Criminal Law 1

CRIMINAL
LAW 1
I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

CRIMINAL LAW A branch of
municipal law which defines crimes,
treats of their nature and provides for
their punishments.

SOURCES OF STATE AUTHORITY:
1. 1987 CONSTITUTION
a) Article II, Section 5
b) Article VI, Section 1
2. Revised Penal Code
3. Special Criminal Laws
4. Penal Provisions in Other Laws
5. Local Ordinances
6. Jurisprudence

Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (asked in 2001 Bar Examination)
Briefly state what essentially distinguishes a crime mala
prohibita from a crime mala in se.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by nature wrong,
evil or bad. They are punished only because there is a law
prohibiting them for public good, and thus good faith or lack
of criminal intent in doing the prohibited act is not a defense.
In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, evil or
bad, and so generally condemned. The moral trait of the
offender is involved; thus, good faith or lack of criminal Intent
on the part of the offender is a defense, unless the crime is
the result of criminal negligence. Correspondingly, modifying
circumstances are considered in punishing the offender.

People vs. Carlos (87 Phil. 535)
A Japanese spy seized, arrested
and tortured two (2) Filipinos, who
refused to reveal the whereabouts
of their guerrilla brother.
Crime of treason
The Peoples court does not work
to deprive the right of individuals
to equal protection to law.

Barnes vs. Glen Theatre, Inc.
(501 U.S. 560)
Two Indiana establishments
wished to provide totally nude
dancing as entertainment.
Crime of public indecency
The nude dancing or nudity itself
is not inherently expressive
conduct.

Employment Division, Department od Human
Resources of Oregon vs. Smith (494 U.S. 872)
Two drug rehabilitation counselors, both
members of the Native American Church were
fired from their jobs because they had
ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug for
sacramental purposes.
The free exercise clause can ban the use of
Peyote or can deny unemployment benefits
for dismissal based on the use of the
substance.

Estrada vs. Escritor (492 SCRA 1)
Escritor is living with a man who is not his
husband and having borne a child within
their live-in arrangement in conformity
with their religious beliefs as members of
the Jehovas Witnesses and Watch Tower
and Bible Tract Society.
Escritor cannot be penalized for engaging
into a conjugal arrangement because she
has a fundamental right to freedom of
religion.

People vs. De la Cruz (92 Phil. 906)
For overpricing a can of milk, Pablo
Dela Cruz was sentenced to
imprisonment for five years, to pay a
fine of five thousand plus costs and
barred from engaging in wholesale
and retail business for five years.
The punishment is disproportionate
to the offense; the imprisonment is
cruel and unusual.

People vs. Echegaray (267 SCRA
682)
The accused raped his 10 year old
daughter. Rape is punishable of death
sentence. During that time, R.A. No.
7659, commonly known as the death
penalty law was already in effect.
Punishment are cruel only when they
involve torture and lingering death
but the punishment of death is not
cruel within the meaning of the word
as used in the Constitution.

Harden vs. Director of Prisons (81
Phil 741)
The petitioner was imprisoned for more
than six months for contempt by reason
of non-compliance to court orders issued
regarding the administration of conjugal
partnership.
Rule 64, Sec. 7, Imprisonment until
order obeyed. When the contempt
consists in the omission to do an act
which is yet in the power of the accused
to perform, he may be imprisoned by

People vs. Ferrer (48 SCRA 382)
Feliciano Co, an officer and ranking
leader of the Communist Party of the
Philippines; accused were seen
conducting meetings and delivered
speeches enticing people to subversion
which is an overt act an obvious
subversion against the State.
Crime: Violation of Sec. 4 of the AntiSubversion Act.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity
of the anti-subversions Act. The acts

Ex post facto law
a) Makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law and act which was
innocent when done, and punishes
such act;
b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it
greater than it was, when committed;
c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed;

Ex post facto law
d)
Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less of different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the
offense;
e)
Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only,
in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right
for something which when done was lawful; and
f)Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled, such as
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (In Re: Kay Villegas Kami
(35 SCRA 429)

Pesigan vs. Angeles (129 SCRA
174)
Anselmo and Mardcelo Pesigan
transported twenty-six carabaos was
transported to Batangas in the evening of
April 2, 1982.
Crime: Violation of E.O. 625
Executive Order No. 625 should not be
enforced against the accused because it is
a penal regulation published 2 months
after the commission of the crime.

Taada vs. Tuvera (136 SCRA 27)
Tanada and company seeks a Writ of
Mandamus compelling respondents public
officials to cause the publication in the
official Gazette of various laws.
The court ordered the respondents to
publish in the official Gazette all
unpublished presidential decrees,
issuances which are of general
applications, and unless so published, they
shall have no binding force and effect.

PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL LAW:
De Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas

City (417 SCRA 636)
De Joya was found guilty of the
violation of BP Bilang 22; she hid but
was arrested and detained.
The judgments of conviction had long
attained finality and could no longer
be modified.

Retribution - The penalty is
commensurate with the gravity of the
offense.
Prevention - The State must punish the
criminal to prevent or suppress the
danger arising from the criminal acts of
the offender.
Deterrence - Deter the accused from
doing the same wrongful act.
Incapacitation - Impedes some right
vested in the accused because of his
wrongful act.
Rehabilitation - Restore the victim to his

People vs. Sultan (331 SCRA 216)
Accused robbed and raped the victim with
force and intimidation using an ice-pick.
Guilty of special complex crime of robbery
with rape.
Additional count of rape is not considered
as an aggravating circumstance in the
gravity of the penalty because there is no
law passed providing that the additional
rape/s may be considered aggravating

People vs. Valdez (304 SCRA 611)
Crime committed: Multiple murder with
double frustrated murder and illegal
possessions of firearms.
Republic Act 8294 is applied
prospectively; however, since the law is
favorable to the accused, the same
shall have a retroactive application.
Go vs. Dimaguiba (460

SCRA 451)
Crime Committed: Violation of

Bouncing Law
SC No. 12-2000 cannot be given
retroactive application if it is not a
law that deletes the penalty of
imprisonment. It is a mere rule of
preference as to which the penalty
to be imposed under peculiar
circumstances of the case.
Equipoise Doctrine - The rule

which states that when the
evidence of the prosecution and
the defense are so evenly
balanced the appreciation of such
evidence calls for tilting of the
scales in favor of the accused.
Thus, the evidence for the
prosecution must be heavier to
overcome the presumption of
innocence of the accused.

People vs. Dindo (349 SCRA
492)
When the guilt of the accused has not
been proven with moral certainty, such
as the case at bar, it is the policy of
long standing that the presumption of
innocence of the accused must be
favored and his exoneration be granted
as a matter of right.
People vs. Sayana (405 SCRA

243)
The prosecution must prove beyond

Void for Vagueness or Over breadth
(Doctrine of Pro Reo)
Whenever a penal law is to be
construed or applied and the law
admits of two interpretations one
lenient to the offender and one
strict to the offender that
interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be
adopted.

What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does it relate to Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code? (2010 Bar Q & A)
The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal
in nature are to be construed and applied in a way lenient or liberal
to the offender, constant to and consistent with the constitutional
guarantee that an accused shall be presumed innocent until his
guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Following the pro reo
doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised penal Code, crimes are
complexed and punished with a single penalty (i.e., that prescribed
for the most serious crime and to be imposed in its maximum
period). The rationale being, that the accused who commits two
crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity
that when the crimes are committed by different acts and several
criminal resolutions. (People vs Comadre, 431 SCRA 366, 384
[2004]). However, Art. 48 shall be applied only when it would bring
about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the penalties if
prosecuted separately instead of being complexed.

State vs. Metzger (211 Neb. 593)
The ordinance, Lincoln Municipal Code, makes it
unlawful for anyone to commit any "indecent, immodest
or filthy act.
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (369 SCRA 394)

A statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely
because general terms are used, or because of the
employment of terms without defining them. A statute
or act may be said to be vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence most necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ in its application.
II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

CRIMINAL LAW
US vs. Sweet (1 Phil. 18)
Crime Committed: Offense by a
military person upon a prisoner of
war.
In the United States Philippines
Commission Act No. 136, Section
56 (6), CFIs are given original
jurisdiction in all criminal cases
because it violated the general
penal provision.

CRIMINAL LAW
Schneckenburger vs. Moran (63 Phil.
249)
Crime committed: Falsification of a
private document by an accredited
consul in a country he works and resides.
The case does not involved the question
of diplomatic immunity. It is well
established that a consul is not entitled
to the privileges and immunity of an
ambassador or minister but is subject to
the laws and regulations of the country
to which he is accredited.

CRIMINAL LAW
Liang vs. People (232 SCRA 652)

Petitioner is an economist working
with the Asian Development Bank
(ADB); was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City with two counts of
grave oral defamation.
The DFAs determination that a certain
person is covered by immunity is only
preliminary which has no binding
effect in courts.

CRIMINAL LAW
Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons
(37 SCRA 420)
The emphatic affirmation that is
the only means benefitting the
accused by retroactive character
of a favorable decision, the
petition having successfully
sustained the burden of justifying
their release and ordered be set at
liberty.

CRIMINAL LAW
People vs. Ringor (320 SCRA 429)
Accused was guilty of murder using
an unlicensed firearm.
The use of unlicensed firearm in
murder or homicide is simply
considered as an aggravating but
considering the time the accused
perpetrated the offense, the
unlicensed character was not yet an
aggravating circumstances.

CRIMINAL LAW
People vs. Lacson (GR No. 149453, 2003)
The Court is not mandated to apply rules
retroactively simply because it is favorable to
the accused. The time-bar under the new rule is
intended to benefit both the State and
the accused. When the rule was approved by
the court, it intended that the rule be applied
prospectively and not retroactively, for to do so
would be tantamount to the denial
of the States right to due process. A retroactive
application would result in absurd, unjust and
oppressive consequences to the State and to
the victims of crimes and their heirs.

CRIMINAL LAW
US vs. Ah Sing (36 Phil. 978)
The mere act of going into a port,
without breaking bulk, is prima facie
evidence of importation. The
importation is not the making entry of
goods at the customhouse, but merely
the bringing them into the port, and
the importation is complete before the
entry to the customhouse.

CRIMINAL LAW
People vs. Wong Cheng (46 PHIL 729)
Appellee is accused of having illegally
smoked opium, aboard the merchant
vesselChangsaof English nationality
while said vessel was anchored in Manila
Bay two and a half miles from the shores
of the city.
A mere possession is not considered a
disturbance of the public order. But to
smoke opium within our territorial limits,
even though aboard a foreign merchant
ship, is certainly a breach of the public
order here established, because it causes

CRIMINAL LAW
US vs. Look Chow (18 Phil. 978)
Mere possession of opium on board a
foreign vessel in transit in Philippine
waters as such does not involve a breach
of public order unless the opium is
landed in our Philippine soil.
RA 9372 - AN ACT TO SECURE THE

STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE
FROM TERRORISM

CRIMINAL LAW
Asked in 1994 Bar Examination
Hubert and Eunice were married in the

Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New
York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They
renewed their friendship and finally decided to get
married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the
marriage and secures a copy of the marriage
contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of
Bigamy against Hubert in the Philippines.
The case will not because the Philippine Courts
have no jurisdiction over a crime committed
outside of the Philippine territory. Under the
principle of territoriality, penal laws, specifically
III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

OF FELONIES AND
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Actus not facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

FELONIES AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Article 3, RPC definition and
classification of felonies
Elements of criminal liability
1. Physical element (actus reus)
a) Act - the act is one which is defined
by the RPC as constituting a felony;
or, at least, an overt act of that
felony, that is, an external act which
has a direct connection with the
felony intended to be committed.

Powell vs. Texas (392 U.S. 514)
The appellant was arrested, charged
with and convicted for violation of
Texas Penal Code, Article 477 or being
intoxicated in a public place.
Having a disease that makes a person
unable to resist doing an act in
violation of a law does not render the
law unconstitutional as cruel and
unusual punishment.

b) Omission - In thecriminal law,
anomission, or failure to act, will
constitute anactus reus(Latinfor "guilty
act") and give rise to liability only when
thelawimposes a duty to act and
thedefendantis in breach of that duty.
) People vs. Silvestre (56 Phil. 353)

Mere passive presence at the scene of
another's crime, mere silence and failure
to give the alarm, without evidence of
agreement or conspiracy, do not
constitute the cooperation required by
Art. 14 of the Penal Code for complicity in
the commission of the crime witnessed

People vs. Talingdan (84 SCRA
19)
It is true that proof of her direct
participation in the conspiracy is not
beyond reasonable doubt; she cannot
have the same liability as her coappellants. She had no hand in the
actual shooting. It is also not clear if
she helped directly in the planning
and preparation thereof. But the court
is convinced that she knew it was
going to be done and did not object.

2. Mental element (mens rea)
a) Deliberate intent (Dolo) As an
element of criminal responsibility, a
guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful
purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty
knowledge and wilfulness.
i. Elements: Freedom, Intelligence and
Intent
ii. General intent it is not necessary
that the accused intend the precise
harm or result. It is sufficient if the
person meant to do the act that
caused the harm or result.

People vs. Puno (219 SCRA 85)
For this crime to exist, there must be
indubitable proof that the actual intent of
the malefactors was to deprive the
offended party of her liberty
In the case, the restraint of her freedom
of action was merely an incident in the
commission of another offense primarily
intended by the offenders
This does not constitute kidnapping or
serious illegal detention

iv. Mistake of fact An error that is
not caused by the neglect of a legal
duty on the part of the person
committing the error but rather
consists of an unconscious ignorance
of a past or present material event or
circumstance or a belief in the
present existence of a material event
that does not exist or a belief in the
past existence of a material event
that did not exist.

U.S. vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488)
He can not be said to have been
guilty of negligence or recklessness
or even carelessness in falling into
his mistake as to the facts, or in
the means adopted by him to
defend himself from the imminent
danger which he believe
threatened his person and his
property and the property under
his charge.

People vs. Oanis (75 Phil. 257)
Innocent mistake of fact does not
apply to the case at bar.
Ignorance facti excusat applies
only when the mistake is
committed without fault or
carelessness. The fact that the
supposedly suspect was sleeping,
Oanis and Galanta could have
checked whether it is the real
Balagtas.

v. Malum Prohibitum Latin
meaning "wrong due to being
prohibited," which refers to crimes
made so by statute.
Padilla vs. Dizon (158 SCRA 127)

The proof of malice or deliberate
intent is not essential in offenses
punished by special laws, which are
Mala Prohibita. Thus, in requiring
proof of malice,the respondent judge
has by his gross ignorance allowed
theaccused to go scot free.

Magno vs. CA (210 SCRA 475)
RTC and CAs decision merely relied on
the law, without looking into
therealnatureofwarrantydeposit.
Acquittalbasedonactionnot
constitutingawrongsoughttobe
punishedinoffensecharged(not
because of lack of intent).
Griffin vs. CA (379 SCRA 94)

Good faith on the part of the accused
negates any intent of putting worthless
checks in circulation.

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (369
SCRA 394)
The elements of mens rea must be
proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is
noteworthy that the amended
information alleges that the crime of
plunder was committed wilfully,
unlawfully and criminally.

vi. Intent vs. Motive (Bar Q & A)
Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law.

Motive is the moving power which impels one to action
for a definite result; whereas intent is the purpose to
use a particular means to effect such results. Motive is
not an essential element of a felony and need not be
proved for purpose of conviction, while intent is an
essential element of felonies by dolo.
2. May crime be committed without criminal intent?
(1996)
Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal intent
if such is a culpable felony, wherein Intent is substituted
by negligence or imprudence, and also in a malum
prohibitum or if an act is punishable by special law.
1.

.Distinguish "motive" from "intent". (1999)

."Motive " is the moving power which impels a person to do
an act for a definite result; while "intent" is the purpose for
using a particular means to bring about a desired result.
Motive is not an element of a crime but intent is an element of
intentional crimes. Motive, if at-tending a crime, always
precede the intent
.When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not
necessary to be established? Explain
.Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as to
the identity of the offender or when the act committed gives
rise to variant crimes and there is the need to determine the
proper crime to be imputed to the offender. It is not necessary
to prove motive when the offender is positively identified or

.Motive; Proof thereof; Not Essential; Conviction (2006)
.Motive is essential in the determination of the

commission of a crime and the liabilities of the
perpetrators. What are the instances where proof
of motive is not essential or required to justify
conviction of an accused? Give at least 3
instances. (5%)
1. When there is an eyewitness or positive identification of the
accused.
2. When the accused admitted or confessed to the com-mission of
the crime.
3. In crimes mala prohibita.
4. In direct assault, when the victim, who is a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority was attacked in the actual

People vs. Temblor (161 SCRA 623)
The accuses alibi was unacceptable
because it was self-serving and
uncorroborated. It cannot overrule
positive identification it was merely 15
20 minutes away from the crime scene
and his father was at work at the time of
murder of Julius Cagampang. It has
proven that he had motive in killing
Cagampang: he had knowledge that
Cagampang possessed a firearm; this
motive is enough to kill him as part of
the NPAs agaw-armas campaign of

People vs. Hassan (157 SCRA
261)
Motive is a state of mind,
procedurally, however, for purpose
of complying with a requirement
that a judgment of guilty must
stem from proof beyond
reasonable doubt, the lack of
motive on the part of the accused
plays a pivotal role towards his
acquittal especially when there is

b) Constructive Intent (Culpa)
)People vs. Carmen (355 SCRA 267)
Killing a person with treachery is murder even if
there is no intent to kill. When death occurs, it is
presumed to be the natural consequence of
physical injuries inflicted.
.Madeja vs. Caro (126 SCRA 293)

Death due to a negligent act may be a delict or
quasi-delict. It may create a civil action based on
Article 100 of the Penal Code or an action based
on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil
Code. These alternatives are assumed in Article
2177 of the Civil Code "but the plaintiff cannot
recover twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant"

Imprudence or lack of skill - A lack of
caution in practical affairs. Deficiency of
action.
Negligence or lack of foresight Negligence is generally defined
asconductthat is culpable because it
falls short of what areasonable
personwould do to protect
anotherindividualfrom a foreseeable risk
of harm. Through civil litigation, if an
injured person proves that another
person acted negligently to cause his
injury, he can recoverdamagesto

People vs. Pugay (167 SCRA 439)
The accused is only guilty of homicide
through reckless imprudence defined in
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended since there was no intent to
commit to cause so grave a wrong to the
deceased and that no sufficient evidence
appeared on record to establish any
qualifying circumstance.

CULPA DISTINGUISHED FROM DOLO Article 3 classifies felonies into (1)
intentional felonies, and (2) culpable
felonies. An intentional felony is
committed when the act is performed
with deliberate intent, which must
necessary be voluntary. In culpable
felony, which is committed when the
wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill, the act is also voluntary. The only
difference between intentional felonies
and culpable felonies is that, in the first,

People vs. Buan (22 SCRA 138)
For the essence of quasi-offense of
criminal negligence under Article 365 of
the Revised Penal Code lies in the
execution of an imprudent or negligent
act, not the result thereof.
And, as the careless act is single,
whether the injuries result should affect
one person or several persons, the
offense (criminal negligence), remains
one at the same and cannot be split
into different crimes and prosecutions.

c) Transferred Intent a doctrine used
incriminal lawwhen theintentionto
harm one individual inadvertently
causes a second person to be hurt
instead. Under the law, the individual
causing the harm will be seen as having
"intended" the act by means of the
"transferred intent" doctrine.
i.
Aberratio Ictus (mistake in blow)

when the offender intending to do an
injury to one person actually inflicts it
on another. The offender is still liable
although the one he injured or killed is

People vs. Guillen (85 Phil. 307)
The appellant acted with malice, and was therefore
liable for all consequences of his wrongful act, for in
accordance with Article 4 of the RPC, criminal
liability is incurred by any person committing felony
(delito) although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended. The act cannot be
classified as criminal negligence because such
requires that the injury incurred be unintentional as
the incident of an act performed without malice. The
Court finds that a deliberate intent to do an unlawful
act is inconsistent with the idea of reckless
imprudence. A mistake in the identity of the
intended victim cannot be considered as reckless
imprudence

ii.
Error in personae Mistake in the

identity of the victim. The offender is
liable even if the victim turns out to be
different from the intended victim.
.People vs. Sabalones (284 SCRA

751)
In aberratio ictus [mistake in blow],
mistake does not diminish culpability;
same gravity applies, more proper to use
error in personae. Alibi cannot prevail over
positive identification by the prosecution
witnesses.

ii.
Praeter Intentionem (lack of intent)
Lack
of intent to commit so grave a wrong. It takes

place when the result of the felonious act is
graver than what is intended. It is a mitigating
circumstance. The offender is liable for the felony
actually committed but the penalty shall be
imposed in its minimum period.
.People vs. Albuquerque (59 Phil. 150)

The act of the appellant in stabbing the deceased
resulted in the fatal wound at the base of his neck,
was due solely to the fact hereinbefore mentioned
that appellant did not have control of his right arm
on account of paralysis and the blow, although
intended for the face, landed at the base of the
neck.

C. LIABILITY FOR INCOMPLETE ELEMENTS
1. Impossible crime Article 4 (2), RPC
.Intod vs. CA (215 SCRA 52)
.The case at far constitutes an inherent
impossibility to perform the act due to factual
or physical impossibility, that is, extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor beyond
his control prevent the consummation of the
intended crime. Impossible Crime is
recognized and punished here in the
Philippines, as compared to, United States,
thus, judgment rendered by the US in similar
nature with the case at bar should not
applied. Impossible Crimes constitutes a

People vs. Saladino (89 Phil. 807)
The intimidation must be viewed in the
light of the victims perception and judgment
at the time of the commission of the crime
and not by any hard and fast rule; it is
therefore enough that it produces fear
fear that if the victim does not yield to the
bestial demands of the accused something
would happen to her at that moment or even
thereafter as when she is threatened with
death if she reports the incident.

2. Uncompleted crimes
a) Attempted felonies Article 6, RPC
People vs. Campuhan (2000)

.Although the absence of complete
penetration of the hymen does not
negate the possibilities of contact, the
court clarified that there was no
medical basis to hold that there was
sexual contact between the accused
and the victim.

People vs. Lopez (312 SCRA 684)
Each shot should be considered as one act thus
liable for three separate crimes, complex crime
only when one act results to different felonies.
People vs. Lizada (GR No. 143468)

An overt or external act is defined as some physical
activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a
particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried out to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being
frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.

People vs. Caballero (400 SCRA 424)
In case of an attempted crime, the offender never passes
the subjective phase in the commission of the crime. The
offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the
acts of execution which should produce the crime. He is
stopped short of that point by some cause apart from his
voluntary desistance. On the other hand, a crime is
frustrated when the offender has performed all the acts of
execution which should result in the consummation of the
crime. The offender has passed the subjective phase in the
commission of the crime. Subjectively, the crime is
complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while passing
through the subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to
consummate the crime. However, the crime is not
consummated by reason of the intervention of causes

b)Frustrated felonies
People vs. Mision (194 SCRA 432)
Two offense imputed to the appellant cannot be
treated as a single offense because the manner
in which he committed prevented him from
constituting a complex crime under either of
the way by which multiple offenses may be
complex under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code. The assault constituted frustrated
murder, here relatively quick recovery being
the result of prompt medical attention which
prevented the infection in the wound.

