Crim 1 - Muyot - CrimFinalReviewer

Chua, Manalo, Martinez, Moreto, Gozun, Peralta, Salindo, Santos, Sarita, Siazon, Tuason
Criminal law 1 Reviewer:
I.
Penologic ojectives: Law as a

means of social control
What are the objectives of penal laws?
1. Retribution
a. penalty corresponds in severity to injured party
b. The state is the one exacting retribution instead of the family of the
victim taking the law into their own hands.
c. The criminal aspect remains with the state while the civil
aspect remains with the family.
2. Prevention
a. deprivation of liberty so as not to commit any future acts
b. additional penalty given to a repeat offender so as to prevent him from
committing a crime again
3. Deterrence
a. scaring others from committing crimes
b. The success not only lies in severity but also in certainty and
celerity (how fast justice will be meted out)
4. Rehabilitation
a. an alternative for the offender to change his ways
b. one example is parole, another is probation
5. Restorative Justice
a. a theory in a threefold structure that addresses the needs of the
victim, the offender, and the community.
b. For the victim, the need is to restore him in his original state, hence
reparation
c. For the offender, the pursuit of a straight and narrow path and the
restoration to his home community through means of diversion, not
prosecution
d. For the community, safety is paramount.
II.
General Principles of Criminal

Law:
A.
Generality:
Who are covered by Philippine Penal Laws?
Art. 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety are obligatory
for:
1. those who live in Philippine territory
2. Those who sojourn in Philippine territory
Article 2, RPC- Article 2. Application of its provisions. the rpc provisions
are not only applicable 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;
A. Muyot says:
A Philippine ship is not determined by the nationality of its captain but rather by the country of
its registration
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;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
preceding 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.
Who are exempted from their coverage?

RA 75- AN ACT TO PENALIZE ACTS WHICH WOULD IMPAIR THE PROPER
OBSERVANCE BY THE REPUBLIC AND INHABITANTS OF THE
PHILIPPINES OF THE IMMUNITIES, RIGHT, AND PRIVILEGES OF
DULY ACCREDITED FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR AGENTS
IN THE PHILIPPINES
Foreign officials immune from RPC Coverage:
a. the person of any ambassador (given diplomatic status of by

our Country)
b. public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received
as such by the President
A. Muyot says:
a. consuls are not exempted because they are not included in the law and are usually Filipinos
b. deputy heads of state are not immune
c. an ambassador can be arrested if he waives his diplomatic immunity
RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement:

a. United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise
within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction
conferred on them by the military law of the United States over
United States personnel in the Philippines.
b. United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
United States personnel with respect to offenses, including offenses
relating to the security of the United States, punishable under the
laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.
Offenses relating to security mean:
(1) treason;
(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to
national defense.
c. United States military authorities shall have the primary right to
exercise jurisdiction over United States personnel subject to the
military law of the United States in relation to:
(1) offenses solely against the property or security of the
United States or offenses solely against the property or person
of United States personnel; and
(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in
performance of official duty.
R.A. 7055-AN ACT STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE

MILITARY BY RETURNING TO THE CIVIL COURTS THE JURISDICTION
OVER CERTAIN OFFENSES INVOLVING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, OTHER PERSONS SUBJECT TO
MILITARY LAW, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
OFFICE, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PRESIDENTIAL
DECREES
Offenses committed by military men
Section 1. Members of the Armed forces of the Philippines and other

persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens
Armed Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses
penalized under the Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or
local government ordinances, regardless, of whether or not civilians
are co-accused, victims, or offended parties which may be natural or
juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court, except
when the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil
court, is service-connected, in which case the offense shall be tried
by court-martial:
Provided, That the President of the Philippines may, in the interest
of justice, order or direct at any time before arraignment that any
such crimes or offenses be tried by the proper civil courts.
B.
Territoriality
What is considered Philippine territory for the purpose of applying Philippine

penal laws?
RPC, 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
Article 1 of the1987 Constitution. The national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial
and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The
waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
A. Muyot says:
The exact measurements of Philippine territory are in the baselines, which btw overlaps with
that of Chinas, Vietnams and Malaysias. due to the Spratlys controversy.
May Philippine laws be applied outside Philippine territory?

remember the 5 exemptions to territorial application under Article 2 of the RPC.
Cases:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Bull
Facts: H.N. Bull was master of steamship Standard, which transported 677 cattle and
carabaos on 2 Dec 1909 without proper means of securing them or bedding,
thus, a number were cruelly torn (ropes were tied on nose rings), bruised, and
killed. Ship route: Formosa-Phils.
Issue: WON Phil. laws apply, as there is no information regarding where this occurred.
Held: Yes; this was ongoing as the ship entered the Phil. territory, therefore, Phil. laws apply.
A. Muyot says:
Killing carabaos violated public interest, which was the need of more carabos in the
Philippines.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Wong Cheng

Facts: Wong Cheng smoked opium while aboard merchant vessel Changsa, anchored in
Manila Bay within 2.5 miles from shore.
Issue: WON Philippines has jurisdiction over Merchant ships in its territory?
Held: Yes; under the English Rule, the court had jurisdiction over offenses against public
order committed within its territorial waters. So Court had jurisdiction.Since this
was the case, smoking opium within Philippine territory allows substance to
produce pernicious effects, which is against public order and public interest
because the Chinese might come up to the ship and smoke opium with him. It is
also an act of defiance of authority.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Look Chaw
Facts: Mrs. Jacks and Milliron found sacks of contraband substance opium on steamship Errol
on 18 August 1910 in, around 11-12 am. 3 sacks were found containing 49, 80
packs, (4) packs each; total = 129 packs to be sold, 4 for personal consumption.
The 129 were supposedly going to be sold in Mexico and Vera Cruz.
Issue: Was Look Chaw accountable?
Held: Yes; only because the cargo was brought down by his act of selling to a secret service
agent while in the port. If he didnt sell, then he wouldnt be liable since the place
where the cargo was to be dropped wasnt in the Philippines.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Ah Sing
Facts: Ah Sing as onboard steamer Shun Chang which docked on Cebu from Saigon on 25
April 1917. He had bought 8 cans of opium there, which were found on the ship,
hidden in the ashes below the boiler of ship engine. No evidence regarding intent
to import was brought to court.
Issue: Is he guilty of importing when intent was not so proven?
Held: Yes, without reasonable doubt; its illogical that he would transport from Saigon-ManilaSaigon for pleasure, considering that the huge quantity meant that it wasnt only
for him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Lol-lo and Saraw
Facts: 2 Dutch boats left Matuta, Indonesia on 30 June 1920, headed for Peta. First boat had
1 person aboard and the second had 11 men, women and children. After a few
days, at 7pm, the second boat arrived between the isles of Buang and Bukid and
was stopped by 6 vintas with 24 men, all armed. They asked for food, took cargo,
hurt men, and raped women. Then, 2 women were taken, the rest were put back
on boat made to sink. Lol-lo raped one of the women on the way to Maruro,
where both women escaped.
Issue: Was Lollos crime within the jurisdiction of a Philippine court?
Held: Yes piracy is a crime against all mankind, therefore it was in the jurisdiction of any
court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C.
Prospectivity
For which acts may a person be punished?
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable

by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
May Philippine penal laws be applied retroactively?

Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal Laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a
felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in
Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the
publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced
and the convict is serving the same.
III. Felonies
under RPC (For the purpose of this discussion, only felonies will be handled)
Felony
Act 1A
Punishable Dolo 3A
b
y
R
P
C
2
Omission
Culpa 3B
1
B
Fig. 1 A. Muyots chart of what a felony is
For what act may a person be penalized?

Art 3, RPC- Definition of Felony. A felony is an act or omission punishable
by the RPC committed with Dolo or Culpa - Sir Muyots simplified
definition
Note that intent and negligence are the closest words to dolo or culpa, but not the exact
meaning!
What are the elements of a felony?

(Note: check the chart!)
a. Act- bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external
world but should constitute a felony as defined in the parameters of the RPC.
Thoughts not included!
b. Omission- failure to perform a positive duty one is bound to do!
c. Punishable by the RPC only, not special laws
What is dolo and culpa?
Dolo
intent to do harm
requisites for an act or omission done with dolo: freedom, intelligence, and
intent
Culpa
lack of foresight
requisites for an act or omission done with culpa: freedom, intelligence,
imprudence (no standard of care)
What is malum in se and malum prohibitum?

a. malum in se- crimes that are inherently evil from an ethical perspective
ex. rape
a. malum prohibitum- the law prohibits such acts for the sake of convenience
and social regulation
ex. Illegal possession of firearms
What is the difference between intent and felony?

a. Intent- means used to effect a wanted result
ex. Stabbing a person- intent can be proven from the act itself
b. Motive- moving power which impels one to do action for a definites

result
ex. Jealousy- motive can be proven by circumstantial evidence such as testimony
Cases:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------U.S. v Ah Chong
Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in mess hall at Fort McKinley and stayed there at Bldg. 27. One
night, he woke up to the sound of someone trying to force his way into the room.
There was no way to know who it was as it was dark and the room only had 1
door and 1 window, and vines covered the window; all he could do was ask who
it was. He asked twice, and then, when no response came, he threatened the
attacker that if he continued, he would be killed. He took a knife which he kept
under his pillow because of the robberies occurring recently, and when he was
hit on the knee by a chair he uses to keep the door closed, he attacked and killed
the man who turned out to be his roommate, Pascal Gualberto. He called for help
immediately but it was too late.
Issue: Is he liable for the crime?
Held: No; it was a mistake of facts. The act would have been lawful if the facts had been as
he believed them to be. (Ignorantia facti excusat)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Oanis and Galanta
Facts: Under instructions to seize Balagtas (escaped convict), the two policemen went to a
house where they suspected Balagtas to be hiding. Upon finding a sleeping man
inside, they shot him. He turned out to be Tecson, an innocent man.
Issue: Are they liable?
Held: Yes; unlike in Ah Chong, facts did not show that they tried to ascertain that they had
the right man. As they did not exercise due precaution in ascertaining the
identity of the target, they were guilty of murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Art. 4. Criminal Liability

RPC. Art 4. 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.
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 on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Par. 1: Criminal liability for a felony different from that intended to
be committed
Requisites:
1. That an intentional felony has been committed.
No intentional felony:
-When the act or omission is not punishable by RPC; or
-When the act is covered by any of the justifying circumstances in Art. 11 of
RPC.
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony c
ommitted.
Proximate Cause that cause, which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury without which the result would not have
occurred.
-trigger that sets in motion a chain of events that will lead to a resulting harm
The relation of cause and effect must be shown:
a. Unlawful act is the efficient cause
b. Accelerating cause
c. Proximate cause
Three Categories when the result of the wrongful act done be different from that which is
intended:
1. Error In Personae mistake in the identity of the victim (Article 49 penalty for lesser
crime in its maximum period)
2. Abberatio ictus mistake in the blow (Article 48 on complex crimes penalty for graver
offense in its maximum period); although he intended the harm to another, the blow
injured other person
3. Praeter intentionem injurious result is greater than that intended (Article 13
mitigating circumstance)
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence of physical injuries inflicted:
1. That the victim at that time the physical injuries were inflicted was in normal health
2. That the death may be expected from the physical injuries inflicted
3. That death may be ensued with a reasonable time
Felony committed is NOT the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
1. There is an active force between the felony committed and the resulting injury, such
active force is distinct from the felony committed.
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim, i.e. fault or carelessness
of the victim to increase criminal liability of the assailant.
Cases:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Iligan
Facts:
Defendant hacked a man with a bolo. Man did not die from the wound caused by the bolo
attack. He was run over by a passing vehicle immediately after he was hacked by the
defendant.
Held:
The defendant hacking the man is an intentional act. While the said act is not the direct
cause of the death of the man, it was the proximate cause. The sequence of events from
the assault to the running over by the vehicle is one unbroken chain of events. Having
triggered such events, the defendant cannot escape liability.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Mananquil
Facts:
Out of anger, the wife poured gasoline on her husband, and set him on fire. The husband did
not immediately die from the burns he sustained. He was brought to the hospital, where he
contracted pneumonia which caused his death a few days after the burning incident.
Held:
Wife is held liable. The pneumonia which ultimately caused the death of the husband is a
complication of the burns he sustained from the wife. Although pneumonia is the immediate
cause of death, it could not have resulted if the victim did not suffer from second degree
burns.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs Brobst
Facts:
The defendant punched a man after the man did not obey the defendant's command to go
away. The man immediately went to his sister's house located about 200 yards away and
about 100 feet up the side of a hill. He died as he reached the door of the house.
Held:
The defendant is held liable. Although it is not totally impossible that there is an intervening
cause of the death during the time that the deceased walked towards the house, there is no
evidence of any intervening cause. The doubt which must be decided in favor of the accused
person in a criminal trial is a reasonable doubt, and not a mere whimsical and fanciful doubt,
based upon imagined but wholly improbable possibilities, unsupported by evidence. There
can be no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable man that death was in fact brought
about by the blow inflicted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V.
Impossible Crime
Par. 2: Impossible crime

focuses on intent; limited to crimes under RPC
REQUISITES:
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. That the act was done with evil intent
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
Inadequate- means is insufficient (e.g. small quantity of poison)
Ineffectual
means employed did not nproduce the result expected (e.g. pressed
the trigger of the gun knowing that it is empty)
Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment:
a. Legal impossibility where the intended acts, even if completed
would not amount to a crime. E.g. Stealing a property that turnmed out
to be owned by the stealer
b. Physical impossibility- when extraneous circumstances unknown to
the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
intended crime. E.g. when one tries to murder a corpse.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision
in the RPC.
Felonies against persons are:
1.
Parricide (Art. 246)
2.
Murder (248)
3.
Homicide (249)
4.
Infanticide (255)
5.
Abortion (256,257,258,259)
6.
Duel (260,261)
7.
Physical Injuries (262,263,264,265,266)
8.
Rape (266-A)
Felonies against property are:
1.
Robbery (Arts. 294,297,298,299,300,302,303)
2.
Brigandage (306,307)
3.
Theft (308,310,311)
4.
Culpable Insolvency (314)
5.
Swindling and Other deceits, Estafa (315-318)
6.
Chattel Mortgage (319)
7.
Arson and Other Crimes involving destruction (320-326)
8.
Usurpation (312,313)
9.
Malicious Mischief (327-331)
Purpose of punishing impossible crimes:
- to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies
- the penalty is not for the crime itself but for the persons criminal tendencies
Notes:
Felony against persons or property should not be actually committed, for otherwise,
he would be liable for that felony. There would be no impossible crime to speak of.
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime. It is always consummated.
It applies only to grave or less grave felonies.
Penalty: Arresto Mayor (Art 59)
Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Balmores
Facts:
Petitioner tore off a portion of a genuine unit PCS ticket, removing the real number. Then
he wrote in ink on the bottom of the left side the winning number. He presented the ticket to
the office to exchange it for money, fraudulently pretending that the ticket was genuine. The
fake was discovered.
Held:
Attempted estafa through falsification of a security, affirmed. While there was deceit, no
damage had been made. As long as it hadnt been cashed, no harm could be done by
falsifying a lottery ticket. Also, the petitioners illiteracy does not deprive the courts of
jurisdiction, and it appeared that he had waived the right to counsel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Intod vs CA
Facts:
Petitioner fires at the room of a person he wants to kill. The said person, however, is not
present in the room at the time of the incident.
Held:
Petitioner is guilty of an impossible crime. It falls under Art 4 par 2 of the RPC. Impossibility
under the said provision is either legal impossibility or factual impossibility. The case at bar
falls under factual impossibility. Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended
crime. It is physically impossible for the crime to be committed, given that the intended
target is not present.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Domasian
Facts:
One of the defendants in this case tricks a boy to go with him. After being chased by a
suspicious tricycle driver and some barangay tanods, the boy was able to escape from the
defendant, and he was able to return to his parents who were already looking for him.
Shortly thereafter, the parents receive a ransom letter demanding money for the return of
the child. Tests show that the letter was from the other defendant in this case. Defendants
submit that no crime of kidnapping happened, given that the boy escaped before he was
even physically detained.
Held:
Crime was already committed. The crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention may
consist not only in placing a person in an enclosure, but also in detaining him in any manner
of his liberty. Although the boy was not confined in an enclosure, he was deprived of his
liberty when he was restrained from going home and was dragged by the defendant. Even
before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping had already been committed.
The act cannot be considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent
improbability of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective means
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Stages of Commission of Felonies

Article 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 by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Stages of execution:
-graduation of penalties on the basis of stages of commission and participation
1. Consummated felony- when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present
Act+ Result; Act = A1 + A2 + A3 +A4
2. Frustrated felony
Elements:
a. The offender performs all the acts of execution
b. All the acts performed would produce hte felony as a consequence
c. But the felony is not produced.
d. By the reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
Act + (- result)
3. Attempted Felony
Elements:
a. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt
acts;
b. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony;
c. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or

accident other than the offenders own spontaneous desistance
Act = A1 + A2 + A3 - A4
Overt acts- some physical activity or deed, indicating intention to commit a
particular crime
-more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete
termination following its natural course will logically ripen into a concrete offense
Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts when the following are present:
- That there be external acts;
- Such external acts have a direct connection with the crime intended to be
committed
Internal Acts- Such as mere ideas in the mind of the person; Not punishable
External Acts cover preparatory acts and acts of execution
Two stages in the development of a crime:

Attempted Stage- marks the commencement of the subjective phase
Subjective Phase
- that the acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the
offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he has
still control over his acts, including their natural course.
If between those two points the offender is stopped by reason of any
cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has
not been passed and it is an attempt.
- If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is
frustrated.
Frustrated Stage- the end of subjective phase and the start of objective phase
Objective Phase
- is the result of the acts of the execution, that is, the accomplishment of
the crime.
- If the subjective and objective phases are present, there is a
consummated felony.
- The spontaneous desistance of the accused is exculpatory only (a) if made
during the attempted stage, and (b) provided that the acts already
committed do not constitute an offense
Factors in determining stage of execution of felony:
1. Nature of the offense
2. Elements constituting the felony
3. Manner of committing the felony
Case:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs Eduave
Facts:
The defendant suddenly attacked a girl with a bolo, causing her serious wounds. He thought
that he had killed the girl, and threw her into the bushes. He gave himself up and declared
that he had killed the girl. The girl, however, turned out to be still alive.
Held:
Crime committed is frustrated murder and not attempted murder. A felony is frustrated
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a
consequence, but which, nevertheless, do not produce is by reason of causess independent
of the will of the perpetrator. An attempted felony, on the other hand, happens when the
offender commences the commission of the felony directly by oevrt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which constitute the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his voluntary desistance. In this case, the defendant has already
performed all of the acts which should have resulted in the consummated crime and
voluntarily desisted from further acts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stages of Execution in Rape
The crime of rape is consummated by mere penetration of the male organ

no matter how slight
In attempted rape, there is the intent to have carnal knowledge or sexual
intercourse.
Example: when the accused mounted on the body of the victim
There is no frustrated rape, only a frustrated rapist =))))
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Orita
Facts:
The defendant forced the victim to have sex with him inside the room of the victim. The
defendant, however, was not able to fully penetrate the victim. The victim was able to
escape, and she was able to run to the nearby municipal building. After the incident, a
physician examined the victim and found abrasions on her vulva, but noted that the hymen
is still intact.
Held:
Defendant should not be given the sentence of frustrated rape. There is no such thing as
frustrated rape. In the crime of rape, a perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration
of the female organ is sufficient. Thus, in this case, the act of rape was already
consummated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Campuhan
Facts:
A mother finds the accused in the bedroom of her children. The pants and panties of her 4
year old child were already removed, while the shorts of the accused was already down to
his knees. A physical examination of the child after the incident shows no evident sign of
extra-genital physical injury; her hymen was still intact.
Held:
Accused is guilty of attempted rape. It was not proven that even a slight penetration had
occurred.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Baleros vs People
Facts:
Petitioner forcefully covered the face of Martina Albano with cloth soaked in dizzying
chemical, then lay on top of her with the intention of having carnal knowledge of her, but
was unable to perform all acts of execution by some reason beyond his spontaneous
desistance.
Held:
Malice, compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust vexation.
Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason
that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not productive
of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person.
Albano was disturbed, if not distressed, when she cried while relating to her classmates the
perceived sexual attack, and filed a case for attempted rape.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stages of Execution in Robbery/ Theft

1. Both crimes are committed by the taking if the personal property of another
and with intent to gain
2. The difference is that in robbery, there is the use of force or violence
3. So long as the act is done, the crime is consummated
4. In robbery with use of force upon things, since the offender must enter the
building to commit the crime, he must be able to carry out of the building of
the thing taken to consummate the crime
5. In robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, the crime id
consummated the moment the offender gets hold of the thing taken and/or
is in a position to dispose of it freely
It does not matter how long the property was in the possession of the
accused
Ability to dispose is not a requirement
What is important is WON there was unlawful taking
No frustrated Theft/ Robbery
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs Adiao
Facts:
The defendant, a customs inspector, stole a belt from the baggage of a japanese. He hid the
belt in his desk where it was found by other customs employees.
Held:
The defendant is guilty of theft. There is no frustrated theft. The theft was already
consummated at the moment the owner was robbed of his possession of the item. The fact
that accused was not able to take the belt out of the customs house is not decisive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Valenzuela vs People
Facts:
Defendants were sighted outside a supermarket. Petitioner was wearing a Receiving
Dispatching Unit ID and hauling a cart full of cases of Tide. Said cases were unloaded in the
parking lot, then he returned inside the supermarket and came back with more cases. His
co-accused hailed a taxi and they loaded it with the cases. A security guard stopped the taxi
and asked for a receipt; upon receiving none, the defendants fled. The guard fired a warning
shot and the defendants were apprehended.
Held:
Theft was consummated in this case, as the detergent was in their possession even for a
short period of time, and possession of the stolen goods completes the act of unlawful
taking. There is no such thing as frustrated theft.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Lamahang
Facts:
The defendant was caught making an opening on the wall of a store. He had only succeeded
in breaking one board and unfastening another when he was caught. At that time, the owner
was sleeping inside with another person.
Held:
The defendant is not guilty of attempted robbery as the trial court ruled. There is not doubt
that in this case, the defendant intended to enter the store by means of violence. However,
his intention on what he will do once he enters the store is never shown. Without sufficient
evidence, the court cannot just assume that once the accused enters the store, he will
commit robbery. He is therefore guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Salvilla
Facts:
The accused (4 of them) entered the New Iloilo Lumber Yard and demanded money from the
owner, Severino. After he gave them the money, his wallet and watch were also taken, and
he, his two daughters and an employee were detained as hostages in the office. Later, police
and military authorities surrounded the premises, and negotiations began. The employee
was released first, and negotiations continued but the accused refused to surrender. The
police and military authorities decided to launch an offensive and assaulted the place,
injuring two of the accused and Severinos daughters.
Held:
The money demanded from Severino, his wallet and watch, and the money received through
negotiations all came within the dominion and control of the accused. The fact that there
was no opportunity to dispose of the same is unimportant. The unlawful taking was
completed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stages of Execution in Murder/ Homicide

