GENERAL: Statutory Basis, Limitations, Generality of Criminal Law, Principle of Territoriality, Prospective Application, Nullum

Crimen Poena Sine Lege, Strict Construction of Penal Laws

US v. Pablo Police Pablo went to raid jueteng game – testified the opposite of what happened. Claims Act 1697 repeals RPC provisions on
perjury so he can’t be sanctioned. SC held while Court has interpreted it as such, they overturned it and held that it did not
expressly repeal it. He can be charged w/ perjury. Crimes shouldn’t go unpunished.
Tanada v. Tuvera Presidential issuances that have general application have no effect because they were not published in the Official Gazette.It is a
requirement of due process - before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its
contents.
Pesigan v. Angeles Pesigans convicted for transporting carabao, w/c was prohibited. But the regulation on this was published 2 months after they
transported the Carabao, so they cannot be held liable. Carabao return.
US v. Sweet Sweet, employee of US army, assaulted a prisoner of war. He argued that he’s under US military authorities so our courts don’t have
jurisdiction SC held jurisdiction of civil tribunals is unaffected by military character of person. This is not a case where courts of one
govt is trying to exercise jurisdiction over employees of another govt, bc the juris, this court is asserting is derived from very govt
whose authority allows for the acts that constitute the offense be performed.
US v. Ah Sing Bringing opium in local territory even if it is merely for personal use and does not leave the foreign merchant vessel, but it’s in PH
waters (cebu port), so still subject to local laws.
Miquiabas v. Pet, filipino civilian employee of US army. SC held Gen. Court-Martial has no jurisdiction bc Port of Manila is not a base under Bases
Commanding Gen. Agreement. The Port area is a temporary quarters. Also, a civilian employee cannot be considered a member of US Army as stated
in the agreement.
Gumabon v. Director Petitioners who were serving sentence of life imprisonment for complex crime of rebellion with murder and other crimes seek
of Prisons retroactive app. of Hernandez doctrine negated the existence of the crime charged stating that rebellion cannot be complexed with
other crimes. SC granted. CC provides that judicial decisions form part of our legal system, and retroactive effect benefits the
accused.
Bernardo v. People Accused charged and convicted for violating PD No. 772 for possessing and squatting on a parcel of land. SC held Conviction is null
and void bc preamble of PD shows that it was for squatting in urban communities. No person should be brought within terms of a
penal statute who is not clearly within them nor should any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so by the statute.
People v. Pimentel Tujan charged with subversion (RA 1700). When he was arrested 7 years after, an unlicensed revolver was found w/ him, so also
charged with IPOF under PD 1866. SC held Tujan not placed in double jeopardy BC he wasn’t convicted yet. Still, RA 7636 repealed
RA 1700: subversion no longer a crime. Via Art. 22 of RPC, this law should be given retroactive effect bc favorable to accused and
he’s not a habitual delinquent. So simple IPOF but since court ordered release bc he was in jail for longer than needed.
Pascual v. Board of Pascual was charged in an administrative case for immorality and was announced by counsel of complainants to be their first
Examiners witness. SC held resp. cannot, consistently with the self-incriminating clause, compel the person to be a witness against himself
without his consent.