D. LIABILITY FOR CRIMES WITH COMPLETE
ELEMENTS
. People vs. Orita (184 SCRA 105)
In the crime of rape, from the moment the
offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he
actually attains his purpose and from that
moment also, all the essential elements of the
offense have been accomplished. Nothing
more is left to be done by the offender, because
he has performed all act necessary to produce
the crime. Thus, the felony is consumed.

People vs. Sanchez (250 SCRA 14)
When an allegedly victim of rape says that she
was violated, she says in effect all necessary to
show that rape has been committed on her and
as long as her testimony meets the test of
credibility, the accused may be convicted on
the basis thereof.
People vs. Sevilla (184 SCRA 671)

Taking" sufficient to support a conviction of
robbery even though the perpetrators were
interrupted by police and so did not pick up the
money offered by the victim.

People vs. Dalisay (408 SCRA 375)
While it has been proven that
appellant was the common-law spouse
of the parent of the victim and the
child was a minor at the time of the
incident, the Court cannot convict
appellant of qualified rape because the
special qualifying circumstances of
minority and relationship were not
sufficiently alleged in the information.
To recall, the information here
erroneously alleged that appellant was
the stepfather of the victim.

People vs. Nequia (412 SCRA 628)
Rape is consummated by the slightest
penetration of the female organ, i.e.,
touching of either labia of the
pudendum by the penis.
Light felonies punishable only when

consummated Article 7 and 9 (3),
RPC

E. COMMON LIABLITY FOR CONSPIRATORS
.Implied conspiracy The doctrine of implied
conspiracy holds two or more persons participating
in the commission of a crime collectively
responsible and liable as co-conspirators although
absent any agreement to that effect, when they
act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal
intent and a common purpose or objective. The
existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or
deduced from their criminal participation in
pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be
deemed the act of all. (1998 Bar Q & A)

People vs. Liad (355 SCRA 11)
In conspiracy, direct proof of a previous
agreement to commit a crime is not
necessary. It may be deduced from the
mode and manner by which the offense was
perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the
accused themselves when such point to a
joint purpose and design, concerted action
and community of interest. Conspiracy may
be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during or after the commission of the
crime.

People vs. Gonzales-Flores (3556
SCRA 460)
The elements of illegal recruitment in large
scale are: (1) the accused engages in acts
of recruitment and placement of workers;
(2) the accused has no license or an
authority to recruit and deploy workers,
either locally or overseas; and (3) the
accused commits the unlawful acts against
three or more persons, individually or as a
group. All the conditions are present.

People vs. Elijorde (306 SCRA 188)
Conspiracy must be proven as the crime itself
through clear and convincing evidence, not
merely by conjecture. To hold the accused
guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy,
he must be shown to have performed on overt
act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity, hence, conspiracy exist in a situation
where at the time the malefactors were
committing the crime, there action impliedly
showed unity or purpose among them, a
concrete effort to bring about the death of the
victim.

People vs. Sanchez (308 SCRA 264)
To prove conspiracy, the following
requisites must concur:
1. Two or more persons came to any
agreement. Agreement concerned the
commission of the crime.
2. Execution of felony was decided
upon. In the case at bar, concurrence
of the abovementioned conspiracy
requisites made the accused liable for
such.

People vs. Asuela (376 SCRA 51)
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses with respect
to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the
substance, the veracity or the weight of the testimony, and
even shows candor and truthfulness.
People vs. Hamton (395 SCRA 156)
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.The agreement need not be proven by
direct evidence;it may be inferred from the conduct of the
parties before, during and after the commission of the
offense, pointing to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action, and community of interest.Indeed, jurisprudence
consistently tells us that conspiracy may be deduced from
the mode and manner in which the offense was

People vs. Baldogo ( 396 SCRA 31)
In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all.All the accused are criminally liable as coprincipals regardless of the degree of their
participation.For a conspirator to be criminally
liable of murder or homicide, it is not necessary
that he actually attacks or kills the victim.As
long as all the conspirators performed specific
acts with such closeness and coordination as to
unmistakably indicate a common purpose or
design in bringing about the death of the victim,
all the conspirators are criminally liable for the
death of said victim.

People vs. Abut (401 SCRA 498)
To hold one as a co-principal by reason of
conspiracy it must be shown that he performed
an overt act in pursuance of or furtherance of the
conspiracy, although the acts performed might
have been distinct and separate. This overt act
may consist of active participation in the actual
commission of the crime itself, or it may consist
of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by
being present at the time of the commission of
the crime, or by exerting a moral ascendance
over the other co-conspirators by moving them
to execute or implement the criminal plan.

People vs. Pagalasan (404 SCRA 275)
The collective, concerted and synchronized acts
of the appellant and his cohorts before, during
and after the kidnapping constitute indubitable
proof that the appellant and his three companions
conspired with each other to attain a common
objective
People vs. Biong (372 SCRA 34)

The existence of conspiracy, in fact, is often
inferred from the actuations of the accused
during the commission of the crime, which point
to a joint purpose, concert of action and
community of interest.

People vs. Caraang (418 SCRA 321)
Conspiracy arises when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.It comes to life at the very instant the
plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the felony
and forthwith to pursue it actually.
People vs. Caballero (400 SCRA 424)

Criminal conspiracy must always be founded on
facts, not on mere inferences, conjectures and
presumptions.Mere knowledge, acquiescence to
or approval of the act without cooperation or
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one party to a conspiracy absent the

People vs. Reyes (399 SCRA 528)
Their simultaneous acts indicate a joint
purpose, concerted action and concurrence
of sentiments. Where the acts of the
accused collectively and individually
demonstrate the existence of a common
design towards the accomplishment of the
same unlawful purpose. Conspiracy is
evident and all the perpetrators be liable as
principals. In the case at bar, 2nd requisite of
principals by direct participation is not
present.

People vs. Patano (399 SCRA 90)
Proof of conspiracy need not rest on direct evidence as
the felonious covenant itself may be inferred from the
conduct of the parties before, during, and after the
commission of the crime disclosing a common
understanding between them relative to its commission.
Conspiracy transcends companionship.
People vs. Natividad (411 SCRA 587)

mere presence, knowledge, acquiescence in or
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one
as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active
participation in the commission of the crime with a view
to the furtherance of the common design and purpose.

Extent of Liability
People vs. Binarao (414 SCRA 177)
the trial court failed to note the existence of conspiracy
among appellants in raping Emma.They dragged her
to an uninhabited house and thereafter perpetrated
their criminal acts one after the other. The evidence
sufficiently demonstrated that, while each of the
appellants was raping Emma, the other two appellants
assisted him by cupping her mouth and holding her
legs. Appellants also repeatedly threatened her after
the rape incidents. Certainly, the acts of appellants
before, during and after the commission of the crimes,
taken together, were enough to show that they had a
commonality of criminal design.

People vs. Pabillare (418 SCRA 104)
There must be intentional participation in the transaction
with a view to the furtherance of the common design
and purpose.Responsibility of a conspirator is not
confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose
of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses
incident to and growing out of the purpose intended.
People vs. Bisda (406 SCRA 454)

Conspirators are held to have intended the
consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging in
conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces a
prohibited result, they are, in contemplation of law,
chargeable with intending that result.

F. LIABILITY FOR MULTIPLE,
COMPLEX, AND CONTINUING
Habitual delinquency
Reiteracion/
CRIMES Recidivism
Habituality
Found guilty a third time

or oftener.
Serious/less serious
physical injuries,
Robbery, theft, estafa, or
falsification
Extraordinary
aggravating. Imposition
of additional penalty.
10 years prescriptive
period
It is enough that a final

judgment has been
rendered in the 1st
offense.
An offense embraced in
the same Title of the
RPC.
Quasi-recidivism
Offender served
sentence for the 1st
offense.
One prior conviction
Any offense
Generic aggravating
Not embraced in the

same title. One offense
which the law attaches
an equal or greater
penalty or two offenses
to which the law
attaches a lighter
penalty.
Generic aggravating
Imprescriptible
Imprescriptible
2nd felony must be

committed after
conviction by final
judgment of the 1st but
before sentence begins
or while serving
Special aggravating.

An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up
of two or more crimes being punished in
distinct provisions of the Revised Penal
Code but alleged in one information either
because they were brought about by a
single felonious act or because one offense
is a necessary means for committing the
other offense or offenses. They are alleged
in one information so that only one penalty
shall be imposed. As to penalties, ordinary
complex crime, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed and in its
maximum period. (2005 Bar Q & A)

A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is
made up of two or more crimes which are
considered only as components of a single
indivisible offense being punished in one provision
of the Revised Penal Code. As to penalties, special
complex crime, only one penalty is specifically
prescribed for all the component crimes which are
regarded as one indivisible offense. The component
crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so
the penalty for the most serious crime is not the
penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period.
It is the penalty specifically provided for the special
complex crime that shall be applied according to
the rules on imposition of the penalty. (2005 Bar Q
& A)

DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS
CRIME, is a term used to denote as only one
crime a series of felonious acts arising from a
single criminal resolution, not susceptible of
division, which are carried out in the same
place and at about the same time, and
violating one and the same penal provision.
The acts done must be impelled by one
criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of a
particular crime, violating one and the same
penal provision. It involves a concurrence of
felonious acts violating a common right, a
common penal provision, and Impelled by a
single criminal impulse. (2005 Bar Q & A)

Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with
rebellion? (2003 Bar Q & A)
Yes, if there was conspiracy between the offend-er/
offenders committing the coup d'etat and the offend-ers
committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one
would be the crime of the other and vice versa. This is
possible because the offender in coup d'etat may be any
person or persons belonging to the military or the
national police or a public officer, whereas rebellion does
not so re-quire. Moreover, the crime of coup d'etat may
be commit-ted singly, whereas rebellion requires a public
uprising and taking up arms to overthrow the duly
constituted government. Since the two crimes are
essentially different and punished with distinct penalties,
there is no legal impediment to the application of Art. 48

G. LIABILITY UNDER SPECIAL LAWS
1. Article 10, RPC
. Padilla vs. Dizon (158 SCRA 127)
.The court finds the respondent guilty of gross
incompetence, gross ignorance of the law and
serious misconduct affecting his integrity and
efficiency consistent with the responsibility of
the Supreme Court for the proper, just
administration of justice and for the attainment
of the maintenance of peoples faith in judiciary.

Padilla vs. CA (269 SCRA 402)
Simple illegal possession of fire arms
constitutes excessive and a cruel
punishment. Previous law on illegal
possession should have been applied
since the reason for penalty imposed
under PD 1866 no longer exists
People vs. Simon (234 SCRA 555)

Supreme Court had to harmonize
conflicting provision for degrees of
graduation. Degrees applied depending
on quantity then apply mitigating or

2. Special acts punished by Special Laws:
.ComprehensiveDangerous DrugsAct of 2002
.Illegal possession and trafficking of dangerous
drugs
.Republic Act No. 9160 (The Anti-Money
LaunderingAct of 2001)
.PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1745
.Republic Act No. 8294,
.Presidential Decree No. 1866
.Illegal possession offirearms
IV. CIRCU M STAN CES

AFFECTIN G
CRIM IN AL LIABILITY
IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
A. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Article 11,
RPC)
1. Self-defense; Defense of Relatives and
Strangers; Property; Reputation
. PEOPLE v NARVAEZ, 121 SCRA 389

.The reasonableness of the resistance is also a
requirement of the justifying circumstance of selfdefense or defense of one's rights under
paragraph 1 of Article 11, Revised Penal Code.
When the appellant fired his shotgun from his
window, killing his two victims, his resistance was
disproportionate to the attack.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v NARVAEZ, 121 SCRA 389
The third element of defense of property is present,
i.e., lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
appellant who was defending his property. As a matter
of fact, there was no provocation at all on his part,
since he was asleep at first and was only awakened by
the noise produced by the victims and their laborers.
His plea for the deceased and their men to stop and
talk things over with him was no provocation at all.
Be that as it may, appellant's act in killing the
deceased was not justifiable, since not all the elements
for justification are present. He should therefore be
held responsible for the death of his victims, but he
could be credited with the special mitigating

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v CARATAO, 403 SCRA 482
At the heart of the claim for self-defense is the
presence of an unlawful aggression committed
against appellant. Without unlawful aggression,
self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and
this justifying circumstance cannot and will not
be appreciated, even if the other elements are
present.Unlawful aggression refers to an attack
amounting to actual or imminent threat to the
life and limb of the person claiming selfdefense.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v VICENTE, 405 SCRA 40
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden
and unexpected attack, or imminent danger
thereof.For one to be considered the unlawful
aggressor, he must be shown to have exhibited
external acts clearly showing his intent to cause and
commit harm to the other. In the case at bar, the
prosecution witnesses belied any act of aggression on
the part of the victim.The evidence shows he was
unarmed and had no idea of the impending attack
against him. Certainly, the victims act of aggression
during the first stage of the incident does not justify
appellants conduct during the second stage.Settled is
the rule that when unlawful aggression ceases, the

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v ESCARLOS, 410 SCRA 463
The means employed by a person resorting to
self-defense must be rationally necessary to
prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. Unlawful
aggression is aconditiosine qua nonfor
upholding the justifying circumstance of selfdefense.Unless the victim has committed
unlawful aggression against the other, there can
be no self-defense,complete or incomplete, on
the part of the latter.If there is nothing to prevent
or repel, the other two requisites of self-defense
will have no basis.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
CANO v PEOPLE, 413 SCRA 92
In self-defense, unlawful aggression is a
primordial element. It presupposes an actual,
sudden and unexpected attack or imminent
danger on the life and limb of a person not a
mere threatening or intimidating attitude but
most importantly, at the time the defensive
action was taken against the aggressor.
PEOPLE v RETUBADO
It is indispensable that the state of necessity
must not be brought about by the intentional
provocation of the party invoking the same

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
UNIDAD v CA, 399 SCRA 27
The rule is established that unlawful aggression
is a primordial element in self-defense.
PEOPLE v ANNIBONG, 403 SCRA 92

In legitimate self-defense the aggression must
still beexistingorcontinuingwhen the person
making the defense attacks or injures the
aggressor. Thus when the unlawful aggression
ceases to exist, the one making the defense has
no more right to kill the former aggressor.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2. State of Necessity (avoidance of greater
evil)
. PEOPLE v RICOHERMOSO, 56 SCRA 431
Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil
when he sought to disable Marianito.
Padernal's malicious intention was to
forestall any interference in the felonious
assault made by his father and brotherin-law on Geminiano. That situation is
unarguably not the case envisaged in
paragraph 4 of article 11.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
3. Fulfilment of Duty or Lawful Existence of
Right
. PEOPLE v DELIMA, 46 PHIL. 738
The court held that the killing was done in the
performance of a duty. Napoleon was under
obligation to surrender and his obedience is
being demanded. His disobedience with a
weapon compelled Delima to kill him. The
action of the police officer was justified by the
circumstances.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v OANIS, supra
It is only when the fugitive from justice is
determined to fight the officers of the law who
are trying to capture him that the killing would
be justified.
PEOPLE v LAGATA, 83 PHIL. 150
Based on the testimonies of the witnesses, the

court is convince that the killing of Abria was
not in the performance of duty of the jail officer
since the victim was shot when he (Abria) is
only three (3) meters away from the guard

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
4. Obedience to Superior Order
. TABUENA v SANDIGANBAYAN, 268 SCRA
332
even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal

and the subordinate is not aware of its
illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then
there would only be a mistake of fact
committed in good faith.
. PEOPLE v TULIN, 364 SCRA 10
The alleged order of Hiong's superior Chua Kim

Leng Timothy, is a patent violation not only of

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
5. Battered Woman Syndrome
. PEOPLE v GENOSA
the battered woman syndrome is characterized
by the so-called cycle of violence,which has
three phases: (1) the tension-building phase;
(2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the
tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase.
.RA 9262 AN ACT DEFINING VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN, PROVIDING FOR
PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR VICTIMS,
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES THEREFORE, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A: Defense of Honor; Requisites (2002)
When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter.
Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun and shot B,
killing him. Charged with homicide, A claimed he acted
in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not,
can A claim the benefit of any mitigating circumstance
or circumstances?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, A cannot validly invoke
defense of his daughter's honor in having killed B since
the rape was already consummated; moreover, B
already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to
defend against and no defense to speak of. A may,
however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication
of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A: Defense of Stranger (2002)
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with
fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab B with
a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor
because he had earlier challenged the three men to a
fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May A
invoke the defense of a stranger as a justifying
circumstance in his favor? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. A may invoke the justifying
circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not
involved in the fight and he shot C when the latter was
about to stab B. There being no indication that A was
induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil
motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par 3,

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A: Defense of Honor; Requisites (1998)
One night, Una, a young married woman, was sound asleep
in her bedroom when she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it
was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his
business trip, Una let him have sex with her. After the act,
the man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not
recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was
not Tito, her husband. Furious, Una took out Tito's gun and
shot the man. Charged with homicide Una denies culpability
on the ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Una's claim that she acted in
defense of honor, is not tenable because the unlawful
aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of
honor as included in self-defense, must have been done to
prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is no defense
to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A: Defense of Property; Requisites (2003)
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was
the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past midnight, the
accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate what he
thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After seeing what
appeared to him an armed stranger looking around and out to rob
the house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man. When the
lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to be a
brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to get some light snacks.
The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should the
accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The accused should be convicted because,
even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a
burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his person is not
justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify the
act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the
accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although the
accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
B. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (ARTICLE 12, RPC)
1. Insanity and Imbecility
.
INSANITY - Mental illness of such a severe nature

that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality,
cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is
subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. Insanity
is distinguished from low intelligence or mental
deficiency due to age or injury.
IMBECILITY - feebleness mind which, without

depriving the person entirely of the use of his
reason, leaves only the faculty of conceiving ideas
the most common, in which relate almost always to
his physical wants and habits.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v FLORENDO, 413 SCRA 132
Not every aberration of the mind or mental

deficiency constitutes insanity hence
exempting.
PEOPLE v ESTRADA, 333 SCRA 699

The accused may have been sane or insane
during the commission of the offense which
relates to a determination of his guilt. However,
if he is found incompetent to stand trial, the trial
is simply postponed until such time as he may
be found competent. Incompetency to stand trial
is not a defense; it merely postpones the trial.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v VILLA, JR, 331 SCRA 142
The court finds it incredible for a supposedly

deranged person to remember vividly and give
such a lucid and detailed account of the
incident. There is vast difference between a
genuinely insane person and one who was
worked himself up into such frenzy of anger
that he fails to use reason or good judgment on
what he does. Insanity is defense by way of
confession and avoidance and as such, the
quantum of evidence required to prove that is
clear and convincing evidence.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v MADARANG, 332 SCRA 99
Although schizophrenia was diagnosed a few

months after the stabbing incident, the
evidence of insanity may be accorded weight
only if theres proof of abnormal behaviour
immediately before or simultaneous to the
commission of the crime. Madarang was
convicted, he admits committing the crime
though he claims not guilty for reason of
insanity; he failed to established by convincing
evidence his alleged insanity at the time he
killed his wife.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v TABUGOCA, 285 SCRA 312
Insanity may be taken as exempting

circumstances, there must be complete
depreciation of intelligence in the commission
of the act of that the accused acted without the
least discernment. They did not present any
expert witness, any psychiatric evaluation
report or any psychological findings or
evidence regarding his mental condition at the
time of the commission of the offenses.
Chastisement is not strong enough to make
daughters of Filipino family invent a charge
that would only bring shame and humiliation

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2. Minority
.RA 9344 Act Establishing a
Comprehensive Juvenile Justice System
.BAR Q & A: Minority (1998)
.John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of
watching the television program "Zeo
Rangers." One evening while he was
engrossed watching his favorite television
show, Petra, a maid changed the channel to
enable her to watch "Home Along the
Riles."

