that there is a
A child 15 years of age or under at the time of notable and evident disproportion between the
the commission of the offense shall be exempt means employed to execute the criminal acts
from criminal liability. A child above 15 years but and its consequences (U.S. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 12635,
below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt September 25, 1917).
from criminal liability, unless he/she acted with When the means employed by the accused are
discernment (R.A No. 9344, Sec. 6). adequate and proportionate to the result of the
crime, this circumstance cannot be availed of
(U.S. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 12635, September 25, 1917).
53
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Intention may be ascertained by considering: 5. Cannot be appreciated in error in
1. The weapon used; personae because there is again intent
2. The injury inflicted; to commit the felony (Id.).
3. The manner it is inflicted; and Intent at the time of the commission of the
4. The part of the body injured (ESTRADA, felony, not during the planning stage, should be
Book One, supra at 122). considered (People v. Boyles, G.R. No. L-30849, March
29, 1982).
Instances When the Rule on Praeter Basis: Diminution of intent (REYES, Book One,
Intentionem would not be Applicable supra at 283).
Not applicable to felonies by negligence (People
v. Medina, C.A., 40 O.G. 4196); Par. 4. Provocation or threat
Note: The reason is that in felonies through Provocation
negligence, the offender acts without intent. It is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
The negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or
or lack of skill in culpable felonies (REYES, Book irritating any one (Id.).
One, supra at284).
Requisites:
1. Not appreciated in murder qualified by
1. The provocation must be sufficient;
treachery (People v. Pajenado, G.R. No. L-
26458, January 30, 1976);
“sufficient” – It means to adequate to
Note: In crimes against persons who do excite a person to commit a wrong and
not die as a result of the assault, the must accordingly be proportionate to its
absence of the intent to kill reduces the gravity (People v. Nabora, G.R. No. 48101,
November 22, 1941).
felony to mere physical injuries, but it
does not constitute a mitigating
It is not enough that the provocative act
circumstance (People v. Galacgac, C.A., 54
O.G. 1207).
be unreasonable or annoying; the
2. Not appreciated in cases where there is provocation must be sufficient to excite
no material harm done; one to commit the wrongful act and
Note: Applicable only to offenses should immediately precede the act
(Urbano v. People, G.R. No. 182750, January 20,
resulting in physical injuries or material 2009).
harm (REYES, Book One, supra at 285).
3. Not available as defense in violation of
As to whether or not the provocation is
the Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049, Sec. 4, sufficient depends upon:
par. 8);
a. The act constituting the provocation;
Note: Since the law is malum prohibitum,
b. The social standing of the person
the intention of the offender is
provoked; and
immaterial; and
c. The place and time when the
4. Cannot be appreciated in abberatio ictus
provocation is made (REYES, Book One,
and error in personae because in these supra at 286).
cases, there is intent to commit the 2. It must originate from the offended
felony (AMURAO, Book One, supra at 375); party;
and 3. That the provocation must be immediate
to the act (REYES, Book One, supra at 283).
54
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Provocation is immediate if no interval of time Grave offense
elapsed between the provocation and the “Grave offense” includes any act that is offensive
commission of the crime (People v. Pagal, G.R. No. to the offender of his relatives and the same
L-32040, October 25, 1977). need not be unlawful (People v. Benito, G.R. No. L-
When the aggression is in retaliation for an 32042, February 13, 1975).
insult, injury or threat, the offender cannot It need not be a crime as the word “offense”
successfully claim self-defense, but at most he may include any act or event which offends the
can be given the benefit of mitigating accused causing mental agony to him and
circumstance (US v. Carrero, G.R. No. 3956, January 10, moves him to vindicate himself of such offense
1908). (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 85).
The threat should not be offensive and Being hit by a stick at the ear is not a grave
positively strong. Otherwise, the threat to inflict offense (Bacabac v. People, G.R. No. 149372, September
real injury is an unlawful aggression, which may 11, 2007).
give rise to self-defense (US v. Gusayco, G.R. No. The gave offense must be the proximate cause
4912, March 25, 1909). or proximate to the act of the offender.
The liability of the accused is mitigated only Relationship by Affinity
insofar as it concerns the harm inflicted upon It applies to grave offenses committed against
the person who made the provocation, but not the surviving spouse of the deceased relative.
with regard to the other victims who did not (Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De
participate in the provocation (US v. Malabanan, Crungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
G.R. No. 3964, November 26, 1907). Note: A nephew is not a relative by affinity
Basis: Diminution intelligence and intent (REYES, “within the same degree” (Bacabac v. People, supra).
Book One, supra at 292). 2. That the felony is committed in immediate
Provocation as Provocation as vindication of such grave offense.
Requisite of Mitigating “Immediate” allows for a lapse of time as long
Incomplete Self- Circumstance as the offender is still suffering from the mental
Defense agony brought about by the offense to him
It pertains to its It pertains to its (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 124).
absence on the part presence on the part The benefit of immediate vindication of a gave
of the person of the offended party. offense cannot be considered in favor of the
defending himself. accused when he had sufficient time to recover
(People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103613, February his serenity (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 85).
23, 2001)
Par. 5. Vindication of grave offense Distinction Between Vindication and

Requisites: Provocation
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one Vindication Provocation
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, The gave offense The provocation is
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted may be committed made directly only to
brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within against the the person
the same degrees; and offender’s relatives committing the
mentioned by law. felony
The offended party The cause that
must have done a brought about the
55
___________________________________________________________________________________________
gave offense to the provocation need Note: This mitigating circumstance may be
offender or his not be a gave appreciated even if the reported act causing the
relatives mentioned offense obfuscation was not true, as long as it was
by law honestly and reasonably believed by the
The vindication of It is necessary that accused to be true (People v. Guhiting, G.R. No. L-
the grave offense the provocation or 2843, May 14, 1951).
may be proximate, threat immediately It is mitigating circumstance only when the
which admits of an preceded the act (i.e., same arises from lawful sentiments (People v.
Bates, G.R. No. 139907, March 28, 2003).
interval of time that there be no
Note: Even if there is actually passion or
between the grave internal of time
obfuscation on the part of the offender, there is
offense done by the between the
not mitigating circumstance, when:
offended party and provocation and the
1. The act is committed in the spirit of
the commission of commission of the
lawlessness or
the crime by the crime)
2. The act is committed in a spirit of
accused.
(REYES, Book One, supra at 291-292) revenge (REYES, Book One, supra at 295).
Requisites:
Basis to determine gravity of offense in 1. That there be an act, both unlawful and
vindication: sufficient to produce such condition of
1. Social standing of the person; mind;
2. Place; and The act of the offended party must be
3. Time when the insult was made (REYES, unlawful or unjust (People v. Taylor, G.R. No.
Book One, supra at 292). 2309, April 19, 1906).
The provocation should be proportionate to the
damage cause by the act and adequate to stir It may lawfully arise from causes existing
one to its commission. The remark attributed to only in the honest belief of the offender
the deceased that the daughter of the accused (U.S. v. Macalintal, G.R. No. 1331, August 25,
1903).
is a flirt does not warrant and justify the act of
the accused in slaying the victim (People v. Lopez,
G.R. No. 136861, November 15, 2001). Exercise of right or fulfillment of duty is
Basis: Diminution of the conditions of not a proper source of passion and
voluntariness (Id. at 294). obfuscation, (People v. Noynay, G.R. No.
38715, September 15, 1933).
Par. 6. Passion or Obfuscation

Obfuscation arising from jealousy
There is passion or obfuscation when the crime
Passion or obfuscation is not mitigating
was committed due to an uncontrollable burst
when the relations between the parties
of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper
are illegitimate. The mitigating
acts due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as
circumstance cannot be considered in
to overcome reason (People v. Danafrata, G.R. No.
143010, September 30, 2003). favor of an accused when the
To be mitigating, it is important to establish an relationship between him and the
act that is sufficient to produce a condition of deceased is illicit, because the causes
mind to commit a felony or a crime (ESTRADA, which mitigate criminal responsibility for
Book One, supra at 125). the loss of self-control are such which
56
___________________________________________________________________________________________
originate from legitimate feelings, and does not involve
not those which arises from vicious, physical force.
unworthy and immoral passions (U.S. v. Passion or obfuscation is It must come from
Hicks, G.R. No. 4871, September 23, 1909). in the offender himself. a third person.
It must arise from lawful It is unlawful.
2. That said act which produce the sentiments.
obfuscation was not far removed from (REYES, Book One, supra at 308).
the commission of the crime by a
considerate length of time, during which Passion and Obfuscation cannot co-exist with:
the perpetrator might recover his normal 1. Vindication of grave offense;
equanimity; and In the case of People v. Diokno (G.R. No.
3. The act causing such obfuscation was 45100, October 26, 1936), the Supreme
committed by the victim himself Court separately appreciated the
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 125). mitigating circumstance of vindication of
a grave offense and passion or
Distinctions Between Passion/Obfuscation and obfuscation in favor of the accused in the
Provocation same case when they arise from different
Passion/Obfuscation Provocation set of facts.
Produced by an impulse The provocation 2. Evident premeditation;
which may be caused by must come from The essence of evident premeditation
provocation the injured party. that the execution of the criminal act
Offense which Must immediately must be preceded by calm thought and
engenders perturbation precede the reflection upon the resolution to carry
of mind need not be commission of the out the criminal intent during the space
immediate. It is only crime. of time sufficient to arrive at a composed
required that the judgment (People v. Pagal, G.R. No. L-32040,
influence thereof lasts October 25, 1977).
until the moment the 3. Treachery; and

crime is committed. Passion or obfuscation cannot co-exist
The effect is loss of reason and self-control on with treachery, for while in the mitigating
the part of the offender. circumstance of passion or obfuscation
the offender loses his reason and self-
If obfuscation and provocation arose from control, in the aggravating circumstance
one and the same act, both shall be treated of treachery, the mode of attack must be
as only one mitigating circumstance. consciously adopted (People v. Wong, 18
CAR [2s] 934, 940-941).
Distinctions between Passion/Obfuscation and 4. Lack of intention to commit so grave a
Irresistible Force wrong (People v. Cabel, 5 CAR [2s] 507, 515, as
Passion/Obfuscation Irresistible force
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent
Mitigating circumstance Exempting (REYES, Book One, supra at 309).
circumstance
It cannot give rise to It requires physical
irresistible force as it force
57
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Par. 7. Voluntary Surrender and Voluntary search and capture (People v. Gervacio, G.R.
Confession of Guilt No. L-21965, August 30, 1968).
Two mitigating circumstances:
1. That the offender had not been actually That the accused surrendered because
arrested; of fear and reprisal does not detract
2. That the offender surrendered himself to from the spontaneity of the surrender
a person in authority or to the latter’s and the fact that he had saved the state
agent; of the time and trouble of searching for
him (People v. Amazan, G.R. No. 136251, January
Person in Authority 16, 2001).
He is one directly vested with jurisdiction which 6. There must be no pending warrant of
is the power to govern and to execute the laws, arrest or information filed (People v. Taraya,
G.R. No. 135551, October 27, 2000).
whether as an individual or as a member of
Note: People v. De Vera (G.R. No. 172832,
some court of governmental corporation, board
April 7, 2009) clarified that the mere filing of
or commission (RPC, Art. 152, as amended by RA 1978).
an information and/or issuance of a warrant
Agent of a person in authority of arrest will not automatically make the
He is one who, by direct provision of the law, or surrender involuntary. Notwithstanding the
by election, or by appointment by competent pendency of a warrant for his arrest, the
authority, is charged with the maintenance of accused may still be entitled to the
public order and the protection and security of mitigating circumstance in case be
life and property and any person who comes to surrenders, depending on the actual facts
the aid of persons in authority (RPC, Art. 152, as surrounding the very act of giving himself
amended by RA 1978). up (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 86-87).
The offender himself should surrender. If it was Rivera v. Court of Appeals, (G.R. No. 125867, May 31,
2000) pronounced that the fact that the
his superior who surrendered him to the
custody of the court, such is not a voluntary order of arrest has already been issued is no
surrender contemplated by law (People v. Acuram, bar in the consideration of the circumstance
G.R. No. 117954, April 27, 2000. because the law does not require that the
3. That the surrender was voluntary; surrender be prior the order of arrest.
4. That the surrender must be
unconditional; and Cases not Constituting Voluntary Surrender:
5. That the surrender must be spontaneous 1. The accused surrendered only after
(AMURAO, Book One, supra at 408). warrant of arrest was served upon him
(People v. Roldan, G.R. No. L-22030, May 18,
For voluntary surrender to be 1968);
appreciated, the same must be 2. Where the accused was actually arrested
spontaneous in such a manner that it by his own admission or that he yielded
shows the interest of the accused to because of the warrant of arrest,
surrender unconditionally to the although the police blotter used the
authorities, either because he word “surrender” (People v. Velez, G.R. No.
30038, July 18, 1974);
acknowledges his guilt or because he
3. Where the accused only went to the
wishes to save them the trouble and
police station to report that his wife was
expenses necessarily incurred in his
58
___________________________________________________________________________________________
stabbed by another person and to seek must be one of original jurisdiction because it
protection as he feared that the same must be made at the earliest opportunity and
assailant would also stabbed him (People before the presentation of the prosecution’s
v. Trigo, G.R. No. 74531, November 30, 1962). evidence (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 88).
Where in the original information the accused
Nature of Voluntary Surrender pleaded not guilty, but he pleaded guilty to the
1. It must be spontaneous. amended information, it is considered a
2. Intent of the accused to submit himself voluntary plea of guilty and considered a
unconditionally to the authorities must mitigating circumstance (People v. Ortiz, G.R. No. L-
be either because: 19585, November 29, 1965).
a. he acknowledges his guilt; The plea of guilty must be made at the first
b. he wishes to save them the trouble opportunity. Thus, plea of guilty in the CFI (now
and expense necessarily incurred in his RPC) in case pleaded from MTC is not
search and capture. mitigating (People v. Herminio, G.R. No. 45466, June
3. The conduct of the accused determines 30, 1937).
the spontaneity of the arrest. Basis: Lesser perversity of the offender (REYES,
4. Intention to surrender without actually Book One, supra at 328).
surrendering is not mitigating.

Par. 8. Physical Defect of Offender
5. Not mitigating when defendant was in
When the offender is deaf and dumb, blind, or
fact arrested.
otherwise suffering from some physical defect,
6. It is not required that, to be appreciated,
it restricts his means of action, defense, or
it be prior to the issuance of a warrant of
communication with others (REYES, Book One,
arrest (People v. Turalba, G.R. No. L-29118, supra at 329).
February 28, 1974).
The physical defect must relate to the offense
7. Surrender of weapons cannot be
committed. In other words, the defect or illness
equated with voluntary surrender.
must be a contributing factor to the commission
Requisites of Voluntary Plea of Guilty:
of the crime. Without such relation, the defect
1. That the offender spontaneously
or illness should not be considered e.g.
confessed his guilt;
blindness does not mitigate estafa (BOADO, supra
2. That the confession of guilt was made in at 155).
open court, that is, before the Illness must only diminish and not deprive the
competent court that is to try the case offender of the consciousness of his acts.
(judicial confession); Otherwise, he will be exempted from criminal
3. That the confession of guilt was made liability (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 89).
prior to the presentation of evidence for “Dumb” – one who cannot speak; a person who
the prosecution; and is mute (Black’s Law Dictionary).
4. That the confession of guilt was to the This paragraph does not distinguish between
offense charged in the information the educated and uneducated person with
(REYES, Book One, supra at 322). physical defect (REYES, Book One, supra at 329).
Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable Basis: Diminution of freedom of action,
felonies and in crimes punished by special laws therefore diminution of voluntariness (Id).
An extrajudicial confession is not mitigating
because it is not made in open court. The court
59
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Par. 9. Illness of the Offender 6. Outraged feeling of unpaid creditor, as
Requisites: akin to vindication or obfuscation (People
1. That the illness of the offender must v. Merenillo, C.A., 36 O.G.2283);
diminish the exercise of his will-power; 7. Appeal to the esprit de corps of the
and accused, as analogous to passion (People
2. That such illness does not deprive the v. Villamora, G.R. No. L-2054, April 29, 1950);
offender of consciousness of his acts 8. Wartime state of confusion resulting in

(REYES, Book One, supra at 330). illegal possession of firearm after the
Illness must only diminish and not deprive the liberation, as being similar to lack of
offender of the consciousness of his acts or he intent to commit so grave a wrong;
9. Restitution of missing funds in
will be exempt from criminal liability (BOADO
Compact Reviewer, supra at 89). Includes illness malversation is analogous to voluntary
of the mind not amounting to insanity (REYES, plea of guilt (Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 10738, December 7, 1994);
10. Voluntary return of funds malversed by
Kleptomania, feeblemindedness, mistaken
the accused, as equivalent to voluntary
belief that killing witches was for public good
surrender (Cimafranca v. People, G.R. No.
and illness of nerves or moral faculty may be
94408, February 14, 1991); and
considered as mitigating circumstance under
11. Testifying to the prosecution without
his subparagraph (REYES, Book One, supra at
being discharged from the information,
331).
as being like a plea of guilty (People v.
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent (Id). Alincastre, G.R. No. L-29891, August 30, 1971).
Par. 10. Similar or Analogous Circumstances Mitigating Circumstance which are personal to
Examples: the offenders shall only serve to mitigate the
1. Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion
liability of the principals, accomplices, and
and obfuscation (People v. Ubungen, C.A., 36 accessories to whom such circumstances are
O.G. 763);
attendant (REYES, Book One, supra at 336).
2. Manifestations of Battered Wife
Circumstances which are neither exempting for
Syndrome, analogous to an illness that
mitigating:
diminishes the exercise of will power
(People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 14,
1. Mistake in the blow or aberration ictus;
2004); 2. Mistake in the identity;
3. Over 60 years old with failing sight, 3. Entrapment;
similar to over 70 years of age under par. 4. Accused is over 18 years of age; and
2 (People v. Reantillo and Ruiz, C.A., G.R. No. 301, 5. Performance of righteous action (REYES,
July 27, 1938); Book One, supra at 337).
4. The act of the accused leading the law
enforcers to the place where he buried
the instruments he used to commit the
crime is similar to voluntary surrender;
5. Extreme poverty, as similar to a state of
necessity, which may apply to crimes
against property but not of violence,
such as murder (People v. Agustin, G.R. No. L-
18368, March 31, 1966);
60
___________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER FOUR f. Place and time of commission of
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AGGRAVATE offense;
CRIMINAL LIABILITY g. Crime committed in the dwelling of
Aggravating Circumstances the offended party;
Those which, if attendant in the commission of h. Breaking of parts of the house;
the crime, serve to have the penalty imposed in i. Unlawful entry;
its maximum period provided by law for the j. Habitually;
offense or change the nature of the crime k. Use of persons under 15 years of age;
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 133). and
It must not, however, exceed the maximum of l. Craft, fraud, or disguise (ESTADA, Book
the penalty provided by the law for the offense. One, supra at 133).
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender 2. Specific Aggravating Circumstances –
manifested in the commission of the felony as those which apply only to specific crimes,
shown by: such as ignominy in crimes against
1. The motivating power itself; chastity and cruelty and treachery which
2. The place of the commission; are applicable only to crimes against
3. The means and ways employed; persons found under subparagraphs 3
4. The time; or (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and 21:
5. The personal circumstances of the a. Disregard of rank, age, or sex due the
offender, or the offended party (REYES, offended party in crimes against persons
Book One, supra at 338). the and honor;
b. Abuse of superior strength or means
be employed to weaken the defense
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances: crimes against persons;
1. Generic Aggravating Circumstances – it c. Treachery in crimes against persons;
increases the penalty of the offense to its d. Ignominy in crimes against chastity;
maximum period but it cannot be to the and
next higher degree. It can be offset by an e. Cruelty in crimes against persons (Id.
ordinary mitigating circumstance (BOADO at 133-134).
Compact Reviewer, supra at 92).
3. Qualifying – those that change the

It includes those that can generally apply
nature of the crime and the designation
to all crimes found under subparagaphs
of the offense and resultantly increase
1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19,
the penalty to a higher degree. It cannot
20 except “by means of motor vehicle”:
be offset by any mitigating circumstance
a. Comtempt or insult of public authority
and must be proved as conclusively as
b. Taking advantage of public position;
the guilt of the offender because they
c. Recidivism;
are elements of the offense (BOADO
d. Nighttime, uninhabited place, or Compact Reviewer, supra at 93).
band; a. Alevosia (treachery) or evident
e. Abuse of confidence or obvious premeditation qualifies the killing of a
ungratefulness; person to murder; and
61
___________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying without exceeding serve no other
aggravating circumstances which qualify the limit prescribed penalty than that
the killing of a person to murder (REYES, by law. specially prescribed
Book One, supra at 338). by law for said crime.
4. Inherent – those which of necessity As to whether it can be offset by mitigating
accompany the commission of the crime, circumstance
therefore not considered in increasing May be offset by an Cannot be offset by a
the penalty to be imposed, such as: ordinary mitigating mitigating
a. Evident premeditation in concubinage, circumstance since it circumstance since it
robbery, adultery, theft, estafa; is not an ingredient of is considered an
b. Abuse of public office in bribery; the crime ingredient of the
c. Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry crime
into a house in robbery with the use of As to the offense committed
force upon things; Does not change the Changes the nature
d. Fraud in estafa; nature of the offense and the name of the
e. Deceit in simple seduction; and offense
f. Ignominy in rape (ESTRADA, Book One, (REYES, Book One, supra at 339)
supra at 135). Note: The circumstances enumerated in Article
14 of the RPC are generic aggravating
5. Special – those which arise under special circumstances. If some of them are qualifying in
conditions to increase the penalty of the particular crimes (such as treachery and evident
offense and cannot be offset by premedication in murder), it is because the
mitigating circumstances, such as: specific provision makes them so. That is why
a. Complex crimes (RPC, Art. 48); when there are two circumstances alleged to
b. Use of unlicensed firearm in homicide qualify the killing as murder, the second
or murder (R.A. No. 8249, Sec. 1); circumstances become generic for the purpose
c. Taking advantage of public position of imposing the penalty in the proper period, as
and membership in an long as the second circumstance is found in
organized/syndicated crime group (RPC, Article 14 (BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at 90).
Art. 62, par. 1(a)); Rules on aggravating circumstances
d. Error in personae (RPC, Art. 49); and 1. Aggravating circumstances shall not be
e. Quasi-redivism (RPC, Art. 160; REGALADO, appreciated if:
supra at 84).
a. They constitute a crime especially
Distinctions between Generic and Qualifying punishable by law; or
Aggravating Circumstance b. They are included by the law in
Generic Aggravating Qualifying defining a crime and prescribing a
Aggravating penalty therefore (ESTRADA, Book One,
As to its effect supra at 135).
Increases the penalty Gives the crimes its
which should be proper and exclusive Example: “That the crime be committed
imposed upon the name and places the by means of fire, explotion” (RPC, Art. 321).
accused to the author thereof in
maximum period but such a situation as to
62
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to
any aggravating circumstance inherent A qualifying circumstance, although
in the crime to such a degree that it must proved, if not alleged in the information
of necessity accompany the commission cannot be appreciated as a generic
thereof (RPC, Art. 62, par. 2). aggravating circumstance (BOADO,
Example: Evident premeditation is
inherent in theft, robbery, estafa, Note: A qualifying aggravating
adultery and concubinage. circumstance must be alleged in the
information because it is an integral part
3. Aggravating circumstances which arise: of the offense (REYES, Book One, supra
a. From the moral attributes of the at 339).
offender;
b. From his private relations with the The information must specify the
offended party; or qualifying and the aggravating
c. From any personal cause shall only circumstances (BOADO, Compact Reviewer,
serve to aggravate the liability of the supra at 92).
principals, accomplices and accessories

Such circumstances are not presumed
as to whom such circumstances are
(People v. Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65,
attendant (Id. at 136), even if there was
April 20, 2001). If not alleged, they should
conspiracy (RPC, Art. 62, par. 3).
however be considered as bases for the
award of exemplary damages,
4. The circumstances which consist:
conformably to current jurisprudence
a. In the material execution of the act; or (People v. Evina, G.R. Nos. 124830-31, June 27,
b. In the means employed to accomplish 2003).
it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of
those persons only who had knowledge 6. When there is more than one qualifying
of them at the time of the execution of aggravating circumstance present, one
the act or their cooperation therein of them will be appreciated as qualifying
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 136-137). aggravating while the others will be
considered as generic aggravating
Exception: When there is proof of (People v. Fabros, G.R. No. 90603, October 19,
conspiracy in which case the act of one 1992).
is deemed to be the act of all, regardless
of lack of knowledge of the facts
constituting the circumstances (RPC, Art.
62, par. 4).
5. Aggravating circumstances, regardless

