REVIEW NOTES ON CRIMINAL LAW I (Prof. Maximo P.

Amurao) - contains provisions of the Spanish Penal Code, US Penal Code, and
Supreme Court decisions of the Philippines before the creation of the RPC
Sources of Criminal Law 1
Sources: - Lectures of Prof. Amurao (take note of the check marks, these are Atty. 1. The Revised Penal Code
Amurao’s “Supposings”) 2. Special Penal Laws enacted or passed by the Philippine Commission,
- The Revised Penal Code (J.B.L. Reyes) Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly,
- Ortega Notes (UP Law Center)
Batasang Pambansa, Congress of the Philippines
Criminal Law – branch or division of law which defines crimes, treats of 3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law (only because
their nature and provides for their punishment the President at that time had legislative power, but generally, the
How to define a crime – (1) what particular act constitutes the crime Executive branch cannot issue executive orders or presidential
(2) what are the elements of the act proclamations that are penal in nature)
Criminal Procedure – body of rules that enforces or regulates Criminal
Law; provides for the steps in the prosecution and/or conviction of an The power to define and punish crimes is vested in the State, under its
accused police power; the right to prosecute and punish is vested in the sovereign
The difference between Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure: power, which is the Filipino people (that is why it is “People vs. _____”)
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure
- substantive - remedial Theories in Criminal Law
- prospective; unless favorable to - retroactive 1. CLASSICAL
the accused provided that the - in favor of the ends of substantial - the objective is retribution
accused is not a habitual delinquent justice - the emphasis is on the crime
- only comes from the legislative or - can be promulgated by the - consistent with the saying, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
law-making body; never from the judiciary - man has the free will to do or not to do an act
executive or judiciary - the criminal liability arises from the knowledge
2. POSITIVIST
Crime – the generic term used to refer to a wrongdoing punished either - the objective is reformation
under the Revised Penal Code or under a special law (Ortega); an act - the emphasis is on the criminal
committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or - believes that crime is a social phenomenon
commanding it (Reyes) - sees man as a moral being
Felony – a crime punished under the Revised Penal Code 3. MIXED or ECLECTIC
Offense – a crime punished under a special law; or a statutory offense - combines the classical and the positivist
- applies the classical theory for heinous crimes
Misdemeanor – a minor infraction of the law, such as a violation of an
- applies the positivist for economic and social crimes
ordinance
In the Philippines, what is generally used is the classical, but according to
The power of Congress to enact laws is generally absolute; the only limit is
Prof. Amurao, our system is a little bit of both (probably mixed) because of
that it should not violate the Constitution
the recent laws enacted by the legislature that are positivist in nature
eg. Probation Law of 1976
The Revised Penal Code (RPC; enacted January 1, 1932) Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)
- was created by a committee formed pursuant to Administrative Order
- defines a child at risk and a child in conflict with the law
No.94; the committee was formed on Oct. 18, 1927 and was composed of
Republic Act 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007)
Anacleto Diaz (head), Quintin Paredes, Alex Reyes and Mariano De Joya
 3
Characteristics of Criminal Law 2 Treaties - The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
1. GENERAL - whether one can be prosecuted or not, citizenship is immaterial; what is
- Criminal Law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the material is one’s connection to the United States military
Philippine territory, regardless of race, nationality, political affiliation, etc. - it is necessary that one is a member of the US military personnel either as:
- Is this absolute? NO (a) US military personnel
- Exceptions: (1) treaties (b) US civilian personnel connected to the US military operations in the
(2) laws of preferential application Philippines
2. TERRITORIAL Jurisdiction according to the VFA
- only crimes committed within Philippine territory may be prosecuted 1. exclusive jurisdiction – exclusion of other courts; vests jurisdiction on one
Crime – an offense against the dignity, authority and sovereignty of the court
Philippine territory 2. concurrent jurisdiction – both countries have jurisdiction; can be settled
Components of a case Article V of the Visiting Forces Agreement
1. criminal aspect – seeks the imposition of penalty provided by law (1) crimes punishable under Philippine laws but not punishable under laws of
2. civil aspect – for the interest of the offended party; to seek payment of the United States = the Philippines has exclusive jurisdiction
damages or for indemnity (2) crimes punishable under laws of the United States but not punishable
Role of the offended party – to act as witness for the government under Philippine laws = the United States has exclusive jurisdiction
Compromise agreements – affidavit of desistance (has to be signed by the (3) crimes punishable both under Philippine laws and laws of the United
prosecution) States = concurrent jurisdiction = but the Philippines has the right to
3. PROSPECTIVE (or non retroactivity) primary jurisdiction, especially when it is a threat to the security of the
- Exception: unless more favorable to the accused Philippines, namely:
- Exception to the exception: if the accused is a habitual delinquent, pending (a) treason (c) sabotage
action cases (retroactive application for the accused only applies for those (b) espionage
who have been convicted by final judgment) If, however, the crime committed by a US personnel, was against the
property or security of the Unites States only = the Philippines has no
Repeals jurisdiction; these include crimes:
1. ABSOLUTE or EXPRESS (1) against the property of the US
- the effect is decriminalization (2) against the security of the US
- the obliteration of a crime (3) against the property of another military personnel
- for pending cases, the case shall be dismissed (4) against the security of another military personnel
- for those serving time, they shall be released because there is no more (5) committed in the performance of official duties
reason for the accused to serve time
2. PARTIAL or IMPLIED When the United States requests that the Philippines waive its jurisdiction
- the crime is still punishable but modified, i.e. in terms of penalty over a case, can the Philippines refuse? NO
- eg. The case of Robin Padilla: PD 1866 was partially repealed by RA 8294, - The request for waiver of jurisdiction cannot be rejected. Generally, the
which reduced the sentence for illegal possession of firearms, thus Philippines has to approve the request for waiver.
qualifying Robin Padilla for parole - Is this rule absolute? NO; The request for waiver may be rejected if the
3. SELF-REPEALING crime is of national importance:
- is deemed repealed upon expiration of the date specified by the law (1) those crimes defined under RA 7659 (heinous crimes)
- the law dies a natural death, eg. Rent Control Law (2) those crimes defined under RA 7610 (child abuse cases)
(3) those crimes defined under RA 9165 (dangerous drugs)

4 government because they have separate charters
Laws of Preferential Application
1. Republic Act 75/ Public International Law
- the following possess diplomatic immunity and cannot be sued, arrested or
punished by the law of the country where they are officially assigned:
(a) sovereigns or other chiefs of state
(b) ambassadors
(c) ministers plenipotentiary or minister residents
(d) charge d’ affairs
(e) domestic servants of the persons mentioned in (a)-(d) (RA 75)
- Consuls and other consular officials are not exempt from criminal liability
because they represent the business, commercial mercantile interests of
their country of origin; while on the other hand, chiefs of state,
ambassadors, ministers and charges represent the political interests of
their country of origin
- the diplomat should be officially recognized by the Philippine government
- eg. An Ambassador of Japan to the US commits a crime in the Philippines
= can be subjected to the criminal law of the Philippines because he is not a
recognized diplomatic representative of his country to the Philippines
2. Warship Rule
- a warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines, is
considered an extension of the territory of its respective country
- acts done within a warship of another country cannot be subjected to the
criminal law of the Philippines
- eg. Daniel Smith’s case = the Philippines had jurisdiction not because of the
provisions of the VFA but because of the warship rule, wherein the acts of
Daniel Smith were done outside of their warship
3. Rule concerning Embassies
- same with warships; foreign embassies in the Philippines are considered
extensions of their respective governments
Article 2, Section 1
- Philippine ship – refers to private, merchant vessels; should be registered
with the Marina
- generally, does not apply when the ship is outside the Philippine territory
- Philippine courts, however, have jurisdiction over registered private
merchant vessels that are outside Philippine territory but within
international waters and outside the jurisdiction of other countries
- if the vessel is unregistered, Philippine courts lose jurisdiction
Article 2, Section 2
- Obligations and securities of the GSIS, SSS, Landbank are not of the
- Examples of obligations and securities of the Philippine government are:
5
(a) treasury bills
(b) tickets of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and Lotto
(c) bonds of the Central Bank of the Philippines
Article 2, Section 3
- those who introduced the counterfeit items are criminally liable, even if
they were not the ones who counterfeited the obligations and securities
- on the other hand, those who counterfeited the items are criminally liable
even if they did not introduce the counterfeit items
Article 2, Section 4
- the crime committed should be related to the offender’s official functions as
a public officer
- eg. Philippine Ambassador to Australia, committed malversation of funds
and falsification of public documents, while in office in Australia = can be
held liable in Philippine courts
if, however, he committed rape = he cannot necessarily be held liable
because it is not related to his official functions as diplomat
Article 2, Section 5
Crimes against national security Crimes against the law of nations
- treason - genocide - crimes against humanity
- espionage - terrorism - war crimes
Coup de etat and rebellion are not covered by Art.2, Sec.5 because these
are crimes against public order
French rule
- when a vessel is in the territory of another country, crimes committed in
that area are not triable in that other country, unless the crimes committed
have endangered the peace and security of that other country
- the emphasis is on the nationality of the vessel; jurisdiction lies where the
merchant vessel is registered
English rule
- when a vessel is in the territory of another country, crimes committed in
that area are triable in that other country, unless the crimes committed
involve purely internal matters within the vessel
- the emphasis is on the territoriality of the vessel; where the vessel is found
the Philippines adheres to the English rule
 Suggested cases for Article 2:
- People v. Lol-lo & Saraw (piracy); WHO v. Aquino (diplomatic immunity)
ARTICLE 3 - FELONIES 6 7
- an act or omission
- punishable by the Revised Penal Code
- should be voluntary
1. an act or omission
Act – any physical movement of the body (Amurao); any bodily movement
tending to produce some effect in the external world (Reyes)
Omission – means inaction; the failure to perform a positive duty which
one is bound to do; there must be a law requiring the performance of an act
and punishing the omission; eg. arbitrary detention; misprision of treason
2. punishable by the Revised Penal Code
When there is a conflict between special penal laws and the Revised Penal
Code, in terms of the application of penalties, what to follow?
- What is important is the definition and the classification of the act (whether
it is an offense or a felony)
Special Penal Laws = penalties are stated in terms of years, months, days
Revised Penal Code = penalties are stated in terms of degrees, with death
as the highest penalty; classified as indivisible or divisible
a. indivisible = death and public censure
b. divisible (has 3 periods; what period to apply is dependent on the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in the case)
Penalties under the RPC (in descending order in terms of degree)
Death or Capital Punishment - indivisible
Reclusion Perpetua (20yrs & 1day – 40yrs)
Reclusion Temporal (12yrs & 1day – 20yrs)
Prision Mayor (6yrs & 1day – 12yrs)
Prision Correccional divisible
or Destierro (6mos&1day – 6yrs)
Arresto Mayor (1mo & 1day – 6mos)
Arresto Menor (1day – 30days)
Fine
Public Censure – indivisible
3. the acts done should be voluntary (Amurao)
voluntary - the concurrence of intelligence, freedom, intent (Ortega)
- all should be present in order to incur criminal liability
(a) intelligence – no intelligence, no criminal liability; eg. children 15 yrs old
& below are exempt from criminal liability (RA 9344)
(b) freedom – no freedom, act is not voluntary, no criminal liability
(c) intent – essential to a felony; prosecution has to prove intent; good faith is
a defense
Article 12 of the RPC (Exempting Circumstances) is amplified by the
importance of the element of voluntariness:
(a) intelligence – insanity/imbecility [Art.12(1)]; minority [Art.12(2&3)]
(b) freedom – under the compulsion of some irresistible force [Art.12(5)];
fear of greater injury [Art.12(6)]; failure to perform an act
required by law when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause [Art.12(7)]
(c) intent – by mere accident w/o fault or intent to cause harm [Art.12(4)]
Alibi – used in defense saying that the act or omission was not done at all;
intends to disprove the existence of an act or omission; weakest defense;
can easily be fabricated; eg. Vizconde case – Webb’s alibi = he argued that
he was in the US when the crime happened, therefore, he could not have
killed the victims, claiming that he is innocent
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea – an act of a criminal should be
coupled by a criminal mind
the defense of honest mistake of fact
- the act done by the accused would have constituted:
(a) a justifying circumstance (Art.11, RPC)
- in all instances = no criminal liability; no civil liability
(b) an absolutory cause [Art.247(2)]
(c) an involuntary act
Requisites for honest mistake of fact as a defense:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be
2. that the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful
3. that the mistake must be without fault or negligence/carelessness on the
part of the accused
Cases on honest mistake of fact:
1. US v. Ah Chong (landmark case)
- Ah Chong killed friend Pascual thinking he was a thief/ladron
- there was sufficient warning on the part of accused; accused was acquitted
2. US v. Apego
- accused killed her brother-in-law in fear of being raped; guilty of homicide
3. People v. Oanis
- policemen killed the wrong person w/o warning; guilty of murder
4. People v. Bayambao
- accused killed his brother-in-law thinking he was an outlaw - convicted by the trial court; decision reversed by the Court of Appeals
- brother-in-law acted as if he going to attack; accused was acquitted - the CA held that convicting the accused would be sacrificing substantial
8 justice for mere technicality
Crimes MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA 3. People v. Mallare 9
mala in se mala prohibita - case was about the delay of the issuance of the license
- intent is essential - intent is not essential - the accused convicted by the trial court; decision reversed by the CA
- good faith is a valid defense - good faith is not a defense - the CA held that the blame should be put on the government not on the
- honest mistake of fact is a defense - honest mistake is not a defense applicant of the license
- punishable under the RPC - punishable under special penal laws 4. mere transient possession of unlicensed firearm
- condemned by society - injurious to public welfare - not criminally liable
- the act done must be with - it is sufficient that the prohibited act - in the crime of illegal possession of unlicensed firearm, for an accused to be
criminal intent was done criminally liable, there should be animus posidendi or “intent to possess”

Motive
- special reasons that impel the accused to act (Amurao)
- the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result (Reyes)
- not an essential element of a felony
- evidence of motive is necessary only in case of: (1) doubt in the identity of
the accused (Amurao), (2) two conflicting versions of the crime
- motive is established by the testimony of the witness
- lack of motive may be an aid in showing innocence
Discernment – ability of the accused to determine right from wrong
Causes which may produce a result different from that which the
offender intended, as contemplated in Art. 4 (1)
1. there is a mistake in the identity of the victim
- also known as error in personae; or napagkamalan
- not a defense in a criminal case; not even a mitigating circumstance
2. there is a mistake in the blow
- also known as aberratio ictus
- not a defense in a criminal case; not even a mitigating circumstance
3. the injurious result is greater than that intended
- also known as praeter intentionem

Examples of malum prohibitum crimes defined by law Article 4(1) contemplates that there should be a felony being committed
- BP 22: anti-bouncing checks law - anti-human trafficking law - emphasis is not on the mere wrongful act; it should constitute a felony
- BP 881: violation of election law - anti-sexual harassment law - eg. the act of committing suicide results to others being injured =
- RA 8294: illegal possession of firearms punishable under Art.4(1) because although not intended, the injury was
- PD 705: revised forestry code (People v. Dator) caused by means of culpa, which can constitute a felony
- RA 6425, as amended by RA 9165: comprehensive dangerous drugs act Article 4(1) does not apply if the act committed constitutes a crime
(People v. Sy Bing Yok) punishable by special law
- Labor Code: anti-illegal recruitment (People v. Gharbia) Concubinage - instances
- RA 1612: anti-fencing law (Lim v. CA) - a husband bringing home a woman, that is not his wife, to the conjugal
- RA 9262: anti-violence against women and children act dwelling
- RA 6235: anti-hijacking law - having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances
- anti-hazing law - cohabitation; living in a separate home as husband and wife

Exceptions to the general rule on malum prohibitum crimes Proximate Cause

1. Cuenca v. People - there is a chain of causes from an original act that results to an injury
- Cuenca was acquitted by the SC from the crime of illegal possession of an - if the result can be traced back to the original act, then the doer of the
unlicensed firearm; it is said that the SC erred in its decision (Amurao) original act can be held liable
2. People v. Landicho
 Efficient Intervening Cause – interrupted the natural flow of events
leading to one’s death
Instances when there is a proximate10cause and when there is none
1. When there is an intervening disease and the disease is:
(a) closely related to the wound(s) = accused is criminally liable
(b) unrelated to the wound(s) = accused is not criminally liable,
because the disease not associated with the wound(s), eg. brain tumor
(c) a combined force with the wound(s) = accused is criminally liable,
because the mortal wound is a contributing factor to the victim’s death
- A mortal wound is a contributing factor when:
i. the wound(s) is/are sufficient to cause victim’s death along with the
disease
ii. the mortal wound was caused by actions committed by the accused
2. When the death was caused by an infection of the wound due to the
unskilled medical treatment from the doctors:
(a) if the wound is mortal = accused is criminally liable, because the
unskilled treatment + infection are not efficient intervening
causes
- mortal wound + unskilled medical treatment only = accused is criminally
liable because the mortal wound naturally led to the death of the victim
(b) if the wound is slight = accused is not criminally liable, because the
unskilled treatment + infection are efficient intervening causes
In Urbano v. IAC, the wound caused by accused Urbano was already
treated and was in the normal process of healing which is in approximately
4weeks; but because deceased Javier did not wait for the wound to heal and
still worked by fishing, his wound got infected with tetanus which caused
his death. The actions of the deceased when he still worked without waiting
for his wound to heal was an efficient intervening cause, thus the accused
is not liable for his death anymore.
What is the purpose for punishing an impossible crime? The purpose of
punishing an impossible crime is to prevent or suppress the criminal
tendency of the accused
Persons found guilty of impossible crimes are sentenced to arrestor mayor
(1mo.1day to 6mos.) pursuant to Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code
Objectively, there is no crime
Subjectively, the crime is present
Should there be a crime committed, in order to be held liable for an
impossible crime? YES; the act(s) should constitute a crime against
persons or property
11
Requisites for an impossible crime under Article 4(2)
1. that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. that the act was done with evil intent
3. that its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means
employed is either inadequate or ineffectual
4. that the act performed should not constitute a violation of another
provision of the Revised Penal Code
Rape used to be a crime against chastity; but because of RA 8353, rape was
reclassified as a crime against persons, therefore, one can now be held
liable for the impossible crime of rape
In People v. Intod, the Court erred in its decision of considering the acts of
the accused as an impossible crime under Art.4(2) of the RPC because the
4th element/requisite was not satisfied. The acts of the accused of shooting
at the house and damaging the same, can constitute as malicious mischief,
which is a crime against property. Therefore, the accused should have been
charged with the latter instead of finding them guilty only of the impossible
crime of murder.
Article 5(1) Requirements:
1. the act committed by the accused appears to be not punishable by law
2. but the court deems it proper to repress such act
3. in that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the
case and acquitting the accused
4. the judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive through the
Secretary of Justice stating the reasons which induce him to believe that
the said act should be made the subject of penal legislation
Basis for Article 5(1):
“Nullem crimen, nulla poena sine lege.”- There is no crime if there is no
law that punishes the act
Why dismiss? In the absence of a law that will punish the accused, the
judge cannot impose a penalty because the duty of the judge is only to
interpret or apply the law; the judge cannot reprimand or curse the
accused because it would equate to public censure; the reprimand would
be inconsistent with the acquittal