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
This enraged John who got his father's
revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at
the back of her head causing her
instantaneous death. Is John criminal-ly
liable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, John is not
criminally liable for killing Petra because he
is only 8 years old when he committed the
killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is
absolutely exempt from criminal liability
although not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v ESTEPANO, 307 SCRA 707
With respect to the appellant Rene Estepano, the
records show that he was only 13 years of age at
the time the crime was committed. Under Article
12 of the RPC, a person over 9 years of age and
under 15 is exempt from criminal liability unless it
is shown that he acted with discernment. Records
shows that prosecution failed to prove that Rene
acted with discernment, what was only established
was his presence and his supposed participation in
the killing.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v DOQUENA, 68 PHIL. 580
The discernment that constitutes an exception to
the exemption from criminal liability of a minor
under fifteen years of age but over nine, who
commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental
capacity to understand the difference between
right and wrong, and such capacity may be known
and should be determined by taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances
afforded by the records in each case, the very
appearance, the very attitude, the very
comportment and behaviour of said minor, not only
before and during the commission of the act, but

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
3. Accident
.PEOPLE v AGLIDAY, 367 SCRA 273
before the accused may be exempted from
criminal liability be reason of Article 12 (4), the
following elements must be present: 1) a person
is performing lawful act; (2) with due care and; (3)
he cause an injury to another by mere accident
and; (4) without any fault or intention of causing
it. For an act to be considered as exempting
circumstances, the act has to be lawful. The act
of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
US v TANEDO, 15 PHIL. 196
There is no question that the accused was engage
in the performance of a lawful act when the
accident occurred. He was not negligent or at
fault because the deceased was not in the
direction at which the accused fired his gun. It
was not foreseeable that the slug would recoil
after hitting the chicken. Evidence of
misadventure gives rise to an important issue in a
prosecution for homicide, which must be
submitted to the jury, and since a plea of
misadventure is a denial of a criminal intent,
which constitutes an essential element in criminal

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
4. Irresistible Force/Uncontrollable Rear
.Actus me invito factus non est meus factus
.Irresistible force applied to such an
interposition of human agency, as is, from
its nature and power, absolutely
uncontrollable; as the inroads of a hostile
army

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BALDOGO, supra
For duress to exempt accused-appellant of
the crimes charged, the fear must be wellfounded, and immediate and actual
damages of death or great bodily harm
must be present and the compulsion must
be of such a character as to leave no
opportunity to accused for escape or
interpose self-defense in equal combat.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v DEL ROSARIO, 305 SCRA 740
A person who acts under the compulsion
of an irresistible force, like one who acts
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of equal or greater injury, is exempt from
criminal liability because he does not act
with freedom.Actus me invito factus non
est meus actus.An act done by me against
my will is not my act.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
5. Insuperable Cause or Lawful Cause
.PEOPLE v VINCENTILLO, 19 PHIL.V 118
There is nothing in the record upon which to base
the finding that defendant caused the arrest and
subsequent detention of the prisoner otherwise
than in the due performance of his official duties;
and there can be no doubt of his lawfully authority
in the premises. The trial judge pays great stress
upon the trivial nature of the offense for which the
arrest was made, but keeping in mind the fact that
there was no judicial officer in the remote
community where the incident occurred at the
time of the arrest, and no certainty of the early

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BANDIAN, 63 PHIL. 530
Infanticide and abandonment, to be punishable,
must be committed wilfully or consciously, or at
least, it must be the result of voluntary, conscious
and free act or omission. The evidence does not
show that the appellant, in causing her childs
death in one way or another did so wilfully,
consciously or imprudently. Bandians act can be
considered lawful or insuperable. Thus, having
the fourth and seventh exempting circumstances
in her favour, she is acquitted of the crime that
she had been accused of.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
C. OTHER EXCULPATORY CAUSES
1.Instigation

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A: Entrapment vs. Instigation
(1995)
Distinguish entrapment from Instigation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In INSTIGATION, the
instigator practically induces the
prospective accused into commission of the
offense and himself becomes co-principal.
In ENTRAPMENT, ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose of trapping and
capturing the lawbreaker while executing
his criminal plan.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A: Instigation (1995)
Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher, SPO2 Mercado, leader
of the Narcom team, gave Juan a Pl00-bill and asked him to
buy some marijuana cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing SPO2
Mercado, Juan went inside the shopping mall while the officer
waited at the corner of the mall. After fifteen minutes, Juan
returned with ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes which he gave
to SPO2 Mercado who thereupon placed Juan under arrest and
charged him with violation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by
selling marijuana cigarettes. Is Juan guilty of any offense
punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Juan cannot be charged of any offense
punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act. Although Juan is a
suspected drug pusher, he cannot be charged on the basis of a
mere suspicion. By providing the money with which to buy
marijuana cigarettes, SPO2 Mercado practically induced and
prodded Juan to commit the offense of illegal possession of

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A:
Example of Entrapment: A, an anti-narcotic
agent of the Government acted as a poseur
buyer of shabu and negotiated with B, a
suspected drug pusher who is unaware that
A is a police officer. A then issued marked
money to B who handed a sachet of shabu
to B. Thereupon, A signaled his anti-narcotic
team to close-in and arrest B. This is a case
of entrapment because the criminal mind is
in B already when A transacted with him.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A:
Example of Instigation: Because the members of
an anti-narcotic team are already known to drug
pushers. A, the team leader, approached and
persuaded B to act as a buyer of shabu and
transact with C, the suspected drug pusher. For the
purpose, A gave B marked money to be used in
buying shabu from C. After C handed the sachet of
shabu to B and the latter handed the marked
money to C, the team closed-in and placed B and C
under arrest. Under the facts, B is not criminally
liable for his participation in the transaction
because he was acting only under instigation by
the law enforcers.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
ARANETA v CA [142 SCRA 532 (1986)]
There is entrapment when law officers employ
ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of
the criminal while in the actual commission of the
crime. There is instigation when the accused was
induced to commit the crime. The difference in
the nature of the two lies in the origin of the
criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea
originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea
and the resolve to commit the crime came from
him. In instigation, the law officer conceives the
commission of the crime and suggests to the
accused who adopts the idea and carries it into

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v DORIA (301 SCRA 668)
Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense that
can be raised by an accused & partakes the
nature of a confession & avoidance. American
federal courts and state courts usually use the
subjective or origin of intent test laid down in
Sorrells v. U.S. to determine whether entrapment
actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on
the accuseds predisposition to commit the
offense is charged, his state of mind and
inclination before his initial exposure to
government agents.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v DORIA (301 SCRA 668)
Another test is the objective test where the test of
entrapment is whether the conduct of the law
enforcement agents was likely to induce a
normally law-abiding person, other than one who
is ready and willing, to commit the offense. The
objective test in buy-bust operations demands
that the details of the purported transaction must
be clearly & adequately shown. Courts should
look at all factors to determine the predisposition
of an accused to commit an offense in so far as
they are relevant to determine the validity of the
defense of inducement.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2. Absolutory Causes
.PEOPLE v OYANIB (354 SCRA 196 (2001)
The vindication of a Mans honor is justified
because of the scandal an unfaithful wife creates;
the law is strict on this, authorizing as it does, a
man to chastise her, even with death. But killing
the errant spouse as a purification is so sever that
it can only be justified when the unfaithful spouse
is caught in flagrante delicto, & it must be
resorted to only w/ great caution so much so that
the law requires that it be inflicted only during the
sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
3. Acts Not Covered by Law and in Case of
Excessive Punishment
.PEOPLE v VENERACION [249 SCRA 244
(1995)]
A government of laws, not of men excludes the
exercise of broad discretionary powers by those
acting under its authority. Under this system,
judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought
"to protect and enforce it without fear or
favor,"resist encroachments by governments,
political parties, or even the interference of their
own personal beliefs.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
D. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (ARTICLE
13, RPC)
1. Incomplete Justification/exemption
.PEOPLE v JAURIGUE [C.A. No. 384 (Feb. 21, 1946)]
The offense was committed by the defendant and
appellant, with the aggravating circumstance that
the killing was done in a place dedicated to
religious worship, cannot be legally sustained; as
there is no evidence to show that the defendant
and appellant had murder in her heart when she
entered the chapel that fatal night.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2. Under 18 or Over 70 Years of Age
.PEOPLE v CORTEZANO [G.R. No. 123140 2003]
The evidence on record shows beyond cavil that
the appellants acted with discernment when they
raped the victim, thus: (a) they wetted the victims
vagina before they raped her; (b) one of them
acted as a lookout while the other was raping the
victim; (c) they threatened to kill the victim if she
divulged to her parents what they did to her; (d)
they forced Boyet to rape the victim; (e) they
laughed as Boyet was raping the victim; (f) they
ordered Leah Lou and Lionel to look at their sister
naked after the appellants had raped her.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
3. No Intention to Commit So Grave A Wrong
.PEOPLE v REGATO [127SCRA 287 (1984)]

There is no merit in the contention that there was
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed. Intention is a mental process & is an
internal state of mind. The intention must be
judged by the action, conduct and external acts of
the accused. What men do is the best index of
their intention. In the case at bar, the aforesaid
mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated
considering that the acts employed by the
accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the
result that they actually madethe death of the

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v PUGAY 167 [SCRA 439 [G.R. No.
74324 (1988)]
As no sufficient evidence appears in the record
establishing any qualifying circumstances, the
accused Samson is only guilty of the crime of
homicide defined and penalized in Article 249 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended. We are
disposed to credit in his favor the ordinary
mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed as there is
evidence of a fact from which such conclusion can
be drawn. The eyewitness Gabion testified that
the accused Pugay and Samson were stunned

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v GONZALES [359 SCRA 352]
The mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender, passion and obfuscation,
incomplete defense of a relative and lack
of intent to commit so grave a wrong,
pleaded by the defense, were not
convincingly proved and none can be
considered in the imposition of penalties.
The mitigating circumstance of passion
and obfuscation is also not obtaining.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
.PEOPLE v PAGAL [79 SCRA 570 (1977)]
The alleged provocation which caused the
obfuscation of the appellants arose from
the same incident, that is, the alleged
maltreatment and/or ill treatment of the
appellants by the deceased, these two
mitigating circumstances cannot be
considered as two distinct and separate
circumstances but should be treated as
one.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
US v MALABANAN [Phil. 262]
There is no mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance to be considered, and as to whether
or not the accused was ill treated or provoked
prior to his assaulting jailer Malaran, a question
which will be considered in the case forlesiones
graves, such a circumstance can not be dealt with
in the present proceedings instituted by reason of
the violent death of Raymundo Enriquez, who was
seriously wounded simply because he intervened
for the purpose of separating Malaran, the
aggressor, from Malabanan, his victim

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
5. Immediate Vindication of A Grave Offense
.PEOPLE v ESPINA [361 SCRA 701]

The trial court correctly appreciated the
mitigating circumstance of having acted in
immediate vindication of a grave offense. As the
evidence on record show, Espina was urinated on
by the victim in front of the guests. The act of the
victim, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated
Espina, came within the purview of a "grave
offense. Thus, this mitigating circumstance should
be appreciated in favor of Espina.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BENITO [74 SCRA 271]
Benito did not act primarily to vindicate an
alleged grave offense to himself but mainly to
chastise Moncayo for having exposed the alleged
anomalies or degradation committed by Benito
and for obstinately refusing to change his report.
PEOPLE v PARANA [63 Phil 331 (1937)]

The fact that the accused was slapped by the
deceased in the presence of many persons a few
hours before the former killed the latter, was
considered a mitigating circumstance that the act
was committed in the immediate vindication of a

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
6. Passion or Obfuscation
.PEOPLE v RABANILLO [307 SCRA 613
(1999)]
For passion & obfuscation to be mitigating, the
same must originate from lawful feelings. From
the version of the facts by the prosecution, clearly
the assault was made in a fit of anger. The turmoil
& unreason that would naturally result from a
quarrel or fight should not be confused with the
sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person
injured or offended to such a degree as to deprive
him of his sanity and self-control. The excitement

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v GERMINA [290 SCRA 146 (1998)]
Passion cannot co-exist with treachery
because in passion, the offender loses his
control and reason while in treachery, the
means employed are consciously adopted.
One who loses his reason and self-control
could not deliberately employ a particular
means, method or form of attack in the
execution of the crime. Thus, without
treachery, the mitigating circumstance of
passion as well as voluntary surrender may

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v GELAVER [223 SCRA 310]
the trial court erred in finding the presence of the
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation
"as a result of his (appellant's) wife leaving their
home and their children." Before this
circumstance may be taken into consideration, it
is necessary to establish the existence of an
unlawful act sufficient to produce such a condition
of mind. The act producing the obfuscation must
not be far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time, during
which the accused might have recovered his
equanimity.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v IGNAS [412 SCRA 311]
There was literally no immediate vindication to
speak of in this case.Appellant had sufficient
time to recover his serenity following the
discovery of his wifes infidelity. Nor could passion
and obfuscation be appreciated in appellants
favor because the killing was not proximate to the
time of the offense. This interval between the
revelation of his wifes adultery and the fatal
shooting was ample and sufficient for reason and
self-control to reassert themselves in appellants
mind.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BATES [400 SCRA 95]
To be considered as a mitigating circumstance,
passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful
sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or
revenge or from anger and resentment.
DANAFRATE v PEOPLE [412 SCRA 357]

There is passion and obfuscation when the crime
was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of
passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts,
or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
7. Voluntary Surrender
.PEOPLE v MALLARI [404 SCRA 170]
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a
mitigating circumstance, the following requisites
must concur: (1) the offender had not been
actually arrested; (2) the offender surrendered
himself to a person in authority or to an agent of
a person in authority; and (3) the surrender was
voluntary. A surrender is considered voluntary if it
is spontaneous and shows the intention of the
accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities because he either acknowledges his
guilt or wishes to save the government the

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
LUCES v PEOPLE [295 SCRA 524]
To benefit an accused, the following requisites
must be proven, namely: (1) the offender has not
actually been arrested; (2) the offender
surrendered himself to a person in authority; and
(3) the surrender was voluntary. A surrender to
be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the
intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities, either because
he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save
them the trouble and expense necessarily
incurred in his search and capture. Voluntary
surrender presupposes repentance.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BASITE, 412 SCRA 558
A surrender to be voluntary must be
spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused
to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges his
guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and
expense necessarily incurred in his search and
capture.If none of these two (2) reasons impelled
the accused to surrender, because his surrender
was obviouslymotivated more by an intention to
insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the
surrender is not spontaneous.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
8. Plea of Guilt
.PEOPLE v IBAEZ [G.R. Nos. 133923-24,July
30, 2003]
Appellants plea of guilty to the two charges
against him must be taken into consideration in
imposing the proper penalty on him. Under Article
13(7) of the Revised Penal Code, a plea of guilty
on arraignment is a mitigating circumstance. To
effectively alleviate the criminal liability of an
accused, a plea of guilty must be made at the
first opportunity, indicating repentance on the
part of theaccused. A plea of guilty made after
arraignment and after trial had begun does not

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
9. Physical Defect and Illness
.PEOPLE v JAVIER 311 SCRA 576
no sufficient evidence or medical finding to
support his claim. For the mitigating
circumstance of illness of the offender to be
appreciated, the law requires the presence of the
ff requisites:
1. Illness must diminish the exercise of the
willpower of the offender, and
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v PARAZO [GR No. 121176 July 8,
1999]
Marlon Parazo is suffering from (1)
Profound Hearing Loss, left ear; (2) Severe
Hearing Loss, right ear (3) Mental
Retardation, Mild. Records show that
Parazo was tried without the benefit of a
sign language expert and he was only
assisted by a person who has been known
to him since 1983.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v FORMIGONES, supra
In order that a person could be regarded as an
imbecile w/in the meaning of RPC A12 so as to be
exempt from criminal liability, he must be
deprived completely of reason or discernment &
freedom of will at the time of committing the
crime. (Note that definition is same as insanity).
As to the strange behavior of the accused during
his confinement, assuming it was not feigned to
stimulate insanity, it may be attributed either to
his being feebleminded or eccentric, or to a
morbid mental condition produced by remorse at
having killed his wife.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
10.Other Related Circumstances
.PEOPLE v MACBUL 74 Phil 436
The trial court considered extreme poverty and
necessity as a mitigating circumstance falling
within No. 10 of article 13 of the Revised Penal
Code, which authorizes the court to consider in
favor of an accused "any other circumstance of a
similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
The right to life is more sacred than a mere
property right. That is not to encourage or even
countenance theft but merely to dull somewhat

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
E. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (ARTICLE
14, RPC)
1. Place of Commission
a) Palace; Place of Worship
.PEOPLE v JAURIGUE, supra
.There is no evidence to show that the
defendant and appellant had murder in her
heart when she entered the chapel that
fatal night.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
b) Uninhabited Place
PEOPLE v DAMASO 86 SCRA 370
)The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not
by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of
the crime, but whether or not in the place of
commission, there was reasonable possibility of the
victim receiving some help.Considering that the
killing was done during nighttime and the
sugarcane in the field was tall enough to obstruct
the view of neighbors and passersby, there was no
reasonable possibility for the victims to receive any
assistance. The accused deliberately sought the
solitude of the place is clearly shown by the fact

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v CODERES [130 SCRA 134]
The law provides that there are three (3)
elements to be taken into account before the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime and
uninhabited place may be considered, to wit: (a)
When it facilitated the commission of the crime;
or (b) When especially sought for by the offender;
or (c) When offender took advantage thereof for
the purpose of impunity.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
c) Dwelling
)PEOPLE v ALMOGUERA [415 SCRA 647]
Dwelling is present in this case as aggravating
circumstance because robbery could not be
committed without the necessity of transgressing
the sanctity of the home. The aggravating
circumstances of treachery and dwelling have
been alleged in the Information and proved by the
prosecution by strong and convincing evidence

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v DANIELA [401 SCRA 519]
dwelling is not aggravating in this case as it was
not alleged in the amended information. Under
Section 9, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Court,
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the
information and proved otherwise, even if proved
but not alleged in the information, the same shall
not be considered by the Court in the imposition
of the proper penalty on the accused. Although
the rule took effect only on December 1, 2000,
however, the same may be applied retroactively.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BAGSIT [409 SCRA 350]
Dwelling, also alleged in the amended
Information, is aggravating. The triggerman
showed greater perversity when, although outside
the house, he attacked his victim inside the
latters own house when he could have very well
committed the crime without necessarily
transgressing the sanctity of the victims home.
He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do
him wrong is guiltier than he who offends him
elsewhere.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BAGSIT [409 SCRA 350]
It is enough that the victim was attacked inside
his own abode, although the assailant might have
devised means to perpetrate the assault from the
outside.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2. Time of Commission
a) Night time
.PEOPLE v AVENDANO [396 SCRA 309]
)As to night time, this circumstance is considered
aggravating only when (1) it was especially
sought by the offender; or (2) the offender took
advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the
commission of the crime by ensuring the
offender's immunity from identification or
capture.In this case, the prosecution did not
adduce evidence that the appellant deliberately
sought the cover of the night to commit the

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v CALOZA [396 SCRA 329]
While it was established, as admitted by Rafael
himself, that the victims were killed between the
hours of 2-3 a.m., the prosecution failed to
adduce evidence that Rafael took advantage of
the darkness of the night to successfully
consummate his dastardly acts. By and of itself,
nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance.
PEOPLE v OCO [412 SCRA 190]

The essence of this aggravating circumstance is
the obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the
chronological onset of, nighttime

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v MACTAL [401 SCRA 612]
Nighttime could not be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance where no evidence was
presented showing that nocturnity was especially
sought by the accused nor taken advantage of by
him to facilitate the commission of the crime or to
insure his immunity from captive.
The aggravating circumstance was not alleged in
the information and cannot therefore justify the
death penalty. any aggravating circumstance
must be alleged in the information for it to be
appreciated in the imposition of the penalty.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
3. Personal Circumstances of the Offender
a) Recidivism
.PEOPLE v BALDERA 86 PHIL 189
)The lower court did, however, err in
appreciating against the accused the
circumstance of recidivism by reason of his
previous conviction for theft, it appearing that
crime was committed on or about December 30,
1947 while the offense now charged took place
seven days before that date.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
b) Reiteration and Habituality
PEOPLE v GAORANA [289 SCRA 652]
)the prosecution failed or neglected to present in
evidence the record of appellant's previous
conviction. Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and
reiteration, necessitates the presentation of a
certified copy of the sentence convicting an
accused.The fact that appellant was an inmate of
DAPECOL does not prove that final judgment had
been rendered against him.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BALDOGO [GR No. 129126-07]
To prove quasi-recidivism, the prosecution was
burdened to adduce in evidence a certified copy
of the judgment convicting accused-appellant of
homicide and to prove that the said judgment had
become final and executory. Said excerpt is
merely secondary or substitutionary evidence
which is inadmissible absent proof that the
original of the judgment had been lost or
destroyed or that the same cannot be produced
without the fault of the prosecution.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A:Recidivism (2001)
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment
for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last
case, the trial Judge considered against the accused both recidivism and
habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last
conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism
and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism
and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case

because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual
delinquency. Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously
convicted by final judgment for theft and again found guilty for
Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against property,
embraced under the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the Revised
Penal Code. The implication is that he is specializing in the
commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the
conviction for Robbery with Homicide. Habitual delinquency, which
brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
4. Means of Commission
a) Taking Advantage of Public Office
.PEOPLE v SUMAOY [G.R. No. 105961]
)The trial court also erred in finding the
aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of
official position in the commission of the offense.
This circumstance requires that the accused, as a
public officer, used the influence or reputation of
his position for the purpose of committing the
crime. If the accused could have perpetrated the
crime without occupying his position, then there
is no abuse of public position.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v GAPASIN [231 SCRA 728]
The trial court properly appreciated taking
advantage of public position as an
aggravating circumstance. Appellant, a
member of the Philippine Constabulary,
committed the crime with an armalite
which was issued to him when he received
the mission order.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
b) Insult to Public Authority
PEOPLE v TIONGSON 130 SCRA 614
)Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela
are not persons in authority, but merely
agents of a person in authority.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v MAGBUENO [144 SCRA 210]
The aggravating circumstance of commission of a
crime with insult to public authority does not
seem to be borne by the records. For this
aggravating circumstance to be considered it
must not only be shown that the crime was
committed in the presence of the public authority
but also that the crime was not committed
against the public authority himself.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
c) Disregard of Rank, Age or Sex
PEOPLE v PARAISO [319 SCRA 422]
)However, the aggravating circumstance of
disregard of the respect due to the victim by
reason of her sex cannot be appreciated. This
aggravating circumstance can be considered only
in crimes against persons and honor. The special
complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is a
crime against property not against persons.
Moreover, nothing appears in the record that
appellant deliberately intended to offend or insult
the age or sex of the offended party.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v ARIZOBAL [341 SCRA 143]
the robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard
of the inviolability of the victims' abode when
they forced their way in, looted their houses,
intimidated and coerced their inhabitants into
submission, disabled Laurencio and Jimmy by
tying their hands before dragging them out of the
house to be killed.
PEOPLE v BAJAR [414 SCRA 494]

The generic aggravating circumstance of
disregard of the respect due the offended party
on account of age is obvious in this case. Not only

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
d. Abuse of Confidence
PEOPLE v MANDOLADO [123 SCRA 133]
.While it may be true that a soldier in the AFP is
deemed as one who holds public position, there is
no persuasive showing that herein appellants
being draftees of the Army, in full military uniform
and carrying their high-powered firearms,
facilitated the commission of the crimes they
were charged.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
e. Aid of Armed Men
Basis:
It is based on the means and ways of committing
the crime.
Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the
commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid
relied upon them when the crime was
committed.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
f. Inundation, Fire, Poison
The basis of this aggravating circumstance has
reference to the time of the commission of the
crime.
The reason for the existence of this circumstance
is found in the debased form of criminality met in
one who, in the midst of a great calamity, instead
of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their
suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune
to despoil them.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
g. Evident Premeditation
PEOPLE v BALDOGO [396 SCRA 31]
.To warrant a finding of evident premeditation,
the prosecution must establish the confluence of
the ff. requisites: Time when offender determined
to commit the crime; An act manifestly indicating
that the offender clung to his determination; and
Sufficient interval of time between the
determination and the execution of the crime to
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his
act.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v DELADA [399 SCRA 538]
The prosecution was not able to show: (a) the time when
accused-appellant decided to commit the crime; (b) an act
manifestly indicating that the accused-appellant had clung
to his determination; and (c) a sufficient lapse of time
between such determination and its execution to allow him
to reflect upon the consequence of his act.
PEOPLE v APOSAGA [414 SCRA 69]

The essence of premeditation 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 an interval of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment. There must be evidence showing that the
accused meditated and reflected on his intention between
the time when the crime was conceived by him and the

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v GIALOLO [414 SCRA 59]
No proof was presented to show any of
these elements. Nor can the aggravating
circumstance of superior strength be
appreciated against the appellants. This
circumstance was not alleged in the
Information and hence cannot be the
subject of proof during the trial.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
h. Craft, Fraud, Disguise
.PEOPLE v EMPACIS [222 SCRA 59]
The aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud
was properly appreciated against Empacis. Both
men pretended to be bona fide customers of the
victims store and on this pretext gained entry
into the latters store and later, into another part
of his dwelling. In previous cases, the Court held
the presence of fraud or craft when one
pretended to be constabulary soldiers to gain
entry into a residence to rob and kill the
residents, pretended to be needful of medical
treatment only killing the owner of the house, and

