Article 1. Time when Act takes effect.
- This Code shall Characteristics of Criminal Law
take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred
and thirty-two.
Criminal law is that branch or division of law which
defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for
their punishment.
Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of a
public law forbidding or commanding it.
Limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to
enact penal legislation.
1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted. (Art. Ill, Sec. 22)
Exemption: To give a law retroactive application to the
prejudice of the accused is to make it an ex post facto
law.
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
-A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without trial.
Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided
in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the
provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within
the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship
( As to where the ship/ airship is registered
when offenses affects only those on board)
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 presiding
number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title
One of Book Two of this Code.
GENERAL, in that criminal law is binding on all persons
who live or sojourn in Philippine territory.
Exemptions:
Bases Agreement between RP and USA
USA have jurisdiction over:
1. Offense of any person within the base (except
when both offender and offended are both
Filipinos who are not army of USA) / when
offense is against the security of Philippines.
2. Member of USA army (Offended and Offender)
committed offense.
3. Member of USA army committed offense
against the security of USA
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws
by virtue of the principles of public international law
1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary,
ministers resident, and charges d'affaires.
TERRITORIAL, in that criminal laws undertake to punish
crimes committed within Philippine territory. (Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters
and maritime zone.)
PROSPECTIVE, in that a penal law cannot make an act
punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable
when committed. As provided in Article 366 of the
Revised Penal Code, crimes are punished under the laws
in force at the time of their commission.
Exception:
1. Where the new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or existing
causes of action. (Tavera vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 463,
470-471)
2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal under
Rule 5, Article 62, Revised Penal Code. (Art. 22,
RPC)
Art. 3. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by Murder, Treason,
law are felonies (delitos). Robbery, Malicious
mischief.
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). Why negligence is punished?

There is deceit when the act is performed with A man must use common sense, and exercise due
deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious,
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through
foresight, or lack of skill. fear of incurring punishment.

Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the Three reasons why the act or omission in felonies must
Revised Penal Code. be voluntary:

The elements of felonies in general are:
1. That there must be an act or omission.
2. That the act or omission must be punishable by
the Revised Penal Code.
3. That the act is performed or the omission
incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
Act- any bodily movement tending to produce some
effect in the external world, it being unnecessary that
the same be actually produced, as the possibility of its
production is sufficient.
Omission-is meant inaction, the failure to perform a
positive duty which one is bound to do. There must be a
law requiring the doing or performance of an act.
Examples of felony by omission:
1. Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275,
par 1)
2. Illegal exaction (Art.213, par 2 (b))
3. Misprision of treason. (Art. 116)
1. RPC is Classical Theory (Criminal liability is
based on human free will.
2. Man is a rational being, must prove that he is in
Art. 12 (exemption of criminal liability)
3. Felonies by dolo= deliberate intent which must
necessarily be voluntary; Felonies by culpa, the
imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without
malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material injury results.
Requisite of DOLO:
FII (Freedom, Intelligence, Intent)
 Freedom= when a human lost freedom is no
longer a human being but a mere tool.
 Intelligence= that inability to determine the
morality of human acts ( imbecile/insane)
 Intent= act with malice.
Actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea — a crime is not
committed if the mind of the person performing to act
complained be innocent.

Intentional Felonious Culpable Felonious Mistake of Fact= is a misapprehension of fact on the

Offender’s act or Offender’s act or part of the person who caused injury to another. An
omission is malicious omission is NOT honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of
malicious criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a
Performed w/ deliberate Unintentional/ Without felonious act.
intent Malice
Act or omission Wrongful acts from Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
punishable by Revised Imprudence, Negligence,
Penal Code Lack of foresight, Lack of 1. That the act done would have been lawful had the
Skill INLL facts been as the accused believed them to be.
“Dolo” intent to do an Negligence usually
injury. involves lack of foresight. 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the
Imprudence usually act should be lawful.
involves lack of skill.
3. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
Motive Intent
U.S. vs. Ah Chong Moving power to incur Purpose to use particular
the action means to effect the
Killing the board mate of Ah Chong is justified under punishable act.
Art.11 (Requisite of Justifying Circumstances) Not essential element of
crime
(1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person killed, Weather good or bad,
does not affect the act
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to from being a crime.
prevent or repel it, and When identity of accused
is unknown, motive is
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the essential.
person defending himself. Proven by testimony of
witness.
Mistake of Identity Lack of motive may be an
aid in showing the
Error in personae or mistake in the identity of the innocence of the
victim, the principle of mistake of fact does not apply accused.