12
Article 5(2) – Excessive Penalties
Requirements:
1. the court after trial finds the accused guilty
2. the penalty provided by law and which the court imposes for the crime
committed appears to be clearly excessive because:
(a) the accused acted with lesser degree of malice and/or
(b) there is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity
3. the court should not suspend the execution of the sentence
4. the judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive through the
Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency
Why to the Chief Executive? Because Sec.19, Art. VII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution provides that the President has the power to grant
executive clemency, through pardon, parole, commutation (reduction of
sentence), reprieve or amnesty
Article 5(2) may not be invoked in cases involving acts mala prohibita
because said article only applies to acts mala in se because the ruling is
based on the phrase in the provision, takes into consideration the degree of
malice
ARTICLE 6 – STAGES OF EXECUTION OF A FELONY
1. Consummated – a felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present
2. Frustrated - it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts for
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator
3. Attempted – there is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of the felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all
the acts for execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
Subjective phase – from the time the offender commences the commission
up to the performance of the last act where he still has control; an
attempted felony is committed within the subjective phase and does not go
beyond this phase
Objective phase – frustrated and consummated felonies are within the
objective phase
(a) frustrated – the felony is complete but is still not produced as far as the
offender is concerned
(b) consummated – when all the elements under the Revised Penal Code
are present
Arson 13
(a) consummated = so long as a part of the building is burned, no matter how
small
(b) frustrated = if only the contents of the building (eg. chairs and tables) are
burned
(c) attempted = contents haven’t been burned
Supposing, the accused brought gasoline into a building, with the intent
to burn the building, but was apprehended by the security guard; did the
crime of arson commence? YES, thus the accused is liable for attempted
arson, because the bringing of gasoline was already an overt act while the
apprehension was the reason other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Supposing, using the same set of facts above, but without the intent to
burn the building, is there criminal liability? NO, in fact there is no crime,
because the acts were only in an indeterminate stage.
Indeterminate Stage – we do not know what crime is in the mind of the
offender; the crime has not yet been determined; there are still two
possibilities when the accused was caught
According to Prof. Amurao, when a person is accused of committing a
felony, we have to first establish the crime in the mind of the offender to
establish the commencement of the commission of the felony; otherwise,
the situation when he was caught would be in an indeterminate stage,
wherein the crime that the accused intended to do could not be determined
Theft/Robbery
- both these crimes are committed by taking the personal property of another
and, with the intent to gain
- the difference is that in robbery, there is the use of force or violence
- so long as the act stated in the RPC is done, the crime is consummated
- it does not matter how long the property was in the possession of the
accused; it does not matter whether the property was disposed or not; what
matters is whether or not there was “asportacion” = unlawful taking
- momentary possession consummates the crime of theft or robbery
- returning the item to the owner is immaterial; has no effect to the crime
- upon consummation of the crime, criminal liability automatically attaches
 Supposing, the accused was tinkering with the lock of the gate of a Supposing, in a car accident, the accused hits a person causing mortal
neighbor’s house, without the intent to commit a felony; is he liable for wounds, but the victim does not die, is the driver-accused liable for
anything? NO, because the situation was in an indeterminate stage wherein frustrated homicide? NO, he is only liable for serious physical injuries
it could not be determined what the accused intended to do 15
Supposing, the accused jumped over the fence into another person’s house Rules on crimes against persons (MHPI) and the stages of execution
without the intent to commit robbery, 14 is he liable for attempted robbery? 1. victim dies, with or without the intention to kill, intent is conclusively
NO, but he is liable for the crime of trespassing presumed by operation of law, the crime is consummated MHPI
Same with arson, when a person is accused of committing a felony, we 2. victim does not die, with the intent to kill, mortal wounds were inflicted,
have to first establish the crime in the mind of the offender to establish the the crime is frustrated MHPI
commencement of the commission of the felony; otherwise, the situation 3. victim does not die, with the intent to kill, non-mortal wounds were
when he was caught would be in an indeterminate stage, wherein the crime inflicted, the crime is attempted MHPI
that the accused intended to do could not be determined 4. victim does not die because there was only an overt act and no wound was
inflicted, but there was intent to kill, the crime is attempted MHPI
In People v. Lamahang, the accused was able to open one board of the 5. victim does not die, without the intent to kill, mortal wounds were
door to private respondent Tan Yu’s store, when the police caught him. inflicted, the crime is serious physical injuries
The SC ruled that the accused is not liable for attempted robbery because 6. victim does not die, without the intent to kill, non-mortal wounds were
the intent to rob Tan Yu’s store was not established, thus when accused inflicted, the crime is less serious or slight physical injuries
was caught, it was in an indeterminate stage. But the Court held him liable
for attempted trespass to dwelling Illustration:
In People v. Salvilla, the accused were held liable for the crime of robbery Death Intent Gravity of the wound Crime
with serious illegal detention and serious physical injuries, and not (1) YES presumed of course mortal! Consummated MHPI
frustrated robbery, even without physical taking or possession of the (2) NO YES mortal wounds Frustrated MHPI
money they demanded because the money was within the dominion, which (3) NO YES non-mortal wounds Attempted MHPI
the accused had control over and it was where the crime was being (4) NO YES overt act only, no wound Attempted MHPI
committed. During the time when negotiations were going on between the (5) NO NO mortal wounds Serious physical injuries
accused and the police, the crime of robbery was deemed consummated (6) NO NO non-mortal wounds Less serious/Slight
physical injuries
Crimes involving the taking of human life/ Crimes against persons
- these crimes are committed by killing a person (MHPI): In People v. Trinidad, the trial court held the accused criminally liable of
i. Murder – killing a person with attending or aggravating circumstances two counts of murder (for killing Soriano and Laroa) and frustrated murder
ii. Homicide – killing a person without attending circumstances (for shooting at Tan). The SC modified the decision by ruling that the
iii. Parricide – killing a relative, i.e. spouse, parent, child, sibling, etc. accused was liable for two counts of murder and attempted murder, not
iv. Infanticide – killing a child less than three (3) days old frustrated, because the wound inflicted on Tan was not mortal or fatal
- even without intent, the moment the victim dies, intent is presumed by In People v. Lim San, the trial court held the accused criminally liable of
operation of law and the crime is consummated attempted murder for stabbing Keng Kin in the left eye. The SC modified
- if the victim doesn’t die but the wound inflicted is mortal, it is frustrated the decision by ruling that the accused should be liable of frustrated
- if there is no intent to kill, but the wound inflicted is mortal or fatal, the murder because not only was it established that there was intent to kill, but
crime is neither MHPI but serious physical injuries also the wound inflicted was mortal. It just so happened that the victim did
Mortal – when the wound inflicted can cause the death of the victim; not die because of the prompt and efficient medical assistance given to the
when death will follow victim. The treatment was the cause independent of the will of the accused.
- for frustrated & attempted cases, it is important to determine intent to kill In Mondragon v. People, the SC held that the accused was only guilty of
less serious physical injuries because when the accused and the victim
 were hacking each other with their bolos, there was no intent to kill on
neither party; and also because the victim did not die since the wounds
were not mortal
Rape
- the crime of rape is consummated by mere penetration of the male organ,
no matter how slight
Supposing, the penetration was only 2 millimeters deep, consummated?
YES, no matter how slight the penetration is, it is still consummated
Supposing, the rape was consummated because there was penetration, but
according to the medical examination, the victim was still a virgin, can the
accused still be held liable for consummated rape? YES, as long as there is
penetration, the rape is consummated.
In People v. Orita, the medical examiner testified that the victim was still a
virgin therefore the rape may not have been consummated. But the SC
ruled that the testimony of the victim herself should be given greater weight
because she herself can feel whether or not there was penetration.
Instances of attempted rape:
- when the skirt of the victim has been lifted, no matter what position
- when the accused mounted on the body of the victim
- when there is epidermal touching of the genital organs of the accused and
the victim
The difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is that
with the former, there is carnal knowledge or the intent to have sexual
intercourse is established
There is no such thing as frustrated rape; the only exception was when
the SC ruled in People v. Eriña that the accused was guilty of frustrated
rape. Thereafter, no one has since been held guilty of frustrated rape.
Estafa
- the elements for the crime of estafa are (1) deceit, and (2) damage
- without one of the two elements, estafa would not be consummated
In US v. Dominguez, the SC ruled that the accused was guilty of frustrated
estafa because before accused could cause damage by disposing of the
money that he deceitfully took, he was apprehended by their store’s
supervisor, which was the cause independent of the will of the accused.
Other instances for homicide and other crimes
Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused pulls out a gun then points it at
someone, what crime is the accused liable for? Attempted homicide
Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone but
misses, what crime is the accused liable for? Attempted homicide
Supposing, using the same set17of facts, but without the intent to kill, what
crime is the accused liable for?
- for pulling out the gun and pointing it = grave threat
- for firing the gun = illegal discharge of firearm (obsolete; must be deleted)
Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone, then
accused leaves thinking that the victim is already dead. The accused did
not know that he missed because the victim played dead. What crime is the
accused liable for? Attempted homicide, attempted because there was no
wound, but there was still intent to kill. What is important is that there was
no wound
Supposing, with intent to kill, the accused fires a gun at someone, then
accused leaves thinking that the victim is already dead. The victim is hit
but it is not fatal or mortal. What crime is the accused liable for? Still
Attempted homicide, because what is important is the extent or gravity of
the wound. (People v. Orinaga)
ARTICLE 7 – LIGHT FELONIES
- Light felonies are infractions of law which have the punishment of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos
General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated
Reason: involves insignificant moral and material injuries; if not
consummated, the wrong done is so slight that a penalty is unnecessary
Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property are
punishable even if in the attempted or frustrated stage
Reason: presupposes moral depravity
For light felonies, the only ones who can be held liable are the principals
and accomplices.
For grave or less grave felonies, those who can be held liable are
principals, accomplices and even accessories, because the degree of the
penalty to be imposed depends on 3 factors:
(1) stages of execution
(2) the degree of participation
(3) the presence of attending circumstances
ARTICLE 8 – CONSPIRACY & PROPOSAL
- Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it
- Proposal exists when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal 18 to commit a felony are not
punishable
Reason: because they are mere preparatory acts (Reyes)
Exception: Conspiracy and proposal are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty thereof
Cases of conspiracy punishable by law
(i) Article 115 of the RPC – Conspiracy to commit treason
(ii) Article 136 – Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection
(iii) Article 141 – Conspiracy to commit sedition
(iv) Article 186 – Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade
(v) Conspiracy to commit terrorism - under the Human Security Act
(RA9372)
(vi) Conspiracy to commit crimes under the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act (RA 9165)
Cases of proposal punishable by law
(i) Proposal to commit treason
(ii) Proposal to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or insurrection
- there is no crime of proposal to commit sedition
What is the legal effect of the presence of conspiracy?
- “the act of one is the act of all”, meaning everyone who participated is
equally liable; there is collective responsibility
For conspiracy, take note of the word agreement
Agreement may be oral or written, express or implied
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the existence of conspiracy
through circumstantial evidence unless there is a confession or written
agreement, which is seldom because criminals will usually deny their
participation or the commission of the crime
What is Implied Conspiracy?
- Implied conspiracy can be inferred from the acts of the
perpetrators/accused before, during or after the commission of the crime
How about the use of words, remarks or language of the perpetrators, can
conspiracy still be ascertained or established? YES
May there be conspiracy when the perpetrators perform separate, distinct
and independent acts in the commission of a crime? YES
May there be conspiracy even if other conspirators do not know who the
other conspirators are? YES
In People v. Manlolo, it was held that there was implied conspiracy on the
part of the accused because they were acting in concert, one performing an
19 all aimed at the same object
act, the other doing another act,
Rule on determining whether there is conspiracy
- based on the (1) acts done before, during or after the commission of the
crime, or, based on the (2) words, remarks or language used before, during
or after the commission of the crime, it is necessary to determine after these
acts were done whether the conspirators had the following:
1. concerted action 3. community of purpose
2. common criminal design 4. joint criminal objective
- all of which are geared towards the attainment of the felony or crime
Suggested cases for conspiracy on this rule
- People v. Salcedo; People v. Briones; Medija, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
Supposing, only minor acts were done, will the actor still be liable? YES
Supposing, there was no conspiracy, what will happen? The perpetrators
of the crime will be individually liable depending the extent of the degree
of each one’s participation
In People v. Agapinay, the SC ruled that there was no conspiracy in
commission of the murder because the incident was only a spur of the
moment or in this case, a “chance stabbing”, which cannot be considered
conspiracy, thus they were held individually liable, some as principals and
some as accomplices only
Supposing, there was only mere presence of a person when the crime was
being committed, will he be liable? NO, that person not participating shall
not be liable because he did not perform any overt act; there should be an
overt act to establish the participation and liability of a person
Supposing, the person’s presence when the crime was being committed
was to provide moral support, or to persuade the participants from
performing the acts constituting the crime, will he be liable? YES, in both
cases the person shall be held criminally liable
In order to hold someone criminally liable, in addition to mere presence,
there should be overt acts that are closely-related and coordinated to
establish the presence of common criminal design and community of
purpose in the commission of the crime.
In People v. Taaca, the SC ruled to acquit Regalado because there was no
evidence to prove that Regalado assisted his brother Herminio in the
killing of Alfredo Gabuat; there was no proof to show that Regalado’s
20
 presence was accompanied by overt acts for the commission of the crime
and that there was no proof of conspiracy between the Taaca brothers.
In People v. De La Cruz, the SC also ruled that the mere presence of the
Galaw-eys were not enough to prove that they conspired to the commission
of the crime despite the fact Galaw-ey had a grudge against one of the
victims; his participation in a conspiracy cannot be assumed especially
when no acts by the Galaw-eys proved to be connected with the crime.
In People v. Manero, however, the SC ruled that even though the accused-
appellants were not present in the actual commission of the crimes, it was
established that they met in an eatery and conspired to liquidate communist
sympathizers; therefore they were still held criminally liable.
Supposing, one person desisted from participating in the actual crime and
instead decided to stay inside the get-away car to wait for the others, is he
liable? NO, because there was voluntary desistance
Supposing, while committing the crime of robbery, an additional crime
was committed that was not part of the original plan, eg. homicide; can all
the participants be convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide, even
though some of them performed very minor acts (i.e. look-outs or drivers,
etc)? YES, they can all be held liable for that same crime, because it is not
required that all the participants perform each and every detail in the
commission of the crime; as long as the acts performed are closely
coordinated and that they have the same criminal purpose.
ARTICLE 9 – CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
1. Grave Felonies – those that the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties that are afflictive based on Article 25 of the RPC
2. Less Grave Felonies – those that the law punishes with penalties whose
maximum periods are correctional
3. Light felonies – infractions of law that are punishable by arresto menor or
fines
Illustration:
Death
Grave felonies Reclusion Perpetua afflictive penalties
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Less grave felonies Arresto Mayor correctional penalties
Suspension
Destierro
Arresto Menor
Light felonies Fines light penalties
Public Censure
The classification in Article 25 of the RPC assumes significance on Article
21
91 of the RPC on Prescription:
(i) Prescription of a crime – refers to the expiration of a certain period, after
which a person cannot be prosecuted for the crime anymore; contemplates
that there has been no judgment of conviction yet
(ii) Prescription of penalty – refers to the expiration of a period of time
after which the penalty imposed by the courts cannot be enforced
anymore; contemplates that there has been a final judgment by the courts
ARTICLE 10 – SUPPLETORY NATURE OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
- provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall not be applied with of violations
of special laws, but if a special law is silent in terms of a penalty for
example, the absence shall be provided by the Revised Penal Code.
But generally:
- for violations of the RPC = what law governs? the Revised Penal Code
- for violations of special law = what law governs? Special penal laws
Examples of provisions in the RPC that have suppletory application
pursuant to Article 10 of the RPC
1. Article 100 – Civil Liability; there are two sides of crime, the criminal
liability and the civil liability, the former imposes the penalty prescribed
for the crime, the latter is for the payment of damages
2. Article 22 – Retroactive Application; the law becomes favorable to the
accused as long as he is not a habitual criminal and is convicted by final
judgment
3. Article 17 – Principals; are classified into three: (1) by direct
participation, (2) by inducement, (3) by indispensable cooperation
4. Article 45 – Forfeiture of instruments or tools used in the commission of
the crime
5. Article 39 – Subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay fines
6. Article 8 – Conspiracy; in violation of the Human Security Act(RA9372),
Dangerous Drugs Act (RA9165), Bouncing Checks Law (BP22)
If the Death Penalty was not abolished, it will also be given suppletory
application
ARTICLE 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
- Justifying Circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be
in accordance with law so that such person is deemed not to have
transgressed the law and is free from criminal and civil liability
Is there civil liability? Generally no, except in Article 11 (4)
22
 What element of voluntariness is lacking? Intent; without intent, there is
no voluntariness; without voluntariness, there is no felony; without a
felony, there is no criminal liability because there is no crime
Article 11 (1) – Self-Defense
- Elements of Self-defense:
1. Unlawful Aggression on the part of the offended party
2. Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed by the person defending
3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation on the part of the person defending
Subjects of Self-defense
(i) defense of person – there is danger to the life or limb of the person
(ii) defense of rights
(iii) defense of property – should be coupled with danger to the person
(iv) defense of honor
Burden of proof in self-defense = burden lies with the defense
How is self-defense established? through clear and convincing evidence
Is the accused required to admit having killed the victim? YES; the
accused has to admit having killed the victim before self-defense can be
invoked by the accused
It is the obligation of the accused to prove self-defense through clear and
convincing evidence; if the evidence is not clear, there will be a conviction
When all the elements of self-defense are present = the person defending
himself is free from criminal liability and civil liability
When only a majority of the elements are present = privileged mitigating
circumstance, provided there is unlawful aggression
When only a majority of the elements are present, there is an incomplete
self-defense, but it is still necessary to have the element of unlawful
aggression, because it is the most important element
Unlawful Aggression
- an indispensable element
- a sudden unprovoked unlawful attack that exposes a person’s life or limb
to actual, real, imminent danger; mere threatening, imagined or
speculative danger is not enough
When there is no unlawful aggression, there is no need to defend oneself;
when there is no need to defend oneself, there is no need for a reasonable
defensive act; when there is no need for a reasonable defensive act, there is
no need for reasonable means to prevent or repel something; therefore,
without unlawful aggression, everything else will be erased
23
Because unlawful aggression produced a danger, there comes a need to
eliminate that danger; that need is a response impelled by self-
preservation; the means used to eliminate the danger should be reasonable
and the means needed to be employed can be determined based on the
extent of the unlawful aggression
Supposing, you wrested the knife from a robber. If he is still trying to get
back the knife, there is unlawful aggression, because unlawful aggression
is continuing if the attacker is trying to regain control over the situation
The first principle in all criminal cases is that: “the accused will always be
presumed innocent”
In the constitutional provision on presumption of innocence, it can easily
be overthrown by contrary evidence, but it is different in criminal cases
The presumption of innocence principle, of all disputable presumptions, is
the strongest because to overthrow it, the Court requires that the law
proves the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt
The burden or duty to prove guilt lies with the prosecution or the
government and they should introduce evidence beyond reasonable doubt;
the prosecution should rely on the strength of its own evidence and should
not depend on the evidence of the defense; these principles, however, will
change when the defense invokes, self-defense, defense of a relative, or
defense of a stranger, because the accused must always admit first the fact
of killing the victim, thus the burden is lifted from the prosecution and
shifts to the defense
If the evidence for both sides is weak, the accused will be acquitted
The prosecution’s weakness is cured when the defense invokes, self-
defense, defense of a relative, or defense of a stranger because there is an
admission of the killing
If the evidence of the defense is not clear and convincing, conviction will
be sure, as sure the sun rises at the East
The admission involved is only an admission of facts, backed up by clear
and convincing evidence; it not an admission of guilt, because if so, the
Court can stop the prosecution and render judgment
The Court should put itself in the shoes of the accused during the time
when the accused allegedly defended himself
Supposing, after you wrested the knife from the robber (who is the obvious
aggressor in this case), the robber/aggressor runs away, is there still
unlawful aggression? NO, when the aggressor flees unlawful aggression no
longer exists; and if you still kill the aggressor in this situation, self-defense
cannot be invoked anymore
24
 Supposing, using the same facts mentioned earlier, but the retreat of the
aggressor was with the purpose to take a more advantageous position or to
get a more effective weapon, to insure the success of his attack, is there
still unlawful aggression? YES, when the purpose of retreating is to take a
more advantageous position or to do something to insure the success of his
attack, unlawful aggression is continuing, therefore the danger is still
continuing; in this case, the accused or the person defending himself, does
not have to wait for the aggressor to get another weapon
Supposing, there is an agreement to fight or a challenge to fight was
accepted, is there unlawful aggression on one of the parties? NO, there is
no unlawful aggression in agreements to fight because self-defense
cannot invoked since both parties are assailant and assaulted
Supposing, using the same facts above, there is agreement, but one of the
parties attacks the other even before the agreed time arrives, is there
unlawful aggression? YES, when the attack is made ahead of the time
agreed upon, there is unlawful aggression
Supposing, the aggressor used a toy gun and the person defending himself
killed the aggressor, believing that the gun was real, is he still criminally
liable? NO, assuming clear and convincing evidence is provided, and that
the accused believed the weapon/gun to be real, then honest mistake of fact
while in self-defense can be invoked
Reasonable Necessity of the Means Employed
- there is a continuing necessity to eliminate the danger
- involves two elements:
1. necessity for the course of action, necessity to eliminate danger
2. necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel that danger
Both should be reasonable
It is not necessary to have material equality or material commensurability
between the danger and the means employed to prevent or repel that danger
In determining reasonable means, some facts and circumstances can be
considered as factors, such as:
1. emergency to which the person defending himself has been exposed to
2. presence of imminent danger
3. impelled by the instinct of self-preservation
4. nature of the weapon used by the accused compared to the weapon of the
aggressor
5. size and/or physical character of the aggressor compared to the accused
and other circumstances that can be considered showing disparity between
aggressor and accused
25
Lack of Sufficient Provocation
- sufficient provocation should come from the person defending
himself/accused
- sufficient provocation should immediately precede the aggression
- Insulting another or committing oral defamation is considered sufficient
provocation
- a challenge to fight is considered sufficient provocation
Defense of property should be coupled with danger to the person defending
oneself; if there is no danger to the person or the person's life or limb,
defense of property cannot be invoked.
Supposing, using a knife, someone slashed your bag to get its contents,
after which you were able to wrest the knife from him, and you stabbed
him, causing him to die, can you invoke defense of property? NO, because
there was no imminent danger to your life or limb since you already have
control of the knife
Supposing, you caught some people inside your house in the act of stealing
your household items, assuming you have a gun, can you use the gun and
shoot at them or even kill them? YES (according to Prof. Amurao, you can
even stage the crime scene to your favor) because if you do not shoot them,
they will surely use their weapons against you and even try to kill you
anyway. It’s better to hit them first. (Defense of home, check Reyes)
Supposing, a prostitute disagrees to have sexual intercourse with someone,
but the latter still forces his way with the prostitute with carnal knowledge,
tries to rape her, then the prostitute takes out a knife in her bag and stabs
the guy, can she invoke defense of honor despite being a prostitute? YES, a
prostitute is still entitled to the right of defense of honor and the knife was
a reasonable means used.
Article 11(2) – Defense of Relatives
Who are the relatives contemplated?(in the following order)
- spouse
- ascendants
- descendants
- brothers or sisters (legitimate, natural or adopted)
- relatives by affinity in the same degrees (mentioned above)
- relatives by consanguinity within the fourth (4th) civil degree
applies the same concept of unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity
of means employed, as contemplated in Art. 11(1) on self-defense
26
Spouse – should be the legitimate husband or wife
common law marriages are not included; the common law spouse is
considered a stranger
Who can determine being legitimate? the Court; the validity, legality,
illegality of the parties cannot be determined by themselves
Supposing a husband defends a common law wife by killing an attacker,
can he invoke defense of relative? NO, but he may invoke defense of a
stranger
Supposing a husband defends a second wife by killing an attacker;
considering that the marriage between him and his first wife is not null and
void, thus making his second marriage bigamous, can he still invoke
defense of relative? YES, the presumption is that all marriages are legal
and valid. Even in the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity (JDN) of
the first marriage, the second marriage is considered valid, thus defense of
relative can be invoked.
Supposing the husband and his first wife are on legal separation, then he
defends her from an attacker, can he invoke defense of relative? YES,
because there is no JDN to say that their marriage is null and void.
Supposing, husband and wife successfully annuls their marriage and they
have secured a JDN on the grounds of psychological incapacity, then
incidentally, he defends her from an attacker, can he invoke defense of
relative? NO, because there is no marriage anymore between them; the
JDN, once it is approved by the RTC and is final and executory, it will
have an effect wherein as if no marriage existed between the defender and
the one defended; therefore, what can be invoked is defense of a stranger.
Supposing husband and wife has a pending case for annulment due to
psychological incapacity of one of the parties, then incidentally, he
defends her from an attacker, can he invoke defense of relative? YES,
because there is no JDN that has nullified the marriage
Ascendants – includes parents, grandparents, great grandparents, even
great(4x) grandparents
Descendants – includes children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, even
great(4x) grandchildren
What do ascendants and descendants have in common? They are blood
relatives
Supposing, a great, great, great, great grandfather is attacked and is
defended by his illegitimate grandchild, can the grandchild invoke defense
of relative? YES, because there is no distinction in the Revised Penal Code
whether the descendant should be legitimate or illegitimate; when the law
does not distinguish, the courts cannot distinguish
27
Supposing, a father defends his adopted daughter from an attacker, can he
invoke defense of relative? NO, defense of relative cannot be invoked
because the law does not contemplate adopted children as descendants and
also does not contemplate adoptive parents as ascendants, to qualify as
relatives contemplated under Art. 11(2) RPC
Brothers and Sisters or siblings
1. legitimate – siblings of the same parents who are married
2. natural – siblings, who at the time of their conception with the same
parents, the parents are not married but are not disqualified by any legal
impediment to marry each other; if parents are disqualified to marry by
any impediment, the child is illegitimate
3. adopted – there should be a judicial proceeding in court validating the
adoption in order to be considered under defense of relative as
contemplated; an extrajudicial proceeding on the adoption is not enough
Relatives by affinity in same degrees - relatives by marriage
In same degrees – applicable to ascendants, descendants, siblings, even
grandparents of one’s spouse, i.e. mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-
law, sister-in-law, etc.
Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth (4th) civil degree
- relatives by blood
Each generation is one degree
One’s parents are in the first (1st) degree
One’s grandparents are in the second(2nd) degree
One’s uncles and aunts are in the third (3rd) degree
One’s first cousins are in the fourth (4th) degree
Illustration:
parent (2nd degree)
(1st degree) (3rd degree)
daughter-in-law-----son daughter-----son-in-law
child child (4th degree)
(starting point, eg. this is you)
28
 Requisites for Defense of Relatives
- aside from (1) unlawful aggression and (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel the aggression, there is a 3rd requisite:
if there was a provocation that arose from the relative being defended, the
person defending should have had no part in that provocation
Supposing, your brother provoked someone and started a fight, when you
came to his aid, you did not know that it was your brother who started the
fight, but when you saw him, his enemy was on the verge of stabbing your
brother, so you shot his enemy, can you effectively and validly invoke
defense of a relative? YES, because at that very moment the life and limb
of your brother was in actual, imminent and real danger; there was no time
for you to investigate what really happened. The person defending has the
right to act on mere appearance (Amurao)
Article 11(3) - Defense of Strangers
Who are strangers?
- Anyone not enumerated and those not contemplated under Article 11(2)
Requisites:
- same concept of unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the aggression; aside from those two there is a
3rd requisite: the person defending should not be induced by revenge,
resentment, or other evil motive
Article 11(4) – Avoidance of greater evil or injury
- Requisites:
1. the evil actually exists
2. the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. there be no other practical and less harmful means of prevention
The damage to another contemplated are: (Reyes)
- injury to persons
- damage to property
One’s own life is more important than anyone else (Amurao)
The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or
imprudence of the person who committed the offense
Article 11(5) – Fulfillment of Duty/Lawful Exercise of Right or Office
- Requisites:
1. that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office
2. that the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary
consequence of the due performance of duty or lawful exercise of such
right or office
29
The fulfillment of duty must be done carefully, with due performance; no
carelessness, no negligence/imprudence, no abuse
The exercise of public office was committed with negligence and abuse of
authority = are applicable, the exercise must be lawful!
Supposing, a raiding team tasked to confiscate drugs broke the glass
cabinets in search of the drugs, was there abuse of authority? YES,
because due performance of duty should have been employed
Article 11(6) – Obedience to a lawful order by a superior officer
-Requisites
1. that an order has been issued by a superior
2. that such order must be for some lawful purpose
3. that the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it
is criminally liable
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior
if he is not aware of the illegality of the order and he is not negligent
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)
- refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse (Republic Act 9262: Anti-Violence Against Women and
Children Act)
Battery – refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon a woman or
child resulting to the physical, psychological or emotional distress (RA
9262)
Who can verify or confirm whether a woman suffers from Battered Woman
Syndrome? Only a certified psychologist or psychiatrist can prove the
existence of Battered Woman Syndrome in a woman (Amurao)
What is the legal effect of the proof of existence of BWS in a woman?
Those found by the courts to be suffering from BWS do not incur criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code
(Section 26, Republic Act 9262)
The legal effect of BWS is of the same level with the justifying
circumstances in Art.11 of the RPC, except par. 4.
Even without unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased husband or
male partner, the act of the woman shall still not incur criminal and civil
liability
30
 Who are the women who can invoke Battered Woman Syndrome?
- wife - any woman having a sexual relationship with a man
- girlfriend - including dating women, if relationship is intimate
- former wife - common law wife
- former wife whose marriage with her has been annulled by a judicial
declaration of nullity (JDN)
It is not necessary that the woman suffering from BWS is still in a
relationship with the man that she killed or harmed.
Doctrine of Stand your ground when in the right
- The law does not expect you to run away
- When in the right, defend your right or position, defend yourself
- A total opposite of the old doctrine of retreating to the wall, where the law
expects you to run away and avoid defending yourself
ARTICLE 12 – EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
- a circumstance if present during the commission of the crime will free the
accused from criminal liability
- there is a crime, but there is no criminal
- burden of proof to prove the existence of an exempting circumstance: lies
with the defense
Article 12(1) – Imbecility and Insanity
- an imbecile or an insane is entitled to be exempted, unless the latter acted
during a lucid interval
Imbecile – one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and
freedom of will when committing a crime; exempted in all cases; mentality
is comparable to a child 2-7 years old
Insanity – not so exempt because during a lucid interval, the person can
act with intelligence
What is the test for the degree of insanity for it to count as an exempting
circumstance? The tests of the degree of insanity are the existence of:
1. complete deprivation of intelligence
2. total deprivation of freedom of will
Mere abnormalities of the mental facilities are not enough
Supposing, a man suddenly just stabs another person, he then began to run
away because he knew he committed a crime, then as the authorities tried
to catch him, as they got closer to him, he ran even faster, can he invoke
insanity as an exempting circumstance? NO, the fact that he was running
31
away was an indication that he was not deprived of intelligence because he
knew what he did, and by running faster to avoid the authorities, it was an
indication of not being totally deprived of his freedom of will because of
his intention to escape
Burden to prove insanity: lies with the defense, (According to Reyes,
through circumstantial evidence if clear and convincing)
Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding the act or at the very
moment of execution
Supposing, the offender becomes insane only after the commission of the
crime or during trial, can he still invoke the exempting circumstance of
insanity? NO, because what is counted and considered in determining
whether there was insanity, is the time preceding the act or the moment of
execution
Feeblemindedness – not exempting because s/he can still distinguish right
from wrong; not equivalent to insanity
Somnambulism or sleepwalking – must be clearly proven to be
considered an exempting circumstance under this Article; acts of the
sleepwalker should not be voluntary
Malignant malaria – can cause insanity, therefore, can be considered as
an exempting circumstance under this Article
Basis for exemption – complete absence of intelligence
Article 12(2 & 3) – Minority (repealed by Republic Act 9344 or the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act)
RA 9344, Section 6 – a child 15 years of age or below at the time of the
commission of the crime shall be exempt from criminal liability but will
undergo an intervention program; a child above 15 years of age or below
18 years of age shall be exempt and be subjected to an intervention
program unless s/he acted with discernment in which case such child will
be subject to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act
Children falling under this Act are referred to as a child in conflict with
the law; normally minor offenders are referred to as the accused, juvenile
delinquent, prisoner, respondent, etc. but it is contemplated that these terms
refer to persons who have committed crimes; RA 9344 prohibits the use of
these terms to refer to minor offenders, only the abovementioned term can
be used
For a child in conflict with the law – there is a presumption of the absence
or lack of intelligence
Offenders are free from criminal liability but are still civilly liable
32
 The legal effect of the exemption: the child shall be given to the custody of
the parent or guardian; in their absence, the custody is given to the
following, according to their order of availability:
(a) registered non-governmental organization
(b) registered religious organization
(c) member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC)
(d) local office of the Dept. of Social Welfare & Development (DSWD)
(e) national office of the Dept. of Social Welfare & Development (DSWD)
Another effect is that the minor is subjected to an intervention or
diversion program which involves: seminars and classes on family and
mediation, skills improvement, emotional management, etc.; other
diversion programs are for reformation and rehabilitation, in which the
public prosecutor usually initiates the recommendation for the minor to be
subjected under the program
General Rule for minors above 15 or below 18 years of age: exempted,
because the presumption is that they acted without intelligence
Exception: the minor acted with discernment
How is discernment determined? (Reyes)
(1) manner of committing the crime
(2) conduct of the offender
Discernment can also be determined by the words uttered by the minor
attendant to the commission of the act, eg. the words, “Buti nga sa’yo!”,
which indicates an expression of accomplishment, victory or satisfaction
When the case has been decided by the court…
If the judgment is an acquittal, the decision shall immediately take effect
without suspension, and the decision shall be promulgated and pronounced
What is the significance of promulgation?
- it is full of significance; the decision is read in open court
- immediately after the reading the judgment of acquittal becomes
immediately final and executory, which cannot be subject for any motion
of reconsideration, hence the decision cannot be either reversed or
modified
If the judgment is conviction, the promulgation of the decision and the
sentence shall be suspended by the court; the minor shall be ordered to
undergo intervention, which shall have the following effects:
(a) If after the intervention, there is reform on the part of the minor, the
minor shall be returned to the court to dismiss the criminal case and
dismiss the charges against the minor
(b) If after the intervention, there is no reform, the minor shall be returned
to the court for the promulgation of the decision against the minor; then,
the court shall either decide on the sentence or extend the intervention
33
Only when there is refusal to be subjected to reformation or when there is
failure to reform can the child be subjected to criminal prosecution and the
judicial system
Other effects of Republic Act 9344
(i) decriminalizes the sniffing of rugby by a minor
(ii) decriminalizes the violation of a minor of the Anti-Mendicancy Law,
which prohibits begging or beggars
(iii) decriminalizes vagrancy and prostitution, punished under the RPC, when
committed by a minor 15 years old or below; the minor will not be
criminally liable
(iv) criminal records of minors above 15 or below 18 years of age are kept
confidential in order to protect the honor and reputation of the minor
(v) exempts minors from the offense of refusing to acknowledge the fact that
s/he had been involved or convicted in a criminal case before
(vi) minors can deny under oath their criminal involvement or conviction;
cannot be charged with perjury or falsification or misrepresentation, for
concealing the criminal involvement or conviction; purpose: to give the
minor a new lease in life and to prevent the stigma of conviction which
extends in a long-term basis, i.e. in looking for job or protecting the
families’ reputation
(vii) retroactive application of RA 9344 on persons who were convicted and
are currently serving time for crimes they committed when they were
minors above 9 or below 15 years of age when they committed the
offense, because minors who acted with discernment under this age
bracket, were not exempted from criminal liability before under the RPC,
but has already been repealed by RA 9344; their criminal liability is
erased therefore they shall be released
Supposing, a 10-year old, who is apparently very intelligent, commits a
crime, will he be exempted from criminal liability considering the high
level of intelligence of the child? YES, he is still exempted; what is
important is the age of the child at the time of the commission of the crime;
it doesn’t matter whether the child was extremely intelligent
Status Offenses (under RA 9344) – refers to offenses which discriminate
only against a child, while an adult does not suffer any penalty for
committing similar acts; these shall include curfew violations, truancy,
parental disobedience and the like
Status offenses when committed by a minor are punishable, but are not
punishable anymore under RA 9344
Status offenses when committed by an adult are not punishable
34
 The Dangers of Republic Act 9344 (Amurao)
- can be abused or taken advantage of by crime syndicates that use minors as
instruments for the commission of crimes
- The effect of the liberal exemptions of RA 9344 – what will happen to the
victims if the offenders, who are minors, will be exempted all the time?
Victims will take the Filipino way = taking the law into their own hands
With reference to RA 9344, the Philippines is not yet ready for that kind of
law. (Amurao)
Basis for the exemption of a minor: absence or lack of intelligence
Article 12(4) - Accident
- Elements:
1. a person is performing a lawful act
2. the act is done with due care
3. causes an injury to another by mere accident
4. injury was done without fault or intention of causing it
If all the elements are present, the legal effect is that the accused shall
incur no criminal liability and no civil liability
If not all the elements are present, Article 67 of the RPC will apply and
the penalty prescribed is arresto mayor to prision mayor for grave felonies
There is negligence when = the accused tried to overtake another vehicle
on the right side of the road because this is a violation of traffic laws
Speeding along the road is an example of an act done without due care
Basis for exemption – absence of intent
Article 12(5) – Compulsion of Irresistible Force
- Elements:
1. compulsion to commit the crime is by means of physical force or violence
2. physical force or violence is irresistible
3. the physical force or violence must come from a 3rd person
Presupposes that a person is compelled by means of force or violence
Irresistible Force – degree of force which is external or physical force
which reduces the person to a mere instrument and the acts produced are
done without his will and against his will (Amurao)
Basis for exemption – absence of freedom
35
Article 12(6) – Impulse of an Uncontrollable Fear
- Requisites: (Reyes)
1. that the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than or at least
equal to that which he is required to commit
2. that it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary
man would have succumbed to it
Presupposes intimidation or threat, not force or violence
- Elements:
1. the existence of an uncontrollable fear
2. the fear must real and imminent
3. the fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed
All the elements must concur
Basis for exemption - absence of freedom
Difference between irresistible force and uncontrollable fear:
Irresistible Force – involves the use of violence or physical force to compel
Uncontrollable Fear – involves the use of threat or intimidation to compel
Article 12(7) – Failure to Perform a Lawful Act Due to Lawful or
Insuperable Cause
- Elements:
1. an act is required by law to be done
2. that a person fails to perform such act
3. that the failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable
cause
Failure to deliver arrested persons to the proper authorities due to
problems regarding distance and transportation is a lawful or insuperable
cause
A typhoon causes the failure to perform the lawful act is an insuperable
cause
Basis for exemption – absence of intent
Absolutory Causes – those where the act committed is a crime but for
reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed
Instigation – is an illegal act because the public officer plants the seed of
criminality in the mind of the person or offender (Amurao); the public
officer induces an innocent person to commit the crime which the public
officer conceived (Reyes)
36
 Article 13(3) – Praeter Intentionem
Entrapment – is a legal act because the purpose is to capture or trap the - offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong
lawbreaker - disproportion of the means employed to execute the crime and the
Buy-bust operations are forms of entrapment, hence they are legal consequences produced; there should have been an intent at the moment
Basis for mitigation: lack or diminution of intent
Difference between JUSTIFYING and EXEMPTING Circumstances
Article 13(4) – Presence of Sufficient Provocation or Threat
Justifying Exempting - Requisites:
- there is neither a crime - there is a crime but there is 1. provocation must be sufficient
nor a criminal no criminal 2. must originate from the offended party
- the act is justified and the - the act is not justified but the 3. that the provocation must be immediate to the act or crime committed by
actor is not criminally liable actor is not criminally liable the person who is provoked
- there is no civil liability - there is civil liability except in
except in paragraph 4 paragraphs 4 and 7 Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party
capable of exciting, inciting or initiating anyone
ARTICLE 13 – MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES Sufficient – adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must
- those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free accordingly be proportionate to its gravity
the actor from criminal liability but serve only to reduce the penalty - depends on: (1) the act constituting the provocation
(2) the social standing of the person provoked
- Classification: (3) the place and time when the provocation was made
ORDINARY PRIVILEGED Threats should immediately precede the act
- offset by a generic aggravating - cannot be offset by a generic Basis of the mitigation: diminution of intelligence and intent
circumstance aggravating circumstance
- penalty lowered to minimum - penalty lowered by degree Article 13(5) Immediate Vindication of Relatives/Himself
- Requisites:
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not applied to special penal 1. that a grave offense has been done on the one committing the felony or on
laws because the penalties in special penal laws cannot be divided into his relatives
three periods 2. felony committed in vindication of such grave offense; a lapse of time is
allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense
Article 13(1) – Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances
- is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance, provided, majority of Difference between PROVOCATION and VINDICATION
the elements required to justify or exempt are present Provocation Vindication
- for the justifying circumstances of self-defense, defense of relative and - it is made directly only to the person - the grave offense may be
defense of stranger = the element of unlawful aggression should always be committing the felony committed also against the
present offender’s relatives
- the cause that brought about the - offended party must have done
Article 13(2) – Minority provocation need not be a grave a grave offense to offender or
- covers minors above 15 years but below 18 years of age (16-17 years old), offense his relatives
who acted with discernment - it is necessary that the provocation or - vindication of the grave offense
- shall be entitled to the benefits of a privileged mitigating circumstance threat immediately precedes the act may be proximate which allows an
Basis for mitigation: diminution of intelligence without interval of time interval of time
37 38
 Reason for the difference: vindication concerns the honor of a person Difference between PASSION or OBFUSCATION and
To determine whether the personal offense is grave, the ff. are considered: PROVOCATION
- social standing of the person Passion or Obfuscation Provocation
- time when the insult was made - produced by an impulse which may - must come from the injured party
- place where the insult was made be caused by provocation
- sometimes, even the age may be considered - the offense which engenders - must immediately precede the
Basis for the mitigation: diminution of the conditions of voluntariness perturbation of mind need not be commission of the crime
immediate; it is only required that the
Article 13(6) – Passion or Obfuscation influence thereof lasts until the
- Elements: moment the crime is committed
1. the accused acted upon impulse - the effect is loss of reason and - the effect is also loss of reason
2. the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or self-control on the part of the and self-control on the part of the
obfuscation in the accused offender offender

