THE REVISED PENAL CODE

BOOK 1 – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

BY

PROS. DON IMMANUEL V.C. VERGARA

Public Prosecutor, Department of Justice National Prosecution Service
Faculty, University of the Cordilleras College of Law
Member, Regional Child Welfare Specialist Group – DSWD-CAR
Lecturer, Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Course

CRIMINAL LAW, defined.

- That branch of public law that

1. Defines crimes,
2. Treats of their nature, and
3. Provides for their punishment.

Notes:

1. Criminal law is a branch of public law. The offended party in criminal cases is
the State. The complainant is treated as a” complaining witness” who has no
right to interfere in the criminal aspect of the case. In Mobilia Products vs.
Umezawa (493 Phil. 85, 108 (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that in criminal
cases, the State is the offended party and the private complainant's interest is
limited to the civil liability arising therefrom. Hence, if a criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, a reconsideration of the
order of dismissal or acquittal may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible,
insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned and may be made only by
the public prosecutor; or in the case of an appeal, by the State only, through
the OSG. The private complainant or offended party may not undertake such
motion for reconsideration or appeal on the criminal aspect of the case.
However, the offended party or private complainant may file a motion for
reconsideration of such dismissal or acquittal or appeal therefrom but only
insofar as the civil aspect thereof is concerned.

2. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. There is no crime where there is no law
defining or punishing an act or omission as a crime at the time of its
commission.

3. A penalty shall be imposed upon a person only after they have adjudged
guilty beyond reasonable doubt after a trial of his case on its merits, or upon a
voluntary confession of guilt made by the accused in open court.

1
 4. In dubio pro reo. All doubts in the interpretation of penal law shall be
construed in favor of the accused. Criminal laws are interpreted strictly
against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

Crime, defined.

- A crime refers to any act or omission punishable by law.

- A crime may be a felony, if the act or omission is defined and punished by the
Revised Penal Code, or an offense, if the same is defined and punished by a
Special Penal Law. Acts or omissions defined and punishable by a local
ordinance are generally called “offenses or infractions.”

Kinds of crimes

1. Crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita

Crimes mala in se are wrong by their very nature, and normally involve
moral turpitude on the part of the offender, hence, good faith is a
proper defense. Crimes mala prohibita are wrong only because of some
rule or regulation that makes an act or omission unlawful. The crime
exists by the mere act or omission without regard whether the offender
had good or evil intentions.

2. Intentional and culpable felonies

An intentional felony one that is committed with criminal intent. Its

elements are (i) freedom, (ii) intelligence, and (iii) intent. A culpable
felony is one committed by means of imprudence or negligence, even if
there is no criminal intent on the part of the offender. Its elements are
(i) freedom, (ii) intelligence, and (iii) negligence or imprudence.

3. Simple crimes and complex crimes

Simple crimes are those where a single crime is committed by a single

act or omission, or a series of acts or omissions. A complex crime is one
that is committed when one act results to two or more grave or less
grave felonies, referred to as a “compound crime,” or when one act is a
necessary means to commit another, referred to as a “complex crime
proper.”

Simple crimes are punishable by the penalty in force at the time of its
commission. A complex crime is punishable by the penalty for the
gravest offense, imposed in its maximum period.

4. Grave, Less Grave, and Light Felonies

2
 a. Grave felony - Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the
capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive, in accordance with Article 25 of the RPC.

The afflictive penalties are:

i. Reclusion perpetua;
ii. Reclusion temporal;
iii. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
iv. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
v. Prision mayor.

b. Less Grave felony - Less gave felonies are those which the law
punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional.

The correctional penalties are:

i. Prision correccional,
ii. Arresto mayor,
iii. Suspension,
iv. Destierro.

c. Light felony - Light felonies are those infractions of law or the

commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) or both is provided.

The light penalties are:

i. Arresto menor,
ii. Public censure.

Fines, when afflictive, correctional, or light:

A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, shall be considered:

Afflictive, if it exceeds One million two hundred thousand (₱1,200,000);

Correctional, if it does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos
(₱1,200,000) but is not less than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000); and

Light, if it be less than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000).

- Art. 26, RPC as amended by R.A. 10951.

3
Principles of Criminal Law

Characteristics:

1. General – criminal laws generally apply to all persons who are within
Philippine territory at the time the crime is committed.

2. Territorial – criminal laws generally apply only within Philippine territory,

whether that territory is within the physical boundaries of the Philippine
archipelago, or located outside it.

3. Prospective – criminal laws are applicable from the time that they are
enacted. Criminal laws do not generally retroact unless (i) the penal law is
favorable to an accused or convict serving sentence, (ii) the accused or
convict is not a habitual delinquent, and (iii) the penal law does not expressly
prohibit retroaction.

Theories of Criminal Law

1. Classical – penal laws are applied based on the belief that a person is a moral
being who can decide whether to commit acts which are right or wrong. A
person is thus prosecuted to the full extent of the law by way of retribution,
or punishment, for choosing to commit a wrongful act when they could have
chosen to commit a righteous one.

2. Positivist – penal laws are applied based on the belief that a person is
influenced by their environment, and that there are factors that affects that
person’s decision. When a person commits a crime, they may have done so
after being influenced or pushed to do so, such that they are prosecuted with
due consideration to mitigating, exempting, or justifying circumstances that
might benefit them. If convicted, a penalty is imposed more for their
rehabilitation, and not for their punishment.

3. Eclectic, or mixed – penal laws are applied based on combined principles of

the classical and positivist theories in order to give meaning to the spirit and
intent of the laws of the Philippines, without being blinded to social and
environmental factors that affects its citizens.

4. Utilitarian – penal laws are applied against an offender because doing so

creates good. An offender is incarcerated, or executed, for the protection of
the public and to deter potential wrongdoers from emulating the said
offender.

Who are criminally-liable?

1. Any person who commits a crime is liable for its effects, even if the wrongful
done is different from that which was intended. (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC in re:
praeter intentionem as a mitigating circumstance). What is required is that the
resulting crime is the proximate result of the unlawful act.

4
 The act committed must be intentional – that is, the requisites of (i) freedom,
(ii) intelligence, and (iii) intent are present. If the act is culpable, the basis of
criminal liability is Art. 365 on reckless imprudence.

2. Any person who commits an impossible crime, that is, any act that would
have been a crime against persons or property were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its commission, or that its accomplishment was impossible by
reason of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means to commit it.
For an act to be punishable as an impossible crime, no other crime should
have been committed. A person is punished for an impossible crime not
because there is a crime committed (because in legal theory, no crime is
committed), but to prevent the further commission of a crime arising from
the person’s criminal tendency.

Stages of Execution of Felonies

A felony may be:

1. Attempted;
2. Frustrated; or
3. Consummated.

Crimes may be (i) material or (ii) formal. Material crimes have more than one stage
of execution and may be attempted, frustrated, or consummated on one hand (ex.
Homicide), or attempted or consummated only, on the other (ex. Theft). A formal
crime has only one stage of execution and is consummated by the commission of a
single overt act (ex. Slander).

The stages of execution generally pertain to crimes defined and punished under the
Revised Penal Code only. Offenses defined and punished under special penal laws
generally do not have stages of execution unless the special penal law specifically
defines and punishes an attempt or frustration of the same. (Ex. attempted
trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208).
Attempted Felony

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony

directly by over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.

Notes:

1. An overt act is one that is performed in line with the commission of a felony
(ex. Reaching for an item in the crime of theft; pointing a firearm at a victim,
ready to fire, in the crime of homicide). It must be logically interpretable to
pertain to the intent to commit a particular crime, and not merely
preparatory (ex. surveilling a car with the intent to steal it), which may be
interpreted to pertain to more than one intent.

5
 2. Spontaneous desistance is an absolutory cause. It results to the non-liability
of an offender as regards the attempted felony. Absolution from liability is the
reward granted by law in favor of an offender who voluntarily and
spontaneously stops themselves from committing a crime to return to the
side of righteousness.

3. Absolution from criminal liability through spontaneous desistance affects the

intended crime only. If some other crime was committed, the offender is
liable for it. (ex. spontaneously desisting from stabbing a person will absolve
the offender for attempted homicide, but the offender may instead be liable
for grave threat, or some other crime)

4. For there to be an attempt, the offender must not perform all the acts of
execution for the consummation of the crime. “Acts of execution” pertain to
an act, or a series of acts that an offender must accomplish in order to
complete the felony.

5. The penalty imposable for an attempted felony is two degrees lower than that
prescribed by law for the consummated felony.

6. Light felonies are not punishable if they are merely attempted.

Frustrated Felony

A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Notes:

1. For a crime to be frustrated, the offender must perform all acts of execution.
Under normal circumstances, the performance of all acts of executions should
produce the felony as a result.

2. Voluntary desistance does not apply as an absolutory cause because all acts of
execution have already been performed. In other words, there is nothing left
to desist from.

3. The non-consummation of the felony is by a cause that is beyond the will of

the offender. It may be an intervening circumstance or some other external
cause that the offender has no control over. (ex. timely medical attention in a
crime of homicide, where the wound inflicted is mortal.)

4. Mortal Wound Doctrine – a “mortal wound” is an injury that, when inflicted

against a person, will result to the latter’s death as a matter of course. If the
victim survives because of timely medical attention that is beyond the will of
the offender, the crime is at its frustrated stage. Conversely, if there is no
timely medical attention, the victim will surely die from the injury.

6
 5. The mortal wound doctrine applies only in crimes against persons involving
destruction of life (homicide, murder, parricide, infanticide).

6. Crimes involving unlawful taking do not admit of a frustrated stage

(Valenzuela vs. People of the Philippines and CA, G.R. No. 160188, June 21,
2007);

7. There is no frustrated crime of rape (People v. Ceilito Orita alias "Lito," G.R.
No. 88724, 3 April 1990, 184 SCRA 105; People vs. Primo Campuhan, G.R. No.
129433, March 30, 2000)

8. The penalty for a frustrated felony is one degree lower than that prescribed
by law for the consummated felony.

9. Light felonies are not punishable if they are merely frustrated.

Consummated Felony

A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.

Notes:

1. A felony is consummated when the offender performs acts of execution which

result to a felony. The felony committed may be different from that which was
intended (see Article 4, par. 1, praeter intentionem).

2. The penalty for a consummated felony will be the penalty that the law
prescribes for it at the time of its commission, unless there is an amendment
or revision of the law punishing it that lightens the penalty and is thus more
favorable to the accused who must not be a habitual delinquent (see
exception to the rule of prospective application of laws).

3. Light felonies are punishable only when they are consummated.

4. Some felonies are consummated by a mere attempt to commit it. (ex. flight to
enemy country)

Degrees of Participation

In the commission of a felony, an offender may be:

1. Principal;
2. Accomplice; or
3. Accessory

7
Principal

A principal is one who directly commits the crime (principal by direct participation),
or induces one to commit a crime (principal by inducement), or assists in the
commission of the felony by rendering assistance which is indispensable to its
accomplishment (principal by indispensable cooperation.)

Notes:

1. A principal is liable for the full penalty prescribed by law for the
consummated, frustrated, or attempted crime.

2. A principal by inducement must commit the crime because of the inducement

made by another person. The inducement must be the cause for the
commission of the crime (ex. price, reward, or promise; see Art. 14,
Aggravating Circumstances, RPC).

3. If the price, reward, or promise is given not as an inducement, the principal is

one by direct participation, not inducement. The price, reward, or promise
will not be considered an aggravating circumstance.

4. Where there is a principal by inducement and a principal by direct

participation, the principal by inducement proposes the commission of a
crime to another person (see Art. 8, RPC, Proposal). When the other person or
persons accept the proposal and they all decide to commit the crime, there is
a conspiracy because two or more persons have come into an agreement
concerning the commission of a crime, and decide to commit it (see Art. 8,
RPC, Conspiracy).

Accomplice

An accomplice is one who aids the principal by cooperating before or during the
commission of a crime (before or after the fact). They assist in the commission of the
crime by previous or simultaneous acts.

Notes:

1. The degree of the cooperation must not be indispensable.

2. The cooperation of the accomplice must be limited to helping the principal

accomplish the crime. With or without the accomplice, the crime will still be
consummated by the principal.

3. The cooperation of the accomplice may be in the form of performing overt

acts or moral or material support.

4. If there is conspiracy, the accomplice will cease to be such and will instead be
liable as a principal.

8
 5. In case of doubt as to the liability of an accused whether as accomplice or as a
principal by indispensable cooperation, the accused shall be liable as an
accomplice under the principle of in dubio pro reo; that is, where there is
doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.

6. The accomplice is liable for a penalty lower by one degree than that imposed
upon the principal.

7. There can be no accomplice if there is no principal. Otherwise, the accomplice

is liable as a principal.

Accessory

Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
after its commission in any of the following manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the

crime.

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or

instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the

crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually
guilty of some other crime.

Notes:

1. Spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers

and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, are exempted
from liability as accessories in consideration of family bonds that may have
influenced their participation as accessories.

2. Spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers

and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees who participate as
accessories by profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime are still liable as accessories because the law presumes
that they are not motivated by family bonds; rather, it is presumed that they
are motivated by greed or material gain in their participation.

3. “Body of the Crime” – also referred to as corpus delicti, this refers to all
aspects of the commission of the crime to include, but not limited to the
evidence obtained, the place of the incident, time, witnesses, etc. The corpse
of the victim is not the corpus delicti itself, but is only part of it.

4. An accessory is liable for a penalty less than two degrees than that prescribed
by law for the principal.

9
 5. The same as an accomplice, there is no accessory where there is no principal.

6. An accessory who profits themselves or assists the offender to profit by the

effects of the crime may also be liable as a principal for violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1612 – the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979.

7. An accessory who conceals or destroys the body of the crime, or the effects or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery, or harbors, conceals, or
assists in the escape of the principals of the crime may be liable as principals
for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829 for obstruction of justice.

Modifying Circumstances

1. Justifying Circumstances (Article 11, RPC)

2. Exempting Circumstances (Article 12, RPC)
3. Mitigating Circumstances (Article 13, RPC)
4. Aggravating Circumstances (Article 14, RPC)
5. Alternative Circumstances (Article 15, RPC)
6. Extenuating Circumstances – “special mitigating circumstances”
7. Absolutory Causes

Justifying Circumstances

Where there is a justifying circumstance, there is no crime committed even if all

elements which normally would produce a crime are present.

The presence of a justifying circumstance presupposes that the act committed is

lawful by reason of law and public policy. Hence, there is no criminal or civil liability
except as to a state of necessity, where civil liability may still attach. Administrative
liability shall also not apply.

Notes:

1. On self defense and unlawful aggression (People vs. Nugas, G.R. No. 172606,
November23, 2011), unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is the
primordial element of the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without
unlawful aggression, there can be no justified killing in defense of oneself.

a. The test for the presence of unlawful aggression under the

circumstances is whether the aggression from the victim put in real
peril the life or personal safety of the person def ending himself; the
peril must not be an imagined or imaginary threat.

b. Accordingly, the accused must establish the concurrence of three

elements of unlawful aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical
or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or assault must be actual,
or, at least, imminent; and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.

10
 c. Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlawful
aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or material
unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a
weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of the
aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful aggression means an
attack that is impending or at the point of happening; it must not
consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary,
but must be offensive and positively strong (like aiming a revolver at
another with intent to shoot or opening a knife and making a motion as
if to attack). Imminent unlawful aggression must not be a mere
threatening attitude of the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his
hip where a revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry
countenance, or like aiming to throw a pot.

2. There is a state of necessity when a wrong done is a necessary means to avoid

an evil or injury. It is necessary that (i) the evil sought to be avoided exists,
(ii) the injury feared be greater than that which is done to avoid it, and (iii)
there is no other practical or less harmful means of preventing it. The accused
shall not be criminally-liable but may still be civilly-liable to the extent of the
damage caused.

