CRIMINAL REVIEW of the additional penalty provided by law for habitual

delinquency.
POINTERS FOR PRELIMS
Held: Yes. Recidivism as an aggravating circumstance
1. RECIDIVISM that modifies criminal liability is not inherent or
integral to habitual delinquency, which the Revised
Par. 9. - THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST. Penal Code considers as an extraordinary and special
aggravating circumstance. For recidivism to exist, it
- A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for
is sufficient that the accused, on the date of his trial,
one crime, shall have been previously convicted shall have been previously convicted by final
by final judgment of another crime embraced in judgment of another crime embraced in the same
the same title of the RPC. title of the RPC. For the existence of habitual
delinquency, it is not enough that the accused shall
Requisites:
have been convicted of any of the crimes specified,
a. That the offender is on trial for an offense; and that the last conviction shall have taken place
ten (10) years before the commission of the last
b. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of offense. It is necessary that the crimes previously
another crime; committed be prior to the commission of the offense
with which the accused is charged a third time or
c. That both the first and the second offenses are
oftener.
embraced in the same title of the Code;

d. That the offender is convicted of the new offense. • What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of
the commission of the crime.

• In recidivism, the number of intervening years between • There is no recidivism if the subsequent conviction is
that conviction and his subsequent convictions is for an offense committed before the offense involved
immaterial, provided that the accused was convicted by in the prior conviction.
final judgment.
• Section 7 of Rule 120 , Rules of Court, provides that a
• Even if the accused was granted pardon for the first judgment in a criminal case becomes final:
offense, but he commits another felony embraced in (1) after the lapse of the [period for perfecting
the same title of the Code, the first conviction is still an appeal, or
counted to make him a recidivist since pardon does not (2) when the sentence has been partially or
obliterate the fact of his prior conviction. totally satisfied or served, or
(3) the defendant has expressly waived in
• If the aggravating circumstance of recidivism is alleged writing his right to appeal, or
and proved against an accused, who upon said (4) the accused has applied for probation.
conviction is also a habitual delinquent, the imposable
penalty must consider both the circumstances of • There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between
recidivism and habitual delinquency. two felonies is more than 10 years.

People v. Bernal • Recidivism must be taken into account no mater how

G.R. No. L-44988, 31 October 1936 many years have intervened between the 1st and 2nd
felonies.
Issue: Whether or not in instances where the
accused turns out to be a habitual delinquent, the • Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused
aggravating circumstance of recidivism, when was a recidivist ; but amnesty extinguishes the
alleged and proved, should also be taken into penalty and its effects.
account in fixing the penalty applicable for the
commission of the principal offense, independently
People v. Molina
 336 SCRA 400 (2000) qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to
FACTS: Brothers Joseph and Angelito, along with their the section or subsection of the statute punishing it.
cousin, Danny were on their way home when they
heard somebody shout “kuba”, referring to Joseph, a
hunchback. They asked who said that but no one 2. QUASI-RECIDIVISM
admitted. As the 3 were about to go, Molina delivered - a special aggravating circumstance defined and
a strong stabbing blow at the back of Joseph. Angelito penalized under Art. 160 of the RPC which
came to aid his brother but Molina also stabbed him provides:
at the back. Joseph was dead on arrival at the clinic.
“Commission of another crime during service of penalty
HELD: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the imposed for another offense; Penalty. — Besides the
same in the information and to attach thereto certified provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall
copies of the sentences rendered against the accused. commit a felony after having been convicted by final
Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such AC judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or
credence if the accused does not object to the while serving the same, shall be punished by the
presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism. maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the
new felony.”
In this case, the accused never voiced out any
objection when confronted with the fact of his Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is
previous conviction for attempted homicide. not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of
seventy years if he shall have already served out his
original sentence, or when he shall complete it after
People v. Dacillo
reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or
427 SCRA 528 (2004)
other circumstances he shall not be worthy of such
clemency.
FACTS: Pacot stabbed and strangled Rosemarie
leading to the latter’s death. Dacillo for his part, hold People v. Gaorana
down Rosemarie’s legs to prevent her from struggling. 289 SCRA 652 (1998)
The two men stopped only when they were sure that
the victim was already dead. Dacillo then encase her FACTS: Marivel, upon instruction of Rowena
corpse in a cement. The trial court imposed the death (common-law wife of the accused) went to the house
penalty on the ground that Dacillo admitted during re- of Gaorana and saw the couple lying down. Marivel
cross examination that he had a prior conviction for was asked to come and Rowena stood up to urinate.
the death of his former live-in partner. The fact that Gaorana covered her mouth and pointed a hunting
Dacillo was a recidivist was appreciated by the trial knife to her neck and raped her. The second incident
court as a generic aggravating circumstance which of rape occurred while Marivel was sleeping in the sala
increased the imposable penalty from reclusion with her brother and sister. Marivel did not shout
perpetua to death. because she was afraid of the accused who was a
prisoner and had already killed somebody.
HELD: The aggravating circumstance of recidivism was
not alleged in the information and therefore cannot be HELD: The 2 Information alleged that both instances of
appreciated against appellant. rape were attended by the aggravating circumstance
of quasi-recidivism. The trial court made no express
In order to appreciate recidivism as an aggravating ruling that the appellant was a quasi-recidivist, and
circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in the rightly so. During the trial, the prosecution manifested
information and to attach certified true copies of the that appellant had been convicted by the RTC and was
sentences previously meted out to the accused. This is serving sentence for the crime of homicide. However,
in accord with Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules the prosecution failed or neglected to present in
of Criminal Procedure which states that: The evidence the record of appellant’s previous
complaint or information shall state the designation of conviction. Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and
the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or reiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a
omissions constituting the offense, and specify its certified copy of the sentence convicting an accused.
 The fact that appellant was an inmate of DAPECOL sentences were later commuted to imprisonment for
does not prove that final judgment had been rendered 23 years and a fine of P200,000. He was granted
against him. conditional pardon by the President of the Philippines
on 8 November 1991. Reiteracion or habituality under
Article 14, par. 10, herein cited, is present when the
3. REITERACION accused has been previously punished for an offense
Par. 10. - THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty
than that attached by law to the second offense or for
PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED BY AN OFFENSE TO WHICH
two or more offenses to which it attaches a lighter
THE LAW ATTACHES AN EQUAL OR GREATER
penalty. As already discussed, herein accused can be
PENALTY, OR FOR TWO OR MORE CRIMES TO convicted only of simple rape and the imposable
WHICH IT ATTACHES A LIGHTER PENALTY. penalty therefor is reclusion perpetua. Where the law
(Otherwise known as habituality or reiteracion) prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be
applied regardless of the mitigating or aggravating
Requisites for reiteracion:
circumstances attendant to the crime, such as in the
a. That the accused is on trial for an offense; instant case.

b. That he previously served sentence for another

offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater 4. HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
penalty, or for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches - When a person, within a period of 10 years from
lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
c. That he is convicted of the new offense. robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found
guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
oftener. In habitual delinquency, the offender is
• This differs from recidivism because reiteracion either a recidivist or one who has been
requires that the offender be punished for the previous previously punished for two or more of fenses
offenses of which he was convicted, and the penalties (habituality). He shall suffer an additional
imposed for the previous offenses are determinative, penalty for being a habitual delinquent.
i.e., either: (a) an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty; or (b) two (2) or more • When the culprit is HABITUAL DELINQUENT, he is not
offenses to which the law attaches lighter penalties. entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the new
DISCUSSION: as a special aggravating circumstance is a favorable statute.
situation where the offender, while about to serve his
sentence or while serving his sentence, commits another • A person shall be deemed to be a HABITUAL
crime. A subsequent crime is committed, and the penalty DELINQUENT if within a period of 10 years from the
for such is actually imposed in its maximum period. date of his release of last conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
People v. Cajara estafa or falsification, he is found guilt of an said crimes
341 SCRA 192 (2000) a third time or oftener.

FACTS: Accused Cajara raped 16-year old Marita in Article 62, par. 5.
front of his common-law wife who is the half-sister of
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or
the victim and his two small children. The trial court
aggravating circumstances and of habitual
convicted him as charged and sentenced him to death.
delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken
HELD: The records show that the crime was
into account for the purpose of diminishing or
aggravated by reiteracion under Article 14, par. 10, of
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following
The RPC, the accused having been convicted of
rules:
frustrated murder in 1975 and of homicide, frustrated
homicide, trespass to dwelling, illegal possession of
firearms and murder sometime in 1989 where his
 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following A: There is nothing said in Article 62 par 5. What the
effects: article tells us is that both penalties, the principal penalty
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be and the additional penalty brought about by the habitual
sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last delinquency cannot exceed 30 years.
crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and In short, the additional penalty shall be computed from
maximum periods; 20 years minimum supposedly, but take note that
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be reclusion perpetua is not a divisible penalty. It should be
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of imposed as it is. There is no period to speak of even if
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty there is a duration. Maybe we should look into that when
of prision mayor in its minimum and medium we tackle computation of penalties.
periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit IMPORTANT: the five crimes mentioned: robo, hurto
shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last (theft), falsification, estafa, serious physical injuries or
crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional less serious physical injuries. (There are actually six
penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to crimes.)
reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Q: Is a habitual delinquent necessarily a recidivist?
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total
A: You have to know what recidivism is. There is a
of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender,
in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 reference where the crimes committed must be
years. embraced within the same title of the Code. Habitual
delinquency only has six crimes. You must first look at the
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be title where those six crimes fall.
deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period
Physical injuries fall under crime against persons.
of ten years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious Falsification is crimes against public interest. Robbery,
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he estafa and theft are crimes against property.
is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or So the proposition that a habitual delinquent is
oftener.
necessarily a recidivist will only hold if the crime
committed by the habitual delinquent posed against
DISCUSSION: The provision answers the question of who the same title of the Code at least for 2 offenses. Never
a habitual delinquent is. mind the third offense.

Note the limitation: that the principal penalty plus the Hence, if the accused was previously convicted of
additional penalty brought about by the habitual robbery, and then there was a conviction for theft, and
delinquency cannot exceed 30 years. then eventually he was again convicted of estafa, the
accused is a recividist because the two crimes (robbery
Under Article 27, the penalty of reclusion perpetua has a and theft) fall under the same title (crimes against
duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. In the property).
graduation of penalties, there is no penalty, except
reclusion perpetua, where 30 years is included. However, if the first crime is serious physical injuries, and
the second crime is falsification and the third is theft,
However, note how the provision is rendered under these crimes DO NOT FALL under the same title. The
Article 62 par 5: “The total of the penalty cannot exceed accused is a habitual delinquent, but he is not a recidivist.
30 years”.
BE CAREFUL IN ANSWERING THIS. I usually ask this:
So, the principal penalty, for instance is reclusion what are the four forms of criminal repetition:
perpetua, and then the accused is guilty a third time or recidivism, reiteracion, habitual delinquency and quasi-
oftener. The penalty to be imposed is a nightmare to recidivism.
compute.

Q: How can you compute reclusion perpetua?

(8 percent; 2 percent each). My additional question: Is GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES OF A PRISONER IN A
a habitual delinquent necessarily a recidivist? (5 PENAL INSTITUTION:
percent).
1. First 2 years

- 5 days per month of good behavior

5. GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE
2. 3rd to 5th year
Article 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. - Criminal
- 8 days
liability is extinguished partially:
3. Following years to 10th year
1. By conditional pardon;
- 10 days
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
4. 11th year and successive years
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may
earn while he is serving his sentence. - 15 days
The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for ✓ These allowances are granted by the Director of
preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Prisons and once given cannot be revoked.
Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal
institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any SPECIAL TIME ALLOWANCE FOR LOYALTY
other local jail shall entitle him to the following - A deduction of one fifth of the period of his
deductions from the period of his sentence: sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who,
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he having evaded his preventive imprisonment or
shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days for the service of his sentence under the
each month of good behavior during detention; circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this
Code, gives himself up to the authorities within
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his 48 hours following the issuance of a
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of proclamation announcing the passing away of
twenty-three days for each month of good the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said
behavior during detention; article. A deduction of two-fifths of the period of
his sentence shall be granted in case said
3. During the following years until the tenth year, prisoner chose to stay in the place of his
inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be confinement notwithstanding the existence of a
allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article
month of good behavior during detention; 158 of this Code.

4. During the eleventh and successive years of his This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving
of thirty days for each month of good behavior sentence.
during detention; and
✓ This article does not apply to prisoners who did not
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, escape.
he shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen
days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof, ✓ The deduction of ⅕ is based on the original sentence.
for each month of study, teaching or mentoring ✓ Under Article 158, a convict who evaded service of his
service time rendered. sentence by leaving the penal institution on the occasion
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake,
entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct. explosion or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny in
which he did not participate, is liable to an increased
penalty (1/5 of the time still remaining to be served – not
to exceed 6 months) if he fails to give himself up within 5. Those who are habitual delinquents.
48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or
President announcing the passing away of the calamity.
evaded sentence.
ART. 99. Who grants time allowances.
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon
- Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the granted to them by the Chief Executive.
Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does
Jail Management and Penology and/or the
not exceed 1 year.
Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city
jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such 9. Those who, upon the approval of the law, had been
allowances once granted shall not be revoked. sentenced by final judgment.

10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or

suspension.
6. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE THOSE INELIGIBLE
11. Use of trafficked victim
✓ The indeterminate sentence is composed of:
✓ Purpose of the law: to uplift and redeem valuable
1. a MAXIMUM taken from the penalty
human material and prevent unnecessary and excessive
imposable under the penal code
deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness
2. a MINIMUM taken from the penalty next
lower to that fixed in the code. - It is necessary to consider the criminal first as an
individual, and second as a member of the society.
• In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished
by the Revised Penal Code, or its amendments, the - The law is intended to favor the defendant, particularly
court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate to shorten his term of imprisonment, depending upon his
behavior and his physical, mental and moral record as a
sentence the maximum term of which shall be that
which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be prisoner, to be determined by the Board of
properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and Indeterminate Sentence.
the minimum which shall be within the range of the ✓ The settled practice is to give the accused the benefit
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for of the law even in crimes punishable with death or life
the offense (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103). imprisonment provided the resulting penalty, after
considering the attending circumstances, is reclusion
• If the offense is punished by any other law, the court temporal or less.
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed ✓ ISL does not apply to destierro. ISL is expressly granted
the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall to those who are sentenced to imprisonment exceeding
not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the 1 year.
same (Sec. 1, Act No. 4103).
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING THE MAXIMUM AND
THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN OFFENDERS: MINIMUM SENTENCE

1. Persons convicted of offense punished with death ✓ ISL consists of a maximum and a minimum instead of a
penalty or life imprisonment. single fixed penalty.

2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to ✓ Prisoner must serve the minimum before he is eligible
commit treason. for parole.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, ✓ The period between the minimum and maximum is
sedition or espionage. indeterminate in the sense that the prisoner may be
4. Those convicted of piracy. exempted from serving said indeterminate period in
whole or in part.
✓ The maximum is determined in any case punishable prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years,
under the RPC in accordance with the rules and eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
provisions of said code exactly as if the ISL had never temporal, as maximum, would be the proper
been enacted. imposable penalty.

✓ Apply first the effect of privileged mitigating

ATTY. ESGUERRA: This alone will be able to tell you and
circumstances then consider the effects of aggravating
somehow clarify for your understanding how the
and ordinary mitigating circumstances.
indeterminate sentence law works but you see this
✓ The minimum depends upon the court’s discretion emanates from a situation under special penal law which
with the limitation that it must be within the range of the is RA 9165, a minor offender sentenced to life
penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by the imprisonment to death but which becomes under
Code for the offense committed. Section 98 reclusion perpetua to death and in fixing that
penalty applying what the rules under the Revised Penal
NOTE: A minor who escaped from confinement in the Code tells us.
reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the ISL
because his confinement is not considered The penalty one degree lower than reclusion perpetua is
imprisonment. reclusion temporal and as I said because of the privilege
mitigating circumstance of minority so it becomes
People v. Mantalaba (2011) reclusion temporal.

FACTS: Allen Mantalaba was arrested by the So, you apply the indeterminate sentence law and
authorities in an entrapment operation. Allen was 17 because this is a divisible penalty now no longer reclusion
years old when he was arrested. He was found guilty perpetua which is not entitled to the benefits of the
and was imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. indeterminate sentence law, reclusion temporal being
divisible you have to take the minimum of the
HELD: Minority must be recognized or appreciated in
indeterminate sentence law from the penalty next lower.
fixing the penalty. Since minority is a special mitigating
What is the penalty next lower than reclusion temporal
circumstance, the penalty should be one degree
lower. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the in the scale of penalties it will be prision mayor. You have
proper penalty should be prision mayor as minimum to, more or less, know the duration of the sentence,
and reclusion temporal as maximum. reclusion temporal has a duration of 12 years and 1 day
to 20 years, prision mayor has a duration of 6 years and
The privileged mitigating circumstance of minority can 1 day to 12 years, so by degrees they are different, higher
now be appreciated in fixing the penalty that should of course and reclusion temporal but the penalty next
be imposed. Applying the rules, the proper penalty lower in the graduate scale of penalties under Art. 71 is
should be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, prision mayor, so you can take therefore the minimum of
which is reclusion temporal, the privileged mitigating the indeterminate sentence law from any of the periods
circumstance of minority having been appreciated. within the prision mayor duration, the range that is 6
Necessarily, also applying the Indeterminate Sentence years and 1 day to 12 years.
Law (ISLAW), the minimum penalty should be taken
from the penalty next lower in degree which is prision So, if that is the case if the penalty imposed is 6 years and
mayor and the maximum penalty shall be taken from 1 day as minimum prision mayor, that is still prision
the medium period of reclusion temporal, there being mayor to 14 years 8 months and 1 day of reclusion
no other mitigating circumstance nor aggravating temporal, reclusion temporal 12 years and 1 day to 20
circumstance. The ISLAW is applicable in the present years so 14 years and 8 months and 1 day of reclusion
case because the penalty which has been originally an
temporal in the medium period of reclusion temporal.
indivisible penalty (reclusion perpetua to death),
where ISLAW is inapplicable, became a divisible Why? No other mitigating or aggravating circumstance
penalty (reclusion temporal) by virtue of the presence so you apply the medium eh kung may mitigating
of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. circumstance you apply the minimum okay kung may
Therefore, a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of aggravating circumstance walang mitigating you apply
the maximum kung neither is present you apply the precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
medium, this is the case here in Mantalaba. instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, the same shall be submitted to the
This is a very important case, put an asterisk there not
PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and
only insofar as the limited applicability of the Revised
quantitative examination;
Penal Code but even the computation of the
indeterminate sentence law, diba. o A certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results, which shall be done by the
Magandang pang midterms itong kaso na ito, ewan ko
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued
lang kung nakikinig kayo.
immediately upon the receipt of the subject
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
7. CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE (Sec 21 RA 9165 as drugs, and controlled precursors and essential
amended) chemicals does not allow the completion of
Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or testing within the time frame, a partial
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, (Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, laboratory examination report shall be
as amended by Sec. 1, R.A. No. 10640) provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be
o The apprehending team having initial custody examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled however, That a final certification shall be issued
precursors and essential chemicals, immediately upon completion of the said
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory examination and certification;
equipment shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the ATTY. ESGUERRA: Important thing here is really the
seized items and photograph the same in the corpus delicti which is the drug confiscated or seized
presence of the accused or the person/s from from the accused and that’s where Section 21 on the
whom such items were confiscated and/or chain of custody rule insofar as preservation of the
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs will
with an elected public official and a come into play.
representative of the National Prosecution So, see, corpus delicti must be the very drug that was
Service or the media who shall be required to seized from the accused that was the subject of an
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a investigation by the police itself transferred to the
copy thereof: Forensic Chemist and eventually presented to court, so
o That the physical inventory and photograph shall there must have been no contamination whatsoever, the
be conducted at the place where the search drug must not have been compromised whatsoever,
warrant is served; or at the nearest police that’s why remember the phrase or the words integrity
station or at the nearest office of the and evidentiary value must be preserved. Yun yung
apprehending officer/team, whichever is minimum, if there were lapses and not observing the
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: procedure in the conduct of the inventory as explained
later when we took up Section 21 those lapsed must be
o That noncompliance of these requirements explained if there justifiable reasons, if there are no
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity justifiable reasons we will see, you know, they are not
and the evidentiary value of the seized items believable the court throw out the evidence and will
are properly preserved by the apprehending acquit the accused.
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures and custody over said items.

o Within twenty-four (24) hours upon 8. PEOPLE v. ROMY LIM

confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant Facts:
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
A buy bust operation was conducted for the • (2) In case of non-observance of the provision, the
apprehension of the accused allegedly with illegal apprehending/seizing officers must state the
possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride justification or explanation therefor as well as the
(shabu), Evident, however, is the absence of an steps they have taken in order to preserve the
elected public official and representatives of the DOJ integrity and evidentiary value of the
and the media to witness the physical inventory and seized/confiscated items;
photograph of the seized items. In fact, their • (3) If there is no justification or explanation
signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt. expressly declared in the sworn statements or
affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not
Issue: Whether the accused is liable for the crime of immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he
sale of dangerous drugs, Methamphetamine or she must refer the case for further preliminary
Hydrochloride despite the absence of witness investigation in order to determine the (non) existence
required under R.A. No. 9165. of probable cause; and
• (4) If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite
Held: No, accused cannot be held liable for the sale of such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to
dangerous drugs. In this case, a police officer testified either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant
that the witnesses did not arrive at the crime scene of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of
because it was late at night and it was raining, making probable cause in accordance with
it unsafe for them. Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.