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
i. Abuse of Superior Strength
.PEOPLE v ROLLON [410 SCRA 295]
To take advantage of superior strength is to
purposely use excessive force, out of proportion
to the means of defense available to the person
attacked. In the case at bar, there was a clear and
gross disparity of strength between the unarmed
victim and the four armed assailants three of
whom were armed with firearms. The victim gave
no provocation and was in fact already backing off
when he was attacked.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v HUGO [410 SCRA 62]
For the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength to be appreciated, the age, size,
and strength of the parties must be
considered.There must be a notorious inequality
of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
giving the latter a superiority of strength which is
taken advantage of by him in the commission of
the crime, and even assumingarguendothat it
existed, abuse of superior strength should not be
appreciated separately, for it is absorbed in
treachery.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v ROXAS [410 SCRA 451]
The hospital record presented that appellant was
treated for eye irritation and for abrasions on his
right hand, was not attested to by any supposed
attending physician. T he trial court described
Roxas as being a big hulk of a man, 57 in
height, and muscularly bulky. At the witness
stand, when Joelyn stood to identify appellant, the
prosecutor noted for the record that appellant
was very much taller than the witness who
stood at 53 in height.According to Joelyn, Lorna
was only about 55 in height, a fact that the
defense did not dispute.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v GREGORIO [412 SCRA 90]
The qualifying circumstances of treachery and
abuse of superior strength were not sufficiently
established by the prosecution. Abuse of superior
strength is present whenever there is a notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of
strength notoriously advantageous for the
aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him
in the commission of the crime. It must be shown
by clear and convincing evidence that this
qualifying circumstance was consciously sought
by the assailants.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
j. Band
.PEOPLE v POLORES [230 SCRA 279]
Band (en cuadrilla) consists of at least 4 armed
persons organized with the intention of carrying
out an unlawful design. Band is inherent in
brigandage but not in robbery.
The requisite four armed persons contemplated in
this circumstance must all be principals by direct
participation who acted together in the execution
of the acts constituting the crime. This
aggravating circumstance is inherent in
BRIGANDAGE.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BUAYABAN [400 SCRA 48]
In the present case, we cannot treat the ordinary
aggravating circumstance of band because it was
not alleged in the information. Though it is an
ordinary aggravating circumstance, the 2000
Rules on Criminal Procedure require that even
generic aggravating circumstances must be
alleged in the Information.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
k. Treachery
.PEOPLE v ESCOTE [400 SCRA 603]
This Court has ruled over the years that treachery is
a generic aggravating circumstance in the felony of
robbery with homicide, a special complex crime and
at the same time a single and indivisible offense.
However, this Court in two cases has held that
robbery with homicide is a crime against property
and hence treachery which is appreciated only to
crimes against persons should not be appreciated
as a generic aggravating circumstance. It held in
another case that treachery is not appreciated in
robbery with rape precisely because robbery with

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v CARAIG [400 SCRA 67]
There is treachery when the offender employs
means, methods, or forms in the execution of any
of the crimes against persons that tend directly
and especially to ensure its execution without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
PEOPLE v ABUT [401 SCRA 498]

There is no evidence that at the outset, they had
decided to stab and kill the victim. It was only at
the late stage of the assault that the appellants
and Ritchie stabbed the victim.The Court

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v ESCARLOS [410 SCRA 463]
The verbal and physical squabble prior to the
attack proves that there was no treachery, and
that the victim was aware of the imminent danger
to his life.
The prosecution failed to establish that appellant
had deliberately adopted a treacherous mode of
attack for the purpose of depriving the victim of a
chance to fight or retreat.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A: Aggravating; Treachery & Unlawful
Entry (1997)
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent
apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of
one big house. The accused suspected his wife of
having an illicit relation with the victim. One
afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together
on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the
accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but
being so annoyed over the suspected relation
between his wife and the victim, he could not
sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill victim.
He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He
entered the apartment of the victim through an

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Would you say that the killing was attended by the
qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful
entry?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Evident premeditation
cannot be considered against the accused because
he resolved to kill the victim "later in the night"
and there was no sufficient lapse of time between
the determination and execution, to allow his
conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
2. TREACHERY may be present because the
accused stabbed the victim while the latter was
sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means
and methods which directly and specially insured

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is
no showing that the accused deliberately sought or
availed of nighttime to insure the success of his
act. The Intention to commit the crime was
conceived shortly before its com-mission.
Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated as an
aggra-vating circumstance, inasmuch as the
accused entered the room of the victim through
the window, which is not the proper place for
entrance into the house

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
l. Ignominy
.PEOPLE v JOSE [37 SCRA 450]
The appellants in ordering the complainant to
exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about
ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a
circumstance which tended to make the effects of
the crime more humiliating.
.PEOPLE v BUTLER [120 SCRA 281]

The aggravating circumstance of outraging or
scoffing at the corpse of the deceased applies
against the accused since it is established that he
mocked or outraged at the person or corpse of his

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v SAYLAN [130 SCRA 159]
The trial court held that there was ignominy
because the appellant used not only the
missionary position, i.e. male superior, female
inferior, but also "The same position as dogs do"
i.e., entry from behind. The appellant claims there
was ignominy because "The studies of many
experts in the matter have shown that this
'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and
often been resorted to by couples in the act of
copulation." This may well be if the sexual act is
performed by consenting partners but not
otherwise.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v SIAO [327 SCRA 231
It has been held that where the accused in
committing the rape used not only the
missionary position i.e. male superior,
female inferior but also the dog position as
dogs do, i.e. entry from behind, as was
proven in the case, the aggravating
circumstance of ignominy attended the
commission thereof.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
m. Unlawful Entry
.PEOPLE v BAELLO [224 SCRA 218]
The aggravating circumstance of unlawful
entrywas properly appreciated against the
accused as he and his companion, Jerry, had
entered the Borja residence through the secondfloor window, a way not intended for ingress.
.PEOPLE v UYCOQUE [246 SCRA 768]

Villanueva and his cohorts pretended to be
visitors, knocked on the door to the house of
Lucas Flores and, when the latter went to open
the door, the accused and his cohorts then pulled

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
n. Breaking the Wall, Door, etc.
o. With the Aid of Persons Under 15 or with
Motor Vehicle
.PEOPLE v ONG (JANUARY 30, 1975)
the motor vehicle facilitated the stark happening.
It has been held that the use of a motor vehicle is
aggravating in murder where the said vehicle was
used in transporting the victim and the accused.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
p. Cruelty
.PEOPLE v ILAOA [233 SCRA 231]
The fact that Nestors decapitated body bearing
43 stab wounds, 24 of which were fatal, was
found dumped in the street is not sufficient for a
finding of cruelty where there is no showing that
Ruben, for his pleasure and satisfaction, cause
Nestor to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted
on him unnecessary physical and moral pain.
Number of wound alone is not the criterion for the
appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating
circumstance. Neither can it be inferred from the

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v ALLAN [245 SCRA 549]
Cruelty cannot be appreciated in the absence of
any showing that appellants, for their pleasure
and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer
slowly and painfully and inflicted on him
unnecessary physical and moral pain.The mere
fact that wounds in excess of what was
indispensably necessary to cause death were
found in the body of the victim
doesnotnecessarily imply that such wounds were
inflicted with cruelty and with the intention of
deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or
aggravating the sufferings of the victim.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v SIBONGA [404 SCRA 10]
Cruelty in the commission of a felony is
appreciated when the wrong done in the
commission of the crime is deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary
for its commission. There is no cruelty when the
other wrong is done after the victim is already
dead. The test in appreciating cruelty as an
aggravating circumstance is whether the accused
deliberately and sadistically augmented the
wrong by causing another wrong not necessary
for its commission, or inhumanly increased the
victims suffering or outraged or scoffed at his

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v SOLAMILLO [404 SCRA 211]
The number of wounds is not the criterion for the
appreciation of cruelty as an aggravating
circumstance.The mere fact that wounds in
excess of what is necessary to cause death were
inflicted upon the body of the victim does not
necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted
with cruelty. It is necessary to show that the
accused intentionally and deliberately increased
the victim's suffering.In this case, there is no
evidence showing appellants intent to commit
such cruelty.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
F. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES (ARTICLE
15, RPC)
1. Relationship
.PEOPLE v ATOP, 286 SCRA 157
.There is no blood relationship or legal bond that
links the appellant to his victim. Thus, the
modifying circumstance of relationship cannot be
considered against him.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2. Intoxication
PEOPLE v IBAEZ [G.R. Nos. 13392324.July 30, 2003]
.Intoxication as a generic mitigating
circumstance.Under Article 15 of the Revised
Penal Code, intoxication is mitigating when it is
not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit
the felony.To be mitigating, the accuseds state
of intoxication must be proved.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v BAJAR [414 SCRA 494]
As the accused insists, it was but natural for him
to drink liquor during fiesta celebrations. In the
absence of clear and positive proof that
Alejandros intoxication was habitual or
subsequent to the plan to commit the crime, it is
improper to consider the same as an aggravating
circumstance. Neither can intoxication be
considered mitigating in the instant case, there
being no proof that the appellant was so drunk
that his will-power was impaired or that he could
not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PEOPLE v MOSENDE [371 SCRA 446]
While Leticia Sapupo testified to having seen
Mosende drinking an alcoholic beverage at a
store earlier the afternoon of the incident, nothing
would show that he was in any state of
intoxication or in drunken condition when the
dastardly deed was being committed.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
3. Degree of Instruction and Education
PEOPLE v GALIGAO [GR No. 140961]

.Where, as in the above-mentioned
Santos case, accused-appellants limited
schooling was taken into consideration to
reduce his penalty to reclusion perpetua,
we can do no less herein considering that
accused-appellant is an unlettered
fisherman.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
BAR Q & A: Alternative Circumstances; Intoxication
(2002)
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After
having had a drink too many, A and B had a heated
argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B
suffered serious physical injuries. May the
intoxication of A be considered aggravating or
mitigating?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The intoxication of A may be
prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not
be considered aggravating as there is no clear
indication from the facts of the case that it was
habitual or intentional on the part of A. Aggravating
V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY
LIABLE
A. PRINCIPALS (direct participation)

PEOPLE v NUNAG 173 SCRA 274
HELD: CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF EACH ACCUSED IN
CASE AT BAR Each of the 5 accused-appellants
must be found guilty of 3 distinct and separate
crimes of rape, the first three, namely, Mario
Nunag, Arnel Mandap and Diosdado Manalili, by
direct act and participation and the other two,
namely, Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang, in
the absence of conclusive proof that they had
sexual intercourse with complainant, by
indispensable cooperation, since they aided the
three (3) accused in having sexual intercourse
with the complainant.

PEOPLE v DORIA 301 SCRA 668
HELD: Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense
that can be raised by an accused & partakes the
nature of a confession & avoidance. The focus of
the inquiry is on the accuseds predisposition to
commit the offense is charged, his state of mind
and inclination before his initial exposure to
government agents. Another test is the objective
test where the test of entrapment is whether the
conduct of the law enforcement agents was likely to
induce a normally law-abiding person, other than
one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense.
The objective test in buy-bust operations demands

PEOPLE v REYES 399 SCRA 528
HELD: In the case at bar, conspiracy was
clearly manifested in the concerted efforts of
the accused-appellant and his cohort. They
were seen together by PO1 Molato at the
unholy hour of 2:50 a.m. forcibly taking the
wristwatch of the victim and thereafter
stabbing him at the back. Their simultaneous
acts indicate a joint purpose, concerted action
and concurrence of sentiments. Where the
acts of the accused collectively and
individually demonstrate the existence of a
common design towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is
A. PRINCIPALS (induction)
POPLE v YAMSON-DUMANCAS 320 SCRA 584
HELD: Jeanette Yanson Dumancas is not guilty as
principals by induction because there are not
other evidence that can prove the shes guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. Article 17. Principals
The following are considered principals: Those
who take a direct part in the execution of the
acts; Those who directly force or induce other to
commit it; Those who cooperate in the
commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished.
PEOPLE v BOLIVAR 317 SCRA 577
HELD: Principals are those who directly
force or induce others to commit an
offense. One is induced to commit a crime
either by a command (precepto) or for a
consideration (pacto), or by any other
similar act w/c constitutes the real and
moving cause of the crime and w/c was
done for the purpose of inducing such
criminal act and was sufficient for that
purpose. The inducement exists whenever
the act performed by the physical author of
the crime is determined by the influence of
PEOPLE v DELA CRUZ 97 SCRA 385
HELD: The requisites necessary in order that a
person may be convicted as a principal by
inducement are: That the inducement be made
directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime; and that such
inducement be the determining cause of the
commission of the crime by the material
executor. One is induced to commit a crime
either by a commans (precepto) or for a
consideration (pacto), or by any other similar
act w/c constitutes the real and moving cause
of the crime & w/c was done for the purpose of
inducing such criminal act & was sufficient for
A. PRINCIPALS (indispensable
cooperation)
PEOPLE v MONTEALEGRE 161 SCRA 700
HELD: The requisites of this provision:
Participating in the criminal resolution, i.e.,
theres either anterior conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose & intention immediately
before the commission of the crime charged; &
Cooperation in the commission of the offense
by performing another act w/o w/c it would not
have been accomplished. But although there
was no evidence of prior agreement between
Capalad & Montealegre, their subsequent acts
should prove the presence of such conspiracy.
B. ACCOMPLICES
PEOPLE v SUNGA 399 SCRA 624
HELD: The rule in this jurisdiction is that
thetestimony of aself-confessed
accomplice or co-conspiratorimputing the
blame to or implicating his co-accused
cannot,by itself and without corroboration,
be regarded as proof to a moral certainty
that the latter committed or participated in
the commission of the crime. The
testimony must be substantially
corroborated inits
materialpointsbyunimpeachable
testimony and strong circumstances and
B. ACCOMPLICES
PEOPLE v PILOLA 405 SCRA 134
HELD: To hold a person liable as an accomplice,
two elements must concur: (a) the community
of criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation,
he concurs with the latter in his purpose;(b)
the performance of previous or simultaneous
acts that are not indispensable to the
commission of the crime. Accomplices come to
know about the criminal resolution of the
principal by direct participation after the
principal has reached the decision to commit
the felony and only then does the accomplice
agree to cooperate in its
B. ACCOMPLICES
BAR Q & A: ACCOMPLICE
Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying that he would use it
to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he
readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay
Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie,
but used a knife because he did not want Freddies neighbors
to hear the gunshot. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rubens liability is that of an
accomplice only because he merely cooperated in Poncianos
determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not
indispensable to the killing, as in fact the killing was carried
out without the use of Rubens gun. Neither way Ruben may
be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant
in the decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie; he merely
cooperated in carrying out the plan which was already in
C. ACCESSORIES
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612
- ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1829
- PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF
APPREHENSION AND
PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL
OFFENDERS
C. ACCESSORIES
PEOPLE v TALINGDAN [84 SCRA 19 (1978)]
Held: The court affirmed the decision held by
the trial court with costs. There are two
aggravating circumstances present, treachery
and evident premeditation, with no mitigating
circumstances to offset the accusedappellants. Talingdan, Tobias, Berras, and Bides
are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder
and are sentenced to DEATH to be executed in
accordance with law. Teresa Domogma is guilty
as accessory to the same murder, and is
hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of 5 years prision correccional as
minimum to 8 years of prision mayor as
C. ACCESSORIES
PEOPLE v CUI [314 SCRA 153 (1999)]
HELD: There is no question that Basingan
escaped and never testified in court to affirm his
accusation against the Cuis, Obeso and Sarte.
Thus, the trial court committed reversible error in
admitting and giving weight to Basingans the
sworn statements. Undeniably, they are hearsay
for any oral or documentary evidence is hearsay
by nature if its probative value is not based on
the personal knowledge of the witnesses but on
the knowledge of some other person who was
never presented on the witness stand.Conviction
cannot be based on hearsay evidence. In the
case at bar, the alleged conspiracy among the
accused was not priorly established by
PEN ALTIES
suffering inflicted by the State
for the transgression of a law
A. PURPOSE OF PENALTIES
1. Retribution or expiation the penalty is
commensurate with the gravity of the
offense.
2. Correction or reformation shown by the
rules which regulate the execution of the
penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty.
3. Social defense shown by its inflexible
severity to recidivists and habitual
delinquents.
B. THEORIES JUSTIFYING PENALTIES

1. Prevention to prevent or suppress the
danger to the State arising from the
criminal act of the offender.
2. Self-defense so as to protect society
from the threat and wrong inflicted by the
criminal.
3. Reformation the object of punishment in
criminal cases is to correct and reform the
offender.
4. Exemplarity the criminal is punished to
serve as an example to deter others from
committing crimes.
5. Justice that crime must be punished by
the State as an act of retributive justice, a
C. RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLE vs. PATALIN 311 SCRA 18 (1999)
Held:Although at the time of the effectivity of the
1987 Constitution the present casewas still its
trialstage, it is clear that the framers intended the
provision to have a retroactive effect on pending
cases without anypenaltyof death having been
imposed yet. The retroactive effect may be given
during three possible stages of a criminal
prosecution: a) when the crime has been
committed and the prosecution began; b) when
sentence has been passed but service has not
begun; and c) when the sentence is being carried
out. The abolition of the
deathpenaltybenefitshereinaccusedby virtue of
Art 22 of the RPC which provides that penal laws
C. RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLE v GALLO 315 SCRA 461 (1999)
HELD: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the
law or the Constitution shall form part of the legal
system of the land (Article 8, Civil Code of the
Philippines).Medina, which has the force and effect
of law, forms part of our penal statutes and
assumes retroactive effect, being as it is, favorable
to an accused who is not a habitual criminal, and
notwithstanding that final sentence has already
been pronounced against him (Article 22, Revised
Penal Code). Indeed, by operation of law, appellant
is rightfully entitled to the beneficial application
ofMedina. Accordingly, the Office of the Solicitor
General hereby joins appellant's prayer for
reduction of his sentence from death toreclusion
perpetua. The Court agrees with the Office of the
C. RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLEv GANO 363 SCRA 126
HELD: The SC found the accused guilty of robbery with
homicide, but imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. It should be noted that there is no law
providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s
should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The
enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article
14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to
the enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code
regarding mitigating circumstances where there is
specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for
analogous circumstances. It is true that the additional
rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the
occasion of the robbery) would result in an anomalous
situation where from the standpoint of the gravity of
the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the
same level as robbery with multiple rapes. However, the
C. RETROACTIVITY
PEOPLE v BUAYABAN 400 SCRA 48
HELD: In the present case, we cannot treat the
ordinary aggravating circumstance of band because
it was not alleged in the information. Though it is an
ordinary aggravating circumstance, the 2000 Rules
on Criminal Procedure require that even generic
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the
Information. In this case, we cannot properly
appreciate the ordinary aggravating circumstance
of band in the commission of the crime since there
was no allegation in the information that "more
than three armed malefactors acted together in the
commission of the crime. All things considered, we
find Pedro Tumulak guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of robbery with homicide.
II. IMPOSABLE PENALTIES

AND THEIR GRADATION,
DURATION, AND EFFECTS
A. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
DEATH/CAPTIAL PUNISHMENT
SECTION 19, ARTICLE III of the
CONSTITUTION:
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall death
penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment
against any prisoner or detainee or the
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659 - AN ACT TO IMPOSE
THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN HEINOUS
CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE
REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Republic Act No. 8177 - AN ACT DESIGNATING
DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION AS THE METHOD
OF CARRYING OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 81 OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY
SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659
Republic Act No. 9346 -AN ACT PROHIBITING
HARDEN v Director of Prisons,supra
The penalty complained of is neither

cruel, unjust nor excessive. InExparteKemmler, 136 U. S., 436, the
United States Supreme Court said that
"punishments are cruel when they
involve torture or a lingering death, but
the punishment of death is not cruel,
within the meaning of that word as used
in the constitution. It implies there
something inhuman and barbarous,
something more than the mere
extinguishment of life.
PEOPLE v VENERACION, supra
the Rules of Court mandates that after

an adjudication of guilt, the judge should
impose "the proper penalty and civil
liability provided for by the law on the
accused."This is not a case of a
magistrate ignorant of the law. This is a
case in which a judge, fully aware of the
appropriate provisions of the law, refuses
to impose a penalty to which he
disagrees. In so doing, respondent judge
acted without or in excess of his
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
PEOPLE v ESPARAS, 260 SCRA 539
there is more wisdom in our existing
jurisprudence mandating our review
ofalldeath penalty cases, regardless of
the wish of the convict and regardless of
the will of the Court.Nothing less than life
is at stake and any court decision
authorizing the State to take life must be
as error-free as possible.
No litigant can repudiate this power which
is bestowed by the Constitution.The power
is more of a sacred duty which we have to
discharge to assure the People that the
innocence of a citizen is our concern not
PEOPLE v ECHEGARAY, supra
Rape is without doubt deserving of

serious punishment; but in terms of
moral depravity and of the injury to the
person and to the public, it does not
compare with murder, which does
involve the unjustified taking of human
life.Although it may be accompanied by
another crime, rape by definition does
not include the death of or even the
serious injury to another person.The
murderer kills; the rapist, if no more than
that, does not.Life is over for the victim
PEOPLE v GALIGAO January 14, 2003
The death penalty could thus be decreed;
nevertheless, Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659,
amending Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code,
recognizes that in death penalty cases the High Tribunal
puts to a vote not only the issue of guilt of an appellant
but also the question on the imposition of the death
penalty itself.The law provides thusly: Sec. 22. Article
47 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as
follows: ART. 47.In what cases the death penalty shall
not be imposed; Automatic review of Death Penalty
Cases.The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases
in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except
when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of
age at the time of the commission of the crime or is
more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or
automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the
PEOPLE v EMPANTE, APRIL 21, 1999
Qualified rape is thus punishable by the
single indivisible penalty of death, which
must be applied regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance
which may have attended the
commission of the deed.
PEOPLE v MAHINAY, FEBRUARY 1,

1999
PEOPLE v GALIGAO January 14, 2003
In People v. Santos, the Court considered the acts of the
deceased victim, a former municipal mayor, in clearing
and working on the land claimed by the Ilongots which
could have been seen by the accused as an act of
oppression and abuse of authority which he felt morally
bound to forestall, as well as the limited schooling of the
accused, as justification to reduce the penalty of death to
reclusion perpetua. In People v. De la Cruz, the Court
took into account in lowering the penalty to reclusion
perpetua on the accused most of whom were already
death row convicts, the deplorable sub-human conditions
of the National Penitentiary where the crime was
committed. In People v. Marcos, the failure of appellant
to realize the gravity of his offense was held to justify the
reduction of the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Where, as
in the above-mentioned Santos case, accused-appellants
limited schooling was taken into consideration to reduce
PEOPLE v GREGORIO, 255 SCRA 380
Reclusion perpetuaentails imprisonment
for at least thirty (30) years after which
the convict becomes eligible for pardon,
it also carries with it accessory penalties,
namely:perpetual special
disqualification, etc. It is not the same as
life imprisonment which, for one thing,
does not carry with it any accessory
penalty, and for another, does not
appear to have any definite extent or
duration.
PEOPLE v BALLABARE, 265 SCRA 350
While life imprisonment may appear to be the
English translation ofreclusion perpetua, in reality,
it goes deeper than that.First, life imprisonment is
invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized
by special laws, while reclusion perpetuais
prescribed under The Revised Penal Code.Second,
life imprisonment, unlikereclusion perpetua, does
not carry with it accessory penalty.Third, life
imprisonment does not appear to have any definite
extent or duration, whilereclusion perpetuaentails
imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after
AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
PEOPLE v GATWARD, 267 SCRA 785
Thus, the maximum duration of reclusion
perpetua is not and has never been 30
years which is merely the number of years
which the convict must serve in order to
be eligible for pardon or for the application
of the three-fold rule. Under these
accepted propositions, the Court ruled in
the motion for clarification in the Lucas
case that Republic Act No. 7659 had
simply restated existing jurisprudence
when it specified the duration of reclusion
PEOPLE v ALVARADO, 275 SCRA 727
Reclusion perpetua, therefore, retains its
nature as having no minimum, medium
and maximum periods. It is imposed in
its entirety regardless of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstances that may
have attended the commission of the
crime.
PEOPLE v LATUPAN, 360 SCRA 60
The penalty of life imprisonment is not the
same asreclusion perpetua.They are distinct in
nature, in duration and in accessory penalties.First,
life imprisonment is imposed for serious offenses
penalized by special laws, whilereclusion
perpetuais prescribed under the Revised Penal
Code.Second, life imprisonment does not carry
with it any accessory penalty.Reclusion
perpetuahas accessory penalties.Third, life
imprisonment does not appear to have any definite
extent or duration, whilereclusion perpetuaentails
imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after
which the convict becomes eligible for pardon,
HELD:
Subsidiary
Penalty
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5465
AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLE 39 OF ACT NO. 3815
(REVISED PENAL CODE) INCREASING THE RATE PER DAY
OF SUBSIDIARY PENALTY FROM TWO PESOS AND FIFTY
CENTAVOS TO EIGHT PESOS.
W h at is S u b sid iary P en alty?

