REVIEW NOTES IN CRIMINAL LAW 1

Definition of:

Criminal law –
-It is that branch of public law which (a) defines crimes; (b) treats
of its nature; and (c) provides for their punishment.

Crime –
-It is defined as an: a) act committed; or b) act omitted in violation
of public law commanding or forbidding it.

Common law crime –*

-It is one which makes the act punishable notwithstanding the
absence of a law punishing such an act. In the Philippines, the
rule is, there is no crime if there is no law punishing it. (Nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege).**
Sources of the Philippine Criminal Law:

1. The Revised Penal Code which is Act No. 3815, as

amended and approved on December 8, 1930 which took
effect on January 1, 1932.
2. Special Laws passed by Congress which are penal in nature.
3. Presidential Decrees during Martial Law era.**
Characteristics of criminal law:

1. Generality
2. Territoriality
3. Prospectivity**
Characteristics of criminal law, explained-

Generality –
-It means that all persons who live in the Philippines, regardless of
their race, belief, sex or creed, or even as visitors or tourists, are
bound by criminal law of the Philippines once they committed
crimes in the Philippines.

Exceptions-*
-Those who are immune from suit such as Ambassadors, Chiefs of
States and other diplomatic official are not bound by Philippine
criminal law because they are considered extension of the country
they represent. State is immune from suit. **
Explanation of characteristics of criminal law, continuation-

Territoriality –
-It means that criminal law of the Philippines is applicable only to crimes
committed within the territory of the Philippines, be it land or terrestrial,
sea or maritime, or aerial.

Exceptions-
1. The offense was committed while on the Philippine ship or airplane;
2. Forging or counterfeiting any coin or currency notes of the Philippines
or obligations and securities issued by the Government committed
outside of the Philippine territory.
3. Importing or bringing into the Philippines any counterfeited or forged coin,
currency note, or obligation or security issued by the government.
4. While being public officer or employee, should commit an offense in the
exercise of his function.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nation as defined in the Tile One, Book Two of the RPC.
6. Crimes are committed within the Phil. Embassy to other country even if
the crime committed does not pertain to performance of duty. Phil.
Embassy to other country is considered as extension of Phil. Territory. **
Explanation of characteristics of criminal law, continuation-

Jurisdictional Rules regarding crimes committed on board foreign

merchant:

French rule or nationality rule –

-crimes committed on board foreign merchant vessel while in territorial
waters of another state are not triable in such state unless they affect
peace and security of that state.

English rule or territorial rule –

-crimes committed on board foreign merchant vessel while in territorial
waters of another state are triable in such state unless they only affect
the internal management of the vessel.

Note: Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on

board a foreign warship even within our territory. Warships are always
regarded to be an extension of the territory of the country where they
belong. **
Explanation of characteristics of criminal law, continuation-

Prospectivity –
-means that acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if
they are committed after such penal law had already taken effect.

Exception:
-When a repealing law is favorable to the accused, it should be
given retroactive effect, provided the accused or convicted offender
is not a habitual criminal and the law does not provide otherwise.**

Q-S#87-89
Theories of criminal law:

1. Juristic/Classical theory
2. Positivist/Realistic theory
3. Electic/Mixed Theory
Explanation of-

Juristic/Classical theory –
-It means that a person who commits a crime must be punished because
as a man, he understands what is right from wrong. Here, the purpose
of penalty is retribution, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth”.

Positivist/Realistic theory –
-It means that a person who commits a crime should not be punished but
rehabilitated because crime is essentially a social and natural
phenomenon which constrains a person to do wrong, in spite of, or
contrary to his volition. Here, the criminal is considered as a socially sick
person who needs treatment and not punishment.

Electic/Mixed Theory-*
-It is the combination of both the positivist and classical which our RPC
today follows. Crimes that are economic and social in nature should be
dealt with in a positivist manner, thus the law is more compassionate.
Heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner, thus capital
punishment.**
Definition of felony –
-Felony is defined as acts and omissions punishable by law referring
to violation of the provisions of the RPC.*

Classification of felonies:

1. Felony by means of deceit (dolo) or intentional felony

2. Felony by means of fault (culpa) or culpable felony**
Explanation of-

1. Felony by means of deceit (dolo) or intentional felony–

-It is the act or omission of the offender is malicious, with deliberate
Intent or with malice. Example: Murder, Robbery, Rape. Etc..

2. Felony by means of fault (culpa) or culpable felony–*

-It is the act or omission of the offender is not malicious, nor
intentional, it is merely the incident of another’s act performed without
malice. The wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack
of skill or lack of foresight. Example: Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide.**
Classifications of crimes according to its nature:

1. Mala in Se
2. Mala Prohibita

Explanation of-

Mala in Se–
-It is one which is wrongful from its nature like rape, robbery, murder,
etc.

Mala Prohibita–*
-It is one which is not wrongful from its nature but is punishable only
because of the law that makes it punishable, like dynamite fishing,
illegal logging, etc.**
Distinctions between mala in se and mala prohibita:

-Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as

to call for the almost unanimous condemnation of the society; while
crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience
designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of the
society.

-In acts mala in se, the intent governs; while in mala prohibita, the
only inquiry is, has the law been violated?**

Q-S#90
How criminal liability is incurred:

1. Commission of a criminal act with criminal intent.

2. Commission of unintentional felony resulting from negligence,
reckless and imprudence.
3. Violation of special laws.
4. Commission of a felony although the wrongful act done is
different from that intended.
5. Commission of impossible crime**
Instances of wrongful act done different from that intended:

1. Mistake of identity or error in personae

2. Mistake of the blow or aberratio ictus
3. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong or praeter
intentionem**
Explanation of-

Mistake of identity or error in personae–

-It means that the victim upon whom the blow was directed was only
mistaken by the culprit as his intended victim who was not at the
crime scene.

Mistake of the blow or aberratio ictus–

-The intended victim as well as the actual victim are both at the
scene of the crime. A person directed the blow at an intended victim
but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody else.

Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong or praeter

intentionem-*
-It is mitigating circumstances covered by par. 3, Art. 13. There must
be a notable disparity between the means employed and the
resulting felony.**
Mistake of fact–
-It is misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who causes
injury to another. It is such fact that what the accused believed had
been true his act would have been lawful.*

Note:
-An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal
intent which arises upon the commission of a felonious act; hence,
an accused who acted under a mistake of fact is not criminally
liable.**
Impossible crime-

Requisites of impossible crime:

1. The act performed must be an offense against persons or

property;
2. The act performed must be done with evil intent;
3. The accomplishment of the act is inherently impossible, either
legally or physically, or the means employed in the
accomplishment of the act is inadequate or ineffectual;
4. The act performed must not constitute a violation of another
article of the RPC;
5. The act performed must either be grave or less grave, and not a
light felony.**
Q-S#91-92
Stages of execution of felony:

1. Consummated –
-It means that all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present. Subjective and objective phases have
already passed.

