JUSTIFYING

CIRCUMSTANCES EXEMPTING MITIGATING AGGRAVATING ALTERNATIVE

(Art. 11, RPC) CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES
(Art. 12, RPC) (Art. 13, RPC) (Art. 14, RPC) (Art. 15, RPC)
* are those where the act of a
person is said to be in accordance * a person acting under any of * are those w/c, if present in the * refers to factors that increase * are circumstances which must
with law, so that such person is the exempting cirumstances commission of the crime, do not the severity or culpability of a be taken in consideration as
demeed not to have transgressed commits a crime but cannot be entirely free the actor from criminal act. Typically, the aggravating or mitigating
the law and is free from both held criminally liable therefor. criminal liability but serve only presence of an aggravating according to the nature and
criminal & civil liability The exemption from punishment to reduce the penalty, it would circumstance would lead to a effects of the crime. Based on a
stems from the complete absence not change the nature of the harsher penalty for a convicted strict interpretation, alternative
EXCEPTION: of intelligence or free will in crime (as its effect). criminal. circumstances are thus not
performing the act. aggravating circumstances per se.
Sec. 4, there is a civil These are personal to the accused
liability borne by the personsGenerally, exemption from in whose favor they are
benefited by the act criminal liability does not include determined to exist and cannot be
exemption from civil liability, enjoyed by his co-conspirators or
except for acts committed under co-accused.
paragraphs 4 & 7, Art. 12.
Basis – lack of dolo or criminal
intent on the part of the accused; Basis – complete deprivation of Basis – diminution of either Basis – greater perversity of the Basis – the nature and effects of
rationality in committing the act, freedom of intelligence, or intent offender manifested in the the crime and the other
- as expressly stated in the that the accused be deprived of on the lesser perversity of the commission of the felony as conditions attending its
opening sentence of Art. 11 that reason, that there be no offender shown by: commission. They are
the persons therein do not incur consciousness of responsibility considered when they influence
any criminal liability for his acts, or that there be 1. motivating power itself the commission.
complete absence of the power to 2. place of commission
discern 3. means & ways employed
4. time
5. personal circumstances of the
offender or the offended party

Kinds:
1. self defense
2. defense of relatives
3. defense of strangers
4. avoidance of a greater evil
5. fulfillment of duty
6. obedience to an order issued
suffering
Kinds: Kinds: Kinds: Kinds:
1. imbecility/insanity 1. incomplete justification 1. taking advantage of 1. relationship
2. minority – under 15 y/o & exemption public office 2. intoxication
3. minority – over 15 & under 2. under 18 or over 70 y/o 2. in contempt of or with 3. degree of education /
18/yo 3. no intention to commit insult to public instruction
4. accident so grave a wrong authorities
5. compulsion of irresistible 4. sufficient provocation or 3. with insult or lack of
force threat regard due to offended
6. impulse of uncontrollable fear 5. immidiate vindication of party by reason of rank,
7. insuperable or lawful cause a grave offense age, or sex; or
6. passion or obfuscation committed in dwelling
7. voluntary surrender 4. abuse of confidence &
8. voluntary plea of guilt obvious ungratefulness
9. physical defect 5. crime committed in the
10. illness palace or in presence of
11. analogous circumstances the Chief Executive; or
the place of religious
worship
6. nighttime; uninhabited
place with a band
7. on occasion of a
calamity
8. aid or armed men or
means to ensure
impunity
9. recidivism
10. reiteracion or habituality
11. price, reward, or
promise
12. inundation, fire, poison
13. evident premediation
14. craft, fraud or disguise
15. superior strength or
means to weaken defense
16. treachery
17. ignomity – moral
suffering
18. unlawful entry
19. breaking wall, floor, roof
20. with aid of persons under
15; by motor vehicle
21. cruelty – physical
 provocation was given by the 6) ANY PERSON WHO ACTS - an element of PAR. 1 – SELF DEFENSE
JUSTIFYING person attacked, that the one IN OBEDIENCE OTO AN responsibility, for a man cannot explained
CIRCUMSTANCES making defense had no part ORDER ISSUED BY A be made to answer for the
therein. SUPERIOR FOR SOME consequences of a crime unlessREQUISITES:
ART. 11 – THE FOLLOWING LAWFUL PURPOSE. he is guilty.
DO NOT INCUR CIRMINAL 3) ANYONE WHO ACTS IN 1. Unlawful Aggression;
LIABILIT; DEFENSE OF THE PERSON TERMS: 2. Reasonable necessity of
OR RIGHTS OF A the means employed to
1) ANYONE WHO ACTS IN STRANGER, PROVIDED: 1) IMPUTABILITY prevent or repel it;
DEFENSE OF HIS PERSON 3. Lack of sufficient
OR RIGHTS, PROVIDED First – that the 1st & 2nd - the quality by w/c an act provocation on the part
THAT HTE FOLLOWING requisites mentioned in the firstmay be ascribed toa person as its of the person defending
CIRCUMSTANCES circumstance of this article are author or owner. himself;
CONCUR: present;
- it implies that the act I. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
First – Unlawful Aggression; Seond – that the person committed has been freely &
Second – Reasonable necessity defending be not induced by consciously done and may  an indispensable
of the means employed to revenge, resentment or other therefore be put down to the does requisite;
prevent or repel it; evil motive as his very own
Third – Lack of sufficient  equivalent to assault or
provocation on the part of the 4) ANY PERSON WHO, I at least threatened
person defending himself; ORDER TO AVOIDE AN 2) RESPONSILIBITY assault of an immediate
EVIL OR INJURY, DOES AN and imminent kind
2) ANYONE WHO ACTS IN ACT W/C CAUSES DAMAGE - the obligation of suffereing
DEFENSE OF THE PERSON TO ANOTHER, PROVIDED the consequences of crime;  the act must be preceded
OR RIGHTS OF HIS THAT THE FF. REQUISITES by an unlawful
SPOUSE, ASCENDANTS, ARE PRESENT: aggression
DESCENDANTS, OR - it is the obligation of
LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR First – that the evil sought to betaking the penal and civil  it presupposes an actual,
ADOPTED BROTHERS OR avoided actually exists; consequences of the crime; sudden, and unexpected
SISTERS, OR OF HIS Second – that the injury feared attack or imminent
RELATIVES BY AFFINITY be greater than that done to IMPUTABILITY danger, not just
IN THE SAME DEGREES, avoid it; versus speculative
AND THOSE BY Third – that there be no other RESPONSIBLITY
CONSANGUINITY WITHIN pratical and less harmful EXAMPLES:
THE 4TH CIVIL DEGREE, means of preventing it imputability implies that a deed
PROVIDED: may be imputed to a person, 1) when the peril to one's
5) ANY PERSON WHO ACTS responsibility implies that the life, limb, or right is
First – that the 1st & 2nd IN THE FULFILLMENT OF A person must take the either actual or
requisites prescribed in the DUTY OR IN THE LAWFUL consequence of such deed imminent;
next preceding circumstance EXERCIES OF A RIGHT OR
are present; OFFICE. 3) GUILT
Second – in case the
NOTE:
PERIL TO ONE'S LIFE
a) actual – the danger is present
that is actually in existence;
b) imminent – the danger is on
the point of happening. It is not
required that the attack already
begins, for it may be too late;
2) there must be a physical
for or actual use of
weapon;
3) in case of threat, the
same must be offensive
and positively strong,
showing the wrongful
intent to cause an injury
4) a slap on the face –
constituted the use of
force quanlifying an UA
Reason: since the face
represents a person and
his dignity. It is a
physical assault coupled
with a willfull disregard,
nay, a defiance of an
individual's personality.
It may frequently
regarded as plaing in
real danger a persons's
dignity, rights and
safety.
5) Presence of unlawful
aggression even if
aggressor is disarmed –
if the aggressor still
posed a threat to the required that the act be
lives of the accused; offensive and positively 3) insulting words Moreover, the person
strong, showing the addressed to the attacked must have no t
6) retreate to take more wrongful intent of the accused, no matter how ime nor occasion for
advantageous position – aggressor to cause an objectionable they may deliberation and cool
if the purpose of the injury; have been, without thinking
aggressorr in retreating physical assault, could
is to take a more EXAMPLE: not constitute unlawful NOTE:
advantageous position to aggression;
insure the success of the a) when one aims a revolver at a) when the unlawful aggression
attack already begun by another with the intention of 4) a light push on the head ceases, the defender no longer
him, the unlawful shooting the person; with the hand does not has the right to kill or even
aggression is considered constitute UA wound the former aggressor;
still continuing, and the b) the act of a person retreating 2
one making a defense ha steps behind in his pocket with a 5) a mere push or a shove, b) self-defense does not justify
s right to pursue him in motion indicating his purpose to not followed by other the unnecessary killing of an
his retreat and to disable commit an assault with a acts, does not constitute aggressor who is retreating from
him; weapon; UA the fray;
7) aggression which is c) the act of opening a knife and 6) foot-kick greeting is not 9) Nature, character,
ahead of the stipulated making a motion as if to make an UA location and extent of
time and place is attack; the accused allegedly
unlawful – where there 7) the act of pulling inflicted by the injured
was a mutual agreement 10) picking up a weapon something out cannot party may belie
to fight, an aggression provided that the intent constitute UA, or to (contradict /
ahead of the stipulated to attack is manifest; physical force or actual magpasinungaling)
time and place would be use of weapon or even claim of self-defense
unalwful; 11) a public officer threat or intimidating
exceeding his authority attitude 10) improbability
8) there is SD even if the may become unlawful (unlikelihood /
aggressor used a toy aggressor 8) retaliation is not self- uncertainty) of the
pistol provided the defense. The aggression deceased being the
accused believed it was here that was begun by aggressor belies the
a real gun; EXCEPTIONS: the injured party already claim of SD;
ceased to exist when the
9) threat to inflict real 1) fulfillment of duty or the accused attacked him. 11) the fact that the accused
injury – a mere exercise of a right in a declined to give any
threatening or more or less violent In self-defense, the statement when he
intimidating attitude, not manner is an aggression, aggression was still surrended to a
preceded by an outward but it is lawful: existing when the policeman is
and material aggression, aggressor was injured or inconsistent with the
is not unlawful 2) a merely threatening or disabled by the person plea of self-defense;
aggression, because it is intimidating attitude; making defense;
 12) when the aggressor
fless, UA no longer
exists – when the UA
has begun no longer
exists, because the
aggressor runs away, the
one making a defense
has no more right to kill
or even to wound the
former aggressor;
13) when there is an
agreement to fight /
concerted fight;
REASON:
- because the aggression is
bound to arise from one or the
other of the combatants;
- when parties mutually agree to A. BURDEN OF PROOF
a fight it is immaterial who
attacks or receives the wound
first, for the first act of force is an
incident of the fight itself and in
no wise is it an unwarranted and
unexpected aggression which
alone can legalize self-defense;
14) forcibly pushing
picketers to let company B. SELF-DEFENSE
trucks enter the
compound is not
unlawful aggression
against the rights of the
picketers - for what was
under attack by the
security officer was not
the right of picketing,
but the picketer's act of
remaining in the
passageway when the
trucks wanted to get
inside, which is not part
of the picketing
protected by law;
15) the one who voluntarily
joined or practically
faced a fight cannot
claim self-defense
because there is no
unlawful agression to
speak of;
16)
NOTES:
 Art. 11 are matters of
defense. In order to
avoid criminal liabilityit
is incumbent upon the
accused to prove the JC
claimed by him to the
satisfaction of the court;
 well-entrenched is the
rule that where the
accused invokes self-
defense, it is encumbent
upon him to prove by
clear and convincing
evidence that he indeed
acted in defense of
himself;
 he must rely on the protection to the person man on the woman's
strength of his own unjustly attacked upper thigh is unlawful
evidence & not on the 2) the law on self-defense aggression;
weakness of the embodied in any penal
prosectuion; system findB. Defense of Property
justifications in man's
B-1) RIGHTS INCLUDED IN natural instinct to 1) Art. 429, Civil Code
SELF-DEFENSE/SUBJECT OF protect, repel and save provides the owner or
SELF-DEFENSE his person or rights from lawful possessor of a
impending danger or thing has the right to
1) defense of the person or peril; it is based on that exclude any person from
body of the person impulse of self- the enjoyment &
assaulted preservation born to disposal thereof;
2) defense of his rights / man and part of his
right to life nature as a human 2) for this purpose, he may
3) defense of property – being; use such force as may be
can be acquired as a JC reasonably necessary to
only when it is coupled 3) repel or prevent an
with an attack on the actual or threatened
person of one entrusted unlawful physical
with said property I-A. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION invasion or usurpation
IN DEFENSE OF OTHER RIGHTS: of his property;
4) defense of honor (least
prized of man's 1) defense of woman's honor 3) when it is coupled with
patrimony) – the woman 2) defense of property an attack on the person
thus imperilled may kill 3) defense of home of the one entrusted with
her offender if that is the said property;
only means left for her
to protech her honor A. Defense of woman's honor 4) that there was an actual
from so grave an physical invasion of
outrage 1) embracing a woman, appellant's property
touching her private which he had the right to
parts and her breats, and resist;
throwing her to the
B.2) REASON WHY SD IS ground for the purpose C. Defense of Home
LAWFUL of raping her in an
uninhabited place when 1) A man's home is his
1) because it is quite it was twilight, castle. When a person is
impossible for the State constitute an attack upon attacked in his own
in all cases to prevent her honor and, therefore, house, he has a right to
aggression upon its an unlawful aggression; protect it, and those
citizens and even within it, from the
foreigners & offer 2) placing of hand by a intrusion or attack;
 mercy of the lawless elements OF THE MEANS USED: with a bolo;
2) a person may repel force 1) NECESSITY OF THE
by force in defense of EXAMPLES: COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN 1) nature & quality of the EXCEPTIONS:
