CRIMINAL LAW I

BOOK I
CRIMINAL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
Prof. GILBERT N. OCAMPO
Juris Doctor
Academic Practitioner
Criminal Justice Practitioner
Continuing Professional Education
Masters in Public Administration

CLE NATIONAL LECTURER

ACCOUNTANCY REVIEWER
 ****Act No. 3815
December 8, 1930 approved
January 1, 1932 effectivity
The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
AN ACT REVISING THE PENAL CODE AND OTHER
PENAL LAWS
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
Book One
Articles 1- 113
Book Two
Articles 114-367
CRIMINAL LAW
 Criminal law is that branch of municipal law which
defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides
for their punishment.

It is that branch of public substantive law which

defines offenses and prescribes their penalties.
It is substantive because it defines the state’s right
to inflict punishment and the liability of the
offenders.
It is public law because it deals with the relation of
the individual with the state.
**LAW – refers to rule of action or conduct and
any system of uniformity. (according to Manresa
and Tolentino).
SUBSTANTIVE LAW - The part of the law that
creates, defines, and regulates rights,
including, for example, the law of contracts,
torts, wills, and real property; the essential
substance of rights under law.
Substantive law and procedural law are the
two main categories within the law. Substantive
law- refers to the body of rules that determine the
rights and obligations of individuals and collective
bodies.
Procedural law - is the body of legal rules that
govern the process for determining the rights
of parties.
****COMMON LAW CRIMES - These are the body
of principles, usages and rules of actions which
do not result from the express act of the
legislature.
****Case law refers to law that comes from
decisions made by judges in previous cases.
Case law, also known as “common law,” and “case
precedent,” provides a common.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - a body of fundamental
principles or established precedents according to
which a state or other organization is
acknowledged to be governed.
Supreme and Fundamental law of the land.
Positive Law - Conflict with Constitutional
Law Conflicts over man-made laws, most
commonly involve positive law conflicts
with constitutional law. These involve claims
that certain laws violate.

CIVIL LAW - is a body of rules that

defines and protects the private rights of
citizens, offers legal remedies that may be
sought in a dispute, and covers areas of
law such as contracts, torts, property and
family law.
Ex Post Facto Law.
(1987 Const. Art III, Sec.22)
Limitations on the power of
Congress to enact penal laws
1.Must be general in application.
2. Must not partake of the nature of an ex
post facto law. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec.22)
3. Must not partake of the nature of a bill
of attainder. (1987 Const. Art III, Sec 22)
4. Must not impose cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines.
(1987 Const. Art III, Sec 19)
Bill of Rights (Article III, 1987 Constitution)
a. Due Process and Equal Protection
b. Freedom of Expression
c. Freedom of Religion ( see. Separation of Church
and State)
d. No excessive fines, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment.
e. Non- Imprisonment for debt or nonpayment of
poll tax
f. ***Bill of Attainder (a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without trial)
g. ***Ex-post facto Laws
***Ex-post facto Law:
 Makes Criminal an act, which, when committed,
was not punishable.
 Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
was when committed.
 Alters the legal rules of evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at that time of
the commission of the offense.
Deprives of the person accused of a crime of
some lawful protection to which he has become
entitled.
 • Equal protection
Any person shall not be denied the equal protection of the
laws. Due process
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law.
Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or
excessive fines
***Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines.
Bill of attainder
A legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial
trial. Ex post facto law
One which makes an action done before the passage of the
law and which was innocent when done criminal and
punishes such action.
Characteristics of Criminal Law

1. Generality

2. Territoriality

3. Prospectivity
There are three characteristics of criminal law, to
wit:
(1)generality (2) territoriality, and (3) prospectivity.
The general, territorial and prospective characteristics
of criminal law are principles that define the scope
and limitation of the operation of criminal law.
Under these three principles, the operation or
enforceability of criminal law is limited to wrongful
acts committed on or after its
effectivity(prospectivity) within the territory of the
Philippines (territoriality) by person living and
sojourning therein (generality).
***Penal or criminal laws are strictly
construed against the state and liberally in
favor of the accused.
****If the language of the law were
ambiguous, the court will lean more
strongly in favor of the defendant than it
would if the statute were remedial, as a
means of effecting substantial justice.
The law is tender in favor of the rights of
an individual.
Note: Pro-reo
***PRO REO
In dubio pro reo is means "when in doubt, for the
accused.” Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo
principle is the rule of lenity.
 The rule applies when the court is faced with
two possible interpretations of a penal statute,
one that is prejudicial to the accused and another
that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the
adoption of an interpretation which is more
lenient to the accused.

(Intestate estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
GENERALITY
Generality of criminal law means that the criminal
law of the country governs all persons within the
country regardless of their race, belief, sex or
creed. However, it is subject to certain exceptions
brought about by international agreement.
*****Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other
diplomatic officials are immune from the
application of penal laws when they are in the
country where they are assigned.
***Note: that consuls are not diplomatic officers.
This includes consul-general, vice-consul or and
consul in a foreign country, who are therefore, not
immune to the operation or application of the
penal law of the country where they are assigned.
 Consular officers - Despite the ruling in
Schneckenburger vs. Moran, consular officers and
employees are now enjoying immunity from
criminal prosecution of acts performed in the
exercise of consular function under 1967,
Convention on Consular Relation.
Note: not exempted from criminal liability.
Slander (Liang vs. People, GR NO 125865, January 28, 2000)
or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide is
not function-related.
***Consul is liable for committing this crime.
Military officers - The Revised Penal Code and
special criminal laws are enforceable against military
men living or sojourning in the Philippines.
However, ***CA 408 (Articles of War) which vests
jurisdiction over members of the AFP to the courts-
martial did not divest the military courts of
jurisdiction to try cases involving "service-
connected crimes or offenses"
(Example: Mutiny or sedition, quarrels, frays; disorders,
breaking an arrest or escaping from confinement, releasing
prisoners without proper authority, wrongful appropriation
of captured property, corresponding with, or aiding the
enemy, spies, dueling, fraud against the government
affecting matters and equipment).
In fact, RA No. 7055 mandates that these service-
connected crimes shall be tried by the court-
martial.
*****CA 408 is a law of preferential application
since it excludes members of the AFP from the
operation of the Revised Penal Code and special
criminal laws if the crimes committed by them are
service-connected as defined by RA 7055.
Note: Crimes of service connected.
****Generality has no reference to territory.
Whenever you are asked to explain this, it does not
include territory. It refers to persons that may be
governed by the penal law.
if the immunity is because of treaty or
stipulations between international organizations,
then immunities are deemed to be functional in
character.
Note: They are immune only on crimes RELATED
to their functions.

[Take note of the Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V, which defines Criminal Jurisdiction over United States military and civilian personnel
temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine Government.]
 Presidential immunity - The presidential
immunity is subject the following conditions:
(1) the immunity has been asserted during
the period of his incumbency and tenure;
and
(2) the act constituting the crime is committed in
the performance of his duties. This immunity
will assure the exercise of presidential
functions free from any hindrance,
considering that the Chief Executive is a job
demands undivided attention

(Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001).