Another police officer testified that the inventory was

made in the PDEA office considering that it was late in ATTY. ESGUERRA:
the evening and the media representative and The chain of custody, so from No. 1 to No. 4, from seizure
barangay officials are unavailable despite their effort
to the turn over by the apprehending officer to the
to contact them. He admitted that there are times
investigating officer and turnover of the seized drug from
when they do not inform the barangay officials prior
to their operation as they might leak the confidential the investigating officer to the Forensic Chemist and then
information. from there the turn over and even submission of the
illegal in court.
The links in the chain of custody that must be
That’s why it is important to preserve the integrity and
established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if
evidentiary value because if the seized drug has been
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover compromised, one way or the other, it has been exposed
of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to possible contamination or possible switching then
to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the there is issue about the corpus delicti, the accused
illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic cannot be convicted. Remember that 4 links in the chain
chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the of custody.
turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the
forensic chemist to the court. The case of People versus Romy Lim summarizes for us
what should be done in case of a buy bust operation in
The Supreme Court ruled that so as to “weed out early terms of the conduct of the inventory. So, we have seen
on from the courts’ already congested docket any who must be present, the accused or his counsel or his
orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases,” representative; 2) the presence of an elected public
the following should be enforced as a mandatory official plus either a representative from the National
policy in connection with arrests and seizures related Prosecution Service, that would be the Department of
to illegal drugs: Justice or a representative from the media then you have
•(1) In the sworn statements/affidavits, the establish the link the same seized drug that reached the
apprehending/seizing officers must state their court at the appropriate time when it is presented for
compliance with the requirements of Section 21(1) evidence. Okay, remember the links 1, 2, 3 and 4.
of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002), and its Implementing Rules and The essence of the chain of custody, the purpose is very
Regulations (IRR); clear – preserve the integrity and evidentiary value, if
there is a breach, a lapse as in this case where no
representative, no elective public official is present, no representative will possibly lead and here was certainly
media representative or representative from the to the dismissal of the case outright for lack of probable
national Prosecution Service the Supreme Court cause. See, how important this case is, so you better pay
invalidated the judgment of acquittal because there is an attention to this case.
issue about the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized drug, the corpus delicte itself. Look at the steps
there, the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, very 9. QUALIFIED CARNAPPING
important.
PEOPLE v. LAGAT
If the affidavit of arrest must contain the circumstances,
how the accused was arrested and how the drug in FACTS: The victim left home to “pasada” his tricycle.
questioned was seized from his person. Then the The next morning, his wife was informed that her
inventory conducted must be in the presence of those husband was killed and that his tricycle was used to
personalities that I have already discussed and in case of steal palay.
the absence in the affidavit of arrest there must be a
statement about the justification or explanation why HELD: The accused committed qualified carnapping.
There is carnapping when there was a taking of a
there was no presence of those personalities and if there
vehicle which belongs to another, without the consent
is nothing in the affidavit of arrest about the justification
of the owner with use of violence, intimidation or
then the Prosecutor who is inquest Prosecutor, kasi force, with intent to gain. It is qualified when the
warrantless arrest eto eh, more often than not, buy bust driver, passenger was killed during the taking or
eh, must conduct a regular preliminary investigation, carnapping. Motor vehicle is defined as any vehicle
since this is inquest, you have taken up your criminal propelled by any power other than muscle power
procedure, if you have taken up your criminal procedure using public highways. In this case, the tricycle was a
remember the inquest, when the person arrested is motor vehicle taken by force from the owner who was
brought to the Inquest Prosecutor, the inquest killed during the carnapping.
prosecutor in the absence of any request for the conduct
of a regular preliminary investigation finding the validity
ATTY. ESGUERRA:
and legality of the warrantless arrest and the basis Sa carnapping there was supposedly a question,
thereof will simply file the information in court, diba supposedly because it was not asked anymore but I knew
ganon ang nangyayari, pero ngayn dito sabi ng Supreme that the examiner was intending to ask it, the question
Court, teka muna kung walang explanation kung walang was what is qualified carnapping or otherwise known as
justification in the affidavit of arrest conduct a regular aggravated carnapping and here in Lagat, although this
preliminary investigation, do not file the information yet is a 2011 case, the carnapping is said to be qualified if the
in court. owner, what does it say, is it Lagat or the other case,
where the owner was the driver or the passenger was
Alright, but assuming lumampas, the inquest prosecutor killed, nakalagay lang ditto sa Lagat, when the driver
files the information notwithstanding the absence of passenger was killed including the owner under the new
explanation or justification in the affidavit of arrest for anti-carnapping act that is what you call aggravated or
the absence of the personalities that we have qualified carnapping.
mentioned, DOJ elected official, media, what will happen
the court will not issue a warrant of arrest here or a Now, the intriguing question will be – if there is
commitment order, yung commitment order is issued carnapping if a bicycle is mounted a motor engine and
remember if the person is already in custody, yung then the one using it, driver, was held up and killed
during the taking of the motorized bicycle so question is
warrant of arrest if the person is not yet in custody but
– will that constitute carnapping or qualified
be that as it may, the court is given the authority to
aggravated carnapping? Very very peculiar situation so
dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause. See, you have to argue from the point of view of whether or
so the absence of any justification or explanation in the not it is a vehicle and therefore justify that it is a vehicle
affidavit of arrest insofar as the presence of the because the motor is no longer propelled by mere human
personalities required to be there meaning an elected power but you see it was simply a bicycle where a motor
public officials plus a DOJ representative or a media engine was mounted and, you know, it was the motor
engine that propelled the bicycle so that may be a good 7. Unlawful tampering, obliteration or alteration
case to ask of you during your midterms, tingnan natin, of firearm’s identification (Sec. 34, R.A. No.
at the very least I’m saying if it is not carnapping is 10591);
robbery with violence against robbery with homicide 8. Planting evidence or the willful and malicious
because if the owner was killed, the driver of that bicycle insertion, placing and/or attachment or parts
turned motor bicycle is killed it can be robbery with thereof in the person, house, effects or in the
homicide, there is taking with force and violence and immediate vicinity of an innocent individual
attended by the killing of the owner so it robbery with for the purpose of implicating or incriminating
homicide within the contemplation of Art. 294 or anyway the person, or imputing the commission of any
just thinking aloud of what a possibly be asked with some violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 10591 to
excitement insofar as carnapping is concerned but more said individual (Sec. 38, R.A. No. 10591);
or less it will, you know, to be fair the question maybe on 9. Failure to notify lost or stolen firearm or light
aggravated or qualified carnapping. weapon to the Firearms and Explosives Office
(FEO) of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
within 30 days from discovery (Sec. 40(a), R.A.
10. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF LOOSE FIREARMS PLUS No. 10591);
ANOTHER CRIME 10. Failure to notify the FEO of the PNP of a
licensed person’s change of residence or
PUNISHABLE ACTS
office address, other than that indicated in the
license card, within 30 days from transfer (Sec.
1. Unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms
40(b), R.A. No. 10591); and
and ammunition (Sec. 28, R.A. No. 10591);
11. Illegal transfer or registration of firearms to
Aggravating Circumstances:
any person who has not yet be obtained or
a. Loaded with ammunition or inserted
secured the necessary license or permit
with a loaded magazine;
thereof (Sec. 41, R.A. No. 10591).
b. Fitted or mounted with laser or any
gadget used to guide the shooter to
hit the target such as thermal weapon ATTY. ESGUERRA:
sight and the like;
c. Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, Okay, take note, the situations are these, the former law
firearm muffler or firearm silencer; says before the new firearms law came into effect is that
d. Accompanied with an extra barrel; the use of a licensed firearms is aggravating in two
e. Converted to be capable of firing full crimes: that is homicide and murder and the condition is
automatic bursts. that no other crime was committed, meaning the use of
2. Use of Loose Firearm in the commission of a a licensed firearm it is punishable and the person so
crime – considered as an aggravating apprehended with unlicensed firearm may be so held
circumstance (Sec. 29, R.A. No. 10591);
liable provided no other crime was committed because if
3. Carriage of registered firearm outside of
there is any other committed, with or without the use of
residence by a license person without any
legal authority therefor (Sec. 31, R.A. No. the unlicensed firearm, a possession of unlicensed
10591); forearm is deemed absorbed by the other crime so the
4. Unlawful Manufacture, sale, importation, prosecution is for the other crime as noted in the first
acquisition, disposition or possession of disticntion, but that is no longer the case, now it is only
firearms or ammunition or instruments (Sec. aggravating if the use of unlicensed firearm is inherent to
32(a), R.A. No. 10591); the commission of the crime, when you say inherent so
5. Unlawful taking, sale or disposition by any indispensably the use of unlicensed firearm must be an
laborer, worker or employee of a licensed element somehow of the crime.
firearms dealer of parts of firearms or
ammunition which the company Now, if on the other hand, the accused commits another
manufactures and sells, and other materials crime without using the firearm and this is the change,
used by the company in the manufacture or where the change also lies, without using the firearm
sale of firearms or ammunition (Sec. 32(b), then he will be prosecuted for 2 crimes, one will be for
R.A. No. 10591); the crime he committed and the other will be for illegal
6. Arms smuggling (Sec. 33, R.A. No. 10591);
possession or violation of the comprehensive firearms FACTS:
and ammunitions regulation act, illegal possession of Four informations were filed against Ladjaalam in the
loose firearms, hindi na unlicensed firearms ang tawag Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, three of which
eh, loose firearms. Okay, take note, kung inherent it is an he was found guilty, to wit: (1) maintaining a drug den;
aggravating circumstance, if the accused commits (2) illegal possession of firearm and ammunition; and
another crime without using the loose firearm, he may (30 direct assault with multiple attempted homicide.
be prosecuted or he should be prosecuted for 2 crimes,
ISSUE:
for the crime he committed and for illegal possession of
Can the use of an unlicensed firearm be considered as
loose firearms.
an aggravating circumstance?
The doctrine of absorption, you remember in complex
crimes one of the exceptions in the application or HELD:
No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that
applicability of Art. 48 on complex crimes is one – you
any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm
cannot complex a grave or less grave felony punished or
or ammunition shall be penalized, unless no other
defined under the Revised Penal Code with an offense crime was committed. Furthermore, if homicide or
punished under special penal law because this offense murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
under the special penal law is not, technically a felony firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
under the Revised Penal Code so Art . 48 cannot apply considered as an aggravating circumstance. Since the
but the other exception in the application or applicability crime committed was direct assault and not homicide
of Art. 48 is a situation where there is what we call or murder, illegal possession of firearm cannot be
absorption of a crime or crimes by other crimes, so one deemed an aggravating circumstance.
will be rebellion as we have seen in the case of People v.
Hernandez and even Gumabon v. Director of Prisons
Agote v. Lorenzo (2005)
where common crimes committed to achieve the
purposes of the rebellion such as murder, homicide, FACTS:
robbery and even arson are deemed absorbed in the Agote was charged to have violated Presidential
crime of rebellion, that is actually the application of the Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Posssession of Firearms) and
doctrine of absorption vis a vis Art. 48, so art. 48 will not a COMELEC resolution (gun ban). He carried a .38
apply. caliber revolver with four (4) live bullets in a public
place during election. During the pendency of the
Now here there is also doctrine of absorption, what is the case, R.A. No. 8294 was approved into law. The trial
crime being absorbed, well in the crimes of rebellion court found Agote liable of the charges against. Agote
insurrection or coup d’etat, attempted coup d’etat, mali assails that the penalty for illegal possession of
yang attempted eh, coup d’etat, attempted coup d’etet firearms had already been reduced pursuant to R.A.
kasi yung nature ng coup d’etat always attempted, I think No. 8294.
I have shared this with you, always attempted yan
because if it’s succeed who will prosecute, if they hold HELD:
the range of government, the coup d’etat succeeds who Yes. The rule is that penal laws shall have a retroactive
will prosecute them, no one because they are in power effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a
so coup d’etat should be coup d’etat not attempted, mali felony. Republic Act No. 8294 lowers the penalty for
na naman yung ating mambabatas diyan eh. illegal possession of firearms depending on the class of
firearm possessed. The lighter penalty may be
Anyway, in these crimes if there is use or even possession imposed to a person who shall unlawfully possess any
of illegal unlicensed firearms or loose firearms the use or firearm or ammunition, “unless no other crime was
carrying of these loose firearms or unlicensed firearms committed”.
are deemed absorbed in crimes for rebellion, But as violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 or
insurrection or coup d’etat, so that is the doctrine of the Gun Ban was also committed by the petitioner at
the same time, the Court cannot but set aside
absorption here in this particular special penal law.
petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of
People v. Ladjaalam (2000) firearm.
 Evangelista v. People (2010) the penalty the following rules, according to whether
there are or are not mitigating or aggravating
FACTS: circumstances:
Teofilo Evangelista was an OFW from Angola on his
way back to the Philippines. While he was in Dubai 5. When there are two or more mitigating
Airport, the authorities discovered that Evangelista circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are
was carrying an Israeli submachine gun with present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower
ammunition without license. This was reported to the to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
PAL Officers in Dubai and the gun was handed to the deem applicable, according to the number and nature
pilot. Upon arriving at NAIA, he was arrested by the of such circumstances.
Customs police and was made to sign a Customs
Declaration Form. In his defense, Evangelista claims
that he had no actual possession of the firearms as it It tells that when two or more mitigating circumstances
was with the plane pilot are present, no aggravating circumstance the court may
apply a penalty next lower in degree. This is referred to
HELD: as special mitigating circumstance. Special because it is
To be guilty of illegal possession of firearms and provided by law. When it talks about the next lower in
ammunition, one does not have to be in actual degree, you again refer to the graduated scale.
possession thereof. The law does not punish physical
possession alone but possession on general including EXAMPLE:
constructive possession or the subjection of the thing A 17 year old, Boy, killed his friend named Boyet, the
to the owner’s control. It is a state of mind but the real killing was not attended by any qualifying circumstances
intent could be determined based on his prior or so the killing is plain and simple homicide.
contemporaneous acts and surrounding
circumstances explaining how he came into Boy after killing Boyet actually voluntarily surrendered to
possession. The Customs declaration form and the authorities and when he was arraigned, the
admissions during trial were used as basis for showing information was read to him, the allegations. He pleaded
he owned and possessed the items. guilty.

Voluntary plead of guilt – mitigating circumstance under

11. SPECIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE Art. 13
(voluntary surrender plus voluntary confession Minority – mitigating circumstance
of guilt)
Applying Art. 64, par. 5, the penalty should be prision
This is special mitigating circumstance, and not privileged
correccional
mitigating circumstance per se based on Article 68 (2)
and Article 69. Minority – one degree lower
1. Two or more mitigating circumstances with NO Special mitigating circumstance (2 mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating) – one degree lower
aggravating circumstances

2. Only applicable to penalties which contain three Therefore:

periods – reclusion temporal and lower. It cannot be The penalty will be two degrees lower than
applied to reclusion perpetua which is an indivisible that prescribed by law
penalty.
12. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT (ART. 39 RPC)
Article 64 par. 5 – special mitigating circumstances
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties Article 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no
which contain three periods. – In cases in which the property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the
penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be
whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of
three different penalties, each one of which forms a 1 day for each P8, subject to the following rules:
period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76
and 77, the court shall observe for the application of
 1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision non-payment of fine in eight (8) cases of violation of
correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. Blg. 22).
confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding
paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment ISSUE: Whether Alapan may undergo subsidiary
shall not exceed ⅓ of the term of the sentence, and in imprisonment for failure to pay the fine.
no case shall it continue for more than 1 year, and no
fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the HELD: No. Administrative Circular No. 13-2001
prisoner. provides that "should only a fine be imposed and the
accused be unable to pay the fine, there is no legal
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code
the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 6 provisions on subsidiary imprisonment." However, the
months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a Circular does not sanction indiscriminate imposition of
grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed 15 subsidiary imprisonment for the same must still
days, if for a light felony. comply with the law. Here, the judgment of conviction
did not provide subsidiary imprisonment in case of
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision failure to pay the penalty of fine. Thus, subsidiary
correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imprisonment may not be imposed without violating
imposed upon the culprit. the RPC and the constitutional provision on due
process.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be
executed by confinement in a penal institution, but 13. PROXIMATE CAUSE
such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during - the cause, which, in the natural and continuous
the period of time established in the preceding rules, sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those cause, produces the injury, and without which
of which the principal penalty consists. the result would not have occurred.

5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict • One who commits an intentional felony is responsible
may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not for all the consequences which may naturally and
relieve him, from the fine in case his financial logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or
circumstances should improve (as amended by R.A. intended or not.
No. 5465, April 21, 1969).
• Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal
There is substitution of deprivation of liberty (subsidiary causado
imprisonment under Article 39 of the Revised Penal “He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil
Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10159) for pecuniary caused”
penalties in case of insolvency of the accused, and the
penalty imposed is not higher than prision correccional. • When a person has not committed a felony, he is not
criminally liable for the result which is not intended.
N.B. Subsidiary imprisonment is computed at the rate of
one day for each amount equivalent to the highest When death is presumed to be the natural consequence
minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the of physical injuries inflicted:
time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the
trial court (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 10159). 1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries
were inflicted was in normal health.
People v. Alapan 2. That the death may be expected from the
G.R. No. 199527 (10 January 2018) physical injuries inflicted.
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.
FACTS: In an Information dated 26 May 2006,
respondent Salvador Alapan (Alapan) and his wife The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the
Myrna Alapan (Myrna) were charged with eight (8) resulting injury when:
counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P.
Blg. 22). They were convicted. They filed a petition 1. There is an active force that intervened between
seeking the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for the felony committed and the resulting injury,
 and the active force is a distinct act or fact attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in
absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the its maximum period.
accused; or So the consequence may still result into a mitigating
2. The resulting injury is due to the intentional act circumstance, the wrongful act may be different from
of the victim. that intended and a mitigating circumstance may be
appreciated in favor of the accused over and above the
The causes which may produce a result different from consequences in terms of the penalty imposable under
that which the offender intended are: Art. 49.

ERROR IN PERSONAE – mistake in the identity of the WACOY v. PEOPLE

victim; injuring one person mistaken for another (this is G.R. Nos. 213792 and 213886, 22 June 2015
a complex crime under Art. 49)
FACTS: A was sprawled on the ground. While in that
ABERRATIO ICTUS – mistake in the blow, that is, when position, B kicked A's stomach twice, after which, B
the offender intending to do an injury to one person picked up a rock to throw at A but was restrained from
actually inflicts it on another; and doing so. As A stood up, C punched him on the
stomach, causing him to collapse. Thereafter, A was
PRAETER INTENTIONEM – the act exceeds the intent, taken to the hospital where he suffered cardiac arrest,
that is, the injurious result is greater than that intended. lapsed into a coma and later died.