person, habitation, or weapons – perfect
property against who 1) when aggressor is  depends on the existence equality between the 1) killing using a knife is
manifestly intends or disarmed but struggled of unlawful aggression; weapon used by the one not justified if the
endeavors by violence to regain possession, defending himself and person did not perform
or surprise to commit a there was a reasonable  if there was no unlawful that of the aggressor is any act which could be
felony. necessity for the accused aggression, or, if there not required, because construed as an attempt
to use the weapon was, it has ceased to the person assaulted against the honor of
II. REASONABLE NECESSITY against his wife; exist, there would be no does not have sufficient another;
OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED necessity for any course tranquility of mind to
TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT Exception: when the deceased of action to take as there think, to calculate and to 2) when the attacker just
already manifested a refusal to is nothing to prevent or choose which weapon to used his fist and w/o the
- presupposes the existence of fight, killing him/her was not to repel; use; use of dangerous
unlawful aggression which is justified; weapon, taking the life
either:  to determine the requisites: of the same is not
2) in repelling or existence of unlawful a) had other available justified;
a) imminent or preventing unlawful aggression that induced means; or
b) actual aggression, the one a person to take a course b) if there was other 3) when the man placed his
defending ust aim at his of action, the following means, he could hand on the upper thigh
 IMMINENT – a threat assailant, and not are being considered; coolly choose the less of a woman seated on a
to inflict real injury indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon to benchf in a chapel
places as in imminent deadly weapon 1) place and occasion of the repel the assault; where there were many
danger that has to be assault; people and which was
PREVENTED; 2) darkness of the night and the 2) physical condition, well-lighted, there was
TERMS: surprise which characterized the character & size – no reasonable necessity
 ACTUAL DANGER – assault considering that the to kill him with a knife
an actual physical DOCTRINE OF RATIONAL aggressor is of violent because there was no
assault places us in EQUIVALENCE – in reasonable 2) NECESSITY OF THE temperament, danger in her chastity or
actual danger that has to necessity of the means employed, MEANS USED troublesome, strong and honor;
be REPELLED; the law requires rational aggressive w/ 3 criminal
equivalence, in the consideration  the means employed by records, the CA held thatThere was in this case a
- to be liberally construed in of which will enter as principal the person making a the accused was justifiedreasonable necessity to stop the
favor of the law-abiding citizens factors the EMERGENCY, the defense must be in striking him with a deceased from further doing the
– means when a lawless person imminent danger to which the rationally necessary to bolo; same thing or more, but there
attacks on the streets or person attacked is exposed, and prevent or repel an was no necessity to use a knife;
particularly in the victim's home, the instinct, more than the reason, unlawful aggression 3) other circumstances – in
he should assume the risk of that moves or impels the defense, view of the imminence 4) RULE regarding the
losing his life from the act of and the proportionateness thereof of danger, a shotgun is a reasonableness of the
self-defense by firearm of his does not depend upon the harm reasonable means to necessity of the means
victim; otherwise, the law- done, but rests upon the prevent an aggression employed when the one
TEST OF REASONABLENESS
abiding citizens will be at the imminent danger of such injury; defending himself is a
 POLICE OFFICER – in not sufficient. A had a right to defense. put an end to the PAR. 2 DEFENSE OF
the performance of his demand explanantion why B had violence; RELATIVES
duty, must stand his built the fence on A's property. 2) BATTERED WOMAN
ground and cannot, like The exercise of a right cannot SYNDROME (3) TRANQUIL, LOVINGRELATIVES:
a private individual, take give rise to sufficient PHASE – the batterer
refuge in flight; his duty provocation.  a battered woman is a may show a tender and 1) spouse
requires him to woman who is nurturing behavior and 2) ascendants
overcome his opponent 3) when, even if the repeatedly subjected to would beg for 3) descendants
provocation was any forceful physical or forgiveness; the battered 4) legitimate, natural or
III. LACK OF SUFFICIENT sufficient, it was not pscychological behavior woman tries to convince adopted brothers and
PROVOCATION given by the person by a man in order to herself that her partner sisters, or relatives by
defending himself; or coerce her to do will change for the affinity in the same
- to be entitled to the benefit of something he wants her better degrees
the JC of self-defense, the one 4) when, even if a to do w/o concern for 5) relatives by
defending himself must not have provocation was given her rights; consanguinity w/in the
given cause for the aggression by by the person defending 4th civil degree
his unjust conduct or by inciting himself, it was not  include wives or women
or provoking the assailant proximate and in any form of intimate TERMS:
immediate to the act of relationship with men
IT IS PRESENT WHEN: aggression; 1) REL. BY AFFINITY –
 if the woman is parents-in-law, son or
1) when no provocation at example: subjected to an abusive daughter-in-law and
all was given to the relationship 2x, she is brother or sister-in-law;
aggressor by the person - Thus, if A slapped the face of B considered as BW created between
defending himself; or 1 or 2 days before and B, upon surviving spouse and the
meeting A, attacked the latter but 3 PHASES blood relatives of the
2) when, even if a was seriously injured when A deceased spouse
provocation was given, defended himself, the (1) TENSION-BLDG. survives the death of
it was not sufficient; provocation given by A should be PHASE – minor either party to the
disregarded because it was not battering occurs, verbal marriage w/c created by
example: proximate and immediate to the or slight physical abuse; affinity;
aggression made by B. In this the woman simply stay
A, having discovered that B had case, the 3rd requisite of self- out of man's way or she 2) RELATIVES BY
built a part of his fence on A's defense is still present. tries to pacify the CONSANGUINITY –
land, asked by whey had done so. batterer refers to blood relatives;
This question angered B who
immediately attacked A. If A OTHER MATTERS (2) ACUTE BATTERING (a) 2nd civil degree –
would kill B to defense himsel, INCIDENT – w/ brothers & sisters;
the 3rd requisit of self-defense 1) FLIGHT incompatible w/ SD brutality, destructiveness
would still be present, because it and sometimes death; (b) 3rd civil degree -
even if it is true that the question - flight after the commission of woman has no control, uncle & niece, aunt
of A angered B, thereby making the crime is highly evidentiary of only the batterer may or nephew
B attack A, such provocation is guilt and incompatible with self-
 (c) 4th civil degree be made to depend upon PAR. 3 – DEFENSE OF means, if a person has a OF BEING
first cousins the honest belief of the STRANGER standing grudge against THROTTLED IS
one making a defense. the assailant, if he enters DEFENSE OF
BASIS OF JUSTIFICATION He believed in good REQUISITES: upon the defense of a STRANGER? Yes.
faith that his relative stranger out of geneours
 the justification of was the victim of 1) unlawful aggression motive to save the
defense of relatives by unlawful aggression, the 2) reasonable necessity of strnager from seriouos
reason of which the killing is justified even the means employed to bodily harm or possible
defender is not there was a mistake of prevent or repel it; death, the 3rd requisite of
criminally liable, is fact on the part of the 3) the person defending be defense of stranger still
founded not only upon a accused/defender. not induced by revenge, exists;
humanitarian sentiment, resentment, or other evil
but also upon the motive  it would only be lacking
impulse of blood which if such person was
impels men to rush, on BASIS: prompted by his grudge
the occasion of great against the assailant,
perils, to the rescue of  What one may do in his because the alleged
those close to them by defense, another may do defense of the stranger
ties of blood. for him. Persons acting would be only a pretext
in defense of others in (excuse / pagdadahilan /
REQUISITES: the same condition and pagkukunwa);
upon the same plane as
1) Unlawful aggression; those who act in defense
 if in defending his wife's
2) reasonable necessity of of themselves;
brother-in-law, the
the means employed to
accused acted also from
prevent or repel it; and  The ordinary man would an impulse of
3) in case the provocation not stand idly by and see resentment against the
was given the person his companion killed deceased, the 3rd
attacked, the one w/o attempting to save requisite of stranger is
making a defense had no his life; not present;
part therein
3rd REQUISITE:
QUESTION:
 the defense of a stranger
1) MUST UNLAWFUL must be actuated by a
AGGRESSION EXIST disinterested or
AS A MATTER OF generous motive, when
FACT OR CAN IT BE it puts down “revenge,
MADE TO DEPEND resentment, or other evil QUESTION:
UPON TEH HEONEST motive” as illegitimate;
BELIEF ON THE ONE 1) FURNISHING A
MAKING A WEAPON TO ONE IN
DEFENSE? Yes. It can  BE NOT INDUCED
A SERIOUS DANGER
 MITIGATING OF AGRAVE OFFENSE TO I. CIRCUMSTANCES OF ground bet. sanity &
CIRCUMSTANCES THE ONE COMMITTING 9) SUCH ILLNESS OF THE JUSTIFICATION OR insanity, between
THE FELONY (DELITO), HIS OFFENDER AS WOULD EXEMPTION W/C MAY presence and absence of
ART. 13. THE FF. ARE SPS. ASCENDANTS, DIMINISH THE EXERCISE GIVE PLACE TO intelligence;
MITIGATING DESCENDANTS, OF THE WILLPOWER OF MITIGATION
CIRCUMSTANCES: LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR THE OFFENDER WITHOUT EXCEPTION TO THE
ADOPTED BROTHERS OR HOWEVER DEPRIVING – because not all the requisites EXCEPTION:
1) THOSE MENTIONED IN SISTERS, OR RELATIVES HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS necessary to justify the act or to
THE PRECEDING BY AFFINITY WITHIN THE OF HIS ACTS; exempt from criminal liability in 1) par. 9, Art. 13
CHAPTER, WHEN ALL THE SAME DEGREES; the respective cases are attendant;
THE REQUISITES  but if the offender is
NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY 6) THAT OF HAVING 10) AND, FINALLY, ANY A. Incomplete JC (Art. 11) of: suffering from some
THE ACT OR TO EXEMPT ACTED UPON AN IMPULSE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE illness w/c would
FROM CRIMINAL SO POWERFUL AS OF A SIMILAR NATURE 1) self defense diminish the exercise of
LIABILITY IN THE NATURALLY TO HAVE AND ANALOGOUS TO 2) defense of relatives his willpower, without
RESPECTIVE CASES ARE PRODUCED PASSSION OR THOSE ABOVE- 3) defense of stranger however depriving him
NOT ATTENDANT; OBFUSCATION; MENTIONED. 4) state of necessity of consciousness of his
5) performance of duty acts, such circumstance
2) THAT THE OFFENDER 7) THAT THE OFFENDER 6) obedience to order of is considered a
IS UNDER 18 YRS. OF AGE HAD VOLUNTARILY superior mitigation under par. 9,
OR OVER 70 YEARS IN THE SURRENDERED HIMSELF Art. 13.
CASE OF HTE MINOR, HE TO A PERSON IN B. Incomplte EC (R.A. 9344
SHALL BE PROCEEDED AUTHORITY OR HIS PAR. 1 and Art. 12)  it would seem that one
AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE AGENTS, OR THAT HE HAD THOSE MENTIONED IN THE who is suffering from
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF VOLUNTARILY CONFESSED PRECEDING CHAPTER, 1) minority above 15 but mental disease w/o
ART. 80; HIS GUILT BEFORE THE WHEN ALL THE THE below 18 years of age however depriving one
COURT PRIOR TO THE REQUISITES NECESSARY TO 2) causing injury by mere of consciousness of
3) THAT THE OFFENDER PRESENTATION OF THE JUSTIFY THE ACT OR TO accident (par. 4) one's act may be given
HAD NO INTENTION TO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL 3) uncontrollable fear (par. the benefit of that MC.
COMMIT SO GRAVE A PROSECUTION; LIABILITY IN THE 6)
WRONG AS THAT RESPECTIVE CASES ARE (A) CLASSES OF MC in
COMMITTED; NOT ATTENDANT EXCEPTION: Incomplete self-defense,
8) THAT THE OFFENDER defense of a stranger & defense
4) THAT SUFFICIENT IS DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND, THOSE MENTIONED IN 1) par. 1 & 2, Art. 12 of a relative
PROVOCATION OR OR OTHERWISE THE PRECEDING CHAPTER cannot give place to
THREAT ON THE PART OF SUFFERING SOME mitigation because: 1) Ordinary / Generic MC
THE OFFENDED PARTY PHYSICAL DEFECT WHICH  this clause refers to 2) Privileged MC
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THUS RESTRICTS HIS  the mental condition of
THE ACT; MEANS OF ACTION, (1) justifying and a person is indivisible 1) Ordinary / Generic MC
DEFENSE, OR (2) exempting circumstances (cannot be separated /
5) THAT THE ACT WAS COMMUNICATION WITH hindi mahahati);  when unlawful
COMMITTED IN THE HIS FELLOW BEINGS; aggression (by the
IMMEDIATE VINDICATION  that is there is no middle
 victim) alone is proved,
such incomplete self-
defenese is to be
appreciated as ordinary
mitigating circumstance;
2) PRIVILEGED MC
 when only two (2) of the
3 requisites are present;
 when the unlawful
aggression is combined
with another element of
self-defense, such
incomplete Self-Defense
becomes a PMC;
EXAMPLES:
1) if in self-defense, there
was unlawful aggression
on the part of the
deceased, the means (A-1) Incomplete JC of
employed to prevent or Avoidance of Greater Evil or the order of Sgt. Benting.
repel it was reasonable, Injury
but the one making a
defense gave sufficient
provocation, he is
entitled to PMC because
the majority of the
conditions required to (A-2) Incomplete JC of
justify the act are Performance of Duty
present (Art. 69);
2) if in defense of a relative
there was unlawful
aggression on the part of
the deceased, but the
one defending the
relative used
unreasonable means to
prevent or repel it, he is
entitled to a privileged 2) that the injury caused or present:  if the 1st requisite and
mitigating circumstance offense committed be the 2nd part of the 4th
the necessary 1) that the offender is over requisite are absent,
3) when there is unlawful consequence of the due 15 & under 18 years because the person
aggression on the part of performance of such old; and committed an unlawful
the deceased w/o duty or the lawful act and had the intention
sufficient provocation exerciese of such right 2) that he does not act with of causing the injury, it
by the defendant, but the or office discernment will be an intentional
latter uses means not felony. The 2nd & 3rd
reasonably necessary, (A-3) Incomplete JC of  if acted w/ discernment, requisites will not be
for after having snatchedObedience to an Order he is entitled only to MC present either, so, there
the rope from the is no MC.
