Criminal Law Reviewer

Book I
Atty. Estrada
You should know the nature of the defense of your witness. Atty. Estrada
If you want to learn, presume you know nothing.
Dangerous Tendency Rule All elements of a crime should be present. One
element might be presented in the question to mislead you to picking the wrong
answer.
Cattle rustling taking a large animal against the will of the owner, or killing the
same against the will of the owner.
Criminal lawFelony an act or omission committed either negligently or intentionally punished
under RPC.
Crime an act violative of a penal law, be it RPC, special law or ordinance.
Offense an act penalized by any law except by RPC.
Felonies under RPC oftentimes are being called crimes. Even Art. 4 Paragraph 2
mentions impossible crimes.
The terms felony and crimes can be used interchangeably.
Theories of Criminal Law
1. Classical Theory man is rational being by nature, he knows how to distinguish
between right and wrong, and knows the consequence of wrong is retribution.
2. Positivist Theory man by nature is basically good, a victim of circumstances
and of natural social phenomenon that compels him to do wrong and commit a
crime. RPC is based on this theory.
3. Eclectic Theory a combination of classical and positivist theory.
4. Utilitarian Theory the main object of punishment/penalty is to punish a
criminal or would-be criminal. Criminal law should not be construed literally if such
would result to opportunism.
Characteristics of Criminal Law
1. Generality
2. Territoriality
3. Prospectivity

Chai is a Panamian Ambassador to RP. He met a lady and they dated. They were
seen on CCTV going to the condominium of the diplomat. They were seen kissing in
the elevator. He was later seen going out in a jovial mood. The lady claimed later on
he was raped by the Panamanian diplomat. Can the diplomat be charged criminally?
No, he is not criminally liable. Chai is a diplomat. Under RA 75, diplomats enjoy
diplomatic immunity and thus are exempt from criminal or civil liability, and thus
Chai cannot be charged criminally.
Regarding generality, there are persons who are exempt from criminal liability, as
follows: Heads of state, ambassador, minister or resident , minister plenipotentiary,
charge de affaires
Are members of the official retinue of the ambassador enjoying diplomatic
immunity as enjoyed by the ambassador?
Members of the household or members of the official retinue of a foreign
ambassador may be exempt from criminal liability. They also enjoy diplomatic
immunity, provided two conditions are present (2 conditions sine qua non):
1. His name is furnished to the DFA; and
2. Provided further, that the country of said foreign ambassador provides reciprocal
immunity to the members of the household or official retinue of the Philippine
ambassador.
Republic Act 75 the law which provides that members of official household or
retinue of foreign ambassadors enjoy diplomatic immunity provided that two
conditions are present (2 conditions sine qua non):
1. His name is furnished to the DFA; and
2. Provided further, that the country of said foreign ambassador provides reciprocal
immunity to the members of the household or official retinue of the Philippine
ambassador.
Diplomats of a foreign country enjoy diplomatic immunity. Diplomats of a foreign
country are exempt from application of RPC. They enjoys such immunity based on
the Vienna Convention.
X and Y were in the moon. While in the moon, X killed Y.
What crime did X commit?
X committed homicide. (Homicide- plain and simple killing.) No other qualifying and
aggravating circumstance being mentioned, it is homicide. The moment killing is
accompanied by any qualifying aggravating circumstances under Art. 200, killing
becomes murder.
Is X criminally liable?
X is not liable. The killing by X of Y happened on the moon. The moon is outside RP
territory. Criminal law is territorial in character.
A crime can be punished only if act is within the territorial limits of a
country.

Johnny and Susan, Filipino Citizens are husband and wife. Johnny went to work in
Japan where he met Katrina. Marco had introduced him to Katrina. Johnny fell in
love with her and proposed. They got married in Japan.
What crime, if any, did Johnny do?
Johnny committed bigamy. He contracted a second marriage while his marriage
subsists. Under the law, bigamy is committed when a second marriage was had
while a previous marriage was still valid and existing.
Is Johnny criminally liable?
No, Johnny is not criminally liable. The marriage was conducted in Japan, which is
outside of RP territory. Criminal law is territorial in character.
How to present your answers effectively and concisely:
1. Answer the question in a declarative sentence.
Ex. Johnny committed bigamy.
2. Lay the Predicate.
Ex. He contracted a second marriage while his marriage subsists.
3. Give the legal basis.
Ex. Under the law, bigamy is committed when a second marriage was had while a
previous marriage was still valid and existing.
General Rule:
Criminal law applies generally to all persons who live or sojourn in RP.
Exceptions:
Heads of state, ambassador, minister or resident , minister
plenipotentiary, charge de affaires.
Members of the household or members of the official retinue of a foreign
ambassador may be exempt from criminal liability. They also enjoy diplomatic
immunity, provided two conditions are present (2 conditions sine qua non):
1. His name is furnished to the DFA; and
2. Provided further, that the country of said foreign ambassador provides reciprocal
immunity to the members of the household or official retinue of the Philippine
ambassador.
General Rule:
RPC is applicable within RP.
Exceptions to territoriality rule
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only
within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;chan
robles virtual law library
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

Exceptions: Art. 2 RPC

5 exceptions under Art. 2:
1. Crime is done in RP ship or airship
2. Counterfeiting of coin, currency notes or securities issued by RP
3. introduction/importing of counterfeited coin, currency notes or securities issued
by RP
4. Public officer commits a crime in relation to his public duty while overseas
5. Commit crimes against national security and the law of nations (Treason,
espionage, provoking disloyalty in case of war, piracy and mutiny in the high seas)
Colonel X is a member of AFP. He possesses materials related to RP defense. He
went to Italy. While there, he passed on vital information regarding RP defense to
the Bolsheviks of Russia.
What crime is that?
X committed espionage.
Can he be charged with espionage before RP courts?
Yes, he can be charged with espionage in RP courts. X committed acts which are
punishable and triable in RP courts even if the crime was done outside its territory.
Article 2 (5) of the RPC states that crimes against national security and law of
nations, such as espionage, can be subject to Philippine laws even if such crime was
done outside RP territory.
Penal Laws are applied retroactively if favorable to the accused. Otherwise,
penal laws are generally applied prospectively.
The power to enact laws lies in Congress.
Limitations to enacting of laws:
1. No ex post facto law shall be filed.
Ex post facto law an law which causes an act to become a punishable crime at the
time the act was committed. (Bill of attainder)
2. Due Process of law
3. No cruel or unlawful punishment shall be attached .
4. No passage of irrepealable laws

Due process of law

Substantive due process When the law leaves the Congress, the law is deemed
to be complete by itself.
Procedural due process - it hears before it judges, it proceeds upon inquiry,
and renders judgment only after trial.
Penalty is cruel and unusual if it inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering. Death
by lethal injection is said to be painless, so it is not cruel.
A criminal law should be construed strictly against the government and
liberally in favor of the accused. It is axiomatic for the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Doubt shall be resolved in
favor of the accused.
How to overturn prosecutions contention against an accused who is your
client:
Prove one element to be doubtful, and the crime is deemed incomplete, wherein no
crime was committed as charged.
The prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not of
the weakness of the defense.
Equipoise equi-preponderance of evidence. When evidence of prosecution and
defense are equally balanced, then proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
met, and thus accused should be acquitted.
Pro Reo Doctrine
If two interpretations can be had, one pointing to guilt of the accused and the
other one of these points to the accuseds innocence, the interpretation in
favor of the accused must prevail. This is called the Pro Reo Doctrine.
A law must respond to the changes of time and the needs of the people. A
penal law must be repealable.
2 kinds:
Express repeal
Implied repeal
Effects of express repeal of penal law:
1. Crime is obliterated
2. When a case is still pending, it shall be dismissed.
3. When the judgment had become final, and the convict is now serving
sentence, he must be released from prison.
Jason Ivler Case
Compare PP vs Avecilla and PP vs Adame