It is submitted that a Vice-President even during
his tenure could not invoke immunity from
criminal prosecution for plunder on the following
reasons:
(1)plunder are not his official conducts as Vice-
President;
(2)the job of the Vice-President unlike the head of
the executive department does not demands
undivided attention;
(3)and the implementation of principal penalty
through imprisonment for plunder is not
inconsistent with the constitutional provision
on non-removal of impeachable officer
except through impeachment since he
can function as Vice-President while
serving sentence in prison. However,
accessory penalty of disqualification, which
involved removal from office, is not
implementable since the enforcement
thereof will offend the constitutional
provision on non-removal of impeachable
officer.
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
 Parliamentary immunity - An incumbent Senator
is not immune from suit for being a protector or
coddler of trading of dangerous drugs under RA
No. 9165.
 ***Legislator’s immunity is confined to
parliamentary privilege from arrest while the
Congress is in session in all offenses punishable
by not more than 6 years imprisonment and
parliamentary immunity from prosecution for
libel in connection with any Congressional
speech or debate.
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Exception to the Generality Principle of RPC
1. Treaties or treaty stipulations
2. Law of preferential application
3. Principle of Public International Law
Is there an exception wherein we can
apply the RPC outside the Philippine
territory?
 Yes. The enumerations provided in Art. 2 of
the Revised Penal Code
TERRITORIALITY
Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have
force and effect only within its territory. It cannot penalize
crimes committed outside the same. Subject to certain
exceptions brought about by international agreements and
practice. The territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but includes also its
maritime and interior waters as well as its atmosphere.
Terrestrial - is the jurisdiction exercised over
land.
Fluvial - is the jurisdiction exercised over
maritime and interior waters.
Aerial - is the jurisdiction exercised over the
atmosphere.
 What is the rationale of Art. II of the RPC as an
exception to the territoriality rule?
Exception No. 1 – The Philippine ship or airship
is considered an extension of the Philippine
Territory.
Exception Nos. 2 & 3 – aim to protect Philippine
currency notes and obligations or securities to
preserve our economic stability.
Exception No. 4 – aims to promote the integrity
and efficiency of public administration
Exception No. 5 – aims to safeguard the
existence of the State.
Par. 1 of Art. II – Should commit an offense
while on a Philippine ship or airship
Rule 1 – What determines Philippine
nationality of the ship or airship is not that of
the owner but the place of its registration
(MARINA) of the Philippines
Rule 2 - This provision is only applicable if the
ship is on the high seas.
Rule 3 - When the Philippine ship or aircraft is
in the territory of a foreign country, the crime
committed on the said vessel or aircraft is
subject to the laws of that foreign country
EMBASSY
TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE: Under the principle
of territoriality, the Philippines has jurisdiction over
crimes committed inside its territory except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application.
****Embassy - the ground occupied by US embassy
is in fact the territory of the USA to which the
premises belong through possession or ownership.
 ****A person who committed a crime within the
premises of an embassy will be prosecuted under
the law of Philippines because of the principle of
territoriality
HOWEVER, jurisdiction of the Philippines
over the embassy is limited or restricted
by “the principles of inviolability of
diplomatic premises”, which is a
generally accepted principle of
international law.
Note:**** warrant of arrest cannot be
served inside US embassy without
waiver of American government of its
right under the principle of inviolability.
ENGLISH RULE AND FRENCH RULE
English rule - There are two fundamental rules in
International Law regarding crimes committed
aboard a foreign merchant vessel (not military
vessel), if the same is within the 12-mile territorial
water (not internal or archipelagic water or high seas)
of the Philippines to wit:
English rule – Crimes committed aboard a foreign
merchant vessel within the territorial water of the
Philippines are subject to jurisdiction of the
Philippines (territoriality principle) unless their
commission does not affect its peace and security
effect therein.
It is the English rule that obtains in this jurisdiction.
French rule - Crimes committed aboard a
foreign merchant vessel within the
territorial water of the Philippines are
subject to the jurisdiction of the flag state
(extra-territoriality principle) unless their
commission affects the peace and security
of our country.
Drug trafficking - Following the English
rule, the Philippines has no jurisdiction over
transportation of opium in a foreign vessel in transit
in territorial water of our country because possession
of opium does not have a effect on our country.(U.S.
vs. Look Chaw).
But under the Convention of the law of the Sea,
the Philippines can exercise jurisdiction to arrest
any person or to conduct any investigation
involving transportation of dangerous drugs
since this is a measure necessary for the
suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances.
 EXTRA-TERRITORIALITY - the principle of extra-
territoriality, the ***Philippines has jurisdiction
over crimes committed outside its territory for
those five instances mention in Article 2 such as
crime committed in vessel of Philippines registry
(ownership is not material), function-related crime
committed by public officer (such as corruption
or direct bribery), crimes against national
security (such as treason, espionage; rebellion
is not a crime against national security), and
crime against law of nation such as piracy and
mutiny)
In People vs. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001-
“Piracy” is an exception to the rule on
territoriality in criminal law (Article 2). The
same principle applies even if accused
were charged, not with a violation of qualified
piracy under the penal code but under a
special law,
PD No. 532 which penalizes piracy in
Philippine waters.
It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of
the law penalizing the same, piracy is a
reprehensible crime against the whole
world.”
PROSPECTIVITY: Article 22 of RPC - If the court in
trying an accused, who committed a crime prior to
the passage of the law, should give retroactive
effect to the law provided that:
1. it is favorable to the accused and
2. the accused is not a habitual delinquent
Ex post facto law - Congress in passing a law can
insert retroactive effect provision therein subject
to the Constitution of ex post facto law.
Note: If the retroactive provision of the law has
passed the constitutional test on prohibition against ex
post facto law, the court must give retroactive effect
to this law even if the accused is a habitual
delinquent.
PROSPECTIVITY: Article 22 of RPC
Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege – If the law repeals
a previous law or provision defining a crime, the
applicable principle is not Article 22 of RPC but nullum
crimen poena sine lege
(There is no crime when there is no law punishing it).
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (The act cannot
be criminal where the mind is not criminal) – This is true
to a felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony
resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute one
because it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those
that result from negligence.
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (An act
done by me against my will is not my act) – Whenever a
person is under a compulsion of irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear to do an act against his will, in which
that act produces a crime or offense, such person is
exempted in any criminal liability arising from the said
act.
 RA No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of death
penalty, prescribes reclusion perpetua in lieu of
death penalty or life imprisonment if the special
law does not use the nomenclature of the
penalties under RPC and declares a person
sentenced to reclusion perpetua as a
prescribed or reduced penalty is ineligible for
parole.
HEINOUS CRIMES– those crimes which are
grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by
reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness,
viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant
and outrageous to the common standards and norms
of decency and morality in just civilized society and
ordered society.
This law has a retroactive effect. Penal laws which are favorable to accused are given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied under Article 22 of
RPC, which provides: Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal
(People vs. Talaro, et.al., GR No. 175781, March 20, 2012).
The law looks forward, never backward. A new law
has a prospective, not retroactive, effect. However,
penal laws that favor a guilty person, who is not a
habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive effect.
Q: How are penal laws construed?
A: Liberally construed in favor of offender and
strictly against the state.
Note: In cases of conflict with official
translation, original Spanish text is controlling.
Q: If a special law uses the nomenclature of
penalties in the RPC, what is the effect on the
nature of the crime covered by the special law?
A: ***Even if a special law uses the nomenclature
of penalties under the RPC, that alone will not
make the act or omission a crime mala in se. The
special law may only intend the Code to apply as
a supplementary.
(People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994)
POSITIVIST THEORY AND CLASSICAL THERORY
The classical theory or juristic theory, man is
essentially a moral creature with an absolutely
free will choose between good and evil. When
he commits a felonious or criminal act, the act is
presumed to have been done voluntarily, i.e.
with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man,
therefore, should be adjudged or held
accountable for wrongful acts so long as free
will appears unimpaired

(People vs. Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000).

Since the Revised Penal Code is based on the
classical school of thought, it is the identity of the
mens rea which is considered the predominant
consideration and, therefore, warrants the imposition
of the same penalty for conspirators on the
consequential theory that the act of one is thereby
the act of all.
(Hon. Sandiganbayan vs, Honrado, G.R. No. 115439-41, July 16, 1997).

Under this theory, the criminal liability is based

on the result of the felonious act (proximate
cause rule).
The positivist / realistic theory states:
that the basis for criminal liability is the
sum total of the social and economic
phenomena to which the offense is
expressed. The purpose of penalties is to
secure justice. The penalties imposed must
not only be retributive but must also be
reformative, to give the convict an
opportunity to live a new life and rejoin
society as a productive and civic-spirited
member of the community.
Positivist theory is exemplified by the
indeterminate sentence law, impossible
crime, privilege mitigating circumstance of
minority and modifying circumstances, rule
on imposition of penalties for heinous and
quasi-heinous crimes)

(Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, December 10, 2003;).
Eclectic or Mixed Philosophy
This combines both positivist and classical
thinking. Crimes that are economic and
social by 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.
UTILITARIAN OR PROTECTIVE THEORY
The primary purpose of the punishment
under criminal law is the protection of the
society from the actual and potential
wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in
exacting retribution for the wronged
society, should direct the punishment to
potential or actual wrongdoers since
criminal law is directed against acts or
omissions which the society does not
approve.
This theory is the mala prohibita.
BASIS MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
As to their concepts There must be a criminal Sufficient that the prohibited
intent act was done
Wrong merely because
Wrong from its very nature prohibited by
statute
Criminal intent governs Criminal intent is not
necessary
Punished under the RPC Violations of special laws
As to legal Good faith or lack of
Good faith, lack of criminal criminal intent
implication
are not valid defenses;
intent or
it is enough that the
negligence are valid
prohibition was voluntarily
defenses
violated
Criminal liability is incurred Criminal liability is generally
even incurred
when the crime only when the crime is
is attempted or frustrated consummated
 ARTICLE 3 and 4
****Crime: a generic term that embraces
any violation of the Revised Penal Code,
Special Penal Laws, and Municipal/City
Ordinances.
****Felony: Act or Omission punishable
by the Revised Penal Code.
****Offense: Act or Omission punishable
by Special Penal Laws.
****Infraction/Misdemeanor: Act or
Omission punishable by Municipal or City
Ordinances.
Elements of a Felony:
1.There must be an Act or Omission.
2.Such Act or Omission is punishable under the Revised
Penal Code.
3.There must be Deceit Malice (Dolo) or Negligence (Culpa).
Elements of Criminal Liability:
1.Physical Element (actus reus)
a. Act b. Omission
2. Mental Element (mens rea/ mens rea)
a. Deliberate Intent (Dolo) b. Constructive Intent (Culpa)
c. Transferred Intent (Art. 4, par. 1)
3. Concurrence
4. Resulting Harm
5. Causation
Act: Bodily movement tending to produce some
effect on the external world. (Note: it being
unnecessary that the same be actually procured, as
the possibility of its production is sufficient).
Omission: Failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do. (Note: must be punishable
by Law)
Overt/External Acts: Physical Activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation,
which is carried out to its complete transformation
following its natural course, without being frustrated
by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen a concrete offense.
 Distinguish “motive” from “intent”.
 May crime be committed without criminal intent?
Motive is the moving power that impels a person to
act for a definite result. It is not considered as an
element of the crime. It is essential only only when
the identity of the offender is in doubt. On the other
hand, intent is the purpose for using a particular
means to achieve a desired result. It is an ingredient
of dolo or malice, thus it is an element of deliberate
felonies.
A crime may be committed without criminal intent in
the following instances:
1.If such is a culpable felony;
2.In crimes which are mala prohibita in nature.
Dolo: Deceit-Deliberate Intent MALICE
Culpa: Negligence, Imprudence, Lack of Skill, or
Lack of Foresight.
Malice = Criminal Intent
Requisites of Dolo (Deceit):
1.Freedom-voluntariness
2.Intelligence- morality of human acts
3.Intent- presumption arises from proof of the
commission of an unlawful act.
**Negligence: The failure to foresee an impending
injury, thoughtlessness, failure to use ordinary care.
**Imprudence: The deficiency of action in avoiding
an injury due to lack of skill.
CULFABLE FELONY
What are of two kinds of felonies under the RPC?
1. Intentional (dolo-malice) – When the act is
performed with deliberate intent
Elements:
a. Intelligence b. freedom c. INTENT
2. Culpable (culpa-fault) – When the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of
skill.
Elements:
a. Intelligence b. Freedom c. **Imprudence (lack
of skill or deficiency in action)
**Negligence (Lack of foresight or deficiency of
perception)
What crimes cannot be committed through culpa
(negligence or imprudence)?
Murder ,Treason
Robbery , Malicious mischief
Mens rea is referred to as the gravamen of the offense.
Mens rea of the crime depends upon the elements of the
crime. It can only be determined by knowing the
particular crime committed.
Note: In theft, the mens rea is the taking of the property
of another with intent to gain.
In falsification, the mens rea is the effecting of the
forgery with intent to pervert the truth.
In robbery, the mens rea is the taking of the property of
another coupled with the employment of intimidation or
violence upon persons or things.
 -“Ignorancia Legis Excusat,
Ignorancia Facti Excusat”

Exceptions to Criminal Intent:

(While ignorance of the law excuses no one, an Honest Mistake of Fact can excused the accused from criminal Liability)
Honest Mistake of Fact: Misrepresentation
of Facts on the part of a person who injures
another.
NOTE: “that had the facts been as he believed
them to be he would have been wholly exempt
from criminal liability on account of his act; and
that he cannot be said to have been guilty of
negligence or recklessness or even
carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the
facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend
himself from the imminent danger which he
believe threatened his person and his property
and the property under his charge”.