When the accused is negligent, mistake of fact is not a Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be in-
de-fense. curred:

Requisites of Committing Culpa: 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although

the wrongful act done be different from that which he
FI, INLL intended.

 Freedom 2. By any person performing an act which would be an

 Intelligence offense against persons or property, were it not for
 He is Imprudent, Negligent, Lack of Foresight the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
and Skill account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Suicide is not punishable by law but if someone died or
injured as a consequence of the suicide action plus the A person committing a felony is still criminally liable
lack of foresight then it will be punishable by culpable even if —
felony.
a. There is a mistake in the identity of the victim
Crimes penalized by Special Law — error in personae.
b. mistake in the blow, ( aberratio ictus) that is,
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita when the offender intending to do an injury to
Criminal Intent Prohibited act was one person actually inflicts it on another; and
intentionally done c. the act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious
Penalized by Revised Penalized by special law result is greater than that intended( praeter
Penal Code intentionem) .
Good faith is considered. Good faith and absence
( Mistake of Fact) of crime intent is not a ( Sinuntok lang at natumba sa sahig na una ang
valid defense. ulo, patay)
Murder, Theft, Rape, Possession of firearms,
Homicide Dangerous Drugs Act. Requisites of paragraph 1 of Art. 4.
Inherently immoral It’s for public policy
a. That an intentional felony has been committed; and
b. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony
committed by the offender.
Acting in self-defense is not committing a crime.
Any person who creates in another's mind an
immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to
do something resulting in the latter's injuries, is liable
for the resulting injuries.
Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical
conse-quence of felonious act.
It is an established rule that a person is criminally
responsible for acts committed by him in violation of the
law and for all the natural and logical consequences
resulting therefrom.
 Blow was efficient cause of death.
 Blow accelerated death.
 Blow was proximate cause of death.
Proximate cause is "that cause, which, in natural and
continu-ous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occurred."
The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the
resulting injury when:
a) there is an active force that intervened between the
felony committed and the resulting injury, and the
active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign
from the felonious act of the accused; or
b) the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the
vic-tim.
A person is not liable criminally for all possible
consequences which may immediately follow his
felonious act, but only for such as are proximate.
When death is presumed to be the natural consequence
of physical injuries inflicted?
1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries
were inflicted was in normal health.
2. That death may be expected from the physical
injuries inflicted.
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.
It would seem that the fault or carelessness of the
injured party, which would break the relation of the
felony committed and the resulting injury, must have its
origin from his malicious act or omission (U.S. vs.
Navarro, 7 Phil. 713)
Requisites of impossible crime:
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.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision of the Revised Penal
Code.
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which
should be repressed but which are not covered by the
law, and in cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever a
court has knowledge of any act which it may deem
proper to repress and which is not punishable by law,
it shall render the proper decision and shall report to
the Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe
that said act should be made the subject of penal
legislation.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a
strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would
result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of malice and the
injury caused by the offense.
"In connection with acts which should be repressed but
which are not covered by the law."
1. The act committed by the accused appears not
punishable by any law;
2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act;
3. In that case, the court must render the proper
decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the
accused;
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief
Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, stating the
reasons which induce him to believe that the said act
should be made the subject of penal legislation.
"Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege," that is, that
there is no crime if there is no law that punishes the act.
"In cases of excessive penalties."
1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty;
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court
imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly
excessive, because —
 the accused acted with lesser degree of malice,
and/ or;
 there is no injury or the injury caused is of
lesser gravity.
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the
sentence.
4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief
Executive, through the Secretary of Justice,
recommending executive clemency.