Law involved: PD1866 Aggravated illegal possession of firearms-includes killing a

victim with unlicensed firearm, whether homicide or murder, punishable by death.
People vs Avecilla 2001 (Division)
When accused killed the victim, PD 1866 was in force. While on appeal in SC, RA
8294 expressly repealed PD 1866, the crime being termed now as aggravated
homicide or aggravated murder as the case may be when there is use of unlicensed
firearm.
SC was in a quandary. Can the SC confirm conviction? SC said no, as the crime of
Aggravated illegal possession of firearms has been obliterated. PD 1866 was
rendered null and void. The crime now is aggravated homicide or aggravated
murder as the case may be.
Can the SC convict with aggravated homicide or aggravated murder as the case
may be? No because he was not arraigned with an information charging aggravated
homicide or aggravated murder as the case may be. To do so would be tantamount
to violating due process of law against the accused.
PP vs. Adame 2000 En Banc
Unlicensed firearm under PD 1866. He was sentenced to death. During the appeal,
RA 8294 took effect, the crime now becoming aggravated homicide or aggravated
murder as the case may be. Can conviction of the crime under PD 1866 be
affirmed?
No, they cannot. The act committed has been obliterated.
Can he be convicted of aggravated homicide?
Yes, he can be convicted of aggravated homicide. When the accused was arraigned,
he was informed that he used an unlicensed firearm to kill the victim, and thus was
then liable for aggravated homicide.
Note: PP vs. Adame should prevail as the case was decided En Banc. PP vs.
Avecilla was decided in a division only.
English Rule. Crimes committed on board a merchant vessel can be tried by that
country where the vessel is located if it interferes with the security of the place.
RP subscribes to the English Rule.
The French Rule states that crimes committed in the vessel can be tried in the
flagship of the vessel if it affects only the management of the vessel.
X and Y were in North Korea. While there, they agreed to sow and create a condition
of widespread fear among the populace by hijacking a PAL plane with some
congressmen and passengers unless their leader, Abu Sado, was released.
What was the crime committed?
According to Atty. Estradas Book 1, the crime committed is conspiracy to commit
terrorism, under Art. 8 RPC. In his Book 2 RPC, Atty. Estrada added conspiracy to
commit terrorism due to the passage of RA 9372.

Terrorism is punishable under RA 9372 (Human Security Act).

6/2/2012
Cuevas absence in class proved fatal! So you better master this! :D
Felony is an act or omission defined under RPC, committed either intentionally or
negligently
What is dolo? What is culpa?
Negligent culpa. Intentional dolo.
Elements:
Intentional
Freedom
Intelligence
Intent/Malice

Culpable
Freedom
Intelligence
Negligence
Negligence is through : Lack of
foresight/lack of skill/imprudence

Dolo deliberate intent

MENS REA/RIUS
ACTUS REA/RIUS
X bought a poison to be used in killing B. Is X liable?
No. Intent alone cannot convict X. There must be overt acts done, thus showing
criminal intent by X, in order for X to be liable for a crime.
Mens Rea wrongful criminal intent
Johnny plans to rape Susan, is there mens rius?
Yes.
Is Johnny liable?
No. A criminal thought no matter how wrongful does not make Johnny
liable. Generally, preparatory acts are not liable, unless there is a law
penalizing such preparatory acts.
Actus Rea an act in furtherance of a wrongful criminal intent.
X bought a poison to be used in killing B. X put poison in Bs coffee.
Is X liable?
Yes. X has actually used the poison he bought with intent to kill B. When mens rea
and actus rea go together, there is a crime committed.
Remember:
When mens rea and actus rea go together, there is a crime committed.
Elements of Intentional Felony:
1. Freedom capacity to do an act without restraint/compulsion
2. Intelligence capacity to perform an act with understanding, you know what you
are doing and you know the consequences of your act.
3. Intent malice, deliberate desire to cause injury

Motive is the very reason why a man acts.

Intent is the way or manner of committing an act.
A person who acts without freedom is likened to the knife that wounds, to the key
that opens the door and the ladder that is used in the commission of a theft/robbery.
A person who acts without freedom one who is only an instrument to the crime and
incurs no criminal liability.
If one element is lacking, no crime is committed.
RA 9344 when a child is 15 years and below, he exempt from criminal liability due
to lack of capacity to understand fully, regardless if he acts with or without
discernment.
Doctrine of Total Irresponsibility when a child is 15 years of age and below, he
is exempt from criminal liability regardless if he acts with or without discernment.
Over 15 under 18 years old exempt, unless he acts with discernment.
Motive is an essential element of a crime true or false?
False.
There are Cases when motive becomes important (But not an essential
element to the crime):
1. When the act brings about variant crimes.
Ex. Homicide vs. murder
Professor A was boxed and kicked by B.
What crime did B commit? Direct assault upon a person in authority?
No. An attorney/professor must be in performance of his duties or by reason of past
act of performance of his duty in order to have been directly assault. There being no
mention of such performance, B is not liable for direct assault upon a person in
authority.
2. When the identity or identities of the perpetrators of the crime are not
known.
X was assassinated. If you know who was behind the killing, what must you need?
Motive of the killing.
Culpable felony unintentional felony.
Negligence deficiency in perception
Imprudence deficiency in action
A, B, C, and D went hunting in the forest. They separated. Later, A noticed
something moving behind the bushes. Thinking it was a wild boar, A shot at the

bush. Behind the bush happened to be B, answering the call of nature. B shouted in
pain and died.
Is A liable for the death of B?
Yes, A is liable for Bs death. A fired his gun without ascertaining what was moving
was a wild boar or not. A did not exercise the necessary prudence or caution to
prevent injury to some other person/persons. A was negligent.
What was the felony committed?
A committed a culpable felony. (Reckless imprudence resulting to homicide)
A, B, C, and D went hunting in the forest in single file. C, clipped his shotgun under
his armpit, with trigger on his gun, and barrel pointing at B. C tripped. The gun
discharged and injured B. Was C liable for Bs injury?
Yes, C was liable for Bs injury. C lacked foresight in handling his weapon with the
barrel pointing at B. C did not exercise the necessary caution or foresight to prevent
any injury to another in handling his weapon. C was negligent.
A policeman passed A and B fighting. The policeman tried to pacify them, but kept
on fighting. To finally pacify them, the policeman fired a bullet on the floor. The
bullet ricocheted and hit a kibitzer.
Is the policeman liable for the death of the kibitzer?
Yes, the policeman is liable for the kibitzers death. The policeman was negligent
when he fired the gun in the floor, without considering it might ricochet and hit the
kibitzer. He lacked foresight, and thus was negligent.
On the eve of New Years Day, the policeman fired in the air. The bullet hit a child,
killing him. Is the policeman liable for the childs death?
Yes, the policeman is liable for the childs death. The policeman was negligent when
he fired the gun in the air, without considering it might hit anyone. He lacked
foresight, and thus was negligent when he fired the gun in the air.
X placed his gun on the table. One of his children was playing in the area with his
playmates, nudged the table, and the gun fired. The bullet hit one playmate.
Is X liable for the death of the child?
Yes X is liable. He was negligent in leaving the gun on the table where children were
nearby playing. He lacked foresight, and thus was negligent in leaving the gun on
the table, making it possible for the accidental discharge of the gun when it fell from
the table.
A, with intent to inflict serious injury upon B, threw a stone at B. B was able to
evade it, but the stone hit C. C was hospitalized for more than sixty days. An
information of reckless imprudence resulting to SPI was charged.
Is the charge correct?
No, the charge was not correct. When A threw the stone at B, there was intent to
inflict harm on B. Reckless imprudence means there was no intent, so it is
not the correct charge. Article 4 1st paragraph states that any person commits a
wrongful act, even if the act was different from what was intended makes that
person liable for the act committed.
Is he liable?