ATTY. ESGUERRA: ISSUE: Were B and C’s act the proximate cause of A’s
You cannot afford not to understand the this concepts so death?
the resulting, I mean what results from all of these, error
in personae, abratio ictus, praeter intentionem, is that HELD: Yes. B's contention that their intent was
the person who performed the act is liable one way of only to inflict slight physical injuries on A, and should
the other whether or not he says that –no I did not intend only be meted a lesser penalty, pursuant to Article 49
to kill him but I intend to kill another or no I did not of the RPC is unmeritorious. Article 49 of the RPC
intend to harm him that way I only intended to do a applies only where the crime committed is different
lesser harm, that will not detract from his criminal from that intended and where the felony committed
liability. So, better remember these 3 concepts. befalls a different person (error in personae); and not
to cases where more serious consequences not
Article 49 of RPC. Penalty to be imposed upon the intended by the offender result from his felonious act
principals when the crime committed is different (praeter intentionem), as in this case. If the victim dies
from that intended. — In cases in which the felony because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent
committed is different from that which the offender to kill is conclusively presumed. In such case, even if
intended to commit, the following rules shall be there is no intent to kill, the crime is Homicide because
observed: with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed law looks particularly to the material results following
be higher than that corresponding to the offense the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible
which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for all the consequences thereof.
corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its
maximum period. Nacino v. Ombudsman
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed G.R. 234789-91, 3 September 2019
be lower than that corresponding to the one which the Facts: Former President Benigno Aquino III, former
accused intended to commit, the penalty for the PNP Chief Purisima and PNP-Special Action Force
former shall be imposed in its maximum period. (PNP-SAF) Chief General Napenas were charged with
3. The rule established by the next preceding reckless imprudence resulting in homicide for the
paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts death of 44 PNP-SAF members of tin January 2015
committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an (“SAF 44”). According to the complaints, Aquino
attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law should be criminally liable for reckless imprudence
prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter resulting in multiple homicide because: (a) he
offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the approved the recommendation of Purisima and
Napeñas on the dates on which the operation shall be
conducted; (b) he had full participation in Oplan indication of Aquino's knowledge of these operations
Exodus; and (c) he allowed then suspended PNP Chief to capture high-value targets is dated April 2014; (b)
Purisima to participate not only in the planning of with respect to Aquino's alleged approval of the
Oplan Exodus but also in the running of the operation, "secondary date" of the execution of Oplan Exodus,
and even in giving information and intelligence while records show that following the briefing on January 9,
the operation was ongoing. 2015, Purisima informed Aquino of Napeñas'
preference for the "secondary date" through a text
Purisima should be held criminally liable because message, to which Aquino replied with a simple
despite being already barred from om performing the "Okay."1Aside from the fact that this date was
functions of the PNP Chief due to his suspension, he: recommended by Napeñas himself, Aquino's cursory
(a) himself present when Napeñas gave a briefing and reply was a mere formality, an acknowledgment of a
mission update on Oplan Exodus to the President; (b) preference made by the leader of the operating
gave instructions to Napenas to not inform the DILG troops; (c) Aquino's suggestions during the briefing to
Secretary and the OIC of the PNP regarding Oplan increase the number of troops and coordinate with
Exodus until the morning of January 25, 2015; (c) the AFP appear to be spontaneous remarks to a
continued to involve himself in Oplan Exodus by completed operation plan presented to him for his
exchanging messages with Napeñas before and during information; and (d) nothing on record shows that
the operation; and (d) provided updates to Aquino on Aquino gave orders to Purisima during the conduct of
the progress of the operation. Oplan Exodus. The latter merely forwarded to Aquino
the messages sent by Napeñas on the outcome and
Napenas should be held criminally liable for reckless incidents of the operation, and Aquino, at some
imprudence resulting in multiple homicide because as points, merely asked for clarification.
head of the PNP-SAF, he had direct participation in the
planning and execution of Oplan Exodus which Purisima’s actions are not the proximate cause of the
resulted in the death of the SAF 44. death of the SAF 44 because during the conduct of the
operation, there is no indication that he gave orders to
Issue: Whether the acts of Aquino, Purisima and Napeñas. The record bears that he merely gave
Napenas are the proximate cause of the death of the guidance on the result of his coordination with the AFP
SAF 44, and are bases to hold them criminally liable. and other persons, and asked for updates which he
forwarded to the President. Looking at the big picture,
Ruling: No. Proximate cause is defined as that cause, Purisima's main role in the entire undertaking
which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken appeared merely to connect the SAF to the President.
by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, Oplan Exodus was admittedly the brainchild of the
and without which the result would not have SAF, led by Napeñas. The fact that Purisima worked on
occurred. And more comprehensively, the proximate the sidelines is an internal recognition of his lack of
legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, authority to act because of his suspension from office.
either immediately or by setting other events in
motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain There was negligence on the part of Napeñas in the
of events, each having a close causal connection with planning and execution of Oplan Exodus, but the
its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain confluence of other factors contributing to its tragic
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and ending, i.e., problems with the Global Positioning
probable result of the cause which first acted, under System (GPS) devices, difficulty of the troops in
such circumstances that the person responsible for negotiating the terrain at night resulting in delay for
the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and the troops to reach their respective positions, and
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect failure in communication between the PNP and the
at the moment of his act or default that an injury to AFP, prevents the court from finding probable cause
some person might probably result therefrom. to charge him with reckless imprudence resulting in
multiple homicide.
Aquino’s actions are not the proximate cause of the
death of the SAF 44 because: (a) since December 2010, RSE: Article 4 paragraph 2, according to the provision,
it was the SAF, at most times supervised by Napeñas, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person
that conceptualized and implemented operations to committing a felony although the wrong act be different
capture international terrorist Marwan. The earliest from that which he intended. This is actually the basis of
proximate cause. The obvious implication of the incident, the driver and the conductor did not do
provision is that whatever the consequences of the act, anything to prevent the people with the torches from
which is wrongful, one should be held responsible for approaching the overturned bus.
such consequences.
People v. Iligan
Okay, now I don't know if you have memorized or if you G.R. No. 75369 (26 November 1990)
will dare to memorize the Latin phrase about proximate FACTS: Before the incident, Quinones and 2 others got
cause. El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal into an altercation with Ilagan. They were able to run
causado, He who is the cause of the cause is the cause away from Ilagan. Later on, while the three were
of the evil caused. Kaya ba? Pag yan cinite niyo walking to Quinones’ house, Ilagan suddenly emerged
pagtinanong ko proximate cause, 5 agad kayo. Plus 5. and hacked Quinones in the head with a bolo. The
blow caused Quinones to fall on the highway where he
Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina was ran over by a vehicle causing his death.
102 Phil 181 (1957)
FACTS: A bus traveling from Cavite to Pasay HELD: Under these circumstances, we hold that while
overturned to the side of the highway because its front Iligan’s hacking of Quiñones, Jr.’s head might not have
tire burst. Three of the passengers were stuck behind been the direct cause, it was the proximate cause of
the driver seat. During this time, oil spilled out of the the latter’s death. Proximate legal cause is defined as
bus. The people living near the area responded to the "that acting first and producing the injury, either
calls for help. They carried torches because it was dark immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
as it was already past midnight. constituting a natural and continuous chain of events,
each having a close causal connection with its
Unfortunately, the bus was set ablaze because the immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
torches ignited the gasoline which leaked and spread immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
around the bus. The bus company claims that the probable result of the cause which first acted, under
proximate cause of the death of the victims was the such circumstances that the person responsible for
torch which triggered the fire and not their negligence. the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect
HELD: A definition of proximate cause is found in at the moment of his act or default that an injury to
Volume 38, pp.695-696 of American jurisprudence, some person might probably result therefrom." In
cited by plaintiffs-appellants in their brief. It is as other words, the sequence of events from Iligan’s
follows: assault on him to the time Quiñones, Jr. was run over
. . . 'that cause, which, in natural and continuous by a vehicle is, considering the very short span of time
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening between them, one unbroken chain of events. Having
cause, produces the injury, and without which the triggered such events, Iligan cannot escape liability.
result would not have occurred.' And more
comprehensively, 'the proximate legal cause is that EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by setting other events in motion, all Urbano v. IAC 157 SCRA 1 (1998)
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events,
each having a close causal connection with its FACTS: One morning, Urbano found his palay flooded.
immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain Javier admitted to opening the irrigation canal which
immediately effecting the injury as a natural and angered Urbano. This led to a heated argument which
probable result of the cause which first acted, under ended with Urbano hitting Javier on the palm with a
such circumstances that the person responsible for bolo. The wound was treated but Javier died a month
the first event should, as an ordinary prudent and later due to tetanus.
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect
at the moment of his act or default that an injury to HELD: The proximate cause of the death of Marcelo
some person might probably result therefrom. Javier was due to his own negligence, that Dr. Mario
Meneses found no tetanus in the injury, and that
In this case, the proximate cause of the death is the Javier got infected with tetanus when after 2 weeks he
carrier’s negligence in transporting their passengers. returned to his farm and tended his tobacco plants
The tires of the bus were not replaced and during the with his bare hands exposing the wound to harmful
 elements like tetanus germs. The medical findings lead Q: May you hold Pedro liable for the death of B and C,
us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the taking into consideration the doctrine of proximate
wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause cause?
later or between the time Javier was wounded to the A: YES. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of
time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct the evil caused. If Pedro did not somehow go berserk and
and foreign to the crime. started shooting, even if it was shooting in the air, it
would not have frightened or it would have not caused
RSE: It was the negligence here of the victim. After having fright on B and C. B and C would not have escaped or
been treated he went back to the farm and tended his jumped out of the window of the bus. You can still argue
Tobacco plants where he incurred the germ for the that Pedro was the cause. His going berserk, no matter
tetanus. That’s an efficient intervening cause. how we can sympathize with what happened to him, the
fact of the matter is that he did something wrong. What
Q: What is Error in Personae, Aberratio Ictus and was that wrong? He got his pistol, he got his caliber 22,
Praeter Intentionem? fired it in the air and that frightened the two victims. It's
A: The causes which may produce a result different from a question of logical connection of the causal relationship
that which the offender intended. about the drawing of the gun, the firing of it, causing the
fear on two passengers and the two passengers jumping
Error in Personae is a mistake in the identity of the victim out of the window out of fear and died.
injuring one person mistaken for another. The legal
effect here is a complex crime under article 49. That’s why it's called El que es causa de la causa es causa
del mal causado. He who is the cause of the cause is the
Aberratio Ictus is a mistake in the blow that is when the cause of the evil caused.
offender intending to do an injury to one person actually
inflicts it on another. Q: For instance, one of you actually hates your professor
because he failed you in your subject. Then assuming
NOTE: Take note of the distinction between Error in that we're still doing classes on site. You waited for him
Personae and Aberratio Ictus. That may simply also be at the gate or at the entrance or at the back of the Main
the question, What is Aberratio Ictus? Distinguish it from Building. As the professor was getting out, you actually
Error in Personae. tripped him using your right leg and then he fell on the
pavement, headfirst and then his cranium broke, his skull
Praeter Intentionem, a more understandable concept is broke that cause severe hemorrhage in his head and then
when the act exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious he died.
result is greater than that indented. A: Proximate cause pa rin yan. What was the wrong that
he did? Mantak mo naman, pinatid mo yung professor.
SITUATION: That was wrong though you did not intend to kill, that
If Pedro has been dismissed from his employment by the will be Praeter Intentionem.
company by reason of the pandemic. There have been
several forces not really resignation. They've been ERROR IN PERSONAE (Mistake in Identity)
dismissed because businesses have been losing. So
anyway, Pedro was dismissed from employment and People v. Oanis (supra) 74 Phil 257 (1943)
took a bus coming from Makati going North to Quezon, FACTS: Police Officer Oanis and other officers were
City and his thoughts were on his family: how he will be instructed to arrest Balagtas, an escaped convict. On
able to support his family, provide for them specially with the day of the operation, the police officers were given
children who are all of school age in terms of providing tips on where to find the convict. When they arrived
them education. at a house where Balagtas was believed to be at, Oanis
and Galanta saw a man sleeping with his back towards
Then so many things you know crossed his mind and then the door. They shot simultaneously or successively at
suddenly he shouted “Papatayin ko kayo!” and took from him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. As it was
his bag you, a backpack, a caliber 22 pistol and started found later, the man killed was an innocent citizen
firing in the air. This frightened two of the passengers named Tecson. In their defense, the accused claims
who were seated some rows away from Pedro. that there was a mistake in identity.
Passenger B and C jumped while the bus was running.
They fell on the road and died.
 HELD: The crime committed by appellants is not Appellants accuse the trial court of engaging in
merely criminal negligence, the killing being conjecture in ruling that there was aberratio ictus in
intentional and not accidental. In criminal negligence, this case.
the injury caused to another should be unintentional,
it being simply the incident of another act performed HELD: The allegation does not advance the cause of
without malice. A deliberate intent to do an unlawful the appellants. It must be stressed that the trial court
act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless relied on the concept of aberratio ictus to explain why
imprudence, and where such unlawful act is wilfully the appellants staged the ambush, not to prove that
done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim appellants did in fact commit the crimes. In any event,
cannot be considered as reckless imprudence to the lower court was not engaging in conjecture
support a plea of mitigated liability. As the deceased because the conclusion that the appellants killed the
was killed while asleep, the crime committed is wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial
murder with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia. statement of appellant Beronga and the testimony of
one witness. Nonetheless, the fact that they were
RSE: People v. Oanis is a case that likewise gives us an mistaken does not diminish their culpability. Mistake
instance of the privilege incomplete privilege mitigating in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as
circumstance of fulfillment of a duty. They were carrying when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim.
out actually an order. They got a tip but instead of
ascertaining the identity of the victim, they immediately People v. Esteban 103 SCRA 520 (1981)
shot him while the victim was asleep and that of course FACTS: Earlier in the day, Maravilla and Lulu went to
did not _____ for them. While they were charged with the house of Camaya to collect the balance from a
murder. compromise agreement in the killing of Lulu’s
husband. Camaya said that Esteban would pay the
Supposedly death or now Reclusion Perpetua to death. balance. Later that evening, Maravilla went to the
They were given a privilege mitigating. What was house of Maria Pascua where there was a drinking
appreciated was the privileged mitigating circumstance session. At around 11 in the evening, gunshots were
of incomplete fulfillment of a duty. See the facts of the fired at Maravilla and his companions. The owner of
case. So why they were held liable but afforded or the house Maria was found dead while Maravilla was
accorded the incomplete privilege mitigating fatally wounded but survived due to timely medical
circumstance of fulfillment of duty. intervention.

People v. Gona 54 Phil 605 (1930) HELD: The fact that Esteban intended to kill Maravilla
FACTS: A celebration with liberal supply of alcohol was and in the course of the assault incidentally killed
taking place at a house. The Gona and Dunca got into Maria Pascua makes him liable for murder just the
a quarrel. Later on, Dunca left the house with several same because a person committing a felony is
people. Gona took a bolo and followed the group with criminally liable although the wrongful act done be
the intent to kill Dunca. He hacked someone in the different from that which he intended (Article 4, RPC).
neck which caused the person’s death. It turns out that This rule covers aberratio ictus or mistake as to victim.
the person hacked was Mapudul. Gona’s defense was Esteban is guilty of murder of Maria Pascual and
that there was error in personae as he really intended frustrated murder of Maravilla.
to kill Dunca and not Mapundul.
G.R. No. 205228 (15 July 2015)
HELD: Mistake in killing one man instead of another FACTS: One morning, a Toyota Corolla drove
cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance when alongside a Honda CRV and the passenger of the
it is proved that he acted maliciously and willfully. Corolla shot the CRV causing it to swerve and fall into
a canal. Four men alighted the Corolla and started
ABERRATIO ICTUS (Miscarriage in the Blow) shooting at the driver. A bystander was also killed by a
stray bullet. The accused were convicted of 2 counts
People v. Sabalones 294 SCRA 751 (1988) of murder.
FACTS: 2 vehicles proceeded to the house of Stephen
Lim when Sabalones et. al. fired towards the vehicles HELD: Although the bystander’s death was by no
killing 2 of the passengers and seriously injuring 3 means deliberate, we shall adhere to the prevailing
others. The lower court convicted the accused. jurisprudence pronounced in People v. Flora, where
the Court ruled that treachery may be appreciated in hold of the broom and using its wooden handle, hit
aberratio ictus. In Flora, the accused was convicted of Ronald's head and body. The next day, she got hold of
2 separate counts of murder: for the killing of 2 the broom again, and using its wooden handle, hit
victims, Emerita, the intended victim, and Ireneo, the Ronald's head and body. Accused was convicted of
victim killed by a stray bullet. The Court, due to the parricide. On appeal, accused faulted the trial court for
presence of the aggravating circumstance of finding her guilty of parricide. She also argued that
treachery, qualified both killings to murder. The even assuming she killed Ronald, the mitigating
material facts in Flora are similar in the case at bar. circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a
Thus, we follow the Flora doctrine. wrong must be appreciated in her favor.

PRAETER INTENTIONEM HELD: Accused was sufficiently shown to have used

brute force on Ronald so much so that the hanger she
People v. Cagoco 58 Phil 524 (1933) initially used snapped. Even then, accused did not
FACTS: Father and son Yu were standing on the stop; she got hold of the broom and using its wooden
sidewalk in Manila. While they were talking, Cagoco handle hit Ronald in the head and all over his body.
was moving back and forth behind Yu Lon before The following morning, accused saw Ronald's critical
hitting him at the back of the head with his fist. Yu died condition. There was vomit on his bed and on the
later that night. Cagoco claims that he should be floor. His jogging pants were wet with urine. He was so
convicted only for slight physical injuries instead of weak he could neither get up, nor hold a spoon. He
murder. later fell to the ground. But accused still did not take
pity on her young child. Again, she got the broom and
HELD: Since the accused struck the deceased from pushed its handle inside Ronald's mouth. Accused,
behind and without warning, he acted with treachery. therefore, cannot be credited with the mitigating
"There is treachery when the offender commits any of circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a
the crimes against the person, employing means, wrong.
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and especially to insure its execution, without RSE: People v. Gonzales is a 2019 case, take note of that,
risk to himself arising from the defense which the not only of the Child Abuse but in so far as the crime or
offended party might make." Article 4(1) of the RPC felony of Parricide is concern.
provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any
person committing a felony (delito) although the 14. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
wrongful act done be different from that which he Art. 4. Criminal Liability. – Criminal liability shall be
intended; but in order that a person may be criminally incurred:
liable for a felony different from that which he
proposed to commit, it is indispensable that the two 2. By any person performing an act which would
following requisites be present, to wit: (a) That a be an offense against persons or property, were
felony was committed; and (b) that the wrong done to it not for the inherent impossibility of its
the aggrieved person be the direct consequence of the accomplishment or an account of the
crime committed by the offender. We have seen that employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
under the circumstances of this case the defendant is
liable for the killing of Yu Lon, because his death was Impossible Crime: requisites
the direct consequence of defendant's felonious act of 1. That the act performed would be an offense
striking him on the head. If the defendant had not against persons (Title VIII, RPC) or property (Title
committed the assault in a treacherous manner. he X, RPC). Felonies against persons: Parricide,
would nevertheless have been guilty of homicide, Murder, Homicide, Infanticide, Abortion, Duel,
although he did not intend to kill the deceased; and Physical Injuries, Rape
since the defendant did commit the crime with
treachery, he is guilty of murder, because of the Felonies against property: Robbery, Brigandage, Theft,
presence of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Usurpation, Culpable Insolvency, Swindling and other
deceits, Removal, Sale or Pledge of Mortgaged Property,
People v. Gonzales G.R. No. 217022 (3 June 2019) Arson and other crimes involving destruction, Malicious
FACTS: Using a hanger, accused hit Ronald several Mischief
times until it snapped. Still, she did not stop. She got
 2. That the act was done with evil intent. • However, where the means employed is adequate
- The offender must have intent to do injury to and the result expected is not produced, it is not an
another. impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
• Why is an impossible crime punishable? - It is
3. That its accomplishment is inherently punishable in order to suppress criminal tendencies.
impossible, or that the means employed is either Objectively, the offender has not committed a felony,
inadequate or ineffectual. but subjectively, he is a criminal.