1. With intent to kill, but no mortal wound is inflictedattempted
2. With intent to kill, and mortal wound is inflicted but victim does not die
frustrated
3. With intent to kill and victim diesconsummated
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Sy Pio
Facts:
Man shoots three people. Two of them die, while one was able to hide. Though the person
who was able to hide was hit by a bullet on his shoulder, he was not chased by the
defendant to where he was hiding. What's in question in this case is regarding the shooting
of the person who was able to hide, whether the act committed against him is attempted or
frustrated.
Held:
Defendant is guilty of attempted murder, and not frustrated murder. While the intent to kill
is proved, the wound inflicted was not necessarily fatal, because it did not touch any of the
vital organs of the body. The defendant was able to see the person he shot run away from
him. The defendant knew that he had not performed all the necessary acts of execution
necessary to kill his victim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Ravelo
Facts:
The accused persons captured two men and tortured them. They kill one of the men they
captured, and they warned the other person that they will kill him. The person who was not
yet killed somehow managed to escape. For the person who was able to escaped, the
accused were found by the trial court guilty of frustrated murder.
Held:
The trial court erred in ruling that the accused are guilty of frustrated murder. Although the
accused told the person that he will be killed, such is not sufficient proof of intent to kill. For
there to be frustrated murder, the offender must perform all the acts of execution that
woulkd produce the felony as a consequence, but the felony is not thereby produced by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Intent must be shown not only
by a statement by the aggressor of the purpose to kill, but also by the execution of all acts
and the use of means necessary to deliver the fatal blow while the victim is not placed in a
position to defend himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs Kalalo
Facts:
Marcelo Kalalo and Isabela Holgado had a litigation over a parcel of land, and the formers
complaints were dismissed. He had cultivated the land from 1931-1932 but Isabela reaped
everything when harvest time came. One day, Isabela and her brother Arcadio decided to
order the land plowed. Marcelo, as well as his brothers Felipe and Juan, his brother-in-law
Gregorio Ramos and Alejandro Garcia, came armed with bolos. They ordered the people
plowing the land to stop, but later, Marcelino Panaligan, cousin of the Holgados, ordered the
work to be continued. Marcelo slashed Arcadio, while Felipe, Juan and Gregorio slashed
Marcelino at a remark from the mother of the Kalalos. Arcadio and Marcelino died instantly.
Marcelo took Marcelinos revolver and fired at Hilarion Holgado, who was fleeing.
Held:
Two homicides and one attempted homicide affirmed. If Marcelino had started the fight with
a shot from his revolver, Marcelo should have attacked him first, and the only time he
approached Marcelino was when the latter had already been killed, and Marcelo relieved him
of his weapon. None of the appellants received any bullet wounds, and they needed no
provocation in order to carry out their intent when they came to the land armed with bolos.
Three of the appellants attacked Marcelino (the one armed with a gun) at the same time
that Marcelo attacked Arcadio, in conformity with their common intent. Marcelos claim of
self-defense is untenable because if Marcelino, an expert shot, would have wounded him or
the other appellants. Marcelo was also bent on killing Hilario, having fired four shots while
the latter fled, although Marcelo failed to hit Hilario. The appellants motive of getting rid of
those plowing the land which they believed belonged to Marcelo is clear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Art. 11. Justifying

Circumstances
RPC. 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 an 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.
(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.
Concepts:
- Imputability is the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a person as its author or owner; the
act committed was freely and consciously done; implies that a deed may be imputed to a person
- Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the consequences of crime; obligation of taking the
penal and civil consequences of the crime; implies that the person must take the consequences of the
deed
- Guilt is an element of responsibility
- Justifying Circumstances
an act of a person is said to be in accordance with law;
there is no transgression of the law (non -existence of crime);
no criminal and civil liability (except in Par.4, where civil liability is borne by persons benefited
by the act)
I. Self-defense
What is unlawful aggression? When is it deemed to have ceased? When are the
means employed deemed excessive?
(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.
General Rules:
- Burden of proof is on the defending-accused
- Self-defense includes not only the defense of the persons or body of the one assaulted but also that
of his rights (protected by law) -- right to property, right to honor
- Note: Rape no longer considered a crime against chastity, reclassified as a crime against persons -destigmatization of rape, doctrinal implication that victims of rape are not dishonored
- Defense of Property in order to be a justifying circumstance must be accompanied by an attack on
the person entrusted with said property
If a person charged with protection of property and there is unlawful aggression, defense of
property applies.
(1) Mere disturbance of possession: force may be used as long as disturbance continues
(2) Invasion consisting of real dispossession: force to regain possession can be used
only immediately after the dispossession. If property is immovable, there must be no delay in the use
of force to recover it, otherwise the delay will be a bar to ones right to use force (lawful possessor
must go to authorities to recover properties)
- Defense of home may obtain in the case of violent entry or robbery with overt acts of aggression
(as opposed to fear or desire to escape upon apprehension) because certainly the accused must be
prepared not only to steal but also to kill under the circumstances
- Basis: Its impossible for the State to always prevent unlawful aggression upon its citizens; man has
a natural instinct to protect or repel his person or rights from impending danger (impulse of selfpreservation)
Classicist: lawful defense is grounded on impossibility on part of the State to avoid a present
unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked
Positivist: lawful defense as an exercise fo a right, an act of social justice done to repel
aggression
a. First Requisite: Unlawful aggression on the part of the

person injured or killed by the accused.
- Unlawful aggression
Requisites:
- assault or threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind;
- threat must be offensive and positively strong, demonstrative of wrongful intent to cause
harm;
- must come directly or indirectly from the person attacked by defending-accused

No unlawful aggression when:
- oral threats
- threatening posture
- mere belief of impending attack
- retaliation1
- when there is agreement to fight 2
- Peril to ones life: actual or imminent danger of death (deadly weapon aimed at vital body part)
- Peril to ones limb or right: imminent danger of bodily harm (physical injuries)
- Note: slap on the face is unlawful aggression -- physical assault combined with willful disregard of
an individuals personality
- Not unlawful if done in a fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right (e.g. peace officers); unless
such is exceeded
- E.g. NCC 249: the lawful owner of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment or
disposal thereof, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent actual or
threated unlawful invasion of his property.
- Physical fact (e.g. nature, location, or extent of wound, old people) may determine whether or not
self-defense obtains; also: if accused declines to give a statement when surrendering
- Belief of the accused may be considered in determining the existence of unlawful aggression (as in
US v. Ah Chong)
b. Second Requisite: Reasonable necessity of the means

employed to prevent or repel it
Reasonable Necessity of means
- already presupposes unlawful aggression
- There is a necessity for the course of action taken by the person making a defense, and the means
used -- both must be reasonable, according to obtaining circumstances (e.g. place and occasion of the
assault)
- Perfect equality not needed. Person defending himself not expected to control his blow, as long as
requisites of complete self-defense are present: person cant be expected to think clearly
- Reasonable necessity of means employed to be liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens
Test of reasonableness
-
must be exercised with due care3

nature and quality of weapon used by victima-aggressor and defending-accused
physical condition
character
size
place and occasion of assault
Retaliation is not self-defense because aggression begun by the injured party already ceased to
exist. When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression no longer exists (unless retreat was to take a
more advantageous position)
2
in this case, both are at once assailant and assaulted, neither can invoke self-defense, unless
aggression was done unexpectedly (ahead of stipulated time and place)
3
In repelling or preventing unlawful aggression, the one defending must aim at his assailant, and not
indiscriminately force his deadly weapon
- When peace officer: duty requires him to overcome his opponent
c. Third Requisite: Lack of sufficient provocation on the

part of the person defending himself
Test of Lack of Sufficient Provocation
- The one defending himself must not have given cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by
provoking the victim aggressor4
- determined by proportionality to act of aggression and adequacy to stir aggressor to its commission
Cases when third requisite is present:
(1) When no provocation at all was given
(2) when insufficient provocation was given
(3) when sufficient provocation was not inflicted by defending-accused
(4) when sufficient provocation inflicted by defending-accused was not proximate and immediate to
act of aggression
Cases (Self-defense)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Boholst-Caballero (1974)
Facts:
Cunigunda and Francisco, a married couple, have a history of conflict due to Franciscos
gambling and drinking. There were also instances of Franciscos abuse & maltreatment
towards Cunigunda. Francsico eventually abandoned the family. While Cunigunda was on her
way home from caroling one night, Francisco grabbed her and accused her of being a
prostitute. He threatened to kill her, held her by her hair, and slapped her until she bled,
then pushed her to the ground. He knelt over her and proceeded to choke her. Cunigunda
used her right hand to grab Franciscos knife from the left side of his waist and stabbed him
in his left side, just above the thigh. She surrendered herself to the police the next day.
Francisco died 2 days later due to the stab wound.
Held:
SC held that the location of Franciscos wound supported her testimony -- stab
wound was sustained where the knife was drawn. SC also found no motive
attributable to Cunigunda, and considered her conduct after the occurrence as indicative of
her blamelessness - voluntarily surrendered herself. The requisities of self-defense were
present: (1) unlawful aggression: Franciscos assault constituted imminent danger of death
or injury; (2) reasonable necessity of means employed: while being choked, she had no
other recourse but to take the knife and stab him; (3) lack of sufficient provocation:
Cunigunda had only been caroling that night. Cunigunda was acquitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Alconga (1947)
Facts:
Alconga cheated in a game of blackjack with Barion. Barion threatened to serve Alconga
breakfast because of this. 2 days later, Barion attacked Alconga in his place of work with a
sharp bamboo stick. Barion was of stronger build. Alconga, a guard, was armed with a gun
and bolo.
4
refers to person defending himself
First stage: none of Barions blows made contact, and Alconga ended up shooting Barion,
who then pulled out a knife. Eventually, Barion ran away.
Second stage: Alconga pursued Barion and killed him with the bolo.
Held:
SC held that during the first stage, Alconga had been acting in self-defense. During the
second stage, the aggression to Alconga ceased when Barion ran away. Alconga
presented no evidence to substantiate his alleged belief that Barion had run away to fetch
another weapon. Alconga is guilty of homicide.
Dissenting (Paras & Perfecto):
Witness testimony showed that Alconga never pursued Barion, so that the fight was
continuous and uninterrupted. The wound he inflicted during the first stage was already
fatal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------U.S. v. Mack (1907)
Facts:
Mack (U.S. soldier) was order by Indic (municipal policeman) to return to his quarters. Mack
refused, and words were exchanged. Indic, incensed, took out his bolo and brandished it in a
threatening manner while approaching Mack. Mack then drew his gun and shot Indic (1) in
the left breast and (2) in the back of the head. TC ruled it incomplete self-defense given lack
of proof showing reasonable necessity of means employed -- Mack could have just dodged
Indics bolo or shot him in a less vital body part, Indic had been drunk, revolver clearly
trumped bolo, and Mack was of stronger build.
Held:
SC held that all requisites of self-defense were present. There was no reasonable ground
for believing the Mack could have escaped safely (they were in an alleyway),
bolos are formidable weapons especially if reinforced by bearers inebriation.
Mack could not have been expected to take deliberate and careful aim of a less vital part of
Indics body given the fact that it was nighttime, and there was little distance between him
and the advancing Indic. Also, the shots were fired in rapid succession -- Mack did not
have time to determine whether or not Indics aggression had ceased. Mack was
acquitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Sumicad (1932)
Facts:
Cubol (stronger build, mean reputation & a criminal record) refused to pay Sumicad for
services rendered -- insults were exchanged and Cubol ended up punching Sumicad, who
attempted to back away, but was eventaully cornered. Sumicad then hit Cubols right should
with his bolo.
Held:
The SC held that at this point, Cubol should have taken heed and desisted, but he tried to
wrest the bolo away from Sumicad instead. Sumicad could not have given up the bolo
because such would be tantamount to suicide, so he hacked at Cubol twice more,
which led to the latters death. The SC held that the quarrel which resulted in Cubols death
was of his own making (lack of sufficient provocation on Sumicads part and unlawful
aggression on Cubols), and that Sumicad was justified in using the bolo as he had been
cornered and that was the only means available to him (reasonable necessity of means).
Sumicad acquitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Genosa (2004)
Facts:
Marivic, pregnant, went looking for her husband Ben, as she was afraid he was gambling his
salary away. They have a long history of conflict and abuse. She eventually found him back
home. Ben provoked her, she tried to ignore him, and he ended up cutting their TV wire and
scaring their kids. Ben attempted to attack her, but she got away. he then left. She packed
his clothes. When he saw this upon returning, he dragged her out of the bedroom in a
chokehold to a drawer containing a gun. The drawer was locked, so Ben reached for the
blade he kept in his wallet. Marivic smashed him with a lead pipe and got away. Later, while
he was sleeping, she got a gun and shot him dead.
Held:
The SC held that this was not self-defense, but Marivic incurred mitigated criminal liability
given the extenuating circumstance of passion & obfuscation resulting from the the violent
aggression inflicted by Ben prior to the killing, and her psychological paralysis resulting from
the cyclical nature & severity of Bens abuse. The SC held that there was no proof of the 3
phases of Battered Woman Syndrome (see box below) as regular or frequent occurrences.
Evidence of BWS must be in context of self-defense; in this case, the unlawful aggression of
Ben ceased when she escaped and he went to sleep. There was no imminent or actual threat
against her when she shot him. Marivic was convicted of parricide.
Dissenting (Ynares-Santiago)
Defense was able to establish the occurrence of the tension-building & tranquil phases on
more than 1 occasion (witness testimonies). Ponencia required Marivic to prove Bens state
of mind (impossible!). All 3 phases made Marivic believe that a forthcoming attack would kill
her (corroborated by her medical history). Imminent unlawful aggression affects psyche of
battered woman, keeps her in constant fear for her life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battered Woman Syndrome

- Refers to women who are repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological
behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without
concern for her rights.
- includes wives or any women in any form of intimate relationship with men. The couple
must go through the battering cycle at least twice.
- Battered women exhibit: low self-esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family
and the female sex role; emotional dependence on the dominant male;
- the tendency to accept responsibility for the batterers actions; and false hopes that the
relationship will improve. The cycle of violence:
Tension-building phase: minor battering (verbal or slight physical abuse or general

hostile behavior or general hostile behavior); woman tries to placate the man and
allows herself to be abused.
Acute battering incident: woman withdraws emotionally, and violence escalates;
incident is characterized by brutality and sometimes death
Tranquil phase: man becomes tender and nurturing, begs for womans forgiveness;
woman convinces herself that he means it.
- The cyclical nature of violence inflicted on battered woman immobilizes her to act
decisively in her own interestsshe feels trapped with no means of escape, possibly
resulting in post-traumatic stress disorder.
Sec. 26, RA No. 9262 (Anti-violence Against Women Children Act): BWS as a
defense. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from BWS do not
incur any criminal & civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. In the determination of the state of
mind of the women suffering from BWS at the time of the commission of the crime, the
courts shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists or psychologists.
Intended to remedy the limitation of Genosa
Badly phrased: doesnt specify or qualify elements of justifying circumstance of selfdefense
Self-defense hinged on reasonable of present circumstances: BWS framework is
characterized by psychological disorder; no reasonable belief, would afford blanket
absolution (law doesnt distinguish)
Cases (Defense of Honor)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Luague (1935)
Facts:
Natividad was staying at home while her husband was in a neighbors house when Paulino
came in and attempted to rape her. Natividad retreated into the kitchen, but Paulino
followed. He drew a knife and threatened her. As he started to grope her, he dropped the
knife to the floor. Natividad took the knife and stabbed him in the abdomen. Paulino pulled
away from her and escaped by jumping through a window. Natividad surrendered herself.
Held:
Citing Viada, SC held that right to honor is prized by mans patrimony. Attempted rape was
sufficient unlawful aggression to put a woman in a state of self-defense. There was imminent
danger and no help had been forthcoming. Also, Natividad had no previous criminal record
or proven violent reputation. The defensive measure used by her was circumstantial and
reasonable. Natividad was acquitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Dela Cruz (1935)
Facts:
Remedios was with her friends, walking in single fine with her at the end on the way home
from a wake. They were followed by Francisico and his friend. Francisco suddenly threw his
arms around her from behind, groped her, and tried to throw her down. She tried to cry out,
but no one heard, so she drew a knife (she had it in her pocket because she was a fruit
seller) and stabbed him under his right breast. She went back to the wake and confessed to
the killing
Held:
There was no evidence of ill will between Remedios and Francisco. She had only stabbed him
once and desisted in other acts of violence. Remedios was an illiterate barrio girl and not
capable of fabrication. Given the facts as she perceived them (Francisco too strong, it was
dark, no help was forthcoming), her actions were justified. Remedios acquitted
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Jaurigue (1946)
Facts:
Amado was a denied suitor of Avelina. There were 5 aggregate instances that eventually
built up into a climax. 1) He stole her hadnkerchief; 2) He accosted her as she was feeding a
dog; 3) He snuck into her bedroom at night to touch her forehead; 4) He spread rumors and
boasted that they will elope together. While in church, Amado sat down beside her and put
his hand on her right thigh. Avelina pulled out her fan knife with her right hand intending to
injure his offending hand, but Amado seized her right hand. She transferred the knife to her
left hand and stabbed Amado in the neck. Amado died and Avelina surrendered herself.
Held:
Given the circumstances (brightly lit church with lots of people including officials), there was
no immediate or imminent possibility of Avelina getting raped. The means she employed in
defensed of her honor was excessive. She was convicted of homicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases (Defense of Property)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Apolinar (1938)
Facts:
Apolinar was watching over his land when he noticed a man (Petras) carrying a bundle.
Believing that he was a thief, Apolinar called to him, but he was ignored. Apolinar then fired
in the air with his shotgun, and then at Petras, who still managed to flee.
Held:
SC held that while Petras was stealing from Apolinar, the latter was not justified in killing
Petras. The right to property is not of such importance as right to life. Defense of property
can only be invoked as a justifying cirucmstance when it is coupled with an attack on ones
person. Apolinar convicted of homicide.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US v. Bumanglag (1909)

Facts:
Bumanglag noticed 40 bundles of rice were missing from his granary. He found them in an
enclosed field, and decided to stake the place out to identify the culpreit. At night, Ribis
came to take the rice. Bumanglag and his 3 companions then assaulted him with sticks and
stabbing weapons. Ribis died instantly.
Held:
Evidence showed that Ribis had a bolo, but it remained unsheathed. Defense of property can
only be invoked when combined with unlawful aggression on ones person.
Dissenting (Moreland):
If there is a well-grounded belief that a person is in imminent danger of death or bodily
harm, and attempt to defend himself by means which appear reasonably necessary is
justifiable
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Narvaez (1983)
Facts:
Narvaez discovered that Fleischer and Rubia were attempting to fence of his property, which
would have resulted in the disruption of his livelihood and home. Narvaez tried to talkt ot
hem first, but they ignored him, so he got his gun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the
jeep, and Narvaez shot him to prevent him from getting his gun.
Held:
SC determined that the incident was preceded by a drawn-out land dispute bet. Narvaez and
Fleischer, which gave Narvaez a reasonable belief that he might be awarded the land in
question. There was aggression against Narvaezs property rights, and a lack of sufficient
provocation on his part. The means he employed, however, were not reasonable or
proportionate to the aggression. Narvaez was convicted of 2 counts of homicide.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cases (Defense of Reputation)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Chua Hiong (1954)
Facts:
Gocheco and his family lost in a civil case filed against them by Chua. In retaliation, Gocheco
initiated a persecution campaign against Chua , assailing his Filipino citizenship and
reputation, by writing letters to officials and causing the publication of a defamatory article
in a newspaper. Chua then wrote his own article, attacking Gocheco and exposing
his true motives.
Held:
SC held that any attempt to attack Chuas citizenship should be met with defense, as such
was the basis of his livelihood. Unlawful aggression in libel is continuing as the information
may be reproduced indefinitely. Chuas self-defense was justified: libelous remarks made
assailed Gochecos credibility and demonstrated his motives. Chua acquitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Pelayo (1966)
Facts:
Pelayo indirectly accused Gov. Almendras of extorting money from gambling operators: (1)
he told a colleague within hearing distance of others, and (2) he gave a privileged speech at
the city councile about the issue without naming names.
Held:
SC held that Pelayo did not make any statements in self-defense (given Almendras alleged
previous defamatory remarks against Pelayo) as his statements were neither done directly
nor publicly. Also, they were independent of Almendrass alleged remarks about him. For
self-defense to obtain, statements should be made to clarify or repair the effects of the
defamatory remarks. They must be necessary for his explanation or defense. Pelayo is
convicted of light oral defamation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Defense of Relative

(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.
General Rules
- Relatives by affinity: relatives because of marriage; in-laws; death of spouse terminates
relationship by affinity, unless the marriage bore children still living
- Relatives by consanguinity: by blood, 4th civil degree are first cousins
- Basis: Founded upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also the impulse of blood
Requisites: (First 2 are the same as those of self-defense)
(1) Unlawful aggression
(2) Reasonable necessity of means employed
(3) The one making the defense had no part in the provocation
applies to the situation where relative gave the provocation
accused (who defended relative) cannot have been motivated by revenge or resentment
Case (Defense of Relative)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. v. Esmedia (1910)

Facts:
Santiago was working in a rice field upon orders from his father, Ciriaco. Gregorio appeared and
started a quarrel, based on a subsistiing land dispute between their 2 families. Gregorio drew a dagger
and stabbed Santiago in the back; Santiago retaliated with his bolo. On seeing their father being
attacked by Santiago, Ponciano and Mena attacked and killed Santiago, Ciriaco approached, and they
killed him too.
Held:
The SC held that Ponciano and Mena were justified in killing Santiago as this was done in defense of
their father. They were not justified in killing Ciriaco as he had presented no threat against them (old
and unarmed)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Defense of Stranger

(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.
General Rules
- Basis: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him. The ordinary man would not stand
idly by and see his companion killed without attempting to save his life.
Requisites: (First 2 are the same as those of self-defense)
(1) Unlawful aggression
(2) Reasonable necessity of means employed
(3) The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive
does not apply if defense of the stranger prompted by grudge
giving weapon to someone in serious danger of being attacked is defense of stranger
IV. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury

(4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an 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.
General Rules
- covers injury to persons and damage to property
- civil liability is borne by the persons benefited
- the greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or the imprudence of the actor
- evil must not be a result from a violation of law by the actor
- NOTE: stopping someone armed from defending a relative being beaten to death does not constitute
avoidance of a greater evil where such was done to ensure the death of the relative without risk to his
assailants
Requisites
(1) evil to be avoided actually exists;
(2) The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it6
(3) There be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
Cases (Avoidance of a Greater Evil)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Norma Hernandez (1959)
Facts:
Norma was charged with serious slander by deed for leaving her fiance, after extensive wedding
preparations were made and guests had arrived.
Held:
The SC held that she had done so without malice (essential requisites of slander), and she was well
within her rights to avoid the greater evil of a loveless marriage, as marriage should be predicated on
the parties full & free consent. Norma had no other means available to her, as her parents had been
dead-set on the marriage. Norma acquitted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Regina v. Dudley (1884)

Facts:
Dudley, Stephens, Brooks, and Parker were cast away in open sea and took shelter in a lifeboat. After
nearly 20 days, Dudley and Stephens decided to eat Parker, as was the weakest and the youngest
among the gorup. Dudley slit the boys throat, and they all fed upon him. They were all rescued 4 days
later.
Held:
The court held that necessity contemplated in survival cannibalism is not provided for by law, not
necessity according to law. In the same vein: the extreme necessity of hunger would not justify
larceny, what more murder? An absolute divorce of law from morality would be of fatal consequence.
Self-preservation may be a duty, but this is trumped by the duty to sacrifice ones own life. There is no
absolute necessity to preserve ones own life. Guilty of murder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ty v. People (2004)

Facts:
Vicky issued bouncing checks to the hospital for the payment of hospitalization of her mother and
sister.
Held:
5
cannot be merely expected or anticipated; NOTE: Abortion to save the mothers life may be held
excusable
6
instinct of self-preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater importance
than another
SC held that there was no necessity of avoidance of a greater evil: evil sought to be was merely
speculative, she had other options (jewelry and other forms of scurity), and the greater injury should
not have been brought about by her negligence or imprudence. There was also no uncontrollable fear
on her part: fear invoked was not so imminent as to deprive her of all volition and to make her a mere
instrument without will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of

right or office
General Rules
- Even though unlawful aggression already ceased to exist and even if the public officer is
an aggressor, such aggession is lawful
- Lawful exercise of right: If a person charged with protection of property and there is
unlawful aggression, defense of property applies (repeated from defense of property)
(1) Mere disturbance of possession: force may be used as long as disturbance
continues
(2) Invasion consisting of real dispossession: force to regain possession can
be used only immediately after the dispossession. If property is immovable, there must be
no delay in the use of force to recover it, otherwise the delay will be a bar to ones right to
use force (lawful possessor must go to authorities to recover properties)
- Lawful exercise of office: e.g. executioners, surgeons
Requisites
(1) Accused acted in the performance of a duty in the lawful exercise of a right or office
duty of peace officers to arrest violators of the law; duty extends to prevention of crimes about to be
consummated
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed,unless there is evidence to the contrary
(2) Injury cause or the offense committed be the necessary conseuqnce of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office
officer never justified in using unnecessary force, wanton violence, or dangerous means when arrest could
be effected otherwise
officer cannot exceed duty or been negligent in the exercise of such duty
Cases (Fulfillment of Duty)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Delima (1922)
Facts:
The policeman Deliman attempted to apprehend the escaped convict Napilion, who was
armed with a bamboo lance. Napilon resisted, and Delima fired a warning shot. Napilon tried
to escape, and Delima ended up shooting him dead.
Held:
SC held that the killing had been done in the performance of a duty; Napilon was under the
obligation to surrender and had no right to evade serving his sentence. Napilons assault on
Delima prompted the latter to resort to extreme means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People v. Belbes (2000)

Facts:
Belbes, tasked with watching over a high school prom, was told of a disturbance happening
outside. Armed with an armalite, he found a drunk student breaking a bamboo fence while
vomiting. Belbes shot him dead.
Held:
SC held that the 1st requisite of fulfillment of duty was present, but the 2nd was not: Belbes
exceeded his duty, which was to maintain peace and order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Obedience to an order issued for some

lawful purpose
(6) Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior
for some lawful purpose.
Requisites:
(1) The order has been issued by a superior
both person who gives the order and the person who executes it must be acting within the limitations
prescribed by law
(2) Such order must be for some lawful purpose

otherwise, the obeying subordinate is criminally liable
subordinate not liable if he has no knowledge of illegality of order (no criminal intent) & if he his not
negligent
(3) That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
Case (Lawful order of superior)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Beronilla (1955)
Facts:
Beronilla, a military mayor, received an order from Lt. Col. Arnold to convene a jury of
bolomen and prosecute Borjal for treason. The jury found Borjal guilty and his execution was
carried out. Beronilla, however, did not know that Arnolds superior ordered a stay on
Borjals execution as he considered it illegal.
Held:
SC held that Beronilla had exercised due care in carrying out Arnolds initial orders, and that
he had done so in good faith. No criminal intent was established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Art. 12. Exempting

Circumstances
RPC. 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.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, 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.
- In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises. Due
to complete absence of any of the condition which constitute free will or voluntariness of the
act, no criminal liability arises.
A. Insanity
(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.
Imbecile
Insane
- exempt in all cases from criminal liability
- not exempt if proven that he acted during a

lucid interval(acts with intelligence
- mental development of between 2-7 yrs.

Old
- deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at
the time of committing the crime
- complete deprivation of intelligence

- acts without the least discernment
- total deprivation of freedom of will
*mere abnormality of mental faculties is not
enough especially if offender has not lost
consciousness of his acts
Procedure when an imbecile/insane person commits a felony:

Court orders forced confinement in a hospital or asylum
- Person cannot leave without obtaining permission of the court
- Court will only give permission after obtaining opinion of the Director of Health that person
may be released without danger
- Presumption is always in favor of sanity and burden of proof of insanity is with the defense
Evidence necessary to show insanity:
1. Total lack of motive
2. Condition of persons mind before and after the commission of the crime
If insanity is occasional and intermittent, presumption of its continuance does not arise
If person is shown to have lucid intervals, it will be presumed that the act was committed during
one.
- Circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice.
- If a person becomes insane at the time of the trial, he is still liable criminally but the trial will be
suspended until the mental capacity of the accused is restored.
- It must be proven to have existed before and during the commission of the crime
Sicknesses covered by insanity:
Dementia praecox
Schizophrenia
Kleptomania (No case like this yet in the Phils.)
Epilepsy
Sicknesses covered by lack of intelligence:
Somnambulism (sleepwalking)
Malignant Malaria
Cases (insanity)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Bonoan
Facts:
Bonan was charged with the murder of Guison. Bonoan stabbed the latter when he refused
to pay the P50 debt he owed the former. Bonoans arraignment and subsequent trial
were delayed a few times because the accused was mentally deranged and at the time
confined in the Psychopathic Hospital. The accused had also been confined in the insane
department of the San Lazaro hospital for Dementia Praecox in 1922 and in 1926. He
was exempted from criminal liability
Held:
Dementia praecox is covered by the term insanity. When a person is suffering from DP,
homicidal attack is common because of delusions, also due to these delusions, he is
incapable of comprehending and appreciating norms. During the period of excitement,
such person has no control over his actions. History of the patient was looked at and it
has been proven that the accused has been suffering from insomnia 4 days before the
commission of the crime.
*Among all the cases assigned for insanity, this is the only one which admits it as an
exempting circumstance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Ambal
Facts:
Felicula, wife of Ambal, was found almost dead with 7 incised wounds in different parts of
her body. Ambal surrendered to a policeman confessing that he killed his wife. Right
before the incident, a fight arose after she failed to buy him medicine for his influenza.
According to Ambal he knew that his wife was already dead but didnt know that he was
the one who caused her death. He alleges that he was not in full possession of his
normal mental faculties during the incident.
Held:
Presumption is always in favor of sanity; burden of proof is on the one invoking the
exempting circumstance of insanity. It was held that there must be no intelligence at the
time the crime was committed and that mere abnormality of his mental capacity does
not exempt him from criminal liability. The fact that he surrendered meant that he knew
that what he did was wrong
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Puno
Facts:
Puno entered a bedroom in the house of Aling Kikay, he slapped her and struck her several
times on the head with a hammer until she was dead. Two witnesses were present who
testified that Punos eyes were red, and his look was baleful and menacing. He
threatened the 2 and told them not to go to the police. One of the witnesses still notified
the police about the incident. Puno was surrendered to the police by his father and was
brought to the National Mental Hospital. He testified that he did not remember having
killed Aling Kikay and invoked insanity as a defense. There were testimonies of his weird
behavior prior to the incident. All experts called on by the defense testified that he
acted with discernment.
Held:
He was not legally insane when he committed the crime. When insanity is alleged, the clear
and positive evidence must refer to the time preceding the act or the very moment of its
execution. There must be complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.In
this case, it was held that mere abnormality of mental faculties will not exclude one
form criminal liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Dungo
Facts:
Dungo went to Siguas office, after a brief talk, he drew the knife concealed inside the
envelope he was carrying and stabbed Sigua several times. Prior to the incident,
husband of victim testified that Dungo inquired from him why the victim was requiring
so many documents from him. The wife of the accused also noticed that the accused
appears to be in deep thought always, maltreated their children and would inform her
that his feet and head were on fire, when in fact they were not. After the incident, his
wife asked him why he did it, he replied by saying that if he had not done it he would
have died because of cancer. Dungo has a history of being psychotic or insane and
reportedly was during and after the crime.
Held:
Again, complete deprivation of intelligence is needed to be proved for insanity to be
appreciated as a defense. The court held that perverted condition of the mental
faculties is manifested in language or conduct from which we can determine whether
one is insane or not. It was also held that presumption is always in favor of sanity and in
case the accused fails to prove insanity clearly and satisfactorily before the defendant
can be acquitted which in this case he failed to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Yam-id
Facts:
2 children passed by Yam-ids house who greeted them. After which Yam-id drew a long bolo
and ran after the 2. He was able to stab one on the left portion of his back whom he held
by the hair and hacked on the nape. As the kid fell to the ground he further stabbed him
then he knelt beside the body and sucked the blood from his neck. When the kids father
asked the accused where the kid was, he replied I will kill all of you and immediately
hacked the father. Accused invoking schizophrenia as a defense
Held:
He failed to prove that he was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. There was
no medical certificate to prove his claim. Aside from that, no evidence was presented
that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. The nonmedical opinion of the attorney from PAO does not suffice to prove insanity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Belonio
Facts:
Tamayo was buying cigarettes when Randy tried to force his way in front of the store and
bumped Ramy, to whom he gave a long hard look. The accused again came over and
asked Ramy for a cigarette lighter and conversed with him. The accused left again but
after a few minutes he returned. Without warning the accused hit him with a dagger
which was concealed in his hand, and hit Ramy on his right chest. Randy invoked
insanity, provided evidence by way of the expert assessment of his doctor who certified
that accused is suffering from schizophrenia based on interviews after the incident.
Held:
Evidence was insufficient. Belonio after the commission escaped and went into hiding. This
proved that he knew that what he did was wrong thus capable of distinguishing right
from (discernment). The testimony of the doctor only looked at the actions after the
commission and not those before and during the crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People v. Taneo (somnambulism)

Facts:
Taneo suddenly got up while sleeping, left the room with a bolo in hand and upon meeting
his wife, who was trying to stop hi, wounded here in the abdomen. He also attacked
guests and also tried to attack his father before wounding himself. On the day of the
crime, accused went to bed early afternoon. He dreamt that collantes was trying to stab
him with a bolo while Abadila held his feet. He got up since it seemed that his enemies
were inviting him to come down, so he armed himself with a bolo. At the door, he met
his wife who seemed to say to him that she was wounded. As his enemies seemed to
multiply around him, he attacked everybody that came his way.
Held:
He was found to have acted while in a dream, acts werent voluntary. Lack of motive was
considered. Doctor stated that defendant acted while in a dream, under the influence of
a hallucination and was not in his right mind during the incident. He was sent to the
government insane asylum and will not be released until the director finds that his
liberty would no longer constitute a menace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Minority
(2) A person under 9 years of age
- minor is exempt from criminal liability just by proving his age
- Based on complete absence of intelligence
- Modified by RA 9344. Raised the age of responsibility from 9 to 15.
(3) A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, 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.
- Children above 15 but below 18 who acted without discernment are exempt from criminal liability
- there is always a presumption that the minor acted without discernment and so the burden of
proof of proving that the minor acted with discernment is on the prosecution
Periods of Criminal Liability:
- Age of absolute irresponsibility: 9 yrs old and below
- Age of conditional responsibility: between 9 and 15
- Age of full responsibility: 18 to 70
- Age of senility: over 70
Discernment:
- mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong
- such capacity determined by taking consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the
records in each case
Discernment and Intent distinguished:
Intent
Discernment
- Mental process within a person
- Same
- relates to the moral significance that a

person ascribes to the said act
- relates to the desired act of the

person
How Discernment is shown:

1. By manner of committing the crime
circumstances in the case will be considered
2. By conduct of offender
Appearance, attitude, comportment and behavior of minor before, during and after the trial
(People v. Doquena)
Determination of age:
- Child in conflict with the law shall enjoy presumption of minority
- May be proven through: birth certificate; baptismal certificate; or any other pertinent documents.
- In the absence of such, testimonies of other persons, physical appearance, and other relevant
evidence may be considered.
Contests regarding age are filed in a summary proceeding for the determination of age
before the Family Court
RA 9344 sections 6-7,58:
- age of absolute irresponsibility from 9-15
- Sec. 6: child 15 or under at the time of commission shall be exempt from criminal liability but shall be
subject to an intervention program
Cases (Minority)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Doquena
Facts:
Accused intercepted the volleyball while Ragojos and Rarang were playing. He threw the ball to
Ragojos who was hit in the stomach. Ragojos chased after him and later was able to catch
Doquena, he slapped him on the nape, and punched him in the face. Ragojos went back to
resume playing when he was confronted by Doquena who was hiding a knife he got from his
cousin. Doquena stabbed the unaware Ragojos in the ches, thereby killing hi,. The accused was
one of the brightest in his school and captain of the cadet corps.
Held:
Accused acted with discernment and is criminally liable. He used a weapon which showed that he
acted with discernment. The facts of the case proved that he acted with discernment before
(accused was an achiever), during (treachery; concealment of weapon) and after (trial) the crime.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Navarro
Facts:
Navarro: 13y, 11m & 3days old at that time was asked by his sister to look after her sidewalk store.
She was approached by Mendoza and Santos who asked how much a tin of Hersheys Cocoa was.
She sait it was P1.20, the 2 bought it. Immediately after, they arrested Navarro for violation of the
Anti-Profiteering Law since the ceiling price for the can was only P1.10. the two were in fact
agents of the Price enforcement division of the PRISCO. Luisa was sentenced to be committed to
the care of the Philippine training school for girls in Mandaluyong to be confined there until she
reaches the age of majority.
Held:
The mentioned provision is a special law; RPC not applicable, but the RPC can supplement the special
law if theres no provision on punishment therefore, she should be exempted based on her age.
Absurdity results if the child is not exempt for a crime such as this imposed by a special law but
be exempt if she committed a crime of homicide under the RPC. Navarro did not act with
discernment; the concept of ceiling price was too complicated for a child her age.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jose v. People
Facts:
Jose and Zarraga were charged with violation of RA6425 or the Dangerous Drugs act. Jose was 13 yrs.
Old at the time of the commission of the crime. The court only considered his minority as a
mitigating circumstance.
Held:
Burden of proof that the child acted with discernment was on the prosecution. In this case, the
prosecution failed to sufficiently prove this their only proof was that the kid was inside the car and
handed the bag of shabu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Llave v. people
Facts:
Llave pulled debbielyn behind a pile of hollow blocks which was in front of the vacant house. She
resisted but to no avail. He went on top of her and forced himself into Debbielyn. She felt pain and
cried. At the time there were people on the street near the vacant house. The vendor who lives
next to the vacant house hears cries and saw the two. He shouted at the kid who fled the scene.
The accused was found at his grandmothers house. It turns out that Llave is an outstanding
student. He denied having raped her and provided an alibi.
Held:
On whether he acted with discernment, his acts during the crime shows that he in fact knew that what
he was doing was wrong: He dragged the girl to a vacant house where the passerby would not be
able to discover his actions. He fled the scene; He fled the scene right after being caught; he
remained hidden in his grandmothers house; and that he was an outstanding student.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Accident
How is accident distinguished from imprudence or negligence?
(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.
Requisites:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4. without fault or intention of causing it.
Accident, defined:
- Something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act
of our will, lies beyond the bound of humanly foreseeable consequences.
- There must be no intention to commit the wrong done
- an accidental result flowing out of a legal act.
Accident
Imprudence/Negligence
-unforeseeable consequence of a lawful act
-foreseeable consequence which

occurred due to lack of skill or
care of the person.
- Basis of this exempting circumstance is the lack of negligence and intent. The person does not
commit either an intentional felony or a culpable felony.
-ATM: applies only to very few circumstances.
Cases (accident)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People v. Bindoy
Facts:
Bindoy and Pacas were fighting for the the bolo of Bindoy after a conflict arose between the
2 and Pacas wife. This caught the attention of Emigdio Omamdam. Bindoy was able to
wrench away the bolo away but with such force that it reached Omamdams chest who
was behind him.
Held:
No evidence to prove that he deliberately and intentionally killed Omamdam. There wasnt
even any evidence to show that Bindoy knew that Omamdam was behind him. The two
were nephew and uncle and had no ill feelings towards each other. He was trying to get
back his bolo which was perfectly lawful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US v. Tanedo
Facts:
The accused went to hunt for wild chickens. The deceased suggested a good place for
hunting. Upon seeing one, he shot one but simultaneously heard someone cry out in
pain. Upon seeing the victim injured, he went back and asked one of his workers to help
him hide the body inside a well. Only one shot was fired but he was able to kill a chicken
and a man.
Held:
Only one shot was fired but was able to hit 2 things. No evidence of negligence on the part
of the accused, nor is it disputed that the accused was engaged in a legal act, nor is
there evidence that the accused intended to kill the deceased. The only thing suspicious
is his denial and the act of concealment of the body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pomoy v. People
Facts:
Pomoy directed Balboa to come out of detention for tactical interrogation. Petitioner at that
time had a .45 caliber pistol tucked in its holster. As he was holding the doorknob with
his right hand to open the door, the victim allegedly approached him and tried to grab
his gun. They grappled to gain possession of the gun, after it was removed from the
holster it fired, killing Balboa
Held:
Pomoy held to be acting with due care. All his actions even up to the point of wrestling for
the possession of the gun were all considered lawful performance of his duty. There
were witnesses to prove his story. He had no intent to harm the victim and when the gun
went off, he was not in control of the gun. /
*Prof. Muyot and Mr. Ruaro disagreed with the decision. A case of salvage
D. Irresistible Force/ Uncontrollable Fear

(5) Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
Elements:
1.
That the compulsion is by means of physical force;
2.
That the physical force must be irresistible;
3.
That the physical force must come from a third person.
- It must produce such an effect on the individual that in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a
mere instrument.
- The force used must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or
self-defense in equal combat.
If the person himself is armed, no irresistible force (goes against the presumption that he had
no opportunity for escape or self-defense).
- Irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or passion, or obfuscation. Again, it must come from
a third person.
- The one liable is the one who forced the agent.
- Basis: complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness
(6) Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury.
Elements:
1.
That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which
he is required to commit;
2.
That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.
Requisites before it could be invoked:
a.
Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
b.
The fear must be real and imminent; and
c.
The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed.
-Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear for ones life or limb.
Not speculative, fanciful or remote fear.
- Threat of future injury is not enough
- Compulsion must leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
Distinguished from Irresistible force:
Irresistible force
- the offender uses violence or physical
force to compel another person to
commit a crime
Basis: Complete absence of freedom
Uncontrollable fear
- the offender employs intimidation or
threat in compelling another to
commit a crime
Actus me invite factus non est meus actus(an act done by me against my will is not my act)
Case (Irresistible force)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US v. Caballeros
Facts:
Four American school teachers were murdered and buried. Baculi and Caballeros were
convicted as accessories to the crime of assassination or murder, having buried the
victims to conceal the crime. They alleged that they were coerced. One of them was hit
with the butts of the guns of their guns while another accused confessed by the promise
that nothing would be done to them.
Held:
The evidence does not justify the sentence. The Penal code exempts from liability any
person who performs the act by reason of irresistible force. Also, confessions that do not
appear to have been made freely and voluntarily, without force, intimidation or promise
of pardon cannot be accepted as proof during a trial. Finally, the fact that the
defendants did not report the perpetration of the crime to authorities is not punished by
the Penal Code
Case(Uncontrollable fear)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US v. Exaltacion
Facts:
Exaltacion and Tanchinco were charged with rebellion. They alleged that they were captured
by armed bandits and were compelled to sign the contracts under the threat of death
Held:
The two were acquitted. Evidence against them was not sufficient to prove guilt. The fact
that they signed the documents under compulsion while in captivity relieved them from
all criminal liability. Conduct of the accused corroborative of their innocence and that
the guilt of the defendants was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Insuperable Cause
(7) Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
Elements:
1.
That an act is required by law to be done;
2.
That a person fails to perform such act;
3.
That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable case.
Basis: Lack of intent.
In all the exempting circumstances, intent is wanting in the agent of the crime
- Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the use of intelligence
Lack of intelligence: par. 1, 2 and 3.
Lack of freedom of action: par. 5 and 6
par. 4: specifically stated that the actor causes an injury by mere accident without intention of
causing it
par. 7: basis of which is that the agents acts without intent.
Cases (Insuperable Cause)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US v. Vincentillo
Facts:
Vincentillo was being accused of illegal and arbitrary detention for keeping the witness for 2
days. SC found him not guilty and acquitted him of the crimes charged.
Held:
Isidro arrested him in the exercise of his duty as municipal president who had all the usual
powers of a police officer for the making of arrests without warrant. It must be noted
that the offense charged against the complainant was made in the presence of Isidro.
The 3 day delay in bringing him to the proper judicial authority for the investigation and
trial of the charge on which he was arrested is acceptable since at the time of the arrest,
neither the local justice of the peace nor his auxiliary were in the municipality. To reach
the justice of the peace of either of the two adjoining municipalities, one had to take a
long journey by boat. Further delays were due to a lost written complaint and local
conditions which are both reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Bandian
Facts:
Bandian was supposed to be doing number 2 but instead she gave birth, a neighbor found
her and brought her to her house. The baby was found on the path near the thicket
where she was found. The doctor claimed that she gave birth in her house and just
threw the baby outside her house.
Held:
It was held that she was not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or
she was unable, due to her debility or dizziness, which cause may be considered lawful
or insuperable to constitute the 7th exempting circumstance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Absolutory Causes
Distinction between justifying and exempting circumstances:
Justifying Circumstances
Exempting Circumstances
-Tthe person does not commit any crime in the

eyes of the law
- There is a crime but no criminal.
- Nothing unlawful in the act as well as in the

intention of the actor. The act is just and
lawful.
- The act is not justified, but the actor is not

criminally liable. There is civil liability
except in pars. 4 and 7.
Definition:
- Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed
-Justifying and Exempting circumstances are examples of Absolutory causes.
Other absolutory causes:

- Art. 6: spontaneous desistance of the person who commenced the commission of a felony before he
could perform all the acts of execution
-Art. 20: Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. Exception: those who were able to profit
from assisting the offenders
-Art. 124
- Art. 247: husband killing his wife whom he caught having sex with another man. Penalty is destierro.
-Art. 280 par.3: related to trespass to dwelling. Provisions not applicable if the person entered the
dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm.
- Art. 332: only civil liability shall result from the commission of theft, swindling or malicious mischief if
committed by the ff: spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity of the same
degree; widowed spouse with respect to the peroperty which belonged to the deceased spouse
before it was passed into the possession of another; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sister-in-law, if living together.
- Art 334, par.4: abuser marrying the abused in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
and rape.
G. Instigation
- a condemned practice that warrants the acquittal of the accused.
- A public officer or a private detective induces an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest
him upon or after the commission of the crime by the latter.
- It must be made by public officers or private detectives. If it is made by a private individual, both he
and the criminal are criminally liable. (principle by induction and principal by direct participation).
- the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests it to the accused who adopts it
and carry it into execution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US v. Phelps
Facts:
Phelps was instigated by Smith, an employee of the BIR, into procuring opium and providing
for a venue in which to smoke the opium. He was the first to introduce the idea of
smoking opium by directly asking it from Phelps. Immediately upon Phelps commission
of the crime under Smiths inducement, Smith reported Phelps and had him arrested.
Phelps had himself examined immediately and it was found that he himself did not
smoke.
Held:
Phelps was induced by Smith into making arrangements for the 2 of them to smoke opium.
Smith not only suggested the commission of the crime bit also expressed his desire to
commit the offense in paying the amount required for the arrangements. Such acts done
by employees of govt in encouraging or inducing persons to commit a crime in order to
prosecute them should not be encouraged by the courts. Phelps cannot be held guilty of
the crime
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Entrapment
- this is not an absolutory cause which means that the accused is still criminally liable
- entrapment is done when ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing
the lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan.
- this is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
- the idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from the accused
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Lua Chu

Facts:
Uy Se Tieng, was the consignee of the Shipments of Opium coming from Hong Kong, who
represented agents of the real owners of shipments of opium containing 3,252 tins. He
collaborated with Samson and Natividad of the Customs by paying them an amount of
P6k for the opium to be released safely from customs When the Opium arrived in Cebu.
Samson informed the constabulary represented by Captain Buencosejo &the provincial
Fiscal and requested a stenographer to take down the conversations between Samson &
Uy. Cpatain Buencosejo and a stenographer named Jumapao hid themselves behind the
curtains in the house of Samson to witness the conversation. The following morning Uy
Se Tieng and companion, Uy Ay presented papers to Samson. Captain Buencosejo
showed up and &caught them in the act & arrested the 2 Chinese. He was held liable for
the acts by the SC
Held: Even though Juan Samson Smoothed the way for the introduction of the prohibited
drugs, the accused have already planned and actually ordered the opium without the
consent or participation of Juan Samson. Samson did not help the accused to
successfully implement their plan rather Samson merely assured the seizure of the
imported drug and the arrest of the smugglers. He only set up a trap to catch a criminal.
Mere deception of the detective will not shield defendant if the offense was committed
by him free from the influence or the instigation of the detective
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. ART. 13 Mitigating

Circumstances
IN GENERAL:
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not
entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but only serve to reduce the penalty. Mitigating
circumstances are based on the diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence,or intent
or the lesser perversity of the offender.
There can be multiple mitigating circumstances, but all internal acts are taken together (e.g.
passion and obfuscation, lack of intent, etc.), as opposed to the external acts (e.g. voluntary
surrender)
Passion and obfuscation and vindication of a grave offense cannot be counted separately
and independently.
CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. Ordinary mitigating
2. Privileged mitigating
a. Art. 68 Penalties for those under 18 years
b. Art. 69 Penalties when crime is not wholly excusable
c. Art. 64 Rules for penalties which contain 3 periods
Distinctions:
Ordinary
Privileged
Can be offset by aggravating
Cannot be offset
If not offset, lowers penalty to its minimum period,

in case of divisible penalty
lowers the penalty by one or two

degrees
Mitigating circumstances
The following are mitigating circumstances:
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites

necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant.
Circumstances of justification or exemption which may give place to mitigating because not
all requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability are present (for
nos. 1-6, refer to requisites in Art. 11. For nos. 7-9, refer to Art. 12):
1. Selfdefense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of stranger
4. State of necessity
5. Performance of duty
6. Obedience to order of superior
7. Minority over 9 and under 15 years of age
8. Causing injury by mere accident
9. Uncontrollable fear
For numbers 1, 2, and 3, this paragraph only applies when unlawful aggression is
present, but the other two requisites are not. If two out of three requisites are present, it
becomes a privileged mitigating circumstance.
2. That the offender is under 18 years of age or over 70. In the case of the
minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Article 80, paragraph 2.
- Repealed by RA 9344. A child above 15 years old but below 18 shall be exempt from
criminal liability unless it was proven that he/she acted with discernment. If he/she acted
with discernment, such child shall undergo diversion programs provided in Chapter 2 of
RA9344. Diversion is an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the
responsibility and treatment of a child on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic,
psychological or educational background without resulting to formal court proceedings.
Diversion program refers to the program that the child is required to undergo after he/she
is found guilty.
Conferencing, Mediation and Conciliation
A child in conflict with the law may undergo conferencing, mediation, or conciliation outside
the criminal justice system or prior to his entry into the said system. A contract of diversion
may be entered into during these processes.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that

committed.
-There must be notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute
the criminal act and its consequences.
- Lack of intent must be clearly seen from external acts
- Applies only to effects worse than intended and not to mistakes of blow or identity
- Not applicable when offender employed brute force
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Ural
Facts: Ural, a policeman, boxed an inmate inside the detention cell. He poured liquid on him
and set him on fire.
Held: Crime is murder because of the use of fire. Mitigating circumstance that the offender
had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed because Ural only wanted
to maltreat the inmate for being a nuisance, not kill him. Blows were not aimed towards vital
parts of the body. Aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position. The two
circumstances offset each other so penalty is medium reclusion perpetua.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party

immediately preceded the act.
Provocation must be:
(1) Sufficient adequate enough to excite a person to commit the wrong and must be
accordingly proportionate to its gravity. Depends on:
a. The act constituting the provocation
b. Social standing of person provoked
c. Time and place provocation took place
(2) Originate from the offended party,
(3) Immediate to the act- if there was an interval of time, the conduct could not have excited
the accused to the commission of the crime, since he had time to regain his reason and
exercise self-control. Threat should not have been offensive and positively strong (no
unlawful aggression), because then it could be self-defense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Leonor

Facts: Dr. Tarlengco, a dentist, was preparing her dental instruments when Leonor entered,
demanded money and stabbed her. He stole her money and her watch and ran away.
Held: He was convicted with both robbery and homicide. No mitigating circumstance. Lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong does not mitigate in homicide cases where the accused
used a deadly weapon in inflicting mortal wounds on vital organs of the victim. The
provocation sufficient to mitigate an offense must be proportionate to the gravity of the
retaliatory act. A push and bad words do not justify retaliation with a knife.
No passion or obfuscation. To be blinded by passion or obfuscation is to lose self-control, not
consciousness. There need to be causes naturally tending to produce such powerful
excitement as to deprive the accused of reason and self-control. The events leading to the
stabbing precluded any natural tendency to produce a powerful excitement in Leonor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v CA and Tangan
Facts: Traffic conflict. Firecrackers were thrown, so Generoso Miranda swerved to avoid them
and accidentally cut Tangan. Tangan started to cut Generoso. At the U-turn, Tangan got his
gun out, a struggle happened, and Generoso was shot and he died on the way to the
hospital.
Held: Shooting was not accidental because of the distance of the gun. Based on the exit and
entry point, Generoso and Tangan were facing each other. No incomplete self- defense
because there was no unlawful aggression, and no lack of sufficient provocation on person
defending himself. In this case, it was actually Tangan who cut off Tangan several times on
purpose and was thus the one making the provocation. No passion and obfuscation because
there was no unexpected occurrence which produced such a condition of mind. There was no
act producing such condition not far removed from commission of crime by considerable
length of time. He had already passed Generoso's car after it swerved. He was the one
already blocking Generoso's path.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave

offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
Requisites:
1. Grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees.
2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of time is
allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense
Provocation
Vindication
Made directly on the person

committing the felony
May be committed against the relatives

mentioned
Cause brought about need not be a

grave offense
Offended party must have done a grave offense

to offender or his relatives
Necessary that the provocation

immediately precede the act
Vindication may be "proximate", which admits

of an interval of time
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Ampar
Facts: During a fiesta, an old man 70 years of age asked the deceased, Patobo, for some
roast pig. In the presence of many guests, the deceased insulted the old man, saying: "There
is no more. Come here and I will make roast pig of you." A little later, while the deceased
was squatting down, the old man came up behind him and struck him on the head with an
ax.
Held: Murder with the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. While it may
be mere trifle to an average person, it evidently was a serious matter to an old man, to be
made the butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. In this case, the age of the
accused and the public place were considered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Pajares
Facts: Pajares attacked some members of the gang that mauled and hurt his brother. He hit
them with a baseball bat on the back of the head as they were walking in front of a store.
Held: Murder with no mitigating offense. Also guilty of frustrated homicide of another guy.
The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be
appreciated in appellants favor. While it may be true that appellants brother was mauled by
the companions of the deceased as shown in the entry in the Police Blotter, there was a
lapse of about 10 hours between that incident and the killing. Such interval of time was
more than sufficient to enable appellant to recover his serenity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The original Spanish text uses the word proxima which only requires that the crime
be done in the influence thereof, even if it not be so immediate time-wise.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have

produced passion or obfuscation.
Requirements:
1. The accused acted upon an impulse
2. Impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion of obfuscation
Rule: Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating circumstance only when it arose
from lawful sentiments. No mitigating circumstance when the act is committed in a spirit of
lawlessness or revenge.
Requisites
1. That there an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind
2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission
of the the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might
recover his normal equanimity.
Passion or Obfuscation
Provocation
From impulse which may be caused by provocation
From injured party
Need not be immediate, but influence must last until

moment that crime is committed
Must immediately precede

commission of crime
In both, there is an effect of loss of reason and self-control

of offender.
Passion or Obfuscation
Irresistible Force
Mitigating
Exempting
Cannot give rise to an irresistible force
Requires physical force
In the offender himself
From 3rd person
Must arise from lawful sentiments
Unlawful
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. Hicks

Facts: Accused and deceased were living together for about 5 years as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage. Deceased separated from accused and lived with another
man. Accused deliberately, and after due reflection, resolved to kill the woman, with a clean
and well-prepared weapon. The accused killed the deceased.
Held: The accused acted with obfuscation because of jealousy, but the mitigating
circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because the causes which mitigate criminal
responsibility for the loss of self-control are such which originate from legitimate feelings,
and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, immoral passions. Accused and deceased
were merely living together and were not married, his feelings of jealousy were not
legitimate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US vs. De la Cruz
Facts: The accused killed his common-law wife upon discovering her having sex with a
mutual acquaintance with theirs.
Held: In the present case, the impulse upon which the appellant acted and which naturally
produced passion and obfuscation was the sudden revelation that she was untrue to him
and his discovery of her in the arms of another man, which as stated by the SC of spain was
a sufficient impulse to produce the passion and 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 evidence for the prosecution.
2 mitigating circumstances:
1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents (before State would have to
expend any resources for his arrest)
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution
Requisites of voluntary surrender:
1. That offender had not been actually arrested
2. That offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latters agent (to
someone with jurisdiction over his person)
3. That the surrender was voluntary (e.g. not threatened by police)
Requisites of plea of guilty
1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court; before competent court to try the
case
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to presentation of evidence for prosecution
Voluntary surrender is not simply non-flight from authorities. Conduct after commission of
crime must indicate a desire on the part of the accused to own the responsibility of the
crime.
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some
physical defect which thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
communication with his fellow beings.
--Physical defect is such as being armless, cripple, or a stuterrer, whereby his means to act,
defend himself or communicate with his fellow beings are limited.
--This considers that one suffering from such physical defects, does not have complete
freedom of action, and therefore there is a diminution of that element of voluntariness.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender without however depriving him of consciousness of
his acts.
Requisites:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts (must not
amount to insanity, which is an exempting circumstance)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Javier
Facts: Accused Javier had been married for 41 yearsand they had 10 kids. One day, one of
their daughters who was living near their house heard her mother shout Your father is going
to kill me. She went to the house alongside two of her siblings. When they entered their
parents house, they found the lifeless body of their mother and his father wounded in the
abdomen. Javier confessed that he killed his wife and thereafter allegedly stabbed himself.
Javier admitted killing his wife but he told the court that he killed his wife because he could
not sleep for almost a month and that he was insane at the time of the incident.
Held: No mitigating circumstance because no medical evidence was presented by the
accused to validate the defense of insanity. No clear and convincing evidence was shown
that the appellant was suffering from an illness which diminished his exercise of will-power
at the time of the killing. It is also clear that appellant was aware of the acts he committed
since he remembers the vital circumstances surrounding the incident itself
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous
to those abovementioned.
--Authorizes the court to consider in favour of the accused any other circumstance of a
similar nature and analogous those mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 9.
Examples:
Analogous circumstance
Similar to...
Over 60 years old with failing eyesight
Someone over 70 yrs.
Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken

for ransom
Vindication of a grave offense
Outraged feeling of creditor
Passion and obfuscation
Impulse of jealous feeling
Passion and obfuscation
Manifestations of Battered Woman Syndrome
Illness that diminishes exercise of

will-power
Voluntary restitution of stolen property
Voluntary surrender
Extreme poverty or necessity
Incomplete justification based on

state of necessity (Art. 11, par. 4)
Extreme poverty or necessity may mitigate a crime against property (theft), but not
a crime of violence such as murder. It is not mitigating when accused had impoverished
himself and lost his occupation by committing crimes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Canta vs. People
Facts: Gabriels cow was under the care of Agapay when the cow was lost. They went looking
for it and were informed that the missing cow was at the house of Cantas Father. On their
way there, they were met by Canta, who told them that he would just call on them when the
next day so they could talk directly with his father, but he never did. Gabriel reported the
incident. Both father and son were called to an investigation. Canta claims that he indeed
took the cow but claimed that it was his cow that has gone missing, was informed that the
cow as under Agapays care, so he went there with the mother cow to see if she would
suckle, and it did. He took the baby cow with him. He also claims that he has a certificate of
ownership but this certificate was issued by the janitor and was antedated.
Held: Mitigating circumstance of an analogous circumstance should be appreciated because
turnover of cow is analogous to a voluntary surrender Art. 13 (7)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X.
ART. 14: Aggravating

Circumstances
- Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to
increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the
offense
- The basis of applying aggravating circumstances is that they show the greater perversity of the
offender
- 5 kinds:
1.) Generic > Those that can generally apply to all crimes, such as dwelling, nighttime,
and recidivism. Increases penalty, can be offset by mitigating circumstances
2.) Specific > Those that apply only to particular crimes. Ignominy applies to crimes
against chastity. Cruelty and treachery applies to crimes against persons.
3.) Qualifying > Those that change the nature of the crime. Once used to qualify a
crime, it cannot be used to further aggravate the already qualified crime. Ex:
Treachery qualifies the killing of a person to murder, that being so, treachery cannot
be made to aggravate the murder. But if evident premeditation qualifies murder, and
treachery is present, treachery works as a generic aggravating circumstance for the
murder.
4.) Inherent > Those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime.
Being an element of the crime itself, such circumstance will not be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. Ex: Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, theft,
adultery, estafa, adultery, and concubinage.
5.) Special > Not offset by any mitigating circumstance. Will always make penalty be
applied in its maximum period. Ex: Art 14 par 1, taking advantage of public position,
will make penalty be applied in its maximum period, as provided in Art 62 par 1(a).
(Sa commentary ni Reyes, wala sa kinds of aggravating circumstance ang special
aggravating circumstance; si Sir Muyot lang nagsabi nun. Sa classification naman ni Sir
Muyot, walang specific aggravating circumstance. So lets go with Sir Muyots
classification, when it comes to application naman yung specific aggavating circumstance
naman works like a generic aggravating circumstance, except that it can only be
appreciated in certain types of crimes. As for qualifying and inherent aggravating
circumstances, see Art 62 par 1 and par 2 as to why they are applied the way they are
applied)
-
Generic aggravating circumstance increase penalty imposed. It can be offset my mitigating

circumstances
A qualifying aggravating circumstance must be alleged in the information, otherwise is only a

generic mitigating circumstance. A generic aggravating circumstance, however, even if not
alleged in the information, may be proven during the trial over the objection of the defense and
may be appreciated in imposing the sentence.
Aggravating circumstances which arise: a) from the moral attributes of the offender, or b) from his
private relations with the offended party, or c) from any other personal cause, shall only serve to
aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant. They are personal.
The circumstances which consist 1) in the material execution of the act, or 2) in the means
employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
Pursuant to the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, aggravating circumstances must be alleged
along with the qualifying circumstances
Although the aggravating circumstances in question cannot be appreciate for the purpose of
fixing a heavier penalty in this case, they should, however, be considered as the bases for the
award of exemplary damages, conformably to current jurisprudence
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances.

aggravating circumstances:
The
following
are
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

-
Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal circumstance of
the offender and also by the means used to secure the commission of the crime.
Applies only when the person committing the crime is a public officer who takes advantage
of his public position
For this to apply, the public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which
his office gives him as the means by which he realizes his purpose. Should answer the
question Did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the crime?
When a public officer commits a common crime independent of his official functions and
does acts that are not connected with the duties of his office, he should not be punished as
a private individual without this aggravating circumstance
There must be proof that the accused took advantage of his public position.
The commission of a crime while in uniform does not automatically make this circumstance
apply. But, this would still apply if the accused used his public office to facilitate the crime,
even if the accused was not wearing uniform at that time.
This cannot be taken taken into consideration in offenses where it is an integral element of
the crime, such as in crimes if malversation (Art. 217), and in falsification of document by a
public officer (Art. 171)
SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS: RPC 62 (1) and 266-B (7)
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public

authorities.
- Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack of respect for the public
authorities.
- Requisites:
- The public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
- He who is engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against whom
the crime is committed.
- The offender knows him to be a public authority
- The presence of the public authority has not prevented the offender from committing
the criminal act.
- A public authority, also called a person in authority, is a public office who has the power to
govern and execute the laws. (But if crime is done in the presence of a public authority, this
will circumstance applies see People vs Rodil)
- This does not apply if the attack is directed against the public authority. Such would be the
offense of direct assault under Art. 148.
- The lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a public authority is present indicates
lack of intention to insult the public authority.
- more expansive than the definition of persons in authority under 152
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People vs Rodil (1981)

Facts:
Masala, lieutenant and soldier of the Philippine Constabulary, found Rodil, a member of the
Anti- Smuggling Unit, to be carrying a weapon with no license. After confiscation of the
gun, Masala asked Rodil to sign a receipt but he refused and instead drew a dagger and
stabbed Masala in the presence of other soldiers of the PC, including the towns chief of
police. Chief was the one who wrested dagger from the accused.
Held:
Aggravating Circumstance: Insult to public authority. SC decision recognizes that precedent dictates
that police chief is not a person of authority, merely an agent. But they rule that if in the past, public
school teachers and health officers have been considered authorities, then so should the chief of
police. Accused had knowledge of the chief of polices presence and this had not prevented him from
committing the crime.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due
to the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that it be
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given
provocation.
- If all four circumstances are present, they have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only
- Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal circumstances of the
offended party and the place of the commission of the crime
- May be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor. Not taken into account in crimes
against property because the value of a property is not more valuable by the mere fact that it is owned
by person of a different age, rank, or sex.
- There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to
offend or insult the sex or age of the offended party.
- DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE
- RANK
- There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended party
- Rank refers to a social position or standing.
- Cannot be appreciated as aggravating when there is no proof of the specific fact that the
accused disregarded the respect due to the offended party
- AGE
- Applies in cases where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age.
- Cannot be considered aggravating in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately
intended to offend or insult the age of the victim
- Absorbed by treachery (Not in book, but I remember Sir Muyot saying this)
- SEX
-Refers to the female sex
- Not aggravating in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend
or insult the sex of the victim of showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood
- Cannot exist when there is passion or obfuscation, because the accused could not have been
conscious that his act was done with disrespect to the offended party.
- Cannot be appreciated in crimes where this is inherent (parricide, rape, abduction, seduction)
- absorbed in treachery
Must be a CONSCIOUS DISREGARD of the fact that the victim is a woman
- DWELLING
- Dwelling must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort
- Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the commission of
the crime. The law accords the sanctity of privacy to human abode; it must be respected.
- To be considered as aggravating, the offended party must not have given provocation.
Provocation means that 1.) it is given by the offended party, 2.) it is sufficient, and 3.) it is
immediate to the commission of the crime
- The fact that the owner of the house did not give provocation must be shown by the evidence
of the prosecution, as it cannot be assumed
-It is not necessary that the accused entered the dwelling; it is enough that the victim was
attacked inside his own house.
- Aggravating even if killing took place outside of dwelling provided that the commission of the
crime began in the the dwelling
- Not applicable when both offender and offended party are occupants of the same house
- When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating
because it is inherent.
- In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent.
- Can be considered even if the offended party are guests or the dwelling is merely temporary.
- Aggravating in adultery if committed inside the home, except if the paramour also lives there.
- Not absorbed by treachery
- PLACE WHERE YOU CAN DEMAND EXCLUSIVITY (so if accused is also living in the same place,
no expectation of privacy or exclusivity)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People vs Daniel (1978)