– US v. Ah Chong (G.R. No. L-5272. March 19, 1910)

What are the requisite of mistake of fact?
1. That the act done would have been lawful
had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be.
2. That the intention of the accused in
performing the act is lawful
3. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
 Aberatio ictus, error in personae and
praeter intentionem
 Mistake in blow (aberratio ictus) – A person
directed the blow at an intended victim, but
because of poor aim, that blow landed on
somebody else.
 In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in blow
whereby an offender intending to cause an
injury to one person actually inflicts it on
another because of lack of precision.
****Illustration: A, intending to kill B, fires his gun at
the latter but because of poor aim or lack of
precision, he hits C instead, who suffers serious
physical injury.
NOTE: There are three persons involved: the
offender, the intended victim, and the actual
victim.
 Mistake in identity (error in personae) – The
offender intends the injury on one person but
the harm fell on another. In this situation the
intended victim was not at the scene of the
crime.
****Illustration: A intending to kill B, his
enemy, lay in ambush for the latter to pass
along a dark alley. Because of the darkness, A
fired his gun at a person passing by, thinking
him to be B. It turned out that the person shot
was C, A's father.
NOTE: In the instant case, appellants, unlike the
accused in the instances cited, found no
circumstances whatsoever which would press them
to immediate action. ****The person in the room
being then asleep, appellants had ample time and
opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard
to themselves, and could even effect a bloodless
arrest if any reasonable effort to that end had been
made, as the victim was unarmed, This, indeed, is the
only legitimate course of action for appellants to follow
even if the victim was really Balagtas, as they were
instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight but to arrest him,
and to get him dead or alive only if resistance or
aggression is offered by him”.
People v. Oanis (G.R. No. L-47722. July 27, 1943)
****Proximate Cause: Ordinary and continuous
sequence of events, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury and without
which the occurred. “el que es causa de la causa es
causa del mal causado” (He who is the cause of the
cause is the cause of the evil caused).
****Efficient Intervening Cause: “He who creates an
imminent danger in another’s mind, causing the latter’s
action to do something which results in injury.”
Transferred Intent: When the intention to harm one
individual inadvertently causes a second person to be
hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible.
1.Aberatio Ictus: Mistake in the blow.
2. Error in Personae- Mistake in the identity of the victim.
3. Praeter Intentionem- Lack of Intent.
 PROXIMATE CAUSE
 Proximate cause is the primary or moving cause of
the death of the victim; it is the cause, which in the
natural and continuous sequence unbroken with
any ****“efficient intervening cause” produces
death and without which the fatal result could not
have happened. It is the cause, which is the nearest
in the order of responsible causation
INTERVRNING CAUSE
 Intervening cause - The direct relation between
the intentional felony and death may be broken by
efficient intervening cause or an active force
which is either a distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious act of the offender.
Proximate cause rule:
Problem: While Esmeraldo, Zaldy and Felix
were walking home, Fernando, Gesmundo and
Juan Suddenly emerged on the roadside and
without a word, Fernando hacked Esmeraldo
with his bolo hitting him on the forehead and
causing him to fall down. He was ran over by a
vehicle; his head was busted and died as a
consequence.
Is Fernando liable for the death of Esmeraldo
though his act was not the direct cause of
Esmeraldo’s death?
 Ans. Yes.
Lightning that kills the injured victim or tetanus
infecting the victim several days after the infliction
of injuries, or voluntary immersing the wounds to
aggravate the crime committed by accused is an
intervening cause. Thus, the accused is liable for
physical injuries because of the intervening
cause rule. On the other hand, carelessness of the
victim, or involuntary removal of the drainage,
lack of proper treatment is not an intervening
cause.

Hence, the accused is liable for the death because

of the proximate cause rule.
Problem: The conduct of wife A aroused the
ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger
almost beyond his control, B could not help
but inflict physical injuries on A. Moments
after B started hitting A with his fists, A
suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B
realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble,
immediately brought her to the hospital but
she died of heart attack. It turned out that
she had been suffering from a lingering
heart ailment. Is the husband liable?
Ans. Yes.
Instilling fear rule - Similar questions
Problem: Two individuals boarded a jeepney
going to Rotanda of Taft avenue. When the
jeepney reached Harrison Boulevard, the two
shouted “This is a holdup, Don’t move”.
One woman passenger jumped out of the
jeepney. She died later. Are the holduppers
liable for the death of the woman?
Ans. Yes.
Is there an exception to Article 4(1)?
Yes, if there is sufficient intervening
cause.
Problem: If A, in attempting a suicide jumped out of
the window to kill himself, but when he dropped to
the ground he fell on an old woman who died as a
consequence. Is A liable for the death of the old
woman?
Answer: A is not criminal liable for intentional
homicide under art. 4 (1) because A was not
committing a felony when he attempted to commit
suicide. A is not liable also under Art 365
(criminal negligence) because A is not required to
exercise diligently, prudently or with due care
since A is committing suicide.
 ERROR IN PERSONAE - In case of error in
personae, person is criminally responsible for
committing an intentional felony although the
consequent victim is different from that intended
due to mistake of identity.
the following requisites must be present:
1.Offender committed an intentional felony;
2.The consequent victim against whom the felony was
directed is different from that intended due to
mistake of identity. If the penalty for the intended
crime is different from that of the committed crime, the
court shall impose the penalty for the intended crime
or committed crime, whichever is lesser.
 ABERRATIO ICTUS - In case of aberratio ictus,
person is criminally responsible for committing an
intentional felony although the consequent victim is
different from that intended due to mistake of blow.
 Following requisites must be present:
1.Offender committed an intentional felony;
2.The consequent victim against whom the felony was
directed is different from that intended due to
mistake of blow. The crime committed against the
intended victim and victim injured due to aberratio
ictus shall be made a complex crime (compound
crime). The court shall impose the penalty for the
most serious crime in its maximum period.
 PRAETER INTENTIONEM: In case of praeter
intentionem, person is criminally responsible for
committing an intentional felony although its
wrongful consequence is graver than that
intended.
Eg. *** if A pushed B with no intent to kill,
but b fell head killing the latter

Eg.***(A, without intent to kill, struck the

victim on the back, causing the victim to fall
down and hit his head on the pavement.)
Example: If A slapped his wife who fell on the
ground, her head hitting the hard pavement
rendering her unconscious and thereafter died,
A is liable for parricide.
When he slapped his wife, A was committing a
felony, his wrongful intent is only to cause injury,
but the wrongful act done was greater – the killing
of the spouse (Sandoval, 2016).
When death resulted, even if there was no
intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just
physical injuries, since with respect to crimes
of personal violence the penal law looks
particularly to the material results following the
unlawful act and holds the aggressor
responsible for all the consequences thereof.
He who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused.

(Seguritan vs. People, G.R. No. 172896, April 19, 2010)

****Q: A and B went on a drinking spree. While
they were drinking, they had some argument so
A stabbed B several times. A’s defense is that he
had no intention of killing his friend and that he
did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed. Is praeter intentionem properly
invoked?
A: No, because praeter intentionem is mitigating
only if there is a notable disparity between the
means employed and the resulting felony. The
fact that several wounds were inflicted on B is
hardly compatible with the idea that he did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed.
Mitigating circumstance - that “the offender had
no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed” or praeter intentionem is obtaining
when there is a notable disparity between the means
employed by the accused to commit a wrong and the
resulting crime committed. The intention of the
accused at the time of the commission of the
crime is manifested from the weapon used, the
mode of attack employed and the injury sustained
by the victim.The mitigating circumstance of praeter
intentionem cannot be appreciated if the acts
employed by accused were reasonably sufficient to
produce and did actually produce the death of the
victim.
(People vs. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011).
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Impossible Crime: “Criminal Liability shall be
incurred.
 By any person performing an act which would be
an offense against persons or property, were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

“NOTE: In an impossible crime, objectively there

is no crime committed but subjectively the
accused is a criminal. He is punished for his
criminal tendency and prospensity.”
 Requisites of Impossible Crime:
1. Committed against Persons/ Property.
2. Criminal Intent.
3. Impossibility of Accomplishment.
4. Inadequate/ Ineffectual means.
5. Not a violation of the RPC.
 Factual Impossibility:
The factual situation presents impossibility which
rendered the intended crime.
Extraneous Circumstances unknown to the actor
or beyond his control to prevent the
consummation of the intended crime.
Legal Impossibility:
1. Motive, desire, and expectation of to commit a
felony;
2. Intention to form a physical act;
3. Performance of the physical act;
4. Consequence does not amount to a crime.
Intod principle -Outside the house of the victim,
accused with intent to kill fired at the bedroom, where
the victim is supposed to be sleeping. No one was in the
room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit
by the gun fire. The accused were convicted of
impossible crime. Accused shoot the place where he
thought his victim would be, although in reality, the
victim was not present in said place and thus, the
accused failed to accomplish their end due to its factual
impossibility. In the United States, criminal laws are silent
regarding impossible crimes; hence where the offense
sought to be committed is factually impossible of
accomplishment, the offender shall be liable for
attempted crime.

In Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992
On the other hand, where the offense is
legally impossible of accomplishment, the
actor cannot be held liable for any crime. In
the Philippines, the crime committed is
impossible crime if the offense sought to be
committed is factually or legally impossible.
Killing a dead person is impossible crime
because of legal impossibility.
Putting the hand inside an empty pocket
with intention to steal a wallet is impossible
crime because of factual impossibility.
Raping a dead person - Prior to RA 8353, rape is a
crime against chastity.
Thus, if a person raped a dead person believing
that she was just sleeping, offender could not be
held liable for impossible crime (J. Ramon Aquino).
In impossible crime the act could have constituted the
crime against person or property if its
accomplishment was not impossible. Rape is neither a
crime against person nor against property.
 However, RA 8353 reclassifies rape from crime
against chastity to crime against person. Hence, an
offender for raping a dead person without knowing
that she was already dead may now be held liable
for impossible crime.
 Committing another crime - “A” discharged
shotgun at “B” from a distance of 300 yards; but
because of the limited range of the firepower of
the shotgun, it would be impossible for “A” to
harm “B”. “A” is liable of discharged of firearm
and not impossible crime.
Where the offender unlawful entered the
house and took a watch that turned out to be
his own, he is liable for trespass to dwelling
and not impossible crime.
(Criminal Law Conspectus by Justice Florenz Regalado).
If the accused administered abortive
drugs upon his girlfriend whom he
believed to be pregnant, which turned
out not to be true, but the woman
became ill for more than 30 days, the
accused will be liable for serious
physical injuries and not impossible
crime of abortion

(Criminal Law Reviewer by Gregorio).

 ARTICLE 5

Dura Lex Sed Lex

(“The Law may be harsh but it still the Law”)

No matter how excessive the penalty is imposed on a certain crime, the

Judge must still upheld the sentence
What are the phases of felony?
***Subjective phase – that portion of
execution of the crime starting from the
point where the offender begins up to that
point where he still has control of his acts.

***Objective phase – results of the acts of

execution, that is, the accomplishment of
the crime.
ARTICLE 6 and 7 Stages of a felony:
1.Consummated: All elements necessary for the
execution and accomplishment of the felony are
present.
2.***Frustrated: The Offender performs all the acts
of execution but which, nevertheless, do not produce
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
3.***Attempted: The Offender commences the
commission directly by overt acts but does not
perform all acts of execution by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
Development of a crime/ Genesis:
A.Internal Acts: mere ideas in the mind of a
person that would constitute a crime.
B. External Acts:
a.Preparatory Acts: Ordinarily, they are not
punishable; However, where they considered
by law as independent crimes, they are
punishable.
b. Acts of Execution:
i. Attempted
ii. Frustrated
iii. Consummated
****Q: What are the factors in order to ascertain the
intention?
The weapon used
The part of the body injured/ fatality of wound
The injury inflicted /The manner it is inflicted
Medical attendance
***FORMAL CRIMES – crimes consummated
in one instant, there is only one stage and
that is consummated stage.
***MATERIAL CRIMES – have three stages
of execution, attempted, frustrated and
consummated.
Problem: One night, Chito entered the boarding room of
Malou. Chito pressed on her face piece of cloth soaked in a
chemical. Chito pinned her down on the bed and held her
tightly. Malou continued fighting off her attacker by kicking
him until at last her right hand got free. She was able to ran
away after squeezing the sex organ of Chito. All the time,
Chito was fully clothed and had not attempt to undress
Malou. Is Chito liable for attempted rape?
Answer: No, there is no overt act of rape in the present
case. Overt act is some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention or preparation. Chito’s act of
pressing a chemical-soaked cloth in the face of Malou
which would induce her to sleep cannot be construed
as an overt act of rape. Chito did not commence at all the
performance of any act indicative if an intent or attempt to
rape Malou.
(Baleros vs. People, 483 SCRA 10, February 22, 2006)
Rule in Rape:
Problem: Orita held Chritina and poked a knife at her
neck. He made her hold his penis and insert it in her
vagina. Orita could not fully penetrate her. Only a portion
of his penis entered her as she kept on moving. Is it
correct to convict Orita for frustrated rape?
Answer: Orita committed consummated rape. The
uniform rule for consummation of rape is that perfect
penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the
female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of
the labia or lips of the female organ, without rapture of
the hymen or Laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
warrant conviction
(People vs. Ortia 184 SCRA 105, April 3, 1990);

Slightest penetration is sufficient to consummate

the rape
(People vs. Hangdaan, 201 SCRA 568 Sept. 13, 1991 )
NOTE: However, there must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the
labias or slid into the female organ, and ****not
merely stroked the external surface thereof, for the
accused to be convicted of consummated rape.
Absent of any showing of the slightest penetration
of the female organ, it can only be attempted
rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
(People vs. Campuhan,329 SCRA 270 [2000] )
Labia or pudendum
NOTE: TOUCHING when applied to rape cases
does not simply mean mere epidermal contact,
stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a
scrape of the penis on the external layer of the
victims vagina
Rule in Theft and Robbery
Problem: Valenzuela and calderon were sighted outside
the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the (SM)
complex along North Edsa by Lago a security guard
hauling a push cart with cases of detergent (tide bar) The
guard caught them while on the act of unloading the
detergent in an open space. Charged, the two argued that
they are liable only for frustrated theft only. Is their
contention correct?
Answer: No. the crime committed is consummated
theft. In theft under Art. 308, there is only one operative act
of execution by the actor involved in theft, that is the taking
of personal property of another. The ability of the offender
to freely dispose of the property stolen is not an element of
theft. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of
execution, the offense could only be attempted theft.
(Valenzuela vs. People, 525 SCRA 306, June 21, 2007, En banc.)
Rule in Arson PD 1613 amending Art. 320 to 326-B of the RPC
 Attempted, frustrated or consummated arson: A person,
intending to burn a wooden structure, collects some rags,
soaks them in gasoline and places them beside the
wooden wall of the building. When he is about to light a
match to set fire to the rags, he is discovered by another who
chases him away. The crime committed is attempted arson,
because the offender commences the commission of the
crime directly by overt acts.
Placing the rags soaked in gasoline beside the wooden wall
of the building and lighting a match) but he does not
perform all the acts of execution (the setting of fire to the
rags) due to the timely intervention of another who
chases away the offender. If that person is able to light or
set fire to the rags but the fire was put out before any part
of the building was burned, it is frustrated. But if before the
fire was put out, it had burned a part of the building, it is
consummated.
ARTICLE 8
 ***Conspiracy: Two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
Proposal: When the person who has decided to
commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
 When is there proposal?
There is proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its execution
to some other person or persons.
Conspiracies punishable by law
Conspiracy to commit treason (Art. 115)
Conspiracy to commit rebellion (Art. 136)
Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat (Art. 136)
Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 142)
Conspiracy to commit terrorism (Sec. 4 of Human Security
Act of 2007 R.A. No. 9372)
Conspiracy to commit arson (Sec. 7 PD. 1613)
Conspiracy in Dangerous Drug act (Sec. 26 of PD. 6425)
Conspiracy to commit child pornography (Sec. 4 [k] RA 9775
Conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce
Proposal to commit treason
Proposal to commit rebellion
Proposal to commit coup d’etat
Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of
attaching liability to all of the accused,
regardless of their degree of participation,
thus: Once an express or implied
conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators
are liable as co-principals regardless of the
extent and character of their respective
active participation in the commission of
the crime or crimes perpetrated in
furtherance of the conspiracy because in
contemplation of law the act of one is the
act of all.
Art 9 (based on the highest imposable penalty)
Grave felonies – penalty imposed is capital
punishment or afflictive (see Art 25) [Prision mayor to
Death]
Less grave felonies – penalty is correctional (see
Art 25)[suspension/destierro/arresto mayor/prision
correctional]
Light felonies- Where penalty arresto menor OR
fine of P200 (or both)
• Theft (under Art 309, par. 7 & 8 only) ,Alteration of boundary
marks
• Malicious mischief , Intriguing against honor
• Slight physical injuries
****Punishable only if consummated /Unless
committed against persons/property – punishable
at any stage
COMPLEX CRIME
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between ordinary complex crime,
special complex crime, continuous crime as concepts in the
Penal Code.
An ordinary complex crime is made up of two or more
crimes being punished in distinct provisions of the Revised
Penal Code but alleged in one Information either because
they were brought about by a single felonious act or because
one offense is a necessary means for committing the other
offense or offenses. They are alleged in one Information so
that only one penalty shall be imposed. A special complex
crime, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes
which are considered only as components of a single indivisible
offense being punished in one provision of the Revised Penal
Code.
What are the kinds of complex crime?
 Compound crime (delito compuesto)
when a single act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave felonies
 Complex crime proper (delito complejo)
when an offense is necessary means for
committing another crime
 Continuing crime –
at least two offenses are committed ,It is a
single crime, consisting of a series of acts ,one
or some of the offenses must but arising from
one criminal resolution.
Illustration:
A single act of burning the house of the victim with the
main objective of killing Gaffud and his daughter resulted
into two grave offense constitutes Complex crime of
double murder –
People vs. Gaffud, 566 S 76, 2008

Lacao’s single act of assaulting the policeman,

resulted into two grave or less grave offenses, of murder
and direct assault of an agent of a person in authority.
(People vs. Lacao, Sr. 201 SCRA 317, September 4, 1991)
The single act of stabbing his wife, Jesus committed
the grave felony of parricide as well as the less grave
felony of unintentional abortion.
Pp. vs. Paycana Jr., 551 SCRA 657 (2008)
Rule in case of an automatic riffle
- When the offender made use of an automatic
firearm, the acts committed are determined by the
number of bullets discharged inasmuch as the
firearm being automatic, the offender need only
press the trigger once and it would fire continually.
***For each death caused by a distinct and
separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct
criminal liability. Hence, it is not the act of
pressing the trigger which should be considered
as producing the several felonies, but the number
of bullets which actually produced them.
Art. 48 does not apply when the law
provides one single penalty for special
complex crime or composite crimes
Rape with homicide (Art. 266-B)
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with killing of the victim (Art. 267)
Robbery with homicide (Art. 294,1)
Attempted or frustrated robbery with
homicide (Art.297)
Arson resulting in homicide (Art. 320 as
amended by RA. 7659)
****DELITO CONTINUADO (Continued/continuous
crime not continuing crime) Elements:
Plurality of acts performed during a period of
time.
Unity of penal provision violated
Unity of criminal intent or purpose
(Santiago vs. Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214 December 2, 1993) (1996)

*****Problem: Five robbers robbed, one after the

other five housed occupied by different families
located inside a compound enclosed by a six-feet
high hollow block fence
Answer: One crime of robbery
****Delito continuado - refers to a crime constituted
by several overt acts committed by the offender in
one place, at about the same time, and all such
overt acts violate one and the same provision of
penal law, thus demonstrating that all such acts are
the product of a single indivisible criminal resolution.
Hence, all said acts are considered as one crime only.
(People vs, Ledesma, G.R. No. L-41522, September 29, 1976).

