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 noncompliance 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 order of a Supreme Court until
he performs it.

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 focus is on the
conduct, not the persons.

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
former capacity or dignity.

People vs. Sultan (331 SCRA 216)
Accused robbed and raped the victim

with force and intimidation using an icepick.
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
reasonable doubt that the accused had
sexual contact with the alleged victim.

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 such drug to produce its
pernicious effects within our territory.

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 the RPC, are enforceable only
within the bounds of our territory (Art. 2, RPC).
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 passively, or with regard to
which one has kept silent.

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.
iii. Specific intent The termspecific
intentisto designate a special state of mind
that is required, along with a physical act, to
constitute certain crimes or torts.

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 the
criminal act did not give rise to variant crimes.

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
performance of his duty (Art. 148, Revised Penal Code).
5. In crimes committed through reckless imprudence

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
killings perpetrated by NPA for the purpose of
acquiring more firearms

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
doubt as to the identity of the culprit.

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 compensate for his harm

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, the offender acts with
malice; wheras, in the second, the offender
acts without malice

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 another person
because it resulted from his felonious act.

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
People vs. Sabalones (284 SCRA

751)
identity of the victim. The offender is

liable even if the victim turns out to
be different from the intended victim.
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 criminal liability, in order
to, punish the criminal intent.

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 independent of the will of the offender.

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 perpetrated.

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 coconspirators by being present at the time of
the commission of the crime, or by exerting a
moral ascendance over the other coconspirators 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 intentional participation in the act
with a view to the furtherance of the common objective
and purpose.

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
CRIMES

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 require. Moreover, the crime of coup d'etat may be committed 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 of the Revised
Penal Code.

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 aggravating circumstances.
Least penalty should be prision correctional so
as not to depreciate seriousness of crime.

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. CIRCUMSTANCES
AFFECTING
CRIMINAL 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 circumstance of incomplete defense,
pursuant to paragraph 6, Article 13 of the Revised Penal
Code.

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 defender has no
longer any right to kill or wound the former aggressor,
otherwise, retaliation, and not self-defense is committed.

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 brother-inlaw 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
Philippine, but of international law. Such violation
was committed on board a Philippine-operated
vessel.

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 par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended.

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, Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.

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 absolved from criminal liability.

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 upon them and their family.

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. 2,
RPC).

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 also after and even during the trial

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
homicide, to warrant a conviction, it must be negated
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

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 return of the absent justice of the
peace, or his auxiliary.

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 marijuana. Set against
the facts instigation is a valid defense available to Juan.

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 execution.

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 victim.

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 when they noticed the
deceased burning

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
grave offense.

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 w/c is inherent in all persons who
quarrel & come to blows doesnt constitute
obfuscation.

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
be appreciated.

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 trouble and expense
necessarily included for his search and capture.

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 entitle the accused to
have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance.

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 the keen and
pain-producing edges of the stark realities of life.

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 that
they brought the victims to the sugarcane field

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 offense. The mere
fact that the killing was committed at night would not
suffice to sustain nocturnity for, by, and of itself.

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 third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly
considered

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 was Aquilio, by reason of
his age, considered old enough to be the father of
Alejandro, he was also the latters father-in-law.

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 time it was actually
perpetrated.

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
pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way to
enter into a house.

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 rape is a crime against
property.

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 believes that after
ganging up on and mauling the victim, the appellants, at
the spur-of-the moment, decided to stab the victim.

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
unlocked window. Inside, he saw the victim soundly asleep.
He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several wounds,
which caused his death within a few hours.

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 the
execution of the act without risk himself arising from
the defense which the victim might have made.

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 victim by having an anal
intercourse with her after she was already dead

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 second-floor 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 Lucas Flores out of the
door and shot him to death

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
mere fact that the victims body was dismembered

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 person or corpse.

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 circumstances are not to be presumed;
they should be proved beyond reasonable doubt
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 accusedappellants 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 that the details of the purported transaction
must be clearly & adequately shown.