Facts:
Complainant was a high school student living in a boarding house. The accused followed
her from school until she reached her boarding house. She was about to close the door but
the accused dashed in o and closed the door behind him. He pulled out a dagger,
threatened the complainant and raped her. The following morning, she told her father.
Doctor who examined her found that laceration of hymen was recent.
Held:
Aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace in a

boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and purposes a "dwelling." It is not necessary,
under the law that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. If he is a lessee, a boarder, or a
bed-spacer, the place is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious

ungratefulness.
- Two aggravating circumstances contained in this paragraph
- Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the means and ways employed.
- ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
- Requisites:
- The offended party trusted the offender
- The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party
- The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
- The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be immediate and
personal
- Inherent in some felonies such as malversation (Art 217), qualified theft (Art 310), estafa by
conversion or misappropriation (Art 315), and qualified seduction (Art 337)
- not considered if the confidence flows from authority (in which case abuse of authority will be
appreciated instead) IF THE LAW PRESUMES CONFIDENCE in the context of the crime (eg
paricide)
- OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
- Present in the following situations:
- accused killed father-in-law in whose house he lived and who partially supported him
- accused was living in the house of the victim who employed him as an overseer and
in charge of the carpentry work, and had free access to the house of the victim
- visitor commits robbery or theft in the house of the host
- The mere fact, however, that the accused and the offended party live in the same house is
not in itself enough to hold that there was present abuse of confidence where the house was
not the property of the offended party.
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.
- Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the commission of the
crime, which must be respected --- CONTEXT IS DISRESPECT
- Par 5 distinguished from Par 2:
Par 5
Par 2
Public Authorities are in the performance of

their duties
Public Authorities are in the performance of

their duties
Public authority must be in their office
Public authority are performing their duties

outside of the office
Public authority may be the offended party
Public authority should not be the offended

party
- If crime is committed in the palace of the Chief executive, or in a place of worship, it is aggravating
regardless of whether official or religious functions are being held (but for religious worship, must be
used as such regularly)
- The Chief Executing need not be in Malacanang Palace; his presence alone on any place where the
crime is committed is already aggravating
- But as regard the place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there
must be some performance of public functions.
- Cemeteries are not considered as a places of worship
- The offender must have intention to commit the crime when he entered the place.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, 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.
- Based on the time and place of the commission of the crime and the means and ways employed
- Three circumstances can be considered as separate from each other if their element are distinctly
perceived and can subsist independently
- Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band is aggravating:

- When it facilitated the commission of the crime
- When it is especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for
the purpose of impunity
- When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity
- NIGHTTIME
- Nighttime by and of itself is not an aggravating circumstance. To be aggravating, the
prosecution must show that the accused purposely sought to commit the crime at nighttime in
order to facilitate the achievement of his objectives, prevent discovery or evade capture.
- The information must allege that nighttime was sought for or taken advantage of by the
accused or that it facilitated the commission of the crime. The bare statement that the crime
was committed in the darkness of the night fails to satisfy the criterion.
- Even if not specially sought, if it facilitated the commission of the crime and the accused took
advantage thereof to commit it, may be considered as an aggravating circumstance
- The commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime
- The offense must actually be committed in the darkness of the night
- Not aggravating when the place of the crime is illuminated. But will still be aggravating even
if the offender used a source of light, such as a flashlight
- absorbed in treachery
- UNINHABITED PLACE
- despoblado not populated
A place where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from town, or
where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other. --- prevents other people
from knowing that the crime is being committed
- Should be determine not by the distance of the nearest house from the scene of the crime,
but whether or not in the place of the commission of the offense there was a reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving some help
- The offenders must choose the place as an aid either 1) as an easy and uninterrupted
accomplishment of their criminal designs, or 2) to insure concealment of the offense.
- BAND
- Must be more than 3 armed men (armed: equipped with means to inflict violence)
- All of them must have taken direct part in the execution of the act constituting the crime
- Considered in crimes against persons and property. Also taken into account in treason and
illegal detention. Not applicable to crimes against chastity.
- Absorbs the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, and the use of
firearms.
- Band is inherent in brigandage
- special circumstance in robbery (296) penalty imposed in the maximum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People vs Bermas (1999)

Facts:
While aboard a fishing boat, bursts of gunfire from a high-powered rifle shattered the air,
causing the death of Catalino Bellen, Teodoro Cas and Arturo Abion and serious gunshot
wounds to Antonio and Renato Abion and 2 others. Appellants, who fired shots from a nearby
boat, were indicted for multiple murders with multiple frustrated murder.
Held:
The court held that the mere fact that the offense was committed at night does not suffice to sustain
finding of nocturnity. In the case at bar, other than the time of the occurrence of the felony, nothing
else suggests that it was consciously resorted to by accused- appellants to facilitate the commission of
the crime or that it was availed of for the purpose of impunity. In fact there were also 2 gas lamps that
lit area that the offended individuals were able to recognize Bermas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,

shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity or misfortune.
- The basis of this aggravating circumstance has reference to the time of the commission of the crime.
The reason is found in the debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great calamity,
instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to
despoil them
- The offender must have taken advantage of the CONFUSION
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who
insure or afford impunity.
- Based on the means and ways of committing the crime
- Requisites:
- Armed persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
- The accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed
- Exceptions:
- When both the attacking party and the attacked party were equally armed
- When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him acted under the same plan and
for the same purpose
- Distinguished from Par. 6: A band requires that more than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense. Aid of armed men is present even if one of the offenders
merely relied on their aid, for actual aid is not necessary. (armed men may have been directly or
indirectly involved in the commission of the crime)
- Aid of armed men is absorbed in employment of a band)
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.
- Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his inclination to crimes
- Requisites:
- The offender is on trial for an offense
- The offender was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
- Both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title of the code
- The offender is convicted of the new offense
- What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of the commission of the crime. at the time of his
trial includes everything that is done in the course of the trial, from arraignment until after the
sentence is announced by the judge in open court.
- No recidivism if the subsequent conviction is for an offense committed before the offense involved in
the prior conviction
- Must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened between the first and second
felonies.
- Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist, but amnesty extinguishes the
penalty and it effects
10. That the offender has been previously punished for 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.
- Based on the greater perversity of the offender as shown by inclination to crimes
- Requisites:
- That the accused is on trial for an offense
- That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the
new offense
- That he is convicted of the new offense
- What is considered is the penalty attached to the offense, not the penalty actually imposed
- This circumstance is called reiteracion, or habituality
- Distinguished from par 9:
Par 9
Par 10
It is enough that a final judgement has been Offender shall have served out his sentence
rendered in the first offense
Offenses must be in the same title of the Code
Offenses need not be embraced in the same

title
Always to be taken into consideration in fixing Not always aggravating circumstance

the penalty to be imposed upon the accused
- FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION
- Recidivism (Art 14, Par 9)
- Reiteracion or habituality (Art 14, Par 10)
- Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency (Art 62, Par 5) When a person, within a period of
ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes for serious or less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a
third time or oftener
- Quasi-recidivism (Art 160) Any person who shall commit a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the
same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new
felony.
- The first two are generic aggravating circumstances. The third is an extraordinary
aggravating circumstance. The fourth is a special aggravating circumstance
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or

promise.
- Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating power itself
- 2 or more offenders: the person giving the reward, and the person accepting the reward
- Can be applied to both the person offering the reward and the person accepting the reward
- The evidence must show that the accused used price, reward, or promise for the purpose of inducing
another to perform the deed.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison,

explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment
of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste
and ruin.
- Basis has reference to means and ways employed
- Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a criminal purpose, any of the circumstances
in paragraph 12 cannot be considered to increase the penalty or to change the nature of the offense.
- When another aggravating circumstance already qualified the crime, any of these aggravating
circumstances shall be considered as generic aggravating circumstance. ex: murder qualified by
evident premeditation, aggravated by any of these circumstances (note that murder can be qualified
both by evident premeditation and any of these means)
- The means must be used to accomplish the crime; the crime must not be just incidental to the means
used.
- Thus, even if a person is killed because of arson, the perpetrator of the arson cannot be held liable for
murder (killing qualified by the use of fire), if he did not intend to kill the person, the death was merely
incidental to the crime of arson. (although there is not crime of murder, the provisions on arson
provide heavier penalties if arson resulted in the death of persons)
- Distinguished from Par 7: Under Par 12, the crime is committed by means of any of such acts
involving great waste or ruin. Under Par 7, the crime is committed on the occasion of a calamity or
misfortune
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

- The basis has reference to the ways of committing the crime, because evident premeditation implies
a deliberate planning of the act before executing it.
- The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool
though and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment
- Premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected
- Requisites:
- The time when the offender determined to commit the crime
- An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination
- A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect
upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his
will
- Premeditation must be based upon external acts and not presumed from mere lapse of time. Mere
threats without the second element does not show evident premeditation. The existence of ill-feeling
or grudge alone is not proof of evident premeditation.
- Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation. Where conspiracy is directly established, with proof
of the attendant deliberation and selection if the method, time and means of executing the crime, the
existence if evident premeditation can be taken for granted.
- Evident premeditation and price or reward can co-exist
- Not aggravating when victim is different from that intended. But, it is not necessary that there is a
particular person that will be offended. See the case of Manalinde where this aggravating circumstance
was applied because even though there was no specific person to be targeted, there is the evident
premeditation to kill any random person.
- Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may be aggravating in robbery with homicide if the
premeditation included the killing of the victim. But where the killing during robbery is only an incident,
this aggravating circumstance should be disregarded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US vs Manalinde (1909)
Facts:
Manalinde entered Cotabato and attacked a Spaniard, Juan Igual, who was seated in the
doorway of a store, then attacked a chinaman, named Choa, who was passing by at that
time. Choa died. When Manalinde was arrested he confessed that Datu Mapuck asked him to
kill 2 persons in Cotabato to avenge against a lieutenant and sergeant. Mapuck also told him
that if he would not be caught, the former would give the latter a pretty woman because
Manalinde was recently widowed. In order to carry out his intentions, he travelled for a day
and a night and carried with him a kris wrapped in banana leaves.
Held:
The court also found that upon accepting the order, he deliberately considered and carefully and
thoughtfully meditated over the nature and consequences of the acts (travel, covering weapon). The
fact that the victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of the crime.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.

- Basis has reference to the means employed in the commission of the crime
- This circumstance is characterized by the intellectual or mental rather than the physical means to
which the criminal resorts to carry out his design.
- CRAFT
- Involves the use of intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused
- Must be resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design. It must have
been employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime.
- Craft is not attendant where the unlawful scheme could have been carried out just the same
even without the pretense
- Where craft is an element of the offense, it cannot be appreciated independently for the
purpose of aggravation
- FRAUD
- Insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a manner which would
enable the offender to carry out his design.
- Distinction between Craft and Fraud:
- When there is direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present;
otherwise, the act of the accused done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim
constitutes craft.
- (based on that, fraud is a subset of craft. I do remember Sir saying that court rarely
distinguishes between the two)
- DISGUISE
- Resorting to any device to conceal identity
- It contemplates a superficial but somehow effective dissembling to avoid identification
- The purpose of the offender must be to conceal his identity
- Illegally wearing a Constabulary uniform was regarded to be using disguise.
- The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel also constitutes disguise
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed

to weaken the defense.
- To take advantage of superior strength means to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to
the means of defense available to the person attacked.
- When the attack was made on the victim alternately, there is no abuse of superior strength.
- Inherent in the crime of parricide where the husband kills the wife.
- There must be evidence that the accused were physically stronger and that they abused such
superiority.
- This circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. It is considered wherever
there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor.
- Abuse of superior strength is present when the offender uses a powerful weapon which is out of
proportion to the defense available to the offended party.
- Absorbed by treachery
- Distinction between Par 6 (band):
Par 6
Committed by more than 3 armed persons, Collective
regardless of comparable strengths
victims
Par 15
strength
to
overpower
weaker
Aggravating circumstance is with regard to Aggravating circumstance is with regard to

number
relative physical might
- Abuse of superiority absorbs band. Treachery absorbs both.
- Means to weaken the defense includes: throwing a cloak over someone's head during a struggle,
throwing dirt on the opponent's eyes, intoxicating the victim
- Means to weaken the defense is absorbs in treachery
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.
- Basis has reference to the means and ways employed in the commission of the crime
- Treachery means that the offended party was not given the opportunity to make defense. It is present
when the attack is sudden, unexpected, without warning, and without giving the victim an opportunity
to defend himself or repel the aggression
- Rules:
- Applicable only to crimes against persons
- Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime. Ex: Frustrated murder
qualified by treachery
- The mode of attack must be consciously adopted
- Treachery may not be simple deduced from presumption as it is necessary that the existence of this
qualifying or aggravating circumstance should be proven as a fully as the crime itself in order to
aggravate the liability or penalty incurred by the culprit
- Treachery must be appreciated in the killing of a child even if the manner of attack is not shown. It
exists in the commission of the crime when an adult person illegally attacks a child of tender years.
The weakness of the child due his to his tender age results in the absence of any danger to the
accused.
- The mere facts that the attack was sudden and unexpected does not show treachery, unless there is
evidence that such form of attack was purposely adopted by the accused. There must be evidence that
the accused reflected on the means, methods and forms of killing the victim
- That the mode of attack was consciously adopted may be inferred from the circumstances. Ex:
wounds of the victim, time and place of attack, strength or weapon used by the offender, etc.
Where the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done
impulsively, there is no treachery even if the attack was sudden and unexpected and while the victim
was running away with his back towards the accused.
- Requisites:
- That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself
- That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him
- There is no treachery when the victim was already defending himself when he was attacked by the
accused
- Treachery does not connote the element of surprise alone, but exists when the offender employs
means which tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the offense, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended part might take.
- It does not always follow that because the attack is sudden and unexpected it is tainted with
treachery. Indeed, it could have been done on impulse, as a reaction to an actual or imagined
provocation offered by the victim
- There is not treachery where the attack is preceded by a warning, but calling the attention of the
victim is not necessarily a warning.
- There is no treachery where the shooting is preceded by a heated discussion. The offended party was
on his guard due to the discussion; the offended party was not caught by surprise.
- Even if the attack came from the front, there is treachery when the position of the victim is in such a
way that he was not able to defend himself. Ex: victim has his hands raised, victim was tied, victim was
held by other persons
- The mere fact that the attack was inflicted when the victim had his back turned will not in itself
constitute treachery. It must appear that such mode of attack was consciously adopted and the
question of risk to the offender must be taken into account.
- Treachery is not incompatible with lack of intent to kill. The offender could have employed treachery
to only cause physical injuries, but instead caused the death of the victim (praeter intentionem).
Treachery can also be considered where the victim was not the person intended to be killed (error in
personae or aberratio ictus).
- Summary of Rules:
- When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of the assault
- When the assault was not continuous, in that there was an interruption, it is sufficient that
treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow was given
- Treachery cannot be ruled against the principal by inducement if it is not shown that he instructed the
principal by direct participation to use treacherous means; it will only be appreciated against the
principal by inducement
- Treachery should be considered against all persons participating or cooperating in the perpetration of
the crime, except whn there is no conspiracy among them.
- Treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior strength are, by their nature, inherent in the
offense of treason
- Treachery absorbs:
- abuse of superior strength
- employing means to weaken the defense
- band
- nighttime (exception in some cases where the accused used nighttime to commit the crime,
and tied the victim before killing him. the court ruled there was both the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and treachery since the treachery rests upon and independent
factual basis - the tying up of the victim.)
- aid of armed men
- craft
- disregard of age and sex (but dwelling is not included)
- Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation. for while in the mitigating circumstance of
passion or obfuscation, the offender loses his reason and self-control, in the the aggravating
circumstance of treachery the mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US vs Sangalang (1974)
Facts:
Deceased was shot by 5 armed men while he was on top of a coconut tree gathering tuba.
Wife was witness to incident.
Held:
Treachery exists - accused employed deliberate surprise on the attack that ensured the killing. Victim
was atop a tree so no place to escape or hide. Treachery absorbs band.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add

ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
- Basis had reference to the means employed
- Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime
- Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave coercion, and
murder
- The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend to make the effects of the crime
more humiliating or to put the offended party to shame. It is required that the offense be committed in
a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating, adding moral suffering to the victim.
- Ignominy does not apply when the victim is already dead, and acts such as dismemberment of body
parts are done against the victim's body.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People vs Torrefiel (1947)

Facts:
December 17, 1942, 5:00 p.m. Torrefiel and Ormeo, members of USSAFE passed by Eadys
residence to ask for khakis. His wife Ceferina Cordero scolded Torrefiel and Ormeo because
all their belongings had already been looted by the USSAFE. The couple was charged with
being fifth columnists and was taken blindfolded to the USSAFE headquarters. Torrefiel had
taken the wrong way so he went back to a guardhouse and left Eady there, who then
escaped. Torrefiel finds Ormeo with Cordero. Ormeo leaves to find Eady.
As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed her and carried her to a log and laid her on
it. Torrefiel began to unbutton his pants and wound cogon leaves around his genitals then
raped her.
Held:
Ignominy is present. Cogon grass increased pain and added moral disgrace to crime. In ruling
ignominy, shame is more focused on rather than pain.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People vs Alfanta (1999)

Facts:
At around midnight, while Nita Fernandez was asleep in the residence of a friend, Rolando
Alfanta suddenly entered and threatened her with a bolo to follow him. She was forced to
climb a fence and instructed to go to a vacant house. There she was told to undress. He then
molested her. She was instructed to lie down and he then inserted his penis into to her
vagina. After that, she was told to lie face down and he inserted his penis to her anus. After
inserting his penis, he instructed her to turn around face up, he inserted his fingers in and
out of her vagina and anus. Then after all these acts, he told her to lie beside him as he was
going to take a rest. Noticing that Alfanta was already sleeping, she suddenly took the bolo
and hacked him several times.
Held:
The means employed added ignominy to crime of rape by adding disgrace to the injury.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not
intended for the purpose.
- Basis has reference to the means and ways employed to commit the crime
- One who acts, not respecting, the walls erected by men to guard their property and provide for their
personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law punishes hum with
more severity
- Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape
- Inherent in robbery with force upon things, and in trespass to dwelling
- Dwelling and unlawful entry can be taken separately
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door,
or window be broken.
- Basis has reference to means and ways employed to commit the crime
- The breaking must be utilized as a means to the commission of the crime.
- The circumstance is aggravating only in those cases where the offender resorted to any of said
means to enter. If the broken part of the building was used in order to get out of the place, is is not an
aggravating circumstance.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen
years of age, or by means of motor vehicle, airship, or other similar
means.
- Basis has reference to means and ways employed to commit the crime
- Two different circumstances are grouped in this paragraph:
- With aid of persons under 15 > the law wants to repress the practice resorted to by criminals
to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their irresponsibility
- By means of motor vehicles > the law intends to counteract the great facilities found by
modern criminals in said means to commit crime and free and abscond once the same is
committed
- The use of motor vehicles is aggravating where the accused used the motor vehicle in going to the
place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape
- Not aggravating if the motor vehicle was used ONLY in facilitating the escape. To be considered, the
use of motor vehicle must be to facilitate the commission of the crime
- Where the use of the motor vehicle was merely incidental and not purposefully sought to facilitate
the commission of the crime, the circumstance in not aggravating
- other similar means should be understood as referring to motorized vehicles or other efficient
means of transportation similar to an automobile or airplane. Thus, aggravating if a motorcycle was
used, but not aggravating if a bicycle was used.
- This paragraph was amended by RA 5438, which was approved September 9, 1968. This paragraph
now reads: 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.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission.
- The basis has reference to ways employed in committing the crime
- There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually,
causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
- To be aggravating, is is essential that the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering of the
victim
- Requisites:
- The injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong
- The other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender
- No cruelty if wrong was done after the victim is dead. Ex: dismembering the body of the dead victim.
- It cannot be presumed; for it to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, there must be
positive proof that the wounds found on the body of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive in
order to unnecessarily prolong the physical suffering.
- Distinguished from ignominy: Ignominy involves moral suffering; cruelty refers to physical suffering
XI. 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 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.
Relationship
- If offended party is: spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother
or sister, relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender (brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law).
step-parents and adopted parents included by analogy.
Mitigating
Aggravating
Other
- If crimes against
property (robbery,
usurpation, fraudulent
insolvency, arson,
trespass to dwelling, etc.)
- Crimes against
persons: if relative of
lower degree
- Crimes against
persons: if relative of
higher degree or same
level (brother, brother-inlaw, half-brother, adopted
brother).
If serious
physical injury or
murder-- aggravating
notwithstanding the crime
was committed on relative
of lower degree
- Crimes against
chastity
- Rape (266-B)
- Only civil liability shall

result from theft, swindling
or malicious mischief
committed by relatives
living together with the
offended party.
- If relationship is element
of offense, relationship is
neither aggravating nor
mitigating. (medium
penalty).
- Other circumstances:
mitigating if accused kills
relative who commits
adultery with wife of
accused, or when the
accused commits serious
physical injuries in the
desire to render service to
another relative.
Intoxication
Mitigating
Aggravating
- not habitual
- not subsequent to plan to commit a
felony
- habitual
- intentional (If accused drank liquor fully
knowing its effects in order to stimulate
the commitment of the crime or as a
means to suffocate remorse)
- Basis: liquor impairs exercise of will power

- Presumption is always that intoxication is habitual
- Non-habitual intoxication, lack of instruction and obfuscation are not to be taken separately
(considered only as one mitigating circumstance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Camano
Facts:
- After drinking liquor Camano hacked and stabbed Pascua to death while he was walking alone.
Afterwards he hacked Buenaflor to death while he was leaning on the fence of his house in a kneeling
position.
- Three years before the incident,, Pascua had refused Camanos request to tow his fishing boat using
Buenaflors motor boat.
- Thereafter, Camano was embittered by the incident. During drinking sessions with Pascua, he was on
artificially friendly terms. On the other hand, he openly detested Buenaflor.
- After killing the two, Camano surrendered himself to the police.
- Witness says the Camano used to get drunk every now and then and that he would declare his plans
against Pascua whenever he was inebriated.
Held:
- The alternative circumstance of intoxication should be taken as mitigating since there was no
evidence of evident premeditation of the offense.
- Intoxication is always presumed as accidental unless otherwise proven.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Degree of Instruction and Education
- Aggravating: High degree of instruction
Only aggravating if accused took advantage of high degree of education in committing the
crime
Ex.: Aggravating when doctor uses undetectable poison to kill patient. Not aggravating when
doctor assaults patient.
- Mitigating: Low degree of instruction
Not mitigating in crimes against property, chastity, treason, murder
- What is important is to determine lack of intelligence. Mere illiteracy is not enough.
XII. Persons Criminally Liable for

Felonies
Persons who are criminally liable when there is one or multiple offenders
What is the effect of participation on the penalty that may be imposed?
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. The following are criminally liable for
grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
- Accessories are not liable for light felonies.
- For principals and accomplice, light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated.
But when committed agaisnt persons or property, they are punishable even when attempted or
frustrated.
- In every crime there is an active subject (criminal) and a passive subject (victim).
Only natural persons can be active subjects.

Juridical persons can be passive subjects.
XIII.
Principals
Art. 17. Principals. The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished.
- In short: Principals by Direct Participation, Principals by Induction, and Principals by
Indispensable Cooperation
- A single individual committing a crime is always a principal.
Principals by Direct Participation
- the ones who personally execute the act
- Two requisites:
1. Participated in criminal resolution
two or more persons are said to have participated in the criminal resolution when they are in
conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime.
CONSPIRACY- exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Act of one is the act of all.
- Therefore if one conspirator stands guard while the other co-conspirators rob
a house, the guard is also liable for robbery.
There is no need to show evident premeditation as proof of conspiracy is determined by the
courts through the overt, interlocking acts of the accused.
Conspirator who spontaneously desisted is not criminally liable
No conspiracy through negligence except when punishable by a special law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Dela Cerna
Facts:
- Sulpicio Dela Cerna and 15 other people conspired to kill Rafael because of a land dispute.
- Rafael, his brother and his son were carrying sacks of corn up a hill
- When they reached Sulpicios house and were able to put down the sacks, Sulpicio fire and hit Rafael
from inside his house.
- Rafael was brought to his house,
- Later, Sulpicio and the others stoned Rafaels house and thrust their bolos through the bamboo
flooring.
- Casiano was killed by Sulpicio after the former had gotten the carbine from Serapio.
Held:
- Serapio is not liable for Casianos murder since he agreed only to kill Rafael. Serapio didnt give the
carbine to Sulpicio knowing or intending for it to be used to kill Casiano.
-The conspirators are liable for the killing of Rafael.
2. Carried out plan, personally took part in execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
Must be at the scene of the crime except when serving as a guard
When second requisite is lacking, there is only conspiracy and no crime except if conspiracy
for treason, rebellion, or sedition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------U.S. v. Diris (1913)

Facts:
- Tomas conspired to steal from his uncle along with Anselmo and Eustaquio.
- Eustaquio engaged Tomass aunt in conversation while the other two stole money from the safety box
upstairs.
Held:
- Eustaquio is a principal by direct participation even though he did not personally do the stealing. He
and the other two were in conspiracy to steal the money from the safety box. A person who does not
personally do the offense but did an act to ensure its execution is a principal by direct execution. In
this case, Eustaquio, by distracting the aunt, did an act that ensured the execution of the theft,
therefore he is a principal by direct participation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Principals by Induction
- Two Ways of Becoming Principals by Induction:
1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime
a. By irresistible force
b. By causing uncontrollable fear
2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime
a. By giving price, or offering reward or promise
b. By acts of command, advice or through influence
- The one who made the command must have an ascendancy or
influence
- The words used must be so powerful as to amount to physical or
moral coercion
- The executor of the crime has no personal reason to commit the
crime
- must precede the act induced
- Requisites:
1. Inducement made with intention
- A thoughtless expression or act without any intention or expectation that it
would produce the result, is not an inducement to commit a crime.
2. Inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime
- Without such inducement, the crime would not have been committed
- Acquittal of principal by direct participation leads to acquittal of principal by inducement except when
the formers acquittal is because of lack of criminal intent or malice. ( When executor was forced to
commit the act due to irresistible force)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Ong Chiat Lay
Facts:
- Ong Ban Hua, Kua Sing, and Ong Chiat Lay burned down a building.
- While the other two were acquitted for lack of evidence, Ong Chiat Lay was convicted of arson by the
lower court for inducing the former to burn the building.
Held:
- One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of a crime without first being shown
that the crime was actually committed by another. Although there were grave suspicions against Ong
Chiat Lay, it falls short of proving his guilt. Acquitted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U,S, v. Indanan
Facts:
- Indanan was accused of committing murder by inducement of Sariol.
- He was the headman of Parang who was the provinces governor.
-When witnesses were asked about Indanan, they said that because he was the headman of Parang,
there was a danger that the executors would be killed by the governors soldiers.
- Note: Indanan wasnt really relaying the governors orders.
Held:
- Indanans words were equal to a command. He had the intention to produce the results and the
words were also the determining cause of the crime committed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Kiichi Omine
Facts:
Defendants Autor, Ladion, and Cortesano were working under Omine, the overseer and manager
of the hemp plantation owned by Pulido.
Omine asked Pulido permission to open a new road through the plantation. He thought that he
had been authorized but Pulido in fact, did not.
As Pulido was returning home from the cockpit, he saw the hemp plants that were trampled by
the construction of the new road.
Angered, Pulido went to the four defendants house. While Omine was talking with Pulido, Autor
attempted to intervene. While Ladio and Cortesano held Pulido, and while Autor approached him,
Omine shouted pegale y matale. (hit him and kill him!)
Pulido died by a strike on the breast with a bolo.
Omine was accused of being a principal by induction for uttering those words.
Held;
Omine had no authority over Autor because the latter was still being paid by Pulido.
Omines utterances were not the determining cause of Autors murder of Pulido.
Autor himself had personal reasons for committing the crime.
Inducement should be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
and that such inducement be the determining cause of the crime. Furthermore, the utterance
must be made before the commission of the crime and must have been so influential that
without it the crime would not have been committed.
Muyot: Yung sinigaw ni Omine parang yung mga sinisigaw ng mga usisero kapag may
away.
Pointers for determining if the accused is a principal by induction:
1.
Intention
2.
Relationship
3.
Determining cause (causal connection between command and crime committed)
4.
When uttered (Should be before the crime was committed)
5.
Were there any personal reasons for the person committing the act to do so?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XIV.Accomplices
Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being
included in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by
previous or simultaneous acts.
They are those who might concur with the design, but are NOT part of the conspiracy
- When there is no conspiracy between or among the defendants but they were animated by one and
the same purpose to accomplish the criminal objective, those who cooperated by previous or
simultaneous acts but cannot be held liable as principals are accomplices.
Requisites:
1.
That there be a community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose
2.
That he 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; and
3.
That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the
person charged as an accomplice.
How an accomplice acquires knowledge:
When the principal informs him of the criminal purpose
When he saw the criminal acts of the principal
concurrence with the criminal purpose may make one a principal if before the actual
commission of the crime both AGREED and DECIDED to commit the crime, he is now not merely an
accomplice but a co-conspirator.
Cooperation of an Accomplice:
It is only necessary, but NOT indispensable. (different from principal by conspiracy, where
nature of the cooperation becomes immaterial)
Examples: by previous acts lending a pistol, knowing the murderers criminal intent, by
simultaneous acts held the hands of the victim and took away his weapon, while his co-defendant
was attacking him, given that he cooperated without any previous agreement or understanding with
his co-defendant (People vs. Escarro); 3 persons who detained the offended woman were the
principals, but those who held their companion to prevent the latter from rendering help to the victim,
were accomplices, there being no conspiracy among them (People vs. Crisostomo)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v Nierra (Pepsi vs Coke) (1980)

Facts: Accused were: Felicisimo Doblen, Vicente Rojas, the spouses Paciano Nierra and
Gaudencia Nierra, and Gaspar Misa. Paciano is the brother in law of the deceased Juliana
Nierra. The two were competitors in the business of launch transportation and sale of
softdrinks. Paciano conceived the idea of killing Juliana. On July 4, 1969, Felicisimo Doblen,
cousin in law of Paciano, introduced Gaspar Misa, a convicted murderer, to Paciano. Misa
agreed in killing Juliana for the sum of P3000. The arrangement was done in front of
Gaudencia Nierra and confirmed by her as well. Doblen delivered the gun with the bullets to
Misa. Misa contacted his friend Vicente Rojas to be the lookout during the killing. During the
interrogation of the City Police Dept, Misa signed a confession admitting the killing and
implicating the other accused. He did this because the Nierra spouses did not pay him full.
Held: Misa and Paciano co-conspirators evidence: note from Misa telling Paciano that he
will do his best for Paciano to be free as long as he gives him the sum of P600.
Nierras co-principals by inducement. By acting as lookouts during the perpetration of the
killing, they become co-principals by cooperation as well.
Doblen and Rojas their activities had shown that they had community of design with the
NIerra spouses and Misa in the assassination of Juliana. Doblen introduced Misa and
delivered the murder weapon, while Rojas acted as a lookout and received P50. Guilty as
ACCOMPLICES. It is true, strictly speaking, that as co-conspirators they should be punished
as co-principals. HOWEVER, since their participation was not absolutely indispenseable to
the commission of the murder, the rule that the court should favor the milder form of liability
may be applied to them. In some exceptional situations, having community of design with
the principal does not prevent a malefactor from being regarded as an accomplice, IF his
role in the perpetraton of the homicide or murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor
character.
Killing murder qualified by treachery and aggravated by in consideration of a price or
reward. Nierras relationship is another aggravating circumstance
Misa his recidivism offset his plea of guilty
Gaudencia Nierra lack of ten votes from the court, her penalty will be commuted to
Reclusion perpetua
Sir: Doblen should have been held liable as principal; made things happen
BUT court may exercise discretion just so a lighter penalty may be imposed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Doble (1982)
Facts: Late in the night of June 13, 1966, 10 men, almost all heavily armed w/ pistols,
carbines and thompsons, left the shores of Manila in a motor banca & proceeded to
Navotas,Rizal to rob the beach-bank Prudential Bank & Trust Co Once docked in Navotas and
taking advantage of the darkness of the night, 8 men disembarked from the banca and
proceeded to their mission. Once inside, they started firing at the banks ceiling, walls &
door of the vault. The 8 men then returned to the waiting motor banca w/ about P10.5K &
sped away. As a result of the shooting, many people got killed & injured.
Held: First, as to appellant Simeon, evidence shows that the malefactors met in his house
to discuss the plan to rob the bank. This circumstance alone doesnt conclude his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The facts do not show that he performed any act tending to the
perpetration of the robbery, nor that he took a direct part therein or induced other persons
to commit, or that he cooperated in its consummation by some act w/o w/c it would not have
been committed. At most, his act amounted to joining in a conspiracy w/c is not punishable.
Simeon then was NOT a principal both by agreement and encouragement for his nonparticipation in the commission of the crime. Nor was it clearly proven that he had received
any part/fruits of the looted money as to make him an accessory. (He also had a foot injury.
He would just be a liability to the band if he joined them.) EXPRESSLY REJECTED
PARTICIPATION = NOT PRINCIPAL. DID NOT AMOUNT TO COMMUNITY OF DESIGN: NOTHING
MORE TO INDICATE COMMUNITY OF DESIGN AFTER THEY MET, USE OF HIS HOUSE NOT
SUFFICIENT
For Romaquin & Doble, the malefactors who waited in the banca. The extra-judicial
statements of the appellants are convincing to show that their liability is less than that of a
co-principal by conspiracy or by actual participation. Cresencios consenting to look for a
banca does not necessarily make him a co-conspirator. Joe Intsik had enough men with all
arms to perpetrate the crime. Also, Cresencio was not given part of the loot. Nor was
Romaquin considered a principle malefactor as there was a gun pointed at him by Cresencio
to prevent him from fleeing away from the scene, evident to show that he never joined in
the criminal purpose and that his acts were not voluntary. The sum given to Romaquin
(P441, 41 he gave to Cresencio, clearly not what should represent his share if he were a full
fledged confederate) could very well represent only the rental of his banca. They are held as
accomplices of the robbery in band and not of murder. (Accdg to Sir Muyot, they were not
held equally liable because death penalty would be too cruel for all of them) CRESENCIO
NOT PART OF CRIMINAL RESOLUTION, PARTICIPATION WAS ONLY AFTER, BUT THIS SHOWED
COMMUNITY OF DESIGN SO LIABLE AS ACCOMPLICE. ROMAQUIN: CRIMINAL RESOLUTION
WAS ALREADY COMPLETE BUT STILL ACCOMPLICE BECAUSE OF SIMULTANEOUS ACTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Doctolero (1991)
Facts: On the evening of Nov. 8, 1970, Marcial Sagun, his wife Maria were on their way
home coming from the field.They met the accused Ludovico Doctolero who, without warning
and without cause or reason, held the left shoulder of Marcial Sagun with his left hand and
struck Marcial Sagun with a bolo. The latter evaded that blow and wrestled with Ludovico for
possession of the bolo of the latter. Lolita de Guzman-Oviedo became frightened when
Ludovico Doctolero and Marcial Sagun were wrestling for the possession of the bolo of the
former, so she ran away in the direction of the house in Sitio Binday.
Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy (sister of Marcial Sagun) testified that while she was cleaning palay
in the yard of her uncle, the deceased Marcelo Doctolero, she saw the accused, Ludovico.
Conrado and Virgilio (all surnamed Doctolero) throw stones at the house of Marcial Sagun.
While throwing stones, Ludovico allegedly shouted for the man in the house to come out.
Paciencia Sagun-Diamoy went towards the house of Marcial Sagun and saw the three
accused, Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio, coming down from the house going towards her.
She told them: "Why can't you be patient and forget?" But she was asked not to interfere. At
about that time, Marcelo Doctolero, half-brother of Antonio Doctolero, and uncle of the three
accused was going towards the house of Marcial Sagun, when he met the three accused,
Ludovico, Conrado and Virgilio. Marcelo Doctolero told them why they can't be patient and
forget, but the three accused replied "Vulva of your mother, we will also kill you." Then they
struck Marcelo Doctolero several times with their bolos. And when their father Antonio
Doctolero arrived, he also struck Marcelo Doctolero with a bolo on the head. Marcelo
Doctolero fell and then all the accused ran away.
Held: TC correctly found that Conrado Doctolero participated as an accomplice in the
commission of the crimes charged. His defense was an alibi but was not corroborated even
by he other appellants. While the testimony of a co-conspirator or an accomplice is
admissible, such testimony comes from a polluted source and must be scrutinized with great
caution as it is subject to travel suspicion. This uncorroborated denial of his participation
cannot overthrow the positive and categorical testimony of the principal witnesses of the
prosecution, and between the positive declarations of the prosecution Witness and the
negative statements of the While Maria Sagun may have a grudge against the accused
Ludovico Doctolero by reason of that previous incident at the crossing yet, no reason or
motive is shown why Maria Sagun should also implicate Conrado and Virgilio Doctolero in the
commission of the crime. For the Virgilio and Conrado, it is impossible they did not know or
were not aware when their brother was brutally killing Lolita and Epifania and wounding the
child inside especially when their brother was hacking them several times. It is obvious that
they knew but did nothing to stop their brother. The two were ready to lend assistance.
There is no question that their presence upstairs in the house of Marcial gave their brother
the encouragement and reliance to proceed. Where one goes with the principals, and in
staying outside of the house while the others went inside to rob and kill the victim, the
former effectively supplied the criminals with material and moral aid, making him guilty as
an accomplice.
Even if it was done on a sudden thought or impulse by the principal - one can be an
accomplice even if he did not know of the actual crime intended by the principal provided he
was aware that it was an illicit act - that where the accomplices therein consented to help in
the commission of forcible abduction, they were responsible for the resulting homicide even
if the purpose of the principal to commit homicide was unknown to the accomplices.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XV. Accessories
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.
- Accessories must have knowledge of the commission of the crime and having that knowledge, took
part subsequent to it.
- Accessory is not part of the criminal resolution.
- Crime committed by principal must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- If the principal is not liable, then accessory cannot also be liable.
By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
Must receive the property from the principal with the latters consent
When brigands take the property knowing that it was stolen, they are principals.
- MODIFIED BY THE ANTI-FENCING LAW (now separate liability)
By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery
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
Mayor who refuses to prosecute offender is an accessory
Silence of a witness to a crime does not make him an accessory since it is an act of omission
Conviction of accessory is still possible when principal was acquitted due to exempting
circumstances
For 2 and 3: LAW ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (SEPARATE LIABILITY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People v. Talingdan
Facts:
Bernardo Bagabag was murdered by Talingdan (a policeman who was having an illicit affair with
Teresa), Tobias, Bides and Teresa herself.
Teresa was the alleged wife of Bernardo but since a marriage certificate could not be presented,
she could not be charged with parricide.
Teresa only cooperated after Bernardo was killed, telling her daughter not to squeal and not
telling the authorities of what her daughter knew.
Held:
Teresa was held guilty as an accessory.
She had knowledge of the murder but cooperated only after the fact.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art. 20 Accessories who are exempt from criminal liabilityThe penalties

prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such
with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within
the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
-
Basis: blood ties and the desire to preserve the cleanliness of ones name compels one to
conceal the crimes.
Only relatives up to the second degree are exempted, therefore nephew or niece not included
(weird)
Even if not all principals are related to the accessory, he is still exempted.
Profiteering is not exempted since it is driven by greed and not affection.
P.D. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law of 1979)

- "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or
for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to
him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft
- Person who receives stolen item is liable for fencing unless he proves
that he could not have known that the item was stolen. Otherwise, he is
presumed to have knowledge that the item was stolen.
- If juridical person, then manager of the company is liable.
- Person accused of fencing is not an accessory.

- A thief may also be accused of fencing without danger of double
jeopardy.
- Stores that sell secondhand items must secure a permit from the chief of
constabulary/director general of the police in the town or city where such
store is located.
- Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder

indicated:
1. The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is
more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the
value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided
in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding
one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the
accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal
Code shall also be imposed.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, if the value of the property robbed or stolen is more than
6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the value of the property involved is more than 200
pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property
involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.
5. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is
over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 pesos.
6. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value
does not exceed 5 pesos.
P.D. 1829
- The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine
ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays
the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases by committing the following acts:
1. preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from

reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any
offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation,
force or threats;
2. altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record,
document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity,
legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation
of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
3. 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;
4. publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime,
evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his
true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or
purposes;
5. delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of
process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices,
in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
6. making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with
knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome
of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
7. soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration
of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a
criminal offender;
8. threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any
wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate
member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to
prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
9. giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law
enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information
from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for
purposes of background information and not for publication and

publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to
the court.
- Even if the accused is a relative, he is still held liable for committing the
acts listed with the intent of obstructing the process of justice under P.D.
1829.
XVI. ARTICLE 48: COMPLEX CRIMES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEOPLE vs. TOLING

FACTS:
Antonio Toling and Jose Toling (both the accused) are twins, both married, illiterate
farmers and natives of Barrio Nenita Samar.
They decided to go to Manila to see their children. Leonora, Antonios daughter, gave
her father P50. Antonio's grandson, gave him P30. Antonio placed the eighty pesos in
the right pocket of his pants.
To go back to home, they boarded the night Bicol express train at about five o'clock in
the afternoon. The train left at six o'clock that evening. The twins were in coach No. 9.
After a while, Antonio stood up and stabbed the man sitting directly in front of him
with scissors. Jose stabbed the sleeping old woman sitting in front of him with a knife.
The twins ran amuck and started stabbing the people in the coach. They were finally
stopped when Constabulary soldiers aboard the train heard about the incident. At that
time, Constabulary Sergeant Vicente Rayel was not on duty and was simply taking his
wife child to Quezon. He was at the dining car when the incident happened.
Constabulary Sargeant Vicente Aldea was in the dining car as well.
The dead amounted to twelve. Eight suffered from stab wounds while others died after
they jumped off the train, apparently trying to escape the violence. Seven were
injured, though one of them was reported to have died as well.
ISSUE: Whether or not the twins are guilty of a compound crime.
HELD: No. They were held liable as co-principals for eight (8) separate murders and one
attempted murder.
CLASS DISCUSSION:
The defense argued that the twins should be charged of a compound crime, pursuant to the
doctrine in Lawas. In the said case, a number of Moros killed many people. The Moros were
held guilty of a complex crime since it was uncertain who killed whom. Similarly, as the twins
argued, it was also uncertain as to who between them killed each of the eight people.
Court ruled that the twins should be held liable for eight separate murders. Since there was a
conspiracy, the question as to who stabbed whom is immaterial.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEOPLE v. VALDEZ
FACTS:
6 friends (William and Sandra Montano, Tibule, Ramon and Jean Marie Garcia, and
Acosta) were on a tricycle.
After making a turn along the barangay road leading to the Sitio of their destination,
they met Valdez and his companions who were armed with guns (caliber .30 carbines).
The tricycle's headlights flashed on their faces and without warning they pointed their
guns and fired at the 6 friends. Thereafter, uttering the words, "nataydanmapantayon"
(They are already dead. Let us go.)
4 people died while the other 2 (William Montano and Randy Tibule) survived.
Valdez was charged for the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated
Murder (with aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, abuse of superior
power, and treachery) + crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Valdez should be held liable for a compound crime.
HELD: NO. The case doesn't fall under the definition of a complex crime. Valdez should be
convicted of four counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder.
ACT BEING REFERRED TO IS THE ACTUAL INFLICTION OF MORTAL WOUNDS,

NOT THE PULLING OF THE TRIGGER. The four crimes of murder resulted not from
a single act, but from several individual and distinct acts:
there was more than one gunman involved

act of each gunman is distinct from that of the other
several empty bullet shells were recovered in the crime scene
Considering the relative position of the victims (some were sitting outside and some
were inside the sidecar), it would be impossible for them to all be killed with a single
bullet.
:. it cannot be said that there is but a single act of firing a single firearm.
Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their respective firearms, aiming each
particular moment at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot
give rise to the complex crime of multiple murder.
On illegal possession: RA 8294, which says that if homicide/murder committed with use of
unlicensed firearm, it should be taken as an aggravating circumstance, took effect after the
crime took place, but Art. 22 states that in cases where the new law will be advantageous to
the accused, the law may be given retroactive application: there's no need to file a separate
conviction for illegal possession.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAPOLIS v COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
Nicanor Napolis and some other men, armed with a Grease Gun, pistols and
revolvers, entered the dwelling of the spouses Iganacio & Casimira Penaflor by
boring a hole under the sidewall of the ground floor of the house. Nicanor assaulted
and hit Ignacio with the gun causing him to fall on the ground and rendering him
unconscious, he tied Igancio's hands and feet and then left him. Then the accused
approached Casimira, threatened her at gun point and demanded money. He tied
the hands of Mrs. Penaflor and her two sons. Nicanor searched and ransacked the
place and carried away cash and articles belonging to the said spouses.
ISSUE: Whether or not Napolis and his band is guilty of robbery in an inhabited
house. (or robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons)
HELD: Napolis and band is guilty of a complex crime --- robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons [Art 294] and with force upon things [Art 299(a)].
Where the elements of both provisions (Arts 299 (a) & 294 (5)) are present, the
crime will be considered complex. In such case, the penalty for the most serious
offense shall be imposed in its maximum period, which is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period. Otherwise, there will exist an absurd situation where the
concurrence of a graver offence results in the reduction of the penalty.
* The court created a third kind of robbery and justified such creation by the use of
complex crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEOPLE V. SALVILLA
FACTS:
4 defendants, armed with homemade guns and a hand grenade, entered the
New Iloilo Lumber Yard and declared a hold-up. Inside the establishment were
Rodita Habiero (employee), Severino Choco (owner), Mary Choco (daughter of
owner) and Mimie Choco (15-year-old daughter of owner).
Salvilla, one of the accused, demanded P100,000 from the owner. Severino
placed P20,000 (P5,000 according to appellant) in a paper bag and handed it
to Salvilla. Severino asked them to leave but they did not. Salvilla et. al.
instead kept Severino et. al. in the office as hostages. Simplicio also took
Severinos wallet and wristwatch.
Police began negotiations with the robbers in the afternoon. They were asked
to surrender but they refused. OIC Mayor Caram participated in the
negotiations. Salvilla agreed to receive P50,000 (instead of P100,000) and to
release Rodita to be accompanied by Mary Choco.
Mayor Caram handed the P50,000 to Rodita, who gave it to one of the
accused. Rodita was released but Mary was made to go back to the office.
Ultimatums were given but the robbers did not budge. Finally, police decided
to launch an offensive and assault the place, resulting in injuries to Mary and
Mimie Choco and to Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares. Mary had to have her
right leg amputated.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants are guilty of a complex crime.

HELD:
Yes. Defendants are held liable for a complex crime (robbery with serious physical
injuries and serious illegal detention). The crime charged was actually TWICE
COMPLEXED. First -- complexing with serious physical injuries. Second --complexing with serious illegal detention.
Detention was such a necessary means as it was selected by appellant and his
co-accused to facilitate and carry out more effectively their evil design to stage a
robbery. Detention was availed of as a means of insuring the consummation of the
robbery.
After receiving the P20,000, Salvilla et. al. still refused to leave. The victims
were then taken as hostages and an additional P100,000 was asked for their
release. The detention was not because they were trapped, but was deliberately
employed as a means of extortion for an additional amount. The detention was not
merely incidental to the robbery but a necessary means employed to facilitate it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENRILE vs. SALAZAR

FACTS:
In February 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by
law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of
Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, He was charged together with Mr. &
Mrs. Panlilio, and Honasan for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple
frustrated murder which allegedly occurred during their failed coup attempt. Enrile
later filed for the habeas corpus alleging that:
a.) the crime being charged against him is nonexistent.
b.) that he was charged with a criminal offense in information for which no
complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was
denied due process;
c.) denied his right to bail;
d.) arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge
who issued it first having personally determined the existence of probable cause.
ISSUE: Whether Enrile has committed complex crimes (delito compleio) arising from
an offense being a necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in
the second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code?
HELD: Enrile is guilty only of SIMPLE REBELLION. (2nd option)
3 Options:
1.)
COMPLEX CRIME OF REBELLION WITH MURDER AND MULTIPLE FRUSTRATED
MURDER - abandon Hernandez and adopt governments proposition that rebellion
cannot absorb more serious crimes; and that under Article 48 of the RPC, rebellion
may properly be complexed with common offenses.
2.) SIMPLE REBELLION maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion absorb
all other offenses committed in its course.
3.)
REBELLION ABSORBS ONLY NECESSARY MEANS - hold Hernandez applicable
only to offenses committed as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion.
Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. The crime of rebellion
or insurrection is committed by RISING PUBLICLY AND TAKING ARMS against the
Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or
its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of
land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A.
6968).
According to Article 134, rebellion is committed by rising publicly and taking
arms. Thus, rebellion necessarily involves and absorbs all other offenses
committed in its course, whether or not necessary to its commission or in
furtherance thereof. The Court, in this case, AFFIRMED and EXPANDED the
Hernandez doctrine.
XVII. Continued Crimes

PEOPLE V. DE LEON
Facts
De Leon entered the yard of Vicente Magats house and w/o violence or intimidation
against persons nor force upon things, took, with intent to gain, two game roosters.
One belonging to magat the other belonging to Ignacio Nicolas. The trial court found
the accused guilty of one crime of theft holding that the theft of the two roosters
constituted but one crime + the fact that he is a habitual criminal, sentenced him to
3 years, 6 mos and one day presidio correccional and to pay the costs. De Leon
appealed to the SC and alleges that the trial court erred in (1)holding that the guilt
was proven by his own admission, (2) in not giving him benefit of reasonable doubt,
and (3) in sentencing instead of acquitting him. Attorney general also raised a
question; he urges that the penalty for two crimes of theft be imposed upon the
acused for each of the stolen roosters.
Held:
De Leon guilty of committing just one crime. Theft is an offense against property.
The act of taking two roosters, in response to the unity of thought in the criminal
purpose on one occasion, is not susceptible of being modified by the accidental
circumstance that the roosters belonged to 2 different persons. There is no series
of acts here for the accomplishment of different purposes, but only of one
which was consummated, and which determines the existence of only one
crime. Knowledge of who owns the thing stolen is not an element of the crime of
theft. It is consummated once the thing stolen belongs to another and is taken with
intent to gain. Knowledge of who owns the thing does not affect the criminal
liability but only the restitution or indemnification of damages (civil). Unity of the
intention to take a thing belonging to another on one occasion and in the
same place constitutes the commission of only one crime of theft. The fact
that the things taken belong to different persons does not produce a
multiplicity of crimes, which must be punished separately.De Leon
sentenced to suffer the penalty of 6 years and three months presidio mayor, with
the accessories of the law and to pay the costs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XVIII. LIST OF COMMON CRIMES

CRIME
Direct Assault
ELEMENTS
PENALTY
1. Without public uprising, by

employing force or intimidation
for the attainment of the
purposes enumerated in defining
the crimes of rebellion and
sedition
2. Without public uprising by
attacking, employing force, or
seriously intimidating or seriously
resisting any person in authority
or his agents while engaged in
the performance of official duties
- both 1 and 2 are committed
with a weapon, or when the
offender is a public officer or
employee, or when the offender
lays lands upon a person in
authority
prision correccional in its

medium and maximum
periods and a fine not
exceeding P1,000 pesos
If none of the circumstances

(weapon/public officer/lays
hands) are present

minimum period and a fine
not exceeding P500 pesos
shall be imposed
Parricide
Any person who shall kill his:

- father, mother, or child
(whether legitimate or
illegitimate)
- ascendants, or descendants, or
his spouse
reclusion perpetua to death
Murder
- Treachery, superior strength,

with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the
defense or insure impunity;
- Consideration of a price or
promise;
- inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding
of a vessel, by means of motor
vehicles, or any other means
reclusion temporal in its

maximum period to death
involving great waste and

ruin;
- On occasion of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity;
- With evident premeditation;
- With cruelty, by augmenting
the suffering of the victim
Homicide
- accused killed without any

justifying circumstance
- the accused had the intention
to kill
- killing not attended by
qualifying circumstances of
murder, parricide or infanticide
reclusion temporal
Infanticide
any person who shall kill any

child less than 3 days of age.
reclusion perpetua to death.
committed by the mother of the

child for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor

medium and maximum
periods
committed for the same purpose

by the maternal grandparents or
either of them
prision mayor
Serious physical
injuries
Any person who wound, beat or

assault another
- if the injured person became
insane, imbecile, impotent or
blind
Prision mayor
- if the person injured lost the

use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell, or lost an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or
lost the use of any such member

medium and maximum
periods
the person injured became

deformed, or lost any other part
of his body, or lost the use
thereof, or became ill or
incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which
he as habitually engaged for
more than 90 days

minimum and medium
periods
Less serious
physical injuries
Slight physical
injuries and
maltreatment
Rape
physical injuries inflicted caused

the illness or incapacity for labor
of the injured person for more
than 30 days.
arresto mayor in its

maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum
period
inflict upon another physical

injuries which shall incapacitate
the offended party for labor for
ten days or more, or shall require
medical assistance for the same
period
penalty of arresto mayor
inflicted with the manifest intent

to kill or offend the injured
person, or under circumstances
adding ignominy to the offense
arresto mayor, a fine not

exceeding 500 pesos
Any less serious physical injuries

inflicted upon the offender's
parents, ascendants, guardians,
curators, teachers, or persons of
rank, or persons in authority

minimum and medium
periods
physical injuries which shall

incapacitate the offended party
for labor from one to nine days,
or shall require medical
attendance during the same
period.
arresto menor
physical injuries which do not

prevent the offended party from
engaging in his habitual work nor
require medical assistance.
arresto menor or a fine not

exceeding 20 pesos and
censure
offender shall ill-treat another by

deed without causing any injury.
arresto menor in its

minimum period or a fine not
exceeding 50 pesos
By a man who shall have carnal

knowledge of a woman under
any of the following:
- Through force, threat, or
intimidation
- When the offended party is
deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious
- By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
- Under paragraph one:

reclusion perpetua to
death.
- Use of a deadly weapon or
by two or more persons: RP
to death.
- Victim becomes insane: RP
to death
- Attempted rape, and a
homicide: RP to death
authority
- When the offended party is
under 12 years old or is
demented, even though non of
the circumstances above be
present
- Rape with homicide: death

- The death penalty if
committed with any of
aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
1. Victim under 18; offender
is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree,
or the common-law spouse of
the parent of the victim
2. Victim under custody of
police or military authorities;
3. Full view of the spouse,
parent, any of the children or
relatives within the third civil
degree of consanguinity
4. Victim engaged in
legitimate religious vocation
and is personally known to
be such by the offender
5. Victim is a child below 7
6. Offender afflicted with
AIDS or any STD; transmitted
to victim
7. Committed by any
member of the AFP, PNP or
any law enforcement agency;
offender took advantage of
his position
8. Offender knew of the
pregnancy of the victim
9. Offender knew of the
disability/disorder/handicap
of the offended party
sexual assault by inserting his

penis into another person's
mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the
genital or anal orifice of another
person.
- Under paragraph 2:
prison mayor.
- With the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more
persons: prision mayor to
reclusion temporal.
- Victim becomes insane:
reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua.
- Homicide is committed:
reclusion perpetua.
- Rape committed with any of

the ten
aggravating/qualifying
circumstances: Reclusion
temporal
Kidnapping and
serious illegal
detention
Slight illegal
detention
- offender is a private individual

- kidnap or detain another
- act of detention or kidnapping
must be illegal
- any of the following
circumstances is present:
a. kidnapping lasts for more than
3 days
b. committed simulating public
authority
c. any serious physical injuries
are inflicted on the person, or
threats to kill him are made
d. person kidnapped is a minor,
female, or a public officer
Reclusion perpetua to death
Kidnapping or detention was

committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim,
even if none of the
circumstances above were
present in the commission of the
offense
death
victim is killed as a consequence

of the detention, or is raped, or
subjected to torture
death
- offender is a private individual

- kidnap or detain another, or in
any other manner deprive him of
his liberty
- act of kidnapping or detention
is illegal
- not attended by any of the
circumstances enumerated in
serious illegal detention
Reclusion temporal
If offender voluntarily releases

the victim within 3 days without
having attained the purpose
intended and before the
institution of criminal
Prision mayor in its minimum

and medium periods and a
fine not exceeding 700 pesos
proceedings against him

Qualified
trespass to
dwelling
- offender is a private person

- enters the dwelling of another
- entrance is against the latters
will
Arresto mayor and a fine not

exceeding 1000 pesos
If the offense be committed by

means of violence or intimidation
Prision ocrreccional in its

medium and maxium periods
and a fine not exceeding
1000 pesos
Other forms of
trespass
- offender enters the closed

premises or the fenced estate of
another
- entrance is made when place is
uninhabited
- prohibition to enter is manifest
- no permission from
owner/caretaker
Arresto menor or a fine not

exceeding 200 pesos or both
Robbery with
violence against
or intimidation of
persons
on the occasion of the robbery

(taking of personal property
belonging to another with intent
to gain), the crime of homicide
shall have been committed; or
when the robbery was
accompanied by rape, mutilation
or arson
any of the physical injuries

resulting in insanity, imbecility,
impotency or blindness is
inflicted
Reclusion temporal in its

medium period to reclusion
perpetua
Any of the physical injuries

resulting in loss of the use of
speech or power to hear or smell,
loss of an eye, hand, foot, arm or
leg or loss of the use of any such
member
Reclusion temporal
- Violence or intimidation
employed was carried to a
degree clearly unnecessary for
the commission of the crime
- or, when offender inflicts upon
any person not responsible for
commission of robbery any
Prision mayor in its

maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its medium
period
physical injury resulting to the

person becoming deformed or ill
Robbery by the
use of force upon
things
- offender entered a) an
inhabited place, b) public
building, or c) edifice devoted to
religious worship
- entrance was effected by any of
the ff:
a. through an opening not
intended for entrance or egress
b. breaking any wall, roof, floor,
door or window
c. using false keys, picklocks or
similar tools
d. using any fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public
authority
- once inside the building, the
offender took personal property
belonging to another
Reclusion temporal
Brigandage
- at least four armed persons

- they formed a band of robbers
- the purpose is any of the ff:
a. commit robbery in the highway
b. kidnap persons for the purpose
of extortion
c. attain by means of force and
violence any other purpose
Prision mayor in its medium

period to reclusion temporal
in its minimum period
- if they are unlicensed
firearms: maximum period
Theft
- there be taking of personal

property
- said property belongs to
another
- taking be done with intent to
gain
- taking be done without consent
of the owner
- taking be accomplished without
the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force
upon things
- value of thing stolen is

12000-22000 pesos: prision
mayor
- value of thing stolen more
than 22000 pesos: prision
mayor or reclusion temporal
- value of thing stolen is
6000-12000 pesos: prision
correccional in its medium
and maximum periods
- 200-6000 pesos: prision
correccional in its minimum
and maximum periods
- 50-200 pesos: arresto
mayor in its medium period
to prision correccional in its
minimum period
5-50 pesos: arresto mayor

maximum period
- less than 5 pesos: arresto
mayor in its minimum period
- theft is also committed when:
a. person who found lost
property does not deliver it to
local authorities or its owner
b. person who maliciously
damaged the property of another
makes use of the fruits or object
of the damage caused by him
c. person who enters an enclosed
estate or field where trespass is
forbidden; hunt or fish or gather
products without consent of
owner
Arson
Imposed upon any person who

shall burn:
- 1 or more buildings, from one
act of burning
- any public or private building
where people usually gather for a
definite purpose
- train, ship, vessel, airplane,
means of transportation
- buildings devoted to service of
public utilities
- burning a building to conceal or
destroy evidence of another
violation of law
Adultery
- woman is married
- she had sex with a man not her
husband
- as regards the man with whom
she had sex, he must know her
to be married
Prision correccional in its

medium and maxium periods
Concubinage
3 ways of committing
concubinage:
- keeping a mistress in the
conjugal dwelling
- having sex under scandalous
circumstances with a woman who
is not his wife
Prision correccional in its

minimum and medium
periods
- cohabiting with her in another

place
Acts of
lasciviousness
- offender commits any act of

lasciviousness or lewdness
- act of lasciviousness is
committed against a person of
either sex
- done under any of the ff
circumstances:
a. by using force or intimidation
b. when the offended party is
deprived of reason
c. by means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of
authority
when the offended party is under
12 or is demented
Prision correccional
XVIII. QUICK STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO

DETERMINATION OF PENALTY:
1.
a.
b.
c.
Felony Committed (use list above)

Complex crimes
penalty of the most serious crime in its maximum
Impossible crime
arresto mayor or fine
Crime different from intended
always take the lower penalty but take it in its maximum (ex. Crime
committed is higher penalty from what was intended, take the penalty for the
crime which was intended but in its maximum period.)
if crime committed constitutes an attempt or frustration of another crime,
and law prescribes a higher penalty, use the penalty imposed for attempt or
frustrated crime in the maximum period.
2.
a.
b.
c.
Stage of execution
Consummated
Frustrated 1 degree lower
Attempted 2 degrees lower
3.
a.
b.
c.
Participation
Principal
Accomplice 1 degree lower
Accessory 2 degrees lower
Consummated
Frustrated
Attempted
Principal
Accomplice
Accessory
* Exceptions
do not apply if the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplice or
accessories.
accomplices punished as principals when ascendants, guardians,

curators, teachers, any person who abuses authority/confidential relationship,
shall cooperate as accomplice in crimes of rape, acts of lasciviousness,
seduction, corruption of minors. (Art. 346) Also those who gave place for
commission of slight illegal detention. (Art. 268)
4.
Presence of aggravating/mitigating circumstances
GENERAL RULE: If the circumstance constitute crimes or are included as definition of
a crime, they are not considered as mitigating/aggravating. (ex. Evident
premeditation in murder). If more than 1 circumstance, one shall be absorbed to be
a inherent circumstance of the crime, while the other shall be
aggravating/mitigating.
a.
Special aggravating circumstances (maximum regardless of mitigating)

took advantage of public position
organized/syndicate crime group
habitual delinquency
b. Indivisible Penalties (Reclusion Perpetua)
does not take into account mitigating/aggravating
c.
2 Indivisible Penalties
neither aggravating or mitigating, lower penalty
one aggravating no mitigating, greater penalty
one mitigating no aggravating, lower penalty
both mitigating and aggravating, offset one another in accordance to
number and importance
d. Penalty with 3 periods (minimum, medium, maximum)
neither aggravating or mitigating, medium period
one aggravating no mitigating, maximum period
one mitigating no aggravating, minimum penalty
both mitigating and aggravating, offset one another in accordance to
number and importance
2 or more mitigating, no aggravating, penalty next lower
court cannot impose greater penalty (only impose maximum period)
*Court shall determine extent of penalty according to the number and nature of the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the greater or lesser extent or evil
produced.
5.
Indeterminate Sentence Law (IDS)
GENERAL RULE: shall apply to penalties from Reclusion Temporal to Prision
Correccional. (The rule is not applicable for reclusion perpetua and penalties under
1 year.)
Maximum period that fixed by law
Minimum period range of penalty next lower to that prescribed
PENALTIES and PERIODS:

PENALTY
Duration
Minimum Period
Medium Period
Maximum
Period
Reclusion
Perpetua
20 years 1
day to 40
years
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reclusion
Temporal
12 years 1
day to 20
years
12 years 1 day
to 14 years 8
months
14 years 8
months 1
day to 17
years 4
months
17 years 4
months 1
day to 20
years
6 years 1 day
to 8 years
8 years 1
day to 10
years
10 years 1
day to 12
years
6 months 1
day to 2 years
4 months
2 years 4
months 1
day to 4
years 2
months
4 years 2
months 1
day to 6
years
1 to 2 months
2 months 1
day to 4
months
4 months 1
day to 6
months
1 to 10 days
11 to 20
days
21 to 30
days
*(range: 2
years 8
months)
Prision Mayor
6 years 1
day to 12
years
*(range: 2
years)
Prision
Correccional
6 months 1
day to 6
years
*(range: 1
year 10
months)
Arresto Mayor
1 month 1
day to 6
months
*(range: 2
months
except
minimum)
Arresto Menor
1 to 30
days
*(range: 10
days)
PERIODS and SUB-PERIODS:

PENALTY
DURATION
RANGE
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
RT
Maximu
m
17 years 4
months 1
day to 20
years
10
months
20 days
17 years 4
months 1 day
to 18 years 2
months 20
days
18 years 2
months 21
days to 19
years 1
month 10
days
19 years 1
month 11
days to 20
years
RT
Medium
14 years 8
months 1
day to 17
years 4
months
10
months
20 days
14 years 8
months 1 day
to 15 years 6
months 20
days
15 years 6
months 21
days to 16
years 5
months 10
days
16 years 5
months 11
days to 17
years 4
months
RT
Minimu
m
12 years 1
day to 14
years 8
months
10
months
20 days
12 years 1
day to 12
years 10
months 20
days
12 years
10 months
21 days to
13 years 9
months 10
days
13 years 9
months 11
days to 14
years 8
months
PM
Maximu
m
10 years 1
day to 12
years
8
months
10 years 1
day to 10
years 8
months
10 years 8
months 1
day to 11
years 4
months
11 years 4
months 1
day to 12
years
PM
Medium
8 years 1
day to 10
years
8
months
8 years 1 day
to 8 years 8
months
8 years 8
months 1
day to 9
years 4
months
9 years 4
months 1
day to 10
years
PM
Minimu
m
6 years 1
day to 8
years
8
months
6 years 1 day
to 6 years 8
months
6 years 8
months 1
day to 7
years 4
months
7 years 4
months 1
day to 8
years
PC
Maximu
m
4 years 2
months 1
day to 6
years
7
months
10 days
4 years 2
months 1 day
to 4 years 9
months 10
days
4 years 9
months 11
days to 5
years 4
months 20
days
5 years 4
months 21
days to 6
years
PC
Medium
2 years 4
months 1
day to 4
years 2
months
7
months
10 days
2 years 4
months 1 day
to 2 years 11
months 10
days
2 years 11
months 11
days to 3
years 6
months 20
days
3 years 6
months 21
days to 4
years 2
months
PC
Minimu
m
6 months
1 day to 2
years 4
months
7
months
10 days
6 months 1
day to 1 year
1 month 10
days
1 year 1
month 11
days to 1
year 8
months 20
days
1 year 8
months 21
days to 2
years 4
months
AM
Maximu
m
4 months
1 day to 6
months
20 days
4 months 1
day to 4
months 20
days
4 months
21 days to
5 months
10 days
5 months
11 days to
6 months
AM
Medium
2 months
1 day to 4
months
20 days
2 months 1
day to 2
months 20
days
2 months
21 days to
3 months
10 days
3 months
11 days to
4 months
AM
Minimu
m
1 to 2
months
10 days
1 month to 1
month 10
days
1 month 11
days to 1
month 20
days
1 month 21
days to 2
months
XIX. PROBATION LAW
granted upon application of offender after conviction and sentencing but

before he begins to serve sentence and perfection of an appeal.
Expiration of the probation period does not automatically terminate it; a
judicial declaration is needed based on the report and recommendation of the
probation officer. Without these, the probation is yet to be terminated. (Bala
v. Martinez)
Period:
Imprisonment
Probation
1 year and below
Not more than 2 years
More than 1 year
Not more than 6 months
Fine with subsidiary imprisonment
Twice the total number of days of

subsidiary imprisonment
Application for Probation:

1. Application should be made during the reglementary period for filing an
appeal
a. Application is a waiver of the right to appeal
b. Judgment on the application is not appealable
2. Conditions:
a. Report within 72 hours from the receipt of orders and report to him at
least once a month. (Mandatory)
a. Undergo medical and psychological or psychiatric treatment, work,
allow the probation officer to visit his house, etc.
b. If probationer fails to comply with the conditions or if he commits
another offense, then he shall serve his prison sentence.
2. Who are disqualified:
a. RA 9165, convicted for drug trafficking and pushing
b. Convicted with a maximum of more than 6 years imprisonment
c. Convicted of subversion or any crime against national security or
public order
d. Previously convicted of a crime with sentence of 1 month and 1 day/ or
fine of not more than P200
e. One on probation/have been on probation before
3. When probation is denied:
a. Offender needs correctional treatment/committed to an institution
b. Undue risk that the offender would commit another crime
c. When probation will depreciate the seriousness of the crime
committed.
XX. Extinction of Criminal Liability
Arise after the commission of the offense
Total
Partial
Death of convict
Service of sentence
Amnesty
Absolute pardon
Prescription of crime
Prescription of penalty
Marriage of offender
rape, seduction)
Conditional pardon
Commutation
Allowances for good conduct
(ie
TOTAL EXTINCTION
Death: If offender dies before the final judgment, both civil and criminal
liabilities are extinguished, but if he dies after final judgment has been rendered,
only criminal liability is extinguished.
When the case is pending appeal and offender dies, both liabilities are extinguished
except when the civil liability arises from a source other than a delict (ex. Contracts,
quasi-contract, quasi-delicts) in such case it survives the death of the offender.
Recovery of damages may be done by filing a civil case against the estate or
administrator of the estate of the offender
Amnesty: It is an act of sovereign power granting a general pardon for a past

offense. It extinguishes the penalties and all its effects.
Absolute Pardon: Act of grace exempting an individual from punishment for a

crime committed. It is in the nature of a deed whereby delivery is a requisite, such
that until accepted by the grantee, it can still be cancelled.
Prescription of Crime:
Crimes punishable by:
Prescription period:
Reclusion perpetua reclusion 20 years

temporal
Other afflictive penalties
15 years
Correctional penalties
10 years
Arresto Mayor
5 years
Libel and similar cases
1 year
Oral Defamation, Slander
6 months
Light offenses (Arresto menor 2 months

or a fine of 200 and below)
o
The periods are also applicable to cases where the punishment include
only fines.
o
If fine is imposed as an alternative penalty to imprisonment and is
greater in degree, the basis for application of prescription is the fine.
o
If the last day of prescription falls on a Sunday or holiday, the
information can no longer be filed because the crime has prescribed.
o
Prescription can be brought as a defense in court proceedings and can
be a basis for acquittal but it does not necessarily divest the courts of
jurisdiction.
o
Period runs from the day the offense is discovered, interrupted by the
filing of complaint, re-starts when the case is terminated without the accused
being convicted.
Prescription of Penalties
o
Same as for crimes
o
Penalties prescribe when the judgment has become final but the convict
fled to escape penalty. It runs from the day the convict evades sentence.
o
Start when the culprit evades service of sentence.
o
The period is interrupted when the convict surrenders, is capture, goes
to a foreign country where we have no extradition treaty with, commits
another crime before expiration of the period of prescription, acceptance of
conditional pardon.
PARTIAL EXTINCTION
Conditional Pardon: a contract between the state and the offender that the state
shall free the offender upon compliance with certain conditions. The condition is
usually that the offender shall not commit another crime ever. The duration of the
condition is limited to the period of sentence such that if an offender under
conditional pardon commits another crime after the expiration of his prison
sentence, he cannot be held liable for violation of the conditional pardon.
Commutation of sentence: Decreasing the length of imprisonment or the

amount of fine.
Allowance for good conduct: Deduction of the term of imprisonment is made for
good behavior. A person who is on conditional pardon is not eligible for allowance
because he is not really serving his penalty.
# of years in prison
Deductions for good allowance
First 2 years
5 days/month
3-5 years
8 days/month
Upto the 10th year
10 days/month
11th year onwards
15 days/month
Parole: The sentence is suspended after the convict has served the minimum term
of the indeterminate penalty without granting pardon
Special time allowance for loyalty: a prisoner who evades serving his sentence due
to calamity/catastrophe and gives himself up within 48 hrs following the
proclamation of the president that the calamity has passed would entitle such
offender a deduction of 1/5th of his original prison sentence.
XXI. Civil Liability

Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. - Every person
criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
Art. 1157 CC: Obligations arise from
1.
Law (Art 31-34 of the Civil Code)
Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained
of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless
of the result of the latter.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs,
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of
another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of
grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to
face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess
guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when
the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or
inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes
a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil
action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal
prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission
constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence.
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to
any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for
damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein
recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.
2.
Contracts
3.
Quasi-contracts
Art. 2142 CC. Certain lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts give rise to the juridical relation of quasicontract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another. (n)
Solutio Indebiti Art 2144-2153 CC
Negotiorum Gestio Art 2154-2163 CC
4.
Acts or omissions punished by law/ Crimes RPC Art 100
5.
Quasi-delicts - Art 2176 2194 CC
Art. 2176 CC. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)
Applies whether the act is intentional, negligent, or malicious
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. (n)
You cant recover twice
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures

Rule 111 Prosecution of Civil Action covers crime and quasi-delicts
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted
with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute
it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the
prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a
reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral,
nominal, temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or
information, the filing fees therefore shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such
damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information,
the corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual
damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the

criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a
separate civil action.
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full
the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual
damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral,
nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on
the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are
subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a
first lien on the judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it
may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If
the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this
Rule governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
Sec. 2. When separate civil action is suspended. After the criminal action has been
commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final judgment has
been entered in the criminal action.chan robles virtual law library
If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter
shall be suspended in whatever state it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension
shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action. Nevertheless, before judgment on the
merits rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated
with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence
already adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal action
without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the witness presented by the
offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to present additional evidence. The consolidated
criminal and civil actions shall be tried and decided jointly.
During the pendency of the criminal action, the running period of prescription of the civil action
which cannot be instituted separately or whose proceeding has been suspended shall be tolled.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However,
the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final judgment in
the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed independently. In the cases provided in Articles 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the independent civil action may be brought by
the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover damages twice for
the same act or omission charged in the criminal action.
Sec. 4. Effect of death on civil actions. The death of the accused after arraignment and during
the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However,
the independent civil action instituted under section 3 of this Rule or which thereafter is instituted to
enforce liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal
representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be. The
heirs of the accused may be substituted for the deceased without requiring the appointment of an
executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor heirs.
The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
A final judgment entered in favor of the offended party shall be enforced in the manner
especially provided in these rules for prosecuting claims against the estate of the deceased.chan
robles virtual law library
If the accused dies before arraignment, the case shall be dismissed without prejudice to any
civil action the offended party may file against the estate of the deceased.
Sec. 5. Judgment in civil action not a bar. A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving
the defendant from civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act
or omission subject of the civil action.
Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. A petition for suspension of the
criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the
office of the prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation. When the criminal action
has been filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any
time before the prosecution rests.
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. The elements of a prejudicial questions are: (a)
the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in
the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed.
Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. - The exemption
from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article
12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the
following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article 12, the civil liability for
acts committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under
nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who
has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such
person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there
was no fault or negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his
authority, legal guardianship, or control or if such person be insolvent,
said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property,
excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil
law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article 11, the persons for
whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in
proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount
for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even
approximately, or when the liability also attaches to the Government, or to
the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever
the damage has been caused with the consent of the authorities or their
agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by special
laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of article 12, the persons
using violence or causing the fears shall be primarily liable and
secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be
liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from
execution.
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and
proprietors of establishments. - In default of the persons criminally liable,
innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be
civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases
where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special
police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by
robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for
the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have
notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him,
of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have
followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may
have given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such
goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The subsidiary
liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of
industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
Why would people want to reserve the right of filing a separate case for civil liability?
1.
Differences in Proof: Proof beyond reasonable doubt in crimes and only a preponderance of
evidence in a civil case
2.
Crime: state prosecutor, they will just settle for the bare minimum
3.
If separate, you must pay a separate filing fee and it is based on the award that you asked for
(you cannot be awarded more than you ask for)
4.
Purely criminal case no role for private lawyer, only when you prosecute it together with the
criminal case that your lawyer will be allowed, but under the supervision of the private prosecutor
5.
Note: Reservation must be done at the earliest opportunity
Article 104. What is included in civil liability. - The civil liability established
in articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
Article 105. Restitution. - How made. - The restitution of the thing itself
must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or
diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the
possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving
to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to
him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been
acquired by the third person in the manner and under the requirements
which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
Article 106. Reparation. - How made. - The court shall determine the
amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing,
whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party,
and reparation shall be made accordingly.
Article 107. Indemnification - What is included. - Indemnification for
consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured
party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason
of the crime.
Article 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and action to demand the
same - Upon whom it devolves. - The obligation to make restoration or
reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential damages
devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise
descends to the heirs of the person injured.
Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. - If there are two or more
persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount
for which each must respond.
Article 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and
accessories of a felony - Preference in payment. - Notwithstanding the
provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and
accessories, each within their respective class, shall be liable severally (in
solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiarily for those of
the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the
principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly, against that
of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been
enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall have a right
of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares.
Different from Principal Liability in a Civil Case (original action) action can be directly
instituted against them
Cant be stopped with a pending criminal case against the employee or owner of the
establishment
Art. 2180 CC. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused
by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in
any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when
the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(1903a)
Article 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. - Any person

who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be
bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such
participation.
Damages measured in money
1.
Actual what you actually had to spend, proven by evidence
2.
Moral emotional injury, ex: what you need to spend for you to forget besmirched
reputation, sleepless nights, etc
3.
Temperate to temper the amount of the award, less than the actual (especially if the actual
was too much)
4.
Nominal token amount, to recognize that a right has been violated
5.
Liquidated provided by the contract
6.
Exemplary to set as an example
Article 112. Extinction of civil liability. - Civil liability established in articles

100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the same
manner as other obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil
Law.
Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. - Except in case of extinction
of his civil liability as provided in the next preceding article, the offender
shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the
crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his
sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not
been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon,
commutation of sentence or any other reason.
Art. 1231 CC. Obligations are extinguished:
(1) By payment or performance:
(2) By the loss of the thing due:
(3) By the condonation or remission of the debt;
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor;

(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation.
Other causes of extinguishment of obligations, such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a
resolutory condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in this Code. (1156a)
Civil Liability will prescribe:
Law and contract 10 years
Quasi-contracts and oral contracts 6 years
Quasi-delicts 4 years
Moral damages for rape/killing P75,000 minimum
Computation:
Loss of Earning Capacity (n is age)
= life expectancy x net income
= 2/3 (80-n) x (annual gross income-expenses)
Example:
Victim: Keith Tuason :P
Age: 22
= 2/3(80-22) x [(30,000*13mos)]-[0.5(30,000*13mos)]
=2/3 (58) x 195,000
=7,540,000.00 to be indemnified to her heirs =P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Carpio vs Doroja and Ramirez (1989)

Facts: Edwin Ramirez, while driving a passenger Fuso Jitney owned and operated by
Eduardo Toribio, bumped Dionisio Carpio, a pedestrian crossing the street, as a consequence
of which the latter suffered from a fractured left clavicle as reflected in the medico-legal
certificate and sustained injuries which required medical attention for 3 months. He was
convicted for Reckless Imprudence resulting to Less Physical Serious Injuries, which ordered
him to indemnify Carpio the amount of P45.00 for the can of tomatoes he lost, P200.00
paid to the hospital, P1,500.00 as attorneys fees, and to pay the cost of the suit. Appellant
prayed for increase of moral damages to P10,000, but CA only granted P5,000.00. Writ of
execution was granted but was unsatisfied due to the insolvency of Ramirez. Complainant
moved for a subsidiary writ of execution against the subsidiary liability of the owneroperator, which was denied because the nature of the accident falls under culpa-aquiliana
and not culpa-contractual.
Issue: Whether or not the subsidiary liability of the owner-operator may be enforced in the
same criminal proceeding against the driver where the award was given, or in a separate
civil action.
Held: Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. The subsidiary liability established
in the next preceding article shall apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
Respondent contends that the case of Pajarito v. Seneris cannot be applied to the present
case, the former being an action involving culpa-contractual, while the latter being one of
culpa-aquiliana. Such a declaration is erroneous. The subsidiary liability in Art. 103 should be
distinguished from the primary liability of employers, which is quasi-delictual in character as
provided in Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code. Under Art. 103, the liability emanated from a
delict. On the other hand, the liability under Art. 2180 is founded on culpa-aquiliana. The
present case is neither an action for culpa-contractual nor for culpa-aquiliana. This is
basically an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime under Art. 100 of the
Revised Penal Code. In no case can this be regarded as a civil action for the primary liability
of the employer under Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code, i.e., action for culpa-aquiliana.
In order that an employer may be held subsidiarily liable for the employee's civil liability in
the criminal action, it should be shown (1) that the employer, etc. is engaged in any kind of
industry, (2) that the employee committed the offense in the discharge of his duties and (3)
that he is insolvent The subsidiary liability of the employer, however, arises only after
conviction of the employee in the criminal action. With all these requisites present, the
employer becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon the employee's conviction and upon
proof of the latter's insolvency.
Owner-operator has not been deprived of his day in court, because the case is not one
wherein the operator is sued for a primary liability under the Civil Code but one in which the
subsidiary civil liability incident to and dependent upon his employee's criminal negligence
is sought to be enforced. Considering the subsidiary liability imposed upon the employer by
law, he is in substance and in effect a party to the criminal case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Heirs of Raymundo Castro vs Bustos (1969)

* really long cos there are a lot of pointers
Facts: Apolonio Bustos was charged with the crime of murder for the killing of Raymundo
Castro, whose heirs are now petitioners. TC found him guilty only of homicide and crediting
him with 2 mitigating circumstances, namely passion and obfuscation and voluntary
surrender. His sentence included for him to indemnify the petitioners P6000 without
prejudice to whatever he is entitled from GSIS for his 26 yrs of service as a public school
teacher
Petitioners prayed for modification of damages to P50,764.00 as indemnity and actual,

moral, temperate and exemplary damages, and for respondent be convicted of murder
CA rendered judgment=damages amounting to P6000 as awarded by RTC

plus P13,380.00 to compensate for the loss of earning of the decedent at the
annual salary of P2,676.00
Upon MR: with the presence of 2 mitigating circumstances, court eliminated award of
damages (6k and 13k)
Held: Court will restate the law regarding the items of damages that are recoverable in
cases of death caused by a crime, whether the claim therefor is made in the criminal
proceedings or in a separate civil actioneven if it were claimed otherwise, the indemnity
and damages would be the same, for generally the items of damages are same in both
proceedings, EXCEPT wrt to the attorneys fees and expenses in litigation which can be
awarded only when a separate civil action is instituted (based on Art 2208 Civil Code)
Decision in the case, failed to comply with constitutional requirement to state both
the facts and the law on which they are based here, no factual basis was stated for the
award of indemnity and damages which made the impression that the award was fully the
discretion of the Court
The court easily yielded to the argument that simply because it had credited the
respondent with two mitigating circumstances, it was already justified in eliminating the
items of damages already adverted to, presumably having in mind said Art. 2204 which
provides that: In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or
lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
The general rule in the Civil Code is that: In crimes and quasi-delicts, the
defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences
of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been
foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant. (Art. 2202)
When, however, the crime committed involves death, there is Art. 2206 which
provides thus:
The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-delict shall be at
least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. In addition:
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased,
and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such indemnity shall in every
case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of
permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at
the time of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article
291, the recipient who is not an heir called to the decedent's inheritance by law of
testate or intestate succession may demand support from the person causing the
death, for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the
court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of
the deceased.
Amount of P3000, already increased in other cases to P6000, and may be adjudicated
even without proof of pecuniary loss
Exemplary damages may also be imposed as a part of this civil liability when the
crime has been committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, such damages
being "separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party," (Art. 2230).
Exemplary damages cannot however be recovered as a matter of right; the court will decide
whether or not they should be given. (Art. 2233)
In any event, save as expressly provided in connection with the indemnity for the sole
fact of death (1st par., Art. 2206) and in cases wherein exemplary damages are awarded
precisely because of the attendance of aggravating circumstances, (Art. 2230) "... damages
to be adjudicated may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances," (Art. 2204) but "the party suffering the loss or injury must
exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from
the act or omisson in question."
When death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to the
following items of damages:
1. As indemnity for the death of the victim of the offense P12,000.00, without the need of
any evidence or proof of damages, and even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances attending the commission of the offense.
2. As indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased amt to be fixed by court
depending on actual income at the time of death and his probable life expectancy, awarded
as a matter of duty, except if he had no earning capacity. If obliged to give support, the
recipient who is not an heir may demand support from the accused for not more than 5 yrs,
exact duration to be fixed by the court
3. As moral damages for mental anguish, an amount to be fixed by the court. This may be
recovered even by the illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased.
4. As exemplary damages, when the crime is attended by one or more aggravating
circumstances, an amount to be fixed in the discretion of the court, the same to be
considered separate from fines.
5. As attorney's fees and expresses of litigation, the actual amount thereof, (but only
when a separate civil action to recover civil liability has been filed or when exemplary
damages are awarded).
6. Interests in the proper cases.
7. It must be emphasized that the indemnities for loss of earning capacity of the deceased
and for moral damages are recoverable separately from and in addition to the fixed sum of
P12,000.00 corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact of death, and that these
damages may, however, be respectively increased or lessened according to the mitigating
or aggravating circumstances, except items 1 and 4 above, for obvious reasons.
Once the heirs of the deceased claimed moral damages and are able to prove they are
entitled thereto, it becomes the duty of the court to make the award
Compensatory damages may be considered in the prayer for actual damages and
for other just and equitable reliefs
Award for moral damages and loss of earning capacity in the case does not afford
sufficient basis because the decision did not state the law on which it was based. Legally the
court can just return the case to that court for the supply of the constitutional omissions.
Court emphasizes: When there is no such separate civil action and the claim for civil
indemnity is joined with the criminal case, no record on appeal, whether printed, typewritten
or mimeographed, is necessary, except perhaps when formal pleading raising complicated
questions are filed in connection therewith, and still, this would be purely optional on the
appellant because anyway the whole original record of the case is elevated in appeals in
criminal cases.
CA amended decision affirmed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People vs. Cordova (1994)
Facts: Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova was charged with Rape and eventually convicted thereof
on June 19, 1991. Pending appeal of his conviction, Bayotas died on February 4, 1992 at
the National Bilibid Hospital due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to hepatic
encephalopathy secondary to hipato carcinoma gastric malingering. Consequently, the
Supreme Court in its Resolution of May 20, 1992 dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal.
Issue: Does death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguish his civil
liability?
Held: In pursuing recovery of civil liability arising from crime, the final determination of the
criminal liability is a condition precedent to the prosecution of the civil action, such that
when the criminal action is extinguished by the demise of accused-appellant pending appeal
thereof, said civil action cannot survive. The claim for civil liability springs out of and is
dependent upon facts which, if true, would constitute a crime. Such civil liability is an
inevitable consequence of the criminal liability and is to be declared and enforced in the
criminal proceeding. This is to be distinguished from that which is contemplated under
Article 30 of the Civil Code which refers to the institution of a separate civil action that does
not draw its life from a criminal proceeding. The Sendaydiego resolution of July 8, 1977,
however, failed to take note of this fundamental distinction when it allowed the survival of
the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto by treating the same as a separate
civil action referred to under Article 30. Surely, it will take more than just a summary judicial
pronouncement to authorize the conversion of said civil action to an independent one such
as that contemplated under Article 30.
Summary:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard,
"the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only
the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil
liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the
Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may
arise as a result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) . . .
e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery
therefor may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to
Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil
action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the
accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained
above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this
separate civil action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal
action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the
civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted
during the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the
Civil Code, that should thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by
prescription.
Applying this set of rules to the case at bench, Court held that the death of appellant
Bayotas extinguished his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the act
complained of, i.e., rape. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed without qualification.
Appeal of the late Rogelio Bayotas dismissed.

Crim 1 - Muyot - CrimFinalReviewer

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Crim 1 - Muyot - CrimFinalReviewer

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Chua, Manalo, Martinez, Moreto, Gozun, Peralta, Salindo, Santos, Sarita, Siazon, Tuason

Criminal law 1 Reviewer:

Penologic ojectives: Law as a

General Principles of Criminal

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine

Who are exempted from their coverage?

a. the person of any ambassador (given diplomatic status of by

RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement:

R.A. 7055-AN ACT STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN SUPREMACY OVER THE

Section 1. Members of the Armed forces of the Philippines and other

What is considered Philippine territory for the purpose of applying Philippine

May Philippine laws be applied outside Philippine territory?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People vs. Wong Cheng

Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable

May Philippine penal laws be applied retroactively?

Fig. 1 A. Muyots chart of what a felony is

For what act may a person be penalized?

What are the elements of a felony?

a. Act- bodily movement tending to produce some effect in the external

What is dolo and culpa?

What is malum in se and malum prohibitum?

What is the difference between intent and felony?

b. Motive- moving power which impels one to do action for a definites

IV. Art. 4. Criminal Liability

Par. 2: Impossible crime

VI. Stages of Commission of Felonies

c. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to a cause or

Two stages in the development of a crime:

Stages of Execution in Rape

The crime of rape is consummated by mere penetration of the male organ

Stages of Execution in Robbery/ Theft

Ability to dispose is not a requirement

What is important is WON there was unlawful taking

No frustrated Theft/ Robbery

Stages of Execution in Murder/ Homicide

VII. Art. 11. Justifying

a. First Requisite: Unlawful aggression on the part of the

- must come directly or indirectly from the person attacked by defending-accused

b. Second Requisite: Reasonable necessity of the means

must be exercised with due care3

- When peace officer: duty requires him to overcome his opponent

c. Third Requisite: Lack of sufficient provocation on the

refers to person defending himself

Battered Woman Syndrome

Tension-building phase: minor battering (verbal or slight physical abuse or general

Cases (Defense of Honor)

Cases (Defense of Property)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------US v. Bumanglag (1909)

Cases (Defense of Reputation)

II. Defense of Relative

Case (Defense of Relative)

U.S. v. Esmedia (1910)

III. Defense of Stranger

IV. Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury

Cases (Avoidance of a Greater Evil)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Regina v. Dudley (1884)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ty v. People (2004)

V. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of

Cases (Fulfillment of Duty)

People v. Belbes (2000)

IV. Obedience to an order issued for some

(2) Such order must be for some lawful purpose

Case (Lawful order of superior)

VIII. Art. 12. Exempting