CRIMINAL LAW 1

CRIMINAL LAW– that branch of public substantive law

which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment.

MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Mala in se(“evil in itself”) – A crime or an act that is
inherently immoral, such as murder, arson or rape.

Mala prohibita(“prohibited evil”) – An act that is a

crime merely because it is prohibited by statute,
although the act itself is not necessarily immoral.
 SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW

(1) The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) - Created

pursuant to Administrative Order No. 94; enacted
January 1, 1932; based on the Spanish Penal Code,
US Penal Code, and Phil. Supreme Court decisions.

(2) Special penal laws and penal Presidential

Decrees issued during Martial Law.
 CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
It is substantive It is remedial
Prospective in application Retroactive in application

Exception: If it is favorable
to the accused.

Exception To The
Exception:
(1) When the accused is a
habitual delinquent.
(Art. 22)
(2) Where the new law
expressly made
inapplicable to
pending actions or
existing causes of
actions.
Statutory; it is passed by May be promulgated by
the Legislature. the Legislature (e.g.
jurisdiction of courts) or
the Judiciary (e.g. Rules of
Court)
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

(1) Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea

“The act cannot be criminal where the mind is not criminal.”

(2) Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus Actus

“An act done by me against my will is not my act.”

(3) El Que Es Causa De La Causa Es Causa Del Mal

Causado –
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
caused.”

(a) This is the rationale in par. 1 of Art. 4 which enunciates

the doctrine of proximate cause.
(b) He who commits an intentional felony is responsible for
all the consequences which may naturally and logically
result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
DIFFERENTIATING FELONIES, OFFENSE,
MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME

FELONY – refers only to violations of the Revised Penal

Code.

OFFENSE – A crime punished under a special law is called

a statutory offense.

MISDEMEANOR –A minor infraction of the law, such as a

violation of an ordinance.

CRIME –Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the

Revised Penal Code or under a special law, the generic
word “crime” can be used.
Two theories in Criminal law

1. Classical theory – the Basis of the criminal

liability is human free will and the purpose of the
penalty is retribution

2. positivist Theory – That man is subdued

occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which constrins him to do wrong, in
spite of or contrary to his volition.
 SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND
CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. General – Criminal law is binding on all persons who live

or sojourn in Philippines
territory.

2. Territorial – Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes

committed within the Philippine Territory.

Exception: Art. 2 of Revised Penal Code

3. Prospective – Penal law cannot make an act punishable

in a manner in which it was not punishable when
committed.
Kim chu, chief of state of South korea, inflict
physical injury to the guard of Lim Ket kai De
Luxe Hotel.

Can kim chu be punished in our country?

Kim chu, consul of South korea, inflict
physical injury to the guard of Lim Ket kai De
Luxe Hotel.

Can kim chu be punished in our country?

The following are not subject to the
operation of our criminal laws:

a. Sovereign and other chief of state.

B. Ambassadors, minister
plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and
charges d’ affaires.
Consuls, Vice consuls and other
commercial representattives of foreign
nations do not possess the status of, and
cannot claim privilieges and immunity.
TERRITORIALITY
Art. 2 embraces two scopes of application

1. Intraterritorial – refers to the application of the RPC within the

Philippines territory (land, air, and water)

General rule- penal laws of the country have force and effect only
within its territory

2. Extraterritorial – Refers to the application of the Revised Penal

Code outside the Philippine territory.

Extraterritorial Crimes – Which are punishable even if committed

outside the Philippine territory (art. 2)
Abe, married to Liza, contracted
another marriage with Connie in
Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie
returned to the Philippines and lived as
husband and wife in the hometown of
Abe in Calamba, Laguna.

1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?

Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the
treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code
shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including
its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside
of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the

Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine
Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding
number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense
in the exercise of their functions; or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the
law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Kim chu, a filipino citizen, has a merchant
vessel registered in China. Raul, a filipino,
committed a crime of theft while the vessel
is on board

Does the Philippine court has jurisdiction to

the crime of theft?
The court has no jurisdiction over the crime
of theft committed on the high seas on board
a vessel not registered or licensed in the
Philippines
Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes
committed aboard a foreign merchant
vessels.

French Rule – Such crimes are not triable

in the courts of that country, unless their
commission affects the peace and security
of the territory or the safety of the state is
endangered.

English Rule- Such crimes are triable in

that country, unless they merely affect
things within the vessel or they refer to the
internal management thereof.
Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign
merchant vessel in transit is not triable in
Philippine Court, because that fact alone
does not constitute a breach of public order.

When the foreign merchant vessel is not in

transit because the philippines is its terminal
port, the person in possession of opium on
board that vessel is liable, because he may
be held guilty of illegal importation of opium.
Merchant ship is an extension of our territory,
foreign merchant ship is considered an extension
of the territory of the country to which it belongs.

Warship Rule – A warship of another country,

even
though docked in the Philippines, is considered an
extension of the territory of its respective country.
This also applies to embassies. Cannot be
subjected to the laws of another state.
Elements of Felonies:

(1) There must be an act or omission (actus reus/physical

act)

(2) That the act or omission must be punishable by the

RPC.

It is important that there is a law requiring the performance

of an act; if there is no positive duty, there is no liability.

(3) That the act is performed or the omission incurred by

means of dolo or culpa
Act - must be understood any bodily
movement tending to produce some effect
in the external world, it being unnecessary
that the same be actually, as the possibility
of its production is sufficient.
Omission failure to perform a positive duty
which one is bound to do. There must be a
law requiring the doing or performance of an
act.

Example: Abandonment of persons in

danger (Art. 275 par. 1)
Intentional felonies the act or
omission of the offender is malicious.
The act is performed with deliberate
intent (with malice). The offender has
the intention to cause an injury to
another.

Culpable Felonies the act or omission

of the offender is not malicious. The
injury caused by the offender to another
act performed without malice.
Requisites Dolo or Malice

a. Freedom
A person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability (art. 12, par
5)

A person who acts under the impulse of an

uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury is exempt
from criminal liability (art. 12, par. 6)

b. Intent

c. intelligence
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:

1. That the act done would have been lawful had

the facts been as the accused believed them to be.

2. That the intention of the accused in performing

the act should be lawful.

3. That the mistake must be without fault or

carelessness on the part of the accused.
In mistake of fact, the act done by the
accused would have constituted

1. Justifying Circumstance under art. 11

2. An absolutory cause cause, such as

that contemplated in art. 247, par. 2. or
(3) an involuntary act.
Requisites of Culpable Felonies

a. Freedom

b. Intelligence

c. He is imprudent, Negligent or lacks

foresight or skill while doing the act or
omitting to do the act.
Intent distinguished from motive

1. Motive is the moving power which impels

one to action for a definite result. Intent is
the purpose to use a particular means to
effect such result.

2. Motive is not an essential element of a

crime, and, hence, need not be proved for
purposes of conviction.
CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES Felonies are classified
as follows: (MSG)
(1) According to the manner of their commission
(2) According to the stages of their execution
(3) According to their gravity
Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability
shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito)

although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.

2. By any person performing an act which would

be an offense against persons or property, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means.
 The person is still criminally liable although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended in the following cases:

a. Error in personae - mistake in the identity of the victim;

injuring one person mistaken for another

b. Aberratio ictus - mistake in the blow; when offender

intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on
another (Art. 48 on complex crimes – penalty for graver
offense in its maximum period)

c. Praeter intentionem - injurious result is greater than

that intended
Impossible Crimes

a. That the act performed would be an offense against person or

property

b. That the act was done with evil intent

c. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the

means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.

D. that the act performed should not constitute a violation of

another provision of the revised penal code.
(a) Legal impossibility –The intended acts, even if
completed, would not amount to a crime. Legal
impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:

(i) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in

violation of the law;
(ii) there is intention to perform the physical act;
(iii) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
(iv) the consequence resulting from the intended act does
not amount to a crime. [Intod v. CA]

(b) Physical or factual impossibility – Extraneous

circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control
prevent the consummation of the intended crime.
Stages of their execution

Consummated – when all the elements necessary for its

execution and accomplishment are present

Frustrated – when the offender performs all the facts of

execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Attempted – When the offender commences the

commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
 ATTEMPTED FELONY

Internal acts such as mere ideas in the mind of a person,

are not punishable even if, had they been carried out, they
would constitute a crime.

External Acts cover

a. Preparatory acts – ordinarily they are not punishable

b. Acts of execution – they are punishable under the

Revised Penal Code.
Attempted
frustrated
Consummated
 ATTEMPTED FELONY

When is the commission of a felony deemed

commenced directly by overt acts?
 ATTEMPTED FELONY

1. That there be external acts

2. Such external acts have direct connection

with the crime intended to be committed
 ATTEMPTED FELONY

Overt act is some physical activity or deed ,

Indicating the intention to commit a
particular crime, more than a mere planning
or preparation, which if carried to its
complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of
the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense.
At an early dawn, A was surprised by a policeman
while in the act of making an opening with an iron
bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods. At that
time that the owner of the store was sleeping
inside with another Chinaman. A had only
succeeded in breaking one board and in
unfastening another from the wall.

Is there an attempted robbery in this case?

No, because 2nd requisite is not present, for such

acts had no direct connection with the crime of
robbery by the use of force upon things.
 ATTEMPTED FELONY

Distinguished preparatory acts and overt

acts
 ATTEMPTED FELONY

Indeterminate offense – It is one where the

purpose of the offender in performing an is
not certain.
 ATTEMPTED FELONY

Does not perform all the acts of

execution

a. By reason of some cause or accident

b. Other than his own spontaneous
desistance
Desistance should be made before all the
acts of execution
A stole a chicken under the house of B one
evening. Realizing that what he did was
wrong, A returned the chicken to the place
under the house of B.

Is A liable for theft?

A is liable, because he had already
performed all the acts of the execution which
produced the crime of theft before he
returned the chicken.
A attacked and wounded B in the
abdomen with a sharp-edged weapon,
causing a wound serious enough to
have produced death. A was about to
assault B again, but this time, A
desisted and left B. B was taken to the
hospital by another person. Because of
the timely and skillful medical treatment
by a physician, B did not die.
Is A liable for attempted murder?
No, A is liable for frustrated murder because
A inflicted a mortal wound on B, which could
have produced his death were it nor for the
timely intervention of a physician.
 ATTEMPTED FELONY

Subjective Phase it is that portion of the

acts constituting the crime, starting from the
point where the offender begins the
commission of the crime to that point where
he has still control over his acts, including
their natural course.
 FRUSTRATED FELONY

Elements of frustrated Felony.

1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;

2. All the acts performed would produce the felony

as a consequence;

3. But the felony is not produced;

4. By reason of causes independent of the will of

perpetrator.
A doctor conceived an idea of killing his wife,
and to carry out his plan, he mixed arsenic
with the soup of his victim. Immediately, after
the victim took the poisonous food, the
offender sudden felt such a twinge of
conscience that he himself washed out the
stomach of the victim and administered to
her the adequate antidote.
Would this be a frustrated parricide?
Certainly not, for even though the subjective
phase of the crime had already been
passed, the most important requisite of a
frustrated crime, that the cause which
prevented the consummation of the offense
be independent of the will of the perpetrator,
was lacking.
Would this be a attempted parricide?
The crime cannot be considered attempted
parricide, because the doctor already
performed all the acts of execution.
What crime committed?
The crime committed would be physical
injuries, as the poison thus,
administered, being an injurious
substance, could cause the same. The
intent to kill which the doctor
entertained in the beginning
disappeared when he prevented the
poison from producing the death of his
wife.
Manner of committing the crime

1. formal crimes consummated in one instant, no attempt

2. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or proposal or by

over act

3. Felony by Omission

4. Crimes requiring the intervention of two persons to

commit them are consummated by mere agreement.

5. Material Crimes - Have the three stages

Crimes which do not admit of frustrated
stage
Rape
Arson
Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers
Adultery
Physical Injuries
Theft
Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony
Requisites of Conspiracy

1. That two or more persons came to an

agreement

2. That the agreement concerned the

commission of a felony and

3. That the execution of the felony be

decided upon.
In conspiracy the act of one is an act of all
CONSPIRACY AS A FELONY, DISTINGUISHED FROM
CONSPIRACY AS A MANNER OF INCURRING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY:

(a)As a felony, conspirators do not need to actually commit

treason, rebellion, insurrection, etc., it being sufficient
that two or more persons agree and decide to commit it.

(b) As a manner of incurring criminal liability, if they commit

treason, rebellion, etc., they will be held liable for it, and
the conspiracy which they had before committing the crime
is only a manner of incurring criminal liability, not a
separate offense.

In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

Art. 9 Grave felonies, less grave felonies,
and light felonies
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. -

Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in
accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.

Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the
above-mentioned Art..

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which
a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is
provided.
The Circumstances affecting criminal
liability are:

I. Justifying Circumstances (Art. 11)

II. Exempting Circumstances (Art. 12), and other absolutory

causes

III. Mitigating Circumstances (Art. 13)

IV. Aggravating Circumstances ( Art. 14)

V. Alternative Circumstances (art. 15)

Justifying Circumstances are those where
the act of a person is said to be in
accordance with the law, so that such
person is deemed not to have transgressed
the law and is free from both criminal and
civil liability.
There is no civil liability, except in par. 4 of
art.11, where the civil liability is borne by the
persons benefited by the act.
Self Defense
anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur:

1. unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent

or repel it;

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself.
Unlawful Aggression when the peril to
one’s life, limb or right is either actual or
imminent. There must be actual physical
force or actual use of weapon.
Can the paramore, in the act of
adultery, invoke self defense if he killed
the offended husband who was
assaulting him?
No, because The act of the offended
husband is a defense of honor and if he had
killed his wife and paramour he would have
exercise a lawful right.

The paramour was performing an unlawful

relations with deceased’s wife.
Slap on the face is an unlawful aggression,
because it is a physical assault coupled with
a willful disregard of an individual’s
personality.
The attack made by the deceased and the
killing of the deceased by defendant should
succeed each other without appreciable
interval time.
The unlawful aggression must come from the
person who was attacked by the accused.

When the aggressor flees, unlawful

aggression no longer exists

One who voluntary joined a fight cannot claim

self-defense

There is seld defense even if the aggressor

used a toy pistol provided the accused
believed it was real gun.
Defense of relatives

1. unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one
making a defense had no part therein.
Relatives that can be defended

1. Spouse

2. Ascendants

3 Descendants

4. Legitime, natural or adopted brothers and

sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees.

5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil

degree
Defense of stranger

1. unlawful aggression

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel

it;

3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or

the evil motive.
A heard screams and cries for help.
When A responded, he saw B
attacking his (B’s ) wife with a dagger. A
approached B and struggled for the
possession of the weapon, in the
course of which A inflicted wounds on
B.
Avoidance of greater Evil or injury

1. That the evil sought to be avoided

actually exists;

2. That the injury feared be greater than

that done to avoid it;

3. That there be no other practical and

less harmful means of preventing it.
Fire breaks out in a cluster of nipa
houses, and in order to prevent its
spread to adjacent houses of strong
materials, the surrounding nipa houses
are pulled down.
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful exercise of
a right or office

1. That the accused acted in performance of a duty or

in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be

the necessary consequence of the due performance
of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
Obedience to an order issued for some
lawful purpose.

1. That an order has been issued by a superior

2. That such order must be for some lawful

purpose.

3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry

out said order is lawful.
Exempting Circumstances – are those
grounds for exemption from punishment
because there is wanting in the agent of the
crime any of the conditions which make the
act voluntary or negligent
Other cases of lack of intelligence

1. Committing a crime while in a dream.

2. Committing a crime suffering from
malignant malaria.
Imbecility and Insanity

Imbecile is exempt in all cases from the

criminal liability, The insane is not exempt if
it can be shown that he acted during a lucid
interval
Insanity at time of the commission of the
felony distinguished from insanity at the time
of the trial.
When person was insane at the time of the
commission of the felony, He is exempt from
criminal liability.

When he was sane at the time of the commission

of the crime, but he becomes insane at the time of
the trial, he is liable criminally. The trial, however,
will be suspended until the mental capacity of the
accused be restored to afford him a fair trial.
The exempting circumstances of
insanity or imbecility is based on the
complete absence of intelligence, a
element of voluntariness.
Pursuant to section 6, RA 9344 a child
fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time
of commission of the offense shall be
exempt from the criminal liability. However,
the child shall be subject to an intervention
program as provided under section 20 of the
same law.
The exempting circumstance of minority is
based also on the complete absence of
intelligence.
par. 4 Any person who, while performing
a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
Elements
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere
accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Ramon, while driving his automobile, on the proper
side of the road at a moderate speed and with
due diligence, suddenly and unexpectedly saw
a man in front of his vehicle coming from the
sidewalk and crossing the street without any
warning that he would do so. Because it was not
physically impossible to avoid hitting him, Ramon
ran over the man with his car.
An accident is something that happens
outside the sway of our will, and although it
comes about through some act of our will,
lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.
As two persons fighting paid him no
attention, the defendant drew a .45 caliber
pistol and shot twice in the air. The bout
continued, however so he fired another shot
at the ground, but unfortunately the bullet
richochet and hit Eugenio Francisco, an
innocent bystander, who died thereafter

Is this a case of accident?

The mishap should be classed as homicide
through reckless imprudence. It is apparent the
defendant willfully discharged his gun, without
taking the precautions demanded by the
circumstances that the district populated, and the
likelihood that his bullet would glance over the
hard pavement of the thoroughfare.

The consequence here was clearly foreseeable.

The exempting circumstances in par. 4 of
art.12 is based on lack of negligence and
intent. Under this circumstance, a person
does not commit either an intentional felony
or a culpable felony.
Par. 5. – Any person who acts under the
compulsion of an irresistible

Elements:

a. That the compulsion is by means of

physical force.

B. That the physical force must be

irresistible
c. That the physical force must come from a
third person
Baculi, one of the accused who was not a member
of the band which murdered some American
School teacher, was in plantation gathering
bananas. Upon hearing the shooting he ran.
However Baculi was seen by the leaders of the
band who called him, and striking him with the
butts of their guns, they compelled him to bury the
bodies.
The force must be irresistible to reduce
the actor to a mere instrument who acts
not only without will but against his will.
Basis of paragraph 5

Complete absence of freedom

Par. 6. Any person who acts under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
equal or greater injury.
Elements of uncontrollable fear

a. existence of an uncontrollable fear

b. The fear must be real and imminent

c. The fear of an injury is greater than or at least

equal to that committed .
Mark and Pedro were compelled under fear
of death to swear allegiance to the
katipunan whose purpose was to overthrow
the government by force of arms
Is Mark and Pedro liable for rebellion?
The accused cannot be held liable for
rebellion, because they joined the rebels
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury.
Distinction between irresistible force and
uncontrollable fear

Irresistible force the offender uses violence or

physical force to compel another person to commit
a crime; in uncontrollable fear (par.6), the
offender employs intimidation or threat in
compelling another to commit a crime.
Basis of paragraph 6
The exempting circumstance in paragraph 6
of art. 12 is also based on the complete
absence of freedom.

Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Meus

Actus

“An act done by me against my will is not my

act.”
Par. 7 – Any person who fails to perform
an act required by law, when prevented
by some lawful or insuperable

1. That an act is required by law to be done;

2. That a person fails to perform such act;
3. That his failure to perform such act was
due to some lawful or insuperable cause.
When prevented by some lawful cause
A confessed to a filipino priest that he
and several other persons were in
conspiracy against government. Under
art. Art.116, a filipino citizen who know
such conspiracy must report the same
to the governor or fiscal of the province
where he resides.
When prevented by some insuperable
cause

The municipal president detained the

offended party for three days because
to take him to the nearest justice of the
peace required a journey for three days
by boat as there was no other means of
transportation.
Distinction between justifying and
exempting circumstances

Justifying Circumstances, there is neither a

crime nor a criminal. No civil liability, except in par.
4 (causing damage to another in state of
necessity)

Exempting Circumstances, there is a crime but

no criminal liability. The act is not justified, but the
actor is not criminally liable. There is civil liability
except pars. 4 and 7
Mitigating Circumstances – are those
which, if present in the commission of the
crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the
penalty.
Ordinary mitigating – those enumerated in
subsections 1 to 10 of article 13

Privileged Mitigating

a. Art. 68 Penalty to be imposed upon a person

under eighteen years of age

b. Art. 69 Penalty to be imposed when the crime

committed is not wholly excusable.

C. Art. 64 Rules for the application of penalties

which contain three periods
Incomplete Justifying or Exempting
Circumstances
(1) Self-defense (Art. 11, par. 1)
(2) Defense of relatives (Art. 11, par. 2)
(3) Defense of strangers (Art. 11, par. 3)
(4) State of necessity (Art. 11, par. 4)
(5) Performance of duty (Art. 11, par. 5)
(6) Obedience to the order of superiors (Art. 11, par. 6)
(7) Minority over 15 years of age but below 18 years of age
(Art. 12, par. 3)
(8) Causing injury by mere accident (Art. 12, par.4)
(9) Uncontrollable fear (Art. 12 par. 6)
Under 18 or Over 70 Years of Age

Legal effects of various ages of offenders:

(1) 15 and below - Exempting
(2) Above 15 but under 18 years of age, also an
exempting circumstance, unless he acted with
discernment (Art. 12, par. 3 as amended by RA
9344).
(3) Minor delinquent under 18 years of age, the
sentence may be suspended. (Art. 192, PD No.
603 as amended by PD 1179)
(4) 18 years or over, full criminal responsibility.
(5) 70 years or over – mitigating, no imposition of death
penalty; if already imposed. Execution of death
penalty is suspended and commuted.
No intention to commit so grave a wrong
(Praeter Intentionem)
Sufficient Provocation or Threat

Elements:
(1) That the provocation must be sufficient
(2) That it must originate from the offended party
(3) That the provocation must be immediate to the
act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by the
person who is provoked
Four kinds of aggravating Circumstances

1. Generic – Those that can generally apply to all crimes.

Nos. 1,2,3 (dwelling),4,5,6,10,14,18,19, and 20 except by
means of motor vehicles

2. Specific – Those that apply only to particular crimes.

Nos.3 except dwelling,15,16,17, and 21

3. Qualifying – Those that change the nature of the crime.

4. Inherent – Those that must of necessity accompany the

commission of the crime . (Art.62 par.2)
That advantage be taken by the offender
of his public position

This is applicable only if the offender is a

public officer.
That the act be committed with insult or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party
on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is
be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation.

Disregard of rank, age or sex may be taken into

account only in crimes against persons or honor.
Different forms of repetition or
habituality of offender
(a) Recidivism under Article 14 (9)—The offender at the
time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another embraced in the
same title of the Revised Penal Code.

(b) Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (9)—The

offender has been previously punished for an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
(c) Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5)—The
offender within a period of 10 years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification,
is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third time or
another.

(d) Quasi-recidivism under Article 160—Any person who

shall ` a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment before beginning to serve such sentence or while
serving such sentence shall be punished by the maximum
period prescribed by law for the new felony
Treachery – when the offender commits any
of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.
Alternative circumstances are those which
must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. They
are the relationship, int
oxication, and the degree of instruction
and education of the offender
Relationship (BRADSS)

(a) Spouse
(b) Ascendant
(c) Descendant
(d) Legitimate, natural, or adopted Brother or
Sister
(e) Relative by Affinity in the same degree of the
offender
Where relationship is exempting

(i) An accessory who is related to the principal within the relationship prescribed
in Art. 20 except if accessory falls within Par. 1 of Art. 19;

(ii) A legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person who shall inflict upon them
physical injuries of any other kind (i.e. less serious and slight physical injuries).
[Art. 247, RPC]

(iii) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same

line who committed the crime of theft, malicious mischief or swindling
(estafa) but there’s civil liability. [Art. 332, RPC]
Where relationship is aggravating
(i) In CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in cases where

(a) the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the

offender (grandson kills grandfather), or

(b) when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same
level, as killing a brother, a brother-in-law, a half-brother or adopted brother.

(ii) When the crime is SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (Art. 263), even if the
offended party is a descendant of the offender, relationship is AGGRAVATING.

But the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child
by excessive chastisement.
(iii) When the crime is LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES OR SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES if
the offended party is a relative of a higher degree
than the offender

(iv) When the crime is HOMICIDE OR MURDER if

the victim of the crime is a relative of lower degree.

(v) In CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY relationship

is always aggravating
Where relationship is mitigating

(i) In Crimes against property, by analogy to the

provisions of Art. 332, relationship is mitigating in
the crimes of robbery (arts. 294-3-2), usurpation
(Art. 312), fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314)

(ii) When the crime is less serious or slight

physical injuries if the offended party is a relative
of a lower degree than the offender.
 INTOXICATION
When mitigating
(1) There must be an indication that
(a) because of the alcoholic intake of the offender,
(b) he is suffering from diminished selfcontrol.
(c) It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink. (d) Rather it is the
effect of the alcohol upon the offender which shall be the basis of the
mitigating circumstance.

(2) That offender is (a) not a habitual drinker and (b) did not take
alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit
crime

When Aggravating:
(1) If intoxication is habitual
(2) If it is intentional to embolden offender to commit crime
Absolutory Causes – those where the
act committed is a crime but for
reasons of public policy and sentiment
there is no penalty imposed.
There are FOUR TYPES of absolutory
circumstances:

(1) INSTIGATION
(2) PARDON
(3) OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
(4) ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASE
OF EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT (ART. 5)
ENTRAPMENT
A, a government anti-narcotics agent, 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 paid B in marked money
and the latter handed over a sachet of shabu.
Upon signal, the cops closed in on B
INSTIGATION
A, leader of an anti-narcotics team,
approached and persuaded B to act as
buyer of shabu and transact with C, a
suspected pusher. B was given marked
money to pay C for a sachet of shabu. After
the sale was consummated, the cops closed
in and arrested both B and C
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
FELONIES
Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The
following are criminally liable for grave and less
grave felonies:

1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered
principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;

3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense

by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.
Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are
those persons who, not being included in
Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
The driver of a taxicab who, knowing that his
co-accused were going to make a hold-up,
permitted them to use the taxicab driven by
him in going to a store where his said co-
accused staged the hold-up, and waited for
them until after the hold-up
Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the

effects of the crime.

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or

instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals

of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public
functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive,
or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal
liability. - The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not
be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their
spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural,
and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of
paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING MITIGATING AGGRAVATI ALTERNATIV
NG E
No wrong There is There is There is There is
wrong FELONY FELONY FELONY
No criminal No criminal Decreased Increased Increased or
liability liability Criminal criminal decreased
Liability liability liability
No civil With civil With civil With civil With civil
liability liability liability liability liability
except: state Except:
of necessity accident and
insuperable
cause
COMPLEX CRIMES Art. 48. 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.
Nature of complex crimes

a) Although two or more crimes are actually

committed, they constitute only one crime, in the
eyes of the law; and in the conscience of the
offender.

(b) Even in the case where an offense is a

necessary means for committing the other, the evil
intent of the offender is only one. Hence, there is
only one penalty imposed for the commission of a
complex crime.
No complex crime when:

(1) Two or more crimes are committed, but not by

a single act;

(2) Committing one crime is not a necessary

means for committing the other
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES

a. Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)

b. Complex Crime Proper (Delito

Complejo)
Requisites of Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto) :

(a) That only a single act is performed by the offender

(b) That the single acts produces:

(i) 2 or more grave felonies, or
(ii) 1 or more grave and 1 or more less grave
felonies, or (iii) 2 or more less grave felonies
SINGLE ACT Several Acts

throwing a hand grenade Submachine gun - because of the

number of bullets released

A single bullet killing two person Firing of the revolver twice in

succession
Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)

(a) An offense is a necessary means for committing the other.

(b) In complex crime, when the offender executes various acts, he must
have a single purpose.

(c) But: When there are several acts performed, the assumption is that
each act is impelled
by a distinct criminal impulse, hence each will have a separate penalty.

Requisites:
(1) That at least two offenses are committed
(2) That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the
other (3) That both or all the offenses must be punished under the
same statute.
Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)
Requisites:

(1) That at least two offenses are committed

(2) That one or some of the offenses must

be necessary to commit the other

(3) That both or all the offenses must be

punished under the same statute.
SPECIAL COMPLEX/COMPOSITE CRIMES The
substance is made up of more than one crime but which in
the eyes of the law is only
(1) a single indivisible offense.

(2) all those acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed

upon are acts which constitute a single crime.
Special Complex Crimes

(a) Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))

(b) Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
(c) Robbery with Arson
(d) Kidnapping with serious physical injuries
(Art. 267 (3))
(e) Kidnapping with rape
(f) Rape with Homicide (Art. 335) (g) Arson
with homicide