FELONIES: How Committed, Mistake of Fact, Culpa/Constructive Intent, Mala in Se and MalaProhibita
People v. Delos Delos Santos stab Flores with a kitchen knife hitting him on the different parts of his body, inflicting upon him mortal wounds which
Santos directly caused his death. He argues no motive bc no altercation. SC held proof of motive not required for a conviction, since he
was positively identified and his participation is adequately established.
People v. Temblor Sps were conversing in store when Temblor arrived then shot Cagampang and demanded wife to bring out husband’s gun. Wife
was summoned and identified him. SC held knowledge of accused that he possessed gun was enough motive to kill. NPA’s “agaw
armas” campaign. Still, proof of motive not essential when culprit positively identified
People v. Hasssam Accused, an illiterate, 15-year-old pushcart cargador, convicted of the crime of murder for the death of Ramon. The method he was
positively identified as is fishy. While motive not an element that prosec. Needs to prove to convict offender, if there’s no correct
positive identification, then motive must be inquired into.
US v. Ah Chong Stabbing the victim whom the accused believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on his part which led him to take the
facts as they appear to him and was pressed to take immediate action.
People v. Oanis Police officers still liable bc they are not justified in killing a man whose identity they did not ascertain. The third requisite of mistake
of fact is lacking. In this case, self-defense is not tenable as a defense as there was no unlawful aggression but they may avail of
the defense of fulfillment of duty as a mitigating circumstance.
People v. Buan Once convicted for a specific act of reckless imprudence, accused may not be prosecuted again for the same act.. The law
penalizes the negligent act and not the result. As the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or
several persons, the offense remains one and the same. It cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions
Estrada v. Plunder is a malum in se which requires proof of criminal intent. Thus the element of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for
Sandiganbayan plunder.Amended information alleges that the crime of plunder was committed “willfully, unlawfully and criminally.” It thus alleges
guilt knowledge on the part of the petitioner.
Garcia v. CA A violation of Section 27b, RA 6646 is classified under mala in se because the provision already implies that the increasing and
decreasing of the number of votes is done so with intent to injure another and with malice. Criminal intent is presumed to exist on
the part of the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall appear.
Padilla v. Dizon Judge showed gross ignorance of the law. He ought to know that proof of malice or mens rea is not essential in offense punished
by special laws which are mala prohibita.
Padilla v. CA When there is a gap in the special law concerning crimes, the RPC is referred to. "In this case at bar, no MC or AgC have been
alleged or proved. Thus altho PD 1866 is a special law, the penalties therein were taken fromRPC, hence the rules in said Code for
graduating by degrees or determining the proper period should be applied.

PUNISHABLE CONDUCT: Wrong act different from that intended, Proposal and Conspiracy
People v. Sabalones Art. 4 par. 1 applicable, still. Just different reason/nomenclature. Not error in blow but mistake in identity.
US v. Bautista Puzon's acceptance of an appointment as an officer in the military of a conspiracy should be be considered as evidence against
him bc it proved his criminal relations with the conspirators
People v. Vengco The way they assaulted Celadena, conduct sometime before and after the stabbing, clearly show that they had agreed to kill him.
Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy and may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, during, and
after the commission of the crime. In the case at bar, conspiracy was shown by the conduct of the accused.
People v. Valdez If conspiracy is proved to exist in the commission of the felony, it is not necessary to prove that participation of each conspirator of
all are liable as any act of a co-conspirator becomes the act of the other regardless of the precise degree of participation in the act.
People v. Escober Escober acquitted. To hold the accused as co-principal in the crime charged, the existence of conspiracy between the accused and
the actual killers must be shown and the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is require.
People v. Elijorde No conspiracy between the 2 because there is no evidence to show unity of purpose and design in the execution of the killing.
Mere kicking does not necessarily prove intent to kill. Thus, each of the accused is liable only for his own acts
Li v. People Spontaneity alone does not preclude the establishment of conspiracy. Yet it is more difficult to presume conspiracy in
extemporaneous outbursts of violence; hence, the demand that it be established by positive evidence. A conviction premised on a
finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and presumption.

