UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO

College of Criminal Justice Education

BS Criminology

Physically Distanced but Academically Engaged

Self-Instructional Manual (SIM) for Self-Directed Learning (SDL)

Course/Subject: CRI 314- Criminal Law 1

Name of Teacher: ROBERTO R MAGBOJOS, Ph.D.

THIS SIM/SDL MANUAL IS A DRAFT VERSION ONLY; NOT FOR

REPRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE OF ITS INTENDED USE. THIS
IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE STUDENTS WHO ARE OFFICIALLY
ENROLLED IN THE COURSE/SUBJECT.
EXPECT REVISIONS OF THE MANUAL.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Course Outline 3
Self-Instructional Module Policy 4
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103

Course Information 8
Course Outcome 8
Facilitator’s Voice 8
Big Picture in Focus: ULO a
Metalanguage 9
Essential Knowledge 10
Self-help 41
Let’s Check 41
Let’s Do This 46
In a Nutshell 48
Q&A List 50
Keywords Index 51
Big Picture in Focus: ULO b
Metalanguage 51
Essential Knowledge 53
Self-help 82
Let’s Check 82
Let’s Do This 84
In a Nutshell 87
Q&A List 87
Keywords Index 88
Big Picture in Focus: ULO c
Metalanguage 88
Essential Knowledge 89
Self-help 130
Let’s Check 130
Let’s Do This 131
In a Nutshell 131

1|Page
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103

Q&A List 135

Keywords Index 135
Final Written Exam 135
Course Schedule 136

2|Page
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103

Course Outline: CRI 314: CRIMINAL LAW 1

Course Coordinator : Roberto R Magbojos

Email : Roberto_magbojos@umindanao.edu.ph
Student Consultation : : Done online (LMS) or traditional contact
(calls, text, emails)
Mobile : 0922-690-6643
Effectivity Date : June 2020
Mode of Delivery : Online Blended Delivery
Time Frame : 54 Hours
Requisites : None
Student Workload : Expected Self-Directed Learning
Credit : 3
Attendance Requirements : : For online sessions: minimum of 95%
attendance. For 1-day on-campus/onsite
laboratory activities: 100% attendance; for
1-day on-campus/onsite final exam: 100%
Attendance

3|Page
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103
Self-Instructional Module Policies

Areas of Concern Details

This 3-unit course self-instructional manual is

designed for blended learning mode of instructional
delivery with scheduled face to face or virtual
Contact and Non-contact sessions. The expected number of hours will be 54
Hours which including lecture and examination days. The
face to face sessions shall include the summative
assessment tasks (exams) since this course is
crucial in the licensure examination for
criminologists.

Submission of assessment tasks shall be on 3rd,

5th, 7th and 9th week of the term. The assessment
paper shall be attached with a cover page
indicating the title of the assessment task (if the
task is performance), the name of the course
Assessment Task coordinator, date of submission and name of the
student. The document should be emailed to the
Submission
course coordinator. It is also expected that you
already paid your tuition and other fees before the
submission of the assessment task. If the
assessment task is done in real time through the
features in the Blackboard Learning Management
System, the schedule shall be arranged ahead of
time by the course coordinator.

Since this course is included in the licensure

examination for criminologists, you will be required
to take the Multiple-Choice Question exam inside
the University. This should be scheduled ahead of
Turnitin Submission time by your course coordinator. This is
(if necessary) nonnegotiable for all licensure-based programs.

4|Page
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103
To ensure honesty and authenticity, all
assessment tasks are required to be submitted
through Turnitin with a maximum similarity index
of 30% allowed. This means that if your paper goes
beyond 30%, the students will either opt to redo
her/his paper or explain in writing addressed to the
course coordinator the reasons for the similarity. In
addition, if the paper has reached more than 30%
similarity index, the student may be called for a
disciplinary action in accordance with the
University’s OPM on Intellectual and Academic
Honesty.

Please note that academic dishonesty such as

cheating and commissioning other students or
people to complete the task for you have severe
punishments (reprimand, warning, expulsion).

The score for an assessment item submitted after

the designated time on the due date, without an
approved extension of time, will be reduced by 5%
Penalties for Late of the possible maximum score for that
Assignments/ assessment item for each day or part day that the
Assessments assessment item is late.

However, if the late submission of assessment

paper has a valid reason, a letter of explanation
should be submitted and approved by the course
coordinator. If necessary, you will also be required
to present/attach evidences.

Assessment tasks will be returned to you two (2)

weeks after the submission. This will be returned
by email or via Blackboard portal.
Return of Assignments/
Assessments For group assessment tasks, the course
coordinator will require some or few of the students
for online or virtual sessions to ask clarificatory
questions to validate the originality of the
assessment task submitted and to ensure that all
the group members are involved.

5|Page
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103

You should request in writing addressed to the

Assignment Resubmission course coordinator his/her intention to resubmit an
assessment task. The resubmission is premised on
the student’s failure to comply with the similarity
index and other reasonable grounds such as
academic literacy standards or other reasonable
circumstances e.g. illness, accidents financial
constraints

You should request in writing addressed to the

program coordinator your intention to appeal or
contest the score given to an assessment task.
The letter should explicitly explain the
Re-marking of reasons/points to contest the grade. The program
Assessment Papers and coordinator shall communicate with the students
on the approval and disapproval of the request.
Appeal
If disapproved by the course coordinator, you can
elevate your case to the program head or the dean
with the original letter of request. The final decision
will come from the dean of the college.
All culled from BlackBoard sessions and traditional
contact

Course discussions/exercises – 30%

1st formative assessment – 10%
Grading 2nd formative assessment – 10%
System 3rd formative assessment – 10%

All culled from on-campus/onsite sessions (TBA):

Final exam – 40%

Submission of the final grades shall follow the usual

University system and procedures.

Preferred Referencing All outputs in this course which requires the

Style indication of references shall follow the general
practice of the APA 6th Edition.

6|Page
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103

You are required to create a umindanao email

account which is a requirement to access the
BlackBoard portal. Then, the course coordinator
shall enroll the students to have access to the
materials and resources of the course. All
Student communication formats: chat, submission of
Communication

assessment tasks, requests etc. shall be through the

portal and other university recognized platforms.

You can also meet the course coordinator in person

through the scheduled face to face sessions to raise
your issues and concerns.
For students who have not created their student
email, please contact the course coordinator or
program head.
Dr. Carmelita B. Chavez
Contact Details of Dean Email: carmelita_chavez@umindanao.edu.ph
Phone: (082) 300-5456

Contact Details of the Dr. Roberto R. Magbojos

Program Head Email: roberto_magbojos@umindanao.edu.ph
Phone: (082) 305-0460 loc 103

Students with Special Needs Students with special needs shall communicate with
the course coordinator about the nature of his or her
special needs. Depending on the nature of the
need, the course coordinator with the approval of
the program coordinator may provide alternative
assessment tasks or extension of the deadline of
submission of assessment tasks. However, the
alternative assessment tasks should still be in the
service of achieving the desired course learning
outcomes.

7|Page
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103
Online Tutorial Registration
You are required to undergo a tutorial on this
course. Upon enrollment and the registration of your
name to Blackboard LMS, the Course Coordinator
will contact you on the specific schedule of the
tutorial which shall be conducted within 1st week of
the class.

A specific tutorial time for this course by registering

to ccje@umindanao.edu.ph. You will be informed
by the Course Coordinator on the exact schedule of
the tutorial. Please note that there is a deadline for
enrollment.

Help Desk Contact ccje@umindanao.edu.ph

Library Contact library@umindanao.edu.ph

Well-being Welfare Support lbade@umindanao.edu.ph

Help

8|Page
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103

Course Information – see/download course syllabus in the Black Board LMS

CC’s Voice: Hello prospective criminologists! Welcome to this

course Crim. 314- Criminal law 1. By now, I am
confident that you really wanted to become
criminologists and that you have visualized yourself
already practicing your respective professions

CO: Before the actual practice of your professions, you

have to deal with one of the subject in
Jurisprudence, i.e. Criminal law 1. The sources of
our study in criminal law is the Revised Penal code
(RPC) which is divided into Book 1 and Book 2 and
Special laws passed by Congress which is penal in
nature. Book 1 of the RPC is from Article 1 to Art.
113; while Book 2 is from Article 114 to Article 365.
Book 1 is divided into two (2) parts, Article 1 to 20
which is very important is the fundamental
principles in criminal law, while Article 21 to 113 are
penalties. Book 2 are defined felonies.

Let’s begin!

Big Picture

Week 1-9: Unit Learning Outcomes (ULO): At the end of the unit, you are expected to:

a. Explain deeply the cardinal principles in criminal law, the theories of criminal
law, the extra-territorial application of our criminal law, the concept of felony and
its classifications, the different ways of committing felony, their stages of
execution, conspiracy and proposal to commit felonies.

9|Page
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103
b. Discuss basic knowledge of the circumstances affecting criminal liability. i.e.
justifying circumstances, exempting circumstances, mitigating circumstances,
aggravating circumstances and alternative circumstances. Who are the
persons criminally liable and what are their participations, the principle involved
to principal, accomplice and accessories.
c. Demonstrate adequate understanding of Penalties and the different kinds of
penalties.

Big Picture in Focus: ULOa. Explain deeply the cardinal

principles in criminal law, the theories of criminal law, the
extraterritorial application of our criminal law, the concept of
felony and its classifications, the different ways of committing
felony, their stages of execution, conspiracy and proposal to
commit felonies.

Metalanguage
The most essential terms relevant to the study of this course and to
demonstrate ULOa are operationally defined to establish a common frame of
reference as to how the texts work in the course. You will encounter these terms as
we go through the study of course. Hence, to be able to fully appreciate the topics
presented in this course, unlocking the meaning of these terms is crucial.

l CRIMINAL LAW. A branch of municipal law which 1) defines crimes, 2)

treats of their nature and 3) provides for their punishment.
l CRIME. It is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law
forbidding or commanding it.
l FELONIES (Art. 3) are acts or omissions punishable under the Revised
Penal Code. Felonies (delitos).are committed not only by means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is
performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
l MISTAKE OF FACT - is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person
who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.
l DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE: The cause which in the natural and
continuous sequence of event, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
results in a particular felony and without which the result would not have
occurred.
l CONSUMMATED FELONY. A felony is consummated when all the
elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.
l FRUSTRATED FELONY. When the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.

10 | P a g e
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103
l ATTEMPTED FELONY. There is an attempt when the offender commences
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all
the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance .

l IMPOSSIBLE CRIME. An impossible crime is one where the acts

performed would have been a crime against persons or property but which
is not accomplished because of its inherent impossibility or because of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

l JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES. The act of the person is said to be in

accordance with law - he is considered not to have transgressed the law
thus, he incurs no criminal liability.

Essential Knowledge

To perform the aforesaid big picture (unit learning outcomes) for the first three
(3) weeks of the course, you need to fully understand the following essential
knowledge that will be laid down in the succeeding pages. The topics presented
in this section is taken from the approved textbook of the course. Please note that
you are not limited to exclusively refer to the resources. Thus, you are expected
to utilize other books, research articles and other resources that are available in
the university’s library e.g. ebrary, search.proquest.com etc.

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES:

Criminal Law – A branch of municipal law which 1) defines crimes, 2) treats of

their nature and 3) provides for their punishment.

Crime defined – it is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law

forbidding or commanding it.

The Revised Penal Code (Act 3815) took effect on January 1, 1932.

Sources of Criminal Law

1. Revised Penal Code
2. Special laws

11 | P a g e
 College of Criminal Justice Education
Matina Campus, Davao City
2nd floor GET Building
Telefax #305-0460loc 103

Two Theories of Criminal Law

1. Classical theory. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the
purpose penalty is retribution that man is necessarily a moral creature with
an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil and once a person
commits a crime, he knows the consequence of his criminal acts. (Luis B.
Reyes, RPC Book 1). The emphasis is on the act.

2. Positivist Theory – That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and

morbid phenomenon which constrain him to do wrong in spite of or contrary
to his volition.; that a man is inherently good but socially wrong.

12 | P a g e
PRINCIPLE: NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE
There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This is true to civil
law countries, but not to common law countries.
Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the Philippines. No
matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same
is not considered a crime.

CONCEPTS OF MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as malum in se, which
literally means, that the act is inherently evil or bad or per se wrongful. On the other
hand, violations of special laws are generally referred to as malum prohibitum.

What are the distinctions between mala en se and mala prohibita

Mala in se Mala Prohibita

1.Those so serious in their effects on 1. Those violations of mere rules of

society as to call for almost a convenience designed to secure a
unanimous condemnation of its more orderly regulation of the affairs
members. of society.

2. Criminal intent is necessary. 2. Criminal intent is not necessary

Good faith is a valid defense. Good faith is not a valid defense. It
is enough that the prohibition is
voluntarily violated.

3. Refers generally to felonies defined 3. Refers generally to acts made

and penalized by the RPC. criminal by special laws.

4. Criminal liability is incurred even 4. Criminal liability is generally

when the crime is attempted or incurred only when the crime is
frustrated. consummated.

5. Mitigating & Aggravating circums- 5. Such circumstances are not

tances are appreciated in imposing the appreciated unless the special
penalties. law has adopted the scheme or
scale of penalties under the RPC.

13 | P a g e
Note: Not all violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional
felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that prohibited acts done in violation
of special laws are always mala prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special
law, if the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se,
and, therefore, good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless it is
the product of criminal negligence or culpa.

Examples of violation of special laws which are considered mala in se.

1. Violations of PD 532 (a) piracy in Philippine waters (b) Brigandage in the

highways.

2. Plunder – inasmuch as the predicate crimes are mala in se.

II. CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

Q: What is the general rule with respect to the construction of penal laws?
A: Criminal laws are to be strictly construed against the Government and
liberally construed in favor of the accused. (People vs. Yu Hai, 99 Phil. 725)

III. GENERAL CHARACTERISCTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW - GTP

1. GENERAL – the law is binding to all persons who live or sojourn in the
Philippines regardless of their race, belief, sex, or creed. It applies to every person
within the territory of the Philippines.
EXCEPTIONS to the rule of “Generality” in the Philippines

EXCEPTIONS:

a) Treaty Stipulations or International Agreements e.g. RP-US VFA;

b) Laws of Preferential Application e.g. RA 75-diplomatic representative-it

penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the RP and
its inhabitants of the immunities, rights, & privileges of duly accredited
foreign diplomatic representatives in the Philippines;

c) The Principles of Public International Law e.g. Sovereigns and other Chief
of States, Ambassadors, ministers, charges d’ affairs etc.;

14 | P a g e
 d) Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander in connection with
any speech delivered on the floor of the house during a regular or special
session (Art. IV, Sec. 11, 1987 Constitution)

Note: Only the heads of the diplomatic mission, as well as members of the diplomatic
staff, excluding the members of the administrative, technical and service staff, are
accorded diplomatic rank. Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial
representatives of foreign nation are not diplomatic officers. Consuls are subject to the
penal laws of the country where they are assigned. (Minucher vs CA, February 11,
2003)

2. TERRITORIAL – the law is binding to all crimes committed within the National
Territory of the Philippines. Meaning, penal laws only have effect “within” or “inside”
the Philippine territorial jurisdiction. It cannot penalize crimes committed outside the
same. The extent of the enforcement or effect of a penal law is only within the
Philippine territory. Beyond such, the law has no effect to the person or his act.
Otherwise, it would result to territorial encroachment.

Q: What is the principle of territoriality?

A: General Rule --- penal laws can only be enforced within the Phil territory.
They cannot be enforced outside.

Territorial application of the RPC:

(1) Intra-territorial – refers to the application of the RPC within the Philippine
territory (Art. I, 1987 Constitution)

(2) Extra-territorial – refers to the application of the RPC outside of the

Philippine territory

Q: What are the instances where the provisions of the RPC shall have
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION (Art. 2, RPC):
A:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

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

Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;

15 | P a g e
 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these
islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense

in the exercise of their functions; or (Some of these crimes are bribery,
fraud against national treasury, malversation of public funds or property,
and illegal use of public funds)

5. Should commit any crimes against the national security and the law
of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. (These
crimes include treason, espionage, piracy, mutiny, inciting to war or giving
motives for reprisals, correspondence with hostile country, flight to
enemy’s country and violation of neutrality)

In addition to the above-enumerated exceptions, the following shall have extra-

territorial application by express provision of the law:
6. Should commit an offense within any embassy, consulate,
diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine
government in an official capacity (Section 58 of Republic Act No.
9372-Human Security Act of 2007 more popularly known as the
ANTITERRORISM LAW)

7. Should commit any crime even if committed outside the Philippines

and whether or not such act or acts constitute an offense at the
place of commission, the crime being a continuing offense, having
been commenced in the Philippines and other elements having been
committed in another country, if the suspect or accused (a) is a
Filipino citizen; or (b) is a permanent resident of the Philippines; or
(c) Has committed the act against a citizen of the Philippines
(Section 26A of RA 10364 amending RA 9208-Anti-Human
Trafficking Law).

Rules on jurisdiction in case of a merchant vessel:

(1) The French Rule recognizes the jurisdiction of the flag of the country for crimes
committed on board the vessel except if the crime disturbs the peace and order
and security of the host country.

16 | P a g e
 (2) The English Rule recognizes that the host country has jurisdiction over crimes
committed on board the vessel unless they involve the internal management of
the vessel.

3. PROSPECTIVE (Prospectivity) – penal laws do not have any retroactive

effect.

Q: When we say penal laws cannot have any retroactive effect, what does this mean?
A: What is meant is whether or not a law can apply: (1) which makes an action done
before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal, and
punishes such action; (2) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it
was committed; (3) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed.

Q: What Articles in the RPC that deal on the characteristics of “prospectivity”? A:

Arts. 21 & 22

Art. 21 states: “ No felony shall be punishable by any

penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission”.

Art. 22 states: “Penal laws shall have a retroactive

effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a
felony, etc.”

Exception to Prospective Application: when the new law is favorable to the

accused.

Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or
favorable to the accused, it can be given a retroactive effect.

IV. LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL

LAWS

Q: What are the limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws?
A: (1) Must be general in application; (2) Must not partake of the nature of an ex post
facto law; (3) Must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder; ( 4) Must not impose
cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines; (5) No person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

Q: What is an ex post facto law?

17 | P a g e
A: An ex post facto law has been defined as one: (1) which makes an action done
before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal, and
punishes such action; (2) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it
was committed; (3) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. (Article III, Sec. 1, par.
12 of the Constitution)

Q: What is a Bill of Attainder?

A: It is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the
substitution of a legislative act for a judicial determination of guilt.

VI. FELONIES (Art. 3)

Q: What are felonies?

A: Felonies (delitos) are acts or omissions punishable under the Revised
Penal Code. Crimes involving special laws are properly called offenses
while those acts violating municipal or city ordinances are called felonies.
Q: How are felonies committed?
A: Felonies (delitos) are committed either by means of deceit (dolo) or by
means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with
deliberate intent. There is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skills.
Elements of Felonies

1. There is an act or omission;

2. IT must be punishable by the RPC;
3. The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of dolo or culpa

Felonies - acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

Offense- crimes punished under special law
Crime - acts and omissions punishable by any law

Q: Is there a difference between a crime and a felony?

A: The word crime is generic, because it refers to all acts or omissions punishable
by any law. The acts or omissions punished by the RPC are called felonies. Those
punished by special laws are called crimes or offenses.

Q: If there are many crimes where there is no deceit, how come the law says that
felonies are committed by means of deceit or fault?

18 | P a g e
A: Because “deceit” is a wrong translation of the word “dolo”. Deceit is a form of
dolo but not every dolo constitutes deceit. The better translation for the Spanish
word “dolo” is INTENT. So there must be intent, instead of deceit.

Kinds of Felonies:
(1) INTENTIONAL FELONIES (dolo)
(2) CULPABLE FELONIES (culpa)

Requisites of Dolo:
(1) Criminal Intent – the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.
Intent to commit an act with malice being purely a mental process is presumed.
Such presumption arises from the proof of commission of an unlawful act. A
mental state, hence, its existence is shown by overt acts. But if there is no
criminal intent, the act is justified, hence the accused is not liable.

Intent - refers to the use of a particular means to effect the desired result. It is a mental
state, the existence of which is demonstrated by the overt acts of a person.

(2) Freedom of Action – voluntariness on the part of the person to commit the act
or omission. But if there is lack of freedom, the offender is exempt from liability.

(3) Intelligence – the capacity to know and understand the consequence of one’s
act. But if there is lack of intelligence, the offender is exempt from liability.

Requisites of Culpa:

(1) Criminal Negligence on the part of the offender, the crime was the result of
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

(2) Freedom of Action on the part of the offender. He was not acting under
duress.

(3) Intelligence on the part of the offender in performing the negligent act.

Q: What is motive? Is it determinant of criminal liability?

A: Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person to a desired
result. Generally, motive is immaterial in the commission of a felony; it is
intent which is material.

Motive alone will not bring about criminal liability because the RPC requires that there
must be an overt act or an omission. When there is motive in the commission of a
crime, it always comes before the intent.

19 | P a g e
Distinguish Motive from Intent
Motive Intent
> in the mind >in the mind
> moving power that impels a person > the purpose to use a particular
to commit a crime means to achieve a particular r
result
>Not an element of a felony > an element of a felony

Fault can either be: 1) imprudence –(deficiency of action or lack of skill) or 2)

negligence – (deficiency of perception or lack of foresight)

Q: Why does the law penalize people who commit culpable felonies, when
actually there was no criminal intent on the part of the offender?
A: SC said it is very dangerous if a person can get away with a criminal act
simply because he did not have the intent. Society will be at great risk if
people can be careless at any time. Here, he is penalized for his lack of
foresight/lack of skill.

In the commission of an intentional or culpable felony - it means that the act must be
committed VOLUNTARILY.

Elements of voluntariness in intentional felonies: (a) freedom (b)

Intelligence (c) Intent

Elements of voluntariness in culpable felonies: (a) freedom (b)

Intelligence (c) Fault or Negligence

Q: What do you mean by “voluntary act in a felony”?

A: It is an act which is free, there is intelligence and it intentional

MISTAKE OF FACT - is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who

caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.
Requisites:

1. that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful;

20 | P a g e
3. mistake must be without fault of carelessness.

Note: Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would have been
intentional or through dolo, but not when the felony is a result of culpa. When the felony
is a product of culpa, do not discuss mistake of fact
V. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY (ART. 4)

Q: Can a person be held criminally liable even if there is no criminal intent?