2. Frustrated –
-It means that the offender has performed all the acts of execution to
produce the felony as a consequence but the crime does not result due
to some cause or causes independent of the will of the offender.
Subjective phase is completed.

3. Attempted –
-It means that the offender begins the execution of the felony by direct
overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony as a consequence by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. It is within the
subjective phase, meaning the offender has still control of his acts. **
Q-S#93-94
Conspiracy –
-It exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission pf a felony and decide to commit it.

Proposal –
-It exists when the person or persons who decided to commit a
felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons. Only
the person proposing or the proponent is criminally liable for he is
the only one who entertains the ideas and who is decided to commit
the same.

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felonies –

-They are not punishable as a general rule,
-except: (1) conspiracy or Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);
(2) conspiracy and Proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
insurrection (Art. 136); (3) conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);
(4) monopolies and combination in restraint of trade (Art. 186); (5)
conspiracy to commit arson (Sec. 7, PD 1613, as amended by RA
7659) **
Classification of felonies according to their gravity:

Grave Felonies –
-They are those in which the law attaches a capital punishment or
a penalty which is afflictive in any of its periods, or those the
maximum penalty of imprisonment of which is more than 6 years.

Less Grave Felonies –

-They are those in which the penalties in their maximum period are
correctional, or those the imposable penalty of imprisonment of
which ranges from 1 month and 1 day to 6 years.

Light Felonies –
-They are those infractions of law in which the penalty is arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding P200.00 or both, or those the
imposable penalty of imprisonment of which ranges from 1 day to
30 days. **

Q-S#95-96
Circumstances affecting criminal liability:

1. Justifying circumstances –
-They are those wherein the acts of the actor are in accordance with law
and, hence, he incurs no criminal and civil liability.
2. Exempting circumstances –
-They are those wherein there is an absence in the agent of the crime any of
all the conditions that would make an act voluntary and, hence, although
there is no criminal liability, there is civil liability.
3. Mitigating circumstances –
-They are those that have the effect of reducing the penalty because there is
a diminution of any of the elements of dolo or culpa, which makes the act
voluntary or because of the lesser perversity of the offender .
4. Aggravating circumstances –
-They are those which serve to increase the penalty without exceeding the
maximum provided by law because of the greater perversity of the offender.
5. Alternative circumstances –
-They are those which are either aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its
commission (Art. 15). **
QUESTIONS:

-WHAT ARE THE FIVE CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING

CRIMINAL LIABILITY? **
The following are justifying circumstances:

1. Self-defense, which includes defense of honor and

property;
2. Defense of relatives;
3. Defense of Strangers;
4. State of necessity or avoidance of greater evil or injury;
5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office;
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose;
**
Justifying circumstances, explained-

Requisites of self-defense:

1. Unlawful aggression (indispensable requirement);

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it; and
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself. **
Justifying circumstances, explained-

Self-Defense of honor –
-There must be an attempt to rape, not necessary that the actual
act be committed, as the mere imminence thereof will justify the
woman to kill the offender, if she has no other means to defend
herself, as when the deceased and the accused reached a
secluded place.

Self-Defense of property –
-It is necessary that there be an attack on the property coupled with
an attack on the person of the one who owns the property.

Self-Defense in libel –
-When a person is libeled, he may hit back with another libel,
which, if adequate, will be justified. ***
Justifying circumstances, explained-

Requisites of Defense of Relatives:

1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it; and
3. In case the provocation is given by the person attacked, the
one making the defense has no part therein. ***
Justifying circumstances, explained-

Relatives entitled to defense of relatives:

1. Legitimate spouse;
2. Ascendants, include parents, grand and great grand
parents;
3. Descendants, include children, grand and great grand
children;
4. Legitimate, natural, adopted brothers or sisters;
5. Relatives by affinity within the 2nd degree;
6. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree. ***
Justifying circumstances, explained-

Requisites of defense of strangers:

1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel the aggression; and
3. The person defending is not induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive. **

Q-S#97-98
Incomplete self-defense –

-It is one in which there is absence in numbers 2 or 3 element,

with the first element always being present. It is mitigating
circumstance. If no. 1 requisite is coupled with another requisite,
privileged mitigating; if only no. 1 requisite is present, ordinary
mitigating.

Example: Pedro insulted Jose by telling him “Gago” in the

presence of several persons in the birth day party. Enraged,
Jose stabbed Pedro but before he was hit, Pedro drew his firearm
and shot Jose, killing him. ***
Justifying circumstances, explained-

Requisites of state of necessity:

1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
and
3. There be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it. ***
Justifying circumstances, explained-

Elements/Requisites of fulfillment of duty:

1. The offender acted in the performance of a duty or the

lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. The injury caused by the felony committed is the
necessary consequence of the due performance of such
right or office. ***
Justifying circumstances, explained-

Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose,

elements/requisites:

1. An order has been issued by a superior;

2. The order is for legal purposes;
3. The means used to carry said order is lawful. **

Q-S#99-100
The following are exempting circumstances:

1. Imbecility or insanity;
2. Minority (15 years or less with or without discernment);
3. Minority (over 15 but below 18 years without
discernment);
4. Accident;
5. Compulsion of an irresistible force;
6. Impulse of an uncontrollable fear;
7. Insuperable or lawful cause. ***
Exempting circumstances, explained-

Imbecile –
-He is one who while advance in age has a mental
development as that of child two or seven years of age.

Insane –
-He is one who has a mental defect which makes him
incapable of knowing what is right or wrong.

Distinction between imbecility and insanity:

An imbecile is one who while in advanced age has mental

development as that of child two or seven years of age; while
an insane is one who has mental defect which makes one
incapable to know what is right or wrong. ***
Exempting circumstances, explained-

Minority (15 years or less) –

-A minor of this age is declared by law statutory innocent even if
he acted with discernment and even if he confesses and manifests
to the court his degree of intellectual ability.

Minority (over 15 years of age and under 18) –

-If a minor of this age does not act with discernment, he is
criminally exempt. If he acts with discernment, he is not criminally
exempt but is entitled to mitigating circumstance.