Suffered by the convict who has no
property with which to pay the fine
Php8.00 per day
An auxiliary personal liability

It must be expressly provided in the
judgment of the convict.
Where NO subsidiary penalty

imposed:
when the penalty imposed is higher than
prisin correccional or 6 years
for non-payment of reparation or
indemnification
for non-payment of costs
when the penalty imposed is a fine and
another penalty without fixed duration
for non-payment of civil liability
if not stated in the decision
Where subsidiary penalty

imposed:
Prisin correccional
Suspension and fine
Destierro
Arresto mayor
Arresto menor
Fine only
Rules relative to subsidiary

penalty
1. Prisin correccional or Arresto and fine
Subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed one-third (1/3) of the term of the
sentence, and in no case to continue for
more than one year
No fraction or part of a day shall be
counted against the prisoner
2. Fine only
Subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six (6)
months,
the offense is grave or less grave felony
Not exceed 15 days
if light felony
Rules relative to subsidiary

penalty
4. Penalty imposed is not by
confinement, but of fixed duration
Nature of subsidiary penalty is the same
as that of the principal penalty
same rules provided shall apply
5. In case the financial

circumstances of the convict should
improve, he shall pay the fine.
Illustration/Example
A is convicted of a crime and sentenced
to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days of
prisin correccional, as the maximum
term of the intermediate penalty, and to
pay a fine of Php 4,000.00. He has no
property to pay the fine.
Given:
- 4 years- 10 days
- 9 months - Php 4,000.00
365
x
4
1460 (days)
270
30
x 9
(days)
1740
/
3
580 (days less than
1/3 of the penalty
imposed)
1460
270
10
+
1740 (days)
4,000
/
8
500
(days)
A can be made to suffer subsidiary

imprisonment for only 365 days.
in no case to continue for more than 1 year.
A is sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of 3 years and to pay a
fine of Php 2,000.00. He cannot pay
the fine.
1/3 of 3 years is 1 year.
2,000 / 8 = 250 days
The subsidiary imprisonment is 250
days because it is not more than 1/3
of the principal penalty of 3 years and
it does not exceed 1 year.
If A was sentenced to 21 days of
imprisonment and a fine of Php 1,000.00.
1,000 / 8 = 125 days

21 / 3 = 7 days
The subsidiary penalty cannot exceed 7
days.
B is sentenced to pay a fine of Php
800.00 for a crime punishable by a
fine not exceeding Php 2,000.00.
8oo / 8 = 100 days
The amount being not less than Php

200.00 and not more than Php
6,000.00 pursuant to Article 26, the
duration of his subsidiary
imprisonment shall be 100 days
C is sentenced to 4 years, 9
months and 10 days of destierro and
to pay a fine of Php 4,000. he cannot
pay the fine.
He shall suffer an additional period of
destierro at the same rate of Php
8.00 per day.
the rule is the same when the
principal penalty is suspension and
fine.
APPLICATIO N AN D
CO M PU TATIO N O F PEN ALTIES
APPLICATIO N AN D CO M PU TATIO N O F
PEN ALTIES
PEOPLE v FORMIGONES, 87 PHIL. 658
HELD: It will be observed however, that
article 64 refers to the application of
penalties which contain three periods
whether it be a single divisible penalty or
composed of three different penalties,
each one of which forms a period in
accordance with the provisions of articles
76 and 77, which is not true in the present
case where the penalty applicable for
parricide is composed only of two
indivisible penalties.
APPLICATIO N AN D
0 represents the penalty prescribed by law in

defining a crime, which is to be imposed on the
PRINCIPAL in a CONSUMMATED OFFENSE, in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 46. The
other figures represent the degrees to which the
penalty must be lowered, to meet the different
situations anticipated by law.
APPLICATIO N AN D
Penalty
Prescribe for
the crime
Penalty to be
imposed upon
Penalty to be
Penalty to be
the principal in
imposed upon
imposed upon
an attempted
Penalty to be
the principal in
the accessory in
crime, the
imposed upon
a frustrated
a frustrated
accessory in the
the accessory in
crime, and
crime, and the
consummated
an attempted
accomplice in a
accomplices in
crime and the
crime
consummated
an attempted
accomplices in
crime
crime
a frustrated
crime.
First Case
Death
Reclusion
Perpetua
Reclusion
Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision
Correccional
Second Case
Reclusion
Perpetua to Death
Reclusion
Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision
Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Third Case
Reclusion
Temporal in its
maximum period
to death
Prision Mayor in
its maximum
period to
reclusion
temporal in its
medium period
Prision
correccional in its
maximum period
to prision mayor
in its medium
period
Arresto Mayor in
it's maximum
period to prision
correccional in its
medium period
Fine and Arresto

Mayor in its
minimum and
medium periods
Fourth Case
Prision Mayor in
its maximum
period to
reclusion
temporal in its
medium period.
Prision
correccional in its
maximum period
to prision mayor
in its medium
period.
Arresto mayor in
its maximum
period to prision
correccional in its
medium period.
Fine and Arresto

Mayor in its
minimum and
medium periods
Fine.
APPLICATIO N AN D
SIMPLIFIED RULES:
The rules prescribed in pars. 4 and 5 of Art. 61 may be
simplified as follows:
1. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in 3
periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties,
the penalty next lower in degree is the penalty
consisting in the 3 periods down in the scale.
2. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in 2
periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the penalty
consisting in 2 periods down in the scale.
3. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in only
1 period, the penalty next lower in degree is the next
period down in the scale.
APPLICATIO N AN D
PEOPLE v CAMPUHAN, supra
HELD: The penalty for attempted rape is two (2)
degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death
for the offense charged, which is statutory rape of a
minor below seven (7) years. Two (2) degrees lower
isreclusion temporal, the range of which is twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in
the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the maximum of the penalty to be
imposed upon the accused shall be taken from the
medium period ofreclusion temporal, the range of
which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and
(1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months, while the minimum shall be taken from the
EFFECTS O F M ITIG ATIN G AN D

AG G RAVATIN G CIRCU M STAN CES
PEOPLE v LACANILAO, 162 SCRA 563
(1998)
HELD: Incomplete justification is a special or
privileged mitigating circumstance, which, not
only can not be offset by aggravating
circumstances but also reduces the penalty by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by
law. We agree with the petitioner that the
governing provision is Article 69 of the Revised
Penal Code. The legal provision, articulating
the basis of the special or privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete justification,
expressly provides for its applicability to the
instances enumerated in Article 11, on
Com plex crim e in

relation w ith
Rebellion
Com plex crim e in relation w ith

Rebellion
ARTICLE 48, RPC Penalty for
complex crimes.- When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is
a necessary means for committing
the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum
period.

Rebellion
ARTICLE 134, RPC Rebellion or
insurrection; How committed.- The
crime of rebellion or insurrection is
committed by rising publicly and
taking arms against the Government
for the purpose of removing from the
allegiance to said Government or its
laws, the territory of the Philippine
Islands or any part thereof, of any
body of land, naval or other armed
forces, depriving the Chief Executive

Rebellion
Rebellion the object ofthe movement
is completely to overthrow and
supersede the existing government.
Insurrection used in reference to
amovement which seeks merely to
effect some change of minor
importance, or to prevent the exercise
of governmental authority with respect
to particular matters or subject.

Rebellion
HOW COMMITTED?
1.There be a public uprising and taking
armsagainst the government
2.The purpose of the uprising ormovement
is either :
a. To remove from the allegiance to
said government or its laws:
i. theterritoryofthePhilippinesorany part
thereof;
ii. any body of land,naval or otherarmed
forces ; or
b. To deprive the Chief Executive or

Congress, wholly or partially, of any
oftheir powers or prerogatives

Rebellion
WHO ARE LIABLE?
Any person who:
1. Promotes, maintains, or heads a rebellion or
insurrection; or
2. Any person who, while holding any public
office or employment, takes part therein by:
a. Engaging in war against the forces of the
government
b. Destroying property or committing serious
violence
c. Exacting contributions or diverting public
funds from
the lawful purpose for which they
have been
appropriated
d. Any person merely participating or
executing the
command of others in rebellion

Rebellion
Is there a complex crime of rebellion with
murder and other common crimes?
Common crimes perpetrated in
furtherance of a political offense are
divested of their character as common
offenses and assume the political
complexion of themain crime which they
aremere ingredients, and consequently,
cannot be punished separately from the
principal offense, or complexed with the
same.

Rebellion
PEOPLE v HERNANDEZ, 99 Phil. 515 (1956)
HELD:The Supreme Court ruled that rebellion
cannot be complexed with other crimes, such as
murder and arson. Rebellion in itself would
include and absorb the said crimes, thus granting
the accused his right to bail. Murder and arson
are crimes inherent and concomitant when
rebellion is taking place. Rebellion in theRevised
Penal Code constitutes one single crime and that
there is no reason to complex it with other
crimes. Thus, the petition for bail was granted.
On May 30, 1964, the Supreme Court acquitted
Hernandez.

Rebellion
Killing, robbing etc. for private purposes or
profit without political motivation would be
separately punished and would not be
absorbed in the rebellion
If the killing, robbing etc. during the
rebellion were done for private purposes or
profit without any political motivation, the
crimes would be separately punished.
In People V Geronimo, 100 Phil 90, accused
was convicted of rebellion and murder, two
separate offenses.

Rebellion
Not every act of violence is to be deemed
absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely
because it happens to be committed
simultaneously with or in the course of the
rebellion.
This appears with utmost clarity in the
case where an individual rebel should
commit rape;the latter felony could not be
said to have been done in furtherance of
the rebellion or facilitated its commission
in any way. The ravisher would then be
liable for two separate crimes, rebellion
and rape, and the two could not be merged

Rebellion
ENRILE v SALAZAR, 186 SCRA 217
All other crimes committed in carrying
out rebellion are deemed absorbed.
The Supreme Court noted, however,
that there may be a need to modify the
rebellion law. Considering that the
essence of rebellion has been lost and
thatit is beingused by a lotof
opportunists to attemptto grab power.

Rebellion
Republic Act No. 6968 An Act punishing the crime of
coup d etat by amending Articles 134, 135 and 136 of
Chapter one, Title three of Act numbered 3815 otherwise
known as The Revised Penal Code, and for other
purposes.
A higher penalty is prescribed for the crime of rebellion
when any of the specified acts are committed in
furtherance thereof, said acts are punished as
components of rebellion and, therefore, are not to be
treated as distinct crimes.The same acts constitute
distinct crimes when committed on adifferent occasion
and notin furtherance of rebellion.
In short, it was because Article 135 then punished said
acts as components of thecrime of rebellion that
precludes the application of Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code thereto.In the eyes of the law then, said acts
constitute only one crime and that is rebellion.The
Hernandez doctrine was reaffirmed inEnrile v. Salazar

Rebellion
PEOPLE v DELOS SANTOS, 355 SCRA
415
Glenn should be held guilty of the complex
crime of reckless imprudence resulting in
multiple homicides with serious physical
injuries and less serious physical
injuries.Considering that the incident was
not a product of a malicious intent but
rather the result of a single act of reckless
driving.
The slight physical injuries caused by
Glenn to the ten other victims through
reckless imprudence, would, had they been
SIN G LE LARCEN Y
D O CTRIN E
SIN G LE LARCEN Y D O CTRIN E

Single Larceny Doctrine is a principle of
criminal law that taking of different items
of property belonging to either the same or
different owners at the same time and
place constitutes one act of larceny if the
theft is part of one larcenous plan. For
example in State vs. Klasner, (1994) it was
held that taking nineteen cattle on same
day from one area but belonging to
different individuals constituted one
larceny as a matter of law; State vs Allen,
(1995), subsequently the doctrine was
applied to embezzlement, another form of

What is the rule on duplicity of offenses?
GENERAL RULE A complaint or information
must charge only one offense, except when
the law provides only one punishment for
various offenses (compound and complex
crimes under Art. 48 of the RPC and special
complex offenses).
A complaint or information that charges more
than one offense is considered as defective
but it can be the basis of a valid conviction.

What is the reason for the rule against
duplicitous complaint or information?
The reason for the rule is to enable the
accused to have the necessary knowledge
of the charge against him and to be able to
prepare and prove his defense.

What is the remedy of the accused against a
duplicitous information or complaint?
The remedy of the accused to file a motion to
quash pursuant to Section 3 (f) of Rule 117
(f) That more than one offense is charged
except when a single punishment for various
offenses is prescribed by law;
The information remains valid even if it is
duplicitous. It is up to the accused to raise or
question the defect by filing the proper motion
to quash before he pleads to the charge.

What is the effect of the failure of the
accused to object to a duplicitous
information?
If the accused fails to object before
arraignment, the right is deemed waived,
and he may be convicted of as many
offenses as there are charged if proved by
the prosecution.

EXAMPLE:
X fired his gun once, but the bullet killed
two persons. He was charged with two
counts of homicide in one information.
Can
he
be
information?
convicted
under
that
Yes. It falls under the exception to the rule.

This is a compound crime in which one act
results in two or more grave or less grave
felonies. The law provides only one penalty
for the two offenses.

EXAMPLE:
X was charged with both robbery and
estafa in one information. Can he be
convicted of both offenses?
It depends. If he objects to the duplicitous
information before arraignment, he cannot
be convicted under the information. But if
the fails to object before arraignment, he
can be convicted of as many offenses as
there are in the information.

How does this rule on duplicitous
informations affect the rules on continuing
offenses (delito continuados)?
Delito Continuado or Continuing Offense exists if
there is a plurality of acts performed during a
period of time, unity of penal provision violated,
and unity of criminal intent or purpose which means
that two or more violations of the same penal
provisions are united in one and the same intent or
resolution leading to the perpetration of the same
criminal purpose or aim. consists of several crimes
but in reality, there is only crime in the mind of the
perpetrator; consists of a series of acts rising from
one criminal intent or resolution. Since there is only
a single criminal intent, even though there is a

EXAMPLE:
A, B and C agreed and decided to rob all the
occupants of the 5 houses located within the
same compound. By a series of acts they
robbed the occupants of the 5 houses one after
the other. They are liable for the single offense
of Robbery. While they committed a series of
acts against several victims, the said acts were
impelled by a single criminal intent.
This is a doctrine in Theft or Robbery cases
which is very popular in the United Stated and
other countries where the taking of a property
or properties belonging to same or different
persons by a series of acts or acts arising rom

The courts have abandoned the
SEPARATE LARCENY DOCTRINE under
which there is a distinct larceny as to the
property of each victim.
Also abandoned was the doctrine that the
government has the discretion to
prosecute the accused for one offense or
for as many distinct offenses as there are
victims.
To stick with the abandoned rules would
violate the constitutional guarantee
against putting a man in jeopardy twice of
the same offense. It has also been

EXAMPLE:
A saw two (2) goats in his backyard. He
decided to get both of them regardless of
who is the owner. With the left hand, he
got one goat and with the right hand, he
took the other goat. Here, A committed
two acts of getting the 2 goats. But he took
them as a result of a single intent or
criminal resolution. Hence, he is liable for
the single offense of Theft applying the
single larceny doctrine.

EXAMPLE:
A and B peeped through the glass window
of a window classroom. They saw 30
students inside. They resolved to rob them
all of their belongings. By a series of acts,
they divested the students of their
personal properties by means of threat and
intimidation. A and B are liable for the
single offense of Multiple Robbery.
The series of acts dispossessions of the
personal properties of the 30 students
arose from a single criminal intent.

The law requires however that where the
offense charged in the information is a
complex crime as defined by law, every
essential element of each of the crimes
constituting the complex felony must be
stated in the information.
NOTE: The single larceny can be applied in
other offenses like Estafa, Violation of B.P.
22 or in Violation of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act).

This was enunciated by the Supreme Court
when it ordered the consolidation of the 32
separate information filed against Miriam
Defensor Santiago in one information for
alleged Violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 301 when
she was still the Commissioner of the Bureau
of Immigration and Deportation. Her acts of
signing the 32 release orders of overstaying
aliens proceeded from the belief that there
was no legal basis for their continued
detention. (Santiago vs Garchitorena, 228
SCRA 214)

EXCEPTION to the Single Larceny Doctrine.
USE OF SUBMACHINE GUN: NOT A COMPLEX
CRIME
Does the number of the crimes committed
depend upon how many times the trigger of an
automatic gun was pressed or does it depend
how many bullets are emitted?
In People v Mario Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32, our
Supreme Court declared that it is not the act of
pressing the trigger which should produce the
several felonies, but the number of bullets
which actually produced them. Hence, where
the accused pressed the trigger of a
submachine gun and the gun fired continually
RECKLESS
IM PRU D EN CE
(The Reodica and Ivler Doctrines)
RECKLESS IM PRU D EN CE
(The Reodica and Ivler D octrines)
REQUISITES (ARTICLE 48, RPC):
1.That only a single act is performed
by the offender.
2.That the single act produces:
a.) two or more grave felonies;
b.) one or more grave felonies;
c.) two or more less grave
felonies.
What about several light felonies
resulting from one single act?
It does not constitute the
characteristics of complex crimes,
rather, it shall be treated and
punished as separate offenses or
may be absorbed by the grave
felony.
REODICA v CA, 242 SCRA 87
FACTS: IsabelitaReodica was allegedly
recklessly driving a van and hit Bonsol causing
him physical injuries and damage to property
amounting to P 8,542.00. Three days after the
accident a complaint was filed before the
fiscals office against the petitioner. She was
chargedof"Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Damage to Property with Slight Physical
Injury.
HELD: After pleading not guilty trial ensued.
RTC of Makati rendered the decision convicting
petitioner of "quasi offense of reckless
imprudence, resulting in damage to property
Applicability of the Rule on Complex Crimes:
The Supreme Court said: Clearly, if a
reckless, imprudent, or negligent act results
in two or more grave or less grave felonies,
a complex crime is committed.
HOWEVER
In jurisprudence, the Supreme court has
declared that where one of the resulting
offenses in criminal negligence constitutes a
light felony, there is no complex crime.
Hence, the trial court erred in
considering the following felonies as
complex crime: the less grave felony
of reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property in the amount of
P8,542.00 and the light felony of
reckless imprudence resulting in
physical injuries. They should be
treated as separate crimes.
IN RE: JASON IVLER CASE
FACTS: Following a vehicular collision in August
2004, petitioner Jason Ivler was charged before
the MeTC of Pasig City, Branch 71, with two
separate offenses: 1.) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries, for injuries
sustained by private respondent, Evangeline L.
Ponce (CC No. 82367); and 2.) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage
to Property for the death of respondent Ponces
husband Nestor C. Ponce and the damage to
the spouses Ponces vehicle (C.C No. 82366).
On September 7, petitioner pleaded
guilty to the charge in Criminal Case
No. 82367 and was meted out the
penalty of public censure. Petitioner
moved to quash the information in
criminal case no. 82366 for placing
him in jeopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of
reckless imprudence.
Is Reckless Imprudence a Single Crime? In
this case, YES.
HELD: We find for the petitionerReckless
Imprudence is a single crime, its
consequences on persons and property are
material only to determine the penalty
The two charges against the petitioner,
arising from the same facts, were prosecuted
under the same provision of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, namely Article 365:
defining and penalizing quasi-offenses.
ARTICLE 365, RPC Imprudence and
negligence.- Any person who, by reckless
imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it
been intentional, would constitute a grave felony,
shall suffer the penalty ofarresto mayorin its
maximum period to prision correccional in its
medium period; if it would have constituted a
less grave felony, the penalty ofarresto mayorin
its minimum and medium periods shall be
imposed; if it would have constituted a light
felony, the penalty ofarresto menorin its
maximum period shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall commit an act which would
otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer
When the execution of the act covered by this
article shall have only resulted in damage to
the property of another, the offender shall be
punished by a fine ranging from an amount
equal to the value of said damages to three
times such value, but which shall in no case be
less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and
censure shall be imposed upon any person
who, by simple imprudence or negligence,
shall cause some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light
felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court
The provisions contained in this article
shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the
offense is equal to or lower than those
provided in the first two paragraphs of this
article, in which case the court shall
impose the penalty next lower in degree
than that which should be imposed in the
period which they may deem proper to
apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and
with violation of the Automobile Law, to
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but
without malice, doing or falling to do an act from
which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing of failing to perform such act,
taking into consideration his employment or
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place. Simple imprudence
consists in the lack of precaution displayed in
those cases in which the damage impending to
be caused is not immediate nor the danger
clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those
provided for in this article shall be imposed upon
In Reodica Doctrine, the two crimes
was penalized under two different
paragraphs of ARTICLE 365, thus
separating the two crimes.
In Ivler Doctrine, Reckless
Imprudence is considered only a
single crime embodied in ARTICLE
365.
TH E TH REE-FO LD
RU LE
TH E TH REE-FO LD RU LE
ARTICLE 70, RPC Successive service of sentence.When the culprit has to serve two or more
penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the
nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the
following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their
respective severity shall be followed so that they
may be executed successively or as nearly as may
be possible, should a pardon have been granted as
to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should
they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding
paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be
determined in accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule
next preceding, the maximum duration of
the convict's sentence shall not be more
than three-fold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him. No other
penalty to which he may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum total of those
imposed equals the same maximum
period.
Such maximum period shall in no case
exceed forty years.
MEJORADA v SANDIGANBAYAN, 151 SCRA 339
Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code is to be taken
into account not in the imposition of the penalty but
in connection with the service of the sentence
imposed (People v. Escares, 102 Phil. 677 [1957]).
Article 70 speaks of "service" of sentence,
"duration" of penalty and penalty "to be inflicted".
Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about
the "imposition of penalty". It merely provides that
the prisoner cannot be made to serve more than
three times the most severe of these penalties the
maximum of which is forty years.
As pointed out in the case of People v. Peralta, (No.
L-19069, October 29, 1968, 25 SCRA 759, 783-784):
... Even without the authority provided by Article
70, courts can still impose as many penalties as
there are separate and distinct offenses committed,
since for every individual crime committed, a
corresponding penalty is prescribed by law. Each
single crime is an outrage against the State for
which the latter, thru the courts of justice, has the
power to impose the appropriate penal sanctions.
In the light of the above reasons, petitioner cannot
assail the penalty imposed upon him as harsh, cruel
and unusual (See Veniegas v. People, G.R. No.
57601-06 July 20, 1982, 115 SCRA 790, 792).
RIGOR v SUPERINTENDENT, 411 SCRA 646
When an offender has to serve two or
more penalties, he should serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit, otherwise said
penalties shall be executed successively,
following the order of their severity, in
which case, the second sentence will not
commence to run until the expiration of
the first.
REPU BLIC ACT