• “That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or

that the means employed is either inadequate or ATTEMPTED OR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
ineffectual.” FRUSTRATED

A. The commission of the offense is inherently The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished
impossible of accomplishment
• The act intended by the offender is by its nature
The evil intent of the The evil intent of the
one of impossible accomplishment.
offender is possible of offender cannot be
• There must be either: (a) LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY,
accomplishment accomplished
or (b) PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
Examples:
1. when one tries to kill another by putting
in his drink a substance which he The evil intent cannot The evil intent of the
believes to be arsenic when in fact it is be accomplished offender cannot be
common salt; because of the accomplished because it is
2. when one tries to murder a corpse. intervention of certain inherently impossible of
cause or accident in accomplishment or
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even which the offender had because the means
if completed, would not amount to a crime. Legal no part employed by the offender is
impossibility would apply to those circumstances where inadequate or ineffectual
(1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an
act in violation of the law; (2) there is intention to
perform the physical act; (3) there is a performance of
the intended physical act; and (4) the consequence
resulting from the intended act does not amount to a
crime. The impossibility of killing a person already dead
falls in this category.
Intod v. CA 215 SCRA 52 (1992)
On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when
FACTS: Intod went to Palangpangan’s house, all armed
extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
with firearms. They went to the bedroom and began
beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
firing their weapons. However, Palangpangan was in
intended crime. One example is the man who puts his
another city and her home was occupied by her son-
hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to
in-law and his family. No one was in the room when
steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket
the accused fired their weapons. RTC convicted the
empty. (Intod v. Court of Appeals, 21 October 1992)
accused of attempted murder.
B. The means employed is either inadequate or
HELD: The accused is guilty of an impossible crime. The
ineffectual
factual situation in the case presents a physical
impossibility which rendered the intended crime
Example: when one tries to poison another but the
impossible of performance.
quantity of arsenic added in his substance was not
sufficient to kill a person.
• Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the
crime because the means employed or the aims sought
are inadequate or ineffectual
 Jacinto v. People
592 SCRA 426 (2009)
• When the person intending to commit an offense has
already performed the acts for the execution of the In this case, petitioner performed all the acts
same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by to consummate the crime of qualified theft, which is
reason of the fact that the act intended was by its a crime against property. Petitioner's evil intent
nature one of impossible accomplishment or because cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully
the means employed by such person are essentially taking the check meant for Mega Foam showed her
inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not
court, having in mind the social danger and the degree for the fact that the check bounced, she would have
of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon received the face value thereof, which was not
him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the
500 pesos (Article 59). extraneous circumstance of the check being
unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time,
Quinto v. Andres (supra) that prevented the crime from being produced. The
FACTS: Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school pupil, thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be
and his playmate, Wilson Quinto (about 11 years old) absolutely worthless, because the check was
saw Andres and Pacheco who invited them to go eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received
fishing inside a drainage culvert. Wilson assented but the cash to replace the value of said dishonored
Garcia seeing that it was dark inside opted to remain check.
seated in a grassy area about 2 meters from the
entrance of the drainage system. Pacheco, Andres There can be no question that as of the time
and Quinto, entered the drainage system which was that petitioner took possession of the check meant
covered by concrete culvert about a meter high and for Mega Foam, she had performed all the acts to
a meter wide, with water about a foot deep. After a consummate the crime of theft, had it not been
while, Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out of impossible of accomplishment in this case. The
the drainage system and left without saying a word. circumstance of petitioner receiving the P5,000.00
Andres also came out, went back inside, and cash as supposed replacement for the dishonored
emerged again, this time, carrying Wilson who was check was no longer necessary for the
already dead. Andres laid the boy's lifeless body consummation of the crime of qualified theft.
down in the grassy area. Shocked at the sudden turn Obviously, the plan to convince Baby Aquino to give
of events, Garcia fled from the scene. For his part, cash as replacement for the check was hatched only
Andres went to the house of Melba Quinto, Wilson's after the check had been dishonored by the drawee
mother, and informed her that her son had died. bank. Since the crime of theft is not a continuing
Melba Quinto rushed to the drainage culvert while offense, petitioner's act of receiving the cash
Andres followed her. replacement should not be considered as a
continuation of the theft. At most, the fact that
HELD: The Court ruled that respondents cannot be petitioner was caught receiving the marked money
held criminally nor civilly liable for the death of was merely corroborating evidence to strengthen
Wilson. In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof of her intent to gain.
proof of any ill-motive on the part of either
respondent to kill the deceased before or after the 15. ALEVOSIA
latter was invited to join them in fishing. Indeed, the
petitioner testified that respondent Andres used to Par. 16. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH
go to their house and play with her son before the TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA).
latter's death. When petitioner's son died inside the
drainage culvert, it was respondent Andres who There is treachery when the offender commits
brought out the deceased. He then informed the any of the crimes against person, employing means
petitioner of her son's death. Even after informing methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend
the petitioner of the death of her son, respondent directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
Andres followed the petitioner on her way to the to himself arising from the defense which the offended
grassy area where the deceased was. party might take.
 A treacherous attack is one in which the victim • The means, methods or forms used by the perpetrator
was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or need not insure accomplishment of crime.
resist the attack. The existence of treachery is not solely • The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
determined by the type of weapon used. If it appears
that the weapon was deliberately chosen to insure the Attacks which show intention to eliminate risk:
execution of the crime, and to render the victim • Victim asleep (People v. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722
defenseless, then treachery may be properly appreciated 27 July 1943).
against the accused (People v. Labiaga, G.R. No. 202867, • Victim half-awake or just awakened.
15 July 2013). • Victim grappling or being held.
• Victim was a child of tender age (U.S. v. Antonio,
The essence of treachery is the sudden and G.R. No. L-10562, 3 August 1915)
unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim, depriving
the victim of any chance to defend himself. (People v. As a rule, a sudden attack by the assailant,
Bosito, G.R. No. 209346, 12 January 2015) whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such
mode of attack was coolly and deliberately adopted by
For treachery to be appreciated, circumstances him, with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance
must be present at the inception of the attack, and if to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply,
absent and the attack is continuous, treachery, even if however, where the sudden attack was not preconceived
present at a subsequent stage is not to be considered and deliberately adopted but was just triggered by the
(People v. Loterono, G.R. No. 146100, 13 November 2002, sudden infuriation on the part of the accused because of
391 SCRA 593). the provocative act of the victim, or where their meeting
was purely accidental (People v. Monte, G.R. No. 125332,
Chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes 2 March 2000).
committed at the spur of the moment, or those that were
preceded by heated altercations are generally not Additional rules:
attended by treachery, for lack of opportunity of the a. When the aggression is CONTINUOUS, treachery must
accused deliberately to employ a treacherous mode of be present in the BEGINNING of the assault (U.S. v.
attack (People v. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, 10 June 2003, Balagtas, G.R. No. L-6432, 22 March 1911).
403 SCRA 482).
b. When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS, in that
For treachery to be considered, two elements there was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery
must concur: was present AT THE MOMENT THE FATAL BLOW WAS
(1) the employment of means of execution that gives the GIVEN (U.S. v. Baluyot, G.R. No. L-14476, 6 November
persons attacked no opportunity to defend themselves 1919).
or retaliate; and
(2) the means of execution were deliberately or Cirera v. People
consciously adopted. (Fantastico, et al. v. People, G.R. G.R. No. 181843, 14 July 2014
No. 190912, 12 January 2015) Facts: Miguel arrived at a wake where Austria was
playing a game of lucky nine, and asked for money
The mere suddenness of an attack should not be from the latter. In response, Austria asked Miguel to
the sole basis in finding treachery. There must be keep quiet. Naval arrived and asked Austria to go
evidence to show that the accused deliberately or home. There was an exchange of words between
consciously adopted the means of execution to ensure its Naval and Miguel. Austria stood up and felt that he
success. (People v. Oloverio, G.R. No. 211159, 18 March was stabbed. As he ran home, he noticed Miguel
2015) armed with a knife, this time chasing Naval. Austria
was hospitalized and was confined for more than a
Rules regarding treachery: month.
• Treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons.
However, in several cases of robbery with Issue: Whether treachery may be appreciated in this
homicide, treachery was appreciated as a generic case
aggravating circumstance (People v. Escote, Jr., G.R. No.
140756, 4 April 2003). Ruling: No. The attack might have been done on
impulse or as a reaction to an actual or imagined
provocation offered by the victim. In this case, G.R. No. 218581, 27 March 2019
petitioner was not only dismissed by Austria when he
approached him for money. There was also an Facts: Lumahang, Velitario and Pornelos were
altercation between him and Naval. The provocation attending a wake when Lumahang appeared fuming
might have been enough to entice Cirera to action and mad. Suddenly, Lumahang approached Pornelos from
attack private complainants. behind and stabbed him in a hook motion with knife in
his left hand. Pornelos, who was hit on the buttocks,
Therefore, the manner of attack might not have been quickly ran towards an alley. Without warning,
motivated by a determination to ensure success in appellant then turned his ire on Velitario and stabbed
committing the crime. What was more likely the case him repeatedly on different parts of his body.
was that Cirera’s action was an impulsive reaction to
being dismissed by Austria, his altercation with Naval, The RTC convicted Lumahang of the crimes of Murder
and Naval’s attempt to summon Austria home. and Less Serious Physical Injuries. While the CA upheld
Generally, this type of provocation negates the Lumahang's conviction for Murder for the killing of
existence of treachery. This is the type of provocation Velitario, it did, however, downgrade Lumahang's
that does not lend itself to premeditation. The conviction for the stabbing of Pornelos and convicted
provocation in this case is of the kind which triggers him of only Slight Physical Injuries.
impulsive reactions left unchecked by the accused and
caused him to commit the crime. Issue: Whether the CA erred in appreciating the
qualifying circumstance of treachery.
People v. Vega y Ramil
G.R. No. 216018, 27 March 2019 Ruling: Yes. Treachery undoubtedly exists on the
attack against Pornelos because (1) the parties were
Facts: attending a wake, and were thus not expecting an
Accused-appellant Don was charged with the crime of attack from happening; (2) the attack was made
Murder after allegedly repeatedly stabbing the suddenly and from behind. The attack on Pornelos was
Manuel Isip on different parts of his body with a therefore clearly attended by treachery.
bladed weapon, which caused his immediate death.
The accused-appellant pleaded self-defense, alleging The same is not true, however, for the attack on
that while they were attending a birthday party, the Velitario. Lumahang had already made an attack
victim punched him and charged towards him with a against Pornelos who, after being stabbed on the
bladed weapon, so he stabbed the victim. The RTC buttocks, was able to successfully run away towards
convicted Don, which Decision was affirmed by the CA. safety. Velitario was already apprised that there was
danger nearby as he saw the commotion between
Issue: Pornelos and Lumahang. It is true that Velitario was
May the aggravating circumstance of treachery be unable to defend himself from Lumahang's attacks not
appreciated in this case? because he was not given an opportunity to do so, but
simply because he was not able to react in time from
Ruling: No. The following circumstances negate the the initial attack on Pornelos. With the removal of the
presence of treachery: (a) the stabbing incident qualifying circumstance of treachery, the crime
happened during a drinking spree in which Don was committed by Lumahang against Velitario is therefore
already a part of; (b) in killing Manuel, Don merely Homicide and not Murder.
picked up a bladed weapon from his table - there was
no mention in the records as to who owned the said People v. Aseniero
weapon. In a similar case, the Court held that G.R. No. 218209, 10 April 2019
treachery cannot be presumed merely from the fact
that the attack was sudden. The suddenness of an Facts: Romeo found guilty of Murder under Art 248.
attack does not, of itself, suffice to support a finding of The prosecution presented the testimony of the friend
alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the of the victim, and saw the accused hack the victim with
decision was made all of a sudden and the victim's a bolo. The victim, Dominador had started a
helpless position was accidental. relationship with Analyn, one month after the break-
up with accused. The defense presented testimony
People v. Lumahang y Talisay that they Analyn and the accused were still
sweethearts at that time but were quarelling. When There is no showing that appellants and their co-
the accused approached Analyn, he was kicked by accused knew Jun was going back to the area at that
Dominador, the victim. The victim unsheathed his late time of the day and that they had planned to
knife while the accused unsheathe his bolo, and there attack Jun there and then. On the contrary, appellants
was a bloody fight. Romeo was found guilty of Murder and their co-accused appeared to have spontaneously
under Art 248 for killing Dominador. acted as soon as they saw Jun back in the area. Even
after Jun fell to the ground and appellants alternately
Issue: Whether treachery was present and was hit him with broomstick handles, he still managed to
correctly considered in qualifying the crime to murder get back on his feet and run for his life. And although
Argie subsequently waylaid and stabbed him in the left
Ruling: No. Romeo was only guilty of Homicide. side of his body, he did not stop running. The only time
Treachery was not established beyond a reasonable he did was when Argie caught up and stabbed him
doubt. The attack was preceded by an altercation. another time. Evidently, although Jun did not expect
Each one of them is forewarned of an impending the sudden and concerted attack of his assailants who
attack by either of them. Also, it was the victim who were each armed with either a chair, broomstick
first assaulted the accused. The attack made by the handles, or a knife, he was not rendered totally
accused was not sudden or unexpected as it was the defenseless or prevented from escaping his assailants.
victim who first attacked the former. (See also: People In fact, he was able to get back on his feet and run for
v. Noellito Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 227997, 16 October his life, albeit in the end, he still lost his life due to the
2019) stab wound he sustained in his trunk.

People v. Reyes, et al. DISCUSSION:

G.R. No. 227013, 17 June 2019 GR: Treachery is only applicable to crimes against
persons.
Facts: The victim, Jun Balmores, appellants Sahagun
and Aries Reyes, and accused Argie Reyes and Hilario Q: Why is it that in robbery with homicide which is a
were all vendors who sold their wares along the crime against property, treachery may be appreciated
stretch of Hidalgo Street, Quiapo, Manila. On 5 August as indicated in People v. Escote?
2007, the police apprehended the illegal vendors in
the area. On that afternoon, when Aries, Demetrio, A: Homicide is a component/constituent crime of the
Arthur, and Argie saw Jun, they pursued him. As Jun special complex crime of robbery with homicide, and
tried to run away, Demetrio hit him with a plastic chair homicide is a crime against persons. It is only for that
in the head, causing the former to fall to the ground. reason that treachery may be appreciated in robbery
Arthur and Aries then alternately hit him with with homicide.
broomsticks. Jun, nonetheless, managed to get back
on his feet and run toward Villalobos Street. But when People v. Bugarin
he reached the corner of Villalobos Street, Argie was G.R. No. 224900, 15 March 2017
there waiting. Argie stabbed Jun in the left side of his The qualifying circumstance of treachery or alevosia
body. Shortly after, Argie caught up with him and does not even require that the perpetrator attack his
stabbed him a second time, hitting him in the arm. All victim from behind. Even a frontal attack could be
accused were charged with murder, qualified by treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed
treachery. victim who would be in no position to repel the attack
or avoid it. The essence of treachery is that the attack
Issue: Is treachery attendant in this case? comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate,
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless,
Ruling: No. The essence of treachery is the swift, unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist
deliberate, and unexpected manner by which the or escape the sudden blow.
offense was committed, affording the victim no
opportunity to resist, escape, much less, defend People v. Gayon
himself or herself. The offender must have planned G.R. No. 230221, 10 April 2019
the mode of attack to ensure its execution without Facts: Accused Edgar entered Rodolfo Gayon’ house.
exposing himself to any danger which may come from Accused Edgar sat on the lap of Leonora and suddenly
the victim's act of retaliation or self-defense. stabbed Leonora several times. She even saw
 accused’s knife embedded on Leonora's right • Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the
shoulder. Thereafter, Leyden dragged Leonora inside contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall
the house. Leyden claimed that Leonora uttered to her not apply to the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 except in
that she was dying and Leyden likewise heard accused the case of minor offenders (Article II, Sec. 98, R.A. No.
Edgar told Rodolfo "Papay we have no more problem 9165).
because I killed your sister."
• Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts
Issue: Whether treachery and evident premeditation punishable by life imprisonment to death provided in
were present in the crime committed. R.A. No. 9165 shall be reclusion perpetua to death
(Article II, Sec. 98, R.A. No. 9165).
Ruling: No, treachery and evident premeditation were
not present. Mere suddenness of the attack is not • If the offense is punished by a special law (e.g. R.A. No.
sufficient to hold that treachery is present. For 9165), the court shall sentence the accused to an
treachery to exist there must be a showing that the indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which
means of execution was deliberately or consciously shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
adopted by the accused with a view of accomplishing minimum shall not be less than the minimum term
the act without risk to the aggressor. prescribed by the same (Section 1, Indeterminate
Sentence Law).
Treachery is absent due to the following
circumstances: (1) There is no showing in this case that DISCUSSION:
accused Edgar carefully and deliberately planned the Now, going back to what I told you earlier about Section
killing in the manner that would ensure his safety and 98, it’s here, so if a minor is found to have committed an
success; (2) Leonora was attacked at the place familiar offense under RA 9165 that is punishable by life
to her and in the presence of other people who are imprisonment to death, that is Section 98.
related to the victim; (3) the attack against Leonora
was frontal. While a frontal attack, by itself, does not According to the law it shall be reclusion perpetua to
negate the existence of treachery, when the same is death. I hope you remember when we are navigating the
considered along with the other circumstances as provisions of Book 1 Arts. 1 to 113 apart of what I recall
previously discussed, it already creates a reasonable we discussed is the provisions of Art. 10 of the Revised
doubt in the existence of the qualifying circumstance. Penal Code and there the rule is the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code do not apply to special penal laws,
There is likewise no evident premeditation. There is they may apply, however, only in a suppletory character
evident premeditation when the following elements unless the special penal law itself proscribes or prohibits
concur: (1) the time when the accused determined to the application of the provisions of the Revised Penal
commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that Code and this is one provision falling in the latter
the accused had clung to his determination to commit category where there is prohibition on the application of
the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient length of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code except in the
time between the determination and execution to case of a minor offender.
allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
See, only in the case of a minor offender may the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code apply and very
16. Sec. 98 RA 9165 in rel. to Art 68(2) RPC, minor clearly in this provision itself, the law says that a minor
offenders; so found to be liable and sentenced to life imprisonment
to death will be liable only and be sentenced to life
- Section 98 on the penalty imposable upon a imprisonment to death. Do you see the significance? I
minor who has been sentenced, under this law, think we have explained this before, the significance is
to life imprisonment to death it becomes this, because the nomenclature of the penalties is that
reclusion perpetua to death under the Revised Penal Code that means that the minor
is entitled to all the benefits that he can avail of under
Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code; the Revised Penal Code, for instance.
Applicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
Being a minor, assuming that he acted with discernment,
of course, is he not entitled to a privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority that we have taken up under Therefore, there is no application for the rules on the
Art. 68, par. 2? You see, so in short, if he is punished with attendant circumstances. However, the only exception
the reclusion perpetua to death, he is a minor, the mentioned in the law itself is about the minor offender
penalty next lower in degree to reclusion perpetua to who has been sentenced with life imprisonment to
death is reclusion temporal, if it is reclusion temporal, death, for which the law mentions that the penalty
that’s a penalty next lower in degree because of the should be reclusion perpetua to death. This is somehow
privilege mitigating circumstance of minority. favorable to the minor offender and therefore may be
applied in his case.
Alright, and we will see in the case of Mantalaba(see p.7)
that will follow why this is so because in the graduation 17. PRINCIPLE OF GENERALITY
of the penalties somehow we have taken this up under
Art. 71, one penalty next lower in degree after death Criminal law has three main characteristics: 1) general, 2)
reclusion perpetua is reclusion temporal, so that should territorial, and 3) prospective.
be the penalty that should be imposed without, of
course, prejudice still to the application of the GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LAW 1987 Constitution,
indeterminate sentence law, wala pa yung indeterminate
sentence law dyan. Okay, remember Section 98, Article VI Section 1. The legislative power shall be
Remember Sections vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
11 and 15. consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,
except to the extent reserved to the people by the
R.A. No. 9165 is clear and leaves no room for provision on initiative and referendum.
interpretation. Any person convicted under the said law,
regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the Civil Code, Article 14 Penal laws and those of public
graduations under Article 65 of the RPC as R.A. No. 9165 security and safety shall be obligatory upon all those
is a special law. Further, Section 98 of the same law who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject
provides: “the provisions of the RPC (Act No. 3814), as to the principles of public international law and to
amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, treaty stipulations.
except in the case of minor offenders. “Where the
offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by The criminal law of the country governs and applies to all
life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be persons in Philippine Territory, regardless of
reclusion perpetua to death.” nationality, age, gender or other personal
circumstances.
We have taken this up in connection with RA 9165. The
penalties in RA 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Example: An American who visits the Philippines in order
Drugs Act) are not borrowed exactly from the penalties to kill his Filipina girlfriend because of extreme jealousy
under the Revised Penal Code. It is life imprisonment, not is still liable for murder although he is a foreigner.
reclusion perpetua, in RA 9165. The nomenclature of
penalties does not follow what the nomenclature under GENERAL RULE: The jurisdiction of the civil courts is not
the RPC is. There is no room for applying the provisions affected by the military character of the accused.
of the RPC on attendant circumstances because this is a
special penal law. ✓ Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general
court-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the
GR: Provisions of the RPC applies suppletorily to special Philippines even in times of war, provided that in the
penal laws (Article 10, RPC) place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in
progress and civil courts are functioning.
XPN: When the special penal law specifically prohibits ✓ When the military court takes cognizance of the case
the application of the RPC even in suppletory character. involving a person subject to military law, the Articles of
War apply, not the RPC or other penal laws.
RA 9165 specifically states, under Section 98, that the
✓ The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial
provisions of the RPC does not apply insofar as the
is a bar to another prosecution of the accused for the
violations or offenses thereunder are concerned.
same offense.
✓ Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military
commission. A military commission has jurisdiction even
if actual hostilities have ceased as long as a technical contracted before he entered such service; or (b) when
state of war continues. said domestic servant is not registered with the DFA.