Discernment –
-It means the mental capacity of a minor between over 15 and less
than 18 years of age to fully appreciate the consequence of his
act. ***
Exempting circumstances, explained-

Discernment may be shown in the following instances:

1. A minor after committing a crime of rape said to his victim,

“Ang sarap mo!”
2. A minor committed a crime during nighttime to avoid
discovery.
3. A minor after hitting another with stone resulting in his
blindness said, “Putang ina mo, mabuti natikman mo!”. ***
Exempting circumstances, explained-

Requisites of accident:

1. Performing a lawful act

2. With due care
3. Causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it ***
Exempting circumstances, explained-

Requisites of compulsion of an irresistible force:

1. The force is physical;

2. The force is irresistible, which means, it cannot be
overcome by the volition of the offender;
3. The force should come from a third person. ***
Exempting circumstances, explained-

Requisites of impulse of an uncontrollable fear:

1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater

than, or at least equal to, that which he is required to
commit;
2. That if promises, an evil of such gravity and imminence
that the ordinary man would have to succumb to it. ***
Exempting circumstances, explained-

Requisites of prevented by insuperable or lawful cause:

1. That an act is required by law to be done;

2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some
lawful or insuperable cause. **

Q-S#101-102
Other absolutory causes aside from justifying and exempting
circumstances:

1. Spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced

the commission of a felony, but desisted before he could
perform all the acts of execution.
2. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability like
spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degree, EXCEPT when he profits by the effect of
the crime or by assisting the offender to profit by the
effect of the crime.
3. Compulsory confinement of a violent insane in hospital.
4. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances.
Other absolutory causes aside from justifying and exempting
circumstances:

5. Exception to trespass to dwelling when a person enters another’s

dwelling to protect/prevent some serious harm to himself, the
occupants of the dwelling or a third person.
6. No criminal but only civil liability shall result from the commission of
the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed by the
following persons between themselves:
a. Spouses, ascendants and descendants or relatives by affinity in the
same line;
b. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to
the deceased spouse before the same shall have passed into the
possession of another.
c. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in –law if living
together.
7. In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, if
the accused and the victim marry each other, it extinguishes
criminal liability.
8. Mistake of fact
9. Instigation ***
Absolutory causes, explained-

Instigation (absolutory cause) –

-It consists of words and actions employed by a public officer to induce
a person to commit a crime and would arrest him upon or after the
commission of the crime. This is absolutory cause and hence, both the
inducer and the induced are exempt from criminal liability, for reasons of
public policy. But if the inducement is done by a private individual not
performing a public function both he and the one induced are criminally
liable for the crime committed; the former, as principal by induction and
the latter as principal by direct participation.

Entrapment (not absolutory cause) –

-It consists of the ways and means employed or devised by a peace
officer to apprehend or catch a person who has committed a crime.
This is not absolutory cause and hence, the offender is liable. This is
not absolutory cause. **

Q-S#103
The following are mitigating circumstances:

1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances (privileged);

2. Offender is under 18 (privileged) or over 70 years of age (ordinary);
3. Offender has no intent to commit so grave a wrong (ordinary);
4. Sufficient provocation or threat by the victim preceded the act (ordinary);
5. Vindication of a grave offense committed by the victim against the
accused spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted
brothers or sisters or relative by affinity within the same degree (ordinary);
6. The accused committed a crime after having acted upon passion or
obfuscation (ordinary);
7. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agent and voluntary
confession of guilt before the court (ordinary);
8. Physical defect of the offender (which restricts his means of action,
defenses or communication with his fellow (ordinary);
9. Illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will power of
the offender without depriving him of consciousness of his act because if
he is conscious of his act he is exempted from criminal liability as he had
no intelligence when he committed the act (ordinary);
10. Analogous circumstances. ***
QUESTION:

-What are the ten mitigating circumstances?

Mitigating circumstances, explained-

No intent to commit so grave a wrong or praeter intentionem -

-In this circumstance, the judge must consider the notable and evident
disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and
its consequence or a notorious disproportion between the resultant evil and
the means employed to cause it so that the evil could not reasonably be
presumed within the actor’s intention.

Sufficient provocation or threat preceded the act –

-By provocation is understood any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone. Whether or
not a provocation is sufficient depends largely on the social standing of the
person provoked, and the place and time when the provocation was made.

Immediate Vindication of a grave offense –

-It is committed by the victim against the accused, his spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters or relative by
affinity within the same degrees. The grave offense contemplated herein
has no reference to Art. 9 on grave, less grave or light felonies. It need not
be a felony or an act punished by law. ***
Mitigating circumstances, explained-

Passion and obfuscation –

-It refers to emotional feeling of the offender which produces
excitement so powerful as to overcome reason and self-control
thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.

Voluntary surrender to the authorities or their agents –

-The surrender must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the
accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities or their
agent, either as a manifestation to acknowledge guilt or to save the
authorities from the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in
effecting his apprehension. ***
Mitigating circumstances, explained-

Offender’s physical defect –

-It refers to the offender’s defect which restricts his means of
action, defenses or communication with his fellow being. Here,
the individual does not enjoy complete freedom which is an
element of voluntariness.

Offender’s illness –
-It refers to the offender’s illness which diminishes the exercise of
his will power without depriving him of consciousness of his act
BECAUSE if he is not conscious of his act he is exempted from
criminal liability as he had no intelligence when he committed the
act. ***
Analogous mitigating circumstances:

1. Jealousy is similar to passion and obfuscation

2. Voluntary restitution of property is similar to voluntary
surrender.
3. Extreme poverty is similar to one under a state of necessity.
4. Over 60 years with failing eyesight is akin to one over 70 years.
5. Where the accused killed the man who took away his carabao and
held the same for ransom. The carabao died and the man refused
to pay its value. The accused killed him. He was granted the
mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense.
6. And others. ***
The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. Advantage taken of a public position;

2. Contempt or insult to public authorities;
3. Disregard of rank, age or sex and dwelling of offended party;
4. Abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness;
5. Crime be committed in the (1) Palace of the Chief Executive;
(2) In his presence; (3) Where public authorities are engaging in the
discharge of the duties; or (4) In a place dedicated to religious
worship;
6. Crime be committed (1) At nighttime, or (2) In an uninhabited place, or
(3) By a band;
7. Crimes committed during calamity or misfortune;
8. Crime committed by the offender with the aid of armed men or persons
who insure or afford impunity;
9. The accused is recidivist;
10. Reiteration or habituality;
Aggravating circumstances, continuation:

11. Crime committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise;

12. Crime committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a
locomotive or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste
and ruin;
13. Act committed with evident premeditation;
14. In committing a crime, craft, fraud, or disguise be employed;
15. Taking advantage of superior strength or means be employed to
weaken the defense;
16. Crime committed with treachery (alevosia);
17. Means employed in committing a crime added ignominy to the natural
effect of the crime/act;
18. Crime committed after an unlawful entry;
19. Means in committing a crime, wall, roof, door or window be broken;
20. Crime committed (1) with the aid of a minor under 15 or (2) using a
motor vehicle, airplane or other similar means in committing and
escaping from the scene of the crime;
21. Crime committed is deliberated augmented by cruelty. ***
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Advantage taken of a public position –

-This is applicable only when the offender is a public officer, who used his
influence, prestige or ascendancy while in office.

Crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities –

-This is applicable when the crime is committed in the presence of public
authority not when it is committed in the presence of a person agent in authority.
It is essential that the offender knows the identity of the public authority.

Act be committed with disregard of rank, age or sex and dwelling of the
offended party –
-These circumstances may be taken into consideration only in crimes against
persons, honor or security.

With insult or in disregard –

-It means the specific fact of insult or disregard of the sex, age or rank of the
offended party who is a woman, older or of higher rank than the accused. ***
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Age –
-It refers to the age of the offender party so that if the offended party is a
father of the offender, it is aggravating.
Sex –
-It refers to a woman only not to a man. Sex is not considered in a crime
where being a woman is an element thereof as in parricide, rape,
abduction, or seduction.
Dwelling –
-It includes dependencies, staircase, and enclosures under the house; a
room in a boarding house as it is not necessary that the victim owns the
place where he lives or dwells. A combination of house and store is not
a dwelling nor gambling house or a house of prostitution. It is
aggravating even if the accused did not enter the house but he shot the
victim from under the house, or even if the deceased who was attacked
inside his house which caused him to jump out through the window, after
which he was boloed by the offender.
Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness -
-there are two aggravating under this paragraph: Abuse of Confidence
and Obvious ungratefulness ***
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Crime be committed in the (1) Palace of the Chief Executive; (2) In

his presence; (3) Where public authorities are engaging in the
discharge of the duties; or (4) In a place dedicated to religious
worship-
-Performance of any function is not necessary if the crime is committed
in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence or in a place
dedicated to religious worship. As regards the place where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must be
some performance of public functions.

Crime be committed (1) At nighttime (nocturnity), or (2) In an

uninhabited place, or (3) By a band –
-To be aggravating, these circumstances must in any way facilitate the
commission of crime. It is not aggravating if the accused did not
purposely seek the cover of the darkness of the night to consummate
their evil designs or where the meeting of the victim was accidental and
attack was made at the impulse of the moment and as a consequence
of the unexpected turn of events; It is likewise not aggravating if the
commission of the crime was commenced at day time and it was
consummated at nighttime. ***
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Uninhabited place –
-It is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of
the crime, but by whether or not in the place of the commission of the
offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some
help.
Band –
-It consists of at least four armed malefactors organized with the intention
of carrying out any unlawful purpose.
Crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic or calamity or misfortune-
-This has reference to time of the commission of the crime which indicates
the moral depravity of the accused who in the midst of a great calamity,
instead of lending aid and comfort to the victims, adds to their suffering by
taking advantage of their misfortune.
Crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men or (2) persons who
insure or afford impunity-
-The armed men present must take part either directly or indirectly in the
commission of the crime and it must not appear that the offender and the
armed men acted under the same plan and for the same purpose. ***
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Accused is a recidivist, requisites:

1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;

2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of
another
crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in
the same title of the RPC;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense. ***
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Reiteration or habituality, requisites:

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;

2. That he previously served sentence for another offense in
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than
that for the new offense.
3. That he is convicted of the new offense. ***
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise –

-In order for this circumstance to be appreciated, there must be two or more
persons involved, the one who gives or offers the price or promise and the
one who accepts the proposal for a price or reward.

Crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,

stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a
locomotive or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and
ruin -
-This is the only aggravating circumstance that may constitute a crime in
itself.

Act be committed with evident premeditation –

-It means that before the crime is committed the offender had a deliberate
plan in executing it. The essence of 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. The attack made in the heat of anger negates
evident premeditation. ***
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Craft –
-It is defined as a trick, artifice, cunning or a skill applied for a bad
purpose. Example: A man invited his lady friend to go to his house as
her mother is waiting for her but in fact her mother was in their place in
Ilocos. And while in the house of A, the latter raped the woman.

Fraud –
-It is defined in the Webster as cheating, pretending or deceiving. In law,
fraud is the deception employed to cause a person to give up property or
some lawful right. Example: A at the middle of the night pretended to
buy cigarettes in the store of B. When B opened his store to A, the latter
attacked and killed B.

Advantage be taken of superior strength or means be employed to

weaken the defense -
-It is not on the number of the offenders but a question of whether or not
the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength in order to
consummate the crime. ***
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Act be committed with treachery (alevosia) -

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against person by employing means, method or form in the
execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make. It must be present at the
commencement of the attack and not at the latter stage of the
attack.

Ignominy –
-It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds
disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. It
is applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical
injuries, light or grave coercion and murder.
Aggravating circumstances, explained:

Crime be committed after an unlawful entry -

-There is an unlawful entry when the entrance is effected by a
way not intended for the purpose. It must be a means of
entrance not for escape. Not aggravating in the crime of robbery
with force upon things because it is inherent in such crime.

Crime be committed with cruelty –

-There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making
his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary
moral and physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act
which he intended to commit. ***
The following are alternative circumstances:

1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender. ***
Alternative circumstances, explained:

Relationship –
-It may either be mitigating or aggravating which is taken into
consideration when the offended party is either: (1) the spouse; (2)
ascendant; (3)descendant; (4) legitimate, natural or adopted brother or
sister or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

Note: In crimes against property, relationship is always mitigating

because Art. 332, which exempts the offender from criminal liability if the
crime committed is theft, estafa or swindling and malicious mischief.

Note: In crimes against persons, relationship is aggravating if the

offended party is a relative of higher degree or when the offender and
the offended party are relatives of the same level or category and, as a
rule, it is mitigating if the offended party is of a lower degree that that of
the offender. ***
Alternative circumstances, explained:

Intoxication –
-It may either be mitigating or aggravating which means that the
offender’s mental faculties are affected by drunkenness. It is not the
quantity of alcohol taken by the offender that determines drunkenness.
It is the effect of the alcohol taken by him that matters. If the alcohol
taken by the offender blurs his reason and deprives him of self-control,
then he is intoxicated.