3. Fulfillment of a duty and lawful exercise of an office is grounded on the State’s

police power to perform acts for the promotion of the general welfare. To be
justifying, (i) there must be an actual duty to be performed or an office to be
exercised, (ii) the contemplated duty or office must be lawful; and (iii) the
fulfillment of the duty or the exercise of an office must not be excessive or
must not be tainted with grave abuse of authority or of discretion

a. Self-defense is based on the principle of self-preservation from mortal

harm, while fulfillment of duty is premised on the due performance of
duty. The difference between the two justifying circumstances is clear,
as the requisites of self-defense and fulfillment of duty are different.
(People v. Oanis, 74 Phil. 257 (1943)

b. Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148431, July 28, 2005: “In this case,
Valino was committing an offense in the presence of the policemen
when Valino grabbed the M16 Armalite from Mercado and jumped
from the jeep to escape. The policemen would have been justified in
shooting Valino if the use of force was absolutely necessary to prevent
his escape. But Valino was not only an escaping detainee. Valino had
also stolen the M16 Armalite of a policeman. The policemen had the
duty not only to recapture Valino but also to recover the loose firearm.
By grabbing Mercado’s M16 Armalite, which is a formidable firearm,
Valino had placed the lives of the policemen in grave danger.”

c. Baxinela vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 149652, March 24, 2006:
“we consider the alternative defense of fulfillment of a duty. In order to
avail of this justifying circumstance it must be shown that: 1) the
accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the

11
 necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful
exercise of a right or office.

While the first condition is present, the second is clearly lacking.

Baxinela’s duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a gun
tucked behind his waist in a public place. This was what Baxinela was
doing when he confronted Lajo at the entrance, but perhaps through
anxiety, edginess, or the desire to take no chances, Baxinela exceeded
his duty by firing upon Lajo who was not at all resisting. The shooting
of Lajo cannot be considered due performance of a duty if at that time
Lajo posed no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to the civilians in
the pub.

4. Obedience to an order of a superior gives rise to exemption from criminal

liability only when the order is for some lawful purpose. For it to apply (i)
there must be an order to perform an act or omission; (ii) the order
originated from an officer of superior authority; (iii) the order is directed to
an officer of subordinate authority; (iv) the order must be lawful (as to the
authority of the officer giving the order and the nature of the order itself); and
(v) the performance of the order must not be excessive or abusive.

a. People of the Philippines vs. Margen, et.al., G.R. No. L-2681, March 30,
1950: Sergeant Margen’s order to have the deceased tortured was not
of that kind. The deceased may have given offense. But that did not give
the sergeant the right to take the law in his own hands and have the
offender subjected to inhuman punishment. The order was illegal, and
appellant was not bound to obey it.

Exempting Circumstances

An exempting circumstance exempts the offender only from criminal liability and
not from civil liability. The presence of this circumstance only establishes that the
accused acted without freedom or intelligence such that the mens rea, or the
“criminal mind” cannot be said to be existing. Thus, if the mind is not criminal, the
act should not be criminal as well.

The basis of the exemption under an Exempting Circumstance is lack of negligence

and intent. The accused does not commit either an intentional or culpable felony.
The accused commits a crime but there is no criminal liability because of the
complete absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will or
voluntariness of the act. (Toledo vs. People, G.R. No. 158057, September 24, 2004)

Notes:

1. The guidelines to determine whether insanity may be appreciated in favor of

the accused are based on the Three-Way Test: first, insanity must be present
at the time of the commission of the crime; second, insanity, which is the
primary cause of the criminal act, must be medically proven; and third, the
effect of the insanity is the inability to appreciate the nature and quality or
wrongfulness of the act.

12
a. Presumption of Sanity: One of the basic moral assumptions in criminal
law is that all persons are "naturally endowed with the faculties of
understanding and free will." When a person is charged of a crime, the
act is deemed to have been committed with "deliberate intent, that is,
with freedom, intelligence, and malice. (People v. Madarang, 387 Phil.
846, 855 (2000) [Per J. Puno, First Division] People v. Aldemita, 229 Phil.
448, 31 (1986) [Per J. Narvasa, En Banc].

b. The basis for the presumption of sanity is well explained by the United
States Supreme Court in the leading case of Davis vs. United States, in
this wise: "If that presumption were not indulged, the government
would always be under the necessity of adducing affirmative evidence
of the sanity of an accused. But a requirement of that character would
seriously delay and embarrass the enforcement of the laws against
crime and in most cases be unnecessary. Consequently, the law
presumes that everyone charged with crime is sane and thus, supplies
in the first instance the required proof of capacity to commit crime."
(People vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084, June 27, 1990 [Per J. Regalado, Second
Division].

c. Since the law presumes all persons to be of sound mind, insanity is the
exception rather than the general rule. It is a defense in the nature of
confession and avoidance. In claiming insanity, an accused admits the
commission of the criminal act but seeks exemption from criminal
liability due to lack of voluntariness or intelligence. (People v. Aldemita,
229 Phil. 448 (1986) [Per J. Narvasa, En Banc]. People v. Yam-id, 368
Phil. 131 (1999) [Per J. Melo, En Banc]. People v. Renegado, 156 Phil. 260
(1974) [Per J. Muñoz-Palma, En Banc].

d. Insanity, defined: “A manifestation in language or conduct of disease or

defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or
disordered condition of the mentality, functional or organic, and
characterized by perversion, inhibition, or disordered function of the
sensory or of the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered
volition.” (People v. Ambal, 188 Phil. 372, 377 (1980) [Per J. Aquino,
Second Division] citing 1917 REV. ADM. CODE, sec. 1039.)

e. The defense of insanity rests on the test of cognition on the part of the
accused. Insanity, to be exempting, requires the complete deprivation
of intelligence, not only of the will, in committing the criminal act. Mere
abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The
accused must be so insane as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal
intent. He must be deprived of reason, and must be shown to have
acted without the least discernment because there is a complete
absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of freedom of the
will. (People vs. Haloc, G.R. No. 227312, September 5, 2018, [Per J.
Bersamin, First Division].

f. In the exempting circumstance of insanity or imbecility, mere

intellectual, mental or psychological handicap is not exempting.

13
 g. The fact of imbecility or insanity at the time the crime was committed
must be proved by sufficient evidence.

h. Insanity or imbecility is exempting unless the actor has acted while

under a lucid interval.

i. Imbecility or insanity happening after the crime is committed results to

the suspension of criminal proceedings, the imposition of sentence, or
the service thereof.

j. People vs. Madarang, GR. No. 132319, May 12, 2000, 332 SCRA 99: In all
civilized nations, an act done by a person in a state of insanity cannot
be punished as an offense. The insanity defense is rooted on the basic
moral assumption of criminal law. Man is naturally endowed with the
faculties of understanding and free will. The consent of the will is that
which renders human actions laudable or culpable. Hence, where there
is a defect of the understanding, there can be no free act of the will. An
insane accused is not morally blameworthy and should not be legally
punished. No purpose of criminal law is served by punishing an insane
accused because by reason of his mental state, he would have no
control over his behavior and cannot be deterred from similar behavior
in the future.

In the Philippines, the courts have established a more stringent

criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must
be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the
accused is deprived of reason; he acted without the least discernment
because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that
there is a total deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability.

The issue of insanity is a question of fact for insanity is a condition of

the mind, not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man can
know what is going on in the mind of another, the state or condition of
a person's mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior.
Establishing the insanity of an accused requires opinion testimony
which may be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the
accused, by a witness who has rational basis to conclude that the
accused was insane based on the witness' own perception of the
accused, or by a witness who is qualified as an expert, such as a
psychiatrist. The testimony or proof of the accused's insanity must
relate to the time preceding or coetaneous with the commission of the
offense with which he is charged.

2. Minority – the rules on minority are now under Republic Act No. 9344, the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act. Minor offenders are now referred to as
“children in conflict with the law,” or “CICL.”

a. If the CICL is 15 years old or below at the time of commission, minority

is exempting because the minor is presumed incapable of exercising

14
 discernment, or the ability to distinguish between righteous and
unrighteous acts.

b. If the CICL is above 15 years old but below 18 years old at the time of
commission, and there is no discernment as determined by a
government social worker, minority is also exempting because the
minor is presumed incapable of exercising discernment, or the ability
to distinguish between righteous and unrighteous acts.

c. If the CICL is above 15 years old but below 18 years old at the time of
commission, and there is discernment determined by a government
social worker, minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance.

3. An accident is a fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an event

happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the
circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens.
(Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 375 (1999).

a. To be available as an exempting circumstance, (i) a lawful act must be

performed; (ii) the lawful act is being performed with due care; (iii)
damage or injury is caused despite the performance of a lawful act with
due care; and (iv) there is no fault or intent to cause damage on the
part of the offender.

b. The basis for exemption under the above-stated provision is the

complete absence of negligence and intent. The accused commits a
crime but there is no criminal liability. An accident is a fortuitous
circumstance, event or happening; an event happening wholly or partly
through human agency, an event which under the circumstances is
unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens. It is an
affirmative defense which the accused is burdened to prove by clear
and convincing evidence. The testimony that the victim was shot by a
gun because the accused allegedly grappled with someone to gain
possession of the said gun, in the absence of evidence thereto, is not
believable. (Nieva vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188751,
November 16, 2016 and Gonzales vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
240004, February 19, 2020)

c. Pomoy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150647, September 29, 2004:
Again, it was in the lawful performance of his duty as a law enforcer
that petitioner tried to defend his possession of the weapon when the
victim suddenly tried to remove it from his holster. As an enforcer of
the law, petitioner was duty-bound to prevent the snatching of his
service weapon by anyone, especially by a detained person in his
custody. Such weapon was likely to be used to facilitate escape and to
kill or maim persons in the vicinity, including petitioner himself.

Petitioner cannot be faulted for negligence. He exercised the necessary

precautions to prevent his service weapon from causing accidental
harm to others. As he so maintained, he had kept his service gun locked

15
 when he left his house; he always kept it inside its holster, especially
within the premises of his working area.

It is undisputed that both petitioner and the victim grappled for

possession of the gun. This frenzied grappling for the weapon -- though
brief, having been finished in a matter of seconds -- was fierce and
vicious. The eyewitness account amply illustrated the logical
conclusion that could not be dismissed: that during the scuffle, the
safety lock could have been accidentally released and the shots
accidentally fired.

4. To be exempt from criminal liability, a person invoking irresistible force or

uncontrollable fear must show that the force exerted was such that it reduced
him to a mere instrument who acted not only without will but against his will.
That compulsion must, thus, be of such character as to leave the accused no
opportunity for self-defense in equal combat or for escape.

a. People of the Philippines vs. De Los Reyes, et.al., G.R. No. L-44112, October
22, 1992: Unfortunately, Accused-appellants failed to convince Us that
they were left no choice but to follow the order of Faustino. Before and
during the robbery, they did not take advantage of the many
opportunities available to them to escape from Faustino or at least
avoid being involved with him in his criminal design. They did not
attempt to escape while walking towards the scene of the crime, even
though the footpath was surrounded by tall grasses. As Faustino and
Cresencio entered the house, Crispulo and Perfecto stayed behind.
They could have simply run away but they did not. Instead, Perfecto
helped in carting away the stolen goods lowered from the house.
Crispulo, in turn, took hold of part of the loot before finally going home.
These actuations belie the claim that the participation of Crispulo,
Cresencio and Perfecto was involuntary. Their failure to deter the
commission of the crime, or to report it at least, militates against their
pretensions.

b. People of the Philippines vs. Anod, G.R. No. 186420, August 25, 2009:
Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from
criminal liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force,
or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater
injury, because such person does not act with freedom. However, we
held that for such a defense to prosper, the duress, force, fear, or
intimidation must be present, imminent, and impending, and of such
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious
bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough.
In this case, as correctly held by the CA, based on the evidence on
record, appellant had the chance to escape Lumbayan's threat or
engage Lumbayan in combat, as appellant was also holding a knife at
the time. Thus, appellant's allegation of fear or duress is untenable. We
have held that for the circumstance of uncontrollable fear may apply, it
is necessary that the compulsion be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity for escape or self-defense in equal combat. Therefore,
under the circumstances, appellant’s alleged fear, arising from the

16
 threat of Lumbayan, would not suffice to exempt him from incurring
criminal liability.

5. On lawful or insuperable causes: In conclusion, taking into account the

foregoing facts and considerations, and granting that the appellant was aware
of her involuntary childbirth in the thicket and that she later failed to take her
child therefrom, having been so prevented by reason of causes entirely
independent of her will, it should be held that the alleged errors attributed to
the lower court by the appellant are true; and it appearing that under such
circumstances said appellant has the fourth and seventh exempting
circumstances in her favor, is hereby acquitted of the crime of which she had
been accused and convicted. (People of the Philippines vs. Josefina Bandian,
G.R. NO. 45186, September 30, 1936.)

6. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11648 – Age Difference, in re: Statutory Rape; Section 1,
amending Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code thus providing for Article
266-A (d)

“d) When the offended party is under sixteen (16) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present: Provided, That there shall be no criminal liability on the part
of a person having carnal knowledge of another person under sixteen
(16) years of age when the age difference between the parties is not
more than three (3) years, and the sexual act in question is proven to
be consensual, non-abusive, and non-exploitative: Provided, further,
That if the victim is under thirteen (13) years of age, this exception
shall not apply.”

a. Requisites:

i. The person with whom the accused had carnal knowledge with
is at least 16 years old;

ii. The age difference between the parties is not more than three
(3) years; and

iii. The sexual act is:

1. Consensual;
2. Non-abusive; and
3. Non-exploitative.

b. “Consensual” - the sexual act is done with the free and voluntary
consent of both parties involved;

c. “Non-abusive” - the absence of undue influence, intimidation,

fraudulent machinations, coercion, threat, physical, sexual,
psychological, or mental injury or maltreatment, either with intention
or through neglect, during the conduct of sexual activities with the
child victim.

17
 d. “Non-exploitative” - there is no actual or attempted act or acts of
unfairly taking advantage of the child's position of vulnerability,
differential power, or trust during the conduct of sexual activities.

Mitigating Circumstances

Mitigating circumstances reflect the lesser criminal propensity of the accused by

reason of their personal circumstances, remorse, or lack of criminal intent
altogether.

Notes:

1. While mitigating circumstances do not exempt or justify an offender from

criminal liability, at least one mitigating circumstance will cause the
imposition of the penalty in its minimum period.

2. A privileged mitigating circumstance causes the imposition of the penalty one

or two degrees lower than the original, depending on what the law provides
(ex. minority causes the imposition of the penalty by one degree lower; the
presence of two elements in incomplete self defense causes the penalty to be
imposed two degrees lower.)

3. The attendance of more than one ordinary mitigating circumstance allows the
imposition of the penalty one degree lower, as if it were a privileged
mitigating circumstance.

4. An ordinary mitigating circumstance may be offset with a generic aggravating

circumstance in the fixing of the penalty.

5. A privileged mitigating circumstance cannot be offset with a generic

aggravating circumstance or a qualifying aggravating circumstance.

6. On incomplete self defense: Accused-appellant's plea of self-defense is

controverted by the nature, number, and location of the wounds inflicted on
the victim, since the gravity of said wounds is indicative of a determined
effort to kill and not just to defend. The postmortem examination conducted
by Dr. Pacificador on the body of Lucio revealed that he sustained fifteen
wounds, four of which were fatal, and that the cause of his death was
hypovolemic shock secondary to hemorrhage secondary to multiple stab
wounds. The findings of Dr. Pacificador justify a declaration that there was
undeniable intent on the part of the accused-appellant to kill Lucio.

The absence of unlawful aggression on the part of Lucio in this case

unmistakably belies the accused-appellant's claim of self-defense, whether
complete or incomplete. In view of this, the Court finds no reason to further
discuss the other elements of the justifying circumstance of self-defense and
will proceed to determine the offense committed by the accused-appellant.
(People vs. Manzano, et.al., G.R. No. 217974, March 5, 2018)

18
7. Galang vs. CA, People, G.R. No. 128536, January 31, 2000: However, the Court of
Appeals erred in considering in favor of petitioner "the privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of duty as
provided under paragraph 1, Article 13 in relation to paragraph 5, Article 11
of the Revised Penal Code." This circumstance cannot be considered in view
of the court's own finding that the victim was disarmed and in kneeling
position when petitioner mercilessly shot him from behind as he was begging
for his life. "A peace officer is never justified in using necessary force in
effecting arrest or in treating with wanton violence the arrested person or in
resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be effected otherwise.