deceased, he should not – (PP vs. Bernal) Roleda fired at B-2) Incomplete EC of
have wound it around Pilones, following the order of Accident B-3) Incomplete EC of
her neck and tightened Sergeant Benting, Roleda's Uncontrollable Fear
it. superior. It appears that on their  under par. 4, Art. 12, 4
way to the camp, Roleda learned requisites must be  under par. 6, Art. 12,
Held: there is that Pilones had killed not only a present to exempt one uncontrollable fear is an
incomplete self-defense barrio lieutenant but also a from criminal liability EC if the following
on the part of the member of the military police, requisites are present:
defendant, w/c may be and this may have aroused in 1) a person is performing a
considered a PMC Roleda a feeling of resentment lawful act; 1) that the threat which
that may have impelled him to 2) with due care; caused the fear was an
readily & w/o questioning follow 3) he causes an injury to evil greater than, or at
another by mere least equal to, that which
Benting who gave the order, and accident; and he was required to
while out on patrol when the 4) without fault or commit;
 if any of the last 2 soldiers were supposed to be intention of causing it;
requisites is absent, under the immediate command 2) that it promised an evil
there is only a MC and control leader, Sgt. Benting.  if the 2nd requisite and of such gravity and
the 1st part of the 4th imminent that an
(B) INCOMPLETE requisite are absent, the ordinary person would
EXEMPTING case will fall under Art. have succumbed (yield /
CIRCUMSTANCES 365 w/ch punishes a surrendered / caved in /
 2 requisites that must be felony by negligence or sumuko) to it;
present: B-1) Incomplete EC of imprudence;
Minority over 15 & under 18  if only one of these
1) that the accused acted in years of age  in effect, there is a MC requisites is present,
the performance of a because the penalty is there is only a MC
duty or in the lawful  to be exempt from lower than that provided
exercise of a right or criminal liability under for intentional felony;
office; and R.A. No. 9344, 2 PAR 2. THAT THE
conditions must be
OFFENDER IS UNDER 18
YRS. OF AGE OR OVER 70
YEARS IN THE CASE OF THE the program that the child in
MINOR, HE SHALL BE
PROCEEDED AGAINST IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF ART. 80
 repealed by R.A. 9344;
a child above 15 yrs old - - - - - - refers to notes - - - - - - -
but below 18 yrs old
shall be exempt from
criminal liability if
he/she acted without
discernment;
 if such offender acted
with discernment, such
child in conflict with the RULE: this circumstanes can be
law shall undergo
diversion programs
provided under Chapter notable & evident disproportion
2, R.A. No. 9344
BASIS: the mitigating
circumstances in par. 2, Art. 13
are based on the diminution of
intelligence, a condition of
voluntariness;
I. TERMS
A. Diversion refers to an
alternative, child-approrpriate
process of determining the
responsibility and treatment of a
child in conflict w/ the law on the
basis of her/his social, cultural,
economic, psychological, or
educational background w/o
resulting to formal court
proceedings;
but also by the fact that
B. Diversion Program refers to the blow was or was not
aimed at a vital part of
conflict with law is required to the body
undergo after he/she is found
rEspnosible for an offense w/o II. The accused INTENDED
resorting to formal court the wrong committed, he shall
proceedings. not be entitled to MC based on:
1) weapon used
2) injury inflicted
3) the manner it is inflicted
PAR. 3.
THAT THE OFFENDER HAD III. Par. 3, Art. 13 is not
NO INTENTION TO COMMIT applicable when the offender
SO GRAVE A WRONG AS employed
THAT COMMITTED
 the brute force
employed by the
taken into account only when the appellant completely
facts proven show that there is a contradicts the claim
that he had no intention
between the means employed to to kill the victim (PP vs.
execute the criminal act and its Yu);
consequences (US vs. Reyes)
 it is the intention of the
offender at the moment
BASIS: in this circumstance, when he is committing
the intent, an element of the crime w/c is
voluntariness in intentional considered;
felony, is diminished.
IV. EXAMPLES OF MC
(I) Intention, being an internal under Par. 3
state, must be judged by
external acts A. Robbery w/ Homicide
 the intention, as an  the mc of lack of intent
internal act, is judged to commit so grave a
not only by the worng may be
proportion of the means appreciated favorably,
employed by him to the where it has not been
evil produced by his act, been satisfactorily
established that in offender had no
forcing entrance through intention to commit a
the door w/c was then grave so wrong is based
closed, w/ the use of on the state of mind of
pieces of wood, the the offender;
accused were aware that
the deceased was behind EXCEPTION: no MC in
the door and would be
hurt, and there is no 1) when the MURDER is
clear showing that they qualifed by
ever desired to kill the TREACHERY;
deceased as they sought
to enter the house to 2) PHYSICAL INJURIES
retaliate against the malewhen the victim do not die, the
occupants or commit absence of intent to kill reduces
robbery (PP vs. Abueg) the felony to merely physical
injuries, but it does not constitute
B. Murder qualified by MC under Art. 13, par. 3;
circumstances like
premeditation & treachery EXCEPTION: when the victim
dies, the lack of intent to kill is
 several accused decided mitigating;
to have a foreman
beaten up. The deed
was accomplished but 3) FELONIES BY
the victim died as a NEGLIGENCE
result of hemorrhage. It
was not the intention of  the offender acts w/o
the accused to kill the intent. The intent in
victim intentional felonies is
replaced by negligence,
Held: murder results imprudence, lack of
from the presence of foresight or lack of skill
qualifying in culpable felonies.
circumstances Hence, the felonies
(premeditation and through negligence,
treachery) based upon there is no intent on the
the manner in which the part of the offender w/c
crime was committed may be considered as
and not upon the state of dminished;
mind of the accused.
The MC that the
 his brother and his
4) UNINTENTIONAL family. Per his
ABORTION admission, petitioner
used part of the funds to
 where the abortion pay off a debt owed by
resulted is not intended his brother. Another
by the offender, the MC portion of the
that the offender had no misappropriated funds
intention to commit so went to his medications
grave a wrong as that for his debelitating
committed is not daibetes;
applicable;
 petitioner restituted all
 Unintentional abortion but P8,000.00 of the
is committed by any funds in less than 1
person who, by month and a half and
violence, shall cause the said small balance in 3
killing of the foetus in months from receipt of
the uterus or the violent demand of COA.
expulsion of the foetus Evidently, there was NO
from the maternal INTENTION to commit
womb, causing its death, so grave a wrong (Perez
but unintentionally vs. People)
5) DEFAMATION & PAR. 4.
SLANDER THAT SUFFICIENT
PROVOCATION OR THREAT
C. Physical Injuries or ON THE PART OF THE
material harm OFFENDED PARTY
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED
THE ACT;
D. Malversation of Public
Funds A. Provocation – any unjust or 2) the social standing of the
improper conduct or act of the person provoked;
 the records bear out that offended party, capable of
petitioner exciting, inciting or irritating any provocation was made
misappropriated the one;
missing funds under his
custody and control REQUISITES:
because he was impelled
by the genuine love for 1) the provocation must be
sufficient;
2) that it must originate
from the offended party;
and
3) the provocation must be
immediate to the act,
example, to the
commission of the crime
by the person who is
provoked;
I. The provocation must be
sufficient
 in order to be mitigating,
the provocation must be
sufficient and
immediately preceding
the act;
 sufficient means
adequate to excite a
person to commit the
wrong and must
accordingly be
proportionate to its III. The provocation
gravity; originate from
party
 as to whether a
provocation is sufficient
depends upon:
1) the act constituting the
provocation;
3) the place and time when the
EXAMPLES:
1) when the aggression is
in RETALIATION for
an insult, injury, or
threat, the offender
cannot successfully
claim self-defense, but
at most, he can be given
the benefit of MC under
the provisions of par. 4,
Art. 13; IV. Provocation must be
immediate to the commission of
2) although there was no the crime
unlawful aggression,
because the challenge BASIS: based on the diminution
was accepted by the of intelligence & intent
accused, and thereofre
there was no self-
defense, there was
however the mitigating
circumstance of
immediate provocation.
In this case, the
deceased insulted the
accused and then
challenged the latter;
must
the offended
1) as a mitigating
circumstance, sufficient
provocation must be
present on the part of the
offended party;
2) as a justifying
circumstance of
incomplete self-defense,
sufficient provocation
must be absent on the
part of the person
defending himself;
3) the provocation by the
deceased in the 1st stage
of the fight is not
mitigating circumstance
when the accused killed
him after he had fled;
1) between the provocation
by the offended party &
the commission of the
crime by the person
provoked, there should
not be any interval of
time;
2) the reason for this
requirement is that the
law states that the
provocation
immediately preceded
the act. Then there is an
interval of time between
the provocation & the
commission of the
crime, the conduct of the
offended party could
have excited the accused
to the commission of the
crime, he having had
time to regain his reason
& to exercise self-
control;
3) threat immediately
preceded the act
EXCEPTION: acts of
provocation but are not sufficient
1) vague threats are not
sufficient
2) blowing of horns
3) cutting of lanes /
overtaking
NOT PROVOCATION:
1) when the accused
sought the deceased, the
challenge to fight by the
latter is not provocation;
2) performance of a duty;
3) pointing of finger at the
accused and the latter
asked what he was
doing – the provocatio is
not sufficient;
PAR. 5 – THAT THE ACT
WAS COMMITTED IN THE
IMMEDIATE VINDICATION
OF AGRAVE OFFENSE TO
THE ONE COMMITTING THE in English text is not the correct
FELONY (DELITO), HIS SPS. translation. The Spanish text
ASCENDANTS,
DESCENDANTS,
LEGITIMATE, NATUROAL OR EXAMPLES:
ADOPTED BROTHERS OR
SISTERS, OR RELATIVES BY
AFFINITY WITHIN THE
SAME DEGREES
BASIS: the MC is based on the
diminution of the conditions of
voluntariness
REQUISITES:
1) that there be grave
offense done to the one
committing the felony,
his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity w/in
the same degrees;
2) that the felony is
committed in 2) while the law speaks of
vindication
(pagtatanggol) of such
grave offense. A lapse
of time is allowed
between the vindication
and the doing of the
grave offense
I. A lapse of time is allowed 3) the killing of the
between the grave offense &
the vindication
– the word “IMMEDIATE” used
4) the lapse of time
uses “PROXIMA”.
1) The fact that the was
accused was slapped by
the deceased in the
presence of many
persons a few hour
before the former killed
the latter, was
considered a MC that
the act was committed
in the immediate proximate, which admits
vindication of a grave NOTE: depending on the of an interval of time
offense. Although the situations, the interval of time between the grave
grave offense was not so negates (abrogate / invalidate) offense done by the
immediate, it was held vindication offended party and the
that the influence commission of the crime
thereof, by reason of its II. PROVOCATION vs. by the accused;
gravity & the VINDICATION
circumstances under w/c REASON FOR THE
it was inflicted, lasted DIFFERENCE
until the moment the 1) In provocation, it is
crime was committed; made directly only to  this greater leniency in
the person committing the case of vindication is
the felony; in due undoubtedly to the
an immediate vindication, the grave fact that it concerns the
vindication of a grave offense may be honor of a person, an
offense, the same should committed also against offense which is more
be understood to mean the offender's relatives worthy of consideration
proximate (nearly mentioned in the law; than mere spite against
accurate / closest / the one giving the
approximate) 2) In vindication, the provocation or threat.
offended party myst
have done a grave III. Basis to determine the
paramour by the offense to the offender gravity of offense in vindication
offended husband one or his relatives
day after the adultery mentioned by the law; in 1) social standing of the
was considered provocation, the cause person;
proximate that brought abour the 2) place
provocation need not be 3) time
a grave offense;
between the grave IV. The provocation should be
offense (abducting the 3) In provocation, it is PROPORTIONATE to the
daughter of the accused) necessary that the damage caused by the act &
and the vindication provocation or threat adequate to stir one to its
(killing of the deceased) immediately prceded the commission
was 2 or 3 days; act, i.e., that there be no
inverval of time between  aside from the fact that
There was no the provocation and the the provocation should
interruption form the commission of the immediately preced the
time the offense the crime; while in commission of the
offense was committed vindication, the offense, it should also be
to the vindication vindication of the grave proportionate to the
thereof; offense may be damage causd by the act
 and adequate to stir one turpitude pending REQUIRES: 2) the act is commtited in a hours, or several hours
to its commission. against the accused. The spirit of revenge; or half an hour
remark cannot be 1) the accused acted upon
V. Grave Offense must be considered a grave an impulse; REQUISITES OF THE MC of REASON:
directed to the accused offense against the PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
accused (PP vs. Benito) 2) the impulse must be so  the act producing the
 the supposed grave powerful that it naturally 1) that there be an act that obfuscation must not be
offense done by the produced passion or is both unlawful & far removed from the
victim was an alleged VI. Vindication of a grave obfuscation in him sufficient to produce commission of the crime
remark made in the offense incompatible with such a condition of by a considerable length
presence of the accused passion or obfuscation WHY PASSION OR mind; and of time, during the
that the Civil Service OBFUSCATION IS accused might have
Commission is a MITIGATING: 2) that said act which recovered his normal
hangout of thieves. The  vindication of a grave produced the equanimity;
accused felt alluded to offense and passion or  when there are causes obfuscation was not far
becaue was facing then obfuscation cannot be natrually producing in a removed from the A. The defense mustprove that
criminal and counted separately and person powerful commission of the crime the act which produce passion
administrative charges independently (PP vs. excitement, he loses his by a considerable length or obfuscation took place at the
on several coutns Dagatan) reason and self-control, of time, during which time not far removed from the
involving his honesty thereby diminishing the the perpetrator might commission of the crime;
and integrity. exercise of his will recover his normal
power; equanimity (PP vs.  to justify an inference
The remark itself was PAR. 6 – THAT HAVING Alanguilang) that after the passion
general in nature and not ACTED UPON AN IMPULSE RULE FOR THE had been aroused, the
specifically directed to SO POWERFUL AS APPLICATION: I. That the act of the offended accused had no time to
the accused. If he felt NATURLALY TO HAVE party must be unlawful or reflect and cool off. (PP
alluded to by a remark PRODUCED PASSION OR  passion or obfuscation unjust. vs. Gervacio);
which he personally OBFUSCATION (the action may constitute a
considered insulting to making something obscure, mitigating circumstance  the crime committed by  for the MC to exist, it is
him, that was his own unclear or unintelligible / to be only when the same the accused must be necessary that the act
individual reaction evasive, unclear or confusing/ or arose from lawful provoked by prior unjust w/c gave rise to the
thereto. Other people in an act of obscuring something to sentiments; or improper acts of the obfuscation be not
the vicinity who migh make it more difficult to injured party; removed from the
have heard the remark understand)  for this reason, even if commission of the the
could not hae possibly there is actually passion EXCEPTION: offense by a
known that the victim BASIS: Passion or Obfuscation or obfuscation on the considerable length of
was insulting the is a MC because the offender part of the offender, 1) exercise of a right or time, during w/c period
accused unless they who acts with passion or there is NO MC when: fulfillment of duty is not the perpetrator might
were aware of the obfuscation suffers a diminution proper source of passion recover his normal
background of the of his intelligence and intent. 1) the act is committed in a or obfuscation; equanimity. (PP vs.
criminal and spirit of lawlessness; or Layson)
administrative charges THE PARAGRAPH 2) no passion or
involving moral obfuscation after 24
B. The crime committed must
be the result of a sudden
impulse of natural & III. Passion or Obfuscation
uncontrollable fury. must arisse from lawful
sentiments
1) obfuscation cannot be
mitigating in a crime EXAMPLE:
w/c was planned &
calmly meditated or if
the impulse upon w/c
the accused acted was
deliberately fomented
by him for a
considerable period of
time (PP vs. Daos);
2) the circumstance of
passion & obfuscation
cannot be mitigating in a
crime w/c is planned &
calmly meditated before
its execution. (PP vs.
