College of Law

De La Salle University
*
COURSE OUTLINE
CRIMINAL LAW I
BOOK I
Arno V. Sanidad

Scope :
This course is an introduction to Philippine criminal law, felonies, criminal
liability, penalties and their application. It will cover Art. 1 - Art. 113 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended and other relevant special penal laws.

General Instructions:
(1) You are required to read the assigned cases in the original together with the
relevant chapters of Reyes;
(2) Recitation shall be graded. You are allowed to GLANCE but NOT READ your
notes during recitation. Except for handwritten notes, no other materials should be on
the desk during recitation. A student who is called and is absent still gets a "5.0" for
that session;
(3) Handwritten digest of all cases assigned is required and will be checked
regularly and will be submitted during the final exam;
(4) There will be an oral exam on specific provisions of the Revised Penal Code that
will be assigned; and
(5) No computers, tablets, cellphones, iWatch or other similar electronic smart
devices can be used during class or during the exams. Cellphones that will ring or
sound out during class hours will be confiscated and deposited with the College
Secretary for 24 hours.
Basis for Final Grade :
Recitation, Written Assignments &Quizzes 15% + Case Digest & Notes 10% + Oral
Exams 15% + Final Examinations 60%
Basic Text:
Revised Penal Code Of The Philippines (Act. No. 3185 As Amended)
Reyes, Luis, The Revised Penal Code, Book I, 2012 Ed. (2017 Ed. Latest)
Recommended References:
Ticman, Modesto, Jr., Updates in Criminal Law (2016)
Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Book 1 (2008 or 2017 Ed.)
OTHER READINGS: Will be assigned as need arises.

*
Nov. 2018

-1-
I. CRIMINAL LAW: DEFINITION AND SOURCES

A. Philosophy & History of the Revised Penal Code

Reyes, pp. 23-24
RPC belongs to the classical school:
Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012
Positivist Aspect of the RPC:
De Joya v. Jail Warden of Batangas City, G.R. Nos. 159418-19,
[December 10, 2003]

Bienvenido C. Ambion, Penal Code Revision: Vignettes, Vagaries and Varieties,

54 PLJ 137 (1979) [http://law.upd.edu.ph/plj/images/files/PLJ]

What is the “Philosophy” of Proposed Criminal Code to Replace the RPC?:

Proposed Code of Crimes (H.B. 2300)
Criminal Code of the Philippines (DOJ Draft)
- https://www.doj.g ov.ph/criminal-code-committee.html

B. Authority to Define Crime & Appropriate Punishment

1. Authority to define crime and penalty

Constitution (1987), Art. II, Sec. 5
Constitution (1987), Art VI, Sec. 1
Authority to define and punish crimes;
Police power & legislature; Vagrancy [Art. 202 (2)] RPC:
People v. Siton, 600 SCRA 476 (2009)T
See: Republic Act No. 10158 (An Act Decriminalizing Vagrancy,
Amending for this Purpose Art. 202 of Act No. 3815, as amended
(Revised Penal Code),[March 27, 2012])
Purpose of criminal and civil action:
Quinto v. Andres, 453 SCRA 511 (2005) [2]T

2. Limitations on Legislature
(Reyes, pp. 1-6)
Due Process, The Limit of Police Power:
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987
Constitution (1987) Limitations & Proscriptions:
a. Due Process Clause (Art. III, Sec. 1, 14 (1))
b. Equal Protection Clause (Art. III, Sec. 1)
c. Political Belief (Art. III, Sec. 18 (1))
d. Involuntary Servitude (Art. III, Sec. 18 (2))
e. Excessive Fines, Cruel & Degrading Punishment (Art. III,
Sec. 19 (1))
f. Imprisonment for Debt (Art. III, Sec. 20)
g. Double Jeopardy (Art. III, Sec. 21)
h. Ex post facto legislation (Art. III, Sec. 22)

-2-
 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115
Civil Code, Art. 2
Commonwealth Act No. 638
Publish before punish:
Pesigan v. Angeles, 129 SCRA 174 (1984)T
“Ignorantia legis non excusat”:
Tañada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)**T
Wisdom, efficacy and morality of laws:
Padilla vs. CA, G.R. No. 121917. March 12, 1997

C. BASIC PRINCIPLES

1. Punishable by Law
- Nullum Crimen Nulla Peona Sine Lege
RPC, Art. 1
(Reyes, 23-24)
RPC, Arts. 3, 21
(Reyes, 33-63; 601-605)
Hazing not yet punished:
Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012
P.D. 772 & pasture lands:
Bernardo v. People, 123 SCRA 365 (1983)
Total repeal of R.A. No. 1700:
People v. Pimentel, 288 SCRA 542 (1998)**

2. Characteristics of Criminal Law

a) Generality
(Reyes, 6-13)
Constitution (1987), Art. VI, Sec. 1
Rule 110, Sec. 10 & 15
Civil Code, Art. 14
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), Art. V
- See M.M. Magallona, Legal Issues in the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement
(1999).
US v. Sweet, 1 Phil 18 (1901)
Liang vs. People 355 SCRA 125T
Place of detention after conviction:
Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SCRA 438 (2009)**

b) Territoriality
RPC, Art. 2
(Reyes, 13-14; 24-32)
Constitution (1987), Art. 1
R.A. No. 9522- “An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea
of the Philippines”
VFA, Art. V
(See Art. 163 & 166, RPC)

-3-
 R.A. 9851, Sec. 17 & 18
Foreign merchant ship within territorial waters:
U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7
Person on board a foreign vessel in territorial waters:
US v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978 (1917)
Crimes on board a foreign vessel within territorial waters;
French and English rule:
People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729 (1922)**T
Jurisdiction:
Miquiabas v. Commanding General, 80 Phil. 267 (1948)

c) Prospectivity of Criminal Law

Constitution (1987), Art. III, 22
RPC, Art. 366
RPC, Arts. 21, 22
(Reyes, 14-20; 601-610)
Civil Code, Art. 4
RPC Art. 62
Judicial decisions as part of the law of the land:
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971)
Ex post facto law, requisites:
In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)T
Bill of attainder defined:
Bureau of Customs Employees Assoc. v. Teves, G.R. No. 181704,
December 6, 2011 (E.B.)
Law at the time of commission with lesser penalty:
People v. Bracamonte, 257 SCRA 380 (1996)
New law advantageous to accused:
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999)**
Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, Dec. 5, 2017
See R.A. No. 10951

3. Repeal & Construction of Penal Laws

a. Effects of Repeal
(Reyes, 16-18)
b. Construction of Penal Laws
(Reyes, 18-20)
(i) Strict and Liberal Construction
Liberal construction in favor of the accused:
Centeno v. Pornillos, G.R. No. 113092, September 1, 1994T
People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, 2000

(ii) Spanish Text Controlling

4. Crimes Defined and Penalized By Special Laws

Examples:

-4-
 B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) S.C.
P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)
R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002)
R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
R.A. No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Act)
R.A. No. 7610 (The Special Protection of Children Against
. Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination)

a. Crimes Mala In Se and Mala Prohibita

Intent to perpetrate the act, not intent to commit the crime:

U.S. v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128 (1909)**T
Legislature power to enact malum prohibitum:
Intengan v. C.A., 377 SCRA 63 (2002)
Proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) unnecessary:
Padilla v. Dizon, 158 SCRA 127 (1988)**T
Anti-Plunder Law (R.A. 7080) and mens rea:
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001)**T
See: J. Mendoza’s concurring
P.D. No. 1866 as amended:
People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 84857, Jan. 16, 1988T

b. Relation of RPC to special penal laws

RPC, Art. 10
(Reyes, 138-148)
R.A. No. 8484, Sec. 12 & 13
Penalties taken from the RPC:
Padilla v. C.A., 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
Circumstances modifying criminal liability:
People v. Saley, 291 SCRA 715 (1998) [2]
Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code.
Sec. 98, R.A. 9165
[R.A. 7659 adopts penalties under RPC:
People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 (1994)**]
See J. Davide concurring and dissenting.
RPC supplementary:
Ladonga v. People, 451 SCRA 673 (2005) [2]
Carnapping not qualified theft or robbery:
People v. Bustinera, 431 SCRA 284 (2004)
“. . . through another”, R.A. 9262
Go-Tan v. Tan, 567 SCRA 231 (2008)

c. Crimes involving moral turpitude

Teves v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009**
Read J. Brion, Concurring