8. Incomplete exempting circumstance – Insanity, People of the Philippines vs.

Pantoja, G.R. No. 223114, November 29, 2017: Accused-appellant contends that
even assuming his insanity was not sufficiently proven, the Court should
convict him of homicide only because the defense has proven that he has an
illness which diminishes the exercise of his willpower without, however,
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.

This contention is without merit. At the outset, the presence of mitigating

circumstances does not change the nature of the crime. It can only affect the
imposable penalty, depending on the kind of penalty and the number of
attendant mitigating circumstances.

While the evidence of accused-appellant does not show that he was

completely deprived of intelligence or consciousness of his acts when he
committed the crime, there is sufficient indication that he was suffering from
some impairment of his mental faculties; thus, he may be credited with the
mitigating circumstance of diminished willpower.

9. Minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance: Considering that the

qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were alleged and
proven during trial, accused-appellant shall be criminally liable for the crime
of Qualified Statutory Rape. However, given that accused-appellant was only
15 years old and 2 months when the crime was committed, the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority should be appreciated; thus, the penalty
next lower in degree than that prescribed by law shall be imposed. In
accordance with the controlling jurisprudence on the matter, for purposes of
determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be
reckoned with. Thus, we affirm the ruling of the lower courts and impose
upon accused-appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. (People of the
Philippines vs. Deliola, G.R. No. 200157, August 31, 2016)

10.On the suspension of sentence of a CICL: Although it is acknowledged that

accused-appellant was qualified for suspension of sentence when he
committed the crime, Section 40 of R.A. 9344 provides that the same extends
only until the child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years old. Nevertheless, in extending the application of RA
No. 9344 to give meaning to the legislative intent of the said law, we ruled
in People v. Jacinto, as cited in People v. Ancajas, that the promotion of the

19
 welfare of a child in conflict with the law should extend even to one who has
exceeded the age limit of twenty-one (21) years, so long as he/she committed
the crime when he/she was still a child. The offender shall be entitled to the
right to restoration, rehabilitation, and reintegration in order that he/she
may be given the chance to live a normal life and become a productive
member of the community. Thus, accused-appellant is ordered to serve his
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an
agricultural camp and other training facilities, in accordance with Section
51 of R.A. 9344.

11.On praeter intentionem, Del Poso vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210810,
December 7, 2016: As to the contention of petitioner that the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong should have
been appreciated, this Court finds it unmeritorious. It is a hornbook doctrine
that this mitigating circumstance can be considered only when the facts
proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the
means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences. The facts
found by the trial court and the CA show that petitioner intended the natural
consequence of his act. The observation of the OSG that petitioner's intention
of inflicting such harm should be judged in accordance with his previous acts
of abusing the victim, of regarding VVV as a mere adoptive child who is not
his blood relative and petitioner's evident superiority of physique as a fully
grown man inflicting harm upon a 9-year-old victim, and thus, when
petitioner pressed the hot iron upon the body of the victim, it must be
presumed that his intention was to physically abuse her since such act was
sufficient to produce the evil which resulted from such act is also worth
noting.

a. Be that as it may, the penalty for the crime of Homicide must be

imposed in its minimum period due to the presence of the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong under
Article 13 (3) of the RPC in favor of Wacoy and Quibac, as correctly
appreciated by the CA. In determining the presence of this
circumstance, it must be considered that since intention is a mental
process and is an internal state of mind, the accused's intention must
be judged by his conduct and external overt acts. In this case, the
aforesaid mitigating circumstance is available to Wacoy and Quibac,
given the absence of evidence showing that, apart from kicking and
punching Aro on the stomach, something else had been done; thus,
evincing the purpose of merely maltreating or inflicting physical harm,
and not to end the life of Aro. (Wacoy vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 213792, June 22, 2015; Quibac vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
213886, June 22, 2015)

12.On vindication of a grave offense, Napone, Jr., vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 193085, November 29, 2017: Nevertheless, the circumstances surrounding
the unfortunate incident merit the appreciation of the mitigating
circumstance of vindication for a grave offense. For such to be credited, the
following requisites must be satisfied: (1) that there be a grave offense done
to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity

20
 within the same degrees; and (2) that the felony is committed in vindication
of such grave offense.

Although it was not witnessed by the Napones, the attack on Calib which put
his life at risk must have infuriated them. The belief that the Espelitas were
responsible for the grave injuries sustained by a member of their family
created rage in their minds which clouded their judgment. Upon seeing Calib
bloody, prostrate on the ground and possibly clinging for dear life, the
Napones were filled with resentment that resulted in the assault on Salvador.
Their acts, therefore, were committed in vindication of a grave offense.

13.Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance need not be felt only in

the seconds before the commission of the crime. It may build up and
strengthen over time until it can no longer be repressed and will ultimately
motivate the commission of the crime. To be able to successfully plead the
mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation, the accused must be able
to prove the following elements: (i) that there be an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such condition of mind; and (ii) that said act which
produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might
recover his normal equanimity. (People v. Lobino, 375 Phil. 1065, 1074 (1999)
[Per J. Purisima, En Banc], citing I L. B. REYES, REVISED PENAL CODE 272
(14th ed., 1998).

a. The obfuscation must originate from lawful feelings. The turmoil and
unreason which naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not be
confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person
injured or offended to such a degree as to deprive him of his sanity and
self-control, because the cause of this condition of mind must
necessarily have preceded the commission of the offense. (People vs.
Lobino, supra.)

b. There is no uniform rule on what constitutes "a considerable length of

time." The provocation and the commission of the crime should not be
so far apart that a reasonable length of time has passed during which
the accused would have calmed down and be able to reflect on the
consequences of his or her actions. What is important is that the
accused has not yet "recovered his normal equanimity" when he
committed the crime.

c. To appreciate passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance,

the facts must be examined on a case-to-case basis. (People vs. Oloverio,
G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015)

14.For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the

following elements must be present, to wit: (1) the accused has not been
arrested; (2) the accused surrenders himself to a person in authority or the
latter's agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. (People v. Placer, 719 Phil.
268, 281-282 (2013).

21
a. The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the
accused to give himself up and submit himself to the authorities, either
because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save the authorities
the trouble and expense that may be incurred for his search and
capture. (Belbis, Jr. v. People, 698 Phil. 706, 720 (2012).

b. Records show that it was Reno who went to the Hamtic police station
to request that they take custody of the accused-appellant who was
then in his house. Undoubtedly, when the police went to Reno's house
at San Angel, San Jose, Antique, it was for the purpose of arresting the
accused-appellant and not because he was surrendering to them
voluntarily. Simply put, Reno merely facilitated the accused-appellant's
arrest. Thus, without the elements of voluntary surrender, and where
the clear reasons for the supposed surrender are the inevitability of
arrest and the need to ensure his safety, the surrender is not
spontaneous and therefore cannot be characterized as "voluntary
surrender" to serve as a mitigating circumstance. (People vs. Manzano,
et.al., G.R. No. 217974, March 5, 2018)

c. The presence of the foregoing requisites was sufficiently proven by

Ramon. He had voluntarily yielded himself and the balisong used in the
stabbing to Barangay Chairman Rey Loilo of Beguin, Bulan, Sorsogon,
who then brought him and the weapon to the police station for proper
disposal. This took place at about 9:25 o’clock in the morning of June
25, 2001, the day following the fatal stabbing of Rosalino in the evening
of June 24, 2001. The time and manner of the surrender were
documented in the police blotter of Bulan Police Station. That the
surrender preceded the filing of the criminal complaint with the
Municipal Trial Court of Bulan on June 27, 2001 is notable. There is
every indication that the surrender was spontaneous on Ramon’s part,
indicating his intent to unconditionally submit himself to the
authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or he wished to
save them the trouble and expenses necessary for his search and
capture. (People v. Placer, 719 Phil. 268, 281-282 (2013).

d. Voluntary Surrender may be made before a person in authority or an

agent of a person in authority.

Query: If an accused voluntarily-surrendered before a priest, a

celebrity, or any prominent personality, may the surrender be
credited as a mitigating circumstance?

NO, because a priest, celebrity, or any other prominent

personality, are not necessarily persons in authority or agents of
the latter. If the said persons brought the accused to the
authorities to effect the surrender of the accused, the surrender
may be credited as a mitigating circumstance because the said
persons merely facilitated the voluntary surrender.

22
 e. Query: If an accused voluntarily surrendered after learning that a
warrant of arrest has been issued against them, is the surrender
creditable as a mitigating circumstance?

The mere issuance of a warrant of arrest does not ipso facto

make the surrender involuntary. If the surrender was for the
purpose of the accused giving himself up and submitting himself
to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or he
wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense that may
be incurred for his search and capture, the voluntary surrender
is still mitigating.

If the surrender was ONLY for fear of reprisal, or ONLY for fear of
death or injury (as in a shoot-to-kill order), or ONLY to avoid
humiliation, or ONLY for some other reason other than remorse,
the surrender is not voluntary.

15.For a voluntary plea of guilt to be mitigating, the plea of guilt must amount to
a judicial confession, thus, made in open court.

a. A plea bargain is not a voluntary plea of guilt;

b. Extrajudicial confessions are not contemplated under this mitigating
circumstance; may be appreciated as evidence of an “analogous
circumstance” based on a showing of remorse;

c. May include a plea of not guilty which is later withdrawn, and a plea of
guilt entered in its place, for as long as it does not operate as a plea
bargain.

16.On physical handicap as a mitigating circumstance, People vs. Deopante, G.R.

No. 102772, October 30, 1996: The fact that appellant suffers from a physical
defect, a severed left hand, does not mean that he should automatically be
credited with the mitigating circumstance contained in paragraph 8, Article
13 of the Revised Penal Code. For this condition to be appreciated, it must be
shown that such physical defect limited his means to act, defend himself or
communicate with his fellow beings to such an extent that he did not have
complete freedom of action, consequently resulting in diminution of the
element of voluntariness. Such cannot be appreciated in the case at bar where
the appellant's physical condition clearly did not limit his means of action,
defense, or communication, nor affect his free will. In fact, despite his
handicap, appellant nevertheless managed to attack, overcome, and fatally
stab his victim.

At this point, one might wonder how a one-handed attacker can open a fan
knife and grapple with and overcome his two-handed prey. This was
answered by the testimony of Renato Molina who revealed that at the time
the accused closed in for the kill, his balisong was already open and ready for
use in his back pocket, and that he had already drawn the same even during
the chase.

23
17.Illness of the offender, People vs. Racal, G.R. No. 224886, September 4, 2017:
The Court, however, agrees with the CA in appreciating the mitigating
circumstance of illness as would diminish the exercise of willpower of
appellant without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his acts,
pursuant to Article 13, paragraphs 9 and 10 of the RPC, as he was found by his
examining doctors to have "diminished capacity to discern what was wrong
or right at the time of the commission of the crime.

a. The defense did not claim that White was on a sugar rush and
committed the murders as a result. However, one reporter's use of the
term "Twinkie defense" became popular, leading to a persistent
misunderstanding by the public. The misunderstanding was mentioned
at the end of Milk, Gus Van Sant's 2008 biopic of Harvey Milk. The
actual legal defense that White's lawyers used was that his mental
capacity had been diminished, and White's consumption of junk food
was presented to the jury as one of many symptoms, not a cause, of
White's depression. (The People vs Daniel James White, 117 Cal. App. 3d
270, March 25, 1981)

b. The Court ruled that schizophrenic reaction, although not exempting

because it does not completely deprive the offender of the
consciousness of his acts, may be considered as a mitigating
circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., as an
illness which diminishes the exercise of the offender’s will-power
without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
Appellant should have been credited with this mitigating circumstance.
(People vs. Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991)

c. In the instant case, however, the defense miserably failed to establish

the deprivation of the appellant's will when he stabbed his victim.
Appellant testified that he thought the victim was going to pull out a
weapon, thus he beat him to the draw and stabbed him with
his balisong. This statement shows that he did not suffer any
deprivation of reason or discernment. While the victim appeared to
him as a "devil with horns," such perceptual distortion occurred only
after he had dealt the fatal blows on the victim. The Court cannot,
therefore, appreciate this mitigating circumstance in his favor. (People
vs. Medina, G.R. No. 113691, February 6, 1998)

18.On analogous circumstances: These refer to other circumstances not

specifically mentioned in Article 13, RPC, but which nevertheless shows the
lesser criminal propensity of the accused. To be available, (i) the offender
must perform an act before, during or after the commission of the crime; and
(ii) the said action of the offender shows their remorse, or some lesser degree
of criminal depravity

Examples:

i. Offer to compensate the victim for damage or injury caused

ii. Sincere apologies

24
 iii. Acts, or attempts to make reparations for damage or injury
caused
iv. Proof of genuine remorse
v. Proof of reformation prior to conviction
vi. Return of property unlawfully-taken
vii. Extreme poverty
viii. Extreme need or necessity, without constituting a state of
necessity

Aggravating Circumstances

The opposite of mitigating circumstances, aggravating circumstances exhibit the

greater criminal propensity or perversity of the accused.

Notes:

1. The presence of at least one generic aggravating circumstance causes the

penalty to be imposed in its maximum period.

2. A generic aggravating circumstance may be offset with an ordinary mitigating

circumstance. It cannot be offset by a privileged mitigating circumstance.

3. A qualifying aggravating circumstance changes the nature of the felony and

causes the penalty to be imposed one or more degrees higher (ex. treachery
qualifies homicide to murder and increases the penalty imposable by one
degree; the employment of the offender as a domestic servant qualifies
simple theft to qualified theft and increases the penalty imposable by two
degrees.)

4. A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by a privileged

mitigating circumstance or even an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

5. In case of two or more generic aggravating circumstances, only one will cause
the imposition of the penalty to its maximum period. All the other remaining
generic aggravating circumstances will be disregarded.

6. In case of two or more qualifying aggravating circumstances, only one will

qualify the penalty and the imposition of the penalty higher in degree. The
other qualifying aggravating circumstance will be treated as if it were a
generic aggravating circumstance. All other qualifying aggravating
circumstances remaining, if any, will be disregarded.

7. On the circumstance of taking advantage of public position: For this

circumstance to apply, the following requisites must be present: (i) the
offender is a public officer or employee; (ii) the offender commits a crime;
(iii) the commission of the crime is capable of accomplishment with or
without the offender’s public position; or public office is not an element of the
crime; and (iv) the accomplishment of the crime was facilitated by the
offender’s public position.