PUNISHABLE CONDUCT: Attempted. Frustrated, Consummated

People v. Lamahang It was the intention of accused to enter store via violence and commit an offense that did not develop bc of arrival of police. From
the facts, only logical conclusion is that accused's intent is to enter by means of force W/N this act was rooted in the intent to rob or
to cause physical injury or any other offense is unclear. Thus, attempted trespass to dwelling, not attempted robbery.
People v. Dio The decision of the lower court was erroneous. The accused were unsuccessful in their criminal venture since the watch was still
securely strapped to the victim’s wrist. The crime of robbery was therefore not consummated
People v. Trinidad Accused can only be convicted of Attempted Murder bc he was unable to perform all acts of execution which would have
produced the murder. The victim’s wound in the right thigh was not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound is inflicted
on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder.
People v. Campuhan Attempted rape only. There must be clear proof that penis touched labia and slid into female organ and not merely stroked the
external surface. Prosecution did not prove that his penis was able to penetrate victim’s vagina bc kneeling position of accused
obstructed mother’s view of the act. Victim testimony: penis grazed but did not penetrate.
People v. Listerio The SC held that the crime is a frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering that after being stabbed and clubbed twice
in the head he lost consciousness and fell, Marlon's attackers apparently thought he was already dead and fled. Performed all the
acts which should result in the consummation of the crime but felony was not produced
People v. Orita Perfect penetration not essential for consummation of rape. Entry of labia without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina
is sufficient to warrant conviction. In rape, from the moment offender has carnal knowledge of victim, he actually attains his purpose
so all essential elements of offense have been accomplished
US v. Adiao Since the defendant performed all the acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment of the felony, he is guilty of
consummated crime of theft. The fact that he was under observation during the entire transaction and was unable to get the
merchandise out of the Customs House is not decisive.
People v. Hernandez Finding the hymen intact is not always proof that no rape has been committed. Dr. found the labia and the opening of the vagina
inflamed together with an abundance of semen. Child even testified that defendant succeeded partial penetration. The accused is
guilty of consummated rape.

Proximate Cause, Impossible Crimes

Urbano v. IAC Urbano is acquitted bc infection was distinct and foreign to the crime, infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. Proximate cause of Javier’s death was
due to his own negligence as he went back to work even if his wound had not yet healed properly.
Intod v. CA The accused is guilty of an impossible crime. The factual situation in the case presents a physical impossibility which rendered the
intended crime impossible of performance. HE shot at a place where he thought his target but, but wasn’t actually there.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Self-Defense

People v. Narvaez His house being chiseled, got mad and shot victims.There was aggression on the part of the victims not on the person of the
accused but on his property rights, 3rd element of self-defense is also present bc no sufficient provocation on the part of Narvaez
since he was sleeping. 2nd element was lacking. Shooting victims from the window of his house is disproportionate
People v. 1st: Unlawful aggression present in the pushing and pulling and the choking. 2ND: 2ND: Reasonable means present in that a
Boholst-Caballero woman was being strangled by an intensely furious aggressor. 3RD: THIRD: Lack of sufficient provocation is the aggression and
attack of the husband. ​
People v. Alconga An accused was no longer acting in self defense when he pursued and killed a fleeing adversary, though originally the unlawful
aggressor, there being no more aggression to defend against, the same having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his
heels.
People v. SUmicad As a general rule, a man is not justified in killing an assailant who is not armed with any dangerous weapon. This rule applies only
when the contending parties are in the open and the person assaulted can escape. However, where one has no means of
escaping, the one who is assaulted can use a weapon in any way reasonably necessary to his protection against the aggressor.
People v. Luague An attempt to rape is a sufficient aggression for a legitimate claim of self-defense. We have the right to HONOR. Woman’s honor is
a right as precious as her very existence because chastity once defiled cannot be restored.
People v. dela Cruz She is justified in using the pocketknife in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her honor. It was a dark night and she
could not have identified Rivera. There being no other means of selfdefense
People v. Jaurgue Altho defense of one’s honor exempts one from criminal liability, it must be proved that there is actual danger of being raped. In this
case, 1) the church was well-lit, 2) there were several people in the church, including the father and others. Accused could not have
 possibly been raped. The means employed in defense of her honor was evidently excessive
US v. Bumanglag Palay, surprise attack. The bolo of the deceased was sheathed when the body was discovered. There was no unlawful aggression
on the part of victim. Thus, there can be no claim of self-defense.
People v. Genosa BWS. No evidence that would confirm the presence of the essential characteristics of BWS. The third stage of the phases of the
cycle was not present in the testimony — only that Ben would seek her out after and ask for forgiveness. Also: no unlawful
aggression, when she killed her husb. There was no actual imminent threat.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: Avoidance of Greater Evil, Fulfillment of Duty/Lawful Exercise of Right, Obedience to Superior Order
People v. Ricohermoso The act of Padernal to prevent Marianito from shooting those who attacked his dad was designed to insure the killing of
[change mind] Geminiano without any risk to his assailants. Padernal was not avoiding any evil. He acted in conspiracy with Rico and Severo.
the claim of state of necessity or avoidance of a greater injury must come from lawful sentiments
Ty v. People Evil sought to be avoided is merely anticipated or may happen in the future, it doesn’t exist yet. Issuance of the bounced
[bouncing checks] checks was brought about by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's hospital bills – the greater injury feared should not have been
brought about by the negligence or imprudence, more so, the willful inaction of the actor
People v. Delima Police killing fugitive was done in the performance of duty. Fugitive was under the obligation to surrender but he didn't. Instead,
[fugitive] he even committed assualt with a weapon, necessitating the police to resort to using his gun.
People v. Oanis Although officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using force to secure and detain offender, overcome his resistance,
prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm, he is never justified in using
unnecessary force or in treating him with wanton violence when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
People. Ulep 2nd requisite in Fulfillment of a duty is lacking. He overdid his duty when he shot Wapili on the head since he no longer posed a
threat
People v. Beronilla No proof Beronilla was able to receive radiogram msg. Evidence shows that everything was done pursuant to express orders of
15th Infantry HQ. As military subordinates, they obeyed superior orders in good faith, w/o being aware of their illegality, w/o any
fault negligence on their part, the act is not accompanied by criminal intent. A crime is not committed if mind of the person
performing is innocent.
Tabuena v. The accused are acquitted. The accused is entitled to the justifying circumstance of obedience to an order issued by a superior
Sandiganbayan for some lawful purpose. Sandiganbayan claimed that Marcos’ memo was unlawful because it orders disbursement of P55M
when the Ongpin memo reveals that the liability is only 34.5M.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES: Insanity & Imbecility, Minority, Accident

In Re M’Naghten Every man is presumed to be sane. It must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, A was under a defect of
reason that he did not know the nature of act or if he did know what he was doing, he did not know he was wrong.
People v. Madarang Accused failed to prove that he was completely deprived of intelligence in committing the act, and that he was not in his lucid
interval. Insanity must relate to the time prior to and immediately after the act. He was only diagnosed of schizophrenia months
after the incident. The issue of insanity is a question of fact bc insanity is a condition of the mind, not susceptible to the usual
means of proof.
People v. Taneo Sleepwalking. The accused acted while in a dream and his acts, with which he is charged, were not voluntary in the sense of
entailing criminal liability.
People v. Bonoan Person suffering from dementia praecox pleaded insanity for murder. In dementia praecox, crime is usually preceded by much
complaining and planning. Homicide attacks are common bc of delusions that their property is being taken; no control over
acts. An irresistible homicide impulse was considered embraced in the terms of “insanity”. Psych: 4 days b4 crime, he had an
insomnia attack, w/c may lead to dementia praecox.
Llave v. People He dragged her near the vacant house to insure that his acts won't be discovered. When he was discovered, he fled and upon
rape by child of child prodding of his parents, hid in his grandma’s house. Petitioner’s submission of him being a consistent honor student bolstered
his full knowledge and intelligence. Discernment present, bc understands difference btwn. right/wrong.
People v. Doquena Defense mistakes discernment for premeditation. In determining existence of discernment, , what must be analyzed is the
mental capacity to know the difference btwn. Right and wrong based on the facts and attitude of the accused
Pomy v. People Petitioner acquitted. Scuffle between pet, who is a police, and the detainee is deemed an accident. 1st: It was in the lawful for
Pomeroy to defend his possession of the weapon when victim suddenly tried to remove it from him. 2nd: He exercised
necessary precautions to prevent his service weapon from causing accidental harm. 3rd: testimony and witness show that no
intent on police to cause injury to the deceased, much less kill him
US v. Tanedo Shot chicken, found out a person was also shot. When accidental killing is relied upon as a defense, it is the State/prosecution
who has the burden of proving that the crime was intentional after. In this case, the evidence is insufficient to support the
judgment of conviction.
People v. Agliday exemption from criminal liability bc of accident is based on the lack of criminal intent. In this case, accused got his shotgun and
returned to the kitchen to shoot his son who had intervened in the quarrel between the former and his wife. There was clear
intent to fire and not mere accident.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES: Irresistible Force & Uncontrollable Fear, Insuperable/Lawful Cause

People v. Lising Garcia’s defense of being under irresistible force does not exculpate him bc he wasn’t able to 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. He was voluntarily active in
the plan. Test of irresistiblity.
Ty v. people All elements of uncontrollable fear are not met. It’s a speculative fear, not an uncontrollable one. Fear is not real and imminent.
Fear of injury is not greater than that committed.
US v. Exaltacion The duress under which the defendants acted, which involved their being forced to sign documents, relieved them from
criminal liability. Prosecution was unable to prove the guilt of the accused and testimonies of witnesses for the accused further
corroborated their defense.
People v. Bandian Gave birth and thought it was poop; severe diziness is an insuperable cause. a primipara with no experience in childbirth, was
not aware that upon defecating she was also expelling the child she was carrying in her womb.
People v. Vincentillo officers in charge were controlled by local conditions, changes in the weather, which made the journey by boats safer and more
commodious sometimes to one and sometimes to the other of the two adjoining municipalities. Circumstances beyond their
control are insuperable causes.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Praeter Intentionem, Sufficient Provocation, Immediate Vindication, Passion or Obfuscation
People v. Regato Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated considering that the acts employed by the accused were
reasonable sufficient to produce the result that they actually made — the death of the victim.
People v. Amit To determine if praeter intentionem can be upheld, one must check proportionality of the means employed to accomplish the
criminal act AND its consequences. IN this case: his acts were enough to produce th result of the felony.
People v. Pagal Provocation in order to be mitigating must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act. In this case, it was months ago
when the incident of alleged maltreatment took place.
Romera v. People Thrusting his bolo at Romera, threatening to kill and hacking bamboo walls of his house are sufficient provocation to enrage
any man, moreso when lives of wife and children are in danger. SC held that provocation and passion/obfuscation are not 2
separate MC. Gen. rule that if these 2 circumstances are based on the same facts, they should be treated together as one MC
People v. Parana MC of immediate vindication appreciated bc grave offense committed against him a few hours before, when he was slapped by
deceased in presence of many persons. Altho this offense (slapping) was not so immediate, SC held that the influence thereof,
by reason of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was committed.
US v. Ampar Embarrassing the 70 year old man is a grave matter for an old man (even if for the average person, it’s just a mere trifle), so
vindication appreciated.
People v. Bates Mitigating only if arising from lawful sentiments
US v. Hicks Passion/obfuscation bc of jealousy cannot be considered because the causes w/c mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of
self-control are such which originate from legitimate feelings and not from vicious, unworthy and immoral passions. The cause
of passion of accused was his vexation due to the refusal of woman to continue to live in illicit relations with him.
People v. Germina Passion cannot coexist w/ treachery bc in passion, offender loses his control & reason while in treachery the means employed
are consciously adopted. One who loses his reason could not employ a particular method or form of attack in the execution of
the crime. Passion existed in this case bx it clearly arose from lawful sentiments or legitimate feelings, aka maltreatment inflicted
by the victim on his mentally retarded brother.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Voluntary Surrender and Plea of Guilt

People v. Amaguin SC agrees with the accused-appellants’ view that voluntary surrender should be appreciated in their favor. While it may have
taken both Willie and Gildo a week before turning themselves in, the fact is, they voluntarily surrendered to the police before
arrest could be effected.
People v. Dulos VS can’t be appreciated bc no conscious effort on the part of accused to voluntarily surrender. Here, there was no conscious
effort on the part of the accused to VS to the military authorities when he went to Camp Siongco after the fateful incidents. As
he himself admitted, he was not placed under custody by the military authorities as he was free to roam around as he pleased.
People v. Crisostomo Appellant offered to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide only after some evidence of the prosecution had
been presented. He reiterated his offer after the prosecution rested its case. This is certainly not mitigating.
People v. Joset e al. While a plea of guilty is mitigating, it still constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the info, including the AgC,
and it matters not that the offense is capital bc the admission covers both crime and circumstances qualifying and/or
aggravating the crime. Bc of aforesaid legal effect of Pineda’s plea of guilty, Court didn’t need his presence in court already
People v. Montinola Plea of guilty can not be credited in favor of Montinola since the change of his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" was made only
after the presentation of some evidence for the prosecution. To be entitled to such mitigating circumstance, the accused must
have voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Taking advantage of public office, In contempt of/with insult to public authorities, Disregard due to
offended party by reason of rank, Dwelling
People v. Villamor Taking advantage not appreciated. Position, aka being merely part of police, not essential to commission of crime. If crime can
be done, without the position, there is no abuse.
People v. Capalac Not appreciated. He didn't use his position to kill Magaso. Instead he acted as a brother who avenged.
People v. Gapasin Taking advantage of public office appreciated. He shot victims with an armalite that was issued to him when he received
mission order (aka he was doing a job).
People v. Montinola Disregard not appreciated. . The primary crime here is robbery with homicide. The AgC of disregard due to rank is applicable
for crimes against persons, not property
People v. Rodil In contempt and disregard both appreciated. Contempt because Chief of Police is public authority, and his presence didn't
prevent him from stabbing Masana. Disregard bc crime was committed in presence of Chief of Police of Indang, Cavite and
accused knows his position as Chief. First element met:Discharge of duty bc CoP apprehended him
Mari v. CA Disregard by reason of sex not appreciated. no evidence proved that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the
sex of the victim - no specific fact or circumstance
People v. Lapaz Disregard due to age appreciated. Victim was 70.
People v. Daniel YES to dwelling. It doesn't matter if victim owns the place where she lives/dwells.
People v. Banez NO to dwelling. There was no reason for Wilfredo to trespass and violate the sanctity of the home because he lived there with
the dad in the first place.
People v. Lapaz YES to dwelling. Crime committed after lawful entry.
 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Abuse of Confidence, Obvious Ungratefulness, Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, or with Band,
Recidivism, Reitracion
People v. Arrojado Abuse of Confidence appreciated. Victim’s fear towards Arrojado died down as seen as she took back her jewelry and
bankbook from Erlinda. She allowed Arrojado to sleep in same room w/ her father, and left her door unlocked.
People v. Mandolado No OU. No show of any personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence might rest between the victims and the
assailants who had just met each other then.
People v. Librando Nighttime, uninhabited place appreciated as one AgC. if the AgC of nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in commission
of crime, all will constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule. (altho can be considered separately if their
elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity)
People v. Jose et al. Nighttime appreciated. 4:30 am she was abducted, otw home. AgC appreciated even if crime started 4:30 am, and then crime
committed during the morning na (the rape).
People v. Deslisa Nighttime, uninhabited place appreciated. killing was done during nighttime and many fruit trees and shrubs obstruct the view
of neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable possibility for the victim to receive any assistance. Not an abandoned
place, but no reasonable possibility of help.
People v. Dacillo Recidivism NOT abbreviated. Recidivism as an AgC cannot be appreciated as it was not alleged in the information. This is
despite the appellant’s admittance of a prior conviction for the death of his former live-in partner during a re-cross examination.
People v. Molina In contrast, recidivism appreciated even w/o allegation and supporting documents since accused did not object to it when he
was confronted of his previous conviction AND Molina also didn't appeal from the said conviction.
People v. Gaorana Reitracion NOT appreciated: prosecution failed or neglected to present in evidence the record of appellant's previous
conviction. The fact that appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had been rendered against
him.
People v. Cajara Reiteracion appreciated. Two or more na lighter (frustrated murder, frustrated homicide), but simple rape has single indivisible
penalty which shouldn't change despite circumstances (Court wrong here - did not require allegation and supporting evidence)

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Evident Premeditation, Craft/Fraud/Disguise, Superior Strength/Means to Weaken Defense

People v. Bibat Yes evident premeditation. 2 hours is sufficient lapse of time for appellant to reflect on the consequences of his dastardly act.
People v. Dumdum says reflection can occur at least 1 hour b4 perpetration.
People v. Lug-aw No evident premeditation. no one witnessed the initial attack. Sonia also witnessed the second shot, not the first. So the time
was not established.
People v. Ilaoa No evident premeditation. evidence shows that the series of circumstances which culminated in the killing constitutes an
unbroken chain of events with no interval of time separating them for calculation and meditation. Act was spontaneous.
People v. Marquez (Court is wrong. Pretending to be PC officers ≠ disguise)
People v. Empacis Yes fraud or craft. He and Romualdo pretended to be bona fide customers of the victim's store and on this pretext gained entry
into the latter's store and later, into another part of his dwelling. This Court has held stratagems and ruses of this sort to
constitute the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft.
People v. Ambrocio Yes abuse of superior strength. But appreciated as a qualifying circumstance to murder bc advantage in numbers deliberately
used. Ratio of 5 to 2.
People v. Cabato No abuse of strength because failed to show evidence of any form of disparity that could’ve been used to their advantage. No
info on physical conditions of both parties.
People v. Padilla Yes abuse of superior strength. The accused was armed with a powerful pistol which he purposely used, gaining him an
advantage over his victim who only had a piece of plywood to cover himself after he was disarmed.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES: Treachery, Ignominy, Unlawful entry, Cruelty, Special Aggravating

People v. Jorolan Treachery always present in attacks against minors
People v. Guiterrez If there is an intervening event that made victim drop his guard, treachery can be appreciated.
People v. Bumindang Yes ignominy. He examined her vag before raping her AND He raped her in front of his father. He wanted to humiliate Gloria
further, aggravating her moral sufferings
People v. Siao Yes ignominy. Asked Gemina to perform the act of rape in the “dog position as dogs do” (doggy-style) after doing it in
missionary position.
People v. Baello Yes unlawful entry. He and his companion, Jerry, had entered the Borja residence through the second-floor window, a way not
intended for ingress.
People v. Lacao No cruelty. 14 wounds inflicted by diff. people, but no. of wounds not criteria for cruelty. It's W/N Lacao deliberately exacerbated
the wrong by making another wrong to increase moral suffering.
People v. Guerrero No cruelty. Guerrero first severed the victim's head before his penis was cut-off. No cruelty when the act was done when victim
already dead.
People v. Ilaoa No cruelty. Wounds and dismemberment of body ALONE not criteria for cruelty. No showing that Ruben, for pleasure and
satisfaction, caused de Loyola to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him physical and moral pain
People v. Balgos Special law: RA 7659. Penalty of death imposed if crime of rape is committed to a child below 7 years of age.
Disini v. Sec. of Justice YES, using of Internet to commit crime is a QC.