of its kind, should be specifically alleged
in the information and proved as fully as
the crime itself in order to increase the
penalty (RULES OF COURT, RULE 110, Sec. 9).
63
___________________________________________________________________________________________
ARTICLE 14 Abuse of official position is now a
AGGRAVATING CRICUMSTANCES Specific/Special Aggravating Circumstance
1. Taking Advantage of Public Office; under Article 61 (1)(a) of the RPC (BOADO,
2. In Contempt or of with Insult to Public
As a means by which he realizes his purpose,
Authorities;
the public officer must be:
3. With Insult or Lack of Regard Due to
1. Influence;
Offended Party by Reason of Rank, Age
2. Prestige; or
or Sex;
3. Ascendancy (REYES, Book One, supra at 347).
4. Abuse of Confidence and Obvious
Two kinds of public office related crimes:
Ungratefulness;
1. Those in which public office is a
5. Crime in Palace or in Presence of the
constituent element as defined by
Chief Executive;
statute and the relation between the
6. Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, With a
crime and offense is such that, in a legal
Band;
sense, the offense committed cannot
7. On Occasion of a Calamity;
exist without the office; and
8. Aid of Armed Men or Means to Ensure
Note: it cannot be taken into
Impunity;
consideration in offenses where taking
9. Recidivism;
advantage of official position in an
10. Reiteration or Habituality;
integral element of a crime (e.g.
11. Price, Reward or Promise;
malversation under Art. 217.) (People v.
12. Inundation, Fire, Poison; Tevez, 44 Phil. 275, 277).
13. Evident Premeditation;
14. Craft, Fraud or Disguise; 2. Such offenses or felonies which are
15. Superior Strength or Means to Weaken intimately connected with the public
Defense; office and are perpetrated by the public
16. Treachery; officer or employee while in the
17. Ignominy; performance of his official functions
18. Unlawful Entry; through improper or irregular conduct
19. Breaking Wall, Floor, Roof; (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 96).
20. With Aid of Persons Under 15 by Motor There must be deliberate intent to use the IPA
Vehicle; and thus, when coupled with circumstances where
21. Cruelty. intent is lacking (i.e., the crime was attendant of
negligence, passion or obfuscation, vindication,
Par. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender or sufficient provocation) this aggravating
of his public position circumstance cannot be appreciated. Also,
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as being a member of the police force did not of
shown: itself justify aggravating circumstance of
1. By the means of personal circumstance advantage being taken by the offender by his
of the offender; or public position (People v. Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297,
2. By the means to secure the commission October 23, 1982).
of the crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 346). It is also inherent in the case of accessories
Applicable only when the offender is a public under Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or
officer (REYES, Book One, supra at 347). assisting in the escape of the principal of the
64
___________________________________________________________________________________________
crime), and in crimes committed by public (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at
officers (RPC, Arts. 204-245). 97).
Illustration:
A policeman on guard duty who has maltreated Note: Teachers or professors of a public
a prisoner. He could not have done the same or recognized private school and lawyers
where it not for his position as a guard on duty. are not “public authorities” within the
contemplation of this paragraph. While
Par. 2. That the crime be committed in he is a person in authority under Article
contempt of or with insult to the public 152, that status is only for purposes of
authorities Article 148 (direct assault) and Article 152
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as (resistance and disobedience). There is
shown by his lack of respect for the public nothing in Article 152 from which it can
authorities (REYES, Book One, supra at 351). be concluded that it also applies to Par.
Requisites: 2 of Article 14 (REGALADO, supra at 86, citing
1. That the public authority is engaged in People v. Tac-an, G.R. No. 76338, February 26,
the exercise of his functions; 1990).
Contrary View:
A municipal mayor, barangay captain, or Even a school teacher is now considered
barangay tanod is a person in authority a person in authority under
or a public authority (BOADO, supra at 168). Commonwealth Act 578 amending
Article 152. So is the town municipal
Agent of Persons in Authority health officer, or a nurse, a municipal
Art. 14, par. 2 does not apply when crime councilor or an agent of the BIR (BOADO,
is committed in the presence of an agent
of a person in authority only (REYES, Book
One, supra at 352).
2. That the public authority is not the
person against whom the crime is
Contrary Views: committed;
“Public Authority” covers not only
persons in authorities but also agents of Note: In order that this aggravating
persons in authority and other public circumstance be appreciated, it must not
officers. In the case of People v. Rodil, only be shown that the crime is
the view was reconsidered because it is committed in the presence of the public
not justified by the employment of the authority but also that the crime was not
term “public authority” in Article 14 committed against the public authority
instead of the term “person in authority”. himself (People v. Magdueno, G.R. No. L-68699,
September 12, 1986).
The lawmaker could have easily utilized
the term “person in authority” in the
3. The offender knows him to be a public
same way that it was employed. They
authority; and
must have intended a different meaning
Knowledge that a public authority is
for public authority which may include
present is essential. Lack of such
but is not limited to persons in authority
knowledge indicates lack of intention to
65
___________________________________________________________________________________________
insult the public authority (REYES, Book Crimes against persons, honor or security
One, supra at 353). The circumstance of rank, age or sex may be
Illustration: taken into account only in crimes against
A stabbed B in front of the Governor and persons or honor, when in the commission of
Mayor during a public peace rally. If the the crime, there is some insult or disrespect to
crime committed is against the public rank, age or sex (People v. Pagal, No. L-32040,
authority himself while in the October 25, 1977).
performance of his duty, the offender Note: Thus, it is not proper to consider this
commits direct assault which should not aggravating circumstance in crimes against
appreciate this aggravating property. Robbery with Homicide is primarily a
circumstance (Id.). crime against property and not against persons.
Homicide is a mere incident of robbery, the
4. His presence has not prevented the latter being the main purpose and object of the
offender from committing criminal act criminal (People v. Pagal, G.R. No. L-32040, October 25,
(REYES, Book One, supra at 351). 1977).
It should be clearly demonstrated that the
Par. 3. That the act be committed: accused deliberately intended to act with insult
1. With insult or in disregard of the respect or in disregard of the respect due the victim on
due the offended party on account of his account of rank (People v. Verchez, G.R. Nos. 82729-
rank; 32, June 15, 1994).
2. In disregard of respect due to age; Rank of the offended party
3. In disregard of respect due to sex; and The designation or title of distinction used to fix
4. That it be committed in the dwelling of the relative position of the offended party in
the offended party, if the latter has not reference to others (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at
given provocation. 141).
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as It must be given a plain, ordinary meaning,
shown by: hence refers to a high social position or
1. Personal circumstances of the offended standing. It is absorbed in the crime of direct
party; and assault since rank is an element thereof (BOADO
2. The place of the commission of the crime Compact Reviewer, supra at 98).
(REYES, Book One, supra at 360). There must be a difference in the social
Separately or Altogether condition of the offender and the offended
The four circumstances under this paragraph party (REYES, Book One, supra at 357).
can be considered single or altogether. If all of Age of the offended party
them are present, they have the weight of one May refer to old age or the tender age of the
aggravating circumstance only (REYES, Book One, victim (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 141).
supra at 353). It refers to both the elderly and the youth
These may be considered separately against the (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 980 .
offender if they concur in the same case and Sex of the offended party
their elements are distinctly perceived and Refers to the female sex, not to the male sex
subsist independently (AMURAO, Book One, supra at (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 141).
463). Killing a woman is not attended by this
aggravating circumstance in the absence of
evidence that the accused deliberately intended
66
___________________________________________________________________________________________
to offend or insult the sex of the victim or Dwelling
showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood It must be a building or structure, exclusively
(People v. Puno, No. L-33211, June 29, 1981). used for rest and comfort. A “combination of a
Disregard of sex was absorbed by treachery house and a store” or a market stall where the
when the blouse of the victim was needlessly victim slept is not a dwelling (People v. Magnaye,
removed. (People v. Clementer No. L-33490, August 30, G.R. No. L-3510, May 30, 1951).
1974) But a contrary view was held because Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the
treachery refers to the manner of the staircase case and enclosure under the house
commission of the crime, while disregard of sex (U.S. v. Tapan, G.R. No. 6504, September 11, 1911; People
and age pertains to the relationship of the v. Alcala, G.R. No. 18988, December 29, 1922).
victim (REYES, Book One, supra at 360 citing People v. Dwelling does not mean the permanent
Lapaz, G.R. No. 68898, March 31, 1989). residence or domicile of the offended party or
he must be the owner thereof. He must,
The aggravating circumstance of disregard of however, be actually living or dwelling therein
rank, age or sex is not applicable in the even for a temporary duration or purpose
following cases: (People v. Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997).
1. When the offender acted with passion When the deceased had two houses where he
and obfuscation (People v. Ibanes, G.R. No. used to live, the commission of the crime in any
1137-R, March 20, 1948; of them is attended by the aggravating
2. When there exists a relationship circumstance of dwelling (People v. Rodriguez, 103
between the offended party and the Phil. 1015).
offender (People v. Valencia, C.A. 43 O.G. The victim need not be the owner or occupant
3740); of the dwelling where he was shot (People v.
3. When the condition of being a woman Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990).
is indispensable in the commission of
the crime (e.g. abduction, seduction Commission of the crime
and rape) (People v. Lopez, G.R. No. L- The aggravating circumstance of dwelling
14347, April 29, 1960); and requires that the crime be wholly or partly
4. When no evidence that the accused committed therein or in any integral part
deliberately intended to offend or thereof (REGALDO, supra at 88).
insult the age of the victim (People v. It is not necessary that the accused should have
Diaz, G.R. No. 24002, January 21, 1974). actually entered the dwelling of the victim to
Illustrations: commit the offense. It is enough that the victim
1. A clerk who murdered the Assistant was attacked inside his own abode, although
Chief of Personnel Transaction of the the assailant might have devised means to
Civil Service Commission. perpetrate the assault from the outside (People
2. A 45-year old man who killed an v. Bagsit, G.R. No. 148877, August 19, 2003).
octogenarian. Even if the killing took place outside the
3. A, who is, unable to take revenge of B dwelling, it is aggravating provided that the
the killer of his relative, instead went commission of the crime began in the dwelling
after and killed the sister of B. (REYES, Book One, supra at 364).
This circumstance is also present where the
victim was hit inside his house by a shot fired
67
___________________________________________________________________________________________
from the outside (People v. Brioso, et. al., G.R. No. L- Provocation as a condition precedent
28482, Jaunuary 30, 1971). A condition sine qua non of this circumstance is
Dwelling is not included in the qualifying that the offended party has not given
circumstance of treachery (People v. Catapang, G.R. provocation to the offender (People v. Ambis, G.R.
No. 128126, June 25, 2001). No. 46298, September 30, 1939).
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating
What aggravates the commission of the crime circumstance of dwelling:
in one’s dwelling: The provocation must be:
1. The abuse of confidence which the 1. Given by the owner of the dwelling;
offended party reposed in the offender 2. Sufficient; and
by opening the door to him; or 3. Immediate to the commission of the
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home
crime. If all these conditions are present,
by trespassing therein with violence or it is not an aggravating circumstance.
against the will of the owner (REYES, Book The provocation must also have a close relation
One, supra at 361).
to the commission of the crime in the dwelling
Dwelling was found aggravating in the
(People v. Dequiña, G.R. No. 41040, August 9, 1934).
following cases although the crime was
Reason: When it is the offended who has
committed not in the dwelling of the victims:
provoked the incident, he loses his right to the
1. The victim was raped in the boarding
respect and consideration due him in his own
house where she was a bed spacer
house (People v. Ambis, supra).
(People v. Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, November
20, 1978).
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following
2. The victims were raped in paternal cases:
1. When both the offender and the
home where they were guests at the
time (REYES, Book One, supra at 355); and offended party are occupants of the
same house (People v. Caliso, G.R. No. 37271,
July 1, 1933);
Note: IN People v. Ramolete, (G.R. No.
L-28108, March 27, 1974), dwelling was
Exception: In case of adultery in the
not considered aggravating because the
conjugal dwelling, is the same
victim was a mere visitor in the house
aggravating. However, if the paramour
where he was killed.
also dwells in the conjugal dwelling, the
applicable aggravating circumstance is
3. The victims, while sleeping as guests in
abuse of confidence (U.S. v. Ibañez, G.R. No.
the house of another person, were shot 10672, October 26, 1915).
to death (People v. Basa, G.R. No. L-2014, May
18, 1949).
2. When robbery is committed by the use
of force upon things, dwelling is not
Note: The RPC speaks of “dwelling” not
aggravating because it is inherent (U.S. v.
domicile (People v. Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, Cas, G.R. No. 5071, August 18, 1909).
May 14, 1997).
But dwelling is aggravating in robbery

with violence against or intimidation of
persons because this class of robbery
can be committed without the necessity
68
___________________________________________________________________________________________
of trespassing the sanctity of the crime of rape. When the master raped the
offended party’s house (People v. Cabato, offended party, she already lost her confidence
G.R. No. L-37400, April 15, 1988). in him from the moment he made the indecent
proposal and offended her with a kiss. Held: The
Dwelling is not inherent, hence confidence must facilitate the commission of
aggravating, in Robbery with Homicide the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the
since the author thereof could have offended party’s belief that the former would
accomplished his heinous deed without not abuse said confidence (Ibid).
having to violate the domicile of the Thus, for aggravating circumstance to exist, the
victim (People v. Mesias, G.R. No. 67823, July 9, confidence between the offender and the
1991). offended party must be immediate and
personal (People v. Arojado, G.R. No. 130492, January
3. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is 21, 2001).
inherent or included by law in defining It is not a mere betrayal of trust, since the
the crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 366). offended party must be the one who actually
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave reposed his confidence in the offender.
sufficient and immediate provocation Note: Abuse of confidence is inherent in:
(Id); and 1. Qualified Seduction (RPC, Art. 337);
5. When victim is not a dweller of the 2. Qualified Theft (RPC, Art. 310);
house (Id). 3. Estafa by conversion or
misappropriation (RPC, Art. 315); and
Par. 4. That the act be committed with: 4. Malversation (RPC, Art. 217).
1. Abuse of confidence; or Requisites of obvious ungratefulness:
2. Obvious ungratefulness. 1. That the offended party had trusted the
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as offender;
shown by the means and ways employed (Id. at 2. That the offender abused such trust by
368). committing a crime against the
Par. 4 provides two aggravating circumstances offended party; and
which, if present in the same case, must be 3. That the act be committed with obvious
independently appreciated (REGALADO, supra at ungratefulness.
91). The ungratefulness contemplated in par. 4 must
Requisites of abuse of confidence: be such obvious, clear, and manifest ingratitude
1. That the abuse of confidence facilitated on the part of the accused (ESTRADA, Book One,
the commission of the crime; supra at 145).
2. That the offender abused such trust by Illustration:
committing a crime against the offended Where a security guard killed a bank officer and
party; and robbed a bank.
3. That the offended party had trusted the When a visitor commits robbery or theft in the
offender (People v. Luchico, G.R. No. 26170, house of his host (REYES, Book One, supra at 371).
December 6, 1926). When obvious ungratefulness is present:
Illustration: After preliminary advances of the 1. When the accused killed his father-in-
master, the female servant refused and fled. The law in whose house he lived and who
master followed and after catching up with her, partially supported him (People v. Floresca,
threw her to the ground and committed the G.R. Nos. L-8614-15, May 31, 1956);
69
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. When the victim suddenly attacked while Par. 5. Where Public Par. 2. Contempt or
in the act of giving the assailants their Authorities are Insult to Public
bread and coffee for breakfast (People v. Engaged in the Authorities
Bautista, G.R. No. L-38624, July 25, 1975); Discharge of Their
3. When the accused wad living in the Duties
house of the victim who employed him Public authorities are in the performance of
as an overseer and in charge of their duties
carpentry work, and had free access to Place where public duty is performed
the house of the victim who was very In their office Outside of their office
kind to him, his family, and who helped The offended party
him solve his problems (People v. Lupango, May or may not be Public authority
G.R. No. L-32633, November 12, 1981).
the public authority. should not be the
Par. 5. That the crime be committed: offended party.
1. In the palace of the chief executive;
Cemeteries are not considered as place
2. In his presence;
dedicated to the worship of God (REYES, Book
3. Where public authorities are engaged in
One, supra at 373).
the discharge of their duties; or
Must be dedicated to public religious; private
4. In a palace dedicated to religious
chapels not included (Id.).
worship.
There must be intention to desecrate the place
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as
dedicated to public religious worship and hold
shown by the place of the commission of the
said worship regularly in said place (People v.
crime, which must be respect (REYES, Book One, Jarigue, supra).
supra at 371).
The place of the commission of the felony, if it Par. 6. That the crime be committed:
is Malacañang palace or a church, is 1. In the nighttime;
aggravating, regardless of whether State of 2. In an uninhabited place; or
official or religious functions are being held (Id.). 3. By a band, whenever such circumstance
The President need not be in Malacañang may facilitate the commission of the
palace. His presence alone in any place where offense.
the crime is committed is enough to constitute Basis: The time and place of the commission of
the aggravating circumstance (REYES, Book One, the crime and means and ways employed (REYES,
supra at 372). Book One, supra at 374).
Offender must have intention to commit a crime There are three aggravating circumstances in
when he entered the place (People v. Jaurige, CA. this paragraph. When present in the same case
No. 384, February 21, 1946).
and their element are distinctly palpable and
But as regards the place where the public
can subsist independently, they shall be
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
considered separately (People v. Santos, G.R. No. L-
duties, there must be some performance of 4189, May 21, 1952).
public functions (REYES, Book One, supra at 372). Not applicable when the mitigating
Note: An electoral precint during election day is circumstances of passion or obfuscation or
a place “where public authorities are engaged sufficient provocation are present in the
in the discharge of their duties” (People v. Canoy, commission of the crime.
G.R. No. L-6037, September 30, 1954).
70
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When nighttime, uninhabited place or band liability if it facilitated the commission of the
aggravating: offense or the offender took advantage of the
1. When it facilitated the commission of the same to commit the crime (People v. Luchico, G.R.
crime (objective); No. 26170, December 6, 1926).
2. When especially sought for by the It is not considered as an aggravating
offender to insure the commission of the circumstance when the crime began at daytime.
crime or for the purpose of impunity The commission of the crime should begin and
(subjective); or end at nighttime (People v. Luchico, supra).
3. When the offender took advantage
thereof for the purpose of impunity General Rule: Nighttime is absorbed in
(subjective) (REYES, Book One, supra at 378). treachery (BOADO, Compact Reviewer, supra at 100).
Exception: Where both the treacherous mode of
Nighttime (Obscuridad) attack and nocturnity were deliberately decided
That period of darkness beginning at end of upon in the same case, they can be considered
dusk and ending at dawn. Nights are from separately if such circumstances have different
sunset to sunrise (CIVIL CODE, Art. 13). factual bases (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 148).
By and of itself, nighttime is not aggravating. It In People v. Berdida (G.R. No. L-20183, June 30,
becomes so only when it is especially sought by 1966), the Supreme Court ruled that “inasmuch
the offender, or taken advantage by him to as the treachery consisted in the fact that the
facilitate the commission of the crime (objective victim’s hands were tied at the time they were
test) or to ensure his immunity from capture beaten, the circumstance of nighttime is not
(subjective test) (People v. Pasilao, G.R. Nos. 98152-53, absorbed in treachery, but can be perceived
October 26, 1992). distinctly therefrom, since the treachery rests
It is necessary that the commission of the crime upon an independent factual basis. A special
began and was completed at nighttime (U.S. v. case therefore is present to which the rule that
Dowdell, G.R. No. 4191, July 18, 1908). nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not
When the place of the crime is illuminated by apply.
light, nighttime is not aggravating (People v. Illustration:
Moral, G.R. No. L-31139, October 12, 1989). A, arrived at the house of the victims at 7:20 pm
Illumination may come from moon, torch, or but purposely waited until 4:00 am when his
gasera. intended victims are already asleep in order to
Note: However, in People v. Berbal, et.al. (G.R. No. commit the crimes. The circumstance of
71527, august 10, 1989), the Court held that the fact nighttime will aggravate the crimes committed.
that matchstick was lit does not negate the
presence of this aggravating circumstance. Also, Uninhabited Place (Despoblado)
in People v. Soriano (G.R. No. L-32244, June 24, 1983), One where there are no houses at all; a place at
the Court rejected the contention that a considerable distance from town, or where the
nocturnity cannot be appreciated because houses are scattered at a great distance from
flashlights were used. each other (REYES, Book One, supra at 380).that
It cannot be applied to cases involving an the place is uninhabited is determined not by
accidental meeting, a chance encounter or spur the distance of the nearest house to the scene
of the moment. of the crime, but whether or not in the place of
The circumstance of nocturnity, although not commission, there was reasonable possibility of
specially sought for, shall aggravate criminal
71
___________________________________________________________________________________________
the victim receiving some help (People v. Damaso, In this case, conspiracy is presumed (REYES, Book
G.R. L-30116, November 20, 1978). One, supra at 383).
This should not be considered when the place If conspiracy is proved, this aggravating
where the crime was committed could be seen circumstance of cuadrilla can still be
and the voice of the deceased could be heard appreciated because conspiracy is not an
from a nearby house (People v. Santos, G.R. No. L- aggravating circumstance, but a means to
38512, November 16, 1979). commit a crime. Thus, one cannot absorb the
It must appear that the solitude of the place other (BOADO, supra at 177).
where the crime was committed was sought in If one of them is a principal by inducement, the
order to better attain the purpose. It cannot be aggravating circumstance of having acted with
applied in cases of chance encounters (People v. the aid of armed men may considered (REYES,
Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969). Book One, supra at 383).
The offenders must choose the place as an aid It absorbs the aggravating circumstances of
either (1) to an easy and uninterrupted abuse of superior strength and use of firearms
accomplishment of their criminal designs, or (2) (except when the firearm has no license or there
to insure concealment of the offense (People v. is a lack of license to carry the firearm) if they
Andaya, G.R. No. L-63862, July 31, 1987). are present in the commission of the crime
Illustration: (People v. Escabarte, G.R. No. 42964, March 14, 1988).
Killing was done during nighttime, in a This aggravating circumstance is not applicable
sugarcane plantation about a hundred meters in crimes against chastity, but is considered in
from the nearest house, and the sugarcane in crimes against property, crimes against persons,
the field was tall enough to obstruct the view of illegal detention, and treason (People v. Corpus,
neighbors and passersby (People v. Damaso, 750 C.A. 43 O.G. 2249; People v. Laoto, G.R. No. 29530,
O.G. 4979, No. 25, June 18, 1979) December 8, 1908).
This aggravating circumstance is inherent in
Band (en cuadrilla) brigandage (REYES, Book One, supra at 384).
Whenever more than three (i.e. at least four (4) “Arm” may even refer to stone (People v. Manlolo,
armed malefactors shall have acted together in G.R. No. 40778, January 26, 1989).
the commission of an offense, it shall be When the armed men met up casually with
deemed committed by a band (REYES, Book One, others and a crime was thereafter committed, it
supra at 382). cannot be considered as an aggravating
Requisites: circumstance (REYES, Book One, supra at 384).
1. Armed men or persons took part in Band as Generic Band as a Qualifying
the commission of the crime, directly Aggravating Aggravating
or indirectly, and; Circumstance Circumstance
2. The accused availed himself of their Generic Aggravating Applies only to
aird or relied upon them when the Circumstance; it robbery with
crime was committed (BOADO, applies to any crime unnecessary violence
Compact Reviewer, supra at 101). or physical injuries
The requisite four armed persons contemplated under Art. 263, Pars.
in this circumstance must all be principals by 2, 3, and 4 in relation
direct participation who acted together in the to Art. 294, Pars. 2, 3,
execution of the acts constituting the crime and 5.
(REGALADO, supra at 96). (BOADO, supra at 176-177)
72
___________________________________________________________________________________________
If the classes of robbery mentioned in Art. 294 Illustration:
(1) and (2) are perpetrated by a band, they Killing a person on the occasion of any of the
would not be punishable under Art. 295, but calamities enumerated qualifies it to murder.
then cuadrilla would be a generic aggravating
circumstance under Art. 14 (REYES, Book One, supra Par. 8. That the crime be committed with the aid
at 715). of:
1. Armed men; or
Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the 2. Persons who insure or afford impunity
occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, Basis: Means and ways of committing the crime
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or (REYES, Book One, supra at 386)
misfortune. Requisites:
Basis: The time of the commission of the crime 1. That armed men or persons took part in
the commission of the crime, directly or
This paragraph provides for the aggravation of indirectly; and
the liability of the accused who takes advantage 2. That the accused availed himself of their
of a public calamity in the commission of the aid or relied upon them when the crime
offense. (REGALADO, supra at 97). was committed (Id.).
Reason for the aggravation: In the midst of a Armed Men
great calamity, the offender, instead of lending Persons equipped with a weapon (Black’s Law
aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by Dictionary).
taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil This requires that the armed men are
them. It is necessary that the offender took accomplices who take part in that minor
advantage of the calamity or misfortune capacity directly or indirectly, and not when
they were merely present at the crime scene.
Other calamity or misfortune Neither should they constitute a band, for then
It refers to other conditions of distress similar to the proper aggravating circumstance would be
those preceding in the enumeration. Hence, “by a band” (REGALADO, supra at 97).
chaotic conditions after liberation is not The mere casual presence of armed men, more
included in this context (People v. Corpus, C.A. 43 or less numerous, near the place of the
O.G. 2249).
occurrence does not constitute an aggravating
Under the principle of “ejusdem generis”, where
circumstance when it appears that the
general terms such as “other calamity or
defendant did not avail himself in any way of
misfortune”, follow the enumeration of
their aid, and did not knowingly count upon
particular things, the general term will include
their assistance in the commission of the crime
only those classes of things or persons of the (U.S. v. Abaigar, G.R. No. 1255, August 17, 1903).
same class or nature as those mentioned in the When this aggravating circumstance shall not
proceeding enumeration (BOADO, supra at 178). be considered:
This aggravating circumstance may not be 1. When both the attacking party and the
taken into consideration for the purpose of party attacked were equally armed; and
increasing the penalty of the accused did not 2. When the accused as well as those who
take advantage of it (REYES, Book One, supra at cooperated with him in the commission
385). of the crime acted under the same plan
and for the same purpose (REYES, Book
One, supra at 387).
73
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Par.6. “by a Band” Par. 8. “With the Aid Note: A recidivist is entitled to the benefits of
of Armed Men” the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act. No. 4103,
As to their number as amended by Act No. 4225) but is disqualified
Requires more than At least two from availing credit of his preventive
three armed imprisonment (R.A. No. 10592, Sec. 1).
malefactors (i.e., at Requisites:
least four) 1. That the offender is on trial for an
As to their action offense;
Requires that more This circumstance is
than three armed present even if one of Note: What is controlling is the time of
malefactor shall have the offenders merely his trial, not the time of the commission
acted together in the relied on their aid, for of the crime. It is not required that at the
commission of an actual aid is not time of the commission, the accused
offense. necessary. should have been previously convicted
As to their liability by final judgment of another crime
Band members are Armed men are mere
all principals. accomplices.
(REYES, Book One, supra at 88) 2. That he was previously convicted by
final judgment of another crime;
Mere moral or psychological aid or reliance is Final Judgment – it means executory,
sufficient to constitute this aggravating i.e., any of the following is present:
circumstance (AMURAO, Book One, supra at 528). a. when 15 days elapsed from its
If there are four armed men, aid of armed men promulgation without the convict
is absorbed in employment of a band. If there appealing the conviction;
are three armed men or less, aid of armed men b. offender started serving sentence;
may be the aggravating circumstance (REYES, c. he expressly waived his right to
Book One, supra at 388) appeal; or
“Aid of armed men” includes “armed women” d. he applied for probation (BOADO
(People v. Licop, G.R. No. L-6061, April 29, 1954). Compact Reviewer, supra at 103).
Person who insured or afford impunity must
have or be in position to afford impunity, e.g. a 3. That the offender is convicted of the
judge. new offense; and
4. That both the first and the second
Par. 9. That the accused is a redicivist offenses are embraced in the same title
(Reincidencia) of the Code (REYES, Book One, supra at 391-
392).
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as
shown by his inclination to crimes (REYES, Book
One, supra at 388). Meaning of “at the time of his trial for one
Recidivist crime”
He is one who, at the time of his trial for one 1. It is employed in its general sense.
crime, shall have been previously convicted by 2. It is meant to include everything that is
final judgment of another crime embraced in done in the course of the trail, from
the same title of the RPC (People v. Lagarto, G.R. No. arraignment until after sentence is
65833, May 6, 1991). announce by judge in open court.
74
___________________________________________________________________________________________
3. In recidivism, it is sufficient that the
succeeding offense be committed after Note: In recidivism, provided the
the commission of the preceding offense accused was convicted by final
provided that at the time of his trial for judgment, the number of intervening
his second offense, the accused had years between that conviction and his
already been convicted of the first subsequent convictions is immaterial
offense (People v. Lagarto, G.R. No. 65833, May (REGALADO, supra at 99).
6, 1991).
Note: There is nor recidivism if the 7. Even if the accused was granted a
second conviction is for an offense pardon for the first offense, but he
committed before the offense subject of commits another felony embraced in the
the first conviction (REGALADO, supra at same title of the Code, the first
98). conviction is still counted to make him a
4. If both offenses were committed on the recidivist, since pardon does not
same date, they shall be considered as obliterate the fact of his prior conviction
only one, hence, they cannot be (U.S. v. Sotelo, G.R. No. 9791, October 3, 1914;
separately counted in order to constitute People v. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. 95320, September
recidivism (Galang v. People, G.R. No. L-45698, 4, 1991).
December 18, 1937).
5. Judgments of conviction handed down Note: the rule is different in the case of
on the same day shall be considered as amnesty which theoretically considers
only one conviction (REGALADO, supra at the previous transgressions as not
99). punishable (REGALADO, supra at 99).
6. To prove recidivism, it is necessary to
allege the same in the information and Distinction between Pardon and
to attach thereto certified copy of the Amnesty
sentences rendered against the accused Pardon Amnesty
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 151). As to nature
Note: Recidivism is an affirmative Includes any crime Blanket pardon
allegation whenever alleged in the and is exercised to classes of
information and when the accused individually by the person or
enters a plea of not guilty to such President communities who
information, there is a joinder of issues may be guilty of
not only as to his guilt or innocence but political offenses
also as to the presence of absence of the As to availability
modifying circumstances so alleged Exercised when May be exercised
(People v. Molina, G.R. Nos. 134777-8, July 24, person is already even before trial
2000).
convicted or investigation
As to effect
Recidivism must be taken into account
Looks forward and Looks backward
no matter how many years have
relieves the and abolishes
intervened between the first and second
offender from and puts into
felonies (People v. Jaranilla, G.R. No. L-28547,
February 22, 1974). consequences of
75
___________________________________________________________________________________________
an offense he has oblivion the
been convicted. offense itself. Note: R.A. No. 8353 also known as Anti-
Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape as a
Does not work the So overlooks and crime against persons.
restoration of the obliterates the
rights to hold offense with 9. Being an ordinary aggravating
public office or the which he is circumstance, it affects only the periods
right of suffrage, charged that the of a penalty, except Art. 202 and P.D.
unless such rights person released 1602 (which repealed Art. 192 of the RPC)
be expressly by amnesty wherein recidivism increases the
restored by the stands before the penalties by degrees. No other generic
terms of the law precisely as aggravating circumstance produces this
pardon. though he had effect (REGALADO, supra at 98).
committed no 10. It can be appreciated even if, based on
Does not alter the offense. the same conviction, the accused is also
fact that the considered as a habitual delinquent.
accused is a Makes an ex- However, it will affect only the penalty
recidivist; it convict no longer for the crime, but cannot be used to
produces the a recidivist; it determine the period of the additional
extinction only of obliterates the penalty for habitual delinquency (Id.).
the personal last vestige of the 11. If the accused is both a recidivist and a
effects of the crime. quasi-recidivist on his subsequent
penalty. conviction, it is submitted that he should
Both do no extinguish the civil liability be considered as a quasi-recidivist since
of the offender such a circumstance cannot be offset by
As to authority exercising an ordinary mitigating circumstance,
Private act of the Proclamation of which is an appropriate response to the
President, must be the Chief perversity exhibited by the accused
pleaded and Executive with (REGALADO, supra at 99).
prove by person the concurrence

pardoned. of Congress; a Par. 10. That the offender has been previously
public act of punished
which the courts 1. For an offense to which the law attaches
should take an equal or greater penalty; or
judicial notice. 2. For two or more crimes to which it
(REYES, Book One, supra at 863-864) attaches a lighter penalty.
basis: Greater perversity of the offender as
8. An example of a recidivist is when the shown by his inclination to crimes (REYES, Book
accused was convicted previously of One, supra at 391).
homicide and is now convicted of the
crime of rape. Both are under Title Eight
of Book Two of the RPC, Crimes against
persons.
76
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Requisites of REITERACION or HABITUALLY: sentences at the time of the
1. That the accused is on trial for an commission of the offense (People v.
offense; Layson, G.R. No. L-25177, October 31, 1969, 30
2. That he was previously served sentence SCRA 92).
for another offense (first offense) to 4. There is no reiteracion if the records do