On the other hand, ****a continuing offense is one

whose essential elements took place in more than
one municipality or city, so much so that the
criminal prosecution may be instituted and the
case tried in the competent court of any one of
such municipality or city.
 The single act by appellant of detonating
a hand grenade may quantitatively
constitute a cluster of several separate
and distinct offenses, yet these component
criminal offenses should be considered
only as a single crime in law on which a
single penalty is imposed because the
offender was impelled by a “single criminal
impulse” which shows his lesser degree of
perversity.
 SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME COMPLEX CRIME

It is the law which specifies The law merely states two or

for the crimes that should be more grave or less grave
combined. felonies or an offense is
necessary to commit the
other.

The law provides for a single The penalty to be imposed

penalty. will be the most serious
crime in its maximum period.

A light felony committed in A light felony committed

the commission of the crime would constitute a separate
is absorbed. and distinct charge.
J – there is no criminal liability
E – there is no criminal liability
M – there is criminal liability but reduced
A – there is criminal liability but liability is
increased or if it is in the nature of qualifying
aggravating circumstance then the crime is
changed. ***It changes the nature of the crime
What are the other two circumstances
found in the RPC affecting criminal
liability?
***Absolutory cause – has the effect of
an exempting circumstance and it is
predicated on lack of voluntariness such
as instigation
**Extenuating circumstances – the effect
of extenuating circumstances is to
mitigate the criminal liability of the
offender
What are examples of absolutory causes?
Accessory is a relative of the principal. (Art. 20)
When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by
the person who surprised his/her spouse or daughter in the act
of sexual intercourse with another person. (Art. 247)
Crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is committed
against a relative. (Art. 332)
Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime
committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of
lasciviousness. (Art. 344)
Instigation
Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering another’s
dwelling against the latter’s will is to prevent some serious harm to
himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, or for the
purposes of rendering some services to humanity or justice, or when
entering cafes, taverns, inns and other public houses, while the same
are open.
Adultery and concubinage if the offended party shall have
consented or pardoned the offenders. (Art. 344)
 JEMAA:
Self-Defense Defense of relatives Defense of others
1. unlawful 1. unlawful 1. unlawful
aggression aggression aggression
law 3rd law aggression 3rd law aggression
aggression/victim
2. reasonable 2. reasonable 2. reasonable
necessity of the necessity of the necessity of the
means employed to means employed to means employed to
prevent or repel it. prevent or repel it prevent or repel it

3. Lack of sufficient 3. in case the 3. the person

provocation on the provocation was defending be not
part of the person given by the person induced by revenge,
defending himself. attacked, the one resentment, or other
making a defense evil motive
had no part therein.
Sufficient provocation – it should be
proportionate to the act of aggression &
adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission
***Unlawful aggression – is equivalent to assault
or at least threatened assault of an immediate &
imminent kind.
Actual – the danger must be present, that is,
actually in existence.
• Imminent – the danger is on the point of
happening. It is not required that the attack has
already begun, for it may be too late. Example
• Lumalapit lang sayo yung tao, no threat, you imagined
that he will kill you → this is not imminent.
Example:
Ni-saksak ka nya, umalis na sya tapos ni-attack mo
pa sya →
retaliation
Binugbog ka, after binugbog ka, bumagsak ka, he left
and did not do anything else and then you stood up
and you followed him and stabbed him.
Q. Is that SD?
A. No. Tapos na eh! It should be on going or about to
happen. You are simply repelling the aggression so
the aggression must be existing at the time you
reacted.
2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed to Prevent or
Repel the Unlawful Aggression
- Case to case basis. It would depend on the existence of the
aggression as well as the nature and extent of the aggression
because you are trying to repel or trying to prevent the aggression so
it must be reasonable and must depend on the nature and extent of
the aggression.
Example :
Nisampal ka nya, sinaksak mo sya. Is that reasonable? No.
Kung sinampal ka, sampalin mo din or suntukin mo.
Minura ka, sinaksak mo – that is unreasonable!
It must be proportionate to the aggression. So it would depend on the
nature and extent or gravity of the aggression. The reasonableness
would depend on the existence of aggression. If there is no
aggression there is no basis for repelling.
3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the Part of the Person
Defending Himself
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY - originally required to be
coupled with an attack against the person of the owner of
the possessor thereof. The prevailing rule now is, allows the
defense on one’s property by reasonable means without
requiring that one making the defense be also personally
attacked. This rule is in consonance with Art 429 of the
Civil Code.
Defense of Relative :Take note that there is an additional
element with respect to defense of relative, that is “In case the
provocation was given by the person attacked the one
making a defense had no part therein” in the case A took
part in the provocation hence he cannot claim self
defense.
Relatives included: Spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his
relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
BATTERED WIFE SYNDROME
The 3 phases of the “cycle of violence”
1. The tension building phase ***(minor battering)
2. The acute battering incident ***(brutal battering)
3. The tranquil, loving ***(or, at least nonviolent) phase
-R.A. 9262-Anti-VAWC- Sec. 26. Battered Woman
Syndrome as a defense – Victim-survivor who are found
by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements
for justifying circumstances of self-defense.
Salient Features:
Victim-survivors of battered women syndrome (BWS)
Do not incur criminal/civil liability (justifying
circumstances need not be present) BWS =
scientifically defined pattern of
psychological/behavioral symptoms of
women in battered relationships due to
cumulative abuse
Due to: economic/ physical/ psychological/
sexual violence
Relationship = wife/former wife; persons w/
common children; in dating/sexual
relationship/including parents by virtue of
conspiracy
 Avoidance of evil or Fulfillment of duty Obedience to an order
injury
1. evil sought to be 1. the accused acted in 1. an order has been
avoided actually exists the performance of a issued by a superior.
duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or
office

2. injury feared be 2. that the injury 2. such order must be

greater that that done caused or the offense for some lawful
to avoid it committed be the purpose.
necessary
consequence of the
due performance of
duty or the lawful
exercise of such right
or office.

3. there be no other   3. the means used by

practical & less the subordinate to
harmful means of carry out said order is
preventing it lawful.
Example
Faye was driving her Jaguar car in the zigzag road,
head on collision with a bus. If she swerves her car to
the left, she would hit a pedestrian. If she swerves her
car to the right, she would fall and would die. This is
avoidance of greater injury, and naturally, greater
injury would be her life. So she swerved her car to
the left. This is self-preservation. Faye is relieved
of criminal liability because she acted in
avoidance of greater injury.
Hence, she has to bear the
civil liability for any damages
that she caused to the victim.
Note: If the police officer acted with
negligence or imprudence in
apprehending violators of the law, the
justifying circumstance of fulfillment
of duty cannot be invoked.
The shooting by guards of escaping
prisoners is always justified.
(People v. Delima, G.R. No. 138692, June 16, 2003)
 Exempting Basis Elements
Circumstance
1. imbecile or insane Without  
intelligence
2. person under 9 yrs. Without  
(under 15 – RA intelligence
9344)
3. over 9 – under 15, Without  
unless acted w/ intelligence
discernment (over 15
– under 18 – RA 9344)
4. causes an injury by Without 1. performing lawful act
mere accident w/o intent 2. w/ due care
fault or intention 3. causes an injury by mere
accident
4. w/o fault or intention of
causing it
5.irresistible force Without 1. compulsion is by means of physical
freedom force
2. physical force must be irresistible
3. physical force must come from 3rd
person

6.Impulse of Without 1. the threat w/c causes the fear is of an

uncontrollable fear of freedom
an equal or greater
injury
evil greater than or at least equal to that
w/c he is required to commit
2. It promises an evil of such gravity &
imminence that the ordinary man would
have succumbed to it