Pagal)
3) Vengeance is not a
lawful sentiment. (PP
vs. Constantino)
II. Passion & Obfuscation may
build up & strengthen over
time.
 passion & obfuscation
as a MC need not be felt
only in the seconds
before the commission
of the crime. It may
build up and strengthen
over time unti ti can no
longer be represeed and
will motivate the
commission of the
crime;
1) Marciano & Beatriz
lived as husband & wife
for 3 years, without
being joined by
wedlock, until Marciano
left their common
dwelling. Beatriz
stabbed him w/ a pen-
knife. When asked why
she wounded Marciano,
she repled that Marciano
after taking advantage of
her abandoned her. It
was held that the MC of
obfuscation should be
taken into consideration IV. Obfuscation arising from
in favor of the accused, Jealousy
in view of the peculiar
circumstances of the
case and the harsh
treatment w/c the
deceased gave her a
short time before she
stabbed him. (PP vs.
Yuman)
2) Passion & Obfuscation
must originate from
lawful sentiments, not
from the fact that, for
example, the girl's
sweetheart killed the
girl's father and brother NO MC in OBFUSCATION in
because the girl's early case
parents objected to their
getting married & the 1) arising from jealousy
girl consequently broke Yes.
off their relationship. a) when the relationship
Such an act is actuated of accused with the 1) in passion or
mor by a spirit of woman is illegitimate obfuscation, the
lawlessness and revenge (PP vs. Salazar & PP vs. offenders suffers a
rather than any sudden Olgado); diminution of
and legitimate impulse intelligence & intent
of natural and (Bongalon vs. PP);
uncontrollable fury (PP V. The Offender must act
vs. Gravino); under the Impulse of Special 2) the belief of the
Motives defendant that the
3) Passion & Obfuscation deceased had caused his
must arise from lawful 1) excitement is the natural dismissal from his
sentiments & not from a feelling of all persons employment is sufficient
spirit of lawlessness or engaged in a fight, to confuse his reason
revenge or from anger & especially those who andimpel him to commit
resentment; had received a beating, the crime (U.S. vs.
and the impulse in that Macalintal)
NO MC when someone state is not considered in
acted out of anger in the law so powerful as to VI. Provocation &
spirit of revenge produce obfuscation Obfuscation arising from one
sufficient to mitigate (1) & the same cause should be
liability (PP vs. De treated as only one (1) MC
Guia)
1) where the killing of the 2) the existence of 1) since the alleged
accused arose out of excitement is inherent in provocation w/c caused
rivalry for the hand of a all quarrel and come to the obfuscation of the
woman; blows does not appellants rose from the
constitute a MC. The same incident, that is,
2) the feeling of resentment guilty party must have the alleged maltreatment
resulting from rivarly in acted under the impulse and/or ill-treatment of
amorous (sexual/lustful) of special motives the appellants by the
relations w/ a woman is deceased, those 2 MC
a powerful instigator of QUESTION: cannot be considered as
jealousy and prone to 2 distinct & separate
produce anger & MAY PASSION OR circumstances but
obfuscation; OBFUSCATION LAWFULLY should be treated as one
ARISE FROM CAUSES (PP vs. Pagal)
EXISTING ONLY IN THE
HONEST BELIEF OF THE VII. Passion & Obfuscation
OFFENDER? cannot CO-EXIST with:

A) Vindication
1) vindication and
 if the accused assailed 2) passion
his victim in the
proximate vindication of
a grave offense, he
cannot successfully
alleged that he was also,
in the same breath,
blinded by passion &
obfuscation, because
these 2 MC cannot both
exist and be based on
one and the same fact or
motive. (PP vs. Yaon)
EXCEPTION: when there are B. Evident Premeditation
other facts, although closely
related (PP vs. Diokno):
 thus, where the
deceased, a Chinaman,
had eloped (run away
groom) with the
daughter of the accused,
and later when the
deceased saw the
accused coming, the
deceased ran upstairs in
his house, there are two
(2) facts w/c are closely
connected, namely: C. with Treachery
1) elopement, w/c is a
grave offense to a
family of old customes;
2) refusal to deal w/ him, a
stimulus strong enough
to produce in his mjind a
fit of passion.
Two (2) MC of: & self-control could not 1) while passion or It is only required that
deliberately employ a obfuscation is a MC, the influence thereof
particular means, irresistible force is an lasts until the moment
method or form of EC; the crime is committed;
attack in the execution
were considered in favor of the crime (PP vs. 2) passion or obfuscation 3) in both, the effect is loss
of the accused. The MC Domingo) cannot give rise to an of reason & self-control
of vindication of a grave irresistible force because on the part of the
offense was based on the OTHERS: VINDICATION OR irresistible force offender
fact of elopement & that OBFUSCATION cannot be requires physicial force; Par 7. THAT THE OFFENDER
of passion on the fact considered when the person HAD VOLUNTARILY
that the deceased, attacked is the one who gave 3) Passion of or SURRENDERED HIMSELF TO
instead of meeting him cause therefor - Obfuscation, is in the A PERSON IN AUTHORITY
and asking for offender himself, while OR HIS AGENTS, OR THAT
forgiveness, ran away  vindication & irresistible force must HE HAD VOLUNTARILY
from the accused. obfuscation cannot be come from the 3rd CONFESSED HIS GUILT
considered, not only person; BEFORE THE COUR TPRIOR
because the elopement TO THE PRESENTATION OF
of Lucila with Yara and 4) passion or obfuscation THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
 the essence of her abadonment by the must arise from lawful PROSECUTION;
premeditation is that the latter took place long sentiments whereas, the
execution of the before the commission irresistible force is BASIS:
criminal act must be of the crime, but also unlawful
preceded by calm because the deceased  the lesser perversity of
thought and reflection was not the one who the offender
upon the resolution to eloped with and X. Passion/Obfuscation vs.
carry out the criminal abandoned her (PP vs. Provocation
intent during the space Dagatan) TWO (2) MC in this paragraph
of time sufficient to 1) provocation come from
arrive at a composed the injured party; 1) voluntary surrrender to a
judgment (PP vs. Pagal) passion or obfuscation is person in authority;
VIII. Passion or Obfuscation produced by an impulse
compatible with lack of which may be caused by 2) voluntary confession of
intention to commit so grave a provocation; guilt before the court
 cannot co-exist with wrong. prior to the presentation
passion because in 2) provocation must of evidence for the
passion, the offender  it has been held in PP immediately precede the prosecution;
loses his control and vs. Cabel. commission of the
reason, while in crime; in passion or NOTE:
treachery the means obfuscation, the offense
employed are IX. Passion/Obfuscation vs. w/c engenders  when both are present in
consciously adopted & Irresistible force perturbation of mind a case, they should have
one who loses his reason need nnot be immediate. the effect of mitigating
 as two (2) independent
circumstances. If any of
them must mitigate the
penalty to acertain
extent, when both are
present, they shold
produce this effect to a
greater extent (PP vs.
Fontalba)
I. REQUISITES of
Voluntary Surrender
1) that the offender had not
been actually arrested;
2) that the offender
surrended himself to a
person in authority or to
the latter's agent;
3) that the surrender was
voluntary (Estacio vs.
Sandiganbayan)
A. Requisites of Voluntariness
1) for VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER to be
appreciated, the same
must be spontaneous
(kusang loob/unforced/
acting without external
stimulus) in such a
manner that it shows the
interest of the accused to
surrender
unconditionally to the
authorities, either
because:
(a) he acknowledged his
guilt or intend to assume
responsibility; not simply mean non-
A-1. Not mitigating when the 1) the person who ran to flight.
(b) he wishes to save accused was arrested the municipal bldg. after
them the trouble ane the commsision of the As a matter of law, it does not
expenses necessarily 1) when the accused crime had the intention matter if the accused never
incurred in his search surrended only after the or desire to surrender; avoided arrest and never hid or
and capture (PP vs. warrant of arrest had fled.
Gervacio) been served upon him; 2) when the W/A had not
been served or not What the law considers as
2) there is no pending W/A 2) there was no voluntary returned unserved mitigating is the voluntary
or Information filed (PP surrender if the W/A because the accused surrender of an accused BEFORE
vs. Cagas) showed that the cannot be located, after his arrest, showing either
defendant was in fact that accused voluntarily acknowledgment of his
 HOWEVER, in De Vera arrested (PP vs. Conwi) surrendered; gulit or an intention to save the
vs. De Vera, it was authorities from the trouble &
clarified that the mere EXCEPTION: 3) the fact that the order of expense that his search & caputre
filing of an Info and/or arrest had already been would require (Quial vs. CA)
issuance of a W/A will 1) after committing the issued is nor to the
not automatically make offense & having consideration of 6) TIME & PLACE OF
the surrender opportunity to escape, circumstance because SURRENDER – the
involuntary. voluntarily waited for the law does not require RPC does not make any
the agents of the that the surrender be distinction among
 In PP vs. Oco, the Court authorities & voluntarily prior to the order of various moments when
appreciated the MC gave himself up, he is arrest – voluntary is the surrender may occur.
because immediately entitled to the benefit of surrender is mitigating
upon learning that a MC, even if he was upon posting of bond forThe law does not require that the
W/A wa sissued, and placed under arrest by a temporary release from surrender be prior to the issuance
without the same having policeman then and detention (Rivera vs. of the order of arrest (PP vs.
been served on him, the there (PP vs. Parana); CA); Yecla)
accused surrendered to
the police. Thus, it is 2) when the accused helped 4) the mere filing of an 7) the surrender must be by
clear that in carrying his victim to info and/or issuance of reason of the
notwithstanding (inspite the hospital where he as W/A will not commission o fhte crime
of/ sa kabila/gayunman) disarmed and arrested, it automatically make the for which defendant is
the pendency of a is tantamount to surrender involuntary. prosecuted
warrant for his arrest, voluntary surrender (PP
the accused may still vs. Babiera); In PP vs. Oco, upon learning of 8) surrender through an
entitled to the MC in the accused that a W/A was intermediary –
case he surrenders, 3) issued and w/o the same being
depending on the actual served, the accused surrendered The accused surrendered
facts surrounding the A-2. Other forms of Voluntary to the police through the mediation of
very act of giving Surrender (accused voluntarily his father before any
himself up surrendered himself) 5) voluntary surrender does W/A had been issued
 stimulus – law; it indicates a moral no plea at all –
9) there is spontaneity if 1) is a person, who, by disposition in the accused, Confession of Guilt
the surrender is induced  a surrender is not direct provision of the favorable to his reform (PP vs. should be done before
by fear of retaliation by voluntary when forced law, or by election or by Dela Cruz) the court of competent
the victim's relatives – by circumstances, as appoinment by jurisdiction (PP vs.
when the culprits competent authority, is NOT MITIGATING: Oandasan);
considered it impossible charged with
 the surrender was to live in hostility & maintenance of public 1) plea of guilty on appeal 3) extrajudicial confession
induced by his fear of resistance to the order and the protection – plea of guilty must be is not the voluntary
retaliation by the constituted authorities & and security of life & made at the 1st confession which the
victim's relatives does their agents in view of property & any person opportunity; Code contemplates.
not gainsay (contradict) the fact that the said who comes to the aid of Such confession is made
the spontaneity of the authorities had neither person in authority (Art. REASON: outside the court. The
surrender, nor alter the given them rest nor let 152, as amended by confession of guilt must
fact that by giving them in peace for a R.A. No. 1978)  the spontaneous be made in open court
himself up, this accused moment (PP vs. Mutya) willingness of the (PP vs. Pardo);
saved the State the time  EXAMPLE: accused to admit the
and trouble of searching commission of the crime 4) a conditional plea of
for him until arrested A.3. The surrender must be a) barangay councilman charged, which is guilty is not a MC – an
(PP vs. Clemente) made to a person in authority b) barrio policeman rewarded by the MC, is accused may not enter a
 c) barangay leader absent (PP vs. Fortuno); conditional plea of
PERSON IN AUTHORITY guilty in the sense that
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER  Indeed, if the rule were he admits his guilt
WHEN NOT MITIGATING 1) the one directely vestedB. Requisites of Plea of Guilty otherwise, an accused, provided that a certain
with jurisdiction; who natrually nourishes penalty be imposed
1) intention to surrender, 1) that the offender the hope of acquittal, upon him. The court is
w/o actually 2) a public officer who has spontaneously confessed cold deliberately plead therefore, constrained to
surrendering – the power to govern & his guilt; not guilty in the hold that the appellant in
execute the laws municipal court, and this case must be
 the MC of VS cannot be whether as an: 2) that the confession of upon conviction and on considered as having
appreciated in favor of guilt was made in open appeal to the court of 1st entered a plea of not
the accused who claims a) individual court, that is before the instance, plead gulity guilty (PP vs. Moro)
to have intended to b) or as a member of some court competent court that is just so he can avail
surrender but did not, or governmental corporation, to try the case; and himself of the benefit of 5) plea of guilty than that
despite several board or commission; MC. This should not be charged – to be
opportunities to do so, c) barrio captain 3) that the cofessionof guilt countenanced voluntary, the plea of
and was in fact arrested d) barangay chairman was made prior to the (tolerated/permitted). guilty must be to the
(PP s. Dimdiman) presentation of evidence The accused should be offense charged (PP vs.