which the law attaches (not the penalty not disclose that the accused has been
actually imposed) previously punished for an offense to
a. Equal or greater penalty, or which the law attaches an equal or
b. For two or more crimes to which it greater penalty or for two or more
attaches a lighter penalty than that for crimes to which it attaches a lighter
the new offense; and penalty (People v. Villapando, G.R. No. 73656,
October 5, 1989, 178 SCRA 341).
5. Reiteracion should be alleged in the
Rationale: Despite the previous
information order to be appreciated as
punishment, offender did not learn his
an aggravating circumstance against
lesson (BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at
103).
the accused (People v. Race, G.R. No. 93143,
August 4, 1992, 212 SCRA 90).
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
(REYES, Book One, supra at 391-392).
6. Reiteracion, like recidivism and quasi-
Three situations contemplated in this recidivism, necessitates the
paragraph: presentation of a certified copy of the
1. At the time of his trial for a crime, the sentence convicting an accused (People
v. Gaorona, G.R. Nos. 109138-39, April 27, 1998);
accused has been previously punished
7. First and second offenses may be
for an offense to which the law attaches
felonies and/or offenses punishable
an equal penalty;
under special laws because what
2. At the time of his trial for a crime, the
matters is the penalty served (BOADO
accused has been previously punished Compact Reviewer, supra at 104);
for an offense to which the law attaches
a greater penalty; or Since reiteracion provides that the
3. At the time of his trial for a crime, the
accused has duly served the sentence
accused has been previously punished for his previous conviction/s, or is
for two or more crimes to which the law legally considered to have done so,
attaches a lighter penalty (AMURAO, Book quasi-recidivism cannot at the same
One, supra at 542-543).
time constitute reiteracion. Hence, this
Rules concerning Reiteracion
aggravating circumstance cannot apply
1. Actual punishment or service of
to a quasi-recidivist (REGALADO, supra at
sentence is essential is reiteracion 100).
(AMURAO, Book One, supra at 544).
2. Reiteracion requires that if there is only
8. If the same set of facts constitutes
one prior offense, that the offense must
recidivism and reiteracion, the liability
be punishable by an equal or greater
of the accused should be aggravated
penalty than the one for which the
by recidivism which can easily be
accused has been convicted (Id.).
proven (Id.).
3. There is no reiteracion if the accused
were still serving their respective
77
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Illustration: Suppose the accused already served the same, he committed a
a sentence for the crime of III treatment by felony.
Deed in 1965, which falls under Title VIII (Art. Recidivism (Art. Where a person, on
266), and once again being tried for the crime 14, par 9.) – separate occasions, is
of Homicide in 1978, then there is recidivism Generic convicted of two offenses
because the first and the second offenses are Aggravating embraced in the same
embraced in the same title of the Code. Circumstance title in the RPC. When a
Although the law requires only final judgment person, at the time of his
in recidivism, even if the convict has already trial for one crime, shall
served sentence for the one offense, there is still have been previous
recidivism, provided that the first and second convicted by final
offenses are embraced in the same title of the judgment of another
Cod (People v. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995). crime embraced in the
Distinctions between Reiteracion and same title of the RPC.
Recidivism Reiteracion or Where the offender has
Reiteracion Recidivism Habitually (Art. been previously punished
As to the first offense 14, par. 10) – for an offense to which
It is necessary that It is enough that a Generic the law attaches an equal
the offender shall final judgment has Aggravating or greater penalty or for
have served out his been rendered in the Circumstance two crimes to which it
sentence for the first first offense. attaches a lighter penalty.
offense. When the offender has
As to the kind of offenses involved been previously punished
The previous and Requires that the (has served sentence). The
subsequent offenses offenses be included first offense was punished
must be embraced in in the same title of with an equal or greater
the same title of the the Code. penalty; or he committed
Code. two or more crimes
As to frequency previously where he was
Not always an Always to be taken meted lighter penalty.
aggravating into consideration in Multi-recidivism Where a person within a
circumstance fixing the penalty to or Habitual period of 10 years from
be imposed upon the Delinquency the date of his release or
accused. (Art. 62, par. 5) – last conviction of the
Extraordinary crimes of serious or less
(REYES, Book One, supra at 394) Aggravating serious physical injuries,
Circumstance robbery, theft, estafa or
Four Forms of Repetition falsification, is found
Quai-recidivism When the offender has guilty of the said crimes a
(Art. 160) – been previous convicted third time or oftener.
Special by final judgment and When a person, within a
Aggravating before serving such period of 10 years from
Circumstance sentence, or while serving the date of his release or
78
___________________________________________________________________________________________
last conviction of the it being sufficient that the offer made by
crimes of falsification, principal by inducement be accepted by the
robbery, estafa, theft, principal by direct participation before the
serious or less serious commission of the offense. It is indispensable,
physical injuries, is found further, that the inducement made by the
guilty of any of the said former be the primary consideration for the
crimes a third time or commission of the crime of the latter (REGALADO,
oftener. supra at 100-101).
(BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at 103-105) Illustration:
Habitual Delinquency does not apply to A agreed to kill B in consideration of P50,000
violations of Special Penal Laws. Thus a habitual reward from C. in this case A is the principal by
is dangerous violator can never be a habitual direct participation while C is the direct principal
delinquent (BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at 104). by inducement.
In Quasi-Recidivism, the first crime may be a Effect of Alleging Price, Reward, or Promise as
felony or an offense but the second must be a General and Qualifying Circumstance
felony. If the first crime is a felony, it is not If Alleged as a If Alleged as
necessary that the second felony be the same General Qualifying
as the first (BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at 105). Circumstance Circumstance
Only the liability of Both the liability of
Par. 11. That the crime be committed in the receiver is the giver and the
consideration of a price, reward, or promise. affected receiver are affected
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as (REYES, Book One, supra at 396)
shown by the motivating power itself (REYES,
Book One, supra at 395). Par. 12 That the crime be committed by means
To consider this circumstance, the price, reward, of:
or promise must be the primary reason or 1. Fire;
primordial motive for the commission of the 2. Inundation;
crime (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 156). 3. Poison;
There must be two or more principals --- the 4. Explosion;
one who gave or offered the price or promise, 5. Stranding of a vessel or intentional
or the one who accepted it, both of whom are damage thereto;
principals (REYES, Book One, supra at 395). 6. By the use of any other artifice involving
When this aggravating circumstance is present, great waste and ruin; or
it affects not only the person who received the 7. Derailment of locomotive.
price or reward, but also the person who gave Basis: Means and ways employed (REYES, Book
it (U.S. v. Parro, G.R. No. 12607, September 27, 1917). One, supra at 397).
If without previous promise it was given Great waste and ruin
voluntarily after the crime had been committed, Par. 12 enumerates the means employed in the
it should not be taken into consideration for the commission of the crime contemplated in this
purpose of increasing the penalty (U.S. v. Flores, circumstance which involve great waste or ruin,
G.R. No. 9008, September 17, 1914). but the enumeration expressly includes the use
In this circumstance, the price, reward or of “any other artifice” similar thereto (REGALADO,
promise need not consist of or to material supra at 101).
things or that the same were actually delivered,
79
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Inundation resulting homicide is but death results
It refers to the use of water or causing the water absorbed by reason or on
to flood in the commission of the offense. the occasion of
When another aggravating circumstance arson
already qualifies the crime, any of these Murder If the main
aggravating circumstances shall be considered objective is to kill a
as generic aggravating circumstance only particular person
(REYES, Book One, supra at 398). who may be in the
When there is no actual design to kill a person building or edifice,
in burning a house, it is plain arson even if a when fire is
person is killed. Had there been an intent to kill, resorted to as the
the crime committed is murder, qualified by means to
circumstance that the crime was committed “by accomplish such
means of fire” (RPC, Art. 248). goal.
“Fire”, “explosion”, and “derailment of Homicide/Murder and If the objective is to
locomotive” may be part of the definition of a Arson kill a particular
particular crime, such as, arson, crime involving person, and in fact
destruction, and damages and obstruction to the offender has
means of communication. In these cases, they already done so,
do not serve to increase the penalty, because but the fire
they are already included by the law in defining resorted to as a
the crimes (REYES, Book One, supra at 400). means to cover up
A killing committed through any of these the killing.
qualifies the crime to murder, except if arson is (People v. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010,
resorted to but without intent to kill, in view of citing People v. Malingan, 503 SCRA 294)
P.D. No. 1613, which provides a specific penalty
for that situation (REGALADO, supra at 101). Under R.A. No. 8294, Sec. 2, “when a person
Distinction between Par. 12 and Par. 7 commits any of the crimes defined in the RPC
Par. 12 “By Means of Par. 7 “On the or special laws with the use of the
Inundation, Fire, Occasion of a aforementioned explosives, detonation agents
etc.” Conflagration, or incendiary devices, which results in the death
shipwreck, etc.” of any person or persons, the use of such
The crime is The crime is explosives, detonation agents or incendiary
committed by committed on the devices shall be considered as an aggravating
means of any such commission of a circumstance (REGALADO, supra at 102).
acts involving great calamity or
waste or ruin. misfortune.
Arson, Distinguish from Homicide/Murder
Simple Arson (penalty If the main
provided under Art. objective is the
326-A), and the burning of the
building or edifice,
80
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Par. 13. That the act be committed with evident However, if conspiracy is implied, evident
premeditation premeditation may not be appreciated, in the
Basis: Reference to the ways of committing the absence of proof as to how and when the plan
crime because evident premeditation implies a to kill the victim was hatched or what time
deliberate planning of the act before executing elapsed before it was carried out by the accused
it (REYES, Book One, supra at 400). to have “sufficient time between its inception
and its fulfillment dispassionately to consider
Requisites: and accept the consequences (People v. Padlan,
The prosecution must prove: G.R. No. 11263, May 1998).
1. The time when the offender determined Premeditation is absorbed by reward or
to commit the crime; promise but only insofar as the inducer is
2. An act manifestly indicating that the concerned since he obviously reflected thereon
culprit has clung to his determination; in planning the crime but not the person
and induced simce one can be a principal by direct
3. Sufficient lapse of time between the participation without the benefit of due
determination and execution of the reflection (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 158).
crime, to allow him to reflect upon the In order for evident premeditation to exist, the
consequences of his act and to allow his person premeditated against must be the same
conscience to overcome the resolution victim of the crime (People v. Guevarra, L-24371, April
of his will (People v. Lagarto, G.R. No. 65883, 16, 1968). It is not necessary that the victim is
May 6, 1991). identified. Evident premeditation is present
Note: The date and the time when the offender when the accused decided to kill whatever
determined to commit the crime is essential, individual he should meet from a particular
because the lapse of time for the purpose of the town or city (U.S. v. Zalsos and Ragmac, 40 Phil. 96,
third requisite is computed from that date and 103).
time (REYES, Book One, supra at 405). Mere determination to commit the crime does
Essence: The execution of the criminal act is not of itself establish evidence premeditation
preceded by cool thought and reflection upon for it must appear, not only that the accused
the resolution to carry out the criminal intent made a decision to commit the crime prior to
within a space of time sufficient to arrive at a the moment of execution, but also that his
calm judgment (People v. Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, decision was the result of meditation,
August 14, 2002). calculation or reflection or persistent attempt
There must be sufficient time between the (People v. Carillo, G.R. No. L-26182, May 31, 1963).
outward acts and the actual commission of the If the offender premeditated on the killing of
crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 410) any person, it is proper to consider against the
Evident premeditation may not be appreciated offender the aggravating circumstance of
absent any proof as to how and when theh plan premeditation, because whoever is killed by him
to kill was hatched or what time elapse before it is contemplated in his premeditation (REYES, Book
was carried out (People v. Peñones, G.R. No. 71153, One, supra at 416).
August 16, 1991). Evident premeditation, while inherent in
Evident premeditation is presumed to exist robbery, may be aggravating in robbery with
when conspiracy is directly established (People v. homicide if the premeditation included the
Sapigao, G.R. No. 144975, June 18, 2003). killing of the victim (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at
157).
81
___________________________________________________________________________________________
It is a general that evident premeditation is not machinations, fraud is victim constitutes
applicable in error in personae or abberatio present. craft
ictus, except if there was a general plan to kill This is characterized by the intellectual or
anyone to commit the crime premeditated mental rather than the physical means to
(People v. Mabug-at, G.R. No. L-25459, August 10, 1926). which the criminal resorts to carry out his
Evident premeditation is compatible with the design.
mitigating circumstance of immediate (REYES, Book One, supra at 419)
vindication of a relative for a grave offense.
Fraud
Par. 14. That: According to Justice Regalado, the fine
1. Craft; distinctions between “craft” and “fraud” would
2. Fraud; or not really be called for as the terms in Art. 14 are
3. Disguise be employed variants of means employed to deceive the
There are three aggravating circumstances victim and if all are present in the same case,
under this paragraph. they shall be applied as a single aggravating
Basis: Means employed in the commission of circumstance.
the crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 414). Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if
Distinction among Craft, Fraud, and Disguise they have been deliberately adopted as the
Craft (astucia) Involves the use of means, methods or forms for the treacherous
intellectual trickery or strategy, or they may co-exist independently
cunning on the part of (People v. Lab-eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002).
the accused to aid in Fraud is inherent in Estafa.
the execution of his
criminal design (REYES, Disguise
Book One, supra at The test of disguise is whether the device or
415). contrivance resorted to by the offender was
Fraud (fraude) Insidious words or intended to or did make identification more
machinations used to difficult, such as the use of a mask or false hair
induce the victim to act or beard. Disguise contemplates a superficial
in a manner which but somewhat effective dissembling to avoid
would enable the Identification (People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 118649,
offender to carry out March 9, 1998).
his design (Id. at 417). Illustrations:
Disguise (disfraz) Resorting to any device 1. Craft was present when A ask permission
to conceal identity (Id. from his employer B to go home to
at 419). Pangasinan at 4:00pm on the day the
felony was committed but went back at
Distinction between Fraud and Craft 10:00pm pretending that he has failed to
Fraud Craft take a ride to Pangasinan. The
Where there is a direct The act of the unsuspecting Chinese opened the door
inducement by accused done in and thereafter, A and his cohorts
insidious words or order not to arouse perpetrated robbery with homicide
(People v. Revotoc, No. L-37425, July 25, 1981).
the suspicion of the
82
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. There is fraud when A, took his whether or not he took advantage of his greater
stepdaughter away and told her that she strength (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 100).
was to be taken to the house of her Superiority in number does not necessarily
godmother but instead she was taken to mean superiority in strength; the accused must
another house where she was raped have cooperated and intended to use or secure
(People v. de Leon, G.R. No. 26867, August 10, advantage from their superiority in strength
1927). (People v. Pajarillo, G.R. Nos. L-3951-72, Dec 27, 1979).
3. Disguise is present when A used a mask Abuse of superior strength is intentionally
in order to conceal his identity when he employing excessive force out of proportion to
perpetrated the robbery. the means of defense available to the offended
party. There must be a notorious inequality of
Par. 15. That: force between the victim and the aggressor
1. Advantage be taken of superior (BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at 108).
strength; or When there are several offenders participating
2. Means be employed to weaken the in the crime, they must all be principals by direct
defense. participation and their attack against the victim
Basis: Greater criminal perversity (AMURAO, Book must be concerted and intended to be so
One, supra at 583). (Lumiguis v. People, G.R. No. L-20338, April 27, 1967).
In abuse of superior strength, what should be
Par. 15 Enunciates two aggravating considered is not that there were three, four or
circumstances either of which qualifies a killing more assailants as against one victim, but
to murder whether the aggressors took advantage of their
Advantage be taken of superior strength combined strength in order to consummate the
To deliberately use excessive force that is out of offense (People v. Cabangcala, G.R. No. 135065, August
proportion to the means for self-defense 8, 2001).
available to the person attacked (People v. Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the
Lobrigas, G.R. No. 147649, December 17, 2002). crime of parricide where the husband kills the
Means be employed to weaken defense wife (People v. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1,
The offender employs means that materially 1978).
weakens the resisting power of the offended Abuse of superior strength is also present when
party. the offender uses a weapon which is out of
No advantage of superior strength in the proportion to the defense available to the
following: offended party (People v. Padilla, G.R. No.
1. One who attacks another with passion 75508, June 10, 1994).
and obfuscation does not take When the victim was alternately attacked, there
advantage of his superior strength; is no abuse of superior strength (People v. Datun,
2. When a quarrel arouse unexpectedly G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997).
and the fatal blow was struck at a time

when the aggressor and his victim were
engaged against each other as man to
man (REYES, Book One, supra at 421).
For abuse of superior strength, the test is the
relative strength of the offender and his victim,
83
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Distinction Between the Aggravating Examples of “means employed to weaken
Circumstance of by a Band and Abuse of defense:”
Superior Strength 1. Where one, struggling with another,
By a Band Abuse of Superior suddenly throws a cloak over the head
Strength of his opponent and while in this
Appreciated when the The gravamen of situation he wounds or kills him (U.S. v.
offense is committed abuse of superiority Devela, G.R. No. 1542, April 9, 1904);
by more than three is the taking 2. One who, while fighting with another,
armed malefactors advantage by the suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the
regardless of the culprits of their latter eyes and then wounds or kills him
(People v. Siaotong, G.R. No. L-9242, March 29,
comparative strength collective strength to
1957);
of the victim or overpower their
3. Offender made the victim intoxicated in
victims. relatively weaker
order to kill him him (People v. Ducusin, G.R.
victim or victims. No. L-48727, September 30, 1982).
Note: If in his intoxicated state it was impossible
What is taken into for the victim to put up any sort of resistance,
account here is not treachery may be considered.
the number of This circumstance is applicable only to crimes
aggressors nor the against persons, and sometimes against person
fact that they are and property, such as robbery with physical
armed, but their injuries or homicide (REYES, Book One, supra at 431).
relative physical
strength vis-à-vis the Par. 16. That the act be committed with
offended party. treachery (Alevosia).
(REYES, Book One, supra at 429) Basis: Means and ways employed in the
Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla commission of the crime (Id).
(“band”). It is reasonable to hold that band Treachery (Alevosia)
should not be treated as an aggravating It is present when the offender commits any of
circumstance separate and distinct from abuse the crimes against persons, employing means,
of superior strength. The two circumstances methods, or forms in the execution thereof
have the same essence which is the utilization which tend directly and specially to insure its
of the combined strength of the assailants to execution, without risk to himself arising from
overpower the victim and consummate the the defense which the offended party might
killing (People v. Medrana, G.R. No. L-31871, December take (People v. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. 95320, September 4,
14, 1981). 1991).
Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength
and band (U.S. v. Abelinde, G.R. No. L-32914, August
30, 1974).
Note: The means employed may amount to
treachery when the victim is not able to put up
any sort of resistance.
84
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Requisites of treachery: must not spring from the unexpected turn of
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim events. While the attack on Nathaniel was
was not in a position to defend himself; sudden and unexpected, there is no showing
and that appellant consciously adopted his mode of
2. That the offender consciously adopted attack in order to insure the execution of the
the particular means, method or form of crime without a risk to himself (People v. Flores, G.R.
attack employed by him (ESTRADA, Book No. 137497, February 5, 2004).
One, supra at 162). Treachery must be appreciated in the killing of
The test of treachery is not only the relative a child even if the manner of attack is not shown
position of the parties but, more specifically, (People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011).
whether or not the victim was forewarned or
afforded the opportunity to make a defense or Important question to answer:
to ward off the attack (Id. at 163). 1. Was the attack sudden and
Rules regarding treachery: unexpected?
1. Applicable only to crimes against 2. Did the offended party have
persons opportunity to defend himself?
2. Means, methods or forms need not 3. Was the mode of the attack
insure the accomplishment of crime deliberately or consciously adopted by
3. The mode of attack must be consciously the accused to insure execution without
adopted(REYES, Book One, supra at 432). risk to himself?
Treachery is taken into account even if the crime If the answer to all these questions are yes, then
against the person is complexed with another treachery is present (AMURAO, Book One, supra at
felony involving a different classification in the 602).
Code (People v. Abdul, G.R. No. 128074, July 13, 1999).

Treachery cannot be considered as an When must treachery be present:
1. When the aggression is continuous,
aggravating circumstance if already taken as a
qualifying circumstance (People v. Guzman, G.R. No. treachery must be present in the
169246, January 26, 2007). beginning of the assault (People v.
The suddenness of attack does not, of itself, Manalad, G.R. No. 128593, August 14, 2002).
suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if 2. When the assault is not continuous, in
the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision that there was interruption, it is
was made all of a sudden and the victim’s sufficient that treachery was present at
helpless position was Accidental (People v. Real, the moment the fatal blow was given.
supra).
There is no treachery if the attack is an impulse Hence, even though in the inception of
of the accused or when the killing is due to the aggression which resulted to the
passion or when the accuse did not make any death of the deceased, treachery was
preparation to kill the deceased so as to insure not present, if there was a break in the
the commission of the crime (BOADO Compact continuity of the aggression and at the
Reviewer, supra at 110). time of the fatal wound was inflicted on
However, it does not always follow that because the deceased he was defenseless, the
the attack is sudden and unexpected, it is circumstance of treachery must be
tainted with treachery. The mode of attack, taken into account.
therefore, must be planned by the offender, and
85
___________________________________________________________________________________________
If there are actually two stages in the Whether or not the attack succeeds against its
fight it is sufficient that treachery was intended victim or injures another (abberatio
present at the second stage (U.S. v. ictus or error in personae), or whether the crime
Baluyot, G.R. No. 14476, November 6, 1919). committed is graver than that intended (praeter
intentionem) is immaterial. As long as it is
Rules when the Attack was Frontal: proved that the attack is attended by treachery,
If the attack is frontal, there is no treachery as this aggravating circumstance may still be
the mode of attack does not include any risk to considered (People v. Gonzales, Jr., G.R. No. 139542,
the offender arising from the defense which the June 21, 2001).
party attacked may make. But, there is treachery Treachery absorbs
when the attack, although frontal, is sudden and 1. Craft – except when craft was employed
unexpected and perpetrated in such a way to not with a view to making treachery mor
specially insure its execution without any risk to effective as nighttime and abuse of
the offender. superior strength would in the killing of
Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when the victim (People v. San Pedro, G.R. No. L-
unexpected and on unarmed victim who would 44274, January 22, 1980);
be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it 2. Abuse of superior strength;
(People v. Alfon, G.R. No. 126028, March 14, 2003). 3. Nighttime;
4. Aid of armed men;
Alevosia should be considered even if: 5. Cuadrilla (“band”); and
1. The victim was not predetermined but 6. Employing means to weaken the
there was a generic intent to defense (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 166).
treacherously kill any first two persons Treachery and evident premeditation,
belonging to a class (The same rule distinguished
obtains for evident premeditation) The essence of evident premeditation is cool
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 166). thought and reflection, the essence of treachery
2. There was abberatio ictus and the bullet is the swiftness and the unexpectedness of the
hit a person different from that attack upon the unsuspecting and unarmed
intended. victim who does not give the slightest
3. There was error in personae, hence the provocation (People v. Rebamontan, G.R. No. 125318,
victim was not the one intended by the April 13, 1999).
accused (Id.). Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or
4. May be appreciated even if the victim obfuscation (People v. Pasensoy, G.R. No. 140634,
was forewarned of the danger to his September 12, 2002). In passion or obfuscation, the
person. What is decisive is that the offender loses his reason and self-control. In
execution of the attack made it treachery, the mode of attack must be
impossible for the victim to defend consciously adopted. One who loses his reason
himself or to retaliate (People v. Villonez, could not deliberately employ a particular
G.R. No. 122976, November 16, 1998). means, method, or form of attack in the
execution of a crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 467).
Reason for the rule: When there is treachery, it The presence of treachery, though, should not
is impossible for either the intended victim or result in qualifying the offense to murder from
the actual victim to defend himself against the the Special Complex Crime of Robbery with
aggression (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 166). Homicide, for the correct rules is that when it
86
___________________________________________________________________________________________
obtains in the special complex crime, such the act or their cooperation therein (RPC,
treachery is to be regarded as a generic Art. 62, par. 4).
aggravating circumstance, robbery with 9. The defenseless condition of the women
homicide, being a case of composite crime with and children shot to death, should be
its own definition and special penalty in the considered in the qualifying
Revised Penal Code (People v. Cando, G.R. No. circumstance of abuse of superior
128114, October 25, 2000). strength, not as an independent
circumstance of treachery (People v. Lawas,
Doctrinal Guidelines: G.R. Nos. L-7618-20, June 30, 1995).
1. It is not necessary that the mode of Note: The test of treachery is not only relative
attack insures the consummation of to the positions of the parties but, more
offense, it being sufficient that it tends specifically, whether or not the victim was
to insure the execution without risk to forewarned or afforded the opportunity to
the person of the aggressor from the make a defense or ward off the attack. It is
defense which the offended part might necessary that the victim must have been
make (People v. Parana, G.R. No. L-45373, completely denied such opportunity (People v.
March 31, 1937). Fernadez, G.R. Nos. L-32322-23, Jan 27, 1982).
2. The mode of attack must be thought of
by the offender and must not spring Par. 17. That means be employed or
from the unexpected turn of events circumstances brought about which add
(People v. Dauz, C.A., 40 O.G., Sup 11, 107). ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
3. It may be inferred from the Basis: Means employed (REYES, Book One, supra at
circumstances that the mode of attack 468).
was consciously adopted (People v. Lunar, Ignominy
G.R. No. L-15579, May 29, 1972). It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral
4. Where the meeting between the order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
accused and the victim was casual and material injury caused by the crime (People v.
the attack was done impulsively, there is Acaya, G.R. No. L-72998, July 29, 1988).
no treachery even if the attack was Note: This is inherent in libel and acts of
sudden and unexpected (People v. lasciviousness.
Calinawan, G.R. No. L-432, May 23, 1929). Meaning of “which add ignominy to the natural
5. Treachery does not connote the effects thereof”
element of surprise alone (People v. The means employed or the circumstances
Casalme, G.R. No. L18033, July 26, 1966). brought about must tend to make the effects of
6. Intent to kill is not necessary in murder the crime more humiliating to victim or to put
with treachery (People v. Cagoco, G.R. No. L- the offended party to shame, or add to his
38511, October 6, 1933). suffering (People v. Carmina, G.R. No. 81404, January
7. Attack from behind is not always 29, 1991).
alevosia, it must appear that such mode It is incorrect to appreciate ignominy when the
of attack was consciously adopted victim is already dead. It is required that the
(People v. Baldos, C.A., 34 O.G. 1937). offense be committed in a manner that tends to
8. Treachery should not be considered make its effects more humiliating to the victim,
against those persons only who had that is, add to his moral suffering (People v.
knowledge of the employment of Carmina, G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991).
treachery at the time of the execution of
87
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Examples: 2. Trespass to dwelling;
1. Ordering the victim to exhibit to the 3. Violation and domicile; and
offenders her complete nakedness for 4. Evasion of service of sentence, if such
about ten minutes, before raping her, evasion; or escape have shall be taken
brought about a circumstance, which place by means of unlawful entry.
tended to make the effects of the crime Note: When the accused gained access to the
more humiliating (People v. Jose, G.R. No. L- dwelling by climbing through the window and
28232, February 6, 1971); once inside, murdered certain persons in the
2. When the accused used not only the dwelling, there were two aggravating
missionary position, i.e. male superior circumstances which attended the commission
female inferior, but also “the same of the crimes – dwelling and unlawful entry.
position as dogs do” i.e., entry from Thus, dwelling and unlawful entry are taken
behind. separately (People v. Bondoy, G.R. No. 79089, May 18,
Applicable to: 1993).
1. Crimes against chastity; Dwelling and unlawful entry taken separately in
2. Less serious physical injuries; murders committed in a dwelling
3. Light or grave coercion; and When the accused gained access to the
4. Murder (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 167). dwelling by climbing through the window and
Note: It is applicable to crimes against persons once inside, murdered certain persons in the
because raped is no classified as crime against dwelling (People v. Barruga, G.R. No. L-42744, March
person (Id.). 27, 1935).
Rape committed on the occasion of robbery
with homicide will be regarded as aggravating Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of a
circumstance of ignominy (People v. Tapales, G.R. crime, a
No. L-35281, September 10, 1979). 1. Wall;
2. Roof;
Par. 18. That the crime be committed after an 3. Door;
unlawful entry. 4. Floor; or
Basis: Means and ways employed to commit the 5. Window be broken.
crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 471). Basis: Means and ways employed to commit the
Unlawful entry crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 473).
It is when an entrance (and not for escape) is This circumstance is aggravating only in those
effected by a way not intended for the purpose cases where the offender resorted to any of said
(Id. at 474). means to enter the house. The breaking of any
Reason for aggravating: One who acts, not of these parts of a house or building must be
respecting the walls erected by men to guard for the commission of the crime (ESTRADA, Book
their property and provide for their personal One, supra at 168).
safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater Par. 18 Par. 19
audacity; hence, the law punishes him with Presupposes that It involves the
more severity (Id. at 472). there is no such breaking
Example: Entering through a window breaking as by entry (rompimiento) of the
Unlawful entry is inherent in: through the window enumerated parts of
1. Robbery with the use of force upon the house
things;
88
___________________________________________________________________________________________
If the offender broke a window to enable themselves of minors taking advantage
himself to reach a purse with money on the of their irresponsibility (Id).
table near that window, which he took while his With the aid of a minor showing greater
body was outside of the building, the crime of perversity of the offender in educating a
theft was attended by this aggravating minor on how to commit a crime
circumstance. It is not necessary that the especially with R.A. No. 9344 which
offender should have entered the building absolutely exempted minors, which are
(REYES, Book One, supra at 476) 15 years old, or under, from criminal
liability (BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at
Where breaking of door or window is lawful: 113).
An officer, in order to make an arrest either by
virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as 2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or
provided in Sec. 5, may break into any building other similar means.
or enclosure where the person to be arrested is
or is reasonably believed to be, if he is refused Intended to counteract the great
admittance thereto, after announcing his facilities found by modern criminals in
authority and purpose (RULES OF COURT, RULE 113, said means to commit crime and flee and
Sec. 11). abscond once the same is committed
The officer, if refused admittance to the place of (REYES, Book One, supra at 475).
directed search after giving notice of his
purpose and authority, may break open any Use of motor vehicle is aggravating
outer or inner door or window of a house or any where the accused purposely and
part of a house or anything therein to execute deliberately used the motor vehicle in:
the warrant to liberate himself or any person a. Going to the place of the crime;
lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained b. Carrying away the effects thereof; and
therein (RULES OF COURT, RULE 126, Sec. 7). c. In facilitating their escape (People v.
Espejo, G.R. No. L-27708, December 19, 1970).
Par. 20. That the crime be committed: Note: If the motor vehicle was used only in
1. With the aid of persons under 15 years facilitating the escape or the use of such is
of age; or incidental, it should not be an aggravating
2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or circumstance (REYES, Book One, supra at 476).
other similar means. Meaning of “or other similar means”
Basis: Means and ways employed to commit the It should be understood as referring to
crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 475). motorized vehicles or other efficient means of
Two different circumstances grouped in this transportation similar to automobile or airplane
paragraph: (Id. at 478).
1. With the aid of persons under 15 years of Theft, which is committed merely taking
age; personal property which need not be carried
away, cannot be committed by means of a
Tends to repress, so far as possible, the motor vehicle. It would be stretching the
frequent practice resorted to by meaning of the law too far to say that the crime
professional criminals to avail was committed “by means of motor vehicles”
(People v. Real, supra).
89
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission Outraging or scoffing at the person of the
of the crime be deliberately augmented by victim or his corpse is a qualifying aggravating
causing other wrong not necessary for its circumstance that elevates the killing from
commission. homicide to murder (RPC, Art. 248, par. 6).
Basis: Ways employed to commit the crime Outrage
(REYES, Book One, supra at 479). Means to show subject to gross insult.
Cruelty Scoff
There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and Means to show contempt by derisive acts or
delights in making his victim suffer slowly and language.
gradually, causing unnecessary physical pain in In scoffing, the victim must already be dead
the consummation of the criminal act (People v. when the acts were committed (AMURAO, Book
Dayug, G.R. No. 25782, September 30, 1926). One, supra at 658).
Requisites of cruelty: Unlike in mitigating circumstances (RPC, Art. 13,
1. That the injury caused be deliberately par. 10), there is no provision for aggravating
increased by causing other wrong; and circumstances of a similar or analogous
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for character.
the execution of the purpose of the
offender (REYES, Book One, supra at 479). Other Aggravating Circumstances under
Cruelty requires deliberate prolongation of the Special Penal Laws
physical suffering of the victim (People v. Dayug,
supra; People v. Llamera, L-21604-5-6, May 25, 1973). R.A. No. 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous
There must be positive proof that the wounds Drugs Act of 2002
found on the body of the victim were inflicted When a crime is committed by an offender who
while he was still alive in order to unnecessary is under the influence of dangerous drugs, such
prolong physical suffering (People v. Pacris, G.R. No. state shall be considered as a qualifying
69986, March 5, 1991).
aggravating circumstance (R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 25).
Number of wounds alone does not show
Use of Unlicensed Firearm (P.D. No. 1866 as
cruelty, it being necessary to show that the
amended by R.A. No. 8294)
accused deliberately and inhumanly increased
If homicide or murder is committed with the use
the sufferings of the victims (People v. Aguinaldo,
G.R. No. 33843, February 11, 1931).
of an unlicensed firearm, such use of unlicensed
If the victim was already dead when the acts of firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
mutilation were being performed, this would circumstance (P.D. No. 1866, Sec. 1, par. 3).
also qualify the killing to murder due to When person commits any crime under the
outraging of his corpse. But since the victim is Revised Penal Code or special laws with the use
already dead, cruelty cannot be appreciated in of explosives including but not limited to
this case (People v. Balisteros, G.R. No. 110289, October pillbox, Molotov cocktail bombs, denotation
7, 1994). agents or incendiary devices resulting in the
Ignominy (par.17) Cruelty (par. 21) death of a person, the same is aggravating (P.D.
Involves moral Refers to physical No. 1866, Sec. 3).
suffering suffering
(BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at 111).
90
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Organized/Syndicated Crime Group under R.A. 6. Robbery with violence against or
No. 7659 intimidation of persons (uninhabited
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the place, band).
offense was committed by any person who Except: robbery with homicide or robbery with
belongs to an organized/syndicate crime group rape; and
(R.A. No. 7659, Sec. 23). 7. Robbery with force upon things
(uninhabited place and by a band) (REYES,
Owner, driver or passenger of carnapped Book One, supra at 483-483).
vehicle is killed of rape
The penalty of life imprisonment to death is
imposed (R.A. No. 10883, New Anti-Carnapping CHAPTER FIVE
Act of 2016, Sec. 3). ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Organized/syndicate crime group ARTICLE 15
It is a group of two or more persons ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
collaborating, confederating or mutually
helping one another for the purposes of gain in Alternative Circumstances
the commission of any crime (R.A. No. 7659, Art. Those which must be taken into consideration
23). as aggravating or mitigating according to the
Crimes involving gain or profit: nature and effects of the crime and the other
1. Theft; conditions attending its commission (RPC, Art. 15).
2. Estafa; The alternative circumstances are:
3. Robbery; and 1. Relationship;
4. Illegal Recruitment. 2. Intoxication; and
Thus, syndicate not aggravating in: 3. Degree of instruction and education of
1. Homicide; the offender (REYES, Book One, supra at 485).
2. Murder; Relationship
3. Rape; and Shall be taken into consideration when the
4. Physical injuries. offended party is the:
1. Spouse;
Aggravating Circumstances belonging 2. Ascendant;
exclusively to certain felonies: 3. Descendant;
1. Violation of domicile (nighttime; papers 4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother
and effects not returned immediately); or sister;
2. Interruption of religious worship 5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of
(violence or threats); the offender (Id.).
3. Direct assault (weapon, offender is a Other relatives included:
public officer or employee; offender lays 1. The relationship of stepfather or
hands upon a person in authority); stepmother and stepson or
4. Grave threats (in writing; thru a stepdaughter (People v. Bersabal, G.R. No.
middleman); 24532, December 11, 1925).
5. Slavery (committed for the purpose of Reason: it is the duty of stepparents to
assigning the offended party to some bestow upon their stepchildren a
immoral traffic);
91
___________________________________________________________________________________________
mother’s/father’s affection, care and the offense of serious physical injuries is
protection. committed by the offender against his
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
2. The relationship of adopted parent and or any of his legitimate other
adopted child. descendants, relationship is aggravating.
But the relationship of uncle and niece is But the serious physical injuries must not
not covered by any of the relationship be inflicted by a parent upon his child by
mentioned (People v. Lamberte, G.R. No. L- excessive chastisement (See Art. 263; REYES,
65153, July 11, 1986). Book One, supra at 487).
The law cannot be stretch to include
persons attached by common-law b. Less serious physical injuries or slight
relations. Here, there is no blood physical injuries:
relationship or legal bond that links the i. Mitigating if the offended party is a
appellant to his victim (People v. Atop, G.R. relative of a lower degree; and
124303-05, February 10, 1998). ii. Aggravating if the offended party is
a relative of a higher degree of the
Application: offender (Id. at 488).
1. Crimes against property
Mitigating in the ff. crimes against c. Homicide or murder: relationship is
property: aggravating regardless of degree (Id.).
a. Robbery (Arts. 294-302); d. Rape: aggravating where a stepfather
b. Usurpation (Art. 312); raped his stepdaughter or in a case
c. Fraudulent insolvency Art. 314); and where a father raped his own daughter
d. Arson (Arts. 321-322, 325-326). (Id. at 489).
Exempting circumstance in the crimes of: 3. Crimes against chastity