7. fails to perform. An Without 1. An act is required by law to be done

act required by law, intent 2. a person fails to perform such act
when prevented by 3. his failure to perform such act was due
some lawful or to some lawful or insuperable cause
insuperable cause  
UF Example: You kill this particular person otherwise I will kill your
wife or child. He has no choice because it would mean the death of his
wife or child.
IF / UF → always remember for these to be exempting, he was
reduced or the force to be exerted in his person or the
intimidation employed was simply reduced him to being an
instrument. He has no choice but do it.
Q. If Charles has a license to drive, he drives his vehicle and in
the course of his driving, he hit another vehicle or run over
somebody, liable under Art. 365. But why he would liable? (He
never wanted that to happen.) A. Because it is in the way that he
performed his lawful act. He has a license and he is driving → he is
performing a lawful act, but if he caused injury because he performed
the lawful act recklessly without due care, then he is criminally liable.
It is only when you perform a lawful act with due care can you make
use of accident as an exempting circumstance.
Example : Licensed driver ka and you are driving in the highway, ang
bagal bagal mo na nga 20 km/hour, you are reckless? No.
KIA is driving inside the compound at 70100 km/hour. She is licensed
to drive but she is driving in an area where there are kids playing →
that is reckless.
 Insuperable Cause – it is a cause that cannot be
overcome.
Example : Joan gave birth in the forest so she was
so weak and she has to leave her baby to seek for
help. She was not able to come back because she
was seriously ill, the baby died. She was
subsequently, sued for infanticide. Joan said she was
exempt. Is Joan correct?
Yes. Because she was seriously ill at the time
(cause that you cannot overcome) making her go
back to her child.
Q: Baculi, who was not a member of the band
which murdered some American school teachers,
was in a plantation gathering bananas. Upon
hearing the shooting, he ran. However, Baculi was
seen by the leaders of the band who called him,
and striking him with the butts of their guns, they
compelled him to bury the bodies. Is he liable as
an accessory to the crime of crime?
A: It was held that Baculi was not criminally liable
as accessory for concealing the body of the crime
of murder committed by the band because he acted
under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
(U.S. v. Caballeros, 4 Phil. 350)
Problem: Felixberto and Susan, husband and wife, were at their
house on that fateful day. When Felixberto awaken, he asked his
wife Susan to get his service from the cabinet adjacent to their
bed. As she was handing the pistol to him, it suddenly fired,
hitting Felixberto at his left temple.
Susan Claimed that it was an accidental shooting
Answer: Susan is liable for parricide. To avail of the
exempting circumstance of accident, the offender must be
performing a lawful act with due care. The pointing of the gun
towards her husband cannot be considered as performing a
lawful act with due care. Susan held the gun in one hand and
extended it towards her husband who was still lying in bed.
Prudence dictated that when handing over a gun, the muzzle
should not be pointed to a person. Here the muzzle of the gun
was pointed at her husband. Besides, a gun does not fire unless
there was pressure on the trigger
(People vs. Latosa, 621 SCRA 586, June 23, 2010)
 What are the distinction between Justifying
circumstance and Exempting circumstance?
1.Justifying – a person who acts by virtue of
justifying circumstance does not transgress the
law that is, he does not commit any crime in the
eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful
in the acts as well as in the intention of the actor.
The act of such person is in itself both just and
lawful. Exempting – There is crime but the actor is
not criminally liable. (The act is not justified)
2.Justifying–No civil liability except in par. 4
Exempting –There is civil liability except in par 4 and
7
Entrapment vs. Instigation:
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for
the purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.
On the other hand, in instigation, the instigator
practically induces the would-be defendant into the
commission of the offense, and himself becomes
a co-principal.
Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and
conviction; while in instigation, the defendant would
have to be acquitted.
Buy-Bust Operation: In the apprehension of
illegal drug dealers,ways are devised and means
employed to ensure and capture the malefactors
in flagrante delicto while engaged in the illicit trade.
What are the distinction between ordinary mitigating
and privileged mitigating?
1.Ordinary – Par 2 to 10 of Art. 13
Privileged – Art. 64, 68 and 69
Art. 64. two or more mitigating without aggravating (next
lower degree)
Art. 68. Penalty for under 18 yrs old (one degree lower)
Art. 69. Incomplete justifying and incomplete exempting
2.Ordinary – If not offset by an aggravating
circumstance it will operate to reduce the penalty to
the minimum period
Privileged – It operates to reduce the penalty by one
or two degrees
 BASIS ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
The criminal design The idea and design to bring
originates from and is about the commission of
already in the mind of the
the crime originated and
lawbreaker even before
entrapment. developed in the mind of the
As to intent law enforcers.
The law enforcers resort to The law enforcers induce,
ways and means for the lure, or incite a person who
purpose of capturing the is not minded to commit a
crime

Means and ways

lawbreaker in flagrante and would not otherwise
delicto commit it, into committing
the crime.

The circumstance is no bar to This circumstance absolves the

prosecution and conviction accused from criminal liability
(People v. Dante Marcos, G.R. No. 83325,
of the lawbreaker. May 8, 1990).

As to criminal liability
 Mitigating Circumstance Basis Requisites/Elements
 
1. In the preceding chapter   1. when all requisites necessary
Incomplete to justify or exempt an act are
Justifying/Exempting not attendant

2. under 18 or over 70 Diminution of  

intelligence

3. no intention to commit Intent is  

so grave a wrong as that diminished
committed

4. sufficient provocation or   1. provocation must be

threat on the part of the sufficient.
offended party immediately 2. must originate for the
preceded the act offended party.
3. immediate to the act.
5.impulse so powerful Diminution 1. there be an act, both
as naturally to have of his unlawfully &
produced passion or intelligence suffering. To
obfuscation. & intent produce such a
condition of mind.
2. said act w/c produce
the obfuscation was
not far removed from
the commission of
the crime by a
considerable length
of time.
3. the cause producing
passion or
obfuscation must
come from the
offended party.
Passion or obfuscation is an ordinary MC.
Obfuscation – is confusion.
 If you commit an offense under passion or
obfuscation, it can be mitigating.
Jurisprudence: for passion or obfuscation to be
mitigating, it must have arisen from lawful sentiments.
Example:
A man witnessed a woman taking a bath. He was so
aroused that after the woman took a bath, when the
woman came out, he raped the woman. The man admitted
but he contended that he acted under passion.
Held: The Supreme Court said that the man did not act
under passion. He acted under lust. Lust was never a
lawful sentiment.
7. voluntarily surrendered Acknowledges1. offender had not been
to person in authority or his guilt & actually arrested
his agents, or voluntarily wishes to
2. Offender surrendered
confessed his guilt save thehimself to a person in
trouble &authority or his agentr
expenses 3. surrender was
necessarily voluntary
incurred in his
1.offender spontaneously
search &
confessed his guilt
capture 2.confession was made in
Lesser open court
3.confession of guilt was
perversity of
the offendermade prior to the
presentation of evidence
8. deaf & dumb, blind, or No complete  
suffering from physical freedom of
defect action
therefore
diminution of
voluntariness
9. illness as would Diminution 1. illness of the
diminish the exercise of intent & offender must
of will power intelligence diminish the
exercise of his will
power
2. such illness shld
not deprive the
offender of
consciousness of
his acts
10. similar    
circumstances &
analogous to above
Q: Suppose X is deaf and dumb and he has
been slandered, he cannot talk so what he
did was, he got a piece of wood and struck
the fellow on the head. X was charged with
physical injuries. Is X entitled to a
mitigating circumstance by reason of his
physical defect?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court held that being a
deaf and dumb is mitigating because the only
way is to use his force because he cannot
strike back.
Analogous mitigating circumstances
Analogous – means similar
Example:
Extreme poverty – if you commit theft under extreme
poverty, it is analogous to state of necessity. This is
self preservation, you have to live and eat.
If you voluntarily surrendered the stolen property, the
Supreme Court said that it would be analogous to
voluntary surrender in a prosecution for theft or
robbery
VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE (Art. 13 par.5)
“grave offense” should not constitute an offense. If yes, it
might fall under Justifying circumstance of self-defense or
defense of relative if all the elements are present.
Grave offense – gravity determined by attenuating &
personal circumstances; involving moral injury Distinguish
provocation from vindication (Vindication ≠ revenge)
1.Provocation Par. 4 – it is made directly only to the person
committing a felony. Vindication Par. 5– the grave offense may
be committed against his spouse, ascendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relative by affinity
within the same degree
2.Provocation – It is necessary that the provocation or threat
immediately preceded the act and that there be no interval of time
between the provocation and the commission of the crime.
Vindication –admits of an interval of time between the grave
offense done by the offended party and the commission of the
crime by the accused ( Proximate )
*****Imbecility and minority – Mental retardation includes
***idiot, whose mental age is two-year old;
***imbecile, whose mental age is seven-year old;
**moron or feebleminded, whose mental age is twelve-
year old and
(d) borderline intelligence.
In rape, there is a difference between actual age
and mental age. In statutory rape, the actual age of
the victim must be under 12 years old. In rape
against a person deprived of reason, the mental age
of the victim is 2 years old (idiot), 7 years old
(imbecile), 12 years old (feebleminded) or above 12
years old but suffering from borderline intelligence
(People vs. Butiong, supra; People vs. Bayrante, supra).
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMTANCES (Art. 14)
Kinds of aggravating circumstances:
1. Generic – those which apply to all crimes
2. Qualifying – those that ****change the nature of the crime
Qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime
when it is specifically stated by law as included in the
definition of a crime, like treachery in the crime of murder.
1.Generic – Increase the penalty to the maximum period
Qualifying – It gives the crime its proper and exclusive name

2.Generic – May be offset by a mitigating circumstance.

Eg: Nighttime can be offset by voluntary surrender.
Qualifying– May not be offset by a mitigating circumstance.
Eg: Treachery cannot be offset by voluntary surrender,
hence, the crime would still be murder.
 Aggravating Basis Requisites
Circumstance
1.taking advantage By personal  
of his public circumstance;
position means used to
secure the
Note: offender commission.
POPE
2.contempt or insult Lack of respect 1. the public authority is engage
to public authorities for public in the exercise of his
authorities. functions
Note: any person 2. he who is engaged in the
exercise of said function is
not the person against whom
the crime is committed
3. offender knows him to be a
public authority
4. his presence has not
prevented the offender from
committing the criminal act
3.insult of in disregard Personal  
of the respect on circumstanc
account of his rank, age e
or sex or committed in Place of
the dwelling of the commission
offended party
4.abuse of confidence Means &  
or obvious ways
ungratefulness employed
Dwelling should mean exclusively used for living
quarters, it does not include house of prostitution or
combined house and store. However, it includes room of
the bedspacer thus, the crime of rape against a woman
who was renting a bedspace in a boarding house is
aggravating ,Include boarding houses or Lease
apartment
Dwelling should includes the stairs BUT not at the foot or
about to step on the first rung of the ladder. However,
where the victim was hacked at the top of the rung of the
stairs, then killed after he fell to the ground, dwelling is
aggravating.
This circumstance is also present where the victim was
hit inside his house by a shot fired at the outside (People vs. Bagsit
GR No. 148877, August 19, 2003) Include the terrace (Pp vs. Rios, 333 SCRA 823, June 19, 2000)

This circumstance is also present where the victim was taken

from his house and then killed in the field/outside. (People vs.
Uycoque, et al., 246 SCRA 769, July 31, 1995)
Dwelling is not aggravating
a. Where the victim gave provocation (Pp v. Molina 311 S 517, July 28, 1999)
b. Victim is not a dweller of the house or where he merely
went to his neighbors house
c. The dwelling of the victim is also that of the perpetrator (Pp
v. Morales GR. L-35413, November 7, 1979)

nighttime – Art. 13 of CC from sunset to sunrise It is not

however the period or the time that is material. It is more
of the darkness or nocturnity that is material .The crime
was committed at 11:00 in the evening but in front of a
lamppost – there is no aggravating
Uninhabited place presupposes that the place is at
considerable distance from the town or nearest houses or
could not readily be seen and where people do not
regularly pass at short intervals. The impossibility of the
victim to receive or secure aid from third person. (Pp. v. Desalisa, 229 SCRA 35,
January 4, 1940)

also appreciated where the victim was attacked in a banca

at sea
Band (en cuadrilla)
there is a band whenever ****more than 3
armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of the offense.
Thus ***at least 4 must be the number. (People
vs. Abdul, et al., 310 SCRA 246, July 13, 1999)

arms not limited to firearm, any object

capable of inflicting injuries
People vs. Manlolo, 169 SCRA 394, January 26, 1989 –
Note: stone was considered as an “arm”
5. committed in the palace of the Place of
Chief Executive, or in his commission w/c
presence, or where public must be respected
authorities are engaged in the
discharged of their duties or in a
place of religious worship
6. nighttime Time of commission
uninhabited place Place of
by a band commission
Means & ways
employed
7. on occasion of a Time of the
conflagration, shipwreck, commission of the
earthquake, epidemic, or other crime
calamity or misfortune
8. aid of armed Means of 1. armed men or persons took
men committing part in the commission,
directly or indirectly (2 or
more)
2. accused availed himself of their
aid or relied upon them when
the crime was committed
9. Recidivism Inclination to 1. offender is on trial for defense
crimes 2. he was previously convicted
by final judgment of another
crime
3. both 1st & 2nd offenses are
embraced in the same title of
the Code
4. offender is convicted of the
new offense

Note: A parolee who commits a felony cannot be a

quasi-recidivist
10. previously Inclination to 1. accused in on trial for an
punished crimes offense
(reiteracion) 2. he previously served
sentence for another
offense to w/c the law
attaches an equal or
greater penalty, or for 2 or
more crimes to w/c it
attaches lighter penalty
than for the new offense
3. he is convicted of the new
offense

 Who are Quasi-Recidivist?