(Art. 152, RPC for the prosecution allowed to speculate (PP Noble);
2) when the offender as amended by P.D. 299) vs. Oandasan)
imposed a condition or REASON: why plea of guilty is 6) for voluntary confession
acted with external AGENT OF A PERSON IN mitigating – it is an act of 2) plea of NG at the to be appreciated as an
AUTHORITY repentance and respect for the Prelim. Investigation is extenuating
 circumstance, the same to amended info)
must not only be made
unconditionally but the  trial had already begun
accused must admit to on the original Info for
the offense charged, murder & frustrated
example – robbery with murder. However, in
homicide in the present view of the willingness
case and not to either of the accused to plead
robbery or homicide guilty for a lesser
only. Hence, if the offense, the prosecution,
voluntary confession is with leave of court,
condition or qualified, it amended said Info to
is not mitigating (PP vs. make it one for
Gano) Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide, and the
7) plea of guilty not accused pleaded not
mitigating in guilty thereto. That was
CULPABLE an entirely new Info and
FELONIES & in no evidence was
CRIMES punishable by presented in connection
SPECIAL LAWS – with the charges made
therein before the
 in culpable felonies, the accused entered his plea
courts shall exercise of guilty. (PP vs. Ortiz)
their sound discretion in
the imposition of NOT MC – plea of guilty to
penalties; lesser offense than that charged;
 in crimes punishable by 2) plea of guilty w/
special laws, the court qualification on
shall also exercise its aggravating &
sound discretion, As Art. mitigating
64 is not applicable circumstances –
 accused pleaded guilty,
B1. OTHER situations but the evident
MITIGATING the Plea of premeditation alleged in
Guilty the Info did not attend
the commission of the
1) plea of guilty to Amended crime and the pros failed
Info which is lesser offense than to prove the same when
the orig Info (plea of NG to orig the court required, the
Info change, then plea of guilty plea of guilt is
mitigating.
 It is because the
qualification did not
deny the defendant's
guilt and was
subsequently justified. It
was not the defendant's
fault that aggravating
circumstances were
erroneously alleged in
the Info. (PP vs.
Yturriaga)
3) when the accused is
charged w/ GRAVE
OFFENSE, the court
should take his
testimony in spite of his
plea of guilty
 because there is no law Guidelines in the conduct of
prohibiting the taking of
testimony after a plea of
guilty where a grave
offense is charged.
 The trial court should
determine whether the
accused really and truly
comprehended the
meaning, fully
significance &
consequences of his plea
& that the same was
voluntarily &
intelligently entered or
given by the accused
(PP vs. Lacson).
4) mandatory presentation
of evidence in plea of
guilty to CAPITAL
OFFENSE –
 the RPC (Rule 116, Sec.
3) provides that where
the accused pleads
guilty to a capital
offense, the court shall
condcut a searching
inquiry into the
voluntariness & full
comprehension of the
consequences of his plea
& shall require the 2) ask the defense counsel
prosecution to prove his
guilt & the precise
degree of culpability.
The accused may
present evidence in his
behalf.
SEARCHING INQUIRY 3) elicit info about the
1) ascertain from the
accused himself:
(a) how he was brought
into thecustody of the
law;
(b) whether he had the
assistance of a
competent counsel 4) inform the accused the
during the custodial &
preliminary
investigations;
(c) under what
conditions he was
detained & interrogated
during the 5) inquire if the accused
investigations.
To rule out the
possibility that the
accused has been
coerced or placed under
a state of duress either
by actual threats of
physical harm coming
from malevolent
quarters or simply
because of the judge's
intimidating robes.
a series of questions as
to wheether he had
conferred with, and
completely explained to
the accused the meaning
and consequences of a
plea of guilty;
personality profile of the
accused, such as his age,
soci-economic status,
and educational
background, w/c may
serve as a trustworthy
index of his capacity to
give a free and informed
plea of guilty;
exact length of
imprisonment or nature
of the penalty under the
law and the certainty
that he will serve such
sentence.....
knows the crime with
 which he is charged and OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS condition more or less consciousness of his
to fully explain to him – diminution of the element of ACTS; disturbed? acts;
the elements of the voluntariness wherein the person
crime which is the basis does not have complete freedom BASIS:  it is said that the
of his indictment. of action; foregoing legal
Failure of the court to do  diminution of provision refers only to PAR. 10
so would constitute a I. Physical defect must restrict intelligence & intent; diseases of pathological AND, FINALLY, ANY OTHER
violation of his means of action, defense or state (body, mind, CIRCUMSTANCE OF A
fundamental right to be communication with fellow nerves or the moral SIMILAR NATURE AND
informed of the precise beings: REQUISITES: faculty) that trouble the ANALOGOUS TO THOSE
nature of the accusation conscience or will; ABOVE-MENTIONED.
against him & a denial 1) armless 1) that the illness of the
of his right to due 2) cripple offender must diminish  illness of the mind is I. EXAMPLES:
process; 3) stutterer the exercise of his will- included. It would seem
power; that a diseased mind, not 1) over 60 y/o with failing
6) all questions posed to  his means to act, defend amounting to insanity, sight similar to over 70
the accused should be in himself or commicate w/ 2) that such illness should may give place to y/o in par. 2;
a language known and his fellow beings are not deprive the offender mitigation;
understood by the latter; limited to such an extent of consciousness of his 2) outraged feeling jof
that he did not have acts 2) mistaken belief that the owner of animal taken
7) the trial judge must complete freedom of killing of a witch was for ransom analogous to
satisfy himself that the action, consequently EXCEPTION: for the public good may vindication of a grave
accused in pleading resulting in diminution be considered offense;
guilty is truly guilty. The of the element of 1) when the offender mitigating;
accused must be voluntariness; completely lost the 3) outraged feeling of
required to narrate the exercise of will-power, 3) mild behaviour disorder creditor, similar to
tragedy or re-enact the  the paragraph does not it may be an exempting as a consequence of the passion & obfuscation in
crime or furnish its distinguish between circumstance like in: illness she had in early par. 6;
missing details (PP vs. educated & uneducated life;
Gumimba) deaf-mute or blind  dementia; 4) impulse of jealous
persons.  manic depressive 4) feeble minded feeling similar to
PAR. 8 THAT THE psychosis (stupid/lacking passion & obfuscation;
OFFENDER IS DEAF AND  The Code considers intelligence/mentally
DUMB, BLIND, OR them as being equal  during the period of defective / unable to 5) manifestations of
OTHERWISE SUFFERING footing excitement he has no make intelligent battered wife syndrom
SOME PHYSICAL DEFECT control whatsoever of judgment or decision); analogous to an illness
WHICH THUS RESTRICTS PAR. 9 SUCH ILLNESS OF his acts; that diminishes the
HIS MEANS OF ACTION, THE OFFENDER AS WOULD 5) schizo-affective disorder exercise of will power;
DEFENSE, OR DIMINISH THE EXERCISE OF QUESTION: or psychosis – an illness
COMMINCATION WITH HIS THE WILLPOWER OF THE which diminishes the 6) esprit de corps (a feeling
FELLOW BEING OFFENDER WITHOUT 1) Does this paragraph exercise of his of pride, fellowship, and
HOWEVER DEPRIVING HIM refer to the mental willpower but w/o common loyalty shared
BASIS: depriving him of the by the members of a
 particular group) similar should be considered as moral attributes of the offender latter, thereby it may be, is neither
to passion & a MC (PP vs. Gona); concurring in the exempting or mitigating
obfuscation;  A & B killed C, A acting criminal purpose of A & circumstance in the
IV. Not resisting arrest, not under an impulse w/c cooperating with him by commission of the
7) voluntary restitution analogous to voluntary produced obfuscation simultaneous act. (Art. wrongs, and although
(handing back) of surrender arose from the moral 18) The circumstance the accused had saved
stolen property, similar attribute of A & it shall of minority arose from the lives of a thousand
to voluntary surrender  yielding (surrendering) mitigate the liability of other personal cause & & one persons, if he
mentioned in paragraph to arrest w/o the A only. It shall not it shall mitigate the caused the killing of a
7; slightest attempt to resist mitigate the liability of liability of A only. It single human being, he
is not analogous to B; shall not mitigate the is, nonetheless,
8) extreme poverty & voluntary surrender (PP liability of B, an cirminally liable (PP vs.
necessity similar to vs. Rabuya); B. MC w/c arise from the accomplice. Victoria)
incomplete justification private relations of the offender
based on state of V. The condition of running w/ the offended party VII. Neither EC nor MC
necessity; amuck is not mitigating
 A, son of B, committed 1) mistake in the
9) terrifying for the  it is not one of the robbery against the blow/aberratio ictus,
prosecution analogous circumstances latter, while C, a there is a complex crime
to plea of guilty enumerated in the RPC stranger, bought the committed. The penalty
or one by analogy; property taken by A is even higher;
II. Restitution in Malversation from B, knowing that
case is only a MC VI. MC w/c are Personal to the property was the effect 2) mistake in the identity
offenders of the crime of robbery. of the victim for under
 payment or The circumstance of Art. 4, par. 1 the accused
reimbrusement is not a relationship (Art. 15) is criminally liable even
defense for exoneration MC which arise: arose from the private if the wrong done is
(acquittal/discharge) in relation of A with B and different from that
malversation; it may 1) from the moral attributes it shall mitigate the which is intended;
only be considered as of the offender; or liability of A only. It
mitigating 2) from his private shall not mitigate the 3) entrapment fo the
circumstances. This is relations w/ the offended liability of C, an accused;
because damage is not party; or accessory;
an element of 3) from any other personal 4) the accused is over 18
malversation; cause C. MC w/c arise from any years of age. If the
other personal cause offender is over 18 years
III. Killing the wrong man is shall only serve mitigate the old, his age is neither
not mitigating liability of the principals,  A, 16 y/o & acting w/ exempting nor
accomplices & accessories as to discernment, inflicted mitigating;
 neither does the Court whom such circumstances are serious physical injuries
believe that the fact that attendant (Art. 62, par. 3) on C. B, seeing what A 5) performance of
the he mad a mistake in had done to , kicked the righteous action – no
killing the wrong man A. MC w/c arise from the matter how meritorious ART. 14
 AGGRAVATING EXECUTIVE, OR IN CONFLAGRATION, WHICH IT TO WEAKEN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES HIS PRESENCE, OR SHIPWRECK, ATTACHES A DEFENSE.
WHERE PUBLIC EARTHQUAKE, LIGHTER PENALTY.
1. THAT ADVANTAGE AUTHORITIES ARE EPIDEMIC, OR 16. THAT THE ACT BE
BE TAKEN BY THE ENGAGED IN THE OTHER CALAMITY 11. THAT THE CRIME COMMITTED WITH
OFFENDER OF HIS DISCHARGE OF OR MISFORTUNE. BE COMMITTED IN TREACHERY
PUBLIC POSITION; THEIR DUTIES OR CONSIDERATION (ALEVOSIA).
IN A PLACE 8. THAT THE CRIME OF A PRICE,
2. THAT THE CRIME DEDICATED TO BE COMMITTED REWARD, OR THERE IS TREACHERY
BE COMMITTED IN RELIGIOUS WITH THE AID OF PROMISE. WHEN THE OFFENDER
CONTEMPT OF OR WORSHIP. ARMED MEN OR COMMITS ANY OF THE
WITH INSULT TO PERSONS WHO 12. THAT THE CRIME CRIMES AGAINST PERSON,
THE PUBLIC 6. THAT THE CRIME INSURE OR AFFORD BE COMMITTED BY EMPLOYING MEANS,
AUTHORITIES; BE COMMITTED IN IMPUNITY. MEANS OF METHODS OF FORMS IN
THE NIGHTTIME INUNDATION, FIRE, THE EXECUTION THEREOF
3. THAT THE ACT BE OR IN AN 9. THAT THE POISON, WHICH TEND DIRECTLY
COMMITTED WITH UNINHABITED ACCUSED IS A EXPLOSION, AND SPECIALLY TO
INSULT OR IN PLACE, OR BY A RECIDIVIST. STRANDING OF A INSURE ITS EXECUTION,
DISREGARD OF THE BAND, WHENEVER VESSEL OR W/O RISK TO HIMSELF
RESPECT DUE THE SUCH A RECIDIVIST IS INTENTIONAL ARISING FROM THE
OFFENDED PARTY CIRCUMSTANCES ONE WHO, AT THE DAMAGE THERETO,DEFENSE WHICH THE
ON ACCOUNT OF MAY FACILITATE TIME OF HIS TRIAL DERAILMENT OF A OFFENDED PARTY MIGHT
HIS RANK, AGE, OR THE COMMISSION FOR ONE CRIME, LOCOMOTIVE, OR TAKE.
SEX, OR THAT IT BE OF THE OFFENSE. SHALL HAVE BEEN BY THE USE OF ANY
COMMITTED IN PREVIOUSLY OTHER ARTIFICE 17. THAT MEANS BE
THE DWELLING OF WHENEVER MORE CONVICTED BY INVOLVING GREAT EMPLOYED OR
THE OFFENDED THAN THREE (3) FINAL JUDGMENT WAST AND RUIN. CIRUCMSTANCES
PARTY, IF THE ARMED OF ANOTHER BROUGHT ABOUT
LATTER HAS NOT MALEFACTORS CRIME EMBRACED 13. THAT THE ACT BE WHICH ADD
GIVEN SHALL HAVE IN THE SAME TITLE COMMITTED WITH IGNOMINY TO THE
PROVOCATION; ACTED TOGETHER OF THIS CODE. EVIDENT NATURAL EFFECTS
IN THE PREMEDITATION. OF HTE ACT.
4. THAT THE ACT BE COMMISSION OF AN 10. THAT THE
COMMITTED WITH OFFENSE, IT SHALL OFFENDER HAS 14. THAT CRAFT, 18. THAT THE CRIME
ABUSE OF BE DEEMED TO BEEN PREBIOUSLY FRAUD, OR BE COMMITTED
CONFIDENCE OR HAVE BEEN PUNISHED FOR AN DISGUISE BE AFTER AN
OBVIOUS COMMITTED BY A OFFENSE TO EMPLOYED. UNLAWFUL ENTRY.
UNGRATEFULNESS; BAND. WHICH THE LAW
ATTACHES AN 15. THAT ADVANTAGE THERE IS UNLAWFUL
5. THAT THE CRIME 7. THAT THE CRIME EQUAL LOR BE TAKEN OF ENTRY WHEN AN
BE COMMITTED IN BE COMMITTED ON GREATER PENALTY SUPERIOR ENTRANCE IS EFFECTED
THE PALACE OF THE OCCASION OF OR FOR TWO (2) OR STRENGTH, OR BY WAY NOT INTENDED
THE CHIEF A MORE CRIMES TO MEANS EMPLOYED FOR THE PURPOSE
 crimes; adultery and specially punishable by the offenders, who are
19. THAT AS MEANS TO concubinage law; or public officers,
THE COMISSION OF Example: committed the crime in
ACRIME A WALL, A.