Exceptions to the general application of criminal law Warship Rule — a foreign country’s warship is
- Article 2, RPC, “Except as provided in the treaties considered an extension of the territory of the country
or laws of preferential application…” that it represents. Similar with an embassy, it cannot be
- Article 14, Civil Code, “… subject to the principles subject to the laws of another country. (Reyes, p.30)
of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.” iii. Principles of Public International Law
Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal laws
i. Treaty Stipulations by virtue of the principles of public international law:
An example of a treaty or treaty stipulation is the Bases (1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
Agreement entered into by the Philippines and the US on (2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
March 14, 1947 and expired on September 16, 1991. ministers resident, and charges d’affaires.
Another example would be the VFA signed on February
10, 1998 where the Philippines agreed: • a consul is not entitled to the privileges and
immunities of an ambassador or minister
a. US military authorities shall have the right to (Schneckenburger v. Moran, 63 Phil 250).
exercise within the Philippines all criminal and • under the Constitution, members of Congress
disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the are not liable for libel or slander in connection with any
military law of the US over US personnel in RP; speech delivered on the floor of the house during regular
b. US authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction or special session.
over US personnel with respect to offenses, including
offenses relating to the security of the US punishable US v. Sweet 1 Phil 18 (1901)
under the law of the US, but not under the laws of RP; FACTS: Sweet was an employee of the US army in the
c. US military authorities shall have the primary Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which
right to exercise jurisdiction over US personnel subject to he was charged with the crime of physical injuries.
the military law of the US in relation to: (1) offenses Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that he was
solely against the property or security of the US or an employee of the US military authorities deprived
offenses solely against the property or person of US the court of the jurisdiction to try and punish him.
personnel; and (2) offenses arising out of any act or
omission done in performance of official duty. HELD: The case is open to the application of the
general principle that the jurisdiction of the civil
ii. Laws of Preferential Application tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special
character of the person brought before them for trial,
Parliamentary Immunity under Section 11, Article VI of unless controlled by express legislation to the
the Constitution - Members of Congress are immune contrary.
from arrest for all offenses punishable by not more than
6 years imprisonment while Congress is in session. Liang v. People 355 SCRA 125
FACTS: Petitioner is an economist working at the Asian
An example of a law of preferential application would be Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, he was
R.A. No. 75, which penalizes acts which would impair the charged before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City with 2
proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants of the counts of oral defamation for allegedly uttering
Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of defamatory words against his colleague. Thereafter,
duly accredited foreign diplomatic representatives in the petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant. After
Philippines. fixing petitioner’s bail, the MeTC judge received an
office of protocol from the DFA stating that petitioner
R.A. No. 75 exempts from arrest and imprisonment, as is covered by immunity from legal processes under
well as from distrain, seizure or attachment of property, Section 45 of the Agreement between ADB and the
Public Ministers, Ambassadors and Domestic Servants of Philippine Government. As a result, the MeTC judge
Ambassadors and Public Ministers except (a) when such dismissed the criminal case without notice to the
person is a citizen or an inhabitant of the Philippines and prosecution.
the writ issued against him is founded upon a debt
 HELD: Petitioner is not covered by the immunity. For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious
Courts cannot blindly adhere to the communication conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the
from the DFA that the petitioner is covered by any sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited
immunity. It has no binding effect in courts. The court in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
needs to protect the right to due process not only of cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with
the accused but also of the prosecution. Secondly, the another person.
immunity under Section 45 of the Agreement is not
absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts LAVIDES v. CA
must be done in “official capacity.” Slandering a FACTS:
person could not possibly be covered by the immunity Lavides was charged with violation of Sec. 5(b) of R.A.
agreement as the same was not committed in the No. 7610 for luring a sixteen (16)-year old girl into a
performance of petitioner’s official duty. hotel to have carnal knowledge. Subsequently, 12
informations for the same violation was filed against
18. RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT IN REL. TO him.
VIOLATION OF SEC 5 RA 7610 AND ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS; HELD:
Each incident of sexual intercourse and lascivious act
Child prostitution and other sexual abuse with a child under the circumstances mentioned in
(section 5[a], R.A. no. 7610) Art. III, 5 of R.A. No. 7160 is thus a separate and
distinct offense. The offense is similar to rape or act of
Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code in which
child prostitution, which includes any of the following: each act of rape or lascivious conduct should be the
• Acting as procurer of child prostitute; subject of a separate information.
• Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute;
• Taking advantage or influence to procure a child as NOTE: For every act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
prostitute; conduct committed against the child, under the
• Threatening or using violence towards a child to circumstances of Sec 5 of Child Abuse Law, there is a
engage him as a prostitute; or separate and distinct offense so you will have to file
• Giving monetary consideration goods or other separate informations per act. Hindi siya continuing.
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution. VARIANCE PRINCIPLE

MALTO v. PEOPLE People v. Quimvel

FACTS: Malto was a philosophy professor at an G.R. No. 214497, 18 April 2017
exclusive school for girls. He had carnal relations with FACTS:
one of his students who was 17 years old. Malto The victim, a seven (7) year-old girl, was
argues that they are a couple. awakened when accused laid on top of her and
inserted his hand in the victim’s panty. Accused was
HELD: Malto violated R.A. 7610 or the Special charged for Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
Discrimination Act. There was lascivious conduct and
intercourse as a result of coercion or influence of the ISSUE:
professor and the victim was under 18 years old at the Whether accused may be held liable for the crime of
time of the commission of the crime. lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610
in view of the supposed failure of the Information to
Sweetheart Theory allege all elements necessary in committing said
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness crime.
and rape, felonies committed against or without the
consent of the victim. It operates on the theory that RULING:
the sexual act was consensual. It requires proof that Before an accused can be held criminally liable for
the accused and the victim were lovers and that she lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
consented to the sexual relations. 7610, the requisites of Acts of Lasciviousness as
penalized under Art. 336 of the RPC must be met in
 addition to the requisites of sexual abuse under May accused be held criminally liable for acts of
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, to wit: lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC or “Lascivious
• The accused commits the act of sexual conduct” under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610.
intercourse or lascivious conduct.
• The said act is performed with a child RULING:
exploited in prostitution or subjected to Accused may be convicted for the crime of lascivious
other sexual abuse. conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 which is
• That child, whether male or female, is below subsumed in the crime of rape by sexual intercourse.
18 years of age
Acts of Sexual Abuse /
Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts Lasciviousness Lascivious
pertaining to or connected with child prostitution Conduct
wherein the child is abused primarily for profit. On the
other hand, paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse Basis
or lascivious conduct committed on a child subjected
to other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation Elements of the
where a child is abused for profit but also one in which crime:
a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence,
engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. Punishable act: Lewdness Sexual
Hence, the law punishes not only child prostitution intercourse or
but also other forms of sexual abuse against children. lascivious
conduct
NOTE: The SC made a distinction between Sec. 5(a) and
5(b). And another distinction that you should remember Offended party: Under 12 years A child
is Sec. 10 (a) which is other acts of neglect, abuse, cruelty old, whether exploited in
or exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to the male or female prostitution or
child’s development. Any person under Sec 10, what is subjected to
being punished is any person who commits other act of other sexual
child abuse, cruelty, exploitation or responsible, other abuse aged
than sexual abuse or lascivious conduct. So ito yung below 18 years
catch-fall phrase. But if you are alleging Sec 10, you must old, whether
be able to prove that it is prejudicial to the child’s male or female
development. The act was committed to debase the
development of the child.
NOTE: Before an accused can be convicted through
Child Abuse (Section 5[b], R.A. No. 7610) lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age, it
must be established that the elements of acts of
Children are deemed to be exploited in prostitution and lasciviousness under Art. 336 of RPC are met in addition
other sexual abuse under the following circumstances: to the requisites for sexual abuse of Sec. 5 of RA 7610.
1. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct with a child; and Guidelines for determination of proper charge and
2. The victim is under twelve (12) years of age. penalty

PEOPLE V. CAOILI • The age of the victim is into consideration in

G.R. NO. 196342, 8 August 2017 designating or charging the offense, and in
FACTS: determining the imposable penalty.
Accused was charged with rape by sexual intercourse
for having committed the following acts unto his 14 • If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
years 1 month and 10 days old daughter: (1) kissed her nomenclature of the crime should be “Acts of
lips; (2) touched and mashed her breast; and (3) Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
inserted finger into her vagina. Code in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.”
Pursuant to the second proviso in Section 5(b) of R.A.
ISSUE:
 No. 7610, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal 2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of
in its medium period. his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by
• If the victim is exactly twelve (12) years of age, or affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity
more than twelve (12) but below eighteen (18) years within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
of age, or is eighteen (18) years old or older but is second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
unable to fully take care of herself/himself or protect circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in
herself/himself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, case the revocation was given by the person attacked,
exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or that the one making defense had no part therein.
mental disability or condition, the crime should be
designated as "Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of
of R.A. No. 7610," and the imposable penalty is a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are
perpetua. present and that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Child prostitution and other sexual abuse
(section 5[c], R.A. no. 7610) Self-defense includes not only the defense of the
person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his
Those who derive profit or advantage, whether as rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is
manager or owner of the establishment, where protected by law.
prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar,
resort or establishment serving as cover or which Self-defense is an affirmative allegation and
engages in prostitution. offers exculpation from liability for crimes only if
satisfactorily proved… Self-defense cannot be justifiably
People v. Montinola appreciated when it is extremely doubtful by itself.
G.R. No. 178061, 9 July 2011 Indeed, in invoking self-defense, the burden of evidence
FACTS: is shifted and the accused claiming self-defense must rely
Accused was charged with six counts of rape. On one on the strength of his own evidence and not on the
charge, the RTC and CA convicted the accused for weakness of the prosecution. (People v. Bugarin, G.R. No.
violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. 224900, 15 March 2017)

HELD: Accused should be punished under Section 5(b) Requisites:

of R.A. No. 7610. Said provision covers acts of
lasciviousness while Section 10(a) covers other acts of 1. There must be unlawful aggression. - This is an
abuse. indispensable requisite.

Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault

19. SELF-DEFENSE, ART 11, RPC, ALSO RELATE TO or at least a threat to attack or inflict physical injury upon
ART.69 a person. A mere threatening or intimidating attitude is
not considered unlawful aggression, unless the threat is
Justifying circumstances. – The following do not offensive and menacing, manifestly showing the
incur any criminal liability: wrongful intent to cause injury. There must be an actual,
sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof,
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, which puts the defendant’s life in real peril.
provided that the following circumstances concur;
At the heart of the claim of self-defense is the
First. Unlawful aggression. presence of an unlawful aggression committed against
appellant. Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to not have a leg to stand on and this justifying
prevent or repel it. circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if
the other elements are present. Unlawful aggression
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the refers to an attack amounting to actual or imminent
person defending himself. threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-
defense. (Velasquez v. People, G.R. No. 195021, 15 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
March 2017) prevent or repel it

There must be peril to one’s life which may The reasonableness of the necessity depends
either be: upon the circumstances particularly the time and
location where the aggression took place.
a. actual – that the danger must be present, that
is, actually in existence, or The means employed by the person making a
defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel
b. imminent- that the danger is on the point of an unlawful aggression.
happening. It is not required that the attack already
begins, for it may be too late. The reasonableness of the means adopted is not
one of mathematical calculation or "material
Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense. In commensurability” between the means of attack and
retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured defense but the imminent danger against the subject of
party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked the attack as perceived by the defender and the instinct
him. In self-defense, the aggression was still existing more than reason that moves the defender to repel the
when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the attack.
person making a defense.
The reasonableness of the means used will
In self-defense, the person must have no time nor depend upon the NATURE and QUALITY of the weapon
occasion for deliberation and cool thinking. used by the aggressor, his PHYSICAL CONDITION, SIZE
and other circumstances, and those of the person
The unlawful aggression must come from the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion of the
who was attacked by the accused. assault. (People v. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, 22 August
2002.)
There is no unlawful aggression when there is agreement
to fight because where the fight has been agreed upon, 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
each of the protagonists is at once assailant and person defending himself.
assaulted. But when the aggression is ahead of the
stipulated time and place, it is unlawful. Requisite is complied with when:

The rule now is STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE RIGHT. a. When no provocation at all was given to the
So, where the accused is where he has the right to be, aggressor by the person defending himself; or
the law does not require him to retreat when his
assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly b. When, even if a provocation was given, it was
weapon. not sufficient; or

• The belief of the person may be considered in c. When, even if the provocation was sufficient,
determining the existence of unlawful it was not given by the person defending himself; or
aggression.
d. When, even if provocation was given by the
Ex. If the aggressor used a toy pistol but the accused person defending himself, it was not proximate and
believed it was a real gun, he may claim self-defense. immediate to the act of aggression.

N.B. A slap on the face constitutes unlawful aggression People v. Manzano

since the face represents a person and his dignity. G.R. No. 217974, 5 March 2018
Slapping it is a serious personal attack.
Facts: Accused Rezor Juanillo Manzano (“Rezor”) and
Test: Does the person invoking the defense believe, in Resurrecion Juanillo Manzano (“Resurrecion”) were
due exercise of his reason, his life or limb is in danger? charged before the trial court with the crime of
(Senoja v. People, 2004) murder. While Resurrecion remained to be at-large,
the trial proceeded against Rezor. Considering that
Rezor raised an affirmative of self-defense, the parties waist and continued to attack them. Olarbe grabbed
agreed to have a reverse trial. However, the trial and the bolo and in their struggle for its possession, they
appellate courts ruled that Rezor failed to establish reached the outer portion of the house. Olarbe was
self-defense and found him guilty of the crime of able to wrestle the bolo and instantly, he hacked Arca.
murder. After the killing incident, Olarbe voluntarily
surrendered to the police authorities.
Issue: Whether accused have the burden of evidence
to establish the elements of self-defense. Issue: Whether accused may invoke the justifying
circumstance of self-defense and defense of stranger.
Ruling: The burden of evidence shifts to accused. An
accused who pleads a justifying circumstance under Held: Yes. In order for Olarbe to exonerate himself on
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code admits to the the ground of self-defense, he must establish the
commission of acts, which would otherwise engender following facts, namely: (1) unlawful aggression on the
criminal liability. When the accused admit that they part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
are the authors of the death of the victim, and their means employed to prevent or repel such aggression;
defense is anchored on self-defense, it becomes and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
incumbent upon them to prove the justifying person resorting to self-defense.
circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. With this In order for him to be exonerated on the ground of
admission, the burden of evidence is shifted to the defense of stranger, he must prove, by clear and
accused to prove that all the essential elements of self- convincing evidence, the following: (1) unlawful
defense are present. aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of
the 'means to prevent or repel it; and (3) the person
Self-defense, to be successfully invoked, must be defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or
proven by clear and convincing evidence that excludes other evil motive.
any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the
person invoking it. Conviction follows if the evidence In this case, Olarbe's account of what did happen on
for the accused fails to prove the existence of justifying that fateful night was highly plausible. At the
circumstances. minimum, the details and sequence of the events
therein described conformed to human experience
The absence of unlawful aggression on the part of and the natural course of things. Armed with both the
Lucio in this case unmistakably belies the accused’s gun and the bolo, Arca not only disturbed Olarbe's
claim of self-defense, whether complete or peace but physically invaded the sanctity of latter's
incomplete. Accused’s plea of self-defense is even home at midnight. Given that the aggression by Arca
controverted by the nature, number, and location of was unprovoked on the part of Olarbe, and with no
the wounds inflicted on the victim, since the gravity of other person disputing the latter's account, we should
said wounds is indicative of a determined effort to kill easily see and understand why Olarbe would feel that
and not just to defend. his and his common-law spouse's lives had been put in
extreme peril.
People v. Olarbe
G.R. No. 227421, 23 July 2018 People v. Casas y Vintulan
G.R. No. 212565, 25 February 2015
Facts: Olarbe and his wife Juliet were sleeping in their
house. Suddenly they were awakened by the sound of A went to a Taho Factory where B is an
a gunshot and shouting from Arca who appeared to be employee. Therein, A invited B to a fist fight which,
drunk. Arca was holding a rifle (an airgun converted to eventually ensued between the two. During the fist
a calibre .22) and shouted "mga putang ina ninyo, fight A was able to grab a knife while B fled until he
pagpapatayin ko kayo." Then, Arca forcibly entered reached C for help. For his part, C tried to help B with
their house and aimed the gun at them. Olarbe the use of a bamboo pole. However, C slipped, fell face
immediately grabbed the gun from him and they first on the floor, and was prostrate. There and then,
grappled for its possession. Olarbe managed to wrest A stabbed him twice, the first blow entering his back
the gun away from Arca. In a jiff, Olarbe shot Arca and exiting at the front of his torso, and the second
causing the latter to lean sideward ("napahilig"). blow hitting the left side of his abdomen.
Nevertheless, Arca managed to get his bolo from his
A claims self-defense for the death of C, is it a valid and grave peril. This danger must not be a mere
defense? imagined threat.

No. The elements of self-defense are as follows: (a) Here, it becomes apparent that the evidence on
unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the record does not support Miranda's contention that
means employed to prevent or repel it; and (c) lack of Pilo employed unlawful aggression against him. Pilo
sufficient provocation on the part of the person was merely throwing stones at the house of Miranda.
defending himself. These requirements are absent in Miranda himself admitted during the trial that Pilo did
this case. not throw stones at him, much less, utter any
invectives, or threatening words against him.
A failed to prove any unlawful aggression on
the part of either B or C, which is a condition sine qua People v. Vega y Ramil
non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense to G.R. No. 216018, 27 March 2019
obtain.
Facts:
There can be no self-defense unless the victim Accused-appellant Don was charged with the crime of
committed unlawful aggression against the person Murder after allegedly repeatedly stabbing the
who resorted to self-defense. Being the party Manuel Isip on different parts of his body with a
initiating the attack, and overbearing with a deadly bladed weapon, which caused his immediate death.
weapon, A cannot successfully claim that there was The accused-appellant pleaded self-defense, alleging
unlawful aggression. Verily, for unlawful aggression to that while they were attending a birthday party, the
be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden and victim punched him and charged towards him with a
unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not bladed weapon, so he stabbed the victim. The RTC
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude, as convicted Don, which Decision was affirmed by the CA.
against the one claiming self-defense. Evidently, the
contrary happened in this case. Issue:
May accused validly invoke self-defense?
Miranda v. People
G.R. No. 234528, 23 January 2019 Ruling: No. First, there is no unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim. Aside from Don's self-serving
Petitioner was charged with Frustrated Homicide for statement that it was Manuel who punched and
repeatedly hacking the victim, Winardo Pilo, inflicting attacked him, not one of the persons present at the
mortal wounds on his body. The latter was only saved incident corroborated his account. Second, even
by timely medical assistance. Petitioner claimed self- assuming that there was unlawful aggression, the
defense, alleging that the victim threw stones at his means employed by Don in repelling the alleged attack
house, hitting his left cheek, and that he hacked Pilo to by Manuel was not reasonably necessary. Manuel was
stop his attack. unarmed and had his back turned while Don used a
bladed weapon to "repel the attack" and stab Manuel
Issue: repeatedly. Lastly, the third requisite requires the
person mounting a defense to be reasonably
Whether petitioner validly invoked self-defense. blameless. In this case, Don was not entirely blameless
as the reason why Manuel scolded him was because
RULING: he was breaking things and making unnecessary
No. The most important element of self-defense is disturbance. It was also Don who suddenly rushed to
unlawful aggression. This is a condition sine qua non the victim and stabbed the latter several times in the
for upholding self-defense. Significantly, the accused chest.
must establish the concurrence of three elements of
unlawful aggression, namely: (i) there must have been Velasquez v. People
a physical or material attack or assault; (ii) the attack G.R. No. 195021, 15 March 2017
or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and
(iii) the attack or assault must be unlawful. To be sure, Facts: The victim, Jesus, arrived at his nipa hut and
the accused must show that the aggression caused by discovered accused Ampong who was in the premises
the victim in fact put his life or personal safety in real without Jesus’ knowledge. Jesus shouted invectives at
 Ampong. Ampong left the nipa hut, but was chased by 1. Unlawful aggression;
Jesus. Failing to catch Ampong, Jesus made his way
back to his house. He was then met by Ampong and Unlawful aggression may not exist as a matter of
the other accused who hit him with a stone, at least fact, it can be made to depend upon the honest belief of
three times, struck his back with a bamboo stick and the one making a defense.
punched him on his left cheek. Accused invoked self-
defense. Ex. The sons of A honestly believed that their father was
the victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it was
Ruling: Accused failed to establish the elements of their father who attacked B. If they killed B under such
self-defense and defense of relative. circumstance, they are justified.
(1) There’s no unlawful aggression: Accused’s entire
defense rests on proof that it was Jesus who initiated 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
an assault by barging into the premises of the nipa hut. prevent or repel it;
However, accused presented nothing more than a self-
serving, uncorroborated claim that Jesus appeared out The gauge of reasonable necessity of the means
of nowhere to go berserk therein. employed to repel the aggression as against one’s self or
in defense of a relative is to be found in the situation as
(2) The element of reasonable necessity of the means IT APPEARS TO THE PERSON REPELLING THE
employed to prevent or repel the aggression is absent: AGGRESSION (the defender).
Even if it were to be granted that Jesus was the initial
aggressor, the beating dealt to him by the accused was 3. In case the provocation was given by the person
still glaringly in excess of what would have sufficed to attacked, the one making a defense had no part therein.
neutralize him. It was far from a reasonably necessary
means to repel his supposed aggression. There is still legitimate defense of relative even
if the relative being defended has given provocation,
(3) Aside from their self-serving and uncorroborated provided that the one defending such relative has no part
claim, accused failed to present proof third requisite, in the provocation.
i.e., lack of sufficient provocation.
N.B. Like in self-defense, the motive of the person
defending himself or his relative is immaterial.
DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
• Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are
RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED: the parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and
brothers or sisters-in-law.
1. Spouse • Death of the spouse terminates the relationship
2. Ascendants by affinity; unless the marriage has resulted in
3. Descendants issue who is still living, in which case the
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and relationship of affinity continues.
sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees. • Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil and sisters are within the second civil degree;
degree. uncle and niece or aunt and nephew are within
the third civil degree; and first cousins are within
Relatives by affinity, are those who, because of the fourth civil degree.
marriage, are parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law,
and brothers or sisters-in-law. DEFENSE OF STRANGER

Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers Requisites:

and sisters are within the second civil degree; uncle and
niece or aunt and nephew are within the third civil 1. Unlawful aggression;
degree; and first cousins are within the fourth civil 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
degree. prevent or repel it;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
Requisites: resentment or other evil motive.
 there was no other reasonable means to protect his
N.B. Unlike in self-defense where motive of the person family except to commit the acts alleged. It is
defending himself is immaterial, in defense of strangers, unreasonable for courts to demand conduct that could
the person defending must not be motivated by revenge, only have been discovered with hindsight and absent
resentment, or other evil motive. the stress caused by the threats that the petitioner
actually faced
Who are deemed strangers?
STATE NECESSITY
Any person not included in the enumeration of Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article, is injury, does an act which causes damage to another.
considered stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3.
N.B. DAMAGE TO ANOTHER covers injury to persons and
BASIS: What one may do in his defense, another may do damage to property.
for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly by and
see his companion killed without attempting to save his Requisites:
life.
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
Mariano v. People of the Philippines exists;
G.R. No. 224102, 26 July 2017 The evil must actually exist and not merely
expected or anticipated or may happen in the future.
Facts:
Accused Mariano saw Natividad arguing with Yuki 2. That the injury feared be greater than that
because Yuki refused to buy marijuana for Natividad. done to avoid it;
Natividad went berserk slapped Yuki, and kicked The greater injury feared should not have been
Pamela’s daughter, Pia, who was nearby. Mariano brought about by the negligence or imprudence, more
reported to Pamela that Natividad kicked Pia. Pamela so, the willful inaction of the actor. The evil which
confronted Natividad, who then punched Pamela on brought about the greater evil must not result from a
the face and shoulder. Mariano pushed Natividad to violation of law by the actor. (Ty v. People, G.R. No.
the ground. Natividad stood back up and got a piece of 149275, 27 September 2004)
wood and kept hitting Mariano. Mariano evaded
Natividad's blows because Natividad was drunk and 3. That there be no other practical and less
staggering. Mariano picked up a knife and stabbed harmful means of preventing it.
Natividad on his buttocks. Due to Natividad's
continuous hitting, Mariano stabbed Natividad again, Under Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised
this time on the right side of his body. Penal Code, infliction of damage or injury to another so
that a greater evil or injury may not befall one’s self may
Issue: be justified only if it is taken as a last resort and with the
Whether Mariano may invoke defense of stranger least possible prejudice to another. If there is another
way to avoid the injury without causing damage or injury
Ruling: to another or, if there is no such other way but the
Yes. An attack showing the aggressor's intention is damage to another may be minimized while avoiding an
enough to consider that unlawful aggression was evil or injury to one’s self, then such course should be
committed. Thus, the attack on Pamela should have taken. (People v. Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, 10
been considered as unlawful aggression for purposes December 2012).
of invoking the justifying circumstance of defense of a
stranger. Here, although the offended party was General rule: No liability in justifying circumstances
drunk, and therefore, was not able to land his blows, because there is no crime.
his attacks were incessant. He had already attacked
three (3) other persons—two (2) minors as well as Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under this paragraph.
petitioner's common-law wife—and was still It is borne by the persons benefited by the act. They shall
belligerent. While it may be true that Pamela, Pia, and be liable in proportion to the benefit which they may
Yuki had already gone inside the house at the time of have been received (Art. 101, par. 4, RPC).
the stabbing, it then appeared to the petitioner that
N.B. Euthanasia is not a defense, thus, the accused may which were all dishonored by the drawee bank and
be held liable for murder or parricide. However, returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency of
assistance to suicide is a felony. funds.

Tan v. Standard Vacuum Oil, Co. (1952) For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks
because of “an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury.”
Anita Tan is the owner of the house of strong She averred that she was forced to issue the checks to
materials. On May 3, 1949, the Standard Vacuum Oil obtain release for her mother who was being
Company ordered the delivery to the garage of Rural inhumanely and harshly treated by the hospital. She
Transit Company 1,925 gallons of gasoline using a alleged that her mother has contemplated suicide if
gasoline tank-truck trailer. The truck was driven by she would not be discharged from the hospital.
Sto. Domingo, who was helped by Igmidio Rico. While
the gasoline was being discharged to the underground Ty was found guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of
tank, it caught fire, whereupon Sto. Domingo drove violation of BP22.
the truck across the road and upon reaching the
middle of the street he abandoned the truck which HELD: The Court sustained the findings of the lower
continued moving to the opposite side of the first courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely
street causing the buildings on that side to be burned expected or anticipated. If the evil sought to be
and destroyed. The house of Anita Tan was among avoided is merely expected or anticipated or may
those destroyed and for its repair she spent P12,000. happen in the future, the defense of an uncontrollable
fear of a greater injury” is not applicable. Ty could have
Issue: Who may be held civilly liable? taken advantage of an available option to avoid
committing a crime. By her own admission, she had
Held: Considering the above quoted law and facts, the the choice to give jewelry or other forms of security
cause of action against the Rural Transit Company can instead of postdated checks to secure her obligation.
hardly be disputed, it appearing that the damage
caused to Anita Tan was brought about mainly Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be
because of the desire of driver Sto. Domingo to avoid availing, the greater injury feared should not have
greater evil or harm, which would have been the case been brought about by the negligence or imprudence,
had he not brought the tank-truck trailer to the middle more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case,
of the street, for then the fire would have caused the the issuance of the bounced checks was brought about
explosion of the gasoline deposit of the company by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's hospital bills.
which would have resulted in a conflagration of much
greater proportion and consequences to the houses
nearby or surrounding it. It cannot be denied that this Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when
company is one of those for whose benefit a greater the crime committed is not wholly
harm has been prevented, and as such it comes within excusable. - A penalty lower by one or two degrees
the purview of said penal provision. than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the
deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of
Ty v. People some of the conditions required to justify the same or
439 SCRA 220 (2004) to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases
mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the
FACTS: Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was confined at majority of such conditions be present. The courts
the Manila Doctors' Hospital from October 1990 until shall impose the penalty in the period which may be
June 1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty signed the deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of
"Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment" in the conditions of exemption present or lacking.
the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, Judy Chua, was
also confined at the same hospital. The total hospital Incomplete Justifying or Exempting circumstance
bills of the two patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. When majority of the elements of the crime are present,
Ty executed a promissory note wherein she assumed it can be justified or exempted.
payment of the obligation in installments. To assure
payment of the obligation, she drew 7 postdated
checks against Metrobank payable to the hospital
So it talks about 3 elements because there is no majority the accused in the commission of the crime – principal,
with only 2 elements. Therefore, if there is an incomplete accomplice or accessory under Articles 17 to 19. Vis-à-vis
justifying or mitigating circumstance, there must be an Articles 50 to 57. You should be able to appreciate the
indispensable element. importance of understanding what a Privilege Mitigating
Circumstance is and Special Mitigating Circumstance
In the case of defense of relative, self-defense and under Article 64, par. 5. Even Special Aggravating
defense of strangers, it is unlawful aggression. So, the Circumstances requiring the imposition of the penalty on
element of unlawful aggression should be present in the maximum period.
cases of complete and incomplete self-defense.
So here, unlawful aggression being present, the accused
3 elements in self-defense: must be given an PMC of Incomplete Self-defense.
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable means of the necessity
3. There is no sufficient provocation 20. INSANITY

Q: Now, there are 3 elements and unlawful aggression Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those
is indispensable, what if there is only 1 element? And grounds for exemption from punishment because there
that element present is unlawful aggression, may the is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the condition
accused in this case may claim incomplete selfdefense? which make the act voluntary or negligent. While the act
is criminal, the actor is not liable. There is, however, civil
A: Yes. While Art. 69 requires the presence of 2 elements liability.
of the majority of the requisites for a justifying
circumstance, the jurisprudence states that the presence The exemption from punishment is based on the
of unlawful aggression alone can justify the appreciation COMPLETE ABSENCE of intelligence, freedom of action,
of an incomplete self-defense. or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of
the accused.
Yung unlawful aggression, kahit na 1 out of 3, sabi ng
Supreme Court, pwede to lower it at least one degree. An Imbecile or Insane Person: An imbecile or an insane
person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval
When we navigated Book 1, we have taken complete and (Art. 12, par.1).
incomplete justifying circumstances—its consequences,
effect, we have seen this in Article 69. The issue has Insanity
been, under Article 69 preference is made on the
majority of the requisites present. If unlawful aggression There is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
is indispensable, unlawful aggression must be present, committing the act but capable of having lucid intervals.
plus ANY of the 2 requisites. During a lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence,
and thus, not exempt from criminal liability.
What if there is only unlawful aggression?
Mental retardation includes the following: (a)
That’s only 1 out of 3. That will still be majority. There is idiot, whose mental age is equivalent to the average two-
already a number of cases holding that the presence of year old child; (b) imbecile, whose mental age is is
unlawful aggression will entitle the accused to the equivalent to the average seven-year old child; (c) moron
Privilege Mitigating Circumstance under Article 69; and or feebleminded, whose mental age is equivalent to the
that will entitle him not with 2 degrees lower because average twelve-year old child; and (d) “borderline”
Article 69 mentioned a penalty lowered by one or two intelligence, whose IQ is between 70 to 89.
degrees. But the case holding that unlawful aggression
will entitle the accused to a PMC at least 1 degree or one In exempting circumstance, there is a difference
penalty next lower in degree. between actual age and mental age. In exempting
circumstance of imbecility, what is important is the
We have gone to Article 71 on graduation of penalties – mental age of the accused. An idiot, whose mental age is
we should understand how it operates: one, two or three 2 years, and imbecile, whose mental age is 7 years old
degrees lower. We have seen the interplay of the stages are exempt from criminal liability. (People v. Butiong,
of commission under Article 6 and the participation of G.R. No. 168932, 19 October 2011)
PROCEDURE WHEN AN IMBECILE OR INSANE Based on the records, he had been administered
COMMITTED A FELONY medication to cure his mental illness, but there was no
showing that he suffered from complete deprivation
1. The court shall order his confinement in one of of intelligence. On the contrary, the medical
the hospitals or asylums established for persons afflicted, professionals presented during the trial conceded that
which he shall not be permitted to leave without first he had been treated only to control his mental
obtaining the permission of the court. The court must condition.
obtain the opinion of the Director of Health before
permitting his release (Art. 12, (1) par. 2). Insanity must be pleaded so that it may be appreciated
as an exempting circumstance. The reckoning insofar as
2. When the person is sane at the time of the insanity is concerned is at the time of the commission of
commission of the crime, but he becomes insane at the the crime. Insanity occurring after the commission of the
time of the trial, he is criminally liable. The trial, however, crime, especially during trial, may only suspend the
shall be suspended until mental capacity of the accused proceedings against the accused.
be restored to afford him a fair trial.
Insanity during the service of the sentence will only cause
People v. Haloc the accused to be committed to a mental institution.
G.R. No. 227312, 5 September 2018
The presumption is that of SANITY. We are
Facts: Accused Haloc was apprehended by barangay all presumed to be sane.
officials after he hacked Allan and his brother, Amel.
As a result, Amel died while Allan sustained injuries on People v. Roy
his upper arm. In his defense, accused invokes the G.R. No. 225604, 23 July 2018
exempting circumstance of insanity, and alleged that
he was prescribed medicines administered to a patient Facts: Accused was charged before the court for raping
suffering psychosis. AAA. Defense argues that accused is an imbecile, thus
completely deprived of reason. Accused invokes said
Issue: Whether accused is entitled to the exempting exempting circumstance.
circumstance of insanity.
Issue: Whether accused may invoke imbecility as an
Ruling: No, accused is not entitled to the mitigating exempting circumstance.
circumstance of insanity. The defense of insanity rests
on the test of cognition on the part of the accused. Held: No, imbecility requires a complete deprivation of
Insanity, to be exempting, requires the complete rationality in committing the act, i.e., that the accused
deprivation of intelligence, not only of the will, in be deprived of reason, that there be no consciousness
committing the criminal act. of responsibility for his acts, or that there be complete
absence of the power to discern.
Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not
exclude imputability. The accused must be so insane The law presumes that every person is sane. Anyone
as to be incapable of entertaining a criminal intent. He who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity
must be deprived of reason, and must be shown to bears the burden to prove that he was completely
have acted without the least discernment because deprived of reason when he committed the crime
there is a complete absence of the power to discern or charged. Note that the proof of an accused's insanity
a total deprivation of freedom of the will. must "relate to the time immediately preceding or
simultaneous with the commission of the offense with
The accused-appellant did not establish the exempting which he is charged." Here, the defense failed to
circumstance of insanity. His mental condition at the overcome the presumption of sanity.
time of the commission of the felonies he was charged Doctor’s report could not positively and certainly
with and found guilty of was not shown to be so severe conclude that accused’s state of imbecility afflicted
that it had completely deprived him of reason or him at the time he raped AAA. Moreover, the trial
intelligence when he committed the felonies charged. court’s observation of the actions of accused negated
complete destruction of intelligence at the time the
rape was committed.
 did immediately after he committed the offense showed
Verdadero v. People that he was actually in full control of his faculties. The
G.R. No. 216021, 2 March 2016 insanity plea was not given credit in this case.
Facts: A was charged with the killing of B. A raised the
defense of insanity. Acting on the Order of the RTC, Dr. People v. Junie
C conducted a mental examination on A. Dr. C G.R. No. 223566, 27 June 2018
confirmed that: (i) A was already brought to Cagayan The courts have established a clearer and more
Valley Medical Center; and (ii) A was diagnosed with stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is
schizophrenia. Dr. C agreed with Dr. D that A had required that there must be a complete deprivation of
suffered a relapse on the day of the stabbing incident. intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the accused is
deprived of reason; he acted without the least
Issue: Whether A is exempt from criminal liability. discernment because there is a complete absence of
the power to discern, or that there is a total
Ruling: Yes. A was officially diagnosed to have deprivation of the will. Accused-appellant's claim that
suffered a relapse of schizophrenia. Generally, he allegedly failed to remember what had happened
evidence of insanity after the commission of the crime on 11 February 2011, neither qualifies him as insane
is immaterial. nor negates the truth that he was fully aware that he
had killed his victims. Accused-appellant's statement
It, however, may be appreciated and given weight if right after he surrendered— "If I want to kill a lot of
there is also proof of abnormal behavior before or people, I could but I only killed my family" —
simultaneous to the crime. In exonerating A on the persuasively disproves his claim of not knowingly or
ground of insanity, the Court does not totally free him voluntarily killing his victims.
from the responsibilities and consequences of his acts.
Article 12(1) of the RPC expressly states that "[w]hen Article 79. Suspension of the execution and service of
an insane person has committed an act which the law the penalties in case of insanity. — When a convict
defines as a felony, the court shall order his shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence
confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence
established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall shall be suspended only with regard to the personal
not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of
permission of the same court." circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being observed in
the corresponding cases. If at any time the convict
Instead of incarceration, A is to be confined in an shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be
institution where his mental condition may be executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in
addressed so that he may again function as a member accordance with the provisions of this Code. The
of society. He shall remain confined therein until his respective provisions of this section shall also be
attending physicians give a favorable observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the
recommendation for his release. convict is serving his sentence.

The statements made by the accused, on the basis of the ✓ Only execution of personal penalty is suspended: civil
testimony of the witnesses, will show that the accused liability may be executed even in case of insanity of
really thought of what he was about to do or what he has convict.
done. Such statements evoke the observation that he ✓ An accused may become insane:
was in full control of his mental faculties. - a. at the time of commission of the crime -
exempt from criminal liability.
There is one case where the SC also disregarded the - b. at the time of the trial - court shall suspend
defense of insanity invoked by the accused, who hearings and order his confinement in a hospital
committed the crime of homicide. After killing the victim until he recovers his reason.
he took off his bloodied shirt, wrapped the knife he used - c. at the time of final judgment or while serving
in the shirt and threw it in the garbage bin. He, then, sentence - execution suspended with regard to
went to nearby province where he hid for a year or two. the personal penalty only.
SC said that the claim
of insanity cannot prosper because the acts he
✓ See Exempting Circumstance of Minority for P.D. No.
603 and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law.
 21. COMPLEX CRIMES ART 48,RPC grave felonies, and complex crime proper where an act is
a means to commit another act or crime:
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or For the latter, examples are:
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the 1. Estafa through falsification
other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. Special Compex Crimes - Excepted, meaning not
including, under Article 48. The law in those offenses
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES already provide a single penalty for the two crimes
1. COMPOUND CRIME - When a single act constitutes committed.
two or more grave or less grave felonies 1. Robbery with Homicide
2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - When an offense is a 2. Rape with Homicide or Kidnapping or Ransom, etc
necessary means for committing the other.
Light Felonies – Also excepted under Article 48. The
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER article talks of grave and less grave felonies only.

REQUISITES (Reyes, p. 659) : Crimes Offenses Punishable under Special

Penal Laws – Also excluded when you talk of felonies in
1. That at least two offenses are committed; the definition of complex crimes, because they are not
2. That one or some of the offenses must be strictly and technically felonies. They are offenses under
necessary to commit the other; and Special Penal Laws.
3. That both or all the offenses must be punished
under the same statute. Doctrine of Absorption – when a particular crime are
absorbed in another crime. The crime absorbing the
• The phrase “necessary means” does not mean other is the crime that will be charged.
“indispensable means.”
• In complex crimes, when the offender executes In Rebellion, as in the cases of Hernandez vs People,
various acts, he must have a single purpose. Gumabon vs People, and Enrile vs Salazar, common
crimes such as murder, robbery and arson are deemed
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME absorbed in the crime of rebellion. There is no rebellion
complexed with such crimes.
Special complex crimes are those which are
treated as single indivisible offenses, although The only crime that may be charged is rebellion to the
comprising more than one specific crime and with extent that those common crimes absorbed in rebellion
specific penalty. are committed or were committed to achieve the
purpose of purposes of rebellion. That must be shown. If
Examples: there are circumstances showing that those other crimes
1. Robbery with Homicide [Art. 294 (1)] are committed not to attain the purposes of rebellion,
2. Robbery with Rape [Art. 294 (2)] then the doctrine of absorption will not apply.
3. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries
[Art.267 (3)] However, there are jurisprudence starting with
4. Rape with Homicide (Art. 335) Hernandez affirmed in Gumabon and in Enrile that there
is no complex crime complexed with murder, but rather
DISCUSSION: murder, if at all, committed in the context of attaining
When you talk of Complex Crimes under Article 48, there the purposes of rebellion, which is deemed absorbed in
are two or more grave or less grave felonies. It can be a therein.
combination of:
1. Two or more grave felonies Also in illegal possession of firearms, in so far as rebellion
2. Two or more less grave felonies is concerned, there is no separate prosecution for illegal
3. Or a mix of both, as long as there are at least two. possession of firearms or use, or even manufacture of
illegal firearms or ammunition if the use or manufacture
Distinction between compound crimes, in which is a of firearms or ammunitions if it is committed to attain
single act actually produces two or more grave or less
the purpose of rebellion. They are deemed absorbed as an “Urgent Supplemental Motion to the Motion to Set
well. Aside No Bail Recommendation and to Fix the Amount
of Bail with Additional Prayer to Recall/Lift Warrant of
Doctrine of common elements – It has been settled that Arrest.”
there is no crime of estafa through falsification of private
document because both have a common element and Valdez was granted bail in the amount of P200,000.00
that is damage. for each offense charged.