Reason: these are causes naturally producing in a person powerful Article 13(7) – Voluntary Surrender/Voluntary Confession of Guilt
excitement that he loses reason and self-control thereby diminishing the
exercise of willpower Voluntary Surrender
Rule: the passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments in - Requisites:
order to be mitigating 1. that the offender had not been actually arrested
2. that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the
- Requisites: latter’s agent
1. that there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a 3. that the surrender was voluntary
condition of mind “Voluntary” – to be appreciated, voluntary surrender must be
2. that said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because (1) he
the perpetrator might recover his natural equanimity acknowledged his guilt or (2) because he wishes to save them the trouble
and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture
Difference between PASSION or OBFUSCATION and Intention to surrender without actually surrendering is NOT mitigating
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Passion or Obfuscation Irresistible Force Voluntary Confession of Guilt
- a mitigating circumstance - an exempting circumstance - Requisites:
- cannot give rise to irresistible force - requires physical force 1. that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt
because passion or obfuscation has no 2. that the confession of guilt was made in open court that is before the
physical force competent court that is to try the case
- the passion or obfuscation is in the - must come from a third person 3. that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence
offender himself for the prosecution
- must arise from lawful sentiments - is unlawful
Even after arraignment, voluntary confession can still be mitigating, when
with the consent of the public prosecutor, there is an amendment in the
information = still voluntary confession (as was held in the midterms)
Voluntary confession is usually done during arraignment
39 40
 What has been admitted need not be proven by evidence; judgment can
already be rendered but both sides can still present evidence to prove
aggravating or mitigating circumstances
Arraignment – charges are being read to the accused in open court in a
language known to him; if the charges are read in a language not known to
him, the arraignment or plea is void.
It is the duty of courts to read charges in a language known to him
Promulgation – physical and actual reading of the sentence to the accused
- can be limited to just the dispositive portion (the “wherefore” clause)
- if there is an acquittal, the decision is final and executory and not
appeallable because of the risk of double jeopardy
- if there is a conviction, the accused has 15 days to avail of legal remedies,
if not availed after, the conviction becomes final and executory
Basis for mitigation: lesser perversity of the offender
Article 13(8) – Deafness and Dumbness
- must restrict the means of action, defense or communication with others
Basis for mitigation: offender does not have complete freedom of action;
diminution of freedom and voluntariness
Article 13(9) – Illness
- the offender has diminished exercise of willpower; loss of willpower may
even be exempting
- deprivation of consciousness
Basis for mitigation: diminution of intelligence and intent
Article 13(10) – Other Analogous Circumstances
ARTICLE 14 – AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
- those if present, are not automatically offset by mitigating circumstances
- may increase the penalty provided by the law without exceeding the
maximum penalty or it changes the nature of the crime
- Classification:
1. Generic – those that generally apply to all crimes, eg. Recidivism, Aid of
Minors, Advantage taken by Public Position, etc
2. Specific – those that apply to particular crimes, eg. Ignominy, Treachery
3. Qualifying – Those that change the nature of the crime, eg. Treachery,
Evident Premeditation, Cruelty, etc.
4. Inherent – necessity accompanies the commission of the crime, eg. sex is
inherent in crimes against chastity
41
Difference between Generic and Qualifying
GENERIC QUALIFYING
- can be offset by an ordinary - cannot be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance
- the legal effect is to increase - it changes the nature of the crime
the penalty to the maximum - gives the crime its proper and exclusive
without exceeding the limit name
Both qualifying and generic circumstances must be alleged in the
information; the prosecution can’t prove an aggravating circumstance
during trial (p.326 #3 in the comparison part in the Reyes book is wrong)
Article 14(1) – Advantage Taken by Public Position
- a generic aggravating circumstance
- based on Republic Act 7659, in crimes committed by a public officer, the
penalty prescribed by law is always at the maximum, regardless of the
mitigating circumstances presented and regardless of the nature of these
mitigating circumstances
Public Officer – for advantage taken to be appreciated, s/he must use the
influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means
by which s/he realizes his purpose.
There should be a deliberate intent to use the influence, prestige or
ascendancy
Is it enough that the offender is a public officer? NO, he has to use the
influence, prestige or ascendancy given to him by his office
Supposing, a police officer enters the house then ties up the residents and
robs them, can the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public
position be appreciated? YES
Supposing, a traffic enforcer takes over the car of a driver and speeds
away, he is convicted of robbery, can the aggravating circumstance of
advantage taken of public position be appreciated? YES
Supposing some members of the barangay council asked for financial
sponsorship for the education of the community, then the project turned
out to be false, can the aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of
public position be appreciated? YES
Supposing, if these crimes were attendant of negligence, passion or
obfuscation, vindication, or sufficient provocation, can the aggravating
circumstance of advantage taken of public position be appreciated? NO,
because these circumstances are incompatible with advantage taken of
public position since deliberate intent is absent in these instances.
42
 Supposing, a police investigator asked a rape victim to enter a room where
he committed acts of lasciviousness on the rape victim, can the
aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position be
appreciated? YES
The aggravating circumstance of advantage taken of public position is
NOT appreciated when the public position is an integral element or
inherent in the offense; In the ff crimes, public position is inherent:
- bribery - malversation of public funds
- indirect bribery - falsification of public documents
- RA 3019 - other crimes against public officers under the RPC
Basis for the aggravation: the greater perversity of (1) personal
circumstances of the offender, and (2) means used to secure commission
of the crime
Article 14(2) – Contempt or Insult to Public Authorities
- Requisites:
1. the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his official functions
2. the public authority is not the victim of the crime
3. offender knows him to be a public authority
4. his presence has not prevented the offender from committing the crime
Supposing, one Sunday, the mayor just finished mass, he saw two people
fighting, he mediated upon introducing himself, can the aggravating
circumstance of contempt or insult of public authorities be appreciated?
YES, because regardless of the day, even if Sunday is not a regular
working day, the official function of the mayor, in this case to maintain
peace and order, does not stop as long as he is within his jurisdiction
Supposing, using the same facts above, the two people attacked the mayor,
can the aggravating circumstance of contempt or insult of public
authorities be appreciated? NO, because the public authority should not be
the offended party
Supposing, using the same facts, but the mayor attended the mass in
another town, can the aggravating circumstance of contempt or insult of
public authorities be appreciated? NO, because mediating would not be
part of his official functions in that other town.
Supposing, using the same facts above, but the two people did not know
that the one mediating was in fact the mayor, can the aggravating
circumstance of contempt or insult of public authorities be appreciated?
NO, the offenders have to know that he is the mayor or a public authority
43
Article 14(3) – Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling of the
Offended Party
- there are FOUR circumstances in this paragraph
- rank, age, sex have a common denominator = respect due to offended party
Disregard of rank of the offended party
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance
- not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation, vindication or
those with sufficient provocation = because of the lack of intent
- this can be done to a person in authority or his agent
- there should be deliberate intent to disregard or insult = accompanied with
the difference in rank, and manifested by deliberate acts
- inherent in the crime of direct assault
Supposing, a sergeant was driving a jeep in a careless manner, then he hit a
general, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank be
appreciated? NO, there was no deliberate intent to disregard the rank of
the general
Supposing, physical injuries were made against Prof. Amurao by his
student, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank be
appreciated? YES, because Prof. Amurao is a person in authority and
ranks higher than the student.
Supposing, a sergeant sees his wife embracing a general, then he ran over
them, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank be
appreciated? NO, because this circumstance was attendant of passion or
obfuscation
Disregard of age of the offended party
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance
- not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation, vindication or
those with sufficient provocation = because of the lack of intent
- for this circumstance to be appreciated, the disparity of age between
offender and victim can be determined if the victim can be the father of the
accused; a disparity of 15 years or more
- tender age = for children; old age = for old people
44
 Supposing, the offender was 90 years old when he stabbed the 105-year
old victim, can the aggravating circumstance of disregard of age be
appreciated? YES, even if the offender was also very old, the disparity of
their ages still matters
Disregard of sex of the offended party
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance
- not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation, vindication or
those with sufficient provocation = because of the lack of intent
- the victim contemplated in this paragraph should be a woman
- the offender should act with deliberate intent to disrespect the woman
- disregard of sex is absorbed in treachery
Dwelling
- a place or structure that satisfies the requirements of domestic life of a
person
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance
- there should be no provocation on the part of the offended party
- all the ingredients of the crime should be done in the dwelling
- if the offender and offended are both occupants of the same house, dwelling
cannot be appreciated
- dwelling may mean temporary dwelling
Supposing, the crime was committed in the garage of the house, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because the
garage is part of the dwelling
Supposing the crime was done in the roof? YES
Supposing, a child was kidnapped while at the stairs of the dwelling,
there was no ransom but the child was killed in Cavite, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because the
stairs is still part of the dwelling
Supposing, a husband kills his wife in their conjugal dwelling, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the housemaid killed the employer’s child, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the accused was on the road when he shot the victim who was
at the stairs, can dwelling be appreciated? YES
Supposing, if the victim was in the yard going to the direction of the
stairs, can the aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
45
Supposing, the victim was about to step on the stairs? can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the employer raped their maid, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the houseboy killed the housemaid, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing, the wife killed her husband in the conjugal house, can the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? NO
Supposing the wife commits adultery, can the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the accused owner of the house and dwelling of the victim,
where the victim was a tenant, killed the victim, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because dwelling may
mean temporary dwelling
Supposing, the owner was killed in the toilet, can the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling be appreciated? YES, because the toilet is part of
the dwelling
Supposing, the owner of the house was killed 500 meters from the toilet
which was situated outside the house, can the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling be appreciated? NO, because if you destroy the toilet, the house
remains intact
Basis of the aggravation: Place of the commission of the crime; the sanctity
of privacy that the law provides the human abode
Article 14(4) – Abuse of Confidence/Obvious Ungratefulness
- this paragraph contemplates TWO aggravating circumstances
Abuse of Confidence – exists only when the offended party has trusted
the offender who later abuses such trust by committing the crime. The
abuse of confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the
crime. The culprit taking advantage of the offended party’s belief that the
former would not abuse said confidence
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance; can be raised to the maximum
There are instances where abuse of confidence is qualifying:
- qualified theft - qualified rape
- qualified seduction
Requisites:
1. offender had trusted the offended
2. offender abused such trust with the commission of the crime
3. abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime
46