PEOPLE v REYES 399 SCRA 528
HELD: In the case at bar, conspiracy was clearly
manifested in the concerted efforts of the accusedappellant 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 evident, and all the
perpetrators will be liable as principals. Danilo Reyes
is guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
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 the inducer over the mind of him who commits
the act whatever the source of such influence
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 that purpose. The person who gives
promises, or offers the consideration & the one who
actually commits the crime by reason of such
promise, remuneration or reward are both principals.
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 must
be to such an extent that its trustworthiness
becomes manifest.
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 execution.Accomplices do not
decide whether the crime should be committed; they
merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct
participation and cooperate in its accomplishment.
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 place
(Art. 18, RPC).
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 accused-appellants. 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 maximum, with the
accessory penalties of the law.
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 independent evidence. Nor
was it was shown that the extra-judicial statements of
Basingan were made while they were engaged in carrying
out the conspiracy.
PENALTIES
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 vindication of
absolute right and moral law violated by the
criminal.
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 shall have
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of the
felony who is not ahabitualcriminal.Hence, they are subject
to a reduction ofpenaltyfrom death to reclusion perpetua. A
subsequent statute cannot be applied retroactively as to
impair a right that accrued under the old law.
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 Solicitor General in
its above observations and sees merit in its stand to join
accused-appellant in praying for a modification of the
sentence from death toreclusion perpetua.
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 remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law
is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should
be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute.
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 use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
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 THE
IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES
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 discretion amounting to a
lack of jurisdiction in imposing the penalty
ofReclusion Perpetuawhere the law clearly
imposes the penalty of Death.
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 only in crimes that slight but
even more, in crimes that shock the
conscience.This concern cannot be diluted.
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 of the murderer; for the rape victim, life
may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is
not over and normally is not beyond repair.
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 required majority vote is not obtained for
the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases, the penalty
shall bereclusion perpetua.
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 his penalty to reclusion perpetua, we can
do no less herein considering that accused-appellant is an
unlettered fisherman.
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 which the convict
becomes eligible for pardon, although the maximum period
thereof shall in no case exceed forty (40) years
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 perpetua at 20 years and
1 day to 40 years.
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,
although the maximum period thereof shall in no case
exceed forty (40) years.
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.
What is Subsidiary Penalty?

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 onethird (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
3. No subsidiary penalty
When the penalty imposed is higher than prisin
correccional
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)
30
x 9
270
(days)
1740
/
3
580 (days less than
1460
270
10
+
1740 (days)
4,000
/
8
500
(days)
1/3 of the penalty

imposed)
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.
APPLICATION AND
COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES
APPLICATION AND COMPUTATION OF

PENALTIES
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.
APPLICATION AND COMPUTATION

OF PENALTIES
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.

OF PENALTIES
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.

OF PENALTIES
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.

OF PENALTIES
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 penalty next lower in degree, which
isprision mayor, the range of which is from six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its periods.
EFFECTS OF MITIGATING AND

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
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 Justifying
Circumstances, and Article 12, on Exempting
Circumstances, of the Revised Penal Code, when not all
of the conditions required to justify the act or to exempt
from criminal liability are present.
Complex crime in
relation with
Rebellion
Complex crime in
relation with 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.
Complex crime in
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 or the Legislature,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
Complex crime in
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.
Complex crime in
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
Complex crime in
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
(Note: diverting public funds or malversation is
absorbed in rebellion)
Complex crime in
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.
Complex crime in
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.
Complex crime in relation

with 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.

with 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 into a juridical whole.

with 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.

with 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 because the text of Article 135 has
remained the same as it was when the Supreme Court resolved
the same issue in the People v. Hernandez.

with 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 intentional, have constituted
light felonies. Being light felonies, which are not
covered by Article 48, they should be treated and
punished as separate offenses. Separate
information should have, therefore, been filed.
SINGLE LARCENY
DOCTRINE
SINGLE LARCENY DOCTRINE

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 larceny. The intent
of the thief determines the number of occurrences.
Single larceny doctrine is also known as singlecriminal intent doctrine or single-impulse
plan.