25
 a. The mere fact that appellant Mario Capalac is a member of the police
force certainly did not of itself justify the aggravating circumstance of
advantage being taken by the offender of his public position be
considered as present. He acted like a brother, instinctively reacting to
what was undoubtedly a vicious assault on his kin that could cause the
death of a loved one. It would be an affront to reason to state that at a
time like that and reacting as he did, he purposely relied on his being a
policeman to commit the act. He pistol-whipped the deceased because
he had his pistol with him. It came in handy and he acted accordingly.
That he was a policeman of no relevance in assessing his criminal
responsibility. (People vs. Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297, October 23, 1982)

8. In the circumstance of disregard of the respect due to the offended party by

reason of the latter’s age, sex, or rank, the elements of age, sex, and rank are
not to be applied separately for the purpose of having more than one
aggravating circumstance. The gravamen of the circumstance is the disregard
of respect to the offended party for which there must be proof of deliberate
disregard of age, sex, or rank.

a. Age, sex, or rank must not be incidental nor must they be an element of
the crime. (ex. age is absorbed in the crime of infanticide.)

b. Mari vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 127694, May 31, 2000: True,
the amended criminal complaint (for slander by deed - Instead of
acknowledging receipt of the memorandum, accused confronted
complainant and angrily shouted at her: "Putang ina, bullshit, bugo." He
banged a chair in front of complainant and choked her) alleged that the
crime had been aggravated by the fact that the offended party is a
woman. However, the mere fact that the victim is a woman is not per
se an aggravating circumstance. There was no finding that the evidence
proved that the accused in fact deliberately intended to offend or insult
the sex of the victim, or showed manifest disrespect to the offended
woman or displayed some specific insult or disrespect to her
womanhood. There was no proof of fact or circumstance, other than
the victim is a woman, showing insult or disregard of sex in order that
it may be considered as aggravating circumstance. Hence, such
aggravating circumstance was not proved, and indeed, in the
circumstances of this case may not be considered as aggravating.

c. The lower court, however, erred in not considering the age of the
deceased as an aggravating circumstance. Jay Vee Parnala was barely
six years old when ruthlessly stabbed fourteen times before his body
was submerged in the pail. (People vs. Lapan, G.R. No. 88300, July 6,
1992)

d. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank should be

appreciated because it is obvious that the victim, PC. Lt. Masana,
identified himself as a PC officer to the accused who is merely a
member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore inferior both in rank
and social status to the victim. (People vs. Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156,
November 20, 1981)

26
9. Dwelling as an aggravating circumstance is based on the principle that the
occupant of a dwelling is entitled to enjoy the tranquility, safety, and security
of their dwelling place such that the aggravating circumstance involves a
disregard of that entitlement to tranquility, safety, and security.

a. The dwelling must be a place for rest and comfort. Unlawful entry is
not essential; the attack may originate from inside or outside the
dwelling, but the victim must be attacked inside their dwelling.

b. Dwelling must not be an element of the crime (ex. dwelling cannot be

aggravating in robbery with force upon things where there is unlawful
entry and in trespass to dwelling.)

10.On abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance, the requisites are

that (i) the offended party had interposed trust and confidence upon the
offender; (ii) the offender abused the said trust and confidence; (iii) the abuse
of trust and confidence facilitated the commission of the crime; (iv) the trust
and confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal; and (v)
the abuse of trust and confidence must not be an element of the crime.

a. For abuse of confidence to qualify theft to qualified theft, the abuse of

confidence must be grave.

11.Nighttime or nocturnity (nocturnidad) refers to the period of darkness

between dusk, and ending at dawn when sunlight begins to show. The
offender must purposefully seek the cover of darkness to facilitate the
commission of a crime. The darkness of night must not be merely incidental.

a. The crime must be exclusively committed during the darkness of night.

b. It is not a qualifying circumstance for murder.

c. Nighttime as an aggravating circumstance is absorbed by treachery if

the cover of darkness was part of the treacherous means to ensure the
success of the crime.

d. (People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 131116, August 27, 1999)

However, we cannot appreciate the generic aggravating circumstance
of nighttime; while the crime was committed at night, the prosecution
failed to show that the malefactors specifically sought this
circumstance to facilitate the criminal design. The fact that the crime
happened at 7:00 in the evening does not indicate that accused
made use of the darkness to conceal the crime and their identities.

e. Nocturnity is aggravating when it is purposely and deliberately sought

by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime or to prevent
their being recognized or to insure unmolested escape.

f. Nocturnidad must concur with the intent and design of the offender to
capitalize on the intrinsic impunity afforded by the darkness of night.

27
 In the case at bar, the affidavit of the accused Apduhan shows that he
and his co-malefactors took advantage of the nighttime in the
perpetration of the offense (robbery with homicide) as they waited until
it was dark before they came out of their hiding place to consummate
their criminal designs. (People vs. Apduhan, et.al., G.R. No. L-19491,
August 30, 1968)

12.Uninhabited place (despoblado) refers to the reasonable possibility of a

victim of a crime seeking help, rescue, or other assistance from other people.

a. In People vs. Pulido, the Supreme Court ruled that 200 meters from the
place of commission of a crime to the nearest house is enough to make
the place of commission an uninhabited place.

b. In order that the aggravating circumstance of the commission of a

crime in an uninhabited place may be considered, it is necessary that
the place of the occurrence be where there are no houses at all, a
considerable distance from the village or town, or where the houses
are a great distance apart. (US vs. Salgado, G.R. No. 4498, August 5,
1908)

c. In People vs. Rubia (52 PHIL 172, 175), the Supreme Court held the
aggravating circumstance of the crime of homicide having been
committed in an uninhabited place must be considered, where the
deed was committed at sea, where it was difficult for the offended
party to receive any help, while the assailants could easily have
escaped punishment, and the purely accidental circumstance that
another banca carrying the eyewitnesses to the crime was also at sea in
the vicinity at the time without the assailants' knowledge is no
argument against the appreciation of said circumstance.

13.The aggravating circumstance of "on the occasion of a conflagration,

shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune" refers to
when, during a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted adds to
their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to despoil them.
(People vs. Arpa and Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969).

14.For there to be a “band,” there must be at least four armed malefactors who
will act together in the commission of a crime. Since all members of the band
act together, there is conspiracy and all members shall be liable as principals.

15.Commission of a crime with the aid of armed men (persons): The

participation of the armed persons must be to insure or afford impunity.

a. “Impunity” – freedom from the consequences of an injurious action.

b. “Armed” – being in possession of weapons or items intended to be used

to inflict damage or injury.

c. The armed persons must not participate in the crime. Their presence is
intended to provide “moral support” for the offender. The armed

28
 persons are liable as accomplices. If the armed persons participate in
the crime, there may be conspiracy which negates the aggravating
circumstance.

16.Recidivism, reiteracion, habitual delinquency, and quasi-recidivism.

a. Recidivism: A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.

b. Reiteracion: When the offender has been previously punished by an

offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two
or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

c. Habitual delinquency: also known as “multirecidivism,” a special

aggravating circumstance; a person shall be deemed to be habitual
delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release
or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of
said crimes a third time or oftener.

i. Conditions:

1. There must be at least THREE convictions;

2. The 10-year period is counted from the date of conviction

or release for the second crime, if the accused was
released;

3. The third conviction happens within 10 years from the

date of conviction or release for the second crime.

d. Quasi recidivism as a special aggravating circumstance; any person

who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving
such sentence shall be punished by the maximum period prescribed by
law for the new felony.

17.In the circumstance of the commission of a crime in consideration of a price,

reward, or promise, there must be more than one offender that will create
conspiracy. The price, reward, or promise must be the consideration for
committing the crime. It should not be incidental, or made available after the
crime was committed.

a. LTC Guillergan vs. People, G.R. No. 185493, February 2, 2011: The
Information alleged that LTC Guillergan committed the offense charged
by "causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or a
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.“ In People v.
Yanson-Dumancas, the Court held that a person may induce another to
commit a crime in two ways: 1) by giving a price or offering a reward
or promise; and 2) by using words of command. In this case, the

29
 Sandiganbayan found that LTC Guillergan ordered TSGT Butcon to sign
the "receive" portion of the payrolls as payee to make it appear that
persons whose names appeared on the same had signed the document
when they in fact did not. There is no evidence that TSgt Butcon
received some sort of reward.

18.For Evident Premeditation to be considered as an aggravating circumstance,

the prosecution must prove: (i) the time when the offender determined to
commit the crime; (ii) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to
his determination, and (iii) a sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
(People of the Philippines vs. Racal, G.R. No. 224886, September 4, 2017)

a. Remarkably, the essence of evident premeditation is that the execution

of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection
upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of
time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. (People v. Isla, 699 Phil.
256, 270 (2012)

b. The premeditation to kill must be plain and notorious, and thereafter

proven by evidence of outward acts showing such intent to kill. In the
absence of clear and positive evidence, mere presumptions and
inferences of evident premeditation, no matter how logical and
probable, are insufficient. (People v. Dadivo, 434 Phil. 684, 688-689
(2002).

c. It bears reiterating that a qualifying circumstance such as evident

premeditation must be proven as clearly as the crime itself. Corollarily,
every element thereof must be shown to exist beyond reasonable
doubt and cannot be the mere product of speculation. (People v.
Timblor, 285 SCRA 64 (1998)

d. It is imperative to prove that the accused indeed underwent a process

of "cold and deep meditation, and a tenacious persistence in the
accomplishment of the criminal act.” (People v. Macaspac, G.R. No.
198954, February 22, 2017, citing People v. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473, 479
(1946).

e. Accordingly, there can be no evident premeditation when the

determination to commit the crime was immediately followed by
execution. (People vs. Grabador, Jr., et.al., G.R. No. 227504, June 13, 2018)

f. As concluded by the RTC, evident premeditation is not present in this

case. This Court agrees but for a different reason. The elements of
evident premeditation are: (1) a previous decision by the accused to
commit the crime; (2) an overt act or acts manifestly indicating that the
accused has clung to his determination; and (3) a lapse of time between
the decision to commit the crime and its actual execution enough to
allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his acts. These
elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court cannot

30
 fully subscribe to the RTC's theory that accused-appellant planned to
confront Glaiza but did not plan to kill her. On the contrary, the
evidence shows that when he swiftly entered the house and went
straight to the kitchen, he already had a decision to harm Glaiza.
However, the element that there was a sufficient lapse of time between
the decision to commit the crime and its actual commission was not
proven satisfactorily inasmuch as it would qualify the killing as
murder. The testimonies and object evidence do not necessarily yield
the conclusion that he clung to the determination to kill Glaiza. The
decision to kill prior to the moment of its execution must have been the
result of meditation, calculation, reflection, or persistent attempts. This
aspect was not proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt
and as such, evident premeditation cannot be said to be present here.
(People of the Philippines vs. Kalipayan, G.R. No. 229829, January 22,
2018)

g. Proof of conspiracy does not imply the existence of evident

premeditation. Evident premeditation can be presumed only where
conspiracy is directly established, not where, as in this case, conspiracy
is only implied. (People vs. Padlan, G.R. No. 111263, May 21, 1998)

h. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated as an aggravating

circumstance in the crime of robbery with homicide because the
elements of which are already inherent in the crime. Evident
premeditation is inherent in crimes against property. (People vs. Layug,
et.al., G.R. No. 223679, September 27, 2017)

19.Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused.
(People vs. Juliano, 95 SCRA 511.)

a. When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations,

fraud is present. (People vs. Manuzon, et.al., G.R. No. 113245-47, August
18, 1997)

b. A disguise is intended to conceal the identity of the offender so as to

avoid prosecution, or to aid in escape. Even if the identity of the
offender is not effectively concealed despite the use of disguise, the use
thereof must still be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
because it proves the use by the accused of methods to evade liability.
Nevertheless, if there is doubt as to the use of disguise for the purpose
of appreciating it as an aggravating circumstance, the doubt must be
resolved in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo.

c. The facts in the case fall within the provisions of section 5 of article 503
of the Penal Code, which punishes it with presidio correccional to
presidio mayor. The offense having been committed with the
aggravating circumstances of uninhabited place and use of a disguise
by the accused, his face being blackened in order to secure impunity,
the punishment should be imposed upon the accused in its maximum
degree, within the limits of which the judgment appealed from is
confined. (U.S. vs. Cofrada, G.R. No. 1855, January 23, 1905)

31
20.The determination of whether the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength was attendant requires the arduous review of the acts of
the accused in contrast with the diminished strength of the victim. There
must be a showing of gross disproportionality between each of them. Mere
numerical superiority on the part of the accused does not automatically
equate to superior strength. The determination must consider all the tools,
skills and capabilities available to the accused and to the victim to justify a
finding of disproportionality; otherwise, abuse of superior strength is not
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. (People vs. Evasco and Eclavia,
G.R. No. 213415, September 26, 2018)

a. Abuse of superior strength is to be appreciated only when there was

a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors
that was plainly and obviously advantageous to the latter who
purposely selected or took advantage of such inequality in order to
facilitate the commission of the crime. The assailants must be shown to
have consciously sought the advantage, or to have the deliberate intent
to use their superior advantage. In this context, to take advantage of
superior strength means to purposely use force excessively out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked.
The appreciation of the attendance of this aggravating circumstance
depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. (Valenzuela v.
People, G.R. No. 149988, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 1, 11.)

b. In this case, appellant killed April by hitting her head with a hammer
and stabbing her neck using a bladed weapon. The medical and
autopsy reports revealed that April sustained contusion, lacerated
wounds and hematoma on the scalp and forehead, and a neck stab
wound. Clearly, the killing of April was attended by treachery and
abuse of superior strength. There is treachery when the mode of the
attack tends to ensure the accomplishment of the criminal purpose
without risk to the attacker arising from any defense the victim might
offer. Furthermore, an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an
unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior
strength. (People vs. Brodett, G.R. No. 170136, January 18, 2008)

c. However, abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance is

already absorbed in treachery. (People v. Rodas, G.R. No. 175881, 28
August 2007.)

21.The four aggravating circumstances are (1) band; (2) dwelling; (3) nighttime;
and (4) abuse of superior strength. The circumstance of abuse of superiority
was, however, withdrawn by the prosecution on the ground that since the
offense of robbery with homicide was committed by a band, the element of
cuadrilla necessarily absorbs the circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
We believe that said withdrawal was ill-advised since the circumstances of
band and abuse of superiority are separate and distinct legal concepts. The
element of band is appreciated when the offense is committed by more than
three armed malefactors regardless of the comparative strength of the victim
or victims. Hence, the indispensable components of cuadrilla are (1) at least

32
 four malefactor and (2) all the four malefactors are armed. On the other hand,
the gravamen of abuse of superiority is the taking advantage by the culprits of
their collective strength to overpower their relatively weaker victim or
victims. Hence, in the latter aggravating factor, what is considered is not the
number of aggressors nor the fact that they are armed, but their relative
physical might vis-a-vis the offended party. (People vs. Apduhan, Jr., G.R. No. L-
19491, August 30, 1968)

22.There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

a. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without

warning, done in a swift and unexpected way, affording the hapless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape.
(People v. Las Pinas, et. al., 739 Phil. 502, 524(2014).