Executive clemency recommended for the wife who
killed her cruel husband.
Executive clemency recommended because of the
severity of the penalty for rape.
The courts should interpret and apply the laws as they
find them on the statute books, regardless of the
manner their judgments are executed and implemented
by the executive department.
The duty of courts is to apply the law, disregarding
their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused. DURA
LEX SED LEX.
Art. 5 of the Revised Penal Code may not be invoked in
cases involving acts mala prohibita, because said
article applies only to acts mala in se, or crimes
committed with malice or criminal intent.
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted
felonies. — Consummated felonies, as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present;
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.
These stages are: (1) internal acts; and (2) external acts.
1. Internal acts, such as mere ideas in the mind of a
person, are not punishable even if, had they been
carried out, they would constitute a crime. Intention
and effect must concur.
2. External acts
 Preparatory acts — ordinarily they are not
punishable.
 Acts of execution — they are punishable under
the Revised Penal Code.
Even if 1st stage or 2nd stage were done, still these are
punishable.
Elements of attempted felony:
1. The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony;
3. The offender's act is not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due
to cause or accident other than his spontaneous
desistance.
Overt Acts-is some physical activity or deed, indicating
the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its
complete termination following its natural course,
without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by
the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
Indeterminate offense- is one where the purpose of the
offender in performing an act is not certain. Its nature in
relation to its objective is ambiguous.
The desistance should be made before all the acts of
execution are performed.
Elements of Frustrated felony:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
In frustrated felony, the offender performed all the acts
of execution, where the attempted felony does not
perform the last instead merely commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts.
In homicide or murder, the crime is consummated if the
victim dies. If the victim survives, the crime is frustrated.
If the crime is not produced because of the timely
intervention of a third person, it is frustrated.
If the crime is not produced because the offender
himself prevented its consummation, there is no
frustrated felony, for the 4th element is not present.
Frustrated felony distinguished from attempted
felony.
1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his
criminal purpose.
2. While in frustrated felony, the offender has
performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence, in attempted
felony, the offender merely commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does
not perform all the acts of execution.
Attempted or frustrated felony distinguished from
impossible crime.
(1) In attempted or frustrated felony and impossible
crime, the evil intent of the offender is not
accomplished.
(2) But while in impossible crime, the evil intent of the
offender cannot be accomplished, in attempted or
frustrated felony the evil intent of the offender is
possible of accomplishment.
(3) In impossible crime, the evil intent of the offender
cannot be accomplished because it is inherently
impossible of accomplishment or because the means
employed by the offender is inadequate or ineffectual;
in attempted or frustrated felony, what prevented its
accomplishment is the intervention of certain cause or
accident in which the offender had no part.
Consummated Felony
How to determine whether the crime is only attempted
or frustrated or it is consummated.
In determining whether the felony is only attempted or
frustrated or it is consummated,
(1) the nature of the offense,
(2) the elements constituting the felony, as well as
(3) the manner of committing the same, must be
considered.
ARSON 320-326
 Attempted-pouring gas on the house and about
to strike a match.
 Consummated-when part of the house burned
even small part.
THEFT
Actual taking with intent to gain of personal property,
belonging to another, without the latter's consent, is
sufficient to constitute consummated theft. It is not
necessary that the offender carries away or
appropriates the property taken.
ESTAFA
Attempted-did not give any of the demand of the
accused.
Frustrated- the demands of the accused was taken but
not completely.
In robbery by the use of force upon things (Arts. 299
and 302), since the offender must enter the building to
commit the crime, he must be able to carry out of the
building the thing taken to consummate the crime.
In robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons (Art. 294), the crime is consummated the
moment the offender gets hold of the thing taken and I
or is in a position to dispose of it freely.
Formal crimes — consummated in one instant, no
attempt.
Example: Slander and False Testimony, Treason
Selling of marijuana and even acting as broker is already
a consummated crime.
Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or
by overt act.
Flight to enemy's country-attempt to flee is
consummated felony.
Corruption of minors- a mere proposal to satisfy the lust
of another will consummate the offense.
Felony by omission
No attempted stage in the felony by omission because
this does not execute acts.
Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to
commit them are consummated by mere agreement.
Betting in sport contest, corruption of public officer are
consummated by mere agreement.
Material crimes
Consummated Rape-any penetration of the private
parts of the offender is considered consummated rape.
Attempted Rape –the moment of endeavoring to have
sexual intercourse but did not succeed.
Consummated Homicide-the offender and victim while
grappling for the gun, the co-offender stab the victim.
This is not murder but homicide because of the
conspiracy.
Frustrated murder-stabbing two victims and the other
survived the wound.
Attempted homicide-the wound inflicted did not hit
any vital organ thereby victim survived.
There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
In impossible crime, the person intending to commit an
offense has already performed the acts for the
execution of the same, but nevertheless the crime is not
produced by reason of the fact that the act intended is
by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or
because the means employed by such person are
essentially inadequate or ineffectual to produce the
result desired by him.
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light
felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed
against persons or property.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor ( 1
day to 30 days) or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or
both, is provided.(Art 9 par.3)
The light felonies punished by the Revised Penal Code:
1. Slight physical injuries. (Art. 266)
2. Theft. (Art. 309, pars. 7 and 8)
3. Alteration of boundary marks. (Art. 313)
4. Malicious mischief. (Art. 328, par. 3; Art. 329, par. 3)
5. Intriguing against honor. (Art. 364)
Exception:
Light felonies committed against persons or property,
are punishable even attempted or frustrated. The
commission of felonies against persons or property
presupposes in the offender moral depravity. For that
reason, even attempted or frustrated light felonies
against persons or property are punishable.
Light Felonies Against Person
=Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment
Light Felonies Against Property
1. Art. 309, No. 7 — Theft by hunting or fishing or
gathering fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products
upon an inclosed estate or field where trespass is
forbidden and the value of the thing stolen does not
exceed f*5.00.
2. Art. 309, No. 8 — Theft, where the value of the stolen
property does not exceed f*5.00 and the offender was
prompted by hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of
earning a livelihood.
3. Art. 313 — Alteration of boundary marks.
4. Art. 328, No. 3; Art. 329, No. 3 — Malicious mischief
where the damage is not more than P200.00 or if it
cannot be estimated.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. —
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to
commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
-mere conspiracy or proposal is not a felony except
when the law provides a penalty. They are only
preparatory acts, as long as not overt acts executed no
felony is committed.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
Generally, conspiracy is not a crime except when the
law specifically provides a penalty therefor as in treason
(Art. 115), rebellion (Art. 136) and sedition (Art. 141).
The Revised Penal Code specially provides a penalty for
mere conspiracy in Arts. 115,136, and 141.
Art. 115 Conspiracy-Treason Prision mayorNot
exceeding
10,000
Art. 136 Conspiracy- Coup Minimum Not
d’etat/Rebellion/Insurrectio period of exceed
n prision mayor 8,000
Conspiracy Maximum Not
Rebellion/Insurrection Prision exceed
correctional 5,000
Art. 141 Conspiracy-Sedition Medium Not
Prision mayor exceed
2,000
A and B agreed and decided to take arms against
government, even if that was not carried out, that is still
conspiracy. If A and B with their followers carried out
their plan, that is rebellion, and that conspiracy is just a
preparation of their felony thereby not punishable.
Conspiracy to commit murder is not punishable by
Revised Penal Code, it only serve as preparation and
without performing the planned murder not
punishable. A,B,and C had conspiracy to kill D. if A
served as look out, B held hands of D and C is the one
who killed D, all of them committed murder.
Indications of conspiracy.
When the defendants by their acts aimed at the same
object, one performing one part and the other
performing another part so as to complete it, with a
view to the attainment of the same object. Thus, an
accused has been held as a co-conspirator as the
circumstances of his participation indubitably showed
unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the
unlawful acts, gleaned from that fact that he knew of
the plot to assassinate the victim as he too had been
ordered to scout for a man who could do the job; he
also knew exactly the place where the killing was to
take place and also the date and approximate time of
the assault.
Requisites of conspiracy:
1. That two or more persons came to an agreement;
2. That the agreement concerned the commission of a
felony; and
3. That the execution of the felony be decided upon.
1st element — agreement presupposes meeting of the
minds of two or more persons.
2nd element — the agreement must refer to the
commission of a crime. It must be an agreement to act,
to effect, to bring about what has already been
conceived and determined.
3rd element — the conspirators have made up their
minds to commit the crime. There must be a
determination to commit the crime of treason, rebellion
or sedition.
 Conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
 Conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence.
Requisites of proposal:
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony; and

2. That he proposes its execution to some other person The afflictive penalties in accordance with Art. 25 of this
or persons. Code are:

There is no criminal proposal when — Reclusion perpetua,

1. The person who proposes is not determined to Reclusion temporal,

commit the felony.
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
2. There is no decided, concrete and formal
proposal Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is
proposed. Prision mayor.

Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and light
felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in
any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with
Article 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes
with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the above-mentioned
article.
"Penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional."
Example: A felony punishable by arresto menor to
destierro is a less grave felony, because the higher of
the two penalties prescribed, which is destierro, is a
correctional penalty. Arresto menor is a light penalty.
The following are correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the Arresto mayor,
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a Suspension,
fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.
(40,000 pesos as provided in RA 10951) Destierro.

Capital punishment-death penalty "The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos, or both, is provided."
When the penalty prescribed for the offense is
composed of two or more distinct penalties, the higher Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this
or highest of the penalties must be an afflictive Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be
penalty. punishable under special laws are not subject to the
provisions of this Code. This Code shall be
Prision Higher is prision Afflictive supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
correccional to mayor, grave penalty specially provide the contrary.
prision mayor felony
Prision Minimum prision Afflictive The first clause should be understood to mean only that
correccional in its mayor is grave penalty the Penal Code is not intended to supersede special
maximum period felony penal laws. The latter are controlling with regard to
to prision mayor offenses therein specially punished. Said clause only
in its minimum restates the elemental rule of statutory construction
Medium and Prision mayor and Afflictive that special legal provisions prevail over general ones.
maximum reclusion penalty
periods of prision temporal are The second clause contains the soul of the article. The
mayor or by grave felonies main idea and purpose of the article is embodied in the
prision mayor in provision that the "Code shall be supplementary" to
its maximum to special laws, unless the latter should specially provide
reclusion the contrary.
temporal in its
minimum
Special law is a statute enacted by the Legislative
branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment
to the Revised Penal Code.
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on penalties
cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special
laws.
Offenses under special laws, not subject to the
provisions of this Code relating to attempted and
frustrated crimes.
By virtue of the provision of the first part of this article,
it was held that the attempted or the frustrated stage of
the execution of an offense penalized by a special law is
not punishable, unless the special law provides a
penalty therefore.
The special law has to fix penalties for attempted and
frustrated crime.
When a special law covers the mere attempt to commit
the crime defined by it, the attempted stage is
punishable by the same penalty provided by that law.
Art. 10, R.P.C. is not applicable to punish an accomplice
under the special law.
Plea of guilty is not mitigating in illegal possession of
firearms, p Supplementary"
The word "supplementary" means supplying what is
lacking; additional unished by special law.
No accessory penalty, unless the special law provides
therefore.
Accused was prosecuted under a special law. Intent is
immaterial in crimes mala prohibita. But even in crimes
mala prohibita, the prohibited act must be voluntarily
committed. The offender must act with intelligence. In
said case, the accused acted without intelligence.
Chapter Two
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a
person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such
person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and
is free from both criminal and civil liability.
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:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his
relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by
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 provocation 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
article 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:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it.
3. 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.
Burden of proof.
The circumstances mentioned in Art. 11 are matters of
defense and it is incumbent upon the accused, in order
to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying
circumstance claimed by him to the satisfaction of the
court.
Self-defense.
Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused
invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove
by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted
in defense of himself. He must rely on the strength of
his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution. For, even if the prosecution evidence is
weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused
himself had admitted the killing.
Self-defense, must be proved with certainty by
sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that
excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part
of the person invoking it and it cannot be justifiably
entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any
separate competent evidence but, in itself, is extremely
doubtful.
In self-defense, the burden of proof rests upon the
accused.
SELF-DEFENSE.
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur:
 Unlawful aggression;
 Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
 Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
Rights included in self-defense
Right to life, Right to property and right to honor.
Reason why penal law makes self-defense lawful
 it would be quite impossible for the State in all
cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens
(and even foreigners, of course) and offer
protection to the person unjustly attacked.
 It is man's natural instinct to protect, repel, and
save his person or rights from impending
danger or peril
Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least
threatened assault of an immediate and imminent kind.
There must be an actual physical assault upon a person,
or at least a threat to inflict real injury.
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden,
and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof,
and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.
Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually
broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly
imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or a merely
threatening stance or posture.
Peril to one's life.
 Actual — that the danger must be present, that
is, actually in existence.
 Imminent — that the danger is on the point of
happening. It is not required that the attack
already begins, for it may be too late
Peril to one's limb
The peril to one's limb may also be actual or only
imminent.
Following are not unlawful aggression:
1. Insulting words addressed to the accused, no
matter how objectionable they may have been,
without physical assault, could not constitute
unlawful aggression.
2. Light push on the head with the hand does not
constitute unlawful aggression.
3. A mere push or a shove, not followed by other
acts, does not constitute unlawful aggression.
4. Foot kick greeting
Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense. In
retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the
injured party already ceased to exist when the accused
attacked him. In self-defense, the aggression still
existed when the aggressor was injured or disabled by
the person making a defense.
 Physical fact may determine whether or not the
accused acted in self-defense.
 When the aggressor flees, unlawful aggression
no longer exists.
 Retreat to take more advantageous position.
 No unlawful aggression when there is
agreement to fight
 One who voluntarily joined a fight cannot claim
self-defense
 The rule now is "stand ground when in the right
 Unlawful aggression in defense of other rights.
1. Attempt to rape a woman — defense of right to
chastity.
2. Defense of property
3. Defense of home.
  The belief of the accused may be considered in
determining the existence of unlawful
aggression.
 There is self-defense even if the aggressor used
a toy pistol, provided the accused believed it
was a real gun.
 Threat to inflict real injury as unlawful
aggression.
 Mere threatening attitude is not unlawful
aggression.
Examples of threats to inflict real injury:
1. When one aims a revolver at another with the
intention of shooting him. (Dec. Sup. Ct. Spain, Sept. 29,
1905)
2. The act of a person in retreating two steps and
placing his hand in his pocket with a motion indicating
his purpose to commit an assault with a weapon. (Dec.
Sup. Ct. Spain, June 26, 1891)
3. The act of opening a knife, and making a motion as if
to make an attack. (Dec. Sup. Ct. Spain, Oct. 24, 1895)
When intent to attack is manifest, picking up a weapon
is sufficient unlawful aggression.
Aggression must be real, not merely imaginary.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.
-When we are attacked, the danger to our life or limb is
either imminent or actual. In making a defense, we
prevent the aggression that places us in imminent
danger or repel the aggression that places us in actual
danger. A threat to inflict real injury places us in
imminent danger. An actual physical assault places us in
actual danger.
1. Necessity of the course of action taken.
-depends on the existence of unlawful aggression.
2. Place and occasion of the assault considered.
- a dark and an uninhabited place
3. The darkness of the night and the surprise which
characterized the assault considered.
The theory of self-defense is based on the necessity on
the part of the person attacked to prevent or repel the
unlawful aggression, and when the danger or risk on his
part has disappeared, his stabbing the aggressor while
defending himself should have stopped.
Reasonableness of the means employed will depend
upon-
1. The nature and quality of the weapons:
-must be deemed reasonable if (1) had other available
means or (2) if there was other means, he could coolly
choose the less deadly weapon.
-the accused went beyond what was necessary to
defend himself against the unlawful aggression made by
the deceased.
Firearm vs dagger does not imply any difference
between such weapons.
2. Physical condition, character and size.
Age of the defendant, the bully aggressor is larger and
stronger, violent, troublesome, aggressive.
Cases in which third requisite of self-defense
considered present.
The third requisite of self-defense is present —
1. When no provocation at all was given to the
aggressor by the person defending himself; or
2. When, even if a provocation was given, it was not
sufficient; or
3. When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was
not given by the person defending himself; or
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 sha'l 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 Article 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformity 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 Article 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 acts under the compulsion of an
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 or insuperable
cause.
Par 1. Insanity
 During lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence. An imbecile is one who, while
advanced in age, has a mental development
comparable to that of children between two
and seven years of age
 Insanity exists when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the
act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason,
he acts without the least discernment, because
there is a complete absence of the power to
discern, or that there is a total deprivation of
freedom of the will.
 In order to ascertain a person's mental
condition at the time of the act, it is permissible
to receive evidence of the condition of his mind
during a reasonable period both before and
after that time
When defense of insanity is not credible.
1. If appellant was able to recall all those
incidents.
2. When offender can do normal things like
chores.
3. Good contact with his environment and that he
did not manifest any odd behavior for in fact he
could relate the circumstances that led to his
confinement.
4. in spite of his "schizophrenic reaction," his
symptoms were "not socially incapacitating"
and he could adjust to his environment. He
could distinguish between right and wrong.
5. The presence of his reasoning faculties, which
enabled him to exercise sound judgment and
satisfactorily articulate the aforesaid matters,
sufficiently discounts any intimation of insanity
of the accused when he committed the
dastardly felonies.
Mental Illnessess
a) Dementia praecox is covered by the term
insanity
b) Schizophrenia, formerly called dementia
praceox.
c) Kleptomania
d) Epilepsy may be covered by the term "insanity."
e) Feeblemindedness is not imbecility.
f) Pedophilia is not insanity.
g) Amnesia is not proof of mental condition of the
accused.
Committing a crime while in a dream. Somnambulism or
sleepwalking, where the acts of the person afflicted are
automatic, is embraced in the plea of insanity and must
be clearly proven.
Par. 2. — A person under nine years of age.
Republic Act No. 9344- 15 years old exempt from the
criminal liability.
The exempting circumstance of minority is based also
on the complete absence of intelligence.
Par. 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 Article 80 of this
Code.
15 below exempted likewise 15-18 years of age who
acted with discernment.
Discernment- his mental capacity to understand the
difference between right and wrong, and such capacity
may be known and should be determined by taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded
by the records in each case, the very appearance, the
very attitude, the very comportment and behaviour of
said minor, not only before and during the commission
of the act, but also after and even during the trial.
"Intent" refers to the desired act of the person while
"discernment" relates to the moral significance that a
person ascribes to the said act.
Discernment may be shown by
(1) the manner the crime was committed, or
(2) the conduct of the offender after its commission
Par. 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.
Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
Self-defense, proven accident or misfortune- happens
outside the sway of our will, and although it comes
about through some act of our will, lies beyond the
bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.
When accident is not appreciated?
 Accidentally wounded victim with repeated
blows
 Accidental shooting, aiming a gun in the air.
 Husband and wife had an argument.
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
4. without fault or intention of causing it.
Par. 5. — Any person who acts under the compulsion
of an irresistible force. ( Complete absence of
freedom)
Elements:
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force.
(Threatened with a gun to commit the crime)
2. That the physical force must be irresistible.
(The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a
mere instrument who acts not only without will but
against his will)
3. That the physical force must come from a third
person.
Par. 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.
For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear
to be invoked successfully, the following requisites must
concur:
(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/Threat/Coercion as a valid defense should be
based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one's
life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or
remote fear.
In irresistible force (par. 5), the offender uses violence
or physical force to compel another person to commit a
crime; in uncontrollable fear (par. 6), the offender
employs intimidation or threat in compelling another to
commit a crime.
Par. 7. — Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by some lawful or
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 cause.
Ex: A detainee cannot send to nearest judicial body
because its too far.
Pregnant woman was overcome severe dizziness in
result the baby died, not guilty of infanticide.
Justifying Circumstances Exempting Circumstances Classes of mitigating circumstances.
 A person acting  There is a crime
this does not but no criminal 1. Ordinary mitigating — those enumerated in
transgress the liability. subsections l to 10 of Article 13.
law.  The act is not -is susceptible of being offset by any
 Not criminally justified aggravating circumstance; while privileged
liable.  There is civil mitigating cannot be offset by aggravating
 The act is both just liability causing circumstance.
and lawful injury. 2. Privileged mitigating- offender is a minor
 Fail to perform an
act that prevented Defense in Criminal Cases
by lawful of
1. Essential elements of the crime were not proven
insuperable act.
2. The act falls under Justifying Circumstances
3. The act falls under Exempting Circumstances
Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is 4. The case is covered by absolutory causes.
a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment a) Spontaneous desistance during
there is no penalty imposed. attempted stage
b) Light felony is only attempted or
Instigation is an absolutory cause.
frustrated, and is not against persons or
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. property
c) The accessory is a relative of the
Instigation + Entrapment - principal
 Practically induces  ways and means d) Legal grounds for arbitrary detention.
the wouldbe are resorted to for (Art. 124)
accused into the the purpose of
e) Legal grounds for trespass. (Art. 280)
commission of the trapping and
f) The crime of theft, swindling or
offense and capturing the
himself becomes a lawbreaker in the malicious mischief is committed against
co-principal. execution of his a relative. (Art. 332)
 the accused must criminal plan g) When only slight or less serious physical
be acquitted.  is no bar to the injuries are inflicted by the person who
 A public officer or prosecution and surprised his spouse or daughter in the
a private detective conviction of the act of sexual intercourse with another
induces an lawbreaker. person. (Art. 247)
innocent person h) Marriage of the offender with the
to commit a crime offended party when the crime
and would arrest committed is rape, abduction,
him upon or after
seduction, or acts of lasciviousness. (Art.
the commission of
344)
the crime by the
latter i) Instigation.
5. Guilt of the accused not established beyond
reasonable doubt.
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in 6. Prescription of crimes. (Art. 89)
the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the 7. Pardon by the offended party before the
actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the institution of criminal action in crime against
penalty. Mitigating circumstances are based on the chastity. (Art. 344)
diminution of either freedom of action, intelligence, or
intent, or on the lesser perversity of the offender.
Article 13 Incomplete Defense?

Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in Deceased Accused

the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the About to set fire on the Got bolo and drag the
actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce house. former outside now lying
the penalty. on the ground. Bolo the
deceased to death. Stab
Ordinary Mitigating Privileged Mitigating 14 times.
Pwede sya pang equalize Di-Pwede pang equalize Lack of reasonable necessity= Privelege Mitigating
sa mga aggravating sa mga aggravating Circumstances of incomplete defense.
circumstances circumstances
If di sya pwede pang Dito sa Privelege i-lower
equalize sa mga lang ng 1-2 degree ng Incomplete Self-defense
aggravating circumstances penalty provided para sa
Deceased Accused
then ang effect is male- crime na ginawa.
Drunkenness – the Was not hit and can easily
lessen and penalty sa
accuracy of stabs are not avoid the stab.
minimum period.
accurate.
Lack of reasonable necessity to repel the aggression.
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all
the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt
Incomplete Defense of Relative
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not
attendant. Deceased Accused
Already hit the first cousin Stab the deceased from
(1) Self-defense (Art. 11, par. 1);
and trying to hit again by behind. Found out there is
(2) Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par. 2); shotgun. revenge, resentment and
evil motive because of the
(3) Defense of stranger (Art. 11, par. 3); previous anger of the
deceased.
(4) State of necessity (Art. 11, par. 4);
Fail to meet third requisite of there should be no
(5) Performance of duty (Art. 11, par. 5); revenge, resentment and evil motive on the part of the
accused.
(6) Obedience to order of superior (Art. 11, par. 6);

(7) Minority over 9 and under 15 years of age (Art. 12,
par. 3);
(8) Causing injury by mere accident (Art. 12, par. 4);
and
(9) Uncontrollable fear. (Art. 12, par. 6)
There is mitigating when all the necessary requisites to
justify the act are not attendant.- Incomplete self-
defense, defense of relatives, and defense of stranger.-
Either of the two last requisites is absent.
Incomplete justifying circumstance of avoidance of
greater evil or injury.
=any of the last two requisite
1. That the evil sough to be avoided actually exist
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it
3. There be no other practical and less harmful means
of preventing it.
Incomplete justifying circumstance of performance of
duty.

From the two requisites, the last one was not justified.

Incomplete justifying circumstance of obedience to an

Justifying Circumstances order.
The obedience to order was mixed with feeling of
resentment.
Exempting Circumstances
Incomplete exempting circumstance of minority over 9
and under 15 years of age.
=unless acted with discernment.
Incomplete exempting circumstance of accident.
a. A person is performing a lawful act;
b. With due care;
c. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; and
d. Without fault or intention of causing it
NO CARE+ NO INTENTION= Penalty is lowered
Incomplete exempting circumstance of uncontrollable
fear
= there is not times to think of what to do because of
the fear possess.
"When there are two or more mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court
shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed
by law, in the period that it may deem applicable,
according to the number and nature of such
circumstances." The penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal. The next lower penalty is prision mayor”
Par. 2. — That the offender is under eighteen years of
age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Article 80 (now Art. 192, P.D. No. 603).
RA 9344=15-18y/o are exempted unless acted with
DISCERNMENT
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
With Discernment= Undergo diversion programs
Diversion" refers to an alternative, child-appropriate
process of determining the responsibility and treatment
of a child in conflict with the law 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
in conflict with the law is required to undergo after
he/she is found responsible for an offense without
resorting to formal court proceedings.
Condition to System of Diversion.
 Penalty of the crime committed is not more
than 6 years.
 In victimless crimes where the imposable
penalty is not more than six (6) years of
imprisonment,
 Where the imposable penalty for the crime
committed exceeds six (6) years imprisonment,
diversion measures may be resorted to only by
the court
The diversion proceedings shall be completed within
forty-five (45) days.
That the offender is over 70 years of age is only a
generic mitigating circumstance.
(1) When he committed an offense punishable by
death, that penalty shall not be imposed (Art. 47, par. 1)
(2) When the death sentence is already imposed, it shall
be suspended and commuted. (Art. 83)
Death penalty will be lowered to life imprisonment.
The basis of Par. 2 is diminution of intelligence, a
condition of voluntariness.
Par. 3. — That the offender had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
This circumstance can be taken into account only when
the facts proven show that there is a notable and
evident disproportion between the means employed to
execute the criminal act and its consequences.
Intention, being an internal state, must be judged by
external acts.
-Blow has not hit the vital part of the body.
The weapon used, the part of the body injured, the
injury inflicted, and the manner it is inflicted may show
that the accused intended the wrong committed.
-But if the accused used deadly weapon, hit the vital
part and do it more than once, shows that there is
intention.
Art. 13, par. 3, is not applicable when the offender
employed brute/beast force.
Ex: The big guy said he was only ought to abuse the 6
year old child but using the force of his body, the child
died.

It is the intention of the offender at the moment when

he is committing the crime which is considered.

Ex. The intent is to rob only at the moment but the

victim fought back making the offender to stab the
victim in the neck at the moment of straggle.

In robbery with homicide

=the victim was at the back of the door then the

offender opened the door with full force, making the
victim fall and hit his head causing his death.

In Treachery