a. Theft; Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336) –
b. Estafa; and relationship is always aggravating,
c. Malicious mischief in the offender and regardless of whether the offender is a
the offended party lives together (RPC, relative of a higher or lower degree of
Art. 332). the offended party (Id. at 489).
(REYES, Book One, supra at 486-487).
When the qualification given to the
2. Crimes against persons crime is derived from the relationship
It is aggravating in crimes against between the offender and the offended
persons in cases where the offended party, it is neither mitigating nor
party is a relative of a higher degree than aggravating, because it is inseparable
the offender, or when the offender and from and inherent in the offense, e.g.,
offended party are relatives of the same parricide, adultery and concubinage (Id.
level (People v. Alisub, G.R. No. 46588, January at 488).
20, 1940).
a. Serious physical injuries (Art. 263)
Aggravating even if the offended
party is a descendant of the offender. If
92
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When intoxication mitigating and when to be non-habitual or unintentional (People v.
aggravating Fortich, G.R. Nos. 80399-404, November 13, 1997).
Mitigating Aggravating Even if intoxication is not habitual, it is
If intoxication is If intoxication is aggravating when subsequent to the plan to
not habitual habitual, or commit the crime (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-
23916, October 14, 1925).
If intoxication is If it is intentional
Instruction or Education
not subsequent (subsequent to
As an alternative circumstance, it does not refer
to the plan to the plan to
only to literacy but more to the level of
commit a felony commit a felony) –
intelligence of the accused. It refers to the lack
drinks fully,
of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the
knowing its
full significance of one’s acts (People v. Nabong,
effects, to find a
G.R. No. 172324, April 3, 2007).
stimulant to
Mere illiteracy is not sufficient to constitute a
commit a crime or
mitigating circumstance. There must be also
a means to
lack of intelligence (People v. Retania, G.R. No. L-
suffocate any 34841, January 22, 1980).
remorse Lack of instruction must be proved positively
and cannot be based on mere deduction or
inference (People v. Retania, supra).
To be entitled to the mitigating Low degree of instruction and education or lack
circumstance of intoxication, it must be of it is generally mitigating. High degree of
shown: instruction and education is aggravating, when
1. That at the time of the commission of the the offender took advantage of his learning in
criminal act, the accused has taken such committing the crime (REYES, Book One, supra at
quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his 495).
reason and deprive him of a certain General Rule: Lack of sufficient education is
degree of control; and mitigating (REYES, Book One, supra at 500).
2. That such intoxication is not habitual, or Exceptions:
subsequent to the plan to commit the 1. Crimes against property, e.g. arson,
felony (People v. Boduso, G.R. Nos. L-30450-51, estafa, theft, robbery (U.S. v. Pascual, G.R.
September 30, 1974). No. 3777, January 6, 1908);
2. Crimes against chastity;
Habitual Drunkard 3. Treason – because love of country
He is one given to intoxication by excessive use should be a natural feeling of every
of intoxicating drinks. citizen, however unlettered or
The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is uncultured he may be:
unnecessary that it be a matter of daily 4. Murder; and
occurrence (People v. Camano, G.R. No. L-36662-63, 5. Rape (Molesa v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No.
July 30, 1982).
39998, January 24, 1934).
To be mitigating, the accused’s state of Degree of instruction is aggravating when the
intoxication must be proved. Once intoxication offender availed himself or took advantage of it
is established by satisfactory evidence, in the in committing the crime (REYES, Book One, supra at
absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed 500).
93
___________________________________________________________________________________________
TITLE TWO: PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE Juridical persons are criminally liable under
FOR FELONIES certain special laws
ARTICLE 16 Under B.P. Blg. 68 (Corporation Code of the
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE Philippines), C.A. No. 146 (Public Service Law),
For grave and less grave felonies: the Securities Law, and the Election Code,
1. Principals; corporations may be fined for certain violations
2. Accomplices; and of their provisions (REYES, Book One, supra at 503).
3. Accessories Two parties in all crimes:
For light felonies: 1. Active subject (the criminal)
1. Principals; and Art. 16 enumerates the active subjects of
2. Accomplices the crime.
General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only Only natural persons can be the active
when they have been consummated (RPC, Art. 7). subject of crime because of the highly
Exception to the exception: personal nature of the criminal
Accessories are not liable for light felonies (RPC, responsibility (REYES, Book One, supra at
Art. 16). 502).
Reason: In the commission of light felonies, the
social wrong as well as the individual prejudice Reasons:
is so small that penal sanction is deemed not a. The RPC requires that the culprit
necessary for accessories (REYES, Book One, supra should have acted with personal malice
at 501). or negligence; an artificial or juridical
The classification of the offenders as principal, person cannot act with malice or
an accomplice, or an accessory is essential negligence.
under the RPC. The classification may be
applied to special laws only if the latter provides b. A juridical person, like a corporation,
for the same graduated penalties as those cannot commit a crime in which a willful
provided under the RPC. purpose or malicious intent is required.
Only natural persons can be criminally liable.
Felonies can be committed only by means of c. There is substitution of deprivation of
deceit or fault and only natural persons can liberty (subsidiary imprisonment) for
commit a crime with personal malice or pecuniary penalties in case of insolvency
negligence. Juridical persons cannot be of the accused.
criminally liable because they can neither act
with the mens rea which is essential for criminal d. other penalties consisting of
liability nor can be confined in a jail. Only the imprisonment and other deprivation of
officers or agents of the corporation who liberty, like destierro, can be executed
participated in the commission of the crime can only against individuals (Id. at 502-503).
be criminally liable (AMURAO, Book One, supra at
679-680). 2. Passive subject (the injured party)
The holder of the injured right: the man,
the juristic person, the group, and the
94
___________________________________________________________________________________________
State. Corporation and partnership can 1. His non-appearance is deemed
be a passive subject of a crime. desistance which is favored and
General Rule: Corpses or criminals cannot be encouraged (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at
passive subjects because they have no rights 180).
that may be injured (Id. at 505). 2. Conspiracy is generally not a crime
Exception: Under Art. 353, the crime of unless the law specifically provides a
defamation can be committed if the imputation penalty therefore (RPC, Art. 8). Thus, by
tends to blacken the memory of one who is merely conspiring, the would-be
dead. participator has not yet committed any
Note: Art. 16 applies only when the offenders crime and perform any act directly or
are to be judge by their individual, and not indirectly in the accomplishment of the
collective liability. conspiracy; and
3. There is no basis for criminal liability
Article 17 because there is no criminal
PRINCIPALS participation.
Principal by Principal by Principal by “Personally took part in its execution”
Direct Inducement Indispensable That the principal by direct participation must
Participation Cooperation be at the scene of the commission of the crime,
Those who Those who Those who personally taking part in its execution
take a direct directly force cooperate in (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 179) except when
part in the or induce the there is conspiracy and the principal by direct
execution of others to commission of participation has already performed his part
the act. commit it the offense by prior to the actual commission of the crime.
another act Note: The cooperation which the law punishes
without which is the assistance which is knowingly or
it would not intentionally given and which is not possible
have been without previous knowledge of the criminal
accomplished purpose (People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, November 14,
1990).
Par. 2. Principals by inducement
Par. 1. Principals by direct participation
Requisites:
Requisites:
1. That the inducement be made directly
1. That they participated in the criminal
with the intention of procuring the
resolution; and
commission of the crime; and
2. That they carried out their plan and
2. That such inducement be the
personally took part in its execution by
determining cause of the commission of
acts which directly tended to the same
the crime by the material executor (U.S.
end (People v. Ong Chiat Lay, G.R. No. 39086,
v. Indanan, G.R. No. 8187, January 29, 1913).
October 26, 1934).
To constitute inducement, there must exist on
When the second requisite is lacking, there is
the part of the inducer the most positive
only conspiracy (REYES, Book One, supra at 536).
resolution and most persistent effort to secure
In conspiracy by prior agreement, the principal
the commission of the crime, together with the
by direct participation who does not appear at
presentation to the person induced of the very
the scene of the crime is not liable because:
strongest kind of temptation to commit the
95
___________________________________________________________________________________________
crime (People v. Yanson-Dumancas, G.R. No. 133527-28, Note: In these cases, there is no
December 13, 1999). conspiracy, not even a unity of criminal
One cannot be held guilty of having instigated purpose and intention. Only the one
the commission of the crime without first being using the force or causing the fear is
shown that the crime was actually committed criminally liable. The material executor is
(or attempted) by another (ESTRADA, Book not criminally liable because of Art. 12,
One, supra at 180). Thus, there can be no pars. 5and 6 (exempting circumstances)
principal by inducement (or by indispensable (REYES, Book One, supra at 537-538).
cooperation) unless there is a principal by direct
participation. But there can be a principal by 2. Directly inducing another to commit a
direct participation without a principal by crime by:
inducement (or by indispensable cooperation) a. Giving of price, or offering of a reward
(Id.). or promises – both the one giving the
The inducement must be the determining cause price or offering reward or promise and
of the commission of the crime by the principal the one committing the crime in
by direct participation that is without such consideration thereof are principals – the
inducement, the crime would not have been former, by inducement; and the latter, by
committed (U.S. v. Indanan, supra). direct participation. There is collective
The inducement must precede the act and must criminal responsibility (REYES, Book One,
be so influential in producing the criminal act supra at 538).
that without it, the act would not have been
performed (REYES, Book One, supra at 541). b. Using words of command – the
If the crime committed is not contemplated in person who used the words of command
the order given, inducement is not material and is a principal by inducement while the
not the determining cause thereof. (Ibid). person who committed the crime
because of the words of command is a
Two ways of becoming Principal by principal by direct participation. There is
Inducement: also collective criminal responsibility.
1. Directly forcing another to commit a
crime by: Note: In determining whether the
a. Using irresistible force – it is such utterances of an accused are sufficient to
physical force as would produce an make him guilty as co-principal by
effect upon the individual that in spite of inducement, it must appear that the
all resistance, it reduces him to a mere inducement was of such nature and was
instrument (U.S. v. Elicanal, G.R. No. October made in such a way as to become the
28, 1916). determining cause of the crime and that
such inducement was uttered with the
b. Causing uncontrollable fear – it is a intention of producing the result (People
compulsion by means of intimidating or v. Castillo, G.R. No. 19238, July 26, 1966).
threat that promises an evil of such
gravity and eminence that the ordinary
man would have succumbed to it (U.S. v.
Elicanal, supra).
96
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Requisites: becomes a principal
a. That the one uttering the words of by inducement.
command must have the intention of As to what kind of crime involved
procuring the commission of the crime; Involves any crime The proposal to be
b. That the one who made the command punishable must
must have an ascendancy or influence involve only treason,
over the person who acted; rebellion,
c. That the words used must be so direct, insurrection, or coup
so efficacious, so powerful as to amount d’ etat (TRIC)
to physical or moral coercion;
d. The words of command must be uttered Effects of acquittal of principal by direct
prior to the commission of the crime; participation upon liability of principal by
and inducement:
e. The material executor of the crime has 1. Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of
no personal reason to commit the crime co-defendant.
(REYES, Book One, supra at 543-544). 2. One cannot be held guilty of having
Note: A distinction should be made between instigated the commission of a crime
the words of command of a father to his sons, without first being shown that the crime
under condition which determine obedience, has been actually committed by another
and the excited exclamations uttered by an (People v. Ong Chiat Lay, G.R. No. 39086, October 26, 1934).
individual to whom obedience is not due. The But if the one charged as principal by direct
moral influence of the words of the father may participation is acquitted because he acted
determine the course of conduct of a son in without criminal intent or malice, his acquittal is
cases where the same words coming from a not a ground for the acquittal of the principal
stranger would make no impression (People v. by inducement (People v. Po Gok To, G.R. No. L-7236,
Tamayo, G.R. No. 18989, November 17, 1922)). April 30, 1955).
Principal by Offender Who Made Rationale: In exempting circumstances, such as
Inducement Proposal to Commit when the act is not voluntary because of lack of
a Felony intent on the part of the accused, there is a
Similarity crime committed, only that the accused is not a
There is an inducement to commit a crime criminal.
As to when liable Par. 3. Principal by indispensable cooperation
Becomes liable only The mere proposal to Requisites:
when the crime is commit a felony is 1. Participation in the criminal resolution,
committed by the punishable in treason that is, there is either anterior conspiracy
principal by direct or rebellion. or unity of criminal purpose and
participation However, the person intention immediately before the
to whom the commission of the crime charged; and
proposal is made a. Requires participation in the criminal
should not commit resolution.
the crime otherwise, b. There must be conspiracy.
the proponent c. Concurrence is sufficient.
d. Cooperation is indispensable.
97
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Cooperation in the commission of the directed against one and the same person is
offense by performing another act, individual and not collective, and each of the
without which it would not have been participants is liable only for the act committed
accomplished. by him (Id.).
a. Cooperation must be indispensable.
b. If the cooperation is not indispensable, ARTICLE 18
the offender is only an accomplice.
c. If cooperation of one of the accused ACCOMPLICES
consists in performing an act necessary ACCOMPLICES
in the execution of the crime committed, They are persons who, not acting as principals,
he is a principal by direct participation cooperate in the execution of the offense by
(REYES, Book One, supra at 548-549). previous and simultaneous acts, which are not
Note: The act of principal by indispensable indispensable to the commission of the crime
cooperation should not be different from the (RPC, Art. 18).
act of the principal by direct participation (Id. at They act as mere instruments who perform acts
549). not essential to the perpetration of the offense.
Meaning of the term “cooperate” Requisites:
It means to desire or wish in common a thing. 1. That there be community of design; that
But that common will or purpose does not is, knowing the criminal design of the
necessarily mean previous understanding, for it principal by direct participation, he
can be explained or inferred from the concurs with the latter’s purpose; mere
circumstances of each case (People v. Aplegido, G.R. knowledge of the criminal resolution
No. L-163, April 27, 1946). only and not concurrence or
Collective Criminal Responsibility participation (REYES, Book One, supra at 557).
This is present when the offenders are criminally 2. That he cooperates in the execution of
liable in the same manner and to the same the offense by previous or simultaneous
extent. The penalty to be imposed must be the acts, with the intention of supplying
same for all (REYES, Book One, supra at 552). material or moral aid in the execution of
Principals by direct participation have collective the crime in an efficacious way (Id.).
criminal responsibility. Principals by 3. That there be a relation between the acts
inducement, except those who directly forced done by the principal and those
another to commit a crime, and principals by attributed to the person charged as an
direct participation have collective criminal accomplice (People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 18989,
responsibility. Principals by indispensable November 17, 1922).
cooperation have collective criminal Note: It is not enough that a person entertains
responsibilities with the principals by direct an identical criminal design as that of the
participation (Id.). principal. There must be a relation between the
Individual Criminal Responsibility criminal act of the principal by direct
In the absence of any previous conspiracy, unity participation and that of the person charged as
of criminal purpose and intention immediately accomplice (REYES, Book One, supra at 571).
before the commission of the crime, or To be convicted as accomplice, there must be
community of criminal design, the criminal cooperation in the execution of the offense by
responsibility arising from different acts previous or simultaneous acts. However, the
cooperation which the law punishes is the
98
___________________________________________________________________________________________
assistance rendered knowingly or intentionally, participation (People v. Aplegido, G.R. No. L-163, April
which assistance cannot be said to exist without 27, 1946).
the prior cognizance of the offense intended to In case of doubt, the participation of the
be committed (Abejuela v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. offender will be considered that of an
80130, August 19, 1991). accomplice rathan than that of a principal
An accomplice is also known as accessory (REYES, Book One, supra at 554).
before the fact.
The cooperation of the accomplice may be: Quasi Collective Responsibility
1. By previous act; and It is one where one of the offenders in the crime
2. By simultaneous acts. are principals and the others are accomplices.
His participation should only be necessary but Accomplice Conspirator
not indispensable (People v. Villegas, 59 O.G. 7060). They know and agree with criminal design
Note: Before there could be an accomplice, As to when criminal intention is known
there must be a principal by direct participation They come to know They know the
(ESTRADA, Bok One, supra at 186). The principal about the plan after criminal intention
originates the criminal design and the the principals have because they
accomplice merely concurs with the principal in reached the decision, themselves have
his criminal purpose (REYES, Book One, supra at 557). and only then do they decided upon such
One can be an accomplice even if he did not agree to cooperate in course of action.
know of the actual specific crime intended to be its execution.
committed by the principal, provided he was As to participation
aware that the objective of the acts he was task They are merely They are the authors
to do was illicit. Also, it is sufficient if there was instruments who of a crime.
a common purpose to commit a particular perform acts not
crime and that the crime actually committed essential to the
was a natural or probable consequence of the perpetration of the
intended crime (People v. Largo, G.R. No. L-4913, offense.
August 28, 1956).
However, when the owner of the gun knew that
Principal by Accomplice
it would be used to kill a particular person, and
Indispensable
the principal used it to kill another person, the
Cooperation
owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the
As to dispensability of cooperation
killing of the other person (People v. De la Cerna,
Cooperation must be Cooperation is
G.R. No. L-20911, October 30, 1977).
Absent knowledge of the criminal purpose of indispensable. indispensable
the principal, giving aid or encouragement, As to purpose of participation
either morally or materially, in the commission Participation in the Cooperates in the
of the crime, mere presence at the scene does criminal resolution, execution of the
not make one an accomplice (People v. Tolling, G.R. that is, there either offense or by
No. L-28548, July 13, 1979). anterior conspiracy or previous or
The person charged as an accomplice should unity of criminal simultaneous acts,
not have not inflicted a mortal wound. If he purpose and with the intention of
does, he becomes a principal by direct intention immediately supplying material or
before the moral aid in the
99
___________________________________________________________________________________________
commission of the execution of the Knowledge of the commission of the
crime charged crime in an crime after of acquisition of stolen
efficacious way property is sufficient.
Note: The pump boat owner, who helped the b. by concealing or destroying the body,
offenders by pretending that his pump boat effects or instruments of the crime to
needed towing by the victim’s passing boat, was prevents its discovery; or
mere an accomplice. Here, the offenders
transferred to the boat of the victims then latter Requisites:
robbed and killed them. The offenders could i. The fact that the crime was
have asked for the help of other pump boat committed; and
owners, hence the accused’s cooperation was ii. The participation of the offender in
not indispensable (People v. Sotto, G.R. No. 106083- the commission of the crime.
84, March 29, 1996). “Body of the crime” is equivalent to
The penalty to be imposed upon accomplices is corpus delicti.
the penalty next lower in degree for the crime Corpus delicti
committed (RPC, Art. 52). It is the body or substance of the crime.
It refers to the fact that a crime has been
ARTICLE 19 actually committed (People v. Oliva, G.R. No.
ACCESSORIES 122110, September 26, 2000).
Accessories Elements:
They are those who: i. The proof of the occurrence of a
1. Having knowledge in the commission of certain event; and
the crime; and ii. Some person’s criminal
2. Without having participated therein responsibility (People v. Boco, G.R. No.
either as principals or accomplices, take 129676, June 23, 1999).
part subsequent to it commission in any
of the following acts; c. By harboring, concealing, or assisting
a. By profiting themselves or assisting in the escape of the principal of the
the offender to profit by the effects of crime, provided the accessory acts with
the crime; abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is
In profiting by the effects of the crime, guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
the accessory must receive the property attempt to take the life of the Chief
from the principal. He should not take it Executive, or is known to be habitually
without the consent of the principal. If he guilty of some other crime.
took it without the consent of the Two classes of accessories contemplated in par.
principal, he is not an accessory but a 3 of Art. 19:
principal in the crime of theft (REYES, Book 1. Public officers who harbor, conceal or
One, supra at 579). assist in the escape of the principal of
any crime (not light felony) with abuse of
his public functions; and
Requisites:
a. the accessory is a public officer;
100
___________________________________________________________________________________________
b. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the accessory’s participation as such is shown, he
escape of the principal; can be held criminally responsible and meted
c. The public officer acts with abuse of out the corresponding penalty (Inovero v. Coronel,
his public functions; and CA, 65 O.G. 3160).
d. The crime committed by the principal General Rule: The prescribed acts of the
is any crime, provided it is not a light accessory under par. 2 must have been
felony (REYES, Book One, supra at 583). intended to prevent the discovery of the crime:
hence, mere silence is not punishable (U.S. v.
2. Private persons who harbor, conceal or Caballeros, G.R. No. 1352, March 29, 1905).
assist in the escape of the author of the Exceptions:

crime who is guilty of treason, parricide, 1. If, however, the crime involved is
murder, or attempts against the life of conspiracy to commit treason, his silence
the President, or who is known to be may hold him liable for misprision of
habitually guilty of some other crime. treason (RPC, Art. 116) but as a principal
Requisites: thereof.
2. Knowingly concealing the evil practices
a. The accessory is a private person;
b. He harbors, conceals or assists in the enumerated in Art. 142 is also punishable
escape of the author of the crime; and as a principal in Inciting to Sedition (RPC,
Art. 142).
c. The crime committed by the principal is
either: PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1612
i. Murder; ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
ii. Attempt against the life of the Fencing
President; It is an act of any person with intent to gain, of
iii. Parricide; buying, selling, receiving, possessing, keeping,
iv. That the principal is known to be or in any other manner dealing in anything of
habitually guilty of some other crime; or value which he knows or should be known to
v. Treason (REYES, Book One, supra at 580). him, to have been derived from the proceeds of
Where the alleged principal is acquitted, it is the crime of robbery or theft (P.D. No. 1612, Sec. 2(a)).
neither proper nor possible to convict the Fence
defendant as an accessory. The responsibility of He is a person who commits the act of fencing.
the accessory is subordinate to that of the A fence who receives stolen property as above-
principal in a crime (U.S. v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 7540, provided is not an accessory but a principal in
September 23, 1912).
the crime defined in and punished by the Anti-
However, conviction of an accessory is possible
Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612, Sec. 2(b)).
notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal, if
Mere possession of anything of value which has
the crime was in fact committed, but the
been the subject or robbery or theft shall be
principal was not held liable, because of an
prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D. No. 1612, Sec.
exempting circumstance such as insanity or 5).
minority (US v. Villaluz, G.R. No. 10726, December 1,
1915).
Neither the letter not the spirit of the law
requires that the principal be convicted before
one may be punished as an accessory. As long
as the corpus delicti is proved and the
101
___________________________________________________________________________________________
PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF offense committed by of obstruction of
APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF the principal. justice.
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1829 Note: for further discussion on P.D. No. 1829,
P.D. No. 1829 penalizes the act of any person see section on Special Penal Laws.
who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates, or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution ARTICLE 20
of criminal cases. ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT FROM
The acts enumerated under this decree are CRIMINAL LIABILITY
commonly referred to as “OBSTRUCTION OF Ground for exemption:
JUSTICE”. It penalizes, inter alia, the act of It is based on the ties of blood and the
harboring or concealing, or facilitating the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name,
escape of any person he knows or has which compels one to conceal crimes
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed by relatives so near as those
committed any offense under existing penal mentioned in this article (REYES, Book One, supra at
laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution 593).
and conviction. Here, he shall be punished as a An accessory is exempt from criminal liabilities
principal in the crime of obstruction of justice when the principal is his –
(P.D. No. 1829, Sec. 1, par. 1 (c)). 1. Spouse;
2. Ascendant;
RPC, Art. 19 P.D. No. 1829 3. Descendant; or
As to the crimes committed 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted
The principal who was The person who was brother/sister or relative by affinity
assisted committed assisted committed within the same degree.
only any of the any crime. And he committed acts falling under pars. 2 and
enumerated felonies 3 of Art. 19.
unless the accessory Accessory is not exempt from criminal liabilities
is a public officer who even if the principal is related to him, if such
acts with abuse of accessory:
public functions. 1. Profited by the effects of the crime; or
As to penal laws covered 2. Assisted the offender to profit by the
The crime committed The crime committed effects of the crime.
by the principal must by the principal is Reason: Because such acts are prompted not by
be under the RPC. punishable under affection but by detestable greed (Id. at 595).
any existing penal If a public officer, with evident abuse of his
law, including the office, furnished the means of escape to his
RPC. brother who had committed murder, he does
As to criminal liability not incur any criminal liability. Ties of blood or
The person who gave The person who gave relationship constitute a more powerful
assistance is punished assistance is incentive than the call of duty. Furthermore, Art.
as an accessory in the punished as a 20 of RPC does not grant the benefits of
principal in the crime exemption only to accessories who profited or
102
___________________________________________________________________________________________
helped the offender profit by the effects of the crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.
crime. This is the only case where the accessory Any death penalty already imposed shall be
who is related to the offender incurs criminal reduced to reclusion perpetua (CONST., Art. III, Sec.
lability (Id. at 596). 19, par. (1)).
Note: The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do The employment of physical, psychological, or
not apply to P.D. No. 1829. degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
TITLE THREE: PENALTIES conditions shall be dealt with by law (CONST., Art.
III, Sec. 19, par. (2)).
Penalty
It is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for
the transgression of the law (Id. at 597). CHAPTER ONE
Theories on justifying penalty: PENALTIES IN GENERL (ARTS. 21-24)
1. Prevention – to suppress the danger to ARTICALE 21
the State arising from the criminal acts of PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED
the offender; No felony shall be punishable by any penalty
2. Self-defense – to protect the society not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
from the threat and wrong inflicted by Reason: Because a law cannot be rationally
the criminal; obeyed unless it is first shown, and a man
3. Reformation – to correct and reform the cannot be expected to obey an order that has
offender; not been given (REYES, Book One, supra at 600).
4. Exemplary – to serve as an example to Note: Article 21 simply announces the policy of
deter others from committing crimes; the State as regards punishing crimes (Id.).
5. Justice – an act of retributive justice, a ARTICLE 22
vindication of absolute right and moral RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS
law violated by the criminal (Id. at 598). This provision has no direct application to the
provisions of the RPC. Its application to the RPC
Three-fold Purpose of Penalty under RPC: can only be invoked where some former or
1. Retribution or expiation; subsequent law is under consideration.
2. Correction or reformation; and Note: it must necessarily relate: (1) to penal laws
3. Social defense (Id). existing prior to the RPC, in which the penalty
The State has an existence of its own to was less severe than those of the Code; or (2) to
maintain, a conscience of its own to assert, and laws enacted subsequent to the R.P.C., in which
moral principles to be vindicated. Penal justice the penalty is more favorable to the accused
must therefore be exercised by the State in the (REYES, Book One, supra at 601).
service and satisfaction of a duty, and rests General Rule: Penal laws are applied
primarily on the moral rightfulness of the prospectively.
punishment inflicted (Id.). Exception: When retrospective application is
Constitutional Restriction on Penalties favorable to the accused, provided that:
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, 1. The offender is not a habitual criminal
degrading nor inhuman punishment inflicted. (delinquent) under Art. 62(5); and
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless,
for compelling reasons involving heinous
103
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. The new or amendatory law does not Criminal liability under the repealed law
provide against its retrospective subsists:
application. 1. When the provisions of the former law
Reason for the exception: The sovereign, in are reenacted (REYES, Book One, supra at
enacting a subsequent penal law more 608);
favorable to the accused, has recognized that
the greater severity of the former law is unjust. The right to punish offenses committed
Note: This favorable application of laws applies under an old penal law is not
equally either the crime violated the Revised extinguished if the offenses are still
Penal Code or special penal laws (BOADO, supra punishable in the repealing penal law
at 218). (U.S. v. Cuna, G.R. No. L-4504, December 15,
Habitual Delinquent 1908).
He is a person who, within a period of ten years
from the date of his release or last conviction of 2. When the repeal is by implication (REYES,
the crimes of: Book One, supra at 609); or
1. Falsification;
2. Robbery (robo); When a penal law, which impliedly
3. Estafa; repealed an old law, is itself repealed,
4. Theft (hurto); the repeal of the repealing law revives
5. Serious or less serious physical injuries, is the prior penal law, unless the language
found guilty of any said crimes a third of the repealing statute provides
time or oftener (RPC, Art. 62). otherwise.
If retroactive effect of a new law is justified, it
shall apply to the defendant even if he is: If the repeal is absolute, criminal liability
1. Presently on trial for the offense; is obliterated.
2. Has already been sentenced but service
of which has not begun; or 3. When there is a saving clause (Id).
3. Already serving sentence (REYES, Book
One, supra at 605). When the repeal is absolute, the offense
The exception applies to a law dealing with ceases to be criminal (People v. Tamayo,
prescription of crime. G.R. No. 18989, November 17, 1922).
The retroactive effect of criminal statutes does
not apply to the culprit’s civil liability (Id.). Note: No retroactive effect of penal laws
Reason: The rights of offended persons or as regards jurisdiction of court. The
innocent third parties are not within the gift of jurisdiction of the court to try a criminal
arbitrary disposal of the State (Id.). action is to be determined by the law in
No retroactive effect even when favorable to force at the time of instituting the
the accused – if the new law is expressly made action, not at the time of the
inapplicable to pending actions or existing commission of the crime (People v.
causes of action (Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. 922, Pegarum, G.R. No. L-37565, November 13, 1933).
November 8, 1902).
Jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is
determined by the allegations of the
complaint or information, and not by
104
___________________________________________________________________________________________
the findings the court may make after 2. Seduction, Abduction, Acts of
trial (People v. Mission, G.R. No. L-3488, Lasciviousness (RPC, Art. 344).
November 28, 1950). Express pardon given by offended party
and her parents or grandparents or
(See discussion of retroactive law under guardian.
the prospective characteristic of criminal
law.) Note: Pardon must be granted not only
by the parents of an offended minor but
also by the minor herself in order to be
ARTICLE 23 effective as an express pardon under
EFFECT OF PARDON BY THE Art. 344 of the RPC (People v. Tadulan, G.R.
OFFENDED PARTY No. 117407, April 15, 1997).
General Rule: Pardon by the offended party Pardon must be given prior to the
does not extinguish the criminal liability of the institution of the criminal action because
offender. it is only a bar to criminal prosecution; it
Reason: A crime committed is an offense is not a ground for the extinguishment
against the State. Only the Chief Executive can of criminal liability. However, marriage
pardon the offenders (REYES, Book One, supra at between the offender and the offended
610). party, even after the institution of the
Note: In criminal cases, the intervention off the criminal action or conviction of the
aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses offender, will extinguish the criminal
for the prosecution (Id.). action or remit the penalty already
Compromise upon the civil liability arising from imposed against the offender, his co-
an offense may be had; but such compromise principals, accomplices, and accessories
shall not extinguish the public action for the after the fact (People v. De la Cerna, G.R. Nos.
imposition of the legal penalty (CIVIL CODE, Art. 136899-904, October 9, 2002).
2034).
A contract stipulating for the renunciation of the 3. Rape (as amended by R.A. No. 8353)
right to prosecute an offense or waiving the The subsequent valid marriage between
criminal liability is void (CIVIL CODE, Arts. 1306, 1352, the offender and the offended party
1409). shall extinguish criminal liability or the
Exception: Pardon by the offended party will bar penalty imposed. In case it is the legal
criminal prosecution in the following crimes: husband who is the offender, the
1. Adultery and concubinage (RPC, Art. 344).
subsequent forgiveness of the wife as
Express and implied pardon must be the offended party shall extinguish the
given by offended party to both criminal action or the penalty: provided,
offenders. that the marriage is not void ab initio
(R.A. No. 8353, Sec. 2).
Pardon should be made prior to the
institution of the criminal action (People Subsequent marriage only pardons the
v. Lim, G.R. No. 95753, February 13, 1992). husband. (People v. Bernardo, C.A. 38, O.G.
3479).
105
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Civil liability may be extinguished by the express Welfare Act of 2006) which provides
waiver of the offended party. that:
An offense causes two classes of injuries:
Social Injury Personal Injury Whenever detention is necessary, a
As to damage caused child will always be detained in youth
Produced by the Caused to the victim detention homes established by local
disturbance and alarm of the crime who governments, pursuant to Sec. 8 of the
which are the outcome suffered damage Family Courts Act, in the city or
of the offense. either to his person, municipality where the child resides.
to his property, to
his honor, or to her In the absence of a youth detention
chastity. home, the child in conflict with the law
As to reparation may be committed to the care of:
Sought to be repaired Sought to be a. the DSWD; or
through the imposition repaired through b. a local rehabilitation center
of the corresponding indemnity. recognized by the government in the
penalty. province, city or municipality within the
As to interest of the state jurisdiction of the court.
The State has an The State has no 3. Suspension from the employment or
interest in this class of reason to insist in its public office during the trial or in order
injury payment to institute proceedings;
As to pardon by the offended party 4. Fines and other corrective measures
The offended party The offended party which, in the exercise of their
cannot pardon the may waive the administrative or disciplinary powers,
offender so as to indemnity superior officials may impose upon their
relieve him of the subordinates; and
penalty 5. Deprivation of rights and the
reparations which the civil law may
ARTICLE 24 establish in penal form.
MEASURES OF PREVENTION OR SAFETYY Reasons why they are not penalties:
WHICH ARE NOT CONSIDERED PENALTIES 1. They are not imposed as a result of
The following are not considered as penalties: judicial proceedings. Those mentioned
1. The arrest and temporary detention of in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are merely
accused persons, as well as their preventive measures before conviction
detention by reason of insanity or of offenders.
2. The offender is not subjected to or
imbecility, or illness requiring their
confinement in a hospital; made to suffer these measures in
2. The commitment of a minor to any of punishment for a crime (REYES, Book One,
supra at 613).
the institutions mentioned in Art. 80 and
Par. 1 refers to “accused persons” who are
for the purposes specified therein;
detained “ by reason of insanity and imbecility”
Note: Amended by Sec. 36, pars. 2 and
(Id.).
3 of R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
106
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Pars. 3 and 4 refer to administrative suspension As to nature
and administrative fines and not to suspension 1. Principal penalties – those expressly
or fine as penalties for violations of the RPC. imposed by the court in the judgment
The deprivations of rights established in penal of conviction.
form by the civil laws is illustrated in the case of a. Divisible – those that have fixed
parents who are deprived of their parental duration and are divisible into three
authority if found guilty of the crime of periods.
corruption of their minor children, in b. Indivisible – those which have no
accordance with Art. 332 of the Civil Code. fixed duration.
i. death
Other preventive measures: ii. reclusion perpetua
1. Commitment of a drug dependent to a iii. perpetual absolute or special
center for rehabilitation or treatment disqualification
under R.A. No. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs iv. public censure
Act of 2002); 2. Accessory penalties – are those that
2. Commitment of a child in conflict to the are deemed included in the principal
law to a rehabilitation center pursuant penalties.
to R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and As to subject matter
Welfare Act of 2006) 1. Corporal (death);
Where a minor offender was committed to a 2. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion
rehabilitation center, and while thus detained he perpetua and temporal’ prision mayor
commits a crime therein, he cannot be and correctional, arresto mayor and
considered a quasi-recidivist since his detention menor);
was only a preventive measure , whereas quasi- 3. Restriction of freedom (destierro);
recidivism presupposes the commission of a 4. Deprivation of rights (disqualification
crime during the service of the penalty for a and suspension); and
previous crime (REGALADO, supra at 143). 5. Pecuniary (fine).
Classification of Principal Penalties

CHAPTER TWO Capital a. Death
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES (ARTS. 25-26) Punishment
ARTICLE 25 Afflictive a. Reclusion Perpetua
PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED Penalties b. Reclusion Temporal
c. Perpetual or temporary
Classification of penalties absolute disqualification
As to their severity or gravity d. Perpetual or temporary
1. Capital special disqualification
2. Afflictive e. Prision Mayor
3. Correctional Correctional a. Prision correctional
4. Light Penalties b. Arresto mayor
c. Suspension
d. Destierro
Light Penalties a. Arresto Menor
107
___________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Public Censure Where the fine in question is exactly P200,
under Art. 9 it is a light felony, hence the felony
involved is a light felony; whereas under Art. 26,
R.A. No. 9346 it is a correctional penalty, hence the offense
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF involved is a less grave felony. It has been held
DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES that this discrepancy should be solved liberally
in favor of the accused, hence Art. 9 prevails
In lieu of death penalty, the following shall be over Art. 26. (People v. Yu Hai, G.R. No. 9598, August
imposed: 15, 1956).
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, when However, according to Justice Regalado, there
the law violated makes use of the is no such discrepancy. What is really in issue is
nomenclature of the penalties of the the prescription of the offense vis-à-vis the
Revised Penal Code; or prescription of the penalty, the former being the
2. The penalty of life imprisonment, when forfeiture of the right of the State to prosecute
the law violated does not make use of the offender and the latter being the loss of its
the nomenclature of the penalties of the power to enforce the judgment against the
Revised Penal Code (R.A. No. 9346, Sec. convict.
2). Note: In determining the prescription of crimes,
Persons convicted of offenses punished with apply Art. 9 (P200.00 fine is light felony). In
reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be determining the prescription of penalty, apply
reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Art. 26 (P200 fine prescribes ten years).
Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act Note: Under Sec. 2, R.A. 10951, a fine, whether
4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty,
Sentence Law, as amended (R.A. No. 9346, Sec. shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it
3). exceeds one million two hundred thousand
(P1,200,000); a correctional penalty, if it does not
ARTICLE 26 exceed one million two hundred thousand
FINE – WHEN AFFLICTIVE, CORRECTIONAL OR (P1,200,000) but is not less than forty thousand
LIGHT PENALTY pesos (P40,000); and a light felony, if it be less
than forty thousand pesos (P40,000).
Fine – whether imposed as a single or as an
alternative penalty, is:
1. Afflictive – over P6, 000.00
2. Correctional – P200.00 to P6,000.00
3. Light penalty – less than P200.00
The law does not permit any court to impose a
sentence in the alternative, its duty being to
indicate the penalty imposed definitely and
positively (REYES, Book One, supra at 620).
Note: Art. 26 merely classifies fine and has
nothing to do with the definition of light felony
(Id.).
108
___________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER THREE different durations – they follow the duration of
DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES the principal penalty (REYES, Book One, supra at 623).
(ARTS. 27-45) Destierro
SECTION ONE – DURATION OF PENALTIES It is a principal, correctional, and divisible
ARTICLE 27 penalty.
DURATION OF PENALTIES Cases when destierro is imposed:
PENALTY DURATION 1. Serious physical injuries or death under
Reclusion 20 years and 1 day to 40 exceptional circumstances (RPC, Art.
Perpetua years 247);
Reclusion 12 years and 1 day to 20 2. In case of failure to give bond for good
Temporal years behavior (RPC, Art. 284);
Prision mayor 6 years and 1 day to 12 3. As a penalty for the concubine in
years, except when concubinage (RPC, Art. 334); and
Temporary disqualification is 4. In cases where after reducing the penalty
disqualification accessory penalty, in by one or more degrees, destierro is the
which case its duration is proper penalty (REYES, Book One, supra at
that of the principal 623).
penalty Bond to keep the peace

Prision 6 months and 1 day to 6 Bond to keep the peace is not specifically
correctional years, except when provided as a penalty for any felony and
suspension is an therefore cannot be imposed by the court (Id.
Suspension accessory penalty, in at 624). The period during which the bond shall
which case its duration is be effective is discretionary upon the court
Destierro that of the principal Rationale: Art. 21 of the RPC provides that no
penalty felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
Arresto mayor 1 month and 1 day to 6 prescribe by law prior to its commission.
months
ARTICLE 28
Arresto menor 1 day to 30 days
COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES
Bond to keep the The period during which
Rules for the Computation of Penalties
peace the bond shall be
The Director of Prisons or the warden should
effective is discretionary
compute the penalties imposed upon convicts,
on the court
observing the following rules:
1. When the offender is in prison – the
Although under Art. 27 of the RPC is amended
duration of temporary penalties is from
by R.A. No. 7659, reclusion perpetua has a
the day on which the judgment of
range of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, by
conviction becomes final.
nature, the penalty remains as a single and
Reason: Under Art. 24, the arrest and
indivisible penalty. It cannot be divided into
temporary detention of the accused is
periods or equal portions (People v. Novio, G.R. No.
139332, June 20, 2003).
not considered a penalty.
Temporary disqualification and suspension,
when imposed as accessory penalties, have 2. When the offender is not in prison – the
duration of penalties consisting in
109
___________________________________________________________________________________________
deprivation of liberty is from the day that the offender is placed at the
that the offender is placed at the disposal of judicial authorities for the
disposal of judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty.
enforcement of the penalty. 2. If the offender is undergoing preventive
3. The duration of other penalties – the imprisonment, the duration is from the
duration is from the day on which the day on which the offender commences
offender commences to serve his to serve his sentence and not from the
sentence. day the offender is placed at the
If the accused, who was in custody, appealed, disposal of the judicial authorities for
his service of sentence should commence from the enforcement of the penalty.
the date of the promulgation of the decision of But the offender is entitled to a deduction of
the appellate court was promulgated, not from full time or four fifths (4/5) of the time of his
the date the judgment of the trial court was detention (RPC, Art. 28).
promulgated (REYES, Book One, supra at 625).
The service of sentence of one in prison begins Article 29, as amended by R.A. No. 10592
only on the day the judgment of conviction PERIOD OF PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
becomes final (Baking v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. DEDUCTED FROM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT
L-30603, July 28, 1969 as cited in REYES, Book One, Id. at
625). Preventive imprisonment
Temporary penalties It is the period of detention undergone by an
1. Temporary absolute disqualification accused where the crime with which he is
2. Temporary special disqualification charged is non-bailable or, even if bailable, he
3. Suspension is unable to post the requisite bail (ESTRADA, Book
Rules in Temporary Penalties One, supra at 225).
1. If an offender is under detention, as General Rule:
when he is undergoing preventive Offenders who have undergone preventive
imprisonment, the duration of imprisonment shall be credited in the service of
temporary penalties is from the day on their sentence with the full time during which
which the judgment of conviction they have undergone preventive imprisonment,
becomes final (REYES, Book One, supra if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
at 625). writing after being informed of the effects
2. If an offender is not under detention, thereof and with assistance of counsel to abide
because the offender has been released by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
on bail, the duration is from the day on convicted prisoners (REYES, Book One, supra at 627).
which the offender commences to serve If the detention prisoner does not agree to
his sentence (Id.). abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited
1. Imprisonment in the service of his sentence with four fifths
2. Destierro (4/5) of the time during which he has gone
Rules in Penalties consisting Deprivation of under preventive imprisonment (Id.).
Liberty Note: Under Art. 197 of the Child and Youth
1. When the offender is not in prison, the Welfare Code (P.D. No. 603), the youthful
duration of penalties consisting in offender shall be credited in the service of his
deprivation of liberty is from the day
110
___________________________________________________________________________________________
sentence with the full time he spent in actual imprisonment for a period equal to or more
confinement and detention. than the possible maximum imprisonment for
the offense charged (REYES, Book One, supra at 630).
Exceptions: If the accused of a crime is punished by a
1. When they are recidivists, or have been penalty from arresto menor to destierro, he
convicted previously twice or more should be released immediately after 30 days
times of any crime. from his arrest and detention, even if the
2. When upon being summoned for the duration of destierro, the maximum penalty to
execution of their sentence, they have which he may be sentenced, is from 6 months
failed to surrender voluntarily. and 1 day to 6 years.
Note: A habitual delinquent is not entitled to the Rationale: In destierro, the accused sentenced
full time or 4/5 of the time of preventive to that penalty does not serve it in prison. He is
imprisonment, because a habitual delinquent is free, only that he cannot enter the prohibited
necessarily a recidivist or that at least he has area specified in the sentence.
been “convicted previously twice or more times Computation of preventive imprisonment for
of any crime (People v. Gona, G.R. No. 47177, purposes of immediate release under this
November 4, 1940, as cited in REYES, Book One, supra at paragraph shall be the actual period of
631). detention with good conduct time allowance:
No. 2 refers to convicts who failed to voluntarily Provided, however, that if theh accused is
surrender to serve their penalties under a final absent without justifiable cause at any stage of
judgment since this is indicative of a greater the trial, the court may motu proprio order the
defiance of authority. It does not refer to failure re-arrest of the accused: Provided, finally, that
of refusal to voluntarily surrender after the recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and
commission of the crime. persons charged with heinous crimes are
The benefit given in Art. 29 does not distinguish excluded from the coverage of this Act.
between temporal and perpetual penalties.
Thus, even if the accused is sentenced to life
imprisonment, he is entitled to the full time or SECTION TWO – EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES
4/5 of the time of the preventive imprisonment. ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NATURE
The credit in Art. 29 is given in the service of ARTICLE 30
sentences consisting of deprivation of liberty. EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF PERPETUAL
Thus, if the offense for which the offender is OR TEMPORAL ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION
undergoing preventive imprisonment is
punishable by imprisonment or a fine, there is 1. Deprivation of the public offices and
no credit to be given (Id. at 629). employments which the offender may
Destierro constitutes deprivation of liberty. It have held, even if conferred by popular
follows that Art. 29 is applicable when the election;
penalty is destierro (Id.). 2. Deprivation of the right to vote in any
The convict has to be released immediately if election for any popular elective office or
the penalty imposed after trial is less than the to be elected to such office;
full time or 4/5 of the time of the preventive 3. Disqualification for the offices or public
imprisonment (Id.). employments and for the exercise of any
The accused shall be released immediately of the rights mentioned; and
whenever he has undergone preventive
111
___________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Loss of all rights to retirement pay or
other pension for any office formerly 2. Not to be permitted to hold any public
held. office during the period of
Perpetual Absolute Disqualification disqualification.
It is effective during the lifetime of the convict Disqualification
and even after the service of the sentence. It is the withholding of a privilege, not a denial
Temporary Absolute Disqualification of right
It lasts during the term of the sentence, and is -- a restriction upon the right of suffrage or to
removed after the service of the same. hold office.
Exceptions: Purpose: To preserve the purity of elections;
1. Deprivation of the public office or one rendered infamous by conviction of felony
employment; or other base offenses indicative of moral
2. Loss of all rights to retirement pay or turpitude is unfit to exercise such rights.
other pension for any office formerly
held. ARTICLE 33
A plebiscite is not mentioned or contemplated EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF SUSPENSION
in Art. 30, par. 2 (deprivation of the right to FROM ANY PUBLIC OFFICE, PROFESSION, OR
vote). Hence, the offender may vote in that CALLING, OR THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE
exercise, subject to the provisions of pertinent 1. Disqualification from holding such office
election laws at the time. or exercising such right or calling or right
of suffrage during the term of the
ARTICLE 31 sentence; and
EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF PERPETUAL 2. If suspended from the public office, the
OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION offender cannot hold another office
1. Deprivation of the office, employment, having similar functions during the
profession or calling affected; and period of suspension.
2. Disqualification for holding similar
offices or employments either ARTICLE 34
perpetually or during the term of the CIVIL INTERDICTION
sentence, according to the extent of such 1. Deprivation of the rights of parental
disqualification. authority or guardianship of any ward;
2. Deprivation of marital authority; and
ARTICLE 32 3. Deprivation of the right to manage his
EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF PERPETUAL property and of the right to dispose of
OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION such property by any act or any
FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF conveyance inter vivos.
SUFFRAGE But he can dispose of such property by will or
donation mortis causa. The law only mentioned
1. Deprive the offender perpetually or dispositions inter vivos (REYES, Book One, supra at
during the term of the sentence of: 635).
a. The right to vote in any popular A person imposed with the penalty of civil
election for any public office; or interdiction cannot appoint an agent to manage
b. To be elected to such office. his property because the act of an agent is the
112
___________________________________________________________________________________________
act of the principal. Thus, the person civilly charged with either
interdicted is doing indirectly what the law grave or light threat.
prohibits to be done (ESTRADA, Criminal Law, supra As to effect of failure to post bond
at 231). Detention Destierro
Civil interdiction is imposed when the penalty is: As to when imposed
1. Death which is not carried out; May be given in any Only given in cases
2. Reclusion perpetua; or case that the court of the grave threats
3. Reclusion temporal. may determine. (Art. 282) and light
threats (Art. 283).
ARTICLE 35 (AMURAO, Book One, supra at 830).
EFFECTS OF BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
1. The offender must present two sufficient ARTICLE 36
sureties who shall undertake that: PARDON; ITS EFFECTS
a. the offender will not commit the Effects of pardon by the President:
offense sought to be prevented; and 1. A pardon shall not restore the right to
b. in case such offense be committed, hold public office or the right of suffrage.
they will pay the amount determined by Exception: When any or both such rights
the Court. is/are expressly restored by the terms of
the pardon.
2. The offender must deposit such amount 2. It shall not exempt the culprit from the
with the Clerk or Court to guarantee said payment of the civil liability.
undertaking; or Limitations upon the exercise of the pardoning
3. The offender may be detained, if he power:
cannot give the bond: 1. The power can be exercised only after
a. for a period not to exceed 6 months if conviction “by final judgment” (CONST.
prosecuted for grave or less grave Art. VII, Sec. 19);
felony; or 2. Such power does not extend to cases of
b. for a period not to exceed 30 days, if impeachment (Cristobal v. Labrador, G.R. No.
for a light felony. 47941, December 7, 1940; CONST. Art. VII, Sec.
Note: Bond to keep the peace is different from 19).
bail bond which is posted for the provisional 3. No pardon, amnesty, parole or
release of a person arrested for or accused of a suspension of sentence for violation of
crime. It is imposed as a penalty in threats (RPC, election laws, rules, and regulations shall
Art. 284). be granted by the President without the
Bond to Keep the Bond for Good favorable recommendation of the
Peace Behavior COMELEC (CONST. Art. IX-C, Sec. 5).
As to nature Effect of Grant of Pardon on Principal Accessory
Penalties:
In the nature of a Not in the nature of
General Rule: When the principal penalty is
penalty common to a penalty but merely
remitted by pardon, only the effect of that
afflictive, correctional, an additional
principal penalty is extinguished, but not the
and light penalties. obligation which the
accessory penalties attached to it.
court may impose
upon the accused
113
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Exceptions: When granted
1. When an absolute pardon is granted May be granted only Can be validly
after the term of imprisonment has after conviction by granted only before
expired; it removes all that is left of the final judgment of the the institution of
consequences of conviction (REYES, Book accused (Id. at 638). criminal prosecution
One, supra at 639). (Id. at 611).
2. The accessory penalty is extinguished if To whom granted
the pardon expressly so provided. To any or all of the In seduction,
Pardon by the Chief Pardon by the accused abduction, and acts of
Executive (Art. 36) Offended Party (Art. lasciviousness, it
23) benefits the co-
As to the crime covered principals,
Can extend to any Applies only to crimes accomplices and
crime, unless against chastity under accessories.
otherwise provided the RPC and marital In adultery and
by or subject to rape. concubinage, pardon
conditions in the must include both
Constitutions or the offenders.
laws As to whether it can be conditional
As to the effect on civil liability May be absolute or Cannot validly be
Cannot include civil The offended party conditional made if subject to a
liability which the can waive the civil condition.
offender must pay liability (Id. at 640).
(Id. at 640).
As to extinguishment of criminal liability Article 37
Extinguishes criminal Does not extinguish COSTS
liability (Id. at 640). criminal liability (Id. at Costs or costs of suit
640). These are fees and indemnities in the course of
Although it may the judicial proceedings, whether fixed or
constitute a bar to the unalterable amounts previously determined by
prosecution of the law or regulations in force, or amounts not
offender in seduction, subject to schedule (RPC, Art. 37).
abduction, and acts of What are included in costs:
lasciviousness by the 1. Fees; and
valid marriage of the 2. Indemnities, in the course of judicial
victim and the proceedings.
offender, and in Costs are chargeable to the accused only in
adultery and cases of conviction. In case of acquittal, the
concubinage, by the costs are de officio, means each party bearing
express or implied his own expenses.
pardon by the No costs shall be allowed against the Republic
offended spouses (Id. of the Philippines, unless otherwise provided by
at 612). law (RULES OF COURT, RULE 142, Sec. 1).
114
___________________________________________________________________________________________
The payment of costs is a matter rests entirely Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty,
upon the discretion of courts (Bacolod-Murcia hence it must be specifically imposed by the
Planter’s Association, Inc. v. Chua, G.R. No. L-1662, court in its judgment, otherwise the accused
September 27, 1949). cannot be made to serve the corresponding
ARTICLE 38 subsidiary imprisonment (Ramos v. Gonong, G.R.
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES No. L-42010, August 31, 1976).
What are the pecuniary liabilities of persons Rules of Subsidiary Liability
criminally liable? Penalty Imposed Subsidiary Penalty
They are, in the following order: Prision Subsidiary imprisonment
1. The reparation of the damage caused; correctional or is not to exceed 1/3 of the
and arresto and fine term of the sentence, and
2. Indemnification of the consequential in no case to continue for
damages; more than one year.
3. Fine; and Fraction or part of a day,
4. Costs of proceedings. not counted.
When applicable Fine only Subsidiary imprisonment:
Art. 38 is applicable in case the property of the a. not to exceed 6 months
offender should not be sufficient for the – if the culprit is
payment all his pecuniary liabilities. prosecuted for grave or
The courts cannot disregard the order of less grave felony, and
payment (Domalaon v. Yap, C.A., 59 O.G. 6675). b. not to exceed 15 days –
if prosecuted for light
ARTICLE 39 felony.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY as amended by R.A. No. Higher than No subsidiary
10159 prision imprisonment.
Subsidiary Penalty correctional
A subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by If the penalty Subsidiary penalty shall
the convict who has no property with which to imposed is not consist in the same
meet the fine (REYES, Book One, supra at 644). to be executed deprivations as those of
New Basis for Daily Computation of Subsidiary by confinement, the principal penalty,
Penalty but of fixed under the same rules as
He shall be subject to a subsidiary personal duration. nos. 1, 2 and 3 above.
liability at the rate of one day for each amount
equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate In case the financial circumstances of the
prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the convict should improve, he shall pay the fine,
rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial notwithstanding the fact that the convict
court. suffered subsidiary personal liability therefor.
Note: This amended the previous rate of 1 day When the penalty prescribed for the offense is
for each 8 pesos. imprisonment, it is the penalty actually imposed
Subsidiary penalty shall be proper only if the by the Court, not the penalty provided for by
accused has no property with which to pay the the Code, which should be considered in
fine and not as a matter of choice on his part by determining whether or not subsidiary penalty
opting to go to jail instead of paying (Eulton Iron should be imposed.
Works v. Schwarzkopf, 62 Phil. 274).
115
___________________________________________________________________________________________
SECTION THREE – PENALTIES IN WHICH
“The same deprivations as those of which the OTHER ACCESSORY PENALTIES ARE
principal penalty consists” INHERENT
If the penalty is imprisonment, the subsidiary ARTICLES 40-44
penalty must be imprisonment also. If the OUTLINE OF ACCESSORY PENALTIES
penalty imposed is destierro, the subsidiary INHERENT IN PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
penalty is also destierro (REYES, Book One, supra at 1. Death, when not executed by reason of
651). commutation or pardon:
No subsidiary penalty shall be imposed where: a. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
1. The penalty imposed is higher than and
prision correctional or 6 years; b. Civil interdiction during 30 years, if
2. For failure to pay the reparation of the not expressly remitted in the pardon.
damage caused, indemnification of the 2. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion
consequential damages, and the costs temporal:
of proceeding; a. Civil interdiction for life or during the
3. Where the penalty imposed is a fine and sentence; and
a penalty not to be executed by b. perpetual absolute disqualification,
confinement in a penal institution and unless expressly remitted in the pardon
without fixed duration, like censure (Id. of the principal penalty.
at 652); 3. Prision mayor:
4. Additional penalty for habitual a. Temporary absolute disqualification;
delinquency should be included in and
determining whether or not subsidiary b. Perpetual special disqualification
penalty should be imposed (Id. at 649); from suffrage, unless expressly remitted
5. The subsidiary penalty, though properly in the pardon of the principal penalty.
imposable is not expressly stated in the 4. Prision correctional:
judgment; and a. Suspension from public office,
6. For non-payment of taxes in case of profession or calling; and
insolvency (People v. Balagtas, G.R. No. L- b. Perpetual Special Disqualification
10210, July 29, 1959). from suffrage, if the duration of
Note: The rules on subsidiary penalty in Art. 39 imprisonment exceeds 18 months,
are applicable to crimes punishable by special unless expressly remitted in the pardon
laws by force of Art. 10 of the RPC. of the principal penalty.
There is no subsidiary penalty in cases of 5. Arresto – suspension of the right to hold
censure since it has no fixed duration and is not office and the right of suffrage during
to be executed by confinement (REYES, Book One, the term of the sentence.
supra at 654).
Note: The Code does not provide for any
accessory penalty for destierro.
Reclusion Perpetua Life Imprisonment
Has a specific Has no definite term.
duration of 20 years
and 1 day to 40
years.
116
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Imposable on Imposable on crimes penalty. Thus, where the penalty imposed did
felonies punished punishable by special not include the confiscation of the property, the
by the RPC. laws. confiscation or forfeiture of the property would
Carries with it Does not carry with it be an additional penalty and would tantamount
accessory penalties. accessory penalties. to an increase of the penalty already imposed,
thereby placing the accused in double jeopardy
It is only death penalty is not executed by (People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. L-9768, June 21,
reason of commutation or pardon that the 1957).
accessory penalty provided for in Art. 40 of the Articles which are forfeited, when the order or
RPC shall be suffered by the convict (REYES, Book forfeiture is already final, cannot be returned
One, supra at 656). even in case of an acquittal (Commissioner of
Customs v. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-7598, July
ARTICLE 45 26, 1954).
CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF THE The provisions of Art. 45 cannot apply when:
PROCEDS OF THE CRIME 1. The instruments belong to innocent
Rules: third parties;
1. Every penalty imposed carries with it the 2. Such properties have not been placed
forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime under the jurisdiction of the court
and the instruments or tools used in the because they must be presented in
commission of the crime. evidence and identified in judgment (US
Note: There can be no forfeiture when v. Filart, G.R. No. 10263, March 13, 1915); or
there is no criminal case yet filed (Philips 3. When it is legally or physically
v. Municipal Mayor, G.R. No. L-9183, impossible.
May 30, 1959). This accessory penalty presupposes a judgment
of conviction. However, even if the accused is
2. The proceeds and instruments or tools acquitted on reasonable doubt, but the
of the crime are confiscated and instruments or proceeds are contraband, the
forfeited in favor of the Government; judgment of acquittal shall order their forfeiture
3. Property of a third person not liable for for appropriate disposition (People v. Salunguit, G.R.
the offense is not subjected to No. 133254-55, April 19, 2001).
confiscation and forfeiture.
Note: The statement prevails
notwithstanding the fact that the third
person who is the owner of the property
could have been convicted if indicted
with the accused (People v. Delgado, 9
CAR [2s], 960, 979-980); and
4. Property not subject of lawful
commerce (whether it belongs to the
accused or to third person) shall be
destroyed.
The confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds
and instruments of a crime is an accessory
117
___________________________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER FOUR any of which no conviction has yet been
APPLICATION OF PENALTIES declared (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 247).
(Arts. 46-72) Kinds:
SECTION ONE – RULES FOR APPLICATION OF 1. Real or material plurality – different
PENALTIES TO THE PERSONS CRIMINALLY crimes in law, as well as in the conscience
LIABLE AND FOR THE GRADUATION OF THE of the offender; the offender shall be
SAME punished for each and every offense he
ARTICLE 46 committed.
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON CRIMINALS 2. Formal or ideal plurality – only one
IN GENERAL criminal liability (Ibid.).
General Rule: The penalty prescribed by law in Three groups under the formal type:
general terms shall be imposed upon the a. When the offender commits any of the
principals for a consummated felony. complex crimes in Art. 48;
Exception: When the penalty to be imposed b. When the law specifically fixes a single
upon the principal in frustrated or attempted penalty for two or more offenses committed
felony is fixed by law. (Special Complex Crimes); and
Graduation of penalties: c. When the offender commits continuous
1. By degrees – refers to: crimes.
a. Stages of execution (consummated,
frustrated, or attempted); or 1. Complex Crimes Under Article 48
b. Degree of the criminal participation of a. Concept
the offender (whether as principal, i. In complex crime, although 2 or more
accomplice, or accessory). crimes are actually committed, they
2. By periods – refer to the proper period constitute only one crime in the eyes of
of the penalty which should be imposed the law as well as in the conscience of
when aggravating or mitigating the offender.
circumstances attend the commission of ii. The offender has only one criminal
the crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 664). intent, hence there is only one penalty
imposed for the commission of
ARTICLE 47 complex crime (People v. Hernadez, G.R.
CASES WHEREIN THE DEATH PENALTY SHALL No. L-6025-26, July 18, 1956).
NOT BE IMPOSED Note: When obedience to an order several
This provision is no longer of any force or effect accused simultaneously shot many persons,
because the substantive provisions thereof without evidence how many are killed, there is
being inconsistent with R.A. No. 9346, while the only a single offense, there being a single
procedural measures are superseded by the criminal impulse (People v. Lawas, G.R. No. L-7618-20,
present Revised Rules of Court. June 30, 1955).
ARTICLE 48 When a single burst from automatic gun
COMPLEX CRIMES resulted in the numerous killings from a number
PLURALITY OF CRIMES of bullets fired, there is no complex crime but
It consists in the successive execution, by the there are as many offenses as the numbers of
same individual, of different criminal acts, upon victims of the bullets fired in view of the special
characteristic or mechanism of automatic
118
___________________________________________________________________________________________
machine guns and the offender who knew this separate and distinct (People v. Gaffud, G.R. No.
fact (People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 26222, July 21, 1976). 168050, September 19, 2008).
b. Two Kinds of Complex Crimes: In libel, there are as many crimes of libel as there
i. Compound crime (delito compuesto) – a are persons libeled provided that the persons
single act constitutes two or more gave libeled are specified and identified (People v. del
or less grave felonies. Rosario, G.R. No. L-2254, April 20, 1950).
Requisites: ii. Complex crime proper (delito complejo) –