The Famous Estrada Doctrine

Art. 4 Paragraph 1
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
A, with intent to kill B, went to a place and awaited for the coming of B. C,
resembling B, arrived. Thinking it was B, A shot C. A was shocked, when he checked,
that he shot C. C was As father.
Was A committing a felony?
Yes.
Was A liable for the death of C, his father?
Yes, A is criminally liable for the death of C, his father. A fired his gun at the person
whom he thought to be B, A was committing a felony. His act was wrongful. A is
criminally liable under Art. 4 1st paragraph as the act was wrongful, although the
wrongful act done was different from what A had intended.
(This is a case of error in personam)
What crime did A commit?
A committed parricide.
A, with intent to kill, hacked B, but he missed and instead hacked C. C died.
Is A liable for the death of C?
Yes, A is liable for the death of C. When A hacked B, his act was a felony. Under the
law, any person committing a felony is criminally liable although the
wrongful act done was different from what was intended.
(This is abberatio ictus mistake in blow)
A wanted to inflict a lump on B. B was boxed by A. But because of the force of the
blow, B was overbalanced; hit the pavement, incurring cerebral bleeding, and thus
causing Bs death.
Is A liable for the death of B?
Yes, A is liable for the death of B. When A boxed B, his act was a felony. Under the
law, any person committing a felony is criminally liable although the wrongful act
done was different from what was intended.
(praeter intentionem)
Estrada Doctrine in defense of property.
A carnapped the car of B. When A was driving away, B drew his gun, aimed at the
rear tire of his car. The bullet hit the rear tire and exploded the tire. The car driven
by A travelled erratically and hit a tricycle driven by C. C died as a result.
Is B liable for the death of C?
No, B is not criminally liable for the death of C. B was not doing any felony, as B was
only trying to protect his property against As act of carnapping it and had used
reasonable force to enable recovery of his car. Bs act was not wrongful. Under
the law, only persons committing wrongful acts are criminally liable.
Is A liable for the death of C?

Yes, A is liable for the death of C. When A carnapped the car of B, he was
committing a felony. Under the law, any person committing a felony is
criminally liable although the wrongful act done was different from what
was intended.
Impossible crimes
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
***
2. 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.
Ways committed:
1. Inherent impossibility of accomplishment
2. Employment of inadequate means
3. Employment of ineffectual means
How is this possible?
1. Legal impossibility
2. Physical or factual impossibility
Legal impossibility
Ex. Theft is unlawful taking without owners knowledge and with intent to gain.
A, a pickpocket, picked a wallet from B. When A reached home, he checked the
wallet, and found his watch which had been missing for two months.
Can A be a thief of his own property?
No, A is not liable for theft of his own property, but he can be liable of impossible
crime of theft.
Physical or factual impossibility
A is a cashier of a bank, who knows 1M is present always. She opened the safe with
intent to steal, as she knows the combination. She was shocked to find the vault
empty.
Was she guilty of theft?
No, as there was nothing to steal. Instead, A is guilty of impossible crime of theft, as
she had intended to steal the money in the vault but that became impossible due to
the vault being empty.
A went to Bs house with murderous intent. When he saw B lying on the sofa, he
proceeded to stab B. When A felt the pulse, he was shocked that B was dead
already, rigor mortis having set already.
What did he commit?
A committed impossible crime, as the murder of B was inherently impossible of
accomplishment.

Suppose with the same facts, A saw B in bed. A tried to wake up B so as to make
him aware of his death. However, A found B dead already of heart attack. In anger,
A stabbed Bs body 100 times. What crime did he commit?
He committed no crime.
J is in the farm. He saw a beautiful lady lying in the grass who was seemingly
unconscious. He proceeded to have sexual intercourse. He later found out that the
lady was already dead.
What was the crime?
Impossible crime of rape. J had a criminal mind and had carnal knowledge over her,
not knowing she is dead.
Why?
Rape is now a crime against person under RA 8353.
Note:
RA 8353 New Rape Law insertion of any instrument or object into the
genitalia or anus, with force = rape by sexual assault
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:
"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
"a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented,
even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

The law punishes impossible crime because of a persons criminal

propensity or tendency.
A wanted to kill B. A put a tea spoon of poison in Bs coffee. B drank it. But, the
poison had no effect at all. What crime did A commit?
Impossible crime because of employment of inadequate means.
A put poison in a beautiful container, placing it on top of the refrigerator. As mother
saw the container and removed the poison, putting sugar in its place. A later put
some of the sugar in the coffee of B, with intent to kill, thinking that poison was
actually in the container.
What did A commit?
A committed impossible crime using ineffectual means. A had criminal intent, he
was of the mind that what he was putting in the coffee was actually poison instead
of sugar.

Intod vs. CA.

A, B, C, D and E went to the house of X. E was the one who brought the others, who
were armed with guns, to the house of X. The house of X was made of light
materials. A, B, C and D aimed their guns at the place where X sleeps and fired.
Luckily, X was not at home at that time. They were later caught. They were
convicted of attempted murder even on appeal at CA.
SC acquitted them of attempted murder. It was inherently impossible to kill X as X
was not home. SC convicted them of impossible crime.
ATTY ESTRADA: SC was wrong. Estrada Doctrine should apply here!
Impossible crime should apply so long as there was actually no crime
committed. Here, a crime was actually committed, although the result was
different than actually intended. The actual crime committed was malicious
mischief as they had caused destruction over the house due to hate, malice, etc.
J and S had carnal relations. S had missed her period twice. She told J about it. J told
her to abort it. J delivered a flying kick on S, and rained blows in Ss abdomen. S
suffered serious injuries. It turned out that S was not pregnant.
What crime did J commit?
J is liable for SPI. (Estrada Doctrine should apply.) J intended to cause abortion,
but there being no baby, he actually caused serious injuries to S. Under the law,
any person committing a felony is criminally liable although the wrongful
act done was different from what was intended.

An offshoot of the Famous Estrada Doctrine

If another crime is actually committed, then there can be no impossible
crime. Atty. Abelardo Estrada
On the performance of the defense panel on the Corona Impeachment:
Never present a witness whose testimony you do not know.
Atty. Abelardo Estrada
A was held at gunpoint by B, who was intent on robbery. But finding A to have no
money, B let A go. What crime did B commit?
B committed Grave threats, not impossible crime. B intended to do a crime against
A, which was robbery. Under the law, any person committing a felony is
criminally liable although the wrongful act done was different from what
was intended.
If a crime is punished with a cruel and unusual punishment, what is the duty of a
judge?

Impose the proper judgment and make a suggestion to the President through the
Secretary of Justice about the inherent cruelty of the punishment and possible
alternative punishemnt thereto.

FRUSTRATED vs. ATTEMPTED

Master the law as to when a crime is attempted vs frustrated.
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. Consummated felonies
as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
Attempted : The offender has just begun to perform overt acts, but does
not perform all acts of execution, being prevented by another cause or
accident other than his own desistance.
Attempted vs. Frustrated felony according to Estrada:
1. If the assailant acts with intent to kill, but does not inflict a mortal/serious
wound, he does not perform all the acts of execution. This is only in the
attempted stage of execution.
Ex.
A, with intent to kill, pointed his gun at B and pulled the trigger. The gun jammed.
What crime did A commit?
Attempted homicide. Under the law, if the offender does not inflict a
mortal wound, he does not perform all acts of execution. Hence, A reached
only the attempted stage of execution.
A with intent to kill pointed his gun at B, he fired and missed. What crime did he
commit?
A committed attempted homicide. He did not inflict a mortal wound. Under the
law, if the offender does not inflict a mortal wound, he does not perform
all acts of execution. Hence, A reached only the attempted stage of execution.
When offender proceeds with the commission of a crime by overt acts, but result
was thwarted by causes independent of his own spontaneous desistance, the crime
is in the frustrated stage. Hence, A reached only the frustrated stage of execution.

According to Atty. Estrada, Frustrated: There was commission of overt

acts, mortal wound was inflicted, but result was thwarted by independent
causes other than perpetrators spontaneous desistance.
A with intent to kill pointed his gun at B. He fired, hitting B in the shoulder and
causing slight physical injuries. What crime did he commit?
Attempted homicide. A did not inflict a mortal wound. Under the law, if the
offender does not inflict a mortal wound, he does not perform all acts of
execution. Hence, A reached only the attempted stage of execution.
A with intent to kill pointed his gun at B. He fired, hitting B mortally. B was rushed to
the hospital, and was saved. What was committed?
A committed frustrated homicide. A did inflicted a mortal wound. Under the law, if
the offender does inflict a mortal does not produce the result desired by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Some Sample Cases:
A hacked B, with intent to kill. C, restrained A when A sought to strike again.
Frustrated homicide.
A hacked B. When A was about to hack again, B begged him to stop, and A did stop.
A did not commit homicide, but did commit physical injuries.
A hacked B, with intent to kill. The wound was mortal. B begged A to stop and A
desisted. B was hospitalized and was saved. What was the crime?
A committed frustrated homicide. A did inflicted a mortal wound. Under the
law, if the offender does inflict a mortal does not produce the result
desired by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

PP vs. Salvilla There is no frustrated robbery.

When the offenders had taken possession of the stolen item, even if it were
more or less momentarily, the crime is already committed. Gain need not be
realized. Intent to gain, not actual gain, is the element.
Same with Rape. There is no frustrated Rape. There are only 2 stages of rape.
Mere skin to skin contact consummates the crime of rape.
Campuhan Doctrine
Mere bombardment of the castle of orgasmic potency or mere shelling of
the citadel of passion is only attempted rape.
But mere bombardment of the drawbridge is invasion enough even if the
troops did not succeed in entering the castle.

Note to myself: The defense oft cited by many accused of rape was that there was
no total penetration. This doctrine would mean that even if the penetration was
partial, or even mere skin to skin contact, consummates rape.
Note:
RA 8353 New Rape Law insertion of any instrument or object into the
genitalia or anus, with force = rape by sexual assault
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:
"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
"a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
and
"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above
be present.

PP vs Campuhan 2000
The danger there is that that concept may send the wrong signal to every roaming
lothario, whenever the opportunity bares itself, to better intrude with climactic
gusto, sans any restraint, since after all any attempted fornication would be
considered consummated rape and punished as such. A mere strafing of the citadel
of passion would then be considered a deadly fait accompli, which is absurd.
***
Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the oftquoted "touching of the female organ," but has also progressed into being
described as "the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the
pudendum," or "the bombardment of the drawbridge." But, to our mind, the
case at bar merely constitutes a "shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency," or as
earlier stated, a "strafing of the citadel of passion."
Conspiracy
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. Conspiracy and proposal to
commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a
penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

Conspiracy is generally a manner of incurring criminal liability. By itself, it is not a

crime, unless a law makes it so punishable.
Conspiracy
Conspiracy
Conspiracy
Conspiracy
Conspiracy
Conspiracy

to
to
to
to
to
to

commit
commit
commit
commit
commit
commit

treason.
arson
sedition
rebellion
coup de etat
terrorism.

A B and C were in a restaurant. There, they agreed to murder the mayor. The waiter
overheard them. The waiter slipped to the back door and ran to the station and
reported the fact. The policemen arrested A, B and C. What crime did A, B and C
did?
None. There is no crime of conspiracy to commit murder.
A, B and C decided to commit murder. A acted the lookout, B, the driver and C the
shooter. C killed D.
Are A and B liable for killing D?
Yes, they are liable for killing D. A and B are co-conspirators of C. When there is a
conspiracy, under Article 8 of the RPC, the act of one is the act of all.
Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his 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, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next
preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no
part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that
the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. are
present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or
other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes
damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present;

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

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
(Note to myself: Last clear chance doctrine)
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise
of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for
some lawful purpose.
7. Battered Woman Syndrome under RA 9262 VAWC. (Added by Atty. Estrada)
What are the circumstances modifying/affecting criminal liability?
Justifying, exempting, aggravating, alternative circumstances.
Justifying circumstances - the act of the accused is in accordance with law,
and thus has not transgressed the law.
1. Self Defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of Stranger
4. State of necessity
5. Performance of lawful act or duty
6. Obedience to a lawful order of a superior
7. Battered woman syndrome (RA 9262 VAWC)
3 elements of self-defense
1. unlawful aggression from the victim
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed coming from the accused to repel
aggression
3. lack of sufficient provocation from the accused
A was chasing B with a knife. B was cornered. With nowhere to go, B pulled out his .
38 pistol and shot A 5 times. Was there self-defense?
Yes, there was self-defense. B had no time to think but to act in his defense when he
began to shoot in his own defense, he being cornered by A. There being unlawful
aggression by A, and no sufficient provocation B, the shooting of the pistol at A was
necessary to repel As aggression.
Atty. Estrada: Do not demand too much on a person defending himself. A
person defending himself does not have the luxury of time to ponder on
his next course of action. Stand your ground if you are right.
X is a vice governor, Y is a political opponent of X. One day, their paths crossed in a
restaurant. X was with his body guard A. Y also has with him his body guard B .They
had a heated argument. X stood up. A, the bodyguard of X, went behind Y and

cocked his rifle. B, bodyguard of Y, got the barrel of the rifle and pulled it down. X
got his gun out and shot B. Was there self-defense? Would you convict or acquit?
If I were the judge, I would convict. When B pulled down the barrel, there was no
more aggression. The mere cocking of the rifle itself does not constitute unlawful
aggression. There was nothing to repel.
State of necessity elements (DOCTRINE OF STATE OF NECESSITY)
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
Under the state of necessity doctrine, person will not be criminally liable, only civilly
liable.
Performance of a lawful duty
Obedience of a lawful order the order given must be within authority of
the one giving the command, and must be within the bounds of law.
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)
Atty. Estrada: When you marry for good reasons, a thousand flowers will
bloom. But if you marry for flawed reasons, you may be living a life in
perpetual agony.
People vs. Genosa
Spouses must undergo at least 3 cycles of the 3 stages of BWS:
1 Tension building phase
2. Acute battering phase
3. Tranquil period
The acute battering stage must take place at least twice.
Where the brutalized person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence of
actual physical assault at the time of the killing is not required. Incidents of
domestic battery usually have a predictable pattern. To require the battered person
to await an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend her life "would amount to
sentencing her to 'murder by installment.' Still, impending danger (based on the
conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes) prior to the defendant's use of
deadly force must be shown. Threatening behavior or communication can satisfy
the required imminence of danger. Considering such circumstances and the
existence of BWS, self-defense may be appreciated.
Atty. Estrada Disagrees:
Genosa had been abused many times prior, 11 years since marriage. Genosa had
presented 27 medical certificates, showing she underwent 27 times at
least of the acute battering phase. There was constant danger existing in
her mind for so long, that there was unlawful aggression existent for so
long.

Where the SC failed to give to Genosa, RA 9262 was enacted. BWS is now
a complete self-defense. Even if there is incomplete self-defense per se,
BWS will still be considered a justifying circumstance. A woman who
successfully defends herself with BWS is neither civilly nor criminally
liable.
Remedies of a battered wife:
BPO (Barangay Protection Order)
TPO (Temporary Protection Order)
PPO (Permanent Protection Order)
BWS- connotes physical, economical, psychological abuse.
Art. 12 Exempting Circumstances
Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. the following are
exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines
as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or
asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to
leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age. (REPEALED)
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, exempt.
Over 15 but under 18, exempt unless he has acted with discernment, in which case,
such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80
of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit
him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance
and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or
person mentioned in said Art. 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some
lawful insuperable cause.

Exempting circumstance there is something lacking when the agent is performing

a crime.
1. Insanity/imbecility
Insanity not a total exempting circumstance, especially when crime was done
during a lucid interval.
Imbecility always exempting, mental capacity of a child.
A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, exempt.
Over 15 but under 18, exempt unless he has acted with discernment, in
which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
This is a defense to an accident. If proven, there is no civil nor criminal
liability.
Elements of accident that is exempting:
1. Person liable is in the performance of a lawful duty with due care.
2. He causes an injury to another person.
3. No fault or intent.
4. Diligence/prudence (for emphasis only).
Acting Under the compulsion of an irresistible force:
1. Irresistible force upon person by another
2. No freedom of choice
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury.
1. impulse of an uncontrollable fear
2. Injury feared is of equal or greater injury
3. no freedom of choice
4. injury feared is capable of being realized or perceived to be so.
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented
by some lawful insuperable cause.
Mitigating circumstances
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following are mitigating circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to
justify or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.

2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case
of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art.
80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to
the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or
his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical
defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his
fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of
the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those
above mentioned.
Mitigating circumstances shows the lesser perversity of defendant,
resulting in the lessening of the penalty or imposition of penalty in its
minimum.
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Destierro
Arresto Menor

Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Max
Med

Min
Prision Mayor
Max
Med
Min
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Destierro
Arresto Menor
It is wrong for a judge to sentence someone guilty of murder to reclusion
perpetua or death. He must impose only death. There had been cases
judges had been suspended or removed for ignorance of the law.
If there is mitigating circumstance, judge must impose lesser penalty or
minimum.
Reclusion Perpetua and Death are indivisible penalties.
How mitigation happens:
1 aggravating 1 mitigating =0
0 Aggravating 1 mitigating = lesser penalty/penalty in its minimum
0 aggravating 2 mitigating circumstance = 1 step below.
Surrender must be to a person in authority. Even if there is distance from
scene of the crime and place of surrender, there is mitigating circumstance,
unless surrender was voluntary, no arrest being made.
Plea of guilt made before a court of competent jurisdiction. Voluntary plea of
guilt given at earliest opportunity before prosecution could present evidence.
A was charged with homicide before MTC. He pleaded guilt. Was there a mitigating
circumstance?
No, there can be no MC of plea of guilt. MTC is not a court of competent jurisdiction
for homicide cases.
Lack of intent to commit a wrong.
Passion and obfuscation it must arise from lawful sentiments, not from
bestial instincts.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. The following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the
offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given provocation.

4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.

5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his
presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties,
or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a
band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or
afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title
of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches
a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive,
or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken
the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.

17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy
to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or
window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age
or by means of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar
means. (As amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented
by causing other wrong not necessary for its commissions.
4 kinds:
Generic/Ordinary aggravating circumstances generally applicable to all.
Specific only on specific instances.
Inherent necessarily included in the crime.
Qualifying raises category of a crime and gives it a proper name.
Ordinary AC
Nighttime this is not a QAC, only an OAC
Dwelling generic/ordinary AC, provided victim gave no provocation. Accused
need not be inside the dwelling. Victim must be within the vicinity.
Based on an actual case:
B was a cook in the farm. B was cooking in her house when C dragged her out of the
house to an unfinished construction 200m from the house and raped her there. Was
there dwelling as an OAC?
SC: While the victim was raped outside of her house, the unlawful aggression
started from her house. Hence, dwelling is still an AC.
ATTY ESTRADA: Yes. The fact that the crime started at the house and was
then relocated to another place should not remove the circumstance of
dwelling.
Recidivisim a person who at the time imprisonment or prior to service of sentence
shall be convicted by final judgment of a crime from the same title of the crime
previously convicted.
Quasi- recidivist he committed a felony while serving sentence.

Reiteracion/Habituality - It is an AC when at the time of his trial he has

previously served an offense equal or greater penalty.
Alternative Circumstances
Art. 15. Their concept. Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken
into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects
of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the
relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the
offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when
the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or
adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating
circumstances when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication,
if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but
when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
Alternative Circumstance could either be mitigating or aggravating.
When is intoxication aggravating?
1. When it is intentional.
2. When it is habitual.
When is intoxication mitigating?
1. When it is not intentional.
2. When it is not habitual.
3 kinds of persons liable:
Principal
Accomplice
Accessories
3 kinds of principal:
Direct principal
Principal by inducement
Principal by indispensable participation
Sample problem:
X induced A to Kill Y for 70k.
A induced B to Kill Y for 50k.
B induced C kill Y for 30K.
C induced D to kill Y for 10K.
D killed Y.
What kind of principals are they?
Ax

Bx
C Principal by inducement
D Principal by direct participation
Principal by inducement is a person who directly forces or induces another to
commit a crime. The inducement must be the moving factor for the
commission of the crime. There must be a relationship between the inducer and
the induced.
A and B were talking while C passed. A told B to kill C. B said Barilin mo nga si C.
Was there inducement?
No. Thoughtless statements/expression cannot be considered inducement.
A told B If I were you, you should kill your husband. Is there inducement?
No. Thoughtless statements/expression cannot be considered inducement.
PP vs. Janet Clemente
It may be true that Janet pointed to Edwards the deceased Felarca, who rushed to
the aid of his friends, despite the gunfire, from behind the car of the accused, and
that Edwards promptly shot the latter. But considering the situation that Edwards
had already hit Navasca, and Canial on the other side of the car was using and firing
a carbine, it is unlikely that Janet's statement "Iyan pa ang isa dumarating"
was taken and obeyed by Edwards as an order to shoot. From all indications,
Edwards then did not need prodding or instigation from anybody to fire at anyone
who would rush towards him, as Felarca had imprudently done. Janet's statement
partook more of a warning to Edwards of an impending threat than an inducement
to shoot.
For the utterances of an accused to make him a principal by inducement, it is
necessary that the words be of such nature and uttered in such a manner as to
become the determining cause of the crime, and that the inducement precisely was
intended to serve such purpose. In other words, the inciting words must have
great dominance and influence over the person who acts; they ought to be
direct and as efficacious or powerful as physical or moral coercion or
violence itself. Thus, where the alleged inducement to commit the crime was no
longer necessary to incite the assailant, then the uttered can not be held
accountable for the crime as a principal by inducement. Her statement do not,
therefore, make Janet Clemente incur criminal liability for the killings effected by her
co-accused.
Direct inducement - a principal by inducement must exercise moral
ascendancy over a principal by direct participation in order to be considered
a principal by direct inducement.
A calls for his son B. A told B to kill Y. B agreed. Is the father a principal by
inducement?
Yes as A has moral ascendancy over B.