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
duplicitous. It is up to the
question the defect by
motion to quash before
charge.
valid even if it is
accused to raise or
filing the proper
he pleads to the

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 series of criminal
acts, only one information should be filed against the
offender.

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 a single criminal intent or resolution
constitutes only one crime.

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 observed that the doctrine of Single Larceny
is humane since if a separate charge could be filed
for each act, the accused may be sentenced to jail
in perpetuity of for the rest of his life.

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 and
several persons were killed or injured, there are as
many crimes as are persons killed or injured. (People vs
Sanchez, G.R. No. 131116, August 29, 1999)
RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler Doctrines)
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
(The Reodica and Ivler
Doctrines)
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.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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 with slight physical injuries"
witharrestomayor of 6 months imprisonment and a
fine of P 13,542.00.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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).
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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 quasioffenses.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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 the penalty ofarresto mayorin
its medium and maximum periods; if it would have
constituted a less serious felony, the penalty ofarresto
mayorin its minimum period shall be imposed.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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 shall
exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the
rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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 death of a
person shall be caused, in which case the
defendant shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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 the offender who
fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help
as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A.
1790, approved June 21, 1957).
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE
Doctrines)
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.
THE THREE-FOLD
RULE
THE THREE-FOLD RULE

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.
THE THREE-FOLD RULE

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.
THE THREE-FOLD RULE

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next
preceding, the maximum duration of the
convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold 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.
In applying the provisions of this rule the
duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua)
shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended).
THE THREE-FOLD RULE

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.
THE THREE-FOLD RULE

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).
THE THREE-FOLD RULE

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.
REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 4103
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE 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
going to waste.

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 sentence law
took effect
10.) Those who are punished with destierro

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 lawabiding citizen. His residence will be fixed and changed
from time to time under the discretion of the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence/Board of Pardons and Parole. The
board can issue a final certification of release if the
paroled prisoner has proven himself to be a law-abiding
citizen.
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, and apply them. Fix the proper
period by applying Art. 64. This is the MAXIMUM of the
indeterminate sentence
EXAMPLES TO fix indeterminate sentence 1. Crime and

