Article 7 : When light felonies are punishable,only when they have been consummated,

with exception to those committed against persons or property.

GENERAL RULE: They are punishable if they have been consummated

EXCEPTION: Even if not consummated , if it is committed against persons or property.

Ex. Slight physical injuries ( black eye) , theft, altercation of boundary marks, malicious mischief
( Examples, as the intentional smashing of windows, slashing tires, kicking a door, or spray-
painting the walls of a building)

NOTE:
● Only principals and accomplices are liable : accessories are not liable.
● the stages of a crime do not apply to light felonies.
● punishable by arresto minor

Article 8: Conspiracy or proposal to commit a felony. Conspiracy and proposal to commit

a felony are are punishable only in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

There is a proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.

Requisites:

1. Two or more persons come into an agreement

2. For the commission of a felony
3. And they decide to commit it.

If there is conspiracy to commit murder, but there is no crime, there is nothing to be punished
because there is no crime of conspiracy to commit murder.

Concepts of conspiracy:

1. As a crime in itself- the act of conspiring is punishable by law

Example. Conspiracy to commit rebellion, insurrection, treason , sedition, coup d’ etat

1. As a mode of incurring criminal liability.

Requisites:
 1. a prior express agreement
2. participants acted in concert or simultaneously, which is indicative of
meeting of the minds towards a common criminal objective.

EXAMPLE: A,B,C,D and E. A is the mastermind, B and C are the one who will execute the plan,
D is the look out and E is going to drive the get away vehicle. They will all be liable for the
commission of the crime in the same manner and punishment. All will be similarly liable. The
mere agreement to the commission of the crime will make that person similarly liable.

Note: Conspiracy to commit a felony is different from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal
liability.

General Rule: Conspiracy to commit felony is not punishable since it is merely a prepatory act:
Exception: When the law specifically provides for the a penalty.

Example: there is no penalty for conspiracy to commit murder

Example: Rebellion , insurrection , sedition, coup d’ etat are conspiracies that are punishable.
Example punishable special penal laws: Conspiracy of drugs ( De lima case)

General Rule: The act of one is the act of all

Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators committed a some other crime, which is not
part of the intended crime.
Exception to the exception: When the act constitutes an indivisible offense, special complex
crimes.

Overt acts of conspiracy must consist of:

1. Active Participation in the actual commission of the crime

2. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of
the crime.
3. Exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute
or implement the criminal plan.

Proposal to commit a felony

● only one person is decided to commit a crime.
● it cannot be a mode of incurring criminal liability.
Example: proposing to commit treason is a crime, but cannot be a mode of incurring criminal
liability.

1. A has decided to commit a felony

2. And proposes its execution to some other person or persons

Examples of proposals to commit a crime punishable by law, proposals to commit:

1. treason
2. rebellion
3. Coup d’etat
4. no sedition

Conspiracy:

● The agreement to commit a crime will not only make the person liable to the crime that he
agreed upon, it will also make him liable for other crimes not agreed upon, not part of the
conspiracy, but are foreseeable in the crime agreed upon. If the crime was not
foreseeable, then it will depend on whether they were present at commission of the crime,
and if they were present and had to chance to prevent the commission of the other crime,
they did not try to stop it, then they are liable. Examples is if they were robbing a bank and
then B starts to rape and girl , and then C watches and does not try to prevent it , he is still
liable because although the crime was not foreseeable he allowed for its commission to
occur.
● Puget vs People

EXAMPLE :

● A, B, C,D and E, decided and agreed to rob a bank , and “ robbery is bailable “ as long as
it is only robbery. While in the act of committing the robbery the police arrived there was
a shoot out and then a police officer was killed.
● CONCLUSION: the conspirators are all liable for his death because injury is foreseeable
in the robbery and they were bringing weapons. Killing is foreseeable in a robbery.
● Rape and homicide, robbery and homicide.
.

COMPOSITE AND COMPLEX CRIMES ART 48

Composite crimes- like kidnapping with homicide, the same rule applies, there can be liability for
crime that are not agreed upon even if it was not foreseeable is committed, if the person orient at
the commission of the crime allowed it to happen by not preventing it.

SUPREME COURT

● the general rule: is everyone who agreed to conspiracy shall be liable, participation is
immaterial.
● exception:, when the participation in the commission of the crime is very very minor
contribution or acts, they will only be liable as accomplices. You are still a conspirator but
your penalty will be lower, that of an accomplice.
● There needs to be contribution however small, if there is no contribution then there is no
liability.

People vs. Bangcado

● in the absence of any previous plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal
responsibility arising from different acts directed against one person and the same person
is individual and not collective, and that each of participant is liable only for his own acts.