A: Yes in 2 instances: (1) when the felony is classified as culpable felony
(2) crimes malum prohibitum.

Q: What do you understand by the so called “extra-ordinary manner” of

incurring criminal liability?
A: This is covered under Article 4, RPC.

Art. 4. Criminal liability. — Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act

done be different from that which he intended.

3. By any person performing an act which would be an offense

against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Problem:

A kills B. A aims his gun at B and shoots B. A’s intent is to kill B and B is killed.
Does A incur criminal liability?

Ans: Yes.---but this is not what is contemplated under par. 1 because the
law says “although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended”. Here, it was really the intention of A to kill B.

Q: What is the relevance of this problem to Art. 4?

A: This section covers only the EXTRA-ORDINARY MEANS of committing a
crime or incurring criminal liability.

21 | P a g e
Ordinarily, you commit a felony & the wrongful act done was precisely what you
intended. But in par. 1, the wrongful act done is different from you have
intended/unusual.

NOTE: Article 4 refers only to the EXTRA-ORDINARY manner of incurring criminal

liability

Q: How many clauses are there in paragraph 1?

A: There are two clauses in this paragraph:

1) "By any person committing a felony (delito)," and

2) "Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended."
Q: Does the first clause refer only to intentional felony?
A: No, because the provision specified "delito" and under Article 3, delitos
are committed either by dolo or by culpa. Therefore, even if the wrongful act
done be different from what should have been the result of the culpable or
negligent act committed, a felony is still committed. Thus, the first clause
refers to both dolo and culpa.

PRINCIPLE: A person committing a felony is liable for the DIRECT, LOGICAL AND
NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF HIS CRIMINAL ACT.

DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE: The cause which in the natural and continuous
sequence of event, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, results in a particular
felony and without which the result would not have occurred.

Requisites:

a. the direct, natural, and logical cause

b. produces the injury or damage
c. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
d. without which the result would not have occurred

22 | P a g e
Case: US vs Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524

Facts: A had the intention of inflicting physical injuries upon the person of B. A
approached B and hit him with his fist. Because of A’s fist blows, B fell down and B’s
head hit the pavement. It fractured his skull and thus caused his death. Here, A had
no intention of killing B. His intention was merely to inflict physical injuries upon. But
B died.

Issue: Is A liable for the death of B when his intention was only to inflict physical
injuries?

Held: Yes. A is liable for homicide, although his intention was merely to inflict upon B
physical injuries, though under Art. 13, A is entitled to the mitigating circumstance that
the offender did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

Let’s take the Cagoco Case: --- the victim did not die because of the punch but
because his head hit the pavement.

Q: Does the hitting of the head on the pavement which caused his death was
something absolutely foreign which broke the relation between the cause and effect
between the punching and death?

A: No. The immediate cause of death was the fractured skull, but the punching was
the proximate cause --- without the punching ---there is no falling down--- without
falling down, there is no head hitting the pavement --- if it did not happen then there
will be no death.

Case: PP vs Quiamson, 62 Phil. 162

Facts: The accused inflicted wounds upon B because the accused stabbed B. So, B
was brought to the hospital so he was saved. In the hospital, there were many
instruments attached to him, B was restless while in bed. B removed the bandages on
his wounds. Eventually, B died. The accused was prosecuted for the death of B. He
said that B’s death was not due to his fault but it was the fault of B.

Held: No, the accused is liable—the wrong done was the direct, natural & logical
consequence of the felony committed.

Case: US vs Marasigan, 27 Phil. 504

Facts: A stabbed B. Because of B’s refusal to submit to medical treatment, the wound
infected and the injury became worse. So, slight physical injuries lang nagging serious
physical injuries na. A was charged for Serious Physical Injuries. A claimed that he
should be liable only for slight physical injuries because B’s serious physical injuries
arose from B’s refusal to see a doctor. Issue: Is A liable for Serious Physical Injuries?

23 | P a g e
Held: Yes. The accused is still liable for Serious Physical Injuries although it was not
intended. The victim was not obliged to submit to medical treatment to relieve the
accused from the natural and ordinary result of his crime.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

Q: What is an impossible crime?

A: An impossible crime is one where the acts performed would have been
a crime against persons or property but which is not accomplished because
of its inherent impossibility or because of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.

There is intent (subjective) to commit a crime but actually no crime is committed

(objective).

Q: Why is it that in Art. 4 (2), it states: “performing an act”, whereas Art. 4(1),
it says, “committing a felony”?
A: Because in Art. 4 (2), there is no known felony. Unlike in Art. 4 (1) where
there is a known felony which he committed. In par 2, the offender did not
actually commit a felony as defined in the RPC, but he performed an act
which would be an offense against person or property. In other words: There
is no such thing as impossible crime by omission

Under Article 4(2), the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense
against persons or property because: (1) the commission of the offense is inherently
impossible of accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a) inadequate or
(b) ineffectual. (Intod vs. CA, October 1992)

Q: Are all impossible attempts to commit a crime punishable?

A: No. To be considered an impossible crime, it would have been an offense
against person or property.
Problem:

A wanted to kill B. A plan to stab him in his room at 12:00 midnight while B
would be sleeping --- A saw B lying on bed, then A started stabbing B without
him knowing that B is already dead 1 hour ago.

Q: Is A liable for crime of murder?

A: No. Impossible. You cannot kill somebody who is already dead. There is
a physical impossibility. But had B been alive, then it would have been
murder. Impossible crime.
Problem:

24 | P a g e
 Example: A wants to steal B’s sunglasses. A stole it. It turned out that the
sunglasses was his. Did A commit the crime of theft? Ans: No---in theft, the
personal property taken belongs to another but here sunglasses was his.
There is legal impossibility
Q: Is there a crime committed?
A: Yes, impossible crime

Requisites of impossible crime:

1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.

2. That the act was done with evil intent

3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed
is either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of
the RPC.

PRINCIPLE: There is no frustrated or attempted felony in impossible crime. It is

always consummated and applies only to grave or less grave felonies.

PRINCIPLE: There must be criminal intent on the part of the offender.----the

offender believes that he was committing a crime at that very moment.

PRINCIPLE: A person could be liable for an impossible crime only if the act
performed does not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC. ---
crime of last resort. Impossible crime is a provision of last resort, if there is no
other provision under which a certain set of facts may be prosecuted.

Q: What is the penalty for an Impossible Crime?

A: Art. 59 --- arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos.
Q: How can a person commit a felony and the wrongful done is different from that
which he intended?

A: There are 3 situations contemplated under Art. 4 (1). They are:

1. Error in personae (error in identity)

2. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the blow)
3. Praeter Intentionem (the result exceeded the intention)

25 | P a g e
Note: The three enumerated situations are always the result of an intentional
felony or dolo. These situations do not arise out of criminal negligence.

1.Error in personae (error in identity)

— there is only one offended party but the offender committed a mistake in
ascertaining the identity of the victim.

2. ABERRATIO ICTUS

Q: What is aberratio ictus? How does it affect the offender's criminal liability? A: In
aberratio ictus, there is no mistake in the identity of the victim but mistake in the
blow. The offender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another. There
are three persons present: the offender, the intended victim and the actual victim.
Consequently, the act may result in a complex crime (Article 48) or in two felonies, but
there is only one intent that characterized the crimes.

In error in personae, there is a correct aim but the actual

victim turned out to be a person different from the
intended victim.

In aberratio ictus, on the other hand, because of faulty aim, the

intended victim is not the person hit

3.Praeter Intentionem (the result exceeded the intention)

In praeter intentionem, the injury is on the intended victim but the resulting
consequence is so grave a wrong than what was intended. There should be a great
disparity between the intended felony and the actual felony committed.

Q: Explain and illustrate aberratio ictus. (2015, 1993) What do you

understand by aberration ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem?
Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (1999, 1994,
1989) A: Aberatio ictus, error in personae and praeter intentionem are the
three ways by which a person may commit a felony although the wrongful
act done is different from that which he intended.

A: In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in blow whereby an offender

intending to cause an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another
because of lack of precision. Illustration: A, intending to kill B, fires his gun
at the latter but because of poor aim or lack of precision, he hits C instead,
who suffers serious physical injury.

26 | P a g e
 In error in personae, there is a mistake in the identity of the victim. The
offender intends the injury on one person but the harm fell on another. The
intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. Illustration: A intending to
kill B, his enemy, lay in ambush for the latter to pass along a dark alley.
Because of the darkness, A fired his gun at a person passing by, thinking
him to be B. It turned out that the person shot was C, A's father.
In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater than that intended by
the offender. Here, there is a notable disparity between the means
employed or the
act of the offender and the felony which resulted. Illustration: A, without
intent to kill, struck the victim on the back, causing the victim to fall down
and hit his head on the pavement.

Yes, the presence of these circumstances will alter the criminal liability of the
accused. Thus:

1. In aberratio ictus, two offenses are actually committed by the

offender, that which he intended to commit and that which he actually
committed. But if these two offenses are both either grave or less grave,
since they are produced by one single act, a complex crime will result upon
which the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period;

2. In the case of error in personae, the offender shall be guilty of the

crime actually committed by him, but the penalty to be imposed shall either
be the penalty for the crime actually committed or that for the crime intended
to be committed whichever is lower, but the same will be imposed in its
maximum period;

4. In praeter intentionem, the offender, will incur criminal liability for the
felony actually committed by him, but he will be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of not having intended to commit so grave a wrong as
that which he committed under Art. 13 [3] of the Revised Penal Code.

VI. STAGES IN THE EXECUTION OF A FELONY – Art. 6

Q: What are the stages in the execution of a felony?

A: Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies

Q: What is a consummated felony?

A: A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present.

27 | P a g e
 Q: What is a frustrated felony?
A: When the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

Q: What is an attempted felony?

A: There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.

PREPARATORY ACTS
Q: Are preparatory acts punishable?
A: Generally, No, because the act of buying a knife is not the act of killing
your wife or the act of practicing shooting is not preparatory to the act of
shooting your enemy.
PRINCIPLE: Preparatory external acts are not punishable EXCEPT when the law
specifically provides for a penalty for such preparatory acts.

Example: Art. 304 – possession of picklocks – these are gadgets used to open doors,
robbers possessed this kind of instrument. But the possession of a false key or pick
lock is not the actual act of robbery. It is only in preparation of robbery. Preparatory
acts to commit robbery is not punishable but Art. 304 states that mere possession of
these objects which are preparatory to the crime of robbery with force upon things is
also punishable.

ACTS OF EXECUTION: ---this is the implementation of the plan. The offender now
executes the commission of the act and there are 3 possibilities: It could either be
ATTEMPTED, FRUSTRATED & CONSUMMATED.
Attempted Stage - There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission
of a felony directly by overt acts ------ overt acts: therefore, there is no attempted
stage in felony by omission. Take note: the attempted stage refers only to “felony by
act”.

"Overt acts" or external acts — those which if allowed to continue will logically result
in a felony; it is the start of criminal liability.
"Directly" — The attempted felony is that directly linked to the overt act no matter what
the intention is.

PRINCIPLE: in order to convict a person for an attempted felony, the overt act
must have a direct relation to the felony for which he is charged.

28 | P a g e
Case: Pp vs Lamahong, 61 Phil. 707

Facts: One night a group of policemen while patrolling saw a figure in the dark. They
stopped and observed what the guy was doing. The guy did not know that he was
being watched by the policemen. What the guy did was he was trying to create an
opening to enter the house. When he was able to create an opening and the accused
was already in the act of entering the house, that was the time when the policemen
caught him. The guy was charged for the crime of Attempted Robbery because
according to the prosecution, the guy commenced the commission of robbery directly
by overt acts by trying to enter the house in the middle of the night.

SC: No attempted robbery – there is no connection on what he was doing and the
elements of robbery. How do you commit the crime of robbery? – it is committed by
taking personal property belonging to another by violence against or intimidation of
person. In this case, he has not yet commenced the act of taking anything. They
caught him in the act of entering but robbery is not committed by entering but by taking.
There is no connection between the act & the crime for which he is charged. So it
was premature to charge him with attempted robbery. He was in the act of entering a
house while all occupants are asleep. When one enters a house against the will of the
occupants, he commits the crime of trespass to dwelling – the crime that is committed
is attempted trespass to dwelling and not attempted robbery. But he may be charged
with attempted trespass because that act is directly related to the purpose of entering
the store or consummated malicious mischief because of the destruction of property.
PRINCIPLE: One must commence the felony by overt act and the overt act must
be related to the crime for which he is charged.

Q: A person enters the dwelling of another. However, at the very moment of

his entry and before he could do anything, he is already apprehended by
the household members, can he be charged with attempted robbery?
A: No. The act of entering alone is not yet indicative of robbery although
that may be what he may have planned to commit. He may be held liable
for trespassing.

PRINCIPLE: The desistance must come before the commission of the crime. The
desistance must not come after you have executed all the acts of execution on
the theory that you cannot desist something that you have already
accomplished.
Problem
A stole the wallet of B. He went out but came back and return the wallet.

Q: Is there an attempted theft or there is no theft because A desisted?

29 | P a g e
 A: No. There is no attempted theft here but a consummated theft---the
moment A took the wallet and left --- the crime of theft has already been
accomplished. When A return the wallet ---- we cannot say that there is
desistance – you cannot desist when the crime is already consummated ---
but you may avail yourself in Art. 13, mitigating circumstance.

FRUSTRATED STAGE: when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce
it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
Distinguish between the attempted and frustrated felonies.

a. As to acts of execution, in attempted, not all acts of execution had been

done whereas in frustrated, all acts of execution had been performed.

b. As to causes of non-accomplishment, in attempted, the felony was not

produced by reason of cause or accident other than the offender's own
spontaneous desistance; in frustrated the reason for the frustration is
some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator.

c. In attempted stage, the offender is still in the subjective phase as he still

has control of his acts; whereas in the frustrated stage, he is already in
the objective phase because all the acts of execution are already there
and the cause of its non-accomplishment is other than the offender's
own will. Hence, if the felony was not produced by the will of the offender,
such as his giving the antidote for the poison he administered on the
victim, there is no frustrated homicide, but some other crime, e.g.,
physical injuries. Example: In attempted homicide, the wound is not
mortal, hence, the offender should still need to deal another blow on the
victim which he was not able to do because of some cause or accident
like his being apprehended. In frustrated homicide, the wound is mortal,
already sufficient to bring about death, hence, there is no more need of
another blow from the offender. But death nevertheless did not
supervene because of timely medical attendance.

Note: The similarity of these stages is that the felony is not accomplished, it is not
produced or consummated but the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is
different.

What crimes that do not admit of frustrated stage?

They are those which, by the definition of a frustrated felony, the offender cannot
possibly perform all the acts of execution to bring the desired result without
consummating the offense. Examples:
(1) Rape, since the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, no matter
how slight is the penetration, the felony is consummated. If the male organ

30 | P a g e
 failed to touch the pudenda, by some causes or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance, the felony is merely attempted. If he desisted
spontaneously, he is not liable for attempted rape, following Article 6, but he is
liable for some other crime such as acts of lasciviousness.

(2) Arson, because this is punished as to its result, hence, the moment burning of
the property occurs, even if slight, the offense is consummated.
(3) Corruption of public officers, because the offense requires the concurrence
of the will of both parties, such that when the offer is accepted, the offense is
consummated. But when the offer is rejected, the offense is merely attempted.
(4) Adultery because the essence of the crime is sexual congress.
(5) Physical injury since it cannot be determined whether the injury will be slight,
less serious, or serious unless and until consummated.
(6) Indirect Bribery because it is committed by accepting gifts offered to the public
officer by reason of his office. If he does not accept, he does not commit the
crime. If he accepts, it is consummated.
(7) Theft because the unlawful taking immediately consummates the offense and
the disposition of the thing is not an element of the crime.

CONSUMMATED STAGE: when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.

To convict a person of a particular crime, you have to prove all the elements to
establish the crime. If all the elements of a crime are present, then the felony is
consummated.

Is there an instance that there is difficulty in determining the stage of execution? YES.
>there is no distinction between Attempted and Frustrated Felony --- special
crimes. --- where you attempt to do it, but your attempt constitutes the consummation
of the crime. Example: Crimes against National Security --Art. 121. Flight to Enemy’s
Country. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be inflicted upon any person who, owing
allegiance to the government, attempts to flee or to go an enemy country when
prohibited by competent authority.

>consummated or nothing --- there are crimes where there is no attempted or

frustrated. It is either consummated or nothing.

a) Felony by omission --- you failed to perform an act which the law commands
you to do as a duty.----- If you do the act --- you don’t commit the crime. But
if you do not do it ---- there is a crime, So it is either you do or you do not
do.
b) False testimony in court
c) Slander or Oral Defamation ---

31 | P a g e
 d) Arson ----

IX. CONSPIRACY/PROPOSAL - Art. 8.

Q: When is there proposal to commit a felony?

A: There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.

Q: When is there conspiracy to commit a felony?

A: A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

Q: How do we define conspiracy?

A: when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

Q: Is conspiracy a felony?
A: As a general rule, a conspiracy does not constitute a felony; it is merely
a preparatory act in the execution of a felony. And as we already learned
from Art. 6, a preparatory act is generally not punishable.

Q: When is conspiracy punishable as a felony?

A: A conspiracy, as expressly stated in par. 1, is punishable only in cases
where the law specially provides a penalty therefore. In other words, a
conspiracy is not a felony. Conspiracy only becomes a felony if it is made
so by specific provision of law.

Note: Once the proposal is accepted –------ it now reaches the stage of conspiracy.
GEN. RULE: Proposal or conspiracy to commit a felony is not
punishable.
EXCEPT: when the law specifically provides a penalty therefore.
PRINCIPLE: Proposal or conspiracy to commit a felony is not punishable unless
the law makes the proposal or conspiracy punishable.
Q: Example of Proposal or Conspiracy as a Crime or are there instances when
mere conspiracy or mere proposal becomes a crime?
A: Yes, when the law specifically provides a penalty therefore. There are
many crimes in the RPC which can be consummated by mere proposal or
conspiracy:
a) machinations in public auctions
b) monopoly or combination in restraint of trade

32 | P a g e
 c) when a public officer or a warden makes unchaste proposal to a woman
prisoner who is under his custody --- abuse against chastity d)
conspiracy to commit treason – Art. 115
e) conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection – Art. 136
f) conspiracy to commit coup d’ etat – Art. 136 as amended by RA 6968
g) conspiracy to commit sedition – Art. 141 How about Proposals?
a) Proposal to commit treason – Art. 115
b) Proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection –Art 136
c) Proposal to commit coup d’ etat – Art. 136-A Q: What is the effect of a
conspiracy?
A: A conspiracy merely creates co-responsibility between or among the
accused. Once a conspiracy has been established, then each and every
one accused of being a conspirator, who joined in the conspiracy, becomes
liable as a principal for the crime committed. As the saying goes, the act of
one becomes the act of all. (Pp vs Gallo, 318 SCRA 157 and Pp vs
Recones,
310 SCRA 809)

X. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY (Articles 11, 12,

13, 14 & 15)
There are five circumstances affecting criminal liability:

1. Justifying circumstances under Article 11;

2. Exempting circumstances provided for under Article 12;
3. Mitigating circumstances prescribed in Article 13;
4. Aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14;
5. Alternative circumstances classified under Article 15 as either mitigating or
aggravating.

Offenders falling under either Article 11 or 12 are without criminal liability; those
benefited by the circumstances in Article 13 have reduced criminal liability; those
proved to be more perverse by committing the felony with any of the circumstances
in Article 14 have increased criminal liability; and those who act while under the
circumstances stated in Article 15 will have their liability either increased or reduced
depending upon the situation obtaining in the commission of the felony.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

The act of the person is said to be in accordance with law --- he is considered not to
have transgressed the law thus, he incurs no criminal liability.

33 | P a g e
Important Points:

Self-defense applies only to crimes against persons --- like homicide or murder or
physical injuries

Note: Art. 11 is a matter of defense. The defense of self-defense should be proved by

clear & convincing evidence which is approximately proof beyond reasonable doubt -
- the burden of proof rest on the accused.

Why? --- because when one invokes self-defense – the accused automatically admit
that he killed the victim.

Rule: Since there is no crime, necessarily there is no civil liability ex delicto.

Except: In paragraph 4, wherein civil liability may be adjudged against those who
benefited from the act which caused damage to the property of the victim but spared
their own properties from consequent damages. The civil liability in Par. 4 is provided
for in Art. 101, and is commendably in line with the rule against unjust enrichment.

Q: What are the rights included in self-defense?

A: Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one
assaulted but also that of his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by law. Thus,
it includes:
(1) Defense of the person's home
(2) Defense of rights protected by law
(3) The right to honor (Hence, a slap on the face is considered as unlawful
aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity. It is a serious,
personal attack
(4) The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack upon the
property although it is not coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner
of the premises. All the elements for justification must however be present.

Requisites of self-defense

1) Unlawful aggression - U
2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it - R
3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself-L

Q: What are the effects of self-defense?

A: (1) When all the elements are present - the person defending himself is
free from criminal liability and civil liability and (2) When only a majority of

34 | P a g e
 the elements are present - privileged mitigating circumstance provided there
is unlawful aggression.

Q: What is the nature of an unlawful aggression?

A: For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an "actual,
sudden and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, not merely a
threatening or intimidating attitude" and the accused must present proof of
positively strong act of real aggression.

Elements of unlawful aggression

(1) There must be a physical or material attack or assault;

(2) The attack or assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent; and
(3) The attack or assault must be unlawful

Two kinds of unlawful aggression

(1) Actual or material unlawful aggression which means an attack with physical
force or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the intent of
the aggressor to cause the injury;

(2) Imminent unlawful aggression which is an attack that is impending or at the

point of happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude.

Q: May a person act in defense of his property?

Example: A, thief, tries to run away with your wallet. In order to stop him
from running. You shoot him. Can you claim self-defense by invoking that
there was an unlawful aggression on your property right because he was
taking your wallet. Are you justified in saying: “I have to shoot him because
there was an unlawful aggression on my property rights.

A: NO. Defense of property can give rise to self-defense only if the attack on
one’s property is coupled with an attack on his person.

Q: Can there be self-defense when what is involved is property?

A: If what is to be saved is property ONLY, killing is not justified. To justify killing,
it must be necessary to do it in order to save another life.
If the aggression is on the property, even if there was no attack on the
defender or owner or possessor, defense is proper but not to the extent of
taking life. Killing the aggressor will not be justified because the means used
to repel or prevent the aggression will not then be reasonable.

35 | P a g e
REASON: The value of property can never be equated to human life which is
supposed to be priceless.

SECOND ELEMENT: Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or

repel the aggression.

“prevent” --- actual aggression

“repel” ------ a threatened aggression

Note: In preventing or repelling --- you must use reasonable means.

Q: What do you mean by “reasonable means”?
A: (1) the course of action taken is reasonable and (2) the weapon used to
defend must also be reasonable.

Q: What is “course of action taken is reasonable?

A: The offender’s conduct and response to the occasion

Q: When is there reasonable necessity of the means employed? A: It

depends upon the circumstances surrounding the aggression, the state of
mind of the aggressor and the available weapon at the defender’s disposal.
IT CANNOT BE MEASURED BY MATHEMATICAL EQUATION.

Factors taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of means

employed by the person defending himself:

(1) Nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor.

(2) Physical condition, character, size and other circumstances of both the
offender and defender.
(3) Place and occasion of the assault.

Rule: When a person is attacked – a person will instinctively used the first
available means at his disposal to defend himself – when a person is under
attack --- he is not expected to think cooly and to choose what kind of weapon
he is going to use.

“Reasonableness of the weapon” ---- is not only measured by using a knife against
a fist; a club as against a chaco.
Note: “Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply material
commensurability between the means of attack & defense. What the law requires is
“rational equivalence” (Pp vs Gutual, 254 SCRA 37).

36 | P a g e
Note: you have to consider the 1) size or power of the weapon, 2) the character
of the parties & 3) their relative standing.

THIRD ELEMENT: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person

defending himself.
If you were the one who cause the aggression – no self defense because you gave
provocation. You cannot say that you are totally faultless because you are partly to
be blamed.
Ex: A provokes B, by reason of the provocation, B attacks A, a defends himself with
reasonable means. A cannot claim self-defense.

PRINCIPLES TO REMEMBER:
1. No provocation at all was given to aggressor by person defending himself.
2. Even if provocation was given, it was not sufficient.
3. Even if provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending
himself.
4. Even if provocation was given by person defending himself, it was not the
proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.
5. Sufficient means proportionate to the damage caused by the act, and adequate
to stir one to its commission.

NOTE: Test to determine whether or not the provocation is sufficient?

A: The provocation that was given in such that it is normal and natural for a
person to react by becoming an unlawful aggressor. For provocation to be
considered serious by the court, the degree must be sufficient and must at
all times be immediate to the unlawful aggression..

Problem: A, unlawfully attacked B with a knife. B then took out his gun
which caused A to run away. B, after treating his wounds, pursued A and
shot him. Can B invoke self-defense?

A: No. The unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists. When
the aggressor runs away, the one making a defense has no more right to
kill or even to wound the former aggressor. In order to justify homicide on
the ground of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the deceased by
the defendant be simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or at
least both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time.

RULE: The person defending himself cannot be expected to think clearly so as to

control his blow. The killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified as
long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at a time when the elements of complete
self-defense are still present

37 | P a g e
NOTE: The aggression ceases except when retreat is made to take a more
advantageous position to insure the success of the attack begun, unlawful
aggression continues.

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Requisites of defense of relatives

1. Unlawful aggression.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
3. Relative being defended gave no provocation.

NOTE: The law gives a leeway on the third requisite, even if the relative being
defended gave the provocation, if the relative making the defense had no part therein,
he can successfully invoke the defense of relative.

Relatives covered under defense of relatives:

1) Spouse;
2) Ascendants;
3) Descendants;
4) Legitimate, adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity in the same
degrees (namely: ascendants-in-law; descendants-in-law, and siblings-in-law)
5) Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.

DEFENSE OF STRANGER
Requisites of defense of strangers:

(1) Unlawful aggression

(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
(3) Person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES DEFENSE OF STRANGERS

In defense of relatives, even In defense of strangers, if the
though the person making the person making the defense
defense acted out of some evil acted out of revenge,
motive, he can still invoke the resentment or some evil
justifying circumstance, as long motive in killing the aggressor,
as he did not contribute to the he cannot invoke the justifying
unlawful aggression circumstance.

AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

Requisites of state of necessity (El-PC)

38 | P a g e
 a) Evil sought to be avoided actually exists.
b) Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
c) There be no other Practical and less harmful means of preventing it, and
d) There must be no Contribution on the part of the accused what caused
the evil to arise.

NOTE: The state of necessity must not have been brought about by the negligence or
imprudence by the one invoking the justifying circumstances.

NOTE: Generally, there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances. The civil liability
referred to herein is based not on the act committed but on the benefit derived from
the state of necessity. So the accused will not be civilly liable if he did not receive any
benefit out of the state of necessity. On the other hand, persons who did not participate
in the damage or injury would be civilly liable if they derived benefit out of the state of
necessity.

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
Requisites of fulfillment of duty

1) Accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise

of a right or office.
2) Injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

Requisites of obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose

(OLM)

1) An Order has been issued by a superior

2) Such order must be for some Lawful purpose
3) Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
4)
NOTE: Both the person who gives the order, and the person who executes it, must be
acting within the limitations prescribed by law.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES

Exempted from criminal liability

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.

39 | P a g e
2. A child fifteen years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability under R.A.
9344.

3. A person over fifteen years of age and under eighteen, unless he has acted with
discernment in which case, such child shall be subject to appropriate proceedings
in accordance with R.A. 9344.

4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
mere accident without the fault or intention causing it.

5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.

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

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

Q: In case of exempting circumstances, is there a crime committed?

A: Yes. There is a crime committed but no criminal liability arises from it because
of the complete absence any of the conditions which constitute free will or
voluntariness of the act.

Distinctions between Justifying & Exempting:

Justifying Exempting

>the act is within the bound of the law >the act is criminal

>there is no crime, hence no criminal >there is a crime & a criminal

>since there is no crime, there is no >since there is a crime, there is

Criminal liability & no civil liability a criminal (but exempted) &
Except par. 4 there is a civil liability

>the emphasis of the law is on the >the emphasis is on the actor.

act
Basis: Complete absence of intelligence

Q: What is imbecility? What is insanity?

A: It is a condition of the mind where the offender might be advance in age
but the mental development is comparable to that of a child between two
to seven years old.

40 | P a g e
 Insanity – exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act, that is, the accused is deprived of reason, he acts
without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of
power to discern, or there is a total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere
abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability

Note: The burden rests on the accused to establish that fact, for the law presumes
every man to be sane. Hence, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove insanity,
the legal presumption of one’s sanity stands. Note: Art. 800 NCC – presumes every
person to be of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary.

Presumption is in favor of sanity --- The defense must prove that the accused was
insane at the time of the commission of the crime.

NOTE: Mere abnormalities of the mental facilities are not enough. Two
Test:

1. Cognition test or complete deprivation in committing the act

2. Volition test or a total deprivation of the freedom of the will

Q: What is the nature of insanity as a defense?

A: Insanity is a defense in nature of confession and avoidance and as such must

be adequately proved. The law presumes that all persons are of sound mind, and
that acts are done consciously. xxxxx In the eyes of the law, insanity exists when
there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Proof of the
existence of some abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability,
if it can be shown that the offender was not completely deprived of freedom and
intelligence

Q: What are effects of insanity of the accused?

A: The following are the effects:
(1) At the time of the commission of the crime - exempted

(2) During trial - proceedings suspended until the mental capacity of the
accused is restored to afford him fair trial, accused is committed to a
hospital.

(3) After judgment or while serving sentence - execution of judgment is

suspended, the accused is committed to a hospital. The period of
confinement in the hospital is counted for the purpose of the
prescription of the penalty.

41 | P a g e
MINORITY

Note: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Art. 12 of the Revised Penal Code have been amended
by RA 9344 (a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1402 and House Bill No. 5065) which
was finally passed by the Senate and House of Representatives on March 22, 2006.
RA 9344 took effect on May 21, 2006. Hence, the amendments above stated.

Q: What is discernment?
A: Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between
right and wrong including the capacity to fully appreciate the consequences
of his unlawful act. Such capacity may be known and be determined by
taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the
records in each case, the manner the crime was committed, and the conduct
of the offender after its commission.

ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION

OF CAUSING IT (DAMNUM ABSQUE
INJURIA.
Conditions necessary to exempt a person from liability under subsection 4 of Article
12 of RPC
1. That the act causing the injury be lawful; that is, permitted not only by law but also
by regulations.

2. That it be performed with due care.

3. That the injury be caused by mere accident, i.e., by an unforeseen event.
4. That there be no fault or intention to cause the injury.
Note: If not all the conditions necessary are present to exempt from liability, the act
should be considered as: Reckless imprudence, if the act is executed without taking
those precautions of measures which the most common prudence would require; or
Simple imprudence, if it is a mere lack of precaution in those cases where either the
threatened harm is not imminent or the danger is not openly visible.

Accident

An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it
comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences. It presupposes a lack of intention to commit the wrong
done.

COMPULSION OF IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

42 | P a g e
Irresistible Force - It is a degree of force which is external or physical which reduces
the person to a mere instrument and the acts produced are done without and against
his will.
Requisites of compulsion of irresistible force
1. Compulsion is by means of physical force
2. Physical force must be irresistible
3. Physical force must come from a third person

Nature of physical force required by par. 5

The force must be irresistible to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not
only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be
present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is done. A threat of future injury
is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity
to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Requisites of uncontrollable fear

(1) Threat, which causes the fear, is of an evil greater than or at least equal
to that which he is required to commit.

(2) It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.

Elements of uncontrollable fear

1) Existence of an uncontrollable fear

2) Fear must be real and imminent

3) Fear of an injury is greater than or equal to that committed

NOTE: A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such
character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
combat.

In case of uncontrollable fear, it is necessary that the threat that caused the
uncontrollable fear on the offender must be present, clear and personal. It must not
only be/merely an imagined threat or court Interfered threat.

43 | P a g e
PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE

Insuperable cause ---- Some motive which has lawfully, morally, or physically
prevented a person to do what the law commands.

Requisites under this exempting circumstance

1. An act is required by law to be done.

2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. Failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

SELF-HELP. You can also refer to the sources below to help you further understand
the lesson:

References:
Revised Penal Code Book 1 by Luis B. Reyes.

LET’S CHECK!

Activity 1. MULTIPLE CHOICE. After reading the topics presented under the
Essential Knowledge, you are required to perform this activity in order to check the
level of your comprehension. Encircle the correct answer.

1. When does the Revised Penal Code took effect?

a. January 1, 1832 b. January 2, 1887 c. January 1, 1932 d. answer not
given
2. The branch of law which defines crime, treats of their nature and provides for their
punishment is a. Criminology b. Criminalistics c. Criminal
Law d. answer not given
3. Criminal laws are binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory is
called:
a. Generality b. Territoriality c. Prospectivity d. answer not given
4. President Trump went to the Philippines on a state visit, and upon landing in Manila,
the first thing that he did was molest somebody. Is President Trump liable under our
Philippine Law?
a. Yes under generality principle b. No, he is exempt under Public
International Law
5. This means that penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory.
a. Generality b. Territoriality c. Prospectivity

44 | P a g e
6. A and B are Filipino citizens. They took tour in Japan while in Japan a attacked B.
When B came back to the Philippines, he file a case against B. Does the Philippine
Court have jurisdiction?
a. Yes, A and B are both Filipino citizens b. No, because of territoriality
principle
7. If there is conflict between the Spanish text and the English text of the Penal Code
which will prevail.
a. the Spanish text b. English text c. Filipino text
d. none of them
8. Mr. A while on board a Philippine vessel anchored at Davao Gulf in Sasa, commits
a crime against B on board that vessel. Can A be tried under our Philippine Courts?
a. Yes b. No
9. When a crime is committed on board a foreign vessel while that vessel is in the
territory of another country, the crime shall be tried under the law of the territory when
it is committed, refers to
a. English Rule b. French Rule
10. If a crime is committed on board a foreign vessel while the same is anchored in
another country, the crime shall be tried not in that country, but in the Home-state of
the vessel, refers to
a. English Rule b. French Rule
11. Acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code: a.
Felonies b. Special Law
12. Aberratio Ictus means a. Error in identity b. mistake in the blow c. the result
exceed the intention
13. Practer intentionene means a. Error in identity b. mistake in the blow c. the
result exceed the intention
14. The accused chased the victim with the knife causing the victim to panic and run.
The victim jumped into the sea and drowned. Is the accused liable for the drowning
of the victim? a. Yes b. No
15. The accused slapped the boy. The victim developed a fever due to malaria. The
boy died. Is the accused liable for the death of the boy? a. Yes b. No
16. A want to kill B. A went to the room of B in the middle of the night while B is sleeping.
A shoot B without knowing that B is already dead 3 hours ago because of bangungot.
Is A liable for the death of B?
a. Yes b. No
17. A want to kill B. Bang! Bang! Bang! B was fatally hit. He fell down. A says, Uy!
I’m sorry, I desist. Is such statement an example of spontaneous desistance? a.
Yes b. No
18. A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back of B, without knowing that nit
was empty. When A pressed the trigger it did not fire. A is liable for a.
attempted felony b. frustrated felony
c. impossible crime
19. The thief pick the pocket of her victim inside her bag but the victim detected it, and
held the hand of the thief. Is the act a. attempted b. frustrated c. consummated

45 | P a g e
20. The elements of voluntariness of felony are?
a. freedom b. intelligence c. intent d. all of the above
21. May a crime be committed without intent?
a. Yes, if it is culpa b. yes if it is punishable by special
law
c. both A and B are correct d. no
22. As a general rule, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony is –
a. punishable b. not punishable
23. Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is already dead but the offender
thought that she was alive. What crime was committed? a. impossible crime
b. consummated rape
24. A, surreptitiously took a watch from the possession of another which turned out to
be his own watch which he had been missing for 2 weeks. What crime was
committed?
a. impossible crime b. theft
25. Johnny thinking that his girlfriend Susan is pregnant, administered abortive
substance on Susan to expel the fetus from the maternal womb. It turned out that
Susan was not pregnant. What crime, if any, did Johnny commit? a. abortion
b. impossible crime c. physical injury
26. Who may incur criminal liability?
a. a person committing a felony b. a person
committing impossible crime
c. both a and b are correct d. none of the above

Activity 2

1. In exempting circumstance, there is a crime but the actor is?

a. justified b. lawful c. exempt from criminal liability d. none of the above

2. Which of the following is exempt from criminal liability?

a. a person acted in self defense b. a person acting in the fulfillment of a duty
c. an insane or imbecile person d. a person acting in obedience to an order by
a superior

3. A 14-year old boy is genius whose mental development is advance. Is he still

exempt from criminal liability?
a. Yes b. No more

4. The circumstance which, if attending the commission of an act, makes the act
lawful and justified and in accordance with law.

46 | P a g e
a. justifying circumstance b. exempting circumstance
c. mitigating circumstance d. alternative circumstance

5. Which of the following is the most indispensable requirement in self-defense. a.

unlawful aggression
b. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal an aggression
c. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending humself
d. all of them of equal importance

6. Juan and Pedro agree to a fight. In the course of the fight, Juan inflicted injury on
Pedro. Pedro inflicted injury on Juan. Who is entitled to self-defense?
a. Juan only b. Pedro only
c. both Juan and Pedro d. none of them can claim self-
defense

7. X is inside his house in the second floor. Y from below challenge X to a fight. X
immediately pulled his gun and shoot Y to death. Is X justified in killing Y
invoking self-defense?
a. Yes, because the challenge made by Y amounts to unlawful aggression
b. Yes, because X is defending himself
c. No, because the threatened harm is not actual and imminent
d. answer not given

8. Juan and Pedro are brothers. Tiago attack Pedro because Pedro provoked Tiago.
Can Juan defend Pedro invoking defense of a relative?
a. Yes, because Juan had no part of the provocation made by Pedro
b. No more because Pedro give sufficient provocation
c. No, because Pedro is at fault
d. none of the above

9. Johnny gave sufficient provocation upon George, but George did not react. It was
only after six (6) months that George attack Johnny on that same provocation.
Assuming that Johnny kills George, can Johnny claim self-defense?

a. Yes, because Johnny/s provocation is not immediate to the act of aggression

b. No, because Johnny give sufficient provocation
c. No, because self-defense is incomplete
d. none of the above

47 | P a g e
10. What does employment of reasonable necessity requires?
a. perfect equality b. reasonable equality c. justified equality d. partial
equality

11. The robber tried to get the money of X. X saw the robber. The robber started to
run away, but when the robber was about to jumped out of the window, X shoot
the robber. Is the act of X justified?
a. Yes as defense of property right
b. Yes as performance to duty
c. No because the taking of property is not couple with an attack
d. yes invoking state of necessity doctrine

12. Insulting words addressed to the accused without physical assault could constitute
-
a. unlawful aggression b. not an unlawful aggression
c. slight aggression d. none of them

13. A slap on the face of the victim constitutes –

a. unlawful aggression b. not unlawful aggression c. slight aggression d. none
of them

14. Is retaliation be considered as self-defense? a. Yes b. No

15. Under the juvenile delinquency law, the age requirement of the offender to be
exempted from criminal liability was raised to - a. 9 years old b. 15 years
old c. 18 years old d. 21 years old

16. Embracing a woman, touching her private parts and her breast, is considered as
–
a. unlawful aggression b. not unlawful aggression c. slight aggression d. none
of them

17. A is looking for his enemy B to kill him. When a saw B, B is attacking X, so, A
entered the scene and stabbed B to death. Is A justified in killing B?
a. Yes invoking defense of a stranger b. No because of his evil motive
c. Yes as self-defense d. none of them

48 | P a g e
18. During the storm, the ship which was heavily loaded with goods was in danger of
sinking. The captain of the vessel ordered part of the cargoes thrown overboard.
Who will shoulder the cost of the cargoes which were damaged?
a. the ship captain b. owner of the ship
c. all person benefited the act proportionately d. none of them because of a storm

19. The act of the executioner of the National Bilibid Prison who administer lethal dose
of medicine to convicts in a death row is justified because of - a. performance
of duty b. lawful exercise of right c. lawful exercise of office d.
obedience to an order
20. An insane person is exempt from criminal liability because of absence of -
a. Freedom of action b. intelligence C. intent

LET’S DO THIS!

Activity 1. Based on what you have learned from our topics presented you are
required to write a reflection on your understanding on the application of the
fundamental principles in Revised Penal Code to offenses which are in the future
punishable by special laws.

___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

49 | P a g e
 Activity 2

1. Can the fundamental principles of the Revised Penal Code be applied to offenses which
are in the future punishable by special law? Explain.

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

2. Discuss why does our law allows self-defense.

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

50 | P a g e
IN A NUTSHELL.

Activity 1. Case problem: The wife took the wallet of her husband. Inside of it, she
took P500.00. Is the wife liable for theft?

1. ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

51 | P a g e
Activity 2. Mere conspiracy and proposal to commit the crime of rebellion or
insurrection, or treason, or coup’ de tat is already punishable, what is the rationality
of this law?
1. ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

52 | P a g e
Activity 3. The topics presented gave you knowledge on the fundamental principles
in criminal law such as classification, of felonies according to the manner of execution,
according to stages of execution and according to the gravity of offense. In this part,
you will be required to write five (5) words that catch your mind and try to create
important insights related to the words that you have selected.

1. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
3. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Q&A LIST. This part allows you to list down all rising questions or issues. These
questions or issues will be raised in the Blackboard discussion feature. You can write
your answers after the clarification. This will help you in the review of concepts and
essential knowledge.

Questions/Issues Answers

1.Why is it that common law crime is not

punishable in the Philippines.
2.

3.

4.

5.

53 | P a g e
KEYWORDS INDEX. This section lists down the important keywords from this unit
that will help you to recall and review.

Revised Penal Code Exempting Felony Mistake of Fact

Circumstance
Doctrine of Proximate Praeter Intentionem Attempted Felony Frustrated Felony
Cause
Impossible Crime Justifying French Rule English Rule
Circumstance

Intentional Felony Culpable Felony Error in Personae Aberratio Ictus

Big Picture in Focus: ULOb. Discuss basic knowledge of the

circumstances affecting criminal liability. i.e. justifying circumstances,
exempting circumstances, mitigating circumstances, aggravating
circumstances and alternative circumstances. Who are the persons
criminally liable and what are their participations, the principle involved to
principal, accomplice and accessories.

Metalanguage

For you to better understand ULOb, you will need to have an operational
understanding of the following terms below. Please note that you will also be required
to refer to the previous definitions found in ULOa section.

• ABSOLUTORY CAUSE. Absolutory causes are those where the act committee
is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty
imposed.
• AGENT OF A PERSON IN AUTHORITY — one who by direct provision of the
law or by election or by appointment by competent authority is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property
and any private person who comes to the aid of a person in authority (art. 152
as amended by RA 1978)

54 | P a g e
 • AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. Are those which, if attendant in the
commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without, however,
exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.
• ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. Are those which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects
of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the
relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the
offender.
• CRAFT involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused in
order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim.
• DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER. Lack
or low degree of instruction is mitigating in all crimes. It is not illiteracy alone,
but rather lack of sufficient intelligence.
• DISGUISE means resorting to any device to conceal identity.
• EVIDENT PREMIDITATION. The essence of premeditation is that the
execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and upon
reflection to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to
arrive at a calm judgment.
• FRAUD is insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a
manner which enables the offender to carry out his design.
• GENERIC — Those that can generally apply to all crimes. Example — Dwelling,
nighttime, or recidivism.
• IGNOMINY. It pertains to the moral order, which adds disgrace to the material
injury caused by the crime. Ignominy adds insult to injury or adds shame to the
natural effects of :he crime. Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man.
• INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE. Incomplete justifying
circumstance means that not all the requisites to justify the act are present.
• INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE. Incomplete exempting
circumstance means that not all the requisites to exempt from criminal liability
are present.
• INHERENT — Those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the
crime or those that are already a part of the commission of the felony and do
not have the effect of increasing the penalty. Example: Abuse of public office
(par. 1) in crime of bribery in Art. 210; breaking a wall (par 19) or unlawful entry
(par 18) in robbery committed by force upon things (Art. 299 and Art. 302);
evident premeditation in robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage.
• INTOXICATION – mitigating when the offender has committed a felony in the
state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to
commit the said felony. Aggravating if habitual or intentional.
• MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. Are those which are if present in the
commission of a crime do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability but
serve only to reduce the penalty.
• PASSION OR OBFUSCATION. Passion and obfuscation refer to emotional
feeling which produces excitement so powerful as to overcome reason and self-

55 | P a g e
 control. It must come from prior unjust or improper acts. The passion and
obfuscation must emanate from legitimate sentiments.
• PERSON IN AUTHORITY — one who is directly vested with jurisdiction which
is the power to govern and to execute the laws, whether as an individual or a
member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission. (Art.
152 RPC)
• PRIVILEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE. A branch of municipal law which
1) defines crimes, 2) treats of their nature and 3) provides for their punishment.
• PROVOCATION. Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone.
• QUALIFYING — Those that change the nature of the crime. Example —
Alevosia (treachery) or evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to
murder or abuse of confidence (par 4) makes the crime of theft qualified (Art.
310)
• QUASI RECIDIVISM. It takes place when a person before serving sentence or
while serving sentence, shall commit another felony.
• RECIDIVIST. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced
in the same title of this Code.
• REITERACION. It is a circumstance where the offender has been previously
punished (has served sentence). The first offense must have been punished
with an equal or greater penalty; or he has committed two or more crimes
previously to which the law attaches a lighter penalty. It does not require that
the offenses be covered under the same title of the Code.
• RELATIONSHIP – taken into consideration when offended party is the spouse,
ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or
relative by affinity in the same degree (2nd) of the offender.
• SPECIFIC — Those that apply only to particular crimes. Example — Ignominy
in crimes against chastity or cruelty and treachery in crimes against persons.
• TREACHERY. (aleviosa) refers to the employment of means, method, or form
in the commission of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. It means that the offended party was not given the
opportunity to defend himself.
• VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE. This has reference to the honor of a
person. It concerns the good names and reputation of the individual

ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE

For the next 4-6 weeks of this course, topics that are presented from this chapter
were taken from the approved references of the course. Please note that you are not
limited to exclusively refer to the resources. Thus, you are expected to utilize other

56 | P a g e
books, research articles and other resources that are available in the university’s library
e.g. ebrary, search.proquest.com etc.

Another circumstances affecting criminal liability is mitigating circumstance.

The basis for this circumstance is the diminution of either freedom of action,
intelligence or intent, or the lesser perversity of the offender.

In contrast to mitigating circumstances which are based on the diminution of

the elements of dolo or the lesser degree of perversity of the offender, aggravating
circumstances are based on the greater perversity of the offender as manifested by
the time of the commission of the offense, the place, the means, ways or methods
used in the commission of the felony, his relationship with the offended party or other
personal circumstances.

In Alternative circumstances, they must be taken into consideration as

aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the
degree of instruction and education of the offender.

Classes of Mitigating Circumstances:

Ordinary mitigating
Privileged mitigating

Distinctions between Ordinary and Privileged Mitigating circumstances.

Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by a generic aggravating

circumstance. A privileged mitigating circumstance cannot be offset by any
aggravating circumstance;

One ordinary mitigating circumstance if not offset by a generic aggravating

circumstance has the effect of imposing the minimum penalty. A privileged mitigating
circumstance has the effect of lowering the penalty by one or two degrees lower than
that prescribed by law.

The presence of two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances without any

aggravating circumstance partake of the nature of a privileged mitigating as the
penalty to be imposed is one degree lower to that prescribed by law. The rule applies
only if the penalty imposable is divisible. (Art. 64, par, 5, RPC)

Ordinary and privileged mitigating circumstances are generally applicable to all

felonies

Privileged mitigating circumstances under the RPC

57 | P a g e
 When the offender is a minor under 18 years of age (Art. 68)
When the crime committed is not wholly excusable {Art. 69)
3) When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according the number
and nature of such circumstances (Art. 64, par. 5)
4) Voluntary release of the person illegally detained within 3 days without
the offender attaining his purpose and before the institution of the criminal action
[Art. 268, par. 3)
5) Abandonment without justification by the offended spouse in case of
adultery
(Art. 333, par. 3)
6) Concealing dishonor in case of infanticide (Art. 255, par. 2)

INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING OR EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE

Incomplete justifying/ exempting circumstance means that not all the requisites
to justify the act are present or not all the requisites to exempt from criminal liability
are present.

Effect on criminal liability of the offender of incomplete justifying circumstances

or incomplete exempting circumstances

If less than a majority of the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt
from criminal liability are present, the offender shall only be entitled to an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.

If a majority of the requisites needed to justify the act or exempt from criminal
liability are present, the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating
circumstance. The penalty shall be lowered by one or two degrees. When there are
only two conditions to justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability, the presence
of one shall be regarded as the majority.

Condition necessary before incomplete self-defense, defense of relative, or

defense of stranger may be invoked

The offended party must be guilty of unlawful aggression. Without unlawful

aggression, there can be no incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, or defense
of stranger.

Effect on the criminal liability of the offender of incomplete self-defense,

defense of relative, or defense of stranger

58 | P a g e
 If only the element of unlawful aggression is present, the other requisites being
absent, the offender shall be given only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

However, if aside from the element of unlawful aggression another requisite,

but not all, is present, the offender shall be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating
circumstance. In such a case, the imposable penalty shall be reduced by one or two
degrees depending upon how the court regards the importance of the requisites
present or absent.

Not applicable to exempting circumstance of accident

Under Art. 12, par. 4, there are four requisites for the exempting circumstance
of accident. First, a person must be performing a lawful act. Second, such must be
done with due care. Third, an injury was caused to another by mere accident. Fourth,
there is no fault or intention of causing such injury.

If the act was performed with due care but there was fault in causing an injury,
the case will fall under Article 365, felonies by negligence or imprudence. The effect
would be like a mitigating circumstance since said article states that the penalty will
be lower than if the felony was committed intentionally.

If the person is performing a lawful act but has the intention to cause an injury,
it will be an intentional felony, the second and third requisite will no longer apply.

Legal effects of the various age brackets of the offender with respect to his
criminal liability

AGE BRACKET

15 and under EFFECT ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Exempting circumstance
Over 15 under 18 Exempting circumstance, if he acted without discernment.
Mitigating circumstance, if he acted with discernment
18 to 70 Full criminal responsibility
Over 70 Mitigating circumstance; no imposition of death penalty; execution of
death sentence if already imposed is suspended and commuted.

NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG (PRAETER

INTENTIONEM)

Application if the resulting felony could be expected from the means employed

59 | P a g e
 It is necessary that there be a notable and evident disproportion between the
means employed by the offender compared to that of the resulting felony, if the
resulting felony could be expected from the means employed, the circumstance of
praeter intentionem cannot be availed.

Not applicable to felonies by negligence

It Is not applicable because the offender acts without intent The intent in
intentional felonies is replaced by negligence or imprudence.

Factors in order to ascertain the intention

The weapon used

The part of the body injured
The injury inflicted
The manner it is inflicted

Not applicable when the offender employed brute force

Example: If the rapist choked the victim, the choking contradicts the claim that
he had no intention to kill the girl.
Mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be
appreciated

The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as

that actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated where the acts employed by the
accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did actually produce the death of
the victim

NOTE: Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be raised as a

mitigating circumstance under the Anti-Hazing Law.

SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION

Threat need not be offensive and positively strong

Threat should not be offensive and positively strong because if it was, the threat
to inflict real injury is an unlawful aggression which may give rise to self-defense and
thus, no longer a mitigating circumstance.

Provocation

60 | P a g e
 Provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party,
capable of exciting, inciting or irritating anyone.

Requisites of sufficient threat or provocation

Provocation must be sufficient.

It must originate from the offended party.
It must be immediate to the act.

Sufficient threat or provocation as a mitigating circumstance v. Threat or

provocation as an element of self- defense

As an element of self-defense it pertains to its absence on the part of the person

defending himself while as a mitigating circumstance, it pertains to its presence on the
part of the offended party (People v. CA, G.R No. 103613, Feb. 23, 2001).

Sufficiency depends on:

The act constituting the provocation

The social standing of the person provoked
Time and place provocation took place

Q: L's mother insulted M. M kills N because of the insults. Can M avail of the
mitigating circumstance?
A: No. There is no mitigating circumstance because it was the mother who
insulted her, not L.

NOTE: The liability of the accused is mitigated only insofar as it concerns the
harm Inflicted on the person who made the provocation, but not with regard to the
other victims who did not participate in the provocation (US v. Malabanan, 9 Phil 262).
Reason why the law require that "provocation must be immediate to the act”
(i.e., to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked)

If there was an interval of time, the conduct of the offended party could not have
excited the accused to the commission of the crime, he having had time to regain his
reason and to exercise self-control. Moreover, the law presupposes that during that
interval, whatever anger or diminished self-control may have emerged from the
offender had already vanished or diminished.

NOTE: As long as the offender at the time he committed the felony was still
under the influence of the outrage caused by the provocation or threat, he is acting
under a diminished self-control. This is the reason why it is mitigating. However, there
are two criteria that must be taken into consideration:

61 | P a g e
 If from the element of time, there is a material lapse of time stated in the problem
and there is nothing stated in the problem that the effect of the threat or provocation
had prolonged and affected the offender at the time he committed the crime, then the
criterion to be used is based on time element.

However, if there is that time element and at the same time, facts are given
indicating that at the time the offender committed the crime, he is still suffering from
outrage of the threat or provocation done to him, then, he will still get the benefit of
this mitigating circumstance.

VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

NOTE: This has reference to the honor of a person. It concerns the good names
and reputation of the individual.

Requisites of vindication of a grave offense

Grave offense has been done to the one committing the felony, his spouse,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degree.
A felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense.

NOTE: The vindication need not be done by the person upon whom the grave
offense was committed or who was offended by the wrong done by the offended party.

"Offense" contemplated

The word offense should not be construed as equivalent to crime. It is enough

that what was done was wrong.

Factors to be considered in determining whether the wrong is grave or not

Age
Education
Social status
Lapse of time allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave
offense

The word "immediate" in par. 5 is not an accurate translation of the Spanish

text which uses the term "proximo." A lapse of time is allowed between the vindication
and the doing of the grave offense. It is enough that:

The offender committed the crime;

The grave offense was done to him, his spouse, his ascendant or descendant
or to his brother or sister, whether natural, adopted or legitimate

62 | P a g e
 The grave offense is the proximate cause of the commission of the crime

SUFFICIENT THREAT OR PROVOCATION VINDICATION OF GRAVE

OFFENSE
It is made directly only to the person committing the felony. The grave
offense may be committed also against the offender's relatives mentioned in the law.
The cause that brought about the provocation need not be a grave offense.
The offended party must have done a grave offense against the offender or his
relatives mentioned in the law.
It is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately preceded the act.
There must be no interval of time between the provocation and the commission of the
crime. The vindication of the grave offense may be proximate which admits of interval
of time between the grave offense committed by the offended party and the
commission of the crime of the accused.

PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
Passion and obfuscation refer to emotional feeling which produces excitement
so powerful as to overcome reason and self-control. It must come from prior unjust or
improper acts. The passion and obfuscation must emanate from legitimate sentiments.

Elements of passion or obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance

Accused acted upon an impulse

Impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation
in him.

NOTE: The passion or obfuscation should arise from lawful sentiments in order
to be mitigating.
Requisites of passion or obfuscation

That there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of
mind.

That the said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator
might recover his natural equanimity.

Appreciation of passion and obfuscation as a litigating circumstance

It may be appreciated even if the reported acts causing obfuscation was not
true, as long as it was honestly and reasonably believed by the accused to be true
(People v. Guhiting, 88 Phil. 672)

63 | P a g e
 PASSION/OBFUSCATION PROVOCATION

It is produced by an impulse which may cause provocation The

provocation comes from the injured party

The offense need not be immediate. It is only required that the influence thereof
lasts until the moment the crime is committed It must immediately precede the
commission of the crime.

PASSION OBFUSCATION IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

Mitigating circumstance
- ... Exempting circumstance
It cannot give rise to irresistible force because passion or obfuscation has no
physical force. It requires physical force.
The passion or obfuscation is on the offender himself

It must arise from lawful sentiments. It must come from a third person.

The force used is unlawful

Invocation of passion or obfuscation

As a rule, passion or obfuscation can only be used as a mitigating

circumstance. However, under Art. 247 (Death or Physical Injuries under Exceptional
Circumstances), it may be used as an exempting circumstance, if an injury is inflicted
other than serious physical injuries and killing.

VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

Q: What are the elements of voluntary surrender?

A: For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, as a mitigating circumstance, the
following elements should be present:

a)The offender has not been actually arrested whether or not a warrant of arrest
had been issued;
b)He surrendered himself to a person in authority; and,
c)The surrender must be voluntary, i.e., spontaneous and not forced by
circumstances. There must be an intent to submit oneself to the authorities, either

64 | P a g e
because he wishes to save them from the trouble and expense necessarily incurred
in his search or capture or to show remorse on his part.

Surrender must be spontaneous – shows his interest to surrender

unconditionally to the authorities.
Spontaneous – emphasizes the idea of inner impulse, acting without external
stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of
the offense, determines the spontaneity of the surrender.

Example: Surrendered after 5 years, not spontaneous anymore.

Case: The policemen looked for him. When the police saw him, he did not resist
arrest or deny his criminal act SC: this cannot be equated to VS (Pp vs Rebamonta,
en banc, April 1999)

The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be considered in

favor of the accused where he was actually arrested by the police and he merely
submitted himself to their authority. (People vs. Ospig, 416 SCRA 32) If the accused
gave himself up to the police when he was served the warrant of arrest, such surrender
is not mitigating.

Note: Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where the accused fled

immediately after the killing and took him more than a month- and-a-half to surrender
to the authorities. (People vs. Almendras, 372 SCRA 737)

TO WHOM VOLUNTARY SURRENDER SHOULD BE MADE:

Person in authority — one who is directly vested with jurisdiction which is the
power to govern and to execute the laws, whether as an individual or a member of
some court or governmental corporation, board or commission. (Art. 152 RPC)

Agent of a person in authority — one who by direct provision of the law or by

election or by appointment by competent authority is charged with the maintenance of
public order and the protection and security of life and property and any private person
who comes to the aid of a person in authority (art. 152 as amended by RA 1978)

Q: A killed a man. A sent the murder weapon to the police. Is this surrender?
A: No. A should surrender himself not the weapon.

Q: A committed a crime. The relatives of the victim were out there looking for
him. No warrant of arrest was issued. He surrendered to a kagawad who in turn turned
over to him the police.

65 | P a g e
 A: SC: Whether the accused’ reason for surrendering either for fear of reprisal
from victim’s relatives or his knowledge that he was already a suspect does not
gainsay the spontaneity of the surrender nor alter the fact that by giving himself up, he
saved the State the time & trouble of searching for him until arrested. ---SB Members,
kagawad and even members of the Lupong Tagapamayapa are now considered as
person in authority not merely agents of persons in authority.
(Pp vs Sion, 277 SCRA 127)

Case: Ruben del Castillo vs People, January 30, 2013

Voluntary surrender may be done in another municipality

The law does not require that the perpetrator of an offense, to be entitled to the
mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, must give himself up to the authorities
in the municipality where the offense was committed. (People vs. Magallanes, July 9,
1997, 275 SCRA 222)

VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT

Q: What are the elements of voluntary plea of guilt? It must be:

A: (1) Made in open court; (2) spontaneously and unconditionally; and (3) prior
to the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution.

Q: Why mitigating?
A: Voluntary plea of guilt is mitigating because it is an act of repentance and
respect for the law. It indicates a moral disposition in the accused favorable to his
reform.

Q: May voluntary plea of guilt and voluntary surrender be both considered in

one case?
A: Yes. These two circumstances are separate and distinct from each other.
They do not arise out of the same facts and circumstances, hence, will entitle the
offender to two mitigating circumstances when both are present.

Plea of guilty not applicable to all crimes ----- A plea of guilty is not mitigating in
culpable felonies and in crimes punished by special laws.

PHYSICAL DEFECT

Physical defect - A person's physical condition, such as being deaf and dumb,
blind, armless, cripple, or stutterer, whereby his means of action, defense or
communication with others are restricted or limited. The physical defect a person may
have must have a relation to the mission of the crime.

66 | P a g e
 Requisites of physical defect

The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical
defect
Such physical defect restricts his means of action, defense, or communication
with his fellow beings

Problem:

Q: Supposed X is deaf and dumb and he has been angered, he cannot talk so
what he did was, he got a piece of wood and struck the fellow on the head. X was
charged with physical injuries. Is X entitled to a mitigating circumstance by reason of
his physical defect?

A: Yes, the Supreme Court held that being a deaf and dumb is mitigating
because the only way to vindicate himself is to use his force because he cannot strike
back by words.

ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER

Requisites of illness of the offender

Illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of will power;

Such illness should not deprive the offender the : consciousness of his acts.

Note: If the illness not only diminishes the exercise of the offender’s will power
but deprives him of the consciousness of his acts, it becomes an exempting
circumstance to be classified as insanity or imbecility.

SIMILAR AND ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCE

Examples of analogous circumstances

The act of the offender of leading the law enforcers to the place where he buried
the instrument of the crime has been considered as equivalent to voluntary surrender.

2) Stealing by a person who is driven to do so out of extreme poverty is

considered as analogous to incomplete state of necessity (People v. Macbul, 74 Phil.
436), unless he became impoverished because of his own way of living his life, i.e. he
had so many vices.

67 | P a g e
 Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of a
person over 70 years of age (People v. Reantillo and Ruiz, C.A. G.R. No. 301, July
27,1938).

Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and obfuscation.

Voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender.

Outraged feeling of the owner of animal taken for ransom is analogous to

vindication of grave offense.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

Q: What are AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES?

A: They are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to
increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty
provided by law for the offense.

Basis of aggravating circumstances.

In contrast to mitigating circumstances which are based on the diminution of

the elements of dolo or the lesser degree of perversity of the offender, aggravating
circumstances are based on the greater perversity of the offender as manifested by
the time of the commission of the offense, the place, the means, ways or methods
used in the commission of the felony, his relationship with the offended party or other
personal circumstances.

Four kinds of aggravating circumstances.

Generic — Those that can generally apply to all crimes. Example — Dwelling,
nighttime, or recidivism.

In Article 14, the circumstances in paragraphs NOS. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6,

9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20, except "by means of motor vehicles," are generic aggravating
circumstances.

Specific — Those that apply only to particular crimes. Example — Ignominy in

crimes against chastity or cruelty and treachery in crimes against persons.

In Article 14, the circumstances in paragraphs Nos. 3 (except dwelling),

15,16,17 and 21 are specific aggravating circumstances.

Qualifying — Those that change the nature of the crime. Example — Alevosia
(treachery) or evident premeditation qualifies the killing of a person to murder or abuse
of confidence (par 4) makes the crime of theft qualified (Art. 310)

68 | P a g e
 Article 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating circumstances which qualify
the killing of person to murder.

Inherent — Those that must of necessity accompany the commission of the

crime or those that are already a part of the commission of the felony and do not have
the effect of increasing the penalty. Example: Abuse of public office (par. 1) in crime
of bribery in Art. 210; breaking a wall (par 19) or unlawful entry (par 18) in robbery
committed by force upon things (Art. 299 and Art. 302); evident premeditation in
robbery, theft, estafa, adultery and concubinage.

Special or those that cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance

and has the result of imposing the penalty in the maximum period.

Examples: Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160); Complex crime (Art. 48); Error in

personae (Art. 49); Taking advantage of public position and membership in an
organized or syndicated crime group

Qualifying aggravating circumstance distinguished from generic aggravating

circumstance.

The effect of a generic aggravating circumstance, not offset by any mitigating

circumstance, is to increase the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused
to the maximum period, but without exceeding the limit prescribed by law; while that
of a qualifying circumstance is not only to give the crime its proper and exclusive name
but also to place the author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty
than that specially prescribed by law for said crime. (People v. Bayot, 64 Phil. 269,
273)

A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by a mitigating

circumstance; a generic aggravating circumstance may be compensated by a
mitigating circumstance.

DISREGARD OF RANK, SEX, AGE OR DWELLING

Par. 3 provides for four aggravating circumstances which, if present in the same
case, should be considered independently of each other and numerically reckoned
accordingly (People v. Santos, et al., 91 Phil. 320).

Ways in committing the aggravating circumstance under this paragraph

The act be committed:

69 | P a g e
 With insult or In disregard of the respect due to the offended party on account
of his: Rank, Age, Sex (RAS)

That it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given sufficient provocation.

"With insult or in disregard "

In the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or

insult the sex or age of the offended party.

Rank

It refers to official, civil, or social position or standing. The designation or title of

distinction used to fix the relative position of the offended party in reference to others.
There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended
party.

Age

Age applies in cases where the victim is of tender age or is of old age. It applies
when the offender is the father, mother, son or daughter of the offended party.

Sex

Sex refers to female sex, not to male sex.

DWELLING

Dwelling is a building or structure exclusively used for rest or comfort includes

temporary dwelling, dependencies, foot of the staircase and enclosure of the house.
It does not mean the permanent residence or domicile of the offended party or that
he must be owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living or dwelling therein
even for a temporary duration or purpose.

When dwelling is not aggravating

When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation.

When the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house.

In the crime of robbery by use of force upon things.

In the crime of trespass to dwelling.

70 | P a g e
 The victim is not a dweller of the house.

When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same
house except in case of adultery in the conjugal dwelling, the same is aggravating;
however, if one of the dwellers therein becomes a paramour, the applicable
aggravating circumstance is abuse of confidence.

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

NOTE: These are two separate aggravating circumstances.

Abuse of confidence

This circumstance exists only when the offended party has trusted the offender
who later abuses such trust by committing the crime.

Requisites of abuse of confidence

The offended party had trusted the offender.

The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended
party
The abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime

NOTE: The confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal,
as would give the accused the advantage or make it easier for him to commit the crime.
The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of a crime.

Abuse of confidence is inherent in the following crimes

Malversation (Art. 217)

Qualified Theft (Art. 310)
Estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art 315)
Qualified Seduction (Art. 337)

NOTE: The ungratefulness must be such clear and manifest ingratitude on the
part of the accused.

NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED PLACE OR BY A BAND

Consideration of the circumstances

These circumstances should be considered separately.

71 | P a g e
 Instances when nighttime, uninhabited place or band are considered
aggravating

When:

It facilitated the commission of the crime.

It especially sought for by the offender to ensure the commission of the crime
or for the purpose of impunity.
The offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity.

NOTE: "Especially sought" means that the offender sought it in order to realize
the crime with more ease.

"Impunity" means to prevent the offender from being recognized or to secure

himself against detection and punishment.

Night time

Nigh time or nocturnity is a period from after sunset to sunrise, from dusk to
dawn. It is necessary that the commission of the crime was commenced and
completed at night time.

Darkness of the night makes nighttime an aggravating circumstance. Hence

when the place of the crime is illuminated or sufficiently lighted, nighttime is not
aggravating. It is also necessary that the commission of the crime was begun and
completed at nighttime. Hence, where the series of acts necessary for its commission
was begun at daytime and was completed that night (People v. Luchico, 49 Phil. 689),
or was begun at night and consummated the following day (U.S. v. Dowdell, Jr., et a!.,
11 Phil 4), the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was not applied.

NOTE: Lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlights does not negate the

aggravating circumstance of night time. It must be shown that the offender purposely
sought the cover of the darkness to commit the crime, or that the nighttime facilitated
the commission of the crime.

Reasons why night time is considered aggravating:

During night time, recognition of the accused is harder.

Harder for the victim to defend himself.
Night time provides security for the accused.
Mere presence of darkness gives others anxiety or fear.

Uninhabited place (despoblado)

72 | P a g e
 It is where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from
town or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other. It is not
determined by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but whether
or not in the place of the commission of the offense there was a reasonable possibility
of the victim receiving some help.

Instances when uninhabited place is aggravating

To be aggravating, it is necessary that the offender took advantage of the place

and purposely availed of it as to make it easier to commit the crime. The offender must
choose the place as an aid either:

To an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal designs; or

To insure concealment of the offense

BAND

It means that there are at least four armed malefactors acting together in the
commission of the offense.

The RPC does not require any particular arms or weapons, so any instrument
or implement which, by reason of intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was made
or used by the accused, is capable of inflicting serious injuries.

The aggravating circumstance of by a band is considered in crimes against

property and in crimes against persons. This aggravating circumstance is not
applicable in crimes against chastity.

AID OF ARMED MEN

When such circumstance is present

It is present when the crime it is attached to is committed with the aid of:

Armed men , or
Persons who insure or afford impunity

Requisites

That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly
or indirectly

73 | P a g e
 That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime
is committed,

NOTE: Arms is not limited to firearms. Bolos, knives, sticks and stones are
included. Aid of armed men includes armed women.

RECIDIVISM

Q: What are the different forms of Habituality?

A: (1) Recidivism (Par. 9); (2) Reiteracion (Par. 10); (3) Habitual Delinquency
(Par. 5, Art. 62); and, (4) Quasi-Recidivism (Art. 160)

Q: Who is a recidivist?
A: A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
this Code.

Requisites:

That the offender is on trial for an offense;

That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of
the Code;
That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

Effect of pardon to recidivism

Rule: Pardon does not obliterate recidivism, even if it is absolute because it

only excuse the service of the penalty not the conviction.

Except: If the offender had already served out his sentence and was
subsequently extended pardon.

NOTE: If The President extends pardon to someone who already served out
the principal penalty, there is a presumed intention to remove recidivism.

Effect of amnesty to recidivism

Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects, thus it obliterates recidivism.

Recidivism not subject to prescription

74 | P a g e
 No matter how long ago the offender was convicted, if he is subsequently
convicted of a crime embraced in the same title of the RPC, it is taken into account
as aggravating in imposing the penalty.

REITERACION

Q: What is reiteracion?
A: It is a circumstance where the offender has been previously punished (has
served sentence). The first offense must have been punished with an equal or
greater penalty; or he has committed two or more crimes previously to which the law
attaches a lighter penalty. It does not require that the offenses be covered under the
same title of the Code.

Requisites of reiteracion or habituality:

That the accused is on trial for an offense.

That the accused previously served sentence for another offense to which the
law attaches an: equal, or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which the law
attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense.

Problem:

Q: A was convicted before & punished for theft (a crime against property) for
which he was sentenced to the penalty of Reclusion Temporal. Now, A is found guilty
of homicide ( a crime against person---- it is not embraced in the same title of the
RPC). Is there reiteracion?

A: Here Reiteracion applies because he has been previously punished for

another crime for which the law attaches a higher penalty.

Q: Suppose the penalty for the first felony is prision mayor and the penalty for
the new felony is prision mayor also. Is there reiteracion?

A: Reiteracion applies because the law says he has been punished for a crime
to which the law attaches an equal penalty. Either higher or the same.

Problem:

Q: X in some years ago was found guilty of slight physical injuries – a light
felony and he was sentenced to One day of Arresto Menor. Two Years later, X was
found guilty of Slight Oral Defamation (Crimes Against Honor). He was sentenced to
a penalty of Arresto Menor also. Now, he is found guilty of Estafa (crimes against
property) and he is punished with the penalty of Reclusion Temporal. Is there
reiteracion?

75 | P a g e
 A: Absolutely, he is not a recidivist because the crimes are not embraced in the
same title of the RPC. But is there Reiteracion here? Ans: Yes, because he has been
previously punished for 2 offenses to which the law attaches a lesser penalty.

Note: The accused must have been previously punished. If pardon, there is no
reiteracion.

Distinguish between recidivism and reiteracion.

RECIDIVISM REITERACION

Antecedent: Previous conviction by final Service of sentence.

judgment.

Offenses: Under the same title of the Code Need not be under the same
Title

Q: What is QUASI RECIDIVISM?

A: It takes place when a person before serving sentence or while serving
sentence, shall commit another felony.

This is a special aggravating circumstance which imposes the maximum of the

penalty for the new offense. It cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.

Do not be misled by the word "another" felony.

It makes no difference for the purpose of the effect of quasi- recidivism under
Art. 160 of the RPC, whether the crime for which the accused is serving sentence or
about to serve sentence at the time of the commission of the offense charged, falls
under the Code or under a special law.
What is important is that before serving or while serving sentence, the convict
commits a felony (not a crime).

IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE REWARD OR PROMISE

Basis
The greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the motivating power itself.
Requisites of "in consideration of a price, reward, or promise"
There are at least two principals
Principal by inducement
Principal by direct participation
The price, reward, or promise should be previous to and in consideration of the
commission of the criminal act.
NOTE: The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer to material
things, or that the same were actually delivered, it being sufficient that the offer made

76 | P a g e
by the principal by inducement be accepted by the principal by direct participation
before the commission of the offense.

Note: It is appreciated against both the principal by inducement and principal

by direct participation.

BY MEANS OF INNUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION ETC.

Rules as to the use of fire

Intent was only to burn but somebody died - The crime is arson, the penalty is
higher because somebody, died.
If fire was used as means to kill - the crime is murder not arson and fire cannot
be appreciated as aggravating circumstance.
There was an intention to kill and fire was used to conceal the crime -there are
two separate crimes: arson and murder.

EVIDENT PREMIDITATION

The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be
preceded by cool thought and upon reflection to carry out the criminal intent during the
space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
Requisites

Determination - the time when the offender determined to commit the crime.

Preparation - an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
determination; and

Time - a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to

allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will.

Reason for requiring sufficient time

The offender must have an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and
deliberate on the meaning and the consequences what he planned to do, an interval
long enough for his conscience and better judgment to overcome his evil desire.

Appreciation of evident premeditation in error In personae and aberratio ictus

General Rule: Evident premeditation is not appreciated in error in personae and

aberratio ictus.

77 | P a g e
 NOTE: However, it is not necessary to have the intent to kill a particular person.
Except:

When there is no particular intended victim or particular person to kill.

Where the victim belonged to the same class or family designated by the
accused.

CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE

To be appreciated, these circumstances must have facilitated or be taken

advantage of by the offender in the commission of a crime

Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused in
order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim.
Fraud is insidious words or machinations used to induce the victim to act in a
manner which enables the offender to carry out his design.

NOTE: Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if they have been
deliberately adopted as means, methods or forms for the treacherous strategy, or they
may co-exist independently where they are adopted for a different purpose in the
commission of the crime.

Disguise means resorting to any device to conceal identity.

NOTE: The test of disguise is whether the device or contrivance, or even the
assumed name resorted to by the offender was intended to make identification more
difficult.
Necessity that the accused be able to hide his identity all throughout the
commission of the crime

It is not necessary that the accused be able to hide his identity all throughout
the commission of the crime. The accused must be able to hide his identity during the
initial stage if not all throughout the commission of the crime and his identity must have
been discovered only later on to consider this aggravating circumstance.

Q: What is the test in order to determine if disguise exist?

A: Whether the device or contrivance resorted to by the offender was intended

to or did make identification more difficult, such as the use of a mask or false hair or
beard. If in spite of the disguise, the offender was recognized, disguise cannot be
aggravating.

ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH OR MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN

THE DEFENSE.

78 | P a g e
 Abuse of superior strength is considered whenever there is a notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of
strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which is selected or taken
advantage of in the commission of the crime (People vs. Bongadillo, 234 SCRA233
[1994]).

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the

age, size, and strength of the parties. It is considered whenever there is a notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor.

"Means to weaken the defense"

It exists when the offended party's resisting power is materially weakened

NOTE: Means to weaken the defense may be absorbed in treachery.

TREACHERY

Treachery (aleviosa) refers to the employment of means, method, or form in the

commission of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its execution
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
It means that the offended party was not given the opportunity to defend himself.

The essence of the qualifying circumstance is the suddenness, surprise and

the lack of expectation that the attack will take place, thus, depriving the victim of any
real opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the commission of the crime without
risk to the aggressor. Likewise, even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to
his person, treachery may still be appreciated since what is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate
(People v. Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, September 7, 2011)

Elements of treachery

The employment of means of execution that would insure the safety of the
accused from retaliatory acts of the intended victim and leaving the latter without an
opportunity to defend himself

The means employed were deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender

(People of the Philippines v. Wenceslao Nelmida, et al, G.R. No. 184500, September
11, 2012)

Test of treachery : The test of treachery is not only the relative position of the
parties but more specifically whether or not the victim was forewarned or afforded the
opportunity to make a defense or to ward off the attack.

79 | P a g e
 Rules regarding treachery

Applicable only to crimes against persons.

Means, methods, or forms insure its execution but need not insure
accomplishment of crime.
The mode of attack must be thought of by the offender, and must not spring
from the unexpected turns of events

Q: Is there treachery when the attack is frontal?

A: Although frontal, if the attack was unexpected, and the unarmed victim was
in no position to repel the attack, treachery can still be appreciated,

IGNOMINY

Ignominy --- It pertains to the moral order, which adds disgrace to the material
injury caused by the crime. Ignominy adds insult to injury or adds shame to the natural
effects of :he crime. Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of man.

Application

Ignominy is applicable in:

Crimes against chastity,

Less serious physical injuries,
Light or grave coercion, and
Murder.
No ignominy when a man is killed in the presence of his wife

The circumstance of ignominy was not present because no means employed

nor did any circumstance surround the act tending to make the effects of crime more
humiliating.

Ignominy when a woman is raped in the presence of her husband

Ignominy can be appreciated. Rape is now a crime is now a crime against

persons (R.A. 8353). Presence of the husband qualifies the crime of rape under Art.
266.

Ignominy vs Cruelty

IGNOMINY

refers to the moral effect of a crime and it pertains to the moral order, whether
or not the victim is dead or alive.

80 | P a g e
 CRUELTY
Refers to the physical suffering of the victim purposely intended by the offender

UNLAWFUL ENTRY
Unlawful entry is aggravating when one who acts, not respecting the walls
erected by men to guard their property and provided for their personal safety, shows
greater perversity, a greater audacity and hence the law punishes him with more
severity.

There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for
the purpose.
NOTE: This circumstance is inherent in the crimes of trespass to dwelling and
robbery with force upon things. But it is aggravating in the crime of robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons.

BREAKING WALL

Requisites
A wall, roof, window, or door was broken
They were broken to effect entrance
NOTE: It is aggravating only where the offender resorted to any of said means
to enter the house.

Instances where breaking is lawful

An officer in order to make an arrest may break open door or window of any
building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be (Sec. 11,
Rule 133 of Rules of Court);
An officer if refused admittance may break open any door or window to execute
the search warrant or liberate himself (Sec. 7, Rule 126 of Rules of Court); Replevin
{Sec. 4, Rule 60 of Rules of Court)

Aid of minors

The use of a minor in the commission of the crime shows the greater perversity
of the offender because he is educating the innocent minor in committing a crime. It is
intended to discourage the exploitation of minors by criminals taking advantage of their
irresponsibility and the leniency of the law for the youthful offender.

Use of motor vehicle considered

81 | P a g e
 The use of motor vehicles in the commission of a crime poses difficulties to the
authorities in apprehending the offenders. This circumstance is aggravating only when
used to facilitate the commission of the offense.

NOTE; If motor vehicle is used only in the escape of the offender, motor vehicle
is not aggravating as the law says that "the crime was committed by means of motor
vehicle."

"Other similar means"

it should be understood as referring to motorized vehicles or other efficient

means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.

CRUELTY

Q: When is there cruelty?

A: There is cruelty when the wrong done was intended to prolong the suffering
of the victim, causing him unnecessary moral and physical pain.

Requisites:

The injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong.

The other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the
offender.

Cruelty not inherent in crimes against persons

In order for it to be appreciated, there must be positive proof that the wounds
found on the body of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive to unnecessarily
prolong physical suffering.

NOTE: In mutilation, outraging 6f a corpse is considered as an aggravating

circumstance, if the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being
performed, this would qualify the killing to murder due to outraging of his corpse.

Other aggravating circumstances

Organized or syndicated crime group

Under influence of dangerous drugs

Use of unlicensed firearm

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

82 | P a g e
 Q: What are ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES?
A: Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration
as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and
the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

RELATIONSHIP – taken into consideration when offended party is the spouse,

ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by
affinity in the same degree (2nd)of the offender

* The relationship of step-daughter and step father is included (Pp vs. Tan, 264
SCRA425) But not of uncle and niece. (People vs. Cabresos, 244 SCRA 362)

But if relationship is already inherent in the crime or that relationship is part of

the element of the crime, Art. 15 will not apply. Example: Parricide, adultery and
concubinage.

In crimes of Rape or acts of lasciviousness --- relationship is always

aggravating.

In crimes against Persons. Brother killing his own brother – the crime here is
either murder or homicide aggravated by relationship.

INTOXICATION – mitigating when the offender has committed a felony in the

state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit
the said felony. Aggravating if habitual or intentional

It is mitigating if it is not habitual or not intentional. It is aggravating if it is habitual

or subsequent to the plan to commit a crime or intentional.

When we say “habitual” it means a confirmed habit, like he is drunk every day.
Drinking has already become part of his system---habit ba.

PP vs Fontillas, G.R. No. 184177, December 15, 2010, the accused raped his
own daughter—he drank 8 bottles of gin.

“Accused appellant did not present any evidence that his intoxication was not
habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the rape. The person pleading
intoxication must likewise prove that he took such quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior
to the commission of the crime, as would blur his reason. [24] Accused-appellant
utterly failed to present clear and convincing proof of the extent of his intoxication on
the night of December 8, 2001 and that the amount of liquor he had taken was of such
quantity as to affect his mental faculties. Not one of accused-appellant’s drinking

83 | P a g e
buddies testified that they, in fact, consumed eight bottles of gin prior to the rape
incident.”

Read: Pp vs Patelan, et.al. 182918, June 6, 2011

Read: People vs Victoriano dela Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010.

DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER

GR: Lack or low degree of instruction is mitigating in all crimes.

XPN: Not mitigating in:

Crimes against property (e.g. arson, estafa, threat)

Theft and robbery (P. Macatanda, 109 SCRA 40) or assault upon the persons
of another (P. v. Enot, 6 SCRA 325).
Crimes against chastity
Murder or homicide
Rape
Treason - because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen,
however unlettered or uncultured he may be. (People v. Lansanas, 82 Phil. 193)

NOTE: Test of Lack of Instruction as a mitigating circumstance is not illiteracy

alone, but rather lack of sufficient intelligence.

If the offender is a lawyer who committed rape, the fact that he has knowledge
of the law will not aggravate his liability. But if a lawyer committed falsification, that will
aggravate his criminal liability because he used his special knowledge as a lawyer. He
took advantage of his learning in committing the crime.

Degree of instruction and education are two distinct circumstances

One may not have any degree of instruction but is nevertheless educated.

Except for the circumstance of intoxication, the other circumstances in Article

15 may not be taken into account at all when the circumstance has no bearing on the
crime committed. So the court will not consider this as aggravating or mitigating simply
because the circumstance has no relevance to the crime that was committed.

* It is only the circumstance of intoxication which if not mitigating, is

automatically aggravating. But the other circumstances, even if they are present, but
if they do not influence the crime, the court will not consider it at all. Relationship may
not be considered at all, especially if it is not inherent in the commission of the crime.
Degree of instruction also will not be considered if the crime is something which does
not require an educated person to understand.

84 | P a g e
 ABSOLUTORY CAUSE

Absolutory causes are those where the act committee is a crime but for reasons
of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed.

Examples of absolutory causes

Spontaneous desistance in attempted felonies (Art. 6, par. 3).

Light felonies in the attempted or frustrated stage except in crimes against

persons or property (Art. 7).

Accessories in light felonies (Art. 16).

Accessory is a relative of the principal (Art. 20).

Discovering secrets of ward through seizure of correspondence by their

guardian (Art. 290).

When only slight or less serious physical injuries are inflicted by the person who
surprised his/her spouse or daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another
person (Art. 247).

INSTIGATION

Instigation happens when a public officer induces an innocent person to commit

a crime and would arrest i upon or after the commission.

Instigation absolve the offender from criminal liability

In Instigation, the offender simply acts as a tool of the law enforcers and,
therefore, he is acting without criminal intent because without the instigation, he would
have not have done the criminal act which he did upon instigation of the law enforcers.

NOTE: This is based on the rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his mind
is not criminal.

Persons who may commit instigation

85 | P a g e
 Only public officers or private detectives may commit instigation. If the one who
made the Instigation is a private individual, not performing a public function, both he
and the one induced are criminally liable, the former as principal by inducement and
the latter as principal by direct participation

ENTRAPMENT

Entrapment is not an absolutory cause. It does not exempt the offender, nor
mitigate his criminal liability.

Distinguish Entrapment from Instigation

As to Intent:

E-The criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the
lawbreaker even before entrapment

I – The idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime
originated & developed in mind of the law enforcers.

Means and Ways:

E – The law enforcer resorts to ways & means for the purpose of
capturing the lawbreaker in flagranti delicto

I – The law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to
commit a crime & would not otherwise commit it, into committing the crime.

As to Criminal Liability:

E – The circumstance is no bar to prosecution & conviction of the lawbreaker

I – The circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability

SELF-HELP. You can also refer to the sources below to help you further understand
the lesson:

References:

1. Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code Book 1

86 | P a g e
LET’S CHECK!

Activity 1. Multiple Choice. Encircle the correct answer. For questions 1 to 20, identify
the aggravating circumstance

1. A person was attacked at night. It was established that nighttime was

purposely sought for. The attacked was aggravated by-
a) nighttime b) uninhabited place c) by a band d) disguise

2. A man was attacked in the middle of the forest. The attacked was aggravated
by-
a) nighttime b) uninhabited place c) by a band d) none of them

3. Three (3) armed persons attacked the victim. The attacked was
aggravated by-
a) by a band b) advantaged of superior strength c) treachery d.
cruelty

4. Five (5) armed persons attacked the victim. The attacked was
aggravated by-
a) by a band b) treachery c) evident premeditation d) cruelty

5. The thief caught stealing at the height of a typhoon. The act was
aggravated by-
a) on occasion of calamity b) on occasion of hunger c) on
occasion of necessity d) craft

6. The man was convicted of the crime of theft. He was previously

convicted of robbery., The man is a
a) recidivist b) habituality c) Evident
premeditation d) quasi-recidivist

7. The victim was killed by burning him. The act was aggravated by-
a) treachery b) by means of fire c) by means of explosion
d) by means of locomotive
8. Somebody pretended to be a paying passenger, but before reaching
the destination announces a hold-up and divested the driver of his income. The act
was aggravated by-
a. disguise b. evident premeditation c. craft and fraud d.
treachery

87 | P a g e
 9. The theft covered his face with a handkerchief in order not to be
identified. But despite that, the victim still recognized him. The act was aggravated
by-
a. craft and fraud b. disguise c. evident premeditation d.
no aggravating circumstance

10. The thief disguised himself by covering his face but the disguise fell
down. Therefore, he was recognized. The act was aggravated by-
a. craft and fraud b. disguise c. evident premeditation d. no
aggravating circumstance

11. Four people took advantage by attacking the victim. The attacked was
aggravated by-
a. by a band b. taking advantage of superior strength c. treachery d.
cruelty

12. The offender deliberately intoxicated his victim and when the victim
was drunk, the offender suddenly attacked him. The attacked was aggravated by-
a. treachery b. means be employed to weaken the defense c. cruelty d.
no aggravating circumstance

13. The victim was stabbed to death while he was asleep’. The attacked
was aggravated by-
a. treachery b. taking advantage of superior strength c. night
time d. cruelty

14. The accused shot the victim from behind without warning. The
attacked was aggravated by-
a. treachery b. abuse of superior strength c. uninhabited place
d. cruelty

15. The victims were made to lie face down, their hands tied at the back
before they were killed. The killing was aggravated by-. a. treachery b. evident
premeditation c. disguise d. cruelty

16. The offenders, before killing the victim, compelled the victim to kiss the
toes of their feet. The act is aggravated by - a. treachery b. ignominy c.
cruelty d. no aggravating circumstances.

17. The killer entered the house of the victim and once inside, the killer
killed the victim inside the victim’s house. The killing was aggravated by- A.
treachery b. dwelling c. unlawful entry d. no aggravating circumstances

88 | P a g e
 18. Before killing the victim, the killer pulled out his pointed knife and used
it to remove the eyes of the victim. The act was aggravated by- a. treachery b.
ignominy c. cruelty d. disguise

19. After the offender has killed the child, he threw him out of the window.
The act s aggravated by- a. treachery b. ignominy c. cruelty d. no aggravating
circumstances

20. A killed X. It was established that A has been planning to kill X for so
long and A made preparations to kill X. The act was aggravated by- a. treachery b.
evident premeditation c. cruelty d. no aggravating circumstance

LET’S DO THIS!

Activity 1. In sum, Explain the basis of increasing the penalties in the above
problems?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Activity 2. When is degree of instruction and education aggravating

circumstance? Explain and give example.

89 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
Activity 3 – What are the basis why a Person who may commit under any of the
mitigating circumstance is entitled to reduction of his penalty?

90 | P a g e
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

IN A NUTSHELL

Activity 1. The different circumstances are thoroughly discussed under this section
which is very essential which is the basis for the Court to impose the proper decision.

91 | P a g e
Based on this, you are required to determine what particular mitigating circumstances
that cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance or how many mitigating
circumstances required that an accused person is entitled to a reduction of one degree
lower than that prescribe by law.

1. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
2. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
3. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
4. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
5. ______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Q&A LIST. This part allows you to list down all rising questions or issues. These
questions or issues will be raised in the Blackboard discussion feature. You can write
your answers after the clarification. This will help you in the review of concepts and
essential knowledge.

Questions/Issues Answers

1.If a convicted person was granted

pardon, is he/she still a recidivist?
2.

3.

4.

5.

KEYWORDS INDEX. This section lists down the important keywords from this unit
that will help you to recall and review.

92 | P a g e
 Alternative Mitigating
Circumstance Circumstance Provocation Vindication

Aggravating
Person in Authority Reiteracion Recidivist
Circumstance

Evident
Absolutory Cause Treachery Ignominy
Premeditation

Craft Fraud Disguise Intoxication

Big Picture in Focus: ULOc. Demonstrate adequate

understanding of Penalties and the different kinds of
penalties.

Metalanguage

To further understand the ULOc: Demonstrate adequate understanding of who

are those persons criminally liable, the different kinds of penalties, their purpose and
applications. The extinguishment of felonies and penalties and the civil liabilities of
persons criminally liable.

• ACCESSORIES. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the

commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners: o (1). By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
profit by the effects
o of the crime; or (2). By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or
the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; or (3)
By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of
the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions
or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide,
murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known
to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
• ACCOMPLICES. Are those persons who, not being included in Article 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
(Article 18)

93 | P a g e
 • COMPLEX CRIMES. although more than one (1) crime has been committed,
they constitute only one crime not explicitly prescribed by the RPC and only one
penalty is imposed pursuant to Art. 48.
• PENALTY. is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of
the law.
• PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME. refers to the loss or forfeiture of the right of the
State to prosecute the offender because of the lapse of time.
• PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY. refers to the loss or forfeiture of the right to
the State to execute the penalty because of the lapse of time.
• PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION. Those who take a direct part in
the execution of the act;
• PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION. Those who directly force or
induce others to commit it;
• PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION. Those who cooperate in the
commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished. (Article 17, RPC).
• SIMPLE CRIMES. These are the simple crimes which the Revised Penal Code
defines and prescribes the penalty in a single article.
• PLURALITY OF CRIMES. when an offender commits many crimes, each with
a corresponding penalty distinct and separate from those of the others.
• SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES. these are two simple crimes but which the RPC
has defined as a single offense with a single penalty.

ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE

The justification of an administration rests among other factors, on its success

in achieving its fundamental objects. The fundamental objects of prison
administration are, as we have seen, to wean the offender away from wrong-doing
in future and to make his return to society safe and useful. To achieve this end,
classification of prisoners on scientific lines is- absolutely necessary, for, without
classification individualized treatment through which prisons now seek to attain this
object is impossible. These includes proper segregation of different -types of
offenders and more adequate custodial supervision and control. If all these will be
performed, ULO c in this section will be attained.

XV-PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE – Art. 16

94 | P a g e
Art 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave
and less grave felonies:

1. Principals.
2. Accomplices 3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals 2.
Accomplices.

PRINCIPALS

Q: Who are considered as Principals?

A: The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished. (Article 17, RPC)

Take note: If there is no principal by direct participation, there would be no principal

by inducement and principal by indispensable cooperation.

Important: When 2 or more persons commit a crime together each performing an act
in harmony w/ each other & everything is veered towards the same criminal objective,
then their action betrays conspiracy. The conspiracy is proven by their own actions.

What is the importance of establishing the presence of conspiracy?

A: When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. All of them
are equally liable for the crime. This is what we call COLLECTIVE
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Different classification of criminal responsibility

95 | P a g e
 (1) INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY - when there is no conspiracy,
each of the offenders is liable only for his personal act.

(2) QUASI - COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY - some offenders in

the crime are principals and the others are accomplices.

(3) COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY - Where there is conspiracy, the

act of one is the act of all. All conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless
of the extent and character of their participation.

INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Problem:

A has an enemy Y. B has an enemy Y. A decided to kill Y. B decided to

maul Y. One day, both of them, acting independently started looking for
Y. B saw Y, immediately approached Y and started to maul Y. At that
precise moment, A arrived. During the fray, A stabbed Y and Y died.

Q: Is there a conspiracy?
A: Based on the evidence established, there is no conspiracy. Since B
intention was to inflict physical injuries and he merely mauled Y, B is only
liable as a principal by direct participation for Physical Injuries. A who
stabbed Y is liable as principal by direct participation for the crime of
Homicide. --- 2 separate crimes---2 criminals acting independently – this
is what we call independent criminal responsibility.

Problem:

A, B, C and D conspired to commit robbery. At the point of a gun they

divested Y of his belongings. And then A stabbed Y who died (robbery
with homicide).

Q: Who is liable for the crime of robbery with homicide?

A: All of them are liable because according. to Art. 296, in Robbery in
Band, all of them are liable for any result committed by their companions
UNLESS one can show that he TRIED TO PREVENT it.
Problem:

96 | P a g e
 Q: A, B and C are robbers & they conspired to commit robbery only and then A
killed Y. Will all of them be liable for the assault that A made on Y?

A: Here the conspirators are only liable for the crime contemplated in the
conspiracy if there is no direct provision on that. Therefore, B and C are
liable for robbery only and A would be liable for Robbery with Homicide.
This is the ruling in Pp vs Federico, 247 SCRA 246.

Note: Art. 296 applies only when the robbery is committed by a “band”.

What are the principles:

>in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

>the conspirators are NOT liable for any act of another conspirator NOT contemplated
in the conspiracy EXCEPT (all of them are liable) when: (a) there is a particular
provision of the law that says so (b) the acts done outside the contemplation of the co-
conspirators are necessary and logical consequences of the intended act.

Problem:

Q: A, B and C conspired to inflict physical injuries to Y. In the course of the

mauling, A killed Y. Are they liable? Why?
A: Here the contemplated victim is Y and the one who was killed was also
Y (same victim). In crimes against persons, when the victim is killed, the
physical injuries are absorbed. The conspirators are not separately liable.
The physical injuries are absorbed in the killing.

Q: A, B and C conspired to kill X. But in the course of the killing, A also killed
Y. Who are liable for the death of Y?
A: Only A is liable for the death of Y. There are 2 crimes here because
there are 2 victims. The killing of X is separate from the killing of Y. It cannot
be said that the killing of Y is absorbed in the killing of X.

PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION

Q: Who are principals by direct participation?

A: They are those who materially execute the crime.

Example: One who with intent to kill, personally shoots another is liable as principal by
direct participation.

97 | P a g e
 Q: What do you mean by the phrase: "personally took part in the execution"?
A: That the principal by direct participation must be at the scene of the
commission of the crime personally taking part in its execution.
Two or more persons may take direct part in the execution of the act, in which case
they may be principals by direct participation, provided, the following requisites are
present:

(1) That they participated in the criminal resolution. Absent, this requisite, the
offender cannot be made liable as principal.

(2) That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by
acts, which directly tended to the same end.

They must appear at the scene of the crime and perform acts necessary in the
commission of the offense to be liable.

Thus, a conspirator who does not appear at the scene of the crime is not liable. His
non-appearance is deemed a desistance on his part.
In the conspiracy by prior agreement, if the principal by direct participation does not
appear at the scene of the crime, they are not liable because:

a) Their non-appearance is deemed desistance which is favored and encouraged;

b) Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the law specially provides a penalty
therefor. (Article 8) Thus, by merely conspiring, the would be participator has not yet
committed any crime unless he would appear at the scene of the crime and perform
any act directly or indirectly in the accomplishment of the conspiracy;

c) There is no basis for criminal liability because there is no criminal participation.

Q: A, B, C and D conspired to kill Y. Then, while the crime was on progress,

A left the scene of the crime. Is A liable?
A: Yes. To extricate him from criminal liability, A must have performed an
overt act to disassociate or detach himself from the unlawful plant to
commit the crime. While A left the scene of the crime while it was on
progress, such abandonment came too late. In legal contemplation, there
was no longer a conspiracy to be repudiated because A had already
participated in it (Pp vs delos Reyes, 215 SCRA 680)

PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION

Q: Who is a PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION?

A: He directly (1) induces, or (2) forces another to commit a criminal act.

98 | P a g e
The inducement may come in the form of giving price, reward or promise. It may also
be through words constitutive of command.

For inducement to spell criminal liability, it must be made directly for the purpose of
procuring the commission of the crime or be the determinative cause of the
commission of the crime by the one induced. (People vs. de la Cruz, 97 SCRA 985)
Note: The inducement should precede the commission.

Q: A induced B to kill X by giving him Php 500,000. For his part, B induced
C to kill for Php300,000. C induced D to kill X for Php200,000. D killed X.
Are A, B and C principals by inducement?

A: A and B are not principals by inducement because they did not directly
induce D to kill X. However, C is a principal by inducement because he
directly induced D to kill X.

Inducement must be strong enough that the person induced could hardly resist. This
is tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the person induced to carry out the
execution of the crime. Thoughtless expression without intention to produce the result
is not an inducement to commit a crime.
He becomes liable only as such when the principal by direct participation committed
the act induced.
Two ways of becoming a Principal by Induction:
1. by directly forcing another to commit a crime, either
1. by using irresistible force, or 2. by causing
uncontrollable fear.
2. by directly inducing another to commit a crime, either
1. by giving price, or offering reward or promise, or
2. by using words of command.

One cannot be held guilty as principal by induction without first being shown that the
crime was actually committed (or attempted) by another.

Thus, there can be no principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation)

unless there is a principal by direct participation. But there can be a principal by direct
participation without a principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation).

Discussion on “by directly forcing another to commit a crime” which can either be:
1. by using irresistible force, or (2) by causing uncontrollable
fear

99 | P a g e
When one is forced by another to commit a crime through the use of irresistible force
or causing an uncontrollable fear, only the person from whom such force or fear came
from is criminally liable and not the executor.

The executor acts against his will hence, the act is involuntary. Problem:

Q: A and his gang of robbers threatened to kill all the bank employees if the bank
manager refuses to open the vault of the bank. The manager was constrained to open
the vault and the robbers emptied the vault. Is manager liable?
A: The bank manager is not criminally liable because he acted under the compulsion
of an uncontrollable fear. A and company are liable.

Q: How do you induce others or convince others to commit a crime? A:

By words of inducement or by promise of price or reward.

Q: How do you become a PBI?

A: (1) The PBI made the inducement with the intention of procuring the commission
of the crime. (2) The inducement was the determining cause of the commission of the
crime without which the crime would not have been committed.

Q: Maria confided to her friend Petra that her marital life had been miserable because
she married an irresponsible and philandering husband. Petra remarked: "A husband
like that deserves to be killed." Maria killed her husband. Is Petra a principal by
inducement?
A: No. A thoughtless expression is not an inducement to kill.

The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so influential in
producing the criminal act that without it the act would not have been performed.

Q: A asked B to kill C because of grave Injustice done to A by C. A promised B a

reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him but
because he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him
in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement? (2002
BQ)

A: No, A would not be liable as principal by inducement because the reward he

promised B is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about
criminal liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the
sole consideration which caused the person induced to commit the crime and without

100 | P a g e
which the crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate that
B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a longstanding
grudge.

When the criminal liability of the principal by inducement arise

The criminal liability of the principal by inducement arises only when the crime is
committed by the principal by direct participation.

PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION

Cooperates with the principal by direct participation and without whose participation
the crime would not have been committed. He cooperates after coming to know
the criminal intent of the principal by direct participation.

Cooperation in the commission of the offense

Cooperation in the commission of the offense means to desire or wish a common

thing. But that common will or purpose does not necessarily mean previous
understanding, for it can be explained or inferred from the circumstances of each case.

NOTE: A principal by indispensable cooperation may be a co-conspirator under the

doctrine of implied conspiracy. He becomes a co-conspirator by indispensable
cooperation, although the common design or purpose was not previously agreed
upon.

Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution by way of conspiracy; or
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another
act without which the crime would not have been accomplished.

Note: What binds a PDP with a PIC is that there is again the existence of a conspiracy.
Q: X wanted to kill Y who resides in an island. The only means to reach the island is
to ride on the motorboat owned by A. X told A to bring him to the island because he is
going to kill Y. A brought X to the island where X killed Y. What is the liability of A?
A: A is a principal by indispensable cooperation. His motorboat is the only means
to reach the island where Y resides. Without his cooperation X would not have killed
Y.

Principal by indispensable cooperation distinguished from an accomplice

101 | P a g e
The point is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in
committing the crime. The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the
consummation of the crime. If the crime could hardly be committed without such
cooperation, then such cooperation would bring about a principal. But if the
cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime, this would
make the cooperator merely an accomplice.

* Where both accused conspired and confederated to commit rape, and one had sex
with the offended party while the other was holding her hands, and thereafter the latter
was the one who raped the victim, both are principals by direct participation and by
indispensable cooperation in the two (2) crimes of rape committed. (People vs.
Fernandez, 183 SCRA 511)

An accused may be a principal by direct participation

and a principal by indispensable cooperation at the
same time

Illustration: When Sergio had sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will
by employing force and intimidation, the crime committed is rape through direct
participation. When he aided Berto and made it possible for the latter to have carnal
knowledge of complainant also against her will and through force and intimidation,
accused committed another crime of rape through indispensable cooperation. Thus,
Sergio is guilty of two crimes of consummated rape (People v. Simba, 117 SCR A
243

ACCOMPLICES

Q: Who are Accomplices.

A: Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in
the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. (Article 18)

Requisites:

a. there be a community of design (principal originates the design, accomplice only

concurs)

b. he cooperates in the execution by previous or simultaneous acts, intending to give

material and moral aid (cooperation must be knowingly done, it must also be
necessary and not indispensable.

c. There be a relation between the acts of the principal and the alleged accomplice

102 | P a g e
* The accomplice does not conspire with the principal although he cooperated in the
execution of the criminal act.

There must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed
to the person charged as an accomplice.

Note: In homicide or murder, the accomplice must not have inflicted the mortal wound.

Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a principal by direct participation.

Other examples of cooperation by an Accomplice

1. By previous act — Lending of a knife or a gun to the murderer, knowing the
latter's criminal purpose.
2. By simultaneous act — The defendant who held one of the hands of the victim
and tried to take away the latter's revolver, while his co-defendant was attacking
him, is an accomplice for he cooperates in the execution of the crime by
simultaneous act without any previous agreement or understanding. Note: An
accomplice is not a part of the plan or conspiracy.
An accomplice is neither a principal nor an accessory but who cooperates with the
principal by direct participation after coming to know about the conspiracy or after
witnessing the commission of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts.
An accomplice concurs or approves the act of the principal by direct participation
and performs other acts showing his conformity to the act of the principal by direct
participation.

The act or acts of the accomplice must be lesser than the act or acts done by the
principal by direct participation, that is, they must not be equal to or graver than the
act or acts of the principal by direct participation.

The cooperation of the accomplice is only necessary, not indispensable.

Problem:

Q: A stabbed C. Upon seeing what A did, B also attacked C and stabbed him. C died
because of the stab wounds. What are the criminal liabilities of A and B?
A: A and B are both liable as principals by direct participation. While it is true that B
concurred and cooperated in the execution of the crime, his act was equal to the act
performed by A. This makes him equally liable as principal by direct participation. He

103 | P a g e
cannot be an accomplice because under the law, the participation of an accomplice
should be lesser than the act of the principal by direct participation. Problem:

Q: A stabbed C. Upon seeing what A did, B rained C with fist blows. C died because
of the stab wound. What are the liabilities of A and B?

A: A is liable as principal by direct participation in the crime of Homicide. B concurred

with the act of A by boxing C. B is liable as accomplice because he performed a lesser
act.

Problem:

Q: A boxed C. Upon seeing what A did, B attacked C and stabbed him. C suffered
contusion and died because of the stab wound. What are the liabilities of A and B?

A: A is liable as principal by direct participation in the crime of Slight Physical Injuries

for inflicting contusion on C. B is also liable as a principal by direct participation for the
crime of Homicide. While B concurred with the act of A, B's participation was greater
than the act performed by A. Thus, B cannot be liable only as an accomplice.

Q: A and B agreed and decided to commit Robbery at the house of X on May 5, 2007.
On the following day, A and B told C about their plan and asked C to drive for them.
C drove A and B to the house of X where the two committed Robbery. What are the
liabilities of A, B, and C?

A: A and B are liable as principals by direct participation in the crime of Robbery. C

is liable as an accomplice. He cooperated by a previous act of showing his
concurrence to the conspiracy.

Quasi-collective responsibility is one where some offenders in the crime are

principals and the others are accomplices.

>In case of doubt as to the responsibility of the offender as a principal or accomplice,

the court should apply the milder form of liability. (People vs. Medrano, 114 SCRA
335)

104 | P a g e
>The wound inflicted by the accomplice in crimes against persons should not have
caused the death of the victim as then he becomes a principal by direct participation.

How does an accomplice acquire knowledge of the criminal design of the principal?
1. When the principal informs or tells the accomplice of his (former's) criminal
purpose.
2. When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal and concurs with it.

Q: A, wanting to kidnap B while playing at a park, forced B to come with him at a

nearby wharf. There, he saw C and D ready to leave, with their boats. C, without
putting any resistance and fully acquiescing to the acts of A allowed him, to transport
the kidnapped victim, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime. Is C liable as
an accomplice or a principal by indispensable cooperation?

A: C is liable as an accomplice. His act was not indispensable to the commission of

the crime because A may also use the boat of D in order to accomplish his criminal
design. His simultaneous act cooperated in the execution of the crime. If C was the
only one who is present in the wharf, and A could not have accomplished the crime
except with the participation of C, then C would be a principal by indispensable
cooperation.

NOTE: In determining whether the offender is a principal or accomplice, the basis is

the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime.

ACCESSORIES

Q: Who are Accessories?

A: Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:

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

of the crime.

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

instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.

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

the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever
the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an

105 | P a g e
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime.

The accessory comes into the picture when the crime is already consummated, not
before the consummation of the crime.

NOTE: One cannot be an accessory unless he knew of the commission of the crime;
however, he must not have participated in its commission.

If the offender has already involved himself as a principal or accomplice, he cannot be

an accessory any further even though he performs acts pertaining to an accessory

Note: (1) To be liable as an accessory, the felony committed by the principal should
be LESS GRAVE or GRAVE FELONY; (2) The felony is NOT a LIGHT FELONY
because under Art. 16, accessories are NOT LIABLE for a light felony.

Requisites:

1) He has KNOWLEDGE of the commission of the crime

2) He did not PARTICIPATE therein, either as principals or accomplices
3) He took part SUBSEQUENT to the commission of the crime.

Instances when accessories are not criminally liable

1) When the felony committed is a light felony.

2) When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse, or as an

ascendant, or descendant or as brother or sister whether legitimate,
natural or adopted or where the accessory is a relative by affinity within
the same degree, unless the accessory himself profited from the effects
or proceeds of the crime or assisted the offender to profit therefrom (Art.
20, RPC)

By PROFITING himself or ASSISTING the offender to PROFIT by the effects of

the crime.

Problem:

Q: A stole the money of B. A later gave X Php 5,000 pesos out of the stolen money.
Is X an accessory?
A: No, because he did not know that the money given to him by A was stolen.

106 | P a g e
Q: Suppose A told X that the Php5,000 is part of the money he stole from B, is X an
accessory?
A: Yes, because he knew that the money was stolen and he profited from it.

Q: A stole the cellphone of B. A went to X and told him that he stole the cellphone
because he is in dire need of money. A asked X to pawn the cellphone for him which
X did and gave the proceeds to A. Is X an accessory? A: Yes, X is an accessory.
Despite his knowledge that the cellphone was stolen he assisted A to profit from it.

Note: If the act of an accessory however is punished as a principal by another law,

then he may be charged as a principal.

Q: When will an accessory in a crime be liable as a principal in another crime?

A: When he is an accessory whose act or omission is also penalized in a special law.
In crimes under special laws or crimes mala prohibita, the offenders generally are
penalized as principals unless otherwise provided.

Illustration: If a person not having participated as principal or accomplice in robbery or

theft but knowing that the property being offered to him is the proceeds or subject
matter of the said crime, bought or purchased or dealt in any manner with which such
property, obtaining benefit from said transaction or helping the thief or robber to profit
therefrom.

NOTE: The accessory must receive the property from the principal. He should not take
it without the consent of the principal. If he took it without the consent of the principal,
he is not an accessory but a principal in the crime of theft

FENCING

Q: What is Fencing?
A: "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another,
shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and
sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which
he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft. (PD 1612)

Elements of Fencing:

1) The crimes of robbery or theft has been committed;

2) The accused, who is not the principal or accomplice in the crime of robbery
or theft, buys, receives, possesses, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes,

107 | P a g e
 or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or
anything of value which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime.

3) The accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft;

4) There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

Distinctions:

Accessory PD 1612

> To be held liable, he must know that To be held liable, it is enough that he
the property is stolen is should have known that the property

stolen

>Penalty is lower than the principal is Punished as a principal – so penalty

higher than accessory

Q: Can a person be considered as an accessory thus liable under the RPC and at the
same time, he is also a fence? Can there be double jeopardy?
A: One person can be liable both as an accessory under the RPC and as a Fence
under PD 1612. There is no double jeopardy.

Note: The crime of fencing involves moral turpitude.

Presumption of Fencing: (Sec. 5, PD 1612)

MERE POSSESSION of any goods, article, item or anything of value, which has been
the subject of robbery or thievery, shall be PRIMA FACIE evidence of fencing. ---this
presumption can be rebutted --- that you did not know or it could not have been known.
The presumption here is that you are liable for fencing in that you have in your
possession the stolen property.

One who is charged as an accessory

under Art. 19(1) may be likewise charged
under P.D. 1612 for the same act

108 | P a g e
What is prohibited under the Constitution is the prosecution of the accused twice for
the same offense.

NOTE: The State may choose to prosecute the offender either under the RPC or P.D.
1612 although preference for the latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing
is a crime malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and
prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property (Dizon-Pamintuan v.
People,).

By CONCEALING or DESTROYING the (a) body of the crime or (b) effect or

instruments thereof. (the murder weapon or instruments used in the commission of
the crime)

Q: What is the "body of the crime"?

A: The body of the crime refers to the corpus delicti and not necessarily to the corpse.
Corpus delicti means the body or substance of the crime and in its primary sense
refers to the fact that a crime has actually been committed. As applied to a particular
offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
It is a compound fact made up of two things: (1) the existence of a certain act or result
forming the basis of the criminal charge; and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as
the cause of this act or result. Otherwise stated, its elements are: a) the proof of the
occurrence of a certain event; and b) some person's criminal responsibility. (People
vs. Boco, June 1999) For instance, in the case of a prosecution for drug sale, it must
be established that an illegal sale of the regulated drug took place; and the accused
were the authors thereof.

Elements of corpus delicti

a) The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge

b) The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result.

NOTE: The corpus delicti is the body of the crime, not necessarily the corpse. Thus,
even if the corpse is not recovered, as long as that killing is established beyond
reasonable doubt, criminal liability will arise and if there is someone who destroys the
corpus delicti to prevent discovery, he becomes an accessory

Misleading the investigating police officer to prevent the discovery of the crime or to
help the offender escape is also to destroy the corpus delicti.

109 | P a g e
Example:

A killed B with a .45 caliber gun. A was pursued by the authorities. A went to his friend
C and after telling him about the crime that he committed asked C to hide the gun that
he used in the commission thereof. C hid the gun. C is liable as an accessory. He
concealed the instrument of the crime. Example:

A stole the laptop computer of B. Thereafter, A went to his friend C and after informing
him that he stole the item, asked C to hide the laptop computer for him which C did. C
is liable as an accessory because he concealed the effects of the crime.

By HARBORING, CONCEALING or ASSISTING in the ESCAPE of the principal of

the crime by a) providing the accessory act with abuse of his public functions
(b) whenever the author of the crime is guilty of 1) treason, 2) parricide, 3)
murder or 4) an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive.

Two kinds of accessories under par. 3 of Art. 19

1. Public officer who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal of
any crime (except for light felony) with abuse of his public functions.

Requisites:
(a) The accessory is a public officer;
(b) He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal;
(c) The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions;
(d) The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a
light felony.
Q: X with intent to kill stabbed Y. The latter was medically attended for 5 days. X was
pursued by policemen. X went to SPO 2 Joseph and after apprising him of the crime
that he has just committed, asked his policeman friend to assist in his escape. SP02
Joseph assisted in the escape of Y. Is SP02 Joseph an accessory?

A: Yes, SP02 Joseph is an accessory. The crime committed by X is Attempted

Homicide because there was intent to kill and no mortal wound was inflicted.
Medical attendance for 5 days indicates that the wound inflicted is slight. Attempted
Homicide is not a light felony because it is punishable with Prision Correccional (6
months and 1 day to 6 years).

Q: What if the crime committed by X is Slight Physical Injuries, will your answer be the
same?

110 | P a g e
A: No. If that were the case, SP02 Joseph is not an accessory. Slight Physical
Injuries is a light felony. He can be an accessory only if the crime committed by the
principal is not a light felony.
2. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the
crime or the principal:

a. Who is guilty of treason, (b) parricide, (c) murder, or (d) an attempt against
the life of the Chief Executive;
Keyword: (TPMA-H)
b. Who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crimes.

Q: For accessories by assisting the principal to escape, who should be the offender
assisted to escape?
A: The offender to be assisted must be a principal; assisting an accomplice is not
included.

Those who assist the principal to escape may be prosecuted under P.D. No. 1829 on
obstruction of justice not as accessory but as a principal, provided that a separate
Information shall be prepared for the crime of obstruction. When he is convicted
thereunder, the penalty to be imposed is the higher penalty under P.D. No. 1829 or
any other law, including the Revised Penal Code. (Sec. 1, last paragraph)

If the principal committed robbery — which is not one of the offenses enumerated in
Art. 19 par. 3 — the private person is not an accessory.

A civilian who harbors a principal who committed kidnapping may not be held as an
accessory because kidnapping is not one of the crimes enumerated by law.

Problem:

Q: A killed B with treachery. A was chased by policemen. A went to his friend X and
sought refuge in the latter's house. X kept him from the authorities. Is X an accessory?

A: It depends. If X knew that A committed a crime then he is an accessory. The crime

committed by A is Murder, the killing being attended by the qualifying aggravating
circumstance of treachery. However, if X did not know that A committed a crime then
he is not liable.

Q: What if X knew that A committed the crime of murder and yet he assisted in his
escape, is X an accessory?

111 | P a g e
A: Yes, X is an accessory. The law uses the word "guilty" which implies conviction
first of the principal before the accessory could be adjudged guilty as such.

Two situations where accessories are not criminally liable:

(1) When the felony committed is a light felony;

(2) When the accessory is related to the principal as spouse, or as an ascendant, or
descendant or as brother or sister whether legitimate, natural or adopted or where
the accessory is a relative by affinity within the same degree, unless the
accessory himself profited from the effects or proceeds of the crime or assisted
the offender to profit therefrom.

Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability – Art. 20

Basis: Ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name which
compels one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those mentioned.
Nephew and niece are not included

Rule: An accessory is exempt from criminal liability, when the principal is his:
1) Spouse
2) Ascendant
3) Descendant
4) Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother, sister or relative by affinity within the
same degree.

Except: Accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if the principal is related
to him, if such accessory:

(1) Profited by the effects of the crime; or

(2) Assisted the offender to profit from the effects of the crime.

Q: Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His
mother told him to hide in the maid's quarter until she finds a better place for him to
hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt s house. A week later, Jake was
apprehended by the police. Can Jake's mother and aunt be made criminally liable as
accessories to the crime of murder? (2010 Bar Question)

A: The mother is exempt from criminal liability under Art. 20 of the RPC as a result of
her relationship to her son; however, the aunt is liable as accessory under Art. 19

112 | P a g e
paragraph 3 of the RPC if the author of the crime is guilty of murder. The relationship
between an aunt and a nephew does not fall within the classification for exemption

XVI - PENALTY

Penalty — is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of the law.
Purpose of punishment:
The law is a rule or norm of conduct prescribed by the State for in orderly management
of its affairs and for the protection of the rights of its inhabitants. It is meant to be
followed and obeyed, not o be violated. Transgression of the law is an affront or
defiance to the State. To enforce the law, penal sanctions must be imposed in
accordance with the police power of the State. THEORIES JUSTIFYING PENALTY:
1. Justice — a crime must be punished to vindicate the right violated by the
offender.
2. Exemplarity — to serve as an example for the public good and to deter others
from violating the law.
3. Reformation — Man is basically good. Penalty is imposed upon him to
correct and reform him.
4. Prevention — Criminal acts pose danger to the State. Penalty is inflicted to
suppress this danger.

5. Self-defense — The State has a right to exist. This existence is imperiled by

lawlessness. It must impose penalties to protect itself from the threat and
wrong caused by criminals.
The three-fold purpose of penalties under the Revised Penal Code:

1) Retribution or Expiation — the penalty is commensurate with the nature

and gravity of the crime.
2) Correction or reformation — penalties are imposed to reform a criminal.
3) Social defense — A society has an existence to maintain and assert.

Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal,
as this term is defined in Rule 5 of article 62 of this code, although at the time
of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the
convict is serving the same.( ART. 22)

General Rule: Penal laws shall have no retroactive effect

113 | P a g e
Exception: Penal laws may be given retroactive effect when FAVORABLE to the
accused. ------Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more
lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given a proactive effect.

Examples:
1. When the act is decriminalized (e.g. PD 827, Anti-Squatting Law)
2. When the law is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual criminal.

Q: What is the effect of pardon by the offended party?

A: A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as
provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the
injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.

As a general rule, an offended party cannot pardon an accused, because the case is
not against him but against the People of the Philippines. --- he is only a witness.

Q: What are the effects of Pardon by Offended Party:

A: General Rule: Civil liabilities are extinguished by his express waiver BUT criminal
liability is not extinguished.

Exception: Art. 344 par (3) of the RPC

These are: Abduction, seduction, Acts of lasciviousness, Adultery and Concubinage
These are the crimes which cannot be prosecuted de officio. –if the victim does not
want to testify, the law gives respect to her wishes because she may opt to suffer in
silence rather than go public..----in these crimes…pardon is a BAR to criminal liability.

Q: When must pardon be given?

A: BEFORE the institution of the action.

Q: What if the case has already been filed in Court and in the middle of the trial, the
complainant says I have already pardoned the accused. What is the effect of her
pardon given to the accused?
A: No, more, because the criminal action has already been instituted and it is no longer
within her control.

Note: That pardon by the offended party under Art. 344 DOES NOT EXTINGUISH
criminal liability. It merely constitutes A BAR TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION

Q: Why does the law specify that the preventive measures are not considered
penalties under Article 29?

114 | P a g e
A: It is because if they are considered penalties, they will violate the constitutional
provision on presumption of innocence. However, Article 29 provides that the period
of preventive imprisonment will be deducted from the term of imprisonment which
seems to negate the above rationale. It appears that upon conviction and commitment
to prison, the preventive detention in prison of the accused is immediately transformed
into a penalty.

CORRELATING ARTICLE 24 WITH ARTICLE 29

Although under Article 24, the detention of a person accused of a crime while the case
against him is being tried does not amount to a penalty, yet the law considers this as
part of the imprisonment and generally deductible from the sentence.

When will this credit apply? If the penalty imposed consists of a deprivation of liberty.
Not all who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be given a credit

Under Article 24, preventive imprisonment of an accused who is not yet convicted is
not a penalty. Yet Article 29, if ultimately the accused is convicted and the penalty
imposed involves deprivation of liberty, provides that the period during which he had
undergone preventive detention will be deducted from the sentence, unless he is one
of those disqualified under the law.
If the offender is not disqualified from the credit or deduction provided for in
Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, then the next thing to determine is whether he
signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing convicts.
If he signed an undertaking to abide by the same rules and regulations governing
convicts, then it means that while he is suffering from preventive imprisonment, he is
suffering like a convict, that is why the credit is full.

But if the offender did not sign an undertaking, then he will only be subjected to
the rules and regulations governing detention prisoners. As such, he will only be given
80% or 4/5 of the period of his preventive detention.

Q: What is now the status of the death penalty?

A: RA 9346 PROHIBITS THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY.

Distinctions between Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment:

1. Life imprisonment is not the same as Reclusion Perpetua. Hence, they cannot
be used interchangeably;

2. Life imprisonment does not have accessory penalties. Reclusion Perpetua has
accessory penalties.

115 | P a g e
3. Life imprisonment is a penalty under special laws. Reclusion Perpetua is a
penalty under the Revised Penal Code.

4. Life imprisonment has no fixed duration. After serving 30 years, the convict may
be pardoned.

Q: What is the legal duration of Reclusion Perpetual?

A: Under RA 7659, the legal duration of Reclusion Perpetua is 20 years and 1 day to
40 years.

DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES

Q: What is civil interdiction?

A: Under Article 38 of the New Civil Code, civil interdiction is one of the restrictions on
capacity to act but does not exempt the offender from certain obligations, as when the
latter arise from his act or from property relations. It is an accessory penalty imposed
upon person sentenced to the principal penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal.

Q: What are the effects of civil interdiction?

A: Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the
rights of:
1. parental authority
2. guardianship, either as to the person or property of the ward
3. marital authority
4. the right to manage his property and;
5. the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter
vivos.

Civil interdiction is imposable when the penalty is: a) Death when not executed;
b)Reclusion Perpetua and c) Reclusion Temporal

Distinctions between pardon granted by the offended party and pardon

granted by the President
Pardon by the offended party applies only to crimes against chastity under the
RPC and rape, while pardon by the Chief Executive applies to any crime.

Pardon by the offended party in seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness

benefits the co-principals, accomplices and accessories. In adultery and
concubinage, the pardon must include both offenders. Pardon by the Chief
Executive can be granted to any or all of the accused.

116 | P a g e
 Pardon by the offended party cannot be made subject to a condition while
pardon by the Chief Executive may be absolute or conditional.

General rule: Pardon granted in general terms does not include accessory penalties.
Exceptions:

a. If the absolute pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, it
removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction. However, if the penalty is
life
imprisonment and after the service of 30 years, a pardon is granted, the pardon does
not remove the accessory penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification

b. if the facts and circumstances of the case show that the purpose of the
President is to precisely restore the rights i.e., granting absolute pardon after election
to a post (mayor) but before the date fixed by law for assuming office to enable him to
assume the position in deference to the popular will
c.

Pardon must be accepted

Pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the Chief Executive, which exempts the
individual upon whom it is bestowed from the punishment which the law inflicts for the
crime he has committed. It is a private, though official, act of the Chief Executive
delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is not intended. It is a deed, to the validity
of which delivery is essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. Until
delivery, all that may have been done is a matter of intended favor, and the pardon
may be cancelled to accord with the change of intention. If cancelled before
acceptance, it has no effect.

Effects of Pardon

There are two kinds of pardon that may be extended by the President. The first
one is known as conditional pardon. This pardon contemplates of a situation wherein
the offender is granted temporary liberty under certain conditions. If he violates the
conditions of this pardon, he commits a crime known as evasion of service of sentence.

Absolute pardon – when an absolute pardon is granted, it releases the

offender from the punishment imposed by the court on him, so that in the eyes of the
law, the offender is innocent as if he had never committed the offense. It removes the

117 | P a g e
penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. It makes him a new
man and gives him a new credit and capacity.

* Pardon relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense for which he has
been convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the punishment, subject to exceptions
mentioned in Art. 36.

118 | P a g e
Q: What is subsidiary penalty?
A: It is a penalty that takes the place of the fine for insolvent convicts. It is neither a
principal nor accessory penalty, but a substitute penalty for fine only. The subsidiary
penalty may be in the form of imprisonment or deprivation of right depending upon the
principal penalty imposed on the convict. (Article 39)

Q: When is subsidiary penalty served?

A: Subsidiary penalty is proper when the penalty imposed upon the convict includes
fine but he cannot pay the same. The court must expressly state that subsidiary
penalty shall be served in case of insolvency because this is not an accessory penalty
that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course. Also, the penalty imposed must
be susceptible of subsidiary penalty.

Note: Subsidiary penalty is proper only if the accused has no property with which to
pay the fine and not as a matter of choice on his part by opting to go to jail instead of
paying.

Q: Is subsidiary penalty deemed imposed in case the convict could not pay the fine
imposed by reason of insolvency? Explain.
A: No. Subsidiary penalty must be expressly imposed by the Court in order that the
convict may be required to serve it. It is not an accessory penalty. It is imposed upon
the accused and served by him in lieu of the fine which he fails to pay on account of
insolvency.

Subsidiary penalty is possible only when any of the following penalties is imposed.
(1) prision correccional;
(2) suspension and fine;
(3) destierro;
(4) arresto mayor; (5) arresto menor; and
(6) fine only.

Note: When the penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment, it is the penalty
actually imposed by the court not the penalty provided for by the Code which shall be
considered in determining whether or not subsidiary penalty should be imposed.

Q: In what cases does the subsidiary penalty not consist of imprisonment?

A: Subsidiary penalty does not always consist of imprisonment. If the penalty imposed
is prision correccional or arresto mayor and fine, the subsidiary penalty shall consist
in imprisonment. If the penalty imposed is destierro, the subsidiary penalty is also
destierro.

119 | P a g e
Q: If the penalty imposed is suspension, the subsidiary penalty is also suspension.
After the culprit has served subsidiary penalty and his finances improved, is he still liable
to pay the fine?
A: Yes. Art. 39, Par. (5) states that the subsidiary personal liability which the convict
may have suffered shall not relieve him from paying the fine in case his financial
circumstance improve.

CONFISCATION & FORFEITURE OF THE PROCEEDS OR

INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME

Every penalty imposed shall carry with it the confiscation of the proceeds of the crime
and the instruments or tools with which it was committed.

Such proceeds, instruments or tools would be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
Government:

(1) Unless they are properties belonging to a third person who is not liable for the
offense.
(2) Articles which are not subject to lawful commerce shall be destroyed.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CRIMES:

1. Simple crimes — These are the simple crimes which the Revised Penal Code
defines and prescribes the penalty in a single article.
Example: Art. 249, Homicide, is punished with Reclusion Temporal.
2. Plurality of crimes — when an offender commits many crimes, each with a
corresponding penalty distinct and separate from those of the others.

3. Special complex crimes — these are two simple crimes but which the RPC has
defined as a single offense with a single penalty.

Examples: Rape with Homicide, Kidnapping with Homicide, Robbery with

Homicide, Robbery with Rape, Kidnapping with Rape and Robbery with Arson.

4. Complex crimes — although more than one (1) crime has been committed, they
constitute only one crime not explicitly prescribed by the RPC and only one penalty
is imposed pursuant to Art. 48.

Two types of plurality of crimes:

a) Real or material plurality — when each act arises from distinct criminal impulses,
in which case, there will be as many crimes as there are acts.

120 | P a g e
 b) Ideal plurality — where the acts arise from a single criminal impulse, in which
case, they would form a series of acts constituting a single continuing crime.

In crime against persons, each act constitutes a distinct act of execution and thus is
a distinct offense. There is no continuing crime against several persons.

Q: What is a COMPLEX CRIME?

A: A complex crime is one where a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies or where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.

Two Kinds of Complex Crimes:

Art. 48 speaks of two (2) kinds of plurality of crimes:

(1) Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto) — when a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies.
(2) Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo) — when an offense is a necessary
means for committing another offense.

A complex crime is only one crime as contemplated by law because the offender has
only one criminal intent.

RULE: Both or all the offenses must be punished under the Revised Penal Code.

There is no complex crime of Estafa with Violation of BP 22

Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto) - There is compound crime when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.

Requisites: (1) That only a single act is performed by the offender and (2) That the
single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies.

Examples:
Double Homicide/Murder, Multiple Homicide, Homicide with Frustrated
Homicide and Homicide with Attempted Homicide.
Illustrations:

1. A with intent to kill, fired his gun at B. The bullet hit B. After hitting B, the
same bullet hit C. Both B and C died.

Although two (2) Homicide resulted from the act, A cannot be charged with 2 separate
crimes of Homicide. He is liable for the single offense of Double Homicide because

121 | P a g e
the 2 Homicide resulted from a single act. Homicide is a grave offense. The single act
resulted in 2 grave felonies.

Q: A throws a hand grenade. 10 people were killed and 10 almost got killed. Question:
Are there 10 crimes of murder and 10 crimes of frustrated murder?

A: No., there is only one complex crime of multiple murder with multiple frustrated
murder. ---Why? – there is only one act of throwing the hand grenade, although as a
result of that act, several grave or less grave felonies result.

Q: Suppose in the same problem, the same bullet hit B, C, and D who all died as a result.
What crime or crimes did A commit?
A: He is liable for the complex crime of Multiple Homicide. There is no such crime as
Triple Homicide, Quadruple Homicide or Quintuple Homicide. If a single act causes 3
or more deaths, it is Multiple Homicide or Multiple Murder as the case may be.

Q: In the same problem, suppose B and C were hit by the same bullet. B was seriously
wounded but survived. C died as a result of the gun shot wound.
A: In this case, A is liable for the complex crime of Homicide with Frustrated
Homicide. The single act resulted in 2 grave felonies of Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide. In complex crimes, the designation of the offense always starts with
the more serious felony.

Q: What if B was hit but was only slightly injured but C died as a result, what crime or
crimes did A commit?
A: A is liable for Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The single act resulted to one
grave felony of Homicide and one less grave felony of Attempted Homicide. Although
B sustained a slight injury, it is still Attempted Homicide because there was intent to
kill on the part of A.

RULE: in order for complex crime to exist, a single must must constitute either
grave or less grave felonies or 2 grave felonies or 2 less grave felonies.

Rule: A light felony cannot be complexed with a Grave or Less Grave felony

What happens of a single act produces a LESS GRAVE and a LIGHT FELONY?
There are 2 possibilities: (1) the light felony will be ABSORBED by the less grave
felony and (2) there are as many light felonies as there are victims --- they are to be
prosecuted separately.

Absorbed:

Q: A, policeman was engaged in the discharge of his functions. X approached A and

hit him in his face. It caused A, slight physical injury (light felony). Under Art. 148, the

122 | P a g e
 crime is Direct Assault. But what happens to the slight physical injuries (light felony)
that A sustained when X hit A?

A: It is absorbed by the element of attacking or employing force. We cannot say that the
crime is Direct Assault with Slight Physical Injuries.

As many light felonies: A threw stone at B. The stone hit C. The same stone hit D,
E and F. We cannot say that the slight physical injuries committed against B is
absorbed in the crime of C and so on and so forth----Art. 49 does not apply to light
felonies. Here----there will be as many slight physical injuries cases as there are
victims.

In the case of Reodica vs. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 87, a grave or less
grave felony cannot be complexed with a light felony. The light felony should be
separated, no to be complexed.

Thus, it is wrong for the prosecutor to file a criminal case if Reckless

Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Slight Physical Injuries. He should file a
complaint for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide and another complaint
for reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries.

2. Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)---- RULE: ONE OFFENSE IS A

NECESSARY MEANS FOR COMMITTING ANOTHER OFFENSE. 3.
----there are 2 acts—you commit the crimes one after the other – the 1st felony is not the
ultimate objective, it is only a stepping stone to commit another offense…you commit
one in order to commit the other—one is the means to commit the other.
Requisites:
a) That at least two offenses are committed.
b) That one of the offenses must be a necessary means for committing the other.
c) That both of the offenses must be punished under the same statute.

Examples: Estafa through falsification of commercial documents and Malversation

through falsification of a public document.
Problem:

Q: A found a lost check payable to B. He endorsed the check by falsifying the

signature of B. The drawee bank gave him the equivalent of the check. What
crime/crimes did A commit? Why?

A: A committed Estafa as regards the bank because it was deceived by A into

believing that he was B. He was able to commit Estafa because of his act of falsifying
the signature of B. The falsification was a necessary means of committing Estafa.
Therefore, A committed the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification.

123 | P a g e
Note: One offense is a NECESSARY mean to commit the other. The law does not say
one offense is committed as: an INDISPENSABLE means to commit another; a
means to CONCEAL the other; a DIRECT means to commit the other.

INDISPENSABLE: What happens if the 1st offense is indispensable to commit the

second? Is there a complex crime? Ans: NO. The 2nd crime is the real crime. The 1st
crime which is indispensable, is only an element of the 2nd crime. This is what we call
the doctrine of ABSORPTION.

Problem:

Hernandez and others were charged with the crime of rebellion with multiple
murder, arsons and robberies. Can they be guilty of the complex crime of rebellion
with murder? Was the charge correct?

Issue: Can rebellion be complexed with common crimes?

Held: No. "Murder, arson and robbery are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion,
as a means 'necessary' for the perpetration of the offense. Such common offenses are
absorbed or inherent in the crime of rebellion. Inasmuch as the acts specified in Art.
135 constitute one single crime, it follows that said acts offer no occasion for the
application of Art. 48, which requires therefore the commission of at least two crimes."
That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one crime, and that
without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist, is shown by the
absence of any penalty attached to Art. 134. It follows therefore that any or all of
the acts described in Art. 135, when committed as a means to or in furtherance
of the subversive ends become absorbed in the crimes in themselves. Not every
act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it
happens to be committed simultaneously with rebellion. But a rebel who for some
independent or personal motives, commits murder or other motives, is liable for
murder or other common offenses. (People vs. Geronimo); PP vs Hernandez 99
Phil. 515)

CONCEAL: RULE: No complex crime when one of the offenses was committed
for the purpose of concealing the commission of the other.

Example:

After committing homicide the accused in order to conceal the crime, set fire to the
house where it had been perpetrated. Setting fire to the house is Arson (Art 321). But
in this case, neither homicide nor arson was necessary to commit the other. The arson
was not a necessary means of committing Homicide. The Arson was resorted to

124 | P a g e
conceal the crime of Homicide already committed. Hence, the offender committed
two separate crimes of Homicide and Arson.

Q: What is the penalty for complex crimes under Article 48? Why is there such a
provision?
A: It is the penalty for the most serious crime in the maximum period. Such penalty is
beneficial to the accused because of the fact that he is given a single penalty, whereas
if the crime is considered separate, the offender shall be given as many penalties as
there are crimes committed. The reason for the single penalty is that the basis of the
felony is the singularity of the act. For instance, in the single act of pulling the trigger
of a
machine gun where 3 persons are killed, without Article 48, the offender would have
been penalized with 3 reclusion temporal in the proper period. But with the provision
on complex crimes, the penalty would be 1 reclusion temporal in the maximum period.

Q: What is the Single Larceny doctrine?

A: It is a doctrine in Theft or Robbery cases which is very popular in the United States
and other countries where the taking of a property or properties belonging to the same
or different persons by a series of acts or acts arising from a single criminal intent
or resolution constitutes only one crime.

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

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

Exception to the Single Larceny doctrine.

USE OF SUBMACHINE GUN: NOT A COMPLEX CRIME

Does the number of the crimes committed depend upon how many times the trigger
of an automatic gun was pressed or does it depend how many bullets are emitted? In
People v. Mario Tabaco, 270 SCRA 32, our Supreme Court declared that it is not the

125 | P a g e
act of pressing the trigger which should produce the several felonies, but the number
of bullets which actually produced them. Hence, where the accused pressed the
trigger of a submachine gun (Thompson) and the gun fired continually and several
persons were killed or injured, there are as many crimes as are persons killed or
injured. (People v. Sanchez, G. R. No. 131116, August 29, 1999)

Q: What is a continuing crime?

A: It is one where any of the elements of the offense is committed in different localities
such that the accused may be charged in any place where an essential element of the
crime was committed. It is not a complex crime because the offender does not perform
a single act but a series of acts and one offense is not a necessary means of
committing the other. Examples:
1. Conrado kidnapped Jenna and illegally detained her in Baguio City. On the
following day he brought her to Dagupan City. The next day, he brought her to Tarlac
and then to Manila. All the while, Jenna was deprived of her liberty. Conrado cannot
be charged for four (4) separate crimes of illegal detention. His bringing of Jenna to
four (4) different places does not constitute separate crimes of illegal detention. He
committed the continuing offense of Illegal Detention.

2. X negotiated with Y regarding the purchase of the latter's car in Manila. After the
conclusion of the contract X and Y met in Angeles City where X paid Y a post dated
check. The check was deposited by Y in his account at the Banco de Oro bank in
Baguio City. The drawee bank dishonored the check for the reason "drawn against
insufficient funds." Where can Y file a complaint for Violation of BP 22 against X? Why
explain?

Answer: Y can file a case for Violation of BP 22 in Angeles City, or Baguio City. Under
the law, a person can be charged in any place where an essential part of the offense
was committed. Violation of BP 22 is a continuing crime. Venue in a continuing crime
is determined by the place where any of the elements of the crime was
committed.

Q: What is the three-fold rule?

A: It means that if the convict were to suffer several penalties, the maximum duration
of his sentence shall not be more than three times the length of time corresponding to
the most severe penalty.

Art. 70 refers to service of sentence. It is therefore addressed to the jail warden or to

the director of prisons. The court or the judge has no power to implement Article 70
because the provision is not for the imposition of penalties. If the penalty by their very
nature can be served simultaneously, then it must be so served.

126 | P a g e
Illustration: A was sentenced to suffer four penalties; 6 yrs, 5 yrs, 5 yrs and 7 yrs. The
total of the penalties is 23 years. Applying the 3fold rule, multiply 7 yrs. by 3 and we
have 21 yrs. A shall serve a total of 21 years only.

The three fold rule applies only if the convict were to suffer at least four
(4) penalties. If the convict were to suffer three (3) penalties only, the three fold
rule doesn't apply

Maximum duration of the convict’s sentence: 3 times the most severe penalty Max
period shall not exceed 40 years

Subsidiary imprisonment – this shall be excluded in computing for the maximum

duration

Example: Juan has 10 sentences of 6 months and 1 day each and a fine of 1000. He
was not able to pay the fine. Therefore, he must serve subsidiary penalty after 18
months and 3 days in jail.

Under this rule, when a convict is to serve successive penalties, he will not actually
serve the penalties imposed by law. Instead, the most severe of the penalties imposed
on him shall be multiplied by three and the period will be the only term of the penalty
to be served by him. However, in no case should the penalty exceed 40 years.

>>> If the sentences would be served simultaneously, the Three-Fold rule does not
govern.
>>> Although this rule is known as the Three-Fold rule, you cannot actually apply this
if the convict is to serve only three successive penalties. The Three-Fold Rule can only
be applied if the convict is to serve four or more sentences successively.

>>> The chronology of the penalties as provided in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code
shall be followed.

>>> It is in the service of the penalty, not in the imposition of the penalty, that the
Three-Fold rule is to be applied. The three-Fold rule will apply whether the sentences
are the product of one information in one court, whether the sentences are
promulgated in one day or whether the sentences are promulgated by different courts
on different days. What is material is that the convict shall serve more than three
successive sentences.

127 | P a g e
 For purposes of the Three-Fold Rule, even perpetual penalties are taken into account.
So not only penalties with fixed duration, even penalties without any fixed duration or
indivisible penalties are taken into account. For purposes of the Three-Fold rule,
indivisible penalties are given equivalent of 30 years. If the penalty is perpetual
disqualification, it will be given and equivalent duration of 30 years, so that if he will
have to suffer several perpetual disqualification, under the Three-Fold rule, you take
the most severe and multiply it by three. The Three-Fold rule does not apply to the
penalty prescribed but to the penalty imposed as determined by the court.

>>> Never apply the Three-Fold rule when there are only three sentences. Even if you
add the penalties, you can never arrive at a sum higher than the product of the most
severe multiplied by three.

>>> The common mistake is, if given a situation, whether the Three-Fold Rule could
be applied. If asked, if you were the judge, what penalty would you impose, for
purposes of imposing the penalty, the court is not at liberty to apply the Three-Fold
Rule, whatever the sum total of penalty for each crime committed, even if it would
amount to 1,000 years or more. It is only when the convict is serving sentence
that the prison authorities should determine how long he should stay in jail.

Q: When and how a penalty is to be executed?

A: No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment. A penalty shall
not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other
circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby. (Article 78)

Q: What are the effects of insanity?

A: If the offender was insane during the commission of the offense, he is exempt
from

criminal liability. If the accused becomes insane during the trial, insanity shall
suspend the proceedings. (Article 79)

If the convict becomes insane after final sentence has been pronounced, the
execution of the sentence shall be suspended only with regard to his personal
liability.

The execution of his pecuniary liabilities shall not be suspended.

If the convict recovers his reason, the sentence is to be executed except if the
penalty has already prescribed

128 | P a g e
 PECUNIARY LIABILITIES

Pecuniary liabilities of persons criminally liable

1. Reparation of damage caused
2. indemnification of the consequential damages
3. Fine

4. Costs of proceedings

NOTE: The court CANNOT disregard the order of payment, pecuniary liabilities in this
article must be observed.

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

2. By service of the sentence;

3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its

effects;

4. By absolute pardon;

5. By prescription of the crime;

6. By prescription of the penalty;

7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of

this Code.

Q: What is the effect of death on the criminal liabilities of a convict?

A: Death extinguishes the criminal liability of the convict. With respect to his
pecuniary liabilities the answer is it depends. If the convict dies before final
judgment, his pecuniary liability is extinguished. If he dies after final judgment, his
pecuniary liability survives.
If the accused dies while the case is pending trial, the case will be dismissed.
No substitution. Or where the accused is serving his sentence, no substitution.
There is no such a thing as criminal liability by substitution. ----- THE DEATH
OF THE CONVICT EXTINGUISHES HIS CRIMINAL LIABILIITIES AS TO THE
PECUNIARY PENALTIES,

129 | P a g e
Prescription of crime — refers to the loss or forfeiture of the right of the State to
prosecute the offender because of the lapse of time.

Prescription of penalty — refers to the loss or forfeiture of the right to the State to
execute the penalty because of the lapse of time.

Marriage -- between the accused and the victim extinguishes criminal liability. The law
contemplates a valid marriage. There must be no legal impediment to the marriage.
Note: by marriage – this only applies to crimes of rape and crimes against Chastity
like seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness. The victim of rape marries the
accused, the criminal liability is extinguished.

Problem:

A, B and C raped Susan. The 3 were arrested and charged with rape. B who is single,
offered to marry Susan. The latter accepted the offer and they got married. What is
the effect of the marriage to the criminal liabilities of A, B and C? Explain.

Answer:

This is a case of multiple rape. The marriage shall extinguish the criminal liability
of B alone. The marriage shall not extinguish the criminal liability of A and C because
the rape that they committed are separate and distinct from the rape committed by B.

>>>>Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability must have been contracted
in good faith. The offender who marries the offended woman must be sincere in the
marriage and therefore must actually perform the duties of a husband after the
marriage, otherwise, notwithstanding such marriage, the offended woman, although
already his wife can still prosecute him again, although the marriage remains a valid
marriage. Do not think that the marriage is avoided or annulled. The marriage still
subsists although the offended woman may re-file the complaint. The Supreme Court
ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real marriage and not one entered to and
not just to evade punishment for the crime committed because the offender will be
compounding the wrong he has committed.

Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua

or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.

Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the
exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five
years

130 | P a g e
 The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.

The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.

Light offenses prescribe in two months.

When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be
made the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and
third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19,
1966).

>>> the case should be filed within a certain period of time. When should you file it?

Period of Prescription of Crimes:

1) Death, reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal — 20 years.
2) Other afflictive penalties — 15 years.
3) Correctional penalties — 10 years except arresto mayor which prescribes in 5
years.

4) Libel or similar offense — 1 year.

5) Grave oral defamation and slander by deed — 6 months. Light offenses — 2
months.

When does the period of prescription start to run?

The running of the period starts from the discovery of the crime by the offended or the
authorities or their agents This list is exclusive; hence, discovery by other than them
will not make the period start to run. For instance, the dis covery of the crime by a
neighbor of the victim, not being an agent of the offended party will not commence the
running of the period.

What causes the interruption and the resumption of the running of the period?

The running of the period is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information or
when the offender is out of the country. The period runs again when the proceedings
are terminated without acquittal or conviction for reasons not attributable to the
offender.

Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final
sentence prescribe as follows:

1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;

131 | P a g e
 2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;

3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of

arresto mayor, which prescribes in five years;

4. Light penalties, in one year.

Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of

prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date when the culprit
should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the
defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign
country with which this Government has no extradition treaty, or should commit
another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.

>>>>it is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the government to execute the final sentence
after the lapse of a certain time fixed by law.

>>>if the sentence is not yet final, the period of prescription will not run because Art.
93 refers to the accused who shall “evade the service of sentence.” It does not start
to run where despite his final conviction the accused is not arrested to serve his
sentence.

>>>>>Prescription of the penalty presupposes that the accused has been convicted
by final judgment and he evades the service of the penalty. From that time on, the
prescriptive period of the penalty commences to run.

Prescription of penalty begins to run from the date the culprit evades the service of
sentence. It is interrupted:

1. If the accused surrenders.

2. if he is captured.
3. If he should go to a foreign country with which the Philippines has no
extradition treaty.
4. If he should commit another crime before the expiration of the prescriptive
period.

Chapter Two
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished

partially:

132 | P a g e
 1. By conditional pardon;

2. By commutation of the sentence; and

3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is
serving his sentence.

What cause the partial extinction of criminal liabilities? a.

Conditional pardon;
b. Commutation of sentence;
c. Good conduct allowance;
d. Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence
Law;
e. Probation under P.D. No. 968; (Note: Under the new law, probation now
constitutes total extinction)
f. Partial repeal of penal law. (supra)

ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The good conduct of any prisoner in
any penal institution shall entitle him to the following deductions from the
period of his sentence:

(1) During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of five
days for each month of good behavior;

(2) During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of eight days for each month of good behavior;
(3) During the following years until the tenth year inclusive of his imprisonment, he shall
be allowed a deduction of ten days for each month of good behavior; and; (4) During the
eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
fifteen days for each month of good behavior.

133 | P a g e
Good Conduct Time Allowance
For good behavior, a convict earns good conduct allowances deductible from his
sentence. It can be given only to prisoners by final conviction and not to detention
prisoners. It cannot be granted to those on conditional pardon, parole, or those
sentenced to destierro.
>>>>It should be remembered that good conduct allowance may be earned only
while the accused is serving sentence.

Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. — A deduction of one-fifth of the period
of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded the service of his
sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 58 of this Code, gives himself
up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation
announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe to in said article. (Note:
affected by the new amendatory law)

Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of
Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall
not be revoked

Q: When is good conduct allowance given?

A: There must be the following requisites:
1. The occurrence of disorder resulting from a conflagration,
earthquake, explosion or similar catastrophe or a mutiny in which the
prisoner did not participate;
2. The convict must evade the service of his sentence;
3. He must give himself up within 48 hours after the issuance of a
proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passing away
of such calamity.
The offender who shall give himself up under the conditions specified above shall be
given a loyalty award equivalent to 1/5 of the period of his sentence by the Director of
Prisons.

The provisions of this article apply only to cases falling under Article 158 of the Code,
that is to say, to convicts who, during any of the calamities mentioned in Article 158,
leave the penal institution but give themselves up to the authorities within 48 hours
after the proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity.

In Summary, the following circumstances reduce the sentence being served by the
convict:

1) Conditional pardon (Art. 95)

2) Commutation of sentence (Art. 96)
3) Good conduct allowances (Art. 97)

134 | P a g e
 4) Special conduct
5) Loyalty allowance (Art. 98)

What is the basic principle in civil liability ex-delicto?

That every person criminally liable is also civilly liable, crime being one of the five
sources of obligation under the Civil Code. However, if a person is acquitted from a
criminal charge, it does not mean that he is civilly free also because the quantum of
proof required in criminal prosecution is proof beyond reasonable doubt whereas, in
civil liability the quantum of proof required is merely preponderance of evidence. When
a person is acquitted therefor, his acquittal must be based on the fact that he did not
commit the offense to be free from liability. For, if his acquittal is based merely on
reasonable doubt, he may still be liable. In this case, it does not mean that he did not
do the act complained of. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the
offense charged.

Note: Civil liability may be expressly waived by the offended

General rule: When a criminal action is instituted, the civil aspect arising from the crime
is deemed instituted. ---that is why there are 2 aggrieved parties in a criminal action,
the state and offended party.

Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors

of establishments. — In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for
crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have
been committed by them or their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by
robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the
payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in
advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit
of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions
which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect
to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of
robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by
the innkeeper's employees.

ART. 105. Restitution. How made. — The restitution of the thing itself must he
made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of
value as determined by the court.

135 | P a g e
 The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the
possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the
latter his action against the proper person who may be liable to him.

This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been
acquired by the third person in the manner and under the requirements which,
by law, bar an action for its recovery.

>>>Restitution is the return/restoration of the thing itself with allowance for any
deterioration or diminution of value.
>>>Restitution can be made even from third persons who lawfully acquired the thing.
He can however file an action against the person from whom he acquired it, unless he
acquired it in a manner where the law bars an action for recovery like acquisition from
a public auction.

ART. 106. Reparation. — How made. — The court shall determine the amount
of damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible,
and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall be
made accordingly.

Reparation requires the culprit in case of inability to return the stolen property to
pay the value of the property or to pay for the damaged property.

How do you determine the value> --- market value including other factors like the
sentimental value of the property.

Example:

A attacked B with a piece of wood and hit him several times. B was injured and his
watch valued at Php 6,000 was destroyed. In addition to his criminal liability if found
guilty, A shall also pay for the destroyed watch. This is reparation of the damage
caused.

In cases of physical injuries, the accused shall pay the hospital bills and doctor's fees to
the offended party.

>>>Reparation can be required only from the accused.

ART. 107. Indemnification. — What is included. — Indemnification for the

consequential damages shall include not only those caused the injured party,
but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.

Indemnification for consequential damages which is generally payment of lost or

unrealized salary or earning and includes not only those of the offended party but his
family and even by a third person by reason of the crime.

136 | P a g e
SELF-HELP. You can also refer to the sources below to help you further
understand the lesson:

References: Luis B, Revised Penal Code, Book 1

LET’S CHECK!

Activity 1. IDENTIFICATION. Read each statement or question below carefully and fill
in the blank(s) with the correct answer.

1. Who grants absolute pardon that erases the term of sentence?

2. It refers to principals which took a direct part in the execution of an act.

3. Refers to the loss or forfeiture of the right of the state to prosecute the offenders
because of the lapse of time.

4. This refers to principals who directly forced or induce other to commit a crime.

5. They are persons who, without conspiracy, concur with the criminal design of
the principals to commit a crime.

6. Refers to the loss of forfeiture of the right of the state to execute the penalty
because of the lapse of time.

7. Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall

prescribe in how many years.

8. They are called persons criminally liable after the act.

9. It is a penalty that takes the place of the fine for insolvent convicts.

10. It is a doctrine in Theft or Robbery cases where the taking of a property or

properties belonging to the same or different persons by a series of acts or acts
arising from a single criminal intent or resolution constitutes only one crime.

137 | P a g e
 11. Is one of the restrictions in capacity to act but does not restrict the offenders
from certain obligations.

12. The crime of libel shall prescribe in how many years.

13. A person who cooperates in the commission of the crime by different act without
which the crime would not have been committed. classified as?

14. When does the period of prescription starts to run?

15. Crimes punishable by afflictive penalties shall prescribed in how many years.

LET’S DO THIS!

Activity 1. Based on what you had read on the topics presented, you are required to
elaborate and explain the given words below. It must be at least 2-3 sentences in
every given word.

1. Subsidiary Penalty

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

2. Pardon
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

3. Crime

138 | P a g e
 ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

4. GCTA

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Activity 2. Using a T-Chart graphic organizer you are required to evaluate the pros and
cons of the topics stated below

PROS CONS

MARRIAGE BY THE
OFFENDER TO THE
OFFENDED PARTY IN
CRIMES AGAINST
CHASTITY

PARDON BY OFFENDED
PARTY

139 | P a g e
 Activity 3. In this activity you are required to write your disposition on the phrases given
below.

1. Revival of Death Penalty

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Indeterminate Sentence
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
IN A NUTSHELL

Activity 1. To ensure maximum utilization of resources more particularly on the issue

of GCTA, write your reflections on the GCTA under the Revised Penal Code and the
new law on GCTA passed by Congress.

140 | P a g e
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
Q&A LIST. This part allows you to list down all rising questions or issues. These
questions or issues will be raised in the Blackboard discussion feature. You can write
your answers after the clarification. This will help you in the review of concepts and
essential knowledge.

141 | P a g e
 Questions/Issues Answers

1. Is reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment

the same?
2.

3.

4.

5.

KEYWORDS INDEX. This section lists down the important keywords from this unit that
will help you to recall and review.

Principal by Direct
Penalty Participation Accomplice Accessory

Principal by
Principal by
Fencing Indispensable Subsidiary Penalty
Induction
Cooperation
Prescription of
Complex Crime Death Penalty Reclusion Perpetua
Crime
Good conduct Time Prescription of
Allowance Pardon Pecuniary Liability Crime

Final Written Exam

Since this is a board examination course, you are required to the Multiple-Choice Final
Examination inside the University as required by the policy. Accordingly, this is
nonnegotiable for all licensure-based programs. You will be informed ahead of the
schedule.

Lastly, for any concerns or issues arising from this module, feel free to contact the course
administrator, program head or dean using the contact details provided in this material.

COURSE SCHEDULE. This section calendars all the activities and exercises,
including readings and lectures, as well as time for making assignments and doing

142 | P a g e
other requirements, in a programmed schedule by days and weeks, to help you in SDL
pacing, regardless of mode of delivery (OBD or DED).

Activity Date Where to submit

Big Picture A: Let’s Check Activities
Big Picture A: Let’s Do This Activities
Big Picture A: In a Nutshell Activities
Big Picture B: Let’s Check Activities
Big Picture B: Let’s Do This Activities
Big Picture B: In a Nutshell Activities
Big Picture C: Let’s Check Activities
Big Picture C: Let’s Do This Activities
Big Picture C: In a Nutshell Activities
Q&A List
Final Exam

Course prepared by:

ATTY. RAUL C ESPINA ________

College of Criminal Justice Education

Course reviewed by:

ROBERTO R. MAGBOJOS, Ph.D.________

Program Head, College of Criminal Justice Education

Approved by:

CARMELITA B. CHAVEZ, Ph.D.____

Dean, College of Criminal Justice Education

143 | P a g e