There should be direct relationship and trust
Confidence must be immediate and personal
Abuse of Confidence is inherent in the ff:
- malversation - qualified theft
- estafa - qualified seduction
Supposing, lovers broke off 1 week before their encounter, can the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence be appreciated? NO
Supposing, a nanny killed 2 yr.old child under her care, can the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence be appreciated? NO,
because there is no direct relationship and trust between the nanny and
child
Supposing, the nanny killed the mother of that child under her care, can
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence be appreciated? YES,
because there is direct relationship and trust between the nanny and the
parents of the child
Ungratefulness – must be obvious, manifest and clear
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance; can be raised to the maximum
- applicable to domestic servants, “katiwalas”, security guards
- not applicable to if offender and offended both live in the same house
Basis for aggravation: greater perversity of the ways and means employed
Article 14(5) – Palace and Places of Commission of Offense
- this paragraph contemplates FOUR aggravating circumstances
- offender must have the intention to commit a crime when he entered the
place
- all the four circumstances are not applicable to cases attendant of passion or
obfuscation, immediate vindication or those with sufficient provocation =
because of the lack of intent
- not applicable to cases involving spurs of the moment or chance meetings
Wisdom behind this circumstance: Why aggravate? What’s with the place?
Because the place deserves respect (applies to all the places mentioned
under this paragraph)
Crime committed in the Palace of the Chief Executive
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum
47
- Is it necessary that the Chief Executive be there? NO
- the palace contemplated here is the Malacanang Palace
Supposing, the chef of the Chief Executive killed a janitor, can the
aggravating circumstance of palace of the Chief Executive be appreciated?
YES, the Chief Executive need not be there
Supposing, a guest shot to death FG Mike Arroyo, can the aggravating
circumstance of palace of the Chief Executive be appreciated? YES
Supposing, using the same facts above, the crime was committed in the
lawn, can the aggravating circumstance of palace of the Chief Executive
be appreciated? NO, because the lawn is not part of the palace
Supposing, using the same facts above, the crime was committed in the
presidential mansion, can the aggravating circumstance of palace of the
Chief Executive be appreciated? NO, because the mansion is not the
palace
Crime committed in the Presence of the Chief Executive
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum
- requires the personal presence of the Chief Executive
- Is it necessary that the crime be committed in the Presidential palace? NO
Supposing, the president personally saw the crime, can the aggravating
circumstance of in the presence of the Chief Executive be appreciated?
YES
Supposing, the president, while watching television, saw the crime? can
the aggravating circumstance of in the presence of the Chief Executive be
appreciated? NO
Supposing, on-board a helicopter, the Chief Executive saw the crime
from a distance, can the aggravating circumstance of in the presence of
the Chief Executive be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the offender had no knowledge that the Chief Executive was
present or near the place of the commission of the crime, can the
aggravating circumstance of in the presence of the Chief Executive be
appreciated? NO
Crime committed in the Place where Public Authorities are in the
Discharge of their Duties
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum
- emphasizes the place of the commission of the crime
48
- the public authority must be in the exercise or performance of one’s official
function
Crime committed in a Place Dedicated for Religious Worship
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum
- emphasizes the respect that should be afforded to the place
Supposing, there was no ceremony in the church when the crime was
committed, can the aggravating circumstance of place dedicated for
religious worship be appreciated? YES
Supposing, there was no priest in the church, can the aggravating
circumstance of place dedicated for religious worship be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the crime was committed in a chapel inside a cemetery (the
chapel is used only when there are masses to be held for purposes of
funeral services), can the aggravating circumstance of place dedicated for
religious worship be appreciated? NO, the place of religious worship
should hold religious ceremonies there regularly
Basis for aggravation: greater perversity shown by the place of the
commission of the crime, which must be respected
Article 14(6) – Nighttime, Uninhabited Place or Band
- this paragraph contemplates THREE aggravating circumstances
- all the three circumstances are not applicable to cases attendant of passion
or obfuscation or those with sufficient provocation
Applicable in cases where:
1. the circumstance facilitated the commission of the crime
2. the circumstance was especially sought for by the offender to insure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
- to commit the crime with more ease
- contemplates a planned attack; not a mere encounter
3. the offender took advantage of the circumstance for the purpose of
impunity
- to prevent being recognized or to secure himself against detection
Nighttime
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- nighttime means: beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn
- it is not enough that it was nighttime
49
- what is especially sought for by the offender is the darkness of the night
- this circumstance is not applicable to cases involving accidents, accidental
meetings, chance encounters, or spurs of the moment
Supposing, the crime was committed inside a dark movie house at around
4pm, can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be appreciated? NO,
because what should be especially sought for is the darkness of night, not
the darkness of the movie house when the lights were only off because it
was only 4 in the afternoon
Supposing, the crime was committed inside a movie house when the
lights were still open and the time then was 9pm, can the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime be appreciated? NO, because even though it
was nighttime, the place of the commission was well-lighted when the
crime was committed
Supposing, the crime was committed in a place where it was well-lighted
by a Meralco lightpost, can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be
appreciated? NO
Uninhabited Place
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- there should be intent
Spur of the moment – Not applicable
What is considered is the reasonable possibility for the victim to receive
some help; the degree of difficulty of giving assistance or help
Solitude (must be sought for to better attain criminal purpose)
- for an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal design
- to insure concealment of the offense; security against detection and
punishment
Band
- more than three malefactors
- shall have acted together
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
What do you mean by “armed”? only guns? NO, knives are considered;
anything that can kill a person
Aggravating in crimes against property and crimes against persons; not
applicable in crimes against chastity
Basis for aggravation: time & place of the commission & means
employed
50
 Article 14(7) – On occasion of calamity or misfortune
- that the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- there should be deliberate intent to take advantage
- this circumstance is not applicable to cases involving accidents, accidental
meetings, chance encounters, or spurs of the moment
- this circumstance is not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or
carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation or those with
sufficient provocation
Reason: in the midst of great calamity, instead lending aid to the afflicted,
the offender adds to the victims’ suffering by taking advantage of their
advantage of their misfortune to despoil
The offender must seek for the calamity as an opportunity to take
advantage or to commit the crime
Supposing, the offender saw his mortal enemy in a flood, then he killed his
mortal enemy, can the aggravating circumstance of be appreciated? NO
Basis for aggravation: time of the commission of the crime
Article 14(8) – Aid or Armed Men, etc.
- that the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men or, (2) persons
who insure or afford impunity
Armed Men
- at least two (2) men; the law says “men”; four (4) men = band already
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
Rule: Casual presence of armed men is NOT aggravating
The armed men must take part directly or indirectly in the crime
The offender must avail of the aid
Mere moral or psychological aid or reliance is sufficient
Actual aid is NOT necessary
Persons who insure or afford impunity
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- these persons should have or be in a position to afford impunity
51
Is a judge a person who can afford impunity? YES
Is an employee a person who can afford impunity? NO
Is a secretary a person who can afford impunity? NO
Is a mistress a person who can afford impunity? NO
Basis for aggravation: means and ways of committing the crime
Article 14(9) – Recidivism
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum
Recidivist – one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the
same title of the RPC
Requisites:
1. that the offender is on trial for an offense
2. that he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
3. that both the first and the second offense are embraced in the same title of
the RPC
4. that the offender is convicted of the new offense
Supposing, the first offense was acts of lasciviousness in 1980, then the
second offense in 2006 was attempted rape, can the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism be appreciated? NO, because acts of
lasciviousness and attempted rape are not embraced in the same title of the
RPC; acts of lasciviousness-crimes against chastity; attempted rape-crimes
against persons
Supposing the first offense in 1980 was attempted rape, then the second
offense in 2006 was acts of lasciviousness, can the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism be appreciated? YES because attempted rape
then in 1980 was embraced under crimes against chastity, hence both
crimes are embraced in the same title of the RPC
Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist
The time or period between the two offenses is immaterial
Basis for aggravation: inclination to crimes
Article 14(10) – Reiteracion or Habituality
- that the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the
law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which
it attaches a lighter penalty
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance; penalty can be raised to the maximum
52
 Requisites:
1. that the accused is on trial for an offense
2. that he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense
3. that he is convicted of the new offense
Quasi-recidivism – any person who shall commit a felony after having
been convicted by final judgment before beginning to serve such sentence
or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new penalty.
Basis for aggravation: inclination to crimes

Difference between Recidivism and Reiteracion Article 14(11) – Price, Reward or Promise
RECIDIVISM REITERACION - a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
- its enough that a final judgment - its necessary that the offender shall CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
has been rendered for the 1st offense have served out his sentence for The price, reward or promise must be the sole motivating factor for
the 1st offense committing the crime; must be for the purpose of inducing another to
- requires that both offenses be - 1st and 2nd offense must not be perform a deed
embraced in the same title of the RPC embraced in same title of the RPC There should be two or more offenders: the one who offers, the one who
- always taken into consideration in - not always an aggravating accepts it
terms of the penalty to be imposed circumstance Criminal Participation: the one who offers is a principal by inducement,
- previous crimes must be of equal the one who accepts is a principal by direct participation
or greater in penalty (at least one) It is not necessary that the principal by direct participation receive the
or at least two lighter penalties reward or promise; what is important is that the reward or promise was the
sole motivating factor otherwise the crime would not have been committed
If the 2nd crime is an offense or crime punishable under a special law, it Supposing, the one who commits the crime knows of the reward or
cannot be considered under reiteracion because Articles 13, 14, 15 of the promise already, can the aggravating circumstance of price, reward or
RPC are not applicable to special law crimes, applicable only to crimes promise be appreciated? NO, because there was no motivation already
defined under the Revised Penal Code.
Supposing, the 1st offense is illegal possession of firearms (a special law Basis for aggravation: greater perversity by the motivating power itself
crime), punishable by reclusion temporal, while the 2nd offense is less
serious physical injuries, can the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion Article 14(12) – By means of inundation, fire, etc.
be appreciated? YES, if the offender was previously punished for a special - that the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison,
law crime or an offense, the nature of the crime is immaterial; the explosion, stranding, of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment
emphasis is on the punishment or penalty of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste
and ruin
Four Forms of Repetition - a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
1. Recidivism 3. Habitual Delinquency/Multi-recidivism CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
2. Reiteracion or Habituality 4. Quasi-recidivism There are instances when these circumstances are inherent in the crime,
thus cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances:
Habitual Delinquency – when a person within a period of 10 years from 1. “by means of fire”- inherent in arson
the date of release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious 2. “by means of derailment of locomotive” – inherent in damage to means of
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, found guilty for a communication
3rd time or oftener. A habitual delinquent shall suffer an additional penalty 3. “by means of explosion”- without intent to kill, inherent in destruction to
property

53 54
 Difference of Par.7 and Par.12
Par.7 = on occasion of calamity or misfortune; not within offender’s control
Par.12 = the acts of great waste and ruin are used by the offender as means
Basis for aggravation: means and ways employed
Article 14(13) – Evident Premeditation
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- this circumstance is not applicable to cases involving accidents, accidental
meetings, chance encounters, or spurs of the moment
- this circumstance is not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or
carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation or those with
sufficient provocation
Evident Premeditation – the essence of such is that the execution of the
criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time
sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment
Requisites:
1. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime
2. an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
determination; through an overt act
3. the date & time when the crime was committed (to compute lapse of time)
4. a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his
conscience to overcome the resolution of his will
Is the aggravating circumstance of Evident Premeditation compatible with
the mitigating circumstance Immediate Vindication of a Relative for a
Grave Offense? YES, the mitigating circumstance and aggravating
circumstance can be appreciated.
Can evident premeditation be present in error in personae? NO
Can evident premeditation be present in aberratio ictus? NO
Supposing, you intended to kill Prof. Amurao, thinking it was him, you
shot at the person, who turned out to be Dean Jara, can the aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation be appreciated? NO, because there
should be deliberate intent to kill Dean Jara
55
General rule: In aberratio ictus, evident premeditation is NOT applicable
Exception: if there was a general plan to kill anyone; if offenders intended
to kill anyone
Basis for aggravation: reference to the ways of committing the crime
because evident premeditation implies deliberate planning of the act before
executing it
Article 14(14) – Craft, Fraud, Disguise
- that (1) craft, (2) fraud, (3) disguise be employed
- this paragraph contemplates THREE aggravating circumstances
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
Craft – involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of accused
Supposing, the accused pretended to be a customer, then he robbed the
place, can the aggravating circumstance of craft be appreciated? YES
Supposing the accused pretended to be a person in authority, for example
posing as Meralco officials, then they commit a crime, can the aggravating
circumstance of craft be appreciated? YES
Fraud – insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim
Fraudulent machinations and grave abuse of authority will be absorbed in
the crime of rape
Fraud is inherent in the crime of estafa
Disguise – resorting to any device to conceal identity
Examples:
- wearing a mask - use of an assumed name
- wearing a uniform of a police officer
Basis of aggravation: means employed
Article 14(15) – Abuse of Superior Strength/Means to Weaken Defense
- that (1) advantage be taken of superior strength or (2) means be employed
to weaken the defense
- this paragraph contemplates TWO aggravating circumstances
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- there should be deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength
56
 Abuse of Superior Strength – depends on the age, size, and strength of
the parties; it is considered whenever there is notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken
advantage of by him in the commission of the crime
If the victim was alternately attacked, there is NO abuse of superior
strength
Means to Weaken the Defense
Supposing, the offender intoxicated the victim to materially weaken her,
can the aggravating circumstance of means to weaken defense be
appreciated? YES
Article 14(16) – Treachery (Alevosia)
- a specific aggravating circumstance: only applicable to crimes against
persons; can treachery be appreciated in rape? YES
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- this circumstance is not applicable to cases involving accidents, accidental
meetings, chance encounters, or spurs of the moment, or on-the-spot
decisions to commit the crime
- this circumstance is not applicable to cases attendant of negligence or
carelessness
- not applicable to cases attendant of passion or obfuscation or those with
sufficient provocation
Is the aggravating circumstance of Treachery compatible with the
mitigating circumstance Immediate Vindication of a Relative for a Grave
Offense? YES, because there was intent to take revenge
Rules regarding Treachery
1. applicable only to crimes against persons
2. means, methods, or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime; only
to insure execution
3. the mode of attack must be consciously adopted
Requisites
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or
form of attack employed by him
57
What is important to determine are the following:
- the victim’s ability to defend himself
- the mode of attack was consciously adopted
Important questions to answer:
1. Was the attack sudden and unexpected?
2. Did the offended have any opportunity to defend himself?
3. Was the mode the attack deliberately or consciously adopted by the
accused to insure execution without risk to the offender?
If the answer to all these questions is YES; then treachery is present
Summary of the rules:
1. When the aggression is a single and continuous act, it must be present
right at the inception or present in the beginning of the assault
2. When the assault is not continuous, or the attack is divisible into two or
more stages, or interrupted, it is sufficient that treachery was present at
the time of the mortal blow was inflicted.
Supposing, there was a heated argument between the offender and the
offended before they attacked each other, can the aggravating
circumstance of treachery be appreciated? NO, either or both parties
should have been prepared
Supposing, there was a warning from the offender, then after a few
minutes he attacked the victim, can the aggravating circumstance of
treachery be appreciated? NO, because there was a chance to defend
himself and pose a risk to the offender
Supposing, your enemy was sleeping, you tapped him, then you shot him
as soon as he awakened, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be
appreciated? YES
Supposing, the victim’s hands and feet were tied, then mortal wounds
were inflicted on the victim, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery
be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the offender buried half of the victim’s body, then he hacked
the victim to death, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be
appreciated? YES
Supposing, the accused shot the victim who was tied to a coconut tree, can
the aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated? YES
Supposing, there was a dispute over a parking space, then the accused
shot the victim, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be
appreciated? NO
58
 Supposing, the victim suffered frontal mortal wounds, immediately, can
the aggravating circumstance of treachery not be appreciated? NO,
because having frontal wounds is NOT conclusive that there was no
treachery
Supposing, the victim suffered mortal wounds at the back, immediately,
can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be appreciated? NO
Note: The location of the wounds does not give rise to the presumption of
the presence of treachery
Supposing, the victim hid behind a drum where he could not be seen by
the offender, the offender, knowing that the victim was hiding behind the
drum shot at the drum; the bullet penetrated the drum and hit the victim
which caused his death, can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be
appreciated? YES, because the victim was not in a position to defend
himself
Supposing, there was an agreement to fight
Treachery cannot be presumed; must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence
In treachery, it is not necessary that the person intended to be killed was
not the one actually killed
According to Prof. Amurao, treachery is a politician and a “buwaya”,
because it takes everything; because treachery absorbs all other
aggravating circumstances
Basis for aggravation: means and ways employed
Additional notes from Prof. Amurao:
- If the offender was under the influence of drugs in the crime of murder or
homicide, this can be considered a qualifying aggravating circumstance,
even in the absence of treachery (pursuant to RA 9165)
- the use of an unlicensed firearm = a special aggravating circumstance for
the crime of murder or homicide; before it was separately prosecuted, but
now unlawful possession is only a special aggravating circumstance that
can increase the penalty to the maximum; no separate prosecution
Article 14(17) – Ignominy
- that means be employed or circumstances brought about which add
ignominy to the natural effects of the act
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
59
Ignominy – a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds
disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime
Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or
grave coercion and murder
Effect of ignominy: the crime becomes more humiliating or to put the
offended party to shame
Supposing, a woman was raped in the presence of her husband and
children, can the aggravating circumstance of ignominy be appreciated?
YES
Supposing, a woman was raped while cogon grass was wrapped around
the penis of the offender, can the aggravating circumstance of ignominy
be appreciated? Prof. Amurao thinks that this scenario falls under the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty
Basis for aggravation: means employed
Article 14(18) – Unlawful Entry
- that the crime be committed after an unlawful entry
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
Unlawful Entry – an entrance is effected by a way not intended for
Purpose – to effect entrance not for escape
Supposing, the window was used to gain entry into the house, can the
aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry be appreciated? YES
Supposing, the owners of the house commonly use the window as their
ordinary means to enter the house, then the accused entered the door, can
the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry be appreciated? YES
Unlawful entry is inherent (thus cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance) in the following crimes:
- robbery with force upon things
- violation of domicile (committed by public persons)
- trespass to dwelling (committed by private individuals)
Basis for aggravation: means and ways employed
Article 14(19) – Breaking Wall
- that as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door or
window be broken
60
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
To effect entrance only
Should be as a means to commit to crime
Supposing, the accused intended to kill his next-door neighbor by
breaking the wall separating them, then he shot the neighbor, can the
aggravating circumstance of breaking wall be appreciated? YES
Breaking wall is inherent in robbery with force upon things
Basis for aggravation: means and ways employed
Article 14(20) – Aid of Minor or by Means of Motor Vehicles
- that the crimes be committed (1) with the aid of persons under 15 years of
age or (2) by means of motor vehicles, airships or other similar means
- this paragraph contemplates TWO aggravating circumstances
Aid of Minor
- a generic aggravating circumstance = can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance
- involves the taking advantage of the child’s immaturity or innocence
Use of Motor Vehicles
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
- the offender should deliberately seek for the use of the vehicle
- the use of the motor vehicle must be the means used to commit the crime
- should facilitate the commission of the crime
Supposing, the accused robbed a house then found a car in front of the
house which he used for his escape, can the aggravating circumstance of
use of motor vehicle be appreciated? NO, because the crime was already
accomplished
Supposing, the accused robbed the passengers in a bus, can the
aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle be appreciated? YES,
even if it is a public vehicle, the circumstance can be appreciated
Supposing, a taxicab was hired, then an argument ensued inside where
the accused killed the victim, can the aggravating circumstance of use of
motor vehicle be appreciated? NO, because the motor vehicle was just
incidental to the crime
Are motorized bikes considered? YES
What if it is a motorized bike but the motor is not used? YES
61
Are road-rollers or “pison” considered? NO, because it is not motorized
as contemplated by the LTO
Use of motor vehicles is inherent in the crime of carnapping
Basis for aggravation: means and ways employed
Article 14(21) – Cruelty
- that the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission
- a qualifying aggravating circumstance = cannot be offset by a mitigating;
CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE CRIME
Cruelty – when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer
slowly and gradually, causing the victim unnecessary physical pain in the
consummation of the criminal act
Requisites:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing another wrong
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of
the offender
Is there cruelty when it is done against a dead body? NO, because it did
not prolong pain since the person was already dead
Is there cruelty when it is done against an unconscious person? YES
Supposing, a dead person was found with 125 stab wounds, can the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty be appreciated? NO, because the
number of wounds is immaterial with cruelty
Ignominy – moral suffering
Cruelty – physical suffering prolonged
Cruelty cannot be presumed
Basis for aggravation: ways employed
ARTICLE 15 – ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
- those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions
attending its commission
The following are alternative circumstances:
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication
3. Degree of Instruction and Education of the Offender
62
 Article 15(1) – Relationship
- considered when the offended party is the:
a. spouse c. descendant e. relative by
b. ascendant d. legitimate, natural, adopted sibling affinity
Supposing, a stepdaughter was raped by her stepfather, can the
alternative circumstance of relationship be appreciated? YES
Relationship is mitigating in crimes against property (RUFA):
1. robbery 3. fraudulent insolvency
2. usurpation 4. arson
Relationship is exempting in crimes of theft, swindling, or malicious
mischief if the offender and offended live together
Relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons when the offended
is a relative of higher degree than the offender or when the offender and
offended are parties of the same level
If the offended is a relative of lower degree, in the crime of less serious
and slight physical injuries, relationship is mitigating
If the offended is a relative of higher degree, in the same crimes,
relationship is aggravating
When the crime is homicide or murder, which resulted to the death of the
victim, relationship is aggravating, regardless of degree.
In crimes against chastity, relationship is ALWAYS aggravating
Article 15(2) - Intoxication
a. mitigating when:
- the drinking is not habitual; or accidental
- if the intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a crime
Reason for mitigation: exercise of will power is impaired
b. aggravating when:
- if habitual
- if intoxication is intentional (fully knowing its effects as a stimulant) or
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime
Reason for aggravation: bolstered courage to commit the crime
(intentional); lessens resistance to evil thoughts (habitual)
Article 15(3) – Instruction or Education
- what is measured is the degree of intelligence not the formal education
Low degree of instruction/Lack of education – mitigating
High degree of instruction; offender avails of intelligence - aggravating
63
Supposing, the crime was done not in a civilized society, can the
alternative circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating
circumstance YES, it is a mitigating circumstance
Supposing, the accused killed a person, can the alternative circumstance of
low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be appreciated?
NO, because killing is inherently wrong
Supposing, the accused committed the crime of treason, can the
alternative circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating
circumstance be appreciated? NO, because love for country is a natural
feeling that requires no degree of instruction
Supposing, accused committed crimes against chastity, can the alternative
circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be
appreciated? NO
Supposing, accused committed crimes against chastity, can the alternative
circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be
appreciated? NO
Supposing, accused committed the crime of murder, can the alternative
circumstance of low degree of instruction as a mitigating circumstance be
appreciated? NO
Supposing, a lawyer committed the crime of estafa, can the alternative
circumstance of high degree of instruction as an aggravating
circumstance be appreciated? YES
Supposing, a doctor prepared a special poison to kill the victim, can the
alternative circumstance of high degree of instruction as an aggravating
circumstance be appreciated? YES
ARTICLE 16 – WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
-the following are criminally liable for grave and less grave offenses:
1. Principals 3. Accessories
2. Accomplices
- the following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals 2. Accomplices
Accessories are not liable for light felonies because the social wrong is so
small
Rules on light felonies
1. punishable only when consummated
2. when committed against persons or property and punishable in the
attempted or frustrated
3. only principals and accomplices are liable
4. accessories are not liable even in crimes against persons or property
64
 Only natural persons can be active subjects of a crime contemplated under
Article 16 of the RPC
Reasons:
1. Under the Revised Penal Code, persons act with personal malice or
negligence; artificial/judicial persons can’t act with malice or negligence
2. A juridical person like a corporation can’t commit a crime that requires
willful purpose or malicious intent
3. There is substitution of deprivation of liberty for pecuniary penalties in
insolvency cases
4. Other penalties like destierro and imprisonment = executed on individuals
only
ARTICLE 17 – PRINCIPALS
- the following are considered principals:
1. those who take a direct part in the execution of the act
(By Direct Participation)
2. those who directly force or induce others to commit it (By Inducement)
3. those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been accomplished
(By Indispensable Cooperation)
Article 17(1) – Principals by Direct Participation (PDP)
- Requisites:
1. they participated in the criminal resolution
2. they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts
which directly tended to the same end
In multiple rape, all the rapists are equally liable, regardless of degree of
participation
Without the 2nd requisite, there is only conspiracy = thus there is no
criminal liability
Article 17(2) – Principals by Inducement (PI)
Principals by Inducement are ONLY liable when the Principal by Direct
Participation committed the act induced
Two ways of becoming principal by induction
1. by directly forcing another to commit a crime
2. by directly inducing another to commit a crime
By directly forcing another to commit a crime (no conspiracy involved)
1. by using irresistible force
2. by causing uncontrollable fear
65
By directly inducing another to commit a crime
1. by giving price or offering reward or promise = collective criminal
responsibility
2. by using words of command
Requisites for the Principal by Inducement
1. that the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime
2. that such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the
crime
Inducement – may be by acts of command, advice, or through influence or
agreement for consideration; the words of advice or influence must actually
move the hands of the principal by direct participation
The inducement must be the determining cause for the commission of the
crime by the principal by direct participation, that is without such
inducement the crime would not have been committed
The inducement must precede the act and must be so influential
If there is a price or reward involved, w/o prior promise = no inducement
By using words of command
- the words must be the moving cause of the offense
1. that the one uttering the words of command must have the intention of
procuring the commission of the crime
2. that the one who made the command must have an ascendancy or
influence over the person who acted
3. that the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to
amount to physical or moral coercion
Efficacious – it would seem or it was furnished that the material executor
or principal by direct participation had reason to believe or was made to
believe that the deceased did something wrong
4. the words of command must be uttered prior to the commission of the
crime; when the words were uttered after the commencement of the crime
= no inducement
5. the material executor has no personal reason to commit the crime
Difference bet. Principal by Inducement & Offender by Proposal
PRIN. BY INDUCEMENT OFFENDER BY PROPOSAL
- inducement to commit the crime - inducement to commit the crime
- liable only when crime is committed - mere proposal to commit is
by the principal by direct participation punishable in treason & rebellion;
person proposed to shouldn’t
commit the crime
- inducement involves any crime - applies in treason & rebellion only
66
 Article 17(3) - Principal by Indispensable Cooperation (PIC) Quasi-Collective Criminal Responsibility – some of the offenders in the
- those who cooperate in the commission of the crime by another act without crime are principals; others are accomplices
which it would not have been accomplished
Cooperate – means to desire or wish in common a thing, but that common Participation-proved by positive &competent evidence; can’t be presumed
will or purpose does not necessarily mean previous understanding for it can
be explained or inferred from the circumstances of each case Accomplices have - no previous agreement
Requisites: - no understanding with the Principal by
1. participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior - not in conspiracy Direct Participation
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before
the commission of the crime charged Difference between an Accomplice and a Conspirator
2. cooperation in the commission of the crime by performing another act, ACCOMPLICES CONSPIRATORS
without which it would not have been accomplished - they know & agree with the - they know & agree with the
criminal design criminal design
First requisite - they come to know about the - they know the criminal intention
- requires participation in the criminal resolution criminal design after the conspirators because they have decided upon
- there must be conspiracy have decided on it the course of action
- concurrence is sufficient - only concurs to the commission of - they decide to commit the crime
- cooperation indispensable the crime; they do not decide; they
Second requisite merely assent to it and cooperate
- cooperation MUST be indispensable - mere instruments performing acts - they are the authors of the crime
- if dispensable, accused is only an accomplice NOT essential to the perpetration of
the crime
Collective Criminal Responsibility (CCR) – when the offenders are
criminally liable in the same manner and to the same extent; penalty is the Requisites for an accomplice:
same for all: 1. that there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of
a. Principals by Direct Participation – CCR the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his
b. Principals by Inducement – CCR with Principals by Direct Participation, purpose
except those who directly forced another to commit a crime 2. that he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous and
c. Principals by Indispensable Cooperation – CCR with Principals by Direct simultaneous acts with the intention of supplying the material or moral
Participation aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way
3. that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those
Individual Criminal Responsibility (ICR) – in the absence of previous attributed to the person charged as accomplice
conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime or community of criminal design, the criminal Rules on Accomplices:
responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same 1. the one who had the original criminal design is the person who committed
person is individual and not collective, and each of the participants is liable the resulting crime (there should be a principal by direct participation)
only for the act committed by him 2. an accomplice cooperates only with previous or simultaneous acts
3. an accomplice does not inflict more or most serious wounds
ARTICLE 18 - ACCOMPLICES
- Accomplices are persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate Moral aid – may be through advice, encouragement or agreement
in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts
67 68
 Examples of previous acts Requisites for Article 19(3):
- lending of a weapon, knowing of the purpose a. – accessory is a public officer b. - accessory is a private person
- furnishing a drug or sleeping drug, knowing the purpose is for rape - harbors, conceals, assists in the - harbors, conceals, assists in the
Examples of simultaneous acts escape - escape
- disarming the victim while the principal is attacking - acts with abuse of his public - crime of principal is treason,
- preventing the victims from receiving help functions parricide, murder, attempt
- acted as a look-out, without conspiracy - crime of principal is any crime against the life of the President,
- supplying material or moral aid not a light felony a known habitual criminal
- distracting the victim
If the principal is acquitted by exemption, accessory may still be convicted
ARTICLE 19 - ACCESSORIES Apprehension and conviction of the principal is not necessary for the
- Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the accessory to be held criminally liable
crime and without having participated therein, either as principals or If the principal is at-large or not yet apprehended, the accessory may be
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following prosecuted and convicted
manners:
1. by profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Presidential Decree No.1612)
the crime Fencing – is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or
2. by concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article,
3. by harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to
crime, provided the accessory acts are connected with his public functions him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, theft
or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive or is known to be Fence – includes any person, firm, association, corporation or partnership
habitually guilty of some other crime or other organization who/which commits the act of fencing

Accessories do not participate; they do not cooperate
Accessories must have knowledge of the commission of the crime, then
takes part subsequent to the commission, eg. fencing
Knowledge may be acquired after the acquisition of stolen property
Examples of by profiting themselves by the effects of the crime
- received stolen property and used it
- shared in the reward for murder
Examples of assisting the offender by the effects of the crime
- sells the stolen property for the offender’s benefit
- runners or couriers for picking-up or getting the ransom money
ARTICLE 20 – ACCESSORIES EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
- those who are exempt are the following:
a. spouses c. descendants e. relatives by affinity w/in same degrees
b. ascendants d. legitimate, natural, adopted siblings
- except those that fall under Article 19(1)
Ground for exemption – ties of blood; preservation of the cleanliness of
one’s name
Nephew or niece not included
Accessories not exempt if they: - profited by the effects of the crime
- assisted the offender to profit

Examples of by concealing or destroying the body of the crime (or the PENALTIES
corpus delicti) Penalty – the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of
- assisted in the burial to prevent discovery a law
- concealing or hiding weapons used in the commission of the crime
- furnishes the means to stage the crime scene
69 70
 Different juridical conditions of penalty
- productive of suffering - certain
- commensurate with the offense - equal for all
- personal - correctional
- legal
Purpose of punishment: To secure justice
Theories justifying penalty
1. Prevention – prevent or suppress the danger to the State
2. Self-defense – right to punish; protect society from the threat or wrong
3. Reformation – correct and reform the offender
4. Exemplarity – punishment for deterrence
5. Justice – punishment as an act of retributive justice
Social defense & exemplarity: justifies the imposition of the death penalty
The penalties under the RPC have a 3-fold purpose
1. Retribution or expiation – penalty commensurate with the gravity of the
crime
2. Correction or reformation – shown by rules that regulate execution of
penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty
3. Social defense – shown by its inflexible severity to recidivists and habitual
delinquents
ARTICLE 21 – PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED
- No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to
its commission
ARTICLE 23 – PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY
- does not extinguish criminal action except in Article 344 of the RPC; but an
express waiver can extinguish the civil liability for the injured party
A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action,
because a crime committed is a felony or offense committed against the
State, eg. estafa - even the offender pays damages to the injured party, the
offender can still be prosecuted
Compromise does not extinguish criminal liability
Under Article 344, in the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, there shall be no criminal prosecution if the offender is
expressly pardoned by the parents or grandparents or guardian of the
offended party. In the crime of adultery or concubinage, both offenders (the
offending spouse and paramour) must be pardoned by the offended party
Pardon under Article 344 must be made before the institution of criminal
prosecution, unless after the institution of the criminal action, the offender
and the offended decide to get married; This pardon is only a bar to
criminal prosecution
ARTICLE 24 – MEASURES OF PREVENTION AND SAFETY THAT ARE NOT
CONSIDERED AS PENALTIES
1. Arrest and Temporary Detention 5. Deprivation of Rights with
2. Commitment of a Minor Reparations
3. Suspension from Employment
4. Fines & Other Corrective Measures, administrative or disciplinary in
nature

ARTICLE 22 – RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS ARTICLE 25 – CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES

- Penal laws shall be retroactive in so far as they favor the person guilty of a Principal Penalties
felony and is not a habitual criminal Capital punishment Light penalties
General Rule – prospective effect Death Arresto Menor
Exception – favorable to the accused Fines
Reason for the exception – former laws repealed or amended are unjust Afflictive penalties Public Censure
Reclusion Perpetua
Article 22 does not apply to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code; but
Reclusion Temporal
applies to (1) penal laws enacted before the RPC, and (2) penal laws
Perpetual or Temporary absolute disqualification Penalties common to the
enacted subsequent to the RPC, which are more favorable to the accused
Perpetual or Temporary special disqualification three preceding classes
Prision Mayor Fine
Criminal Liability of repealed laws still subsist when: Bond to keep the peace
1. there is a reenactment of the law Correctional penalties
2. when the repeal is by implication Prision Correccional
3. when there is a saving clause Arresto Mayor
Suspension
Destierro
71 72
 Accessory Penalties ARTICLES 30-35 – EFFECTS OF PENALTIES
- Perpetual or Temporary absolute disqualification (reading matter)
- Perpetual or Temporary special disqualification Civil interdiction – shall deprive the offender during the time of his
- Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or sentence of the rights parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the
calling
person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage
- Civil interdiction
- Indemnification
his property, and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
- Forfeiture of confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense conveyance
- Payment of cost
ARTICLE 36 – PARDON; ITS EFFECTS
Classification of penalties according to subject matter - shall not restore the right to hold office and the right of suffrage, unless
1. Corporal (death) expressly restored by the terms of the pardon
2. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision, arresto) - shall not exempt the culprit from civil liability
3. Restriction of freedom (destierro)
4. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and suspension) Difference bet. Pardon by the President & Pardon by the Offended
5. Pecuniary (fine) PARDON BY PRESIDENT PARDON BY OFFENDED
- extinguishes criminal liability - does not extinguish criminal
ARTICLE 26 – FINES (AFFLICTIVE, CORRECTIONAL, LIGHT) liability, except in Article 344
Fines and Bond to keep the Peace are: - cannot include extinction of civil - offended party can waive right
1. Afflictive – over P6,000.00 liability to claim civil liability
2. Correctional – P200.00 – P6,000.00 - should be given only after conviction - should be given before the
3. Light Penalty – less than P200.00 institution of the criminal action
- may be extended to any of the - must be extended to both offenders
ARTICLE 27 – DURATION OF PENALTIES offenders
1. Reclusion perpetua – 20 yrs. and 1 day to 40 yrs.
2. Reclusion temporal – 12 yrs. and 1 day to 20 yrs ARTICLE 37 – COSTS
3. Prision mayor – 6 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs. 1. Fees
4. Prision correctional, suspension, destierro – 6 months and 1 day to 6 yrs. 2. Indemnities, in the course of judicial proceedings
5. Arresto mayor – 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
6. Arresto menor – 1 day to 30 days ARTICLE 38 – PECUNIARY LIABILITIES; ORDER OF PAYMENT
7. Bond to keep the peace – the period during which the bond shall be 1. The reparation of the damage caused
effective is discretionary on the court 2. Indemnification of the consequential damages
3. Fine
ARTICLE 28 – COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES 4. Costs of proceedings
(reading matter) The order of payment is as stated
ARTICLE 29 – PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
Preventive imprisonment – an accused undergoes this when the crime ARTICLE 39 – SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
charged is non-bailable, or even if bailable, he cannot furnish the required Subsidiary Penalty – a subsidiary personal penalty to be suffered by the
bail convict who has no property with which to meet the fine, at the rate of one
The full-time or four-fifths of the time during which offenders have day for each eight (P8) pesos, subject to the rules provided for in Article 39
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be deducted from the penalty Subsidiary penalties should be expressly specified in the conviction
imposed because without it, the accused cannot be compelled to comply with it
73 74
 ARTICLES 40-44 – ACCESSORY PENALTIES OF ARRESTO
(reading matter)
- Accessory penalties do not have to be specified expressly in the judgment
of conviction
- usually, the specific accessory penalties are not specified, they are said
generally
ARTICLE 45 – CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE
- the proceeds of the crime must first be submitted to the jurisdiction of the
courts, and also the tools used; if not submitted, the courts cannot adjudicate
on the proceeds and tools whether they would be disposed in favor of the
state
ARTICLE 46 – PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON PRINCIPALS IN GENERAL
- the penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be
imposed upon the principals
- the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in general terms, it shall be
understood as applicable to the consummated felony
Penalty in general terms shall be imposed:
1. upon the principals
2. for the consummated felony
Exception – when the law fixes a penalty for frustrated or attempted felony
ARTICLE 47 – WHEN DEATH PENALTY NOT TO BE IMPOSED
1. minors under 18 at the commission of the crime (repealed by RA 9344)
2. persons over 70 years old
The Death Penalty should be imposed on cases where the law specifies it
The Death Penalty as of now is deemed to be irrelevant
ARTICLE 48 – COMPLEX CRIMES
1. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
(compound crimes)
2. When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other
(complex crime proper)
There must be at least two crimes
Complex crime = ONLY one crime
Complex crimes are more favorable to the accused because instead of
being convicted of two separate counts of the same crime, it is considered
as only one
75
Compound Crime
- Requisites:
1. that only a single act is performed by the offender
2. that the single act produces (i) 2 or more grave felonies, (ii) one or more
grave & one or more less grave felonies, (iii) 2 or more less grave felonies
The single act should produce a grave felony or a less grave felony or a
combination of both
Light felonies produced by the same single act should be treated and
punished as separate offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony
Supposing, you shot your neighbor then the bullet hit two children; the
result was your neighbor died, two children slightly injured, the result was
1 grave and 2 light felonies, is the crime complex or separate? Separate,
because the single act should produce a grave or less grave felony only
Supposing, a single criminal act produced 1 grave felony and 10 light
felonies, is the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, a single criminal act produced 1 less grave felony and several
light felonies, is the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, a single criminal act produced a crime punishable by the RPC
and a crime punishable by special law, is the crime complex or separate?
Separate, considered as separate violations
Supposing, Prof. Amurao throws a grenade in class, 5 students died, is the
crime complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, using the same facts above, in addition 3 light felonies were
produced, is the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, Prof. Amurao switched the machine gun to automatic and
shot at the students with one single act of pressing the trigger, producing
several injuries, is the crime complex or separate? Separate, because the
what is considered is the no. of bullets discharged (People v. Desierto)
Supposing, Prof. Amurao switched the machine gun to not automatic
and fired one bullet aimed at someone but hit 3 others producing serious
physical injuries, is the crime complex or separate? Complex
Supposing, the act of firing a machine gun produces the crimes of
attempted murder and physical injuries, is the crime complex or
separate? Separate, as held by the Court of Appeals
Supposing, two shots were fired directed against two different persons, is
the crime complex or separate? Separate
Supposing, in a notorious village, a commander ordered all his soldiers
to shoot at the residents, is the crime complex or separate? Complex, the
SC held in People v. Lawas that it was a complex crime because there was
a single offense since there was a single criminal impulse/intent/purpose
76
 Supposing, a person stole the fighting cocks of his neighbor alternately Supposing, in the crime of rebellion, an NPA commander burned
with three separate, independent acts, is the crime complex or separate? villages and killed the villagers in furtherance of his acts of rebellion, is
Complex, as held by the SC in People v. De Leon, the criminal act was the crime complex? NO, because the acts he committed were absorbed in
done on the same occasion and the offender was motivated by one the crime of rebellion
criminal impulse Supposing, in the crime of rebellion, the NPA commander killed
Supposing, a libelous article was published defaming 5 congressmen someone for personal reasons, is the crime complex? NO, the crimes are
specifically identified by their names, is the crime complex or separate? separate
Separate, because there are as many crimes of libel as there are persons In the crimes of treason or rebellion, when common crimes are committed,
libeled, provided that the persons are expressly specified; because each of (1) in furtherance of or is related to treason or rebellion, the crimes are
the 5 congressmen may file for libel absorbed, but (2) for personal reasons or for a private purpose, the crimes
Supposing, using the same facts above except that the congressmen were are separate
not identified, is the crime complex or separate? Complex There is no complex crime of rebellion with common crimes
Supposing, in a local publication, news writers wrote that the Herrera
doctors are inefficient, is the crime complex or separate? Complex, Special Complex Crimes
because the identification was in general terms, not specifically identified - Rape with Homicide - Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries
- Robbery with Homicide - Kidnapping with Murder or Homicide
Complex Crime Proper Express provisions in the Revised Penal Code that cannot be complex
- Requisites: - Article 129: search warrant obtained maliciously
1. that at least two offenses are committed - Article 235: maltreatment of prisoners
2. that one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other - Direct Bribery = cannot be complexed
3. that both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute Article 48 is intended to favor the culprit or accused
Necessary means not equivalent to indispensable means The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime,
the same to be applied in its maximum period
Supposing, the accused kidnapped a girl with intent to kill, brought the Two felonies in a complex crime punishable by imprisonment and fine =
victim somewhere then killed her, is the crime complex? NO, the crime is only the imprisonment is imposed
only murder, because the kidnapping was only a means to commit the
crime of murder ARTICLE 49 – PENALTY FOR PRINCIPALS OF CRIME COMMITTED WAS
Supposing, law students made a falsified solicitation letter and collected DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS INTENDED
money, is the crime complex? NO, it is not complex bec. the falsification applicable only to mistake in identity
of a private document may be an integral element of the crime of estafa
Steps
Supposing, a public official committed malversation through 1. identify lesser penalty
falsification of public documents, is the crime complex? YES, because the 2. whichever penalty is prescribed by law,
falsification was necessary to commit malversation 3. the lesser penalty is always applied or imposed
Supposing, the accused killed his victim in a building, then committed
arson to conceal the murder, is the crime complex? NO
ARTICLES 50-57 – DEGREES TO WHICH PENALTIES SHOULD BE
In the crimes of estafa and falsification, you look at the crime first
LOWERED (reading matter)
committed if it was necessary for the commission of the other; the common Participants’ liability lowered by degrees
element in estafa and falsification is the intent to cause damage
consummated frustrated attempted
Principals 0 1 2
Supposing, a city treasurer malversed P5million pesos out of taxes then
Accomplices 1 2 3
falsified documents to conceal the malversation, is the crime complex?
NO, the crimes are separate Accessories 2 3 4
77 78
 Article 50 – Principals in a frustrated felony
Article 51 – Principals in an attempted felony
Article 52 – Accomplices in a consummated felony
Article 53 – Accessories in a consummated felony
Article 54 – Accomplices in a frustrated felony
Article 55 – Accessories in a frustrated felony
Article 56 – Accomplices in an attempted felony
Article 57 – Accessories in an attempted felony
Basis for the determination
- under the RPC, penalties can be reduced by degrees
1. stage reached by the crime in its development (consummated, frustrated,
attempted)
2. participation of persons liable (principals, accomplices, accessories)
3. privileged mitigating circumstances
All penalties for each crime in the RPC = generally, shall always be
imposed unless the law itself expressly provides, except Article 60
Degree – one whole penalty; one entire penalty or one unit of penalties
enumerated in the graduated scales
Period – one of the 3 equal portions (minimum, medium, maximum)
ARTICLE 58 – ADDITIONAL PENALTY UPON ACCESSORIES OF ART.19(3)
- Absolute perpetual disqualification if guilty of a grave felony
- Absolute temporary disqualification if guilty of a less grave felony
Article 19(3) – public officers who help the author of the crime by
misusing their office and duties shall suffer the additional penalties
ARTICLE 59 – PENALTY FOR IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
- Arresto mayor, with fine of P200-P500
Basis for imposition:
- social danger
- degree of criminality
ARTICLE 60 – EXCEPTIONS TO ARTICLE 50-57
- shall not be applicable to cases in which the law prescribes a penalty for
frustrated and attempted stages or to be imposed on accomplices or
accessories
79
ARTICLE 61 – RULES FOR GRADUATING PENALTIES
Divisible Penalties – divided into three, so effects of ordinary mitigating
circumstances and generic aggravating circumstances can be applied
Indivisible Penalties – eg. reclusion perpetua, public censure, fine
First Rule and Second Rule
Penalty only consists of a degree
The penalty next lower by one degree = penalty immediately following the
penalty prescribed by the law
- single and indivisible = Reclusion perpetua
- penalty next lower in degree = Reclusion temporal
Supposing, accused shot the victim qualified by treachery, but the victim
survived, thus accused was convicted of frustrated murder, the penalty
for murder is reclusion perpetua, but since it was frustrated, the penalty
next lower in degree applies, which is reclusion temporal
Fourth and Fifth Rule
Penalty prescribed by law is 1, 2, or 3, several periods
- If one period lower, go down one period in the graduated scale
- If two periods lower, go down two periods in the graduated scale
- If three periods lower, go down three periods in the graduated scale
Example: Prision Mayor
- Supposing the penalty prescribed by law is prision mayor medium period: is
in itself a degree; RPC – all divisible penalties are divided into 3 periods;
prision mayor medium can be divided into maximum, medium, minimum
- Prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years)
12 – 6 = 6 / 3 = 2
2 = common multiple (add 2 to the periods starting from the minimum)
Minimum – 6 years and 1 day to (6+2) 8 years
Medium – 8 years and 1 day to (8+2) 10 years Prision mayor
Maximum – 10 years and 1 day (10+2) 12 years medium
- Prision mayor medium (8 years and 1 day to 10 years)
10 – 8 = 2 years / 3 = 8 months
8 months = common multiple (add 8 months)
Minimum – 8yrs. & 1 day to 8yrs. & 8 months
Medium – 8yrs. & 8 months to 9yrs. & 4 months
Maximum – 9yrs. & 4 years to 10 years
With the 3 periods of prision mayor medium now determined, the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances attendant can now be applied
80
 Third Rule
- when three penalties are imposed in one (eg. Reclusion temporal – Death)
- since Death is not imposed, three periods lowered immediately following
ARTICLE 62 - EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING AND
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
First rule: Aggravating circumstances:
1. should not themselves constitute a crime, eg. by means of fire = arson; by
means derailment of a locomotive = destruction of property
- Is unlawful entry a crime in itself? YES
2. should not be included in defining the crime, eg. by means of poison in the
crime of murder
3. The maximum period shall be imposed regardless of mitigating
circumstances if the offender is a public officer who took advantage by
public position
4. The maximum period shall be imposed for members of an organized or
syndicated crime group
Organized or Syndicated Crime Group – group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes
of gain in the commission of any crime
Second rule
- Aggravating circumstances are not applicable if inherent in the crime, eg.
evident premeditation in robbery or theft; advantage taken by public
position in malversation; sex in crimes against chastity; breaking wall in
malicious mischief
3. Personal cause
Supposing, you and your friend entered your neighbor’s house, not
knowing that your friend is afflicted with kleptomania, can the mitigating
circumstance of illness be appreciated for the both of you? NO, illness can
be appreciated only to your friend
Fourth rule: Aggravating or mitigating circumstances apply in the:
- material execution of the act and in the means employed to accomplish it;
only to those who had knowledge at the time of the execution
1. Material execution
Supposing, Prof. Amurao asked his student to simply kill his classmate,
but the student applied cruelty when he killed his classmate, can the
aggravating circumstance of cruelty be appreciated with Prof. Amurao?
NO, because he had no knowledge of the material execution used.
Supposing, using the same facts above, but Prof. Amurao told his student
to kill his classmate ‘at all costs’, can the aggravating circumstance of
cruelty be appreciated with Prof. Amurao? YES
2. Means employed to accomplish
- Principal by direct participation uses poison to commit murder without
the knowledge of the Principal by inducement
Habitual Delinquency
Habitual Delinquent – a person who, within a period of 10 years from the
date of release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, found guilty for a
3rd time or oftener. A habitual delinquent shall suffer an additional penalty
Difference between Habitual Delinquent/Recidivist/Reiteracion