QUALIFYING b) which are included the exercise of their
ROOF, FLOOR,  dwelling, nighttime AGGRAVATING by the law in defining a functions, such as in
DOOR OR WINDOW or recidivism CIRCUMSTANCE crime & prescribing the bribery, malversation
BE BROKEN versus penalty therefor
Exception: by means of GENERIC AGGRAVATING C. AC which are personal to
I. DEFINITION motor vehicles CIRCUMSTANCE Examples: the offenders

 AC are those which, if 2) SPECIFIC – can apply
attendant in the
commission of the
crime, serve to increase
the penalty without,
however, exceeding the
maximum of the penalty
provided by law for the
offense;
II. BASIS:
 greater perversity of the
offender in the
commission of the 3) QUALIFYING – those
felony as shown by:
1) the motivating power
itself;
2) the place of
commission;
3) the means & ways
employed;
4) the time;
5) the personal 4) INHERENT – those that
circumstances of the
offender, or the offended
party.
III. 4 KINDS OF AC
1) GENERIC – can
generally apply to all
only to a particular
crimes;
Example:
 ignominy in crimes
against chastity or
cruelty & treachery
in crimes against
persons;
Exception: dwelling
that change the nature of
the crime;
Example: Alevosia
(treachery) or evident
premeditation qualifies
the killing a person to
murder;
must of necessity B. AC which do not have the
accompany the effect of increasing the penalty
commission of the
crime; 1) AC that are:
Example: evident
premeditation is inherent
robbery, theft, estafa,
1) GAC not offset by any
MC, increase penalty to
the maximum period
w/o exceeding the limit
prescribed by law;
 QAC gives the crime its
proper & exclusive
name and the gives
penalty that specially
prescribed by law for
said crime;
2) QAC cannot be offset
by a MC;
 GAC may be
compensated by a MC;
3) QAC must be alleged in
the Info;
 if it is not alleged, it is a
GAC only
a) which in themselves
constitute a crime
 crime by means of fire, 1) AC w/c arise:
explosion is in itself a
crime of Arson or crime  from the moral attributes
involving destruction; of the offender;
 that the act be  from his private
committed in the relations with the
dwelling of the offended offended party; or
party, or that the crime
be committed after an  from any other personal
unlawful entry, or that as cause
a means to the
commission of a crime a shall only serve to aggravate the
wall, roof, floor, dorr or liability of the principals,
window be broken is accomplices, and accessories as
included in robbery in to whom such circumstances are
an inhabited house attendant.
2) AC inherent in the crime D. AC w/c depend for their
to such a degrre that it application upon the
must of necessity knowledge of the offenders.
accompany the
commission thereof: 1) the circumstances w/c
consist in the material
 evident premeditation is execution of the act; or
inherent in theft,
robbery, estafa, adultery 2) in the means employed
& concubinage; to accomplish it, shall
serve to aggravate the
 taking advantage of liability of those persons
public position is only who had
inherent in crimes where knowledge of them at
 the time of the execution perversity of the not abuse his office, engaged in the exercise
of the act or their offender, as shown by when he has failed in his of said functions is not  councilor, mayor,
cooperation therein. the personal duties as such public the person against governor, barangay
circumstance of the officer, this whom the crime is captain, barangay
E. AC not presumed. offender & also by circumstance would committed; chairman
means used to secure the warrant the aggravation
 an AC should be proved commission of the of his penalty 3) the offender knows him EXCEPTION:
as fully as the crime crime; to be a public authority;
itself in order to increase IV. NOT AGGRAVATING 1) not applicable when
the penalty (PP vs. II. APPLICABLE only when when it is integral element of, 4) his presence has not crime is committed in
Barrios) the offender is PUBLIC or inherent in, the offense. prevented the offender the presence of an agent
OFFICER from committing the only;
F. Qualifying & Aggravating 1) malversation of funds criminal act;
Circumstances must be alleged  applies only when the 2) falsification of B. AGENT
in the Info. person committing the document EXAMPLE:
crime is a public officer 3) accessories (under Art.  an agent of a person in
 Sec. 8, Rule 110, who takes advantage of 19, par. 3)  A & B are quarreling on authority is any person
Revised Rules of his public position. 4) crimes committed by a street & the municipal who, by direct provision
Criminal Procedure public officers (Art. 204 mayor, upon passing by, of law or by election or
requires that qualifying III. ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN & 245) attempts to separate by appointment by
and aggravating BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS them to stop the quarrel. competent authority, is
circumstances be PUBLIC POSITION MEANS: Notwisthstanding the charged with the
alleged (Designation of PAR. 2. intervention and the maintenance of public
Offense)  the public officer must THAT THE CRIME BE rpesence of the mayor, A order & the protection &
use the influence, COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT and B continued to security of life &
IF NOT ALLEGED: prestige or ascendancy OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE quarrel unti A Succeeds property;
which his office gives PUBLIC AUTHORITIES in kiling B. In this case,
 they should be him as the means by A commits the crime of  barrio councilman,
considered as bases for which he realizes his I. BASIS: homicide w/ aggravating barrio policeman &
the award of exemplary purpose. The essence of circumstance of “in barangay leader, and any
damages, conformably the matter is presented n  greater perversity of the contempt of or with persons who comes to
to current jurisprudence; the inquiry “Did the offender as shown by insult ot the public the aid of persons in
accused abuse his office his lack of respect for authority; authority (Art. 152, as
in order to commit the public authorities amended by B.P. Bldg.
PAR. 1: THAT ADVANTAGE crime?” A. PUBLIC AUTHORITY 873);
BE TAKEN BY THE II. REQUISITES:
OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC EXAMPLES:  or person in authority, is EXCEPTION:
POSITION 1) that the public authority a public officer who is
1) when the councilor is engaged in the directly vested with 1) teacher or professor
I. BASIS collects fines and exercise of his jurisdiction, that is, a
misappropriates them; functions; public officer whoo has C. The crime should not be
 based on the greater the power to govern and committed against the public
2) even if the accused did 2) that he who is thus execute the laws;
authority. prevented the latter from CRIMES AGAINST place in which said C. of the sex of the offended
committing the criminal PERSONS OR HONOR officers are placed in the party
1) if the crime is act; army and navy in
committed against 1) disregard of the respect relation to others; or to 1) refers to the female sex -
public authority while PAR 3 due the offended party the designation or title there should be a
he is in the performance THAT THE ACT BE on accout of his rank, of distrinction conferred deliberate intent to
of his official duty, the COMMITTED; age or sex may be taken upon an officer in order offend or insult the sex
offender commits direct (1) WITH INSULT OR IN into accout only in to fix his relative of the victime or showed
assault (Art. 148 w/o DISREGARD OF THE crimes against persons position reference to manifest disrespect to
this aggravating RESPECT DUE THE or honor, when in the other officers in matters her womanhood;
circumstance of OFFENDED PARTY ON commission of the of privileges,
commission of het ACCOUNT OF HIS crime, ther eis some precedence, and I-A. Not applicable in:
offense in contempt of (a) RANK, insult or disrespect to sometimes of command
the pbulic authority, (b) AGE, OR rank, age or sex; or by which to 1) when the offender ated
since the deceased was (c) SEX, OR determine his pay & w/ passion or
shot whiile in the (2) THAT IT BE COMMITTED 2) it is not proper to emoluments as in the obfuscation;
performance of his IN THE DWELLING OF THE consider this AC in case of army staff
official duty as barrio OFFENDED PARTY, crimes against property. officers; or to a grade or  when a man is blinded
lieutenant; IF THE LATTER HAS NOT Robbery with Homicide official standing, with passion or
GIVEN PROVOCATION. is primarily against relative position in civil obfuscation, he could
 the accused shold have property and not against or social life, or in an not have been conscious
been prosecuted for and  all four (4) persons. Homicide is a scale of comparison, that his act was done
convictef of a complex circumstances can be mere incident of the status, grade, including with disrespect to the
crime of homicide w/ considered single or robbery, the latter being its grade, status or scale offended party (PP vs.
direct assault w/o the together. If all the four the main purpose and of comparison within a Ibañez);
AC; (4) circumstances are object of the criminal. position;
present, they have the (PP vs. Pagal); 2) when there exists a
2) knowledge that a public weight of one (1) B. of the age of the offended relationship between the
officer is present is aggravating party; offended party & the
essential; circumstance only; I. With Insult or in disregard of offender;
the respect due the offended 1) this Ac applies to an
3) presence of public BASIS: party on account – aggressor, 45 years old  notwithstanding the
authority has not while the victim was an divorce decree, there
prevented offender from  based on the greater A. of the rank of the offended octogenarian / 80-89 y/o still existed some
committing the crime; perversity of the party (PP vs. Orbillo); relationship & his
offender, as shown by divorced wife, which
 an offense may be said the personal  Rank – refers to a high 2) the victim is of tender had direct bearing with
to be have been circumstances of the social position or age and of old age – their only child (PP vs.
committedin contempt offended party & the standing as a grade in there should be a Valencia);
of a public authority place of the commission armed forces; or to a deliberate intent to
when his presence, of the crime graded official standing offend or insult the age  relation of employer and
made know to the or social position or of the victim; laborer
offender, has not APPLICABLE only to the station; or to the order or
 latter's house is more dwelling: (PP vs. Cabato) facilitating the commission of the
3) when the condition of guilty than he who crime, the culprit taking
being a woman is offends him elsewhere 1) dwelling is aggravating 3) in the crime of trespass advantage of the offended party's
indispensable in the (PP vs. Balansi); in abduction or illegal to dwelling, it is belief that the former would not
commssion of the crime detention – where the inherent or included by abuse said confidence.
 the home is a sort of victim was taken from law in defining the
 sex is not aggravating in sacred place for its her/his house & carried crime. This crime can I. REQUISITES
(a) parricide, (b) rape, owner. He who goes to away to another placed be committed only in
(c) abduction, or (d) another's house to the dwelling of another; 1) that the offender party
seduction – sex is slander him, hurt him or C. Dwelling includes: had trusted the offender;
inherent in the crime of do him wrong, is more 4) when the owner of the
rape (PP vs. Lopez); guilty than he who 1) dependencies; dwelling gave sufficient 2) that the offender abused
offends him elsewhere; 2) foot of the staircase; and immediate such trust by committing
3) enclosure under the provocation; a crime against the
II. That the crime be house; offended party;
committed in the DWELLING A. What aggravates the 5) when the dwelling
OF THE OFFENDED PARTY commission of the crime in D. Dwelling is not aggravating where the crie was 3) that the abuse
one's dwelling: in the following cases: committed did not confidence facilitated
belong to the offended the commission of the
 dwelling must be a 1) the abuse of confidence 1) both offender or party; crime (PP vs. Luchico);
building or structure w/c the offended party offended party are
exclusively used for rest reposed in the offender occupants of the same 6) treachery; 4) other AC –
and comfort; by opening the door to house; ungratefulness
him; or
BASIS: 2) robbery by the use of
2) the violation of the force upon things PAR. 4 EXCEPTION OF ABUSE OF
 greater perversity of the sanctity of the home by because it is inherent to THAT THE ACT BE CONFIDENCE which is
offender, as shown by trespassing therein with the crime; COMMITTED WITH: INHERENT in:
the place of the violence or against the (1) ABUSE OF
commission of the will of the owner; EXCEPTION: CONFIDENCE, OR 1) malversation
offense; (2) OBVIOUS 2) qualified
B. Offended party must not  robbery with violence UNGRATEFULNESS 3) estafa by conversion or
 dwelling is considered give provocation against or intimidatation missappropriation
an AC because of the of persons because this BASIS: greater perversity of the 4) qualified seduction
sanctity of privacy the  when it is the offended class of robbery can be offender, as shown by the means
law accords to human party who has provoked committed w/o the and ways employed;
abode; the incident, he loses his necessity of trespassing
right ot the respect and the sanctity of the ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE –
 one's dwelling place is a consideration due him in offended party's house. exists only when the offended PAR. 5
“sanctuary worth of his own house (PP vs. Entrance into the party has trusted the offender THAT THE CRIME BE
respect” & the one who Ambis); dwelling house of the who later abuses such trust by COMMITTED IN THE
slanders another in the offended party is not an committing the crime. The abuse PALACE OF THE CHIEF
B-1. Other examples of element of the offense of confidence must be a means of EXECUTIVE, OR IN HIS
 PRESENCE, OR WHERE
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE
ENGAGED IN THE TEH
DISCHARGE OF THEIR
DUTIES OR IN A PLACE
DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP.
(1) IN THE NIGHTTIME, OR
BASIS: (2) IN AN UNINHABITED
 greater perversity of the
offender, as shown by
the place of the
commission of the crime
which must be
respected;
REQUISITES w/ distinction toBASIS:
the requisites of par. 2
1) in both, public
authorities are in the
performance of their
duties;
WHEN AGGRAVATING:
2) in par. 5 – the public
authorities who are in
the performance of their
duties must be in their
office;
 in par. 2 – the
public authorities
are performing their
duties outside of
their office;
3) in par. 2 – the public
authority should not be
the offended party;
 in par. 5 – he may be the
offended party; should not be estimated
as an AC, if it appears
that the accused took
advantage of het
PAR. 6 darkness for the more
THA THE CRIME BE successful
COMMITTED consummation of his
plans, to prevent his
being recognzied, and
PLACE, OR that the crime might be
(3) BY A BAND, perpetrated unmolested,
WHENEVER SUCH the AC of nocturnity
CIRCUMSTANCE MAY shold be applied;
FACILIATE THE
COMMISSION OF THE 2 Tests for Nocturnity as AC
OFFENSE
1) objective test – it
facilitates the
commission of the
 based on the time & offense;
place of the commission
of the crime and means 2) subjective test – it was
and ways employed; purposely sought by the
offender;
 these 2 tests should be
1) when it facilitated the applied in the alternative
commission of the (PP vs. Garcia)
crime;
FOR PURPOSE OF
2) when especailly sought IMPUNITY
for the offender to
insure the commission  to prevent his
of the crime of for (accused's) being
purpoose of impunity recognized, or to secure
(PP vs. Pardo); himself against
detection & punishment
3) when the offender took (PP vs. Matbagon)
advantage thereof for
the purpose of impunity I. NIGHTTIME
(US vs. Billedo)
 period of darkness
 although nocturnity
beginning at end of dusk house to the scene of the
(takip-silim) and ending crime, but whether or
at dawn (bukang- not in the place of its
liwayway) commission, the ewas
reasonable possibility of
 nighttime itself is not the victim receiving
aggravating. some help
 it becomes aggravating  uninhabited place is
only when it is sought aggravating where the
by the offender or taken felony was perpetrated
advantage of by him to in the open sea, where
facilitate the no help cold be expected
commission of the crime by the victim from other
or to insure his persons & the offenders
immunity from capture; could easily escape
punishment (PP vs.
 the Info must allege that Nulla)
nighttime was soughf ro
or taken advantage of by  a place about 1
the accused or that it kilometer from the
facilitated the nearest house or other
commission of the inhabited place is
crime; considered uninhabited
place (PP vs. Aguinaldo)
 not aggravating when
crime began at daytime  an isolated place that
resembled that of an
 the commission of the abandoned subdivision;
crime must begin & be
accomplished in the  when the victims are the
nighttime; occupants of the only
house in the place, the
 when the place of the crime is committed in an
crime is illuminated by uninhabited place;
light, nighttime is not
aggravating  solitude
(isolation/loneliness)
II. UNINHABITED PLACE must be sought to better
attain the criminal
 determined not by the purpose. The offender
distance of the nearest must choose the place as
 an aid either: considered inherent
1) to an easy &
uninterrupted
accomplishment of their PAR. 7
criminal designs; THAT THE CRIME BE
COMMITTED ON THE
2) to insure concealment of OCCASION OF A
the offense CONFLAGRATION,
SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, REQUISITES:
III. BY A BAND EPEDEMIC OR OTHER
CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE
 whenever more than
three (3) armed I. BASIS
malefactors shall have
acted together in the  the basis of this AC has
commission of an reference to the time of
offense; the commission of the
crime;
 stone when used is
included under the term
arms in the phrase II. REASON FOR
“more than 3 armed AGGRAVATION
malefactors acted
together;  it is found in the
debased form of
 AC of by a band is criminality me in one
considered in the crimes who, in the midst of a
against property; great calamity, instead
of lending aid to the
 ordinar aggravating afflicated, adds to their
circumstance is suffering by taking
considered in robbery advantage of their
with homicide misfortune to despoil
them (US vs.