Principal by indispensable cooperation a person without whose

participation, the principal by direct participation could not have
accomplished the crime.
Estrada Doctrine in operation
C has the only motorboat to the island. A asked C to transport him to the island.
Upon reaching the island, A killed B. Was C liable to the killing of B?
No, C is not liable for the killing of B. Although C was vital to the act of killing of B by
A, C did not know that C intended to kill B. There was no crime committed by C in
the first place. There can be no crime as there was no intent by C to facilitate the
commission of the killing of B by A.
6/3/2012
Success belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
ACCOMPLICE
X called for A, his son, and told him to kill Y to exact revenge. A agreed. B, the
brother of X, overheard the conversation. B gave A his gun for A to use. A used the
gun to kill Y. What is Bs liability?
Accomplice.
Note: Why?
Was Bs cooperation indispensable? No.
Could A kill Y by another means? Yes.
Hence, B is only an accomplice.
An accomplice simply cooperates in the execution of the crime by the
principal by direct participation. He is not part of the conspiracy.
Modes of becoming an accomplice:
1. An accomplice is a person who is not a part of the conspiracy. But the
moment he came to know about the conspiracy, he concurs, conforms and
approves the conspiracy; and cooperates by previous and simultaneous
acts. However, his participation should not be equal or greater than the
act of the principal by direct participation.
On 5/5/2012, A and B agreed and decided to rob the house of X. (There is
conspiracy between A and B.)
On 5/7/2012, A and B went to C and told C of their plan to rob X and asked if C is
willing to help by driving them to Xs house. C said yes. C drove them to the house
of X.
What is Cs liability?
C is a mere accomplice of A and B. C is not a co-conspirator because he came to
know about it later. He concurred and cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts
(in this case, previous act of driving A and B to the house of X). Cs act is however
not equal or greater than acts done by A and B, and thus he is a mere accomplice.
2. An accomplice is a person who, upon witnessing the principal by direct
participation commit a crime, concurs, conforms and approves the act, and
cooperates by previous and simultaneous acts. However, his participation

should not be equal or greater than the act of the principal by direct
participation.
Ex. A stabbed X. B was there, witnessed the act of A. B attacked X by raining
punches on X. X died of the stab wound. Is A liable?
Yes A is liable as a Principal by Direct Participation.
What is Bs liability?
B is an Accomplice. B, after witnessing the attack of X by A, only rained punches on
X. Under the law, an accomplices participation should not be equal or greater than
the act done by the principal.
Suppose A slapped X. B saw this and B stabbed X. X died due to the stab wound.
What is the liability of B?
B is not an accomplice. Bs act was greater than the slapping of A. B is liable as
principal (for homicide).
What is the liability of A?
A is a principal by direct participation for slight physical injuries.
ACCESSORY (Art. 19 RPC)
Art. 19. Accessories. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the
crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the
life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
How one becomes an accessory:
1. Profiting by the effects of the crime or helping offender to profit by the
effects of the crime.
-Person must know of the crime.
2. Conceal the body of the crime or the instrument of the crime
Corpus delicti the fact that the crime has been committed
A killed B with a gun. A told X that he killed B and asked X to keep the gun. X
agreed. X is an accessory.
3. An accessory is a person who harbors, conceals or assists in escape of the
principal who is guilty (COMMITTED) of the crime of TPMA-H (treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is a
habitual delinquent).

A and B quarreled. In the course of the fight, A killed B. A was pursued by police. A
ran to C his friend. A confessed of killing B. A asked C to harbor him from the police.
C harbored, concealed and assisted A. Is C an accessory?
No, C is not an accessory. The crime committed by A is homicide because there is
no qualifying aggravating circumstance that shall catapult the crime to murder.
Under the law, an accessory is a person who harbors, conceals or assists a person
guilty(COMMITTED) of a crime of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take
the life of the Chief Executive, or is a habitual delinquent.
When one element of the crime is absent, he is not liable. Just create
doubt in the mind of the judge, and acquittal will result.
A had a drinking spree with B. Under the pretext of drinking liquor, A pretended to
drink while B kept drinking. When B was intoxicated, A killed B. Policemen
approached A, but A ran away. A approached C, his friend and asked C to conceal
him from the police, to which C agreed. What is Cs liability?
C is an accessory. A had committed murder and C consented to help A escape the
authorities. Under the law, an accessory is a person who harbors, conceals or
assists a person guilty(COMMITTED) of a crime of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is a habitual delinquent.
Thus, when C concealed A, C became an accessory. The principal should have
committed the crime of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of
the Chief Executive, or is a habitual delinquent.
Warning: PD 1829 Obstruction of Justice
A killed B using irresistible force. Being chased by the police, A went to the mayor
for help. The mayor concealed him. Later on, the police went after the mayor. The
mayor went to C for help. C hid the mayor. Is C an accessory of the murder of B?
No, C is not an accessory of the murder of B. The mayor is merely an accessory to a
crime and was hiding from the police when C aided in hiding the mayor. Thus, C is a
principal by direct participation for obstruction of justice under PD 1829.
A, B and C were drinking. B excused himself to answer the call of nature. While B
was thus disposed, A stabbed B from behind. B died. A called for X, his brother in
law and told him to come over. X saw B dead. A told X to dispose of Bs body. X
dumped the body of B in an empty well and covered it. Is X an accessory? Why?
Explain.
Yes, X is an accessory. This is because X consented to the act of concealing the body
of the crime. Under the law, an accessory is a person who harbors, conceals or
assists a person guilty(COMMITTED) of a crime of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is a habitual delinquent.
Is X liable?
No, X is exempted being a relative by affinity to the 2nd degree to A.

Under the law, what can be given retroactive application?

Only Penal laws favorable to the accused can be given retroactive application.
PP vs. Constantino Cano(?)
A was charged with murder. Murder is penalized with RP(Reclusion Perpetua) to
death. Under 1985 laws, ACs which were not alleged may still be allowed if proven
in trial to be appreciated by the court as AC. In 1998, A was charged. The
information did not allege nighttime and dwelling as AC. Prosecution was able to
prove the two ordinary ACs. The judge appreciated them and convicted A,
punishable by death. On appeal (automatic appeal in the SC), the 2000 Rules of
Criminal Procedure took effect. Under this, all ACs should now be alleged in the
information in order to be appreciated. The SC was in a quandary.
Resolution:
Be it procedural substantive, or remedial, for so long as the law is
favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent, the law should
be given retroactive application.
What is the legal duration of Reclusion Perpetua?
None.
Under RA 7659, the law changed the nature of complexion of RP and made it a
divisible penalty, and made it 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. However, in several
cases, SC said there was no clear legislative intent to consider Reclusion
Perpetua as a divisible penalty. It should have amended articles 63 and 76 of
RPC. They did not. So, for all intents and purposes, RP is still a indivisible
penalty and therefore has no legal duration. (PP vs. Lucas, PP vs. Alvarado and
PP vs. Julian)
RP to death.
Self-defense and Privileged MC one degree lower.
1 MC RP
1 AC - death
Penalty 2 degrees lower form RT Prision Correccional (PC)
Which is the penalty 1 degree lower from Arresto Mayor?
(Art. 70 and 71)
It depends. In Uy Chin-Hua vs. Dinglasan, according to the order of severity,
Arresto menor is the most severe penalty (duration of penalties) next to
Arresto mayor. But, for purposes of the indeterminate sentence law, it
would be destierro.
Uy Chin-Hua vs. Dinglasan
We are unanimous in the conclusion that the court of first instance has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged and that therefore the writ of prohibition lies.
But we are not unanimous as to the reasons. A minority hold that if the scale
provided by article 71 of the Revised Penal Code is to be followed, the penalty of
destierro would have to be imposed which, they claim, would produce an absurdity
because the duration of said penalty is from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years "coextensive with prision correccional, a penalty higher than arresto mayor in the scale
provided by article 71." Therefore, the minority hold that the penalty of destierro