33
b. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must
be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position
to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately
adopted the particular means, methods, or forms of attack employed by
him. (People vs. Racal, G.R. No. 224886, September 4, 2017)

c. The above testimony is insufficient to establish the presence of

treachery. There is no showing of the victim’s position relative to
appellants at the time of the shooting. Besides, equally axiomatic is the
rule that when a killing is preceded by an argument or a quarrel,
treachery cannot be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, because
the deceased may be said to have been forewarned and to have
anticipated aggression from the assailant. (People vs. Genosa, 135981,
January 15, 2004)

d. Moreover, in order to appreciate alevosia, the method of assault

adopted by the aggressor must have been consciously and deliberately
chosen for the specific purpose of accomplishing the unlawful act
without risk from any defense that might be put up by the party
attacked. (People v. Cañete, 44 Phil. 478, February 5, 1923; People v.
Narvaez, 206 Phil. 314, April 20, 1983.)

e. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without

the slightest provocation on the part of the person being attacked.
What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible
for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate. (People of the
Philippines v. Sebastian, 428 Phil. 622, 626-627 (2002).

f. A swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim that ensures its

execution without risk to the assailant arising from the defense of his
victim is an indication that treachery is present. (People of the
Philippines v. Caboquin, 420 Phil. 744, 750 (2001).

g. Even attacks that occur from the front may be considered treacherous
if the attack was so sudden and unexpected that the deceased had no
time to
prepare for self-defense. People of the Philippines v. Perez, 404 Phil.
380, 388 (2001).

h. The mode of attack must also be consciously adopted. The accused

must make some preparation to kill the deceased in a manner as to
ensure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for
the person attacked to defend himself or retaliate. The attack, then,
must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. (People of the
Philippines v. Santillana, 367 Phil. 373, 389 (1999).

i. Treachery attended the commission of the crime. The necropsy report

and the diagram, plus the testimony of Dr. Guillermo de Guzman,
conclusively prove that the victim was killed in a manner ensuring
utter suddenness and complete surprise in the execution of the offense,

34
 with resultant incapability of the victim to offer resistance. That there
was abuse of superior strength would suffice to qualify the crime to
murder, but this circumstance must be considered as absorbed in
treachery. (People vs. Layson, et.al., G.R. No. L-25177, October 31, 1969)

j. Nevertheless, treachery may still be appreciated for even when the

victim was warned of danger to his person, what is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend
himself or to retaliate. The evidence clearly bears this out. The victim
was unarmed and the accused gave no warning. The victim was then
totally unprepared to even guess that the appellant and his co-accused
Canuel — who were the first two who appeared — would pepper him
with bullets. (People vs. MSGT Landicho, et.al., G.R. No. 116600, July 3,
1996)

k. The killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner

of assault is not shown. For, the weakness of the victim due to his
tender years results in the absence of any danger to the accused.
(People vs. Cabarrubias, G.R. Nos. Nos. L-94709-10, June 15, 1993.)

l. The Supreme Court held that nighttime should no longer be

appreciated against the appellant, the same having been absorbed by
the qualifying circumstance of treachery. (People of the Philippines vs.
Echaluce, et.al., G.R. No. L-29776, August 27, 1975)
m. The qualifying circumstance of treachery does not require that the
perpetrator attack his victim from behind. (People vs. Amora, G.R. No.
190322, November 26, 2014)

23.Ignominy is defined as a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which

adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. (People
vs. Acaya, 163 SCRA 768 (1988).

a. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy shall be taken into account if

means are employed or circumstances brought about which add
ignominy to the natural effects of the offense; or if the crime was
committed in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating
to the victim, that is, add to her moral suffering. (People v. Jose, 37 SCRA
450, 476 [1971]; People v. Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, 8 December 1999;
People v. Alfanta, G.R. No. 125633, 9 December 1999; People v. Valla, G.R.
No. 111285, 24 January 2000.)

b. It was established that BALIWANG used the flashlight and examined

the genital of Gloria before he ravished her. He committed his bestial
deed in the presence of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly show
that BALIWANG deliberately wanted to further humiliate Gloria,
thereby aggravating and compounding her moral sufferings. (People vs.
Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000)

c. After hearing the evidence admitted in said cause, the court found that
Rafael Casañ as, Blas Casañ as, Anastasio Ligaya, and Eulalio Realon
were guilty of the crime of rape, the first as author of said crime and

35
 the others as accomplices, with the aggravating circumstance of having
committed the crime in the house of the offended Agapita Bedico and
in the presence of Juan Padilla, to whom she was betrothed,
circumstances that added to the ignominy of the act x x x (U.S. vs.
Casanas, G.R. No. 2168, December 5, 1905)

24.For cruelty to be appreciated against the accused, it must be shown that the
accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly
and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The
crime is aggravated because by deliberately increasing the suffering of the
victim the offender denotes sadism and consequently a marked degree of
malice and perversity. (People vs. Cortes, G.R. No. 137050, July 11, 2001)

a. But the facts alleged in the information show that appellant, in

committing the crime of treason, deliberately augmented the wrong by
being unnecessarily cruel to captured guerrilla suspects, subjecting
them to barbarous forms of torture and finally putting them to death,
and, as appears in count No. 18, he also chose to add ignominy to his
treasonous act in arresting and maltreating a guerrilla suspect by
stripping his wife of her clothes and then abusing her together with
other Filipino girls. Clearly shown as they are by the allegations of the
complaint and deemed admitted by appellant’s plea of guilty, these two
aggravating circumstances of unnecessary cruelty and ignominy may
be appreciated against him. (People vs. Cucufate Adlawan, G.R. No. L-
456, March 29, 1949)

b. As to the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, although the accused

stabbed the victim several times, the same could not be considered as
cruelty because there was no showing that it was intended to prolong
the suffering of the victim. x x x The mere fact of inflicting various
successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death, no
appreciable time intervening between the infliction of one (1) wound
and that of another to show that he had wanted to prolong the
suffering of his victim, is not sufficient for taking this aggravating
circumstance into consideration.“ (People v. Magayac, 330 SCRA 767,
775-776 [2000], citing People v. Dayug, 49 Phil. 423 [1926]; People v.
Estorco, G. R. No. 111941, April 27, 2000.)

c. For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and
delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
him unnecessary physical or moral pain i the consummation of the
criminal act. (People vs. Ong and Quintos, G.R. No. L-34497, January 30,
1975)

25.There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not

intended for that purpose. The purpose of breaking is to gain entry into the
place where the crime is going to be committed. The circumstance is
absorbed in Robbery with force upon things and Trespass to Dwelling, when
violence is used.

36
26.The circumstance of commission of a crime with the aid of a motor vehicle
includes the use of a motorized watercraft, aircraft, or other similar means.

a. The use of the motor vehicle is intended to facilitate the commission of

the crime, such that the crime would not have been committed were it
not for the use of the said motor vehicle. It is also aggravating if the
motor vehicle was used to facilitate the escape of the offender.

b. It is not aggravating if the use of the motor vehicle is merely incidental.

c. The use of motor vehicle may likewise be considered as an aggravating

circumstance that attended the commission of the crime. The records
show that assailants used a motorcycle in trailing and overtaking the
jeepney driven by Saladio after which appellant’s back rider
mercilessly riddled with his bullets the body of Jeremias. There is no
doubt that the motorcycle was used as a means to commit the crime
and to facilitate their escape after they accomplished their mission.
(People vs. Salahuddin, G.R. No. 206291, January 28, 2016, citing People
vs. Herbias)

d. The car of the accused was used in trailing the victim’s car until it was
overtaken and blocked. It carried the victim on the way to the scene of
the killing; it contained at its baggage compartment the pick and shovel
used in digging the grave; it was the fast means of fleeing and
absconding from the scene. Again, the motor vehicle facilitated the
stark happening. It has been held that the use of motor vehicle is
aggravating in murder where the said vehicle was used in transporting
the victim and the accused. (People vs. Ong and Quintos, G.R. No. L-
34497, January 30, 1975)

27.Special aggravating circumstances are those which arise under special

conditions to increase the penalty for the offense to its maximum period, but
the same cannot increase the penalty to the next higher degree. Some of them
are:

a. Quasi-recidivism

b. Habitual delinquency

c. Complex crimes

d. Section 4, P.D. 1613 amending the law on arson where the crime was
(i) committed with intent to gain; (ii) committed for the benefit of
another; (iii) committed where the offender is motivated by spite or
hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property burned; or (iv)
committed by a syndicate, or a group of three or more persons who
commit arson;

e. Section 29, R.A. 10591, on the use of a loose firearm in the commission
of a crime where the use of a firearm is inherent;

37
 f. Section 25, R.A. 9165, on the commission of a crime while under the
influence of a dangerous drug.

Alternative Circumstances

Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as

aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication
and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

Notes:

1. Based on a strict interpretation, alternative circumstances are thus not

aggravating circumstances per se.

2. The Revised Penal Code is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and

when it is aggravating. Jurisprudence considers relationship as an
aggravating circumstance in crimes against chastity. (People v. Catubig, G.R.
No. 137842, 23 August 2001, 363 SCRA 621.)

3. The Regional Trial Court correctly set the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
rape on account of Divinagracia, Sr. having raped his own daughter. However,
since the victim was under twelve (12) years of age at the time of the crime,
the imposable penalty for lascivious conduct should have been within the
range of 14 years, 8 months, and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months, or reclusion
temporal in its medium period, as mandated by Republic Act No. 7610.
Instead, the Regional Trial Court imposed the range of 14 years and 4
months to 17 years and 4 months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law and with the presence of the alternative aggravating circumstance of
relationship x x x (People vs. Divinagracia, Sr., G.R. No. G.R. No. 207765)

4. “Relationship" as an alternative aggravating circumstance under Art. 15 of the

Revised Penal Code encompasses only "the spouse, ascendant, descendant,
legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, and relative by affinity in the
same degrees." Outside these enumeration's and consistent with the doctrine
that criminal laws must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, no
other relationship, kinship or association between the offender and the victim
may aggravate the imposable penalty for the crime committed. The fact, then,
that the offended party is the granddaughter or descendant of appellant's
live-in partner cannot justify the imposition of death upon the rapist. (People
vs. Atop, G.R. No. 124303-05, February 10, 1998)

5. Appellant prays for a lenient approach in consideration of his being an

ignorant and semi-uncivilized offender, belonging to a cultural minority, the
two separate circumstances to be joined together to constitute the alternative
circumstance of lack of instruction to mitigate his liability, relying on the US
vs. Maqui case.

a. Some later cases which held that the mitigating circumstance of lack of
instruction does not apply to crimes of theft and robbery leave us with

38
 no choice but to reject the plea of appellant. Membership in a cultural
minority does not per se imply being an uncivilized or semi- uncivilized
state of the offender. Incidentally, the Maqui case is the only case
where lack of instruction was considered to mitigate liability for theft,
for even long before it, in U.S. vs. Pascual, a 1908 case, lack of
instruction was already held not applicable to crimes of theft or
robbery. The Maqui case was decided in 1914, when the state of
civilization of the Igorots has not advanced as it had in reaching its
present state since recent years, when it certainly can no longer be said
of any member of a cultural minority in the country that he is
uncivilized or semi-uncivilized. (People vs. Macatanda, G.R. No. L-51368,
November 6, 1981)

6. “The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a

mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state
of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit
said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional it shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance."

a. Under the foregoing provision, intoxication is mitigating when it is not

habitual or intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan to commit
the crime. However, to be mitigating the accused’s state of intoxication
must be proved. Once intoxication is established by satisfactory
evidence, then, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed
to be non-habitual or unintentional. (U.S. v. Fitzgerald, 2 Phil. 419.)

Absolutory Causes

An absolutory cause refers to a situation where the act committed may be

considered as a criminal offense; yet, because of the public policy and sentiment,
there is no penalty imposed for its commission. In other words, they have the effect
of exempting the actor from criminal liability.

This is so because there is a lack of voluntariness on the part of the offender.

Although in absolutory cause, the offender is absolved, he is still not bound to be
free from civil liability. He or she may be held civilly accountable for the damages
sustained by the victims as a result of the subject act.

Absolutory cause, by the definition, is similar to that of an exempting circumstance,

but they are not among those enumerated in the Article 12 of the Revised Penal
Code. The following are absolutory causes recognized by law:

1. Spontaneous desistance in the commission of an attempted felony;

2. Instigation;
3. Pardon;
4. Article 247, Revised Penal Code, on Exceptional Circumstances;
5. Article 20, Revised Penal Code, on accessories exempt from criminal liability;
6. Modes of Extinguishment of Criminal Liability;
7. Article 332, Revised Penal Code, on persons exempt from criminal liability;
8. Article 344, Revised Penal Code, on marriage vis-à -vis crimes against chastity;
and

39
 9. Acts not covered by law and in case of excessive punishment (Article 5 of the
Revised Penal Code).

Plurality of Crimes

This refers to the “successive execution by the same individual of different criminal
acts upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared.” When an individual
commits several crimes one after the other, there is plurality.

Kinds of Plurality:

1. Formal or Ideal Plurality – This refers to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
on complex crimes and includes the following:

a. Compound Crime – where a single act results to two or more grave or

less grave felonies;

b. Complex Crime Proper – where one crime is a necessary means to

commit another.

2. Real or Material Plurality – The offender commits multiple crimes for which
he will be held liable for each. Every crime will be separately and
independently charged.
Notes:

1. There is formal or ideal plurality when a person is punished with ONE

PENALTY despite having actually committed more than one crime. There is
formal or ideal plurality in the following cases:

a. Complex Crimes as defined and discussed in Article 48 of the Revised

Penal Code, which include:

i. Compound Crimes; or
ii. Complex Crimes Proper.

b. Special Complex Crimes as defined in the Revised Penal Code (ex.

Robbery with Homicide under Art. 294)

c. Continued Crimes

2. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code defines a complex crime as one where a
single act constitutes two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE FELONIES, or when
one act is a necessary means for committing the other. With that definition
only grave and less grave felonies may form part of a complex crime. Light
felonies and violations of special penal laws are excluded by Article 48.

3. A complex crime is literally composed of two or more grave or less grave

felonies which the law treats as only ONE CRIME. The consequence is that the

40
 penalty for the gravest offense will be imposed in its maximum period despite
the number of crimes actually committed.

4. A complex crime may either be (i) a COMPOUND CRIME where a single act
constitutes two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE FELONIES, or a (ii) COMPLEX
CRIME PROPER where one act is a necessary means for committing the other.

5. A complex crime may also be:

a. A SIMPLE COMPLEX CRIME, or simply a COMPLEX CRIME where any

two or more grave or less grave felonies may be taken together, as in
the case of Homicide with Frustrated Homicide; or

b. A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME which are complex crimes specially

defined and punished in the Revised Penal Code, as in the case of
Robbery with Homicide under Article 295, paragraph 1 of the Code.

6. In a complex crime, the penalty imposable is the penalty for the gravest
offense to be imposed in its maximum period. In a special complex crime, the
penalty imposable is whatever penalty is prescribed by that provision of law
defining it.

7. Features of a Complex Crime:

a. There must be at least two felonies committed – this is clear in the

definition under Article 48 where one grave or less grave felony results
to another grave or less grave felony or even more, or when one act is a
necessary means to commit another;

b. The act may be intentional or unintentional – Article 48 does not

distinguish whether the crime will be by dolo or culpa since the
definition of a compound crime allows for interpretation to include
both intentional and culpable felonies;

c. Despite there being several felonies, the totality of crimes committed is

treated as only one crime – this is because of the fact that:

i. In a compound crime the other crimes resulted from ONE ACT;

and

ii. In a complex crime proper committing one act as a necessary

means to commit another arises from ONE CRIMINAL
RESOLUTION or from ONE CRIMINAL PURPOSE.

8. For there to be a compound crime, the act that gives rise to the other grave or
less grave felonies must also be a grave or less grave one. While the law
defines a compound crime as one where a single act results to two or more
grave or less grave felonies, we are not saying that that single act must result
to two or more grave or less grave felonies. It is sufficient if that single act
results to ANOTHER grave or less grave felony, or more.

41
a. The first single act and the resulting act already composes TWO crimes.
The two resulting crimes may be:

i. The first a grave felony and the second a less grave felony;
ii. The first a less grave felony and the second, a grave felony;
iii. Both grave felonies; or
iv. Both less grave felonies.

b. If it so happens that the first or second crime is a light felony, there is

no compound crime.

c. Illustration 1: LANDO fired his revolver at ROQUE intending to kill him.

The bullet hit Roque in the neck causing his instant death. The bullet
went through Roque’s neck and hit a metal post. It ricocheted
(pronounced, “rico-sheyd”) and hit LINDA’s left eye, causing
permanent blindness. In firing his revolver at Roque with the intent to
kill, and in fact killing him, Lando committed a SINGLE ACT of
homicide, punishable by reclusion temporal. Since reclusion temporal
is an afflictive penalty, homicide is a grave felony. When the bullet
ricochet blinded Linda, the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in
serious physical injuries was also committed, punishable by arresto
mayor maximum to prision correccional medium. The penalty being a
correctional penalty, the second resulting crime is a less grave felony.
Because Lando’s act of killing Roque (a grave felony) resulted to
Linda’s injuries (a less grave felony), he is liable for a complex crime of
HOMICIDE WITH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES. His penalty is the penalty for the most grave
felony in its maximum. Since homicide is the more grave felony
punishable by reclusion temporal, his penalty is reclusion temporal
maximum.

d. Illustration 2: GIO owned an AR-15 rifle which was capable of single (1

trigger pull = 1 bullet fired), burst (1 trigger pull = 3 bullets fired) and
automatic (bullets are discharged for as long as the trigger is
depressed) modes of fire. Planning to kill government detractors, he
loaded his rifle with a 30-round magazine, set the rifle to AUTOMATIC
and went to the area where a labor group was holding a rally. He aimed
his rifle at the group and pulled the trigger once, discharging all 30
bullets at the group in less than 10 seconds. Because of his act, 14
people died. It is true that Gio committed a single act of pulling the
trigger which resulted to 14 murders. But he cannot be charged for a
complex crime of MULTIPLE MURDER because in using a weapon such
as that used by Gio, it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should
be considered as producing the several felonies, but the number of
bullets which actually produced them. Gio actually discharged 30
bullets and killed 14 people. While he pulled the trigger only once, the
mechanism of the rifle allowed him to do that. If the rifle was set on a
“single” mode of fire then he would have pulled the trigger 30 times to
discharge 30 bullets. He must be charged and held liable for 14 counts
or 14 charges of murder and tried separately for each charge. (Based
on People vs. Desierto, C.A.; 45 OG 4542.)

42
e. Illustration 3: DANTE, a thief was running from pursuing neighbors.
While running he drew a grenade, pulled the pin and threw it at them.
When the grenade exploded one person was killed and another was
slightly injured with minor scratches. Dante committed a single act of
throwing a live grenade resulting to one homicide and one case of
slight physical injury. The homicide is a grave felony while slight
physical injuries is a light felony. There will be a charge for homicide
against Dante and a separate charge for slight physical injuries. Both
crimes cannot be complexed with each other because while homicide is
a grave felony, slight physical injuries is a light felony. For there to be a
complex crime all the resulting crimes must either be grave or less
grave felonies.

f. Illustration 4: DANTE, a thief was running from pursuing neighbors.

While running he drew a grenade, pulled the pin and threw it at them.
When the grenade exploded TWO persons were killed and another was
slightly injured with minor scratches. Dante committed a single act of
throwing a live grenade resulting to two homicides and one case of
slight physical injury. The homicides are grave felonies while slight
physical injuries is a light felony. We still cannot complex the
homicides with slight physical injuries because the homicides are grave
felonies while the slight physical injuries is a light felony. We may
however complex the two homicides because both are grave felonies.
The result: Dante will be charged for double homicide/multiple
homicide as a compound crime and for slight physical injuries as a
separate charge.

g. Illustration 5: While manning a quarantine checkpoint, PCPT ERIC

MANOLO got bored so he brought out his service pistol and spun it on
his finger much to the amusement of PCPL JANE PRODIGO whom PCPT
Manolo was trying to impress. But while the pistol was spinning on
PCPT Manolo’s finger, the trigger was depressed, sending a bullet
through the window of a house killing MANDY, a 3rd year college
student boarding there and gravely injuring her sister, FELY who
survived with timely medical attention. PCPT Manolo committed a
single act of negligence, which was playing with his service pistol. That
single act resulted to homicide, a grave felony and serious physical
injuries, a less grave felony. PCPT Manolo will be charged for Reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and serious physical injuries, a
compound crime.

h. Illustration 6: While manning a quarantine checkpoint, PCPT ERIC

MANOLO got bored so he brought out his service pistol and spun it on
his finger much to the amusement of PCPL JANE PRODIGO whom PCPT
Manolo was trying to impress. But while the pistol was spinning on
PCPT Manolo’s finger, the trigger was depressed, sending a bullet
through the window of a house killing MANDY, a 3rd year college
student boarding there and gravely injuring her sister, FELY who
survived with timely medical attention. PCPT Manolo committed a
single act of negligence, which was playing with his service pistol. That
single act resulted to homicide, a grave felony and serious physical
injuries, a less grave felony. PCPT Manolo will be charged for Reckless

43
 imprudence resulting in homicide and serious physical injuries, a
compound crime.

9. In a complex crime proper, one act is necessary to commit another act. This
act to give rise to another may be a single act or a series of actions however in
the latter case if there is a series of actions there must only be one criminal
intent. It does not mean however that the act to be done for the purpose of
committing another must be indispensable, or that there be no other way to
commit the intended crime. It is sufficient that the accused intended to
perform one crime so that he may commit the other. Remember here that the
goal of the accused is to accomplish the second crime. The first crime is only a
means to accomplish it.

a. THE RULE REMAINS THAT THE COMPONENT CRIMES (those crimes

making up the complex crime) are GRAVE OR LESS GRAVE FELONIES.

b. It is also essential that both crimes must be covered by the Revised

Penal Code. If one or both or all of the crimes are defined under a
special penal law, no complexing may be done.

c. Illustration 1: SIMON intended to illegally-transfer Php4million from

the bank where he manages to his own savings account. For this
purpose, he falsified a bank withdrawal slip and withdrew the amount.
He deposited the cash in his own account afterwards. In this case
Simon’s true intention is to take Php4 million and the way for him to do
that was to falsify a bank withdrawal slip, which is a commercial
document. Note that falsifying the withdrawal slip was not an
indispensable act because there are other ways to take money from the
bank. In falsifying the withdrawal slip Simon committed falsification of
commercial documents, a less grave felony. In being able to take the
money Simon committed estafa, which is also a less grave felony.
Simon will be charged for Estafa through falsification of a commercial
document.

d. Illustration 2: Wanting to rape KIM, NANDO trespassed into Kim’s

apartment and seeing her asleep, used a chloroform-soaked rag to
incapacitate her. Nando then proceeded to have sexual intercourse
with her 3 times. Nando committed three acts of rape. In rape cases
each act of sexual intercourse (referring to the occasion or the act of
intercourse, not the number of “thrusts”) is one crime, separate and
distinct from the others. But to commit the rape he trespassed into
Kim’s apartment, which is a felony in itself termed as “trespass to
dwelling,” a less grave felony. However, in this case we cannot complex
trespass to dwelling with rape because in this case dwelling will be
treated as an aggravating circumstance despite the trespass thereto
was for the purpose of committing rape. It is settled jurisprudence that
when trespass to dwelling is committed in order to commit a graver
offense, that trespass is not treated as a felony but as an aggravating
circumstance. The conclusion is that Nando will be charged for three
separate counts of rape aggravated by trespass to dwelling.

44
e. Illustration 3: Wanting to rape KIM, NANDO grabbed her while she was
walking home from school. He brought her to his boarding house and
raped her there. Nando’s act of taking Kim for the purpose of raping
her is punished as abduction, punishable by reclusion temporal. It is a
grave felony. Since Nando abducted Kim so that he may rape her, note
here that it was Nando’s goal to rape her. The abduction was only a
means so that he can commit his crime. Nando will be charged for
forcible abduction with rape. If Nando raped Kim three more times
after the first there will be separate charges of rape for every act of
intercourse committed by him. We can no longer complex abduction
with rape because there was only one act of abduction. It was already
complexed with the first act of rape. When the succeeding rapes took
place, the abduction had already been done. In that case, Nando will be
charged for Forcible Abduction with Rape and three other separate
charges for Rape.

f. Illustration 4: Wanting to rape KIM, NANDO grabbed her while she was
walking home from school. He brought her to his boarding house and
raped her there. Nando’s act of taking Kim for the purpose of raping
her is punished as abduction, punishable by reclusion temporal. It is a
grave felony. Since Nando abducted Kim so that he may rape her, note
here that it was Nando’s goal to rape her. The abduction was only a
means so that he can commit his crime. Nando will be charged for
forcible abduction with rape. If Nando raped Kim three more times
after the first there will be separate charges of rape for every act of
intercourse committed by him. We can no longer complex abduction
with rape because there was only one act of abduction. It was already
complexed with the first act of rape. When the succeeding rapes took
place, the abduction had already been done. In that case, Nando will be
charged for Forcible Abduction with Rape and three other separate
charges for Rape.

g. Illustration 5: WILLY bought an unlicensed revolver so he can kill ALI,

his enemy. With the cover of night, Willy waited for Ali to pass by and
when he did, shot him on the head, causing instant death. Willy
committed murder in killing Ali. He also committed unlawful
possession of firearms, a violation of Republic Act No. 10591, a special
penal law. There can be no complex crime because while murder is
defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code, illegal possession
of firearms is defined and punished under Republic Act No. 10591. The
proper charge is murder aggravated by the use of a loose firearm.

i. Refer to Section 29 of R.A. 10591: The use of a loose firearm,

when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under
the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, shall be considered
as an aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the crime
committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law
with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in
the preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the
penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be imposed in lieu
of the penalty for the crime charged: Provided, further, That if
the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized
45
 by the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that
imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession of
firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
shall be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws
of which he/she is found guilty.

10.In naming complex crimes, the following rules apply:

a. In case of a COMPOUND CRIME composed of different felonies, start

with the MOST GRAVE FELONY and end with the LEAST GRAVE
FELONY. (ex. MURDER with FRUSTRATED MURDER, MURDER with
HOMICIDE and FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE)

b. In case of a COMPOUND CRIME composed of the same felonies:

i. Two or more felonies: DOUBLE HOMICIDE OR MULTIPLE

HOMICIDE

ii. DO NOT USE “COUNTS.” Multiple counts presupposes several

separate charges, as in TWO COUNTS of MURDER means that
there are two separate charges for murder. It is not a complex
crime.

11.In case of a COMPLEX CRIME PROPER, the crimes are generally named as
follows: Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents, Forcible
abduction with rape, Reckless Imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries.

12.A continued crime is one where there is a series of acts all connected to the
commission of a crime which all arise from the same criminal resolution. It
exists because of a single criminal intent or a single criminal impulse although
its commission may be done through several acts over an unspecified period
of time. It is also known as “CONTINUING” OR “CONTINUOUS” crimes.

a. It may be composed of several acts directed against the same or

different persons. What is essential here is that those several acts are
not driven by separate criminal impulses. What matters is not the
number of victims but the number of criminal impulses.

b. For instance, a thief boards a bus from Pasay City to Baguio to steal
personal property. While the passengers were asleep the thief took 20
wallets from 20 different people. Here there was a single criminal
impulse which is shown by the act of the thief in boarding a bus
purposefully to commit the theft. Even if there were 20 acts done, the
thief will only be charged for ONE CRIME OF THEFT, although there are
20 private complainants. If it so happened that he did not have that
intention and boarded the bus for travel, and that during the course of
travel he stole 20 wallets, he would be liable for 20 counts of theft.

i. This is the SINGLE LARCENY RULE, which states that multiple

acts of taking done at the same place and at the same time arise

46
 from a single criminal intent or impulse, for which the accused
shall be liable for only one act of taking.

c. There is a continued crime if the acts of the accused show a unity of

thought and unity of action. This means that the accused intended to
steal from everyone as a whole.

d. If the acts of the accused were separate and unrelated to each other, as
in the case where a man entered an apartment building and committed
theft in the first apartment, robbery in the second, rape on the third
and another theft in the fourth, it shows that the offender may have
had no unity of thought and action and each act was separate and
unrelated to each other. He may be held liable for as many crimes as he
committed.

13.A continued crime is not a complex crime because the offender in a continued
crime performs a series of acts, not a single act as in the case of a complex
crime.

a. In a continued crime the accused performs a series of acts which may

be directed against several persons, but will only be liable for one
crime. In a complex crime, the accused either performs one act which
gives rise to two or more grave or less grave felonies, or one act so that
he may commit another.

b. In a continued crime, the penalty is whatever penalty the law provides.

In a complex crime, the penalty is that for the most grave felony
imposed in its maximum.
The Law on Penalties

A penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of law.
(Lorenzo Relova, Imposition of Penalties: Indeterminate Sentence Law, 22 ATENEO L.J.
1 (1978). As a rule, all imposable penalties shall be imposed in accordance with the
law that is prevailing at the time a judgment of guilt is rendered by the court.

A penalty may take the form of any or a combination of the following as allowed by
law:

1. Imprisonment
2. Fine
3. Community service
4. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
5. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
6. Banishment by destierro
7. Deportation, for non-Filipino offenders

The penalty of imprisonment involves the deprivation of liberty of the convict in a

government facility, and under the supervision and custody of the State, and in the
manner provided by law.

47
A fine is a penalty of payment imposed by law which the convict should pay, failing
which the convict may be subject to subsidiary penalty in case of failure or refusal to
pay the same.

Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be
not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated. The
penalty has the same duration as prision correccional.

The penalties of imprisonment thus imposable are:

Reclusion Perpetua – 20 years and 1 day to 40 years

Reclusion Temporal (maximum) – 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years

Reclusion Temporal (medium) – 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and

4 months

Reclusion Temporal (minimum) – 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8

months

Prision Mayor (maximum) – 10 years and 1 day to 12 years

Prision Mayor (medium) – 8 years and 1 day to 10 years

Prision Mayor (minimum) – 6 years and 1 day to 8 years

Prision Correccional and Destierro (maximum) – 4 years, 2 months and 1 day

to 6 years

Prision Correccional and Destierro (medium) – 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to

4 years and 2 months

Prision Correccional (minimum) – 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4

months

Arresto Mayor (maximum) – 4 months and 1 day to 6 months

Arresto Mayor (medium) – 2 months and 1 day to 4 months

Arresto Mayor (minimum) – 1 month to 2 months

Arresto Menor (maximum) – 21 days to 30 days

Arresto Menor (medium) – 11 days to 20 days

Arresto Menor (minimum) – 1 day to 10 days

Notes:
48
 1. There are two scales of penalties under the RPC: that under Art. 70, and
another under Art. 71. The scale of penalties under Art. 70 specifies the order
of penalties if the convict shall serve successive sentences. The scale under
Art. 71 on the other hand is the order of penalties to be observed for the
purpose of graduating a penalty, that is, increasing or decreasing a penalty by
degrees.

2. A penalty shall only be imposable when a judgment of conviction is already

final. Any form of detention before final judgment is not a penalty, but is
considered preventive detention to ensure that the accused will be available
to the court whenever required by it.

3. In case the court imposes several sentences for several crimes, the penalties
may either be served successively or simultaneously. Penalties may be served
simultaneously if they are compatible with each other, and successively, if
not.

4. In the successive service of sentence, the convict will serve one penalty after
the other, until all penalties have been served. The rule here is that the
penalties must be INCOMPATIBLE with each other.

5. In the simultaneous service of sentence, the convict may serve more than one
sentence at the same time. The rule here now is that the penalties must be
COMPATIBLE with each other.

6. The following penalties may be served simultaneously:

a. Imprisonment and fine
b. Imprisonment and suspension
c. Imprisonment, suspension and fine
d. Imprisonment and disqualification whether temporary or perpetual
e. Imprisonment, disqualification, suspension and fine
f. Destierro and fine
g. Destierro and suspension
h. Destierro, suspension and fine
i. Destierro and disqualification whether temporary or perpetual
j. Destierro, disqualification, suspension and fine.
k. All of the above, with public censure.

Rules on the Application of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

Situation Penalty Imposable

No mitigating or aggravating circumstances
One ordinary mitigating circumstance
More than one ordinary mitigating
circumstance
One privileged mitigating circumstance
Medium
Minimum
One degree lower
One or two degrees lower, as
the law provides. (Ex. Minority
– one degree lower; Incomplete
self defense where there are two

49

One or more generic aggravating circumstances
One qualifying aggravating circumstance
Two or more qualifying aggravating
circumstances
Equal number of ordinary mitigating
circumstances and generic aggravating
circumstances
elements present – two degrees
lower. The penalty may be
lowered by as many degrees as
there are privileged mitigating
circumstances.)
Maximum
One degree higher, or more as
the law provides (Ex. Qualified
theft, 2 degrees higher from
simple theft)
One degree higher, apply
penalty in its maximum. (Only
one qualifying aggravating
circumstance qualifies the
felony; the rest of the qualifying
aggravating circumstances are
treated as one generic
aggravating circumstance. The
rationale is the law does not
allow the imposition of a penalty
which is more than the
maximum that is provided by
law.)
Set-off one ordinary mitigating
circumstance with one generic
aggravating circumstance until
all are set-off with one another.
If any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances remain, apply
the rules as applicable.

Notes:

1. Only an ORDINARY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE may offset a GENERIC

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.

2. A PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE cannot offset a generic

aggravating circumstance. Neither may it offset a QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.

3. Regardless of the number of generic aggravating circumstances, the penalty

shall only be imposed in its MAXIMUM because the law prohibits the
imposition of a penalty that is GREATER than what is provided. (Article 64,
par.6).

4. Regardless of the number of qualifying aggravating circumstances, the

penalty shall be imposed only in the NEXT HIGHER DEGREE, in its maximum
period.

5. If there is a qualifying aggravating circumstance, APPLY IT FIRST because the

qualifying aggravating circumstance changes the nature of the felony itself

50
 and consequently, the penalty imposable for that felony. We must first
determine the maximum penalty imposable so that we may arrive at the
minimum.

6. After applying a qualifying aggravating circumstance, if any, apply the

privileged mitigating circumstance next, then finally any remaining ordinary
mitigating or generic aggravating circumstances.

7. Aggravating circumstances forming part or being an essential element of a

felony must not be considered. (Ex. Estafa, being a crime of deceit includes
evident premeditation as an element. That premeditation should not be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. Dwelling is an element of
trespass to dwelling.)

8. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances only attend to crimes against persons

or property.

9. A Privileged Mitigating Circumstance lowers the penalty by ONE or TWO

degrees.

10.Where the penalty is a FINE, the court has discretion to impose the
appropriate fine within the range of the penalty depending on the
circumstances of the felony.

11.For violations of a special penal law, the court has discretion to impose the
penalty within the range of the provided penalty.

12.In case of more than one privileged mitigating circumstance, each will cause
the penalty to be lowered by one to two degrees.

Assuming the penalty imposable was originally Prision Correccional

Medium, and there are TWO privileged mitigating circumstances
(theoretically, legally, and actually this will be difficult to have) the
penalty will be reduced by TWO DEGREES, or from prision correccional
medium down to arresto mayor medium, and further down to arresto
menor medium. If one of those privileged mitigating circumstances will
result to the lowering of the penalty by two degrees, then the resulting
penalty will be lower than arresto menor, which means that the
accused will be acquitted because in counting all the circumstances
affecting the penalty, the accused is deemed NOT GUILTY.

13.Adjusting the penalty (whether by lowering or increasing) by DEGREES

means adjusting it by the penalty itself, as in increasing the penalty from
Arresto mayor to Prision correccional, or from Prision mayor to Reclusion
Temporal; or by decreasing the penalty from Reclusion temporal to Prision
mayor, or even from Reclusion perpetua down to Prision mayor, in case of a
privileged mitigating circumstance allowing for a 2-degree reduction.

14.Adjusting the penalty by PERIODS means adjusting the penalty from medium
down to minimum, or from medium to maximum as the case may be.

51
 15.In case of a ranged penalty (ex. Prision correccional minimum to prision mayor
medium), the presence of an ordinary mitigating circumstance will cause the
penalty imposed in its minimum, that is, PRISION CORRECCIONAL MINIMUM.
Where there is a generic aggravating circumstance, the penalty is imposed in
its maximum, that is, PRISION MAYOR MEDIUM. If there is no modifying
circumstance, the penalty is imposed in its MEDIUM PERIOD. To arrive at that
penalty you will have to MATHEMATICALLY determine the middle range of
Prision Correccional minimum) – 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
and Prision Mayor medium – 8 years and 1 day to 10 years.

16.In graduating penalties, if the ORIGINAL PENALTY IS COMPOSED OF THREE,

TWO or ONE PERIODS, the penalty next lower in degree will be the next
lower three, two or one periods in the scale of penalties.

17.If it happens that DESTIERRO is included in the range of penalties, (Ex.

Destierro Maximum to Arresto Mayor Medium) the accused will first serve
destierro and, if required, subsequently serve the penalty by imprisonment
up to arresto mayor medium. Conversely (Ex. Arresto Menor Medium to
Destierro Minimum), the accused will first serve the penalty of imprisonment
and then be subjected to destierro.

18.A refusal to serve imprisonment after serving destierro will be punished as

Evasion of Service of Sentence, which is a felony defined and punished by the
Revised Penal Code.

19.For purposes of graduating the penalties, we do not yet consider the

aggravating or mitigating circumstances, unless there is a privileged
mitigating circumstance which will cause the penalty to be reduced by one or
two degrees at the very beginning. We will only consider the generic
aggravating or ordinary mitigating circumstances when we already have the
proper degree of the penalty. The generic aggravating and/or ordinary
mitigating circumstances will be taken into consideration only for the
imposition of the FINAL PENALTY to be served by the accused.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law

The Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended by Act No. 4225) was
enacted to benefit the accused through the imposition of an indeterminate penalty
whose duration is not definite or determinate.

Features:

1. It allows the application of parole for a possible early release of the convict, if
qualified;

2. Provides an avenue for training so that upon his release, the convict will be a
productive member of society;

3. Preserves the convict’s inherent personal sense of value which might be lost
due to prolonged confinement in a penal institution;

52
 4. When applicable, the court MUST IMPOSE an indeterminate penalty. It cannot
refuse its application and impose a straight penalty instead.

The Indeterminate Sentence Law (“ISLAW”) also applies whether the crime
committed was a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special penal law.

The ISLAW does not apply in the following cases:

1. Persons convicted of crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment;

2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy to commit treason or proposal to

commit treason, misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage or
piracy;

3. Those who are habitual delinquents;

4. Those who have escaped from confinement where he is serving sentence;

5. Those who have evaded the service of their sentence;

6. Those who have violated the terms of a conditional pardon;

7. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;

8. Those sentenced to suffer the penalty of destierro or suspension; and

9. Those already sentenced by final judgment upon the approval of the ISLAW.
(The law was approved on December 5, 1933. Obviously this ground no
longer applies.)

Non-eligibility of those sentenced to RECLUSION PERPETUA

Those convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua are not eligible to be included
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law despite there being no express statement
under the law itself.

The reason is that the ISLAW was enacted to allow the convict to enjoy the benefit of
parole, if qualified. Parole is a remedy allowing an early release from imprisonment
if the convict has already served the minimum period of his penalty. It must be
recalled that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty which DOES NOT ADMIT of
any minimum, medium or maximum period such that logically a convict sentenced
to reclusion perpetua is not eligible for parole. This conclusion is supported by
Resolution No. 24-4-10 of the Board of Pardons and Parole where it was
categorically stated that those convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua are
not eligible for parole.

In People of the Philippines vs. Ducay (GR No. 209590, November 19, 2014) the
Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s ruling that accused Ducay, having been
convicted for rape and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, is not eligible for
parole and is disqualified from coverage under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
53
The Indeterminate Sentence Law; Its Concept:

Under the ISLAW the court is mandated to impose an indeterminate penalty, which
means the penalties for specific felonies under the Revised Penal Code or offenses
under special penal laws will not be the same exact penalties to be imposed upon a
qualified convict.

For felonies under the Revised Penal Code the ISLAW mandates the imposition of a
minimum penalty which is within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to
that which is prescribed by the Code. The exact minimum penalty will now be within
the discretion of the court.

For offenses under special penal laws the ISLAW mandates the court to impose a
penalty which is within the range provided by that special law. In this case the court
will have some discretion in fixing the proper penalty depending on the
circumstances attendant to each offense.

But in both cases, the court must determine TWO PENALTIES – a maximum penalty
and a minimum penalty.

Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

In applying the ISLAW the court should NOT YET consider mitigating or aggravating
circumstances for purposes of fixing the penalty which the convict will serve. These
will be considered only for the purpose of fixing the maximum penalty, which will
be the starting point in determining the final penalty.

Under the ISLAW, the MAXIMUM penalty is defined as “that which, in view of the
attending circumstances could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised
Penal Code.” This tells us that everything we have learned about mitigating and
aggravating circumstances, including those privileged and qualifying, as well as the
discussions on penalties, was only for the purpose of fixing the MAXIMUM PENALTY
which the convict may suffer.

How the ISLAW is applied under the Revised Penal Code:

1. The court must determine the following: (i) the felony committed; (ii) the
stage of its execution; and (iii) the degree of participation of the accused
whether as principal, accomplice or accessory;

2. The court must determine the imposable penalty under the Revised Penal
Code;

3. The court must consider the modifying circumstances and apply them in the
following order:

54
 a. First, apply the qualifying aggravating circumstance to fix the proper
felony;

b. Second, apply the privileged mitigating circumstance to fix the

imposable penalty;

c. Third, apply any available remaining generic aggravating

circumstances or ordinary mitigating circumstances.

This will now FIX THE PROPER MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSABLE

4. Finally, fix the minimum penalty which must be within the range of the
penalty next lower in degree to that of the minimum penalty or whatever
penalty is provided by the Revised Penal Code.

ILLUSTRATION 1: ALBERT was convicted for frustrated homicide with direct

assault. What is the indeterminate penalty to be imposed upon him?

1. Albert committed a complex crime (specifically, a compound crime). The

penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. By being frustrated, it is one
degree lower, or prision mayor. Being more grave than direct assault the
penalty imposed by the RPC for Albert’s complex crime is prision mayor
maximum. THIS IS THE MAXIMUM PENALTY.

2. The penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional. The MINIMUM

PENALTY may be in any of its periods.

3. The accepted answer is “prision correccional in any of its periods to prision

mayor maximum.”

Note that when writing the penalty, start with the minimum penalty and end with
the maximum penalty. Note also the court has the discretion to fix the proper period
within the range of the minimum penalty, as the proper minimum penalty. In People
of the Philippines vs. Dosal (92 Phil 877), the court decided to impose prision
correccional maximum as the minimum penalty because of the assault and
disrespect committed by the accused against a person in authority.

ILLUSTRATION 2: After voluntarily surrendering to the authorities, JOAN was tried

and convicted for estafa and sentenced to prision correccional. What is the
indeterminate penalty imposable?

1. To fix the maximum, consider the penalty of prision correccional and apply
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The applicable maximum
is now set at prision correccional minimum.

2. The penalty next lower in degree is arresto mayor. The MINIMUM PENALTY
may be in any of its periods.

3. The indeterminate penalty is “arresto mayor in any of its periods to prision

correccional minimum.”
55
ILLUSTRATION 3: KEVIN, a personal secretary, committed theft by stealing the
wallet of his employer from the latter’s office, to which he was given the only
duplicate key. Held for the crime, Kevin voluntarily admitted his crime before the
court. What is the indeterminate penalty imposable?

1. The penalty fixed by the RPC for theft is arresto mayor maximum. Being
qualified by abuse of trust and confidence, the penalty will be increased by 2
degrees so we are now at prision mayor maximum. (The penalty next higher in
degree of a penalty in its maximum must also be in its maximum)

2. Applying Kevin’s voluntary plea of guilt, he is benefited by a mitigating

circumstance that lowers prision mayor maximum to prision mayor minimum.
This is now the maximum penalty imposable.

3. The penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional. The MINIMUM

PENALTY may be in any of its periods because that is what the ISLAW
requires.

4. The indeterminate penalty is “prision correccional in any of its periods to

prision mayor minimum.”

ILLUSTRATION 4: JORDAN, a 16 year old minor was convicted for murder,

aggravated by committing it in the dwelling of the victim. Having been found
capable of discernment by a social worker, what is the indeterminate penalty
imposable?

1. The penalty fixed by the RPC for murder is reclusion temporal to death. With
an aggravating circumstance, the penalty is death. But since the death penalty
is not imposable the penalty must be reclusion perpetua.

2. Jordan is benefited by a privileged mitigating circumstance of minority which

causes the penalty to be lowered by 1 degree, or to reclusion temporal. There
being no other modifying circumstance the proper maximum penalty is
reclusion temporal medium.

3. The penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor in any of its periods.

4. The indeterminate penalty is “prision mayor in any of its periods to reclusion

temporal medium.”

ILLUSTRATION 5: DIEGO murdered his neighbor when the latter failed to keep her
cats from defecating on Diego’s property. What is the indeterminate penalty
imposable, if any?

56
 1. The penalty fixed by the RPC for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to
death. Without any modifying circumstance the penalty is fixed at its medium
period, which is reclusion perpetua. We cannot apply reclusion temporal
maximum because there is no mitigating circumstance.

2. The penalty of reclusion perpetua being imposable, Diego will not be entitled
to coverage under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

In applying the ISLAW for an offense defined and punished under a special penal
law, we cannot lower the imposable penalty because in that special law, there is no
scale of penalties. We cannot apply Articles 70, 71 or 61 of the Revised Penal Code
because these principles apply only to crimes and penalties defined under the same
Code.

By way of an exception: WE MAY APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL

CODE ON PENALTIES IF THE SPECIAL LAW ADOPTS THE NOMENCLATURE
(“terms”) OF PENALTIES UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

In applying the ISLAW we are guided by the following:

1. Determine the penalty imposable under the special law;

2. The court may impose ANY MINIMUM PENALTY provided that it shall not be
less than the minimum penalty fixed by that special law. The court may also
impose ANY MAXIMUM PENALTY provided that it shall not be greater than
the maximum penalty fixed by that special law.

3. We may apply the principles applicable to penalties under the Revised Penal
Code if the special law uses the same penalties described in the RPC.

In other words, the court generally has the discretion to fix the minimum and the
maximum penalties provided that the range of penalties shall not go beyond the
range of the penalty provided by that special penal law, unless the RPC may apply by
exception.

ILLUSTRATION 1: PABLO was charged and convicted for an offense under a special
penal law. The penalty imposable by the special law is imprisonment from 3 years to
7 years. What is the indeterminate penalty imposable?

The court may apply any of the following penalties at its discretion and depending
on the circumstances of the case, and in other combinations as the court may deem
proper:

1. 3 years to 7 years;

2. 2 years, 5 months and 7 days to 5 years and 5 days;

3. 3 years to 5 years, 5 months and 3 days as the maximum penalty.

57
The court cannot apply a minimum penalty less than 3 years or a maximum penalty
more than 7 years because that will be beyond the range provided by the special
law.

ILLUSTRATION 2: For his conviction for violation of RA 9262, the Anti-Violence

against Women and their Children Act, MONTE was sentenced to suffer prision
mayor as provided under Section 6(e) of the special law. What is the indeterminate
penalty imposable?

Since RA 9262, a special penal law adopts the nomenclature of penalties under the
Revised Penal Code, we may apply an indeterminate penalty as follows:

1. There being no modifying circumstances, we apply prision mayor medium as

the maximum penalty;

2. The penalty next lower in degree is prision correccional in any of its periods,
which we can set as the minimum penalty;

3. The proper indeterminate penalty is prision correccional in any of its periods

as the minimum penalty to prision mayor medium as the maximum penalty.

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Criminal liability may be extinguished either totally or absolutely, or partially.

Total extinction refers to the cessation of effectiveness of a convict’s liability in its

entirety, causing the convict to be considered as being fit for reintegration into
society.

Partial extinction refers to a partial cessation of that effectiveness of liability, which

may either result to the shortening of the period of imprisonment or the relaxation
of some restrictions of his liberty.

Criminal liability may be totally extinguished by:

1. The death of the convict;

2. Service of the sentence;
3. Amnesty;
58
 4. Absolute pardon;
5. Prescription of the crime;
6. Prescription of the penalty; and
7. Marriage of the offended woman with the offender under Article 344.

Death of the Convict; Its effects:

The convict’s death has different effects depending on the timing of his passing.

If a person dies after having committed a crime but before the criminal complaint is
instituted, criminal liability is extinguished. No criminal case may be filed against
him however the civil liabilities which may arise from the crime may be filed by the
private offended party in a civil case against that person’s estate.

The “estate” refers to the totality of properties and assets left by a person
after his death. While death extinguishes civil personality, a person’s
personality may continue through his estate for the purpose of settling
obligations which may survive. Among these surviving obligations is an
obligation to settle the civil liability arising from the commission of a crime.

This is because criminal liability is PERSONAL. It cannot be passed on to some

other person or inherited by an heir. The death of the person to whom the
liability attaches results to the extinguishment of that liability.

If a person charged dies before FINAL JUDGMENT, either:

1. While the criminal case is pending; or

2. The criminal case has been decided with a judgment of conviction, but the
judgment is NOT YET FINAL AND EXECUTORY (As in the case where the
accused appeals his conviction)

In the above cases, criminal AND civil liability arising from the offense subject
of the criminal charge will be extinguished. Civil liabilities arising from some
other source (a contract, perhaps) may not be extinguished.

This is also because criminal liability is PERSONAL. As previously discussed, it

cannot be passed on to some other person or inherited by an heir. The death
of the person to whom the liability attaches results to the extinguishment of
that liability.

If a person dies after FINAL JUDGMENT:

1. In this case only the criminal liability is extinguished for the same reason that
criminal liability is personal to the convict.

2. But with regard to the civil liability that arises from the crime, it will survive
and may still be claimed from the convict’s estate.

59
 3. This is because the civil liability has already been settled by final judgment,
hence the convict is duty-bound to satisfy it under law. While personal to the
accused in the sense that it is the accused that must satisfy it, that liability
may be taken from the estate or in some cases, settled by some other person.

SERVICE OF SENTENCE

The nature of a crime is that it is an offense committed against the public, resulting
to the disturbance of the public peace. Being an offense, it results to a debt which
must be paid, or an obligation that must be satisfied. That obligation takes the form
of the sentence to be served such that in order to fully satisfy that obligation, the
debt must be paid in full – in other words, the sentence must be served in full or as
the law may allow.

It must be made clear however that service of sentence does not satisfy the civil
liability arising from the crime. The satisfaction of the civil liability is an entirely
different matter from the satisfaction of the criminal liability.

But in order to cause the extinction of criminal liability, it is also necessary that the
service of sentence be made in accordance with the manner prescribed by law.

For instance, a convicted senator is allowed by a judge to serve his sentence of

reclusion perpetua in his rest house in Cebu. While the judge will be made liable for
the unjust decision, the senator will also be liable criminally for evading the service
of his sentence. The time spent by him in his Cebu rest house will not be considered
in the period of his service of sentence because in reality, he has not started to serve
his sentence because no law allows the service of his sentence in his private
residence.

AMNESTY

Amnesty is an act of sovereign power granting oblivion for a past offense. If granted,
it is usually in favor of a group or a class of persons and rarely in favor of one or few
persons.

It is an act of sovereign power, which means that it is a formal and official act of the
State exercised by the President. It is a political act meant to forgive the commission
of previous crimes, usually political crimes for some political or governmental
purpose.

Being an absolution from criminal liability, it may be granted before or after

conviction even when a criminal action has not yet been instituted. It is supposed to
be unconditional but may involve certain conditions, as when a general amnesty
may be granted for members of the New People’s Army provided that they become
allied with the present government as peaceful and law-abiding members of society.

60
Effects of Amnesty:

1. It erases the crime, as if no crime was ever committed;

2. It extinguishes criminal liability but not civil liability

3. The person benefited by amnesty shall not suffer any criminal or derogatory
record.

PARDON

Pardon is an act of grace exercised by the President as the Chief Executive which
exempts an individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts
for the crime committed by him.

Nature of Pardon:

It is an agreement between the grantor and the grantee which may or may not be
subject to conditions. To be effective it must be accepted by the grantee. But
whether the pardon is conditional or unconditional there is a requirement that the
grantee must admit the commission of the crime because where there is no
confession, there can be no pardon.

A conditional pardon is granted pursuant to a set of conditions which the grantee

must comply. It results to a PARTIAL EXTINCTION of criminal liability because the
grantee is not actually and absolutely freed from the burden of penalty. A violation
of any condition of the pardon may cause its revocation, causing the grantee to be
returned to imprisonment to serve the remaining penalty.

An unconditional pardon, by the term itself, is granted without any condition.

PARDON under ARTICLE 344 of the Revised Penal Code

Under Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code pardon by the offended party does not
extinguish criminal liability although the civil liability may be extinguished. But
under Article 344 of the RPC, criminal liability may be extinguished under the
following:

1. Adultery and Concubinage – the criminal charge will not prosper if prior to
filing the complaint the offended spouse forgives the guilty spouse, with the
condition that the guilty spouse and their paramour or concubine must also
be forgiven;

2. Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness – the criminal charge will also not
prosper if prior to filing the private offended party forgives the offender. This
pardon benefits also the other offenders who may have acted with the
accused;

61
 3. Rape, Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness - a criminal charge once
instituted will not be extinguished by the pardon by the private offended
party. But if a VALID MARRIAGE takes place between the private offended
party and the accused, the criminal charge will be dismissed or the penalty
will be remitted. In other words, criminal liability will be extinguished.

PRESCRIPTION

Our laws require that a criminal charge must be initiated against an offender at the
soonest possible time to afford the public the retribution it deserves as soon as
possible. But while an offended party may not be able to initiate criminal action
soonest, the law allows a period of time within which to initiate the charge.

That time within which to file an action is referred to as a “prescriptive period.” It

commences to run from the time the crime was committed, or from the time it was
discovered by the private offended party or by the authorities as the case may be,
whichever comes later.

“Prescription” refers to the loss of a right because of the passage of time, as in where
the offended party did not or was not able to initiate the criminal action, and is to be
implied that the offended party has forgiven the offender or is no longer offended by
the crime.

Prescription of the crime is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to
prosecute an offender after the lapse of a certain period of time.

Prescription of the penalty is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to execute
the final sentence upon the convict after the lapse of a certain period of time.

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES

Crimes prescribe after the following periods:

1. Those punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal

prescribe in TWENTY YEARS;

2. Those punishable by other afflictive penalties prescribe in FIFTEEN YEARS;

3. Those punishable by correctional penalties prescribe in TEN YEARS, except

those punishable by arresto mayor, which prescribe in FIVE YEARS;

4. Libel and other similar offenses prescribe in ONE YEAR;

62
 5. Oral defamation and slander prescribe in SIX MONTHS;

6. Light offenses prescribe in TWO MONTHS;

7. Offenses punishable under special penal laws prescribe within the same
periods above if they adopt the nomenclature of penalties of the Revised
Penal Code, unless a different period of prescription is provided.

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES

Interruption of the period of prescription:

The period of prescription commences to run from the time the crime is committed
or the time the crime is discovered by the offended party or by the authorities as the
case may be, whichever comes later.

That period of prescription will be interrupted when a valid complaint has been
commenced in accordance with the Rules on Criminal Procedure. However, that
period commences to run again for the remaining period if the criminal charge is
dismissed for any cause before judgment, provided that the accused is not placed in
double jeopardy.

The period of prescription is also suspended if the accused is not physically present
in the Philippines, unless that accused is in a State which has an extradition treaty
with the Philippines. (Loosely, extradition is the transfer of a citizen from the host
state back to his home state so that he may be charged for a crime, or so that he may
be made to answer for the commission of a crime.)

If a criminal action is filed despite the crime having prescribed, the action will not
prosper. It will be dismissed by the State.

In re: Rules on Summary Procedure,

the Katarungang Pambarangay Law,
and Light Felonies

The Katarungang Pambarangay Law requires that disputes involving crimes where
the penalty imposable does not exceed one year be first referred for barangay
conciliation proceedings before the complaint is filed before the proper office for
preliminary or summary investigation. Included are violations of city or municipal
ordinances and light felonies, which are punishable by arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding Php 40,000.00, or both.

The Rules on Summary Procedure provide, however that the period of prescription
for the initiation of criminal action shall only be tolled by the filing of the
Information in court, and not by the filing of the complaint before the proper office

63
for the conduct of the requisite investigation. Thus, if a complaint falling under
summary procedure is filed before the prosecutor before the 2-month prescriptive
period, but the Information was filed before the court after the 2-month prescriptive
period, the crime is deemed to have prescribed and the State has lost the right to
prosecute the offender, who is entitled to an acquittal as a matter of right. (Jadewell
Parking Systems, et.al. vs. Hon. Lidua, et.al., G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013)

PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES

The period of prescription of penalties commence to run only when there is already
a final judgment and the accused is to be held for execution of sentence. It does not
run if the judgment of conviction has not yet attained finality.

Penalties prescribe after the following periods:

1. Death and reclusion perpetua – TWENTY YEARS;

2. Other afflictive penalties – FIFTEEN YEARS;

3. Correctional penalties – TEN YEARS; with the exception again of arresto

mayor, which prescribes in FIVE YEARS;

4. Light penalties – ONE YEAR.

An accused convicted by final judgment cannot be made to serve sentence after

lapse of the above periods, provided that the accused has commenced serving the
penalty for the crime he is charged. If the accused has not yet commenced the
service of the penalty, it will not prescribe.

PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

1. Criminal liability may also be partially extinguished under the following

cases:

2. Conditional Pardon, as already discussed;

3. Commutation of sentence; and

4. Good conduct time allowances.

Commutation of sentence takes place when the judgment of the court is changed by
the President by reducing the penalty indicated there, or by reducing the length of

64
imprisonment, or the amount of a fine. This is a purely discretionary act of the
President and is not, as a rule, demandable by the accused or the convict.

GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE (GCTA)

The periods for the grant of good conduct time allowances in the Revised Penal
Code have been amended by Republic Act No. 10592.

The concept of GCTA is that the convict will be benefited by reductions in the period
of his imprisonment on account of good behavior and obedience to the orders, rules
and regulations of the penal institution where he is incarcerated.

The following persons are disqualified from the GCTA:

1. Recidivists;

2. Habitual delinquents;

3. Those who escaped from detention;

4. Those charged with heinous crimes as defined under Republic Act No. 7659;
and

5. Those accused who, upon being summoned for the execution of his sentence
has failed to surrender voluntarily before a court of law.

Detention prisoners may be credited with the time of their preventive detention and
have that time deducted from the period of imprisonment if they agree in writing
and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners. Otherwise, the period to be deducted from his sentence
will be 4/5 or 80% of the period of his preventive detention.

When the accused has been in preventive detention equal to or more than the
maximum of the period of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime charged and
the case is not yet terminated, the accused shall be released immediately even
without bail. The criminal case will continue trial or appeal, as the case may be.

If convicted, the accused should still serve the full term of his sentence because the
period of preventive detention is not a penalty. He may however have 100% or 4/5
or 80% of the period of preventive detention deducted from his penalty depending
on whether he previously agreed in writing and with the assistance of counsel to
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

If the creditable period is equal to or more than the maximum of the penalty
imposable for the crime, he will no longer serve sentence and will be declared as
having fully served his sentence. If the creditable period is less than the maximum of
the penalty, he will serve the remaining period.

If the accused is charged for a crime punishable by destierro, he will be released

from detention pending trial after 30 days.

65
Special Time Allowance for Loyalty:

When an accused escapes from preventive detention or from the service of sentence
on account of a calamity or catastrophe (ex. Earthquake, extreme flooding or weather
disturbances) under Article 158 of the Revised Penal Code and RETURNS to the
penal institution to continue serving sentence within 48 hours from the time a
proclamation is made by the government declaring that the calamity or catastrophe
has passed will be credited a deduction of 1/5 of the period of his imprisonment.

If he chose to stay in the penal institution despite having the opportunity to escape,
he will be credited a deduction of 2/5 of the period of his imprisonment.

The convict will also enjoy further deductions from the period of his detention if he
is found to be of good behavior during the term of his sentence, which is to be
determined on the 2nd, 5th, 10th and 11th years and beyond in the following
periods:

During the first 2 years of imprisonment, he will be allowed a deduction of 20 days

for each month of good behavior during detention.

Ex. For the first 2 years of imprisonment the accused exhibited good behavior
for 3 separate months. He will enjoy a deduction of 60 days from his sentence.

During the 3rd to the 5th year inclusive of the first 2 years of imprisonment,
he shall be allowed a deduction of 23 days for each month of good behavior
during detention.

Ex. On the 5th year of being detained the convict exhibited good behavior
within the 3rd to the 5th month of imprisonment for a total of 6 months. He
will enjoy a deduction of 138 days from his sentence. His good behavior for
the first 2 years will no longer be counted because if he behaved, he would
have already enjoyed a deduction from his sentence.

3. During the following years until the 10th year, inclusive of the first 5 years of his
imprisonment the convict shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for
each
month of good behavior during detention.

Ex. For the first 10 years of imprisonment after the 5th year of his
imprisonment the accused exhibited good behavior for 14 separate months.
He will enjoy a deduction of 350 days from his sentence. If he is to be
imprisoned for 10 years 4 months, a deduction of 350 days from his sentence
might allow his early release from imprisonment.

4. During the 11th and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during detention.

66
 Ex. On the 11th year of serving sentence the convict exhibited good behavior
for the 7 months of the 11th year. He will enjoy 210 days deducted from his
sentence.

In addition to the good behavior discussed, the convict will also enjoy a 15-
day deduction from his sentence for every month the convict rendered
service consisting of self-study, teaching or mentoring other prisoners.

PROBATION

Under Presidential Decree No. 968, "Probation" is a disposition under which a

defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed
by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer.

Presidential Decree No. 968 was amended by Republic Act No. 10707. Section 4 of
P.D. 968 as amended now reads:

“SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the

trial court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a defendant for a
probationable penalty and upon application by said defendant within the
period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and
place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and
conditions as it may deem best. No application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the
judgment of conviction: Provided, That when a judgment of conviction
imposing a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such
judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the
defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified
decision before such decision becomes final. The application for probation
based on the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court where the
judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty was rendered,
or in the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled. In a case
involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal, the
other defendants may apply for probation by submitting a written application
and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of conviction.

“The trial court shall, upon receipt of the application filed, suspend the
execution of the sentence imposed in the judgment.

“This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the benefit of probation should
he seek a review of the modified decision which already imposes a
probationable penalty.

“Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of

imprisonment or a fine only. The filing of the application shall be deemed a
waiver of the right to appeal.

“An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.”

67
Disqualifications

1. Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six

(6) years;

2. Those convicted of any crime against the national security;

3. Those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense

punished by imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one (1) day
and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00);

4. Those who have been once on probation under the provisions of PD 968; and

5. Those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of PD 968 became applicable pursuant to Section 33 of the law.”

Period of Probation

1. The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment

of not more than one year shall not exceed two years, and in all other cases,
said period shall not exceed six years.

2. When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the period of probation shall
not be less than nor to be more than twice the total number of days of
subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate established, in Article
thirty-nine of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Notes:

1. Probation is granted only once. Once a convict has been on probation once,
they are disqualified from availing of it for further convictions.

2. The remedies of appeal and probation are mutually-exclusive. Where one

avails of an appeal, they forego probation, and vice versa.

3. If a convict was sentenced to suffer a non-probationable penalty and

interposes a timely appeal, and if the appellate court reduces the penalty to a
probationable one, the convict may apply for probation because it was
available to them for the first time.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11362

Community Service Act

R.A. 11362 amended the Revised Penal Code by creating Article 88a, which states:

68
 "ART. 88a. Community Service. - The court in the discretion may, in lieu of
service in jail, require that the penalties of arresto menor and arresto mayor
may be served by the defendant by rendering community service in the place
where the crime was committed, under such terms as the court shall
determine, taking into consideration the gravity of offense and the
circumstances of the case, which shall be under the supervision of a probation
officer: Provided, That the court will prepare an order imposing the
community service, specifying the number of hours to be worked and the
period within which to complete the service. The order is then referred to the
assigned probation officer who shall have responsibility of the defendant.

"The defendant shall likewise be required to undergo rehabilitative

counseling under the social welfare and development office of the city or
municipality concerned with the assistance of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD). In requiring community service, the court
shall consider the welfare of the society and the reasonable probability that
the person sentenced shall not violate the law while rendering a public
service.

"Community service shall consist of any actual physical activity which

inculcates civic consciousness, and is intended towards the improvement of a
public work or promotion of a public service.

"If the defendant violates the terms of the community service, the court shall
order his/her re-arrest and the defendant shall serve the full term of the
penalty, as the case may be, in jail, or in the house of the defendant as
provided under Article 88. However, if the defendant has fully complied with
the terms of the community service, the court shall order the release of the
defendant unless detained for some other offenses.

"The privilege of rendering community service in lieu of service in jail shall be

availed of only once."

Notes:

1. Community service is available only when the convict is sentenced to arresto

menor or arresto mayor;

2. Community service is available only once.

3. The availment of community service foregoes the remedy of appeal and

probation.

4. To avail of community service, the convict must file a motion to be allowed

community service in lieu of imprisonment within the same period for
interposing an appeal. The failure to make a timely motion will cause the
judgment of conviction to become final and executory.

69
70