 Where the accused was serving sentence for another
crime shall commit another crime.
Requisite of Habitual Delinquency
1.Only in crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or
falsification (FRETSEL)
2.That after conviction or after serving his
sentence, he again committed and with 10 years
from his last release of first conviction he was
again convicted of any of the said crime for the
second time
3.That after the second time or after serving
sentence for the second offense, he again
committed and within 10 days from his last
conviction, he again convicted of any of said
offense, the third time or oftener
 REITERACION RECIDIVISM

It is enough that a final

It is necessary that the offender shall
judgment has been
have served out his sentence for the
rendered in the first
first offense.
offense.
 
The previous and  
subsequent offenses must not be Requires that the offenses
embraced by the same Title of the be included in the same
RPC.
Title of the Code.

Not always aggravating; discretion of the

court to appreciate. It increases the penalty to
its maximum period.

Includes offenses under special law. Felonies under RPC only.

 HABITUAL DELIQUENCY QUASI-RECIDIVISM

Within a period of 10 years from the

date of release or last conviction of Felony was committed after having
the crimes covered, he is found guilty been convicted by final judgment
of any of said crimes a third time or of an offense, before beginning to
oftener. serve sentence or while serving the
same.
   
Crimes covered are serious or less First and subsequent conviction
serious physical injuries, robbery, may or may not be embraced by
theft, estafa and falsification. the same title of the RPC.
Shall be punished by the maximum
Shall suffer additional penalty. period of the penalty prescribed by
law for the new felony.
First crime for which the offender is
Limited to serious or less serious serving sentence need not be a
crime under the RPC but the second
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa
crime must be one under the RPC.
and falsification.
11. in consideration of a price, Motivating power  
reward or promise itself
12. by means of inundation, Means & ways  
fire, poison, stranding of a employed
vessel, derailment of
locomotive, or by use of artifice
involving great waste or ruin

 The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer

to material things or that the same were actually delivered, it
being sufficient that the offer made by the principal by
inducement be accepted by the principal by direct
participation before the commission of the offense.
13. evident Ways of 1. time when the offender
premeditation committing determined to commit the
crime
deliberate crime
planning of 2. an act manifestly indicating
the that the culprit has clung to
act before his determination
executing 3. a sufficient lapse of time
between the determination &
execution to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his
act
14. craft, fraud, Means  
or disguise be employed
employed
15. taking    
advantage of
superior
strength
16. Treachery   1. that at the time of the
attack, the victim not in a
position to defend
himself
2. offender consciously
adopted the particular
means, method or form of
attack employed by him
17. add ignominy Means  
employed
18. unlawful entry Means &  
ways
employed
19. wall, roof, floor, Means &  
door, or window be ways
broken employed
20. w/ aid of person Means & 
under 15 or by ways
means of motor employed
vehicle, motorize
watercraft, airships
or other similar
means
21. cruelty Ways 1. the injury caused be
employed deliberately increased
by causing other
wrong
2. the other wrong be
unnecessary for the
execution of the
purpose of the offender
Treachery - If accused employed means to render the victim
defenseless, treachery shall be appreciated even if the killing
is due to error in personae (People vs. Del Castillo, Sr., G.R.
No. L-32995, April 30, 1984) or aberratio ictus (People vs.
Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926, En Banc) or with
the circumstance of praeter intentionem (People vs. Cagoco,
G.R. No. 38511, October 6, 1933)
TREACHERY (Par. 16)
This is specific and qualifying circumstance. Applicable
only to crimes against person and it qualifies the killing
into murder treachery means employing methods or forms
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 take.
Usually treachery is present if the attack is from behind
however, even if the attack is frontal, treachery may also be
considered if the attack on the victim is sudden.
Treachery is absorbed in the following:
Abuse of superior strength
Employing means to weaken the defense
En cuadrilla ,Aid of armed men ,Nighttime ,Disregard of
age, sex or rank
USE OF PERSON UNDER 15 AND USE OF MOTOR
VEHICLE (Par 20)
Under 15 – is intended to prevent or discourage the
exploitation of such minor
Motor vehicle – increase the liability of offenders who avail
of speedy means of transportation to take them and to
escape from the locus delicti (crime scene)
 it must be deliberately adopted and not merely incidental
 it must be shown that without it, the offense charged could
not have been committed
Aggravating circumstances not provided under RPC
1. Under Sec 25 of RA No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 “a positive finding for the use of
dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstance in
the commission of a crime by the offender and the
application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal
Code shall be applicable”
2. Use of unlicensed firearm PD No. 1566 as amended by R.A.
No. 8294. “Sec. 1 par 3 - If homicide or murder is committed
with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance” “Sec. 3 – When a person commits any of the
crimes defined in the RPC or Special law with the use of
explosives like pill box, molotov cocktail bomb, firebombs
or other incendiary devices which result in the death of any
person such use shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance” This is a special aggravating circumstance
NOT generic hence cannot be offset by a mitigating
circumstance.
Organized/Syndicated Crime Group RA No.
7659 “Death Penalty on Certain Heinous
Crimes
“Art. 62 (1)(a) – The maximum penalty shall
be imposed if the offense was committed by
any group who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means
a group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating or mutually
helping one another for purposes of gain in
the commission of any crime”
What are alternative circumstances?
Those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature
and effects of the crime and the other conditions
attending its commission.
What are the four alternative circumstances?
1.Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of instruction
4. Education of the offender
When is relationship taken into consideration?
When the offended party is the:
1. Spouse
2. Ascendant
3. Descendant
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or
sister;
5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the
offender
6. Other relatives included by analogy to
ascendants and descendants. e.g. Stepparents –
It is their duty to bestow upon their stepchildren a
mother/father’s affection, care and protection.
When is intoxication mitigating?
If intoxication is:
Not habitual;
Not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony, or
3. At the time of the commission of the crime, the
accused has taken such quantity of alcoholic
drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of
certain degree of control.
Note: To be mitigating, the state of intoxication of the
accused must be proved. Once intoxication is
established by satisfactory evidence, in the absence
of proof to the contrary, it is presumed to be non
habitual or unintentional.
When relationship mitigating and when
aggravating
1. Exempt in crimes against property such
as:
a. Art. 332 - Theft, Swindling (estafa).
Malicious mischief – includes qualified theft

b. Art. 312 – Usurpation of real rights

c. Art. 314 - Fraudulent insolvency
2. Aggravating in crimes against chastity
When is intoxication aggravating?
If intoxication is
1.Habitual; or
2.Intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a
felony).
Who is a “habitual drunkard?”
 He is one given to intoxication by excessive use
of intoxicating drinks. What determines whether
intoxication is mitigating or not?
The basis is the effect of the alcohol upon the
offender, not the quantity of the alcoholic drink he
had taken.
 Is degree of instruction or education mitigating?
GR: Lack or low degree of instruction is mitigating in
all crimes.
XPN: Not mitigating in:
1. Crimes against property (e.g. arson, estafa,
threat)
2. Crimes against chastity
3. Murder or homicide
4. Rape
5. Treason – because love of country should be a
natural feeling of every citizen, however
unlettered or uncultured he may be.
(People v. Lansanas, 82 Phil. 193)
Who are criminally liable?
The following are criminally liable
for grave and less grave felonies:

Principals
Accomplices
Accessories
What are the kinds of principals?
1.Principal by direct participation
2.Principal by
induction/inducement
3.Principal by indispensable
cooperation
What are the requisites for principals by direct
participation?
1.They participated in the criminal resolution.
2.They carried out the plan and personally
took part in its execution by acts, which
directly tended to the same end.
Note: Principals by direct participation are
those who materially execute the crime. They
appear at the crime scene and perform acts
necessary in the commission of the crime.
Who is a principal by inducement?
To be a principal by inducement, the inducer’s
utterances must be such nature and made in such
manner as to become the determining cause of the
crime.
Note: Principals by inducement are liable even if they
do not appear at the scene of the crime.
Q: A asked B to kill C because of grave injustice done to A by
C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much
because of the reward promised to him but because he also
had his own long‐standing grudge against C, who had wronged
him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a
principal by inducement?
A: No, A would not be liable as principal by inducement
because the reward he promised B is not the sole
impelling reason which made B to kill C.
Who is a principal by indispensable
cooperation?
Those who:
1.Participated directly in the criminal
resolution; or
2.Cooperated in the commission of the
crime by performing an act, without which
it would not have been accomplished.
 PRINCIPAL BY
ACCOMPLICE
INDISPENSABLE
COOPERATION
If the crime could If the cooperation
hardly be committed merely facilitated or
without hastened
such cooperation, the consummation of
then the crime, this would
make
such cooperation
the cooperator
would bring about a
merely an
principal. accomplice.
Who is an accomplice?
An accomplice is one who:
1. Concurs with the criminal design of
the principals by direct participation;
2. Cooperates in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous
acts, with the intention of supplying
material or moral aid in the execution
of the crime in an efficacious way;
Who are accessories?
Those who do not participate in the criminal
design, nor cooperate in the commission of the
felony, but with knowledge of the commission of
the crime, he subsequently takes part in three ways;
1. Profiting or assisting the offender to profit by the
effects of the crime;
2. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime
to prevent its discovery;
3. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape
of the principal of the crime.
Note: Where the accused misleads the authorities by
giving them false information, such act is equivalent to
concealment and he should be held as an accessory.
Problem: If a municipal treasurer, misappropriated
the personal computers entrusted to her and sold
this to other person, this other person is not liable
under PD 1612 BUT he may be liable as an
accessory to the crime of Malversation.