should be applied only when it is specifically imposed and should be disregarded in

the scale provided in article 71. In other words, the minority think that the penalty
imposable for the offense charged is arresto menor.
A majority of the court, including the writer of this opinion, find no justification for
disregarding the scale of penalties provided in article 71 and for not applying the
penalty of destierro to the offense charged, in accordance with article 51 in relation
to the scale of penalties provided in said article 71 of the Revised Penal Code.
To disregard the scale of penalties provided in article 71 and to apply
destierro only to crimes specifically punished with that penalty, such as
those mentioned in articles 247 and 334, would be to amend or change the
law, and the court is not empowered to do so. Our sworn duty is to apply
the law and not to tamper with it.
Destierro is not higher penalty than arresto mayor. Arresto mayor means
imprisonment or complete deprivation of liberty, whereas destierro means
banishment or only a prohibition from residing within the radius of 25
kilometers from the actual residence of the accused for a specified length
of time. The respective severities of arresto mayor and destierro must not
be judged by the duration of each of these penalties, but by the degree of
deprivation of liberty involved. Penologist have always considered
destierro lighter than the arresto mayor. Such criterion is reflected both in the
old Spanish Penal Code and in our Revised Penal Code. In the graduated scale of
article 71 the lawmaker has placed destierro below arresto mayor. There is,
therefore, no basis in fact or in law for holding that destierro is a higher
penalty than arresto mayor and that an offense penalized with destierro
falls under the jurisdiction of the court of first instance.
Order of severity of sentence:
Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Arresto Menor
Order of progression according to degree:
Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Destierro
Arresto Menor

A degree is one unit of penalty. It refers to the three equal portions of a

divisible penalty known as minimum, medium and maximum.
Memory Aid: Death, 2Reclusion, 2 Prision, Amayor, Des, Amen
Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Destierro
Arresto Menor
Periods
Arresto Menor 1 day to 1 month
Minimum 1 day
Maximum 1 month
(1:1)
Arresto Mayor
Minimum 1 month 1 day
Maximum 6 months
(1:6)
Prision Correccional 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
Minimum 6 months and 1 day
Maximum 6 years
(6:6)
Prision Mayor
Minimum 6 years and day
Maximum 12 years
(6:12)
Reclusion temporal
Minimum 12 years and 1 day
Maximum 20 years
(12:20)
Reclusion Perpetua
Indivisible
Death
Ex. Murder (RP to Death)
1 MC 1 AC = RP to Death
1 MC 1 AC = Death
1 MC 0 AC = RP
Divisible Penalty

1
0
0
1
2

AC
AC
AC
AC
AC

0 MC = Maximum
1MC = Minimum
0 MC = Medium
1 MC = Medium
1 MC = Maximum

Complex Crime
Compound Crime
Delito Compuesto
Complex Crime Proper
Deletio Complejo
Delito continuado
Continuing Crime
Single larceny doctrine

Complex Crime
Complex crime under Art. 48
1. When a single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies
(Compound crime or delito compuesto); or
2. An offense is necessary for committing another, (Delito Complejo)
There is only one crime.
What would be mixed together?
2 grave felonies
2 grave or less grave
2 less grave felonies
One cannot compound 2 light felonies.
A shot B. The bullet also hit C. B and C died. How many crimes are you going to file
against A?
One only for double homicide, for two counts of homicide.
Suppose same facts, but D was also hit and died also. How many crimes are you
going to file against A?
One only for multiple homicide.
If three informations were filed, file a motion to quash.
A, with intent to kill, fired at B. B was slightly injured. The bullet hit C, who died. The
bullet also hit D, who suffered a mortal wound but did not die. What information/s
will you file?
Homicide with frustrated homicide with attempted homicide.

(Remember, in giving a title to a crime committed, never use AND)

A with intent to kill, hacked B, but missed and hit C who died. What can be filed?
Homicide with attempted homicide.
A with intent to kill fired his gun at B. B was mortally wounded but saved. C was also
hit but died. D was hit, but suffered only slight injuries. E and F were hit by the
bullet, F was also mortally wounded and E was seriously injured.
What must be filed?
Double homicide with double frustrated homicide with attempted
homicide.
Effects of Ordinary/Generic AC, Specific AC, Inherent AC, Qualifying AC to
the penalty imposed:
Ordinary/Generic AC practically attends all crimes
Ex. Nighttime always accompany the crime of murder if it was done at night. It is
not a QAC. So even is a crime is committed at night, there must be proof that the
crime was committed with the accused taking advantage of nocturnity. If
no proof thereof, nighttime is not an AC.
A teacher was going to his dawn class. The students suddenly turned off the light in
the classroom and attacked the teacher. Is nighttime a correct AC?
No, false darkness (dawn) is not considered nighttime.
Your maid steals your jewels. Theft is qualified by abuse of confidence.
When you file a case, do not include allegation as QAC abuse of trust, just
mention theft was with abuse of confidence.
Murder with use of poison. Use of poison will be an inherent part of
murder. Do not anymore allege use poison for computation of max period.
Compound crime
Compound crime is otherwise known as delito compuesto, where a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. There is one crime only.
Aid to naming the crime: List down all acts from the most severe to least
severe. (Use conjunction WITH)
Delito Complejo the complex crime proper.
When an offense is a necessary means of committing another offense, a
delito complejo is committed.
B, the holder in due course, lost the check issued in his favor by A. C found the
complete but undelivered NI. C wrote on it, making it appear that he is B. (C falsified
the entry so it appears he is the B.) C presented it for payment by the drawee bank
and was given the cash. What crime was committed?