5. Courts & Acts Not Punished; & Excessive Penalties

RPC, Art. 5
(Reyes, 87-94)

-5-
 Impose penalty under law:
People v. Veneracion, 249 SCRA 244 (1995)**
Lito Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, April 29, 2014**T
- R.A. No. 10951
Decision furnished Congress for possible amendment of the law:
Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012

6. Evidence in Criminal Cases

Prosecution’s Burden to Prove:

People v. Cadenas, G.R. No. 233199, Nov. 05, 2018
Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Rule 133, Sec. 2, Rules of Court
People v. Claro, G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017
“Equipoise Rule”
Dado v. People, G.R. No. 131421, [November 18, 2002]
“In dubio Pro Reo Principle”

Circumstantial Evidence as Basis for Finding of Guilt:

Rule 133, Sec. 4, Rules of Court

Proof of Corpus Delicti

(Absence of corpus is not absence of felony.)
Optional Reading:
David A. Moran, In Defense of the Corpus Delicti Rule
(http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03
/64.3.moran_.pdf)
Substantial and material fact necessary to prove a crime:
People v. Roluna, G.R. No. 101797 March 24, 1994T
People v. Sasota, G.R. No. L-3544. April 18, 1952
Elements of:
People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003**[5]T
People v. Tuniaco, 610 SCRA 350 (2010)
In homicide:
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120744-46/G.R.
No. 122677/G.R. No. 122776.June 25, 2012. [3]

II. FELONIES

A. HOW COMMITTED

1. General Elements
a. An act or omission (Actus reus);
b. Committed by means of:
dolus (i.e. wilfully), or
fault (i.e. negligently); and
c. Punished by the Code.

2. Dolo

-6-
 RPC, Art. 3
(Reyes pp. 33-63)
a. Elements
(i) Freedom
(ii) Intelligence
(iii) Intent

b. INTENT (Actus non facit reum nisi reus sit rea.)

(i) Criminal Intent Presumed
- Mens rea
(ii) General and specific intent
(iii) Intent and motive
Mens rea and actus reus:
Valenzuela v. People, 525 SCRA 306 (2007)**[2]T
Necessity of direct overt acts:
People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, [January 24, 2003]
(EB)T Malicious Intent, Dolus Malus:
Villareal v. People, supraT
General criminal intent and specific
intent in Estafa (Art. 315):
Recuerdo v. People, 493 SCRA 517 (2006)T
Specific intent is determinative of the crime and must be alleged;
distinguished from motive; how proven:
People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386, G.R. No. 142773, Jan. 28,
2003**T
Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 166326, [January 25, 2006]
Lack of motive unessential:
People v. Temblor, 161 SCRA 623 (1988)
When there is doubt as to identity:
People v. Hassan, 157 SCRA 261 (1988)
Proof of motive and positive identification:
People v. Danny Delos Santos, 403 SCRA 153 (2003)**
Two conflicting theories:
People v. Glenn De los Santos, 355 SCRA 415 (2001)**[2]
Motive how proven; Motive and intent same in some instances
Salvador v. People, 559 SCRA 461 (2008)

c. Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia facit excusat)

Mistake negates specific criminal intent:
US v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488 (1910)T
Mistake without fault or carelessness:
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257 (1943)[2]T
Absence of bad faith or negligence:
Baxinela v. People, 485 SCRAS 331 (2006)
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120744-46/G.R.
No. 122677/G.R. No. 122776.June 25, 2012.T

d. Mistake of Law (Ignorantia lege neminem excusat.)

-7-
 Ignorance or mistake not valid defense:
People v. Marrero, 69 NY 2d 382
Belief her divorce is valid:
People v. Bitdu, G.R. No. L-38230, November 21, 1933**T
Mistake of fact distinguished:
Diego v. Castillo, 436 SCRA 67, (2004)
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO ,B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013 T

f. “Void-for-vagueness” and “overbreadth” doctrines

and penal statutes:
“Terrorism” in R.A. No. 9372 is intrinsically vague and
impermissibly broad?:
Sourthern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc.
v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552,
178554, 178581, 178890, 179157, 179461,
[October 5, 2010]

3. Culpa
RPC, Arts. 3, 365
(Reyes, pp. 50-52 & Reyes, Vol. II, pp. 1042-1047)
a. Elements
b. Distinguished from dolo
Punishes imprudent or negligent act, not result:
People v. Buan, 22 SCRA 1383 (1968)**T
Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191 (2010)[2]T
Homicide through reckless imprudence:
People vs. Pugay, 167 SCRA 439T

B. CRIMINAL LIABILITY HOW INCURRED

1. Commission of felony
RPC, Art. 4 (1)
(Reyes, pp. 63-89)
Penal law looks at material result:
Seguritan v. People, G.R. No. 172896. April 19, 2010

2. Wrongful act different from what was intended

RPC, Art. 4 (1)
Proximate cause, definition:
Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181T
Proximate and legal cause:
People v. Iligan y Jamito, G.R. No. 75369, [November 26, 1990] T
“Efficient intervening cause”:
Urbano v. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (1998)T
“Concurrent causation”:
People v. Abiog, 37 Phil. 137 (1917)**
“Hazing” & Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide:
Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012

-8-
 a) Error in personae (Mistake in identity)
RPC, Art. 49
(Reyes, pp. 706-710)
Intentional and negligent act:
People v. Oanis, supraT
Killing the wrong man:
People v. Gona, 54 Phil. 605 (1930)T
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong:
People v. Tomotorgo, 136 SCRA 238

b) Aberratio ictus (Miscarriage in the blow)

RPC, Art. 4 (1)
Incidentally killing another:
People v. Esteban, 103 SCRA 520 (1981)**T
Culpability not diminished:
People v. Saballones, 294 SCRA 751 (1998)T
Stray bullet & treachery appreciated:
People v. Flora, G.R. No. 125909. June 23, 2000
People v. Adriano y Samson, G.R. No. 205228, July 15, 2015T

c) Praeter intentionem (Injurious result greater than that intended)

RPC, Art. 13 (3)
(Reyes, pp. 278-286)
Treachery appreciated:
People v. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524 (1933)[2]T
Concealing victim resulting in drowning:
People v. Ortega, 276 SCRA 166 (1997)
Extreme punishment of child:
People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, [October 3, 2011], 674 PHIL 150-168)

C. PUNISHABLE CONDUCT

1. Wrongful act different from that intended

RPC, Art. 4(1) (Reyes, 61-81)
Error in personae:
People v. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751 (1988)
Responsible for one’s criminal act:
People v. Quianzon, G.R. No. 42607, September 28, 1935T
People v. Mananquil, 132 SCRA 196 (1984)T
Intended consequence of voluntary act:
People v. Toling, 62 SCRA 17 (1975)**T
Penalty when crime committed is different from that intended
RPC Art. 49 (Reyes, 701-706)

2. Impossible crimes
RPC, Art. 4 (2), 59 (Reyes, pp. 81-94; 711-712)
“Inherent impossibility”:

-9-
 Intod v. CA, 215 SCRA 52 (1992)T
Cannot steal what belongs to him:
Carreon v. Flores, 64 SCRA 238 (1975)
Clumsy falsification:
People v. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493 (1950)
Theft of worthless check:
Jacinto v. People, 592 SCRA 426 (2009)