Case # 1: Rolex killed Chelnag.
1. Crime:
Penalty:
HOMICIDE
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
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
EXAMPLES TO fix indeterminate sentence 1. Crime and
Case # 2: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex voluntarily surrendered.
1. Crime:
HOMICIDE
Penalty: RECLUSION TEMPORAL
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
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
1. Crime and
EXAMPLES TO fix indeterminate sentence
penalty
Case # 3: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex was a recidivist.
2. Lower
penalty by:
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
2. Not applicable!
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
No MC, One AC (recidivism) = RECLUSION TEMPORAL,
any other 2
MAXIMUM TERM
remaining
elements
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MAXIMUM
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
Death
lower from
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
imposed
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
Temporal
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m, 1d to
penalty
12y,Prision
1d to 20
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
20y
y mayor
4. MAXIMUM =
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
6 y, 1d to 12
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
10y, 1d to 12y
imposable
Prision
Corec
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years
penalty, apply
6 m, 1d to 6
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
years
4m
2m
6y
remaining AC
Arresto
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
penalty
Case # 4: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex was a recidivist. Rolex voluntarily
2. Lower
surrendered and pleaded guilty.
penalty by:
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
2. Not applicable!
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
Two MC, One AC = One MC
any other 2
Maximum IS = RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MINIMUM TERM
remaining
elements
IS: PRISION MAYOR to RECLUSION TEMPORAL, MINIMUM
3. MINIMUM =
one degree
Death
lower from
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
imposed
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
Temporal
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m, 1d to
penalty
12y,Prision
1d to 20
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
20y
y mayor
4. MAXIMUM =
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
6 y, 1d to 12
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
10y, 1d to 12y
imposable
Prision
Corec
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years
penalty, apply
6 m, 1d to 6
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
years
4m
2m
6y
remaining AC
Arresto
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
penalty
Case # 5: Rolex killed Chelnag. Rolex voluntarily surrendered and pleaded 2. Lower
guilty.
penalty by:
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
2. Two MC (voluntary surrender & plea of guilty)
1deg: >15<18
Penalty = one degree lower = PRISION MAYOR
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
One degree lower = PRISION CORRECCIONAL
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
No MC, No AC
remaining
Maximum IS = PRISION MAYOR, MEDIUM TERM
elements
3. MINIMUM =
IS: PRISION CORRECCIONAL to PRISION MAYOR, MEDIUM
one degree
Death
lower from
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
imposed
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
Temporal
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m, 1d to
penalty
12y,Prision
1d to 20
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
20y
y mayor
4. MAXIMUM =
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
6 y, 1d to 12
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
10y, 1d to 12y
imposable
Prision
Corec
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years
penalty, apply
6 m, 1d to 6
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
years
4m
2m
6y
remaining AC
Arresto
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
1. Crime and
penalty
Case # 6: Rolex when he was 17 y/o killed Chelnag with discernment.
2. Lower
Rolex voluntarily surrendered.
penalty by:
1. Crime: HOMICIDE
1deg:2+ MC, no
AC
2. Minority: 17 y/o with discernment (RA9344)
1deg: >15<18
1deg: unlawful
aggression
only
2 degs: unlawful
aggression +
any other 2
One MC (Voluntary surrender), No AC
remaining
Maximum IS = PRISION MAYOR, MINIMUM TERM
elements
3. MINIMUM =
IS: PRISION CORRECCIONAL to PRISION MAYOR, MINIMUM
one degree
Death
lower from
Rec.
Rec
Perpetua
imposed
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
Temporal
12y, 1d to
14y, 8m, 1d to
17y, 4m, 1d to
penalty
12y,Prision
1d to 20
14y, 8m
17y, 4m
20y
y mayor
4. MAXIMUM =
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
6 y, 1d to 12
6y, 1d to 8y
8y, 1d to 10y
10y, 1d to 12y
imposable
Prision
Corec
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
years
penalty, apply
6 m, 1d to 6
6m, 1d to 2y, 2y, 4m, 1d to 4y,
4y, 2m, 1d to
years
4m
2m
6y
remaining AC
Arresto
MINIMUM
MEDIUM
MAXIMUM
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,
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
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 years
INDETERMINATE MAXIMUM PENALTY: 10 years
Indeterminate sentence: 5 years to 10 years

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 clarified in the case of PEOPLE VS.
NARVASA, 298 SCRA 637

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 years, 4 months
and 2 days of reclusion temporal
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
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
LAW
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)
IND. MINIMUM PENALTY: Prision Correccional (Step 3)
IND. MAXIMUM PENALTY: Prision Mayor, Medium (Step
4, no other MC & AC)

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 (P715kP22k=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 prision mayor
or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
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 mentioned, the
fraud be committed by any of the following
means:
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, goods, or other property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended
party in blank, and by writing any document above such
signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or of
any third person.
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 period of the penalty.
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 the proprietor or manager thereof, or
by obtaining credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house,
lodging house, or apartment house by the use of any false
pretense, or by abandoning
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 whole or
in part, any court record, office files, document or any
other papers.

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:
45k)
11 counts of ESTAFA involving amounts of P18k to
Penalty imposed by LC: IP of prision correccional, minimum

as MINIMUM and prision correccional, maximum as
MAXIMUM
Art.315:
Penalty for ESTAFA, >P12k to P22k: PC max to PM min
SC Ruling:
If above P22k, implement the max period (similar to complex crime) +
Period
From
To
Divide
4 years, 2 5 years, 5
Prision mayor, MIN: 6y, 1d to
into 3
months & 1 months and
8y
equal
Minimum day
10 days
1d to 6y
periods
5 years, 5
6 years, 8
months and months and
Prision Corec, MED: 2y, 4m, 1d
to 4y, 2m
Medium 11 days
20 days
Prision Corec, MIN: 6m, 1d to
6 years, 8
2y, 4m
months and
All cases involving 42,000 and below were
Maximum 21 days
8 years
Total upheld. Only cases above 22,000

Were modified. Note: no rounding up of addl 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
CR1397: Amount P45,000.00
TC imposed IP:
Minimum: 3 years, 6 months, 21 days
Maximum: 7 years, 4 months, 1 day
SC imposed IP:
Minimum: 3 years, 6 months, 21 days
Maximum: 8 years, 8 months, 21 day
Prision correccional
Prision mayor
Prision correccional, med
Prision mayor, max
Computation: 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, m
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 as
maximum

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 years of
prision mayor as minimum to 17 years, 4 months
of reclusion temporal as maximum
BAR Q & A: Indeterminate

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) and
the maximum shall not be more than the maximum
provided therein, i.e. twelve years.

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 the
same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty within the
said minimum and maximum.

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 which shall not exceed the
maximum penalty fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be
less than the minimum penalty prescribed by the same.

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: Penalties; Complex

Crime 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 next lower in degree therefor is prision correccional and it is
within the range of this penalty that the minimum should be taken.
BAR Q & A: Penalties;

Preventive Imprisonment (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: Penalties; Reclusion

Perpetua (RA) No. 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 imprisonment has no definite term or accessory
penalties. Also, life imprisonment is imposable on crimes
punished by special laws, and not on felonies in the Code
EXECUTION OF
PENALTIES
- When and how the

death penalty is to be
executed.
Article 81*
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
AN ACT PROHIBITING
THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE
PHILIPPINES
Republic Act No. 9346
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 Indeterminate Sentence
Law.
Notification and execution

of the sentence and assistance to
the culprit.
Article 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 administration of his
property, or of the care of his descendants
Suspension of the
execution of the death
sentence.
Article 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 who may witness the
same.
Article 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.
Article 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

temporal, prision mayor, prision
correccional andarresto mayor.
Article 86
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.
Article 87
Destierro.
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.
Article 88
menor.
Arresto
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 FOUR
EXTINCTION OF
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
CHAPTER ONE
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
How criminal
liability is totally
extinguished.
Article 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.
How criminal
extinguished.
Article 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.
How criminal
extinguished.
Article 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 rights to vote and
to hold office are deemed restored. (Pelobello
vs. Palatino, 72 Phil. 441)
How criminal
extinguished.
Article 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)
How criminal
extinguished.
Article 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
How criminal
extinguished.
Article 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.
How criminal
extinguished.
Article 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
How criminal
extinguished.
Article 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
Article 90
crime.
Prescription of
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 highest

penalty shall be made the basis of the application of
the above rules.
Article 90
crime.
Prescription of
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
Computation of
prescription of offenses.
Article 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 stopped for any
reason not imputable to the accused.
Article 91 Computation of
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.
Computation of
Article 91
Situations which do not follow

the Computation of Prescription
of Offense
Continuing Crime
Crimes against False
Testimony
Election Offenses
Constructive Notice Rule
Computation of
prescription of offenses .
Article 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. Buencamino, 122 SCRA 713)
Computation of
prescription of offenses .
Article 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 action was not barred
by prescription. (People vs. Joson, 46 Phil. 380)
Act No. 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 No. 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
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.
two years or more but less than six years
after 8 years.
six years or more after 12 years
Act No. 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
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.
When and how

penalties prescribe.
Article 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
When and how

penalties prescribe.
Article 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.
Computation of
the prescription of
penalties.
Article 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
Computation of the
prescription of penalties.
Article 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, L-45296,
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:
When the convict escapes AGAIN after having been captured
and returned to prison
Computation of the
Article 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, discomfort, loneliness and misery
Computation of the
Article 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 Two
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Partial
Extinction of criminal
liability.
Article 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.
2. Prosecution under Article 159.
Partial
liability.
Article 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
Partial Extinction of
criminal liability.
Article 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.
Partial
liability.
Article 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
Partial
liability.
Article 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 referral for
probation or supervises a probationer
or both.
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 offenses.
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 seventy-two 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 supervision;
2. meet his family responsibilities;
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
conscience.
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 to