Example

A, B and C went to the house of X with intent to beat him up, but when they were there C froze
he could not do anything, but he agreed. In the case of people vs. Compo in order to be liable in
the same manner as the other conspirators not only must he agree , he must also contribute
however small. If he did nothing, but agree he will not be liable.

People vs. Garcia :

Accomplice- there must be no agreement

A… hired B and C to kill X, I was the one who vouched the idea to B and C, while B and C were
on there way, he changed his mind, but the phone of B was on silent mode, and the B and C
proceeded and succeed in killing X, A will not be absolved for the time because first he agreed
and he contributed and participated to the crime and did something already.
If B and C were about to kill X and they were caught by the Citom, there is no crime because they
have not committed any acts.

Implied Conspiracy - When the malefactors have a common purpose and were united in its
execution. Spontaneous agreement or active cooperation by all perpetrators at moment of the
commission of the crime is sufficient to establish joint criminal liability.

it can be seen from the individual acts of the perpetrators that the people are united in a common
design, one gave the knife, the other one used it to stab someone, one acted as a look, it would
show that these acts have one criminal design. the conspiracy can be implied from the acts.

because it is hard to obtain real proof of conspiracy because it has to be obtained through
confession or the testimony of one of the perpetrators, if one would squeal. because if it from
outside it will be hard to know what the actual plan. Even if there is not evidence when the they
come into an agreement, it can be shown in the acts of the accused, even is there is not evidence
as to the verbal agreement.

People vs. Compo, the mere presence of the person during the commission of the crime does
not make him a co-conspirator if he did not contribute in anyway to the commission of the crime,
would make him innocent. They found that there was no act in the part of compo, that contributed
to the killing. Compo just pointed the flashlight, when he did not know yet that his companion was
going to attack. His lighting of the flash light had no connection with the criminal design of his
partner. It is possible that at that time his friend did not have a criminal design yet. It would seem
that it was more of a retaliation than ambush because it was the victim that attacked first and
ambushed them.

SC: Granting that he was present, his presence did not contribute to the criminal design .so
therefore there is no evidence that he participated or concurred in the criminal design of the killer.

1. There must be showing of concurrence to the criminal design. it can be shown by direct
evidence of implication.

People vs. Maralit , Lending moral if not material aid during the commission of the offense may
make a person a person liable as a conspirator, it is not limited to material aid, but also moral aid.
It is not necessary contribute materials to the act even lending moral support can be taken as
concurrence to the criminal design. (HAIRLINE DIFFERENCE ) In this case the accused did not
fire any firearms, they were just together with the killer, they waited together in ambush. They
about to commit the crime but they were not the one who actually fire the firearms, but they were
together,

The difference with compo, in compo they were together but they were not going to attack, they
were attacked first, the victims was the one looking for the holding a piece of wood, in the Maralit
case they were waiting to ambush, their acts showed that they have intention to kill, and when
Maralit and his friends went with the people who pulled the trigger knowing that there was an
intent to kill, even if they did not fire the shot by being there together with them knowing that these
people have intention to kill they lent not material aid but material support and that made them
liable as co-conspirators.

The difference was the here there was really an agreement as shown by their acts and the
concurrence to the criminal design

In people vs. Natividad, it was reiterated that to be co-conspirators, you must perform an overt
act. The overt act may be active participation or it may be moral assistance, meaning he did not
contribute by giving a knife or doing this, but being there same as in Maralit.

In people vs Rafael, 2 sons were attacking the victims and while they were attacking the victim
after they deliver the fatal blows, the father shouted “ patayin patayin “ is it lending moral support?
Yes it is but it was after the consummation of the crime. He showed his concurrence to the crime
when he verbalized it. The act only made him an accomplice.

The difference is that in Maralit, there was concurrence to the criminal act ( Moral support ) was
before and during the actual commission , so it is like they really wanted to see to it that the crime
is committed by being there and giving there moral support. In Rafael, the shouting was done at
the later stage after the sons already inflicted the fatal wounds, it is as if the supreme court is
saying that is does not have the effect that persuasion to the main actors, because when he said
it ti was already after, although the SC said that moral support is enough to make a person a co-
conspirator, in this particular case, even if he lent moral support, but because it was given after
the fatal blow was delivered the supreme court said “ there could be a possibility that he could be
a co-conspirator or an accomplice, the SC chose to adopt the milder form of responsibility ”

SC, in order to be liable for the act of one person ,there must be conspiracy. you cannot be liable
for another acts because that is his act!!! you have to prove that i am in conspiracy with I’m, we
prove conspiracy, through direct evidence, circumstantial and implied from the acts, and these
act maybe active participation ( if the act is important to the commission to the crime then even if
there is no direct evidence of conspiracy we can say that there is implied conspiracy ) or lending
moral support ( we have to show that the moral support is important in order that the crime be
committed, it must have a direct relationship a direct influence for the commission of the crime
because moral support if it has no persuasive or convincing effect on commission of the crime
because the act or moral support was given to late, then the supreme court stated “ that they are
not sure anymore “ if the statement that influenced them to commit the crime. if the accused,
together with sons went to the crime scene, and instructed or told his sons to kill the person, and
it was because of this pronouncement the they acted, then the father is a conspirators.