1. That only a single act is performed by an offense is a necessary means for committing
the offender; and the other.
2. That the single act produces: The first offense must be consummated.
a. Two or more grave felonies, or Requisites:
b. One or more grave and one or 1. That at least two offenses are
more less gave felonies, or committed;
c. Two or more less grave felonies. 2. That one or some of the offenses must
Light felonies produced by the same act should be necessary to commit the other; and
be treated and punished as separate offenses or
may be absorbed by the grave felony (People v. Note: The phrase “necessary means” has
Turla, G.R. No. 26388, February 14, 1927). been interpreted not to mean
When the crime is committed by force or indispensable means, because if it did,
violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed then the offense as “necessary means” to
such as in direct assault and rape. commit another would be an
Reason: The slight physical injuries are the indispensable element of the latter and
necessary consequence of the force or violence would be an ingredient thereof
inherent in the crimes of direct assault and rape (Dissenting Opinion, People v. Hernadez, G.R.
(People v. Apiado, G.R. No. 31075, August 12, 1929). No. L-6025-26, July 18, 1956); and
Art. 48 speaks of two or more grave or less 3. That both or all of the offenses must be
grave felonies resulting from a single act, which punished under the same statute.
excludes crimes punishable by special laws c. No complex crime in the following cases:
(People v. Araneta, G.R. No. 24622, January 28, 1926). i. In case of continuous crimes;
Illustrations of Compound Crimes: ii. When one offense is committed to
1. When a single bullet successively killed conceal the other;
two victims (People v. Caldito, G.R. Nos. iii. When the other crime is an
78432-33, February 9, 1990). indispensable part or an element of the
2. The killing of one victim and the other offenses;
wounding of another arising from the iv. Where one of the offenses is penalized
accused’s single act of hacking the first by a special law; and
victim (People v. Patrolla, G.R. No. 112445, v. When the provision provides for a two-
March 7, 1996).
tiered penalty, e.g. usurpation of
3. The single act of throwing a grenade at
property (RPC, Art. 312), malicious
one person injuring others (People v.
Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950).
procurement of a search warrant (RPC,
Note: When several victims died from several Art. 129), bribery (RPC, Art. 210, par. 1),
shots, the crimes of homicide or murder are maltreatment of prisoners (RPC, Art.
235).
119
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit. charged is estafa (Batulanon v. People, G.R. No.
Reason: the offender is deemed less perverse 139857, September 15, 2006).
than when he commits said crimes thru
separate and distinct acts (People v. Hernandez, G.R. Complex Crime of Abduction with Rape
No. L-6025-26, July 18, 1956). The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a
The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for complex crime that occurs when the abductor
the most serious crime, the same to be applied has carnal knowledge of the abducted woman
in its maximum period (RPC, Art. 48). under the following circumstances: (1) by using
When two crimes produced by a single act are force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is
respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of deprived of reason or otherwise
two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of unconsciousness; and (3) when the woman is
higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime under 12 years of age or is demented. However,
(Angeles v. Jose, G.R. No. L-6494, November 24, 1954). where the main objective of the culprit for the
If different crimes resulting from one single act abduction of the victim of rape was to have
are punished with the same penalty, the penalty carnal knowledge of her, he could be convicted
for any one of them shall be imposed, the same only of rape (People v. Domingo, G.R. No. 225743, June
to be applied in the maximum period (REYES, 7, 2017).
Book One, supra at 691). Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible
When two felonies constituting a complex crime abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape
are punishable by imprisonment and fine, for even while the first act of rape was being
respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment performed, the crime of forcible abduction was
should be imposed (REYES, Book One, supra at 692). already consummated, so that each of the three
Reason: Fine is not included in the list of succeeding rapes cannot be complexed with
penalties in the order of severity, and it is the forcible abduction (People v. Jose, G.R. No. L-282232,
last in the graduated scales in Ar. 71 of the RPC February 6, 1971).
(People v. Yongco, C.A.-G.R. No. 18252-CR, January 27, No complex crime of Rebellion with Murder
1977). There is no complex crime of rebellion with
When a complex crime is charged and one murder, arson, robbery, or other common
offense is not proven, the accused can be crimes (People v. Geromino, G.R. No. 8936, October 23,
convicted of the other (People v. Maribung, G.R. No. 1956).
L-47500, April 29, 1987).
No complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder
Private Document Where the victim was kidnapped for the
There is no complex crime of estafa thru purpose of extorting ransom under pain of
falsification of private document as both crimes death, and he was later killed when no such
require damage as an element which if used for ransom was paid, the complex crime of
one renders the other incomplete, hence the kidnapping with murder was committed
query is as to which crime was committed first. (REGALADO, supra at 189).
If the falsification of a private document is
committed as a means to commit estafa, the
proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the
estafa can be committed without the necessity
of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be
120
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Art. 48 does not apply to Acts Penalized under formula of Art. 48 so that only the most severe
Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code penalty shall be imposed under a single
Art. 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether
prosecution of multiple felonies falling under penalized as grave, less grave or light offenses.
either of two categories: This will still keep intact the distinct concept of
1. When a single act constitutes two or quasi-offenses (Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,
more grave or less grave felonies (thus November 17, 2010).
excluding from its operation light Rules in Art. 48 are not applicable:
felonies); and a. When the crimes subject of the case
2. When an offense is a necessary means have common elements;
for committing the other. The legislature b. When the crimes involved are subject to
crafted this procedural tool to benefit the rule of absorption of one crime by
the accused who, in lieu of serving the other ;
multiple penalties, will only serve the c. Where the two offenses resulting from a
maximum of the penalty for the most single act are specifically punished as a
serious crime. single crime, such as less serious
In contrast, Art. 365 is a substantive rule physical injuries with serious islander of
penalizing not an act defined as a felony but deed, since this is punished under Art.
“the mental attitude behind the act, the 265, Par. 2, as the single crime of less
dangerous recklessness, lack of care or serious physical injuries with ignominy;
foresight,” a single mental attitude regardless of d. In special complex crimes or composite
the resulting consequences. Thus, Art. 365 was crimes; and
crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in one or e. When the crimes involved cannot be
more consequences. Art. 48 is incongruent to legally complexed, viz:
the notion of quasi-crimes under Art. 365. It is i. Malicious obtention or abusive
conceptually impossible for a quasi-offense to service of search warrant (Art.
stand for (1) a single act constituting two or 129) with perjury;
more grave or less grave felonies; or (2) an ii. Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in
offense which is a necessary means for the custody of prisoners;
committing another. iii. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art.
This ruling secures for the accused facing an Art. 235) with serious physical
365 charge a stronger and simpler protection of injuries;
their constitutional right under the Double iv. Usurpation of real rights (Art.
Jeopardy Clause. True, they are thereby denied 312) with serious physical injuries;
the beneficent effect of the favorable and
sentencing formula under Art. 48, but any v. Abandonment of persons in
disadvantage thus caused is more than danger (Art. 275) and crimes
compensated by the certainty of non- against minors (Arts. 276 to 278)
prosecution for quasi-crime effects qualifying as with any other felony.
“light offenses” (or, as here, for the more serious
consequence prosecuted belatedly). It is so
minded, Congress can re-craft Art. 365 by
extending to quasi-crimes the sentencing
121
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Special Complex Crimes – those which are For the crime of kidnapping with rape,
treated as single indivisible offenses although the offender should not have taken the
comprising more than one specific crime and victim with lewd designs; otherwise, it
with specific penalty. would be complex crime of forcible
These refer to two or more crimes that the law abduction with rape (People v. Mirandilla,
treats as a single indivisible and unique offense supra).
for being the product of a single criminal 4. Robbery with homicide;
impulse (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 183091, June 19, Additional homicide is not aggravating.
2013). 5. Robbery with rape;
Examples: Additional rape is not aggravating.
1. Rape with homicide; Note: There is no complex crime of Arson with
The homicide must always be (Multiple) Homicide. Accordingly, in cases
consummated, otherwise, separate where both burning and death occur, in order
offenses. The rape may either be to determine what crime (crimes) was (were)
consummated or attempted. perpetrated – whether arson, murder, or
Note: R.A. No. 8353 provides that when homicide/murder and arson, it is de rigueur to
the rape is attempted and a homicide is ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:
committed by reason or on the occasion a. If the main objective is the burning of the
thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion building or edifice, but death results by
perpetua to death. reason or on the occasion of arson, the
When by reason or on occasion of the crime is simply arson, and the resulting
rape, homicide is committed, the penalty homicide is absorbed.
shall be death. The legislative intent on b. If, on the other hand, the main objective
the import of the phrase on the occasion is to kill a particular person who may be
of the rape to refer to a killing that occurs in a building or edifice, when fire is
immediately before or after, or during resorted to as the means to accomplish
the commission itself of the attempted such goal the crime committed is murder
or consummated rape, where the victim only; and
of the homicide may be a person other c. If the objective is, likewise, to kill a
than the rape victim herself for as long particular person, and in fact the
as the killing is linked to the rape, offender has already done so, but fire is
became evident (People v. Villaflores, G.R. resorted to as a means to cover up the
No. 184926, April 11, 2012). killing, then there are two separate and
2. Kidnapping with homicide; distinct crimes committed –
3. Kidnapping with rape; homicide/murder and arson (People v.
The accused who grabbed A with a knife Malangan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26,
pointed at her side, held her in detention 2006).
for 39 days and carnally abused her while
holding a gun, was found guilty of the
special complex crime of kidnapping
with rape (People v. Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417,
July 27, 2011).
122
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When the crimes involved cannot be legally imposed and in special complex
complexed, viz: its maximum crime that shall be
a. Malicious obtention or abusive service period. applied according
of search warrant (Art. 129) with perjury; to the rules on
b. Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the imposition of the
custody of prisoners; penalty.
c. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235)
with serious physical injuries; Note: One information should be filed when a
d. Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with complex crime is committed (People v. Estipona,
serious physical injuries; and G.R. No. 46978, November 14, 1940).
e. Abandonment of persons in danger
(Art. 275) and crimes against minors 3. Continuous crime – a single crime, consisting
(Arts. 276 to 278) with any other felony. of a series of acts, but all arising from one
criminal resolution. Length of time in the
commission is immaterial (REYES, Book One, supra
Ordinary Special Complex at 697).
Complex Crime Crime or Requisites:

Composite Crime a. Multiplicity of acts;
As to their concept b. Unity of criminal purpose or intent; and
It is made up of It is made up of c. Unity or criminal offense violated.
two or more two or more Note: a continued/continuing crime is not a
crimes being crimes which are complex crime because the offender in
punished in considered only continued/continuing crime does not perform a
distinct as components of single act, but a series of acts, and one offense
provisions of the a single indivisible is not a necessary means for committing the
Revised Penal offense being other (Id. at 700).
Code but alleged punished in one In determining venue, a continued, continuous
in one provision of the or continuing crime is different from a transitory
information Revised Penal crime (moving crime) – in the latter case,
either because Code. criminal action may be instituted and tried in the
they were court of the essential ingredients thereof took
brought about by place (Id. at 701).
a single felonious Illustration:
act or because When the accused and his companions
one offense is a intended to rob only the gas station, which they
necessary means did, but in the process, also took away by force
for committing the money and valuables of the employees of
the other offense the said gas station, it was held that the accused
or offenses. was guilty of only one count of robbery with
homicide. In robbery with homicide, there are
As to penalty
series of acts, born from one criminal resolution,
Penalty for the Penalty
which is to rob (People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943,
most serious specifically
June 26, 2009).
crime shall be provided for the
123
___________________________________________________________________________________________
person. Art. 49 has no application to cases
where a more serious consequence not
Real or Material Continued Crime intended by the offender befalls the same
Plurality person (People v. Albuquerque, G.R. No. 38773, December
There is a series of There is a series of 19, 1933).
acts performed by acts by the offender. Art. 48 Art. 49
the offender. Lesser penalty is Penalty for the more
Each act performed The different acts imposed, to be or most serious crime
by the offender constitute only one applied in maximum shall be imposed, to
constitutes a separate crime, all of the acts periods. be applied in its
crime, each act is performed arise from maximum period.
generated by a one criminal
criminal impulse. resolution. Note: For Arts. 50-57 and 60, refer to Art. 61
(REYES, Book One, supra at 701) herein provided.
Article 58
ARTICLE 49
ADDITIONAL PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON THE
CERTAIN ACCESSORIES
PRINCIPALS WHEN THE CRIME COMMITTED IS
Public officers who help the author of the crime
DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED
by misusing their office and duties shall suffer
Rules:
the additional penalties of:
1. If the penalty for the felony committed
1. Absolute perpetual disqualification, if
be higher than the penalty for the
the principal offender is guilty of a grave
offense which the accused intended to
felony; or
commit, the lower penalty shall be
2. Absolute temporary disqualification if
imposed in its maximum period.
the principal offender is guilty of less
2. If the penalty for the felony committed
grave felony.
be lower than the penalty for the offense
This article applies only to public officers who
which the accused intended to commit,
abused their public functions.
the lower penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
ARTICLE 59
Art. 49 applies only to cases of error in
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED IN CASE OF
personae, and the penalty for the crime
FAILURE TO COMMIT THE CRIME BECAUSE
committed is different from that of the crime
THE MEANS EMPLOYED OR THE AIMS
intended. Also, it is applicable only when the
SOUGHT ARE IMPOSSIBLE
intended crime and the crime actually
Impossible crime
committed are punished with different
The penalty for impossible crime is arresto
penalties.
mayor (imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day to 6
It does not apply to abberetio ictus because in
months) or a fine ranging from 200-500 pesos.
this case, there is complex crime committed
Basis for the imposition of proper penalty:
under Art. 48: the crime intended to be
1. Social danger; and
committed and the crime actually committed
(People v. Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950).
2. Degree of criminality shown by the
It also does not apply to praeter intentionem offender.
because in this case, the crime befalls the same
124
___________________________________________________________________________________________
He who attempts to commit a light felony of provisions of Art. 46. The other figures
impossible materialization may be punished represent the degrees to which the penalty
under this Article as the law speaks of “offense” must be lowered, to meet the different
or “crime”, which includes light felony (REYES, situations anticipated by law.
Book One, supra at 712). Bases for the determination of the extent of
penalty to be imposed under the RPC:
ARTICLE 60 1. Stage reached by the crime in its
EXCEPTIONS TO RULES ESTABLISHED IN development (either attempted,
ARTICLES 50 TO 57 frustrated or consummated);
Arts. 50-57, which refer to the rules regarding 2. Participations therein of the person
graduating penalties shall not apply if: liable; and
1. The law expressly prescribes the penalty 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
provided for frustrated or attempted which attended the commission of the
felony; or crime.
2. The law expressly prescribes the penalty Degree
to be imposed upon accomplices or It is one entire penalty, one whole penalty or
accessories. one unit of penalties enumerated in the
graduated scales provided in Art. 71.
ARTICLE 61 When there is mitigating or aggravating
RULES OF GRADUATING PENALTIES circumstance, the penalty is lowered or
ACCORDING TO Arts. 50 to 57, the penalty increased by period only.
prescribed by law for the felony shall be lowered Exception: When the penalty is divisible and
by 1 or 2 degrees, as follows: there are two or more mitigating and without
1. For the principal in frustrated felony – 1 aggravating circumstances, in which case the
degree lower; penalty is lowered by degree.
2. For the principal in attempted felony – 2 Period
degrees lower; It is one of the tree equal portions, called
3. For the accomplice in consummated minimum, medium and maximum, of a divisible
felony – 1 degree lower; penalty.
4. For the accessory in consummated Exceptions to the rules established in Arts. 50 to
felony – 2 degrees lower. 57
Arts. 50-57 shall not apply to cases where the
Diagram of the application of Arts. 50 to 57: law expressly prescribes the penalty for a
Consum Frustra Attempt frustrated or attempted felony, or to be
mated ted ed imposed upon accomplices or accessories (RPC,
Principal 0 1 2 Art. 60).
Accomplice 1 2 3 General Rule: An accomplice is punished by a
Accessory 2 3 4 penalty one degree lower than the penalty
(REGALADO, supra at 201) imposed upon the principal.
In this diagram, “0” represents the penalty
prescribed by law in defining a crime, which is
to be imposed on the principal in a
consummated offense, in accordance with the
125
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Exceptions: Rules regarding aggravating and mitigating
The following accomplices are punished with circumstances:
the same penalty imposed upon the principal: 1. Aggravating circumstances are not to be
1. The ascendants, guardians, curators, taken into account to increase the
teachers and any person who by abuse penalty when:
of authority or confidential relationship, a. In themselves constitute a crime
shall cooperate as accomplices in the especially punished by law or which; or
crimes of rape, acts of lasciviousness, Ex. That the crime be committed by
seduction, corruption of minors, white means of fire (RPC, Art. 14, par 12) is not
slave trade or abduction (RPC, Art. 346); considered as aggravating in arson.
and
2. One who furnished the place for the b. Crime.
perpetration of the crime of slight illegal Ex. That the crime was committed in
detention (RPC, Art. 268). the dwelling of the offended party is not
The lower penalty shall be taken from the aggravating in robbery with force upon
graduated scale in Art. 71. things (RPC, Art. 299).
Scale 1:
1. Death c. They are included by the law in
2. Reclusion Perpetua defining a crime.
3. Reclusion Temporal Ex. That the crime was committed in
4. Prision Mayor the dwelling of the offended party is not
5. Prision Correctional aggravating in robbery with force upon
6. Arresto Mayor things (RPC, Art. 299).
7. Destierro Maximum penalty shall be imposed:
8. Arresto Menor a. When in the commission of the crime,
9. Pubic Censure advantage was taken by the offender of his
10. Fine public position; or
Note: 1, 2 and 9 are indivisible penalties; 3 to 8 b. If the offense was committed by any person
are divisible penalties. who belongs to an organized/syndicate crime
Divisible penalties are divided into 3 periods, group.
namely, the minimum, the medium, and the
maximum. 2. The preceding rule applies with respect
to aggravating circumstances which are
SECTION TWO – RULES FOR THE inherent in the crime (e.g. Evident
APPLICATION OF PENALTIES WITH REGARD premeditation is inherent in robbery and
TO THE MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING theft).
CICRCUMSTANCES AND HABITUAL 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances
DELINQUENCY which arise from:
ARTICLE 62 a. The moral attributes of the offender;
EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF b. From his private relations from the
MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING offended party; or
CIRCUMSTENCES AND OF HABITUAL c. From any other personal cause, serve
DELINQUENCY to aggravate or mitigate the liability of
126
___________________________________________________________________________________________
the principals, accomplices and implied in habitual delinquency, but also
accessories as to whom such of imposing an additional penalty.
circumstances are attendant. Requisites of habitual delinquency:
1. That the offender had been convicted of
4. The circumstances which consist in: any of the crimes of:
a. Material execution of the act; or a. Falsification;
b. The means employed to accomplish it, b. Robbery (robo);
shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the c. Estafa;
liability of those persons only who had d. Theft;
knowledge of them at the time of the e. Serious or less serious physical injuries.
execution of the act or their cooperation
therein. 2. That after conviction or after serving his
sentence, he again committed, and,
5. Additional penalty for habitual within 10 years from his last release of
delinquency: first conviction, he was again convicted
a. Upon 3rd conviction – the culprit shall of any of the said crimes for the second
be sentenced to the penalty provided by time; and
law for the last crime of which he is found 3. That after his conviction of, or after
guilty and to the additional penalty of serving sentence for the second offense,
prision correctional in its medium and he again committed, and , within 10
maximum periods; years from his last release or last
b. Upon 4th conviction – the culprit shall conviction , he was again convicted of
be sentenced to the additional penalty of any of said offenses, the third time or
prision mayor in its minimum and oftener (REYES, Book One, supra at 729).
medium periods; and
c. Upon 5thh or additional conviction – Illustration:
the culprit shall be sentenced to the A was convicted of the following crimes:
additional penalty of prision mayor in its Offense Date of Date of Date of
maximum period to reclusion temporal Commissio Convictio Releas
in its minimum period. n n e
Note: Total of 2 penalties shall not exceed 30 Theft Aug 1914 April 1915 Sept
years. 1916
Effects: Estafa Nov 1920 April 1923 April
1. Aggravating circumstances (generic and 1925
specific) have the effect of increasing the Robber July 1932 April 1934
penalty, without however exceeding the y
maximum period provided by law;
2. Mitigating circumstances have the effect As regards the estafa committed in Nov. 1920,
of diminishing the penalty; the starting point is the date of the last release
3. Habitual delinquency have the effect, or Sept. 1916 in the crime of theft and such case,
not only of increasing the penalty there is only a difference of 7 years since the
because recidivism which is generally period within which we should count the 10
127
___________________________________________________________________________________________
year-rule is from the date of last release to the (REYES, Book One, Supra at 734-735)
date of conviction (April 1923) (Id. at 730-731). A convict can be a habitual delinquent without
The total of the penalty for the last crime of being a recidivist when no 2 of the crimes
which he committed and the additional penalty committed are embraced in the same title of the
for being a habitual delinquent must not exceed RPC.
30 years. The imposition of the additional penalty for
Subsequent crime must be committed after habitual delinquency is constitutional because it
conviction of former crime (People v. Ventura, G.R. is neither an ex post facto law nor an additional
No. 35194, August 27, 1931). punishment for former crimes. It is simply a
In determining the court’s jurisdiction, punishment on future crimes, the penalty being
additional penalty in not considered. enhanced on account of the criminal
Habitual Recidivism propensities of the accused (People v. Montera, G.R.
delinquency No. 34431, August 11, 1931).
As to the crimes committed
The crimes are It is sufficient that the
ARTICLE 63
specified. accused, on the date
RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF INDIVISIBLE
of his trial, shall have
PENALTIES
been previously
Imposable penalty
convicted by final
It is the penalty that will be imposed after
judgment of another
applying the RPC and ISLAW.
crime embraced in
Prescribed penalty
the same title of the
It is the penalty prescribed by the RPC after
Code.
considering the mitigating and aggravating
As to the period of time the crimes are circumstances.
committed Outline of the rules:
The offender is No period of time 1. When the penalty is single indivisible, it
found guilty within 10 between the former shall be applied regardless of any
years from his last conviction and the mitigating (except if privilege mitigating)
release or last last conviction is fixed or aggravating circumstances.
conviction. by law. 2. When the penalty is composed of two
As to the number of crimes committed indivisible penalties, the following rules
The accused must be The second shall be observed:
rd
found guilty the 3 conviction for an a. When there is only one aggravating
time or oftener of offense embraced in circumstance, the greater penalty shall
any of the crimes the same title of the be imposed;
specified. Code is sufficient. b. When there is neither mitigating nor
As to their effects aggravating circumstances, lesser
An additional If not offset by a penalty shall be imposed;
penalty is also mitigating c. When there is a mitigating
imposed. circumstance, it serves circumstance and no aggravating
to increase the circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be
penalty only to the imposed; and
maximum
128
___________________________________________________________________________________________
d. When both mitigating and 6. If there are 3 mitigating circumstances
aggravating circumstances are present, but 2 aggravating circumstances, the
the court shall allow them to offset one rule is not applicable. The effect is to fix
another (REYES, Book One, Supra at 741). the period at the minimum only.
7. No penalty greater than the maximum
Note: As mentioned in Chapter 3, for period of the penalty prescribed by law
such offset to apply, the mitigating shall be imposed, no matter how many
circumstance must be generic and aggravating circumstances are present.
specific. 8. The court can determine the extent of
the penalty within the limits of each
3. When the penalty is composed of two period, according to the number and
indivisible penalties, the penalty cannot nature of the aggravating and mitigating
be lowered by 1 degree, no matter how circumstances and the greater or lesser
many ordinary mitigating circumstances extent of the evil produced by the crime.
are present (Id. at 742). Rules when the penalty imposable is a divisible
Exception: When a privileged mitigating penalty:
circumstance under Art. 68 or 69 is present. Modifying Proper Period
Note: The imposable penalty for the crime of Circumstances
rape is reclusion perpetua. The accused being No aggravating and no Medium
entitled to the privileged mitigating mitigating
circumstance of minority, the imposable penalty Mitigating only Minimum
is reclusion temporal in its medium period, Aggravating only Maximum
absent any other mitigating or aggravating Some or both Offset and apply
circumstance (People v. Galang, G,R, No. 70713, June circumstances present the foregoing
29, 1989).
Two or more One degree lower
mitigating and no
ARTICLE 64 aggravating
RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
Three mitigating but 2 Fix the period at the
WHICH CONTAIN THREE PERIODS
aggravating minimum only
Outline of the rules:
No penalty greater than the maximum period
1. No aggravating and no mitigating –
of the penalty prescribed by law shall be
medium period.
imposed, no matter how many aggravating
2. Only mitigating – minimum period.
circumstances are present.
3. Only aggravating – maximum period.
The court can determine the extent of the
4. Where there are aggravating and
penalty within the limits of each period,
mitigating – the court shall offset those
according to the number and nature of the
of one class against the other according
aggravating and mitigating circumstances
to their relative weight.
and the greater or lesser extent of the evil
5. Two or more mitigating and no
produced by the crime.
aggravating – penalty next lower, in the (BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at 156-157)
period applicable, according to the
number and nature of such
circumstances.
129
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Cases in which mitigating and aggravating period; we have – 8 years and 1 day. Then
circumstances are not considered in the add 2 years to the minimum of the
imposition of penalty: medium period (disregarding the 1 day)
1. When the penalty is single and indivisible to get the maximum of the medium
(except if privileged mitigating) period. The range of the medium period
2. In felonies through negligence (People v. is 8 years and 1 day to 10 years.
Quijano, 43 O.G. 2214; RPC, Art. 365). 6. Use the maximum of the medium period
3. When the penalty is only a fine imposed as the minimum of the maximum period,
by an ordinance (People v. Kuan, G.R. No. and add 1 day to distinguish it from the
49515, November 11, 1942); and maximum of the medium period; we
4. When the penalties are prescribed by have – 10 years and 1 day. Then add 2
special laws (People v. Respecia, 58 O.G. 458). years to the minimum of the maximum
period (disregarding 1 day) to get the
ARTICLE 65 maximum of the maximum period.
RULES IN CASE OF PENALTY NOT COMPOSED Hence, the range of the maximum
OF THREE PERIODS period is 10 years and 1 day to 12 years
The courts shall apply the rules in the preceding (REYES, Book One, Supra at 751-752).
articles by: Note: See Art. 76 of the RPC. The computation
1. Dividing into 3 equal portions the time is not followed in the division of arresto mayor.
included in the penalty prescribed; and
2. Forming 1 period of each of the 3 ARTICLE 66
portions. IMPOSITION OF FINES
Illustration: Outline of the provision:
1. Prision Mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 1. The court can fix any amount of the fine
years). within the limits establish by law.
2. Subtract the minimum (disregarding the 2. The court must consider:
1 day) from the maximum, thus – 12 years a. The mitigating and aggravating
– 6 = 6 years circumstances; and
3. Divide the difference by 3, thus – 6 years b. More particularly, the wealth or means
÷3 = 2 years of the culprit (REYES, Book One, Supra at 754).
4. Use the minimum of 6 years and 1 day of 3. The court may also consider:
Prision Mayor as the minimum of the a. the gravity of the crime committed;
minimum period. Then add 2 years to b. the heinousness of its perpetration;
the minimum (disregarding the 1 day) to and
get the maximum of the minimum c. the magnitude of its effect of the
period. Thus – we have 8 years as the offender’s victims (People v. Manuel, CA-G.R.
maximum of the minimum period. The Nos. 14648-61-R, July 6, 1957).
range of the minimum period is 6 years Note: when the minimum of the fine is not fixed
and 1 day to 8 years. by law, the determination of the amount of fine
5. Use the maximum of the minimum is left to the sound discretion of the court,
period as the minimum of the medium provided it shall not exceed the maximum
period, and add 1 day to distinguish it authorized by law (People v. Quinto, G.R. No. 40934,
August 16, 1934).
from the maximum of the minimum
130
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Wealth or means of culprit is the main A child who is above 12 years of age up
consideration in the imposition of fines (People v. to 15 years of age and who commits
Kuan, G.R. No. 48515, November 11, 1942). parricide, murder, infanticide,
kidnapping and serious illegal detention
ARTICLE 67 where the victim is killed or raped,
WHEN NOT ALL THE REQUISITES OF robbery, with homicide or rape,
ACCIDENT ARE PRESENT destructive arson, rape, or carnapping
If not all the conditions necessary to exempt where the driver or occupant is killed or
from liability under Art. 12 (4) are present, the raped or offenses under R.A. No. 9165
act should be considered as: (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
1. Reckless imprudence, if the act is of 2002) punishable by more than 12
executed without taking those years of imprisonment, shall be deemed
precautions or measures which the most a neglected child under P.D. No. 603, as
common prudence would require; and amended, and shall be mandatorily
2. Simple imprudence, if it is a mere lack of placed in a special facility within the
precaution in those cases where either youth care faculty or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’
the threatened harm is not imminent or called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention
the danger is not openly visible (REYES, and Support Center (IJISC) (R.A. No.
Book One, supra at 756). 9344 as amended, Sec. 20-A).
ARTICLE 68 2. This article has been repealed or

PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON A amended in the sense that the accused
PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE in par. 1 thereof is completely absolved
Application of Art. 68: from criminal liability under R.A. No.
1. This article is not immediately applicable
9344, hence there is no basis for
to a minor under 18 years of age, considering any privileged mitigating
because when such minor is found guilty circumstance in his favor.
of the offense charged, the court shall 3. That circumstance may, however, be
determine the penalty in the judgment involved in its par. 2 where the accused
of conviction but shall suspend the is over 15 and below 18 years of age but
promulgation (not the execution) and he acted with discernment, and he is
orders commitment to a reformatory returned to the other correlative
institution, if the court therefor approves proceedings, if any, have not achieved
his application (R.A. No. 9344, as amended, their purposes and, in effect, the accused
Sec. 38).
has been found to be incorrigible.
Upon the recommendation of the social

If the court finds that the objective of the
worker who has custody of the child, the
objective of the disposition measures
court shall dismiss the case against the
imposed upon the child in conflict with
child and shall order the final discharged
the law have not been fulfilled, or if the
of the child if it finds that the objective of
child conflict with the law has willfully
the disposition measures have been
failed to comply with the conditions of
fulfilled (R.A. No. 9344 as amended, Sec. 39).
his/her disposition or rehabilitation
131
___________________________________________________________________________________________
program, the child in conflict with the law 3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
shall be brought before the court for 4. Temporary special disqualification;
promulgation (not execution) of 5. Suspension;
judgment (R.A. No. 9344 as amended, 6. Destiero;
Sec. 40). 7. Public censure;
8. Fine and bond to keep the peace;
If said child in conflict with the law has 9. Civil interdiction; and
reached 18 years of age while under 10. Confiscation and payment of costs.
suspended sentence, the court shall If the sum total of all penalties does not exceed
determine whether to discharge the the most severe of all the penalties multiplied
child, to order execution of sentence, or by three, the three-fold rule does not apply.
to extend the suspended sentence for a The Three-fold Rule:
certain specified period or until the child 1. The maximum duration of the convict’s
reaches the maximum age of 21 years sentence shall not be more than three
(R.A. No. 9344 as amended, Sec. 40). times the length of time corresponding
to the most severe of the penalties
Article 69 imposed upon him.
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED WHEN THE CRIME 2. But in no case to exceed 40 years.
COMMITTED IS NOT WHOLLY EXCUSABLE 3. This rule shall apply only when the
Penalty: Lower by 1 or 2 degrees than that convict is to serve 2 or more sentences
prescribed by law. successively.
Application: When there is lack of some of the
conditions required to justify the deed or to Note: This rule applies only when the
exempt from criminal liability in the several convict has to serve continuous
cases mentioned in Arts. 11 and 12; provided, imprisonment for several offenses. If the
that the majority of such conditions be present. convict already served sentence for one
Unlawful aggression is indispensable in self- offense, that imprisonment will not be
defense, defense of relatives and defense of considered (REYES, Book One, supra at 767).
stranger, without which the offender is not
entitled to reduction (U.S. v. Navarro, G.R. No. 1878, 4. Subsidiary penalty forms part of the
March 9, 1907). penalty (Bagtas v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No.
ARTICLE 70 L3215, October 6, 1949).
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCES Example: A person is sentenced to suffer – 14
When the culprit has to serve two or more years, 8 months and 1 day for homicide; 17
penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if years, 4 months and 1 day in another case; 14
the nature of the penalties will so permit. years and 8 months in the third case; and in a
Otherwise, the order of their severity (under this case of frustrated homicide, he is sentenced to
article) shall be followed – so that they may be 12 years, or a total of 59 years, 8 months and 2
executed successively. days.
Penalties which may be simultaneously served The most severe of those penalties is 17 years, 4
are: months and 1day. Three times that penalty is 52
1. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification; years and 3 days. But since the law has limited
2. Perpetual special disqualification; the duration of the maximum term of
132
___________________________________________________________________________________________
imprisonment to not more than 40 years, the 9. Public profession or
accused will have to suffer 40 years only (REYES, censure calling
Book One, supra at 764-765). 10. Fine 4. Public censure
Different systems of penalty, relative to the 5. Fine
execution of 2 or more penalties imposed on
and the same accused: ARTICLE 72
1. Material accumulation system PREFERENCE IN THE PAYMENT OF CIVIL
No limitation whatever, and accordingly, LIABILITIES
all the penalties for all the violations It applies when the offender who is found guilty
imposed even if they reached beyond of two or more offenses is required to pay the
the natural span of human life. corresponding civil liabilities.
Civil liability is satisfied by following the
2. Juridical accumulation system chronological order of the dates of the final
Limited to not more than three-fold the judgment.
length of time corresponding to the SECTION THREE – PROVISIONS COMMON IN
most severe and in no case to exceed 40 THE LAST TWO PRECEDING SECTIONS
years. This is followed in our jurisdiction. (ARTS. 73-77)
Art. 73 – Accessory penalties are also deemed
3. Absorption system imposed upon the convict.
The lesser penalties are absorbed by the The accessory penalties provided for in Arts. 40
graver penalties (Id. at 771). to 45 are deemed imposed by the courts
without the necessity of making an express
ARTICLE 71 pronouncement of their imposition (REYES, Book
GRADUATED SCALES One, supra at 777).
Apply this article in determining the proper Art. 74 – the penalty higher than reclusion
degree where the law prescribes a penalty lower perpetua, when death is not provided by law,
or higher by two or more degrees than another shall be the same penalty and the accessory
given penalty. penalties of Art. 40
Scale No. 1 Scale No. 2 Reason: Penalty of death must be specifically
1. Death 1. Perpetual imposed by law as a penalty for a given crime.
2. Reclesion absolute Art. 75 – When necessary, fine shall be increased
perpetua disqualification or reduced for each degree, by ¼ of the
3. Reclusion 2. Temporary maximum amount prescribed by law, without
temporal absolute however, changing the minimum.
4. Prision disqualification Fines are graduated into degrees for the
mayor 3. Suspension accomplices and accessories and for the
5. Prision from public principals in frustrated and attempted felonies
correctional office, the right (Id. at 779).
6. Arresto to vote and be
mayor voted for, and
7. Destierro the right to
8. Arresto follow a
menor
133
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Distinctions between fine with a minimum and Concept of Indeterminate Sentence
fine without a minimum It is a sentence with a minimum term with a
1. In both, the fixes the maximum of the maximum term which, the court is mandated to
fine; impose for the benefit of a guilty person who is
2. When the law fixes the minimum of the not disqualified therefore, when the maximum
fine, the court cannot change the imprisonment exceeds 1 year. It applies to both
minimum; whereas, when the law does violations of Revised Penal Code and special
not state the minimum of the fine but laws.
only the maximum, the court can impose Purpose of ISLAW:
any amount not exceeding such To uplift and redeem valuable human material
maximum; and and prevent unnecessary and excessive
3. When the law fixes both the minimum deprivation of personal liberty and economic
and the maximum, the court can impose usefulness (People v. Ducosin, G.R. No. L-38332,
an amount higher than the maximum; December 14, 1933; People v. Onate, G.R. No. L-27481,
whereas, when only the maximum is July 28, 1977).
fixed, it cannot impose an amount higher Rules in Arriving at te Maximum and minimum
than the maximum (Id. at 781). Term of the Indeterminate Sentence under the
Art. 76 – The legal period of duration of RPC
penalties shall be considered as divided into 1. To get the maximum term:
three parts, forming three periods, the “That which, in view of the attending
minimum, the medium, and the maximum. circumstances, could be properly
imposed under the rules of the said
ARTICLE 77 code”(ISLAW, Sec. 1)
WHEN THE PENALTY IS A COMPLEX ONE
COMPOSED OF THREE DISTINCT PENALTIES Note: The rules of offsetting the
COMPLEX PENALTY modifying circumstances are
It is a penalty prescribed by law composed of applicable. The mitigating or
three distinct penalties, each forming a period: aggravating is to be considered in the
the slightest of them shall be the minimum, the imposition of the maximum term of the
next the medium, and the most severe the indeterminate sentence.
maximum period.
An example of this is the present penalty for 2. To get the minimum term:
treason by a resident alien, which is reclusion The law provides that the minimum
temporal to death (RPC, Art. 114). should be “within the range of the
With the abolition of the death penalty, such penalty next lower to that prescribed by
concept of a complex penalty finds no the code (RPC) for the offense” (ISLAW,
application now in the computation of Sec. 1).
penalties, but it is submitted that the impasse
may be resolved through the process of Note: The basis for fixing the minimum
computation stated in the second paragraph the term is the prescribed penalty, and
(REGALADO, supra at 247). not the imposable penalty (People v.
Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17,
INDETERMINATE SENTECE LAW (ISLAW) 2008).
Act 4103 as amended by Act 4225
134
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Art. 64 of the RPC governs the rules for the actually imposed (People v. Hidalgo, CA-G.R. No.
application of penalties which contain three 00452-CR, January 22, 1962).
periods, to wit: ISL application is mandatory, where
1. When there are neither aggravating imprisonment would exceed one year but only
nor mitigating circumstances, they shall when ISL would be favorable to the accused. If
impose the penalty prescribed by law in it would result in lengthening his prison
its medium period; sentence, ISL should not be applied.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is Note: The modifying circumstances are
present in the commission of the act, considered only in the imposition of the
they shall impose the penalty in its maximum term of the indeterminate sentence.
minimum period; They are not considered in fixing the minimum
3. When an aggravating circumstance is (People v. Temporada, supra).
present in the commission of the act, In fixing the minimum penalty, it is necessary for
they shall impose the penalty in its the court to consider the criminal, first, as an
maximum period; individual and, second, as a member of society
4. When both mitigating and aggravating (People v. Ducosin, G.R. No. L-38332, December 14, 1933).
circumstances are present, the court Illustrative case:

shall reasonably offset those of one Q: In a conviction for a homicide, the trial court
class against the other according to appreciated 2 mitigating circumstances and 1
their relative weight; and aggravating circumstance. Homicide under Art.
5. When there are 2 or more mitigating 249 of the RPC is punishable by reclusion
circumstances and no aggravating temporal, an imprisonment term of 12 years and
circumstances are present, the court 1 day to 20 years. Applying the ISLAW,
shall impose the penalty next lower to determine the appropriate penalty to be
that prescribed by law, in the period imposed. Explain.
that it may deem applicable, according Suggested answer: In order to obtain the
to the number and nature of such maximum term of the indeterminate sentence,
circumstances. the rule of offsetting is applicable in view of the
Note: The plain terms of the Indeterminate attending circumstances. Since there are 2
Sentence Law Show that the legislature did not mitigating circumstances as against one
intend to limit “attending circumstances” as aggravating circumstance, the period shall be
referring to Arts. 13 and 14 of the Revised Penal set in the minimum. Hence, the maximum term
Code. The wording of the law clearly permits of the indeterminate sentence is reclusion
other modifying circumstances outside of Arts. temporal in its minimum period. The minimum
13 and 14 of the RPC to be treated as “attending which shall be within the range of the penalty
circumstances” for purposes of the application next lower to that prescribed by the Code for
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (People v. the offense. Since the penalty next lower in
Temporada, supra). reclusion temporal is prision mayor, the
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense minimum term of the indeterminate sentence
punished by the RPC or special penal laws, the therefore, is prision mayor, the period of which
court shall sentence the accused to an is upon the discretion of the court (2 FESTIN,
indeterminate sentence, which has a maximum Special Penal Laws Criminal Law Reviewer, (2014), p. 53)
[hereinafter 2 FESTIN SPL].
and minimum term based on the penalty
135
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Rules in Arriving at the Maximum and Minimum P32,000 or more, the prescribed penalty is not
Term of the Indeterminate Sentence under a only imposed in its maximum period, but there
Special Law is imposed in its maximum period, but there is
1. To get the Maximum Term: imposed an incremental penalty of 1 year
The maximum term shall not exceed imprisonment for every P10,000 in excess of
the maximum fixed by said law. P22,000, provided that the total penalty which
may be imposed shall not exceed 20 years.
Note: The rule of offsetting is not (People v. Temporada, supra).
applicable in crimes punished under a
special penal law. The presence of any PROBATION LAW OF 1976
generic aggravating and ordinary (P.D. No. 968, as amended)
mitigating circumstances will not affect (Refer to SPL part for a detailed discussion)
the proper imposition of the penalty 1. Concept
(2FESTIN SPL, supra at 53). Probation
It is a disposition under which a
2. To get the Minimum Term: defendant after conviction and
The minimum term shall not be less sentence is released subject to
than the minimum term prescribed by conditions imposed by the court and
the special law. to the supervision of a probation
Illustrative case: officer (P.D. No. 968, Sec. 3(9)).
Q: A was convicted of illegal possession of
grease guns and 2 Thompson sub-machine Probation is not an absolute right. It is
guns punishable under the old law (R.A. No. 4) a mere privilege whose grant rests
with imprisonment of 5 to 10 years. The trial upon the discretion of the trial court.
court sentenced the accused to suffer Having the power to grant the
imprisonment of 5 year and 1 day. Is the penalty probation, it follows that the trial court
thus imposed correct? Explain. also has the power to order its
Suggested answer: No. The penalty imposed by revocation in a proper case and under
the court is a straight penalty of 5 years proper circumstances (Soriano v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 123936, March 4, 1999).
imprisonment and 1 day in violation of the
express provision of the ISLAW under Sec. 1
2. Three-Fold Purpose
which requires that the court in imposing a
a. To promote the correction and
prison sentence for an offense punishable
rehabilitation of and offender by
under a special law, shall sentence the accused
providing him with individual
to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum
treatment;
term of which shall not exceed the maximum
b. To provide an opportunity for the
fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be
reformation of a penitent offender
less than the minimum term prescribed by the
which might be less probable if he
same (2 FESTIN SPL, supra at 44).
were to serve a prison sentence; and
Incremental penalty rule
c. To prevent the commission of
It is a special rule applicable to estafa and theft.
offenses (P.D. No. 968, Sec. 2).
The unique characteristic of the incremental
penalty is that when the amount defrauded is
3. Application
136
___________________________________________________________________________________________
This shall apply to all offenders except judgment of sentence if the
those entitled to benefits under P.D. conditions are violated (Bacloyan
No. 603 and similar laws (P.D. No. 968, v. Mutia, G.R. No. L-59298, April 30,
Sec. 1). 1984).
May be granted even if the sentence is c. Accessory penalties are

fine only, but with subsidiary deemed suspended once
imprisonment in case of insolvency probation is granted (REYES, Book
One, supra at 831).
d. The suspension of the sentence
4. Where and when to file the application: imposed on the accused by
An application for probation shall be virtue of his application for
filed by the defendant with the trial probation has absolutely no
court within the period for perfecting bearing on Civil liability (Budlong
v. Apalisok, G.R. No. L-60151, June 24,
an appeal (P.D. No. 968, Sec. 4). 1983).
Note: No application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the The court may, after it shall
defendant has perfected an appeal have convicted and sentenced a
from the judgment of conviction. child in conflict with the law,
Exception: and upon application at any
Convict may file for probation if appeal time, place the child on
is for conviction imposing a non- probation in lieu of his/her
probational penalty which is modified sentence, taking into account
on appeal to a probational penalty the best interest of the child. For
(REYES, Book One, supra at 826). this purpose, Sec. 4 of P.D. No.
968, otherwise known as the
5. Effects of Filing and Grant/denial of “Probation Law of 1976” is
Application: hereby amended accordingly
a. Filing of application for (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 42).
probation operates as a waiver
of the right to appeal (Id.). 6. Post-sentence Investigation
b. The order granting or denying The convict is not immediately placed
probation shall not be on probation. There shall be a prior
appealable (P.D. No. 968, Sec. 4). investigation by the probation officer
Note: It is not a final judgment and a determination by the court. He
but an “interlocutory judgment” may, however, be released under his
in the nature of a conditional bail filed in the criminal case or on
order placing the convicted recognizance (P.D. No. 968, Secs. 5 and 7).
defendant under the
supervision of the court for his 7. Criteria for Placing an Offender on
reformation, to be followed by Probation
a final judgment of discharge, if The court shall consider:
the conditions of the probation a. All information relative to the
are complied with, or by a final character antecedents,
137
___________________________________________________________________________________________
environment, mental, and substantive provisions of P.D.
physical condition of the No. 968 became applicable
offender; and (R.A. No. 10707, Sec. 9);
b. Available Institutional and g. Convicted of drug trafficking or
Community Resources (P.D. No. drug pushing (R.A. No. 9165,
968, Sec 8). Sec. 24); and
8. Probation shall be denied if the court h. Convicted of election offenses
finds that: under the Omnibus Election
a. The offender is in need of Code (Omnibus Election Code,
correctional treatment that can Sec. 261).
be provided effectively by his 10. Conditions of probation
commitment to an institution; Two kinds of conditions imposed:
b. There is undue risk of a. Mandatory or General – once
committing another crime; or violated, the probation is
c. Probation will depreciate the cancelled. They are:
seriousness of the offense i. Probationer: presents
committed (P.D. No. 968, Sec. himself to the probation
8). officer designated to
9. Disqualified offenders undertake his provisions,
The benefits of the Decree shall not be at such place as may be
extended to those: specified in the order;
a. Sentenced to serve a maximum and
term of imprisonment of more ii. He reports to the
than 6 years; probation officer at least
b. Convicted of subversion or any once a month (P.D. No.
crime against the national 868, Sec. 10).
security or public order; b. Discretionary or Special –
c. Previously convicted by final additional conditions listed,
judgment of an offense which the courts may
punished by imprisonment of additionally impose on the
more than 6 months and 1 day probationer towards his
and/or a fine of more than correction and rehabilitation
P1000; outside prison (P.D. No. 868,
d. Once placed on probation Sec. 10).
under the provisions of P.D. No.
968; However, the enumeration is
e. Who appealed – does not apply not inclusive. Probation statutes
to minor offenders. A child in are liberal in character and
conflict with the law can apply enable the courts to designate
for probation anytime (R.A. No. practically any term it chooses,
9344, Sec. 42); as long as the probationer’s
f. Who are already serving Constitutional rights are not
sentence at the time the jeopardized. Also, they must
138
___________________________________________________________________________________________
not be unduly restrictive of probation and modify the
probationer, and not conditions thereof. This order is
incompatible with the freedom not appealable.
of conscience of probationer c. If revoked, the probationer shall
(Baclayon v. Mutia, G.R. No. L-59298, serve the sentence originally
April 30, 1984). imposed (P.D. No. 968, Sec. 15).
13. Termination of probation

The court may order the final discharge
of the probationer upon finding that,
he has fulfilled the terms and
conditions of his probation (P.D. No. 968,
11. Period of probation Sec. 16).
For how long may a convict be placed
on probation? 14. Effects of termination of probation
a. If the convict is sentenced to a a. Case is deemed terminated.
term of imprisonment of not b. Restoration of all civil rights lost
more than one year, the period or suspended.
of probation shall not exceed 2 c. Fully discharges liability for any
years. fine imposed.
b. In all other cases, if he is d. Total extinguishment of
sentenced to more than 1 year, criminal liability (R.A. No. 10707,
said period shall not exceed 6 Sec. 3).
years.
c. When the sentence imposes a Note: the probation is not
fine only and the offender is coterminous with its period.
made to serve subsidiary There must be an order issued
imprisonment, the period of by the court discharging the
probation shall be twice the probationer (Bala v. Martinez,
total number of days of G.R. No. 67301, January 29,
subsidiary imprisonment (P.D. 1990).
No. 968, Sec. 14).
12. Arrest of persons on probation and Distinctions between Pardon and Probation
subsequent dispositions Pardon Probation
a. At any time during probation, Include any crime and Exercised individually
the court may issue a warrant is exercised by the trial court.
for the arrest of a probationer individually by the
for any serious violation of the President.
conditions of probation, or Exercised when the Must be exercised
upon commission of another person is already within the period for
offense. convicted. perfecting an appeal.
b. If violation is established, the Merely looks forward It promotes the
court may (a) revoke his and relieves the correction and the
probation, or (b) continue his
139
___________________________________________________________________________________________
offender from the rehabilitation of an Distinctions between Probation and ISL
consequences of an offender by Probation ISL
offense which he has providing him with As to sentence
been convicted; it individualized Must not be more The maximum
does not work for the treatment; provides than 6 years. penalty must be
restoration of the and opportunity for more than 1 year.
rights to hold public the reformation of a As to penalty
office, or the right of penitent offender Imprisonment or fine Imprisonment only
suffrage, unless such who might be less As to disposition
rights are expressly probable if he were Sentence is Minimum is served
restored by means of to serve a prison suspended
pardon. sentence; and As to effect of violation
prevent the Entire sentence shall Unexpired portion is
commission of be served to be served
offenses. As to availability of appeal
Does not alter the Does not alter the Forecloses right No effect on
fact that the accused fact that the accused thereto operation of the law
is a recidivist as it is a recidivist as it As to availability
produces only the provides only for an Available only once Always as long as the
extinction of the opportunity of offender is not
personal effects of reformation to the disqualified
the penalty. penitent offender. As to character
Does not extinguish Does not extinguish Privilege; must be Mandatory;
the civil liability of the the civil liability of the applied for application not
offender. offender. necessary
(BOADO Compact Reviewer, supra at 176)
CHAPTER FIVE
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES ARTICLE 78
(Arts. 78-88) WHEN AND HOW A PENALTY IS TO BE
Being a private act Being a grant by a trial EXECUTED
by the President, it court; it follows that Only penalty by final judgment can be executed.
must be pleaded the trial court also has A penalty shall be executed in the form
and provided by the the power to order its prescribed by law and with any circumstances
person pardoned. revocation in a proper or incidents expressly authorized thereby.
case and under proper In addition to the provisions of the law, the
circumstances. special regulations prescribed for the
government of the institutions in which the
penalties are to be suffered shall be observed
with regard to the character of the work to be
performed, the time of its performance, and
other incidents connected therewith, the
relations of the convicts among themselves and
140
___________________________________________________________________________________________
other persons, the relief which they may receive is likewise exempt from criminal liability unless
and their diet (Art. 78, par. 3). he acted with discernment.
Purpose
ARTICLE 79 The purpose is to avoid a situation where a
SUSPENSION OF THE EXECUTION AND juvenile offenders would commingle with
SERVICE OF THE PENALTIES IN CASE OF ordinary criminals in prison.
INSANITY GUIDELINES
Rules regarding execution and service of If the court finds that the youthful offender
penalties in case of insanity: committed the crime charged against him, it
1. When a convict becomes insane or shall determine the imposable penalty and the
imbecile after final sentence has been civil liability chargeable against him.
pronounced, the execution of said The court may not pronounce judgment of
sentence is suspended only as regards conviction but instead suspend all further
the personal penalty; proceedings (P.D. No. 603, Sec. 38).
2. If he recovers his reason, his sentence Since R.A. No. 9344 does not distinguish
shall be executed, unless the penalty between a minor who has been convicted of a
has prescribed; capital offense and another who has been
3. Even if while serving his sentence, the convicted of a lesser offense, the Court should
convict becomes insane or imbecile, also not distinguish and should apply the
the above provisions shall be automatic suspension of sentence to a child in
observed; and conflict with the law who has been found guilty
4. But the payment of his civil or of a heinous crime (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No.
pecuniary liabilities shall not be 182239, March 16, 2011). This ruling overturned
suspended. the decision in Declarador v. Gubaton, G.R. No.
159208, August 18, 2006, which disqualified a
Note: Art. 80 has been repealed by P.D. juvenile guilty of an offense punishable by
No. 603 which was amended by R.A. death, life imprisonment, or reclusion perpetua
No. 9344. The latter was amended by from availing of the benefits of automatic
R.A. No. 10630. suspension of sentence.
The youthful offender shall be returned to the
committing court for pronouncement of
THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE judgment, when the youthful offender:
CODE 1. Has been found incorrigible;
(P.D. No. 603, as amended) 2. Has willfully failed to comply with the
Youthful offender conditions of his rehabilitation
Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344 as amended (Juvenile programs; or
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) repealed P.D. 3. When his continued stay in the training
No. 603 (The Child and Youth Welfare Code) on institution would be inadvisable (R.A. No.
the matter so that a child 15 years of age or 9344, Sec. 40).
below at the time of the commission of the
offense is exempt from criminal liability. If the
child is over 15 but less than 18 years of age, he
141
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When the youthful offender has reached the 2. Failure to give bond for good behavior
age of eighteen while in commitment, the court in grave and light threats (RPC, Art. 284);
shall determine whether – 3. Penalty for the concubine in the crime of
1. To dismiss the case, if the youthful concubinage (RPC, Art. 334); and
offender has behaved properly and has 4. When after reducing the penalty by one
shown his capability to be a useful or more degrees, destierro is the proper
member of the community; or penalty.
2. To pronounce the judgment of Entering the prohibited area is evasion of the
conviction, if the conditions mentioned service of the sentence (People v. De Jesus, G.R.
are not met (R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 40). No. L-1414, April 16, 1948).
In the latter case, the convicted offender may
apply for probation (R.A. No. 9344, Sec, 42). In ARTICLE 88
any case, the youthful offender shall be credited ARRESTO MENOR
in the service of his sentence with the full time Served in:
spent in actual commitment and detention (R.A. 1. Municipal jail; or
No. 9344, Sec. 41). 2. House of defendant himself under the
The final release of a youthful offender, based surveillance of an officer of law but only
on good conduct as provided in Art. 196 shall when the court so provides in its
not obliterate his civil liability for damages (R.A. decision.
No. 9344, Sec. 39). Grounds:
Note: Arts. 81 to 85 refer to execution of Death Health of the offender; other reasons
Penalty; Art. 86 refers to execution and service satisfactory to the court.
of other penalties (reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision mayor, prision correctional, TITLE FOUR: EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
and arresto mayor). LIABILITY
ARTICLE 89
ARTICLE 87 CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS TOTALLY
DESTIERRO EXTINGUISHED
Destierro CHAPTER ONE
Any person sentence to destierro shall not be TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
permitted to enter the place or places (Arts. 89-93)
designated in the sentence, nor within the
radius therein specified, which shall not be more How criminal liability is totally extinguished:
than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from 1. By the death of the convict as to the
the place designated. personal penalties; but as to pecuniary
It is considered as a principal, correctional and penalties, liability is extinguished only
divisible penalty. Therefore, jurisdiction over when the death of the offender occurs
crimes punishable with destierro lies with the before final judgment;
Municipal Trial Court. 2. By service of sentence; however, it does
Only in the following cases is destierro imposed: not extinguish the civil liability
1. Death or serious physical injuries is cause (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 342);
or are inflicted under exceptional 3. By absolute pardon;
circumstances (RPC, Art. 247); 4. By prescription of the crime;
142
___________________________________________________________________________________________
5. By prescription of penalty; Exception: Civil liability arising from sources
6. By amnesty, which completely other than the crime committed survives and
extinguishes the penalty and all its may be pursued in a separate civil action.
effects; and Sources of civil liability other than the crime are
7. By marriage of the offended woman with law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts
the offender in the crimes of rape, (People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994).
seduction, abduction, and acts of
lasciviousness. In the crimes of rape, Amnesty
seduction, abduction, and acts of It is an act of the sovereign power granting
lasciviousness, the marriage, as provided oblivion or a general pardon of a past offense,
under Art. 344 must be contracted in and is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of a
good faith. single individual, and is usually extended in
Extinction of criminal liability does not behalf of certain classes of persons, who are
automatically extinguish civil liability (Petralba v. subject to trial but have not yet been convicted
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81337, August 16, 1991). (REYES, Book One, supra at 861, citing Brown v. Walker,
Death of the offended party will not extinguish 161 U.S. 602).
the criminal liability of the accused even in It commonly denotes a general pardon to rebels
private offenses (People v. Bundalian, G.R. No. L- for their treason or other high political offenses,
29985, October 23, 1982). or the forgiveness which one sovereign grants
Civil liability is extinguished only when death to the subjects of another, who have offended
occurs before final judgment (REYES, Book One, by some breach the law of nations (Llamas v.
supra at 858). Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 99031, October 15, 1991).
Judgment becomes final:
1. After the lapse of the period for Pardon
perfecting an appeal; It is an act of grace proceeding from the power
2. When the sentence has been partly or entrusted with the execution of the laws which
totally satisfied or served; exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed
3. The defendant has expressly waived in from the punishment the law inflicts for the
writing his right to appeal (RULES OF crime he has committed (REYES, Book One, supra at
COURT, RULE 120, Sec. 7); or 862).
4. Upon filing of the application for Pardon must be given after final judgment
probation because it is deemed a waiver (People v. Patriarcha, Jr., G.R. No. 135457, September 29,
2000); otherwise, there will be violation of the
of the right to appeal, or as an automatic
withdrawal of a pending appeal (P.D. No. Doctrine of Separation of Powers.
968, Sec. 4). Absolute Pardon Conditional Pardon
The total extinction The exemption of an
of criminal liability of individual within
Effect of death of the accused pending appeal the individual to certain limits or
of his conviction whom it is granted conditions from the
General Rule: The death of the accused pending without any punishment which the
the appeal of his conviction extinguishes his condition. law inflicts for the
criminal liability as well as his civil liability based It restores to the offense he had
solely on the offense committed (People v. Alison, individual his civil committed resulting
G.R. No. L-30612, April 27, 1972).
and political rights in the partial
143
___________________________________________________________________________________________
and remits the extinction of his Does not extinguish Does not extinguish
penalty imposed for criminal liability. the civil liability of the the civil liability of the
the particular offense offender offender
of which he was As to burden of proof
convicted. Being a private act by Being a Proclamation
the President, it must of the Chief Executive
Pardon Amnesty be pleaded and with the concurrence
As to crimes covered provided by the of Congress; it is a
Includes any crime A blanket pardon to person pardoned. public act of which
and is exercised classes of persons or the courts should
individually by the communities who take judicial notice.
President may be guilty of (REYES, Book One, supra at 863-864).
political offenses Limitations on the pardoning power:
As to when exercised a. Pardon must be after final conviction,
Exercised when the May be exercised because where the President is not so
person is already even before trial or prevented by the Constitution, not even
convicted investigation is had. Congress can impose any restriction to
As to nature prevent a presidential folly;
b. The pardoning power does not extend
Merely looks forward Looks backward and
and relieves the abolishes and puts to impeachment (BOADO Compact Reviewer,
supra at 176).
offender from the into oblivion the
consequences of an offense itself; it so
offense of which he overlooks and ARTICLE 90
has been convicted; it obliterates the PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
does not work for the offense with which Prescription of the crime
restoration of the he is charged that It is the forfeiture of loss of the right to State to
rights to hold public the person released prosecute the offender after a lapse of a certain
office, or the right of by amnesty stands time (Santos v. Supt. Of the Philippine Training School
suffrage, unless such before the law for the Girls, G.R. No. L-34334, November 28, 1930).
rights are expressly precisely as though Based on the penalty prescribed by the RPC.
restored by means of he had committed In computing the period of prescription, the first
pardon. no offense. is to be excluded and the last day included (CIVIL
As to effect on recidivism CODE, Art. 13).
Does not alter the fact Makes an ex-convict
that the accused is a no longer a recidivist,
recidivist as it because it obliterates
produces only the the last vestige of the
extinction of the crime.
personal effects of the
penalty.
As to civil liability
144
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Prescription Periods of Crimes (Romualdez v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 165510-33, July 28,
2006).
Penalty Provided by Prescriptive Period
Law When the penalty is a compound one:
The highest penalty is the basis of the
Death, reclusion 20 years
application of the rules contained herein (People
perpetua or reclusion
v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-15132, May 25, 1960).
temporal
Question: Is there a conflict between the
Afflictive penalties 15 years
provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
Correctional penalties 10 years except those prescription of crimes and Sec. 8, Rule 117 of
punishable by Rules of Court (time-bar)?
arresto mayor Answer: No. It is but a limitation of the right of
Arresto mayor 5 years the State to revive a criminal case against the
Crime Prescriptive period accused after the Information had been filed
Libel 1 year but subsequently provisionally dismissed with
Oral defamation and 6 months the express consent of the accused. If a criminal
slander by deed case is dismissed on motion of the accused
Sinple slander 2 months because the trial is not concluded within the
Grave slander 6 months period therefor, the prescriptive periods under
Light offenses 2 months the Revised Penal Code are not thereby
Fine Prescriptive period diminished. But whether or not the prosecution
Afflictive 15 years of the accused is barred by the statute of
Correctional 10 years limitations or by the lapse of the time-line under
Light 2 months the new rule, the effect is basically the same.
Violations penalized by special laws (Act 3326,
The subsidiary imprisonment for nonpayment as amended by Act. 3763)
of the fine should not be considered in Such offenses are, unless otherwise provided in
determining the prescriptive period of such their respective special penal laws, prescribe in
crimes (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 346). accordance with the following rules:
When fine is alternative penalty higher than the 1. After 1 year for offenses punished only
other penalty which is by imprisonment, by a fine or by imprisonment for more
prescription of the crime is based on the fine than 1 month, or both;
(People v. Basalo, G.R. No. L-98892, April 16, 1957). 2. After 4 years for those punished by
Illegal recruitment – prescription is determined imprisonment for more than 1 month,
from the time the accused is certified as an but less than 2 years;
illegal recruiter. 3. After 8 years for those punished by
imprisonment for 2 years or more, but
Rule where last day of prescriptive period falls less than 6 years;
on a Sunday or legal holiday 4. After 12 years for any other offense
The information can no longer be filed on the punished by imprisonment for 6 years or
next day as the crime has already prescribed more, except the crime of treason, which
(Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, G.R. No. L-28841, June 24, shall prescribe after 20years; and
1983).
5. Violations penalized by municipal
Period will not be prolonged because doubt
ordinances shall prescribe after 2
should be resolved in favor of the accused
months (Act No. 3326).
145
___________________________________________________________________________________________
When prescription of violations penalized by corresponding to the offense (People v.
special laws and ordinances begins to run Abuy, G.R. No. L-17616, May 30, 1962).
It begins from the day of the commission of the
violation, and if the same be not known at the 3. It shall commence to run again when
time from the discovery thereof and the such proceedings terminate without the
institution of judicial proceedings for its accused being convicted or acquitted, or
investigation and punishment (Act No. 3326, unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
Sec. 2). imputable to the accused.
When prescription interrupted
It shall be interrupted when proceedings are Note: The termination contemplated
instituted against the guilty party, and shall here refers to a termination that is final
begin to run again if the proceedings are as to amount to a jeopardy that would
dismissed for reasons no constituting jeopardy. bar a subsequent prosecution (REYES,
Note: The running of the prescription of an Book One, supra at 872).
offense punished by a special law is not tolled

by the absence of the offender from Philippine 4. The term of prescription shall not run
soil (Romualdez v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 165510-33, July 28, when the offender is absent from the
2006). Philippine Archipelago.
ARTICLE 91 The filing of the complaint with the municipal
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF trial court, although only for preliminary
OFFENSE investigation, interrupted and suspended the
Outline: period of prescription in as much as the
1. Period of prescription commences to run jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is
from the day on which the crime is determined by the allegation in the complaint
discovered by the offended parties, the or information, not by the result of proof (People
authorities, or their agents. The period of v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-15140, December 29, 1940).
prescription of crime commences to run Accused cannot be convicted of lesser offense

from the commission of the offense or its included within the offense charged, if the latter
discovery, if the commission of the same has already prescribed (Francisco v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. L-45674, May 30, 1983).
was unknown (People v. Tamayo, 40 O.G.
2313).
Situations where Art. 91 does not apply:
2. It is interrupted by the filing of the 1. Continuing crimes, because there could
complaint or information corresponding be no termination of continuity and the
to the offense committed with the crime does not end (People v. Sabbun, G.R.
No. L-18510, January 31, 1964).
prosecutor except in cases falling under
2. In crimes against false testimony
the Rules on Summary Procedure (must
a. If the testimony is against the
be filed with the court) and when filed
defendant – from the date final
with the Punong Barangay (interruption
judgment was rendered;
should not exceed 60 days).
b. If the testimony is in favor of the
defendant – from the date when
Note: The complaint or the information
testimony was given (People v.
that will interrupt the period must be the Maneja, G.R. No. 47684, June 10, 1941).
proper information or complaint
146
___________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Election offenses If the accused was never arrested to serve his
a. If discovery of offense is sentence, the prescriptive period cannot
incidental to judicial proceedings, commence to run.
prescription begins when such Prescription of the Prescription of the
proceeding terminates; otherwise crime penalty
b. From the date of commission of As to right forfeited
offense (People v. Cariño, G.R. No. The forfeiture of loss The forfeiture or loss
33413, September 16, 1931). of the right of the of the right of the
4. Bigamy – although marriage is State to prosecute government to
registered, prescriptive period execute the final
commences from date of discovery sentence.
(Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119063,
As to penalty considered
January 27, 1997).
It is the penalty It is the penalty
Effect of filing an amended complaint or prescribed by law imposed that should
information upon period of prescription that should be be considered.
If the amendment charges a different crime, the considered
date of the amended complaint or information
should be considered. If it is merely a
correctional of a defect, the date of the original ARTICLE 93
complaint of information should be considered COMPUTATION OF THE PRESCRIPTION OF
(People v. Gines, G.R. No. 843463, May 27, 1991). PENALTIES
ARTICLE 92 Outline:
PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES 1. Period of prescription commences to run
Prescription of penalty from the date when the culprit evaded
It is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the the service of his sentence.
government to execute the final sentence, after 2. It is interrupted if the convict:
the lapse of a certain time. a. Gives himself up;
Prescription of penalties is based on the penalty b. Be captured;
imposed. c. Goes to a foreign country with
Prescriptive periods of penalties: which we have no extradition
1. Death and reclusion perpetua – 20 years; treaty; or
2. Other afflictive penalties – 15 years; d. Commits another crime before
3. Correctional penalties – 10 years except the expiration of the period of
for the penalty of arresto mayor which prescription.
prescribes in 5 years; and The period of prescription of penalty shall
4. Light penalties – 1 year commence to run again when the convict
The penalties must be imposed by final escapes again, after having been captured and
sentence. Hence, if the convict appealed and returned to prison (REYES, Book One, supra at 884).
thereafter fled to the mountains, the penalty
imposed upon him would never prescribe,
because pending the appeal, the sentence is
not final (REYES, Book One, supra at 885).
147
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Elements: CHAPTER TWO
1. That the penalty is imposed by final PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
judgment; (ARTS. 94-99)
2. That the convict evaded the service of his ARTICLE 94, as amended R.A. No. 10592
sentence by escaping during the term of PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
his sentence; Criminal liability is partially extinguished:
3. The convict who escaped from prison 1. By conditional pardon;
has not given himself up, or been Conditional pardon delivered and
captured, or gone to a foreign country accepted is considered a contract
with which we have no extradition treaty, between the sovereign power of the
or committed another crime; executive and the convict that the former
4. If our Government has an extradition will release the latter upon compliance
treaty with the country to which the with the condition (Id. at 891).
offender escaped, the crime committed
should not be included in the treaty, as 2. By commutation of the sentence;
this would interrupt the running of the The commutation of the original
prescriptive period; sentence for another of a different
5. That the penalty has prescribed, because length and nature shall have the legal
of the lapse of time from the date of the effect of substituting the latter in place of
evasion of service of the sentence by the the former.
convict; and
6. There is no acceptance of a conditional 3. For good conduct allowances which the
pardon by the convict since it would culprit may earn while he is undergoing
interrupt the running of the prescriptive preventive imprisonment or serving his
period (REYES, Book One, supra at 884- sentence;
887). 4. By parole; and
a. Parole – is the suspension of the
Should the evasion of service of sentence, being sentence of a convict, after
in itself a crime, interrupt the running of the serving the minimum term of the
prescriptive period of the penalties? indeterminate penalty, without
No. The evasion of the service of the sentence, being granted a pardon,
which is requisite in the prescription of prescribing the terms upon which
penalties, must necessarily take place before the the sentence shall be suspended
running of the period of prescription; hence, b. If the convict fails to observe the
cannot interrupt it (Id. at 887). condition of the parole, the board
of pardons and parole is
authorized to:
i. Direct his arrest and
return to custody and
thereafter;
ii. To carry out his sentence
without deduction of the
time that has elapsed
148
___________________________________________________________________________________________
between the date of the Allowance for Good Conduct
parole and subsequent 1. During the first two years of
arrest (Id. at 892-93). imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
5. By probation. deduction of twenty days for each
month of good behavior during
Distinctions between Conditional Pardon and detention;
Parole 2. During to the third to the fifth year,
Conditional Pardon Parole inclusive, of his imprisonment he shall be
May be given at any May be given after allowed a reduction of twenty-three days
time after final the prisoner has for each month of good behavior during
judgment; is granted served the minimum detention;
by the Chief Executive penalty; is granted by 3. During the following years until the tenth
under the provisions the Board of Pardons year, inclusive of his imprisonment, he
of the Administrative and Parole under the shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-
Code. provisions of the five days for each month of good
Indeterminate behavior during detention;
Sentence Law. 4. During the eleventh and successive years
For violation of the For violation of the of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed
conditional pardon, terms of the parole, a deduction of thirty days for each
the convict may be the convict cannot be month of good behavior during
ordered re-arrested prosecuted. Under detention; and
or re-incarcerated by Art. 159 of the RPC, 5. At any time during the period of
the Chief Executive, he can be re-arrested imprisonment, he shall be allowed
or may be prosecuted and re-incarcerated another deduction of 15 days, in addition
under Art. 159 of the to serve the unserved to numbers one to four hereof, for each
Code. portion of his original month of study, teaching or mentoring
penalty. service time rendered.
(Id. at 893) An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him
Obligation incurred by a person granted of entitlement of the above allowances for good
conditional pardon conduct (RPC, Art. 97, as amended by R.A. No. 10592).
He must comply strictly with the conditions
imposed in the pardon. Special time allowance for loyalty
Failure to comply with the condition shall result A deduction of 1/5 of the period of his sentence
in the revocation of the pardon. Under Sec. shall be granted to any prisoner who, having
64(i), Revised Administrative Code, the Chief evaded his preventive imprisonment or the
Executive may order his arrest and service of his sentence under the circumstances
reincarceration (RPC, Art. 96; REYES, Book One, mentioned in Art. 158 of this Code, gives himself
supra at 891). up to the authorities within 48 hours following
He becomes liable under Art. 159 (this is the the issuance of a proclamation announcing the
judicial remedy). passing away of the calamity or catastrophe
Allowance for good conduct is not given to referred to in said article.
prisoners released under conditional pardon A deduction of 2/5 of the period of his sentence
(People v. Martin, G.R. No. 46432, May 17, 1939). shall be granted in case said prisoner chose to
149
___________________________________________________________________________________________
stay in the place of his confinement 2. As an offense against the private person
notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or injured by the crime (REYES, Book One,
catastrophe enumerated in Art. 158 of this supra at 900), unless it involves the crime
Code. of treason, rebellion, espionage,
The deduction is based on the original sentence contempt, and others wherein no civil
not of the unexpired portion of his sentence liability arises on the part of the offender,
(REYES, Book One, supra at 897). either because there are no damages to
It is not necessary that the convict must have be compensated or there is no private
actually escaped since prisoners who chose to person injured by the crime.
stay in their place of confinement are given
higher special time allowance for loyalty. Effect of acquittal
Note: It shall apply to any prisoner whether Extinction of the penal action does not carry
undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving with it extinction of the civil; unless the
sentence (RPC, Art. 98, as amended by R.A. No. 10592). extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final
Who grants allowances for good conduct judgment that the fact from which the civil
Whenever lawfully justified, the following shall liability might arise did not exist. (SEE RULES OF
grant allowances for good conduct: COURT, RULE 111, Sec. 2; Civil liability arising
1. Director of the Bureau of Corrections; from other sources of obligations is not
2. Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management impliedly instituted with the criminal action).
and Penology; and/or
3. Warden of provincial, district, municipal Effect of dismissal of case
or city jail. The dismissal of the information or the criminal
Such allowances once granted shall not be action does not affect the right of the offended
revoked (RPC, Art. 99, as amended by R.A. No. party to constitute or continue the civil action
10592). already instituted arising from the offense,
because such dismissal or extinction of the
TITLE FIVE: CIVIL LIABILITY penal action does not carry with it the extinction
CHAPTER ONE of the civil action (RULE OF COURT, RULE 111, Sec.
PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
(ARTS. 100-103) Effect of the death of the offender
ARTICLE 100 If the offer dies prior to the institution of the
CIVIL LIABILITY OF A PERSON GUILTY OF action or prior to the finality of judgment, civil
FELONY liability ex-delicto is extinguished (De Guzman v.
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also People, G.R. No. 154579, October 8, 2003).
civilly liable (RPC, Art. 100) In all these cases, civil liability from sources
Exceptions: other than delict is not extinguished.
1. Victimless crimes; and
2. Flight to enemy country. Rule if the offender is acquitted, insofar as the
A crime has a dual character: civil liability is concerned
1. As an offense against the State, because As a rule, if the offender is acquitted, the civil
of the disturbance of the social order; liability is extinguished, except:
and 1. If the acquittal is on the ground that the
guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt (CIVIL CODE, Art. 29);
150
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. The acquittal was due to an exempting property not exempt from execution (ESTRADA,
circumstance in favor of an imbecile or Book One, supra at 370).
an insane person, and a person under 15 Persons civilly liable for acts of minors over 15
years of age, or those over 15 but under years of age who act with discernment
18, who has acted without discernment, Art. 201 of the Child Youth Welfare Code, as
or those acting under the compulsion of amended provides that the civil liability for acts
an irresistible force or under the impulse committed by a youth offender shall devolve
of an uncontrollable fear of equal or upon the following persons:
greater injury (RPC, Art. 12; 1. Offender’s father;
3. When the court finds and states in its 2. Mother, in case of the father’s death or
judgment that there is only civil incapacity; and
responsibility; and 3. Guardian, in case of mother’s death or
4. When civil liability arises from other incapacity.
sources of obligations; Persons civilly liable for acts committed by
5. Independent civil actions (CIVIL CODE, persons acting under irresistible force or
Arts. 31, 32, 33, and 34). uncontrollable fear
1. The person using violence or causing the
ARTICLE 101 fear are primarily liable.
RULES REGARDING CIVIL LIABILITY IN 2. If there be no such persons, those doing
CERTAIN CASES the act shall be secondarily liable (REYES,
Civil liability is still imposed in cases falling Book One, supra at 925).
under exempting circumstances (RPC, Art. 12), No civil liability is imposed in cases falling under
except: justifying circumstances, except under
1. Paragraph 4 of Art. 12 which provides for paragraph 4 of Art. 11, where a person does an
injury caused by mere accident. act, causing damage to another, in order to
2. Paragraph 7 of Art. 12 which provides for avoid evil or injury, the person benefited by the
failure to perform an act required by law prevention of the evil or injury shall be civilly
when prevented by some lawful or liable in proportion to the benefit he received.
insuperable cause.
Persons civilly liable for acts of insane or minor ARTICLE 102
exempt from criminal liability (paragraphs 1, 2, SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS,
and 3, Art. 12) TAVERNKEEPERS, AND PROPRIETORS OF
The civil liability for acts committed by an ESTABLISHMENTS
imbecile or insane or minor exempt from Elements under paragraph 1:
criminal liability shall devolve upon the person 1. That the innkeepers, tavern keeper or
having legal capacity or control over them, if the proprietor of establishment or his
latter are at fault or negligent. They are primarily employee committed a violation of
liable. municipal ordinance or some general or
If there is no fault or negligence on their part, or special police regulation;
even if at fault or negligent but insolvent, or 2. That the crime is committed in such inn,
should there be no person having such tavern or establishment; and
authority or control, the insane, imbecile, or 3. That the person criminally liable is
such minor shall respond with their own insolvent.
151
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Concurrence of all elements makes the Any department or branch of art, occupation or
innkeeper, tavernkeeper, or proprietor civilly business; especially one which employs so
liable for the crime committed in his much labor and capital and is distinct branch of
establishment. trade (REYES, Book One, supra at 928).
Elements under paragraph 2: Notes: A hospital doing charitable service is not
1. That the guests notified in advance the engaged in industry; hence, not subsidiary liable
innkeeper or the person representing of for acts of nurses (Clemente v. Foreign Mission Sisters,
the deposit of their goods within the inn C.A., 38 O.G. 1954).
or house; The employment of the diligence to be
2. The guests followed the directions of the expected of a good father of a family in the
innkeeper or his representative with selection and supervision of his employees will
respect to the care of and vigilance over not exempt the parties subsidiary liable for
such goods; and damages (Arambulo v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-
3. Such goods of the guests lodging 33229, October 23, 1930).
therein were taken by robbery with force Subsidiary liability of employer arises only after
upon things or theft committed within the conviction of the employee in the criminal
the inn or house. action (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 373
No liability shall attach in case of robbery with The subsidiary liability may be enforced only
violence against or intimidation of persons, upon a motion for subsidiary writ of execution
unless committed by the innkeeper’s employees against the employer and upon proof that the
(Id. at 927). employee is insolvent (Basilio v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 113433, March 17, 2000).
It is not necessary that the effects of the guest
If committed by a family driver, employer may
be actually delivered to innkeeper (YHT Realty
Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126780, February 17,
be held liable on a quasi-delict (Heirs of Redentor
Completo v. Albayda, Jr., G.R. No. 172200, July 6, 2010).
2005).
ARTICLE 103
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF THER ARTICLE 104
PERSONS WHAT IS INCLUDED IN CIVIL LIABILITY
Elements: 1. Restitution;
1. The employer, teacher, person, or 2. Reparation of damage caused; and
corporation is engaged in any kind of 3. Indemnification for consequential
industry; damages
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, Distinctions between Civil Liability and
apprentices, or employees commits a Pecuniary Liability
felony while in the discharge of his Civil Liability Pecuniary Liability
duties; and Similarity
3. The said employee is insolvent and has Both include (a) reparation of the damage
not satisfied his civil liability. caused, and (b) indemnification for
Industry consequential damages
It refers to a form of productive work, especially As to the inclusion of restitution
of manufacture, or a particular class of Includes restitution Does not include
productive work itself, a trade or manufacture restitution because
(Telleria v. Garcia, CA 40 O.G. Supp. No. 12, p. 115). this refer to
liabilities to be paid
152
___________________________________________________________________________________________
out of the property 2. In an abduction case, the defendant
of the offender. was ordered to return the money
In restitution, there taken from the offended girl (U.S. v.
is nothing to pay in Banila, G.R. No. 6624, March 20, 1911).
terms of money, as
to the property Reparation of damages
unlawfully taken is Reparation will be ordered by the court if
returned restitution is not possible. The court shall
As to the inclusion of fine and costs determine the amount of damage, taking into
Does not include Includes fine and consideration the price of the thing, whenever
fine and the costs of the costs of the possible, and its special sentimental value to the
the proceedings proceedings injured party. It refers generally to crimes
against property (RPC, Art. 106).
If there is no evidence as to the value of the
Restitution
thing unrecovered, reparation cannot be made
Restitution of the thing itself must be made
(Francisco v. People, G.R. No. 146584, July 12, 2004).
whenever possible even when found in the The civil damages which may recovered in
possession of a third person except when criminal action are limited to consequential
acquired by such person in any manner and damage caused by, and flowing from, the
under the requirements which, by law, bar commission of the crime of which the accused
an action for its recovery (RPC, Art. 105. is convicted (REYES, Book One, supra at 944).
Restitution cannot be ordered before final
judgment (Chua Hai v. Kapunan, G.R. No. L-11108, Indemnification for Damages
June 30, 1958).
Includes not only those caused the injured
CHAPTER TWO
party, but also, those suffered by his family or
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
by a third person by reason of the crime (RPC, Art.
(ARTS. 104-111) 107).
It is ordinarily the remedy granted to the victims
The liability to return a thing must arise from of crimes against persons.
a criminal act, not from a contract. Reparation of and indemnification for damages
Restitution can be ordered even if accused may be obtained only from the accused and his
was acquitted if the thing was proved to heirs (REYES, Book One, supra at 963).
belong to a third person (People v. Alejano, G.R. Contributory negligence on the part of the
No. 33667, October 4, 1930).
offended party reduces the civil liability of the
The culprit will be ordered to pay such
offender (Philippine Nat’l. Railways v. Brunty, G.R. No.
amount representing the deterioration or 169891, November 2, 2006).
diminution of value, if there is any (REYES, The obligation to make restoration or
reparation for damages and indemnification for
Limited only to crimes against property but:
consequential damages devolves upon the
1. In a treason case, the defendant was
heirs of the person liable. The action to demand
ordered to return the money he took
restoration, reparation and indemnification
from another person when he
likewise descends to the heirs of the person
committed the treasonous act (People v.
Logo, G.R. No. L-1317, February 27, 1948).
injured (RPC, Art. 108).
153
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Payment of Civil Liability Note: As a general rule, documentary evidence
Only principals Pro rata; Solidary should be presented to substantiate a claim for
obligation loss of earning capacity except if there is
Principal, Principals – pro rata, testimony that the victim is:
accomplices, and 50 % of the civil a. Self-employed, earning less than the
accessory liability minimum wage and judicial case is taken
Accomplices – 2/3 of that in the victim’s line of work, no
50% documentary evidence is available; or
Accessories – 1/3 of b. Employed as a daily-wage worker
50% earning less than the minimum wage
(RPC, Art. 109 and 110) under current labor laws (People v. Mallari,
G.R. No. 145993, June 17, 2003).
Note: the principals, accomplices and
accessories shall be liable severally among
themselves and subsidiary for those of the other CHAPTER THREE
persons liable. EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF CIVIL
Any person who has participated gratuitously in LIABILITY
the proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make (ARTS. 112-113)
restitution in an amount equivalent to the ARTICLE 112
extent of such participation (RPC, Art. 111). EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Note: the person who participate gratuitously in Civil Liability is Extinguished by:
the proceeds of a felony referred to in this 1. Payment of performance;
article is not criminally liable (REYES, Book One, supra 2. Condonation or remission of the debt;
at 967). 3. Confusion of merger of the rights of the
Indemnity for Lost Earnings creditor and debtor;
In computing the loss of the victim’s earning 4. Compensation;
capacity, as an item of civil liability ex delicto, 5. Novation; and
the Supreme Court has constantly adopted the 6. Other causes of extinguishment of
American Expectancy Table of Mortality in the obligations, such as annulment,
Computation thereof, using the following rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory
formulae: condition, and prescription.
Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x (Gross Note: Civil liability a criminal case is not
Annual Income – Living Expenses) extinguished by the loss of the thing due
1. Life Expectancy = 2/3 x (80 – age at because reparation will be ordered by the court
death) in such cases. Except as provided in Art. 112, the
2. Gross annual income = Monthly offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy
earnings x number of months the civil liability arising from the crime
3. Living Expenses = 50% of Gross Annual committed by him.
Income (People v. Verde, G.R. No. 119077,
February 10, 1999).
154
___________________________________________________________________________________________
2. That he has not been required to serve
ARTICLE 113 the same by reason of:
OBLIGATION TO SATISFY CIVIL LIABILITY a. Amnesty;
The offender shall continue to be obliged to b. Pardon;
satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime c. Commutation of sentence; or
committed by him, notwithstanding the fact: d. Any other reason.
1. That he has served his sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty or
other rights; or
155

Criminal Law Book I Handout

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Book I Handout

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law (Book I) Handout For DCCP Bangued BS Crim 2, 2nd Sem, SY 2022-2023

By Atty. ARNALDO D. DACQUEL, CPA

LAW Sources of Law:

criminal and civil liability (Arts. 21-113).

iii. Light felonies – those infractions of b. Intelligence

1. That an intentional felony has been

In the process, A fired his gun at the

The accused was caught opening with an iron

exculpatory only; c. Direct Bribery (BOADO, supra at 572);

PROVISIONS OF THE RPC

4. Emergency to which the person 9. The means employed by the person

(R.A. No. 9344) as further amended by R.A. No.

degrees lower (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at

present, Art. 60 (privileged mitigating 6. “Incomplete exempting circumstance of

Par. 5. Vindication of grave offense Distinction Between Vindication and

Par. 6. Passion or Obfuscation

until the moment the 3. Treachery; and

surrendering is not mitigating.

offender of consciousness of his acts 8. Wartime state of confusion resulting in

3. Qualifying – those that change the

principals, accomplices and accessories

5. Aggravating circumstances, regardless

But dwelling is aggravating in robbery

prove by person the concurrence

for another offense (first offense) to 4. There is no reiteracion if the records do

and the fatal blow was struck at a time

Code (People v. Abdul, G.R. No. 128074, July 13, 1999).

Exempting circumstance in the crimes of: 3. Crimes against chastity

assist in the escape of the author of the Exceptions:

Classification of Principal Penalties

penalty Bond to keep the peace

Requisites: ii. Complex crime proper (delito complejo) –

Complex Crime Crime or Requisites:

ARTICLE 68 2. This article has been repealed or

Upon the recommendation of the social

circumstances are present, the court Illustrative case:

May be granted even if the sentence is c. Accessory penalties are

13. Termination of probation

offense punished by a special law is not tolled

prescription of crime commences to run Accused cannot be convicted of lesser offense

You might also like