Rodriguez)
EXCEPTION
 crimes against chastity PAR. 8 
THAT THE CRIME BE
 brigandage or band of COMMITTED WITH THE AID accomplices only
robbers as by a band is OF (1) ARMED MEN, OR
(2) PERSONS WH INSURE OR
AFFORD IMPUNITY  in “aid or armed men”,
the men act as
accomplices only
BASIS:
EXCEPTION:
 based on the means &
ways of committing the 1) this AC shall be
crime; considered when both
the attacking party & the BASIS:
party attacked were
equally armed;
1) that armed men or
persons took part in the 2) this AC is not present
commission of the when the acused as well
crime, directly or as those who cooperated
indirectly; with him I the
commission of the crime
2) that the accused availed acted under the same
of their aid or relied plan & for the same
upon them when the purpose (PP vs. Piring)
crime was committed;
RULE FOR THE B. must take part directly or
APPLICATION OF THIS indirectly
CIRCUMSTANCE
 either as co-prinicipals
 the casual presence of or co-conspirators;
armed men near the
place where the crime III. “With the aid of armed
was committed does not men” versus “by a band”
constitute an AC when it
appears that the accused  by a band requires that
did not avail himself of more than 3 armed
their aid or rely upon malefactors shall have
them to commit the acted together in the
crime; commission of the
offense;
I. ARMEN MEN
aid or armed men is
A. must take act as presene even if one of
the offenders merely
relied on their aid, for
actual aid is not
necessary;
PAR. 9
THAT THE ACCUSED IS A
RECIDIVIST
 based on the greater
perversity of the
offender, as shown by
his inclination to crimes;
RECIDIVIST:
 the one who, at the time
of his trial for one (1)
crime, shall have been
previously convicted by
final judgment of
another crime embraced
in the same title of the
RPC (PP vs. Lagarto)
REQUISITES:
1) that offender is on trial
for an offense;
2) that he was previously
convicted by final
judgment of another
crime;
3) that both the 1st and 2nd
offenses are embraced in
the same title of the
Code;
4) that the offender is
convicted of the new
 offense. No, because the and its effects offender be previously
judgment in any of the punished, that is, he has
1st two (2) offenses was served sentence, for an
not yet final when he offense in which the law
I. AT THE TIME OF HIS was tried for the 3rd PAR. 10 attaches or provides for REITERACION OR
TRIAL FOR ONE CRIME offense. THAT THE OFFENDER HAS an equal or greater HABITUALITY not always
BEEN PREVIOUSLY penalty than that aggravating
 what is controlling is the III. 1St & 2nd OFFENSE ARE PUNISHED FOR AN OFFENSE attached by law to the
time of trial, not the EMBRACED IN THE SAME TO WHICH THE LAW 2nd offense, or for two or  if as a result of taking
time of the commission TITLE OF THE CODE ATTCHES AN EQUAL OR more offenses, in which this circumstance into
of the crime; GREATER PENALTY OR FOR the law attaches a lighter account, the penalty for
 robbery & theft are TWO (2) OR MORE CRIME penalty; the crime of murder
 it is not required that at embraced in Title 10 STO WHICH IT ATTACHES A would be death and the
the time of the referring to crimes LIGHTER PENALTY I. “HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY offenses for which the
commission of the against property PUNISHED” offender has been
crime, the accused previously convicted are
should have been  Title 8 are crimes BASIS: the greater perversity of  means that the accused against property and not
previously convicted by against persons; the offender as shown by his previously served sented directly against persons,
final judgment of inclination to crimes for another offense or the court should exercise
another crime;  Title 8 and Title 10, sentences for other its discretion in favor of
Book 2 of RPC offenses before his trial the accused by not
 it is meant to include REQUISITES: for the new offense; taking this AC into
everything that is done IV. THERE IS RECIDIVISIM account.
in the course of the trial, EVEN IF THE LAPSE OF 1) that the accused is on2nd REQUISITE IS PRESENT:
from arraignment until TIME BETWEEN TWO (2) trial for an offense;; II. RECIDIVISM versus
after sentence is FELONIES IS MORE THAN 1) when the penalty REITERACION
announced by the judge TEN (10) YEARS 2) that the previously provided by law for the
in open court (PP vs. served sentence for previous offense is equal 1) reiteracion – the
Lagarto)  no matter how many another offense to which to that for the new offender shall have
years have intervened the law attaches an offense; or served out his sentence
II. PREVIOUSLY between the 1st & 2nd equal or greater penalty, for the 1st offense;
CONVICTED BY FINAL felonies (PP vs. Colocar) or for two (2) or more 2) when the penalty
JUDGMENT: crimes to which it provided by law for the  recidivism – it is enough
 PARDON does not attaches lighter penalty previous offense is that a final judgment has
 The accused was obliterate the fact that than that for the new greater; or been rendered in the 1st
prosecuted and tried for the accused was a offense; and offense;
theft, estafa & robbery. recidivist 3) when the accused served
Judgments for 3 3) that he is convicted of at least 2 sentences, 2) reiteracion – the
offenses were read on EXCEPTION: the new offense; even if the penalties previous and subsequent
the same day. Is he a provided by law for the offenses must not be
recidivist?  AMNESTY  in REITERACION or crime is lighter; embraced in the same
extinguishes the penalty HABITUALITY, it is title of the Code;
essential that the
  recidivism – requires
that the offense dbe
includedin the same title
of the Code;
3) reiteracion – not always
an aggravating
circumstance;
 recidivism – always to
be taken into
consideration in fixing
the penalty to be
imposed upon the
accused;
B. QUASI-RECIDIVISM
III. FOUR (4) FORMS OF
REPETITION:
1) recidivism
(Art. 14, par. 9)
2) reiteracion or habituality
(Art. 14, par. 10)
3) multi-recidivism or
habitual delinquency
(Art. 62, par. 5)
4) quasi-recidivism
(Art. 160)
NOTE:
1 & 2 are generic AC,
3 & 4 are extraordinary AC
A. Habitual Delinquency
 when a person, within a
period of 10 years from
the date of his release or
last conviction of the THAT THE CRIME BE by relationship.
crimes is found guilty of COMMITED BY MEANS OF
any of said crimes a 3rd (1) INUNDATION  when another AC
time or oftener. (2) FIRE already qualifies the
PAR. 11 (3) POISON; crime, any of these AC
 the offender is either a THAT THE CRIME BE (4) EXPLOSION, shall be considered as
recidivist or one who COMMITTED IN (5) STRANDING OF A GAC only;
has been previously CONSIDERATION OF A VESSEL OR INTENTIONAL
punished for 2 or more PRICE, REWARD OR DAMAGE THERETO; I. ARSON
offenses (habituality); PROMISE (6) DERAILMENT OF
LOCOMOTIVE OR 1) Arson only – when the
 he shall suffer additional BASIS: based on the greater (7) BY THE USE OF ANY crime intended to
penalty for being a perversity of the offender, as OTHER ARTIFICE commit is arson and
habitual delinquent shown by the motivating power INVOLVING GREAT WASTE & somebody died as a
itself. RUIN result;
I. THIS AC PRESUPPOSES BASIS: has reference to means 2) Murder – if the offender
 any person who commit THE CONCURRENCE OF 2 and ways employed (any had the intent to kill the
a felony after having OR MORE OFFENDERS circumstances in par. 12 is victim, burned the house
been convicted by final considered to increase the penalty where the latter was, and
judgment, before  there must be 2 or to change the nature of the the victim died as a
beginning to serve such principals, the one who offense when used by the consequence, the crime
sentence or while gives or offers the price offender as a means to is murder, qualified by
serving the same, shall or promise, and the one accomplish the crime; the circumstance that the
be punished by the who accepts it; crime was committed
maximum period of the AS GENERIC AC “by means of fire”
penalty prescribed by  the AC of price, reward
law for the new felony or promise thereof  A killed his wife by  the killing by means of
affects equally the means of fire, as when inundation (flash
offeror & the acceptor he set their house on fire flood/pagbaha), fire,
to kill her; or by means poison, or explosion
 if alleged in the info as a of explosion, as when he qualifies it to murder
Qualifying AC, it shall threw a hand grenade at (Art. 248, par. 3)
be considered agaisnt all her to kill her; or by
the accused, it being the means of poison which II. BY MEANS OF FIRE
element of Murder; he mixed with the food
of his wife. In any of 1) in order to constitute
 if not alleged in the Info, these cases, there is only Murder, there should be
it shall be considered as a GAC because they an actual design to kill
a Generic AC; cannot qualify the and that the use of fire
crime. The crime should be purposely
PAR. 12 committed is Parricide adopted as a means to
w/c is already qualified that end (US vs. Burns)
 detonation agents or crime of damage to
2) but if the house was set incendiary devices, means of 1. time when the offender
on fire after the killing which results in the communication, determined to commit
of the victim, there death of any person or derailment of cars, PAR. 13 the crime;
would be 2 separate persons, the use of such collision or accident THAT THE ACT BE
crimes of arson & explosives, detonation must result from damage COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT 2) an act manifestly
murder or homicide. agents or incendiary to railway, telegraph or PREMEDITATION. indicating that the
There would not be an devices shall be telephone lines; culprit has clung to his
AC of “by means of considered as an AC determination; and
fire”; Question 2: BASIS:
Question 1: 3) a sufficient lapse of time
3) if the purpose of the What if the AC is included in the  the basis has reference between the
explosion, inundation, What crime is committed if a by the law in defining a crime? to the ways of determination &
fire or poison is to kill a hand grenade is thrown into the committing the crime execution, to allow him
predetermined person, house where a family of 7 Answer: because evidedent to reflect upon the
the crime committed is persons live, and as a result of the premeditation implies a consequences of his act
murder; explosion, the wall fo the house The AC shall not be taken into deliberate planning of and to allow his
is damaged, endangering the consideration for the purpose of the act before executing conscience to over the
III. BY MEANS OF lives of the people there? increasing the penalty. it. resolution of his will (PP
EXPLOSION vs. Lagarto)
Answer: Question 3:  The offender had
1) when the killing is sufficient time to reflect  if it is proved that the
prepetrated w/ treachery The offense is a crime involving Distinguish par. 12 from par. 7. and allow his conscience offender deliberately
& by means of destruction (Art. 324). If one of to overcome his planned to commit the
explosives, the latter the people there died, but there is Answer: resolution to do the crime and had
shall be considered as a no intent to kill on the part of the crime. persistently and
qualifying circumstance. offender, it will be a crime Under par. 12, the crime is continuously followed
Since the use of involving destruction with the committed by means of any ofESSENCE OF it, notwithstanding that
explosives is the use of explosives as an AC. such act involving great waste orPREMEDITATION he had ample time
principal mode of ruin. toallow his conscience
attack, reason dictates If there is intent to kill and  the execution of the to overcome the
that this attendant explosion is used bhyh the Under par. 7, the crime is criminal act must be determination of his
circumstance should offender to accomplish his committed on the occasion of a prceded by cool thought will, if hehad so deisred,
qualify the offense criminal purpose, it is MURDER calamity or misfortune. and reflection upon the after meditation and
instead of treachery w/c if kthe victim dies as a direct resolution to carry out reflection
will then be relegated consequence thereof. the criminal intent
merely as a generic AC during the space of time II. EVIDENCE
IV. BY MEANS OF sufficient to arrive at a PREMIDITATION in Robbery
2) when a person commits DERAILMENT OF calm judgment (PP vs. and Robbery w/ Homicide
any of the crimes LOCOMOTIVE Durante)
defined in the RPC or 1) robbery – it is inherent
Special Law with the  under Art. 330 which I. REQUISITES: but if there is evident
use of explosives, defines & penalizes the premeditation not only
 to steal personal
property in the house of
the victim but also to
killhim, it shall be PAR. 14
considered to increase THAT (1) CRAFT,
the penalty; (2) FRAUD, OR
(3) DISGUISE
2) robbery w/ homicide – if BE EMPLOYED
there is no evidence that
the connspirators BASIS:
previously planned and
agreed to kill the  the basis has reference
victims, EP is not to the means employed
aggravating; in the commission of the
crime
3) robbery w/ evidence -
where the killing of a APPLICATION OF THIS
person during the PARAGRAPH
commission of robbery
was only an incident,  the circumstance is
because their only plan characterized by the
was to rob, and they intellectual mental
killed the deceased rather than the physical
when the latter refused means to which the
to open the kaha de yero criminal resorts to carry
and fought with them, out his design;
the AC should be
disregarded (PP vs.  this paragraph was
Pagal) intended to cover to
prevent the offender
from being recognized
I. CRAFT
 involves intellectual
trickery & cunning on
the part of the accused;
 the act of luring the
victim
II. FRAUD
 insidious words or
machinations used to
induce the victim to act PAR. 15
in a manner which THAT
would enable the (1) ADVANTAGE BE
offender to carry out his TAKEN OF SUPERIOR
design) STRENGTH
OR
FRAUD vers CRAFT (2) MEANS BE EMPLOYED
TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE
 in fraud, there is a direct
inducment by insidious
words or manchinations I. ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN
 in craft, the act of the  to take advantage of
accused is done in order superior strength means
not to arouse the to use purposely
suspicion of the victim; excessive force out of
proportion to the means
III. DISGUISE of defense available to
the person attacked
 resorting to anhy device
to conceal identity II. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
A. EXAMPLES:
1) when a man attacks a
woman with a weapon;
2) a strong man has ill-
treated a child, an old or
decrepit person, or one EXCEPTION:
weakened by disease;
EXCEPTION:
 parricide – abuse of
superior strength is
inherent. It is generally
accepted that the
husband is physically
stronger than the wife;