Example: While, you were going to your Crim1 class, and then you saw a group of people beating
up someone, then you boisterously shouted “ kill him or beat him up “ you are not liable because
to be a co-cospirator you must agree to what they planned to do, and you did not know who is
being beaten up or who is doing the beating up

EXAMPLE: you planned a robbery with your friends, and they commit the act without telling you.
He said give me a cut, then that wolud make him an accessory because accessories are after the
fact meaning they only know of the crime after it has been committed, if they learned about the
crime before the commission it would make them a co-cospirator, but they have to contribute,
because the agreement alone would not make a person a co-conspirator.

Ex. the victim is X, B and C robbed him, A just got a cut (Dawat limpio) robbery can only be filed
against B and C, so what is the crime of A, it will not be robbery, it will be robbery against B and
C , because extortion is also robbery, with the use of intimidation. Na Nulis sa nagTulis.

Article 48

Complex Crimes - there are 2 crime but the 2 crimes are committed at the same time, such as
robbery with homicide and Kidnapping with rape, they are special complex crimes.

Ordinary complex crime- if the conspirators agree only on one crime and did not agree on other
crimes. like they only agree on murder, but there was a rape. Ex. Double Murder.

A,B, C and D they decide to kill X, A as not present, but during the Murder B, also decided to kill
Y but the agreement was only for X, Those who did not agree to the killing of the other guy, will
not be liable because they will only be liable tot he extent of the agreement. This is an ordinary
complex crime of Double murder.

In special complex crime, they will all be liable for the other crime committed that is not agreed
upon . Ex. Robbery with Homicide.

Even if they only agree to committing one crime, but the second crime done is foreseeable and
together will constitute they will constitute a special complex crime, they will all be liable.

Cuadrilla Theory
 ● in Robbery in Band, members of the band are liable as principals for all crimes, whether
foreseeable or not , if they were present when the assaults were committed , if they were
present but they did not attempt to prevent the same, but if they tried to present it they
cannot be held liable

● means 4, there are at least 4 accused or perpetrators who are armed the law calls them
a band, the rule is also different, same as the rule of special complex crimes.

EXAMPLES:

● A, B , C and D, notorious members of a robbery group, agreed to rob a bank. They asked
X to supply them with firearms. X Had no specific Knowledge of the details of the of the
plot to rob a bank because he was not told about it . The robbery took place, but A, B ,C
and D were caught and charges were filed against them. what about X ?

● He cannot be a conspirator because he did not concur to the specific crime, but he did
have participation,so he will not be absolved, so he will be liable as an accomplice ( he
needs to do an illegal act ) . He will only be an accessory if his participation it was after
the crime

● Person who assist in the commission of the crime, without being a conspirator, may be
liable as an accomplice.
● 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 perpetration
of the homicide or murder was relatively speaking of minor character. ( Garcia v. CA )
He was a driver waiting for the crime to be committed and he would serve as the getaway
vehicle, the SC charged him as an accomplice even if he concurred to the commission of
the crime, but they adopted the lesser penalty. He was a co conspirator, he was charged
will the lessen penalty.

conspiracy
1. agreement to commit a specific crime
2. participation : Active or Moral ( influence )

Example:

A, B, C and D kidnapped a rich business man. They kept him in a bodega owned by E. Who only
came to know of the kidnapping after the victim was brought to his bodega. They then instructed
F to collect the ransom. Was unaware of the kidnapping until his participation in the collection
the ransom, which he knew was for the release of the Kidnapped person.

Are E and F liable to the crime crime of kidnapping with ransom ?

Example :

A, B, C belong to a group of Illegal recruiters They set up an office in Cebu City and gypped
unsuspecting job-seekers . They were able to defraud R,S and T. Seeing the A , B and C have a
lot of money, D decided to join their group. Together, they were able to defraud Z.

Is Dliable for the crimes committed against R, S and T

Do not focus of the facts, Focus on the jurisprudence

SEPT. 19, 2018

CONSPIRACY
1. Agreement
2. Participation
a. Material/Active
b. Moral

Ex. LIABILITY FROM CONSPIRACY

A, B, and C decided to rob a bank. B and C entered the bank. A was the mastermind. Although,
the agreement was only to rob the bank, C killed someone in the course of the robbery. A will not
be liable for the killing because they are not a Cuadrilla.

Therefore, in a conspiracy, for a person can be held liable for a crime outside of the agreement,
foreseeable or not, he must have the opportunity to stop the commision of the added crime but
did not.

Because A did not have the opportunity to stop the killing, even if it is a foreseeable crime, he will
not be liable for the killing because they are not a cuadrilla.

CUADRILLA
Worse than a conspiracy and only applies to robbery in band (Art. 296, par. 2).
Naturally, when there is robbery in band, there must be conspiracy. Everybody will be liable, even
for crimes not agreed upon, provided that the other crime is foreseeable. The only exception is
when the crime is not foreseeable and band member did not try to prevent to unforeseeable crime.

When there are only 2 robbers in conspiracy, we do not apply cuadrilla because conspiracy is a
lesser offense.
Ex. LIABILITY FROM CUADRILLA
A, B, C, D, and E conspired to rob a bank. B, C, D, and E were armed. C killed a person in the
course of the robbery, even though it was not part of the agreement, all of them are liable,
including A.

The SC applied the Cuadrilla theory to Special Complex Crimes, even if it is not provided for by
law. The law only applies to Cuadrilla theory to robberies in a band.

SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

Cuadrilla theory applies even if the perpetrators do not constitute band. It is the law itself that
defines a Special Complex crimes, there are only less than 10.

Ex. Robbery with homicide, kidnapping with homicide, robbery with rape, kidnapping with rape

See: People v. Laranaga 17:34

Article 9, RPC

1. Grave felonies - capitol or afflictive penalties .

2. Less grave felonies - correctional penalties.
3. Light felonies - arresto menor. or 6000 pesos fine.

TO READ :

Article 11-15 ( Different circumstances appending liability ) ( JEMAA) ( Justifying, Exempting,

Mitigating, aggravating ,alternative circumstances )

1. In the actual imposition of the penalty, it is possible that there are circumstances that may
affect, the imposing of the penalty by maximizing it or lowering it, these circumstance may
justify, mitigation, aggravating and accepting.

Article 11 - Justifying circumstance (3DEFO)

This will justify the commission of the act, that even id the act constitutes a felony, there is no
crime because the cession of the act has been justified.

Justifying Circumstances:
1. Self-defense
● Requisites: URL
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of means applied
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
 ● Inclusions: Defense of
1. Llife
2. Chastity & Honor
3. Property

Example, A attacked B with a knife , B hit A with a stone, killing Pork. There is a
crime committed by dolo, it is intentional Homicide, but he is exempted under
justifying circumstance, When the reason the person committed the crime is in
order to defend himself.

UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION:
● Indispensable. No unlawful aggression = nothing to prevent ot repel = no self
defense
● Material aggression/attack shall have been made to determine the intent of the
aggressor to harm/injure. Attack must be actual, sudden, unexpected. Mere
threat or intimidation is not enough, there must be real and imminent danger.
● Real aggression means attack with physical force or with a weapon. Imminent
aggression means an attack is at the very point of materializing.
● When aggression has ceased to exist (aggressor trips and falls to the ground),
there is no more necessity for self-defense.
● Burden of proof is on the accused (person who acted in self-defense)

REASONABLE MEANS APPLIED:

● The accused must have used the most immediate defense he has at the very
moment of the emergency or attack. Thus, in the natural order of things, accused
is not expected to flee the scene to look for a less deadly weapon to use as a
defense.
● There must be Rational Equivalence. Meaning, means employed must be in
proportion to the attack.
○ Ex: A slapped B. B pulled out a pocket knife and stabbed A to death. There
is no rational equivalence.
○ BOADO: In defense of property, where there is no attack/threat to the one
defending (owner of property), killing as self-defense will not be
reasonable. Life > value of property

LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION

● BOADO: There may sometimes be provocation on the part of the accused, but to
avail of self-defense, provocation must NOT be sufficient to provoke the attacker.

Requisite for self defense ( 1,2,3) in Justifying circumstance ( everything needed to be present)

1. Unlawful aggression by the victim ( requisite for all kinds of defenses )

● the victim must be the initial aggressor , you cannot defend unless he does something
because he attack or committed aggression at justifies the person to put up a defense
 1. Reasonable means employed to prevent to repel the aggression
● Example: a person attack you will a stick, and shot him with a gun because your reaction
was not at the level of a threat.
1. lacking sufficient provocation - the aggression must not be because the accused provoked
the other person
● Example : if you provoked the the person by telling him that you wanted to fight, you can
no longer invoke a justifying circumstance. The aggression must come, without the
provocation from the person defending himself. if another person made the provocation,
then you were attacked you can claim it.

The past aggression, conflict or altercation does not matter, so long as there was unlawful
aggression and at that moment and there was no sufficient provocation.

2. Defense of relatives
● Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of means applied
3. In case there was provocation on the person being defended, the person
defending must have no part therein.
● Inclusions: SADAC4
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural,adopted siblings, or relatives by Affinity of the same
degree
5. Relatives by Consanguinity within 4th civil degree

3. Defense of strangers
● Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of means applied
3. Person defending must not be induced by revenge, resentment, or other
evil motives

4. Avoid a greater evil.

There is a coming evil, in order to avoid that evil you have to commit an offense.

● Requisites:
1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. Injury feared is greater than what is done to avoid it
3. No other practical and less harmful ways to avoid said evil

Ex. your neighbor's house is on fire, and to prevent it from spreading to your house, threw
water at his house damaging his appliances can he sue you? No. The avoidance of a
 greater evil will justify the commission of the act. PP vs. Delima ( reiterated in SPO2
Cabanlig vs. Sandigan Bayan, Jul 28, 2005 )

5. Fulfillment of a public duty, he may not be criminally liable.

● Requisites:
1. Offender acted in the lawful exercise of a right or duty
2. Injury or offense committed by the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such right or office

NOTE: There must be no negligence on the part of the public officer

Ex. Cabanlig vs. Sandigan Bayan

The court ruled that the policeman was in the performance of a lawful duty, hence his act
is justified. This is not a case of self-defense. Here, the unlawful aggression already
stopped when Pedro ran away. If Juan were a private person, and not in the performance
of a lawful duty, he would have been convicted and his acts would not be justified under
Art. 11 because there was no unlawful aggression when Pedro was in the act of running
away.

6. Obedience to an order for lawful purpose

You raid a place and you kill MILF members, if you do not kill anyone you are liable.

● Requisites:
1. Order issued by superior
2. Order must be lawful
3. Means used to carry out order must be lawful

NOTE: Even if order is illegal but subordinate believed in good faith that the order given
to him by a superior officer was legal, he shall not be liable. (Tabuena v. SB, 1997)

Requisite for self defense ( 1,2,3) in Justifying circumstance ( everything needed to be present)

2. Unlawful aggression by the victim ( requisite for all kinds of defenses )

● the victim must be the initial aggressor , you cannot defend unless he does something
because he attack or committed aggression at justifies the person to put up a defense
2. Reasonable means employed to prevent to repel the aggression
● Example: a person attack you will a stick, and shot him with a gun because your reaction
was not at the level of a threat.
2. lacking sufficient provocation - the aggression must not be because the accused provoked
the other person
● Example : if you provoked the the person by telling him that you wanted to fight, you can
no longer invoke a justifying circumstance. The aggression must come, without the
 provocation from the person defending himself. if another person made the provocation,
then you were attacked you can claim it.

The past aggression, conflict or altercation does not matter, so long as there was unlawful
aggression and at that moment and there was no sufficient provocation.

In defending strangers, number 3 is different

1. The person defending must not be motivated by evil or ill will because the person attacked
is not the person defending.

JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING

Act is legal Act is criminal

No crime, criminal, no liability There is crime, there is a criminal, there is no

criminal liability but there is civil liability
(except paragraphs 4 and 7)

The emphasis of law is on the act The emphasis of law is on the actor

No intent at all

Art. 12 - Exempting Circumstance - MIPAFF

Amended by RA 9344 - Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
1. Minority
PERIODS OF MINORITY:
1. ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY- 15 years to below are exempted from criminal
liability but shall be subject to an intervention program
2. CONDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY- 15 years old and 1 day to 18, if they did not
act with discernment, shall be exempt from liability but shall be subject to an
intervention program.
3. MITIGATED RESPONSIBILITY- 15 years old and 1 day to 18. If there is
discernment, child shall be subject to diversion program.
4. FULL RESPONSIBILITY- 18 years old or over to 70 yo

Does not extinguish civil liability

DISCERNMENT - capacity of the child, at the time of the crime, to determine right from wrong
and the consequences following the wrongful act.

Discernment v Intent
Discernment - moral significance that a person ascribes to an act
Intent - desired act

BURDEN OF PROOF
The prosecution has the burden to prove that the minor acted with discernment by evidence of
physical appearance, attitude or deportment before during and after the commission of the act
and even during trial.

PRESUMPTION OF MINORITY
Minority is presumed when in doubt, if he cannot produce his paperwork

BAIL
Minority is considered in fixing bail

2. INSANE OR IMBECILE
- complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act
- when there is mere abnormality or lack in the mental faculties, but he can still know
whether an act is good or bad, the act may be mitigating.
Insane - Not exempt in all cases from criminal liability if it can shown that he acted during a lucid
interval
Imbecile - one who is advanced in age but has the mental faculties of that of a child between 2
and seven yo. An imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.

Ex. Kleptomania, schizophrenia, etc.

BURDEN OF PROOF
Defense must prove that the acused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime
because presumption is always in favor of sanity. To prove, direct testimony is not required.
Circumstancial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice.

Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution to the very
moment of the commission.

3. Prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause

● REQUISITES
1. Act is required by law to be done
2. Person fails to perform the act
3. Failure to perform was due to some lawful or insuperable cause

Ex. Rebel confessed to a priest the details of his group’s plan of rebelion. Priest cannot be held
liable for not reporting the crime as he is bound by his religious sect to keep matters heard in
confession confidential.

4. Accident without fault or intention

 - Although it springs from a human act, an accident is beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences
- If it is already established from the start that there was no dolo or culpa (no crime). It can
be a defense, but must be charged first.

● REQUISITES
1. Person must be doing a lawful act
2. With due care
3. Causes an injury by mere accident
4. Without fault or negligence

5. Irresistible (F)orce
● REQUISITES
1. Compulsion by means of Physical Force
2. Force must be irresistable
3. Force must come from a third person

For it be exempting, force must be so compelling that it reduces the person to a mere instrument
that he is stripped of all freedom. Force must also be present, imminent, and impending.

6. Uncontrollable (F)ear of an equal or greater injury

● REQUISITES
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. Fear must be real and imagined
3. Fear of injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed

Threat of injury is not enough.

Legal Maxim: Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is
not my act.

Note:
- In both Art. 11 and 12 both has no criminal liability
- Art. 11 the act is justified, must face trial, no civil liability.
- Art. 12 no criminal liability but there may be civil liability.
Ex. A minor commits a crime, because of minority he cannot incur criminal liability
but he may be civily liable

Absolutely Causes
● Are neither justifying or exempting
● Totally extinguishes criminal liability for reasons of public policy or sentiment

Ex.
Art. 6 - Spontaneous desistance in attemped felonies
Art. 7 - in light felonies, and it is not a crime against persons or property it is only a crime if it is
consummated. if it is in the attempted or frustrated stage there is no criminal liability
Art. 16 - Accessories in light felonies
Art. 20 - Accesories who are exempt from criminal liability by reason of relationship
Art. 124, last par
Art. 247 - death under exemptional circumstances
Art. 280, par 3
Art. 332 - Persons exempt from criminal liability
1. Spouses, ascedancts, descendants, other relatives by affinity
2. Widowed spouse with respect to property belonging to deceased spouse before the same
shall have passed ownership to another
3. Siblings, bro and sis in laws if living together

ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION

Purpose: capture violators (the accused) Purpose: Induce the accused to commit a
crime

Accused has already decided to commit the Accused has not yet decided to commit the
crime crime, but was influenced to do it

Ex. Buy-bust operation

Art. 13 - MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Mitigating circumstances - those which, if present in the commission of a crime, do not entirely
free the actor from criminal liability but reduces the penalty either by period or by degree.

KINDS

ORDINARY PRIVILEGED

Listed in Art. 13

Lowers penalty by period Lowers penalty by degree

May be offset by aggravating Cannot be offset by aggravating

circumstance circumstance

When not offset, applies only the penalty Effect of imposing penalty lower by 1 or 2
provided by law in it minimum period degrees than that provided by law
 Not considered when single indivisible Always considered no matter what
penalty is prescribed penalty is imposed

1. Ordinary - will not have an effect on indivisible penalties

a. Seniority (70 yo+)
Ex. Enrile was accused of plunder and was arrested. Plunder penalty is originally
RP which is indivisible, therefore the ordinary mitigating (lowers by degree)
circumstance of Seniority will not have an effect.

b. Incomplete SD (without element number 1: unlawful aggression, it could still be

mitigating but only ordinary)

c. Plea of guilty, ordinary mitigating when:

i. Voluntary and unconditional
ii. Given before the presentation of evidence (but in real life, judges are
sometimes liberal and will accept pleas during trial)

d. Praeter intentionem - always mitigating, actual crime was not intended.

Ex. 1: Juan boxed Pedro. Pedro fell down, died. Intention was not to kill but
resulting crime was homicide. Praeter intentionem will be mitigatigating. Crime will
still be homicide, penalty is RT but because of praeter intentionem (ordinary
mitigating), it will now be reclusion temporal minimum.

2. Privileged
a. Minority (15-18 w/ discernment)
b. Incomplete SD (privileged only with element number 1: unlawful aggression)

3. Specific/particular - extenuating circumstance, not found in Art. 13. Mitigating because the law
itself says so

a. Art. 247 - death under exceptional circumstances (instead of RP, only distiero)
b. Intent to conceal dishonor (Abortion, infanticide)
c. Voluntary release of detained person
d. Abandonment in adultery
Ex. Juan and Juana are married, Juan abandoned Juan and the family. Because
of this Juana had a boyfriend and a child with the boyfriend. That is still adultery
because of the subsisting marriage. However, because Juan abandoned her,
Juana is entitled to a specific mitigating circ.
 If the wife was the one who left, and husband had a girlfriend. This is not adultery
anymore. It is concubinage, therefore no more mitigating circumstance.
4. Special
a. Error in personae - effect could be greater or lesser than what is intended
Ex. 1
Juan wants to kill Juana. They are spouses. If Juan killed Juana, it would be parricide (rp),
which has a higher penalty compared to homicide (rt.) But it turned out that it wasn’t really
Juana that Juan killed, it was Maria. Because of this, the crime is now homicide, thus,
lowering the penalty.

Ex. 2 - reversed situation

Juan and Maria had a fight. Juan wanted to kill Maria but hit Juana. Crime will still be
parricide even if it was not Juan’s intent. Because of this, penalty from what was supposed
to be homicide (rt), is now parricide (rp.)

THEREFORE, whatever is the intention will determine the penalty.

Application 1:
Juan wanted to kill his wife, but hit someone else, crime will by homicide but because the
original intention was graver than what was committed, the penalty will be for the graver
intent (parricide, rp.)

Application 2: reversed
Juan wanted to kill Maria but ended up killing his wife, Juana. He will be facing the penalty
for what he intended, which was homicide thus lowering his penalty.

ANALOGOUS CRIMES ARE MITIGATING

Those crimes that are similar to the above listed crimes are also mitigating.

Ex. In malversation, accused did not surrender but he reimbursed the amount stolen. Court ruled
that the reimbursement will still be mitigating as it is similar to voluntary surrender.

WHEN THERE IS MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING IN ONE ACT

There are some situations where 2 mitigating circumstances that are similar or arise from the
same act.
Ex. 1: A person was provoked and so he got angry. There are two mitigating circumstances, 1)
provoked by other party (sufficient provocation) and 2) got angry (passion and obfuscation.) Both
mitigating circumstances will not be counted separately.

It is important to count mitigating circumstances (and even aggravating) because when there are
two or more mitigating and there is no aggravating, it will not result in the lowering by period.
Application: Mark killed Jupert. There are two ordinary mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance, Mark’s penalty will not be lowered by two periods. Both mitigating circs
will be counted as one. Thus, the effect of 2 mitigating circumstances without the presence of an
aggravating circumstance is only a lowering by 1 degree.

WHEN THERE IS AGGRAVATING: We do not lower by degree anymore. We will offset.

Ex. 2: There are 2 mitigating (penalty will be lowered by two periods) and 1 aggravating (penalty
will rise back by 1 period)

WHEN THERE IS ORDINARY AND PRIVILEGED MITIGATING IN ONE ACT

Ex. 3: Juan wanted to ambush Pedro without intent to kill. He was only armed with a stone. He
was lurking in a corner waiting for Pedro to pass by. When someone passed by, he attacked but
it turned out that it was Juanito, his son, but he missed and hit Macario instead. Macario died.

No intent to kill, there is praeter intentionem. Crime is no longer homicide. Intent to kill is no longer
needed when the crime is consummated. We do not consider intent to kill when determining
homicide from murder.

Enriquez: There can be murder even without intent to kill, provided the crime is consummated.
However, it does not mean we do not count praeter intentionem anymore. It is still there but only
is as ordinary aggravating. Even if we count it, it will not have an effect as the penalty is indivisible.

However, if offender is a minor or if there is incomplete self defense. Both are privileged mitigating.
Privileged mitigating will always result in lowering.

Application: If minor’s penalty is indivisible, it will still be lowered by degree. Regardless of crime.
Once penalty is lowered, it will become divisible. So, if there is an ordinary mitigating, it will now
have an effect.

ART. 14 - AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

- Not elements of the crime itself. Only considered aggravating when these circumstances
add to the original penalty of crime committed.
- Only applicable to crimes against persons
Ex. 1 Victim was sleeping. Thief snuck his hand into victim’s bag and stole his
phone. Not aggravating because the crime is against property.

Ex. 2 Offender waited for you to leave your house so he can burn it. Actually, there
may be treachery (aleviosa) but legally, it will not be aggravating as it is not a crime
against persons.

EXCEPT: Treachery may still be applied in crimes against property IF it is robbery

with homicide.
 Application:
- When not aggravating: Malversation of public funds can only be committed by a
public officer in the performance of his public duty. Because the taking advantage
of position is the very essence of the crime, malversation, it cannot be an
aggravating circumstance.

CAPINA

1. C - Contempt or insult to public

- Only aggravating if it is limited to insult, it is not the crime itself.

Application: You disobey police order, crime is disobedience. Or you resisted when
you were arrested, crime is resistance. PLUS you insulted police officer, now you
have a specific crime AND an aggravating circumstance.

2. A - Advantage of public position

- When not aggravating: Malversation of public funds can only be committed by a
public officer in the performance of his public duty. Because the taking advantage
of position is the very essence of the crime, malversation, it cannot be an
aggravating circumstance.
- When not aggravating: Tulis by police when off duty. Not aggravating because he
is not exercising his duty. However, if the police did the tulis while in the exercise
of a search warrant, abuse of position is now an aggravating circumstance.

3. P - palace of the chief executive

4. I - insult to the offended party
5. N - nighttime or uninhabited place
- Just because crime was committed at night, does not necessarily mean it is
aggravating. Court said: It must be specifically sought to perform the crim.

Juan and Pedro fought. It just so happens that fight was at night, it cannot be
aggravating.

6. A - abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness

- In Estafa, abuse of confidence is necessary. Therefore, not aggravating.

CAPIRA

1. C - conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake

2. A - aid of armed men
3. P - previously punished
4. P - price, reward, promise
5. I - inundation, fire, poison
6. R - recidivist
 - Ordinary aggravating
- Person already convicted before, and commits a similar crime after being
convicted. Ex. 1st crime theft, 2nd estafa

Will time between crimes matter? Not necessarily, it is the conviction that matters.

When 1st crime was committed during the minority of the offender, crime will not be
counted regardless of the amount of times it has been done. He will not be a recidivist.
Crimes committed after the minority are the only ones to be consider since crimes during
minority are strictly confidential and cannot be used by the court.

7. A - aleviosa (treachery)
- Offender must have adopted means to prevent victim from defending himself.
Ex. Victim was peeing. Was attacked. There is the element of surprise.
Aggravating.

Presumption (debatable): there is treachery when stab wounds are in the anterior
part of the body

CAPIRASU

1. C - craft, fraud, disguise

- In a frat in UP Law, masked men killed somebody. Use of mask is aggravating.
However, mark fell off during the killing. SC said it is still aggravating, it is not the
presence of the mask that is aggravating, it is the use of disguise.
2. A - aid of person under 15, motor vehicles
3. P - evident premeditation\
- In estafa, planning cannot be aggravating.
4. I - ignominy
5. R - roof, wall, floor, window broken
- In malicious mischief, breaking of window is not aggravating.
- Robbery with force upon things, breaking of window is not aggravating. In breaking
of wall to rape, it can be aggravating.
6. A - augmented by causing another wrong
7. S - superior strength
8. U - unlawful entry
- If crime is trespassing, unlawful entry will not be aggravating. It is the very essence
of the crime committed.

KINDS:
1. Generic - applies to all crimes. Crimes against persons or property.
- Raises penalty by period.1:43
 Effect 1: Offset: 4 mitigating, 3 aggravating. Penalty goes down by 4 periods, then will go
up by 3.
Effect 2: 20 aggravating, no mitigating. Crime is homicide. There is no way for RP, to
become RT, since there is so such thing as privileged aggravating. You cannot rasie by
degree.

2. Specific - only applies to specific crimes

Ex. Use of firearms, use of drugs. These crimes will have distinct effects compared to
other crimes.

Application: Attempted homicide with use of firearm. Use of firearm will aggravate the
penalty

3. Special - increase the penalty.

Ex. hit and run. Crime is reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, but because of
abandonment, penalty will increase, It is now a special aggravating circumstance.

No such thing as privileged aggravating. So ordinary aggravating circumstance can be generic,

specific, or special. But if it is any of those mentioned in Art. 14, normally, they are ordinary,
provided that they are not generic. They must not be the crime itself.

4. Qualifying circumstance - changes the crime and penalty

Ex. Circumstances that change homicide to murder, or homicide to parricide

Ex. 1 A person cannot be punished with a penalty that is not provided by law. So, if the
law says penalty is RT, you cannot impose RP, even if you have 20+ aggravating.

If there is a qualifying circumstance, not only an aggravating circumstance. If any of the 6

qualifying circumstances are present the crime will change. It is no longer homicide, it is
now murder with a higher penalty. Now it is not unconstitutional to impose a higher penalty.
Because it is not merely an ordinary aggravating, it is qualifying aggravating.

Ex. 2: Robber robs a bank. Highest penalty from robbery is RT. But if maid steals without
intimidation, penalty for theft is 2 degrees higher.

Inherent circumstances - Circumstances that are already part of the crime. Not counted as
aggravating.
Ex. Craft for estafa, breaking of wall for robbery with force upon things

Spe