N O . 4103
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
IN D ETERM IN ATE SEN TEN CE LAW

Lawis the imposition of anindeterminate
sentencewhich is comprised by a MINIMUM term
and a MAXIMUM term. It isindeterminatein the
sense that after serving the MINIMUM, the convict
may be released on parole, or if he is not fitted for
release, he shall continue serving hissentenceuntil
the end of the MAXIMUM.
The purposes of this law are the following:
1.) Promote the prisoner's reformation by allowing
him to serve sentence under a parole officer
2.) Decongest the jails by allowing prisoners to be
admitted into parole
3.) Allow the government to save money on
maintaining the jails
4.) Prevent the prisoners' economic usefulness from

It affects all criminal laws, whether from the Revised Penal Code
or not so long as they don't fall into the instances enumerated by
the indeterminate sentence law itself. Those instances are:
1.) Crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment
2.) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason
3.) Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or
espionage
4.) Those convicted of piracy
5.) Habitual delinquents (but recidivists can qualify for
indeterminate sentence -they're not the same as habitual
offenders)
6.) Those who escaped from confinement/service or sentence
7.) Those who were granted conditional pardon but violated the
terms of the pardon
8.) In case the maximum prison term doesn't exceed 1 year
9.) Those already serving sentence when the indeterminate

The indeterminate sentence law is all about parole. If
convicted an indeterminate sentence is imposed by the
court, depending on the law in question. There are 2
possible scenarios:
1.) If the law is part of the Revised Penal Code
The maximum penalty is fixed in accordance with the
rules of the Revised Penal Code, taking into account the
attending circumstances. The minimum penalty will be
putwithin the range of the penaltynext lowerthan what
the Revised Penal Code has prescribed. In case of a
complex crime (i.e. when a single act produces 2 or
more crimes,) thefull rangeof the penalty next lower in
degree will be considered in determining the minimum
penalty.

2.) If the law in question is a special law
The maximum term can't exceed the maximum that
the law in question has prescribed and the minimum
can't be less than the prescribed minimum.
In case the penalty comes from the result of a pleabargaining, the minimum penalty will be the one lower
than that of the downgraded offense.
Minimum and maximum penalties are specified in order
to prevent unnecessary deprivation of liberty and
enhance his economic usefulness. The maximum
penalty is necessary for the imposition of accessory
penalties while the minimum penalty is important to
allow the prisoner the chance for parole. In short, he is
given a chance to redeem himself.

Once the minimum term is served, the prisoner
becomes eligible for parole if he proves that he
has complied with the conditions imposed on him
when he was made to serve sentence. Parole
doesn't mean a person has fully served sentence,
however. It means that he is allowed to serve the
remainder of his sentence out of jail but under
the supervision of an appointed parole officer. He
is required to report to this parole officer on
appointed dates for the remainder of the prison
term. During parole, the prisoner released on
parole must apply himself to a legitimate
occupation and prove himself to be a law-abiding
citizen. His residence will be fixed and changed
from time to time under the discretion of the
If he violates the terms and

conditions of his parole he
can be arrested again. If
that happens, he will have
to serve the remaining
term of his prison sentence
behind bars.

STEPS TO FIX INDETERMINATE SENTENCE:
1. Determine crime committed and the penalty
imposable.
2. Fix the proper degree by determining of the provisions
of Art. 64 par.5 (2+ MC, no AC), Art. 68 (Minority) &
69 (Inc. self defense) are applicable then LOWER the
penalty by degree/s
3. Fix the MINIMUM penalty by lowering the penalty by
ONE DEGREE from the penalty imposable to the
offense committed or from the proper degree if Art. 64
(5), Art 68 & 69 is applicable without any reference to
any period. The judge has the discretion to fix the
minimum in any period of the MINIMUM penalty.
4. Fix the MAXIMUM penalty by going to the penalty
imposable or proper degree where you immediately
came from and look for remaining MC or AC if any,
EXAM PLES TO fi
x indeterm inate sentence
Case # 1: Rolex killed Chelnag.
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL
2. Not applicable!
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
One degree lower = PRISION MAYOR
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
No MC, No AC = RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MEDIUM TERM
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL,
MEDIUM TERM
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
EXAM PLES TO fi
Case # 2: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex voluntarily surrendered.
1. Crime:
HOMICIDE
2. Not applicable!
One MC (Voluntary surrender), No AC = RECLUSION
TEMPORAL, MINIMUM
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MINIMUM
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
EXAM PLES TO fi
Case # 3: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex was a recidivist.
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
2. Not applicable!
No MC, One AC (recidivism) = RECLUSION TEMPORAL,
MAXIMUM TERM
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MAXIMUM
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
EXAM PLES TO fi
Case # 4: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex was a recidivist. Rolex voluntarily

surrendered and pleaded guilty.
1. Crime: HOMICIDEPenalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL

2. Not applicable!
Two MC, One AC = One MC
Maximum IS = RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MINIMUM TERM
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MINIMUM
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
EXAM PLES TO fi
Case # 5: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex voluntarily surrendered and

pleaded guilty.

2. Two MC (voluntary surrender & plea of guilty)
Penalty = one degree lower = PRISION MAYOR
One degree lower = PRISION CORRECCIONAL
No MC, No AC
Maximum IS = PRISION MAYOR, MEDIUM TERM
IS: PRISION CORRECCIONAL to PRISION MAYOR, MEDIUM
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
EXAM PLES TO fi
Case # 6: Rolex when he was 17 y/o killed Chelnag with discernment.

Rolex voluntarily surrendered.

2. Minority: 17 y/o with discernment (RA9344)
One MC (Voluntary surrender), No AC
Maximum IS = PRISION MAYOR, MINIMUM TERM
IS: PRISION CORRECCIONAL to PRISION MAYOR, MINIMUM
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
Privilege MC, Complex Crime, Ordinary MC
Case # 7: Rolex when he was 17 y/o robbed and killed Chelnag with
discernment. Rolex voluntarily surrendered.
1. Crime: ROBBERY w/ HOMICIDE

Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL (Homicide has the higher
penalty)
Imposable penalty for complex crime: PRISION MAYOR, MAX
One MC (Voluntary surrender), No AC
Maximum IS = PRISION MAYOR, MAX at Minimum range
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
MINIMUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
2m
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 8: Rolex was found guilty of murder upon a plea of guilty.

Sentence suspended since he was 16 y/o but was incorrigible. He
was returned to the Court to impose proper penalty. The court
imposed an IP from 5y of PC as MINIMUM to 10y, 1d of PM as the
MAXIMUM.
1. Crime: MURDER Penalty: REC. TEMPORAL, Max to DEATH (Art.248)

Penalty = one degree lower = PRISION MAYOR, Max to RT, Med (Art.
61, par.3)
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE: PC, Max to PM, Med
One MC (Plea of guilty), No AC
Maximum IS = PRISION MAYOR, MAX
Death
Rec.
Perpetua
Rec. Temporal, MAX: 17y, 4m, 1d to 20y
Rec. Temporal, MED: 14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m
Rec. Temporal, MIN: 12y, 1d to 14y,
8m
Prision mayor, MAX: 10y, 1d to
12y
Prision mayor, MED: 8y, 1d to
10y
Prision mayor, MIN: 6y, 1d to 8y
Prision Corec, Max: 4y, 2m,
1d to 6y
Step 1
Step 2
Step 4
Step 3
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 9: Rolex killed Chelnag with treachery. He was

found guilty of murder. MCs of plea of guilty and
voluntary surrender.
1. Crime: MURDER Penalty: REC. TEMPORAL, Max to DEATH (Art.248)
2. 2 MC (Voluntary surrender & Plea of guilty)
Penalty = PRISION MAYOR, Max to RT, Med (Art. 61, par.3)
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE PENALTY : PC, Max to PM, Med
4. MAXIMUM INDETERMINATE PENALTY
No MC, No AC
Divide the Penalty @ #2 into three periods
Maximum IP = Medium period of PM, Max to RT, Med
Death
Rec.
Perpetua
Rec. Temporal, MAX: 17y, 4m, 1d to 20y
Rec. Temporal, MED: 14y, 10m, 21d to
17y, 4m
Rec. Temporal, MIN: 12y, 5m,11d to
14y, 10m,20d
Prision mayor, MAX: 10y, 1d to
12y,5m,10d
Prision mayor, MED: 8y, 1d to
10y
Prision mayor, MIN: 6y, 1d to 8y
1d to 6y
Step 1
Step 2,
Step 4, MAX
Penalty
Step 3, MIN
IP
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 10: People vs. Jaurigue. The woman stabbed the man when placed
his hand on the womans thigh, w/o any provocation on her part.
1. Crime: HOMICIDE Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL

2. Incomplete defense: unlawful aggression & lack of suff. provocation
Penalty = two degrees lower = PRISION CORRECCIONAL
3. MINIMUM INDETERMINATE SENTENCE: ARRESTO MAYOR
Under Pp. vs. Jaurigue = ARRESTO MAYOR, MEDIUM
No MC, No AC
Maximum IS = PRISION CORRECCIONAL, MEDIUM
Death
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
Arresto
Mayor
Mayor
1 m, 1d to 6 m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4m
2m
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
1m, 1d to 2m
2m, 1d to 4m
MAXIMUM
17y, 4m, 1d to
20y
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM
4m, 1d to 6m
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 11: People vs. Nicolas. A killed B in self-defense. There

was unlawful aggression by B and no sufficient provocation from A.
But the means employed by A to defend himself was not reasonable.
A acted w/ obfuscation and after killing B, surrendered himself.
1. Crime: HOMICIDE Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL

2. Incomplete defense: unlawful aggression & lack of suff.
provocation
Two degrees lower = PRISION CORRECCIONAL
2 MC (Obfuscation & Voluntary surrender)
One degree lower = ARRESTO MAYOR
ISL = not applicable since the range of Arresto Mayor is only
from
1 month, 1 day to 6 months which is BELOW 1 year.
Penalty: ARRESTO MAYOR, MEDIUM (No AC, no MC)
Rec
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Arresto
Arresto
Mayor
Mayor
Step 1
Step 2 (Art. 59)

Step 2 (Art. 54 (5))
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 12 others: People vs. De Lara. A pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery in
an inhabited place defined and penalized under Art 299. The value taken did not exceed
P250.
1. Crime: Robbery in an inhabited place.

Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL (Art.299)
2. Stolen items less than P250
One degree lower = PRISION MAYOR, Minimum (Art. 299)
3. MINIMUM IP: PRISION CORRECCIONAL
No MC, No AC
Divide Prision Mayor, Minimum into 3 periods
Maximum IP = PRISION MAYOR, MINIMUM in its MEDIUM period
6y, 8m, 1d to 7y, 4m
IP: Prision Correccional as minimum to Prision Mayor, Minimum in its
medium period as maximum
SC RULING: FOUR (4) years and TWO (2) days ofprision correccional, as
minimum,Rec
to EIGHT (8) years and ONE (1) day ofprision mayor, as maximum.
Temporal
Step 1 MEDIUM
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
12y,Prision
1d to 20
6m, 1d to 2y, MINIMUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m,Step
1d to
y mayor
4m
2m
6y
6 y, 1d to 12
6y, 1d to 8y
2
Prision
Corec
years
Step
6 m, 1d to 6
3
years
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 12 others: People vs. De Lara. A pleaded guilty to the charge of robbery in
an inhabited place defined and penalized under Art 299. The value taken did not exceed
P250.
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE RULING OF THE CASE:

Based on our procedure:
IP: Prision Correccional as minimum to Prision Mayor, Minimum in its
medium period as maximum
SC RULING:
IP: FOUR (4) years and TWO (2) days ofprision correccional, as
minimum, to EIGHT (8) years and ONE (1) day ofprision mayor, as
maximum.
Note: SC disregarded that fact that the maximum penalty be
implemented at MINIMUM period as provided for by Art. 299.
One case of inconsistencies of SC rulings in imposing ISL.
Rec
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 13: Rolex was guilty of a complex crime frustrated

homicide with assault upon an agent of person in authority.
1. Crime: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE with ASSAULT (Complex crime)

Penalty: FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE: PRISION MAYOR (1degree lower)
ASSAULT
: PC, MED to MAX PERIOD
Penalty to be considered: PRISION MAYOR (Higher)
2. Not applicable!
Maximum IP = PRISION MAYOR, MAXIMUM (Art.48)
IP: Prision correccional as minimum to prision mayor in its maxium
period as maxium
Rec
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
years MINIMUM
6y, 1d to 8y
Prision Corec
6 m, 1d to 6
years
Step
1
MEDIUM
8y, 1d to 10y
Step
3
MAXIMUM
10y, 1d to 12y
Step
4
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 14: Rolex attempted to kill his uncle, Joey, a senior citizen. He was not able to
kill Joey because he was arrested upon complaint of Joey of Rolexs threats that he will
kill him.
1. Crime: GRAVE THEATS Penalty: PRISION CORRECTIONAL

(2 degrees lower penalty for homicide)
Art.282 (1)
2. Not applicable!
3. MINIMUM IP: ARRESTO MAYOR
No MC, 2 Acs (Relationship & disregard of the respect due on
account of his age)
Maximum IP = PRISION CORRECCIONAL, MAXIMUM, max range
IP: Arresto Mayor as minimum to prision correccional in its maximum
period as maximum
Rec
Temporal
12y,Prision
1d to 20
y mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
Prision Corec
years
6 m, 1d to 6
years MINIMUM
6m, 1d to 2y,
4m
Arresto
Arresto
Mayor
Mayor
Step
1MEDIUM
2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,

2m
Step
3
MAXIMUM
4y, 2m, 1d to
6y
Step
4
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
imposed
penalty
4. MAXIMUM =
imposable
penalty, apply
remaining AC
or MC
1. Crime and
penalty
2. Lower
penalty by:
1deg:2+ MC, no
1. Crime: ESTAFA thru FALSIFICATION (Complex crime)
AC
Penalty: ESTAFA:
PRISION CORRECCIONAL (Min-Med(Art.315) 1deg: >15<18
FALSIFICATION: PRISION MAYOR (Art. 171)
1deg: unlawful
aggression
Penalty to be considered: PRISION MAYOR (Higher)
only
2 degs: unlawful
2. Not applicable!
aggression +
any other 2
remaining
elements
Maximum IP = PRISION MAYOR, MAXIMUM (Art.48), medium range
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
lower from
Prision
imposed
Step
mayor
6 y, 1d to 12
penalty
1 MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years MINIMUM
Step
4. MAXIMUM =
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
4
4m
2m
6y
imposable
Prision Corec
Step
6 m, 1d to 6
penalty, apply
3
years
remaining AC
or MC
Case # 15: Rolex, who was a public employee took advantage of
his position to falsify a document defrauding the victim of P10,000.

PEOPLE v NANG KAY, 83 PHIL 515 (SPECIAL
LAW)
Crime: Illegal possession of firearms
Penalty: 5 years to 10 years (SPECIAL LAW)
Imposed Penalty: 5 years, 1 day
Issue: Is ISL to be applicable?
Ruling: NO. Applying ISL will result of
lengthening his prison sentence which is
contrary to the objective of RA4103 as
illustrated below:
INDETERMINATE MINIMUM PENALTY: 5

PEOPLE v FORMIGONES, 87 PHIL 185
Crime: Parricide ( reclusion perpetua to death)
Imposed Penalty: Death
SC Findings: 1. No AC of treachery (not alleged
in the complaint); 2. Two MC of
feeblemindedness & crime of passion
SC Ruling: Lesser penalty of reclusion
perpetua (Art.63 par. 2 on two indivisible
penalties)
ISL: Those with penalties of death and life
imprisonment are exempted from the
application of the ISL. AThis case was decided
in 1950 wherein the accused was penalized
with RP but ISL was not applied. This was

PEOPLE v LALER, APRIL 15, 1963
Indeterminate sentence law does not
apply if the penalty is Destierro
because it does not involve
imprisonment.

PEOPLE v ONATE, 78 SCRA 43 (Similar to
Case # 9)
Crime: Murder
Penalty imposed: cadena perpetua (should
be Reclusion Perpetua)
SC Findings: 1. Murder qualified by
alevosia (Reclusion Temporal, Max to Death
(Art.248); 2. One MC of voluntary surrender
(A Certification was not formally offered as
evidence but was later recognized by
Solicitor General)
SC Ruling: Penalty: MODIFIED to IP of 10
years and 1 day of prision mayor to 17
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LAW
PEOPLE v CLAREON, Nov. 29, 1982
(SPECIAL LAW)
Penalty: 10 years, 1 day
Court of Appeals: ISL to be applied
Ruling: Accused is not disqualified to avail
of the ISL even if the crime was committed
while on parole.
IND. MINIMUM PENALTY: 6 years, 8 months
& 1 day
IND. MAXIMUM PENALTY: not exceed
maximum fixed by law
IN D ETERM IN ATE SEN TEN CE

LAW
PEOPLE v LOPE VIENTE, 225 SCRA 361
(SPECIAL LAW)
Crime: Carnapping (violation of RA 6539)
Penalty: 17 years & 4 months to 30 years
Imposed penalty: 30 years
Solicitor General: Straight penalty of 30
year should not be applied
Ruling: Agreed with the Solicitor General
IND. MINIMUM PENALTY: 17 years & 4
months
IND. MAXIMUM PENALTY: 30 years

BACAR v DE GUZMAN, APRIL 18, 1997
Crime: Homicide with 2 MC
Imposed Penalty: Straight penalty of 3 years
Petitioners: Parents of the victim complained of
gross ignorance of law against Judge De
Guzman
Ruling: Judge is liable for gross ignorance of
law.
Crime: Homicide (penalty: Reclusion temporal)
(Step 1)
With 2 MC, penalty = Prision Mayor, medium
(Step 2)

DELA CRUZ VS. CA, 265 SCRA 299
Crime: Estafa (Art.315)
Imposed penalty (Trial Court): IS of 4 years, 2
months of prision correccional in its medium period
as the MINIMUM to 8 years of prision mayor in its
minimum as the MAXIMUM, PLUS 69 years, but the
penalty to be suffered shall not exceed 20 years.
CA imposed penalty: AFFIRMED. IS of 4 years, 2
months of prision correccional as MINIMUM to 20
years of reclusion temporal as maximum
SC Ruling: AFFIRMED.
Art.315: Penalty: For above P22k: PM, Minimum
Step 4: The maximum penalty of PM minimum
would be increased by 1 year for each additional
P10k (P715k-P22k=P693k/P10k = 69 years)

LAW
ARTICLE 315, RPC Swindling (estafa).- Any person
who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st.The penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000
pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if
such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty
provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its
maximum period, adding one year for each
additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which
may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In
such cases, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed under the
provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed

LAW
2nd.The penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods, if the
amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos
but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd.The penalty ofarresto mayorin its
maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period if such amount is over
200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000
pesos; and
4th.Byarresto mayorin its maximum
period, if such amount does not exceed
200 pesos, provided that in the four cases

LAW
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence,
namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or
anything of value which the offender shall deliver
by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though
such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other
personal property received by the offender in trust
or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same, even though such
obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a
bond; or by denying having received such money,

LAW
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses
or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions,
or by means of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government
employee, without prejudice to the action for
calumny which the offended party may deem
proper to bring against the offender. In this case,
the offender shall be punished by the maximum

LAW
(d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check. The failure of the drawer of the check to
deposit the amount necessary to cover his check
within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that said check
has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of
funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As
amended by R.A. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)
(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or
accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
house, lodging house, or apartment house and the
like without paying therefor, with intent to defraud

LAW
or surreptitiously removing any part of his
baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
house, lodging house or apartment house after
obtaining credit, food, refreshment or
accommodation therein without paying for his
food, refreshment or accommodation.
3. Through any of the following fraudulent
means:
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to
sign any document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to
insure success in a gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in

LADINO v GARCIA, 265 SCRA 422
Crime:
Homicide (no MC, no AC)
Penalty imposed by LC: 14 years, 8 months & 1

day to 17 years, 4 months & 1 day of reclusion
temporal
SC Findings: 1. Exceeded penalty by ONE day
of the medium period of RT when no MC and
AC; 2. ISL shall apply.
Penalty: MODIFIED to IP of 10 years of prision
mayor as minimum to 17 years, 4 months of
reclusion temporal as maximum
PEOPLE VS. SALEY, 291 SCRA 715

Facts: La Trinidad, Benguet Case. Saley was convicted
of 11 counts of estafa and 6 counts of illegal
recruitment. (Will discuss on ESTAFA)
Crime:
11 counts of ESTAFA involving amounts of
P18k to 45k)
Penalty imposed by LC: IP of prision correccional,
minimum
asfor
MINIMUM
andtoprision
Art.315:
Penalty
ESTAFA, >P12k
P22k: PC correccional,
max to PM min
If maximum
above P22k, as
implement
the max period (similar to complex crime) +
MAXIMUM
SC Ruling:
Prision mayor, MIN: 6y, 1d to
8y
1d to 6y
Prision Corec, MED: 2y, 4m, 1d
to 4y, 2m
Prision Corec, MIN: 6m, 1d to
2y, 4m
Period
Divide
into 3
equal
periods
From
To
4 years, 2 5 years, 5
months & 1 months and
Minimum day
10 days
5 years, 5
6 years, 8
months and months and
Medium 11 days
20 days
6 years, 8
months and
Maximum 21 days
8 years