In estafa, the basis of the penalty is the fraud or the ISSUE: Whether an accused who is charged with the
amount of the defraudation. In falsification of private complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru
document, there is also damage. Therefore, damage is a Falsification of Official/Public Documents involving an
common element of these two crimes, so much so that amount that exceeds Php22,000.00 is entitled to bail
when you use damage as an element in favor of one, you as a matter of right.
cannot use it in favor of the other.
HELD: The appropriate rule is to grant bail as a matter
What crime should you charge the accused? of right to an accused who is charged with a complex
It depends on the circumstances of the case. The facts of crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru
the case will tell you whether the crime that was really Falsification of Official/Public Documents involving an
intended to be committed was estafa or was it simply amount that exceeds P22,000.00
falsification, but you cannot complex the two.
Following Temporada, for the complex crime of
People v. Valdez Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of
G.R. No. 216007-09, 8 December 2015 Official/Public Documents involving an amount that
(Cf. Section 40 of R.A. No. 10951, amending Section exceeds P22,000.00, the "prescribed penalty" is
217 of the Revised Penal Code: if misappropriation of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
public funds or property exceeds P8.8 Million, the perpetua. After trial, should the commission of such
penalty is reclusion perpetua and non-bailable) crime be proven by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt, the "imposable penalty" is
FACTS: Luzviminda S. Valdez, a former mayor of reclusion perpetua in view of the RPC mandate that
Bacolod City was charged with 4 counts of violation of the prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal
Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, and 4 counts of the maximum to reclusion perpetua shall be applied in its
complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru maximum.
Falsification of Official/Public Documents under
Articles 217 and 171, in relation to Article 48 of the The falsification, which is the means used to commit
RPC. State Auditors of the Commission on Audit the crime of malversation, is in the nature of a generic
Region VI conducted a post-audit of the disbursement aggravating circumstance that effectively directs the
vouchers (D.V.) of the Bacolod City government. imposition of the prescribed penalty in its maximum
period. The phrases "shall be applied" and "shall
Based on the verification conducted in the impose," found in Articles 63 and 64, respectively, of
establishments that issued the official receipts, it was the RPC, are of similar import as the phrase "shall be
alleged that the cash slips were altered/falsified to imposed" found in Article 48. Both Articles 63 and 64
enable Valdez to receive reimbursement from the refer to the penalty to be imposed after considering
government in the total amount of P279,150.00. the aggravating or mitigating circumstance/s. Finally,
the "penalty actually imposed" is still reclusion
The Ombudsman charged accused with the complex perpetua, considering that the ISL finds no application
crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru as the penalty is indivisible.
Falsification of Official/Public Documents, and
recommended “no bail”. To note, Article 48 of the RPC on complex crimes does
not change the nature of the constituent offenses; it
While Valdez was still at-large, she filed a “Motion to only requires the imposition of the maximum period
Set Aside No Bail Recommendation and to Fix the of the penalty prescribed by law. When committed
Amount of Bail.” Thereafter, a warrant of arrest was through falsification of official/public documents, the
issued against Valdez, causing her to subsequently file RPC does not intend to classify malversation as a
 capital offense. Otherwise, the complex crime of Anything less than P8.8M is bailable. Anything more than
Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of P8.8M is nonbailable because it is punishable by
Official/Public Documents involving an amount that reclusion perpetua.
exceeds P22,000.00 should have been expressly
included in R.A. No. 7659. If truly a non-bailable 22. STAGES OF COMMISSION, ART. 6
offense, the law should have already considered it as
a special complex crime like robbery with rape, • A felony is consummated when all the elements
robbery with homicide, rape with homicide, and necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
kidnapping with murder or homicide, which have present.
prescribed penalty of reclusion perpetua. • It is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts
of execution which would produce the felony as a
Observe that bail is not a matter of right in plunder consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce
committed through malversation of public funds, but it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
the aggregate amount or total value of ill-gotten perpetrator.
wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired must be at • There is an attempt when the offender commences the
least P50,000,000.00. In contrast, an accused who is commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
alleged to have committed malversation of public not perform all the acts of execution which should
funds thru falsification of official/public documents, produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
which is not a capital offense, is no longer entitled to other than this own spontaneous desistance.
bail as a matter of right if the amount exceeds
P22,000.00, or as low as P22,000.00. Such distinction OVERT ACT – some physical activity or deed, indicating
is glaringly unfair and could not have been the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
contemplated by the law. mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its
complete termination following its natural curse,
The crime committed in this case is malversation of without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by
public funds through falsification of documents. This case voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
was decided in 2015 before a RA10951. necessarily ripen into a concrete offense (Rait v. People,
G.R. No. 180425, 31 July 2008).
The only issue here is that there is a complex crime.
Remember, insofar as malversation is concerned what INDETERMINATE OFFENSE – It is one where the purpose
will be the determinative factor? It is the amount of of the offender in performing an act is not certain. Its
misappropriated funds or property. For falsification of nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous (Reyes, p.
public documents, under article 171, the penalty is 97; see People v. Lamahang, G.R. No. L-43530, 3 August
steady. The issue here is whether or not malversation 1935).
station is non-bailable.
SUBJECTIVE PHASE
At a certain point, if you go by the computation of The subjective phase is that portion of the acts
penalties, it may reach reclusion perpetua. constituting the crime included between the act which
begins the commission of the crime and the last act
The disquisition of the Supreme Court in this case is that performed by the offender which, with the prior acts,
never has it been the intention of the Congress to make should result in the consummated crime.
malversation a heinous crime, nor to deprive one who is
charged of malversation with his entitlement to bail. OBJECTIVE PHASE
• Period after the performance of all the acts
Therefore, malversation is bailable. Republic Act No. which would produce the crime
10951 – This is a new law which affects the crime of • the result of the acts of execution, that is, the
malversation. It has a simpler approach because, now, if accomplishment of the crime.
the value all of misappropriation, insofar as the • If the subjective and objective phases are
government funds or property is concerned, is more than present, there is consummated felony. (U.S. v.
P8.8M, it becomes punishable by reclusion perpetua and Eduave, 2 February 1917)
therefore nonbailable.
ATTEMPTED FELONY
Elements: DISCUSSION: In arson, there is jurisprudence to the
1. The offender commences the commission of the effect that even the mere discoloration, as a
felony directly by overt acts; consequence of the burning, when there is no really
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution burning to speak of, will already consummate the crime
which should produce the felony; of arson. In theft, the ability of the accused to dispose of
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own the property unlawfully taken which belongs to another
spontaneous desistance; and consummates the crime. His ability to dispose of it is not
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution an element of the crime.
was due to cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. HOW TO DETERMINE THE STAGE OF COMMISSION OF
THE FELONY
FRUSTRATED FELONY
Elements: 1. the nature of the offense
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution; Example: In arson, it is not necessary
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony that the property is totally destroyed by fire. The crime
as a consequence; of arson is consummated even if only a portion of the
3. But the felony is not produced; wall or any other part of the house is burned.
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator. 2. the elements constituting the felony
Example: In theft, the mere removal of
In frustrated felony, the offender must perform all the the personal property belonging to another with intent
acts of execution. Nothing more is left to be done by the to gain is sufficient to consummate the offense.
offender, because he has performed the last act In estafa, the offended party must
necessary to produce the crime. actually be prejudiced or damaged.

FRUSTRATED FELONY v. ATTEMPTED FELONY 3. the manner of committing the crime

i. formal crimes – those which are consummated by a
1. In frustrated felony, the offender has performed single act (ex. slander, adultery)
all the acts of execution which should produce N.B. There can be no ATTEMPT in a formal crime.
the felony as a consequence; whereas in
attempted felony, the offender merely Formal crimes such as libel are not punishable unless
commences the commission of a felony directly consummated. (Disini v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 20335,
by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of 11 February 2014)
execution.
2. In frustrated felony, the reason for the non- ii. crimes consummated by mere attempt
accomplishment of the crime is some cause ex. Attempt to flee to an enemy country,
independent of the will of the perpetrator; on treason, crimes enumerated under Section 26, R.A. No.
the other hand, in attempted felony, the reason 9165,
for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or N.B. There is no ATTEMPTED crime because the
accident other than the offenders own overt act in itself consummates the crime.
spontaneous desistance. (Cervantes v. People, 5
July 2010) DISCUSSION: In slander, there, there is no attempted
stage when a person does not completely utter the
CONSUMMATED FELONY slanderous word, as when he merely says “taran!” But
once the slanderous word has been said, the offense is
Elements: consummated. In libel, once it is written, it is
1. All the acts of execution are present; and consummated.
2. The result is achieved.
iii. felonies by omission
Every crime has its own elements which must all be There can be no attempted stage
present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of because the offender does not execute acts. He omits to
law. perform an act which the law requires him to do. (ex:
failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art.
218); failure to make delivery of public funds or property People v. Campuhan (2000)
(Art. 221))
iv. crimes committed by mere agreement Rape is consummated “by the slightest
The offer made by one of the parties to penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of
the other constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is either labia of the pudendum by the penis.”
rejected.
v. material crimes Valenzuela v. People (2007)
There are three stages of
consummation: attempted, frustrated and There is no crime of frustrated theft. Theft is
consummated. already “produced” upon the “taking of personal
property of another without the latter’s consent.”
People v. Lamahang (1935) There was no need for permanency in the taking or in
In case of robbery, in order that the simple act its intent, as the mere temporary possession by the
of entering by means of force or violence another offender or disturbance of the proprietary rights of the
person's dwelling may be considered an attempt to owner already constituted apoderamiento.
commit this offense, it must be shown that the
offender clearly intended to take possession, for the People v. Valledor (2002)
purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging
to another. In the instant case, there is nothing in the The settled rule is that where the wound
record from which such purpose of the accused may inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his
reasonably be inferred. From the fact established and death, the crime is only attempted murder, since the
stated in the decision, that the accused on the day in accused did not perform all the acts of execution that
question was making an opening by means of an iron would have brought about death.
bar on the wall of Tan Yu's store, it may only be
inferred as a logical conclusion that his evident Epifanio v. People (2007)
intention was to enter by means of force said store
against the will of its owner. That his final objective, In homicide cases, the offender is said to have
once he succeeded in entering the store, was to rob, performed all the acts of execution if the wound
to cause physical injury to the inmates, or to commit inflicted on the victim is mortal and could cause the
any other offense, there is nothing in the record to death of the victim barring medical intervention or
justify a concrete finding. attendance. If one inflicts physical injuries on another
but the latter survives, the crime committed is either
People v. Barra (2013) consummated physical injuries, if the offender had no
intention to kill the victim; or frustrated or attempted
Accused is guilty of attempted robbery with homicide or frustrated murder or attempted murder if
homicide only when he commenced the commission the offender intends to kill the victim.
of robbery directly by overt acts and did not perform
all the acts of execution which would produce robbery People v. Benito Lababo Alias "Ben," et al.
by reason of some causes or accident other than his G.R. No. 234651, 6 June 2018
own spontaneous desistance.
FACTS: The accused were convicted of the crimes of
People v. Labiaga (2013) Murder and Frustrated Murder for the death of AAA
and the fatal wounding of BBB who would have died
If the evidence failed to convince the court had he not received a timely medical attendance. The
that the wound sustained would have caused the accused allegedly conspired with each other to kill
victim’s death without timely medical attention, AAA and BBB. It was established that only Benito shot
accused should be convicted of attempted murder and the victims while his co-accused were only present at
not frustrated murder. the scene of the crime. Each holding a bolo.

People v. Aca-ac (2001) HELD: The act of killing becomes frustrated when an
offender performs all the acts of execution which
Rape is either attempted or could produce the crime but did not produce it for
consummated. There can be no frustrated rape.
 reasons independent of his or her will. Here, BBB's Formal Crimes – always consummated. The mere fact of
survival was independent of the perpetrator's will. having done it consummates the crime, such as in:
1. Slander
While it is true that mere presence at the scene of the 2. Adultery
crime at the time of its commission, without actively 3. Libel
participating in the conduct thereof, is insufficient to
prove that the accused conspired to commit the crime, Importance of Stages of Commission – As we have seen
Wenefredo and FFF' s act of standing near the victims in Articles 50-57, and when we took up degree of the
and Benito, while wielding bolos, does not partake of participation of the accused, it will give you an idea of
this nature. The Court is sufficiently convinced that what the criminal responsibility of the accused is:
their presence thereat has no doubt, encouraged 1. Was the crime consummated?
Benito and increased the odds against the victims, 2. Was he a principal?
especially since they were all wielding lethal weapons. 3. Was the crime simply frustrated?
4. Was he an accomplice?
Marasigan v. Fuentes 5. Was the crime attempted?
G.R. No. 201310, 11 January 2016 6. Was he an accessory?
Facts: Fuentes threw an object at Marasigan from
behind. Thereafter, Fuentes reappeared with his It could be a combination of all these, and the graduation
respondents and punched Marasigan on the face. of penalties will depend, under Article 50-57, on how you
Fuentes picked up a stone and attempted to hit will arrive at the appropriate penalty that will be imposed
Marasigan's head with it. Marasigan parried the stone on the accused based on degree of participation and
with his hand. Lindo and Calilan took hold of each of stage of commission.
Marasigan's arms. The DOJ ruled that the crime was
less serious physical injuries, and not attempted MURDER AND HOMICIDE – Article 249 gives you plain
murder supposedly because the evidence killing – no other attendant circumstances such as
is equivocal on whether respondents had any relationship or other qualifying circumstances.
homicidal intent. Specifically, Secretary Devanadera
pointed out that the medico-legal findings indicated Insofar as murder is concerned, remember the qualifying
that petitioner sustained nothing more than aggravating circumstances that you find under Article
contusions and abrasions; and that while he suffered a 248. Presence of one of them will be enough to qualify
fracture on the metacarpal bone on the second digit the killing to murder.
of his right hand, it was found that his injuries would
take less than 30 days to heal. Attempted or Frustrated Homicide or Murder? – How
will we determine:
Issue: Whether accused should be held liable for less
serious physical injuries or attempted murder. 1. Determine if there is a qualifying circumstance to make
it murder
Ruling: Accused should be held liable for attempted 2. Determine if it is homicide or murder either in the
murder. The fact that Marasigan was successful in frustrated or attempted stage based on the nature of
blocking the blow with his hand does not, in and of wounds inflicted upon the victim.
itself, mean that respondents could not have possibly
killed him. It does not negate any homicidal intent. It Would it have caused the death of the victim?
remains that respondent Fuentes attempted to hit a. Yes – Frustrated homicide or frustrated murder as the
petitioner on the head with a hollow block while case may be depending on the presence or absence of
Calilan and Lindo made efforts to restrain petitioner. qualifying aggravating circumstances
There is also reasonable basis for appreciating how the
attack on petitioner was made with respondents b. No – only attempted homicide or murder as the case
taking advantage of their numerical superiority. may be. If the wounds are superficial, albeit there is
intent to kill, it will only be attempted homicide or
DISCUSSION: murder.
Article 6 providing for stages of commission
– if this can be memorized, will help a lot for the purposes RAPE – The old case of Iriña saying that there can be
of the bar. frustrated rape is abandoned in Orita. In the latter, the
slightest penetration in the labia majora is enough to N.B. The treble division of persons criminally responsible
consummate the crime of rape by sexual intercourse. for an offense rests upon the very nature of their
participation in the commission of the crime.
In Campuan, there was only an attempted rape because
the evidence did not show that there was any The ACCESSORIES are not liable for light felonies because
penetration. There is no longer frustrated rape. in the commission of light felonies, the social wrong as
well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal
THEFT – In the case of Valenzuela, in which the accused, sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories
after stealing, ran but was caught. He was contending
that he cannot be liable for consummated theft because RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT FELONIES
he was not able to dispose the thing that was stolen.
1. Light felonies are punishable only when they have
The SC said that the mere unlawful taking of personal been consummated.
property belonging to another consummates the crime
of theft. The ability of the accused to dispose the thing 2. But when light felonies are committed against persons
stolen is not an element of the crime of theft. There can or property, the are punishable even if they are only in
be no frustrated theft. It can ONLY be attempted on the attempted or frustrated stage of the execution.
consummated.
3. Only principals and accomplices are liable for light
BRIBERY – Here, the accused attempts to offer a reward, felonies.
promise, gift, or consideration so that the public officer
will perform an act that is contrary to law. 4. Accessories are not liable for light felonies, even if they
are committed against persons or property.
What if the public officer receives the thing offered and
eventually returns it? Is it attempted or frustrated N.B. Only natural persons can be the active subject of
bribery? crime because of the highly personal nature of the
NO. It will be attempted corruption of a public official. criminal responsibility.

ROBBERY – there can be attempted frustrated robbery Only a natural person can be the offender because:
under Article 297. There is a special complex crime of
attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide, which 1. The RPC requires that the culprit should have acted
shows that the law recognizes the possibility of with personal malice or negligence. An artificial or
attempted or frustrated robbery. juridical person cannot act with malice or negligence.

2. A juridical person, like a corporation, cannot commit a

23. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE ARTS 17-19. crime in which a willful purpose or a malicious intent is
required.
Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The
following are criminally liable for grave and less grave There is substitution of deprivation of liberty
felonies: (subsidiary imprisonment under Article 39 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10159) for pecuniary
a. Principals. penalties in case of insolvency of the accused, and the
penalty imposed is not higher than prision correccional.
b. Accomplices.
N.B. Subsidiary imprisonment is computed at the rate of
c. Accessories. one day for each amount equivalent to the highest
minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the
The following are criminally liable for light felonies: time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by the
trial court (Sec. 1, R.A. No. 10159).
a. Principals
Other penalties consisting in imprisonment and other
b. Accomplices. deprivation of liberty like destierro, can be executed only
against individuals.
 • The principals by direct participation must be at the
scene of the crime, personally taking part in its
• Officers, not the corporation, are criminally liable. execution.
• Juridical persons are criminally liable under certain • The acts of each offender must directly tend to the
special laws. same end.
• In all crimes there are always 2 parties: ACTIVE (the • One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a
criminal) and PASSIVE (the injured party). principal by direct participation.
• When the second requisite is lacking, there is only
PRINCIPALS conspiracy.
Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered
principals: People v. Dacillo
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the G.R. No. 149368, 14 April 2004
act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit FACTS: Pacot stabbed and strangled
it; Rosemarie leading to the latter’s death. Dacillo for his
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense part, hold down Rosemarie’s legs to prevent her from
by another act without which it would not have been struggling. The two men stopped only when they were
accomplished. sure that the victim was already dead. Dacillo then
encase her corpse in cement.
KINDS OF PRINCIPALS
1. Principals by Direct Participation HELD: Two or more persons taking part in the
2. Principals by Inducement commission of a crime are considered principals by
3. Principals by Indispensable Cooperation direct participation if the following requisites are
present:
PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
1. they participated in the criminal resolution and
The principal by direct participation PERSONALLY TAKES 2. they carried out their plan and personally took part
PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE ACT constituting the in its execution by acts which directly tended to the
crime. same end. Both requisites were met in this case.

Two or more persons who took part in the commission Further Dacillo’s admission that he participated in the
of the crime are principals by direct participation, when commission of the crime by holding Rosemarie’s legs
the following requisites are present: made him a principal by direct participation.
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; and
2. That they carried out their plan and personally took Benito v. People
part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the G.R. No. 204644, 11 February 2015
same end.
Facts: Agbulos is a jeweler. She entered into several
First requisite – Participation in the criminal resolution transactions for the sale of jewelry with Abadilla.
Agbulos received pieces of jewelry from Abadilla and
Two or more persons are said to have agreed that Agbulos would return the pieces of
participated in the criminal resolution when they were in jewelry in the afternoon should Agbulos fail to sell
conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime. them. During all these transactions, Agbulos was
accompanied by Benito. On their third transaction,
It is well settled that a person may be convicted Agbulos failed to sell the jewelry. Abadilla deposited
for the criminal act of another where, between them, the checks issued by Agbulos to her, which were all
there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and dishonored. Upon investigation, Abadilla learned that
intention in the commission of the crime charged. the jewelry she gave to Agbulos were delivered by
Benito to a pawnshop under the name “Linda Chua.”
Second requisite – that the culprits “carried out their Agbulos and Benito were charged with estafa.
plan and personally took part in its execution, by acts
which directly tended to the same end.” Ruling: Benito is neither a principal by direct
participation or a conspirator to the crime of estafa
 committed by Agbulos. Only Agbulos received the 2. That such inducement be the determining
pieces of jewelry from Abadilla, and Benito was merely cause of the commission of the crime by the material
"present during the negotiation." Even assuming that executor.
Benito accompanied Agbulos, this does not prove that
Benito received any jewelry from Abadilla. Moreover, PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A
when Agbulos failed to return the jewelry in the PRINCIPAL BY FELONY
afternoon she received on June 9, 14, and 16, 1994, INDUCEMENT
she was already presumed to have misappropriated
the jewelry, for which there is no more need to There is an inducement to commit a crime.
present any act to prove the misappropriation.
Consequently, the estafa had already been The principal by The mere proposal to
consummated when "Linda Chua" allegedly pawned inducement becomes commit a felony is
the jewelry on June 17, 1994. Benito, who was liable only when the punishable in treason and
allegedly "Linda Chua," cannot be held criminally liable crime is committed by rebellion. The person to
with Agbulos. "There can be no ex post the principal by direct whom the proposal is made
facto conspiracy to do that which has already been participation. should not commit the
done and consummated." crime; otherwise, the
proponent becomes a
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT principal by inducement.
“Those who directly force or induce others to commit a
crime.”

The principal by induction becomes liable only when the

principal by direct participation committed the act
The inducement The proposal, to be
induced.
involves any crime. punishable, must involve
only treason (Art. 115, RPC)
Modes of incurring criminal liability as principal by
or rebellion (Art. 136, RPC).
inducement:

1. BY DIRECTLY FORCING ANOTHER TO COMMIT A CRIME

a. By using IRRESISTIBLE FORCE RSE: Those are the two crimes in the RPC
b. By causing UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR consisting of proposal:
(a) proposal to commit treason and
2. BY DIRECTLY INDUCING ANOTHER TO COMMIT A (b) proposal to commit rebellion.
CRIME.
There is no other felony of this nature under the RPC.
a. By giving price, or offering reward or promise.
b. By using words of command. Proposal, under Art. 8, is not really punishable unless
there is a specific legal provision providing definition on
Requisites: punishment of penalty for such conspiracy and proposal.
1. That the inducement be made directly with
the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; e.g.
and Under the RPC, there is conspiracy to commit:
a. A thoughtless expression without intention to • Treason
produce the result is not an inducement to • Rebellion
commit a crime. • Coup d’ etat
• Sedition
b. The inducement may be by acts of command, • Under Art. 187 (Combination in Restraint of Trade)
advice, or through influence, or agreement for
consideration. Other conspiracies punished under SPL – conspiracy to
commit:
• Terrorism
• Sale, distribution, and transportation of dangerous of the prosecution, and casting reasonable doubt on
drugs the culpability of Ambagan.
• Arson
RSE: You have seen that without a principal by direct
EFFECTS OF ACQUITTAL OF PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT participation who committed the crime, the criminal
PARTICIPATION UPON THE LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL BY liability of one who purportedly induced the principal by
INDUCEMENT direct participation to commit the crime cannot be
• Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co- established.
defendant.
• One cannot be held guilty of having instigated So it will depend first on the commission of the crime and
the commission of a crime without first being the criminal liability of the principal by direct
shown that the crime has been actually participation to the extent that there is an evidence
committed by another. shown that the principal by inducement forced the
principal by direct participation to commit the crime
Ambagan v. People then both of them should be held criminally liable. The
G.R. Nos. 204481-82, 13 November 2015 inducement consists of simply,

Facts: Two persons were killed during the July 5, 2004 Q: Under exempting circumstances, if the principal by
shooting incident supposedly induced by accused direct participation has no option but to follow the
Ambagan. According to one prosecution witness, instruction of somebody who has exerted force upon
Ambagan allegedly uttered the sentence, "Sige, yan him, compelled him with a threat to his life then the
pala ang gusto mo. Mga kasama banatan na ninyo principal by direct participation commit the crime, will
yan!" which impelled his bodyguards to open fire at the principal by direct participation be held liable?
Santos and Bawalan. However, this testimony was not A: No. Remember it is an exempting circumstance on the
corroborated by the second prosecution witness who part of the principal by direct participation. The one who
was supposedly nearer the accused at the time of the should be held liable is the principal by inducement who
incident. actually exerted force.

Issue: “But Sir, we discussed that the principal by direct

Whether Ambagan should be held criminally liable as participation should commit the crime and unless he
a principal by inducement. does so, he is not liable”
A: Yes. However, in the case that I mentioned, the
HELD: No, Ambagan cannot be held criminally liable as principal by direct participation is exempt from criminal
a principal by inducement. The conviction of a person liability but not the principal by inducement.
as a principal by inducement requires (1) that the
inducement be made with the intention of procuring ART. 12, PAR.5
the commission of the crime; and (2) that such Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. -
inducement be the determining cause of the the following are exempt from criminal liability:
commission by the material executor. xxx
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of
As applied, the Sandiganbayan would have been irresistible force.
correct in holding Ambagan criminally liable if he 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
indeed made the utterance immediately before the uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
shooting incident. xxx

However, this Court is not inclined to believe Hence, the principal by direct participation in our
that Ambagan indeed made the declaration that problem is exempt from criminal liability. But the
started the fray. The court a quo failed to take note of exemption does not apply to the principal by
substantial inconsistencies in the testimonies of star inducement.
prosecution witnesses Patam and Ronnel Bawalan.
These contradictions refer not only to minor details e.g. LEADER OF A GROUP
but even to the facts constituting important aspects of
the case, seriously eroding the weight of the evidence
Q: Sometimes the inducement may come from a leader • To be liable as principals, the offender must fall under
of a group in the case of US vs. Indianan (?) wherein the any of the three concepts defined in Article 17.
chieftain of the tribe simply told his men to attack a • There is collective criminal responsibility when the
group of Christians and kill them and the principal by offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and
direct participation committed the killing and the to the same extent. The penalty to be imposed must be
question is W/N Indianan himself may be held liable? the same for all.
• Principals by direct participation have collective
A: Yes. He is liable. It’s like a esprit de corps to follow their criminal responsibility. Principal by induction, except
leader. So there is moral ascendancy towards his men to the one who directly forced another to commit a crime,
follow and kill his victims. and principal by direct participation have collective
criminal responsibility. Principal by indispensable
e.g. PRIZE, PROMISE OR REWARD cooperation has collective criminal responsibility with
the principal by direct participation.
The other situation is if there is a prize promised or
reward or somehow induced the principal by direct People v. Montealegre
participation. 161 SCRA 700 (1988)

CASE: For example, gun for hires. They are hired actually FACTS: Abadilla was eating at a restaurant when he
to kill and there is somebody who paid for their services. detected the smell of marijuana smoke coming from a
If they are caught and they rat on the principal by nearby table. Intending to call a policeman, he went
inducement who gave them the money… outside and saw a police and reported the matter. The
police approached the table and held Montealegre
Do you remember the case of a businessman in Subic and Capalad. Capalad suddenly pulled out his knife
wherein the triggerman admitted that the principal by and started stabbing the police at the back. The police
inducement is the younger brother? In this case, the released the 2 in order to draw his gun but
evidence was established that the latter gave Montealegre restrained the police so that Capalad
instructions and he really is a principal by inducement. may continue stabbing. The 3 grappled and the police
was able to draw his gun and fired at the 2 assailants.
EFFECTS OF ACQUITTAL OF PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT A chase ensued. Capalad was shot which resulted to
PARTICIPATION UPON THE LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL BY his death. The police also died because of the wounds
INDUCEMENT inflicted by Capalad.
• Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co-defendant.
• One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the HELD: The accused was correctly considered a co-
commission of a crime without first being shown that the principal for having collaborated with Capalad in the
crime has been actually committed by another. killing of the police officer. The 2 acted in concert. Even
if the accused did not himself commit the act of
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION stabbing, he is nonetheless equally guilty thereof for
“Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense having prevented the police from resisting the attack
by another act without which it would not have been against him. The accused was a principal by
accomplished.” indispensable cooperation.

Requisites: RSE: Here very clearly, there was conspiracy even if they
did not actually discuss that they will kill the police. What
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, Montealegre did here, and ultimately he was the only
there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal one convicted here because his co-conspirator died, the
purpose and intention immediately before the issue is W/N he can be held criminally liable.
commission of the crime charged; and
What was his participation? Montealegre was a principal
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by direct participation because without him helping, the
by performing another act, without which it would not police would not have died.
have been accomplished.
Remember that Capalad was killed by the police likewise.
PROBLEM: You have to think of another situation Q: For instance, A commissions B to kill X. There was a
wherein the victim, X, were actually killed by A with the reward or consideration. B without the knowledge of A
help of B and C. B by holding his arms and C holding his borrowed a gun from a friend C of his unsure of how B
legs. will use the gun. B kills X. Can you hold the friend C
liable as principal by indispensable cooperation?
In this case, there is no doubt that A, B and C acted in
concert. A who stabbed the victim is a principal by direct A: Definitely not. First, he did not know the criminal
participation, and B and C who held the arms and legs intention of B. Second, B could have borrowed a gun
are principals by indispensable cooperation. elsewhere and not necessarily from C. That does not
make it “indispensable.”
But there is conspiracy that the act of one is the act of
all. Q: In one case, where a band of robbers/kidnappers
rented a motorized banca from X. The band of the
People v. Fronda accused went to an island used the banca and
222 SCRA 71 (1993) eventually killed their victim. What is the liability of X
who owned the banca?
FACTS: The Balaan brothers were abducted and killed
by members of the New People’s Army. Fronda and A: The owner of the banca cannot be held to be a
Padwa accompanied the rebels to the victims’ house. principal by direct participation. The band could have
They were the ones who tied the hands of the victims rented another motorized banca not rented by X.
and supplied the spade and crowbar for digging the Therefore, there is no indispensable cooperation on the
graves. The trial court convicted Fronda and Padwa as part of the owner.
principals by indispensable cooperation.
ACCOMPLICES (ARTICLE 18, RPC)
HELD: The accused are only accomplices for the crime
can be committed even without their participation. An Accomplices are those persons who, not being included
accomplice is one who cooperates by previous or in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by
simultaneous acts and his participation is of a minor previous or simultaneous acts.
character. He must be aware of the criminal intent and
participates by supplying material and moral aid for its • In quasi-collective criminal responsibility, some
execution. of the offenders in the crime are principals and
the others are accomplices.
RSE: The accused were only liable as accomplices but you • The participation of an accomplice presupposes
could say at first glance should have been held as the commission of the crime by the principal by
principals by indispensable cooperation. direct participation.
• When there is no conspiracy between or among
You have to look at it at the point of view of W/N the the defendants but they were animated by one
participation of the accused indeed shows that they and the same purpose to accomplish the criminal
cooperated in the criminal design of the co-accuse. objective, those who cooperated by previous or
simultaneous act but cannot be held liable as
There must be a showing that their acts tended towards principals are accomplices.
the same end that is the accomplishment of the crime • An accomplice does not have a previous
intents to do. agreement or understanding or is not in
conspiracy with the principal by direct
If the participation is somehow ambiguous, the acts participation.
cannot be pinpointed to accomplish the criminal design.
ACCOMPLICE
The rule is this, REMEMBER: ambiguous situation should CONSPIRATOR
be resolved in lesser criminal liablity. The lesser liability They know and agree with the criminal design.
in this situation is that they should be treated simply as
accomplices. That’s where the thin line lies.
 Conspirators know Accomplices know about the
the criminal criminal intention only after RULES:
intention because the principals have reached • The one who had the original criminal design is
they have decided on the decision to commit a the person who committed the resulting crime.
said course of action. crime. Accomplices only agree • The accomplice, after concurring in the criminal
to cooperate in its execution. purpose of the principal, cooperates by previous
or simultaneous acts.
• When the cooperation is by simultaneous act,
the accomplice takes part while the crime is
being committed by the principal by direct
Conspirators decide Accomplices merely assent to participation or immediately thereafter.
that a crime should the plan and cooperate in its • The accomplice in crimes against persons does
be committed. accomplishment. not inflict the more or most serious wounds.

ACCOMPLICE
PRINCIPAL by
COOPERATION
Conspirators are the Accomplices are merely
authors of a crime. instruments who perform acts
not essential to the
perpetration of the offense. Cooperation is Cooperation is not
indispensable in the indispensable in the
commission of the act. commission of the act.

REQUISITES
1. There is a community of design; that is, knowing
the criminal design of the principal by direct
participation, he concurs with the latter in his
purpose;
2. he cooperates in the execution of the offense by People v. Gambao
previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention G.R. No. 172707, 1 October 2013
of supplying material or moral aid in the
execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and FACTS: Lucia Chan was abducted and brought to a
3. there be a relation between the acts done by the resort in Laguna. The abductors demanded
principal and those attributed to the person Php20,000,000.00 as ransom. The police eventually
charged as accomplice. rescued Chan and arrested the perpetrators. Among
those arrested was Perpenian, who was 17 years old
• The community of design need not be to commit the at the time of the commission of the crime. She
crime actually committed. It is sufficient if there was a chatted with the abductors and claimed that she
common purpose to commit a particular crime and that thought that there was only a swimming party.
the crime actually committed was a natural or probable
consequence of the intended crime. HELD: An accomplice cooperates in the execution by
• The cooperation of an accomplice is not due to a supplying material and moral aid in relation to the acts
conspiracy. done by the principal. In this case, her presence gave
• When the acts of the accused are not indispensable in moral support to the abductors as she kept quiet and
the killing, they are merely accomplices. did not tell the police even when there was obviously
a crime being committed. She is an accomplice to the
• The accomplice merely supplies the principal with kidnapping.
material or moral aid without conspiracy with the
latter. Santiago v. People
• The wounds inflicted by an accomplice in crimes against G.R. No. 200233, 15 July 2015
persons should not have caused the death of the victim.
 FACTS: Santos, who had been married to Estela Galang c. by assisting in the escape or concealment of the
since 2 June 1974, asked Santiago to marry him. principal of the crime, provided he acts with abuse of his
Santiago, who was a 43-year-old widow then, married public functions or the principal is guilty of treason,
Santos on 29 July 1997 despite the advice of her parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
brother-in-law and parents-in-law that if she wanted Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of
to remarry, she should choose someone who was some other crime.
“without responsibility.” Santiago was convicted as
principal to the crime of bigamy. “knowledge of the commission of the crime”

HELD: Her punishment as a principal to the crime is • Mere possession of stolen property does not
wrong. People v. Archilla holds that the second spouse, make the accused an accessory where the thief
if indicted in the crime of bigamy, is liable only as an was already convicted.
accomplice. In referring to Viada, Justice Luis B. Reyes, • Entertaining suspicion that a crime has been
an eminent authority in criminal law, writes that "a committed is not enough.
person, whether man or woman, who knowingly • Knowledge of the commission of the crime may
consents or agrees to be married to another already be established by circumstantial evidence
bound in lawful wedlock is guilty as an accomplice in
the crime of bigamy." Therefore, her conviction should RSE: Read Article 58, RPC. Take note of this in connection
only be that for an accomplice to the crime. with Art. 19 who acted with abuse of public functions are
concerned. There is additional penalty provided for
RSE: That is an important case. Take note of that in under Article 58.
bigamy, the other party whom the other married party ARTICLE 58, RPC. Additional penalty to be imposed
which is the subsequent marriage is not liable to the upon certain accessories. - Those accessories falling
crime of bigamy but only an accomplice. within the terms of paragraph 3 of article 19 of this
Code who should act with abuse of their public
ACCESSORIES (ARTICLE 19, RPC) functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of
Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without offender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of
having participated therein, either as principals or absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in of a less grave felony.
any of the following manners:
“commission of the crime”
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to • the crime committed by the principal must be
profit by the effects of the crime. proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or
the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its “without having participated therein either as
discovery. principals or accomplices”
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts “take part subsequent to its commission”
with abuse of his public functions or whenever the • The accessory takes part AFTER the crime has
author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, been committed.
murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some Modes of incurring criminal liability as an accessory:
other crime.
1. BY PROFITING THEMSELVES OR ASSISTING THE
An accessory does not participate in the criminal OFFENDER TO PROFIT BY THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME
design, nor cooperate in the commission of the felony, • The accessory must receive the property from
but with knowledge of the commission of the crime, he the principal. He should not take it without the
subsequently takes part in 3 ways: consent of the principal, or else, he is not an
a. by profiting from the effects of the crime; accessory but a principal in the crime of theft.
b. by concealing the body, effects or instruments of the • When is profiting by the effect of the crime
crime in order to prevent its discovery; and punished as the act of principal, and not the act
of accessory?
 • When a person knowingly acquired or received • However, an accessary is not exempt from
property taken by the brigands. criminal liability if the principal is his nephew or
niece.
2. BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE
CRIME TO PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY. An accessory is NOT EXEMPT from criminal
liability even if the principal is related to him, if such
BODY OF THE CRIME –“corpus delicti” which means that accessory:
a specific offense was in fact committed by someone (a) PROFITED by the effects of the crime, or
(b) assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the
3. BY HARBORING, CONCEALING OR ASSISTING IN THE crime.
ESCAPE OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME
3(A): Public officers who harbor conceal or assist in the People v. Talingdan
escape of the principal of any crime (not light felony) with 84 SCRA 19 (1978)
abuse of his public functions
FACTS: Bernardo and Teresa lived together but their
Requisites: relationship has gotten bitter. Bernardo knew that
1. The accessory is a public officer; Teresa had an illicit relationship with Talingdan.
2. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of
the principal; During the testimony of Bernardo and Teresa’s child,
3. The public officer acts with abuse of his public she testified that on the day of Bernardo’s killing,
functions; and there were four men inside their house while
4. The crime committed by the principal is any Bernardo was in the field. Later, when Bernardo went
crime, provided it is not a light felony. to the kitchen, Talingdan and Tobias fired at Bernardo
and thereafter climbed the stairs. Seeing that
3(B) Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the Bernardo was alive, Talingdan and Tobias fired at him
escape of the author of the crime – guilty of treason, again. Teresa then went out of her room, and
parricide, murder, or an attempt against the life of the threatened her child that she will kill her if she would
President, or who is known to be habitually guilty of reveal the incident.
some other crime.
HELD: One who conceals or assists in the escape of the
Requisites: principal in the crime can be held guilty as accessory.
1. The accessory is a private person; There is morally convincing proof that Teresa is an
2. He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of accessory to the offense. She was inside the room
the author of the crime; and when her husband was shot. As she came out after the
3. The crime committed by the principal is either: shooting, she inquired from the child if she was able to
(i) treason, (ii) parricide, (iii) murder, (iv) attempt recognize the assailants and when the latter identified
against the life of the president, or (v) that the the 4 accused as the culprits, Teresa did not only
principal is known to be habitually guilty of some enjoin her daughter not to reveal what she knew to
other crime. anyone but she went to the extent of warning her not
to tell anyone or else she would kill her. Later when
An accessory is exempt from criminal liability, when the the police came, she claimed she had no suspects in
principal to the crime is his: mind. She, thus, became active in her cooperation
1. spouse, with the 4 accused.
2. ascendant,
3. descendant, RSE: About accessories, you have to consider PD 1829 on
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or Obstruction of Justice in connection with Article 19 on
relative by affinity within the same degree. accessories.

Take note also of PD 1612 which is the decree that

• Even if only two of the principals guilty of murder defines and penalizes fencing.
are the brothers of the accessory, and the others
are not related to him, such accessory is exempt There is also a case applying Article 20 where the
from criminal liability. principal accused killed her kasambahay and she was
helped by her sister to put into the car the corpse of the
victim and help the principal accused to dump the body
somewhere else. There was a prosecution for both of
them for having acted in conspiracy with one another.

The SC affirming the conviction of the accused as

principal by direct participation exempted the sister to
help the principal accused in dumping the body by
applying Article 20.