3. Omission
RPC, Arts. 116, 137, 208, 223, 234, 275
Pres. Dec. Nos. 953, 1153

4. Proposal and Conspiracy

RPC, Arts. 8 (Reyes, pp. 127-137) 115, 136, 141, 186, 306, 340
R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 26
R.A. No. 8484, Sec. 11
R.A. No. 9372, Sec. 4 (Human Security Act)
Facets, nature & quantum of proof:
People v. Peralta, G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968**T
People v. Caballero, 400 SCRA 424 (2003)**T
As a crime or mode of committing a crime:
Lazarte v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180122, March 13, 2009**T
Same degree of proof as the crime:
People v. Escober, 157 SCRA 541 (1988)**
Proof of previous agreement unnecessary; proving conspiracy:
People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386, G.R. No. 142773, Jan. 28, 2003** supra
Overt act in pursuit of conspiracy:
People v. Elijorde, 306 SCRA 188 (1999)**
As a crime under R.A. No. 6425 :
People v. Fabro, 325 SCRA 285 (2000)
Direct proof not essential; implied conspiracy:
Li v. People, 427 SCRA 217 (2004)
People v. Listerio, 335 SCRA 40 (2000) [2]
Proof of actual planning not essential:
People v. Bagano, 375 SCRA 470 (2002)
Conduct before during and after evincing common purpose:
People v. Ramos, 427 SCRA 299 (2004)
Not mere presence & transcends companionship:
People v. Comadre, , 431 SCRA 366 (2004)** [2]
People v. Joselito del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999** T
Homicide not part of common plan:
People v. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563 (1974)
All liable as principals; for natural and logical consequences:
People v. Ventura, 433 SCRA 389 (2004)** [4]
Conspiracy in special penal laws (B.P. 22)
Ladonga v. People, supra
Chain & Wheel Conspiracy:
Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, G.R. Nos. 220598 & 220953,
[July 19, 2016] EBT

-10-
 Only acts done in contemplation of conspiracy:
People v. Flora, G.R. No. 125909. June 23, 2000
People v. De la Cerna, G.R. No. L-20911, [October 30, 1967]
Lookout’s Liability:
People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966. August 18, 1999.T

5. Stages of Punishable Conduct: (Reyes, pp. 95-125)

(1) Internal acts
Intent
(2) External Acts
- Preparatory Acts
When punishable:
Art. 299
- Acts of Execution

a) Attempt
RPC, Art. 51, 55 & 57 (Reyes, pp. 710-714)
R.A. No. 8484, Sec. 12
Never passes subjective phase:
U.S. v. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209 (1917)T
Indeterminate offense; Logical relation to a concrete
offense; inchoate as to other possible offense:
People v. Lamahang, 61 Phil 703 (1935)T
Overt acts and necessary causal relation with intended
crime; Attempted, consummated rape or acts of
lasciviousness?;
Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441. October 8, 2014
People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 (EB)T
Subjective and objective phase ; Intent to kill:
Note: Whether passing of subjective phase is
determinative and not gravity of wound
People v. Listerio, 335 SCRA 40 (2000) supraT
When Intent to kill absent:
Yap v. People, G.R. No.234217, Nov. 14, 2018T
Attempted, not having performed all acts:
People v. Trinidad, 169 SCRA 51 (1989)
People v. Castillo y Valencia, G.R. No. 193666, [February 19, 2014],

Rape
In rape, touching the mons pubis of the pudendum:
People v. Salinas, G.R. No. 107204 May 6, 1994T
People v. Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270 (2000)**
People v. Pareja, G.R. No. 188979, September 5, 2012T
Attempted and consummated rape distinguished:
Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, [October 8, 2014]
Several acts of rape but hymen intact still consummated:
People v. Gabayron, G.R. No. 102018, [August 21, 1997]

Homicide/Murder

-11-
 (RPC Art. 248 & 249)
Main element of attempted or frustrated homicide or murder:
People v. Borinaga, 55 Phil. 433 (1930) **
Proof of nature, extent, depth & severity of wound necessary:
Colinares v. People, 662 SCRA 266, G.R. No. 182748. Dec. 13, 2011**
But note: Listerio supra
“. . . by reason of some cause, indipendent of the will” - poor aim and the
swiftness of victim:
Velasco v. People, GR 166479, February 28, 2006, 433 SCRA 649
Is Degree of injury proper basis of criminal liability?:
Frustrated homicide/murder - Necessary proof of nature and
severity that without timely medical assistance daeth would
result:
Palaganas v. People, G.R. No. 165483, September 12, 2006T
Serrano v. People, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010T

Arson
In Arson Art. 320:
See discussion in Reyes, Book II, pp. 886-887
Frustrated - Jute sacks set on fire but no part of building burned:
U.S. v. Valdes y Guilgan, G.R. No. 14128, [December 10, 1918], 39 PHIL
240-244)
Consummated - Part of roof was burned:
People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 31770, [December 5, 1929], 54 PHIL
122-125)

Physical Injuries
Attempted stage of Physical injuries?
J. Regalado - none
But see Campanilla (Special Penal Laws, Vol. 1, pp. 25-26)

Theft
Valenzuela v. People, 525 SCRA 306 (2007)**[2]T

b) Frustration
RPC, Art.6
(Reyes, pp. 106-113)
RPC, Art. 50, 54 & 55
(Reyes, pp.710-714)
R.A. No. 8484, supra
Perfect penetration:
People v. Orita, 184 SCRA 105 (1990)
Subjectively, crime is complete:
People v. Caballero, 400 SCRA 424 (2003)**

c) Consummation
RPC, Art. 6 (Reyes, pp. 113-125)
US v. Adiao, 38 Phil 754 (1955)
Valenzuela v. People, supra

-12-
 People v. Hernandez, 49 Phil 980 (1925)

d) Manner of Committing the Crime

Reyes pp. 120-123 [2017]
1) Formal Crimes
2) Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal
3) Felony by ommission
4) Requiring two offenders and consummated by mere agreement
5) Material Crimes

D. Classification of Felonies

1. Grave
2. Less Grave
3. Light Felonies
RPC, Art. 9 as amended by R.A. No. 10591 (29 Aug. 2017)
(Reyes, pp. 135-138 [2017])
RPC, Art. 7
(Reyes, pp. 124-125 [2017])

III. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

A. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
RPC, Art. 11
(Reyes, pp. 149-223 [2017]
Imputability and responsibility Distinguished.
Concept and basis of justifying circumstances.
(1,2 & 3) SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF RELATIVES AND STRANGERS, DEFENSE
OF PROPERTY, DEFENSE OF REPUTATION (Reyes, pp. 155-211)

- “Anticipatory Self-Defense”
R.A. 9262 (27 March 2004) Sections 3 & 26 in relation
to People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 (2004)
- Optional Readings:
Joshua Dressler, Battered Women and Sleeping Abusers:
Some Reflections, 3 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 457
Lauren K. Fernandez, Battered Women Syndrome, 8 Geo.
J. Gender & L. 235 (2007)
Julie Blackman, Potential Uses for Expert Testimony:
Ideas toward the Representation of Battered Women Who
Kill, 9 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 227 (1986)

Basis & requisites of self-defense:

People v. Boholst-Caballero, 61 SCRA 180 (1974)
Unlawful Agression against property rights:
People v. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389 (1983)
Unlawful aggression:
People v. Alconga, 78 Phil 366 (1947)
US v. Bumanglag, 14 Phil. 644 (1909)

-13-
 Doctrine of rational equivalence:
Espinosa v. People, G.R. No. 181701, Mar. 15, 2010
Rafael Nadyhan v. People, G.R. No. 193134. March 2, 2016
Mere threatening or intimidating attitude insufficient:
Colinares v. People, 662 SCRA 266, G.R. No. 182748. Dec. 13, 2011, EB
Unlawful aggression, nature; drawing of firearm:
Nacnac v. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012
Provocation, sufficient:
Cano v. People 413 SCRA 92 (2003)
Balunueco v. CA, 401 SCRA 76
Retaliation:
People v. Bates, 400 SCRA 95 (2003)
Reasonable necessity of means employed:
People v. Sumicad, 56 Phil 643 (1932)
Rafael Nadyhan v. People, supra
Defense of honor:
People v. Luague, 62 Phil 504 (1935)
People v. Dela Cruz, 61 Phil 344 (1935)
People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174 (1946)
Accidental self-defense?:
Toledo v. People, 439 SCRA 94 (2004)
Self-defense, elements & burden of proof:
People vs. Enfectana 381 SCRA 359 (2002)
Defense of relative:
People v. Ventura, supra
Defense of stranger:
People v. Dijan, 383 SCRA 15 (2002
No presumption of innocence or regularity
of performance of duty:
Aguilar v. DOJ, G.R. No, 19752, Sept. 11, 2013T

(4) STATE OF NECESSITY (AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL)

(Reyes, pp. 211-215)
People v. Retubado, 417 SCRA 393
Issuance of bouncing checks:
Ty v. People, 439 SCRA 220 (2004)

(5) FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT

Civil Code, Art. 429
Rule 113, Sec. 2 par. 2
(Reyes, pp. 212-220)
Use of unnecessary force by authorities only in extreme cases
People v. Oanis, supra
Aguilar v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 197522, [September 11, 2013])T
Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA 324(2005) T
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 120744-46, June 25, 2012T
People v. Delima, 46 Phil 738 (1922)
People v. Oanis, supra
Pomoy v. People, 439 SCRA 439 (2004)
Requisites; Restraint

-14-
 People v. Ulep, 340 SCRA 688 (2000)
Lacanilao vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 563(1988)
“Secret Marshals & Crimebusters”
Hildawa v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-67766, Aug. 14, 1985**T

(6) OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDER

(Reyes, pp. 222-224)
People v. Bernal, G.R. No. L-4409
People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil 566 (1955)
Ambil, Jr. V. Saniganbayan , G.R. No. 175457, 175482
[July 6, 2011]
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 103501-03 & 103507,
[February 17, 1997] E.B.
“Moral choice”
Read dissenting opinions
Order must be for lawful purpose:
People v. Rogado, G.R. No. L-13025, [December 29, 1959]T

B. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
RPC, Art. 12 (Reyes, pp. 224-264)

(1) INSANITY AND IMBECILITY

(Reyes, pp. 223-232)
Natalie Abrams, PH.D., Definitions of Mental Illness and the Insanity , The
Journal of Psychiatry & Law/Winter 1979
In Re: M'Naghten, 8 Eng. Rep. 718
(reserve section Library)
Basis of exemption:
People v. Haloc, G.R. No. 227312. September 5, 2018 T
People v. Madarang, 332 SCRA 99 (2000)T
Burden of proof & quantum of proof:
People v. Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, July 31, 1991T
People v. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851 (1990)
. . . dementia praecox
People v. Bonoan, 64 Phil 87 (1937)
. . . expert witness, psychiatric evaluation report:
People v. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA 312 (1998)**
While in a dream:
People v. Taneo, 58 Phil 255 (1933)T
Schizophrenia:
People v. Bañez, 301 SCRA 248 (1999)**
Imbecility & Feeblemindedness:
People v. Formigones, 87 Phil 658 (1950)
Mental capacity at perpetration of offense:
People v. Antonio, Jr., 393 SCRA 169 (2002)**[2]
People v. Valledor, 383 SCRA 653 (2002)

(2 & 3) MINORITY
(Reyes, pp. 232-237)

-15-
 R.A. 9344 Sec. 6 as amended by Sec. 3 of R.A. 10630 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006)
Sec. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence
Sec. 40 & 51
Sec. 48 (Rule on Commitment of Children, A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC)
RPC, Art. 80 (Reyes, pp. 839-850)
Pres. Dec. No. 603, Arts. 189 et seq.
Rule on Commitment of Children ( A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC)
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law (A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC)

People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, 10 September 2009, 599 SCRA 20T
Intent and discernment, difference:
People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239. March 16, 2011; 661 PHIL 224-257T
Guevarra vs. Almodovar, 169 SCRA 476(1989)T
Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008
People v. Doquena, 68 Phil 580 (1939)
People v. Arpon, 662 SCRA 506, G.R. No. 183563. Dec. 14, 2011
Discernment & age of criminal responsibility:
Madali v. People, G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009
Acted with discernment & burden of proof:
Jose v. People, 448 SCRA 116(2005)
Llave v. People, 488 SCRA 376 (2006)
Privileged mitigating, Art. 68; Civil Liability:
People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239. March 16, 2011.
People v. Baroy, G.R. Nos. 137520-22, August 15, 2003
People v. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011
Sec. 68, R.A. #9344; Penalty:
People v. Monticalvo y Magno, G.R. No. 193507, [January 30, 2013],
702 PHIL 643-671)

(4) ACCIDENT
(Reyes, pp. 237-242)
US v. Tanedo, 15 Phil. 196 (1910)T
People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil 15 (1931)T
People v. Concepcion, 386 SCRA 74 (2002)
People v. Agliday, 367 SCRA 273 (2001)
Abandoned new born:
People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530 (1936)
Penalty to be imposed when not all requisites are present:
RPC, Art. 67
(Reyes, pp. 756)

(5) IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

(Reyes, pp. 243-244)
Physical force or violence:
U.S. v. Caballeros, 4 Phil 350 (1905)
Test of Rationality:
People v. Artuz, G.R. No. L-23386, [May 26, 1976], 163 PHIL 112-121)
Present, imminent, formidable force:

-16-
 People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740 (1999)**
(supra, Implied Conspiracy & Proposal)
People v. Loreno, G.R. No. L-54414. July 9, 1984

(6) UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

(Reyes, pp. 244-249)
U.S. v. Elicanal, 35 Phil 209 (1916)
People v. Lising, 285 SCRA 595 (1998)
No opportunity to escape or self-defense:
People v. Fronda, 222 SCRA 71 (1993)
Fear- real, imminent, not speculative or remote:
Ty v. People 439 SCRA 220 (2004)

(7) INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSES

(Reyes, pp. 249-251)
Local conditions, changes in weather, etc.:
US v. Vincentillo, 19 Phil 118 (1911)
Severe dizzines & extreme debility:
People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530 (1936)
Supra, accident.

C. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES AND OTHER SPECIAL SITUATIONS

(Reyes, pp. 251-258)
Complete defenses in criminal cases (Reyes, pp257-258)
a. Entrapment and Instigation
(Reyes, pp. 253-257)
Entrapment & Instigation Distinguished:
People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299 Jan. 22, 1999(EB)T
People v. Casio, G.R. No. 211465, Dec. 03, 2014 T

Importation and order for drugs already planned:

People v. Lua Chu, 56 Phil. 44 (1931)
Origin of criminal intent:
Araneta v. CA, 142 SCRA 532 (1986)

b. Effect of Pardon by Offended Party

RPC, Art. 23
(Reyes, 610-612)
Pardon in Adultery and Concubinage:
RPC, Art. 344, par. 2
Pardon in Rape:
RPC, Art. 266C
Rep. Act No. 8353 "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997."

c. Absolutory Causes
RPC, Arts. 6(3), 7, 20, 16, 247, 280, 332, 344
Carungcong v. People, 612 SCRA 274 , February 11, 2010 (supra)

D. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

-17-
RPC, Art. 13 (Reyes, pp. 265-346)

(1) INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION/EXEMPTION

(Reyes, pp. 265-274)
People vs. Ulep, 340 SCRA 688 (2000)
People v. Oandasan, G.R. No. L-29532. September 28, 1968,T
Nadyhan v. People, G.R. No. 193134. March 2, 2016.
Penalty to be imposed when crime committed is not
wholly excusable:
(RPC, Art. 69; Reyes, pp. 759-761)

(2) UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OF AGE

(Reyes, pp. 274-278)
Diversion Program

(3) NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG

(Reyes, pp. 278-286)
No intent to kill:
People v. Ural, 56 SCRA 138 (1974)T
People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, [October 3, 2011] supra
Disproportion between means and consequences.
People v. Amit, 32 SCRA 95 (1970)
Intent judged on resulting action:
People v. Regato, 127 SCRA 287 (1984)

(4) SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT

(Reyes, pp. 286-292)
Sufficient & immediate to act:
People v. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570 (1977)**
. . . and passion and obfuscation:
Romera v. People 434 SCRA 467 (2004)
. . . at beginning is lost:
People v. Alconga, supra

(5) IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

(Reyes, pp. 292-298)
“. . . make a roast pig out of you.”:
US v. Ampar, 37 Phil 201 (1917)
Slapped in presence of others:
People v. Parana, 64 Phil 331 (1937)
No interruption from actual elopement:
People v. Diokno, 63 Phil 601 (1936)
Unlawful aggression ceased:
People v. Torpio, 431 SCRA 9 (2004)[2]
Avenge stabbing of brother:
People v. Capalac, 117 SCRA 874 (1982)**
“Proximate” not “immediate”:
People v. Ventura, supra