3) number of aggressors, if
armed, may point to
abuse of superior
strength;
EXCEPTION:
 three (3) persons armed
with bolos attacked
another who was armed
with a revolver. There
was no abuse of superior
strength as their strength
was almost balanced;
4) by numerical superiority
– a person was
outnumbered by a group
of men;
5) when the weapon used
is out of proportion to
the defense availabe to
the offended party;
6) simultaneous attack by 2
persons with revolvers
against a defenseless
person is aggravated by
superior strength;
 there is no abuse of
superior strength when
one acted as principal &
the other 2 as
accomplices
  superior strength is strength – victim to put up any sort 2) that the offender treacherous means
absorbed & inherent in of resistance at the time conscicously adopted insure the execution of
treachery (PP vs.  taking advantage by the heas attacked, treachery the particular means, the aggression, w/o the
Centeno) culprits of their collectie may be considered (PP method or form of risk to the person of the
strength to overpower vs. Ducusin) attack employed by him; aggressor arising from
7) abuse of superior their victim taking into the defense which the
strength is aggravating account their relative I. RULES REGARDING offended party might
in coercion & forcible physical might versus PAR. 16 TREACHERY make, it being sufficient
abduction, when greatly the offended party (PP THAT THE ACT BE that it tends to this end
in excess of that vs. Apduhan) COMMITTED WITH 1) applicable only to (PP vs. Parana)
required to commit the TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA) crimes against persons;
offense; III. MEANS EMPLOYED TO II. THE MODE OF ATTACK
WEAKEN DEFENSE BASIS: 2) means, methods or MUST BE CONSCIOUSLY
8) abuse of superior forms need not insure ADOPTED
strength is aggravating A. EXAMPLES:  has reference to the accomplishments of
in illegal detention means & ways crime;
where 6 persons took & 1) one is struggling with employed in the 3) the mode of attack must  the accused must make
carried away the victim another, suddenly commissionof the crime; be consciously adopted some preparation to kill
from his home (PP vs. throws a cloak over the the deceased in such a
Santiago: head of his opponent TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA) A. IT IS NOT NECESSARY manner as to insure the
and while in this THAT THE MODE OF exectuion of the crime
9) robbery with rape situation he wounds or  there is treachery when ATTACK INSURES THE or to make it impossible
committed by 5 armed kills him (US vs. the offender commits CONSUMMATION OF or hard for the person
persons (PP vs. Macaya) Devela); any of the crimes OFFENSE attacked to defend
against person, himself or retaliate (PP
10) multiple rape committed 2) intoxicating the victim employing means,  the treacherous vs. Tumaob)
by 4 men (US vs. to weaken defense or methods or forms in the character of the means
Camiloy; resisting power of the execution thereof which employed in the  the mode of attack must
victim is aggravating tend directly and aggression does not be thought of by the
11) robbery with homicide (PP vs. Ducusin); specially to insure its depend upon the result offender, and must not
committed by 3 men; execution w/o risk to thereof but upon the spring from the
3) crimes against person, himself arising from the means itself, in unexpected turn of
B. CIRCUMSTANCE of sometimes against defense which the connection with the events;
“by band” versus “abuse of person & property such offended party might agggressor's purpose in
superior strength as robbery with make; employing it.  the sudden method or
homicide or robbery the attack must be
1) by a band – with physical injuries; REQUISITES: Otherwise, there would deliberately chosen by
be no attempted or the accused (PP vs.
 at least 4 malefactors 1) that at the time of the frustrated murder Macalisang)
 all armed EXCEPTION: attack, the victim was qualified treachery.
not in a position to  to sustain a finding of
2) abuse of superior  if in his intoxicated it defend himself; For this reason, the law treachery, the means,
was impossible for the does not require that the
 method or form of
attack must be shown to
have been deliberately
adopted by the appellant
(PP vs. Caldito);
 treachery need not to
exist in the beginning of
the assault if the victim
was first seized in the
beginning of the assault
if the victim was first
seized & bound and then
killed (PP vs. Cañete)
EXCEPTION:
III. EXAMPLES OF
 NO TREACHERY even TREACHERY
if the position of the
victim was vulnerable
(at the back) because it
was not deliberately
sought by the accused,
but was purely
accidental (PP vs.
Cadag)
 no treachery where the
meeting between the
accused & the victim is
casual or accidental and
the attack impulsively
(spontaneously /hastily)
done;
 when the victim was
already defending
himself when he was
attacked by the accused;
 accused and the victime
grappled with each other
(PP vs. Butler);
 when the accused gave
the victim a chance to
prepare;
 when the attack is
preceded by a warning;
 when the shooting is
preceded by heated
discussion;
1) victim asleep;
2) victim half-awake or
just awakened – because
he might still be dazed
and unprepared for the
attack & would not be in
a position to offer any
risk or danger of
retaliation to the attacker
(PP vs. Perante, Jr.);
3) victim grappling or
being held – renders him
practically helpless and
unable to put up any
defense (PP vs.
Lingatong)
4) victims were having
lunch – they were not at
a place where they
would be reasonably
expected to be on guard
for any sudden attack by
the offenders (PP vs.
Feliciano;
5) attacked from behind
 with a firearm
 with a bladed weapon
 the offenders attacked
the victims who are
even armed but were not
in a position to make a
defense
6) unarmed victim whose IV. DISTINGUISH
hands are raised;
7) killing a woman asking
for mercy;
8) killing a child – because
the tender age of the
victim results in the
absene of any danger to
the accused;
9) treachery may exist if
the attack is face to face
– treachery should be
taken into account even
if the deceased was face
to face with his assailant
at the time the blow was
delivered, where it
appears that the attack
was not preceeded by a
dispute and the party
was unable to prepare
himself for his defense;
10) assault – when the
aggression is continous, offended party;
treachery must be
present at the beginning A. When there is conspiracy,
of the assault (PP vs. treachery is considered against all
Canete) offenders – treachery should be
considered against all persons
Assault not continuous – participating or cooperating in
in that there was an the perpetration of the crime
interruption, it is except when there is no
sufficient that treachery conspiracy among them (PP vs.
was present at the carandan)
moment the fatal blow
as given (US vs. B. The mastermind should have
Baluyot) knowledge of the employment of
treachery if he was not present
when the crime was committed;
1) TREACHERY – means,
methods or forms of C. ABSORBED in:
attack are employed by
the offender to make it 1) treason – treachery
impossible or hard for together with evident
the offended party to put premeditation and use of
up any sort of superior strength;
resistance;
2) treachery absorbs abuse
2) ABUSE OF SUPERIOR of superior strength, aid
STRENGTH – the of armed men, by a
offender does not band, nighttime, and
employ means, methods means to weaken the
or forms of attack, he defense;
only takes advantage of
his superior strength; 3) nighttime inherent in
treachery
3) MEANS EMPLOYED
TO WEAKEN THE 4) craft is included in and
DEFENSE – the absorbed by treachery
offender, like in
treachery, employs 5) age & sex are included
means but the means in treachery – disregard
employed only of age & sec may be
materially weakens the deemed included in
resisting power of the treachery;
 1) crimes agains chastity unnecessary wrongs to 2) murder where the crimes – DWELLING &
6) treachery is inherent in (abstinence/virginity); the main criminal accused entered the UNLAWFUL ENTRY
murder by poisoning objective room of the victim (PP vs. Barruga)
EXEPTIONS: 2) less serious physical through the window;
injuries; PAR. 18
6) dwelling is not included THAT THE CRIME BE 3) robbery with violence PAR. 19
in treachery; 3) light or grave coercion; COMMITTED AFTER AN against or intimidation THAT AS A MEANS TO THE
UNLAWFUL ENTRY of persons, because COMMISSION OF A CRIME, A
7) defenseless condition of 4) murder; unlawful entry is not WALL, ROOF FLOOR, DOOR
victims is included in BASIS: inherent in that OR WINDOW BE BROKEN
abuse of superior I. THAT MEANS BE particular kind of
strength not treachery; EMPLOYED:  means & ways robbery; BASIS:
employed to commit the
8) treachery cannot co-  accused augmented the crime; EXCEPTION  means and ways
exist with passion or wrong done by employed to commit the
obfuscation increasing its pain and I. UNLAWFUL ENTRY 1) robbery with force upon crime;
adding ignominy thereto things under Art. 299
(PP vs. Torrefiel)  when the entrance is and 302, it is inherent in I. EXAMPLES:
effected by a way not this kind of robbery;
PAR. 17 II. WHICH ADD IGNOMINY intended for the 1) AC of Forcible Entry –
THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO THE NATURAL purpose; 2) trespass to dwelling – the accused cut the
OR CIRCUMSTANCES EFFECTS OF THE ACT trespass to dwelling is canvas / the rope at the
BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH  is there unlawful entry if committed when a rear of the tent where
ADD IGNOMINY TO THE  the means employed or the door is broken and private individual shall the soldiers are sleeping
NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE the circumstances thereafer made an entry enter the dwelling of and killed two (2) of
ACT brought about must tend through the broken another against the them inside the tent;
to make the effects of door? No, it will be latter's will and may be
BASIS: the crime more covered by paragraph 19 committed by means of II. AS A MEANS TO THE
humiliating or to put the violence (Art. 280). COMMISSION OF A CRIME
 has reference to the offended party to shame;  the act of entering
means employed; through the window 3) dwelling and unlawful
 Rape as ignominy in which is not the proper entry taken separately in  breaking the window
IGNOMINY: robbery with homicide – place for entrance into murders committed in a must be utilized as a
rapes, wanton robbery the house constitutes dwelling – when the means to the
 is a circumstance for personal gain, and unlawful entry accused gained access to commission of the crime
pertainig to moral order, other forms of cruelties the dwelling by and not to escape
which adds disgrace and are condemned and their II. APPLICATION climbing throug the
obloquy to the material perpetration will be window and once inside,  TO EFFECT
injury caused by the regarded as aggravating 1) rape committed in a murdered certain ENTRANCE ONLY – it
crime (PP vs. Abaigar) circumstances of house after an entry persons in the dwelling, is aggravating when the
ignominy and of through the window; there were two (2) AC offender resorted to any
APPLICABLE TO: deliberately augmenting which attended the of said means to enter
commission of the
 the house like in theft; Procedure) 1) forcible abduction – suffer slowly and
PAR. 20 when the accused gradually, causing him I. BE DELIBERATELY
EXCEPTION: THAT THE CRIME BE forcibly took his victim unnecessary physical AUGMENTED BY CAUSING
COMMITTED (1) WITH THE whom he carried away pain in the OTHER WRONG
1) robbery with force upon AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 by means of an consummation of the
things – breaking the y/o age, or (2) BY MEANS OF automobile to another criminal act (PP vs.  means that the accused
part of the building is MOTOR VEHICLES, town; Dayug) at the time of the
inherent in this kind of AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER commission of the crime
robbery SIMILAR MEANS 2) robbery with homicide  that the wrong done was had a deliberate
where a motor vehicle intended to prolong the intention to prolong the
III. WHEN BREAKING OF BASIS: was used in transporting suffering of the victim suffering of the victim;
DOOR OR WINDOW IS the accused (PP vs. causing him
LAWFUL means & ways Valeriano); unnecessary moral and EXCEPTION:
employed to commit the physical pain (PP vs.
1) an officer, in order to crime; II. OR OTHER SIMILAR Llamera); 1) when the other wrong
make an arrest, either by MEANS was done after the
virtue of a warrant may 2 AGGRAVATING CIRC.  for cruelty or victim was dead
break into any building  motorized vehicles or vindictiveness to be
or enclosure where the 1) with the aid of 15 y/o – other efficient means of appreciated, the
person to be arrested is tends to repress (to transportation similar to evidence must show that
or is reasonably believed control/to not allow automobile or airplane; the sadistic culprit, for
to be, if he is refused something) the frequent his pleasure and
admittance thereto, after practice resorted to by satisfaction, caused the
announcing his authority professional criminals to PAR. 21 victim to suffer slowlhy
and purpose; avail themselves of THAT THE WRONG DONE IN and gradually, &
minors taking advantage THE COMMISSION OF HTE inflicted on him
2) the officer, if refused of their irresponsibility; CRIME BE DELIBERATELY unnecessary and
admittance ot the place AUGMENTED BY CAUSING physical pain (PP vs.
of directed search after 2) by means of motor OTHER WRONG NOT Luna)
giving notice of his vehicles, airships, or NECESSARY FOR ITS
purpose and authority, other similar means – COMMISSION REQUISITES:
may break open any intended to counteract
outer or inner door or the great facilities found BASIS: 1) that the injury caused be
window of a house or by modern criminals in deliberately increased
any part of a house or said means to commit  ways employed in by causing other wrong;
anything therein to crime and flee and committing the crime
execute the warrant or abscond (leave 2) that the other wrong be
liberate himself or any hurriedly/escape) the CRUELTY unnecessary for the
person lawfully aiding same is committed; execution of the purpose
him when unlawfully  there is cruelty when the of the offender;
detained therein (Rule I. EXAMPLES – BY MEANS culprit enjoys & delights
126, Sec. 7, Revised OF MOTOR VEHICLE in making his victim
Rules on Criminal
9-11 a.m.

20 items

Art. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Complex crimes Art. 48
Habitual delinquency,
rescidivism, reiteracion,
etc.
civil liability
extinction of criminal
liablity
partial extinction of
civil liability
Art. 13 to 113