appeal.
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
3.Probation will depreciate the
seriousness of the offense committed.
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 1day, he doesnt intend
to the accused to be qualified for 1day, so 1day is
important and cannot be waived. (Anandy vs.
People, 161 SCRA 436)
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 time of the effectivity of the Decree.
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. CA; De la Cruz v.
Judge Callejo) (Q3, 1995 Bar; Q17, 1994 Bar)
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 court may
order the final discharge of the probationer.
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. Judge
Martinez, 181 SCRA 459)
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 entertained
or granted if the defendant has perfected an
appeal.
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 jurisdiction over the case.
(Llamado vs. CA, 174 SCRA 566)
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
disqualification, it must be granted. (Cabatingan
vs. Sandiganbayan, 102 SCRA 187)
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 other rights. Probation law
does not carry the extinction of civil liability and
does not restore relinquished rights. (Salgado vs.
CA, 189 SCRA 304)
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 convicted of
multiple offenses in a single proceeding who are
deemed to be less perverse. (Francisco vs. CA,
April 6, 1995)
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 fit to serve once again.
(OCA vs. Librado, 260 SCRA 714)
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
Two 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.
Civil liability of a
person guilty of felony.
Article 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.
Article 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.
Article 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)
Article 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);
Article 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)
Article 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)
Civil liability
of a person guilty of
felony.
Article 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)
Article 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.
Article 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
Civil liability
of a person guilty of
felony.
Article 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 awarded
6.Interests in proper cases
Article 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 determines
whether or not the criminal action shall
proceed.
Rules regarding
civil liability in certain
cases.
Article 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 has acted without
discernment person under their legal
authority or control
Rules regarding
cases.
Article 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 by special
laws or regulations.
Rules regarding
cases.
Article 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 civil liability of

innkeepers, tavernkeepers and
proprietors of establishments.
Article 102
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.

Article 102
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.

Article 102
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.
Article 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)
Subsidiary civil
liability of other persons.
Article 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 family in
the selection and supervision will not
exempt the party who is subsidiary liable
for damages.
Chapter Two
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
What is included in
civil liability.
Article 104
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 party but also the members of
his family. It applies to crimes against
persons.
What is included
in civil liability.
Article 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)
Article 108
Obligation to make
restoration, reparation for damages, or
indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom 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)
Article 108
Obligation to make
devolves.
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)
Article 108
Obligation to make
devolves.
Article 108
Obligation to make
devolves.
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)
Article 108
Obligation to make
devolves.
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)
Article 108
Obligation to make
devolves.
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)
Article 108
Obligation to make
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)
Article 108
Obligation to make restoration,

reparation for damages, or indemnification for
consequential damages and actions to demand the
same; Upon whom it devolves.
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)
Article 108
Obligation to make
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.
Several and subsidiary

liability of principals, accomplices
and accessories of a felony; Preference
in payment.
Article 110
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
Several and subsidiary

liability of principals, accomplices
and accessories of a felony; Preference
in payment.
Article 110
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.
Obligation to make
restitution in certain cases.
Article 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
Extinction of
civil liability.
Article 112
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
Extinction of
civil liability.
Article 112
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 reparation will be
ordered by the court in such cases.
Obligation to
satisfy civil liability.
Article 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

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

Escritor is living with a man who is

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

Anselmo and Mardcelo Pesigan

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

Tanada and company seeks a Writ of

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

De Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

Accused robbed and raped the victim

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

Go vs. Dimaguiba (460 SCRA

Crime Committed: Violation of Bouncing

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

Equipoise Doctrine - The rule which

I. CRIMINAL LAW: INTRODUCTION

People vs. Sayana (405 SCRA 243)

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

Crime committed: Falsification of a

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 Philippines. Hubert

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

not caused by the neglect of a legal

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

III. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

"wrong due to being prohibited," which