When intoxication is mitigating,

-It must be shown that at the time of the commission of the crime, the
accused has taken such quantity of alcoholic beverage enough to affect
his reason and deprive him of the consciousness of his acts.

When intoxication is aggravating,

-The taking of the liquor is intentional prior to the commission of the
felony. Or if it is shown that the drunkenness of the offender is habitual
as he is given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating liquors.
The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is not necessary however,
that it be a matter of daily occurrence. ***
Alternative circumstances, explained-

Degree of instruction and education –

-It refers not only to illiteracy but also lack of intelligence of the offender.

Illiteracy –
-It refers to the ability of the individual to read and write and the ability to
comprehend and discern the meaning of what he has read.

When illiteracy is mitigating,

-There must be the concurrence or combination of illiteracy and lack of
intelligence on the part of the offender.

When illiteracy isaggravating,

-If the offender took advantage of it in committing the crime. **

Q-S#104-107
Classification of criminal offender:

1. Principal
2. Accomplice
3. Accessory

Classification of principal:

1. Principal by direct participation

2. Principal by inducement
3. Principal by indispensable cooperation
Classification of principal, explained:

Principal by direct participation –

-He is that who takes a direct part in the execution of the act. He must be
at the scene of the crime, personally taking part in the execution of the
same. It is essential that there be conspiracy or unity of purpose and
intention.

Principal by inducement –
-He is that who induces another to commit a crime. He becomes liable
only when the principal by direct participation commits the act induced.
The one giving the price, promise or reward is a principal by inducement
and the one who actually executes the act in consideration of the price,
promise or reward, is a principal by direct participation.

Principal by indispensable cooperation –

-He is that who cooperates in the commission of the offense by another
act without which it would not have been accomplished. The offender in
this case must have knowledge of the criminal designs of the principal by
direct participation. The participation must be before the commission of
the crime. ***
Accomplice –
-He is that who cooperates in the execution of the offense by
previous or simultaneous acts. His participation, with knowledge
of the commission of the crime, but without conspiracy, is such
that it is not indispensable but merely facilitates the commission
of the crime.

Accessory –
-He is that who, having knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated therein, either as principal
or accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission. ***
Body of the crime or corpus delicti –

-It refers to the manner by which the crime was committed. While
the body of the victim in the case of murder or homicide case is a
part of the term corpus delicti, it is not so by itself. The body of the
crime may also refer to the instrument used in the commission of
the crime such as knife, poison, gun or any material evidence to
prove or establish the commission of the crime. ***
The following accessories are exempt from criminal liability.
(However, if they profit or assist the principal to profit by the effect
of crime, they are not exempt:)

1. Spouse of the principal;

2. Ascendant of the principal;
3. Descendant of the principal;
4. Legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity with the same degrees, of the principal. **
Q-S#108-110
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD 1612) -
-It punishes acts similar to that of accessory under Art. 19, RPC,
but is limited and applicable to two crimes for robbery and theft.

Fencing –
-It is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for
another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
dispose of, shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any
article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should
be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery and theft.

Fence –
-It is a pers0n or other organization who/which commits the act of
fencing. ***
Penalty –
-It is the suffering that is inflicted by the state for the transgression of
law. Penalty in its general sense signifies pain; considered the juridical
sphere, it means suffering undergone because of the action of human
society by one who commits a crime.

Classification of penalties:

1. Principal penalties
2. Accessory penalties ***
Classes of principal penalties & their duration:

-Capital punishment
(a) Death – no duration (it has been abolished)
-Afflictive penalties
(a) Reclusion Perpetua – 20Y&1D – 40Y
(b) Reclusion Temporal – 12Y&1D – 20Y
(c) Prision Mayor – 6Y&1D – 12Y
-Correctional penalties
(a) Prision correccional – 6M&1D – 6Y
(b) Arresto Mayor – 1M&1D – 6M
(c) Destierro - Same as Prision correccional
-Light penalties
(a) Arresto menor – 1 day to 30 days.
-Fine, either afflictive, correctional or light
(a) Afflictive if the fine imposed is more than P6,000.00
(b) Correctional if the fine imposed is not less than P200.00 but
not more than P6,000.00
(c) Light if the fine imposed is less than P200.00 ***
Preventive Imprisonment –
-It is a situation where the accused is in custody because the offense
charged is non-bailable, or even if bailable, he cannot furnish the
required bail and that the period of his preventive imprisonment shall be
deducted from his sentence in case he is convicted subject to the rules
set forth hereunder.

Subsidiary penalty –
-It is one suffered by a convict who has no property with which to meet
pecuniary liability of fine only at the rate of 1 day for each P8.00.

Complex crime –
-It arises when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies or where an offense is a necessary means for committing the
other, the penalty for more serious crime in its maximum period shall be
imposed.
Kinds of complex crime:

Compound crime –
-It is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies. But when a single act results in (a) a grave felony and a light
felony; or (b) a grave or less grave felony and an offense punished by a
special law, there is no complex crime. Two independent crimes are
committed.

Complex proper –
-It means that an offense is committed as a necessary means to commit
the other.

Note: The phrase “necessary means” does not mean “indispensable

means” because if it does, then the offense as a necessary means to
commit another would be an element of the other crime. It simply
means such an offense is committed to facilitate and insure the
commission of the other. ***
A continuous or continued crime –
-It is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from one
criminal resolution, committed in one place and about the same time.
Example: Taking by the accused from the yard of a house two (2)
roosters belonging to two different owners is one theft only because
the two acts of taking arose from one criminal resolution only.

A continuing offense or delito continuido –

-It is a continuous unlawful act or series of acts on the foot by a single
impulse and operated by an unintermittent force however long a time
it may occur. Example: Rebellion **

Q-S#111
Habitual Delinquency –
-A culprit is a habitual delinquent if within ten years from the date of
his release or last conviction of the crime of (1) serious or less
serious physical injuries, (2) robbery, (3) theft, (4) estafa or (5)
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third or oftener.
Rules in the service of two or more penalties imposed upon the
offender:

1. If the nature of the penalties imposed so permit, they shall be served by

the culprit simultaneously. Instances: (a) when the penalties imposed
consist of destierro and fine; (b) when the penalties imposed consist of
death and imprisonment; (c) when the penalties imposed consist of
perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or temporary
special disqualification, public censure, suspension from public office and
other accessory penalties.
2. If the nature of the penalties does not permit to be served simultaneously,
they shall be served successively, the most severe one shall be served
first in the following order of severity:
3. Three-fold rule which means that the maximum duration of the sentence
should not be more than three times the most severe penalty. This
applies although the penalties were imposed for different crimes at
different times and under separate complaints or informations.

4. The maximum period that the culprit should serve his penalties cannot
exceed 40 years.
5. The duration of perpetual penalties is 30 years.
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended-

-It provides an imposition of a sentence for an offense punishable by the

RPC or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in
view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the
rules of the Penal Code, and the minimum shall be within the range of the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the code for the offense (Sec. 1,
Act 4103, as amended). After serving the minimum the convict shall be
eligible for parole. **
Cases in which the Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply:

1. Offenses punished by death or life imprisonment.

2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Habitual delinquents.
6. Those who escaped from confinement or those who evaded sentence;
7. Those granted conditional pardon and who violated the terms of the
same;
8. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one
year
9. Where the penalty actually imposed does not exceed one year, the
accused cannot avail himself of the benefits of the law, the application of
which is based upon the penalty actually imposed in accordance with
law and not upon that which may be imposed in the discretion of the
court.
10. Those who are already serving final judgment upon the approval of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. ***
Extinction of Criminal Liability:

1. Total – The liability of the offender is extinguished not subject to any

condition at all.
2. Partial – The liability of the offender is extinguished but subject to any
condition and obligation that the offender shall comply with before he is
totally discharged from liability arising from the offense he committed.

Causes of Total Extinction of Criminal Liability:

1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties; As to the pecuniary liabilities,

liability therefor is extinguished only when death occurs before final
judgment;
2. Service of Sentence.
3. Amnesty.
4. Absolute pardon.
5. Prescription of the crime.
6. Prescription of the penalty.
7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Art. 344.
Amnesty –
-It is a general pardon extended to person or group of persons even before trial
or investigation of their cases usually those who committed political crimes
exercised by the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress. Amnesty
extinguishes the criminal liability and not merely the penalty but also its effects.
But the civil liability is not extinguished.

Absolute Pardon –
-It refers to the total extinction of the criminal liability of the individual to whom it
is granted without any condition whatsoever and restores to the individual his
civil rights and remit the penalty imposed for the particular offense of which he
was convicted.

Prescription of Crime –
-It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the offender after
the lapse of a certain time fixed by law.

Prescription of Penalty –
-It is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the government to execute the final
sentence after the lapse of a certain time fixed by law.
Period of Prescription of crime:

1. Death, reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal – 20 years.

2. Other afflictive penalties – 15 years.
3. Correctional penalties – 10 years except arresto mayor which prescribes in 5
years.
4. Libel or similar offense – 1 year.
5. Oral defamation and slander by deed – 6 months.
6. Light offenses – 2 months.

N0te: When fine is an alternative penalty with imprisonment and fine is higher
than the imprisonment, the period of prescription is based on the fine.
Period of Prescription of penalties:

1. Death and reclusion perpetua – 20 years.

2. Other afflictive penalties – 15 years.
3. Correction penalties – 10 years except Arresto mayor which prescribes in 5
years.
4. Light penalties – 1 year

Computation of the prescription of penalties:

1. The period of prescription of penalties commences to run from the day the
culprit evaded the service of his sentence.
2. It is interrupted if the convict-
-gives himself up,
-be captured,
-goes to a foreign country which we have no
extradition treaty,
-commits another crime before the expiration of the
prescriptive period.
3. The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run again when
the convict escapes again after having been captured and returned to jail.

END
QUESTION:

-WHAT ARE THE TREE CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL

LAW? **
QUESTIONS:

-Mr. Zuki, a Japanese citizen, went to the Philippines. While in the

Philippines, Mr. Zuki raped Miss Takuza, also a Japanese citizen.
Criminal law of the Philippines is applicable to Mr. Zuki under what
characteristic? A. Generality B. Territoriality C. Prospectivity

-Mr. Jones, a US Ambassador, was assigned in the Philippines. While

in the Philippines, Mr. Jones raped Miss Duka, a Filipino citizen.
Philippine criminal law is not applicable to Mr. Jones because this case
is an exception to what characteristic of criminal law? A. Generality
B. Territoriality C. Prospectivity

-Andres was convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearms and

sentenced by the court to suffer 20 years imprisonment. After 6 years
that Andres was serving his sentence in jail, a law was passed
increasing the maximum penalty of Illegal Possession of Firearms from
20 years to 26 years. This law is not applicable to the case of Andres.
What characteristic of criminal law is applicable in this case? A.
Generality B. Territoriality C. Prospectiviy**
QUESTIONS:

-Romeo was convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearms and

sentenced by the court to suffer 20 years imprisonment. After 6 years
that Romeo was serving his sentence in jail, a law was passed
reducing the maximum penalty of Illegal Possession of Firearms from
20 years to 6 years. This law is applicable to the case of Romeo being
favorable to him. This is an exception to what characteristic of criminal
law? A. Generality B. Territoriality C. Prospectivity

-It is a rule wherein crimes committed on board a foreign merchant

vessel within the territorial waters of the Philippines are not triable in
the Philippines unless it affects the peace and security of the
Philippines. A. French Rule B. English Rule C. Spanish Rule

-It is a rule wherein crimes committed on board a foreign merchant

vessel within the territorial waters of the Philippines are triable in the
Philippines unless it only affects the internal management of the
vessel. A. French Rule B. English Rule C. Spanish Rule**

L-S#9
QUESTIONS:

-What do you call such crime which, by nature, is wrongful such as

crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code? A. Mala inse B.
Mala prohibita C. Mala in personae

-What do you call such crime which is wrongful only because of a

law such as crime punishable under special laws? A. Mala inse B.
Mala prohibita C. Mala in personae**

L-S#15
QUESTIONS:

-Pedro, with intent to kill, shot Juan but it was Jose who was hit and
Killed. This is an example of: A. Mistake of Identity. B. Mistake of
the Blow C. Mistake of Fact D. Impossible Crime

-Pedro had long been harboring a grudge against Jose. One night,
Pedro stabbed Juan thinking he was Jose passing in a dark alley. This
Is an example of: A. Mistake of Identity B. Mistake of the Blow
C. Mistake of Fact D. Impossible Crime ***
QUESTIONS:

-Jose was living in a remote area which was being frequented

by robbers and other lawless elements. One day, about 5 men,
heavily armed, In civilian attire and without his consent, opened
the gate of the perimeter fence of his house. At that juncture,
Jose fired upon said 5 men killing three of them. It turned out
that said 5 men were members of the Philippine Army. This
is an example of: A. Mistake of Identity B. Mistake of the Blow
C. Mistake of Fact. D. Impossible Crime

-Pedro took the wallet inside the pocket of Jose and ran thereafter.
At a distance, Pedro discovered that the wallet he took from the
pocket of Jose was his (Pedro). This is an example of: A. Mistake
of Identity B. Mistake of the Blow C. Mistake of Fact D.
Impossible Crime **

L-S#20
QUESTIONS:

-Pedro, with intent to kill, shot and killed Jose. The act of Pedro
constitutes: A. Attempted B. Frustrated C. Consummated
D. Impossible Crime

-Romeo, wanting to kill Andres, drew his firearm from his waist
line, aimed the same at Andres and squizzed the trigger.
However, the firearm did not explode because there was no
ammunition inside the chamber. The act of Romeo of aiming
and squeezing the trigger constitutes A. Attempted B.
Frustrated C. Consummated D. Impossible Crime ***
QUESTIONS:

-Jack, by force, had sexual intercourse with Jen. State whether

the act of Jack constituted: A. Attempted B. Frustrated
C. Consummated D. Impossible Crime

-Jack, with intent to kill, shot Andrew with a gun, slightly

wounding Andrew on the shoulder which wound of Andrew
would heal even if not treated in the hospital. State whether the
act of Jack constituted: A. Attempted B. Frustrated
C. Consummated D. Impossible Crime

-Jack, with intent to kill, shot Andrew with a gun, seriously

wounding Andrew who survived only after he was brought to
the hospital. State whether the act of Jack constituted:
A. Attempted B. Frustrated C. Consummated D.
Impossible Crime **

L-S#21
QUESTIONS:

-Peter committed a crime of attempted homicide punishable by

imprisonment ranging from 6 months & 1 day to 6 years. What
classification of felony according to gravity did Peter commit? A. Grave
felony B. Less grave felony C. Light felony D. None of the above

-What if in question above the crime committed by Peter is punishable

by imprisonment ranging from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, what
classification of felony according to gravity was committed by him? A.
Grave felony B. Less grave felony C. Light felony D. None of the
above

-What if in question above the crime committed by Peter is punishable

by imprisonment ranging from 1 month & 1day to 6 months, what
classification of felony according to gravity was committed by him? A.
Grave felony B. Less grave felony C. Light felony D. None of the
above ***
QUESTIONS:

-Pedro committed the crime of Attempted Homicide punishable by

Imprisonment ranging from 6 months & 1 day to 6 years. What
Classification of felony according to gravity was committed by
Pedro? A. Light B. Less Grave C. Grave D. All of the above

-Pedro committed the crime of Slight Physical Injuries punishable

by imprisonment ranging from 1 day to 30 days. What classification
Of felony according to gravity was committed by Pedro? A. Light
B. Less Grave C. Grave D. All of the above

-Pedro committed the crime of Frustrated Homicide punishable by

Imprisonment ranging from 6 years & 1 day to 12 years. What
Classification of felony according to gravity was committed by
Pedro? A. Light B. Less Grave C. Grave D. All of the above **

L-S#23
QUESTIONS:

-WHAT ARE THE SIX JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES? ***

QUESTIONS:

-Jack stabbed Jeck’s son. To prevent his son from being hit by Jack,
Jeck stabbed Jack which caused his (Jack) instantaneous death. Jack
is entitled to justifying circumstance of- A. Self-defense. B. Defense
of relatives. C. Defense of strangers. D. None of the above

-Jack stabbed Jeck’s second cousin. To prevent his second cousin

from being hit by Jack, Jeck stabbed Jack which caused his (Jack)
instantaneous death. Jack is entitled to justifying circumstance of- A.
Self-defense. B. Defense of relatives. C. Defense of strangers. D.
None of the above

-Jack was attacked by Jim with the use of a knife. Even though Jack
was surprised, he was able to parry the attack and it was during the
scuffle of a knife that Jack stabbed Jim resulting in his death. Jack is
entitled to justifying circumstance of- A. Self-defense. B. Defense of
relatives. C. Defense of strangers D. None of the above **

L-S#31
QUESTIONS:

-WHAT ARE THE SIX JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES?***

QUESTIONS:

-Pedro, ship captain, because of strong typhoon, ordered some of the

cargoes to be thrown to the sea. Pedro was not liable for his act
because it was justified as: A. State of Necessity B. Fulfillment of
Duty C. Obedience to Lawful Order D. None of the above

-PO1 Cruz, while patrolling along Roxas Avenue, saw that Pedro
snatched the bag of Jane and ran thereafter. PO1 Cruz chased
Pedro and kept blowing his whistle. Pedro did not stop, so PO1 Cruz
fired a warning a shot but Pedro persisted in running. So PO1 Cruz
fired at Pedro at the leg causing him to stop. PO1 Cruz was not liable
for his act because It was justified as: A. State of Necessity
B. Fulfillment of Duty C. Obedience to Lawful Order D. None of
the above **

L-S#35
QUESTIONS:

-WHAT ARE THE SEVEN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES?***

QUESTIONS:

-Pedro, 14 years old, angry because he was insulted by Jose, 26 years

old, killed the latter. Thereafter, Pedro said “kalamay mo”. What
exempting circumstance may Pedro claim? A. Insanity or imbecility
B. Minority C. Insuperable or lawful cause D. Impulse of
uncontrollable fear

-Pedro, 26 years old but with mental capacity of a 7 years old, stabbed
and killed Jose. What exempting circumstance may Pedro claim? A.
Insanity or imbecility B. Minority C. Insuperable or lawful cause
D. Impulse of uncontrollable fear

-Pedro, at a gunpoint, was ordered by Jose to burn the house of Juan.

What exempting circumstance may Pedro claim? A. Insanity or
imbecility B. Minority C. Insuperable or lawful Cause D. Impulse
of uncontrollable fear **

L-S#43
QUESTIONS:

-PO1 Cruz, in civilian attire and disguising as drug addict,

approached Jose, a known drug pusher in the community, and asked
the latter a sachet of shabbu in consideration of P1,000.00. When
Jose was about to hand to PO1 Cruz a sachet of shabbu, PO1 Cruz
Arrested him (Jose). This is an example of: A. Instigation B.
Mistake of fact C. Entrapment D. None of the above

-PO1 Cruz, in police uniform, approached Jose and asked the latter
To look for shabbu as he wanted to score, giving Jose P500.00. Jose
left with such amount. Minutes later, Jose returned and when about
to give to PO1 Cruz a sachet of shabbu, he was arrested by PO1
Cruz. This is an example of: A. Instigation B. Mistake of fact C.
Entrapment D. None of the above **

L-S#43
QUESTIONS:

-Jack stabbed Jeck. To prevent from being hit by Jack, Jeck stabbed Jack
which caused his (Jack) instantaneous death. What circumstance is
present in this case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C. Mitigating D.
Aggravating

-Jack, an insane person, killed Jeck. What circumstance is present in this

case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C. Mitigating D. Aggravating

-Jack, 15 years old, and with discernment, killed Jeck. What

circumstance is present in this case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C.
Mitigating D. Aggravating

-A group of armed men mauled Jack by beating and striking him (Jack)
with the butts of their firearms forcing him to steal the carabao of Jeck.
Jack did what such group ordered him. What circumstance is present in
this case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C. Mitigating D. Aggravating
***
QUESTIONS:

-FO1 Cruz knocked at the door of the house of Rosa. FO1 Cruz
introduced himself to Rosa as fire officer and that he had mission order to
inspect electric installation of her house. In view thereof, Rosa Allowed
FO1 Cruz to enter her house. Once inside, FO1 Cruz took some
jewelries of Rosa inside her house. What circumstance is present in this
case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C. Mitigating D. Aggravating

-During night time, a prisoner escaped from jail and ran fast towards the
direction of thick forest. To prevent the said prisoner from entering the
thick forest for his escape, the jail guard fired and killed him. What
circumstance is present in this case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C.
Mitigating D. Aggravating

-Jack saw his wife and Jeck kissing each other inside a movie house.
Enraged by what he saw, Jack stabbed and killed his wife. What
circumstance is present in this case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C.
Mitigating D. Aggravating ***
QUESTIONS:

-Eribus had been harboring grudges against Fredo. One evening,

while Fredo was sleeping in the waiting shed along the road, Eribus
stabbed him to death. What circumstance is present in this case?
A. Justifying B. Exempting C. Mitigating D. Aggravating

-Peter planned of killing him (Jun). Thereafter, Peter drank 5 bottles

of beer. When already intoxicated, Peter looked for Jun and killed
him. What circumstance is present in this case? A. Justifying B.
Exempting C. Mitigating D. Aggravating

-Jack, by force, undressed Jen and placed himself on top of her. To

prevent from being raped by Jack, Jen stabbed Jack which caused
his (Jack) instantaneous death. What circumstance is present in
this case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C. Mitigating D.
Aggravating ***
QUESTIONS:

-Peter is the grandfather of Jun. Peter killed Jun. What circumstance

is present in this case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C. Mitigating
D. Aggravating

-Jack, at a gun point, ordered Jeck to steal the carabao of Jen. Jeck
did what Jack had ordered him. What circumstance is present in this
case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C. Mitigating D. Aggravating

-Jack stabbed Jeck’s son. To prevent his son from being hit by Jack,
Jeck stabbed Jack which caused his (Jack) instantaneous death.
What circumstance is present in this case? A. Justifying B.
Exempting C. Mitigating D. Aggravating

-Jack, 17 years old, and with discernment, killed Jeck. What

circumstance is present in this case? A. Justifying B. Exempting C.
Mitigating D. Aggravating **

L-S#68
QUESTIONS:

-Eribus, a resident of Iloilo, wanted to kill Fredo, a resident of Roxas City.

Aware of the plan of Eribus, Gildo allowed Eribus to use his vehicle in
going to Roxas City where Eribus killed Fredo. Aware of the incident,
Dyesebel allowed Eribus to use her vehicle in his escape. What
classification of offender is Eribus? A. Principal B. Accomplice C.
Accessory D. None of the above

-In question above, what classification of offender is Gildo? A. Principal

B. Accomplice C. Accessory D. None of the above

-In question above, what classification of offender is Dyesebel? A.

Principal B. Accomplice C. Accessory D. None of the above ***
QUESTIONS:

-Eribus wanted to kill Fredo who was living in an isolated island.

Eribus asked Gildo to kill Fredo in exchange of P100,000.00 which
Gildo agreed. For Gildo to go to such island, he had to use boat.
Dyesebel, the only person who owned a boat in the area, and aware
of such plan of Gildo, allowed Gildo to use her boat. Thereafter, Gildo
killed Fredo. What classification of offenders Eribus? A. Principal B.
Accomplice C. Accessory D. None of the above

-In question above, what classification of offender is Gildo? A.

Principal B. Accomplice C. Accessory D. None of the above

-In question above, what classification of offender is Dyesebel? A.

Principal B. Accomplice C. Accessory D. None of the above ***
QUESTIONS:

-Peter, Jack & Jun had knowledge that Sam, armed with a caliber .38
revolver, wanted to kill Fred. Peter provided a caliber 45 pistol to be
used by Sam in killing Fred. Jack was the one who drove a tricycle
bringing Sam to the house of Fred. Sam shot and killed Fred with use
of the said caliber 45 pistol. Immediately after the killing, Jun buried the
dead body of Fred. What classification of offender is Peter? A.
Principal B. Accomplice C. Accessory D. None of the above

-In question above, what classification of offender is Jack? A. Principal

B. Accomplice C. Accessory D. None of the above

-In question above, what classification of offender is Jun? A. Principal

B. Accomplice C. Accessory D. None of the above

-In question above, what classification of offender is Sam? A. Principal

B. Accomplice C. Accessory D. None of the above **

L-S#73
QUESTIONS:

-Peter, with intent to steal, entered a compound where there were five
houses. Peter took personal belongings from each of the five houses
one after the other. Peter is liable for A. Complex crime B. Continuous
or continued crime C. Continuing offense D. None of the above

-Peter, with intent to kill Jose shot the latter. However, it was Jun who
was behind Jose that was hit. Peter is liable for A. Complex crime
B. Continuous or continued crime C. Continuing offense D. None of
the above

-Peter, a member of NPA, and to further the NPA movement, went to

Roxas City and burned the City Hall. Thereafter, Peter went to Iloilo
City and killed the mayor there. Peter is liable for A. Complex crime
B. Continuous or continued crime C. Continuing offense D. None of
the above. **

L-S#79
END