Problem: Ukay-ukay –Ans: not liable

(Sec. 4 PD 532) – a person who knowingly
and in manner, aids protects highway
robbers/brigands, such as giving them
information about the movement of the police
officers or acquires or receives property
taken by brigands, or who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of highway
robbery/brigandage, shall be considered as
an accomplice of principal offers and
punished in accordance with the rules in
the RPC.
What is Corpus delicti?
It does not only mean the body of the person
killed. It is the body or the material substance upon
which the a delicti has been committed.
Elements of Corpus Delicti
• The existence of a certain act or result forming the
bases of the criminal act
• The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of
the act or result
NOTE : non-recovery of the body of the victim is
not bar to the prosecution of a Murder, but the fact
of death and identify of the victim must be
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Differences between principal by indispensable
cooperation (co-conspirator) and accomplices They have
one thing in common, they knew and agree with the
criminal design.
1. Principal by IC – know the criminal intention because
they themselves have decided upon such course of
action.
Accomplice – come to know about it after the principal
have reached the decision, and only then do they
agree/concur to cooperate in its execution.
2. Principal by IC - they conspired with the principal
Accomplice – they merely agree/concur
3. Penalty
Co-conspirator – same penalty as the principal
Accomplice – One degree lower
Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612)
This law does not modify or repeal Art. 19 of the RPC.
1. A crime of robber or theft has been committed:
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in
the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells
or dispose, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
any article, item, object or anything of value, which has
been derived from the proceeds of the said crime.
3. The accused knows or should have known that the
said article , item, object or anything of value has been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for
himself or for another.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
PD. No. 1829, Sec. 1
Sec. 1 (i) and (c) of PD. 1829 provides:
“harboring or concealing, or facilitating the
escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has
committed any offense under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest,
prosecution and conviction”
 Is it necessary that, If the principal was
acquitted, the accessory must also be acquitted?
a. If accused was acquitted because of self-
defense, the accessory must also be acquitted.
b. If the accused was acquitted because of insanity
or the case was dismissed because the principal died
during the trial, the accessory will not be acquitted.
***Art. 20 Accessory exempt from criminal liability
when the principal is his/her
a. Spouse b. Descendants c. Ascendant
d. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree.
They are not exempt however in par (1) of Art. 19,
(Profit by the effects of the crime or assisted the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime)
because such acts are promoted not by affection
but by a detestable greed.
Note: Public officer contemplated in par. 3 of art. 19
is exempt by reason of relationship to the
principal, even if such public officer acted with
abuse of his official functions REASON BEING:
ties of blood is more powerful incentive that the
call of duty. HOWEVER, he will still be liable under
PD. 1829, obstruction of justice.
PD. 1829, obstruction of justice.
Committed also by destroying evidence intended
to be used in official proceedings
MEASURES OF PREVENTION NOT CONSIDERED
PENALTIED (Art. 24)
1. Temporary detention by reason of insanity or imbecility or
illness requiring confinement in a hospital
2.The commitment of a minor to any welfare institution
3.Suspension from the employment or public office during
the trial or in order to institute proceedings
Reclusion perpetua v. Life imprisonment
1.Reclusion perpetua is imposed by the RPC, while life
imprisonment is by SPL
2. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for only 40
years while life imprisonment does not appear to have any
definite extent or duration
3.Reclusion perpetua carries accessory penalties while it is
not so in life
Imprisonment Note: (2009) – Life imprisonment is
unfavorable to the accused.
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES (Art. 38)
1. The reparation of the damage caused 2. Indemnification of
the damage caused 3. Fine 4. Costs of the proceeding.
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY (Art. 39)
Additional penalty of imprisonment imposed by the court in
case the convict is insolvent to pay the fine
It should be expressly imposed in the judgment of
conviction
this penalty may be imposed if the penalty is prision
correccional or less aside from fine
shall not relieve the convict from paying the fine if the
financial capacity improves.
Applicable only to debt ex contratu not in penalty imposed by
law
The judge may not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although the law may prescribe an
alternative penalty for a crime, it does not mean that the court may impose the alternative penalties at
the same time. The sentence must be definite, otherwise the judgment cannot attain finality.
 EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
(Art. 89)
 When can there be a total extinction of
criminal liability?
1. Death of the convict
2. Service of the sentence
3. Amnesty
4. Absolute Pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
6. Prescription of the penalty
7. Marriage of the woman
What is the three‐fold rule?
The three‐fold rule provides that the maximum
duration of convict’s sentence shall not be more
than 3 times the length of the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him but in no case to
exceed 40 years.
The three‐fold rule applies only when the convict
has to serve at least 4 sentences successively.
Subsidiary penalty forms part of the penalty.
Subsidiary imprisonment: This shall be excluded
in computing for the maximum duration.
INDETEMINATE SENTENCE LAW (Act. No. 4103)
Not applicable in the following: As to penalty
1. Death 2. Life imprisonment 3. Does not exceed 1 year
4. Destierro 5. Suspension only
As to crime
1. Treason 2. Conspiracy to commit treason
3. Proposal to commit treason
4. Misprision of treason 5. Rebellion 6. Sedition
7. Espionage 8. Piracy
As to person
1. Habitual delinquents 2. Those fugitive of judgment
3. Those who violated the condition of their pardon
– those who violated the penalty of destierro – entering into a
prohibited area, are not entitled to ISLAW
***PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME (Art. 90)
It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute the
offender or file criminal action after the lapse of a certain period of
time.
1. Reclusion perpetua - 20 years
Reclusion temporal - 20 years
2. Prision mayor
(afflictive penalties) - 15 years
3. Correctional penalty - 10 years
4. Arresto mayor - 5 years
5. Libel - 1 year
6. Grave oral defamation - 6 months
7. Grave slander by deed - 6 months
8. Light offenses - 2 months
A killed his wife and buried her in the backyard. He immediately went
into hiding in the mountains. Three years later, the bones of A’s wife
were discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of
arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After
two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the matter to
the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but returned 3
years later to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he
was charged with parricide, but he raised the defense of prescription.
Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the period of prescription
of a crime commence to run?
When is it interrupted? Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of
prescription commence to run upon discovery of the crime by the offended
party, the authorities, or their agent.
It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information corresponding to
the offense commited with the prosecutor (Art. 91, RPC)
No, parricide prescribes in 20 years (Art. 90, RPC). The period of
prescription started only when Z reported the matter to the police, which is
equivalent to 10 years of hiding from the time of reporting to Z. The period of
three years shall not be counted since he is absent from the Philippines.
The filing of the charge 6 years thereafter is well within the prescriptive
period.
In what case is destierro punishable;
1.Serious physical injuries or death under
exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
2.In case of failure to give bond for good behavior
(Art. 284)
3.A a penalty for the concubine in concubinage
4.In cases where after reducing the penalty by one
or more degrees destierro is the proper penalty.
– a crime of evasion of service of sentence may be
committed even if the penalty is destierro,
especially if the accused went to a prohibited
place.
 RULE :
****the period of prescription shall commence to
run from the day of discovery of the crime by the
offended party, the authorities or their agents
The period shall be interrupted by the filing of the
complaint or information and shall commence to
run again when such proceedings terminate
without the accused being convicted or acquitted,
or are unjustly stopped for any reason not
imputable to him
“offended party” can either be the state or the
private offended party (Garcia vs. Court of Appeal, et al 266 SCRA 678, January
27, 1997)

`
Exception to the discovery rule: constructive notice
rule should not be applied in the crime of bigamy –
Prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture of
the right of the state to execute the final sentence of
conviction after the lapse of a certain period of time.
1.Death and reclusion perpetua - 20 years ,2.
Afflictive penalties - 15 years 3. Reclusion temporal -
15 years 4. Prision mayor - 15 years ,5. Correctional
penalties - 10 years ,6. Arresto mayor - 5 years , 7.
Light penalties - 1 year The penalty, to be subject of
prescription must have been imposed by final
judgment.
Illustration: Prescription is interrupted
1.He should give himself up ,2.Be captured
3.Go to foreign country with which the Philippines has
no extradition treaty
4.Should commit another crime
Partial Extinction
Conditional Pardon
Commutation of Sentence
Good Conduct allowances which the culprit
may earn while he is serving his sentence
Parole – because after you shall have served
the minimum indeterminate penalty, he could
be release.
 Penalties Time included in the Time included in its Time included in its medium Time included in its
penalty in its entirety minimum period period maximum
 

Reclusion From 12 years From 12 years and From 14 years, 8 From 17 years, 4
temporal and 1 day to 20 1 day to 14 years months and 1 day to months and 1 day
years. and 8 months. 17 years and 4 to 20 years.
months.
a. Prision mayor From 6 years From 6 years and From 8 years and 1 From 10 years
b. Absolute
and 1 day to 12 1 day to 8 years. day to 10 years. and 1 day to 12
disqualification
c. Special
years. years.
temporary
disqualification

a. Prision From 6 months From 6 months From 2 years, 4 From 4 years, 2

correccional and 1 day to 6 and 1 day to 2 months and 1 day to months and 1 day
b. Suspension years. years and 4 4 years and 2 to 6 years.
c. Destierro months. months.
Arresto mayor From 1 month From 1 month to 2 From 2 months and 1 From 4 months
and 1 day to 6 months. day to 4 months. and 1 day to 6
months. months.
Arresto menor From 1 to 30 From 1 to 10 days. From 11 to 20 days. From 21 to 30
days. days.
 -The end-
Thank you!
Congratulation in advance!