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES: Relationship, Intoxication

People v. Marcos Relationship, AgC. Accused is the brother of the victim he killed.
People v. Atop No Relationship, AgC. The offended party is the granddaughter or descendant of the appellant's common-law spouse. Here
there is no blood relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the modifying circumstance of
relationship cannot be considered against the accuse
People v. Marquita Intoxication, MC. Sufficiently shown that (a) at time of act, he has taken such alcoholic drinks as to blur reason and deprive him
 of certain degree of control, (b) that such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. It was this
intoxication which led to his impetuous, frenzied and furious attack on the victims.
People v. Renejane No Intoxication, neither MC nor AgC. Normal drinking session

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES: Entrapment and Instigation

Chang v. PEople ENTRAPMENT, not an instigation. Entrapment: when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the
criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. Instigation: when the accused is induced to commit the crime, law officer
conceives idea and suggests it to accused who adopts it. Here, petitioners already made known to Magat that GDI only had two
options to prevent the closure of the company, one of which constitutes graft & corruption
People v. Sy A buy bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and capturing felons in the execution of their
criminal plan. Legality and constitutionality of buy-bust operations already jurisprudentially resolved.
People v. Lua Chu No instigation.Mere fact that the Chief of Customs Secret Service pretended to agree to a plan for smuggling illegally imported
opium through the customs house, in order to assure the seizure of the said opium and the arrest of its importers, is no bar to
the prosecution and conviction of the latter.
Araneta v. CA Petitioner confused entrapment with instigation. Entrapment is held to be a legal way of producing evidence against an
individual as the intent to commit the crime originates from the accused and the entrapping agent merely acting as a false
accomplice to produce evidence in the course of their duty.

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE: Principals by Direct Participation, Principals by Inducement

People v. Ragundiaz Not principal, only accomplice. Only helped in dragging victim and driving taxi. Court has held that the liability of one whose
participation in a crime was limited to driving for the killers or one who himself tied the victim's hands is only that of an
accomplice.
People v. Dacillo Principal. Even if he just held her legs, he is already considered as a principal conspirator of crime by direct participation.
Witnesses positively identified him as the one who strangled Rosemarie. It was appellant’s idea to pour concrete on
Rosemarie’s body
People v. Dela Cruz Principal by inducement. Laid down the strategy for the killing of Antonio Yu and the kidnapping of Yu Chi Chong for ransom.
Without him the crime would not have been conceived, much less committed. Clearly, he was a principal by induction, with
collective criminal responsibility with the material executors, his co-accused.
People v. Montealere Principal by indispensable cooperation. While it is true that Montealegre did not himself commit the act of stabbing, he was
nonetheless equally guilty thereof for having prevented Camantigue from resisting the attack against him.

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE: Accomplices, Accessories

People v. Tolentino Cannto be an accomplice or accessory. Appellant did not concur or lend support to intent of Tolentino to kill Sagario.
Knowledge of latter’s criminal design not enough grounds to identify accused as an accomplice. Also cannot be considered as
an accessory as he acted out of fear even prior to the stabbing incident.
People v. Geraldo Yes, accessory. Geraldo failed to disarm and arrest Torrefranca despite having the duty to do so. He also did not report the
incident to the authorities, instructing Catacutan not to tell anyone about the incident. His acts had the effect and purpose of
concealing the principal of the crime.
People v. Mariano Not an accomplice, acquitted. No evidence she laid hands on decease and helped Ruth when she maltreated Michelle. IN
ESSENCE: no positive act of assent or cooperation on her part with Ruth found Only known facts are that they were staying in
the same apartment, and Ruby owns vehicle where the body was placed. Being sisters w/ principal exempts her from crim
liability.
People v. Talingdan Not principal, only accessory.When Corazon identified the appellants, Teresa told her daughter not to reveal what she knew to
anyone, even threatening to kill her if she tells it to anyone, Thus, before actual shooting of husband, she was more or less
passive in her attitude BUT after Bernardo was killed, she became active in her cooperation with them