(6) PASSION OR OBFUSCATION

-18-
 (Reyes, pp. 298-311)
Jealousy of wife’s amorous relationship:
People v. Muit, 117 SCRA 696 (1982)
Arising from lawful sentiments:
US v. Hicks, 14 Phil 217 (1909)
People v. Diokno, 63 Phil 601 (1936)
Passion & Treachery:
People v. Germina, 290 SCRA 146 (1998)
Mere shouting at:
People v. Gonzalez, Jr. 359 SCRA 352 (2001)
Unlawful Act:
People v. Lab-eo, 373 SCRA 461 (2002)
Immediately precedes offense:
People v. Ventura, supra
Contradictory to planning:
Pagal, supra
. . . sufficient provocation:
Romera v. People, supra

(7) a) VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

(Reyes, pp. 312-325)
Requisites:
People v. Mendoza, 327 SCRA 695 (2000)
When arrest inevitable; unconditional:
People v. Pinca, 318 SCRA 270 (1999)**
. . . a week after:
People v. Amaguin, 229 SCRA 166 (1994)
Intent unconditional; surrrender of gun:
People v. Dulos, 237 SCRA 141 (1994)
Spontaneous & unconditional:
Andrada v. People, 452 SCRA 685 (2005)

b) PLEA OF GUILT
(Reyes, pp. 325-332)
Requisites:
People v. Montinola, 360 SCRA 631 (2001)**
After arraignment and resumption of trial:
People v. Coronel, 17 SCRA 509 (1966)
Offer of plea of guilt to a lesser offense:
People v. Dawaton, 389 SCRA 277 (2002)
Admits circumstances of commission:
People v. Jose et al., 37 SCRA 450 (1971)
Pagal, supra
When evidence inadequate to sustain treachery etc.:
People v. Gravino, 122 SCRA 123 (1983)**

(8) PHYSICAL DEFECTS

(Reyes, pp. 332-333)
Requisite; No left arm:
People v. Doepante, 263 SCRA 691

-19-
 (9) ILLNESS
(Reyes, pp. 333-335)
Schizo-affective disorder; “in remission of symptoms”:
Antonio, Jr., supra

(10) ANALOGOUS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

(Reyes, pp. 336- 341)
Voluntary surrender:
Canta v. People, 353 SCRA 250

E. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
RPC, Art. 14
(Reyes, pp. 341- 487)
Rule 110, Sec. 8 & 9, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
Aggravating from Qualifying:
People v. Mendoza, 327 SCRA 695 (2000)
Must allege in information:
Antonio, Jr., supra
People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (2002)**
Though not alleged, consider for award of damages:
Suela, supra

(1) TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC OFFICE

(Reyes, pp. 349- 454)
RPC, Art. 19(3)
Policeman merely a brother:
People v. Capalac, 117 SCRA 874 (1982)**
Use of issued firearm:
People v. Gapasin, 231 SCRA 728 (1994)
Position not integral to offense:
People v. Villamor, 373 SCRA 254 (2002)

(2) IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

(Reyes, pp. 354- 356)
Accused knew victim to be P.C. officer:
People v. Rodil, 109 SCRA 308 (1981)**
Committed against public officer:
People v. De Mesa, 354 SCRA 397 (2001)

(3) (a) WITH INSULT OR LACK OF REGARD DUE TO OFFENDED

PARTY BY REASON OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX
(Reyes, pp. 356-349)
Not absorbed by treachery:
People v. Lapaz, 171 SCRA 539 (1989)T
Deliberate intent to insult:
People v. Taboga, 376 SCRA 500 (2002)**T
Security bank and bank manager:
People v. Nismal, 114 SCRA 487**
Only crimes against persons & honor:
Pagal, supra

-20-
 Guidelines, age as element of the crime or qualifying circumstance
People v. Arpon, 662 SCRA 506, G.R. No. 183563. Dec. 14, 2011, supra

(b) DWELLING
(Reyes, pp. 363-371)
Boarding house:
People v. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511 (1978)
Accused & victim live in same house:
People v. Bañez, supra
Video shop on lower floor:
People v. Taño, 331 SCRA 449 (2000)**
Dependency of house; exemplary damages:
People v. Rios, 333 SCRA 823 (2000)**
In robbery with homicide:
People v. Arizobal, 348 SCRA 143 (2000)**
Sanctity of privacy of abode:
People v. Ventura, 433 SCRA 389 (2004), supra

(4) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

(Reyes, pp. 371-375)
No prior trust breached:
People v. Mandolado, 123 SCRA 133 (1983)
Immediate and personal:
People v. Arrojado, 350 SCRA 679 (2001)

(5) CRIME IN PALACE OR IN PRESENCE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

(Reyes, pp. 375-377)

(6) a) NIGHTTIME
(Reyes, pp. 377-383)
Elements:
People v. Silva, 387 SCRA 77 (2002)**T
Incidental & lighted:
People v. Arizobal, supra
Two alternative tests:
People v. Ventura, supra
Deliberate to facilitate:
Pagal, supra
Distinct from treachery:
People v. Benjamin Ong, 62 SCRA 174 (1975)** [4]

b) UNINHABITED PLACE, OR
(Reyes, pp. 383-386)
Not distance to houses:
People v. Desalisa, 229 SCRA 35 (1994)T
Abandoned subdivision:
Benjamin Ong, supra

c) WITH A BAND
(Reyes, pp. 386-388)

-21-
 RPC, Art. 296
Requisites:
People v. Ancheta, 431 SCRA 42, G.R. No. 143935. June 4, 2004
When concurs with nighttime and uninhabited place:
People v. Librando, 335 SCRA 232 (2000)
Stones as “arms”:
People v. Bautista, 28 SCRA 184

(7) ON OCCASION OF A CALAMITY

(Reyes, pp. 388-389)

(8) AID OF ARMED MEN OR MEANS TO ENSURE IMPUNITY

(Reyes, pp. 390-392)

(9) RECIDIVISM
(Reyes, pp. 392-395)
RPC, Art. 160
Requisite proof:
People v. Molina, 336 SCRA 400 (2000)**
People v. Dacillo, 427 SCRA 528 (2004)**

(10) REITERACION OR HABITUALITY

(Reyes, pp. 395-399)
Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency:
RPC, Arts. 62(5), 160
Quasi-recidivism:
RPC, Art. 160
Requisites:
People v. Gaorana, 289 SCRA 652 (1998)
People v. Layson, G.R. No. L-25177T
Previously punished. . .:
People v. Villapando, 178 SCRA 341 (1989)

(11) PRICE, REWARD OR PROMISE

(Reyes, pp. 399-401)
Principal by inducemenet:
RPC, Art. 17 (2)
Qualifying circumstance:
RPC, Art. 248 (2)

(12) INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION, ETC.

(Reyes, pp. 401-404)
Comadre, supra

(13) EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

(Reyes, pp. 404-417)
Requisites:
People v. Bibat, 290 SCRA 27 (1998)
People v. Silva, 387 SCRA 77 (2002)**T
People v. Lug-aw, 229 SCRA 308 (1994)

-22-
 People v. Camilet, 142 SCRA 402 (1986)
Same, meditation, calculation, resolution:
People v. Ilaoa, 233 SCRA 231 (1994)
Same, planning & preparation:
People v. Mondijar, 392 SCRA 356 (2002)
Same, in heat of anger:
Torpio, supra
Not mere presumption or speculation:
People v. Bernal, 388 SCRA 211 (2002)**
Degree of proof:
People v. Biso, 400 SCRA 483 (2003)
When appreciated in robbery with homicide:
Pagal, supra
Preceded by cool thought and reflection:
People v. Ventura, supra

(14) CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE

(Reyes, pp. 418-423)
Stratagems & ruses:
People v. Empacis, 222 SCRA 59 (1993)
Disguise or craft?:
People v. Marquez, 117 SCRA 165 (1982)
Intellectual trickery & cunning:
People v. Labuguen, 337 SCRA 488 (2000)
Disguise; Wore masks:
People v. Cabato, 160 SCRA 98 (1988)
Absorbed by treachery:
People v. Lab-eo, supra

(15) SUPERIOR STRENGTH OR MEANS TO WEAKEN DEFENSE

(Reyes, pp. 423-434)
Requisites:
People v. Ruelan, 231 SCRA 650 (1994)
People v. Evasco, G.R. No. 213415, Sept. 26, 2018
Nature of weapon:
People v. Padilla, 233 SCRA 46 (1994)
Take advantage of numbers:
People v. Lobrigas, 394 SCRA 170 (2002)
Force, out of proportion:
People v. Barcelon, 389 SCRA 556 (2002)**
Mere superiority in number:
People v. Sansaet, 376 SCRA 426 (2002)
Excessive or disproportionate force:
People v. Ventura, supra
Based on external facts, not surmises or presumptions:
People v. Ruby Mariano, 347 SCRA 109 (2002)**

(16) TREACHERY (Alevosia)

(Reyes, pp. 434-470)
Requisites; Two conditions:

-23-
 People v. Oandasan, Jr. G.R. No. 194605. June 14, 2016 **T
People v. Silva, 387 SCRA 77 (2002)**T
People v. Petalino, G.R. No. 213222, Sept. 24, 2018T
People v. Evasco, G.R. No. 213415, Sept. 26, 2018 (supra)
People v. Roberto Castillo, 289 SCRA 213 (1998)
People v. Dumadag, 431 SCRA 65 (2004)
People v. Verchez, 233 SCRA 174 (1994)
People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386** supra
Velasco v. People, 433 SCRA 649 supra
While sleeping:
Bernal, supra **
On top of coconut tree:
People v. Sangalang, 58 SCRA 737 (1974)
Preceded by challenge to fight:
People v. Gutierrez, 158 SCRA 614 (1988)
Location of wounds:
People v. Rendaje, 344 SCRA 738 (2000)
Proof of:
People v. Umayam, 381 SCRA 323 (2002)
People v. Piedad, 393 SCRA 488 (2002)
Frontal but kneeling . . .:
Dulos, supra
Effect in conspiracy:
People v. Benjamin Ong, 62 SCRA 174
Mere suddenness:
People v. Camilet, supra
Use of explosives:
People v. Comadre, supra
People v. Mores, G.R. No. 189846. June 26, 2013T
Deliberate mode of attack:
People v. Lab-eo, 373 SCRA 461 (2002), supra
Mode of attack not resulting crime; single continuous attack:
People v. Gonzalez, Jr., 359 SCRA 352 (2001) supra
Rear & sudden attack not preconcieved:
People v. Bates, 400 SCRA 95 (2003), supra
Mode of attack purposely adopted:
People v. Torpio, supra
In robbery with homicide, generic aggravating:
People v. Escote, 400 SCRA 603 (2003)** T
Same; as to the homicide:
Ancheta, supra
As qualifying circumstance (Art. 248):
People v. Lab-eo, supra
Murder, no intent to kill:
People v. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524 (1933), supra

(17) IGNOMINY
(Reyes, pp. 470-473)
Adds disgrace & obloquy:
People v. Abaigar, 2 Phil., 417 (1913)

-24-
 More humiliating, add to moral suffering:
People v. Bumidang, 346 SCRA 807 (2000)**
Dog position:
People v. Siao, 327 SCRA 231 (2000)
Dismemberment after death:
People v. Cachola, 420 SCRA 520 (2004)**

(18) UNLAWFUL ENTRY

(Reyes, pp. 473-475)
Not intended for ingress:
People v. Baello, 224 SCRA 218 (1993)

(19) BREAKING WALL, FLOOR, ROOF

(Reyes, pp. 475-477)

(20) WITH AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 OR BY MOTOR VEHICLE

(Reyes, pp. 477-481)
Motor vehicle:
Benjamin Ong, supra

(21) CRUELTY (ensañamiento)

(Reyes, pp. 481-485)
Not number of wounds; deliberate, sadistic augmented:
People v. Lacao, 60 SCRA 89 (1974)
Suffer, unnecessary physical or moral pain:
People v. Catian, 374 SCRA 514 (2002)
Number of wounds & dismemberment:
Ilaoa, supra
Severed head then cut penis:
People v. Guerrero, 389 SCRA 389 (2002)
Augmented wrong by another wrong:
People v. Mariano, 347 SCRA 109 (2000)**

E. SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE / QUALIFYING

RPC, Art. 266-B
PD 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294 (06 July 1997)
Rape of child below 7:
People v. Balgos, 323 SCRA 372 (2000)
Unlicensed firearm used in any crime:
People vs Ladjaalam, 340 SCRA 617 (2000)

F. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
(Reyes, pp. 486-503)
RPC, Art. 15
Crimes against property
RPC, Art. 332
Not applicable to complex crimes:
Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong vs. People of
the Philippines And William Sato, 612 SCRA 274 (2010)

-25-
 Crimes against persons
RPC, Art. 263 (4)
- Art. 246
- Art. 248
Crimes against chastity

(1) RELATIONSHIP
(Reyes, pp. 488-493)
Excludes common law relationships:
People v. Atop, 286 SCRA 157 (1998)
Brothers:
People v. Marcos, 349 SCRA 537 (2001)
Aggravates only those related in Parricide

(2) INTOXICATION
(Reyes, pp. 493-498)
When aggravating or mitigating:
People v. Camano, 115 SCRA 688 (1982)**
Drunkenness not necessarily aggravating:
People v. Renejane, 158 SCRA 258 (1988)
Burden of proof:
Bernal, ** supra
Prior to act; Proof of quantity and effect:
Pinca, ** supra

(3) DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

(Reyes, pp. 498-503)
To kill is unlawful:
People v. Lapaz, supra
Not applicable to theft and robbery:
People v. Macatanda, G.R. No. L-51368, November 6, 1981

IV. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

A. In Grave and Less Grave Felonies

(Reyes, 501-505)
RPC, Art. 16

1. Principals
(Reyes, 505-552)
RPC, Art. 17

a. By direct participation
(Reyes, 537-539)
Requisites; Effect of Conspiracy:
Dacillo,** supra
Several accused in rape:
People v. Nunag, 173 SCRA 274 (1989)
Acts not contemplated by perpetrators:

-26-
 People v. Dela Cerna, 21 SCRA 569 (1967)

b. By induction
(Reyes, 540-551)
Ransom as inducement:
People v. Dela Cruz, 97 SCRA 385 (1980)**
The inducement caused the crime:
US v. Indianan, 24 Phil. 203 (1913)
Words as powerful as coercion:
People vs. Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil. 609
Command or advice as inducement:
People v. Baharan, 639 SCRA 157 (2011)
Ambagan v. People, G.R. Nos. 204481-82, Nov. 13, 2015
In rape:
People v. Siao, 327 SCRA 231 (2000) supra ignominy

c. By indispensable cooperation
(Reyes, 551-556)
Requisites:
People v. Montealegre, 161 SCRA 700 (1988)
Lack of united purpose:
People vs. Tolentino, 380 SCRA 171 (2002)
Indispensable act:
People v. Fronda, 222 SCRA 71 (1993)T
Supra, Uncontrollable fear

2. Accomplices
RPC, Art. 18
(Reyes, 556-579)
Requisites of:
People v. Cachola, 420 SCRA 520 (2004), supraT
Distinguished from conspirators:
People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 128966. August 18, 1999T
Elements; presence and moral support by inaction:
People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 172707, Oct. 1, 2013**
Prior knowledge of criminal design:
People v. Tolentino, 380 SCRA 171 (2002) supra
Cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts:
People v. Mandolado, supra
Material & moral aid:
People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 (1991)
People v. Fronda, Supra, Uncontrollable fear; Indispensable cooperation
Community of design:
People v. Roche, 330 SCRA 91 (2000)
Do not decide the crime:
People v. Pilola, 405 SCRA 134
Conspirator and accomplice distinguished:
People v. Garcia, 373 SCRA 134 (2002)**
Accomplice in bigamy:
Santiago v. People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015T

-27-
 3. Accessories
RPC, Arts. 19. Accessories
RPC, Art. 20. Accessories exempt from criminal liability
(Reyes, 579-596)
Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law [1979])

Denies knowing assailants:

People v. Talingdan, 84 SCRA 19 (1978)
Assistance due to fear:
People v. Tolentino, supra
Relationship exempting; Art. 20:
People v. Mariano, 347 SCRA 109 (2000)**,supra

4. In Special Penal Laws

Accomplice in Piracy & Highway Robbery:
P.D. 532, Sec. 4 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery)
Accomplice and Accessories in Terrorism:
R.A. No. 9372, Sec. 4, 5 & 6 (Human Security Act)

B. In Light Felonies

V. PENALTIES
(Reyes, 601-859)
Republic Act No. 10951 - “An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on
Which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code,” [August 29, 2017]

A. General Principles
1. Concept & Purpose:
a) Justification for penalty
b) Three-fold purpose of RPC

2. Constitutional prohibitions & Other Prohibition (Reyes, 601-609)

a) No ex post facto laws
RPC, Art. 21
Reyes, pp. 603-605
Constitution (1987), Art. III, Secs. 18(1) & (2), 19(1), 20, 22
Requisites of ex post facto laws:
In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)T
Must identify groups, persons and reach past conduct:
People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
Retroactivity & Non-retroactivity:
People v. Bracamonte, 257 SCRA 380 (1996)
Retroactivity when advantageous:
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999)** supra
Retroactivity of R.A. No. 10951 even after finality of judgment:
Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 217874, [December 5, 2017] (EB)T

b) Prospectivity; Exception

-28-
 RPC, Arts. 21, 22
(Reyes, 611-615)
Civil Code, Art. 4
Judicial decisions as law; retroactive even decision is final:
People v. Gallo, 315 SCRA 461 (1999)**
Non-retroactivity to impair rights:
People v. Patalin, 311 SCRA 186 (1999)**

3. Effect of Repeal of Penal Laws

a. With reenactment
b. Without reenactment
CASE:
People v. Pimentel, 288 SCRA 542 (1988)** supra

B. Penalties which may be imposed

RPC, Art. 21, 25
(Reyes, 603-605 & 619-623)
1. Principal Penalties
2. Accessory Penalties

C. Specific Principal and Accessory Penalties

1. Capital Punishment
Republic Act No. 9346 (Prescribing the imposition of death penalty)
R.A. 9346 and Art. 71 (RPC) harmonized:
People vs. Bon, 506 SCRA 168, October 30, 2006 **T
Republic Act No. 7659
Republic Act No. 8177 and Implementing Rules and Regulations
Constitution (1987), Art. III, Sec. 19
RPC, Arts. 40, 47, 81-85
(Reyes, 641; 650-656; 827-829)

But see:
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance of minority:
People v. Hernry Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011,
citing People v. Sarcia

Others:
People v. Echegaray, 257 SCRA 561 (1996)
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601,
Resolution dated 4 and 19 January 1999, 301 SCRA 96
People v. Esparas, et al. 260 SCRA 539 (1996)
People v. Munoz, 170 SCRA 107 (1989)

2. Afflictive, Correctional or Light Penalties

RPC, Art. 26 as amended by R.A. No. 10591 (29 Aug. 2017)
RPC, Arts. 27, 41-42
(Reyes, 626-628; 658-662)

a. Reclusion Perpetua

-29-
 RPC, Arts. 27 & 70
i. As Indivisible Penalty
Duration; finality of judgment:
People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 101127-31, [August 7, 1992] (EB)T
People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997)
Indivisible:
People v. Ramirez, 356 SCRA 595 (2001)

A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC (2015), entitled Guidelines for the Proper Use of the
Phrase "Without Eligibility for Parole" in Indivisible Penalties.
People v. Buca, G.R. No. 209587, September 23, 2015

ii. Distinguish from Life Imprisonment

Not reclusion perpetua:
People v. Ballabare, 264 SCRA 350 (1996)

b. Reclusion Temporal
c. Prision Mayor

3. Correctional Penalties
a. Prision Correccional
b. Arresto Mayor
RPC, Arts. 27, 39, 43, 44
(Reyes, 626-628; 646-658; 659-662)

4. Light Penalties
a. Arresto Menor
b. Public Censure
RPC, Arts. 27, 39, 44
(Reyes, 626-628; 646-658; 659-662)

5. Penalties common to afflictive, correctional and light penalties

a. Fine
b. Bond to keep the peace
RPC, Arts. 25, 26, 35, 66
(Reyes, 619-625; 637-641; 758-760)

C. Accessory Penalties
RPC, Arts. 30-34, 41-45
(Reyes, 635-641; 658-666)
1. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification;
2. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification;
3. Suspension from Public Office, the Right to Vote and be Voted for,
the Right to Practice a Profession or Calling;
4. Civil Interdiction;
5. Indemnification or Confiscation of Instruments or Proceeds of the
Offense
6. Payment of Costs

D. Subsidiary Penalty

-30-
 RPC Art. 39 in relation to Art. 78
People v. Alapan, G.R. No. 199527, Jan. 10, 2018

D. Measures Not Considered Penalty

RPC, Art. 24
(Reyes, 617-618)
Family Code, Art. 228-229

E. Application and Computation of Penalties

1. Generally
RPC, Arts. 28, 29, 46
(Reyes, 628-630; 630-635; 710-714)
Attention of the Chief Executive:
People v. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658 (1950)

2. Principals, Accomplices and Accessories in Consummated,

Frustrated and Attempted Felonies
RPC, Arts. 46, 50-57, 60-61
(Reyes, 667-668; 710-696; 717-726)
People v. Campuhan, supra

3. Effects of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

RPC, Arts. 62-64, 67, 69
(Reyes, 726-755; 760-761; 762-765)
Art. 62 (3):
People v. Patricio, 46 Phil. 875**
Art. 62 (4):
U.S. v. Ancheta, 15 Phil. 470**
Penalty for incomplete justification:
Lacanilao v. CA, 162 SCRA 563 (1988)
Art. 63:
People v. Takbobo, G.R. No. 102984 June 30, 1993
Art. 69 Incomplete justification
People v. Ulep, supra

F. Special Rules

1. Complex Crimes
RPC, Art. 48
(Reyes,674-706)
Pro reo
People v. Comadre, 431 SCRA 366 (2004), supra**
People v. Gaffud, Jr., 566 SCRA 76 (2008)**
Distinguished from Art. 365 RPC:
Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, supra
Convicted only of offense proved:
Taboga, supra

a) Compound Crime (delito compuesto)

-31-
 Murder with multiple attempted murder:
People v. Comadre, supra
Murder and frustrated murder:
People v. Mision, 194 SCRA 432,
People v. Glenn Delos Santos, 355 SCRA 415 (2001)** supra
Two grave or less grave felonies:
People v. Gonzalez, Jr., 359 SCRA 352 (2001), supra
Several gunmen, several victims:
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999)** supra

b) Complex Crime Proper (delito complejo)

Forcible abduction with rape and simple rape:
People v. Velasquez, 345 SCRA 728 (2000)
Effect of acquittal for a component offense:
Monteverde v. People, 387 SCRA 196 (2002)
Composite crimes & compound crimes distinguished (rape with homicide):
People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012

c) Complex crime & Absolutory Cause under Art. 332:

Carungcong v. People, 612 SCRA 274 , February 11, 2010

2. Special Complex Crimes (Delito especial complejo)

RPC 266-A, 267, 294, 297, 320 as amended
Principals did not endeavor to prevent homicide:
People v. Escober, 157 SCRA 541 (1988) supra**
Robbery w/ Homicide & Rape:
People v. Fabon, 328 SCRA 302 (2000)**
Crimes committed by reason or on occasion:
People v. Escote, 400 SCRA 603 (2003)**supra
Kidnapping with murder or homicide or rape:
People v. Larrañaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-75, [February 3, 2004]
Composite crime; Rape with homicide:
People v. Laog, 658 SCRA 654 (2011)
People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012
Robbery with homicide and rape:
People v. Hipona, 613 SCRA 291 (2010)

3. Continuing Crime (delito continuado)

Taking two roosters same place and occasion:
People v. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437(1926)
Taking of six roosters from a coop:
People v. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563 (1974) supra
Ideal plurality and real plurality; delito continuado:
Gamboa v. C.A., 68 SCRA 308 (1975)
Robbery & “Anti-Fencing” not continuing offenes:
People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 77368 October 5, 1993
Perpetrated by different acts:
Toling, 62 SCRA 17 (1975)**supra
Single motivation and single purpose:
People v. Pincalin, 102 SCRA 136 (1981)**T

-32-
 See J. Makasiar dissenting
Co-conspirators in a single assault:
People v. Garcia, 96 SCRA 497 (1980)**

4. Absorption doctrine (Political Offense)

One crime of Rebellion; political offenses:
People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956)
As means or in furtherance:
People v. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 (1956)
Complex crime?:
Ponce Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)**
See dissenting and concurring opinions.

5. Crime different from that intended

RPC, Art. 49
(Reyes,706-710)

6. Impossible Crimes
RPC, Arts. 4(2), 59
(Reyes, 83-89 & 715-717)

7. Additional penalty for certain accessories

RPC, Art. 58
(Reyes, 714-715)

8. Where the offender is below 18 years old

RPC, Art. 68
(Reyes, 761-762)
Presidential decree No. 603, Art. 192
R.A. No. 9344, Sec. 38 & 40
Rape:
People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239. March 16, 2011.T
People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, September 10, 2009**
Accomplice in Kidnapping with Ransom:
People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, Oct. 1, 2013** T

9. The Three-Fold Rule

RPC, Art. 70
(Reyes, 763-771)
a) Application of the 3-fold Rule
“Judicial, Material & Absorption” Systems of Penalty Distinguished
b) Order of severity of penalties
c) Penalties capable of simultaneous service
d) Exception Destierro
e) Exclusive of subsidiary imprisonment
e) Maximum of 40 years
f) 30 years duration of Perpetual Penalties?
See Art. 27
People v. Reyes, G.R. Nos. 101127-31, [August 7, 1992] (EB)T
Not about “imposition of penalty”:

-33-
 Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan, 151 SCRA 399 (1987)**

10. Where the penalty is not composed of three periods

RPC, Art. 65
(Reyes, 755-760)
11. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties
RPC, Art. 76
(Reyes, 750-754)

G. The Indeterminate Sentence Law

Act No. 4103
RPC, Art. 64
(Reyes, 748-754)
Rules on application of penalties with three periods:
Ladines v. People, G.R. No. 167333, Jan. 11, 2016

Prof. Esteban B. Bautista, Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,

78 SCRA 54
“Maximum” & “Minimum”
People v. Ducosin, G.R. No. 38332. December 14, 1933T
Penalty next lower:
People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008**
People v. Saley, supra
Reclusion perpetua:
People vs. Bon, supra **
Maximum penalty not to exceed 20 years (Art. 315):
Dela Cruz v. CA, 265 SCRA 299 (1996)
Exceptions:
People v. Lab-eo, 373 SCRA 461 (2002), supra
Applicability to special penal laws:
Malto v. People, 533 SCRA 643 (2007)
Acts of Lasciviousness (Art. 336 RPC) in relation
to Section 5(b), Article III & Section 31(c), Article XII
of R.A. No. 7610:
Quimvel v. People, G.R. No. 214497, April 16, 2017 (EB)
See dissents and concurring opinions
Imbo v. People, G.R.#197712, April 20, 2015

H. Execution and Service of Penalties

1. Execution of Penalties
RPC, Arts. 78, 86-88
(Reyes, pp. 837-838; 857-859)
Rules and Regulations to Implement RA No. 8177
Simultaneous service of penalty:
In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of
Pete C. Lagran, 363 SCRA 275 (2001)

2. Effects of Probation Law

(Reyes, 817-836)

-34-
 Presidential Decree No. 968 (as amended)
Not a penal statute:
Llamado v. CA, 174 SCRA 566 (1989)
When appeal not bar to probation:
Francisco v. C.A., 243 SCRA 384 (1995)**
Final order of discharge:
Bala v. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459 (1990)
Waiver right to appeal:
Salgado v. CA, 189 SCRA 304 (1990)
Probation on appeal:
Colinares v. People,, G.R. No. 182748. Dec. 13, 2011,662 SCRA 266**,
supra; See dissenting opinions
Dimacuta v. People, G.R. No. 206513, October 20, 2015 (EB)T
See R.A. No. 10707
Not pardon:
Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado,
260 SCRA 624 (1996)**

3. Suspension in case of Insanity or Minority

Republic Act No. 9344
RPC, Art. 79-80
(Reyes, 838-850)
Presidential Decree no. 603, Arts. 189-204
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, Sec. 32
R.A. 9344, Sec. 38, 64 & 40:
People v. Montecalvo, G.R.#193507, Jan. 30, 2013

VI. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

A. Total Extinction
RPC, Arts. 89-93, 36
(Reyes, 860-890; 641-643)
Effect of pardon:
Monsanto v. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190 (1989)**
Amnesty, its effects; Pardon Distinguished:
People v. Patriarca, 341 SCRA 464 (2000)T
R.A. 3019 and prescription:
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
Behest Loans v. Desierto, 363 SCRA 489 (2001)**
Romualdez v. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 165510-33, [July 28, 2006], 529 PHIL 90-119T
Prescription of B.P. 22:
People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012
Death of accused pending appeal:
People v. Abungan, 341 SCRA 258 (2000)
Waiver of prescription:
Recebido v. People, 346 SCRA 881 (2000)
Escape and prescription of penalties:
Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, 394 SCRA 221 (2002)
Marriage (Art. 344, RPC):

-35-
 People v. De Guzman, 614 SCRA 221 (2010)
Reelection:
Pascual v. Prov. Baoard of Nueva Ecija, G.R. No. L-11959, October 31, 1959**
Ingco v. Sanchez, G.R. No. L-23220, December 18, 1967**

B. Partial Extinction
RPC, Arts. 94-99
(Reyes, 891-893)

C. Compromise, Affidavit of Desistance, Payment of Civil Liability

Compromise
Trinidad vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 539 SCRA 415, (2007)
Affidavit of Desistance:
People v. Orje, 657 SCRA 427 (2011)
Payment of Civil Liability:
Spouses Cabico v. Dimaculangan-Querijero, 522 SCRA 300 (2007)**

D. Re-election of Public Officer & Condonation Principle

Reelection:
Dator v. Carpio-Morales, G.R. No. 237742, Oct. 08, 2018
Ombudsman v. Vergara, G.R. No. 216871, December 6, 2017
Ombudsman v. C.A. & Binay Jr., G.R. Nos. 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015 (EB)T
Pascual v. Prov. Baoard of Nueva Ecija, G.R. No. L-11959, October 31, 1959**
Ingco v. Sanchez, G.R. No. L-23220, December 18, 1967**

VII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A FELONY

A. General Rule
RPC, Art. 100
(Reyes, 898-919)
Civil Code, Arts. 20, 1161, 2176, 2177
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 111
Deemed instituted, unless . . .; Natural and logical
consequence of wrongful act:
Quinto v. Andres, 453 SCRA 511 (2005)
Basis of civil liability:
Chua v. CA 443 SCRA 142 (2004)
Employer subsidiary liability, requisites:
Basilio v. CA, 328 SCRA 341 (2000)
Test of negligence:
People v. Glenn De Los Santos, supra

B. Special Cases

1. Insanity, Imbecility and those Over 9 and Under 15 Years of Age

2. State of Necessity

-36-
 3. Irresistible Force, Uncontrollable Fear of Greater or Equal
Injury
RPC, Art. 101
(Reyes, 919-923)
4. Innkeepers and Similar Persons
RPC, Art. 102
(Reyes, 923-925)
5. Subsidiary Liability of Other Persons
RPC, Art. 103
(Reyes, 925-933)
Reckless imprudence & employer’s liability:
Vda. De Paman v. Señeris, G.R. No. L-37632 July 30, 1982
Only civil liability from crime:
Philippine Rabbit v. People 427 SCRA 526 (2004)

C. What Civil Liability Includes

RPC, Arts. 104-108
(Reyes, 934-964)
Recovery in criminal or civil case:
Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos, 27 SCRA 327
Proving civil liability:
People v. Wahiman, G.R. 200942, June 2015
J. Leonen concurring.
Civil Indemnity for Death (Civil Code Art. 2206)
People v. Oandasan, Jr. G.R. No. 194605. June 14, 2016 **T

D. Persons Civilly Liable

RPC, Arts. 108-111
(Reyes, 963-967)
Employer’s subsidiary liability:
Carpio v. Doroja, 180 SCRA 1 (1989)

E. Extinction of Civil Liability

RPC, Arts. 112-113
(Reyes, 968-971)
Civil Code, Art. 1231
Death pending appeal:
People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239**

-37-