Art.315: Penalty for ESTAFA, >P12k to P22k: PC max to PM min
If above P22k, implement the max period (similar to complex crime) + 1
year for every excess of P10,000
Period

8y
1d to 6y
Divide
into 3
equal
periods

to 4y, 2m
2y, 4m
STAFA
R1397: Amount P45,000.00
C imposed IP:
Minimum: 3 years, 6 months, 21 days
Maximum: 7 years, 4 months, 1 day
C imposed IP:
Minimum: 3 years, 6 months, 21 days
Maximum: 8 years, 8 months, 21 day
From
To
Minimum day
10 days
5 years, 5
6 years, 8
Medium 11 days
20 days
6 years, 8
months and
Maximum 21 days
8 years
Prision correccional
Prision mayor
Prision correccional, med
Prision mayor, max
omputation: 45,000-22,000 = 23, 000/10,000 = 2.3 years = 2 years

Art.315: Penalty for ESTAFA, >P12k to P22k: PC max to PM min
If above P22k, implement the max period (similar to complex crime) + 1
year for every excess of P10,000
Period

8y
1d to 6y
to 4y, 2m
2y, 4m
Divide
into 3
equal
periods
From
To
Minimum day
10 days
5 years, 5
6 years, 8
Medium 11 days
20 days
6 years, 8
months and
Maximum 21 days
8 years
ESTAFA
CR1426: Amount P40,000.00
TC imposed IP:
Minimum: 1 year, 7 months, 11 days Prision correccional
Maximum: 6 years, 5 months, 11 day Prision mayor
SC imposed IP:
Minimum: 2 years, 4 months, 1 day
Prision correccional, med
Maximum: 7 years, 8 months, 21 day Prision mayor, min
Computation: 40,000-22,000 = 18, 000/10,000 = 1.8 years = 1 year

PEOPLE VS. NARVASA, 298 SCRA 637
TC ruling: Illegal possession of firearms in aggravated
form: GUILTY. Penalty of death but will suffer reclusion
perpetua.
Homicide: TC considered it a necessary component of
the crime of illegal possession of firearms. Homicide
merely an element in the principal offense of illegal
possession of firearms in its aggravated form.
SC Ruling: RA 8294: considers the use of unlicensed
firearm as simply an AC in murder or homicide, and
not as a separate offense.
ISL shall apply.
Penalty: MODIFIED to IP of 10 years of prision mayor as
minimum to 17 years, 4 months of reclusion temporal

PEOPLE VS. CAMPUHAN, 329 SCRA 270
Crime: Attempted rape
Penalty: Reclusion temporal (2 degrees
lower from death)
Imposed penalty: IP of 8 years, 4 months
and 10 days of prision mayor medium as
MINIMUM to 14 years, 10 months, 20 days
of reclusion temporal medium as
MAXIMUM.
ISL shall apply.
SC Ruling: Penalty: MODIFIED to IP of 10
BAR Q & A: Indeterm inate

Sentence Law (1994)
Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a
special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than
six years but not more than twelve years. No
modifying circumstance attended the commission
of the crime. If you were the judge, will you apply
the Indeterminate Sentence Law? If so, how will
you apply it?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the judge, I will
apply the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, as the last sentence of Section 1 Act 4103,
specifically provides the application thereof for
violations of special laws. Under the same
provision, the minimum must not be less than the
minimum provided therein (six years and one day)

Sentence Law (1999)
Andres is charged with an offense defined by a
special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense is
imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not
more than ten [10) years. Upon arraignment, he
entered a plea of guilty. In the imposition of the
proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence
Law be applied? If you were the Judge trying the
case, what penalty would you impose on Andres?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the Indeterminate
Sentence Law should be applied because the
minimum imprisonment is more than one (1) year. If I
were the Judge, I will impose an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed
the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall
not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by

Sentence Law (1999)
A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns
and two Thompson sub-machine guns punishable
under the old law [RA No,4] with imprisonment of
from five (5) to ten (10) years. The trial court
sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment of five
(5) years and one (1) day. Is the penalty thus imposed
correct? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Indeterminate Sentence Law
does not apply to: The penalty imposed, being only a
straight penalty, is not correct because it does not
comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law which
applies to this case. Said law requires that if the
offense is punished by any law other than the Revised
Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of

Sentence Law (2002)
How are the maximum and the minimum terms of
the indeterminate sentence for offenses
punishable under the Revised Penal Code
determined?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: For crimes punished under
the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the
Indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty
properly imposable under the same Code after
considering the attending mitigating and/or
aggravating circumstances according to Art, 64 of
said Code. The minimum term of the same
sentence shall be fixed within the range of the
penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for
the crime under the said Code.

Sentence Law (2002)
Under the law, what is the purpose for
fixing the maximum and the minimum
terms of the indeterminate sentence?
The purpose of the law in fixing the
minimum term of the sentence is to set the
grace period at which the convict may be
released on parole from imprisonment,
unless by his conduct he is not deserving of
parole and thus he shall continue serving
his prison term in Jail but in no case to go
beyond the maximum term fixed in the
sentence.
BAR Q & A: P en alties; C om p lex

C rim e of Estafa (1997)
A was convicted of the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document. Since the amount Involved did
not exceed P200.00, the penalty prescribed by law for estafa is
arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. The penalty
prescribed by law for falsification of public document is prision
mayor plus fine not to exceed P5,000.00. Impose the proper
prison penalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN
prision correccional (six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6)
years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within prision mayor
maximum (ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years)
as MAXIMUM. This is in accordance with People us, Gonzales, 73
Phil, 549, where It was ruled that for the purpose of determining
the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty that should be
considered as a starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it
being the penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its
maximum period, which is only the penalty actually applied
because of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty
BAR Q & A: P en alties; P reven tive

Im p rison m en t (1994)
1) When is there preventive
imprisonment?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: There is
preventive imprisonment when [a) an
offender is detained while the criminal
case against him is being heard, either
because the crime committed is a
capital of-fense and not bailable, or
even if the crime committed was
bailable, the offender could not post the
required bail for his provisional liberty.
BAR Q & A: P en alties; R eclu sion

P erp etu a (R A ) N o. 7959 (2005)
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7959, reclusion
perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40
years. Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is
now a divisible penalty? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, because the Supreme
Court has repeatedly called the attention of the
Bench and the Bar to the fact that the penalties of
reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not
synonymous and should be applied correctly and
as may be specified by the applicable law.
Reclusion perpetua has a specific duration of 20
years and 1 day to 40 years (Art. 27) and
accessory penalties (Art. 41), while life
EXECU TIO N O F
PEN ALTIES
A rticle 81* - W
hen and how the

death penalty is to be executed.
By lethal injection.
To be executed under the authority of the Director of the
Bureau of Corrections.
All personnel involved in the administration of lethal injection
shall be trained prior to the performance of such task.
The authorized physician of the Bureau of Corrections shall
officially make a pronouncement of the convict's death and
shall certify thereto in the records of the Bureau of
Corrections.
Shall be carried out not earlier than one (1) year nor later
than eighteen (18) months after the judgment has become
final and executory without prejudice to the exercise by the
President of his executive clemency powers at all times.
*Amended by Republic Act No. 8177 and expressly repealed by Republic Act
No. 9346
A N A C T P R O H IB ITIN G
TH E IM P O S ITIO N O F D EATH P EN A LTY IN
TH E P H ILIP P IN ES
R ep u b lic A ct N o. 9 3 4 6
The imposition of the penalty of death is prohibited.

In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be
imposed:
(a) the penalty ofreclusion perpetua, when the law
violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law
violated does not make use of the nomenclature of
the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Person convicted of offenses punished withreclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua shall not be eligible for parole
under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the
N otifi
cation and execution of the
sentence and assistance to the culprit.
A rticle 82
Court shall designate a working day for the

execution
Designation shall not be communicated to the
offender before sunrise of said day
The execution take place until after the expiration
of at least eight hours following the notification,
but before sunset.
Between the notification and the execution, the
culprit may request in order to be attended by
priests or ministers
Consult lawyers in order to make a will and confer
with members of his family or persons in charge of
the management of his business, of the
Suspension of the
execution of the death sentence.
A rticle 83
The death sentence shall be suspended

when the convict is:
Woman, while she is pregnant;
Woman, within one year after delivery;
Person over 70 years of age;
Convict who becomes insane after final
sentence of death has been pronounced.
Place of execution and

persons w ho m ay w itness the sam e.
A rticle 84
The execution shall take place in the

penitentiary of Bilibid in a space closed to
the public view
Persons who may witness the execution:
Priests assisting the offender;
Offenders lawyers;
Offenders relatives, not exceeding six;
Physician and the necessary personnel of the
penal establishment;
Persons as the Director of Prisons may authorize.
Provisions relative to the corpse

of the person executed and its burial.
A rticle 85
Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of the

culprit shall be turned over to the institute of
learning or scientific research for the purpose of
study and investigation, provided that such
institute shall take charge of the decent burial of
the remains.
Otherwise, the Director of Prisons shall order the
burial of the body of the culprit at government
expense, granting permission to be present to the
members of the family and friends of the culprit
The burial of the body of a person sentenced to
death should not be held with pomp.
Reclusion perpetua, reclusion

tem poral, prision m ayor, prision correccional
andarresto m ayor.
A rticle 8 6
The penalties of reclusion perpetua,

reclusion temporal, prision mayor,
prision correccional andarresto
mayor, shall be executed and served
in the places and penal
establishments provided by the
Administrative Code in force or which
may be provided by law in the future.
A rticle 87
D estierro.
Destierro shall be imposed in the following cases:

Death or serious physical injuries is caused or are inflicted under
exceptional circumstance;
Person fails to give bond for good behavior;
Concubines penalty for the crime of concubinage;
Lowering the penalty by degrees.
Execution of destierro:
Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence nor within the radius therein
specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25
kilometers from the place designated.
If convict enters the prohibited area, he commits evasion of
sentence.
A rticle 88
Arresto m enor.
The penalty ofarresto menorshall

be served:
In the municipal jail
In the house of the defendant
himself under the surveillance of
an officer of the law, when the
court so provides in its decision,
taking into consideration the health
of the offender and other reasons
which may seem satisfactory to it.
TITLE FO U R
EXTIN CTIO N O F
CRIM IN AL LIABILITY
CHAPTER ONE
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
H ow crim inalliability is
totally extinguished .
A rticle 89
By death:
Extinguishment of criminal liability is a
ground for motion to quash.
Criminal liability whether before or after final
judgment is extinguished upon death
because it is a personal penalty.
Pecuniary penalty is extinguished only when
death occurs before final judgment.
The death of the offended party does not
extinguish the criminal liability of the accused
because it is a crime against the state.
H ow crim inalliability
is totally extinguished.
A rticle 89
By service of sentence:
Crime is a debt, hence extinguished upon
payment.
Service does not extinguish civil liability.
By amnesty:
Amnesty is an act of the sovereign power
granting oblivion or general pardon. It wipes all
traces and vestiges of the crime but does not
extinguish civil liability.
By absolute pardon:
Pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the
power entrusted with the execution of laws,
which exempts the individual from punishment of
law.
A rticle 89
oAbsolute Pardon grants oblivion to all

the effects of conviction. It shall restore all
civil rights. Under Article 36, pardon by
the Chief Executive shall not work the
restoration of the right to hold public
office, or the right of suffrage, unless such
rights are expressly restored by the terms
of the pardon. Absolute pardon must
therefore expressly restore the right to
vote and to hold office. (Cristobal vs.
Labrador, 71 Phil. 34)
oIf absolute pardon is granted after the
convict had served his sentence, the
totally extinguished.
A rticle 89
oNovation not a means of extinguishing

a criminal liability.
oNovation Theory when applicable:
There is no prohibition in our law to prevent
the parties to a contract to novate it so that
any incipient liability under the first is avoided.
The novation theory applies prior to the filing
of the criminal information in court because up
to that time the original trust relation may be
converted by the parties into an ordinary
creditor-debtor relationship. (People vs. Nery,
10 SCRA 244)
totally extinguished.
A rticle 89
AMNESTY
PARDON
Extended to classes of persons who are

Exercised individually by the President
guilty of political offenses
Exercised even before the trial or
investigation
Exercised when one is convicted
Looks backward and abolishes the

offense itself
Looks forward and relieves the offender

of the consequences
Does not extinguish civil liability
Does not extinguish civil liability
A public act that needs the declaration

of the President with the concurrence
of the Congress
A private act of the President
Courts should take judicial notice
Must be pleaded and proved
A rticle 89
By prescription of crime is the

loss/forfeiture of the right of the
state to prosecute the offender after
the lapse of a certain time.
When the crime prescribes, the state
loses the right to prosecute.
By prescription of penalty means

the loss/forfeiture of the right of the
government to execute the final
sentence after the lapse of a certain
time.
A rticle 89
oConditions:
1.There must be final judgment
2.The period must have elapsed.
oPrescriptive Periods of Penalties:

1.Death and reclusion perpetua 20
years
2.Other afflictive penalties 15 years
3.Correctional penalties 10 years
Arresto mayor 5 years
4.Light penalties 1 year
A rticle 89
By marriage of the offended

woman (Article 344)
Crimes covered:
1.Rape
2.Seduction
3.Abduction
4.Acts of lasciviousness
.The marriage must be contracted
in good faith
A rticle 90
Prescription of crim e.
Prescriptive Periods of Crimes:

1. Crimes punished by:
a. Death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal
20 years
b. Afflictive penalties 15 years
c. Correctional penalties 10 years
Arresto mayor 5 years
2. Crime of libel 1 year

3. Offenses of oral defamation and slander by
deed 6 months
4. Light offenses 2 months
oWhen the penalty is a compound one, the
A rticle 90
Prescription of crim e.
oPeriod of prescription of false testimony

from the time the principal case is decided.
(People vs. Manajo, 56 Phil. 109)
oRule when the last day of prescriptive period
falls on Sunday or Legal Holiday the
information can no longer be filed on the next
day as the crime is already prescribed.
(People vs. Buencamino, 122 SCRA 713)
Crimes punishable by Fines:
Afflictive 15 years
Correctional 10 years
Light 2 months
Com putation of
prescription of of f
enses.
A rticle 91
Commence The day on which the crime

is discovered by:
1. Offended Party
2. The Authorities
3. Agent of Authorities
The term of Prescription shall not run

when the offender is absent from the
Philippine Archipelago.
Interruption Filing of Complain or
Information
Recommence When such proceedings
terminate without the accused being
convicted or acquitted , or unjustifiably
A rticle 91 Com putation of
enses.
In computing the period of

prescription, the first day is to
be excluded and the last day
included. A month is computed
as the regular 30- day month.
But as regards to a leap year,
February 28 and 29 should be
counted as separate days in
computing periods of
prescription.
Com putation of
enses.
A rticle 91
Situations which do not follow

the Computation of Prescription
of Offense
Continuing Crime
Crimes against False
Testimony
Election Offenses
Constructive Notice Rule
Com putation of
enses.
A rticle 91
What if the offender is not known, does

the prescriptive period start to run?
oAnswer: Yes. The fact the offender is
unknown does not interrupt the running of
the prescriptive period. The law requires
the discovery of the crime to start running
the prescriptive and not the offender
(People vs. Joson, 46 Phil. 380)
Where the last day of the prescriptive
period falls on a Sunday or a legal
holiday, the information can no longer be
filed on the next days as the crime has
already prescribed. (People vs.
Com putation of
enses.
A rticle 91
The Rules of Court is explicit that an order

sustaining a motion to quash based on
prescription is a bar to another prosecution
for the same offense. (People vs. Puno, 70
SCRA 606)
Period or Prescription of Election Offenses
begins to run if discovery is incidental in a
judicial proceeding from the date of
termination of he proceedings ; Otherwise
from the date of the commission of the
offense. (People vs. Carino, 56 Phil 109)
The presentation of the complaint within
the year of prescription interrupted the
running of the prescriptive period and the
A ct N o. 3326
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF

PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS
PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND
MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE
WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN
Act N o. 3326
- AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIO D S O F

PRESCRIPTIO N FO R VIO LATIO N S PEN ALIZED BY SPECIAL
ACTS AN D M U N ICIPAL O RD IN AN CES AN D TO PRO VID E
W H EN PRESC RIPTIO N SH ALL BEG IN TO RU N
Prescriptive periods of offenses punished

under Special laws and Municipal
ordinances:
1. Offenses punished only by a fine or by
imprisonment for not more than one
month, or both, prescribe after 1 year.
2. Offenses punished by imprisonment
for more than one month, nut less than
two years after 4 years.
for two years or more but less than six
years after 8 years.
for six years or more after 12 years
Act N o. 3326
- AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIO D S O F

PRESCRIPTIO N FO R VIO LATIO N S PEN ALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS
AN D M U N ICIPAL O RD IN AN CES AN D TO PRO VID E W H EN
PRESCRIPTIO N SH ALL BEG IN TO RU N
5. Offenses under Internal Revenue Law

after 5 years.
6. Violations of municipal ordinances
after 2 months.
7. Violations of he regulations or
conditions of certificate of convenience
by the Public Service Commission after
2 months.
Act No. 3326 is not applicable where the
special law provides for its own
prescriptive period.
W hen and how penalties

prescribe.
A rticle 92
The penalties imposed by final

sentence prescribe as follows:
1.Death and Reclusion perpetua, in
twenty years
2.Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen
years
3.Correctional Penalties, in ten years,
except arresto mayor, which
prescribe in five years
4.Light Penalties, in one year
W hen and how

penalties prescribe.
A rticle 92
oFinal sentence must be imposed.

oIf a convict can avail of mitigating
circumstances and the penalty is lowered, it
is still the original penalty that was imposed
that is used as the basis for prescription.
oIf the convict already serves a portion of his
sentence and escapes after, the penalty that
was imposed (not the original) shall be the
basis for prescription.
oFine less than 200.00PHP fall under light
penalty. Those above are correctional.
Com putation of the

prescription of penalties.
A rticle 93
The period of prescription of penalties shall

commence to run from the date when the culprit
should evade the service of his sentence.
oRequisites:
Penalty is imposed by final judgment
The convict evaded the service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence
The convict who has escaped has Not given himself up or
been captured, or gone o a foreign country with which we
have no extradition treaty or committed another crime.
That the penalty has prescribed because of the lapse of
time from the date of the evasion of the service of the
sentence by the convict
Com putation of the

A rticle 93
Interruption:
Gives himself up
Be captured
Goes to foreign country with which we have no
extradition treaty.
Commits another crime before the expiration of the
period of prescription
Accepts a conditional pardon (People vs. Puntilos, L45296, June 15, 1938)
o Prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by
final sentence to commence o run the culprit should
escape during the term of such imprisonment. The
convict was never placed in confinement. Prescription
of Penalty does no run in her favor. (Tanega vs.
Masakayan, GR No. L-27191, Feb. 28, 1967)
Recommence:
Com putation of the

A rticle 93
Reason why evasion of service of

sentence is in favor of the convict in
During the period of prescription
the escaped convict lives a life of a
hunted animal, hiding mostly in he
mountains and forest in constant
mortal fear of being caught. His life
far from being happy, comfortable
and peaceful is reduced to a mere
existence filled with fear,
Com putation of the

A rticle 93
Prescription of
Crime
Prescription of
Penalty
Forfeiture or loss of the right of

the state to prosecute
Forfeiture or loss of the right of

the Government to execute the
final sentence
Considers the penalty prescribe

by law
Considers the penalty imposed
Starts upon the discovery of the Starts upon the escaped or

commission of the crime
evasion of service of sentence
Commission of another before
the expiration of the period
does not interrupt prescription
Commission of another crime

before the expiration of the
period interrupts the
prescription
Absence from the Philippines

interrupts
Absence from the Philippines

interrupts ONLY when convict
goes to a country with no
extradition treaty with the
Philippines.
Chapter Tw o
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PartialExtinction of
crim inalliability.
A rticle 94
Criminal liability is extinguished partially:

1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit
may earn while he is serving his sentence.
oConditional pardon contract between

the sovereign power of the executive and
the convict.
oConvict shall not violate any of the penal
laws of the Philippines.
oIn case it was violated:
1. Offender is rearrested and incarcerated.
crim inalliability.
A rticle 94
Commutation change in the decision of

the court by the chief regarding:
1. The degree of the penalty
2. By decreasing the length of the imprisonment
or fine.
oCommutation allowed when:

1. The person is over 70 years old;
2. 8 justices fail to reach a decision affirming the
death penalty.
oConsent is not necessary in commutation

oPrisoner is also allowed special time
allowance for loyalty which is 1/5th
deduction of the period of his sentence
crim inalliability.
A rticle 94
Parole consisting in the suspension of

the sentence of the convict after serving
the minimum term of the Indeterminate
penalty, without granting pardon,
prescribing the terms upon which the
sentence shall be suspended.
oIf conditions of parole are not observed
convict will be returned to the custody
and continue to serve his sentence
without deducting the time that
elapsed.
crim inalliability.
A rticle 94
CONDITIONAL
PARDON
Given after final
judgment
Granted by Chief
Executive
For violation, convict
may be prosecuted
under Article 159
PAROLE
Given after service of
the minimum penalty
Given by the Board of
Pardons and Parole
For violations, convict
may be rearrested and
serves his remaining
sentence
crim inalliability.
A rticle 94
Good conduct allowance during

confinement deduction for the term of
sentence for good behavior.
ALLOWANCE FOR GOOD CONDUCT PER YEAR
YEARS
ALLOWANCE
First two (2) years
Five (5) days per month of good

behavior
Third (3rd) to Fifth (5th) years
Eight (8) days per month of good

behavior
Following years up to tenth (10th) year
Ten (10) days per month of good

behavior
Eleventh (11th) year and successive

years
Fifteen (15) days per month of good

behavior
The Probation
Law
PD 968 AS amended by PD No. 1257
and as further amended by BP Blg. 76
and PD No. 1990
The Probation Law

DEFINITION OF TERMS:
1."Probation" is a disposition under
which a defendant, after
conviction and sentence, is
released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer.
2."Probationer" means a person
placed on probation.
3."Probation Officer" means one
who investigates for the court a
The Probation Law

PURPOSE:
1.promote the correction and
rehabilitation of an offender by
providing him with individualized
treatment;
2.provide an opportunity for the
reformation of a penitent
offender which might be less
probable if he were to serve a
prison sentence; and
3.prevent the commission of
The Probation Law

Grant of Probation, manner and
conditions:
1. present himself to the probation
officer designated to undertake his
supervision at such place as may be
specified in the order within seventytwo hours from receipt of said order;
2. report to the probation officer at least
once a month at such time and place
as specified by said officer.
The court may also require the
probationer to:
1. cooperate with a program of
The Probation Law