Third rule: Aggravating or Mitigating Circumstances arising from: Habitual Delinquent Recidivism Reiteracion
1. Moral attributes Crimes - specified crimes - 2 crimes embraced in - 2 crimes not
the same title of the RPC embraced in the same
Supposing, the victim gave sufficient provocation, which irritated the
title of the RPC
accused who called his brother for assistance, then they both killed the Period - within 10 years - time bet. 2 offenses - has served sentence
victim, can the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation be is immaterial for the 1st offense
appreciated for both of them? NO, only to the one who was the target of No. of
the provocation (the accused) and not his brother Crimes - 3rd time or oftener - 2nd time is sufficient - 2nd time is sufficient
2. Private relations
Supposing, your neighbor slapped your mom, then you asked your friend Effects - additional penalty - a generic aggravating - not always an
to accompany you to kill your neighbor, can the aggravating circumstance is imposed circumstance; can be aggravating
of immediate vindication of a relative for a grave offense be appreciated offset by an ordinary circumstance
for the both you? NO, only to you because it was your mom who was mitigating circumstance
offended first and not your friend
81 82
 Difference bet. Habitual Delinquency & Subsidiary Imprisonment
Habitual Delinquent Subsidiary Imprisonment
- needs to be alleged in the - does not need to be alleged
information
- should be alleged in the - comes only after the sentence of
beginning conviction
- imposes an additional penalty - imposed only when unable to pay fine
- cannot be considered with a - general allegation will suffice
general allegation, must be
specifically alleged
Requisites for a Habitual Delinquent:
1. offender has been convicted of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification
2. after conviction or after serving sentence again committed within 10 years
from his release or date of first conviction, he was convicted of any of said
crimes for the 2nd time
3. after conviction or after serving sentence for the 2nd offense again commits
and within 10 years of conviction or release for the 2nd offense, commits a
3rd time or oftener
Additional Penalties
1. For the 3rd time = the penalty for the last crime + Prision correctional
medium to maximum
2. For the 4th time = the penalty for the last crime + Prision mayor minimum
to medium
3. For the 5th time or more = the penalty for the last crime + Prision mayor
maximum to Reclusion temporal minimum
Total of last penalty and additional penalty = should not exceed 30 yrs.
If the court overlooked the imposition of an additional penalty for
habitual delinquency = the offender cannot be compelled to suffer the
additional penalty
In the commission of several crimes occurring on or about the same date
shall be considered only as one for purposes of habitual delinquency
In the conviction for those crimes occurring on or about the same date shall
also be considered as one
ARTICLE 63 – RULES ON INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
1. For single indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua) – shall be applied
regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, eg. the crime of
rape with homicide, with the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender, voluntary confession of guilt, and illness, the penalty shall still
be reclusion perpetua because circumstances are disregarded
83
2. For two indivisible penalties (sub-paragraphs 1-4 are inapplicable, because
there is no death penalty, therefore there’s only one indivisible penalty)
Exception to disregarding circumstances: if it is a privileged mitigating
circumstance (Articles 68 & 69), or if the accused is a minor who acted
with discernment = can be entitled to a penalty next lower in degree
ARTICLE 64 – RULES FOR PENALTIES WITH 3 PERIODS
- In accordance w/ Articles 76-77 whether there are attending circumstances
First rule
- if neither a mitigating or aggravating circumstance is present = medium
period is imposed
Second rule
- if there is a mitigating circumstance = minimum period is imposed
Third rule
- if there is an aggravating circumstance = maximum period is imposed
Fourth rule
- if there is both a mitigating and aggravating circumstance = courts shall
offset the circumstances according to relative weight
Fifth rule
- if there are 2 or more mitigating circumstances and absolutely no
aggravating circumstances = the penalty next lower in degree is imposed
Sixth rule
- whatever the number or nature of aggravating circumstances = courts
cannot impose a greater penalty than prescribed by law in maximum
Seventh rule
- Courts can determine extent of penalty within the limits of each period
Mitigating circumstance must be ordinary = not privileged
Aggravating circumstance must be generic = not qualified or inherent
ARTICLE 65 – RULES FOR PENALTIES NOT IN THREE PERIODS
(reading matter)
ARTICLE 66 – IMPOSITION OF FINES
(reading matter)
- ¼ of the maximum fine is either added (for aggravating circumstances) or
deducted (for mitigating circumstances) from the maximum fine
- courts must consider:
1. mitigating or aggravating circumstances
2. wealth or means of the culprit
84
 ARTICLE 67 – PENALTY FOR INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
OF ACCIDENT
- Arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum (grave felonies)
- Arresto mayor minimum to Arresto mayor medium (for less grave felonies)
Light felonies through negligence = no penalty
ARTICLE 68 – PENALTY FOR MINORS UNDER 18
(repealed by RA 9344)
Minor under 18 who acted with discernment = penalty two degrees lower
ARTICLE 69 – PENALTY FOR INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES
- lowered by 1 or 2 degrees
Majority of such conditions must be present
In self-defense, defense of a relative, defense of a stranger
- Unlawful Aggression is indispensable
ARTICLE 70 – SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Simultaneous Service – if the nature of the penalties will so permit, i.e.
Reclusion temporal and Perpetual Absolute Disqualification (refer to Reyes
book for a complete list of penalties that ca be served simultaneously)
Successive Service – if cannot be served simultaneously (such as two jail
sentences) shall follow the scale provided by Article 70 based in the order
according to severity
3-fold rule – the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be
more than 3-fold the length of the time corresponding to the most severe of
the penalties imposed
only applies when the convict has to serve at least 4 sentences
In no case shall the sum total of penalties exceed 40 years
In the scale, Arresto menor comes before destierro because complete
deprivation of liberty or imprisonment in arresto menor is more severe than
destierro
Supposing, you are a judge, can you impose the sentence of 500 counts
of malversation, which is each punishable by 15 yrs. of imprisonment,
without violating Article 70? YES, because the 3-fold rule does not refer
to the imposition of sentence but refers to the service to the penalty; the
courts can sentence no matter what and no matter how much
The 3-fold rule is the concern of the Director of Prisons, NOT of the
courts
85
If the sum total of all the penalties does not exceed the most severe
multiplied by 3, the 3-fold rule does not apply
Duration of convicts’ sentence refers to several penalties for different
offenses not yet served out = has to serve continuous imprisonment
ARTICLE 71 – GRADUATED SCALES
Penalties are classified between personal penalties (imprisonment) and
political rights (suspension, fine, etc)
Arresto mayor is followed by destierro
ARTICLES 72-77 (reading matter)
Article 73 – Accessory penalties are deemed imposed
Subsidiary imprisonment is NOT an accessory penalty
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT 4103 AMENDED BY ACT 4225)
- mandatory in nature; whether the courts like it or not, they have to apply
the same except for those mentioned in Sec. 2 who are disqualified
Purpose/Objectives of the ISLAW
1. to uplift and redeem valuable human materials
2. promote economic usefulness
3. prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of liberty
The ISLAW was enacted to benefit the accused by allowing the convict not
to serve the full sentence
These objectives are attained with the application of the ISLAW
Court fixes a Maximum term and a Minimum term
After serving the Minimum term, the convict shall be entitled to parole
upon evaluation of the Board of Pardons and Parole
The ‘release’ shall be evaluated by the Court whether the convict is:
- fitted by training for release
- reasonable probability not to commit another crime or violate the law
- compatible with the welfare of society
(take note of this; this was given by Prof. Amurao)
As applied in special penal laws
- the Maximum term should not be more than what is prescribed
- the Minimum term should not be less than what is prescribed
Example: 5 yrs and 1 day to 15 yrs
- the Minimum may be anywhere from 5 yrs to 14 yrs, but not less than 5 yrs
- the Maximum may be anywhere from 6 - 15 yrs. but not more than 15yrs.
86
 As applied in the Revised Penal Code ISLAW is inapplicable with the following:
- the Maximum term should be imposed under the rules of the RPC; penalty 1. persons convicted of death or life imprisonment
prescribed by law after applying the legal effects of mitigating or - in terms of death, this refers to the penalty actually imposed in the
aggravating circumstances; only the maximum is affected by the attending conviction by the courts, not the penalty prescribed by the law
circumstances - in terms of life imprisonment, what if Reclusion perpetua is imposed, can
- the Minimum term should be within the range of the penalty next lower to the ISLAW still be applied? The SC says NO, it’s not applicable
that prescribed by the RPC; the penalty prescribed by law, lower it 2. those convicted of treason, proposal or conspiracy to commit treason
immediately by one degree, ignore all the mitigating or aggravating 3. those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, espionage
circumstances 4. convicted of piracy
Example: 5. habitual delinquents
Supposing, accidentally you met your neighbor along the road, he 6. those who escaped from confinement
challenged you to a fight and you accepted the challenge, there was a 7. those who violated the terms of conditional pardon by the President
physical fight, then you inflicted a mortal wound that caused his death in 8. maximum term of imprisonment less than a year
the hospital, you were charged with homicide, because there were no 9. those convicted by destierro or suspension
qualifying circumstances, and since there was no mitigating and - destierro is a conviction imposed by courts
aggravating you should be sentenced to a medium period of reclusion
temporal (for homicide) PROBATION LAW (PD 968)
- To get Minimum term, immediately get the penalty next to Reclusion Probation – a disposition under which a defendant after conviction and
temporal, lower by 1 degree = Prision mayor – anywhere within Prision sentence, is released subject to the conditions imposed by the court and to
mayor, the court can decide what period, regardless of attending the supervision of the probation officer
circumstances
- The Maximum term, considering the absence of attending circumstances, Objectives/Purpose
is Reclusion Temporal medium period 1. Promote correction and rehabilitation
- The sentence now using the ISLAW is Prision mayor in any period as the 2. Opportunity for reformation
Minimum term, up to Reclusion temporal medium period as the Maximum 3. Prevent commission of offenses
term
Criteria for granting
If the convict reaches the Minimum term, he shall eligible for parole; - character - environment - institution/community
terms and conditions can be imposed by the BPP - antecedents - mental and physical condition
Note from Prof. Amurao: It pays to be in good terms with the judge and his Criteria for denying; if the convict:
wife or his number 2 so you can get a low Minimum term if not the lowest 1. needs correctional treatment
2. has undue risk of committing another crime
Surveillance Period during Parole (SP) 3. probation will depreciate seriousness of offense
1. If there is no violation during the during the special period, the court will
issue an order for final discharge Inapplicability of the Probation Law
2. Legal effect of a violation of law or rules: 1. a convict sentenced to more than 6 years
- release may be revoked 2. convicted of subversion other crimes of national security or public order
- prosecuted anew 3. a recidivist
- prolonged change in the terms and conditions of the parole 4. previously probationed
- made to serve out the remaining unexpired portion of the sentence 5. already serving sentence
During parole, the convict is as free as any normal person except for the
terms and condition that have to be observed
87 88
 There is first, a judgment of conviction imposed by the court
Duration
- not exceeding 6 years and not disqualified
- the accused may file an application for probation with the court
- the court will order an investigation through the probation officer, all the
aspects of the life of the convict
- probation officer submits findings and recommendation
- after submission, court may deny or approve recommendation and admit
the accused to probation
- Court may impose duration based on: - rehabilitation
- reformation
- reintegration
Duration of the Probation Period
1. sentence not more than 1 year = probation is less than 2 years
2. sentence more than 1 year = probation is less than 6 years
3. sentence is fine with subsidiary imprisonment = probation is twice the
days of subsidiary imprisonment
After the Probation Period
- the court can issue, upon recommendation by the probation officer, a
certificate of final discharge; its effects are:
1. restored to one’s original position
2. liability for the fine is deemed extinguished
When to apply for probation
- 15 days from promulgation, during the reglamentary period
- the convict can either appeal or apply for probation
Supposing, convict filed a notice of appeal, later changed his mind,
withdrew his appeal then filed an application for probation, can he do that?
NO, once you file for an appeal, you waive your right to file for an
application for probation, and vice-versa if you first file for an application
then later on decide to withdraw it.
Supposing, a judgment of conviction was made, thus not entitled to
probation, so accused filed an appeal in the CA where his sentence was
lowered, qualifying him for probation, can he apply for probation now?
CA says – YES, there can’t be any waiver of right because he was not
entitled to file an application for probation = there’s nothing to
waive
SC says – NO, because he already appealed, though with strong dissenting
opinions about it (The SC is supreme, but it is not always right)
89
Beyond the 15-day reglamentary period, you can’t file an application for
probation, except in RA 9344, a child in conflict with the law can file an
application for probation anytime
ARTICLES 78-80 (reading matters)
- Article 79 – Suspension of Execution
- Article 80 (repealed by RA 9344) – involves the diversion and intervention
programs for children in conflict with the law
ARTICLES 81-85 – PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR THE EXECUTION
OF DEATH PENALTY (reading matter)
ARTICLE 86 – ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER ON PENITENTIARIES
(reading matter)
ARTICLE 87 – DESTIERRO
- prohibition in a certain place or places designated in the conviction
- not permitted to enter the place or places nor within the radius specified not
more than 250, but not less than 25 kilometers from the place
ARTICLE 88 – ARRESTO MENOR
- shall be served in municipal jails
- or for health reasons, can be allowed to stay home (house arrest)
ARTICLE 89 – TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. Death of a convict = extinguishes personal penalties but not pecuniary
if death comes before final judgment, even pecuniary liabilities are
extinguished
2. Service of sentence
- crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a consequence; after service of
the sentence, the debt is paid
3. Amnesty
- extinguishes the penalty and its effects; as if the crime was not committed
4. Absolute Pardon
- an act of grace by the Chief Executive; exempts the person from
punishment only
5. Prescription of crime
- forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to prosecute
6. Prescription of penalty
- loss or forfeiture of right of the government to execute the final sentence
7. Marriage of offended woman (Article 344)
- private crimes (abduction, seduction, lascivious acts adultery, concubinage)
cannot be prosecuted de officio
- public crimes (rape) can be prosecuted de officio (meaning initiated in
Court by filing a complaint
Marriage can extinguish either crimes
90
 ARTICLE 90 AND 91 – PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES AND COMPUTATION Difference between Prescription of crimes & Prescription of penalties
1. Death, Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal = 20 years PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
2. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties = 15 years - loss or forfeiture of the State to - loss or forfeiture of the State to
3. Crimes punishable by correctional penalties = 10 years prosecute enforce judgment after a lapse of
4. Arresto mayor = 5 years time
5. Crimes of libel, or other similar offenses = 1 year - period: includes libel, oral - light felonies for 1 year
6. Oral defamation/ Slander by deed = 6 months defamation; difference in time for
7. Light felonies = 2 months light felonies
The prescriptive period shall commence to run from the discovery of the - starts counting upon discovery of the - starts counting upon the escape or
crime and shall be interrupted only by filing a complaint or information commission of the crime evasion of service of the sentence
in court - mere absence from the Philippines - absence from the Philippines
Commences to run again when such proceedings terminate without the interrupts interrupted only when he goes to a
accused being convicted or acquitted foreign country without an
The prescriptive period shall not run when the offender is absent from the extradition treaty with us
Philippines - commission of another crime before - commission of another crime
the expiration of the period does not before expiration of the period
Supposing, in 1980 the accused commits a crime, then goes into hiding, he interrupt interrupts the prescription
resurfaces 20 years later, then the government finds a witness, can they
institute a case? NO, but if the accused left for the US, YES he can be ARTICLE 94 – PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
prosecuted still 1. Conditional pardon
The mere filing of a complaint with the following does not interrupt the - must be delivered and accepted; contract bet. President and the convict
prescriptive period: 2. By commutation of the sentence
- Chief of Police - Office of the NBI 3. For good conduct allowances which culprit may earn
- Office of the Provincial Director of the PNP 4. Full credit of service of preventive imprisonment
because these do not constitute the court; they are not part of the judiciary, 5. Release on Parole
not part of the courts of justice 6. Release under Probation
But filing with: Office of the Public Prosecutor or Office of the
Ombudsman, may interrupt the prescriptive period ARTICLE 95 – OBLIGATIONS OF THOSE GRANTED CONDITIONAL
PARDON
ARTICLE 92 AND 93 – PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES AND COMPUTATION (reading matter)
1. Death, Reclusion perpetua = 20 years ARTICLE 96 – EFFECT OF COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
2. Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties = 15 years (reading matter)
3. Crimes punishable by correctional penalties = 10 years
4. Arresto mayor = 5 years ARTICLE 97 – ALLOWANCES FOR GOOD CONDUCT
5. Light felonies = 1 year 1. first 2 years = deduction of 5 days for each month of good behavior
The prescriptive period shall commence upon evasion of the service of 2. 3 - 5 years = deduction of 8 days for each month of good behavior
sentence of the convict and shall be interrupted by the following: 3. 6-10 years = deduction of 10 days for each month of good behavior
1. if offender gives himself up 4. 11 & so on years = deduction of 15 days for each month of good behavior
2. if he is captured
3. goes to a foreign country with which we have no extradition treaty
4. commits another crime before expiration of the period of prescription
91 92
 ARTICLE 98 – SPECIAL TIME ALLOWANCES
- it is a deduction of 1/5 of the period of the entire sentence: having evaded
service during calamity or catastrophe (Art.158) gives himself up to the
authorities within 48 hours; otherwise, if captured 1/5 of the remaining
sentence will added
Supposing, there is a calamity, but you did not escape, will you be
awarded the 1/5 deduction? NO, the law says you have to first escape
ARTICLE 99 – WHO GRANTS TIME ALLOWANCES (reading matter)
- The Director of Prisons
Article 100 – Civil Liability
In every felony, arises two things:
(i) criminal liability, which can be extinguished by:
- imprisonment - fine
- prescription of liberty
Interested parties are: the government/State/President against the accused
who is the only one liable because penalties are personal
(ii) civil liability, which can be extinguished by:
- restitution - indemnification
- reparation
Interested parties are: the offended party and heirs against the accused and
heirs
Civil liability can be extinguished similar to that of contracts
Upon filing of the criminal action, civil action is deemed instituted
If the criminal case was filed first, it shall take precedence
If the civil case was filed first, it will be suspended when the criminal case
is filed
Reservation of right – loses right to intervene in criminal case, but allows
for the institution of an independent civil action (ICA)
Independent Civil Action (for cases of or claims for damages,
defamation, physical injuries) may proceed simultaneously with the
criminal case, but if there is prejudicial question, it shall be decided first
Prejudicial Question – is one which arises in a case, the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved in the said case, and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal
Extinction of criminal liability (acquittal) shall not carry the civil action
with it unless it is the basis for the decision
ARTICLE 101 – RULES ON CIVIL LIABILITY
- Article 12 pars. 1, 2, 3,5,6 and Article 11(4) are not exempt from civil
liability
First rule:
- Article 12 (1, 2, 3) = civil liability devolves to those who have parental or
legal authority of them
Second rule:
- Article 11(4) = those who benefited from the harm prevented are civilly
liable
Third rule:
- Article 12 (5 & 6) = the persons causing the fear or using violence are
primarily liable; in their absence, those who acted are secondarily liable
ARTICLES 102-103 – SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER PERSONS
(reading matter)
ARTICLES 104-109 &111 – FORMS OF CIVIL LIABILITY & OBLIGATIONS
(reading matter)
ARTICLE 110 – SEVERAL LIABILITIES OF PARTICIPANTS IN A CRIME
The principals, accomplices, accessories shall have several liability; thus,
the offended party can ask payment from any of them
In case of insolvency of the principal, the accomplice is next in line, and so
on, if the latter is also insolvent
3rd person gratuitous – requires participation knowledge; requires
knowledge on his part of the commission of the crime
ARTICLE 112 & 113 – EXTINGUISHMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY
- same as extinguishment of contracts
1. by payment or performance
2. by the loss of the thing due
3. by condonation or remission of the debt
4. by the confusion or merger of the rights of the creditor and debtor
5. by compensation
6. by novation

93 94
 SAMPLE MIDTERM EXAM QUESTIONS (AMURAO) SAMPLE FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS (AMURAO)

1. A US Navy warship docked at Pier 15, Manila in order to perform a 1. Pending trial of his criminal case for theft and unable to post bail for his
goodwill mission by rendering medical and dental assistance to destitute provisional liberty, Ernesto was detained. After 3 years of trial, the Court
residents of Smokey Mountain and nearby areas in Tondo. Three (3) US rendered a judgment sentencing him to suffer 4 years imprisonment. May
Navy personnel conspired with five (5) Filipino smugglers and a Chinese Ernesto be compelled to undergo the sentence of 4 years? Why?
businessman to smuggle medical and dental equipment, foodstuff, liquor, and
cigarettes from the ship in violation of the Tariff and Customs Code, a
special law. When the smuggled items, loaded in a closed van, were on the
way to the warehouse of the Chinese businessman, government operatives
intercepted the same and the items were returned to the ship. 2. After switching his armalite rifle to automatic, Mariano pointed the gun to
a. What stage was reached in the commission of the crime of the people in the town plaza who were watching a show. He pressed the
smuggling and who are the parties liable? trigger once which resulted in the discharge of several bullets hitting and
b. Assuming that the Fiscal filed the case in court and the accused killing 10 persons. Discuss his criminal liability.
pleaded guilty, would this circumstance reduce the penalty? State
reasons.

3. George was found guilty of robbery with physical injuries punishable by

2. While two (2) UP Los Banos students were being maltreated in an the RPC with the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
uninhabited place in Los Banos by five (5) persons, Mang Ponyong was reclusion temporal in its medium period. The court also found that George
witnessing the incident and when he was seen by the culprits, he uttered the was previously convicted twice of the crime of slight physical injuries, his
following: “Mabuti nga sa mga iyan, kasi mayayabang ang mga iyan eh.” left eye blind, he surrendered voluntarily to his uncle who was a policeman
Later on, the incident was discovered by the Chief of Police, realizing that and he pleaded guilty during the arraignment. Applying the indeterminate
the perpetrators were his men, he ordered that the cadavers be burned in a sentence law, determine the penalty imposed upon George.
forested area. When the Mayor was informed about the matter, he told the
Chief of Police and the 5 culprits to keep quiet about it and Mang Ponyong
was given a substantial amount to keep silent. Discuss the criminal liability
of the Mayor, Chief of Police, Mang Ponyong and the 5 perpetrators,
mentioning the aggravating circumstances applicable to each of them.

3. A, B and C met inside a restaurant where they discussed and agreed to rob
MN Bank. Their discussion was overheard by the waiter who informed the
Police Station which, in turn, wasted no time in sending a team of plain
clothes men who arrested A, B and C while they were about to leave the
restaurant. Are A, B and C criminally liable? Why?

95 96