List down the crimes:

Falsification under Art. 217 of RC
Estafa payee was defrauded to pay the cash by B
The most serious crime should be the basis of the name of the crime.
Answer:
C committed estafa through falsification of commercial document.
X is a municipal treasurer. He is a cockfighting aficionado. The coming Sunday, he
needed capital. He made a falsified or ghost project, concreting of a barangay road.
He withdrew 50000K ostensibly to pay 10 workers via the falsified report. What did
X commit?
Malversation of public funds
Falsification
X committed malversation through falsification.
A went to the house of B in order to kill B. A saw B in his bed. A stabbed B several
times, causing Bs death. After stabbing B to death, A burned the house of B to
show that B died by fire. What crime/s did A commit?
Murder and Arson. Arson was not done to commit murder. It was only to
conceal the crime of murder. Thus there are two separate crimes.
Delito continuardo continued crime, it is a series of acts committed about
the same place and about the same time arising from a single criminal
resolution/intent resulting to only one criminal liability.
In a compound, there are 5 houses occupied by House 1-5 persons, House 2-6
people, House 3-7 people, House 4- 8 people and House 5-10 people. A and B
robbed all houses. How many counts of robbery did they commit?
They committed only one count of robbery. A and B had only one intent, to rob all of
the five houses, and thus only one count of robbery. The series of acts were
committed about the same place and about the same time arising from a single
criminal intent, and thus will result to only one criminal liability.
Continuing crime
Continuing crime is a crime where any of the essential elements of the crime
takes place in more than one municipality or city, such that the crime may be filed
in any of the city or municipality involved.
A kidnapped B in Naga City, brought him to Cotabato, Cebu City and then Manila.
How many counts of kidnapping can be filed against A?
Only one.
Where can the case be filed?
In any of the places B was brought.

A rich businessman from Benguet was kidnapped in Baguio City. Demand for
ransom was made in Baguio City. No ransom was paid, so he was killed in Baguio,
and the body recovered in Benguet. Where shall the case be filed?
Baguio City.
If the case was filed in Benguet, will the case prosper?
No, it will not prosper. No element of the crime was ever committed in Benguet.
There can be no crime for kidnapping of cadaver. :D A continuing crime is a
crime where any of the essential elements of the crime takes place in more than
one municipality or city, such that the crime may be filed in any of the city or
municipality involved, which in this case is Baguio City only.
S21 Art 2 RA 9165 Chain of Custody Rule
Single Larceny Doctrine
Single larceny doctrine it is a doctrine in theft or robbery wherein the taking
of several properties belonging to the same person or different persons
arising from a single criminal resolution results in only one crime.
A went home one afternoon. On the way, he saw two roosters. He took one and then
the other, one in each arm.
How many acts did he perform?
Two.
How many crimes were committed?
There was only one crime. The two acts emanated from a single intent.
People vs. Gamboa
40 counts = one crime
Defensor-Santiago vs. Garchitorena 1993
Single larceny rule can be applied to other crimes.
The question of whether a series of criminal acts over a period of time creates a
single offense or separate offenses has troubled also American Criminal Law and
perplexed American courts as shown by the several theories that have evolved in
theft cases.
The trend in theft cases is to follow the so-called "single larceny" doctrine,
that is, the taking of several things, whether belonging to the same or
different owners, at the same time and place constitutes but one larceny.
Many courts have abandoned the "separate larceny doctrine," under which
there is a distinct larceny as to the property of each victim. Also
abandoned was the doctrine that the government has the discretion to
prosecute the accused or one offense or for as many distinct offenses as
there are victims (annotation, 37 ALR 3rd 1407, 1410-1414).

The American courts following the "single larceny" rule, look at the
commission of the different criminal acts as but one continuous act
involving the same "transaction" or as done on the same "occasion" (State
v. Sampson, 157 Iowa 257, 138 NW 473; People v. Johnson, 81 Mich. 573, 45 NW
1119; State v. Larson, 85 Iowa 659, 52 NW 539).
An American court held that a contrary rule would violate the constitutional
guarantee against putting a man in jeopardy twice for the same offense
(Annotation, 28 ALR 2d 1179). Another court observed that the doctrine is a
humane rule, since if a separate charge could be filed for each act, the accused
may be sentenced to the penitentiary for the rest of his life (Annotation, 28 ALR 2d
1179).
In the case at bench, the original information charged petitioner with
performing a single criminal act that of her approving the application
for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such
privilege.
The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on
the same period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong
probability even exists that the approval of the application or the
legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the
pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document.
Likewise, the public prosecutors manifested at the hearing the motion for a bill of
particulars that the Government suffered a single harm or injury. The
Sandiganbayan in its Order dated November 13, 1992 stated as follows:
. . . Equally, the prosecution has stated that insofar as the damage and
prejudice to the government is concerned, the same is represented not
only by the very fact of the violation of the law itself but because of the
adverse effect on the stability and security of the country in granting
citizenship to those not qualified (Rollo, p. 59).The 32 Amended
Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same
period of time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong
probability even exists that the approval of the application or the
legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of
the pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document.
Likewise, the public prosecutors manifested at the hearing the motion for a bill of
particulars that the Government suffered a single harm or injury. The
Sandiganbayan in its Order dated November 13, 1992 stated as follows:
. . . Equally, the prosecution has stated that insofar as the damage and
prejudice to the government is concerned, the same is represented not
only by the very fact of the violation of the law itself but because of the
adverse effect on the stability and security of the country in granting
citizenship to those not qualified (Rollo, p. 59).

WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 of the
Sandiganbayan (First Division) is AFFIRMED and its Resolution dated March 11, 1993
in Criminal Case No. 16698 is MODIFIED in the sense that the Office of the Special
Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman is directed to consolidate the 32
Amended Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 18371 to 18402) into one information
charging only one offense under the original case number, i.e., No. 16698. The
temporary restraining order issued by this Court on March 25, 1993 is LIFTED insofar
as to the disqualification of Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena is concerned.
Separate Larceny Doctrine not applicable now.

Indeterminate Sentence Law

Disqualified to avail of the ISL:
Sentenced to
1. capital punishment
2. Life imprisonment
Those guilty of:
3. Treason, misprision, conspiracy thereof
4. Piracy
5. sedition or espionage
6. habitual delinquent
Those who:
7. escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
8. having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have
violated the terms thereof;
9. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year
A was sentenced to suffer Reclusion Perpetua. Is A entitled to the benefits of ISL?
Seemingly yes, because Reclusion Perpetua is not included in the list of disqualified
persons. However, in one case decided by the SC, the term Life Imprisonment
necessarily includes Reclusion Perpetua (people vs. Narvaez). Thus, A is not entitled
to the benefits of ISL.
What is the salient feature of the ISL?
The salient feature of the ISL is that the judge shall impose the minimum
penalty and the maximum penalty.
What are the purposes of ISL?
1. to enhance the economic usefulness of the convict.
2. to avoid unnecessary deprivation of liberty.
Is the imposition of ISL mandatory or discretionary upon the judge?

It is never discretionary. The moment the convict has served the minimum
penalty, he can apply to be released on parole. He does not have to serve the
maximum penalty.
What are the ways of total extinction of criminal liability:
1. death of convict
2. service of sentence
3. absolute pardon
4. amnesty
5. prescription of crime
6. prescription of penalty
7. marriage between offender and offended party.
Effects of death to the liabilities of a convict:
1. death extinguishes criminal liability
2. with respect to his civil liabilities:
If convict dies before finality of decision, civil liability is extinguished.
If convict dies after finality of decision, civil liability is retained by his estate.
Effect of Absolute Pardon: granted after conviction
Grants oblivion to all the effects of conviction and it restores all civil and
political rights.
Amnesty: Granted to political offenses even before conviction
Prescription of crime the crime cannot be prosecuted after the period of
prescription.`
Johnny married Susan in 2002. However, in 2012, Susan found out he had still a
valid marriage to Vivian. Johnny claimed prescription. Is Johnny correct?
No. Prescription runs from point of discovery of Susan.
Prescription of Penalty:
Grave Penalty
Afflictive Penalty
Light Penalty
A absconded before he started serving his sentence. He was caught after 25 years.
He claimed prescription of penalty. Is he correct?
No, he is not correct. A must have served at least a portion of the sentence
before he absconded for prescription to toll.