3. devote himself to a specific employment
and not to change said employment without
the prior written approval of the probation
officer;
4. undergo medical, psychological or
psychiatric examination and treatment and
enter and remain in a specified institution,
when required for that purpose;
5. pursue a prescribed secular study or
vocational training;
6. attend or reside in a facility established for
instruction, recreation or residence of
persons on probation;
7. refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
The Probation Law

7. abstain from drinking intoxicating
beverages to excess;
8. permit to probation officer or an
authorized social worker to visit his
home and place or work;
9. reside at premises approved by it and
not to change his residence without its
prior written approval; or
10.satisfy any other condition related to
the rehabilitation of the defendant and
not unduly restrictive of his liberty or
incompatible with his freedom of
The Probation Law

What will happen if a probationer
violates the conditions of probation?
1. The court may modify the conditions of
probation
or revoke the same.
2. If the violation is serious, the court may
order the
probationer to serve his prison sentence.
3. The probationer may also be arrested
and criminally prosecuted if the violation
is a criminal offense.
The court order shall not be subject
The Probation Law

CRITERIA OF PLACING AN
OFFENDER ON PROBATION:
The court shall consider:
1. All information relative to:
Character
Antecedents
Environment
Mental, and
Physical condition of the offender.
2. Available institutional and

community resources.
The Probation Law

Probation shall be denied if the
court finds that:
1.The offender is in need of
correctional treatment that can
be provided most effectively by
his commitment to an institution;
or
2.There is undue risk that during
the period of probation the
offender will commit another
crime; or
The Probation Law

Tolentino vs. Judge Alconcel, 121 SCRA 92
oPD 968 states that probation shall be
denied if Offender is
1. In need of correctional treatment that
can be provided most effectively by his
commitment to an institution.
2. There is an undue risk that during the
period of probation, the offender will
commit another crime.
3. Probation will depreciate the seriousness
of the offence committed.
The Probation Law

DISQUALIFIED OFFENDERS:
1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6 years.
oThe Supreme Court held that in case of

one decision imposing multiple prison
terms, the totality of the prison terms
should not be taken into account for the
purposes of determining the eligibility of
the accused for the probation. The law
uses the word maximum term, and not
total term. It is enough that each of the
prison term does not exceed 6 years.
The Probation Law

The number of offenses is immaterial for
as long as the penalties imposed, when
taken individually and separately, are
within the probationable period. (Francisco
vs. CA, 243 SCRA 384; Q9, 1997 Bar)
oRuled in favor of the state. Probation law
shall not be extended to those sentenced
to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6years. Grant
of probation is not automatic but
ministerial. Probation is a privilege and its
grant rest on upon the discretion of the
court. If the judge imposed 6years and
The Probation Law

2. Convicted of any crime against the
national security (treason, espionage,
piracy, etc.) or the public order
(rebellion, sedition, direct assault,
resistance, etc.).
3. Who have been previously convicted
by final judgment of an offense
punished by imprisonment of not less
than one month and one day and/or
a fine of not less than P 200. (Q2,
1993 Bar)
4. Who have been once on probation.
5. Who are already serving sentence at
The Probation Law

Except for the reasons specified by the
law, a trial court should not deny a
petition for probation, especially when
the probation officer has favorably
recommended the grant of probation.
Even if at the time of conviction the
accused was qualified for probation but
at the time of his application for
probation, he is no longer qualified, he is
not entitled to probation. The
qualification for probation must be
determined as of the time the
application is filed in court. (Bernardo v.
Judge Balagot, 86561, Nov. 10, 1992)
The Probation Law

Supposing, an accused was convicted of a
crime for which he was sentenced to a
maximum sentence of 10 years. While
affirming the judgment of conviction, the
appellate court reduced the penalty to a
maximum of 4 years and 4 months taking
into consideration certain modifying
circumstances. The accused now applies
for probation. In this case, the accused is
not entitled to probation. The law and
jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal
by the accused from a sentence of
conviction forfeits his right to probation.
(Bernardo v. Balagot, supra; Francisco v.
The Probation Law

PERIOD OF PROBATION:
1. Not more than 2 years if the sentence
of the offender is 1 year or less;
2. Not more than 6 years if the sentence
is more than
one year;
3. When the penalty is a fine only and
the offender is made to serve
subsidiary imprisonment, probation
shall be twice the total number of
days of subsidiary imprisonment.
The Probation Law

ARREST OF PROBATIONER
At any time during probation, the
court may issue a warrant for the
arrest of a probationer for violation
of any of the conditions of
probation.
Once arrested and detained, shall
immediately be brought before the
court for a hearing, which may be
informal and summary, of the
violation charged.
The Probation Law

The defendant may be admitted to bail pending
such hearing. In such a case, the provisions
regarding release on bail of persons charged
with a crime shall be applicable to probationers
arrested under this provision. If the violation is
established, the court may revoke or continue
his probation and modify the conditions thereof.
If revoked, the court shall order the probationer
to serve the sentence originally imposed. An
order revoking the grant of probation or
modifying the terms and conditions thereof
shall not be appealable
The Probation Law

Termination of Probation:
1. After the period of probation
2. Upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of the probation
officer
oThe court may order the final discharge of
the probationer upon finding that he has
fulfilled the terms and conditions of his
probation and thereupon, the case is
deemed terminated.
oUpon finding that he has fulfilled the
terms and conditions of his probation, the
The Probation Law

Effects:
1. case is deemed terminated.
2. all civil rights suspended or lost
are restored.
3. offender's liability for any fine
imposed is discharged.
The probationer and the probation
officer shall each be furnished with
a copy of such order.
The Probation Law

Expiration of period of probation alone
does not automatically terminate
probation. A final order of discharge
from the court is required. Probation is
irrevocable before a final judgment or
discharge by the court. Probationer
failed to reunite with responsible
society, an order revoking probation is
unappealable. During the probation,
the court may issue a warrant of arrest
for the probationer for violation of any
of the conditions and to serve the
sentence originally imposed. (Bala vs.
The Probation Law

Summary
RULES ON GRANT OF PROBATION:
After having convicted and sentenced a
defendant, the trial court may suspend
the execution of the sentence and place
the defendant on probation, upon
application by the defendant within the
period for perfecting an appeal.
Probation may be granted whether the
sentenced imposed a a term of
imprisonment or fine only.
No application for probation shall be
The Probation Law

Filing of application for probation operate
as a waiver of the right to appeal.
The order granting or denying probation
shall not be appealable.
Accessory penalties are deemed
suspended once probation is granted.
The convict is not immediately put on
probation. There shall be a prior
investigation by the probation officer and
a determination by the court.
The Probation Law

Probation law is not a penal law.
Petitioners right to apply for
probation was lost when he
perfected his appeal from the
judgment of conviction. Once you
apply for an appeal, you cannot
apply for probation. Once you have
already appealed and later
withdraw it before the decision to
grant or dismiss the probation, you
can no longer file for probation
because the lower court has cost its
The Probation Law

Does the probation law apply to Drug
Traffickers and Pushers?
Answer: NO. Section 24 of RA 9165 (The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) states
that Non-Applicability of the Probation Law
for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. Any
person convicted for drug trafficking or
pushing under this Act, regardless of the
penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail
of the privilege granted by the Probation
Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as
amended.
The Probation Law

There is ample evidence showing that the
petitioner is entitled to the benefits of
probation. She does not appear to be a
hardened criminal who is beyond
correction or redemption. She has shown
repentance for the offense she had
committed. The Sandiganbayan merely
relied on the report of the probation
officer which in itself is mostly hearsay
and it is controverted. The case was
remanded to the Sandiganbayan to
conduct further hearings on application
for probation. Although probation is not a
right but it is a privilege still if there is no
The Probation Law

The condition of the pardon of
indemnifying the victim on an installment
basis did not decrease the civil liability
adjudged against Salgado but merely
provided for the manner of payment of
civil liability during the probation period.
Although execution of sentence is
suspended, it does not mean that the civil
liability is extinguished. Article 113
provides that offender shall continue to
satisfy the civil liability resulting from the
crime committed by him, notwithstanding
the fact that he has served his sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty or
The Probation Law

Fixing the cut-off point at maximum term
of six(6) years imprisonment for probation
is based on the assumption that those
sentenced to higher penalties pose too
great a risk to society, not just because of
their demonstrated capability for serious
wrong doing but because of the gravity
and seriousness consequences for the
offences they might further commit. The
probation law, as amended, disqualifies
only those who have been convicted to
grave felonies as defined in article 9 in
relation to article 25of the RPC, and not
necessarily those who have been
The Probation Law

This case involves a conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude as a ground for
disciplinary action under Civil Service Law is
considered as grave offenses punishable,
upon first commission, by dismissal. The
image of the judiciary is tarnished by conduct,
which involves moral turpitude. While indeed
the purpose of the probation law is to save
valuable human material, it must not be
forgotten that unlike pardon probation does
not obliterate the crime of which the person
under probation has been convicted. The
reform and rehabilitation of the probationer
cannot justify his retention in the government
service. He may seek to reenter government
service, but only after he has shown that he is
The Probation Law

The revocation of probation was
properly assailed by Soriano
through a special civil action of
certiorari, which could not have
similarly attached the judgment of
contempt. (People vs. Evangelista,
235 SCRA 625)
Title Five
CIVIL LIABILITY
Chapter One
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR
FELONIES
Tw o Classes of Civil
Liability
1.Social injury produced by
disturbance and alarm which
are the outcome of the
offense.
2.Personal injury caused by the
victim who may have suffered
damage, either to his person,
property, honor or chastity.
Civilliability of a person
guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
Every person criminally liable for a felony

is also civilly liable.
oDual character of the crime as against:
1. The state, because of the disturbance of
peace and order.
2. The private person injured, unless it involves
the crime of treason, rebellion, espionage,
contempt and other crimes where no civil
liability arises on the part of the offender
either because there are no damages or
there is no private person injured.
guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
General rule when a criminal

action is instituted, the civil aspect
arising from the crime is deemed
instituted.
Effect of dismissal of the case it
does not preclude the complainant
to institute a civil action arising
from the crime; it does not carry
with it extinction of the civil action.
guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
Effect of death of the accused civil

liability is extinguished. (De Guzman
vs. People, Oct. 8, 2003)
Effect of the acquittal of the accused
it does not extinguish civil liability
unless there is a declaration in the
decision that the fact from which the
civil liability might arise did not exist.
(Sec. 1, Rule 111, 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure)
guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
As a rule, if the offender in a criminal

case is acquitted, his civil liability is also
extinguished.
oExceptions:
1. When the civil action is based on obligations
not arising from the act complained of as
felony;
2. When the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt
has not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. (Article 29, New Civil Code);
guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
3. Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance

like insanity;
4. Where the court states in its judgment that
the case merely involves a civil obligation;
5. Where there was a proper reservation for
the filing of a separate civil obligation;
6. In cases of independent civil actions
provided for in Articles 31, 32, 22 and 34 of
the New Civil Code;
7. Where the civil liability is not derived or
based on the criminal act which the accused
is acquitted. (Sapiera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370)
guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
When the accused is acquitted on

the ground of reasonable doubt, the
court may award civil damages
proved in the same case without
need for separate civil action. With
the accused having been accorded
due process, to require a separate
civil action would needlessly clog
the court dockets. (Maximo vs.
Gerochi, 144 SCRA 326)
Civilliability of a
person guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
If accused found not guilty of estafa thru

falsification of commercial documents
because the liability did not arise from a
criminal act but from a civil contract, the
civil liability may not be enforced in the
criminal case but on a separate civil
action. (People vs. Miranda, 5 SCRA 1067)
When the court which found accused
guilty failed to make a finding of civil
liability, the private prosecutor has the
right to appeal. The appellate court may
remand the case for the lower court to
include the civil liability in its judgment.
(People vs. Ursua, 60 Phil. 252)
guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
If the court did not award any civil

liability because the private
prosecutor did not present
evidence, he cannot file an
independent civil action on ground
of res judicata in the criminal case.
(People vs. Dela Cruz, 107 Phil. 8)
Civil liability may be expressly
waived by the offended party.
guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
oArticle 1161 of the Civil Code provided

for the damages the offender shall be
liable to the offended party:
1. Php50,000.00 as indemnity for the
death of the victim without need of any
evidence or proof of damages
2. Loss of earning capacity:
Net earning capacity = Life expectancy x [Gross
Annual Income - Living Expenses (50% of gross
annual income)], were life expectancy = 2/3 (80 the age of the deceased)
3. Moral damages fixed by the court
Civilliability of a
person guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
4.Exemplary damages when the

crime is attended by one or more
aggravating circumstances
amount be fixed at the discretion
of the court
5.Attorneys fees and expenses for
litigation amount must be
proven; applicable only when a
separate civil action to recover
civil liability has been filed or
when exemplary damages are
guilty of felony.
A rticle 100
oPrejudicial question one which

arises in a case whereby the
resolution of a civil case so closely
intertwined with the criminal action
is derivative of the acquittal or
innocence of the accused.
oElements:
1. Civil case involving an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue in the
criminal case;
2. The resolution of such issue
Rules regarding civil

liability in certain cases.
A rticle 101
The exemption from criminal

liability established in subdivisions
1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in
subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this
Code does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be
enforced subject to the following
rules:
1. Acts committed by an imbecile or
insane person, and by a person under
nine years of age, or by one over nine
but under fifteen years of age, who

A rticle 101
2.persons for whose benefit the

harm has been prevented
civilly liable in proportion to the
benefit which they may have
received. The courts shall
determine, in sound discretion,
the proportionate amount for
which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares
cannot be equitably determined
made in the manner prescribed

A rticle 101
3.Persons using violence or

causing the fears primarily
liable and secondarily, or, if
there be no such persons,
those doing the act shall be
liable, saving always to the
latter that part of their
property exempt from
execution.
Subsidiary civilliability of
innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of
establishm ents.
A rticle 1 0 2
Elements under paragraph 1:

1. That the innkeeper, tavern keeper or
proprietor of the establishment of his
employee committed a violation of municipal
ordinance or some general or special police
regulation.
2. That the crime is committed in such inn,
tavern, or establishment.
oConcurrence of all elements makes the

innkeeper, tavern keeper or proprietor
civilly liable for the crime committed in his
establishment.
establishm ents.
A rticle 1 0 2
Elements under paragraph 2:

1. That the guest notified in advance the
innkeeper or the person representing
him of the deposit of their goods the
inn or house.
2. The guests followed the directions of
the innkeeper or his representative
with respect to the care of and
vigilance over such goods.
3. Such goods of the guests lodging
therein were taken by robbery with
force upon things or theft committed
within the inn or house.
establishm ents.
A rticle 1 0 2
oThere is no liability in case of robbery

with violence against or intimidation
or persons, unless committed by the
innkeepers employee.
Defenses:
Failure of notification on the part of the
guests;
Violation of innkeepers direction over care
and vigilance of goods;
Robbery with violence or intimidation.
Subsidiary civil
liability of other persons.
A rticle 103
oIn order that an employer be held

subsidiarily liable for the
employees civil liability in a
criminal action, it should be shown:
1. That the employer is engaged in any
kind of industry;
2. That the employee committed the
offense in the discharge of his duty;
3. That the employee is insolvent.
(Carpio vs. Doroja, 180 SCRA 1)
other persons.
A rticle 103
oA hospital is not engaged in

industry as a means of livelihood or
for profit, hence not subsidiarily
liable for the acts of nurses.
(Clemente vs. Foreign Mission
Sisters, CA 38 O. G. 1594)
oPrivate individuals not engaged in
business or industry are not
subsidiarily liable. (Steinmetz vs.
Valdez, 72 Phil. 92)
The diligence of a good father of a
Chapter Tw o
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
A rticle 104
liability.
W hat is included in civil
1. Restitution restoration of the thing to

the rightful owner;
2. Reparation of the damage caused done
if restitution is not possible. The accused
shall compensate the offended party for
the thing lost or destroyed. The court
shall determine the amount of the
damage. Applies only to crimes against
property;
3. Indemnification for consequential
damages includes not only the
damages sustained by the offended
W hat is included in
civilliability.
A rticle 104
oPayment of civil liability:

Principal pro rata, 50% of the civil
liability
Accomplice 2/3 of 50%
Accessories 1/3 of 50%
oIf one group is insolvent,

others will pay (principals, then
accomplices)
A rticle 108
O bligation to m ake restoration,

reparation for dam ages, or indem nifi
cation for
consequentialdam ages and actions to dem and the sam e;
U pon w hom it devolves.
Awardable damages in cases of

death:
1. The death indemnity by judicial fiat is
Php50,000.00 (People vs. Ravelo, 202
SCRA 655);
2. Loss of earning capacity of the
deceased (Article 2202 par. 1 of the
New Civil Code);
3. Moral damages in favor of the spouse,
descendants and ascendants of the
deceased. (Article 2206, New Civil Code)
A rticle 108

cation for
oMoral damages to be recoverable must be the

proximate result of a wrongful act or omission
the factual basis for which is satisfactorily
established by the aggrieved party. (Philippine
National Bank vs. CA, 395 SCRA 272)
oAs born out by human nature and experience,
a violent death invariably and necessarily
brings about emotional pain and anguish in
the part of the victims family. (People vs.
Rubiso, 399 SCRA 267)
4. Exemplary damages. (Article 2230, New
Civil Code)
A rticle 108

cation for
oDamages for loss of earning capacity

Under the Civil Code, appellants shall be
liable for the loss of earning capacity.
oFormula:
Net earning capacity = Life expectancy
x [Gross Annual Income - Living
Expenses (50% of gross annual
income)]
Life expectancy = 2/3 (80 - the age of
the deceased)
A rticle 108

cation for
Since the victim was thirty-seven (37)

years old at the time of his death, his life
expectancy was 28.67 years. Considering
that the average monthly income was
Php4,000.00, his gross annual income
would be Php48,000.00, using the
formula, the victims unearned income
would thus be Php688,080.00. (People vs.
Bangcado, GR No. 132330, Nov. 28, 2000)
The rule is that the documentary evidence
should be presented to substantiate a
claim for damages of loss of earning
capacity. (People vs. Mallai, 404 SCRA
211)
A rticle 108

cation for
Moral damages are automatically granted

in a rape case without need of further
proof. (People vs. Manalo, 396 SCRA 573)
Php50,000.00 fixed civil indemnity for
rape (People vs. Ravelo, 202 SCRA 655;
People vs. Montemayor, 396 SCRA 159)
Php100,000.00 in case of rape with
homicide (People vs. Bantilan, GR No.
129286, Sept. 14, 1999;People vs. Quisay,
GR No. 106833, Dec. 10,1999)
A rticle 108

cation for
Moral damages can be awarded without

the need for pleading or proof of the basis
thereof if it is too obvious to still require
the recital thereof, such as when the
physical suffering of the victim in a case
of frustrated murder is quite obvious to
still direct him to recount the same.
(People vs. Caraig, 400 SCRA 67)
Under Article 2219, par.7 of the New Civil
Code, moral damages may be awarded to
a victim of illegal arrest and detention.
(People vs. Bisda, 406 SCRA 454)
A rticle 108
O bligation to m ake restoration, reparation for

dam ages, or indem nifi
cation for consequentialdam ages and
actions to dem and the sam e; U pon w hom it devolves.
The court has held that the award of

moral damages is mandatory in the
cases of murder and homicide,
without the need of proof other than
the death of the victim. (People vs.
Bajar, 414 SCRA 494)
Expenses relating to the 40th day and
the first death anniversary of the
victim cannot be considered actual
expenses. (People vs. Cabical, 403
SCRA 268)
A rticle 108

cation for
Actual damages must be

substantiated by the documentary
evidence such as receipts in order to
prove expenses incurred as a result of
the death of the victim. (People vs.
Ibanez, 407 SCRA 406)
Aggravating circumstances, even if
not alleged in the information, can be
considered as basis for an award of
exemplary damages. (People vs,
Dagami, 415 SCRA 482)
A rticle 108
O bligation to m ake restoration, reparation for

dam ages, or indem nifi
cation for consequentialdam ages and
actions to dem and the sam e; U pon w hom it devolves.
Compulsory acknowledgment and

support of the offspring is proper
when there is no legal impediment
in doing so as when the accused
and the offended party are both
single. Otherwise, the accused
cannot be compelled.
Severaland subsidiary liability of

principals, accom plices and accessories of a
felony; Preference in paym ent.
A rticle 1 1 0
The principals, accomplices, and

accessories, each within their
respective class, shall be liable
severally (in solidum) among
themselves for their quotas, and
subsidiaries for those of the other
persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be
enforced:
1. Against the property of the
principals
Severaland subsidiary liability of

principals, accom plices and accessories of a
felony; Preference in paym ent.
A rticle 1 1 0
2. Against that of the accomplices

3. Against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or
the subsidiary liability has been
enforced, the person by whom
payment has been made shall have
a right of action against the others
for the amount of their respective
shares.
O bligation to m ake
restitution in certain cases.
A rticle 111
Any person who has participated

gratuitously in the proceeds of a
felony shall be bound to make
restitution in an amount equivalent
to the extent of such participation.
Chapter Three
EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF
CIVIL LIABILITY
A rticle 112
liability.
Extinction of civil
Civil liability is extinguished:

1. By payment or performance
2. By the loss of the thing done
3. By the condonation or remission
of the debt
4. By the confusion or merger of the
rights of the creditor and debtor
5. Compensation
6. Novation
A rticle 112
liability.
Extinction of civil
oOther causes:
1. Annulment;
2. Recission;
3. Fulfillment of resolutory
condition;
4. Prescription. (Article 1231, New
Civil Code)
oCivil liability in criminal cases

is not extinguished by the loss
of the thing due because
O bligation to satisfy
civilliability.
A rticle 113
Except in case of extinction of his civil

liability the offender shall continue to be
obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting
from the crime committed by him,
notwithstanding the fact that he has
served his sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has
not been required to serve the same by
reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation
of sentence or any other reason.
oThe grant of probation to the offender does
not extinguish civil liability.
Criminal Law 1
Presentation by:
CORTEZ, GRAIL
PATI, JEZEN ESTHER B.
GARCIA, PATRICK
GUINTO, KYLE KELVIN

Criminal Law 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Criminal Law 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CRIMINAL

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

De Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

Go vs. Dimaguiba (460

Crime Committed: Violation of

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

Equipoise Doctrine - The rule

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

People vs. Sayana (405 SCRA

The prosecution must prove beyond

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (369 SCRA 394)

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

Liang vs. People (232 SCRA 652)

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

RA 9372 - AN ACT TO SECURE THE

II. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF

Hubert and Eunice were married in the

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

) People vs. Silvestre (56 Phil. 353)

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

Padilla vs. Dizon (158 SCRA 127)

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

Griffin vs. CA (379 SCRA 94)

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF