Criminal Law Review Book I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets

2. Offense – an act or omission punished by special
penal law.
BASIC PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW
3. Infraction of the law – an act or omission prohibited
DEFINITIONS by the ordinances enacted by the local Sanggunian.
CRIMINAL LAW Whether it is a felony, an offense, or an infraction of the

law, they are all called crimes. Crime is an umbrella word
Branch of public law that deals with crimes, treats of their that includes the three.
nature and provides for their penalties.
Limitations on power to enact penal laws
Branch of public law
In the Philippines, it is the Congress which has the power
It is a branch of public law because it deals with the to enact penal laws. Congress is composed of the Upper
relationship of the individual with the State. House (Senate) and the Lower House (House of
Representatives).
For every violation of public law, the offender commits
injury/damages, not only against the private offended The power of Congress to enact penal laws, however, is
party, but also against the State. not absolute. There are certain limitations on the power of
Congress to enact penal laws.
Offended parties
These limitations include:
For every violation of public law, there will always be two
offended parties: 1. Penal laws enacted by Congress must be general
in its application. Otherwise, it would be violative of
1. The State the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
2. The private offended party
2. Penal laws enacted by Congress must not be
GUY v. TULFO considered as an ex post facto law.
G.R. No. 213023 | 10 April 2019
3. Penal laws enacted by Congress must not take the
RULING: Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the nature of a bill of attainder.
civil and the criminal. This notion is rooted in the
fundamental theory that when a criminal act is committed, 4. Penal laws enacted by Congress cannot impose
two (2) different entities are offended: (1) the State, whose cruel, excessive or unusual punishments.
law has been violated; and (2) the person directly injured
by the offender's act or omission. BAR Q: How would you distinguish an ex post facto
law from a bill of attainder?
In any criminal prosecution, the private offended party’s
participation is only to serve as a witness for the State. He EX POST FACTO LAW BILL OF ATTAINDER
will be presented in court in order to testify as to the act A law which makes an act A law which punishes an
done against him by the said offender.
criminal although by the offender without due
After the trial of the case, the judge will rule on the penalty time it was committed, it process of law or without
and also, civil indemnity. The penalty is an act of remedy was not yet so. giving the accused his day
in favor of the State. The civil liability goes to the private in court or to air his side of
offended party because of the damage/injury sustained by the story.
the said private offended party.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
CRIME
1. Generality
An act committed or omitted in violation of the public law 2. Territoriality
forbidding or compelling it. 3. Prospectivity
Crime is an encompassing word – it includes: GENERALITY
1. Felony – an act or omission punished by the Our penal laws shall be binding on all persons who live,
Revised Penal Code (RPC) as provided for under reside or sojourn in the Philippines. Whether he is a Filipino
Art. 3, RPC. citizen, or a foreigner, for as long as he is here in the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Philippines, though temporary, he is obligated to comply already being instructed by my head to tell you to put
and to follow Philippine penal laws. on your mask.” At this moment, President W got mad
at the guard, stood up and repeatedly slapped the face
Everyone – regardless of race, creed, color, religion and of the said guard. He was about to slap her more when
other circumstances – must comply with Philippine penal he was prevented by other people. Can the said lady
laws. Otherwise, that person who violates the law can be security guard file a case of injuries against President
arrested, prosecuted and punished. W of Country X for the injuries she sustained?
Exceptions to Generality A: NO. President W of Country X enjoys blanket diplomatic

immunity from suit. He cannot be arrested, prosecuted or
The generality characteristic of criminal law, however, is punished by the receiving state, which is the Philippines.
not absolute. The exceptions are as follows: Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a
diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction
1. Generally accepted principles of public of the receiving state. Therefore, the said President W of
international law Country X cannot be charged with the crime of physical
injuries.
Under the generally accepted principles of public
international law, sovereigns, heads of states and JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE
other diplomatic representatives are immune from G.R. No. 125865 | 28 January 2000
the criminal jurisdiction of the host country.
FACTS: Jeffrey Liang was an Asian Development Bank
These heads of states and sovereigns, if they are (ADB) economist. He uttered defamatory words against a
visiting a foreign country, if they are in such host fellow ADB employee, Joyce Cabal. Cabal felt maligned
country, even if they commit a violation of the laws and filed two counts of oral defamation against Liang
of the host country, they cannot be arrested, before the MeTC of Mandaluyong City.
prosecuted or punished. These heads of state and
diplomatic representatives enjoy diplomatic When the cases were filed before the MeTC judge
immunity from suit. received a letter protocol from the Department of Foreign
Affairs (DFA). The said letter protocol from the DFA states
Note: that Liang is immune from legal processes based on the
Although a consul is also a diplomatic agreement between the Philippines and the ADB. After
representative or diplomatic agent, a consul does reading the said letter of protocol, the MeTC judge
outrightly dismissed the cases. According to the Judge,
not enjoy blanket diplomatic immunity from suit. A
based on the letter, Liang is immune from suit, Liang
consul can be prosecuted before the courts of the enjoys diplomatic immunity from suit.
host country.
ISSUE/s:
A consul will only be immune from suit if:
1. WON Liang is entitled to diplomatic immunity from
1. The violation done by him pertains to the suit. (NO)
performance of his official function; or 2. WON MeTC Judge is correct in outrightly
dismissing the case simply based on the letter
2. Whenever there is a particular stipulation in
a treaty between the mother country of the protocol coming from the DFA saying that Liang is
consul and the host consul stating that he immune from suit. (NO)
shall be immune from suit. RULING: First, Philippine Courts cannot blindly adhere
and take on its face the communication from the DFA that
Q: The president of country X, President W, arrived in a certain accused is covered by any immunity. The DFA's
Manila. President W was welcomed by the President of determination that a certain person is covered by immunity
the Philippines. Thereafter, they went to Malacañang is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts.
and had a breakfast meeting and luncheon. There was Therefore, in outrightly or ipso facto dismissing the two
a ceremony to welcome President W. One of the lady criminal cases without giving notice to the prosecution, the
security guards therein went to President W and told Judge committed an error. There must be first an in belief
the latter, “Mr. President, could you please put on your in what capacity did Liang uttered the said defamatory
mask? We are very strict here, and it is necessary that remarks – that is evidentiary in nature. Therefore, pieces
people inside the palace must wear a mask except of evidence should’ve been admitted by the said Judge.
when they are eating.” However, President W ignored
the said guard and did not put on his face mask. And Second, that based on the agreement between ADB and
so, here comes again the said guard and said, “Excuse Philippine Government, immunity from legal process is not
me, sir, would you please put on your face mask? I am absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts was
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
done in "official capacity." Therefore, the prosecution from Suit. Under the said doctrine, a state cannot be sued
should have been given the chance to rebut the DFA in the courts of a foreign state. Suing a representative of a
protocol and it must be accorded the opportunity to present state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state
its controverting evidence, should it so desire. itself. Therefore, if the Philippines sue Scalzo, we are in
effect suing the USA. Hence, we are violating the doctrine
Third, slandering a person could not possibly be covered of state immunity from suit. All told, Scalzo is entitled to the
by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow defense of state immunity from suit.
the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the
name of official duty. 2. Laws of Preferential Applications
Lastly, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic These are certain laws which exempt certain
Relations, a diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from individuals from criminal prosecution.
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the
case of an action relating to any professional or Example: Under the 1987 Constitution, members
commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in of the Congress, senator or a congressman, is
the receiving state outside his official functions. Therefore, immune from any criminal liability for slander, oral
it is necessary that evidence should’ve been presented defamation, or libel for every speech or debate that
before outrightly dismissing the case simply based on the he makes in the halls of Congress while the
letter of protocol coming from the DFA saying that Liang is Congress is in a regular or special session.
immune from suit.
TERRITORIALITY
MINUCHER v. SCALZO
G.R. No. 142396 | 11 February 2013 Under the territoriality characteristic of Criminal Law, our
penal laws shall have force and effect only on acts
FACTS: Minucher was an Iranian National. On the other committed within the Philippine archipelago. Therefore, for
hand, Scalzo is a special agent of the US Drug acts committed outside the Philippine archipelago, our
Enforcement Administration who is here in the Philippines penal laws will no longer apply.
to help the government contain drug trafficking. A buy-bust
operation was conducted on Minucher upon the initiation Exceptions:
of Scalzo and the former was arrested. The case against
Minucher was dismissed, he was acquitted. As a 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
countercharge, as an act of revenge, Minucher filed a civil ship or airship;
action for damages against Scalzo because he claimed
that these drug cases filed against him was only because 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
of Scalzo. note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the
When the civil action for damages was filed by Minucher Philippine Island;
against Scalzo, the latter filed a Motion to Dismiss the
complaint on the ground that, being an special agent of the 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
USDEA, he enjoys diplomatic immunity from suit. introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
ISSUES:
1. WON Scalzo, a special agent of the USDEA, is 4. 4. While being public officers or employees, should
considered as a diplomatic agent therefore enjoys commit an offense in the exercise of their
diplomatic immunity from suit. (NO) functions; or
2. WON the civil action for damages prosper. (NO) 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
RULING: Under the Vienna Convention, only diplomatic security and the law of nations, defined in Title
agents are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from One of Book Two of this Code. (Article 2, RPC)
criminal and civil suits. And based on the Vienna
Convention, a diplomatic agent is one who is charged with Q: X and Y, together with Z – best friend of X, the
the duty of representing their states on political matters. husband, went to Hong Kong for a vacation of just 2
Scalzo is not here in the Philippines as a representative of weeks. They checked in a hotel where one room is
the USA on political matters. Scalzo, as an agent of the occupied by husband and wife X and Y, and the next
USDEA, was here in the Philippines in order to conduct room is occupied by the best friend of X, Z. They went
activities and help the country contain drug trafficking. He out of their place and went for shopping, etc.
is not here as a diplomatic agent. Suddenly, the wife said, she wanted to go back to the
hotel and rest for a while. The friend Z also said that
However, although Scalzo is not a diplomatic agent, still he he too was not feeling well and wanted to go back to
is immune from suit under the Doctrine of State Immunity his room in the hotel. The husband said, “It’s alright
you can go back already. I just need to go around for
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
an hour or two.” So, the wife of X and his friend Z went
back to the hotel. However, instead of roaming around Since it is a transitory or continuing offense, even if the said
for about an hour, X is excited to go back to the hotel extra-marital affair took place in a foreign land, the
too. And so, when X opened the room where they had emotional pain, the mental distress was felt by the wife
checked in, X saw his own wife having sexual here in the Philippines.
intercourse with his best friend Z. He was so hurt. His
wife and best friend doing this act in a foreign land. He Therefore, the offender can be prosecuted before the
never thought that they had a relationship. So right courts of the place where any of the elements of the crime
there and there, he flew back to the Philippines. Later, happened. One element is the emotional pain, the mental
the wife and his best friend flew back to the distress felt by the wife here in the Philippines.
Philippines. In the Philippines, X, the husband,
immediately filed a case of adultery against his own Thus, the case will prosper as an exception to the
wife Y as well as his best friend Z. He filed a complaint territoriality characteristic of criminal law.
for adultery before the office of the public prosecutor.
Upon seeing that the said place where the said act of DEL SOCORRO v. VAN WILSEM
adultery was committed was in Hong Kong, the public G.R. No. 193707 | December 10, 2014
prosecutor outrightly dismissed the case. Is the public
prosecutor correct? FACTS: Del Socorro and Van Wilsem got married in the
Netherlands. Del Socorro, a Filipina, bore a son.
A: The public prosecutor is correct. The charge of adultery Thereafter, the couple decided to get a divorce which was
under Article 333 of RPC filed before the MeTC did not granted by the courts of the Netherlands.
prosper because the said act of adultery was committed
outside the Philippine jurisdiction. Therefore, since it was Del Socorro went back to the Philippines. Van Wilsem, the
committed by the wife outside the Philippine jurisdiction, Dutch national, promised to give support to their son. No
the case will not prosper in the Philippines. support ever came. Years later, Van Wilsem went to the
Philippines and married another Filipina. He engaged in
Q: But what if the husband went to Singapore with business in the country and eventually became successful.
some friends. They were to attend a particular
conference for two weeks. The wife of X, the husband, When these facts came to the knowledge of Del Socorro,
was left in the Philippines. While the husband was she sent a demand letter to Van Wilsem asking for support
there in Singapore, the wife received photos and for their son. Van Wilsem ignored the demand letter.
videos from their friends showing that X was having Because of this, Del Socorro filed a case for violation of
an extra-marital affair with another woman and right R.A. 9262 against Van Wilsem under Sec. 5 (e) for
after every conference, they would go to a hotel. They economic abuse.
would check in the hotel. Based on the photos sent to
the wife, her husband and the woman were already According to Van Wilsem, he is a foreigner and as such,
cohabiting in Singapore. he is not bound to comply with Philippine laws. Secondly,
he argues that the failure to give support had happened in
The wife, upon seeing all of the photos and videos, Holland, not in the Philippines. Therefore, he argues that
was crying and crying in the Philippines. She even he is not obligated to give support to his minor son.
attempted to commit suicide until a friend advised her
to consult a counsel. ISSUE: Is Van Wilsem obliged to give support?
After consulting with the counsel, she was advised to RULING: YES. The Supreme Court said that Van Wilsem’s
file a case of violation of Sec. 5 (i) or psychological arguments have no merit.
violence under R.A. 9262 against her husband before
Philippine courts. Per advice of her counsel, the wife His argument that he is a foreigner and that he is not bound
filed the said case. to comply with Philippine laws is not correct. Under the
territoriality characteristic of Criminal Law, since Van
Will the case prosper? Wilsem is here in the Philippines, he is bound to comply
with Philippine penal laws regardless of the fact that he
A: Yes, the case will prosper. resides here temporarily or permanently. As such, he is
obligated to give support to their minor son.
Although the said act of extramarital affair happened in
Singapore and not in the Philippines, the case of violation Based also on the territoriality characteristic of Criminal
of Sec. 5 (i) or psychological violence under R.A. 9262 will Law, although Van Wilsem’s failure to give support
prosper before Philippine courts because as held by the happened first in the Netherlands, such is continuously
Supreme Court, psychological violence, as one of the acts happening in the Philippines because while here in the
prohibited under R.A. 9262, is a transitory or continuing Philippines, he still failed to give support to his son.
offense.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Therefore, based on the territoriality characteristic, Van ISSUE: Can the judgment rendered by the Sandiganbayan
Wilsem is obligated to give support to his son because the on Hernan be reopened in order to lower the imposable
failure to give support is continuously happening in the penalty?
Philippines.
RULING: The Supreme Court said that as a general rule,
PROSPECTIVITY a judgment that has already acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable. However, when there are
Under the prospectivity characteristic of Criminal Law, our circumstances after the finality of the decision which render
penal laws can only be applied prospectively. They cannot its execution unjust and inequitable, the Supreme Court,
be given retroactive application. Our penal laws should sitting en banc, can relax the doctrine on immutability.
only be applied from the time of their effectivity and
thereafter. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is necessary
to reopen the case of Hernan and to recall the entry of
Exceptions: judgment made by the Sandiganbayan. Note that it is not
for the purpose of further receiving evidence or for further
1. Penal laws shall be given retroactive application if reception of evidence. It is only in order to modify the
they favor the accused provided that the accused penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan.
is not a habitual criminal. (Art. 22, Civil Code)
Hernan remains convicted. However, the case was only
2. When it is the penal law itself which provides for reopened in order to modify the penalty by lowering it from
its retroactive application. prision mayor to prision correccional.
R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Justice Welfare Act of 2006) is an In the latter part of the decision, the Supreme Court said
example of a penal law that explicitly provides for its that since Hernan’s penalty has been reduced from prision
retroactive application to minor offenders who have mayor to prision correccional, which has a maximum term
already been convicted and are serving sentence. The law of six years, Hernan may apply for probation under the new
itself provides for its retroactive application. Probation Law under R.A. 10707.
Note: PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYING THE CRIMINAL LAW

SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are SYSTEM
Serving Sentence. - Persons who have been convicted
and are serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of POSITIVIST OR
CLASSICAL OR
this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18) REALISTIC
JURISTIC PHILOSOPHY
years at the time the commission of the offense for PHILOSOPHY
which they were convicted and are serving sentence, The basis of criminal The basis of criminal
shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application of liability is human free will. liability is man’s social
this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate environment.
dispositions provided under this Act and their sentences Man is a moral creature
shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be who understands right All men are born good.
immediately released if they are so qualified under this from wrong, good from What makes man do evil
Act or other applicable law. (R.A. 9344) evil. Hence, when he does things is the association
a wrong, he does so that he has with his fellow
HERNAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN knowingly and willfully. human beings, with his
G.R. No. 21787 | December 5, 2017 social environment.
FACTS: Hernan was a public officer charged and Crimes are social
thereafter convicted by the Sandiganbayan for the crime of phenomena which
malversation under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code. constrain a person to do
wrong although not of his
Allegedly, the amount that he malversed was the amount own volition.
that he failed to liquidate – 11,300 pesos. Because of that, The purpose of penalty is The purpose of penalty is
the Sandiganbayan imposed upon Hernan the penalty of to exact retribution. reformation. Positivist
prision mayor. The decision of the Sandiganbayan became Classical philosophy philosophy believes that
final and executory. revolves around the each accused is a sick
maxim “an eye for an eye, individual who has to be
R.A. 10951 was thereafter passed which reduced the a tooth for a tooth.” cured and reformed and
imposable penalty on malversation under Art. 217 of the not punished.
RPC. If the amount malversed is less than 40,000 pesos, For every crime
the penalty would only be prision correccional. committed, there is a
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
corresponding In fact, the evidence of the defense is immaterial the
commensurate penalty. moment the prosecution was able to prove his guilt beyond
The determination of The determination of reasonable doubt. It depends on the prosecution that is
penalty is done penalty is done why the prosecution is always given the first chance to
mechanically. The penalty individually on a case-to- present the evidence. If the evidence of the prosecution is
imposed is always in direct case basis after each weak, it will not be applicable.
proportion to the injury that accused has already been
the offender has investigated. UTILITARIAN OR PROTECTIVE THEORY
committed.
The utilitarian or protective theory provides that the
If the offender killed the purpose of penalty in criminal law is to protect society from
victim, his penalty should actual and potential wrongdoers. In the case of Magno vs.
also be death or capital CA, the Supreme Court said, it behooves upon a court of
punishment. law that in applying the punishment imposed upon the
The emphasis of the law is The emphasis of the law is accused, the objective of retribution of a wronged society,
on the offense and not the the offender, not the should be directed against the "actual and potential
offender. This philosophy offense. The positivist wrongdoers.", otherwise it will poster materialism and
does not take into philosophy takes into opportunism.
consideration the reason consideration the reason
as to why the offender why the offender
committed the crime. It committed the crime and MAGNO v. CA
suffices that he violated the circumstances G.R. No. 123456 | 12 November 2014
the law and for that, he has surrounding the
to be given penalty or commission of the crime. In the case of Magno v. CA, the Supreme Court found that
punishment. based on the pieces of evidence, Magno is not the actual
or potential wrongdoer.
DOCTRINES IN CRIMINAL LAW
FACTS: Magno issued checks not to pay an obligation.
DOCTRINE OF PRO REO Magno issued checks not in payment of a loan or obligation
to Mrs. Teng. Magno issued checks to serve as a collateral
Penal laws shall always be construed, applied liberally in for the machineries, equipment that were leased to.
favor of the accused and strictly against the state. The Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, when Mrs.
maxim is In dubio pro reo. In case of doubt, rule in favor of Teng removed the said machineries subject of the lease
the accused. Reason, constitutional presumption of agreement, it is incumbent upon Mrs. Teng to return the
innocence. All accused are presumed innocent unless said checks issued only to serve as collateral. However,
proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Mrs. Teng, instead of returning it back to Magno, deposited
it. Magno was the one who called the bank to stop
payment.
LENITY RULE
RULING: The Supreme Court said, the actual or potential
Whenever a penal provision is susceptible of two
wrongdoer is not Magno, rather it is Mrs. Teng. Therefore,
interpretations, one interpretation is lenient and will favor
to penalize Magno is to poster materialism and
the accused, and the other interpretation is strict and will
opportunism. Hence, Supreme Court said, Magno is not
go against the accused, the lenient interpretation shall
criminally liable.
prevail over the strict interpretation. Reason behind this is
the constitutional presumption of innocence. All accused
In the said case of Magno v. CA, the Supreme Court said
are presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond
that the maxim behind the utilitarian or protective theory is
reasonable doubt.
the so called actus non facet reum nisi men cit rea. The act
cannot be criminal when the mind is not criminal. This
EQUIPOSE RULE maxim is material in crimes mala in se. In crimes mala in
se, to bring about conviction there must be both the mens
Whenever the evidence of the prosecution is equally rea, and the actus reus. Mens rea is defined as the guilty
balanced with the evidence of the defense, the scale of mind, a guilty or a wrongful purpose, an evil/criminal intent.
justice shall be tilted in favor of the accused. Two reasons: It is essential to bring about criminal liability but mens rea
constitutional presumption of innocence; in every criminal alone will not suffice. There must be the overt acts to
prosecution/action filed in court, the conviction of the constitute the crime. For a crime to exist, there must
accused will depend on the strength of the evidence of the supposed to be the so called actus reus or the guilty act,
prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of and unlawful act of execution of the said crime by the said
the defense. offender/accused. It is from both the actus reus (guilty act),
and the mens rea (guilty mind) that a felony is produced.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
frustrated, or act must always be in its
Note: consummated stage is consummated stage for
This is material in cases of acts mala in se. considered by the court in the offender to become
imposing the penalty. criminally liable.
Acts Mala In Se
LONEY V. PEOPLE
Acts which are inherently evil or wrong. They are wrong G.R. No. 152644 | 10 February 2006
per se, wrong by their very nature. There need not be a law
to say it is wrong. Example, to kill a person. There need not FACTS: In the case of Loney v, People, the Supreme
be a law to state that if you take a person’s life, you will be Court said that an act mala in se cannot absorb acts mala
considered a criminal. Everyone knows you have no right prohibita. In that case, the officials, the officers of
to take a person’s life. Everyone knows it is unlawful to kill Marcopper Mining company, for polluting the rivers in
someone. It is inherently evil and wrong. It is an act malum Marinduque because of a damage on their pit during the
in se, or mala in se (plural). mining operations, they were charged with a number of
cases. They were charged with violation of the 1) National
Acts Mala Prohibita Pollution and Control Decree, 2) Philippine Mining Act, 3)
Water Code of the Philippines (all special penal laws) and
Acts which are only wrong because there is a law that violation of Article 365 or Reckless Imprudence resulting to
defines and punishes the said act. Example, illegal Damage to Property. These were the four (4) cases filed
possession of loose firearms. Possessing, owning a against the officers of Marcopper Mining Company for
firearm is not per se illegal because firearms are not per se polluting the two rivers in Marinduque.
contraband. What the law punishes is the possession, the
ownership of the firearm without the corresponding license Upon the filing of these cases, the counsel of the officers
or permit or registration. What is being punished is only of Marcopper filed a Motion to Quash the three (3)
possessing the said firearm without license. If there is no information for violation of special penal laws namely: 1)
law that will punish it, then it will not be considered criminal National Pollution and Control Decree, 2) Philippine Mining
in nature. It is an act malum prohibitum, or acts mala Act, 3) Water Code of the Philippines, stating that these
prohibita (plural). acts are already included in Reckless Imprudence resulting
to Damage to Property. Therefore, double jeopardy will
MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA arise.
Acts which are inherently Acts which are only wrong
RULING: The Supreme Court said NO. According to the
evil or wrong. Wrong per because there is a law that
Supreme Court, violation of these three (3) special penal
se, wrong by their very defines and punishes the laws cannot be considered to be absorbed by Reckless
nature. said act. Imprudence causing Damage to Property.
The basis of criminal The basis of criminal
liability is the moral trait of liability is the doing of the The Supreme Court said that what distinguishes acts mala
the offender. prohibited act. in se from acts mala prohibita is that in acts mala in se the
criminal liability of the offender is always on criminal intent
Good faith or lack of Good faith or lack of
or gross negligence. Whereas, in acts mala prohibita,
criminal intent is a valid criminal intent, as a rule, is criminal liability is based on the actual doing of the
defense. not a defense. prohibited act. So an act malum in se cannot absorb acts
Modifying circumstances mala prohibita, vice versa, an act malum prohibita cannot
such as mitigating and No modifying absorb acts mala in se.
aggravating circumstances may be
circumstances are considered by the court DUNGO V. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 152644 | 10 February 2006
considered by the court in unless otherwise provided.
imposing the penalty. FACTS: Dungo and Sibal were charged of violation of
The degree of participation Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049-Anti-Hazing Law. In January
of an offender whether as There are no degrees 14, 2006 in Laguna, Dungo and Sibal assaulted and use
a principal, accomplice, or considered. All personal violence upon Marlon, a neophyte, as condition
an accessory is perpetrators are punished for his admission to the fraternity. During the initiation rite,
Marlon was subjected to physical harm, resulting to his
considered in imposing the to the same extent.
death. The accused pleaded not guilty during the
penalty. arraignment and filed a motion to quash for lack of
The stage of the execution No frustrated, no probable.
of the crime whether the attempted stages. The
crime is in the attempted, said prohibited/punished RULING: Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts
wrong in themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids
them, called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is For example:
important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful
act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only G.R. No. 1148560 | 19 November 2001
inquiry is, has the law been violated?
FACTS: Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada is the highest
When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is ranking official to be prosecuted under RA 7080 or Act
immaterial. When the doing of an act is prohibited by law, Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder, as
it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing of amended. Petitioner now assails the Plunder Law
the prohibited act is the crime itself. contending that it is unconstitutional because:
A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are a) It suffers from the vice of vagueness;
found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala
prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In b) It dispenses with the “reasonable doubt” standard in
reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under criminal prosecutions; and
special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as
amended. Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes c) It abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already
defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation. punishable under the RPC.
The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and Petitioner insists that the Plunder Law does not constitute
mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent an indictable offense because of its failure to provide for
immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the the statutory definition of the terms "combination" and
punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a "series" in the key phrase "a combination or series of overt
crime mala in se, on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, or criminal acts" found in Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and
but there is a statute prohibiting its commission on reasons the word "pattern" in Sec. 4. These omissions, according
of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final to Estrada, render the Plunder Law unconstitutional for
analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is being impermissibly vague and overbroad and deny him
ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute. accusation against him, hence, violative of his fundamental
right to due process.
Having in mind the potential conflict between the proposed
law and the core principle of mala in se adhered to under RULING: Plunder is malum in se. The legislative
the RPC, the Congress did not simply enact an declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous
amendment thereto. Instead, it created a special law on offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the acts
hazing, founded upon the principle of mala prohibita. punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they
are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are
In Vedana v. Valencia, the Court noted that in our nation's punished in a special law, especially since in the case of
very recent history, the people had spoken, through the plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed,
Congress, to deem conduct constitutive of hazing, an act it would be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as
previously considered harmless by custom, as criminal. though they are mere prosecutions for violations of the
The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but the Bouncing Check Law (B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance
law deems the same to be against public policy and must against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent
be prohibited. Accordingly, the existence of criminal intent wrongness of the acts.
is immaterial in the crime of hazing. Also, the defense of
good faith cannot be raised in its prosecution. CASE DISCUSSION: ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum In the case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme
prohibitum. Court said that plunder, which is a violation of RA No. 7080
(a special penal law) is malum in se because it is inherently
CASE DISCUSSION: DUNGO V. PEOPLE evil or wrong to amass, accumulate, and acquire ill-gotten
wealth. Therefore, although plunder is punished by a
In the case of Dungo v. People, the Supreme Court said special penal law, it is considered as malum in se.
that it is a common misconception that all mala in se crimes
are found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC) while all mala PEOPLE v. ACHARON
prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. The G.R. No. 224946 | 9 November 2021
Supreme Court said that is a misconception – that is
wrong. In reality, there may be mala in se crimes under FACTS: Christian Acharon was an Overseas Filipino
special penal laws and there may also be mala prohibita Worker. His wife sued her for economic abuse (violation of
crimes defined under the RPC. Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262) as Acharon, while being gainfully
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
employed abroad, failed to provide financial support to his The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent
wife. Due to this, his wife was not able to pay off their debt governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has
– that debt was actually used by Acharon in going abroad. the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of
Acharon also maintained a paramour abroad and even told the offender is immaterial. When the doing of an act is
his wife to look for another man. The trial court convicted prohibited by law, it is considered injurious to public
Acharon as it was proved that his failure to provide welfare, and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime
financial support to his wife caused her psychological itself.
stress. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are
RULING: According to the Supreme Court, violation of found in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala
Section 5 (i) Psychological Violence and Section 5 (e) prohibita crimes are provided by special penal laws. In
Economic Abuse of R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against reality, however, there may be mala in se crimes under
Women and Their Children Act of 2004) are acts mala in special laws, such as plunder under R.A. No. 7080, as
se not acts mala prohibit although they are both under R.A. amended. Similarly, there may be mala prohibita crimes
No. 9262, a violation of a special penal law. Therefore, defined in the RPC, such as technical malversation. The
before an offender can be held criminally liable there must better approach to distinguish between mala in se and
be evidence that the said accused willfully and consciously mala prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent
withheld financial support legally due to the woman and immorality or vileness of the penalized act. If the
their children. Absent that willful and conscious withdrawal punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it is a
of support the said man cannot be held criminally liable for crime mala in se; on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself,
violation of Sec. 5 (i) or (e) of R.A. No. 9262 because they but there is a statute prohibiting its commission by reasons
are considered acts mala in se not acts mala prohibita. of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. In the final
analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral turpitude is
CADAJAS v. PEOPLE ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all
G.R. No. 247348 | 16 November 2021 the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute.
FACTS: 24-year-old Cadajas met 14-year-old victim AAA It is decisively clear that the crime of child
in the canteen where he works. Their relationship started pornography as defined and penalized under R.A. No.
when the younger sibling of AAA told Cadajas that AAA 9775 should be classified as a crime mala in se. As
had a crush on him. Later, AAA and Cadajas exchanged parens patriae, this act of grooming minors for sexual
messages on Facebook Messenger until they became abuse should not be tolerated. We should not be complicit
sweethearts. AAA’s mother BBB discovered the in reinforcing this belief upon the minors that sex with
relationship because AAA would borrow her cellphone to children is acceptable and thereby fuel a pedophile's
access AAA’s Facebook account. Her mother was thus fantasies prior to committing sexual abuse, which clearly
able to read their messages whenever AAA would forget happened in the instant case.
to log out. BBB disapproved of their relationship because
AAA was still too young. However, Cadajas and AAA CASE DISCUSSION: CADAJAS v. PEOPLE
ignored her admonishment.
In a recent case, Cadajas v. People (En Banc 2021), the
BBB was disheartened when she read that Cadjas was Supreme Court said that the crime of child pornography
sexually luring her daughter to meet with him in a motel. In which is punished under R.A. No.9775 is classified as an
the conversation, Cadajas was coaxing her daughter to act malum in se, it is not considered a crime malum
send him photos of the latter's breast and vagina. AAA prohibitum. The Supreme Court said because it is
relented and sent the photos. inherently evil or wrong to encourage a minor to keep the
photos of the private parts of anyone.
RULING: This Court concurs with petitioner's argument,
and as pointed out by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin GARCIA v. PEOPLE
S. Caguioa in his Dissenting Opinion, that a violation of G.R. No. 157171 | 14 March 2006
Section 4(c)(2) of R.A. No. 10175, in relation to Sections
4(a), 3(6) and (c)(5) of R.A. No. 9775 falls under the class FACTS: In the case of Garcia v. CA, Garcia being an
of offenses known as mala in se, where criminal intent election officer was the head of the board of canvassers
must be proven by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The and the camp of the former Senator Aquilino Pimentel
difference between the concept of mala in se and malum discovered that Garcia reduced by more than five
prohibitum were succinctly explained as follows: thousand (5,000) votes the tallied votes of Senator
Pimentel. The camp filed a case against Garcia for
Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in violation of the Election Law.
themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would
not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, The defense of Garcia is that she cannot be criminally
called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with liable because according to her, she has no intention and
reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. there was no deliberate intent to decrease the votes of
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Senator Aquilino Pimentel. According to her, it just so filed a complaint against Ysidoro for technical malversation
happened that she was already tired and sleepless when he approved the distribution of SFP goods to the
because the counting was continuous. Thus, due to CSAP beneficiaries. Mayor Ysidoro claims good faith,
tiredness and sleepiness, she failed to announce the believing that the municipality’s poor CSAP beneficiaries
correct number of votes that’s why the votes were were also in urgent need of food.
decreased. As such, because there was no criminal intent
on her part, she was insisting she should be acquitted of RULING: The crime of technical malversation as penalized
the crime charged, she should not be held criminally liable. under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code has three
elements:
The camp of Senator Pimentel said no. What Garcia a) that the offender is an accountable public officer;
violated is a special penal law, therefore it is malum b) that he applies public funds or property under his
prohibitum. Regardless of good faith or lack of criminal administration to some public use; and
intent, Garcia has to be convicted. c) that the public use for which such funds or property were
applied is different from the purpose for which they were
RULING: The Supreme Court said that to increase or originally appropriated by law or ordinance.
decrease a candidate’s vote under the Election Code is an
act malum in se. It is inherently evil or wrong to decrease Ysidoro claims that he could not be held liable for the
or increase a political candidate’s vote. It is an act malum offense under its third element because the four sacks of
in se. Therefore, good faith and lack of criminal intent rice and two boxes of sardines he gave the CSAP
matters. beneficiaries were not appropriated by law or ordinance for
a specific purpose.
However, the Supreme Court said although good faith or
lack of criminal intent is a defense, based on Garcia’s own But the evidence shows that the Sangguniang Bayan of
admission she was negligent in the declaration of the Leyte enacted Resolution 00-133 appropriating the annual
votes. By her own admission, she was sleepy and tired. general fund for 2001 which allocated P100,000.00 for the
Therefore, there was negligence on her part and a felony SFP and P113,957.64 for the Comprehensive and
can be committed not only by means of intent but also by Integrated Delivery of Social Services which covers the
means of culpa. Hence, the Supreme Court said, Garcia is CSAP housing projects.
criminally liable.
Since the municipality bought the subject goods using SFP
These are just some examples of crimes punished by funds, then those goods should be used for SFP’s needs,
special penal laws, but the Supreme Court declared to be observing the rules prescribed for identifying the qualified
acts mala in se. beneficiaries of its feeding programs. Ysidoro disregarded
the guidelines when he approved the distribution of the
YSIDORO v. PEOPLE goods to those providing free labor for the rebuilding of
G.R. No. 192330 | 14 November 2012 their own homes. This is technical malversation.
FACTS: MSWDO of Leyte operated a Core Shelter Ysidoro insists that he acted in good faith since, first, the
Assistance Program that provided construction materials idea of using the SFP goods for the CSAP beneficiaries
to indigent calamity victims with which to rebuild their came, not from him, but from Garcia and Polinio; and
homes. The beneficiaries provided the labor needed for second, he consulted the accounting department if the
construction. When construction for calamity victims in goods could be distributed to those beneficiaries. Having
Sitio Luy-a was 70% done, the beneficiaries stopped no criminal intent, he argues that he cannot be convicted
reporting for work for the reason that they had to find food of the crime.
for their families. This worried the CSAP Officer-in-Charge
Garcia, for such construction stoppage could result in the But criminal intent is not an element of technical
loss of construction materials particularly the cement. malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public
Thus, she sought the help of the Polinio, officer of the property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular
MSWDO, in charge of the municipality’s Supplemental public purpose to another public purpose. The offense is
Feeding Program that rationed food to malnourished mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not
children. Polinio told Garcia that the SFP still had sacks of inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense
rice and boxes of sardines in its storeroom. And since she because positive law forbids its commission based on
had already distributed food to the mother volunteers, what considerations of public policy, order, and convenience. It
remained could be given to the CSAP beneficiaries. is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not
the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or
Garcia and Polinio went to Mayor Ysidoro to seek his not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or
approval. Ysidoro approved the release and signed the criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
withdrawal slip for four sacks of rice and two boxes of
sardines worth P3,396.00 to CSAP. Subsequently, Alfredo Dura lex sed lex. Ysidoro’s act, no matter how noble or
Doller, former member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Leyte, miniscule the amount diverted, constitutes the crime of
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
technical malversation. The law and this Court, however, true in the Philippines because the Philippines is a civil law
recognize that his offense is not grave, warranting a mere country.
fine.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
CASE DISCUSSION: YSIDORO v. PEOPLE
This case is about a municipal mayor charged with illegal ARTICLE 1. TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT
diversion of food intended for those suffering from
malnutrition to the beneficiaries of reconsideration projects Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. - This Code shall
affecting the homes of victims of calamities. take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred
and thirty-two.
Under the RPC - Article 220, Technical Malversation.
Although it is punished under the Revised Penal Code, the Date of effectivity of the RPC
Supreme Court ruled in the case of Ysidoro v. People that
Technical Malversation under Article 220 is an act malum The Revised Penal Code became effective on January 1,
prohibitum. It is not malum in se even if it is punished under 1932.
the Revised Penal Code.
ARTICLE 2. APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS
The Supreme Court said that what is being punished is the
transfer of funds from that to which it has been Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as
appropriated by law or ordinance to another public use. In provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
this case, the Supreme Court said that Mayor Ysidoro, no the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within
matter how noble or no matter how good your intention is the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
for your constituents, the mere act of transferring the funds interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
from this to which it has been appropriated to another jurisdiction, against those who:
public use, that makes you criminally liable. Good faith or
lack of criminal intent is not a defense in Technical 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
Malversation. Again, Technical Malversation, although airship
punished under the Revised Penal Code, is an act malum
prohibitum and not malum in se. 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued
Q: What if X was charged of a crime. The Court found by the Government of the Philippine Island
out that the case filed against him was not punished
or the act allegedly done by this accused X, although 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
it is immoral or obnoxious, is not penalized by any law. into these islands of the obligations and securities
The Judge could not find any law violated by X. What mentioned in the presiding number
is the duty of the Court?
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit
A: The duty of the Court is to dismiss the case. an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
Pursuant to Article 5 of the RPC. Why should the crime be
dismissed? Nulla crimen nullum poena sine lege. There 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
is no crime when there is no law that defines or punishes security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book
the said act. Therefore, no matter how immoral, obnoxious, Two of this Code.
perverted the act done by X, since the Judge could not find
a law that punishes the said act, the only jurisdiction of the Territoriality Characteristic of Philippine Criminal Law
court is to dismiss the case. The court cannot hear the case
because there is nothing to try, X did not violate any law. The first paragraph of Article 2 provides for the territoriality
Nulla crimen nullum poena sine lege. characteristic of Philippine Criminal Law.
The reason for that is that the Philippines is a civil law Extra-territorial application of the RPC
country. In our jurisdiction, before an act may be
considered as criminal and before an act can be penalized, The second paragraph of Article 2 provides for the
it must first be defined and punished by a law enacted by exceptions to the territoriality characteristic of Philippine
Congress. Without a law, that act cannot be criminal in Criminal Law. These are the instances for the extra-
nature, the doer of the act cannot be punished before the territorial applications of Philippine Criminal Law.
court.
Even if the act is committed outside the Philippine
As opposed to common law countries. In common law Archipelago, the Philippines will still have jurisdiction over
countries, an obnoxious or immoral act, through the the said offender and over the said act.
passage of time becomes criminal in nature. This is not
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
1. THOSE WHO SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE in the Philippines, is already outside the Philippine
WHILE ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP. Archipelago, since it is not yet in the territory of another
country, Philippine Laws will apply based on the extra-
A vessel or an aircraft is said to be a Philippine ship or territorial application of the RPC. Therefore, although X is
airship if it is registered or licensed under Philippine Laws an Indonesian, he may still be prosecuted before the
regardless of ownership or regardless of the nationality of Philippine Courts.
the owners. What is material is where the said vessel or
aircraft is registered. If it is licensed here in the Philippines Q: MV Maria Clara is already in the waters of Indonesia,
under Philippine Laws, it is considered as a Philippine ship passengers were already disembarking and cargoes
or airship. were already being boarded out. Here comes X, who is
a Filipino citizen, saw another Filipino Y, who is
The situation provided for in the first exception is a situation disembarking from the ship. They have bad blood
wherein the Philippine-registered vessel is already outside against each other, and so, X tried to go near Y and
the Philippine archipelago but not yet in the territory of a thereafter stabbed Y. The people were shouting upon
foreign country. If the said Philippine vessel or airship is seeing blood and X was arrested and was placed
already in the territory of a foreign country, based on the behind the prison cell of Indonesia. X argued that he
territoriality characteristic of criminal law, it is the laws of cannot be prosecuted before the courts of Indonesia
the foreign country that will govern. because he is a Filipino citizen and the act of stabbing
and killing took place on a Philippine vessel. Does the
Q: MV Maria Clara is vessel registered in the argument of X have merit?
Philippines. Its route is Philippines-Indonesia. It
always carries cargoes and passengers from the A: NO, the argument of X has no merit. Even if X is a
Philippines to Indonesia and vice versa. MV Maria Filipino citizen and even if the crime is committed on board
Clara is now on the Philippine waters, it is already of a Philippine vessel but the vessel is already on the
sailing but it is still within Philippine waters. One of the waters of Indonesia, based on the territoriality
passengers therein, an Indonesian named X, saw Y, a characteristic of criminal law, which also applies to
fellow Indonesian and there was this bad blood a long Indonesian laws, it is now the Indonesian laws which will
time ago between X and Y. By chance, X saw Y on the have jurisdiction over X. Therefore, X can now be
same ship and so he believed it is an opportunity to prosecuted in Indonesia.
get even with Y, so without any warning, X stabbed Y.
There was a commotion, people were shouting upon 2. THOSE WHO SHOULD FORGE OR COUNTERFEIT
seeing what X did. X is arrested. X is tried before the ANY COIN OR CURRENCY NOTE OF THE PHILIPPINE
courts of the Philippines for the crime of Homicide ISLANDS OR OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES
punished under the RPC. X said that he cannot be ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
prosecuted before the Philippine Courts because he is ISLAND.
an Indonesian citizen, he is not a Filipino Citizen. Does
his argument have merit? 3. THOSE WHO SHOULD BE LIABLE FOR ACTS
CONNECTED WITH THE INTRODUCTION INTO
A: NO, his argument has no merit, and the case will THESE ISLANDS OF THE OBLIGATIONS AND
prosper based on the generality and territoriality SECURITIES MENTIONED IN THE PRESIDING
characteristic of criminal laws. In the generality NUMBER.
characteristic of criminal laws, although a foreigner is here
in the Philippines, our penal laws are binding. In the Q: X, Y, and Z were caught in flagrante delicto
territoriality characteristic, the said act was committed by X counterfeiting Philippine peso coins in Hongkong. Can
while the vessel was still within the Philippine territory. they be extradited back to the Philippines and charged
Therefore, based on the first paragraph of Article 2, our before the Philippine Courts even though the crime
Philippine Laws will apply. was committed in Hongkong?
Q: MV Maria Clara has passed Philippine territory. It is A: YES, they can be extradited back to the Philippines and
now on a small body of water in between the charged before the Philippine Courts based on the second
Philippines and Indonesia, not owned by either paragraph of Article 2 of the RPC.
country. It was at that particular moment that X saw Y
and killed Y. X was brought back to the Philippines and
4. THOSE WHO WHILE BEING PUBLIC OFFICERS OR
was charge before the Philippine Courts. Will the case
EMPLOYEES, SHOULD COMMIT AN OFFENSE IN THE
prosper?
EXERCISE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS.
A: YES, the case will prosper. This is the application of the
These are public officers and employees of the Philippine
second paragraph of Article 2 of the RPC which reads,
Government who are assigned to work in a foreign land.
“those who should commit an offense on a Philippine ship
While they are working in the foreign land, and they
or airship”. Although MV Maria Clara, a vessel registered
committed a criminal act, and such act is connected or
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
related to the performance of their functions, they shall be “After the documents have been signed, I will give you
prosecuted before the Philippine Courts. However, even if a call. We’ll meet outside, you will give me the $20, I
they are public officers, if the crime that they committed is will give you the said document. Thereafter, X had the
not in any way connected to the performance of their duties same be signed. The consul arrived and X immediately
and functions, they can only be prosecuted before the placed it, “Sir, pauna naman nito, very urgent lang
courts of the host country. daw.” So the said consul immediately signed it. X gave
Y a call. They met outside. There was exchange of
Q: President Marcos assigned a new consul in Japan. money and the said signed papers.
This consul handpicked X, one of the employees of the
DFA, to be his secretary. And so, from the Philippines, Unknown to X, a fellow Filipino employee of the
X flew to Japan, and she is now at the Philippine Philippine embassy was so envious of her and that
Embassy working as a secretary to the newly Filipino employee took photos of the transaction
appointed Philippine Consul in Japan. X is the sole between X and Y. That Filipino employee sent this
breadwinner of their family; her salary would not photos to the officials of the DFA. An investigation was
suffice to support her big family. So, after officer hours conducted and the act done by X was discovered. X
in the Philippine Embassy, she would engage in was ordered to return to the Philippines and upon
extracurricular jobs such as the buy and sell of return, he was charged with direct bribery under Art.
jewelries. After buying the jewelries, she will be selling 210, 2nd act. Will the case prosper?
it to Filipino overseas workers — she goes from one
place to another, selling it on cash basis or installment A: The case will prosper, because the act done by X is in
basis. One time while X was inside the Philippine connection with her official function. As the secretary, she
Embassy, the phone rang. On the other end of the had access to the documents to be signed by the said
phone was W, an overseas Filipino worker. W was very consul; therefore, prioritizing it over others in a huge pile.
mad at X and said, “Ano ba naman yan X, kapwa mo It is not wrongful, it is unjust, but it becomes wrongful
Pilipino niloko mo! Peke ang mga alahas na binenta because he asked for money, he asked for bribe.
mo sa akin! Sinanla ko pero walang value!” X was so Therefore, X will be liable for direct bribery before the
apologetic and told W that she will replace it. However, Philippine courts.
X did not replace the said fake jewelry. W was very very
mad. When W came back to the Philippines, the first PEOPLE v. LOL-LO
thing that W did was to file a case of estafa against X. G.R. No. 17958 | 27 February 1922
Will the charge of estafa filed by W against X before
the Philippine Court prosper? Facts: A boat boarding Dutch subjects was surrounded by
six vintas manned by armed Moros between the Islands of
A: It will NOT prosper. Although X is a public officer Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. The Moros
assigned in a foreign land, although it is true that she attacked the passenger of the boat in a manner too horrible
committed estafa by deceiving W of the said jewelry, the to be described. After 11 days, the boat arrived at Maruro,
said act was done outside the Philippine territory and the a Dutch possession. When the Moros returned to their
said act of estafa has nothing to do with the performance home in Sulu, they were charged before the CFI with the
of her official duty as the secretary to the Philippine consul. crime of piracy. Accused interposed a demurrer grounded
Therefore, she acted in her private capacity in committing on lack of jurisdiction.
the said criminal act. She can only be prosecuted before
the courts of Japan and not before the Philippine courts. Ruling: Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy
is a crime not against any state but against all mankind. It
Q: What if, when X is in the office, here comes Y. Y is may be punished in the competent tribunal of any country
an Overseas Filipino Worker and Y went to X. “X, can I where the offender may be found or into which he may be
already get the papers that I submitted last week? carried. The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other crimes has
Papers which require the signature of the consul.” X no territorial limits. As it is against all so may it be punished
asked the name of Y. X told Y, “For a while, I will go by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed
inside. After a few seconds, X came back and told Y, within the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, "for
“Your papers are not yet signed. It is at the bottom of those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to
the file. You can go perhaps next week, but still, I’m crimes."
not sure.” Y told X, “X, I need the papers now. My
employer is asking for it now. Otherwise, he will be CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. LOL-LO
looking for another worker. I need the document now.”
X said, “I can’t do anything, it is not yet signed.” Y said, In the said case, piracy is a crime against the law of
“You can do something. You have to help me X.” X nations. Therefore, since piracy is a crime against the law
after thinking for a while told Y, “Okay I can but it will of nations, the offender can be prosecuted before the
cost you $20.” Y said, “I have not yet received my courts of any country.
salary but I will ask help from friends. Have the
document signed and I will give you the $20.” X told Y,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Under the last circumstance for the extra-territorial 1. General criminal intent is presumed by law from
application of the RPC, if the offender commits any of the the mere doing of the act. Therefore, it requires no
acts punished under Title 1, Book 2 of the RPC, (these are proof.
crimes against the law of nations, whether it is piracy,
qualified piracy, mutiny, qualified mutiny. In People v. Lol- 2. Specific criminal intent is never presumed by law.
Lo, it is piracy. The offender therefore can be prosecuted Specific criminal intent must be proved beyond
before the Philippine Courts. reasonable doubt, just like any elements of the
crime.
TITLE ONE: FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY Illustration:
ARTICLE 3. DEFINITIONS X stabbed Y, Y sustained a non-fatal wound in the

shoulder. Y was bought to the hospital. The doctor said,
Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by “The wound will heal within the period of 5 days, it is only
law are felonies (delitos). a slight wound.” Y filed a case of attempted homicide
against X. Since the case filed is attempted homicide, it is
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) the burden of the said private complainant Y, it is the
but also by means of fault (culpa). burden of the state, it is the burden of the prosecution to
prove intent to kill on the part of X when he stabbed Y
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate inflicting upon him a slight injury upon the shoulder. If the
intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from state, if the prosecution failed to prove X’s specific criminal
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill. intent to kill, X can only be convicted of slight physical
injuries.
Based on the manner of committing the felony, we have
two (2) kinds of felonies – intentional and culpable. If in the same problem, when X stabbed Y, X intended only
to threaten Y. However, when he tried to stab Y, the said
INTENTIONAL FELONIES knife hit the heart of Y, it penetrated through the heart of Y.
This caused the instantaneous death of Y. So, X now is
These are felonies committed by means of deliberate being prosecuted for homicide. X said he has no intention
intent. to kill Y. His only intention was to threaten him with his
knife. X’s defense has no merit. Since the victim dies,
Elements of Intentional Felony intent to kill becomes a general criminal intent because the
best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that the victim died.
1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender; Therefore, it requires no proof. The prosecution no longer
2. Freedom of action in doing the act; and needed proof that X has the intention to kill Y because
3. Intelligence of the offender. since Y died, the law presumes the intent of X was to kill
the said victim.
CULPABLE FELONIES
PEOPLE v. DELIM
These are felonies wherein the wrongful act results from G.R. No. 142773 | 28 January 2003
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
FACTS: Delim brothers, each armed with a short handgun,
Elements of a Culpable Felony barged into the home their adopted brother, Modesto.One
poked Modesto with his gun while the other hog-tied
Modesto. They left the house with Modesto. Two nephews
1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender;
of the brothers were left to guard the house where the wife
2. Freedom of action in doing the act; and
and child of Modesto were left. Days after, Modesto’s body
3. Intelligence of the offender. was found under thick bushes in a grassy area.
Both intentional felony and culpable felony are voluntary RULING: In this case, it is evident on the face of the
acts, for without voluntariness, there is neither an Information that the specific intent of the malefactors in
intentional felony nor a culpable felony. barging into the house of Modesto was to kill him and that
he was seized precisely to kill him with the attendant
CRIMINAL INTENT modifying circumstances. The act of the malefactors of
abducting Modesto was merely incidental to their primary
An important element of an intentional felony is criminal purpose of killing him. Moreover, there is no specific
intent. There are two (2) kinds of criminal intent: allegation in the information that the primary intent of the
malefactors was to deprive Modesto of his freedom or
liberty and that killing him was merely incidental to
kidnapping. Irrefragably then, the crime charged in the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Information is Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Factors that will determine the presence or absence of
Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article 268 thereof. intent to kill:
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. DELIM 1. Evidence of motive on the part of the offender;
2. Nature and number of weapons used by the
The adopted brother was abducted from the house. offender;
Thereafter, his body was found by the other Delim 3. Nature, number, and location of wounds inflicted
brothers. They were charged with the crime of murder. One on the victim;
of the defenses is that it should be kidnapping because he 4. Offender’s manner of committing the crime; and
was abducted from the house.
5. Offender’s act before, during, and after the
commission of the crime.
SC: NO, it was homicide. What is evident from the acts
done by the accused was their intent to kill the said victim.
There was no intent to detain the said victim. Since there In this case, the SC held that although the injury sustained
was no intent to detain the said victim, it cannot be were only superficial and slight in nature, the accused
kidnapping. It is homicide. Rivera brothers are liable for attempted murder.
RIVERA v. PEOPLE First, there was evidence of motive. A day prior to the
G.R. No. 166326 | 25 January 2006 mauling incident, there was an altercation between the
accused and the victim.
FACTS: The victim testified that a day before the incident,
there was a heated exchange between him and one of the Second, the nature and number of weapons used by the
accused as the latter mocked him for being jobless. The Rivera brothers. These brothers used their fists and a
next day, when he went out to buy food from the store, the stone in hitting the victim.
brothers ganged up on him. One hit him with fist blows
which caused him to fell on the floor. While in that position, Third, the nature, number, and location of wounds
one hit his parietal area three times with a hollow block. inflicted on the victim. The victim, based on the medical
When he was able to stand, the other threw a stone at him, certificate, sustained superficial wounds all over the body.
hitting his back. At the hospital, the doctor declared that the The Supreme Court said these were merely superficial
victim suffered slight injuries. Accused were all charged because the brothers ran away upon hearing the arrival of
with attempted murder. the police; had the police not arrive, these would be fatal in
nature.
RULING: In the present case, the prosecution mustered
the requisite quantum of evidence to prove the intent of Fourth, the manner of committing the crime. The Rivera
petitioners to kill Ruben. Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled brothers acted simultaneously in a synchronized manner
the victim with fist blows. Even as Ruben fell to the ground, in inflicting injuries on the victim. They acted in conspiracy
unable to defend himself against the sudden and sustained with one another.
assault of petitioners, Edgardo hit him three times with a
hollow block. Edgardo tried to hit Ruben on the head, Fifth, the acts and statements made by the accused
missed, but still managed to hit the victim only in the before, during, and after. All of them surrounded the
parietal area, resulting in a lacerated wound and cerebral victim before and after they mauled him. Upon hearing the
contusions. police, they left at the same time.
That the head wounds sustained by the victim were merely The Supreme Court said, based on the factors established,
superficial and could not have produced his death does not it is evident there was intent to kill. Therefore, they were
negate petitioners’ criminal liability for attempted murder. held liable for attempted murder because of the presence
Even if Edgardo did not hit the victim squarely on the head, of treachery.
petitioners are still criminally liable for attempted murder.
MOTIVE
In the case at bar, petitioners, who acted in concert,
commenced the felony of murder by mauling the victim and One of the necessary factors in order to establish intent to
hitting him three times with a hollow block; they narrowly kill is motive. Motive is the moving power which impels a
missed hitting the middle portion of his head. If Edgardo person to do an act to achieve the desired result. It comes
had done so, Ruben would surely have died. ahead of criminal intent because motive is the reason
behind criminal intent.
CASE DISCUSSION: RIVERA v. PEOPLE
While criminal intent is material to determine the offender’s
In this case, the Supreme Court enumerated certain criminal liability, motive is not. Motive is not material, not
factors that will establish the presence of intent to kill. important, to determine the offender’s criminal liability.
There are, however, instances wherein motive becomes
material.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
caused injury to another. If the offender acted under clear
When Motive is Material mistake of fact, that offender is absolved of criminal liability
because there is no criminal intent on the part of the
1. When the act of the offender would result to variant offender. Mistake of fact negates criminal liability because
crimes; of the absence of criminal intent on the part of offender.
2. When there is doubt on the identity of the offender;
3. When the prosecution has only circumstantial Before mistake of fact may absolve the offender of his
evidence to prove the guilt of the offender. criminal liability, the following elements must be proven:
Elements of Mistake of Fact

FERNANDEZ v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 241557 | 11 December 2019 1. That the act done would have been lawful and
justifiable had the facts been as the accused
FACTS: The victim was seating inside a jeepney parked believed them to be.
outside the house of Fernandez when the latter went out
of his house and fired his gun. When the victim heard the Granting for the sake of argument that the facts
gunshot, he immediately alighted the jeepney. When are what the accused believed them to be, the said
Fernandez saw the victim, he fired his gun at the victim act will be justified.
hitting the latter’s butt.
2. That the intention of the offender in performing the
The victim was brought to the hospital and had surgery. act must be lawful.
According to the doctor, the victim was near death when
brought in the hospital as the victim’s large intestines were He must be guided by a lawful, legitimate, justified
injured. intent.
Fernandez argued that the prosecution failed to establish 3. That mistake must be without fault, mistake,
his intent to kill since the victim was hit in a non-vital part, carelessness, negligence on the part of the said
thus the wound is not fatal. offender.
Fernandez was charged with frustrated murder. It is necessary that the offender must have
exercised diligence in ascertaining the true facts of
RULING: The Supreme Court acquitted Fernandez. the case. He cannot have acted with negligence
and at the same time invoke mistake of fact.
The prosecution failed to prove that Fernandez has motive Therefore, mistake of fact can only be a defense
for shooting the victim. While motive is generally in intentional felonies. Mistake of fact is not a
immaterial, it can help facilitate the case when there is an defense in culpable felony. In culpable felony,
issue as to the identity of the accused. what is present is criminal negligence, and the
third element requires that there must be no
In this case, both the victim and Fernandez, during the trial negligence on the part of the offender.
of the case, admitted that they did not know each other.
They only saw each other at the trial of the case. The only U.S. v. AH CHONG
reason that the victim was able to identify Fernandez was G.R. No. L-5272 | 19 March 1910
because his name was given. The victim himself admitted
that he had never seen Fernandez. There was also no FACTS: One night, the Ah Chong, was suddenly
reason for Fernandez to shoot the victim. It would also be awakened by someone trying to open the door of the room.
strange that Fernandez would not run after the victim and He asked who it was, but no one answered. Fearing that
kill the latter considering that the victim would be having a the intruder was a thief considering that several robberies
hard time moving due to the wound. already occurred in the area, Ah Chong remarked that he
would kill the intruder if he entered the room.
Supreme Court said since there was doubt as to the
identity of the accused Fernandez because of the darkness When the door suddenly opened, Ah Chong struck the
of the night and the victim did not even turn around to look intruder using a knife. Since it was dark, Ah Chong did not
who fired at him, and since they do not know each other see who it was, but it turned out that the person trying to
from the very start, the accused lacked the motive to shoot open the door is his roommate, and subsequently, the
the victim, it would then be an acquittal. latter died.
MISTAKE OF FACT RULING: Supreme Court acquitted Ah Chong. It ruled that

Ah Chong is not criminally liable for the death of his
A defense against criminal intent is mistake of fact. It is roommate.
the misapprehension of facts on the part of the person who
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Based on the elements of mistake of fact: peppered it with bullets just because they got a
report that the people inside were members of
1. Ah Chong thought the victim was an intruder. Due to the NPA.
the darkness of the night, Ah Chong thought he was
under attack. Had it been true that the victim was an Therefore, mistake of fact will not lie in this case. Likewise,
intruder and was attacking him, Ah Chong’s act was fulfilment of duty was deemed by the court as a justifying
justifiable. circumstance. Although they have the duty to stop the
members of the NPA, they went beyond their duty by
2. Ah Chong’s intent was lawful to protect his life, his immediately firing at them without ascertaining the real
property. identities of the persons inside the van.
3. Ah Chong called out number of times to ask who ARTICLE 4. CRIMINAL LIABILITY
was the one entering, but the said roommate failed
to reply. Thus, it was enough for Ah Chong to Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be
believe he is an intruder. incurred:
Ah Chong acted in good faith and without malice while in 1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the
the mistaken belief that he was doing no more than wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
exercising his legitimate right of self-defense considering
that he thought that his life was in danger. Had his belief 2. By any person performing an act which would be an
been true, he would have been wholly exempted from offense against persons or property, were it not for the
criminal liability. inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account
of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Moreover, he is not guilty of negligence in adopting the
means he used to defend himself from an imminent danger PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE
which he believes would threaten his life.
Elements of Art. 4, 1st par.
YAPYUCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 120744-46 | 25 June 2012 1. That the intended act is a felonious act;
2. The resulting act is a felony; and
FACTS: On the night of the incident, the victims came from
3. The resulting felony is the direct, natural and
a barrio fiesta. While driving in a curve, they were met with
a burst of gunfire. Then, some of the wounded victims were logical consequence of the offender’s felonious
loaded into a vehicle by uniformed and armed men. act.
Later, it was identified that the guns used were owned by Art. 4, 1st par. is otherwise known as the Proximate Cause
the petitioners who were members of the police. Doctrine.
According to the petitioner, he received an information that Under the proximate cause doctrine, an offender becomes
there was a citing of the members of NPA in the place of criminally liable for the resulting felony although not
incident. When met by the vehicles of the victims, intended by him, for as long as his felonious act is the
petitioners allegedly ordered the vehicles to stop, but did proximate cause of the said resulting act.
not do so which impelled them to open fire at the vehicles.
Based on the elements of Art. 4, 1st par., for one to be
RULING: The Supreme Court held that the police officers liable under the proximate cause doctrine, it is necessary
were liable for the crime of multiple counts of murder and first and foremost that, based on the first element, the
multiple counts of frustrated murder. It was also held that offender is performing a felonious act. It resulted to a
not all elements of mistake of fact are present in the felony.
case:
Whatever the felony is, if the said felony is the direct,
1. Granting for the sake of argument, that on board the natural and logical consequence of his felonious act, he
van were NPAs, it is still very wrong for the police becomes criminally liable although that was not his intent.
officers to outrightly pepper bullets at the van. That is the proximate cause doctrine.
2. The intention of the police officers was to kill the PROXIMATE CAUSE
people inside the said van.
Proximate cause is that cause that sets into motion all
3. There was fault and negligence on the part of other causes and which, unbroken by any efficient
Yapyuco and his men. They could have placed a intervening cause, produces the felony, without which the
checkpoint to stop the van, instead they just felony would not have resulted.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Based on this definition of proximate cause, for one to be bumaba, tatawag ako ng pulis! Ipapahuli ko kayo sa pulis!”,
liable under the proximate cause doctrine, it is necessary Mang Pedro was merely acting within his rights. These
that there is no efficient intervening cause that would have boys were stealing the fruits of his tree. It is very right for
broken the causal connection between the offender’s him to state that he is going to call the police. If you caught
felonious act and the resulting felony. someone stealing, you have to call the police. He was
acting within his right. He is not doing a felonious act. His
The moment there is an efficient intervening cause, the intended act of reporting the incident to the police is not a
offender will not become criminally liable for the felony. felonious act. Therefore, he is not criminally liable for any
felony that would result to the children because in the first
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE place he was not performing a felonious act. The first
element of Article 4 par. 1 is absent.
An efficient intervening cause in an active cause which is
a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious Q: What if X and Y were fighting. In the course of the
act of the offender. Totally, it has nothing to do – it is not in said fight, X pulled out a knife and then stabbed Y. He
any way connected – with the offender’s felonious act. hit the chest of Y. Y was brought to the hospital. It was
Only then can it be considered as an efficient intervening a shallow wound. The doctor said, it is non-fatal. Y was
cause. treated by a doctor who happens to be negligent.
Because of the negligent treatment of the doctor, the
Q: Mang Pedro was taking a siesta at 3:00 in the slight wound became infected and the infections
afternoon. He was awakened by a noise. He then went spread on the bloodstream, and because of that, Y
outside and he saw kids stealing mangoes from his suffered respiratory disease that caused Y to die.
mango tree. Because of this, he opened the window Because of this, the relatives of Y filed a case of
and he told the children, “You go down from my tree! homicide against X. Is X liable for the death of Y under
You are stealing the fruits of my tree!” The children the Proximate Cause Doctrine?
didn’t mind him.
A: Yes. X is liable for the death of Y under the Proximate
Mang Pedro was mad. He took his shotgun, went to the Cause Doctrine. The negligent act of the doctor cannot be
tree and told the children, “Baba! ‘Pag hindi kayo considered as efficient intervening cause. X’s act of
nagsi-baba, pagbababarilin ko kayo!” Upon seeing the stabbing Y is a felonious act. It resulted to a felony, the
shotgun and upon hearing Mang Pedro’s words, all the death of Y. The said act of stabbing was the proximate
children were so afraid and they rushed down the tree. cause of the death of Y. The negligent treatment of the
One of them jumped from the tree, resulting in a bad doctor cannot be considered as an active force which is a
fall. The said boy hit a very big stone down on the distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act
ground and suffered serious physical injuries. Is Mang of the offender. Although it is an active causee, it is not
Pedro liable of serious physical injuries? absolutely foreign from the felonious act of X. Precisely, Y
was brought to the hospital because X stabbed him. Had
A: YES, Mang Pedro is liable of serious physical not X stabbed him, Y would not be needing the said
injuries. Under the proximate cause doctrine, Art. 4, 1st negligent treatment of the doctor. Therefore, although it is
par., his intended act is a felonious act – he uttered an active force, it is not absolutely foreign from X’s
“Pagbababarilin ko kayo!” He was threatening to kill the felonious act of stabbing. Hence, X shall be held criminally
children. It amounted to grave threats. It is a felonious act. liable for the death of Y. The judge should convict X of the
It resulted to a felony – a child sustained serious physical crime of homicide under the Proximate Cause Doctrine.
injuries. The said serious physical injuries were the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the said act of Mang The liability of the doctor may be administrative or civil in
Pedro threatening the children. nature but not criminal in nature.
Therefore, Mang Pedro is liable for serious physical Q: What if X and Y were fighting. X stabbed Y hitting Y
injuries under the proximate cause doctrine. on the abdomen. Thereafter, X left. Y was now on his
way home. Suddenly, the rain poured and there were
Q: In the same problem, Mang Pedro, taking a nap, lightnings. A lightning struck Y and he fell on the
heard the children and got out. He told the children, ground. He was lifeless. He died. Based on the autopsy
“Baba! Magsi-baba kayo! ‘Pag ‘di kayo bumaba, report, the cause of death was burning because of the
tatawag ako ng pulis! Ipapahuli ko kayo sa pulis!” The said light. Because of this, the relatives of Y filed a
children came down. One of the boys from the top of case of homicide against X because based on the
the tree jumped and hit a big stone. He sustained autopsy report, it was stated therein that Y sustained
serious physical injuries. Is Mang Pedro liable of the a fatal wound, a stab wound on the abdomen. And so
serious physical injuries sustained by the boy? because of that, the relatives particularly the wife of Y,
filed a case of homicide against X under the Proximate
A: NO, Mang Pedro is not liable under the proximate Cause Doctrine. If you were the Judge, how would you
cause doctrine. In saying “Magsi-baba kayo! ‘Pag ‘di kayo rule the case?
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
considering that Javier died the following day, the said
A: If you were the Judge, you have to convict X not of conclusion no longer holds true. Instead, it could be
Homicide but you have to downgrade it only to Frustrated medically inferred that Javier was inflicted with a severe
Homicide. It is not homicide because the case would not tetanus the symptoms of which has an onset time of 2-3
fall under Article 4 par. 1. The said lightning striking on the days, and upon the showing of the symptoms, mortality
body of Y is considered as an efficient intervening cause. rate goes up by 100%.
Although X’s act of stabbing Y is a felonious act and it
resulted to Y’s death, the third element is absent. The said At the time Javier's wound was inflicted, the severe form of
death of Y is not the direct, natural, and logical tetanus that killed him was not yet present. Considering the
consequence. There was that lightning that has broken the circumstance surrounding Javier's death, his wound could
causal connection between the act of stabbing and the have been infected by tetanus from other source 2 or 3
resulting felony which is homicide. The lightning is an days before he died. The infection was, therefore, distinct
active force which is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign and foreign to the crime. Thus, the tetanus infection is an
from the act of stabbing. Totally, it has nothing to do with efficient intervening cause which occurred between the
X’s act of stabbing Y. Therefore, it is considered as an time of the wounding of Javier and the time of his death.
efficient intervening cause. So, you have to convict X only
of Frustrated Homicide. It is frustrated homicide because The court also stated that the wound inflicted by Urbano
the act of stabbing, the said wound was on the abdomen. may be a remote cause and the proximate cause may have
The abdomen is a vital part of the body. Hence, since it been Javier’s failure to take the necessary precaution.
was the abdomen that was hit, it was a fatal wound.
Therefore, the Judge should convict X of frustrated CASE DISCUSSION: URBANO v. IAC
homicide not of homicide because of the lightning which is
an efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal In the case of Urbano v. IAC and in the case of People v.
connection between the stabbing and resulting felony Villacorta, in both cases, the Supreme Court held that the
which is homicide. said accused was not liable under the proximate cause
doctrine.
URBANO v. IAC
G.R. No. 72964 | 07 January 1988 In the case of Urbano v. IAC, the Supreme Court said that
based on the expert testimony of the doctor, the incubation
FACTS: After discovering that his palays were flooded with period of grave, serious tetanus poisoning is only 14 days.
water, Urbano got angry at Javier who caused the flood in If the stab wound inflicted by the accused Urbano on Javier
Urbano’s ricefield. Urbano hacked Javier with a bolo hitting on his palm had severe tetanus germs, he would have died
him on the right palm of his hand. Javier was brought to a within 14 days, but he didn’t. Therefore, the Supreme Court
physician and was treated. Javier was then sent home said the said victim performed acts that bought the tetanus
thereafter. Subsequently, the parties agreed to settle. Later germs on his wounds. Thus, the said tetanus poisoning is
on, Javier was rushed to the Hospital as he was an efficient intervening cause that had broken the causal
experiencing symptoms of tetanus poisoning. The next connection between the act of stabbing and the resulting
day, Javier died in the hospital. felony—which is homicide. The said accused was not held
liable because there was a settlement of the civil aspect of
The lower courts ruled that Javier's death was the natural the case.
and logical consequence of Urbano's unlawful act.
PEOPLE v. VILLACORTA
Urbano alleged that he was not liable for the death of Javier G.R. No. 186412 | 7 Sept. 2011
because as stated by the doctor, the latter did not find any
tetanus infection in the wound inflicted by Urbano, and that FACTS: While Cruz was ordering his food, Villacorta
what caused Javier’s death was his own negligence when suddenly stabbed Cruz using a bamboo stick. Cruz was
the latter tilled his farm with bare hands, thus exposing his brought to the hospital and was discharged. Later on, Cruz
wounds to harmful elements such as tetanus germs. was again brought to the hospital 22 days after the
stabbing incident for experiencing symptoms of tetanus
ISSUE: Whether there was an efficient intervening cause poisoning, but he died the following day.
from the time of the wounding of Javier up to the time of
his death. (YES) Villacorta argued that should he be found guilty of stabbing
Cruz, he should only be liable for slight physical injuries.
RULING: Yes, the tetanus infection is an efficient
intervening cause. Acquitted Urbano. RULING: The SC held that Villacorta should only be
held liable for Slight Physical Injuries. The proximate
The incubation period of mild tetanus infection is 14 days. cause of Cruz’s death is the tetanus infection, not the stab
In the case at bar, it was only after 22 days that Javier wound.
suffered the symptoms of tetanus. It can be concluded that
he was inflicted with a mild tetanus infection. However,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Similar to Urbano, there had been an interval of 22 days but because of poor aim, the blow landed on another
between the date of the stabbing and the date when Cruz person.
experienced symptoms of tetanus. If Cruz had a mild
tetanus infection, he would have experienced symptoms Generally, aberratio ictus will result to two crimes – first,
sooner than 22 days. Thus, it can be deduced that Cruz’s the crime against the intended victim, and second, the
stab wound was merely the remote cause, and its crime against the actual victim.
subsequent infection with tetanus might have been the
proximate cause of Cruz's death. The infection of Cruz’s If these two crimes happened to be grave or less grave
stab wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening felonies, we apply Art. 48 – complexity of crimes.
cause later or between the time Cruz was stabbed to the
time of his death. Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
Villacorta could not be held liable for attempted or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the
frustrated murder because his intent to kill was not proven other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
by the prosecution. imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE V. VILLACORTA But if one of the resulting crimes happens to be only a light
felony, Art. 48 will not apply because Art. 48 does not apply
In the case of People v. Villacorta, the crime charged was to light felonies.
attempted murder. The Supreme Court, citing the case of
Urbano v. IAC, held that Villacorta is not criminally liable In effect, aberratio ictus is beneficial to the accused.
for the crime of murder because the said tetanus poisoning Instead of being prosecuted for two crimes, he will only be
is an efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal prosecuted for one crime although it may be a complex
connection between Villacorta’s act of stabbing the left side crime.
of the body of Cruz with a sharpened bamboo stick and the
resulting felony which is the death of the said victim. Q: X was mad at Y because Y killed X’s brother. X
wanted to take a revenge at Y. X wanted to kill Y. He
Citing the case of Urbano v. IAC again, if the stab wound knew that Y would pass a particular area, so he
inflicted on Villacorta by Cruz has severe, serious tetanus planned to stage an ambush against Y. On the day,
germs, he would have died within 14 days, but he did not. during the time that Y would pass by, X went to the
Therefore, the Supreme Court said that the victim Cruz place. X was in hiding, he brought along a gun. The
performed acts that brought the tetanus germs on his moment he saw Y passing, X came out, pulled his gun
wounds. and fired his gun at Y.
In this case, the Supreme Court convicted Villacorta with Because X is not a sharpshooter, and Y was only hit
slight physical injuries qualified by treachery because the slightly on the shoulder and then the bullet went
prosecution, as they focused so much on the proximate through Z, a passerby at the exact time he was
cause doctrine, they failed to prove intent to kill. Since they passing, the bullet went through him. Because of that,
failed to prove intent to kill, it is only slight physical injuries Z died. Y sustained only a light wound. What crime/s
but aggravated by treachery because the act of stabbing is/are committed by X?
was so sudden, leaving the victim defenseless.
A: Insofar as the intended victim, Y is concerned, X is
INSTANCES WHERE THE OFFENDER BECOMES liable for attempted murder. His intention was to kill Y.
CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE RESULTING FELONY He staged an ambush against Y. It is attempted murder
qualified by treachery. He planned it and because of that,
Under Art. 4 (1) of the RPC, there are three instances Y was totally without any defense. So, it is attempted
where the offender becomes criminally liable for the murder.
resulting felony although different from that which he
intended: Insofar as Z, the actual victim is concerned, the crime
committed is murder. In the case of People vs. Flora,
1. Aberratio Ictus (mistake in the blow); which was cited by the Supreme Court in the case of
2. Error in personae (mistake in the identity); and People vs. Adriano, and the Supreme Court called it the
3. Praeter intentionem (consequence went beyond Flora Doctrine, the treachery that attended the intent to kill
the intention). the intended victim is also present insofar as the actual
victim is concerned. Therefore, insofar as Z, it is murder.
ABERRATIO ICTUS
The said act of firing resulted to two grave felonies:
Aberratio Ictus or mistake in the blow is a situation wherein attempted murder, and murder. Therefore, X shall be
the offender directed the blow against his intended victim prosecuted based only on one information, People vs. X
for the complex crime of murder with attempted murder.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
was a mistake in the identity. There was an error in
Q: What if in the same problem, X staged an ambush personae.
against Y to take a revenge for the killing/death of his
brother. When Y passed by, X came out from hiding. Q: What is the effect of error in personae on the
He fired a shot at Y but he was not a sharp shooter. offender’s criminal liability?
The bullet hit only the forearm and it went through Z, a
passerby. The passerby sustained a fatal wound. Z A: It depends if there is a variance between the intended
was immediately brought to the hospital. Because of felony and the felony actually committed. If the intended
the immediate intervention, Z survived. What crime/s felony is different from the felony actually committed, then
is/are committed by X? Article 49 applies. Based on Art. 49, the lesser of the two
penalties shall be the one imposed on the said offender.
A: Insofar as the intended victim, Y is concerned, still it
is attempted murder. Insofar as Z, the passerby, the So, in this case, error in personae or mistake in identity is
actual victim is concerned, the crime committed is a mitigating circumstance. If however, there is no variance
serious physical injuries. While not frustrated murder, between the intended felony and the resulting felony, error
and that he sustained a fatal wound, it is only serious in personae has no effect on the offender’s criminal liability.
physical injuries because insofar as the passerby is
concerned, there was no intent on the part of X to kill. Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals
Therefore, it should only be serious physical injuries. when the crime committed is different from that intended. -
In cases in which the felony committed is different from that
In the first problem, insofar as the passerby is concerned, which the offender intended to commit, the following rules
it is murder because he died. An intent to kill is a general shall be observed:
criminal intent. But in this case, since the passerby who
was hit accidentally did not die, then it is serious physical 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be
injuries because insofar as he is concerned, X has no higher than that corresponding to the offense which the
intent to kill. accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to
the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
The said act of firing resulted to a grave felony: attempted
murder, and a less grave felony: serious physical injuries. 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be
Therefore, X should be prosecuted only of one crime lower than that corresponding to the one which the
based one the information, People vs. X for the complex accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former
crime of attempted murder with serious physical injuries. shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Q: What if in the same problem, X waited an ambush 3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph
for the arrival of Y. The moment Y arrived, he pulled shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty
his gun and fired at Y. He was not a sharpshooter. The person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of
bullet hit only the forearm of Y and it went through the another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for
passerby, but the passerby was only hit slightly on the either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty
shoulder, and the passerby sustained only a slight provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be
wound, the same as Y, who sustained only a slight imposed in its maximum period.
wound. Both wounds would heal within 3-5 days. What
crime/s is/are should be filed against X? Q: X boxed Y strongly. Y fell. While Y was down, X
kicked him again strongly. The very thin Y flew and so
A: This time, since one of the resulting felonies happened X left. X was laughing. But Y wanted to retaliate. So, Y
only to be a light felony, you cannot complex it. Article 48 stood up and he was opening his balisong. The
will not apply. Therefore, this time X should be prosecuted moment he was already up, he could feel that there
for two crimes: attempted murder insofar as the intended was a person near him and so he stabbed that person
victim, Y is concerned, and another one: slight physical near him, thinking it was X who boxed and kicked him.
injuries insofar as the actual victim, the passerby is But, that was his father. The father saw how he was
concerned. This time, there will be two information to be boxed and thrown by X and so the father came to help
filed against X. One, before the RTC for attempted murder, Y. But Y mistook him to be X and so Y stabbed his own
and the other one before the MeTC for slight physical father. Y tried to bring the father to the hospital but the
injuries insofar as the victim Z is concerned. father was pronounced dead upon arrival. What case
should be filed against Y?
ERROR IN PERSONAE
A: Y should be charged with Parricide. The offender
It is a situation wherein the offender directed the blow at a shall always be prosecuted for the crime that is actually
person whom he thought to be the intended victim, but the committed. In this case, Y actually stabbed and caused the
intended victim was not at the scene of the crime. He has death of his father. Therefore, Y should be prosecuted of
mistaken the actual victim to be the intended victim. There
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Parricide. The judge convicted Y of Parricide. Evidence of Maj. Tiempo where a small gathering was also taking
showed that indeed he stabbed his own father. place. There, he saw Nelson Tiempo, Glenn Tiempo,
Rogelio Presores, Rogelio Oliveros, Junior Villoria, Rey
Q: Should the judge impose the penalty prescribed by Bolo, and Alfredo Nardo. Stephen Lim, who was also at the
law for parricide under Article 246, reclusion party, asked their group to drive his car home. Together
perpertua? with Nelson Tiempo, who was at the wheel, Rogelio
Presores, Rogelio Oliveros and Junior Villoria, drove to the
A: NO, because Article 49 applies. There is a variance residence of Stephen Lim at Mansueto Compound,
between Y’s intended felony to kill X which is Homicide and Bulacao, Talisay, Cebu. Glenn Tiempo, Rey Bolo and
Y’s actual felony which is Parricide killing his own father. Alfredo Nardo also went with them riding in an owner type
Since the intended felony is different from the felony Y jeep, in order to bring back the group as soon as the car of
actually committed, Article 49 applies. The lesser of the Mr. Lim was parked in his home.
two penalties shall be the one imposed. Therefore, the
lesser penalty which is for Homicide, reclusion temporal, The two vehicles traveled in convoy with the jeep, 3 to 4
shall be imposed by the judge on Y. Although Y should be meters ahead of the car. When they arrived at the gate of
convicted of Parricide, the penalty should only be for the house of Stephen Lim, they were met with a sudden
Homicide – reclusion temporal. burst of gunfire. He looked at the direction where the
gunfire came and saw the persons who fired at the jeep.
So, in this case, error in personae or mistake in identity is He identified accused, Teodulo Alegarbes, Rolusape
a mitigating circumstance. It lowers the imposable penalty. Sabalones and Timoteo Beronga as the persons who fired
at the vehicle.
BAR Q: X, wanting to get even with Y, went to the
worksite of Y. Upon seeing Y, X armed with a dos por Five amended Informations were filed with the RTC of
dos began hitting Y. X wanted to seriously injure Y to Cebu City charging Rolusape Sabalones, Artemio Timoteo
get even at Y. So, with the said dos por dos, he hit and Beronga, Teodulo Alegarbes and Eufemio Cabanero, with
hit Y. When he saw that Y was already down on the two counts of murder and three counts of frustrated
ground, Y was in pain, X left. He has no intention to kill murder. The cases against Sabalones and Beronga were
Y. His only intention was to injure him. And so X jointly tried.
already left.
ISSUE: Is the principle of aberratio ictus applicable in this
As X was leaving he saw Y coming inside the worksite. case?
And so X was shocked. He just seriously injured Y and
now Y is in front of him. He thought, “What happened RULING: NO. In the extrajudicial statement of Beronga, he
here?” And so when X looked back, it was only at that stated that upon knowing that Nabing Velez was killed,
time that he realized that the person he has seriously somebody called up by telephone looking for Roling. And
injured was the twin brother of Y. The identical twin after more than two hours, they heard the sound of engines
brother of Y and not Y. The twin brother filed a case of of vehicles arriving, and then Meo, the man who was told
serious physical injuries against X. X defense is that by Roling to guard, shouted saying: "They are already
he cannot be held criminally liable for Serious Physical here;" after that, Roling came out carrying a carbine
Injuries because according to him he has no intention accompanied by Tsupe, and not long after they heard
to injure the twin brother. His intention was to injure Y gunshots and because of that they ran towards the house
not the said twin brother. Therefore, according to X, he where the wake was.
cannot be held criminally liable for Serious Physical
Injuries because there is the presence of error in This was corroborated by another witness, Jennifer
personae or mistake in the identity. Is X’s defense Binghoy, who testified that when she was at the wake of
correct? the brother of the accused, Rolusape Sabalones and his
friends were gathered at one table, conversing in whispers
A: X is wrong. As held by the Supreme Court in the case with each other, that there were two rifles on top of the
of People v. Sabalones, error in personae or mistake in the table, and that they became panicky after hearing of the
identity is NOT an absolutory cause. It is not an exempting death of Nabing Velez on the radio. Hence, the observation
circumstance. Therefore, error in personae or mistake in of the trial court that they went to their grisly destination
identity will not absolve an offender from any criminal amidst the dark and positioned themselves in defense of
liability. his turf against the invasion of a revengeful gang of
supporters of the recently slain Nabing Velez.
PEOPLE v. SABALONES
G.R. No. 123485 | 31 August 1998 These pieces of evidence sufficiently show that appellants
believed that they were suspected of having killed the
FACTS: Witness Edwin Santos alleged that on June 01, recently slain Nabing Velez, and that they expected his
1985, he was at the residence of Rogelio and Inday group to retaliate against them. Hence, upon the arrival of
Presores to attend a wedding. He then went to the house the victims' vehicles, which they mistook to be carrying the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
avenging men of Nabing Velez, appellants opened fire. RULING: The Supreme Court convicted Noel Sales of
Nonetheless, the fact that they were mistaken does not parricide WITHOUT appreciating praeter intentionem.
diminish their culpability. The Court has held that "mistake The Supreme Court said that there was no notable
in the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when disparity between the means employed by the father —
the accused zeroes in on his intended victim." hitting his son with a piece of wood while tied to a tree, and
the resulting felony which is the death of the said son. If
The case is better characterized as error in personae or you repeatedly hit the frail body of a boy while he is tied to
mistake in the identity of the victims, rather than aberratio a tree, definitely, that boy will die. There was no notable
ictus which means mistake in the blow, characterized by disparity between the means employed and the resulting
aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in the felony. Therefore, the father was liable for parricide without
blow. the mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem,
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. SABALONES Q: What if the brothers were having a fight and in the
course thereof, the elder brother, X, boxed his younger
As held by the Supreme Court in the case of People v. brother, Y, one strong punch on the chest. Because of
Sabalones, error in persona (mistake in the identity) is not the impact, Y was thrown on the wall, and it was his
an absolutory cause, it is not an exempting circumstance. head that first hit the cement. The back of the head
Therefore, error in persona (mistake in the identity) will not started to bleed. X became so afraid, and he brought Y
absolve a person from any criminal liability. It can only be to the hospital, but Y was pronounced dead upon
mitigating if there is a variance. However, in this case, arrival. X is now being prosecuted for the crime of
there was no variance between the intended felony and the homicide, but X said that he cannot be liable for
felony actually committed. Therefore, X shall be criminally homicide; he loves his brother and he has no intention
liable for serious physical injuries although it was done to kill his brother. They were only in a fight and he only
from a different victim. boxed his brother. He said that he should be acquitted
of the crime charged. Is X liable for homicide for
PRAETER INTENTIONEM having killed his brother? In case of conviction, should
he be given the benefit of praeter intentionem as a
It is when the consequence went beyond the intention of mitigating circumstance?
the offender.
A: X is liable for homicide under the proximate cause
Elements of Praeter Intentionem: doctrine. His act of punching his brother was a felonious
act and it resulted to a felony which is the death of his
1. That the felony has been committed; and brother. The said death of the brother was the direct,
2. That there is a notable disparity between the natural, and logical consequence of the felonious act.
offender’s felonious act and the resulting act. Therefore, X is liable for homicide for the death of his
brother. However, X deserves to be given the mitigating
Here, no one could have foreseen that out of the offender’s circumstance of praeter intentionem because there was a
act, this felony would result. Whenever praeter intentionem notable disparity between the means employed by X and
is present, it is considered as a mitigating circumstance the resulting felony. No one could have foreseen that out
because it is expressly provided under Article 13, third of X’s mere act of boxing his brother, the brother would die.
paragraph of the RPC that the offender has no intention to Therefore, he should be liable for homicide under the
commit so grave of a wrong as that committed. So, it’s proximate cause doctrine with the mitigating circumstance
always a mitigating circumstance if the elements were of praeter intentionem.
proven.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME DOCTRINE
PEOPLE v. SALES
G.R. No. 177218 | 3 October 2011 Article 4, Paragraph 2 — Criminal liability shall be
incurred by any person performing an act which would be
FACTS: Appellant Noel T. Sales beaten his two sons Noel an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
Jr. and Noemar because they failed to return home after inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account
joining the fluvial procession of Our Lady of Penafracia. of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Sales whipped his son with a piece of wood approximately
one meter in length and one and a half inches in diameter If Article 4, first paragraph refers to the proximate cause
while they are tied to a tree. After he was finished beating doctrine, the second paragraph refers to the impossible
his sons, his wife, Maria, noticed that there was a crack in crime doctrine.
the head of Noemar so they brought him to a quack doctor,
who said that Noemar was already dead. The appreciated An impossible crime is one wherein the act done would
the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so have amounted to crime against persons or crimes against
grave a wrong (praeter intentionem). property but is not accomplished because of its inherent
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
impossibility because of the employment of ineffectual or
inadequate means. The prosecution argued that Intod should be convicted of
Attempted Murder because the fact that Palangpangan
In reality, an impossible crime is indeed not a crime. The was not in her house at the time of the shooting constitutes
act is not accomplished, the act did not produce a crime. a supervening cause independent of the will of the
There is an inherent impossibility for the act to accused. However, according to the Court, this reasoning
consummate into a crime. Therefore, in reality, it is not a would render Art. 4 useless. According to the court, if this
crime. However, the offender shall be prosecuted for an line of reasoning will be followed, all circumstances which
impossible crime in order to prevent, to punish his criminal prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated
tendency, his criminal perversity. So, he shall be charged as an accident independent of the actor’s will which is an
with an impossible crime. element of attempted and frustrated felonies.
Elements of Impossible Crime CASE DISCUSSION: INTOD v. CA
1. The act done had it been accomplished would In this case, the Supreme Court said that there are two
have been amounted to a crime against person or kinds of inherent impossibility:
a crime against property;
1. Legal Impossibility. There is legal impossibility
2. The act was done with evil intent; when all the intended acts, even if accomplished,
will not produce a crime.
3. The act was not accomplished because of its
inherent impossibility or because of the 2. Physical or factual impossibility. When extraneous
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means; circumstances unknown to the offender,
extraneous circumstances beyond the control of
4. The act does not fall under any other provision of the offender, prevented the consummation of the
the Revised Penal Code. crime.
First Element: An impossible crime will only lie if the act When you say inherent impossibility, it means under any
done by the offender had it been consummated, had it and all circumstances, the act will not ripen into a crime.
been accomplished, would have produced any of the
crimes under Title VIII Crimes Against Person or any of the Fourth element: Based on the last element, an impossible
crimes under Title X Crimes Against Property. Only in crime is a crime of last resort. You can only file a case of
these two titles. an impossible crime against the offender if the acts done
by the offender will not constitute any other violation of the
Second element: Precisely because the said offender is RPC. If the acts done by the offender will fall under any
being punished because of his criminal tendency, because other provisions of the RPC, that is the charge. It is not an
of his criminal perversity. impossible crime. Thus, an impossible crime is a crime of
last resort. I-file mo lang sya kapag wala ka nang maisip
Third element: na crime.
INTOD v. CA In the case of Intod v. CA, the crime charged was

G.R. No. 103119 | 21 October 1992 attempted murder. In Jacinto v. People, the crime charged
was qualified theft. In Intod, the Supreme Court said that
FACTS: Intod and company planned on killing no, Intod and his cohorts are not liable of attempted
Palangpangan because of a land dispute. They went to murder, it is an impossible crime. In Jacinto, Supreme
Palangpangan’s house all armed with firearms and Court said no, Jacinto is not liable of qualified theft. Rather,
peppered Palangpangan’s bedroom with bullets. It turned he is liable of an impossible crime. In both cases, what is
out, however, that Palangpangan was not home, and that present is the so called physical or factual impossibility.
the house was occupied by her son-in-law and his family.
No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. In case of Intod, unknown to the accused, the intended
He was charged with Attempted Murder and was convicted victim was not at the scene of the crime. Palangpangan
by RTC and CA as charged. was not inside her bedroom. Therefore, under any and all
the circumstance, the act will not ripen into murder. Under
RULING: In this case, there was Factual (Physical) any and all the circumstances, the Supreme Court said, it
Impossibility (when extraneous circumstances unknown to is an impossible crime.
the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation
of the intended crime). Intod shot the place where he Many of the legal luminaries attack the Supreme Court for
thought his victim would be, although in reality, the victim its decision in Intod. Because according to them, the
was not present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed Supreme Court failed to consider the fourth element. Of
to accomplish his end. course, under any and all the circumstances, it will not
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ripen into murder because the intended victim was not in check showed her intent to gain, she could not be liable of
the bedroom. However, the legal luminaries said the fourth qualified theft because were it not for the fact that the
element requires that the act must not fall under any other checks were unfunded, she would have the face value of
provision. Although it will not fall to murder, it would at least the check which did not belong to her.
fall to malicious mischief because the said place was
damaged as they peppered her bedroom with bullets. Thus, it was due to the extraneous circumstance of the
However, of course, the Supreme Court decision stays. check being unfunded, a fact unknown to Jacinto at the
time, that prevented the crime from being produced. The
Note: thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be
Although Intod v. CA was already an old case, I want worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored,
you to know that it was recently given. Insofar as the bar and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the
exam is concerned, there is no such thing as an old case value of said dishonored check.
or a new case. Even old cases can be asked in recent
bar examinations.
Q: What if in a buy-bust operation, the police officers
In the case of Jacinto, what is present is also physical and arrested X? Allegedly, the poseur-buyer bought 500
factual impossibility. pesos worth of shabu, and after receiving the alleged
plastic sachets of shabu, X was immediately arrested
JACINTO v. PEOPLE by the police officers. He was caught, investigated,
G.R. No. 162540 | 13 July 2009 and the plastic sachet of alleged shabu confiscated
from him was brought to the PNP crime laboratory for
FACTS: Jacinto, collector of Megafoam, received a check forensic test. Thereafter, X was charged with illegal
from Aquino for the payment of the latter’s purchases from sale of dangerous drugs.
Megafoam. The checks were deposited in Land Bank on
Generoso Capitle’s account, the husband of Jacinto’s During the hearing of the case, when the forensic
sister. chemist testified in court, it testified that based on his
confirmatory tests, the contents of the said plastic
Later on, one employee of Megafoam received a call sachet were not shabu; rather, they were tawas.
asking if she could issue a check in the name of Megafoam Because of that, since the crime charged was illegal
instead of issuing them payable to cash. The employee sale, the judge convicted the accused of the
also received a call from Land Bank stating that the check impossible crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Is
deposited in Generoso’s account was dishonored. This the judge correct?
scheme was then reported to the owner of Megafoam.
Upon investigation, it was found that Jacinto never remitted A: The judge is wrong. An impossible crime will never
the subject check to Megafoam. However, Aquino said that apply to a violation of special penal laws. Illegal sale of
she had already paid Megafoam in cash as replacement dangerous is under R.A. 9165 or The Comprehensive
for the dishonored check. Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended. It is punished
by special penal laws. There can never be an impossible
Jacinto was charged with the crime of qualified theft. crime in case of violation of special penal laws because,
based on the first element, it only applies if the crime, had
The argument of the Office of the Solicitor General is that it been consummated, would amount to a crime against
it should still be theft because he failed to remit the said persons or property. Therefore, the judge is not correct.
check. He took the check, and for that alone, he should be
held criminally liable for qualified theft. Q: What if X, at knife point, took the cellphone of Y, and
because of the knife, Y immediately gave the
RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that it was an cellphone, and then ran away? X was so happy, was
impossible crime of theft. so interested in the cellphone because it looks exactly
like the cellphone that he lost. But when he looked at
As may be gleaned from Art. 308 in relation to Art. 310, the it, indeed, it was his very own cellphone lost a week
personal property subject of the theft must have some ago. While he was happily looking at the cellphone,
value as the intention of the accused is to gain from the here comes the police. Y immediately went to the
thing stolen. police upon leaving the place. X was then arrested by
said police and was investigated. X said he cannot be
In this case, Jacinto unlawfully took the postdated check held criminally liable because the thing that he took
belonging to Megafoam. However, the checks were was his own personal property. The police officers
without value, as it was subsequently dishonored. then filed a case of an impossible crime of robbery
against X. Is X liable for an impossible crime of
Even though Jacinto was able to perform all acts to robbery?
consummate the crime of qualified theft, which is a crime
against property, and that her act of unlawfully taking the A: Going by the elements of impossible crime:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Elements of Attempted Felony
1. Had it been accomplished, the act done by X
would have amounted to robbery. There was 1. The offender commences the commission of a
intimidation brought about by the pointing of the felony directly by overt acts;
knife. 2. The offender was not able to perform all the acts
of execution;
2. The act was done with evil intent. 3. The offender was not able to perform all the acts
of execution by reason of some cause or accident
3. The act was not accomplished because of its legal
other than this own spontaneous desistance.
impossibility. Under any or all circumstances,
robbery will not arise if the thing taken is the
First element: The offender commences the
offender’s own personal property.
commission of a felony directly by overt acts
The first three elements of impossible crime are present.
It is necessary that the overt act must be directly connected
How about the last element?
to the crime committed. Therefore, the attempted felony
that is punished by law is one that is directly connected to
4. The last element is absent. The act would fall
the overt act performed by the offender although he has a
under another violation of the RPC. It would
amount to grave coercion, particularly, compulsive different crime in mind.
coercion. When you compel a person by use of
It is immaterial what the crime in mind is. What matters is
violence or intimidation to do an act against his
to what is his overt act connected – that will be the
will, whether it be right or wrong. At knife point, X
attempted felony that is punished by law.
compelled Y to give the cellphone. Therefore, it is
grave coercion, compulsive coercion.
Second and third elements: The offender was not able
to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some
ARTICLE 6. CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED AND cause or accident other than this own spontaneous
ATTEMPTED FELONIES desistance.
If the reason failed to consummate the crime is his own

Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted
spontaneous desistance, he does not incur criminal
felonies. - Consummated felonies as well as those which
liability. Desistance negates criminal liability in the
are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
attempted stage.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary
The reason is that in the attempted stage the offender is
for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is
still in the subjective phase of committing the felony. The
frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
offender begins the commission of the felony up to the time
execution which would produce the felony as a
that he still has control over his acts. He may proceed to
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
consummate the crime, or he may desist.
reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
If he desisted, then he incurs no criminal liability. If he
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
proceeded with the commission of the crime, it can be
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
attempted, frustrated or consummated.
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this
PEOPLE v. LAMAHANG
own spontaneous desistance.
G.R. No. 43530 | 03 August 1935
STAGES IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY FACTS: The accused was charged with attempted
robbery. With the use of an iron bar, he tried to open a
4. Attempted; store.
5. Frustrated;
6. Consummated. RULING: The Supreme Court said it cannot be attempted
robbery because his overt act of opening the said store
ATTEMPTED FELONY with the use of an iron bar is not directly connected to
robbery. The Court said what we have is an attempt to
A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commit an indeterminate offense. Once inside, he may do
commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not other things not necessarily to rob the store. Therefore, the
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the Court said he can only be held liable for attempted
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this trespass.
own spontaneous desistance.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The attempt to commit an offense which the Penal Code
punishes is that which has a logical relation to a particular, Q: X parked his car in front of the gate. She was about
concrete offense; that, which is the beginning of the to go to the gate in order to open it when here comes
execution of the offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, Y. Y pointed a knife at X and told X, “Give me the key,
leading directly to its realization and consummation. The or I am going to stab you!” Because of this, X gave the
attempt to commit an indeterminate offense, inasmuch as key to Y. Thereafter, Y forcibly told X to enter back
its nature in relation to its objective is ambiguous, is not a inside her car. Suddenly, the police arrived and
juridical fact from the standpoint of the Penal Code. arrested Y.
There is no doubt that in the case at bar it was the intention Y was charged with attempted kidnapping. Is Y liable
of the accused to enter Tan Yu's store by means of as charged for attempted kidnapping?
violence, passing through the opening which he had
started to make on the wall, in order to commit an offense A: NO, Y is not liable for attempted kidnapping. The
which, due to the timely arrival of policeman Tomambing, overt acts performed by Y (i.e., asking for the key at
did not develop beyond the first steps of its execution. But knifepoint, forcing X to go back to her car) are not directly
it is not sufficient, for the purpose of imposing penal connected to kidnap a person. Therefore, it cannot be
sanction, that an act objectively performed constitute a attempted kidnapping.
mere beginning of execution; it is necessary to establish its
unavoidable connection, like the logical and natural It is also an indeterminate offense. The moment he told X
relation of the cause and its effect, with the deed which, to go back to his car, Y may drive away the car, he may
upon its consummation, will develop into one of the rape X or Y may kill X there.
offenses defined and punished by the Code; it is necessary
to prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to its When we say there is an indeterminate offense, the overt
complete termination following its natural course, without act of the offender in relation to his criminal intent is
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary ambiguous. Therefore, in this case, the said charge for
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily attempted kidnapping would not prosper.
ripen into a concrete offense.
FRUSTRATED FELONY
BALEROS v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 138033 | 22 February 2006 A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
The Supreme Court said the overt act of pressing a cloth consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
soaked with chemicals on the face of a woman is NOT reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
directly connected with the crime of rape.
Elements of Frustrated Felony
The obvious intent of Baleros, Jr. is to make the said victim
unconscious by pressing a cloth soaked with chemicals on 1. The offender has performed all the acts of
her face. However, the moment the woman becomes execution which would produce the felony;
unconscious, the offender may do any other act. He may 2. The felony was not produced by reason of causes
rape, he may commit acts of lasciviousness, he may rob, independent of the will of the perpetrator.
or he may kill the woman – not necessarily to rape the
woman.
ATTEMPTED FELONY FRUSTRATED FELONY
The said act of pressing a cloth soaked with chemicals on The offender merely The offender has already
the face of Malou is not directly connected to rape. It commences the performed all the acts of
cannot be considered as attempted rape. Just like in commission of the felony. execution. Nothing more is
Lamahang, it is an attempt to commit an indeterminate He has not yet performed left for him to do.
offense. all the acts of execution.
The felony was not The felony was not
Since indeterminate offenses have no juridical standpoint
in the RPC, you cannot charge a person with an produced by reason of produced by reason of
indeterminate offense. The Supreme Court said you have some cause or accident causes independent of the
to convict Baleros, Jr. of the crime which is directly other than the offender’s will of the perpetrator.
connected to the overt act that he performed and that is the spontaneous desistance.
act of unjust vexation (in the form of) light coercion under The offender is still in the The offender is already on
Art. 287.
subjective phase of the objective phase of
The Supreme Court said, obviously, his act annoyed, committing the felony. committing the felony.
vexed and irritated the said offended party that led to the
filing of the said case. CONSUMMATED FELONY
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
A felony is consummated when all the elements form of trespass, otherwise known as Trespass to Property
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are under Article 281. Since it constituted another violation of
already present. The moment all the elements for the the RPC, it cannot be an impossible crime because an
commission of a crime are already there, present, it is impossible crime is a crime of last resort. You can only file
indeed consummated stage of committing the felony. it if the act done by the offender would not constitute
another violation of the RPC.
Q: X was in need of money. His son was in the hospital.
For the holiday, X looked, went from one house to Q: The husband has a mistress. The husband wanted
another, from one friend to another, from one relative to get rid of the wife. Both, so that he will be able to
to another. He was asking, begging to borrow some live happily with his mistress and for insurance
money for the hospitalization of his son. However, purposes. So, he decided to put poison on the food of
none of his relatives and friends would have the the wife. When the wife ate the food, indeed, she was
money. They too were in need of money. Hence, they poisoned. As the doctor husband was looking at his
were not able to lend X money for his son. X was so wife’s suffering, showing signs of being poisoned, he
sad. So, X is now on his way home. When X was felt pity. They’ve been together for years. Because of
walking towards home on this vicinity, he took notice that, the said doctor husband went to his bag, took the
of a big house. Upon looking at the house, he saw that antidote and administered it to his wife. Thereafter, he
all windows were open. Because of that, he believed immediately brought the wife to the hospital. The wife
that it would be very easy for him to enter and rob the survived; the wife did not die.
house. Indeed, he jumped over the fence, climbed the
house, entered the house hoping to take all valuables Because of that, the doctor husband was charged with
to sell it to have money. The moment he entered the frustrated parricide. He said no, because if ever he
house, however, X was disappointed and frustrated. should be charged, it should only be attempted
The house was empty, it contained nothing. So, he parricide.
went down the house very sad.
Is the charge correct? Or is it the argument of the
As he was leaving the house, as he opens the gate, doctor husband that is correct?
there were already 3 Brgy. Tanods waiting for him and
he was apprehended. These Brgy. Tanods earlier saw A: The charge is wrong. The second element of a
him enter the house passing through the window. frustrated felony is absent.
They did not apprehend him inside because they knew
he would not be able to take anything because the First element – the offender has already performed all the
house was empty. He was brought to the police acts of execution that would produce the felony as a
officers. At the police station after investigation, X was consequence. When the doctor husband placed the poison
charged by the police before the Office of the Public on the food and the wife ate the food with poison and
Prosecutor for the crime of Attempted Robbery. In the started showing signs of being poisoned, the doctor
counter-affidavit filed by X, he was insisting, if ever he husband had already performed all the acts of execution
was liable, it would be an impossible crime and not that would have led to the death of his wife. Nothing more
attempted robbery. If you were the public prosecutor is left for him to do. Thus, first element is present.
assigned in the case, of what crime would you indict
X? Second element – the felony was not produced by reason
of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Here,
A: You have to indict X for violation of Article 281 Trespass the felony of parricide was not produced of the doctor
to Property. husband’s own will. He was the one who gave the antidote
and he brought the wife to the hospital.
It cannot be attempted robbery because X’s act of
entering the house is NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED to Therefore, the second element of a frustrated felony being
intent to gain, it is not directly connected to intent to absent, the doctor husband should not be charged with
rob. It didn’t show his intention to rob. It is an indeterminate frustrated homicide.
offense. Once inside, he can do any other things, not
necessarily to rob, although, that was the thing in his mind. His defense is also not meritorious. It is also not
However, his overt act of entering would not reveal intent attempted parricide.
to gain. Therefore, it cannot be attempted robbery.
The first element of an attempted felony is immediately
It is not also an impossible crime because the 4th element absent. First element – that the offender commences the
of an impossible crime is absent – the act must not fall commission of a felony by overt act. This is absent. The
under any other provision of the RPC. In this case, his act doctor husband did not only commence the
would constitute another violation of the RPC. He entered commission of a felony. He has already performed all
an uninhabited place. The said house was uninhabited, no the acts of execution. His act has passed the subjective
one inside, nothing inside. Therefore, it amounted to other phase. His act had passed the attempted stage. Therefore,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
it cannot be attempted parricide because all the acts of PEOPLE v. LABIAGA
execution have already been performed by him. Thus, the G.R. No. 202867 | 15 July 2013
doctor husband should not be charged with attempted
parricide. FACTS: Labiaga shot Gregorio on his shoulder when the
latter stepped out of his house. Gregorio then called his
Q: What should be the proper charge? daughter, Judy, for help. When his daughter approached
him, accused shot Judy in the abdomen.
A: The proper charge should be physical injuries
depending on the days that the said wife would be needing The two Condes were brought to a hospital where Judy
medical intervention. was pronounced dead on arrival, while Gregorio recovered
after treatment of his gunshot wound. Labiaga was
If the wife will be needing medical intervention for a period charged with murder and frustrated murder.
of more than thirty (30) days, it will be serious physical
injuries. It will be qualified. ISSUE: Should Labiaga be held liable for the crime of
frustrated murder?
If the wife will be needing medical intervention for a period
of ten (10) to thirty (30) days, it will be less serious physical RULING: NO. Labiaga is only liable for murder and
injuries. attempted murder. In frustrated murder, there must be a
showing that the would suffered by the victim would have
Lastly, if the wife will be needing medical intervention for a been fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. If the
period for one (1) to nine (9) days, it will be slight physical prosecution fails to prove the same, the accused should be
injuries. convicted only of attempted murder. Gregorio did not
sustain a mortal wound. He only sustained injuries on his
PEOPLE v. TRINIDAD right shoulder.
G.R. No. 79123-25 | 09 January 1989
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. TRINIDAD AND
FACTS: Trinidad asked the victims for a ride going to PEOPLE v. LABIAGA
Agusan del Sur. While on board the Ford Fiera, Trinidad
suddenly shot the two passengers of the vehicle. The In the cases of People v. Trinidad and People v. Labiaga,
driver, Tan, was able to get out of the car and hid. Later the SC said that in cases of intentional killing, in order to
on, when a jeepney passed by, he rode on the front seat, bring about frustrated felony, it is necessary that the
but later on noticed that Trinidad was seated inside the wound inflicted by the accused on the victim must be
jeepney. Trinidad ordered Tan to get out of the jeepney. a fatal wound, a mortal wound, sufficient to bring about
Instead of doing so, Tan ran around the jeepney. When the death, but death did not supervene because of immediate
jeepney started to drive away, Tan clung to its side. As medical intervention.
another jeepney was approaching, Tan jumped from the
jeepney where he was clinging onto the second jeepney. In People v. Trinidad, the crime charged was frustrated
Trinidad then fired a shot at Tan hitting the latter at his homicide. In People v. Labiaga, the crime charged was
thigh. However, he was told to get out. Subsequently, Tan frustrated murder. In both cases the Supreme Court said
was found by a member of the Philippine Constabulary and no, the wounds inflicted by the accused were non-fatal.
helped him. Therefore, it would only be attempted homicide, and the
other is attempted murder. (Caveat: Upon checking
Trinidad was charged with two counts of murder and one Trinidad and Labiaga, the crime charged for both cases
count of frustrated murder. Trinidad argued that he cannot was frustrated murder.)
be liable of frustrated murder, but only of attempted
murder. TIP: If the problem is given, and the said problem is about
intentional killing (e.g. parricide, murder, homicide), if the
ISSUE: Is Trinidad liable for frustrated murder? wound inflicted by the perpetrator of the crime on the victim
is a non-mortal wound, it would only be in the attempted
RULING: The SC held that Trinidad should be held liable stage. However, if the wound inflicted by the perpetrator
for two counts of murder and one count of attempted on the victim is a mortal wound, a fatal wound, sufficient to
murder. Trinidad has already commenced the commission bring about death and the victim survived because of
of the felony by overt acts but was unable to perform all immediate medical intervention, the crime committed is in
acts of execution which could have produced the felony by the frustrated stage.
reason of causes other than his own spontaneous
desistance, such that, the jeep to which Tan was clinging CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT THE FRUSTRATED
was in motion and there was a spare tire which shielded STAGE
Tan’s other body parts. Moreover, the wound sustained
by Tan on his right thigh was not fatal. There are some crimes which do not admit the
frustrated stage:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
he immediately garnered all these diamond
1. THEFT engagement rings and placed it inside his backpack
and then thereafter, he ran towards the door of the said
VALENZUELA V. PEOPLE high end jewelry store. No matter how hard he tried to
GR 160188 | 21 June 2007 open that door, it wouldn’t open. By way of security of
the high end jewelry store, the moment a customer
FACTS: A security guard was manning his post in the open enters, the door automatically locks and will be only
parking area of a supermarket when he saw accused opened by the person inside. The police arrived and X
Valenzuela hauling a push cart loaded with cases of was arrested. What crime/s is/are committed by X?
detergent and unloaded them where his co-accused
Calderon was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the A: X is liable for theft. It is consummated stage. The
supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of moment he took all these diamond rings and placed it
detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started inside his backpack, unlawful taking is complete, theft is
loading the boxes of detergent inside. As the taxi was already consummated. Even if he did not have the
about to leave the security guard asked Valenzuela for the opportunity to dispose it because he was not able to leave
receipt of the merchandise. The accused reacted by the said high end jewelry store, the crime committed is the
fleeing on foot, but were subsequently apprehended at the crime of theft in its consummated stage.
scene. They were convicted by the RTC of consummated
theft. Valenzuela, on appeal, arged that he only committed In the case of Valenzuela v. People, even if Valenzuela
frustrated theft because he was not able to freely dispose and company were not able to dispose the said detergents,
of the merchandise stolen. Supreme Court said, it is indeed consummated stage.
ISSUE: Is petitioner Valenzuela guilty only of frustrated CANCERAN v. PEOPLE

theft? G.R. No. 206442 | 01 July 2015
RULING: The Supreme Court did away with frustration in FACTS: Canceran paid for two boxes of biscuits at one of
the crime of theft. Since then, the Supreme Court said that the counter of a mall in Cagayan de Oro when the security
theft admits only two stages – attempted and guard of the mall approach the bagger and asked whether
consummated stages. the boxes had been checked. When the bagger opened
the boxes, they found out that the contents of the boxes
The Supreme Court said that there is no frustration in the were not biscuits, but beauty cream products.
crime of theft because by its definition under Art. 308 of the
RPC, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to RULING: In the case of Canceran v. People, based on the
gain, shall take the personal property of another without allegation in the information, a crime charged on the
the consent of the owner, without violence against or office of the prosecutor was frustrated theft. After trial
intimidation of persons nor use of force upon things. on the merits, the judge convicted Canceran of theft in the
consummated stage. The judge said “this is very wrong for
According to the Supreme Court in the case of Valenzuela the prosecution to charge him of frustrated theft. There is
v. People, the only operative act necessary to consummate no frustrated theft, it should be consummated theft.’
the crime of theft is the unlawful taking of the personal Because of that, Canceran appealed and said that when
property of another. The said act of unlawful taking is the judge convicted him of consummated theft in an
deemed complete the moment the offender gains information that alleges frustrated theft, he was denied his
possession of the personal property of another even if he right to be informed of the nature of the cause of accusation
has no opportunity to dispose of the said property. What is against him. That was his main argument.
material is: has he gained possession of the personal
property of another? If so, then unlawful taking is complete, The Supreme Court said, Canceran is correct. Since the
then theft is consummated. crime charged by the office of the public prosecutor in the
information was only frustrated theft, it is wrong for the
Q: X entered a high-end jewelry store. The moment he court to convict him of consummated theft. You cannot
entered; he told the saleslady: “I’m going to propose convict an accused of a crime higher than that for what
to my girlfriend. Can you show me your best wedding is charged because in doing so, you deny him to rebut
ring? I want the diamonds.” The saleslady brought out the allegations. You deny him of his due process. You
on the said glass cabinet all their bestselling deny him to be informed of the nature of the cause of
engagement ring. ‘More, more, I want more.’ And so, accusation against him. The Supreme Court said, even if
the saleslady kept on placing many engagement ring in this case in reality, theft was already consummated, we
on top of the said glass table. X was choosing and then cannot convict him of consummated theft because the
suddenly X said ‘This one! I like this one. I’m in a hurry. information charges only frustrated theft. Hence, the
Immediately give me the receipt and I have to go’. The Supreme Court said, Canceran shall only be convicted of
said saleslady, gumawa siya ng resibo. At that attempted theft.
particular moment X and the saleslady was still busy,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Q: The three brothers, X, Y, and Z, were on their way mount him. At this position, only a small part of Orita’s
home. They do not have much money to buy food. penis penetrated Cristina.
Their tricycle passed by. There was a warehouse, the
gate was open, the warehouse was open, and the three Cristina saw an opportunity to escape. When she does so,
brothers could see sacks of palay and so, since there Orita pursued her. Later on, still naked, Cristina went to the
were no guards, the three brothers entered the municipal building. She was found by police officers who
warehouse and they realized indeed that sacks contain then went to her boarding house and saw Orita escaping.
rice. And so, the three of them tried to carry one sack
of rice and they were able to bring it to the tricycle and RULING: The accused is guilty of the crime of Rape. Both
they left. Midway to their house, the brother told the the accused and the SG contend that there is no crime of
eldest ‘Kuya! Sabi ng nanay wag tayong magnanakaw, frustrated rape.
wag tayong kakain ng nakaw’ Because of that, the
eldest brother turned up the tricycle and went back to In the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has
the place where they took the sack of rice. The three of carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his
them were carrying back the sack of rice to the purpose and from that moment. All the essential elements
warehouse but suddenly, the guards saw them. The of the offense have been accomplished.
guard apprehended them. They were charged with the
crime of theft. They said ‘No.’ They desisted; they In the crime of rape, perfect penetration is not necessary.
returned the said sack of rice. When they returned the Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
said sack of rice, that amounted to desistance, sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ,
therefore, they cannot be charged with the crime of without rupture or laceration of the hymen is sufficient to
theft. Is the argument meritorious? Are they liable of warrant conviction.
theft?
Thus, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the
A: They are liable of theft. The moment the three brothers female organ because not all acts of execution was
took the sack of rice from the said warehouse and bring it performed. Considering the nature, elements, and manner
to their tricycle, unlawful taking is complete, therefore, theft of execution of the crime of rape, it is hardly conceivable
is consummated. Their act of returning which is restitution how frustrated stage in rape can be committed.
cannot be considered as desistance because desistance
is present only in the attempted stage. Restitution is not CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. ORITA
desistance. Restitution is only a mitigating circumstance
which is akin to voluntary surrender according to the Another crime which does not admit the frustrated stage is
Supreme Court in the number of cases. Therefore, the fact the crime of rape. In the case of People v. Orita, the
that they restituted, the fact that they returned the sack of Supreme Court said, there is no such crime as frustrated
rice, will only mitigate their criminal liability, and would rape. In the case of People v. Campuhan, the Supremre
mean also that they will have civil liability as to the value of Court said, they finally did away and abandoned frustrated
the rice. However, it will not absolve them of criminal rape. There is no such crime as frustrated rape
liability. Restitution is not an absolutory cause. In fact, it is according to the Supreme Court because rape is
an admission of the commission of the crime, it is akin to committed when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman
voluntary surrender, and it will mitigate the offender’s against her will. Since the law uses the word “carnal
criminal liability. knowledge”, not sexual intercourse, the Supreme Court
said the slightest penile penetration of a woman’s vagina
2. RAPE already give rise to consummated rape. Therefore,
according to the Supreme Court, penetration need not be
PEOPLE v. ORITA complete or full, there need not even be hymenal
G.R. No. 88724 | 3 April 1990 laceration. Because the slightest penile penetration will
already consummate the crime of rape.
FACTS: Shortly after she was brought home by her
classmates from a party, Cristina knocked at the door of Q: But when is there the slightest penile penetration?
her boarding house when all of a sudden, somebody held
her and poked a knife at her neck. A: The Supreme Court said, the moment the penises touch
the lips or labia of the pudendum of a woman’s genitalia,
Orita then instructed Cristina to go upstairs using the then there is already the slightest penile penetration, this
backdoor of the boarding house. is already rape in its consummated stage.
When they were inside Cristina’s room, Orita took off his PEOPLE v. PAREJA
clothes and ordered Cristina to do the same. Orita then G.R. No. 188979 | 05 September 2012
ordered Cristina to lie down on the floor and then mounted
her. At the said position, Orita could not fully penetrate her. FACTS: The accused entered the bedroom of the girl, the
Thus, Orita lie down on his back and ordered Cristina to girl was sleeping, the accused undressed the girl and
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
undressed himself on top of the girl. The girl began crying witness W. The fiscal was convinced W saw the act of
aloud, shouting aloud. So, Pareja covered them with a killing, the accused stabbing the son. So, because of
blanket. But the cries of the girl became even louder, very that, the public prosecutor presented W to the witness
loud that Pareja was so afraid. He might be discovered and stand. So, he was asked of his name and other
so Pareja left. In both her sworn statement, in her affidavit, personal circumstances, raise your hand and do you
and in her testimony, the girl stated that the penis of Pareja, swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, and he
“naidikit” to her genitalia. said yes. Then, the fiscal started the first question, “W,
do you still recall where you were on the night of
October 28, 2022?” Before W was able to give his
RULING: The Supreme Court said, when you say naidikit, answer, the door of the said court room opened and a
there is yet no penetration. It merely touched the outer woman shouted, “Judge! Sandali! Sandali! Asawa ko
surface of the girl’s genitalia. Therefore, the Supreme yan. Nagsisinungaling yan. Bayad yan! Hindi yan
Court ruled out consummated rape. The Supreme Court totoo, Judge. Hindi po totoo na nakita niya yung
said that the crime committed is attempted rape. krimen. Binayaran lang po siya kasi wala po kaming
pera, Judge.” Because of that, the Judge banged the
In this case, the Supreme Court distinguished attempted gavel and terminated the hearing already.
rape from acts of lasciviousness. In the case of attempted
rape, there is, on the part of the accused, intent to lie, intent After investigation, it was discovered that W was a
to penetrate the victim. In case of acts of lasciviousness, paid witness by the parents of the victim in order to
there is no such intent. So, based on the facts and pin down the accused. Because of this, W was charged
circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, of the crime of attempted false testimony. Is W liable
there was, on the part of the offender, intent to penetrate as charged?
the victim but his penis failed to touch the pudendum of the
girl’s genitalia, it will only be in the attempted stage. But, if A: W is not liable as charged. There is no such crime as
based on the facts and circumstance, there is no such attempted false testimony, frustrated false testimony
intent to penetrate, as held in the case of Cruz v. People, because false testimony is a formal crime, which admits
it is acts of lasciviousness. only the consummated stage.
In the case of People v. Pareja, the Supreme Court said, If a crime admits of different stages such as attempted, and
when you look at the facts: the man entered, undressed frustrated stage, they are called material crimes. If a
himself, undressed the girl, and tried to penetrate the girl. crime can be punished only in the consummated stage, it
All of these showed that he has the intention to have carnal is called a formal crime.
knowledge with the girl. Therefore, it is attempted rape.
Robbery, theft, and rape — they are material crimes. They
CRUZ v. PEOPLE have attempted and consummated stages. However,
G.R. No. 206442 | 01 July 2015 adultery, false testimony, and physical injuries are
considered formal crimes, they have no attempted or
FACTS: The victim, a helper, was awakened. She was frustrated stage, they can only be punished in the
sleeping in the tent; she was awakened, and her master consummated stage.
was already on top of her. She slept with clothing on but
now she was totally naked. With the master on top of her, FORMAL CRIMES
she struggled and was able to leave the said tent. So, the
master was charged with attempted rape. Formal crimes are punished based on consequence and
based on result, not based on tendency. Hence, they have
RULING: The Supreme Court said, no it is not attempted no attempted and frustrated stage.
rape. It is acts of lasciviousness. The words used by the
Supreme Court, the act of a man of climbing on top of a Examples:
naked woman, absent any showing that his erected penis
is capable of penetration will not amount to attempted rape. • Adultery can be punished only the moment there is a
It is only acts of lasciviousness. In this case, the Supreme carnal union between a married woman and another
Court said, the prosecution failed to show that there was man who is not her husband.
intent to penetrate the said girl. Therefore, it is only acts of • False testimony can be punished only if the said false
lasciviousness.
witness testified falsely against the accused or in
favor of the accused.
Q: The accused was charged with the crime of
homicide. The fiscal presented W, who was brought by • Physical injuries have no attempted or frustrated
the parents of the victim to the fiscal. The parents said, stage, they are punished based on result. Is it
“Fiscal, ito ho ang aming pinakamatibay na testigo. serious, less serious, or slight?
Nakita ho niya ang pangyayari kung paano sinaksak
ang aming anak.” So, the fiscal interviewed the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ARTICLE 8. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO A: The case will prosper because conspiracy to commit
COMMIT FELONY sedition is a crime by itself — the law prescribes a
particular penalty for conspiracy to commit sedition.
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. -
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable Q: A, B, C, D, and E agreed to kill W and this was
only in the cases in which the law specially provides a discovered. They were charged with conspiracy to
penalty therefor. commit murder. Will the case prosper?
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an A: The case will not prosper because there is no such
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and crime as conspiracy to commit murder, it is not a crime by
decide to commit it. itself. The law does not punish it and there is no prescribed
particular penalty for it. A, B, C, D, and E must at least
There is proposal when the person who has decided to perform an overt act towards the commission of murder for
commit a felony proposes its execution to some other them to be at least become liable as conspirators in
person or persons. attempted murder.
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Felony CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF COMMITTING A

FELONY
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and Two kinds of conspiracy as a means of committing a
decide to commit it and there is proposal when the person felony:
who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution
to some other person or persons. 1.) Direct/Express Conspiracy
As a rule, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony 2.) Implied/Inferred Conspiracy
are not punishable acts because they are mere
preparatory acts, and the law requires an overt act to There is direct/express conspiracy when the
bring about the felony. The exception to such rule, as conspirators met, planned, and agreed to commit a crime.
provided for under Article 8, first paragraph, conspiracy It is a conspiracy based on a pre-conceived plan or based
and proposal to commit a felony are punishable the on a pre-conceived agreement.
moment the law provides a penalty therefor. So, when it is
the law itself that provides a penalty for merely conspiring, There is an implied/inferred conspiracy is a conspiracy
for merely proposing to commit a felony, they become which is deduced from the mode or manner of committing
crimes by themselves. a crime. Here, the conspirators acted simultaneously in a
synchronized and coordinated manner towards a common
Note: criminal objective.
When it comes to conspiracy, the common question in
the bar is, “Distinguish the two concepts of In case of a direct/ express conspiracy, since the
conspiracy and illustrate.” conspirators met, planned, and agreed to commit the
crime, their mere presence at the time of the commission
CONSPIRACY AS A of the crime will make them liable already as conspirators
because they were part of the authors of the criminal
CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF
design, they were the ones who planned for the
CRIME BY ITSELF COMMITTING A commission of the crime. Therefore, their mere presence
FELONY at the scene of the crime will already make them criminally
The mere act of conspiring The offenders will not yet liable as conspirators.
makes the offender become criminally liable,
already criminally liable. although they are already In case of implied or inferred conspiracy, since it is a
conspiracy which is merely deduced from the mode and
The law provides a penalty conspirators, unless and
manner of committing the crime, before one can be held
for mere conspiracy. until they perform an overt liable as a conspirator, there must be an active
act related to the crime participation in the commission of the crime. In case of
agreed upon. inferred or implied conspiracy, mere presence, mere
approval, mere acquiescence to the commission of the
Q: A, B, C, D, and E agreed to have this public uprising crime will not make the offender criminally liable. There
for the purpose of going against what the Government must be an active participation in the commission of the
wants to promulgate. They were conspiring to commit crime.
sedition. They were arrested and charged with
conspiracy to commit sedition. Will the case prosper? The Act of One is the Act of All
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The moment conspiracy is established, whether it is direct FACTS: Castillo, former house helper of the victim’s
or express conspiracy, or implied or inferred conspiracy, family, kidnapped Rocky, 6-year-old. The child boarded a
the act of one is the act of all. It means that all the tricycle with Padayhag and went to a nearby fast food and
perpetrators are punished to the same extent, regardless met Castillo. They then went to the house of Castillo’s
of the quantity and quality of their participation in the sister where she stayed with the kid for days. She then
commission of the crime. Therefore, the moment called the father of the child and asked for ransom money.
conspiracy is established, we do not ask which of these
men inflicted the fatal wound, which of these men merely The father then was instructed to bring the ransom money
served as lookout, which of these men performed only a in Obando, Bulacan. He dropped off the ransom money
minor act – that is immaterial. Conspiracy having been and two women retrieved money. The next day, the child
established, the act of one is the act of all. All perpetrators returned home alone. The two accused were later on
are punished to the same extent, regardless of the quality apprehended.
and the quantity of their participation in the commission of
the crime. RULING: In this case, SC said Padayhag has no intent to
detain the victim; Padayhag has no intent to extort ransom;
As held in the case of People v. Carandang, People v. Padayhag, in fact, did not even know the intention of
Octa, People v. Feliciano, and other similar cases. In these Castillo. Therefore, the Supreme Court said Padayhag is
cases, conspiracy was established. not a co-conspirator. Because Padayhag is not a co-
conspirator since conspiracy was not established, then
PEOPLE v. OCTA Padayhag was acquitted, but Castillo was convicted.
G.R. No. 195196 | 13 July 2015
The same is true in the case of People v. Bokingco and
FACTS: The two victims were riding a Civic travelling in Col.
Manila when their way was blocked by a Lancer. Four
armed men alighted the Lancer and fired at the left window PEOPLE v. BOKINGCO and COL
of the civic prompting one of the victims to open the door G.R. No. 187536 | 10 August 2011
of the car.
FACTS: Vitalicio, brother-in-law of Pasion (victim), heard a
The armed men went inside and ordered the victims to commotion in one of the apartment rooms being leased by
transfer at the back seat where they were blindfolded and the victim. Vitalicio peeped through the screen door and
boxed. The armed men called the wife of one of the victims saw Bokingco hitting someone on the floor. Upon seeing
and told her that her husband and brother are being that someone was peeping in the door, he pushed open
kidnapped. The kidnappers are also asking for ransom. the door and attacked Vitalicio with a hammer. Bokingco
The wife was instructed to give the ransom to a certain man tried to chase Vitalicio, but the latter was able to get inside
who was later on discovered to be the accused. The his home and told his wife that Pasion was dead in the
victims were later on freed after being held captive for six kitchen of the room where the incident happened.
days.
The wife testified that Col, the other accused, asked her to
RULING: In this case, although Estanly Octa’s open the vault of the pawnshop, but she said that she did
participation was that only of receiving the money from the not know the combination. Then, Bokingco opened the
wife of the kidnap victims, he was not among those who screen door of the apartment of the owner and announced
kidnapped the victims, he was only assigned to receiving that he killed Pasion, and both ran away.
the money, yet the Supreme Court said since the act done
by the said Estanly Octa – the act of receiving the money Bokingco admitted that he conspired with Col to kill Pasion
– took place when the kidnapping was still going on, when days prior from the date of the incident.
the said victims were not yet released, he is a co-
conspirator in the commission of the crime. Therefore, he RULING: Although both were charged with the crime of
should be liable for the crime of kidnapping for ransom. He murder for having killed the husband Noli Pasion, the
is a co-conspirator, regardless of his manner of Supreme Court said:
participation – only that of receiving the money.
No, conspiracy between Bokingco and Col was not
The moment conspiracy is not established, each offender established beyond reasonable doubt. What was
shall be penalized based on the particular act committed established is that while Bokingco was killing the husband,
by them. Therefore, in this case, whatever is the act done Col was staging a robbery against the victim’s wife. The
by them, the penalty will correspond only to the said act. two are separate and distinct crimes. The fact that
Bokingco called Col saying “Col, let’s go. He is already
PEOPLE v. CASTILLO dead.”, only established that they are one in escaping, but
G.R. No. 132895 | 10 March 2004 they don’t have the same intent to kill the victim Noli
Pasion. So in this case, the Supreme Court said insofar as
Col is concerned, the crime charged should be attempted
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
robbery. But since the crime charged here is murder, and GMA v. PEOPLE
since Col has nothing to do with the said murder, then he G.R. No. 220598 | 19 July 2016
should be acquitted of the crime charged.
FACTS: Through an investigation conducted, it was found
In this case, however, the Supreme Court convicted out that the PCSO management had been commingling its
Bokingco only of Homicide. So, murder was downgraded funds which is in violation of the PCSO charter. Moreover,
to homicide as treachery was not proven beyond there were also excessive cash advancements from the
reasonable doubt. Confidential and Intelligence Funds of PCSO.
MULTIPLE CONSPIRACY These cash advancements were not supported by

documentation but were still signed and approved by
There are 2 kinds of multiple conspiracy: PCSO Budgets and Accounts Manager Aguas. Despite the
irregularities, these advancements were still signed and
1. Wheel or Circle Conspiracy. There is wheel or approved by President Arroyo with an unqualified “OK.”
circle conspiracy when a person or group of
persons known as the hub deals individually with An investigation was conducted, and it was revealed that
another person or group of persons known as the a total of PHP366 million had vanished in PCSO’s funds
spokes. through these cash advancements.
2. Chain Conspiracy. There is chain conspiracy The crime charged was plunder.
when, just like in ordinary business transactions,
there is that constant and continuous After GMA and the other officers of PCSO were charged
communication among the manufacturers with the for plunder, the camp of GMA, after the Office of the
wholesaler, the wholesaler with the retailer, the Ombudsman, filed a demurrer of evidence which was
retailer with the consumer. denied by the Sandiganbayan.
These two kinds of multiple conspiracy was first discussed RULING: However, when the case reached the Supreme
by the Supreme Court in the case of Fernan and Torrevillas Court, it granted the said demurrer of evidence. Hence,
v. People. case dismissed.
FERNAN, JR. and TORREVILAS v. PEOPLE Wheel or circle conspiracy, in this case, was not
G.R. No. 145927 | 24 August 2007 proven. To prove said conspiracy, the hub must be
identified; the main plunderer must be identified. Nowhere
FACTS: In this case, Mangubat, the Chief Accountant and in the Information filed by the Ombudsman can you see
his men were able to withdraw funds from the government who the alleged hub or the alleged main plunderer is. Since
through fake Letter of Advice of Allotments (LAA). this is a charge of conspiracy to commit plunder, there
Manggubat and his men would type fake LAAs, they will must be a main plunderer and a hub. Without an allegation
sell it to the contractors – the 20% of the gross amount. in the Information as to who the hub is and who the main
They deal with the other employees and among those plunderer is, conspiracy will fail.
employees who Manggubat dealt with were Fernan and
Torrevilas. So, Manggubat and his men were the hub. Likewise, another reason for dismissing the case, was that
Fernan and Torrevilas were the spokes. Fernan and according to the Supreme Court, the participation of the
Torrevilas were civil engineers of the Ministry of Public former President was merely an approval, an “OK.” As held
Works and Highways. As civil engineers, Fernan and in the case of Arias, heads of office could rely to a
Torrevilas signed tally sheets, fake tally sheets which reasonable extent on their subordinates and on their good
served as bases for the issuance of the general budget faith. Therefore, there cannot be a conspiracy on the part
saying that there were constructions in these roads in of the head of office by merely affixing his or her signature,
Cebu but in truth, there was no construction. The barangay by merely affixing his or her approval, by merely stating his
chairman testified that no such materials arrived, and no or her “OK.” Conspiracy requires a deliberate and positive
such construction on the roads of Cebu. act. As such, the case of plunder against the former
President was dismissed.
RULING: Fernan and Torrevilas, although their only
participation was that of signing the fake tally sheets which PEOPLE v. MORILLA
served as necessary for the issuance of the general G.R. No. 189833 | 05 February 2014
vouchers, are within the so-called wheel or circle
conspiracy wherein Mangubat and company were the hub. FACTS: During a checkpoint, Mayor Mitra of Quezon
Province along with 3 other people were caught illegally
This multiple conspiracy was again considered by the transporting shabu by means of two vehicles, a Starex van
Supreme Court in GMA v. People. being driven by Mayor Mitra with a commemorative plate
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
to read “Mayor” and a municipal ambulance being driven it be found in the law that parents-in-law can also be
by Morilla. charged.
The Mayor argued that he had no knowledge of the RULING: The arguments of the parents-in-law bear no
contents of the sacks found in the two vehicles. Morilla also merit.
insisted that he thought he was transporting wooden tiles
and electronic spare parts. Based on the definition of the Violence Against Women
and their Children Act (VAWC), it does not preclude the
They were charged with illegal transportation of illegal principal application of conspiracy under the Revised
drugs. Penal Code (RPC).
RULING: Mayor Mitra and Morilla are guilty of The Supreme Court said that Sec. 47 of R.A. No. 9262
conspiracy to transport illegal drugs. expressly provides for the suppletory application of the
RPC in cases of violations of R.A. No. 9262.
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties came Correspondingly, Art. 10 of the RPC expressly provides
together and agreed in express terms to enter and pursue that the RPC can apply suppletorily or supplementarily to
a common design. The assent may be inferred from the violations of special penal laws, unless the special penal
proof of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case laws provide otherwise. Here, there is nothing in R.A. No.
taken as a whole. 9262 which provides otherwise. In fact, it is R.A. No. 9262
itself that provides that RPC can be applied suppletorily.
Morilla conspired with the Mayor in a common desire to
transport the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles were loaded
with illegal drugs, were on convoy to transport illegal drugs ARTICLE 11. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
from Quezon province to Manila. If Morilla was not in
conspiracy with the Mayor, he would not have told the Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not
police officers that he was with the Mayor. incur any criminal liability:
Q: Can there be plunder in case of violation of special 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
penal laws? provided that the following circumstances concur;
A: Yes. There can be plunder in the case of special penal First. Unlawful aggression.
laws. In the case of People v. Morilla, both Mayor Mitra and Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
Morilla, the driver of the ambulance, were charged as prevent or repel it.
conspirators for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 9165 for Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
illegal transport of dangerous drugs. person defending himself.
The law expressly provides for conspiracy in case of 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of
transporting dangerous drugs. Sec. 26 of R.A. No. 9165 his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
expressly provides that there can be a mere attempt and natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by
conspiracy in case of transportation of dangerous drugs, affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within
thus violating Sec. 5 of the abovementioned law. the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second
requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
Since it is the special law itself that expressly provides for are present, and the further requisite, in case the
conspiracy, then conspiracy can be considered between revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one
the said accused Mayor Mitra and Morilla. making defense had no part therein.
GO-TAN v. TAN 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a

G.R. No. 168852 | 30 September 2008 stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are
FACTS: The wife filed a petition for the issuance of a present and that the person defending be not induced by
Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
and her parents-in-law allegedly because they were
causing her verbal, psychological, and economic abuse. 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does
The said petition for TPO was granted by the RTC; not act which causes damage to another, provided that the
however, the parents-in-law, thereafter, filed a motion, following requisites are present;
saying that they are not covered by R.A. No. 9262.
According to them, under said law, the persons who can First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
only be charged would be the husband, former husband, a Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
man who has or had a sexual relationship with the victim, avoid it;
or who has a common child with the victim. Nowhere can
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
means of preventing it. prevent or repel the unlawful aggression coming
from the victim;
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
lawful exercise of a right or office. person defending himself.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by First element: Unlawful aggression
a superior for some lawful purpose.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that in self-
defense, the primordial element is unlawful aggression.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Without unlawful aggression, there is nothing to defend
(against). There is no reason for the accused to say that
These are circumstances which, if present or attendant in he merely acted in self-defense.
the commission of a felony, would mean that the offender
acted within the bounds of the law. The offender did not Further, the unlawful aggression must come from his
transgress the law and therefore there is no crime victim. It must come from the private offended party. There
committed and there is no criminal, and also there is no was unlawful aggression and so there was a need on the
criminal or civil liability. part of the accused to defend his life and limb.
The moment a person is charged in court and the said Elements of unlawful aggression
person raises as a defense any of the justifying
circumstances under Art. 11, that accused is in effect 1. There must be a physical or material attack or
admitting having committed the act or omission alleged in assault;
the information, but he is saying to the court that his act is 2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least
justified because it happened under any of the imminent; and
circumstances under Art. 11. 3. The attack or assault must be unlawful
In that case, the judge will order an inverted trial. In a Physical or material unlawful aggression
regular trial, it is the State, through the prosecution that first
presents the evidence because it is the State which has When you say physical or material unlawful aggression, it
the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond means that the attack is by the use of a weapon or by
reasonable doubt. means of physical force.
But the moment the accused invokes any of the justifying Imminent unlawful aggression
circumstances under Art. 11, then the burden of evidence
is shifted on the defense. They are the ones who have to When you say that the said unlawful aggression is
prove by clear and convincing evidence the elements of imminent, it means that the attack is impending and about
the justifying circumstance that the accused is raising. to happen.
If the defense fails to prove the elements of the justifying Second element: Reasonable necessity of the means
circumstance by clear and convincing evidence, then it will employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression
definitely already be a conviction because the accused has coming from the victim
already in effect admitted the acts alleged in the
information. The means used by the accused to defend his life and limb
must be reasonable and rational.
1. SELF-DEFENSE
There are certain factors that will help in the
The first part of Art. 11 is commonly known as self-defense. determination of whether the means used by the
Self-defense includes: accused was reasonable or rational, viz. –
1. Defense of one’s life and limb, 1. Nature and number of the weapons used by the
2. Defense of one’s honor and chastity and said unlawful aggressor versus the accused;
3. Defense of one’s property if coupled by an attack 2. Personal circumstances of the parties (i.e., the
unlawful aggressor versus that of the person
on the person entrusted with the said property.
defending himself);
3. Place and occasion of the assault.
Elements of self-defense
These factors will determine if the means used by the
1. Unlawful aggression; accused to defend his life and limb is indeed reasonable,
rational and necessary.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Third element: Lack of sufficient provocation on the FACTS: Ganal, Jr. killed the victim Julwin. Julwin at the
part of the person defending himself time was only armed with a knife and two fist-sized stones.
Yet, Ganal, Jr. was armed with a pistol and consumed the
There must be no sufficient provocation coming from the bullets of his gun. Julwin died.
accused. Provocation is allowed – what the law requires is
that there is no sufficient provocation. The RTC and the CA both said there is no self-defense
because the (unlawful aggression) has already ceased to
Provocation refers to any improper or unjust act which is exist. Also, there is no reasonable necessity of the means
capable of inciting or exciting a person to do a wrongful act. employed – a gun versus two fist-sized stones and a knife.
Provocation is said to be sufficient when it is adequate to
stir a person to commit a wrongful act and it is RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that again, because
proportionate to the gravity of the said act. the right of a person to take life in self-defense arises from
his belief in the necessity of doing so; and they shall be
In two cases recently decided by the Supreme Court judged in the light of the circumstances as they then
(People v. Olarbe (2018), Ganal, Jr. v. People (2020)), the appeared to him, not in the light of the circumstances as
Court appreciated self-defense in favor of the accused and they appeared to other people.
therefore acquitted Olarbe and Ganal, Jr.
Julwin knocked down Ganal, Jr.’s father, Ganal, Sr. And
PEOPLE v. OLARBE then, he proceeded to go to Ganal, Jr. At that particular
G.R. No. 227421 | 23 July 2018 moment, Ganal, Jr. felt that his life and the life of his family
were in danger. Because of that, he fired the said shots.
FACTS: The neighbor Arca tried to shoot Olarbe. They The Supreme Court appreciated self-defense.
grappled for the possession of the gun, and Olarbe gained
possession and shot Arca on the head. Instead of going Q: The Barangay Chairman heard gunfire while there
down on the floor, Arca pulled out his bolo and tried to hack was this barangay party. The Barangay Chairman and
the common law spouse of Olarbe. Again, Olarbe was able his tanods asked the people where the gunfire was
to gain possession of the bolo and once in possession, coming from. The people said, “There.” And so the
hacked Arca. Chairman and his tanods went to the place and there
they saw X. X was in possession of a gun.
In this case, based on the autopsy report, the cause of
death of the victim were both gunshot wounds and the The Barangay Chairman asked X, “Are you the one
hack wounds. The RTC and CA said the unlawful who fired the gun?” X pointed the gun at the Chairman
aggression already ceased to exist and therefore, Olarbe and the tanods. The chairman said “Give me the gun,
should not have killed the victim. X. Give me the gun. You are drunk.” And so, X placed
the gun down on the ground. The chairman went to get
RULING: The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that in the gun. Thereafter, the Barangay Chairman and the
order to determine whenever there is a need for self- tanods started hitting X with their nightsticks
defense, the right of a person to take a life in self-defense repeatedly on the head.
arises from his belief in the necessity of doing so.
X kept on retreating until he reached a dead end and
His belief and the reasonableness thereof are to be judged there was nowhere to go. The Barangay Chairman and
in the light of the circumstances as they had appeared to the tanods still repeatedly hit the head of X. They only
them, not in the light of the circumstances as they would stopped when the mother of X arrived. X sustained
appear to other people. fatal wounds on the head but he survived.
According to the Supreme Court, you have to take into The chairman and his tanods were charged with the
consideration what the accused was feeling at that crime of frustrated murder qualified by abuse of
particular moment. His right to defend his life must be superior strength. They said no, they merely acted in
adjudged in the light of the circumstances as they self-defense. Was there self-defense?
appeared to him and not as they appeared to the other
people. A: First element – there must exist unlawful aggression on
the part of the said victim. The act of X pointing the gun at
At that particular moment, Olarbe felt the unlawful the Barangay Chairman after firing several gunshots can
aggression. Not just his life, but the life of his common-law be considered as unlawful aggression. When he pointed it
spouse was still in danger and hence, he has to defend to the chairman, the said life and limb of the chairman was
themselves. The Supreme Court appreciated self-defense. in fact in imminent danger.
GANAL, JR. v. PEOPLE However, the moment X obeyed the chairman and placed
G.R. No. 248130 | 2 December 2020 down the gun and the chairman had taken the gun, X could
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
no longer mount any aggression. But the chairman and the A: First Element – There was unlawful aggression on the
tanods simultaneously hit X with their nightsticks. Since the part of the victim, the man. The woman was just walking
unlawful aggression had already ceased, there is no more when the said man suddenly covered her mouth,
reason for them to wound the said victim. Because of this, boxed/punched her stomach, pinned her down,
self-defense should not lie in their favor. undressed.
Since the first element of unlawful aggression had already Second Element – Was it reasonable for the said woman
ceased to exist, then there is no more reason for the to make use of the knife on the said unlawful aggression
accused to wound or even kill the victim. act done by the man? You take into consideration the place
and occasion, early morning no one was there to help the
In this case, the Supreme Court said it is already an act of woman. You take into consideration their difference in
retaliation. In that case, the said accused became the personal circumstance, obviously based on the fact, the
unlawful aggressor. Because of that, self-defense will not woman was so weak, she has been punched by a strong
lie in their favor. man. Therefore, the means employed by the woman was
reasonable. Otherwise, she could’ve been raped.
Q: X stabbed Y. Y was hit on the forearm. Thereafter,
Y hurriedly went home. X followed Y. Y was able to Last Element – There was no provocation, not even a mild
reach the house. When Y was inside the house, provocation coming from the said woman. Hence, self-
instead of staying inside, Y took the bolo. Thereafter, defense would lie in her favor.
Y came outside and then he challenged X, “X, you
hacked me in the forearm? Let’s fight!” Then both of PEOPLE v. JAURIGUE
them fight and in the course thereof, Y hacked and C.A. No. 384 | 21 February 1946
killed X. The moment Y hacked and killed X, the
neighbors arrested Y and was brought to the police FACTS: Amado had been courting Avelina Jaurigue in
station. Y is now being charged with the crime of vain. One midnight, he climbed up the house of Avelina
homicide for having killed X. Y said he merely acted in and surreptitiously entered her room, evidently with the
self-defense. Is there self-dense? intention of abusing her. Avelina screamed for help. Her
parents were awakened. Her father then sent for the barrio
A: In this case, there are two phases – first phase, X lieutenant and Amado’s parents the following morning,
hacked Y and, in that case, there is unlawful aggression on apologized for the misconduct of their son.
the part of X, second phase, Y ran and was able to go
home, the moment Y ran and was able to go home and Five days later, Avelina went to the chapel to attend
reach the house, the inceptive unlawful aggression religious services. Amado then went to Avelina, sat by her
commenced by X had ceased to exist. But Y was not right side, and, without saying a word, Amado placed his
satisfied in just reaching home. Y took his bolo, get out and hand on the upper part of her right thigh. Avelina,
challenged X to a fight. X accepted the challenge. conscious of her personal dignity and honor, pulled out
with her right hand the fan knife she had in her dress, with
In case of an agreed fight, there is no such defense as self- the intention of punishing Amado’s hand. She stabbed
defense. It was an agreed fight; therefore, you cannot Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck inflicting
claim self-defense because in the first place, you agreed a mortal wound. Amado died a few minutes later.
to the said fight. In fact, in this case, he was the one who
challenged the victim. Therefore, self-defense will not lie RULING: The Supreme Court did not appreciate the
in favor of the said accused. defense of one’s honor and chastity. The said act of the
man, he just placed his hand on the lap of Jaurigue in a
Q: The woman was on her way home early in the chapel, fully lighted, the father was there, therefore, there
morning when a man appeared in front of her, covered can be no unlawful aggression. Her honor, her chastity, her
her mouth, boxed her on the stomach, carried her, life and limb cannot be said to be in immediate danger.
pinned her down. The man undress himself. At that
particular moment, the said woman took the knife And in this case, the Supreme Court distinguished the said
inside his pocket. So when the man went on top of the incident from the incident where the said victim entered the
said woman, the woman stabbed the man. The knife bedroom of Jaurigue. The Supreme Court held, had
pierced through the heart of the said man and the man Jaurigue killed the said victim that night that he entered her
died. The woman is now being charged for homicide bedroom, she could’ve been justified. But for her to kill this
for the death of the said man. Is the woman liable as man inside a chapel, well lighted, filled with people, her
charged? She claims that she merely acted in self- father was even there, then self-defense this time will not
defense, in particular, in defense of her honor, defense lie in favor of the said accused.
of her chastity. Is there self-defense on the part of the
woman? TOLEDO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 158057 | 24 September 2004
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
FACTS: Ricky and three others were having a drinking a wrong; necessity justifies the invasion of a right. Hence,
session at the house his parents, which is five meters away it is essential to self-defense that it should be a defense
from the house of the accused Toledo. Toledo requested against a present unlawful attack.
the group to refrain from making any noise. Thereafter,
they went to sleep. They had not laid down for long when There were two separate but interrelated incidents that
they heard stones being hurled at the roof of the house and culminated in Senoja’s stabbing and killing Leon. The first
Ricky saw Toledo stoning their house. Ricky went out of episode inside the hut had been completed with the
the house and proceeded to Toledo’s house. When Ricky protagonist, the victim, and the petitioner reconciled. The
asked why Toledo was stoning the house, the latter did not second episode commenced inside the hut and continued
answer but met Ricky at the doorstep of his (accused’s) outside and ended with Senoja stabbing the victim several
house and, without any warning, stabbed Ricky on the times. While Leon had ceased being the aggressor after
abdomen with a bolo thereby causing his death. Toledo he left the hut to go home, accused Senoja was now the
insists that he acted in complete self-defense when his unlawful aggressor in this second phase of their
bolo accidentally hit the victim on the stomach. confrontation.
RULING: The Supreme Court said that it is wrong for the CASE DISCUSSION: SENOJA v. PEOPLE
accused to raise the defenses of accident and then
thereafter, self-defense. Before the trial court, the The Supreme Court said, the right of self-defense
accused said that he accidentally killed the victim. When proceeds from necessity and is limited by it. There is a
he appealed to the Supreme Court, he said that he killed difference between necessity and self-defense. Self-
the victim in an act of self-defense. Supreme Court said, it defense excuses the repulse of a wrong while necessity
is wrong to raise both defenses. These defenses are justifies the invasion of it. Hence, it is essential to self-
inconsistent with each other. When you say accident, it defense that it should be a defense against a person who
happened outside the sway of things. There was no intent has been unlawfully attacking.
on the part of the person who did the said wrong. There
was no criminal intent. On the other hand, when you say “Stand ground when in the right”
self-defense, it is a direct and positive overt act done by
the accused deliberately or intentionally in order to save Maxim behind self-defense. It means that when the
his own life. In case of self-defense, the offender accused is where he should be, the law does not require
intentionally killed or wounded the victim because him to retreat when he saw his assailant fast approaching
otherwise, if he will not do so, he will be the one killed. So, him. Otherwise, he runs the risk of being stabbed at the
self-defense is a deliberate, positive, intentional act done back.
by the accused based on the impulse of self-preservation.
Hence, it cannot be raised together with accident. 2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVE
SENOJA v. PEOPLE Any person who acts in defense of the person or rights of
G.R. No. 160341 | 19 October 2004 his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by
FACTS: Senoja, together with three others including affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity within
Miguel, were drinking gin in the hut of Reguyal when an the fourth civil degree.
angry Leon suddenly arrived at the said place, holding a
bolo in his right hand and looking for his brother Miguel. Elements of Defense of Relative
Senoja and Jose tried to pacify Leon. But when Senoja
approached Leon, the latter tried to hack him so he 1. Unlawful aggression;
embraced Leon and Jose took Leon’s bolo. Then, Leon 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
and Senoja talked things out and later reconciled. prevent or repel it;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person
Subsequently, Leon walked out followed by Senoja. attacked, that the one making defense had no part
Suddenly, about ten meters from the hut, Senoja stabbed therein.
Leon at the back. When Leon turned around, Senoja
continued stabbing him until he fell to the ground. Leon For defense of relative to lie in favor of the accused, it is
died on the spot. necessary that the said relative he is defending must be
included in the enumeration provided for in the second
ISSUE: WON Senoja is liable for the death of Leon. (YES) paragraph, to wit:
RULING: The right of self-defense proceeds from 1. Spouse;

necessity and limited by it. The right begins where 2. Ascendants;
necessity does and ends where it ends. There is, however, 3. Descendants;
a perceptible difference between necessity and self- 4. Legitimate, natural, adopted brothers/sisters;
defense, which is that self-defense excuses the repulse of 5. Relatives by affinity within the same degree; and
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
6. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil
degree. Granting for the sake of argument that it was the father-in-
law who provoked W, X has nothing to do with it. Therefore,
The third element of defense of relative, even if the relative defense of relative will lie in his favor.
being defended is the one who gave the provocation, for
as long as the relative making the defense is not a part to Q: Exactly the same facts, the only difference is that
the said provocation, there is still a valid defense of a instead of a father-in-law, it was the first cousin of his
relative. wife that is being defended by X. Will defense of
relative lie in favor of X?
3. DEFENSE OF STRANGER
A: This time, NO. The first cousin is a relative by
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a consanguinity within the fourth civil degree of the wife, but
stranger. not of X.
Elements of Defense of Stranger In so far as X is concerned, the first cousin is a relative by

affinity, and he’s outside the same degree as ascendants,
1. Unlawful aggression; descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to sisters.
prevent or repel it;
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge, Therefore, defense of a relative will not lie. It should be
resentment, or other evil motive. defense of a stranger.
For the third element, it is necessary for defense of All the elements are present: (1) unlawful aggression – the
stranger to lie in favor of the accused that he is not said cousin was about to be stabbed; (2) reasonable
motivated by any ill motive, by any act of revenge but only necessity of the means employed – X did not even use a
by a noble objective of helping, defending a total stranger. weapon; he just pushed him. It just so happened that the
said man fell and the knife pierced his chest; and (3) there
Q: X was on his way to the office. He was on his to the was no evil intent or motive or retaliation – it cannot be said
bus station. He was walking at 6 o’clock in the morning that X was ignited by any ill-motive, he only came there to
when he heard the voice of his father-in-law. When he help the said first cousin.
looked on the other side of the road, he saw his father-
in-law having an argument with another neighbor, W. Therefore, defense of a stranger will lie in favor of X.
So, X stopped in order to see what’s going to happen.
When X stopped, he saw W touched the face his 70- 4. STATE OF NECESSITY
year-old father-in-law. And his father-in-law, because
of his seniority, fell on the ground. When he saw that Elements of State of Necessity:
his father-in-law fell on the ground, he was already
walking towards the other side of the road when he 1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
saw W pulled a knife and was about to stab his father- 2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
in-law. And so, instead of merely walking, X ran and he avoid it; and
shouted, “Don’t! Don’t stab him!” The moment he 3. That there be no other practical or less harmful
reached, he pushed W and W fell. It was a bad fall. The means of preventing it.
knife that he was holding pierced his chest. X and his
father-in-law brought W to the hospital. It was a fatal This is otherwise known as state of necessity. In case of
wound but the said victim W, survived. X is now being justifying circumstance, there is no crime, there is no
prosecuted for frustrated homicide. He merely acted in criminal, there is no criminal liability and therefore there is
defense of relative. Will defense of relative lie in his no civil liability.
favor?
An exception to that is Art. 11(4) of the RPC – state of
A: First, you take into consideration, is the father-in-law necessity. Based on the fourth paragraph, there is no
within the meaning of a relative to be defended under the criminal liability but there is civil liability. However, this
said paragraph? civil liability shall be imposed not only on the accused but
also to other persons who have been benefited by the said
Yes. The said father-in is related to X as a relative by state of necessity.
affinity. And if it is a relative by affinity, it must be in the
same degree as ascendant, descendant, legitimate, Note:
natural, adopted brothers/sisters. The father-in-law is of Q: To save himself from crashing into an unlighted
the same degree of affinity as an ascendant in so far as X truck abandoned on the road, Jose swerved his car
is concerned. Therefore, defense of relative will lie in his to the right towards the graveled shoulder, killing
favor.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
two bystanders. Is he entitled to the justifying state of necessity. Therefore, they too, shall shoulder civil
circumstance of state of necessity? indemnity.
A: Under Art. 101 of the RPC, if there are many people that
(A) No, because the bystanders had nothing to do with have been benefited by the said state of necessity, the
the abandoned truck on the road. judge shall divide the civil indemnity proportionately among
them.
(B) No, because the injury done is greater than the evil
to be avoided. Article 101. xxx
(C) Yes, since the instinct of self-preservation In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the
takes priority in an emergency. persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented
shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they
(D) Yes, since the bystanders should have kept off the may have received.
shoulder of the road. (2009 BAR)
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the
Q: X was driving his car, nighttime, within LTO rules. proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
He was driving carefully. The road was a little bit
slippery, when he suddenly saw right in front of him a When the respective shares cannot be equitably
10-wheeler truck under repair. There was no light at all, determined, even approximately, or when the liability also
no early warning advice to warn him at all that there attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the
was a 10-wheeler truck right in the middle of the road inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the
under repair. He was already near the truck once he damages have been caused with the consent of the
saw it – if he would go on, there would be a coalition authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made
between his car and the big 10-wheeler truck. If he in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
would turn to the left, he would be hitting the island. If
he would turn to the right, he would be hitting two xxx
people. He turned to the right, and the said two people
were injured and sustained less serious physical Thus, civil liability will be imposed on not only X, but also
injuries. the driver, the persons in the truck who were conducting
the repair whose lives were likewise saved from injury.
X was held for reckless imprudence resulting in less
serious physical injuries. He raised the justifying 5. FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY
circumstance of state of necessity.
Elements of Fulfillment of a Duty:
Will state of necessity lie in favor of X?
1. Offender acted in the due performance of his
A: YES. All the requisites are present. duties or in the performance of a lawful exercise of
a right or office; and
First, that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists – the 2. The resulting felony is an unavoidable
evil that X sought to avoid is the collision between his car consequence of the performance of his duty.
and the ten-wheeler truck.
If a felony resulted from a public officer or a person’s
Second, that the injury feared be greater than that done to fulfillment of one’s duty, the question is: is the said resulting
avoid it – the injury that he feared is that in case of collision, felony unavoidable? If it is unavoidable, a necessary
there is a great possibility he will die. consequence, his acts are justified, and he cannot be held
criminally and civilly liable. Otherwise, he can be held
Third, that there be no other practical or less harmful criminally liable.
means of preventing it – at that particular moment, at the
spur of the moment, wanting to save his own life, X 6. OBEDIENCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER
believed his decision was the least.
Elements of Obedience to Lawful Order:
If he goes on, he will collide, he may die. If he turned to the
left, hitting the island, his car may turn upside down, he
1. An order has been issued by a superior officer;
may die. If he turned to the right, he will be injuring the two
2. Order was for a lawful purpose; and
people. Therefore, state of necessity will lie in his favor.
3. The means employed to carry out such order is
lawful.
However, the judge will impose upon him civil indemnity
but not only to him. Those people repairing the truck were It is necessary that not only the order coming from the
saved by the accident—they also benefited from the said superior officer be lawful, but also the means used by the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
subordinate who carried out the order, in order for this Is the second element present? Yes. Police officer Y’s
justifying circumstance to lie in favor of the accused. act of shooting X was the unavoidable consequence of
saving the life of said woman. Had he not fired the shot, X
Q: X was convicted by the trial court for the crime of was already at the point of stabbing the said woman
murder, sentencing him with the penalty of reclusion because she kicked him, causing him to be angry. Had
perpetua. The judgment became final and executory, police officer Y not fired the shot, the woman might have
so X is now being brought by the BJMP guards and the died. Therefore, both elements of fulfillment of duty being
vehicle to Bilibid, in Muntinlupa, where he will serve present, this can be raised as a justifying circumstance that
the sentence imposed upon him by the court. will free him from both criminal and civil liability.
On the way to Muntinlupa, X told the police officers Another defense that police officer Y could raise would be
guarding him inside the BJMP vehicle that he needed defense of a stranger. First, there was unlawful
to answer the call of nature. aggression coming from X. On the part of the said woman,
he was about to stab her. Second, the means employed by
Police officer Y told the driver to stop and police officer Y was reasonable. At that particular moment,
accompanied him behind a tree. However, X told the if he would go there and try to fight out with X, the woman
said police officer that it is impossible for him to open might have already been stabbed. The only way is to fire
the zipper of his pants. His hands were handcuffed from a distance. Third, there is no showing based on the
behind him, so he asked the police officer if the latter facts that police officer Y was ignited by any ill motive -- his
would do the honor of opening the zipper of his pants. only motive was to save the life of the woman being held
The police officer did not want to open; instead, he just hostage. Therefore, defense of a stranger would also lie in
unlocked his handcuffs. The moment X’s hands were favor of police officer Y.
free, X repeatedly kicked and punched police officer Y
and thereafter ran as fast he could. BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
Police officer Y was so shocked of what happened— Q: X and Y are husband and wife and they have been
he shouted to police officer Z and to the driver. All living together for five years. It used to be a happy
three of them chased X. X went inside the public marriage until the said husband lost his job. When the
market. When X came out, he was already holding as husband lost his job, it turned to drinking. There were
hostage a pregnant woman. The said pregnant woman no nights wherein he won’t go home drunk and
was held hostage by X, his arms were around her and whenever he would go drunk, he would turn his arm
there was a bolo pointed on her chest. on the said wife. He would physically abuse the wife,
hurting the wife, kicking the wife, slapping the wife.
The woman was flabbergasted; blood was already This has been going on for one year from the time the
coming out as the bolo was pierced severely on her husband lost his job. The following morning, after
chest. The woman asked X to release her – she is physically injuring/abusing his wife, the said husband
pregnant, please save her and the life of the baby. would ask forgiveness after seeing the bruise,
When X just laughed, the pregnant woman struggled contusion on the different parts of the body of the wife
and thereafter kicked X the prisoner with all her might. especially in the face and he would be kissing,
This caused X to get mad at the pregnant woman. He embracing the wife, being loving to the wife. But he will
was about to stab her when police officer Y fired a shot be again physically abusing the said wife.
on X, hitting him on the forehead, causing him to die
instantaneously. Until one time, the said husband after having a
drinking spree with friends, upon arrival in the house,
Police officer Y is now being prosecuted for the crime the wife greeted the husband and told the husband
of homicide. What defenses may be raised by police “Did you have dinner already? Come let us eat.'' But
officer Y in order to be free of civil and criminal instead of being friendful to his wife, the husband
liability? immediately give the wife two slaps on the face and a
punch on the chest. The wife fell and the wife
A: Police officer Y may raise the defense of fulfillment of explained “Bakit naman? Anong ginawa ko?” The
duty. All the elements are present. moment the said woman asked that, the said husband
pulled out a balisong, opened it and was about to stab
First, at that particular moment, he was acting in the the wife but the wife shouted. The moment the wife
performance of his duty. It is his duty to arrest X and shouted, the said husband closed again the balisong
thereafter bring him to the Bilibid. It is also his duty to save and he just kicked the face of the wife, went to the
a life of an ordinary citizen being held as hostage by X. So, bedroom and went to sleep. The husband was fast
at that time, police officer Y was acting in the performance asleep when the wife entered the bedroom to get some
of his duty. clothing.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
As the wife was about to get out of the bedroom, she BAR Q: The said husband has been verbally abusing
stared at the said husband. She became so scared of the wife. For more than a year, the husband has been
the husband; she became so afraid. Before, punches, verbally abusing the wife. One night, he did not only
kicks, but this night, a knife was already pulled out by verbally abuse the wife, he also physically abused the
her husband, and she was about to be stabbed and she wife. He slapped the wife, he punched the wife, and
shouted aloud. According to the wife, tomorrow the thereafter, he went to drink. The following day, upon
next day she might be killed and also their children. seeing the bruise of the wife, he asked forgiveness, he
This has to end. And so the wife, went to the kitchen even gave flowers to the wife but at that night, and the
took a knife and when the husband was fast asleep, night thereafter, again, the husband continuously
the wife repeatedly stabbed the husband to death. verbally abused the wife.
The wife is now being prosecuted for parricide. She One night, the husband arrived home, upon seeing the
claimed the defense of battered woman syndrome. To wife, he did verbally, emotionally, psychologically
prove that her state of mind at the time of the stabbing abuse the wife. So, he’s calling the wife bad words,
was that someone suffering from the battered woman malicious words, verbally abusing her. The wife will
syndrome disease, her defense comes; presented the just cry in silence. The husband went to bed. When the
psychiatrist who had been treating her for more than said husband went to bed, he fell asleep, the wife, she
one year and the psychiatrist testified. What would be was in fear, she was afraid that today verbally abuse,
the decision of the Court? tomorrow, she might get killed, tomorrow it might be
physical abuse. And so because of that, in order to
A: The Court has to acquit the said woman based on ensure that will not happen, the wife took a knife, and
battered woman syndrome. Battered woman syndrome is stabbed her husband.
scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering She is now being prosecuted of the crime of parricide.
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse. That is how She raised battered woman syndrome as a defense.
battered woman syndrome is defined under section 3 (c) Will battered woman syndrome lie in her favor?
of R.A. 9262, as amended. Based on this, it is necessary
that the said woman must be suffering from sound A: Battered woman syndrome is a scientifically defined
battering episodes. In the case of Marivic Genosa, the pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in
Supreme Court said that, in order for battered woman women living in battering relationships. Therefore, the
syndrome to bring about the offender’s acquittal, there woman must be living in battering relationship. Under
must be at least two battering episodes. This battering Section 3(b) of R.A. 9262, battery refers to an act of
episodes must be a cycle of violence characterized by inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child
three phases: resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional
distress. Therefore, for it to be considered as battery, it is
1. The tension-building phase; necessary that there must be the infliction of physical harm
2. The acute battering incident; and upon the said woman and in People vs. Marivic Genosa,
3. The tranquil or loving phase. the law requires two battery episodes. In the said bar
problem, there was only one battery episode because
These must be the three phases attendant in the said there was only one instance wherein the husband inflicted
battery episodes of abuses. In this case, not only two harm on the said woman. Therefore, battered woman
battering for more than a year – the said woman has been syndrome will not lie in favor of the said woman as a
physically abused by the said husband. Therefore, defense for the crime of parricide. She has to be
battered woman syndrome will free the said woman from convicted; however, the said conviction may be mitigated
civil, and criminal liability. Under Section 26 of R.A. 9262, by several mitigating circumstances.
the law provides that victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do ARTICLE 12. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal
of self-defense. Therefore, even if at the time the said liability. - the following are exempt from criminal liability:
woman stabbed and killed her husband, the husband was
fast asleep, there was no unlawful aggression coming from 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
the husband, that particular element of self-defense is acted during a lucid interval.
absent, still if it was proven that at the time of the stabbing,
she was in the state of battered woman syndrome, she has When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an
to be acquitted of the crime charged. The law provides, this act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall
will absolve the woman from criminal, and civil liability order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
justifying circumstances of self-defense. permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of
the same court.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
1. IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON
2. A person under nine years of age.
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, acted during a lucid interval.
unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an
provisions of Art. 80 of this Code. act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall
order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of
of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the same court.
the care and custody of his family who shall be charged
with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be We have here two exempting circumstances, we have
committed to the care of some institution or person imbecility and insanity.
mentioned in said Art. 80.
IMBECILE
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or An imbecile person is one who is already advanced in age,
intention of causing it. but he has only the mental capacity of a child. An imbecile
person has no lucid interval. Imbecility is at all times
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible exempting unlike insanity.
force.
INSANITY
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. Refers to the total mental aberration of the mind. Because
of the total mental aberration of the mind, this person
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, cannot distinguish right from wrong and would not know
when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause. the consequence of his acts. For insanity to exempt the
offender from criminal liability, it must occur immediately
Exempting circumstances are those which, if present or prior to or at the time of the commission of the crime. Even
attendant in the commission of a felony, would serve to if the offender invokes insanity, if it is proven that he acted
exempt the offender from criminal liability but not from civil during lucid interval, still, he can be criminally liable. Based
liability. The said offender is absolved from criminal liability on the Civil Code, the law presumes that every man is
but not from civil liability because a wrong has indeed been sane. It is the law itself that presumes every man, all men,
committed. He is only exempted from criminal liability, to be sane, all men to be of sound mind. Therefore,
reason of that is, the offender acted without voluntariness. otherwise stated, the law presumes that all acts done by a
There is no voluntariness in the commission of the crime person are voluntary, and it is improper to say that he did
when any of the elements of voluntariness is absent either the said acts unconsciously. Therefore, any
criminal intent, criminal action, or intelligence. Either of person/offender who claims the exempting circumstance
these elements for voluntariness is absent at the time the of insanity has the burden of proving beyond reasonable
offender committed the crime, therefore he will be doubt that he was insane immediately prior to or at the time
exempted from criminal liability but not from civil liability. of the commission of the crime.
While in case of justifying circumstance, there is no crime, Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of
there is no criminal, and there is no criminal and civil intelligence while committing the crime. He is deprived of
liability, in case of exempting, there is a wrong, a crime, but discernment to understand right from wrong.
there is no criminal because he acted without
voluntariness, hence, there is no criminal liability but there An insane person has no clear understanding of the nature
is civil liability because a wrong, a violation of the law had of the consequences of his acts.
been done.
If the said accused becomes insane at the time of the trial,
Insofar as mitigating circumstances are concerned, just his insanity will no longer be exempting. What will happen
like justifying circumstances, it is both an admission and is that his case will be archived, and the accused will be
avoidance on the part of the accused. The moment the brought to a mental institution. The trial of the case will
accused invokes any of the exempting circumstances resume the moment he regained his sanity, except when
under Article 12, he in effect admits the acts alleged in the the penalty has already prescribed.
information but he is trying to save himself from
responsibility by saying that he should be exempted, he Q: X killed Y. X have been charged of the crime of
acted without voluntariness. murder. The defense of X, according to him, he was
insane at the time of the commission of the crime and
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
immediately prior to the commission of the crime. To 2) Above 15 but below 18 years of age shall be
prove X’s insanity, the defense counsel presented X, exempt from criminal liability unless he acted with
the accused himself. In open court, X testified that a discernment. When he acted with discernment, he
week prior to his act of killing Y, he was suffering from shall be prosecuted in court.
sleepless nights, he has no appetite, he was always
nervous, he was always tense, he was always afraid, So, the moment the child in conflict with law is 15 or below,
he has been hearing these voices ordering him to kill regardless of discernment, he is totally exempted from
Y and he simply obeyed the said voice. According to criminal liability. If the child in conflict of the law is above
him, he was insane and should be acquitted from the 15 but below 18 and he acted without discernment, he is
crime of murder. To corroborate the testimony of the exempted from criminal liability. However, if the child in
said accused X, the defense counsel presented the conflict of law is above 15 but below 18, and he acted with
sister. The sister testified in open court that a week discernment, then he shall be prosecuted in court.
prior to the killing, she would see her brother looking
blankly at nowhere. She would see her brother talking A child if conflict with the law is a child alleged as,
and even arguing to his own self, and according to the accused of, or adjudged as having violated an offense
sister, her brother wouldn’t want to eat and would under Philippine Laws.
always be afraid and nervous. The sister further stated
in open court on the day her brother killed the victim, Note:
the moment her brother went home, her brother was Under Section 6, Paragraph 4 of R.A. 9344 as amended
crying and upon seeing her, her brother hugged her so by R.A. 10630, The exemption from criminal liability
tightly and the brother was saying, “I am sorry, I am
arising from minority does not include exemption from
sorry, I am sorry” and the brother gave the weapon
used in killing to the sister. In fact, according to the civil liability. Therefore, minority also exempts the
sister, when the police arrived, her brother went with offender from criminal liability, but from not civil liability
the police without any resistance. The sister said her that’s why it is only an exempting circumstance, not a
brother was insane prior to and at the time of the justifying circumstance.
commission of the crime. Would the accused’s
defense of insanity bring about his acquittal? Q: X and Y are brothers and they killed Z. They wanted
Z to join their gang, but Z doesn’t want to join. When
A: NO. According to the Supreme Court, even assuming they saw the opportunity, X and Y killed Z. X and Y’s
that the accused’s testimony is credible – that he was act of killing Z was witnessed by Z’s cousin, W. In fact,
suffering from sleepless nights, that he lost appetite, that at the time that they were killing Z, the cousin was
he was always nervous, that he was hearing imaginary asking X and Y “Stop! You are already killing him!”,
voices ordering him to kill the victim, the Supreme Court but X and Y didn’t mind the begging of the part of the
said that while these acts are suggestive of an abnormal said cousin. They proceeded to kill Z. After X and Y
mental condition, it cannot be equated with total had killed Z, they warned the witness W not to tell it to
deprivation of will, it cannot be equated with absence of the anybody otherwise, W would be the next. At the time X
power to discern. Mere abnormality of mental faculties will and Y killed Z, X was 14 years old, while Y was 16 years
not exclude imputability. So in this case, X can still be old. They were both charged with the crime of
criminally liable. Homicide. Should X and Y be prosecuted in court?
2 & 3. MINORITY A: Insofar as X is concerned, since he was, at the time

of the commission of the crime, only 14 years old, the case
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Revised Penal Code has against him must be immediately dismissed. Under
already been amended by Section R.A. 9344 (Juvenile Section 64 of R.A. 9344, the law categorically provides that
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006). cases of children 15 years old and below at the time of the
commission of the crime shall be immediately dismissed. If
The question is, what is the effect of minority on the the said child is 15 and below at the time of the commission
criminal liability of an offender? You have to qualify your of the crime, no question asked and no discernment asked,
answer based on the age of the child in conflict with law under Section 64, the case against the said child shall be
under Section 6 of R.A. 9344 as amended by R.A. 10630. immediately dismissed. Therefore, applying that in the
case, since X was only 14 years old at the time of the
Under Section 6 of R.A. 9344 as amended by R.A. 10630, killing, the case against him shall immediately be
a child in conflict with the law: dismissed.
1) 15 years or under at the time of the commission of Insofar as Y is concerned, he was 16, therefore he is on
the crime, shall be totally exempt from the criminal the bracket of above 15 but below 18, in that case,
liability regardless of discernment; and discernment must be determined. Did he act with
discernment? Based on the facts of the problem Y acted
with discernment. Y acted with discernment, and this is
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
evident from the fact that Y warned W, the witness, if he In the problem that I gave, at the time of the promulgation
would tell anybody what they did to Z, they would also kill of judgment, X is already 22 years old. He is beyond 21
W. Therefore, with that warning, Y knew what they did to years old. Therefore, he is no longer entitled to a
Z, Y knew that killing Y was an unlawful act, that killing Z suspended sentence.
would cause them arrest and imprisonment. So, Y acted
with discernment, hence, Y shall be proceeded in court. Q: So, what is the effect of minority on X’s criminal
liability?
Q: Let us say that in this case, Y was 16 years old, and
he was charged in court, and it is evident that he acted A: Since he was only 16 years old at the time of the
with discernment. After trial on the merits, the judge commission of the crime, his minority shall be
convicted Y of the crime of Homicide. The judge found considered as a privilege mitigating circumstance. The
Y guilty of Homicide. However, at the time of the judge will convict you. He is no longer entitled to a
promulgation of judgment, Y was only 17 years old. suspended sentence; however, his minority shall be
So, he committed a crime when he was 16 years old, considered as a privilege mitigating circumstance which
and after fast trial, at 17 years old, here comes the will lower the imposable penalty by one degree.
promulgation of judgment. What is the duty of the
court. Under Section 51 of R.A. No. 9344: It is not the said
minority on the part of X that only caused the lowering of
A: The duty of the court is to suspend his sentence the imposable penalty by one degree, he is also entitled to
without need of application. Under Section 38 of R.A. the benefit of Section 51.
9344, the law provides that once a child, who is under 18
years of age at the time of the commission of the crime is Section 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in
found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. - A
determine and ascertain the civil liability arising from the child in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon
said crime committed. However, instead of pronouncing a order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, in an
conflict of the law under suspended sentence without need agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be
of application. The RTC judge found Y guilty of homicide established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the
for having killed Z, he was only 17 years old at the time of BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
the promulgation of the judgment. Therefore, he is entitled
to a suspended sentence without need of application. In the case of People v. Gambao, the Supreme Court held
that Section 51 applies for as long as the CICL was a minor
Q: What if due to protracted trial, the case against Y at the time of the commission of the crime, regardless of
was terminated when Y was already 20 years old. So his age at the time of the promulgation of judgment.
he is already an adult at the time of the promulgation Therefore, even if at the time of promulgation of judgment,
of the judgment. What is the duty of the court? X is already 25, X is already 40 years old, he will not be
brought to the Bilibid to serve his final sentence together
A: The duty of the court is still to suspend the sentence with hardened criminals. He will only be serving it in
without need of application. Section 38, last sentence of agricultural camps and other training facilities that may be
R.A. 9344 further states that suspension of sentence shall established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the
be applied even if the juvenile is already 18 years of age BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD because what
or more at the time of the promulgation of the judgment. matters is he is a minor at the time of the commission of
Therefore, even if Y is already an adult, 20 years old, at the crime.
the time of the promulgation of the judgment, still, he is
entitled to a suspended sentence without need of PEOPLE v. ZZZ
application as expressly required and ordered by the last G.R. No. 228828 | 24 July 2019
sentence of Section 38 of R.A. 9344.
FACTS: Sometime in 1996, BBB, the uncle of A A A and
Q: What if due to protracted trial, when the judge ZZZ, saw ZZZ, 15 years old, dragging AAA, 11 years old,
promulgated the judgment, X, who is 16 years old at by the wrist towards the school. He presumed nothing
the time of the commission of the crime, was already irregular considering they were related to each other. The
22 years old at the time of the promulgation of the following day A A A was reported to be missing. A couple
judgment? Should the judge still suspend the days later, AAA was found dead in a bamboo grove near
sentence to be imposed on X? the school. On the said day, ZZZ fled to Tarlac. Later on,
ZZZ was arrested.
A: No more. Under Section 14 of R.A. No. 9344,
suspended sentence can be given or extended only until RULING: In this case, the Supreme Court defined
the child in conflict with the law (CICL) reaches the discernment.
maximum age of 21 years.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Discernment is the mental capacity of a minor to fully Under this added provision, yes, local government units,
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. e.g., the City of Manila, the Province of Batangas, the
Province of Laguna – the Sanggunian can enact or pass
In this case involving Rape with Homicide, the Supreme ordinances on juvenile status offenses. They can enact
Court said that the accused acted with discernment in ordinances on light offenses committed by minors against
carrying off the crime. He acted with discernment based on public order and safety. However, the law requires that
the following circumstance: these ordinances shall be for the protection of children.
1. He perpetrated the crime in a dark and isolated Q: In what manner?

place. He abducted his cousin, dropped the cousin
in dark place, and then raped and killed the cousin. A: The law provides that these ordinances shall not carry
penalties to be imposed upon children.
2. When he learned that he had been tagged as a
suspect, he evaded the authorities by fleeing and Section 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. – xxx No
concealing his identity. He went to another town; penalty shall be imposed on children for said violations,
he changed his name – he concealed his identity. and they shall instead be brought to their residence or to
any barangay official at the barangay hall to be released to
3. The DSWD confirmed that the said accused, the the custody of their parents. Appropriate intervention
said minor offender, knew and understood the programs shall be provided for in such ordinances. The
consequences of his act. child shall also be recorded as a ‘child at risk’ and not as a
‘child in conflict with the law’. The ordinance shall also
4. Based on the testimony of the doctor, the doctor provide for intervention programs, such as counseling,
concluded that the said victim was raped by attendance in group activities for children, and for the
means of force and this was evidenced by parents, attendance in parenting education seminars.
contusions all over her body and by the tear from
her vaginal area. They cannot be penalized for having committed these so-
called status offenses. They cannot be penalized for
Supreme Court said that all these acts showed that the having committed these light offenses or misdemeanors
said accused, although minor, acted with discernment so, against public or der or safety.
he was convicted of Rape with Homicide.
SPARK v. QUEZON CITY
STATUS OFFENSES G.R. No. 225442 | 08 August 2017
Q: What are status offenses? FACTS: SPARK filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition assailing the constitutionality of the curfew
A: Under Section 57 of R.A. No. 9344, any conduct not ordinances of the City of Manila, Quezon City, and Navotas
considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an City for restricting the right of a child to travel and as it
adult shall not be considered an offense and shall not be infringe on the right of the parents in rearing their children.
punished if committed by a child.
Moreover, SPARK specifically alleged assails Manila
Q: Are local governments allowed to enact ordinances curfew for imposing penalties such as admonition,
that provide for status offenses? reprimand, and imprisonment which is against RA 9344 as
amended.
A: R.A. No. 9344, in particular Section 57 has been
amended by R.A. No. 10630. R.A. No. 10630. Amended RULING: In this case, the curfew ordinances enacted by
Section 57 of R.A. No. 9344 by adding another provision Quezon City, Manila, and Navotas were questioned as to
which is Section 57-A. their constitutionality.
Section 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. – SC: The curfew ordinances of Quezon City were declared
Ordinances enacted by local governments concerning constitutional. But the curfew ordinances of Manila and
juvenile status offenses such as, but not limited to, curfew Navotas were declared unconstitutional because they
violations, truancy, parental disobedience, anti-smoking provide for penalties against minor offenders.
and anti-drinking laws, as well as light offenses and
misdemeanors against public order or safety such as, but 4. ACCIDENT
not limited to, disorderly conduct, public scandal,
harassment, drunkenness, public intoxication, criminal For accident to lie and exempt the offender from criminal
nuisance, vandalism, gambling, mendicancy, littering, liability, the following elements must be present.
public urination, and trespassing, shall be for the protection
of children. xxx Elements of Accident
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
1. That the offender is performing a lawful act; motorcycle. If he would be able to shoot the said tire,
2. He is performing the lawful act with due care; the motorcycle will definitely be stopped, and he will
3. He caused an injury by mere accident; be able to arrest W. However, police officer Y was not
4. There was no fault, no intent on the part of the said a sharpshooter. He repeatedly fired shots; all the shots
offender. went to the street and a bullet bounced and hit the
head of a passerby. The said passerby on the spot.
As to the 2nd element: Performing the lawful act with due Police officer Y is now being prosecuted for the death
care of said passerby. As a defense, police officer Y said he
cannot be held liable; rather, he should be exempted
The second element is very important. It is necessary that for both criminal and civil liability as it was merely an
when the offender performs the lawful act, he must be accident — the fourth exempting circumstance under
doing it with due care – without fault, without intent on his Article 12. Will accident lie in favor of police officer Y?
part. Even if an offender is doing a lawful act, if there is the
absence of due care on his part, he becomes liable for a A: No, accident will not lie in favor of police officer Y.
culpable felony because of the absence of due care on the The act of police officer Y in chasing W after the latter hit
part on the offender. and damaged the side mirror of police officer Y is a lawful
act. However, the moment police officer Y pulled out his
Although in case of exempting circumstances, there is no pistol and repeatedly shot the tires of W’s motorcycle, it is
criminal liability and as a rule, there is civil liability. In case no longer a lawful act. Not only that, but he did also not do
of accident, it is more akin to justifying. In case of so with due care; he knew he is not a sharpshooter. Just
accident, there is both no criminal and no civil liability by one fire, he could not hit the target, yet he still repeatedly
because in the first place, the offender acted lawfully with fired shots. The first and second elements are immediately
due care, without fault, without intent. Accident was absent. Therefore, the defense of accident will not lie in
caused, it happened outside the sway of things, it cannot favor of police officer Y.
be prevented. Only in that manner will the offender be
absolved both of criminal and civil liability. No criminal, no 5. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
civil liability.
Elements of Irresistible Force
Q: This big house in Mandaluyong, based on the police
officer surveillance, is engaged in the manufacture of 1. The compulsion is by physical force;
shabu. Based on their surveillance, it is a shabu 2. Physical force must be irresistible; and
laboratory. After being positive on the surveillance 3. Physical force must come from a third person.
conducted in the said big house in Mandaluyong, the
police officers applied for a search warrant and the It is said that the force employed on the accused by
RTC judge granted the said search warrant, and now, another person, a third person, is irresistible when the
it is time to raid the house. Many members of the police accused has been reduced to an instrument, such that he
force of Mandaluyong went to the said house. While acted not only without will, but also against his will. He had
some of the police officers were conducting their raid no recourse but to obey; he had no choice but to obey.
inside the house, the other police officers were outside Otherwise, something wrong will be done to him.
– they were manning the area outside, there were so Therefore, it is necessary that the said irresistible force
many police officer vehicles outside. must come from another person.
While the said incident was going on, here comes W, It is considered an exempting circumstance because the
W just bought a new motorcycle. So, he was trying to element of freedom of action, an element of
practice the ride of his motorcycle, he was going voluntariness, is absent. The said accused acted without
around and around. He passed by this area. Along this freedom of choice.
area, there were many police patrol cars. W was so in
a hurry with his beautiful newly bought motorcycle. He 6. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
was driving so fast, driving recklessly. He hit one of
the side mirrors of the police car. The said side mirror Elements of Uncontrollable Fear
was so damaged, it fell. So, the other police officers
heard it. Although W knew he caused damaged on the The following elements were provided by the Supreme
side mirror of the police car, he did not stop, he did not Court in Ty v. People:
bother to stop. So, one of the officers in the said area,
Police Officer Y, chased W. Police Officer Y boarded 1. There exists an uncontrollable fear;
one police car and chased W. They were chasing each 2. The fear must be real or at least imminent; and
other along the highway of Mandaluyong. When Police 3. The fear of the injury must be equal to or greater
Officer Y saw that W was about to turn right, he was than the wrong act committed.
afraid he would be losing W and so, he pulled out his
service pistol and he tried to shoot the tires of the said
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
In the said case of Ty v. People, the Supreme Court did not A fire again at Pedro. X was shocked, and so X tried to
appreciate the exempting circumstance raised by Ty. get out of the said place. As he was crawling, however,
According to the Supreme Court, her defense is that she the companions of A, B, and C, saw him, and he was
issued the checks because of fear that her mother, if not forcibly brought to A. “Ayan ang napapala ng mga
released from the hospital, would commit suicide. Of marites.”
course, you will be afraid that your mother might commit
suicide, but the fear is not real; the fear is not impending to He was brought before A, and the moment he was
happen. It is in the future; it is only brought about by her brought before A, he was asked, “What did you see?”
imagination. Therefore, the exempting circumstance was X was so afraid, so he told A he did not see anything.
not considered in favor of Ty. A told X, “No, you saw something. You wanted to join
our game? Here is the gun.” And so, A gave the gun to
TY v. PEOPLE X. A got the gun of B and pointed it at the temple of X
G.R. No. 149275 | 27 September 2004 and told the latter, “With the use of this gun, you fire
at Pedro; you kill Pedro. If you don’t, I will be the one
FACTS: Ty’s mother and sister were confined at the firing at your temple.” X said he cannot fire; he does
Manila Doctor’s Hospital. She signed the not kill people. However, A told X, at gunpoint, “You
“Acknowledgment of Responsibility for Payment” in the are going to fire at Pedro, or I will be the one firing at
contract of admission. The total bills for the two patients your head. I will count 1 to 3. At the count of 3, if you
amounted to P1 million pesos. She executed a promissory still haven’t fired at Pedro, I will fire at your head.” The
note assuming the payment of the obligation in moment X heard it, he fired Pedro without looking.
installments. Pedro got hit in the head and died.
To assure payment, she issued 7 postdated checks A, B, and C were arrested. While being investigated by
payable to the hospital. The 7 checks were then deposited, the police, all of them pointed to X as the person who
but were all dishonored due to insufficiency of funds, with killed Pedro, and so X was arrested. They were all
the “Account Closed” advice. The hospital sent demand charged as conspirators for the crime of murder. The
letters to Ty but got no response. defense of X was that he acted under the compulsion
of an irresistible force. He acted under the impulse of
Ty was charged with 7 counts of violation of BP 22. She an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. Are
claimed that she issued the checks because of an the exempting circumstances present to free X from
uncontrollable fear of a greater injury. She said that she criminal liability?
was forced to issue checks to obtain release for her mother
whom the hospital inhumanely treated and would not A: YES. Going by the elements of uncontrollable fear:
discharge unless the hospital bills are paid. That her
mother would commit suicide if the latter was not released 1. There was uncontrollable fear on the part of X as
anytime soon so she issued the said checks fearing for the he will be shot on the head, he will be killed;
worst for her mother. 2. The fear was real and imminent; it was impending
to happen. He just saw A shoot Pedro. If A could
RULING: The Supreme Court held her liable for the do that to Pedro, he could do it to X.
crime charged. Ty’s defense of uncontrollable fear is 3. The fear of the injury was greater than the act that
untenable. What Ty was fearing was not imminent and he committed. The fear that he will be killed is
real. The fear that her mother’s health might deteriorate is greater than killing Pedro.
speculative fear. It was not impending or insuperable as to
deprive her of her volition and make her a mere instrument Therefore, he should be exempted from criminal liability,
without will. She also failed to convince the Court that she but not from civil liability.
was left with no choice, but to commit a crime.
As for the defense of irresistible force, there was physical
Q: What if at past 12 midnight, X was on his way home. force employed on him. He had no recourse but to shoot
X was walking on the road when suddenly he heard Pedro. He acted not only without will, but also against his
three successive gun fires. X was afraid. He stopped will. He had no choice to choose between his life or the life
and sat on the ground, touched his body, and realized of Pedro, and he chose to save his life. Therefore, he
he was not the one shot. The shots were not against should be exempted from criminal liability.
him. After that, he heard some laughter on the right
side of the road where there were tall, thick grasses. 7. LAWFUL AND INSUPERABLE CAUSE
He wanted to know what the laughter was about; what
the gunfire was about. X then crawled towards the This is another exemption to the rule that in case of
place and hid. Thereafter, amid the thick bushes, he exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability, but
tried to look at what was happening, and there he there is civil liability. In this case, there is no criminal
clearly saw, A, B, and C, standing and laughing in front liability and no civil liability.
of Pedro who was lying on the ground, bleeding. X saw
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
(Article 11) (Article 12) suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense, or communications with his
Affects the act and not the Affects the offender or
fellow beings.
offender or the doer of the doer of the act and not the
act. act. 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the
Offender acted within the The offender indeed exercise of the will-power of the offender without however
bounds of the law. He did violated the law. A wrong depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
not have transgressed the has been committed.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature
law. There is no wrong
and analogous to those above mentioned.
committed.
There is no crime, and There is a crime, there is a
Mitigating Circumstances
there is no criminal. wrong, but there is no
criminal; he acted without Mitigating circumstances are those circumstances which,
voluntariness. if present or attended in the commission of a felony would
There is no criminal There is no criminal serve to lower the imposable penalty because there is a
liability and as a rule, there liability, but as a rule, there diminution of the offender’s voluntariness in the
commission of the crime.
is also no civil liability. is civil liability because a
wrong has indeed been In exempting circumstances, there is totally no
committed. voluntariness in the commission of the crime. Therefore,
May be raised as a May be raised as a exempting circumstances frees the offender from criminal
defense only in intentional defense both in intentional liability. In case of mitigating circumstances, there is only a
felonies. and culpable felonies. diminution on the voluntariness of the offender in the
commission of the crime. It will not exempt the offender
from criminal liability but it will definitely lower the
ARTICLE 13. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
imposable penalty on the part of the said offender in case
of conviction.
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are
mitigating circumstances; KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the There are two kinds of mitigating circumstances –
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal
liability in the respective cases are not attendant. 1. Ordinary mitigating circumstances; and
2. Privileged mitigating circumstances.
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over
seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be Ordinary mitigating circumstances
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art.
80. Ordinary mitigating circumstances are those which may be
offset by generic aggravating circumstances. If not offset,
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a its effect is to lower the imposable penalty to the minimum
wrong as that committed. period of the penalty prescribed by law.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the Privileged mitigating circumstances
offended party immediately preceded the act.
Privileged mitigating circumstances are those
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication circumstances which cannot be offset by any aggravating
of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), circumstance. Privileged mitigating circumstances would
his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the mean the lowering of the penalty by one to two degrees.
same degrees. The penalty will be lowered not by period but by degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as 1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE AND
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the
a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Those [justifying circumstances or exempting the justifying circumstances of self-defense and also
circumstances], when all the requisites necessary to justify fulfillment of duty. He was saying his act was justified.
or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases
are not attendant. (Art. 13(1), RPC) Wapili was running amok. Their assistance was sought by
the people in the neighborhood. They arrived. When they
When all the elements necessary to justify the act are not arrived, allegedly, Wapili was about to attack them and so
attendant in the commission of the crime, we have they fired at him. When he (Wapili) slumped on the ground,
incomplete justifying circumstance. Police Officer Ulep went to him, allegedly got his weapon
and fired shots on his head that caused his death.
When all the elements necessary to exempt the act from
criminal liability are not attendant in the commission of the Police Officer Ulep was raising self-defense and also
crime, we have incomplete exempting circumstance. fulfillment of duty.
Whether an incomplete justifying or incomplete exempting RULING: The Supreme Court said there was no self-
shall be treated as an ordinary mitigating or as a privileged defense because the element that is absent is unlawful
mitigating would depend on certain rules: aggression. At the time Police Officer Ulep fired at the head
of the said victim, the unlawful aggression that he was
1. First rule: When majority of the elements trying to commit (i.e., that Wapili was trying to shoot the
necessary to justify the act or to exempt the police officers) had already ceased to exist.
offender from criminal liability are present in the
commission of the crime, incomplete justifying or The said inceptive unlawful aggression had ceased to exist
incomplete exempting shall be treated as a because the said victim was already slumped on the
privileged mitigating circumstance. ground. He could no longer mount any aggression and he
could no longer mount any attack.
2. Second rule: When less than the majority of the
elements necessary to justify the act or to exempt Since it is the unlawful aggression which is the element
the offender from criminal liability are not present that is absent, there is neither the justifying circumstance
in the commission of the crime, incomplete of self-defense nor the incomplete justifying circumstance
justifying or incomplete exempting is to be treated which is a mitigating circumstance.
as an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Therefore,
it can be offset. Police Officer Ulep also raised fulfillment of duty, another
justifying circumstance. Is it present?
3. Third rule: When there are only two elements of a
justifying circumstance, or two elements of an Fulfillment of duty as a justifying circumstance has only two
exempting circumstance, the presence of one elements –
element is already considered as majority. Hence,
the incomplete justifying circumstance or First, that the accused acted in the due performance of his
incomplete exempting circumstance will be treated duty. This is present. Police Officer Ulep and the other
as a privileged mitigating circumstance. police officers were there because their assistance was
sought by the people. They were there to perform their duty
4. Fourth and last rule: In case of incomplete self- to maintain peace and order, to give aid to the people. The
defense, incomplete defense of a relative or first element is present.
incomplete defense of a stranger, there must
always be the element of unlawful aggression. Second, the resulting injury is the necessary, the
unavoidable consequence of the due performance of his
If only the element of unlawful aggression is duty. The second element is absent. Firing at the head of
present, the incomplete self-defense shall be Wapili and killing Wapili was not the necessary
treated as an ordinary mitigating circumstance. consequence of the said fulfillment of his duty. The said
victim was already slumped on the ground, face down.
If aside from unlawful aggression, another element There is no need to fire at his head. He could only be
is present, then the incomplete self-defense shall arrested. At that particular moment, he was already
be treated as a privileged mitigating circumstance. defenseless. Therefore, the second element is absent.
PEOPLE v. ULEP Since based on the rules, if there are two elements, the
G.R. No. 132547 | 20 September 2000 presence of one is considered as majority, therefore,
incomplete fulfillment of duty shall be treated as a
FACTS: Police Officer Ernesto Ulep was charged with the privileged mitigating circumstance.
crime of murder for having killed Buenaventura Wapili, who
was running amok at that time. Police Officer Ulep raised So, in this case, the Supreme Court appreciated
incomplete fulfillment of duty as a privileged mitigating
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
circumstance and convicted Police Officer Ulep of the
crime of homicide. The Supreme Court said it is not murder Praeter intentionem was earlier discussed in Art. 4, 1st
because treachery was not proven. paragraph.
2. MINORITY AND SENIORITY Elements of Praeter Intentionem
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over 1. That a felony has been committed; and
seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be 2. That there is a notable disparity between the means
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. employed by the offender and the resulting felony.
80.
4. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT
MINORITY
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
In the discussions on exempting circumstances, it was offended party immediately preceded the act.
discussed that when minority is not exempting, it is always
and always a privileged mitigating circumstance. Elements of Sufficient Provocation or Threat
Q: When is minority exempting? 1. That the provocation must be sufficient;

A: Minority is exempting when the offender is fifteen (15) 2. The said provocation must originate from the
years old or under regardless of discernment and when the offended party; and
offender is above fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) 3. The provocation must be immediate to the
acting without discernment. In this case, minority is commission of the crime by the person provoked.
exempting.
It is necessary that the said provocation must come or
Q: When is minority mitigating? originate from the victim or offended party. If it comes from
A: Minority is mitigating when the said offender is above any other person, this mitigating circumstance will not lie in
fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) and he acted with favor of the accused. The very victim must be the one who
discernment. In this case, minority is a privileged mitigating provoked him to commit the crime.
circumstance based on Art. 68, 2nd paragraph of the RPC,
and the penalty shall be lowered by one degree. Provocation is said to be sufficient –
SENIORITY 1. When it is adequate to stir a person to commit an

unlawful act, and
When the accused or the offender is over seventy (70) 2. When it is proportionate to the gravity of the act.
years of age, seniority is considered as an ordinary
mitigating circumstance. Based on the third element, the law requires that the
provocation must be immediate to the commission of the
LABOSTA v. PEOPLE crime by the accused or the person provoked. The word
G.R. No. 243926 | 23 June 2020 “immediate” here does not allow a lapse of time – right after
the victim provoked the accused, the accused committed
In the 2020 case of Labosta v. People, accused Geronimo this wrongful act against the said victim. No lapse of time
Labosta was seventy-four (74) years old at the time he in between the provocation and the commission of the
killed the victim. He was convicted. crime by the accused.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court URBANO v. PEOPLE
affirmed Labosta’s conviction. However, because of his G.R. No. 182750 | 20 January 2009
senior age of 74 years old at the time of the commission of
the crime, the Supreme Court lowered the imposable FACTS: Tomelden and Urbano just arrived at Lingayen
penalty due the mitigating circumstances of voluntary Water District Compound coming from Bugallon,
surrender and the senior age of the accused. Pangasinan where they had picnic and had drinks with
their other co- workers.
He was 74 at the time he killed the victim. At the time the
Supreme Court promulgated the judgment, Labosta was While inside the compound, the two had a heated
already 91 years old. The Supreme Court lowered the argument to which Tomelden said insulting remarks
imposable penalty. against Urbano. This led to an exchange of blows. They
were tried to be pacified by their co-workers, but they were
3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM unsuccessful in doing so. Urbano then threw a “lucky
punch” on Tomelden’s face which almost made Tomelden
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a hit the ground but was caught by his co-wrorkers.
wrong as that committed. Tomelden’s nose bled, and he became unconscious.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Urbano, with his co-workers, brought Tomelden to the 5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE
office of the general manager where he spent the night.
The following day, Tomelden informed his wife about the 5. The act was committed in the immediate vindication of
altercation and complained of experiencing pain in his a grave offense to the one committing the felony, his
head area. He was brought to the hospital several times spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or
and was diagnosed to be suffering from brain injury adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within
secondary to mauling to consider cerebral hemorrhage. the same degree.
After being in and out of the hospital for several times,
Tomelden died 12 days after the incident. Elements of Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense
RULING: In this case, the Supreme Court appreciated the 1. There be a grave offense to the one committing
mitigating circumstances of praeter intentionem (Art. 13, the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
par. 3) and sufficient provocation, (Art. 13, par. 4). legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters,
or relatives by affinity within the same degree; and
The Supreme Court said praeter intentionem is present.
The first element is present. A felony has been committed 2. The said act or grave offense must be the
– homicide has been committed. proximate cause of the commission of the crime.
The second element is also present, there is a notable It is necessary that the commission of the crime was done
disparity between the means employed by Urbano and the in immediate vindication of the said grave offense. So, the
resulting felony. Urbano was losing the fight. Luckily, he law used the word ‘immediate’ the second time. Whereas
landed a punch on the jaw on Tomelden that caused the in sufficient provocation, the word ‘immediate’ does not
latter to lose consciousness. allow a lapse of time. In case of immediate vindication of a
grave offense under par 5. Article 13, the word ‘immediate’
The Supreme Court said since both elements are present, allows a lapse of time.
there is a notable disparity, and it is evident that the said
offender Urbano has no intention to commit so grave a Supreme Court said, the word ‘immediate’ allows a lapse
wrong as that of killing the victim. Therefore, these two of time because there was an erroneous translation of the
mitigating circumstances were considered by the Supreme Spanish Codigo Penal. We have studied that the RPC was
Court in favor of Urbano. merely copied from the Spanish Codigo Penal. In the
Spanish Codigo Penal, the word used was ‘proxima’ but
MIRANDA v. PEOPLE when it was translated to the RPC, the word used was
G.R. No. 234528 | 23 January 2019 ‘immediate’. Supreme Court said, we consider that the
word used in the Spanish Codigo Penal was ‘proxima’,
In this case, accused Miranda was charged with frustrated therefore, it suffices that the said grave offense be the
homicide. The victim Pilo threw stones at the house of proximate cause of the commission of the crime by the
Miranda. And so, as an act of retaliation, the said accused accused. There may be lapse of time in between.
intended on the life of the said victim. And so, he was
charged with frustrated homicide. The defense of Miranda When you say grave offense, the law does not require that
was that, he was merely acting in self-defense. it be an act punished by law. The law does not require that
it be a crime. It refers to any act that is immoral, unjust, and
Supreme Court said, NO. Pilo’s act of merely throwing will move the said accused to vindicate himself, to
stones at the house of Miranda could not amount to vindicate his relatives. That is sufficient to be considered
unlawful aggression because there was no impending as grave offense.
threat on the life and limb of Miranda. The said stones
merely hit the roof and the door of the house of Miranda. 6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
Therefore, Supreme Court said, it cannot be considered as
unlawful aggression, it did not place Miranda in actual and 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
imminent danger.
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
However, according to the Supreme Court, although Pilo’s
Elements of Passion or Obfuscation
act of hurling stones may not be regarded as unlawful
aggression, the said act however, was vexatious,
1. There be an act both unlawful and sufficient to
improper, and enough to incite Miranda into anger. Hence,
produce passion and obfuscation on the part of the
it is considered as sufficient provocation. So, the Supreme
accused; and
Court convicted Miranda of frustrated homicide. However,
the Supreme Court appreciated in his favor the mitigating
2. The act that produced the passion and obfuscation
circumstance of sufficient provocation.
was not far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time during
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
which the offender might have recovered his First, Y’s act of raping X’s sister was an unlawful act that
normal equanimity. produced passion and obfuscation on the part of X.
Second, X’s act of killing Y was done immediately after the
Again, it must be immediate. The first element requires that rape. Therefore, it is not far removed from the commission
there was an unlawful act done on the accused that of the crime, from the commission of the rape by a
produced the passion and obfuscation on his feelings. considerable length of time during which X might have
Therefore, it is necessary that feeling of passion and recovered his normal equanimity. Therefore, X can also
obfuscation on the accused must arise from lawful claim the mitigating circumstance of sudden impulse of
sentiments because an unlawful act had been done passion and obfuscation.
against him. And again, it must sudden, immediate to the
commission of the crime. In case both were proven, the Judge shall only consider it
as one mitigating circumstance as held by the Supreme
Q: X and Z are brothers and sisters. X arrived home. Court in the case of People v. Ignas.
When he was already nearing the house, he heard the
cries of his sister. The sister was crying aloud seem to As held by the Supreme Court in the case of People v.
be asking for help. And so, X ran towards the house. Pagal, if sufficient provocation, immediate vindication of a
Upon opening the door, he was shocked. X saw their grave offense, and sudden impulse of passion and
neighbor Y on top of his naked sister. He saw his sister obfuscation are all present in the commission of a crime,
struggling so hard this man, Y who was also naked. X, or if any two of them are present, like immediate vindication
shocked by the incident, shouted. Because of that, Y of a grave offense and sudden impulse of passion and
ran away. However, X took his bolo, ran after Y, and obfuscation, Supreme Court said, they should be treated
thereafter, hacked Y, repeatedly until Y died. X is now only as one mitigating circumstance if they arose from the
being prosecuted for the crime of homicide. X claimed same facts and circumstances. So, they shall be
that he acted in self-defense of a relative particularly considered only as one mitigating circumstance in the
in defense of his sister’s honor and chastity. So, is X’s computation of penalty, not as two mitigating
defense meritorious? In case X’s defense is not circumstances.
meritorious, can X claim the benefit of any mitigating
circumstance? PEOPLE v. SABALBERINO
G.R. No 241088 | 03 June 2019
A: X’s defense has no merit. The justifying circumstance
of defense of relative is not present because at the time X The husband was prosecuted for the crime of parricide.
hacked Y, the latter was already running away after raping The defense claimed different mitigating circumstances:
the sister. The first element of defense of relative, unlawful passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance,
aggression is already absent as it already ceased to exist. praeter intentionem that William Sabalberino has no
Since the unlawful aggression had ceased to exist, there intention to commit so grave a wrong as that of killing the
is no more reason for X to wound and kill Y. Therefore, his wife, and voluntary surrender. None of these was
defense of self-defense will not lie. considered by the Supreme Court. So, the Supreme Court
convicted the accused of parricide.
Neither is there incomplete defense of a relative. There is
no incomplete defense of a relative because it is the In this case, the Supreme Court said, the mitigating
element of unlawful aggression that is absent. If it is the circumstance of passion and obfuscation was not present
element of unlawful aggression that is absent, there is no in the commission of the crime. The first element of passion
incomplete defense of a relative. and obfuscation requires that there be an act both unlawful
and sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation on the
Q: Can X claim mitigating circumstances that will part of the accused. Therefore, it is necessary that the
lower his imposable penalty? passion and obfuscation must originate from lawful
sentiments, from lawful feelings. The quarrel between the
A: YES. First, X may claim the mitigating circumstance of accused and his wife, no matter how heated, no matter
immediate vindication of a grave offense under par. 5 of how serious it was is not the kind that would cause the
Article 13. All the elements of immediate vindication of a passion and obfuscation contemplated under the law. The
grave offense are present. First, Y’s act of raping X’s sister excitement which is inherent in all persons who quarrel
is considered as a grave offense. Second, X’s act of killing does not constitute passion and obfuscation. Hence, the
Y was done in immediate vindication of the said grave Supreme Court did not consider it in favor of William.
offense of rape. Both elements of immediate vindication of
a grave offense are present. Therefore, it can be raised. The Supreme Court also did not consider the mitigating
circumstance of praeter intentionem. According to the
Another mitigating circumstance X may claim is the defense, the said accused love the wife and so he is no
mitigating circumstance of sudden impulse of passion and intention to commit so grave a wrong as that of killing the
obfuscation. All the elements of 6th mitigating circumstance wife. Supreme Court said, no, that is not present. The
of sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation are present. second element of praeter intentionem is absent. There
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
was no notable disparity between the means employed by Second, passion or obfuscation cannot be considered a
William and the resulting felony, parricide, the death of mitigating circumstance in a crime that was planned and
Delia. Intent to kill the wife was revealed by William’s act calmly meditated upon before its actual execution. Pagal
of attacking his wife with a deadly weapon, with a knife and and Torcelino planned and meditated the said act of
inflicting upon her mortal wound on the chest, on the heart. robbery with homicide before actually doing it. Therefore,
The location and nature of Delia’s stab wound belie SC said it cannot be said that there was passion or
William’s claim of lack of intention to commit so grave a obfuscation.
wrong as that of killing his wife. Therefore, praeter
intentionem was also not considered by the Supreme Third, since the alleged provocation which caused the
Court. obfuscation of the appellants arose from the same incident,
that is, the alleged maltreatment and/or ill-treatment of the
The other mitigating circumstance raised by William was appellants by the deceased, these two mitigating
voluntary surrender. Supreme Court said again, the circumstances cannot be considered as two distinct and
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender is not separate circumstances but should be treated as one.
present in this case. Supreme Court said, the essence of
voluntary surrender is its spontaneity and the intention of PEOPLE vs. IGNAS
the accused to give himself up and submit himself to the G.R. Nos. 140514-15 | September 30, 2003
authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he
wishes to save the authorities the trouble and the expense FACTS: It took Ignas two weeks before he went to the
that they may incur for his search and catch. public market in order to shoot/kill the paramour of his wife.
Two weeks from the time of the discovery of the infidelity
In this case, there was no showing of spontaneity on the of his wife.
part of William. He was not the one who asked for the
police, it was the neighbors. The neighbors were the one ISSUE: Can the mitigating circumstance of passion or
who called for the police and when the police arrived, he obfuscation be considered in favor of the accused Ignas?
willingly went with them, without any resistance, without
any restraint. RULING: NO. Two weeks is already too long a time for
Ignas to have recovered his normal equanimity. Therefore,
SC: Such lack of resistance on the part of William in going passion or obfuscation cannot be considered as a
with the police does not equate to voluntary surrender. mitigating circumstance in favor of Ignas.
SC said that the voluntariness of one’s surrender should Within that span of two weeks, definitely he could have
denote a positive act and not a mere compliant or already recovered his normal equanimity. Hence, it was
submissive behavior in the presence of public authorities. not considered by the SC.
No mitigating circumstance was considered by the SC in 7. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER/

favor of the said accused husband. VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT
PEOPLE v. PAGAL 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to
G.R. No. L-32040 | 25 October 1977 a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
FACTS: One of the mitigating circumstances raised by the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
defense was that accused Pagal and his companion acted
based on sudden impulse of passion or obfuscation
Under par. 7, we have two mitigating circumstances:
because allegedly, they have been maltreated by the said
victim.
1. Voluntary surrender
2. Voluntary plea of guilt
ISSUE: Is the said mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation present in the case?
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
RULING: NO. The mitigating circumstance of passion or
Elements of Voluntary Surrender
obfuscation is not present for three reasons:
1. The offender has not been actually arrested;
First, since this mitigating circumstance allegedly arose
2. He surrendered to a person in authority or his
from the alleged maltreatment of the accused, it cannot be
agent; and
considered, because the alleged maltreatment occurred at
3. The said surrender is voluntary in nature.
a much earlier date than that of the commission of the
crime.
First element
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The first element requires that the offender has not been
actually arrested. After getting the consent of the public prosecutor and
the private complainant, the judge granted the
Even if there has already been a warrant of arrest issued counsel’s motion. Hence, X was re-arraigned. This
by the court against the said offender, for as long as the time, the Information charged X with the lesser crime
police officers had not yet exerted efforts in order to effect of serious physical injuries and X immediately pleaded
the said warrant of arrest, and the said offender has not yet guilty.
been actually arrested, there can still be voluntary
surrender. After the prosecution was done presenting evidence
as to the civil aspect of the case, the judge rendered
Second Element its decision convicting X of serious physical injuries,
the lesser crime to which he pleaded guilty.
He surrendered to a person in authority – to the governor,
the mayor, to the barangay chairman, or he surrendered to But in imposing the penalty, the judge did not consider
agents of persons in authority – to the police officers, to the X’s voluntary plea of guilt as a mitigating
barangay tanod. circumstance.
Third Element Is the judge correct?
The said surrender is voluntary in nature. A: YES. The judge is correct.
Surrender is said to be voluntary in nature when it is done This is because X’s plea of guilt was not to the original
spontaneously and unconditionally. crime charged, but to the lesser crime of serious physical
injuries.
The Supreme Court has said that there must be the
element of spontaneity in the act of surrendering. The said The original crime charged was frustrated homicide.
offender either felt remorse and he wanted to confess his Therefore, this plea of guilt cannot be said to have been
guilty or he wanted to save the government the time, efforts done spontaneously because it is not for the original crime
and expenses that they would incur if they looked for him charged.
in order to arrest him.
Q: A case of robbery was charged against X, Y and Z.
VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT They were charged as conspirators, as principals by
direct participation in the crime of robbery. However,
Elements of Voluntary Plea of Guilt only X is facing trial. Y and Z were at large. The police
failed to arrest them, so it is only X who is facing trial
1. The plea of guilt must be done spontaneously & as a principal in the crime of robbery, him being a
unconditionally; conspirator of Y and Z.
2. The plea of guilt must be done in open court; and
3. The plea of guilt must be done before the During arraignment, X pleaded not guilty to the crime
presentation of evidence of the prosecution. of robbery.
First element During pre-trial, the defense counsel moved that

accused X be allowed to enter into a valid plea-
The plea of guilt must be done spontaneously and bargaining agreement by pleading guilty to the crime
unconditionally. of robbery — however, to that of a mere accomplice,
and not a principal.
The plea of guilt is said to be done spontaneously when it
is to the original crime charged. After getting the consent of the public prosecutor and
the private complainant, the judge granted the motion
The plea of guilt is said to be done unconditionally when it of the defense counsel. X was re-arraigned for the
is not subject to any imposed condition. same case of robbery, but this time he was alleged to
be a mere accomplice in the commission of the crime.
Q: X is charged and prosecuted for the crime of Those at large – Y and Z – were the principals.
frustrated homicide. During arraignment, X pleaded
not guilty to the crime of frustrated homicide. After the prosecution has proven the civil aspect of the
case, the judge rendered its decision finding X guilty
During pre-trial, his counsel moved that he be allowed beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery as
to enter into a valid plea bargaining agreement — that an accomplice. However, in imposing the penalty, the
X is willing to plead guilty to the lesser crime of serious judge did not consider X’s plea of guilt as a mitigating
physical injuries. circumstance.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The reason is the nomenclature of the penalties under RA
Is the judge correct? 10951 in case of possession, acquisition or use of firearms
is of the same as that under the Revised Penal Code.
A: YES. The judge is correct.
Both RA 10951 and the RPC have the same nomenclature
X’s plea of guilt to that of an accomplice in the crime of of penalties. Therefore, based on Art. 10 of the RPC, the
robbery cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance provisions of the RPC shall apply to violations of special
that will lower the imposable penalty because the said plea penal laws especially in this case because they have the
of guilt was subject to a condition. same nomenclature of penalties.
Although it was for the original crime charged of robbery, Therefore, since X pleaded guilty to illegal possession of
in the original charged, he was alleged to have been a firearms, the judge should have considered it as a
principal. His plea of guilt was made subject to a condition mitigating circumstance so as to lower the imposable
that he be made a mere accomplice. penalty.
Therefore, the plea of guilt cannot be considered a Q: X was found in possession of two plastic sachets
mitigating circumstance. of shabu. Because of that, he was charged of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11 of RA
Q: X was arrested by the police officers. There was a 9165. During arraignment, X immediately pleaded
complaint against him, so he was apprehended. As he guilty with a hope that his plea of guilt will mitigate his
was explaining to the police that he should not be criminal liability and will lower the imposable penalty,
arrested, he was on board his bicycle at the time and however, despite his plea of guilt, when the judge
because of his fear, he fell. Police officers Y and Z then rendered his decision convicting X for violating Sec.
helped X to stand up. As they were helping X stand up, 11 of R.A. 9165, illegal possession of dangerous
the t-shirt of X lifted, they saw a homemade gun, a drugs, the judge did not consider his plea of guilt as a
sumpak. The police officers asked X, “You have a mitigating circumstance. Is the judge correct?
homemade gun. Definitely, it is not licensed. Also, you
have no permit to carry.” X said yes – he has no A: The judge is correct in not considering X’s plea of
license, he has no registration, no permit to carry. guilt as a mitigating circumstance. Under Article 10 of
the RPC, the provision shall apply suppletorily to violations
Police officers Y and Z confiscated the said homemade of special penal law unless the special penal law provides
gun and arrested X and thereafter brought him to the otherwise. R.A. 9165 is one special penal law that provides
police station for investigation. After investigation, X otherwise. Under Sec. 98 of R.A. 9165, the law expressly
was charged with violation of R.A. 10591, illegal provides that the provisions of the RPC cannot apply to
possession of loose firearms. violations of R.A 9165. Therefore, the RPC, its provisions
on mitigating circumstances cannot apply suppletorily to
During arraignment, X immediately pleaded guilty. He violations of R.A. 9165. It is an express provision under
pleaded guilty because he knew that he would not be Sec. 98 of R.A. 9165 that the RPC cannot apply to
able to produce any license, any registration, any violations of R.A 9165. Therefore, even if X pleaded guilty,
permit to carry. His firearm is merely homemade—it it cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
cannot be licensed. Thus, he pleaded guilty with the
hope that upon pleading guilty, his penalty will be Q: What if, Congressman X and his three subordinates
lowered. were all charged with a crime of plunder before the
Sandiganbayan. When Congressman X and his
However, the judge rendered his decision convicting subordinates learned that a warrant of arrest has been
X for violation of RA 10591- illegal possession of low- issued against them, they immediately surrendered.
powered firearm and imposing the penalty, the judge They immediately went to the police and since plunder
did not consider X’s voluntary plea of guilt as a is a non-bailable offense, they stayed in jail. Trial on
mitigating circumstance. the merits ensued. After the said trial on the merits of
the case, the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision. In
Is the judge correct? the said decision rendered, the Sandiganbayan in
imposing the penalty in Congressman X and his
A: NO. The judge is not correct. subordinates, the Sandiganbayan considered the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to
X pleaded guilty to illegal possession of firearms under RA lower the imposable penalty. Are the justices of the
10591 with the hope that his penalty will be lowered. The Sandiganbayan correct in appreciating the mitigating
judge should have considered the said plea of guilt as a circumstance of voluntary surrender?
mitigating circumstance.
A: Yes, they are correct. Although plunder is a special
penal law punished under R.A. 7080, under Sec. 2 of R.A.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
7080, the law expressly provides that in imposing the 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, mitigating and suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
extenuating circumstances shall be considered by the means of action, defense, or communications with his
court. It is the law itself, R.A. 7080, the Anti-Plunder Act fellow beings.
that provides that the said mitigating and extenuating
circumstances shall be considered in imposing the penalty. Elements of Physical Defect
Note: This is the mitigating circumstance of physical defect. For

Only mitigating and extenuating circumstances, NOT the mitigating circumstance of physical defect to lie in favor
aggravating circumstances. of the accused and lower the imposable penalty, it is
necessary:
Q: X was driving recklessly, he just came from a party
and he did not see the pedestrian crossing the lane. 1. That the said offender must be suffering from some
He hit and run the said pedestrian, he was driving physical defect;
recklessly. Later, he was arrested. The said pedestrian 2. That the said physical defect has restricted his
died. He was charged for violation of Article 365; he means of action, defense, or communications with
was charged with culpable felony of reckless his fellow beings.
imprudence resulting in homicide. Because of his
reckless act of driving, he caused the death of the said Otherwise stated, the said physical defect has a
pedestrian. He was charged with reckless imprudence relation/connection to the crime committed by the said
resulting in homicide. Hoping to lower the imposable offender such that it restricted his means of action,
penalty, during arraignment, he immediately pleaded defense, or communications with his fellow beings. Absent
guilty to the crime charged. After the prosecution has that connection, between the physical defect and the crime
proven by evidence the civil aspect of the case, the he has committed, this physical defect will not mitigate the
judge rendered its decision. In its decision convicting offender’s criminal liability.
X of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, the
judge did not consider the voluntary plea of guilt as a Q: When X was a boy, he was contaminated with a
mitigating circumstance. The counsel filed a motion polio virus. Because of that, both his legs were cut. He
for reconsideration, the counsel said “It is very wrong grew up with no legs. He roam/walk around on board
for the court not to consider the accused’s plea of guilt his skateboard. He goes from one place to another
as a mitigating circumstance”. The judge denied the onboard his skateboard. One time, he was along
said MR. Is the judge correct or is it the counsel’s Baclaran church. He saw an old woman alighted from
position that is correct? the car. He waited very near. The moment the woman
was already walking, here comes his skateboard. X
A: The judge is correct; the counsel is wrong. In the case snatched the bag of the said woman. Thereafter, he ran
of People vs. Mariano, Supreme Court said, under Article away on board the said skate. The woman shouted, the
365 (5), the law expressly provides that in the imposition of police arrived. The police asked the woman, “Can you
penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion identify him if you see his pictures?” and, the woman
without regard to the rules prescribed in Art. 364 of the said “Yes. I saw his face very clearly.” The woman was
RPC. It is Art. 365 on quasi-offenses itself that provides invited to the PNP station and there, the police officer
that in imposing the penalty for quasi-offenses, reckless showed a gallery of full photos of snatchers in the
imprudence, simple imprudence, simple negligence, the area. The woman immediately identified X as the
courts shall exercise sound discretion without regard to the snatcher. X was arrested and was charged with a crime
rules prescribed in Art. 364. Article 364 provides for the of theft. One of the defenses raised by the accused
acquisition of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in was that, he was suffering some physical defect,
the imposition of penalties, therefore, because he has no legs, he is lame, his
physical defect should be considered as a mitigating
Supreme Court said, consideration of Art. 364 will depend circumstance.
on the sound discretion of the court. They are not
mandated to follow the rules in Art. 364. Hence, whether A: X’s physical defect cannot be considered as a
or not to appreciate the mitigating circumstance would mitigating circumstance. X’s physical defect has nothing to
depend solely on the sound discretion of the trial court do with his act of snatching/stealing. It did not restrict his
judge that heard the case in case of quasi-offenses such means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow
as in the problem, reckless imprudence resulting in beings. Therefore, absent that connection, his physical
homicide. defect will not mitigate his criminal liability.
Q: There was an argument between two parents. They

8. DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND OR OTHERWISE were in the school, they were attending to their
SUFFERING SOME PHYSICAL DEFECT children. Their children were both seven years old. The
first mother, X, was informed that the son of the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
second mother, Y, bullied the said son of X. Because
of this, X confronted Y, the mother of the said son who So any other circumstances similar in nature and
bullied the son. He confronted Y. He began saying bad analogous to in paragraphs 1 to 9 of Article 13 shall be
words against Y, “Wala kang kwentang ina. Hindi mo considered also as mitigating circumstances that would
pinalaki ng maayos anak mo.” Unknown to X, Y by lower the imposable penalty.
reason of an accident, could not speak. Y can’t hardly
hear. Y could hear but not clear, and Y cannot totally Voluntary surrender and Restitution were considered by
see. Y could hear all these malicious/painful words the Court as separate mitigating circumstances entitling
being hurled by X. Y cannot do anything, people were him to the penalty next lower in degree.
looking around, Y was so ashamed and felt hurt. She
could have stopped this woman, X, and so, the said Therefore, voluntary surrender (Art. 13, par. 7, RPC) may
woman Y took her bag and hit two times the head of X thus be treated as a modifying circumstance independent
with a use of her bag. The said head sustained injuries, and apart from restitution of the questioned funds by
and so Y was being prosecuted for slight physical petitioner (Art. 13, par. 10, RPC).
injuries. She raised her physical defect as to mitigate
her criminal liability, with her physical defect of being ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
deaf. Hence, had she not been hit, had she not been
deaf, he could have easily act in self-defense. She Aggravating circumstances are those circumstances,
could also explain verbally against the said woman X which if present or attendant in the commission of a felony,
but since she was stopped from deafness, and loss of would serve to increase the imposable penalty without,
speech, she could not defend herself. Therefore, the however, going beyond the maximum penalty prescribed
only way to do that is to hit the said woman, otherwise by law. Therefore, no matter how many aggravating
the said woman will not stop. circumstances have attended the commission of the crime,
the Court cannot impose a penalty more than or beyond
A: Therefore, in this case, the physical defect being the maximum penalty prescribed by law – that is the limit.
suffered by Y has restricted her means of action, defense,
or communication with his fellow beings, therefore, it will The different kinds of aggravating circumstances under
be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Article 14 are as follows:
9. ILLNESS 1) Generic Aggravating Circumstances;

2) Specific Aggravating Circumstances;
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the 3) Inherent Aggravating Circumstances;
exercise of the will-power of the offender without however 4) Special Aggravating Circumstances;
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. 5) Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances.
In this case, the offender is suffering some illness. The said GENERIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
illness diminishes the exercise of the willpower of the
offender. However, the said illness did not totally deprive Generic Aggravating Circumstances are those which apply
him of consciousness. He is still aware that he was doing to all kinds of crimes. Whatever be the crime, this generic
a wrongful act, only he has a diminished self-control to stop aggravating circumstance may be considered.
the said act. The said illness will be considered as a
mitigating circumstance in favor of the said accused. Example: Recidivism.
SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

10. ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
Generic Aggravating Circumstances are those which apply
10. Any other circumstances of a similar nature and only to certain or particular crimes.
analogous to those above mentioned.
Example: By express provision of the law, Paragraph 16
Jealousy may be considered as analogous to sudden of Article 14, treachery can be considered only in crimes
impulse or passion and obfuscation. against persons.
NIZURTADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN INHERENT AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
G.R. No. 107383 | 7 December 1994
Inherent Aggravating Circumstances are those which are
The chairman returned the alleged amount malversed. The considered as elements in the commission of the crime.
chairman restituted the alleged amount malversed. Hence, their presence would no longer increase the
Supreme Court said, such restitution is analogous to imposable penalty because they are already considered
voluntary surrender. Therefore, it will be considered as a absorbed. They are considered as inherent elements in the
mitigating circumstance that will lower the impossible commission of the crime.
penalty on the part of the said offender.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other
Example: The Supreme Court declared evident public calamity;
premeditation is inherent in all crimes against property
under Title 10. Therefore, if evident premeditation is With evident premeditation;
present in robbery, in the crime of arson, in all crimes
against property under Title 10, it is inherent and can no With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
longer be considered as to increase the imposable penalty. the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Whatever be the kind of aggravating circumstance,
Special Aggravating Circumstances are those which if whether it be specific, generic, inherent, special, or
present in the commission of the crime would mean the qualifying, for it to be considered by the court against the
imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law. accused, it must be BOTH alleged in the information and
Therefore, it cannot be offset by any mitigating proven during trial. It has to be alleged in the information
circumstance. The moment a special aggravating because its effect is to increase the impossible penalty.
circumstance attended the commission of the crime, Therefore, the accused should be given the opportunity to
automatically, the penalty to be imposed is the maximum rebut the presence of the said aggravating circumstance.
penalty prescribed by law. It cannot be offset by any
mitigating circumstance. So, aggravating circumstances are alleged in the
information because it is the state, the prosecution, that
Example: Quasi-recidivism – its presence would mean the has the burden of proving aggravating circumstances.
imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law. Justifying, exempting, and mitigating circumstances are
not alleged in the information because these are matters
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES of defenses to be proven by the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. In case of aggravating circumstances, it
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances are those which is the state, the prosecution, that has the burden of proving
change the nature of the crime to bring about a higher it beyond reasonable doubt because its effect is to
crime, a more serious crime with a higher penalty, or even increase the imposable penalty on the part of the said
without changing the nature of the crime, it brings about accused offender.
the imposition of a higher penalty.
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following
Example: Best examples are those enumerated under are aggravating circumstances:
Article 248 of the RPC for the crime of murder. All those
enumerated in Article 248, they are circumstances which 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
will change the nature of the killing from homicide to position.
murder, and which will increase the impossible penalty
from reclusion temporal for homicide to reclusion perpetua 2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult
to death in case of murder. to the public authorities.
Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard
the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be of the respect due the offended party on account of his
guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling
perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following of the offended party, if the latter has not given
attendant circumstances: provocation.
With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, 4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to or obvious ungratefulness.
weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure
or afford impunity; 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief
Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities
In consideration of a price, reward, or promise; are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship.
By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault 6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in
upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
great waste and ruin; offense.
On occasion of any calamities enumerated in the

preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission of an offense, it 20. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime
shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commissions.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other 21. That the Wrong done in the commission of the crime
calamity or misfortune. be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commission.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed
men or persons who insure or afford impunity. 1. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC POSITION
9. That the accused is a recidivist. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
position.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final The offender is a public officer or employee. Only a public
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of officer or employee may take advantage of his public
this Code. position in the commission of a crime. A public officer is
said to have taken advantage of his public position in the
10. That the offender has been previously punished by commission of the crime when he used, misused, or
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater abused his public position in the commission of the crime.
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a The said public officer took advantage of the prestige,
lighter penalty. ascendency, and influence that his position affords him in
order to commit and facilitate the commission of the crime.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a
price, reward, or promise. Q: X was the Assistant Director at the National
Penitentiary at the Bilibid. X was occupying a high
12. That the crime be committed by means of position as the Assistant Director. One time, a group
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel of prisoners arrived. Y was among them. Y was
or international damage thereto, derailment of a Assistant Director X’s longtime enemy in their home
locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving province in Pampanga. Now, Assistant Director X is
great waste and ruin. shocked because Y is now in the Bilibid.
13. That the act be committed with evidence Assistant Director X immediately looked into the
premeditation. records of Y and realized that Y was brought to the
Bilibid because Y was convicted by final judgment for
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed. a drug case. Since then Assistant Director X has been
looking at Y and observing him. One time, Director X
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or went to Y. Y was sitting. Director X told Y, “Tayo. You
means be employed to weaken the defense. do 1000 push-ups.” So Director X was ordering Y to do
1000 push-ups. Y did as instructed. However, Y
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). stopped when he was tired already, he can no longer
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the lift his body. The moment Y stopped, Assistant
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, Director X repeatedly hit Y’s body, and Y’s head with
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and his truncheon. The head was already bleeding
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself because of the repeated hitting. The other inmates
arising from the defense which the offended party might were telling Assistant Director X, “Tama na po,
make. mamamatay na po. Dugong-dugo na po.” But
Assistant Director X still kept on hitting the head and
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought body of Y with the said truncheon. He only stopped
about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the when other officers of the said Director of Prisons
act. arrived and held him, told him to stop. At that time, Y
was already profusely bleeding. Though Y was
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. brought to the nearest hospital, Y perished the next
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime day.
a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
Since Y died, Assistant Director X is now being
19. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons prosecuted for the death of Y and it was alleged that in
under fifteen years of age or by means of motor the said act of killing, Assistant Director X took
vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar advantage of his public position. Is the aggravating
means. (As amended by RA 5438).
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
circumstance of taking advantage of one’s public to the prison cell of X and released X and brought X
position present? inside his office. There inside the office of Police
Officer Y, he raped X by means of violence, by means
A: YES. The aggravating circumstance of taking of force, by means of intimidation. X struggled but
advantage of one’s public position is present. Had he not Police Officer Y was just too strong for her. After the
been the Assistant Director of the said National act of rape, Police Officer Y brought X to her prison cell
Penitentiary, he would not have been able to perform his again. X informed her husband the following day. So a
act of killing of the said prisoner Y. Therefore, this case of rape was filed against Police Officer Y. In the
aggravating circumstance attended the commission of the said information for rape, it was alleged that the said
crime. woman X was in custody of the PNP Station. That, after
having been arrested by Police Officer Y and that
Q: How should the court consider it: specific, generic, Police Officer Y had carnal knowledge of her inside his
inherent, special, or qualifying? office against the will of the said woman by employing
force, threat, or intimidation. Therefore, the
A: It is considered as a special aggravating circumstance. information allege that Police Officer Y took advantage
Although under Article 14 (1), taking advantage of one’s of his public position in the commission of the crime.
public position is merely a generic aggravating It was proven during the trial on the merits of the case
circumstance, if you will look at Article 62 of the RPC as that Police Officer Y have taken advantage of his
amended by Section 23, R.A. 7659 or the Heinous Crime public position in the commission of the crime. Had he
Law, taking advantage of one’s public position in the not been a police officer, had he not been in such
commission of the crime is considered as a special position, he could not have arrested this woman,
aggravating circumstance because the law provides a brought this woman in his office and had carnal
maximum penalty prescribed by law should be imposed. knowledge against her will. Therefore, obviously, the
Therefore, it is a special aggravating circumstance. said used, misused, and abused his public position in
order to consummate the act of rape. So, since it is
Section 23. Article 62 of the same Code, as amended, alleged and proven, how shall the court consider it?
is hereby amended to read as follows :
A: It shall be considered as a qualifying-aggravating
Art. 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating or circumstance. It is a qualifying-aggravating circumstance
aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. because its effect is to change the nature of the crime from
- Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual simple rape to qualified rape and to increase the imposable
delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose penalty from reclusion perpetua to death penalty.
of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity
with the following rules: Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, if the act
of rape is committed on one who is in custody of the
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves member of the PNP, a member of the AFP, and if the rape
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which was committed by taking advantage of their public position,
are included by the law in defining a crime and the crime committed is not simple rape but qualified rape,
prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into and the penalty is not merely reclusion perpetua, the
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. penalty is death penalty. So it is a qualifying-aggravating
circumstance which changes the nature of the crime of
1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage simple rape to qualified rape, and to bring about a higher
was taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death penalty.
penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum
regardless of mitigating circumstances. Q: Public Officer X was charged with falsification of
public document. It was alleged that Public Officer X,
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense a notary public, counterfeited the signature of the
was committed by any group who belongs to an vendor and the vendee in an alleged Deed of Absolute
organized/syndicated crime group. Sale which never existed. Therefore, Public Officer X,
a notary public, was charged with falsification of a
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of public document. In the Information, it was alleged that
two or more persons collaborating, confederating or the said act of falsification was committed by Public
mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in the Officer X by taking advantage of his public position.
commission of any crime. Alleging the information proven during trial, how
should the Court consider the taking advantage of
Q: What if Police Officer Y arrested X. Allegedly, X was one’s public position in the commission of the crime?
found in possession of dangerous drugs. After the
arrest of X, Police Officer Y brought him to the PNP A: This is an inherent element of falsification of public
Station where X was investigated and thereafter document under Article 171 of the RPC. Since it is an
placed behind bars. That night, Police Officer Y went inherent element, it will no longer be considered so as to
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
increase the imposable penalty. It is considered as an Personal na problema ‘to Mayor, wag kang
element, in fact, if the said public officer did not take mangialam.” After stating that, Pedro went back inside
advantage of his public position in the commission of the the house and again you could hear the cries of the
act of falsification, his liability is not under Article 171, his wife. And so, the Mayor again shouted, “Pedro ‘wag
liability would be under Article 172. Therefore, the said act mo saktan si Misis, halika sumama ka saamin sa
of taking advantage of one’s public position in the palengke magus-surpise visit kami doon.” Pedro
commission of the crime, being an inherent element of the became mad, and so he came out and this time, he was
crime of falsification of a public document, shall simply be holding a knife and such knife was pointed by the neck
absorbed. It is an inherent aggravating circumstance, of his wife. Pedro told the Mayor, “I told you Mayor, do
which will no longer have the effect of increasing the not interfere, this is a personal matter” and the Mayor
imposable penalty on the part of the said offender. said, “Do not hurt your wife”. When Pedro was about
to stab his wife, the bodyguards of the Mayor went
2. CONTEMPT OF OR INSULT TO PUBLIC upstairs and prevented Pedro from further hurting his
AUTHORITIES wife. Pedro was arrested and was charged with
attempted parricide. Prosecuted for attempted parricide, in
Elements of Contempt of or Insult to Public Authorities the information, it was alleged that the aggravating
circumstance of in contempt of or insult to public authorities
1. That the public officer or authority is engaged in is present. Is this aggravating circumstance present?
the performance of his function;
2. That the public authority is not the person against A: The said aggravating circumstance is present. All
whom the crime is committed; the elements.
3. That the offender knows him to be a public
authority; and First, that the public authority, the Mayor in this case, is in
4. That the presence of the public authority did not the performance of his function. It is his function to
prevent or deter the offender from the commission maintain peace and order to prevent his constituents from
of the crime. hurting one another.
It is necessary that the offender committed a crime despite Second, that he is not the person against whom the crime
knowledge of the presence of a public authority in the is committed. The Mayor is not the person to whom the
performance of his function. He knows a public authority is crime is committed, the crime is against the wife.
there, nevertheless, the presence of such public authority
did not stop or prevent him from committing the crime. Third, that the offender knows him to be a public authority.
There was this act of lack of respect or insult to the said Pedro knows that he is the Mayor, in fact, he said, “Mayor,
public authority. do not interfere”.
For this aggravating circumstance to lie against the Lastly, that the presence of the public authority did not
accused, it is necessary that the public authority is not the prevent or deter the offender from the commission of the
victim of the said act done by the offender. He must not be crime. The presence of the Mayor did not stop Pedro from
the victim of the assault, because if the public officer is the trying to stab or to kill to wife. Therefore, this aggravating
very victim of the assault, the crime committed is direct circumstance attended the commission of the crime of
assault and in case of direct assault, the contempt of insult attempted parricide.
to public authority is inherent. Therefore, it will no longer
aggravate the imposable penalty. Q: In the same problem, exactly the same facts, except
that this time, it is not the Mayor, it is a police officer
Q: The Mayor, the Vice Mayor, and three Counselors patrolling the area to maintain peace and order who
who belong to the same party together with a group of intervened in the fight between Pedro and his wife. So
bodyguards were walking on the way to the public because of that, Pedro was charged with attempted
market, they intend to make a surprise visit to the said parricide. In the information, it was alleged that the act
public market. When they were passing by the road, was committed with the aggravating circumstance of
they suddenly heard shouts and cries from a nearby in contempt of or insult to public authorities is present.
house. The Mayor knew that such house belongs to Is this aggravating circumstance present?
Pedro — it seems that there is a commotion in the
house of Pedro and so the Mayor, the Vice Mayor, and A: This time, the aggravating circumstance is not
three Counselors decided to come to the house of present. As held in the case of People v. Tiongson, a
Pedro. They were at the gate of the house of Pedro and police officer is not a public authority. A police officer is a
at the gate, they could hear cries from the wife of Pedro mere agent of public authority. Therefore, Supreme Court
and it seems that Pedro was beating and hurting the said that this aggravating circumstance in contempt of or
wife. The wife was crying for mercy and help. So the insult to public authority cannot be applied against the
Mayor shouted “Pedro anong nangyayari dyan?”. accused because the person present at the time of the
Pedro came out and said, “Ah Mayor ikaw pala.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
commission of the crime is not a public authority but a mere Note:
agent of public authority. Disregard of rank, disregard of age, disregard of sex are
aggravating circumstances which may be only
PEOPLE v. TIONGSON considered in Crimes against Persons (Title VIII) and
G.R. No. L-35123-24 | 25 July 1984 Crimes against Honor (Title XIII).
FACTS: Rudy Tiongson escaped from the Municipal Jail Crimes committed in the dwelling of the offended party
of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with George de la
Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where they were detained Dwelling refers to any building which is used for rest or
under the charge of Attempted Homicide. While in the act comfort by any person. Dwelling is considered as an
of escaping, the said Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo aggravating circumstance if the offender committed a
Gelera, a member of the police force of Bulalacao, Oriental crime against victim when the victim is inside his dwelling.
Mindoro, who was guarding the said accused, and PC
Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed It is an aggravating circumstance because the offender in
in Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who went in pursuit of committing the crime, violated the privacy of the victim’s
them. abode. It is an enshrined right in the Constitution to respect
the privacy of the said victim’s abode. Therefore, dwelling
ISSUE: Whether or not there is an aggravating will only be an aggravating circumstance if at the time of
circumstance of insult to public authority. the commission of the crime, the victim is in his dwelling.
The law does not require that the perpetrator be also in the
RULING: No aggravating circumstance of insult to dwelling. He can commit the crime from the outside. What
public authority. The aggravating circumstance that the is material is that the victim is inside his dwelling at the time
crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the the crime was committed because there was disregard or
public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. disrespect of the privacy of his abode.
Gelera and PC Constable Canela were the very ones
against whom the crime were committed. Besides, Pat. There are instances wherein, although the crime was
Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons in committed inside the dwelling of the victim, dwelling
authority, but merely agents of a person in authority. was not considered as an aggravating circumstance.
3. DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX, OR These are the following instances:

DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE
LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION 1. When the said offended partywas the one who
gave the provocation;
There are four aggravating circumstances: 2. When both the offending party and the offended
party are living in the same dwelling;
1.) Disregard of rank; 3. When dwelling is inherent in the commission of
2.) Disregard of age;
the crime.
3.) Disregard of sex; and
4.) Crimes committed in the dwelling of the offended
party. In these three instances, even if the crime was committed
inside the dwelling of the victim, dwelling is not considered
DISREGARD OF RANK as an aggravating circumstance.
There is disregard of rank when the offender deliberately For dwelling to be considered as an aggravating
disrespected and insulted the high social standing of the circumstance, ownership is immaterial. The law does not
victim in society in the commission of the crime. require that the victim be the owner of the said dwelling. It
suffices that he is the lawful occupant of the said dwelling.
DISREGARD OF AGE He be a bed spacer, a boarder, a lessee, a tenant, he is
the lawful occupant of the said dwelling. It is not required
There is disregard of age when the offender, in committing that he owns the said dwelling for dwelling to be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
the crime, deliberately insulted, disrespected, either the
minor or senior age of the victim in the commission of the
crime. Q: One morning, Tuesday morning, the mayor and his
party mates were at the veranda of the mayor’s house.
DISREGARD OF SEX They were there 6:00 in the morning. Now, it is already
8:00 and they were still there. From there, they will go
There is disregard of sex when the offender, in the directly to the city hall. The mayor and his party mates,
commission of the crime, deliberately insulted the state of the counselors, and his staff were brainstorming on
womanhood of the victim. new projects to be given to the people.it is the mayor’s
third term, his last term. So, according to him, he
wanted to be remembered as someone who has given
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
development projects for the people. So, they were evident. Instead of being thankful and in gratitude of the
brainstorming what projects to give to the victim, the offender committed a crime against the said
constituents. They were eating and at the same time victim.
working.
Q: A is a stay out houseboy, a stay out helper in the
The mayor at that time was walking back and forth on house of X and Y. He is a stay out helper because A
the veranda of his house, thinking, what other project would come to the house of X and Y 5:00 in the
to give to the people. Suddenly, the mayor fell on the morning. He will do all his household chores as the
floor. There were two gunshot wounds on his head. He houseboy and then by 5:00 in the afternoon, he will be
was fired at from the outside by W. W fired at the mayor leaving the house of X and Y to go to his own house.
from the outside, W was arrested. So, he is a stay out houseboy.
Prosecuted for the death of the said mayor, in the One Sunday, couple X and Y told A that they would be
Information it was alleged that the aggravating bringing their grandchildren to the mall. And then,
circumstances of disregard of rank and dwelling are couple X and Y gave this instruction to A. It is already
present. Are these aggravating circumstances 5:00 in the afternoon and it is time for him to leave.
present? “You can leave, just make sure that all doors and all
windows are closed and locked.” Thereafter, couple X
A: Disregard of rank as an aggravating circumstance and Y and their two grandchildren left.
is not present because the crime committed by W is
Qualified Direct Assault with Murder. Since the crime Later in the day, A called his two friends. The moment
committed by W is Qualified Direct Assault with Murder, his two friends, B and C arrived at the house, in
disregard of rank is considered already as inherent in the connivance, in conspiracy with one another, A, B, and
commission of the crime. C robbed the house. After A allowed B and C to enter,
they robbed the house by breaking all the locks of the
The said mayor was in performance of his function at the cabinets and taking all the valuables that they could
time that he was shot to death. Therefore, the said take.
disregard of rank cannot be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. After they have already ransacked and taken all the
valuables, and broken all of the cabinets, A, B, and C
Dwelling is considered as an aggravating were about to leave. However, A heard the arrival of
circumstance. The veranda is part of the house of the said the car of X and Y, they were already here. A, B, and C
mayor. The mayor was at the veranda of the house when went into panic. They could not leave, they would be
the said mayor was shot. Therefore, there was disrespect seen. So, they went into hiding. A hid behind the door,
or insult of the privacy of his abode. B hid under the sofa, and C hid at the back of a big
cabinet. They were in hiding the moment X and Y and
4. ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND OBVIOUS the two grandchildren entered the house. A, B, and C
UNGRATEFULNESS came out from hiding and they immediately axed X and
Y and the two grandchildren resulting to the death of
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or four – the death of X and Y and the two grandchildren.
obvious ungratefulness.
At that time, couple X and Y are both 70 years old and
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE the grandchildren, their ages were 7 years old and 8
years old. A, B, and C are now being prosecuted for
Elements of Abuse of Confidence the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide with the
aggravating circumstances of abuse of confidence,
There is abuse of confidence as an aggravating dwelling, disregard of rank, and disregard of age. Are
circumstance when the following circumstance are these aggravating circumstances present? Should
present: they be considered by the court?
1. That the offended party has trusted the offender; A: Abuse of confidence is present, obviously. X and Y
2. That the offender has violated, abused the trust had trusted A; A abused the trust and confidence reposed
and confidence reposed upon him; and on him; the said abuse of trust and confidence facilitated
3. The said abuse of trust and confidence facilitated the commission of the crime. Had not X and Y trusted A,
the commission of the crime. they would not have left A alone In the house. That gave A
the opportunity to call his friends and thereafter, rob the
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS house. Hence, abuse of confidence as an aggravating
circumstance attended the commission of the crime.
Ungratefulness is considered as an aggravating
circumstance when it is obvious, when it is apparent and
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Dwelling is present as an aggravating circumstance. are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place
Dwelling is present as an aggravating circumstance even dedicated to religious worship.
if the crime committed is the special complex crime of
Robbery with Homicide. Supreme Court said that dwelling There are four aggravating circumstances and these four
is not inherent in the crime of Robbery with Homicide and aggravating circumstances are all places.
it should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
because the author of the crime could have accomplished 1. The palace of the Chief Executive;
the said heinous act even without violating the domicile of 2. The place where the President is present;
the victim. 3. A place where public authorities are engaged in
the discharge of their duties; and
Dwelling is not inherent in the special complex crime of 4. A place dedicated, devoted to religious worship.
Robbery with Homicide. In fact, dwelling is not inherent in
all crimes under Article 294. Robbery with Violence Against These four places, according to law, must be respected.
or Intimidation of Persons. Dwelling is only inherent in case However, the offender disregarded the said respect by
of Robbery with Use of Force upon Things under Article committing the crime in these places. When the said
299 because in this article, in case of Robbery by Use of offender disrespected this place that the law commands to
Force upon Things, dwelling is considered as an element. be respected, then it shows his greater criminality, it shows
But not in Article 294. Robbery with Violence Against or his greater perversity.
Intimidation of Persons which includes the present crime –
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The Q: There was a cabinet meeting in Malacañang. It was
reason given by the Supreme Court: the accused, the presided of course, by President Marcos. There was
author of the crime, could have perpetrated, could have also Vice President Duterte. There was the Chief Legal
accomplished the heinous deed without having to violate Counsel, Former Senator Enrile, and all the cabinet
the domicile of the victim. So, dwelling could be secretaries. All these cabinet secretaries, one by one,
appreciated. were given time to present their accomplishments
from the start and ‘til to date. They were trying to
Disregard of rank and disregard of age cannot be impress the President about the accomplishments of
considered, cannot be appreciated against the accused, the agencies under them.
A, B, and C for two reasons.
It was now time for the DOJ Secretary Remulla to
1. Disregard of rank and disregard of age can be present the accomplishment of the DOJ. He said,
considered only in Crimes against Persons, those “These were our convictions. We have so many
under Title VIII and in Crimes against Honor, those convictions from all the prosecutors all over the
under Title XIII. The crime charged in the problem Philippines.” And so, he was stating other projects.
is the special complex crime of Robbery with While doing so, the Chief Legal Counsel Enrile made a
Homicide. It is a Crime against Property under side comment: “Kasama ba sa accomplishment na
Title X. therefore, since it is a Crime against ‘yan ang acquittal ng anak na lulong sa droga?” Sec.
Property under Title X, you cannot consider Remulla looked at Enrile, he was mad, and he asked
disregard of rank and age. Enrile, “Are you referring to me?” Enrile said, “Did
mention any name? I didn’t. Bato bato sa langit,
2. Based on the facts of the problem, there is no tamaan ‘wag magalit.” Because of that, Sec. Remulla
showing that when A, B, and C killed couple X and kept his temper.
Y, they have the intent to insult, to disregard their
rank and age. Based on the facts, there was no Others also presented; thereafter, when there was a
such showing. The couple entered and out of question raised and the Chief Legal Counsel was the
panic, they had to kill the couple because they will one who answered. While he was explaining, suddenly
be discovered. Based on the facts, there was no Sec. Remulla said,” Ang galling, ang galling, dahil sa
evidence that they intended to insult, to disregard stem cell.” And so, because of that, the Enrile was
the rank and age of the said victim. Therefore, this shocked: “Are you referring to me?” And Sec. Remulla
aggravating circumstance cannot be considered countered, “I didn’t mention any name. Bato bato sa
against the accused. langit, tamaan ‘wag magalit.” They were then
exchanging words against each other.
5. PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR IN HIS
PRESENCE; WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE At lunchtime, before Enrile got up his chair, here
ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES; comes Sec. Remulla, so angry, so mad, he went to the
PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP old man, and punched the former in the face. Because
of the strong punch in the face, the said old man fell
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief from his seat, and the chair fell over him. He was
Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities immediately brought to the hospital. He sustained
serious physical injuries. Sec. Remulla was charged
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
by the camp of Enrile with serious physical injuries. In the commission of the crime, the said scene of the crime
the said complaint filed against Sec. Remulla, the was illuminated by any light — whether light coming from
complaint alleged that the said act of serious physical the moon shining brightly or neighboring houses or passing
injuries was committed with the aggravating vehicles or streetlights — nighttime is no longer present or
circumstances of in contempt of or with insult to the considered as an aggravating circumstance.
public authorities, and that the crime was committed
in the palace of the Chief Executive and in the AN UNINHABITED PLACE
presence of the Chief Executive.
An uninhabited place is one which is far from town, far from
Are these aggravating circumstances present to allege other houses.
in the Information to be filed by the public prosecutor?
Elements of an Uninhabited Place
A: YES. Insofar as in contempt of or with insult to public
authorities is concerned, as well as that the crime was 1. That in the place where the crime was committed,
committed in the presence of the Chief Executive, they are there was little or remote possibility to receive any
both present. help; and
2. That the offender deliberately took advantage of the
President Marcos was there. He was the one leading the said place to ensure or facilitate the commission of
meeting when this accident happened. There was the crime.
disrespect, insult, on his presence. Therefore, this should
be considered. However, the aggravating circumstance BY A BAND
that the crime was committed in the palace of the Chief
Executive cannot be considered. Sec. Remulla did not It is present when more than three armed malefactors
seek the place to box Enrile. He was there to attend the should have acted together in the commission of the crime.
cabinet meeting, and said meeting was held in Therefore, there must be at least four armed malefactors
Malacañang. Therefore, it cannot be said that, at that time, who acted together in the commission of the crime. In that
he decided to disrespect the said palace of the Chief case, the said band is attended by the aggravating
Executive. circumstance of a band.
6. NIGHTTIME; UNINHABITED PLACE; BY A BAND Q: A, B, C, and D were all butchers. After a day’s work,
A, B, C, and D were now having a drinking spree. They
That the crime be committed at the nighttime or in an were all armed, carrying their butcher’s knife. Around
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such 11 in the evening, many of them were already drunk,
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the crime. and so they stopped their drinking spree. They went
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have outside the said canteen and tried to get a ride, but all
acted together in the commission of the offense, it shall be the cars, taxis, buses, and jeepneys, were full and no
deemed to have been committed by a band. one stopped for them. And so, the four-armed men
decided to just walk further, hoping that if they go any
NIGHTTIME further, they could find a ride. They kept on walking
until they reached an isolated place. A, B, C, and D saw
Elements of Nighttime a lone big house in the isolated place far from town,
far from other houses. It is the only house in the said
1. That the offender deliberately sought the cover of place. They looked at each other, nodded at each
darkness; and other, and went near the fence and jumped over it to
2. That the purpose of the offender is to ensure the go inside the house, passing through a window. Once
commission of the crime or to ensure or afford inside, all four of them ransacked the house by taking
impunity. everything they could take, and so they broke some of
the cabinet using their butcher’s knife and they were
For nighttime to be considered as an aggravating able to take everything they could. Thereafter, they
circumstance, it is necessary that the offender deliberately left. However, later, they were arrested. They were
took advantage of the darkness of the night either to 1) charged with the crime of robbery. Are the aggravating
ensure the commission of the crime since due to the circumstances of nighttime, an uninhabited place, and
darkness of the night, no one will be able to stop him, by a band present in the commission of the crime?
therefore it would definitely be a completed act; or 2)
because of the darkness of the night, no one can identify A: The aggravating circumstance of nighttime is NOT
him, therefore, he cannot be arrested, prosecuted, and present. A, B, C, and D did not deliberately seek the cover
punished. of darkness to ensure the commission of robbery. It just so
happened that they passed by the said place at 11 in the
Even if the offender deliberately sought to the cover of evening. Therefore, nighttime cannot be considered as an
darkness in the commission of the crime, if at the time of aggravating circumstance.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
8. AID OF ARMED MEN
The aggravating circumstance of an uninhabited place
is considered. The said place is far from town. In case 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men
they do anything to the owners, it would be very remote for or persons who insure or afford impunity.
to receive help; and, obviously, A, B, C, and D took
advantage of the said place to ensure the commission of In the eighth aggravating circumstance, the armed men
said robbery. They saw that it was far from town, far from merely aided, merely helped or merely assisted the actual
other places, far from other houses; therefore, they perpetrator in the commission of the crime. Hence, the
proceeded the commission of the crime of robbery. armed men are merely accomplices in the commission of
the crime.
A band shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance because here we have four armed This is unlike in the case of a band, wherein at least four
butchers. They were armed with their butcher’s knives. The (4) armed malefactors shall have acted together in the
law requires for a band to be present at least four armed commission of a crime. Therefore, in the case of a band,
malefactors who acted together in the commission of the they are all co-conspirators and principals in the
crime. These four armed butches acted together in the commission of a crime.
commission of the crime of robbery. Therefore, it is present
in the commission of the crime. However, in par. 8, the armed men merely aided or merely
supported, helped or assisted the actual perpetrator in the
7. ON THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, commission of the crime. Therefore, these armed men are
SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER merely accomplices to the commission of the crime.
CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE
The support, aid, help, or assistance may be a direct or
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a indirect participation of the crime. The law does not require
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other any number of men unlike in cases of a band, wherein the
calamity or misfortune. law requires that there be at least four (4) armed
malefactors.
If a crime is committed on the occasion of these calamities
or on the occasion of these misfortunes, it will be In case of aid of armed men, the law does not require a
considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. number of men. Any men who are armed can give the said
act of aid and he shall be considered as an accomplice in
Par. 7 as a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of the crime.
killing and stealing
AID OF ARMED MEN BY A BAND
But, if the crime committed on the occasion of these Degree of participation
calamities is killing a person, it is not merely generic, but a The armed men are The armed malefactors
qualifying aggravating circumstance. Par. 7 is included in merely accomplices in the are all co-conspirators and
Art. 248 (Murder) as one of the qualifying circumstances crime. principals in the
for murder. commission of the crime.
Number of persons
So, if the act of killing is done during an earthquake, a There are no required There must be at least four
misfortune, or another calamity – from homicide, the crime number of persons. (4) armed malefactors.
will be murder. From reclusion temporal, the penalty will be
reclusion perpetua to death. DIFFERENT FORMS OF HABITUALITY
Also, in cases of stealing, par. 7 is also a qualifying 1. Recidivism;

aggravating circumstance in the crime of theft as provided 2. Habituality;
for under Art. 310 of the RPC. Under Art. 310, one of the 3. Habitual delinquency;
qualifying circumstances is when the property was taken 4. Quasi-recidivism.
on the occasion of a typhoon, earthquake, fire or any other
similar calamity. 9. RECIDIVISM
If during an earthquake or during any other calamity, the 9. That the accused is a recidivist.
offender took advantage of the said situation in order to
commit the act of stealing or the act of taking the personal A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
property of another, it will be considered as a qualifying shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
aggravating circumstance and not merely a generic another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
aggravating circumstance.
Elements of Recidivism
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The elements of recidivism as an aggravating from another town. In the course thereof, X killed one
circumstance are – of the members of the said rival gang. The footage of
the CCTV was present in order to prove that he was
1. First, that the offender is on trial for one crime; the one who killed the said person.
2. Second, at the time of the said trial, he has been
previously convicted by final judgment of another So, he was now charged for homicide. This incident
crime; happened twelve (12) years from the time he was
3. Third, both the first crime and the second crime are released from prison for serving serious physical
embraced in the same title of the RPC; and injuries. He is now on trial for homicide after having a
4. Lastly, the offender is also convicted of the new good life for twelve (12) years. Now, he is on trial for
crime for which he is on trial. the crime of homicide because he killed a member of
the rival gang in the course of an affray. After trial on
Recidivism requires at least two (2) convictions – the merits, the judge found X guilty of homicide. In
imposing the penalty for homicide, can the judge
1. The first conviction for the first crime committed is a consider recidivism against the said accused X?
conviction by final judgment;
2. The second conviction is that for which the court will A: YES. The first element – that the offender is on trial for
consider the aggravating circumstance of one crime – is present. X is on trial for homicide.
recidivism.
Second element -- at the time of the said trial, he has been
Both crimes must be embraced under the same title of convicted by final judgment of serious physical injuries.
the RPC
Third element – both serious physical injuries and
It is important, for recidivism to be considered against the homicide are under Title VIII (Crimes Against Persons),
accused, that both the first crime for which the said embraced in the same title of the RPC.
accused has been convicted by final judgment and the
second crime for which he is on trial and has been found Last element – he is also convicted of the new crime of
guilty of must be embraced in the same title of the Revised homicide.
Penal Code. Otherwise, recidivism cannot be considered
against the accused. Therefore, recidivism can be considered by the trial court.
Recidivism is a mere generic aggravating circumstance. Q: What about the fact that twelve (12) years had
Therefore, it can be offset by an ordinary mitigating lapsed in between the first crime wherein he was
circumstance. If not offset, then the maximum period of the convicted of final judgment and the second crime?
penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed.
A: Time is of no moment. Time is immaterial. In recidivism,
Q: How do you prove recidivism? Is it necessary for the law does not require any period of time in between the
the prosecution to present the judge that convicted the first crime and the second crime. It has no prescriptive
accused by final judgment – the judge that convicted period. What is only required is that the first crime for which
him of the first crime which has become final and he was convicted by final judgment is in the same title of
executory? the RPC as that of the new crime for which he is also
convicted.
A: NO. A mere certification coming from the said court will
suffice because the said certification is a public document. Q: X was charged with the crime of serious physical
Therefore, the prosecution need not bring the judge who injuries. After trial on the merits, the Metropolitan Trial
first convicted the accused by final judgment. A mere Court judge convicted X of serious physical injuries
certification coming from the judge which is a public and imposed upon him a maximum penalty of four (4)
document will suffice to prove that the accused is a years. Since the maximum penalty imposed by the
recidivist because he has been convicted by final judgment MeTC judge on X is four (4) years, the counsel
of a crime embraced in the same title of the Code as that immediately filed an application for probation on
of the new crime. behalf of X. The judge granted X’s application for
probation. So, X did not serve his sentence behind
Q: X was charged and thereafter convicted of serious bars. He was so happy, though convicted, because he
physical injuries. X served out the sentence. was on probation. He tried to do good.
Thereafter, he was released. Upon his release, he tried
to live a good life. He had suffered much behind bars However, he was enticed to be a member of a gang in
and so he told himself he did not want to go back the community. Wanting to belong, he became a
behind bars. But, he was enticed to be a member of a member of the said gang. But a week after he became
gang and one time, the gang of which he is a member a member, the gang had a fight, an affray against a
had a fight, an affray against another gang coming rival gang from another town. In the course thereof, X
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
killed a member of the said rival gang. He is now being 4. The crimes are not embraced in the same title of the
charged of the crime of homicide. Revised Penal Code.
After trial on the merits, the judge found him guilty of The first three elements are based on law, par. 10 of Article
homicide. In imposing the penalty for homicide, can 14. The Supreme Court added another element, the fourth
the judge consider recidivism as an aggravating element is jurisprudential and that is, in reiteracion, the
circumstance? crimes are not embraced in the same title of the Revised
Penal Code.
A: YES. First element – X is on trial for one crime, he is on
trial for homicide. 2nd Element: There are two situations in the second
element. He has previously served sentence for an offense
Second element -- at the time of the said trial, he must be to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime. X two or more crimes to which the law attaches lighter
was previously convicted of serious physical injuries but he penalties.
applied for probation and was granted probation.
Therefore, when there are only two crimes committed,
Q: Is that equivalent to a conviction by final judgment? what the law requires is that the first crime for which he had
served sentence must carry a penalty equal to or greater
A: YES. X’s application for probation and the judge’s grant than that of the new crime.
of probation means that X is no longer appealing his case.
X is in effect admitting the commission of serious physical But, when there are three crimes committed, what the law
injuries. X is in effect amenable to the penalty imposed on requires is that, the first two crimes for which he had served
him by the trial court for the crime of serious physical sentence must carry lighter penalties than that of the new
injuries. He is no longer questioning the merits of the case crime.
and no longer questioning the penalty imposed on him.
This is why he applied for probation and was granted Note:
probation. Therefore, it is akin to a conviction by final If there are more than two, in order to appreciate
judgment and the second element of recidivism is also reitaracion, ALL the previous crimes, that he had served
present. sentence, must be of lighter penalties than that of the
new crime.
Third element – both serious physical injuries and
homicide are under Title VIII (Crimes Against Persons), RECIDIVISM REITERACION
embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Last element – he is also convicted of the new crime of There must be at least two convictions.
homicide.
Conviction by final Conviction by final
Therefore, in imposing the penalty for homicide, the judge judgment for the first crime judgment for the first crime
can consider the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. will suffice. will not suffice. He must
have already served
10. REITERACION OR HABITUALITY sentence.
Crimes are embraced in Crimes are not embraced
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an the same title of the RPC. in the same title of the
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
RPC.
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
In so far as reiteracion is concerned, just like recidivism, it
requires that there must be at least two convictions.
Elements of Reiteracion or Habituality
However, unlike recidivism wherein a conviction by final
judgment in so far as the first crime is concerned will
1. The offender is on trial for one crime;
suffice, in case of reiteracion, what is required is that, in so
far as the first crime is concerned, he must have already
2. At the time of the said trial, he has previously served
served sentence. He must already been punished. A mere
sentence for an offense to which the law attaches an
conviction by final judgment will not suffice. There must be
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
service of sentence. There must already been punishment.
which the law attaches lighter penalties;
In so far as recidivism is concerned, the crimes are
3. He is also convicted of the new crime for which he is
embraced in the same title of the RPC. In case of
on trial; and
reiteracion, the crimes are not embraced in the same title
of the RPC.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Note: found him guilty of malicious mischief. He served out
Both recidivism and reiteracion are generic aggravating the said sentence. The penalty imposed on him,
circumstances. Therefore, reiteracion can also be offset maximum of 6 months arresto mayor based on the
by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. If not offset, then damage that he caused. So, he served out the
the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law sentence of arresto mayor. Thereafter, upon his
shall be the one imposed. release, he was again trying to look for a job in order
to feed his family. He could not find any job until one
Q: X was charged with slight physical injuries. He was time, he went to the MRT. He saw a woman wearing a
convicted and thereafter, served out the sentence for necklace. He tried to grab the necklace of the said
30 days, arresto menor. So, after 30 days, X was woman. The said woman pushed him, shouted.
released from prison. Upon reaching the house, he Because of that, X has to push the said woman. The
tried to look for a job. He could not look for a job. He said woman fell, and he was able to grab the necklace.
used to be a construction worker. But now, because of He is now being prosecuted for simple robbery. After
his records, nobody will take him as a construction trial on the merits, the judge found him guilty of simple
worker because he has been a convict of slight robbery. In imposing the penalty, can the judge
physical injuries. For a week, he tried to apply for work consider the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion?
but no one would get him. He went to different
construction companies but no one would accept him. A: No, the second element is absent. First element, he
No one would trust him again. The family was in dire is on trial for one crime, simple robbery. Second element,
need of money. He tried to look for a job, not finding a at the time of the said trial, he has previously served
job. On his way home one time, he saw that there was sentence for an offense to which the law attaches an equal
this bag on top of the table of their neighbor’s house or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which the
in the terrace. So, he jumped over the fence. As he was law attaches lighter penalties. He first committed the crime
trying to get the bag, the owner gets out, and upon of slight physical injuries, but he did not serve his sentence
seeing X, he shouted at X. However, X pushed the because he applied for probation. Therefore, the second
owner and took the bag. The said owner informed the element is absent in so far as the first situation.
police and X was arrested. So, X is now being
prosecuted for simple robbery under Article 294, par In so far as the second situation in the second element,
5. After trial on the merits, the judge found him guilty that when there are three crimes committed, the first two
of simple robbery. In imposing the penalty for simple crimes to which he served sentence must carry lighter
robbery, can the judge consider reiteracion as an penalties than that of the new crime. Since he did not serve
aggravating circumstance? sentence for slight physical injuries, even if he served
sentence for malicious mischief, the second element will
A: No, the second element is absent. First element, he not be considered against the accused.
is on trial for one crime, simple robbery. Second element,
at the time of the said trial, he has previously served Note:
sentence for an offense to which the law attaches an equal Probation is not equivalent to service of sentence. The
or greater penalty. The second element is absent. effect of probation is to suspend the execution of the
Although X had served sentence, the penalty for slight sentence. The moment you are placed on probation, you
physical injuries is not equal or greater than that of simple did not serve sentence.
robbery. Therefore, the second element is absent. Hence,
reiteracion cannot be considered against the said accused. Q: X was charged with a crime of homicide and
What the law requires is that the first crime committed must thereafter convicted of the said crime. The judgment
carry a penalty equal to or greater than that of the new became final and executory and X was brought to
crime. Muntinlupa. The maximum period of the penalty was
20 years, reclusion temporal. He was there for 20 years
Q: X was charged and thereafter convicted of slight at Muntinlupa. Twenty years of his life was spent
physical injuries. The penalty imposed by the court behind bars. After 20 years, he is now released. Upon
was only for 30 days. What X did; X applied for his release, the moment he went home, totally a new
probation through his counsel. The judge granted X’s environment. He has been gone for 20 years; the
application for probation. Hence, he did not serve the neighbors are already different from their former
sentence of 30 days. Thereafter, he tried to look for a neighbors. Others have died, others have left. He
job. One time, he saw these plants outside the house immediately found attraction to their new neighbor.
of their neighbor. Upon seeing these plants, he tried to The first time he saw the woman, the said woman was
get some of the said plants. But the said neighbors wearing shorts, watering the plants. X was
stopped him. Because of that, X getting mad at the said immediately attracted from the said woman.
neighbor, slapped the neighbor and not only that, he IMREV TRANS GUIDELINES
also cross damaged on the said plants of the said From that time that set his eyes on the said woman, he
neighbor. He is now being charged with the crime of has always been looking at the said woman with lust.
malicious mischief. After trial on the merits, the judge A week thereafter, a week upon his release from
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
prison, he could no longer contain his lust. Upon A person is deemed to be a habitual delinquent if he is
seeing the woman again watering the plants in the found guilty of the crimes of –
garden, he jumped over the fence and then thereafter,
he grabbed the said woman. 1. Serious physical injuries;
2. Less serious physical injuries;
He was trying to get the said woman out, and he was 3. Robbery;
able to bring the woman to their house. However, 4. Theft;
immediately, the police were there because the people 5. Estafa or
saw him and the police were called. 6. Falsification --
X was arrested. The woman was rescued. -- a third time or oftener, each within a period of ten years
from the date of last release or last conviction.
He is now being prosecuted for the crime of forcible
abduction. After trial on the merits, the judge found Note:
him guilty of forcible abduction. Insofar as habitual delinquency is concerned, the crimes
are specified. It must be:
In imposing the penalty for forcible abduction, can the
judge consider reiteracion? 1. Serious physical injuries;
2. Less serious physical injuries;
A: YES. 3. Robbery;
4. Theft;
First element: He is on trial for one crime. He is on trial for 5. Estafa or
forcible abduction. 6. Falsification.
Second element: At the time of said trial, he has previously It also requires at least three (3) convictions.
served sentence for homicide. The said homicide carries a
penalty equal to that of forcible abduction. Their penalties He must be found guilty a third time or oftener.
are both reclusion temporal.
Lastly, this time there is a prescriptive period of ten
Third element: He is also convicted of the new crime – years from the date of his last release or last conviction.
forcible abduction.
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY AS AN EXTRAORDINARY
Fourth element: Both crimes are not embraced in the same AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
title under the RPC. Homicide is under Title 8 – Crimes
against Persons; Forcible Abduction is under Title 11 – Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or
Crimes against Chastity. aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. -
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual
Therefore, the judge should consider reiteracion as an delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of
aggravating circumstance. diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the
following rules:
Note:
Just like in recidivism, in order to prove reiteracion, the 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
prosecution need not present the judge that convicted constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are
the accused. The prosecution need not present the included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the
Director of Prisons to testify that this person has already penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the
served sentence. purpose of increasing the penalty.
A mere certification which comes from the said public 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
officer and therefore considered as a public document aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a
will suffice in order to prove that the offender has already degree that it must of necessity accompany the
previously served sentence for the crime which carries commission thereof.
a penalty equal to or greater than this new penalty.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise
Those are the two forms of habituality under Art. 14 of the from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
RPC. There is a third form of habituality, and that is called relations with the offended party, or from any other
habitual delinquency. personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate
the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
4. The circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act, or in the means employed to He served out the sentence when judgment became
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the final and executory. After service of sentence, he is
liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them now released.
at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation
therein. Upon the release of X from prison, within two years,
since their family was in need of money, and he could
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: not find any, he could not borrow from anyone, he
committed the crime of simple robbery. Through
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to intimidation, he took the bag of a woman. Because of
the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he that, he is now on trial for the crime of simple robbery.
be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; After trial on the merits, the judge found him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment became final and
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced executory. He served out the sentence.
to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor Upon his release for simple robbery, just within a
in its minimum and medium periods; and period of one year, he again committed another act of
robbery. He grabbed the necklace of a passenger on
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be board a jeepney. When the said woman wearing a
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of necklace tried to put up a fight, he slapped the woman
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of and pushed her. Hence, he committed another simple
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal robbery. After trial on the merits, again the judge found
in its minimum period. him guilty as charged of the crime of simple robbery.
He served out the sentence. He was released.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of
the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in Upon his release, still he did not change of being a
conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years. thief, a robber. Just within a period of three years from
the date of his release, he committed the crime of
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed robbery again. Now, he is on trial. The judge found him
to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years guilty of the crime of simple robbery for a third time.
from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes
of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, In imposing the penalty for this third robbery, can the
estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said judge consider:
crimes a third time or oftener.
1. the aggravating circumstance of habitual
delinquency?
If recidivism and reiteracion are both generic aggravating 2. the aggravating circumstance of recidivism?
circumstances, habitual delinquency under Art. 62 is an
extraordinary aggravating circumstance because its A:
effect is the imposition of an additional penalty.
1. YES. The judge can consider habitual
If the offender is found to be a habitual delinquent, aside delinquency.
from the penalty prescribed by law for the crime that he has
committed, an additional penalty shall be imposed on him He is a habitual delinquent because he is found guilty
for being a habitual delinquent. of the crime of robbery for a third time, each within a
period of ten years from the date of his last release or
The limitation is that – if you add the penalty for the crime last conviction.
that he has committed, and the additional penalty for being
a habitual delinquent, they should not exceed thirty years Therefore, the judge can consider habitual
as provided for under Art. 62. delinquency.
So, habitual delinquency is an extraordinary aggravating 2. YES. X is also a recidivist.

circumstance.
At the time of his trial for the crime of simple robbery,
Q: X was charged and thereafter convicted of estafa. he has been previously convicted by final judgment of
He swindled a person of a huge amount of money estafa. Both estafa and simple robbery are under Title
involving jewelries. X was convicted of estafa under X – Crimes Against Property. He is also convicted of
Art. 315 (1) (b)—estafa through misappropriation or the new crime.
conversion.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
As such, aside from being a habitual delinquent, X is QUASI-RECIDIVISM
also a recidivist.
A person is deemed to be a quasi-recidivist if after having
Q: Can the judge consider both? been convicted by final judgment, he shall commit a felony
while serving his sentence or before serving his sentence.
A: As held by the Supreme Court in the case of People v.
Melendrez, yes. If the offender is both a recidivist and a Under Art. 160, Book II of the RPC, quasi-recidivism is a
habitual delinquent, both can be considered against him special aggravating circumstance because the law
because they have different effects in the commission of requires that the maximum penalty prescribed by law
the crime. should be the one imposed. Hence, the moment that the
offender is a quasi-recidivist, automatically, the maximum
For being a recidivist, if recidivism is not upset by an penalty prescribed by law should be the one imposed. It
ordinary mitigating circumstance, then the penalty for cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstances.
simple robbery shall be in its maximum period.
Q: X was convicted of homicide. Judgment became
For being a habitual delinquent, the court shall impose an final and executory. He was brought to the Bilibid.
additional penalty on X, provided: if you add the penalty for
simple robbery and the additional penalty for being a One morning, all the inmates were already up. They’ve
habitual delinquent, they must not exceed thirty (30) years. already eaten breakfast. X was still in bed. When his
fellow inmates went to X, they held his hand and
Note: realized he was very hot. They said to each other: “May
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism should be covid yan! May covid yan! Taas ng lagnat!”
taken into account in imposing the principal penalty in its
corresponding degree, notwithstanding the fact that the Afraid that the virus will spread in their area, the
defendant is also sentenced to suffer an additional inmates immediately informed the authorities of
penalty as a habitual delinquent. (People v. Melendrez, Bilibid. Medics arrived, there was a wheelchair. X was
G.R. No. L-39913, December 19, 1933) now being lifted from his bed to the wheelchair. The
moment they lifted X to be brought to the wheelchair,
Recidivism v. Habitual Delinquency they saw on the beddings of X plastic sachets of
shabu. Some were empty, but two still had contents.
HABITUAL
RECIDIVISM Because of this, X was charged with illegal possession
DELINQUENCY
The law requires that there The law requires that there of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11 of R.A. 9165. After
must be at least two (2) must be at least three (3) trial on the merits, the judge found him guilty of
convictions. convictions. violation of Sec. 11 R.A. 9165, Illegal Possession of
There is no prescriptive There is a prescriptive Dangerous Drugs. Can the judge consider quasi-
period in between the first period of ten years from recidivism as an aggravating circumstance in
conviction and the second the date of his last imposing the penalty for violation of Sec. 11?
crime. release/conviction.
The law specifies the A: NO. What the law requires is that the said convict must
crime. It must be: commit a felony while serving sentence for the first crime.
[FRETSeL] Therefore, Art. 160 is specific. The second crime that the
said offender must commit must be a felony in order for
1. Fraud; him to be considered as a quasi-recidivist. In this case, the
2. Robbery; second crime that X committed while he was serving his
- sentence for Homicide was based on a special penal law,
3. Estafa;
4. Theft not a felony. Quasi-recidivism cannot be considered as an
5. Serious Physical aggravating circumstance in imposing the penalty for
Injuries; violation of Sec. 11 of R.A. 9165.
6. Less Serious
Physical Injuries. Q: X was charged and thereafter convicted of Illegal
Recidivism is a mere It is an extraordinary Possession of Dangerous Drugs. Since the judgment
generic aggravating aggravating circumstance became final and executory, X was brought to the
circumstance which can which cannot be offset by Bilibid. The moment he arrived at the Bilibid, he was
be offset by an ordinary any mitigating being courted by different gangs to be part of their
mitigating circumstance. circumstance. group. X was now belonged to this first group, WW
group. X was there having been convicted with final
There is a fourth form of habituality – Quasi-Recidivism. judgment of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Months thereafter, this WW group to which X belongs
had a fight with another rival group. Inside, there was
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
this riot between these two groups. In the course of the consideration why the principal by direct participation
said riot, one of the inmates belonging to the rival committed the crime, that were it not for the said price,
group was killed by X. The footage of the CCTV reward, or promise, he would not have accomplished the
identified X as the one who killed the said victim. X is said crime, otherwise, this aggravating circumstance
now being prosecuted for the crime of homicide. After cannot be considered against the accused.
trial on the merits, the judge found him guilty of
homicide. In imposing the penalty for homicide, can 13. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
the judge consider quasi-recidivism as a special
aggravating circumstance? 13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
A: YES. He was found guilty by final judgment for the crime Evident premeditation is a stubborn adherence to a
of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. While he was decision to commit a crime. It requires deliberate planning
serving his sentence, he committed a felony (homicide). on the part of the offender before the actual execution of
Therefore, since he committed a felony while serving his the crime. He deliberately planned it before actually
sentence for a conviction by final judgment, he is a quasi- executing the said crime.
recidivist, therefore, in imposing the penalty for homicide,
the judge will automatically impose the maximum period of In order for an evident premeditation to be considered as
reclusion temporal, the penalty prescribed by law for an aggravating circumstance, the following elements must
homicide. Hence, it will be reclusion temporal in its be present:
maximum period. No mitigating circumstance may be
considered because the moment a special aggravating Elements of Evident Premeditation:
circumstance attends the commission of the crime, the
court will immediately impose the maximum penalty 1. The time when the offender has determined to
prescribed by law. commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that he clung to his
Those are the four (4) forms of habituality: determination;
3. Sufficient lapse time between the determination
Par. 9 Recidivism, a generic aggravating circumstance. and the actual execution of the crime, time for him
to reflect upon the consequences of his acts;
Par. 10 Reiteracion or Habituality, a generic aggravating
circumstance. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove each of these
elements, otherwise it cannot be considered. When must
Art. 62 Habitual Delinquency, an extraordinary there be evident showing? When did the said accused
aggravating circumstance. decide/determine to commit the crime?
Art. 160 Quasi-Recidivism, a special aggravating The prosecution must establish by evidence, what act did
circumstance. he perform to show that he has clung to his determination,
that he really intended to the commission of the crime?
11. PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE
The prosecution must also prove how long a time lapse in
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, between his determination, and his actual execution of the
reward, or promise. crime.
This aggravating circumstance may be considered both Only if these three pieces of evidence had been shown and
against the person who gave the price, reward, or promise, established that the evident premeditation can be
and the person who accepted the price, reward, or promise considered by the court in imposing the penalty against the
in order to commit the crime. Otherwise stated, in accused.
consideration of a price, reward, or promise may be
considered both against the said principal by inducement, 14. CRAFT, FRAUD, OR DISGUISE
the one who gave the price, reward, or promise, and the
principal by direct participation, the one who accepted the 14. That craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
price, reward, or promise in order to commit the crime. It
can be considered against the giver and the receiver of the Craft refers to cunning and intellectual trickery resorted to
said reward, price, or promise. by the accused, so that he will be able to carry out his evil
design.
However, before this aggravating circumstance may be
considered both against the giver and the receiver, Fraud or deceit is evidenced by insidious words or
principal by inducement, and principal by direct machinations resorted to by the accused so that the victim
participation, it is necessary that the price, reward, or will perform an act that will make the accused carry out his
promise must be the primary reason, the main evil design.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
G.R. No. 186541 | 1 February 2012
Disguise refers to means or ways used by the offender in
order to conceal his identity. FACTS: At a public market, Guilbert Patricio admonished
Vicente Vilbar for urinating in one of the tables in front of
14. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH their store. Vilbar was among those men engaged in a
drinking spree in a nearby store. Without warning, Vilbar
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or suddenly stabbed Guilbert with a knife below his breast.
means be employed to weaken the defense. The victim died hours later. Denial was the accused’s main
plea in exculpating himself of the charge that he killed
Elements of Abuse of Superior Strength: Guilbert.
1. That there exists notorious disparity of forces between RULING: While it appears that the attack upon the victim
the offender and the offended party; was sudden, the surrounding circumstances attending the
2. That the offender took advantage of his superiority in stabbing incident, that is, the open area, the presence of
order to ensure the commission of the crime the victim’s families and the attending eyewitnesses, works
against treachery. If accused-appellant wanted to make
The first element requires that there must be notorious certain that no risk would come to him, he could have
inequality of forces. This can be established when the chosen another time and place to stab the victim. Yet,
offenders are greater in number versus a single lone of accused-appellant nonchalantly stabbed the victim in a
victim. The offender is armed, the victim is unarmed. The public market at 7:00 o’clock in the evening. The place was
offender is greater in strength, he is a big man, the victim well-lighted and teeming with people. He was indifferent to
is an old woman. All of these will establish/reveal/show the the presence of the victim’s family or of the other people
notorious inequality of forces between the offender and the who could easily identify him and point him out as the
victim. However, that is only the first element, and that will assailant. He showed no concern that the people in the
not suffice. immediate vicinity might retaliate in behalf of the victim. In
fact, the attack appeared to have been impulsively done, a
spur of the moment act in the heat of anger or extreme
The second element requires that there must be evident
annoyance. There are no indications that accused-
showing that the said offenders took advantage of the
appellant deliberately planned to stab the victim at said
superiority and strength in order to ensure the commission
time and place. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that
of the crime. Even if the offenders are 10, the victim is one, accused-appellant, who at that time was languishing in his
if there is no evidence shown that they took advantage of alcoholic state, acted brashly and impetuously in suddenly
their greatness in number, it would not be considered as stabbing the victim. Treachery just cannot be appreciated.
an aggravating circumstance. There must be evidence
shown in what way they took advantage of their superiority CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. VILBAR
or strength in order to ensure the commission of the crime.
The Supreme Court held that the first element that the
16. TREACHERY offender deliberately and consciously adopted the ways,
means, and methods employed by him to commit the
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). crime, means that the offender has reflected, has the time
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the to reflect what means he shall use in order to ensure the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or commission of the crime. Therefore, according to the
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and Supreme Court, if the said act happened impulsively at the
specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself spur of the moment, the first element of treachery is
arising from the defense which the offended party might absent. Treachery cannot be considered against the
make. accused. He must be given time to reflect what means
shall he use in order to ensure the commission of the
The 16th aggravating circumstance is treachery. There is crime, leaving the victim without any defense.
treachery when the following elements are present:
Q: X and Y were exchanging words against each other.
1. That the offender deliberately and consciously X was scolding, maligning, and embarrassing Y. The
adopted the ways, means, and methods people in the neighborhood were there. They were
employed by him in the execution of the crime. watching how X maligned Y and they were laughing
and laughing. Y felt so embarrassed. To get even, Y
2. By reason of the said ways, means, and attacked X, but X evaded the blow and X laughed very
methods, the victim was not able to put up any loud. Again, Y tried to attack X, but X evaded the blow
defense. (At the time of the attack, the victim again. Not only X but also the people around were
was not in a position to defend himself.) laughing. Y felt so ashamed and embarrassed, he felt
so little of himself that he decided to leave. Before he
PEOPLE v. VICENTE VILBAR left, he gave a stern warning to X that he is going to kill
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
X and that he is going to take his revenge. Soon
thereafter, Y left. After reaching the house to calm A: The judge shall charge Y of murder, qualified by
himself down, Y could not sleep. The laughter of the treachery and evident premeditation is a mere generic
people towards Y were there in his mind. He could hear aggravating circumstance. The Supreme Court said that
their laughter, he couldn’t sleep. Thus, he went to the when both treachery and evident premeditation attended
public market and bought a knife. He sharpened the the commission of the crime, treachery does not absorb
knife until the wee hours of the morning. Out of anger, evident premeditation. It will be murder qualified by
he was still sharpening the already sharp knife. From treachery and evident premeditation will be considered as
that time, he has been waiting for the opportune time separate and distinct generic aggravating circumstance.
to get even at X. They were neighbors, their houses
were just three houses away from each other. So from Again, treachery never absorbs evident premeditation. If
the window of the house of Y, he could see whenever treachery is present with evident premeditation, treachery
X would arrive home. Many times, he attempted to kill will be the one that will qualify the killing to murder, and
X. But since there were people around on the streets, evident premeditation shall be considered as a generic
he would always not do it. aggravating circumstance.
Until two weeks thereafter, one Sunday evening, there Q: While X was walking A, B, and C suddenly appeared
was heavy downpour of rain. Y was looking at the all armed with knives. Without any warning, A
window of his house and he saw a tricycle arrive in immediately stabbed X. X was hit above the breast and
front of the house of X and he saw X alighted. There fell on the ground. When X was down on the ground all
were no people around and there was heavy downpour of them A, B, and C, with the use of their knives,
of rain. Y believed that it was his opportune time, Y repeatedly stabbed X on different parts of his body. X
took his knife ran towards X and when X was opening sustained 18 fatal wounds that caused his immediate
the gate, Y repeatedly stabbed X until X died. Y was death. A, B, and C were charged as conspirators in the
prosecuted for the death of X. The following crime of murder. There were two qualifying
aggravating circumstance were alleged in the aggravating circumstances alleged in Information: 1)
Information: 1) Treachery, 2) Abuse of Superior Treachery and 2) Abuse of Superior Strength. Are the
Strength, and 3) Evident Premeditation. Are all qualifying aggravating circumstances present? If they
aggravating circumstances present? If they are are present, how should the court appreciate them?
present, how should the court appreciate them?
A: 1) Treachery is present. A, B, and C deliberately
A: 1) Treachery is present. Obviously, Y adopted the adopted the ways, means, and methods they will use to kill
ways, means, and methods he will use in order to kill X. the victim X. Here, they just suddenly appeared armed with
The use of a knife, waiting for the opportune time when knives. They deliberately adopted the use of knives in
there was heavy downpour of rain and there were no order to kill the said victim. By reason thereof, X was
people around. By reason thereof, X was left totally without without any defense. Treachery attended the commission
any defense, and he was already in the gate of their house. of the crime.
Therefore, treachery attended the commission of the
crime. 2) Abuse of Superior Strength is present. There was a
notorious inequality of the forces between A, B and C as
2) Abuse of Superior Strength is not present. Although against X. The three men were greater in number, and they
Y was armed and the victim X was unarmed, there was no were all armed with knives. The victim was alone and
showing that Y took advantage of his superiority in strength unarmed. Thus, the first element of abuse of superior
in order to ensure the commission of the crime. strength is present. As to the second element, that the
offender deliberately took advantage of the superiority of
3) Evident Premeditation is present. The time that Y strength in order to facilitate the commission of the crime.
determined to commit the crime, the time that he was Here, when X was lying down on the ground after being
embarrassed and was laughed at by the people, he gave attacked by A once, all three of them simultaneously
a stern warning against X that he was going to kill X. An stabbed him at the same time inflicting fatal wounds all
overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to his over the body. They took advantage of their superiority of
determination, he bought a knife and sharpened it, waiting strength in order to ensure the death of X. Therefore, both
for the best time to kill him. Last element, a sufficient lapse treachery and abuse of superior strength attended the
of time had lapsed. Here, two weeks had already lapsed commission of the crime.
from the time he determined to kill X and the time he finally
executed the crime. Therefore, treachery and evident Q: How shall the court consider these two qualifying
premeditation is present, but abuse of superior strength is aggravating circumstances?
absent.
A: The court shall convict A, B, and C of the crime of
Q: How shall the court consider the two aggravating murder, qualified by treachery and abuse of superior
circumstances? strength is simply absorbed by treachery. Note, it will not
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. In was able to kick and push Moreno outside the room, these
the case of People v. Feliciano, the Supreme Court held did not negate the presence of treachery. Supreme said
that it is settled that whenever both treachery and abuse of that treachery must still be appreciated even if the victim
superior strength attended the commission of the crime, was able to retaliate as a result of his reflexes, as long as
treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength. Hence, it he did not have the opportunity to repel the initial assault.
has no more effect in the imposition of the penalty because So again, the Supreme Court said that treachery must still
it is simply absorbed by treachery. It is not a generic be appreciated even if the victim was able to retaliate as a
aggravating circumstance. result of his reflexes for as long as he did not have the
opportunity to repel the initial assault. Treachery can still
PEOPLE v. DELA PEÑA be considered in the imposition of the penalty.
G.R. No. 186541 | 12 February 2012
Q: X went to the store, X was going to take a bath and
FACTS: The son of the victim was on his way to their nipa there was no soap, there was no shampoo so as early
hut when he saw Dela Peña enter the nipa hut where his as 6 o’clock, he immediately went to the store. Since
father was sleeping. The victim was then lying face down there was mud in the area, he was wearing a “bota”.
when Dela Peña stabbed him at the back with a bolo. He was buying soap and shampoo in the store and at
the store, there was Y. Y was waiting for a ride, Y was
Dela Peña claimed self-defense and his brother-in-law, dressed in his best and he has shiny shoes. Since at
Olipio (victim) was the unlawful aggressor when the latter the time, X was in a hurry, so he was moving and
pulled out his bolo and thrust the same towards him. Then moving, he was very agitated that he did not notice
they wrestled for the possession of the bolo to which Dela that his bota stepped on the very shiny shoes of Y. Y
Peña was able to get hold of, then stabbed the victim. was mad and said, “Dinumihan mo? Nilinis ko ‘to!
Prosecuted for murder, qualified by treachery, and Dinumihan mo? Linisin mo!” X was so apologetic and
aggravated by relationship. apologizing to Y, however, Y would not take the said
apology, he told X to get a cloth in order to wipe the
RULING: The Supreme Court held that treachery attends mud. At that particular moment, Y took a balisong and
the killing whenever the accused attacks the victim while thereafter stabbed X. X died. Y is now being
the victim is fast asleep and unable to defend himself. A prosecuted for the crime of murder qualified by
sleeping victim is not in a position to defend himself, to take treachery. Was there treachery in the commission of
flight, or to avoid assault. Therefore, the fact that the attack the crime?
was done by the accused when the victim was fast asleep,
this will ensure that the crime will be successfully executed A: There was treachery in the commission of the
without any risk to the attacker or the accused. Killing a crime, the said case should be downgraded only to
sleeping victim will always be qualified by treachery. Homicide since treachery did not attend the commission of
the crime. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of
PEOPLE v. MORENO People v. Vilbar and People v. Corpin, when the meeting
G.R. No. 191759 | 2 March 2020 between the parties was casual and the attack was done
impulsively, the first element of treachery is absent,
FACTS: In this case, Mijares was fast asleep when therefore, treachery could not attend the commission of the
Moreno entered the house and thereafter hacked the crime. When the meeting between the parties was casual
victim. Mijares was able to face Moreno and thereafter and the attack was done impulsively, the said offender did
kicked Moreno and pushed him out of the room. However, not have the opportunity to reflect on the ways, means, and
since he was severely hacked, Mijares fell on the floor and methods to be used in order to commit the crime. In this
died. Prosecuted for murder qualified by treachery. The case, it happened at the spur of the moment, the meeting
defense argued there was no treachery, the victim was between X and Y was casual. Y’s attack on X was done
able to retaliate. In fact, he was able to kick and push the impulsively because he was so mad that his shoes got
accused outside the door. Therefore, since he was able to dirty. There was no moment for Y to reflect on the ways,
put up a fight, there is no treachery in the commission of means, and methods he will use in order to kill X. It
the crime. happened at the spur of the moment and impulsively. The
first element of treachery did not attend the commission of
RULING: The Supreme Court said no. There is treachery the crime. Therefore, treachery cannot be considered as
that attends the commission of the crime. Moreno is an aggravating circumstance.
guilty of the crime of murder qualified by treachery.
Supreme Court said that Moreno’s sudden attack on PEOPLE v. CORPIN
Mijares, while the said victim was fast asleep inside his G.R. No. 232493 | 19 June 2019
house, demonstrates treachery in the commission of the
crime because at that particular moment, Mijares, the FACTS: Herein accused-appellant Corpin, killed Paulo;
victim, has no inkling of the impending attack, he has no accused-appellant Corpin sold pork in the public market
inkling to any peril to his person because he feels secured while Paulo was a chicken vendor; their stalls were
in his house. Supreme Court said that although Mijares situated at the back of each other and had the same
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
entrance and exit; prior to the hacking incident, accused- Q: Can there be treachery in the special complex crime
appellant Corpin and Paulo were always joking at each of Robbery with Homicide?
other; Paulo often said "Ang baho" which made accused-
appellant Corpin frown as he thought he was the one being A: Yes. According to the Supreme Court, in the case of
alluded to; there was no provocation on the part of Ptiulo People v. Escote, the Supreme Court said that in the
at the time the hacking incident happened; accused- special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide,
appellant Corpin and the victim were not facing each other treachery can be appreciated. Although the special
and the latter was in no position to defend himself; she was complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is a crime against
one (1) meter away from them; after accused-appellant property under Title X, treachery can still be appreciated
Corpin hacked Paulo, the victim was able to get a knife but only insofar as the killing/homicide is concerned. However,
the former embraced him; at that juncture, one of the meat it shall only be considered as a generic aggravating
vendors, Kuya Kris, arrived and pushed accused-appellant circumstance, not a qualifying aggravating circumstance
Corpin away from Paulo; and, Paulo ran away for about because there is no such crime as Robbery with Murder.
three (3) meters and fell down in front of the canteen, in Homicide is used in its generic sense. Therefore, if the
front of Raymundo's stall. killing that accompanied the act of robbery is done
treacherously, then, treachery can be considered only
ISSUE: Whether or not there is treachery. insofar only insofar as the killing/homicide is concerned but
it merely a generic aggravating circumstance, not a
RULING: NO. Corpin did not deliberately choose the qualifying aggravating circumstance. There is no such
particular mode of attack he used to ensure the execution crime as Robbery with Murder.
of the criminal purpose without any risk to himself.
Moreover, after he was attacked by Corpin, Paulo was able PEOPLE v. ESCOTE
to run away and escape, which shows that the victim had G.R. No. 140756 | 04 April 2003
the opportunity to defend himself. Second, Corpin did not
deliberately seek the presence of the victim. He and Paulo FACTS: The accused, with force, violence and
have been working as meat vendors in the same public intimidation, robbed a passenger bus routed to Pampanga.
market for several years. In addition, the weapon he used When the accused approached and about to rob the
to kill the victim was a butcher's knife that he regularly used deceased victim, the discovered that the said victim was a
for his work. member of the Philippine National Police. The accused
then informed the victim that they will kill him for being a
Q: X and Y are good friends and X frequent the office police. The victim plead for his life. The accused
of Y. Usually at lunch time, they will have lunch disregarded the plea and shoot the victim multiple times.
together on the office of Y or they will go out. That After the robbery, the accused were arrested a criminal
Friday, X went again to the office of Y, he went directly case was filed against them for the crime of Robbery with
inside the room. Y was the head of the company. Homicide.
Minutes later, the employees of Y heard two gunfires
amd here comes Y rushing to the door and opened the ISSUE: Whether or not treachery in a crime of Robbery
door and shouted to the staff, “Call an ambulance right with Homicide should be treated as a qualified aggravating
now! Fast!”. The ambulance arrived at X was boarded circumstance.
inside the ambulance, however, the next day, X
perished. Y is now being prosecuted for the crime of RULING: No, treachery is a generic aggravating
murder qualified by treachery. Was there treachery in circumstance to robbery with homicide although said
the commission of the crime? crime is classified as a crime against property and a single
and indivisible crime. Treachery is not a qualifying
A: No. Y should be convicted of the crime of Homicide. circumstance because “homicide” is used in its broadest
Treachery did not attend the commission of the crime. As and most generic sense. Treachery is not an element of
held by the Supreme Court in the case of People v. robbery with homicide. Neither does it constitute a crime
Enriquez, in order for treachery to be considered against specially punishable by law nor is it included by the law in
the accused, it must be present at the inception of the defining the crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing
attack. Therefore, someone must have witnessed how the the penalty therefor. Treachery is likewise not inherent in
attack commenced. In this case, none of the employees the crime of robbery with homicide. Hence, treachery
how the attacked commenced. What they heard were only should be considered as a generic aggravating
gunfires and then here comes Y rushing to call an circumstance in robbery with homicide for the imposition of
ambulance. They did not see that if prior to the said gunfire, the proper penalty for the crime.
there was an altercation, they did not see if X was able to
put up any defense. Therefore, since the witness did not 17. IGNOMINY
see how the attack was commenced, the witness could not
testify that if at the inception of the attack, the said victim 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought
was already totally without any defense. about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Ignominy is the moral circumstance which add disgrace to close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal
the natural effects in the commission of the crime. region as testified to by the medico-legal officer, and
confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report, clearly
Aside from the act necessary in order to consummate the established the coitus after death. This act of the accused
crime, the offender performs another act that brought in having anal intercourse with the woman after killing her
moral pain, moral suffering, and humiliation on the part of is, undoubtedly, an outrage at her corpse.
the said victim. In the case, ignominy will attend the
commission of the crime. CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. BUTLER
PEOPLE v. JOSE In the case of People v. Butler, the Supreme Court

G.R. No. L-28232 | 06 February 1972 appreciated ignominy. However, in this case, the said case
was dismissed because of alleged minority. The Supreme
FACTS: Magdalena “Maggie” de la Riva was on her way Court said that the act of the accused of having anal
home when she was grabbed from her car. The four men intercourse after killing the victim is undoubtedly an
took advantage of her got busy with her body. Thereafter, outrage at the person of the victim. Ignominy attended the
she was blindfolded and was brought to a hotel room to commission of the crime because according to the
which she was ordered to dance while undressing herself. Supreme Court, the said anal intercourse took place after
After the men had carnal knowledge of her, she was he has already been killed. It was considered as an
dropped of to the studio to which she came from. outrage. The Supreme Court in this case believed the
doctor who said that the muscles of the anus did not close
ISSUE: Whether or not there is ignominy. and there was spermatozoa in the anal region. The
Supreme Court said that all of these clearly showed that
RULING: YES. Since the appellants in ordering the the intercourse took place after death. For doing an act that
complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for is considered an outrage at the corpse of the victim,
about ten minutes, before raping her, brought about a ignominy attended the commission of the crime.
circumstance which tended to make the effects of the
crime more humiliating. PEOPLE v. BUMIDANG
G.R. No. 130630 | 04 December 2000
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. JOSE
FACTS: On September 29, 1996, around 2am, 80-year old
In the case of People v. Jose, ignominy was considered by father Melencio Imbatand his unmarried 56-year old
the Supreme Court against the accused who raped Maggie daughter Gloria Imbat were asleep in their house. The
Dela Riva. The Supreme Court said that there was accused Baliwang Bumidang, aged 19 years old and half-
ignominy because the accused ordered the victim to naked, loudly threatened Melencio to kill him if the door
remove her clothes and to dance, exhibiting her complete was not opened. Melencio rose and opened the door,
nakedness for 10 minutes before the rape. The Supreme allowing Bumidang to enter the house, and take a spear
Court said that asking her to dance naked for 10 minutes from the former's room. Bumidang pointed the weapon at
in front of them while they were all watching, looking at her Melencio and asked him where his daughter's room is.
nakedness, this is not an act necessary in order to produce Afterwards, Bumidang went to Gloria's room, threatened
the crime of rape. It only added moral pain and humiliation the same with the spear, and stripped himself naked before
on the part of the said victim. Ignominy was considered by he examined Gloria's genitals with a flashlight. After
the Supreme Court. satisfying his bestial lust, Bumidang threatened old
Melencio and Gloria not to report to the authorities.
PEOPLE v. BUTLER Melencio and the victim reported the incident in the
G.R. No. L-50276 | 27 January 1983 morning, and Bumidang was immediately arrested.
Medical examination of Gloria's vagina showed a
FACTS: Accused Butler, as testified by the doctor, had laceration of the hymen.
anal intercourse with the victim after her death as indicated
by the partly opened anus and the presence of ISSUE: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of
spermatozoa in it. The doctor testified that the anus would ignominy can be appreciated.
automatically and completely closed had the intercourse
occurred when the victim was alive. RULING: Yes. Bumidang used the flashlight to examine
the genitals of the victim before he raped her, and that the
ISSUE: Whether or not there is ignominy. crime was committed in the presence of Gloria's old father.
These facts show that the accused Bumidang deliberately
RULING: YES. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy wanted to further humiliate Gloria. Ignominy can also be
applies against the accused since it is established that he appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in the
mocked or outraged at the person or corpse of his victim presence of her betrothed or of her husband or was made
by having an anal intercourse with her after she was to exhibit to the rapists her complete nakedness before
already dead. The fact that the muscles of the anus did not they raped her.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
A: YES. A means to the commission of the crime, A means
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. BUMIDANG in order to enter and kill Y, he has to break the said window.
In the case of People v. Bumidang, aside from dwelling, Q: X wanting to rob the house of Y, broke the glass
the Supreme Court also appreciated ignominy as an window, entered inside and took valuables. What
aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape. Ignominy crime is committed?
was considered by the Supreme Court because the said
accused used a flashlight in order to examine the genital The crime committed is Robbery by Use of Force upon
of Gloria before raping her. The said act of examining her Things and the fact that he broke the window in order to
genitalia was done in front of her old father. The use of a enter the said place as a means to commit the crime, it is
flashlight to examine the genitals of the rape victim before already absorbed. It is considered an element.
ravishing her and done in the presence of the victim’s
father only added moral pain and humiliation on the part of Q: Passing through the window, X went inside the
the victim. It is not necessary in order to consummate the bedroom of Y and had carnal knowledge of Y but
crime of rape. Therefore, the Supreme Court appreciated employed force and violence. Is unlawful entry
the aggravating circumstance of ignominy. attendant in the commission of the crime?
18. UNLAWFUL ENTRY; 19. BREAKING OF A WALL, A: YES. A window is an opening not intended for the
ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW entrance or egress. Therefore, the fact that X unlawfully
entered and committed the crime of rape, unlawful entry is
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are an aggravating circumstance.
aggravating circumstances:
Q: X saw an open window. He entered through the said
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. open window. Upon gaining entry, he took valuables,
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by he ransacked the house. He broke every cabinet and
a way not intended for the purpose. then thereafter, he took valuables and left again
passing through the said window. In the commission
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, of the crime, is unlawful entry attendant as an
roof, floor, door, or window be broken. aggravating circumstance?
There is unlawful entry when the offender enters through A: NO. It is inherent because the crime committed is
an opening that is not intended for entrance of egress. This robbery by use of force upon things under Article 290.
is related to the 19th aggravating circumstance that as
means to the commission of the crime, a wall, roof, floor, 20. AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE OR
door, or window be broken. BY USE OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Under the 18th aggravating circumstance, the crime was 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons
committed after the unlawful entry, in the 19th aggravating under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
circumstance, the very means used by the accused in motorized watercraft or airships, or other similar means.
order to commit the crime was the breaking of the wall,
roof, floor, door, or window. AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE
In the crime of Robbery by Use of Force Upon Things, If the crime is committed by the offender, taking advantage
under Article 299 and 302 of the RPC, the q8th and 19th of a minor, 15 years old or under and in fact in the
circumstance are considered as elements, hence, they are commission of the crime, he took advantage of this minor
merely absorbed. So unlawful entry as means to the in order to commit the crime, it will be considered as an
commission of the crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window aggravating circumstance. It shows his greater criminality.
be broken, these are considered as elements in robbery by He knew these minors, even if arrested, cannot be
use of force upon things under Article 299 and 302 of the prosecuted and punished. That reveals his greater
RPC. Hence, their presence will no longer aggravate the criminality, taking advantage of their minority.
imposable penalty. Being elements, they are simply
absorbed. USE OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Q: X wanting to kill Y, tried to find an opening in the If the crime is committed by means of motor vehicle
house. He could not find any opening. There was a motorized watercraft or airships, or other similar means, it
glass window. He opened such glass window by will be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
breaking such glass window. Thereafter, he entered,
went to the bedroom of Y and stabbed Y. Is the Q: X was on his way home. Nearing the gate of the
nineteenth aggravating circumstance present? house, here comes a motorcycle, a driver and a back
rider of the said motorcycle. The moment they passed
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
by the said place, before X was able to enter the house, gradually causing him unnecessary physical pain in the
when they passed by very fast, the back rider grabbed consummation of the crime.
the handbag of X and off they left.
PEOPLE v. LUCAS
A: In the commission of the crime, use of motor vehicle G. R. Nos. 108172-73 | 25 May 1994
attended, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance.
It facilitated the commission of the crime, the means of In this case, the Supreme Court appreciated cruelty
committing the crime. It was very easy for them to take the against the accused father. Supreme Court said, cruelty
said bag, to steal the said bag because they were on board attended the act of rape. Cruelty was present because
the said motorcycle. It also facilitated their escape. here, the offender, the father, raped his very own daughter
Therefore, the use of a motorcycle shall be considered as and during the rape, he tied the victim to a bed, burned her
an aggravating circumstance. face with a lighted cigarette while raping her and laughing
as he was doing all of these to his very own biological
Q: What if they were wearing helmets? So the driver daughter.
and the back rider were both wearing helmets when
they committed the crime. Is there disguise as an Supreme Court said cruelty attended the commission of
aggravating circumstance? the crime. Burning the face of the said girl while she was
being raped is not necessary to consummate the crime of
A: There is no disguise as an aggravating rape. It only added additional physical pain on the part of
circumstance absent any other piece of evidence the said victim. Therefore, cruelty attended the commission
showing that there was intent to conceal their identity. The of the crime.
reason is that we have a law that requires motorcycle
riders to wear helmets. In fact, if they will not be wearing Q: The accused axed the victim. After killing the victim,
helmets, they can be arrested. The law requires he divided the body parts of the victim, he
motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Therefore, there should dismembered the different parts of the body of the
be additional evidence to show that there was the intent, victim. Did cruelty attend the commission of the
on the part of the offenders, to conceal their identities. crime?
21. CRUELTY A: NO, because the victim, at the time that his parts of the
body were dismembered, he was no longer alive, he was
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be already dead. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not additional physical pain felt by the said victim.
necessary for its commission.
Q: A crime of Murder was charged against X for killing
This is otherwise known as cruelty. Y, solely on the basis of their finding that Y sustained
more than 75 wounds, only 2 of which were fatal. Is the
IGNOMINY CRUELTY charge of Murder correct?
Another act was done by The offender performs
the offender in order to another act that brought A: NO. The charge of Murder is not correct. The mere fact
bring about moral pain and about additional physical that the victim sustained 75 stab wounds, only 2 of which
humiliation on the part of suffering which is not were fatal, does not reveal the qualifying aggravating
the victim. necessary in order to circumstances of abuse of superior strength and cruelty.
consummate the crime.
Even if the victim had 75 stab wounds, the mere fact that
The wrong must be done
he sustained 75 stab wounds will not reveal that the
while the victim was still
accused was superior in strength than that of the victim.
alive.
Likewise, the mere fact that the victim sustained 75 stab
wounds would not reveal that there was cruelty, and the
In so far as cruelty is concerned, the test in appreciating
stab wounds may be inflicted when he was already dead.
cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is whether the
For cruelty to arise, there must be evidence showing that
accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the
the victim was still alive.
suffering of the victim. There must be proof that the
victim was made to agonize by the infliction of additional
ARTICLE 15. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
physical pain which is not necessary in order to
consummate the crime. Cruelty refers to physical suffering
of the victim purposely intended by the offender. Therefore, Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are
the wrong must be done on the victim while he is still alive. those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and
In order for cruelty to exist as an aggravating circumstance, effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
it must be showed that the accused enjoyed and commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the
delighted in making the victim suffer slowly and degree of instruction and education of the offender.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
crime committed is serious physical injuries and less
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken serious physical injuries. It will be considered as an
into consideration when the offended party in the spouse, aggravating circumstance.
ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted
brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees Relationship is inherent in the crime of Parricide.
of the offender.
INTOXICATION
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into
consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the Intoxication can be considered either as a mitigating
offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, circumstance or as an aggravating circumstance.
if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to
commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or As a Mitigating Circumstance
intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. For intoxication to be considered as a mitigating
circumstance, to be treated as a mitigating circumstance,
Under Article 15, there are three alternative circumstances. it is necessary for the defense to show that the intoxication
is:
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication 1. not habitual
3. Degree of Instruction and Education 2. not subsequent to a plan to commit the felony,
3. that the accused drunkenness affected his mental
RELATIONSHIP facilities.
Relationship is considered as an alternative circumstance If these had been proven by the defense, then intoxication
when the offended party in the spouse, ascendant, will be a mitigating circumstance.
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or
sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the As an Aggravating Circumstance
offender.
Intoxication shall be considered as an aggravating
As an Absolutory Cause circumstance if the prosecution will be able to prove that:
Under Article 332, in three crimes against property, 1. the said accused is a habitual drinker; or
relationship is an absolutory cause, an exempting 2. the said accused deliberately take liquor before
circumstance. the consummation of the crime, because he found
in liquor the stimulant that will give him the strength
1. Theft in order to commit the felony.
2. Estafa or Swindling
3. Malicious mischief Therefore, either the prosecution shall prove it as an
aggravating circumstance, or the defense shall prove it as
As a Mitigating Circumstance a mitigating circumstance.
As a rule, relationship is considered as a mitigating DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

circumstance in crimes under Title X. Crimes against RIMREV TRANS GUIDELINES
Property. As a Mitigating Circumstance
The reason for this is that under Article 332, in three crimes GR: As a rule, a low degree of instruction and/or
against property, (1) theft; (2) estafa or swindling; and (3) education, being unlettered, uneducated, will be
malicious mischief, relationship is an absolutory cause, an considered as a mitigating circumstance.
exempting circumstance. Therefore, if in these three
crimes against property, theft, estafa or swindling, and XPN: However, this will not apply if the crime committed
malicious mischief, relationship is an absolutory cause, by the said unlettered, uneducated, and/or ignorant man,
then, in all other crimes against property, relationship is is a crime inherently evil or wrong. A crime which is
considered as a mitigating circumstance. This is to ensure inherently evil or wrong is as wrong to an ignorant man as
harmony in the family according to the Supreme Court. to a learned man.
As an Aggravating Circumstance Q: The unlettered man was having an argument with
his neighbor because of a certain piece of land. The
In case of crimes against persons, relationship is said man does not know how to sign/write his name,
considered as an aggravating circumstance if the offended does not know the alphabet, and has never been to
party is of a higher degree than that of the offender and the school, thus he does not know how to read. In the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
course of the said argument, he repeatedly stabbed
the said neighbor. The neighbor was already dead, yet Atty. X is now being prosecuted for attempted
the unlettered man continued to stab him and shoot homicide. The Information filed by the Office of the
him without doubt that his neighbor was already dead. Public Prosecutor alleged the alternative
Can the mitigating circumstance of a low degree of circumstances of intoxication and high degree of
instruction or education be considered? education. The prosecution tried to prove that they are
aggravating circumstances, while the defense, that
A: No. His being of low degree of education will not be a they are mitigating circumstances. Based on the facts,
mitigating circumstance because, even if he is ignorant or how should the judge appreciate the alternative
unlettered, he knows that it is wrong to take another circumstances of intoxication and degree of
person’s life. It is inherently evil or wrong. instruction and education?
As an Aggravating Circumstance A: Intoxication shall be considered as a mitigating

circumstance. Based on the facts, Atty. X is not a habitual
A high degree of education will be considered as an drinker. He did not drink or take liquor subsequent to a plan
aggravating circumstance if the offender took advantage of to commit a crime. He had no intention to wound or to hurt
his high learnings to facilitate the commission of the crime. Y. It happened at the spur of the moment. Therefore, his
being drunk shall be considered as a mitigating
For example, a lawyer committing estafa thru falsification circumstance.
of document by counterfeiting the signature of the vendor
and the vendee in the Deed of Absolute Sale. Obviously, High degree of instruction or education cannot be
he used his high learnings in law to ensure the commission considered as an aggravating circumstance. His being
of the crime; therefore, it will be considered as an a lawyer has nothing to do with the act of stabbing Y. It has
aggravating circumstance. totally no connection to the act of stabbing; his being a
lawyer did not facilitate the commission of the crime.
Q: A lawyer, Atty. X, was on his way home when he Therefore, it cannot be considered as an aggravating
was stopped by his neighbor Y. It was Y’s birthday and circumstance.
Atty. X was invited to have dinner at the former’s
house. Atty. X said that he will only bring his car home ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
and he will go directly to Y’s house. When Atty. X went
to Y’s house, the latter introduced him to the other Absolutory causes are those circumstances which exempt
guests. There was so much food and drinks at the the offender from criminal liability but not from civil liability.
party for the birthday celebration. Therefore, they are just like exempting circumstances.
They absolve the offender from criminal liability.
Atty. X seldom drinks. He has no liking for liquor —
very seldom that he drinks. But, at that night, there Examples:
were a lot of drinks around, and so they kept on
pouring and pouring liquor unto Atty. X’s glass until 1. Instigation;
he was already very drunk. When he was already 2. Desistance in the attempted stage;
drunk, he became annoying. He kept touching the 3. Mistake of fact; or
arms of a woman, even the buttocks of women who 4. Accessories in light felonies.
passed by him, and so the people in the area told Y:
“Uy, yung guest mo bastos. Yung lawyer mo na Instigation
pinakilala mo sa amin, bastos, nanghihipo.” Because
of that, Y observed, and he saw that Atty. X kept on Instigation is different from entrapment. In instigation, the
chancing upon women, and said women would be mens rea or the evil or criminal intent originated from the
annoyed, irritated, but out of respect for Y, they mind of the public officer, and said public officer merely
ignored it; however, all of them were already annoyed, lured and/or induced the offender to commit the crime, so
and even the husbands of the women. As such, Y went that he would have someone to arrest and prosecute.
to Atty. X and said, “Atty. X, pare, uwi na tayo. Let me
accompany you home.” However, Atty. X declined and Since the public officer merely lured the offender to commit
said, “No, why would you bring me home? You invited the crime, by reason of public policy, the said offender is
me here, but now you’re going to take me home. I want not criminally liable. Instigation absolves him of criminal
to stay.” But Y insisted that he had to go home as Atty. liability. Instead, it is the public officer who becomes liable
X was already drunk. And so, Y, together with two as a principal by induction/inducement.
guests, lifted Atty. X and tried to accompany him
outside. However, Atty. X saw a table knife, took it, and Entrapment
stabbed the base of Y’s neck. Y was then brought to
the hospital, while Atty. X was arrested. It was not a In entrapment, the mens rea or the evil or criminal intent
big or serious wound. originated from the offender himself, and the public officer
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
merely devised ways and means to trap and capture the The offenders who can become criminally liable for the
offender in flagrante delicto, in the actual act of committing commission of a felony, for grave and less grave felonies:
the crime.
1. Principals;
Since it is the offender himself who authored the criminal 2. Accomplices;
intent, it will not absolve him of criminal liability; rather, he 3. Accessories.
comes criminally liable. The public officer arresting him is
not liable because the said offender already authored and For light felonies, only principals and accomplices are
committed the crime, and the said officer merely trapped criminally liable. Therefore, accessories are absolved of
him in the actual act of committing the crime. criminal liability in case of light felonies. The penalty is
already so low.
EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
ARTICLE 17. PRINCIPALS
Extenuating circumstances are those circumstances
which have the effect of lowering the imposable penalty, Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered
just like mitigating circumstances. principals:
Example: Concealment of dishonor only in crimes of 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
infanticide under Article 255 and intentional abortion under 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
Articles 256 and 258. 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense
by another act without which it would not have been
In these cases of infanticide and intentional abortion, even accomplished.
if the woman herself, who, in case of infanticide, kills her
child less than three days old or 72 hours, to conceal her PRINCIPALS
dishonor. Such concealment of dishonor will lower the
imposable penalty by two degrees. It is an extenuating Principals may be of three kinds:
circumstance is akin to a privilege mitigating
circumstance. 1. Principal by direct participation;
2. Principal by inducement or induction; and
In case of intentional abortion, if it is the pregnant woman 3. Principal by indispensable cooperation.
herself who excludes the fetus from her womb, wanting to
kill the said fetus, to conceal her dishonor. This PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
concealment of dishonor is akin to an ordinary mitigating
circumstance which will lower the imposable penalty. A principal by direct participation is one who directly
executes the crime.
Concealment of dishonor is an extenuating circumstance
that will lower the imposable penalty if it is the mother of
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT OR INDUCTION
the child herself who killed the victim.
A principal by inducement or induction is one who directly
TITLE TWO: force or induce others to commit the crime.
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
ARTICLE 16. WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
A principal by indispensable cooperation is one who
Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The following are cooperates in the commission of the crime by another act
criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies: without which the crime would not have been
accomplished.
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices. These are the three kinds of principals in the commission
3. Accessories. of a crime.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies: Presence at the scene of the crime
1. Principals A principal by direct cooperation and a principal by

2. Accomplices. indispensable cooperation are obviously present at the
scene of the crime. Without them, the crime would not be
accomplished.
Who are criminally liable
The principal by direct cooperation was the one who
actually, directly performs or commits the said act. On the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
other hand, without the principal by indispensable There is a community of design the moment that the
cooperation, the crime would not have been offender concurs with the criminal design offered by the
consummated. Without the said principal, the crime would principal. The moment he concurs, and acted concurring,
not be accomplished. he commits acts previous or simultaneous, giving
assistance to the said consummation of the crime, which
Therefore, necessarily, both are obviously present at the are directly related to the acts by the principal, then he
scene of the crime. becomes liable as an accomplice in the commission of the
crime.
Elements of Principal by Induction or Inducement
ARTICLE 19. ACCESSORIES
A principal by induction or inducement, however, may or
may not appear at the scene of the crime. Even if he is Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who,
absent at the scene of the crime, he can still become having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
criminally liable as a principal if the following elements are without having participated therein, either as principals or
present: accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in
any of the following manners:
1. First, the inducement must be made directly with
deliberate intent of procuring the commission of 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit
the crime; by the effects of the crime.
2. Second, the inducement is the primary reason, the
main consideration why the crime has been 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the
committed. effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery.
If these two are present, even if he is absent at the scene
of the crime, he can still be charged and held liable as a 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
principal by inducement or induction. Just like in movies, the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts
the said mastermind is the principal by inducement and with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author
usually, he does not appear at the scene of the crime. He of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
just gives commands. attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known
to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
If without the said inducement, induction, or command, the
crime would not be committed, then he is liable as a ACCESSORIES
principal by inducement even if he did not appear at the
scene of the crime. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated
ARTICLE 18. ACCOMPLICES therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following
Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons manners:
who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime.
ACCOMPLICES
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime,
Accomplices are those who, without being principals, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to
cooperate in the execution of the crime by previous or prevent its discovery.
simultaneous acts.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
Elements to be considered as Accomplice escape of the principals of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions
For one to be liable as an accomplice, the following or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of
elements must be present: treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take
the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
1. First, that there exists a community of design; habitually guilty of some other crime.
2. Second, that the offender performs acts previous
or simultaneous to the commission of the crime; While a principal authored the criminal design, and the
3. Lastly, there is a direct relation between the act of accomplice concurs with the principal’s criminal design, an
the principal and those attributed to an accessory was not in any way part of the said criminal
accomplice. design. What he knows is that the crime has already been
committed by the said principal and accomplice.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
And, despite knowledge, despite the fact that he knew a
crime has been committed, he takes part subsequent to its Under Sec. 5. of P.D. 1612, the law creates a prima facie
commission. The participation of an accessory is after the presumption of fencing – that any person found in
crime has already been accomplished or after the crime possession of any article, item, object, or anything of value
has already been consummated. That is the time that the which is the proceeds of robbery or thievery, the law
said accessory takes part. presumes that he is a fence.
FIRST ACT OF AN ACCESSORY EXAMPLE: A very expensive ballpen was lost. It was
found of possession of X. X can be charged for the crime
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit of fencing.
by the effects of the crime.
ACCESSORY (1ST ACT) FENCE (P.D. 1612)
In the first act of an accessory, either he himself profited or Crime committed by principal
he assisted the principal to profit – either way he becomes Any crime Robbery or theft
liable as an accessory. Actual knowledge of the commission of the crime
The accessory must have It suffices that based on
Accessory under first act v. Fence under P.D. 1612 actual knowledge of the the facts and
commission of the crime. circumstances, it should
An accessory under the first act is different from a fence have been known to the
under P.D. 1612 in the following manner: supposed fence that this
thing in his possession is
Crime committed by the principal the proceeds of robbery or
thievery.
First, in case of an accessory under Art. 19, the crime
committed by the principal may be any crime. SECOND ACT OF AN ACCESSORY
In case of a fence under P.D. 1612, it is necessary for one 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the
to be liable for fencing, that the crime committed by the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
principal must be either robbery or theft. discovery.
Actual knowledge of commission of the crime Under the second act of an accessory, it is necessary that
the purpose of the said accessory in concealing or
Second, in case of an accessory under Art. 19, the law destroying the body of the crime, the effects or the
requires he must have actual knowledge of the proceeds, must be to prevent its discovery.
commission of the crime. It is the burden of the State and
of the prosecution to prove such knowledge before one can Although he concealed, or he destroyed the body of the
be held liable as an accessory. Mere presumption will not crime, if his purpose is not to prevent its discovery, then he
suffice. cannot be held liable as an accessory. The law requires
that his purpose in concealing or destroying the effects, the
There must be evidence showing that indeed he knew that instruments, or the body of the crime must be to prevent
a crime has been committed and despite such knowledge, the discovery of the said crime. In that manner, he was
he takes part by profiting from the proceeds of the said act. assisting.
So, it is necessary that there must be actual knowledge.
Body of the crime (or substance of the crime, or
In case of a fence under P.D. 1612, the law does not corpus delicti)
require him to have actual knowledge of the crime of
robbery or theft. Under the third element of fencing (i.e., It refers to the fact that a crime has been committed by
that the offender knows or should have known that the someone. It has two elements:
thing in his possession is the proceeds of robbery or
thievery), it suffices that based on the facts and 1. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event – that a
circumstances, it should have been known to him that this crime has been committed;
thing in his possession is the proceeds of robbery or 2. Proof of a person’s criminal responsibility therefor
thievery. – that a person is the one liable.
This is because of Sec. 5 of P.D. 1612, viz. – THIRD ACT OF AN ACCESSORY
Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which
the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts
has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author
facie evidence of fencing. of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known accessory by profiting from the effects of the crime. Under
to be habitually guilty of some other crime. the first act, such relationship between the principal and
the accessory will not absolve the accessory from criminal
Under the third act of an accessory, there are two kinds. liability.
The accessory under the third act can either be a public
officer or a private individual: Q: Does it mean that the said accessory who
committed the second and the third act of Art. 19 will
1. If it is a public officer who harbors, conceals or totally be absolved of criminal liability?
assists in the escape of the principal, the law
requires, in doing so, he must have taken A: He is absolved of liability as an accessory. But, he can
advantage of his public function; be prosecuted under P.D. 1829 or Obstruction of Justice.
2. If the accessory who harbors, conceals or assists This is because his act of concealing the body of the crime,
in the escape of the principal is a private person, of destroying the body of the crime in order to prevent its
what the law requires is that the said principal must discovery; his act of assisting in the escape of the principal;
be guilty of: would be an act that would frustrate, hamper or impede the
arrest of the offender and the prosecution and investigation
a. Treason; of the crime.
b. Parricide;
c. Murder; or Therefore, he can be held liable under P.D. 1829.
d. An attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive; or PEOPLE v. DULAY
e. Is known to be habitually guilty of some G.R. No. 193854 | 24 September 2012
other crime.
In this case, Dulay was charged as a principal by
Note: indispensable cooperation in the crime of rape. The
An accessory is absolved of criminal liability if the crime Supreme Court said no, he is not a principal by
committed is only a light felony. indispensable cooperation in the crime of rape.
ARTICLE 20. ACCESSORIES WHO ARE EXEMPT The reasoning given by the Supreme Court is that the said
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY girl may be brought to Speed (the one who raped her), not
necessarily by Dulay but by any person. The Supreme
Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal Court ruled that even if another person brought the girl to
liability. - The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not Speed, or even if the girl herself presented herself to
Speed, she will still be raped.
be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their
spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural,
Therefore, the Supreme Court said the act done by Dulay
and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees, with the single exception of is not indispensable to consummate the act of raping the
accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of said girl.
the next preceding article.
The Supreme Court held Dulay liable for violation of Sec.
5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 because she acted as a procurer of
Another circumstance which would exempt an accessory
a child prostitute, or a pimp.
from criminal liability is relationship.
PVG: If you will read the case, you will notice that the
Under Art. 20, if the said accessory is:
Supreme Court was a bit judgmental. It was assumed that
the child was a child prostitute. The Supreme Court said
1. Related to the principal as his spouse,
the child can present herself to Speed and still, rape will be
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and
committed. The Supreme Court assumed, based on the
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by
evidence, that this girl is involved in child prostitution and
affinity within the same degrees, and
that it was the child’s business to engage in prostitution –
2. That the act that he had committed pertains to the
and Dulay only happened to bring her to Speed.
second or the third act of an accessory under Art.
19 –
If you will read the case, this was what the Supreme Court
was trying to say. The Supreme Court said that Dulay was
-- he is absolved of criminal liability because of his
a pimp and a procurer of child prostitutes. Therefore, in
relationship with the principal in the commission of the
effect, the Supreme Court ruled that the said girl was a
crime.
child prostitute because it may happen that she herself
may present herself to Speed and still, Speed will commit
This exemption under Art. 20, however, does not apply
the act of rape against her.
despite relationship, to a relative who will act as an
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
was able to repeatedly stab him. As a result, Police
GURRO v. PEOPLE Officer Y died.
G.R. No. 224562 | 18 September 2019
In the commission of the crime, what is the criminal
In this case, Gurro was held liable by the Supreme Court liability of B? Is B a principal by indispensable
as an accessory. cooperation or is B an accomplice?
If you will remember the case under Art. 8 (Conspiracy) – A: B is a principal by indispensable cooperation.
People v. Estanly Octa – the act done by Estanly Octa is Without B’s act of restraining the hand of the police officer,
almost the same as the act done by Excel Gurro in this the police officer could have gotten his pistol and he could
case of Gurro v. People. have defended himself and not be killed. At that particular
moment, an implied conspiracy was established between
In the case of People v. Octa, Estanly Octa was the man A and B. Although it was A who stabbed the victim, B
wearing a red cap to whom the said wife gave the ransom showed that he had the same unity of purpose, unity of
money for the release of her husband. In the case of Gurro criminal design – that is, to kill the police officer – by
v. People, Excel Gurro was the one who withdrew from the restraining the hands of the said police officer.
ATM the ransom money and wired it to the principal in the
commission of the crime. Therefore, B shall be held criminally liable as a principal by
indispensable cooperation, a co-conspirator.
In the case of People v. Octa, the Supreme Court said
Octa, who received the ransom money, is liable as a co- Q: Brother X, Y and Z wanted to kill and get rid of W.
conspirator in the commission of the crime. The Supreme They had this land dispute. X, Y and Z claims that the
Court said, the reason was, at the time Octa received the land belongs to them, while W said, no, the land was
money, the said kidnap victim was still being held by the inherited by him. X, Y and Z planned to go to the place
said kidnappers. Kidnapping was ongoing. of W but they did not know where he was. They knew
someone by the name of A. They went to A and they
In the case, however, of Gurro v. People, the Supreme informed A of their intent – that they wanted to kill W.
Court said at the time Gurro withdrew the money and wired A also has bad blood against W. X, Y and Z told A, “Can
it to the principal, the child (who was kidnapped) was you draw a sketch, we don’t know where he lives. Can
already dead. The child has been killed. Therefore, the you draw a sketch that will lead us to his house?”
crime was already consummated.
And so, A drew a sketch. By reason of the said sketch,
Nevertheless, Gurro knew of its consummation and still he X, Y and Z were able to determine the location of the
withdrew the said amount of money. His participation, house of W. Upon reaching the place, they
according to the Supreme Court, is after the commission immediately killed W.
of the crime and hence, Gurro was only held liable as an
accessory to the commission of the crime. What is the criminal liability of A? Is A a principal by
indispensable cooperation or is A an accomplice in the
Q: X was in a restaurant. He smelled marijuana. X went commission of the crime?
outside. He was looking for police. He wanted to report
that someone was smoking marijuana inside the A: A is a mere accomplice in the commission of the
restaurant. He found a police car parked, and he told crime. A’s act of drawing a sketch in order to locate the
the policeman, “Sir, somebody is smoking marijuana house of W is not indispensable to the commission of the
inside.” Because of this, Police Officer Y immediately crime. The said act may be done by another person. And,
went inside. Upon entering, Police Officer Y could even without the said sketch, X, Y and Z can find a way to
already smell marijuana and saw these two men, A and determine the said house and kill the said victim.
B, in one of the tables, obviously engaged in using Therefore, since the act of A is not indispensable to the act
marijuana in a public place. of killing, his criminal liability is only that of an accomplice.
He is not a principal by indispensable cooperation.
Police Officer Y went to them and told A and B,
“Nagmamarijuana kayo? Sa public place pa? Wala Q: X is a domestic helper in the house of the master Y
kayong katakot-takot.” Police Officer Y held both and Z. When Y and Z were out for two days, X
hands of A and B – he held the left hands of A and B. ransacked the house and took valuables from the
At that particular moment, A got his knife and house. She broke the cabinet and thereafter, after
thereafter stabbed Police Officer Y. Police Officer Y breaking each and every cabinet, took all the valuables
tried to get his service pistol as an act of defense. therein and thereafter placed them inside her bag and
However, B restrained the hands of Police Officer Y hurriedly went home and told her mother what she did.
from getting the service pistol. As a result, Police
Officer Y was unable to get his service pistol and A Her mother was shocked. Her mother was so afraid
that her daughter will be arrested by the police the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
moment the said act of stealing was discovered. Her A: Since the mother is a private person, for her to become
daughter was the only one that she had. And so, she liable as an accessory under the third act, it is necessary
told her daughter to go to another town to a friend who that the daughter must be guilty of treason, parricide,
will harbor her and conceal her. Because of that, the murder. In this case, the crime committed is robbery.
mother called the friend, and the daughter went to the Therefore, the mother will not be liable as an accessory
said friend. under the third act of Article 19.
Because of that, the mother called a friend, and the The next act done by the mother was to conceal the
daughter went to the said friend. Meanwhile, the said money which is the proceeds of the said crime. The
mother who was given the said money, the said mother concealed the money by giving it to a friend saying
valuables taken by the said daughter, the mother hid it that she won in the lotto in order to prevent its discovery.
in a box under the bed that night. The following Therefore, in that case, the mother is liable as an
morning, the mother went to the said friend and told accessory. However, she is exempted by reason of her
the friend, “Friend, I won in the lotto. Here is a box of relationship by her own daughter. She is the ascendant of
money. Now, please keep this until I arrive. Do not her daughter. Therefore, by reason of Article 20, she is
show it to anyone. Baka makibalato eh, so please keep absolved of criminal liability. However, in both instances,
this. Only you know that I won in the lotto.” So, she she becomes liable for violating PD 1829 or
gave the box of money to the said friend. Obstruction of Justice.
Thereafter, she went from one place to another until The third act done by the mother, the mother sold the said
she was able to reach the City of Venezuela. There, in jewelries to a store. When the said mother sold the
the City of Venezuela, she tried to look for a jewelry jewelries to the said store, no matter how little she profited
store. She sold the jewelries stolen by her daughter. from the effects of the crime, she gained P50,000 from the
The said jewelry store owner, upon seeing the said jewelries. Therefore, she is liable as an accessory
jewelries, “Ma’am these are real diamonds, big carats. under the first act of Article 19. And this time, Article 20,
I don’t think my store will have the money to buy it. exemption will not lie.
You can go to another jewelry store. I like your
jewelries, but I would not have the money.” The mother Q: What about the jewelry store owner?
told the said store owner, “How much money do you
have?” The store owner said, “It is early morning, I A: The jewelry store owner is liable under PD 1612. All
only have here P50,000, but your jewelries if these will the elements of fencing are present.
be appraised, it will cost more or less P2M. I don’t have
that money Ma’am. Go to another store.” But when the First, that a crime of theft or robbery has been committed.
woman looked at the back of the said store, the woman Robbery has been committed.
saw that there are already police officers. Afraid that
these police officers were after her, she said, “Give me Second, that the offender who is neither a principal nor an
your P50,000. All these jewelries are yours.” Then the accomplice in the said crime of robbery or theft is found in
mother hurriedly left. possession of any article, item, object, or anything of value
which is the proceeds of the robbery or theft. The store
The store owner was so happy. Jewelries appraised at owner was found in possession of these jewelries which
2M, he was only able to buy it for P50,000.00. However, are the proceeds of the robbery.
while he was looking at these jewelries and about to
place it on display, the police arrived. The police said, Third, that the offender knows or should have known that
“the woman who left, what is her name?” The said a thing in his possession is the proceeds of robbery or theft.
store owner gave the name as introduced by the said He should have known. Who on earth will sell jewelries
woman. The police officers called the owner of the worth P2M for only P50,000? Only when the said jewelries
jewelry and the owner said that those are the jewelries are the proceeds of a crime. Therefore, it should have been
stolen by her helper. So, the store owner was arrested. known to him. Third element is present.
What are the criminal liabilities of X, of the mother, and
of the said jewelry store owner? Lastly, there is on the part of the offender intent to gain
either for himself or for another. Obviously, by the said act
A: X is liable as principal by direct participation in the of buying, there is already intent to gain.
crime of robbery. She employed force in breaking the lock
cabinet in order to take the valuables therein. She was the Therefore, he can be held liable for fencing.
one who directly executed the crime of robbery. Therefore,
she is liable as principal by direct participation in the crime Q: What if in the same problem, the police officers
of robbery. arrested the moment the owner pointed “those are my
jewelries”. The police officers arrested the store
Q: What about the mother? owner, placed handcuffs on him. In flagrante delicto,
he was caught in possession of the stolen jewelries.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
He was placed on board a police car. It was in there was no evidence to link Ong as the perpetrator of the
Venezuela City. Thereafter, the store owner was robbery, he never denied the fact that 13 tires of Francisco
brought to Manila where the said act of robbery was were caught in his possession. Third, Ong knew or should
taken. There, the said store owner was charged with a have known that the said article, item, object or anything of
crime of fencing before the office of the public value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
prosecutor. So, the police officers filed a complaint for robbery or theft. The words "should know" denote the fact
fencing, violation of PD 1612 against the store owner that a person of reasonable prudence and intelligence
before the office of the public prosecutor of Manila. would ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to
What should be the resolution of the fiscal’s office of another or would govern his conduct upon assumption that
Manila? such fact exists. Ong, who was in the business of buy and
sell of tires for the past 24 years, ought to have known the
A: The office of public prosecutor of City of Manila ordinary course of business in purchasing from an
must dismiss the case because they have no unknown seller. Ong’s experience from the business
jurisdiction over the said crime of fencing. Fencing is should have given him doubt as to the legitimate ownership
not a continuing or transitory crime. Therefore, of the tires considering that it was his first time to transact
fencing can only be filed before the courts where a with Go and the manner it was sold is as if Go was just
person was found in possession of the said stolen peddling the 13 tires in the streets. Finally, there was
items. The store owner was found in possession of the evident intent to gain for himself, considering that during
stolen jewelries inside his store in Venezuela City. the buy-bust operation, Ong was actually caught selling the
Therefore, the case of fending or violation of PD 1612 stolen tires in his store, Jong Marketing
must only be filed before the office of the public
prosecutor of Venezuela City and it can only be heard CASE DISCUSSION: ONG v. PEOPLE
by the trial court of Venezuela City because it is not a
transitory or continuing offense. The Supreme Court said, fencing is a crime malum
prohibitum. It is not a crime malum in se because it is a
Note: violation of special penal law. Therefore, criminal intent is
According to the Supreme Court, fencing is a crime that not an element.
involves moral turpitude because robbery and thievery
Q: X committed murder. He escaped. He went to his
are crimes involving moral turpitude.
father who is a Chief PNP of a certain town. The father
was shocked when he saw his son out. “You
ONG v. PEOPLE escaped?” X told his father, “Yes, help me. Hide me!”
G.R. No. 190475 | 10 April 2013 And so, the father used his connections to hide his
son. However, the authorities later went to the said
FACTS: 38 tires owned by Francisco Azajar were stolen. father, General W. The authorities were looking from
He marked the tires using a piece of chalk before storing General W his son X. The father denied having
them inside the warehouse. Pending the police knowledge. But later, based on a tip from a reliable
investigation, Francisco canvassed from numerous informant, the whereabouts of X was found. He was
business establishments in an attempt to locate the stolen living in the house of a friend of General W. Is General
tires. He chanced upon Jong's Marketing, a store owned W liable as an accessory?
and operated by Jamie Ong. Francisco inquired if Ong was
selling any Model T494 1100 by 20 by 14 ply Firestone A: General W is liable under the third act of Article 19.
tires, to which the latter replied in the affirmative. Ong He is a public officer, and in hiding, concealing, assisting
brought out a tire fitting the description, which Francisco in the escape of his son, obviously, he took advantage of
recognized as one of the tires stolen from his warehouse, his public position. Therefore, he is an accessory under the
based on the chalk marking and the serial number thereon. third act of Article 19. However, he is related to his son.
Therefore, the exemption provided for under Article 20
In a buy-bust operation, Ong was arrested. Ong alleged applies to him by reason of relationship. But General W
that he had been engaged in the business of buying and can be held liable under PD 1829 or Obstruction of Justice.
selling tires for 24 years and he denied that he had any
knowledge that he was selling stolen tires in Jong
Marketing. TITLE THREE: PENALTIES
ISSUE: WON Ong is guilty of violating the Anti-Fencing PENALTIES IN GENERAL

Law
Penalties are the punishment imposed by lawful authority
RULING: YES. All the elements of fencing are present upon a person who has committed an intentional felony or
in this case. First, the owner of the tires, Francisco, whose a culpable felony.
testimony was corroborated by the caretaker of the
warehouse where the 38 tires were stolen, testified that the
crime of robbery had been committed. Second, although
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony
shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
prior to its commission. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and
Only those penalties prescribed by law prior to its be voted for, the profession or calling.
commission may be imposed by the courts. Note, penalties Civil interdiction,
are prescribed by law enacted by Congress. Judges only Indemnification,
impose the penalties as prescribed by law in case of Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
conviction. Therefore, judges cannot go against what the proceeds of the offense,
law prescribes or what the law provides. And judges are Payment of costs.
required to impose only penalties prescribed by law prior
to its commission. Because otherwise, it will be a violation PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.
Principal penalties are the penalties imposed by courts and
TWO KINDS OF PENALTIES prescribed by law.
1. Principal Penalties; and ACCESSORY PENALTIES

2. Accessory Penalties
Accessory penalties are penalties that follow the principal
Article 25 list down the principal penalties which may be penalty as a matter of law. Hence, accessory penalties
imposed by the court as well as the accessory penalties need not be stated in the judgment of the court.
which may be imposed by the court. Automatically, accessory penalties follow the principal
penalties to which it attaches.
Article 25. Penalties which may be imposed. - The
penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
and their different classes, are those included in the
following: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OR DEATH PENALTY
Scale
Principal Penalties DEATH
Capital punishment: Capital punishment or death penalty is the penalty

prescribed by law for heinous crimes under R.A. 7659.
Death.
So, if the crime committed is a heinous crime, for example,
Afflictive penalties: Qualified Rape, the penalty prescribed by law is death
penalty. However, by reason of R.A. 9346, death penalty
Reclusion perpetua, cannot be imposed at the moment.
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, These heinous crimes remain to be heinous. And these
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, heinous crimes remain to have the prescribed penalty of
Prision mayor. death. However, even if found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the said heinous crimes, judges cannot impose
Correctional penalties: upon these convicts the penalty of death prescribed by law
by reason of R.A. 9346. It has to be reduced to reclusion
Prision correccional, perpetua if it is a violation of the Revised Penal Code, and
Arresto mayor, to life imprisonment if it is a violation of Special Penal Laws.
Suspension,
Destierro. If the penalty ought to be imposed on an offender is death
and death cannot be imposed by reason of R.A. 9346, the
Light penalties: Supreme Court and the law under Section 3 of R.A. 9346
provides that, in imposing the penalty for reclusion
Arresto menor, perpetua, the judge must include the qualification “without
Public censure. eligibility for parole.” It is necessary to state “reclusion
perpetua without the eligibility for parole” in order to show
Penalties common to the three preceding classes: that this convict should have been sentenced with death,
only, death cannot be imposed by reason of R.A. 9346.
Fine, and Supreme Court said, if there is that qualification it will show
Bond to keep the peace. that it should have been sentenced with death penalty.
Accessory Penalties
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES 2. The right to
gratuitous and other
RECLUSION PERPETUA special benefits
such as retirement
Reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment.
Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are two separate pay or pension for
and distinct penalties. Hence, SC said, they should not be offices previously
used interchangeably. held.
RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT Disqualification, particularly temporary disqualification, can

be imposed either as a principal penalty or as an accessory
Penalty prescribed under Penalty prescribed by
penalty.
the Revised Penal Code. Special Penal Laws.
Has a fixed duration. Temporary Disqualification as a Principal Penalty
If temporary disqualification is imposed as a principal

Twenty (20) years and one
Has no fixed duration. penalty, its duration is six (6) year and one day to twelve
(1) day to forty (40) years, (12) years under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 27 as amended by
R.A. 7659. Temporary Disqualification as an Accessory Penalty
Carries with it accessory No attached accessory
If temporary disqualification is imposed only as an
penalties. penalties. accessory penalty, it merely follows the duration of the
principal penalty to which it attached.
Reclusion perpetua, although it has now a fixed duration
under Artcile 27 as amended by R.A 7659 of twenty (20) PRISION MAYOR
years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, Art. 27 as
amended by R.A. 7659, SC said, remains to be an The penalty of prision mayor shall be from six (6) years and
indivisible penalty. Because, according to the SC, there is one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Art. 27, RPC
nothing in R.A. 7659 which shows that Congress has the
intention to alter, to change, the nature of reclusion CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
perpetua from indivisible to divisible. Hence, it remains to
be an indivisible penalty. Whenever it is imposed as a PRISION CORRECTIONAL
penalty, the judge need not state its duration.
The penalty of prision correctional shall be from six (6)
RECLUSION TEMPORAL months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Art. 27, RPC
The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve (12) ARRESTO MAYOR
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Art. 27, RPC
The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from
DISQUALIFICATION one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months.
Disqualification, whether absolute or special, can either be SUSPENSION

perpetual or temporary. Perpetual
Suspension is both a principal penalty and an accessory
PERPETUAL TEMPORARY penalty.
DISQUALIFICATION DISQUALIFICATION
Suspension as a Principal Penalty
Effective only during the
term of the sentence, and If suspension is imposed as a principal penalty, it has the
it is removed after the same duration as prision correctional, six (6) months and
Effective during the service of the sentence, one (1) day to six (6) years.
lifetime of the convict and except:
even after the service of Suspension as an Accessory Penalty
the sentence. 1. The right to public
If suspension is imposed only as an accessory penalty, it
office/employment;
merely follows the duration of the principal penalty to which
and it attached.
DESTIERRO
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Destierro is a penalty which does not involve imprisonment Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty that follows the
or being placed behind bars. If a person is sentenced with principal penalty of death, reclusion perpetua, and
destierro, he is not placed behind bar, he is not imprisoned, reclusion temporal. Therefore, the moment a person is
he is not incarcerated. However, he is prohibited from convicted of a crime and the penalty imposed on him is
entering the place designated in the judgment of the court. reclusion perpetua, automatically, he is civilly interdicted.
Therefore, destierro also involves deprivation of liberty The court may not state it in the judgment because
although partial in nature because that person convicted automatically, civil interdiction follows reclusion perpetua
with destierro cannot enter the place designated in the as the principal penalty.
judgment of the court.
In civil interdiction, the offender is prevented to exercise
If he enters the said prohibited place, he becomes liable any of the rights enumerated under Article 34:
for evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 of
Book II. 1. Rights of parental authority;
2. Guardianship, either as to the person or property
LIGHT PENALTIES of any ward;
3. Marital authority;
ARRESTO MENOR 4. The right to manage his property; and
5. The right to dispose of such property by any act or
The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from any conveyance inter vivos.
one (1) day to thirty (30) days.
If a person is convicted of a crime and sentenced with
PUBLIC CENSURE reclusion perpetua, he is civilly interdicted. Therefore, he is
prevented to exercise any of the rights enumerated under
Public censure is an indivisible penalty. You cannot put a Art. 34, RPC:
duration on a mere reprimand. Therefore, it is indivisible, it
has no fixed duration. 1. Rights of parental authority or guardianship either
as to the person or property of any ward;
PENALTIES THAT APPLY TO ALL 2. Rights of marital authority;
3. Right to manage his property; and
FINE 4. Right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos.
Fine is a pecuniary penalty imposed upon a person
convicted of a crime. Fine can either be afflictive, He is deprived of all of these rights under Art. 34 the
correctional, or light. moment the said offender is sentenced with the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal. Civil
Article 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. - interdiction attaches to reclusion perpetua and reclusion
A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative temporal as penalties.
penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it
exceeds One million two hundred thousand (₱1,200,000); Q: Can a person who is civilly interdicted prepare a last
a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed One million two will or testament?
hundred thousand pesos (₱1,200,000) but is not less than
Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000); and a light penalty, if it A: YES. Although a last will and testament is prepared by
a testator during his lifetime, or inter-vivos, the disposal of
be less than Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000). Article 26,
the property is not during his lifetime, but after his death,
RPC, as amended by R.A. 10951
or mortis causa.
BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
Therefore, it is right.
If bond to keep the peace is imposed on a person convicted
FORFEITURE OR CONFISCATION OF INSTRUMENTS
of a crime, that person is required to present two sureties
AND PROCEEDS OF THE CRIME
who shall see to it that he shall appear in court, and that he
shall not commit the crime.
Article 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or
If he fails to present these two sureties, he shall be instruments of the crime. - Every penalty imposed for the
detained – six (6) months in case of grave or less grave commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of
felonies, and thirty (30) days in case of light felonies. the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with
which it was committed.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be
CIVIL INTERDICTION confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
unless they be property of a third person not liable for the 2. Indemnification of consequential damages.
offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful 3. The fine.
commerce shall be destroyed. 4.The cost of the proceedings.
This accessory penalty is under Art. 25 and stated under Pecuniary liabilities, under Art. 38, shall include:
Art. 45.
1. The reparation of the damage caused.
This accessory penalty, under Art. 45, follows all principal 2. Indemnification of consequential damages.
penalties. Whatever be the principal penalty imposed on 3. The fine.
the offender, whether it is as high as reclusion perpetua or 4. The cost of the proceedings.
as low as arresto menor, all deposits, effects, and
instruments used in the commission of the crime shall be If a convict is imposed with pecuniary liabilities and he
forfeited in favor of the state, except if it belongs to an does not have much property, much funds, in order to
innocent third person. answer for all the pecuniary liabilities, Art. 38 provides for
the order of payment. First to be paid—reparation, then
However, even if it belongs to a third person, if it is an indemnification, fine and cost of the proceedings.
article outside of lawful commerce of man, then it has to be
destroyed. Therefore, the law requires that those which must be given
to the private complainant must be given priority in
Forfeiture of deposits, effects, and instruments in the payment than those which will go to the State or to the
commission of the crime is an accessory penalty that government.
follows all kinds of principal penalties.
Q: X was charged with homicide. The bail fixed by the
PAYMENT OF COSTS court is 200,000 pesos. X is a poor money. He has no
money to post the said 200,000. What will happen to
Article 37. Cost; What are included. - Costs shall include him?
fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial
proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts A: While he is ongoing trial, X will be placed behind bars.
previously determined by law or regulations in force, or X will undergo preventive imprisonment.
amounts not subject to schedule.
PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
Costs refer to expenses of litigation. It includes fees and
indemnities in the course of judicial proceedings. Concept
As a rule, if the accused is convicted, the court will include Preventive imprisonment is the detention of an accused
in its judgment that the convict shall pay the costs of while his case is pending trial, either because the crime he
proceedings. However, if the said accused is acquitted of committed is a non-bailable offense and evidence of guilt
the crime charged, the court will state that the cost of is strong, or the crime he committed is a bailable offense
proceedings shall be borne by both parties. The private but he does not have the money to post the bail fixed by
complainant shall bear his own cost of proceedings, the the court.
accused shall bear his own cost of proceedings.
In order to ensure that he will not escape, he shall be either
Those are the accessory penalties that will follow the at the city jail, the provincial jail, or municipal jail. The
principal penalties as enumerated under Art. 25. purpose is to prevent him from escaping.
TWO PECUNIARY PENALTIES UNDER ART. 25 Article 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted
from term of imprisonment. – Offenders or accused who
Under Art. 25, we have two pecuniary penalties: have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited
in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of
1. Fine; liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone
2. Cost of proceedings. preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees
voluntarily in writing after being informed of the effects
Pecuniary penalties are different from pecuniary liabilities. thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners,
Article 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. - In except in the following cases:
case the property of the offender should not be sufficient
for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same 1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted
shall be met in the following order: previously twice or more times of any crime; and
1. The reparation of the damage caused.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their It must always be reduced into writing in the presence
sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily. of the said counsel of his choice.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the In case he does not want to agree, to abide by the same
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, rules and regulations imposed on convicted felons, still, it
he shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel must be in writing in the presence of a counsel after the
and shall be credited in the service of his sentence with counsel has explained to him the consequences of his non-
four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone agreement.
preventive imprisonment.
It must always be:
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty
of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30) 1. Reduced into writing;
years. 2. Done in the presence of counsel;
3. After the counsel has explained to him the
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive consequences of his act.
imprisonment for a period equal to the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be Q: X and Y were caught in flagrante delicto by the wife
sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be engaging in sexual intercourse in a scandalous
released immediately without prejudice to the continuation manner. The husband and the concubine were placed
of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same behind bars. A charge of concubinage was filed. They
is under review. Computation of preventive imprisonment are now thirty (30) days behind bars. What should the
for purposes of immediate release under this paragraph counsel of the concubine do?
shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct
time allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is A: The counsel of the concubine must immediately file a
absent without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the petition for habeas corpus and move for the removal of the
court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the said concubine from jail.
accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual
delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous The said concubine must be immediately released from
crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case jail. Under Art. 29, as amended, if the maximum penalty
the maximum penalty to which the accused may be imposable is destierro, the said detention prisoner must be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) immediately released after thirty (30) days of preventive
days of preventive imprisonment. imprisonment.
Under Art. 29, as amended by R.A. 10592, the period of The penalty for a concubine in case of concubinage is only
preventive imprisonment that a detention prisoner has destierro. Therefore, she can only be placed behind bars,
undergone may be deducted from his final sentence. undergoing preventive imprisonment for a period of thirty
(30) days. Beyond, she shall be immediately released, but
There shall be full credit if the detention prisoner agrees in of course without prejudice to the continuation of the trial
writing to abide by the same rules and regulations imposed against her.
on convicted felons.
Q: X, the accused, was charged with the crime of
There shall only be 4/5 credit if the said detention prisoner attempted homicide. He is a poor man. He does not
does not agree to abide by the same rules and regulations have 6,000 pesos to post the bail imposed by the court.
imposed on convicted felons. While his case was on going trial, he was behind
bars—he was at the BJMP. From the time of his arrest
Requirement that it be “in writing” (time he was placed behind bars) up to date, it is
already the sixth year. When his counsel saw it, he
Art. 29 has been amended by R.A. 10592. The amendment immediately filed a petition for habeas corpus praying
specifies an effect that this agreement or non-agreement for the immediate release of X because according to
should be in writing in the presence of his counsel, after his him, under Art. 29, the moment a detention prisoner
chosen counsel has explained to him the consequences of has undergone imprisonment equal to the maximum
his act. penalty which may be imposed on him, he shall be
immediately released without prejudice to the
In case the said detention prisoner agrees to abide by the continuation of the trial against him and without
same rules and regulations of convicted felons, it is prejudice to appeal, if his case is under review. Is the
necessary that his counsel must have explained to him the counsel correct?
consequences of his act.
A: YES. The charge was attempted homicide. Penalty for
Note: attempted homicide is prision correccional. Maximum is six
years. He has undergone preventive imprisonment for six
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
years. Even if he is convicted, he will be ordered released,
because he has already timely served the said penalty SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
imposable – 6 years. Therefore, the counsel was correct in
filing the petition for habeas corpus. Concept
Q: Because of the ground raised, the court Subsidiary penalty is the penalty imposed on an offender
immediately granted the petition for habeas corpus in case fine is included in his penalty and he happens to be
and X was released. Two weeks thereafter, on the next insolvent to pay the fine imposed by the court.
date of trial of X, the judge asked the PAO attorney of
the whereabouts of X. The PAO attorney said that he Subsidiary penalty is the penalty in lieu of payment of fine.
has already lost contact with him from the time he was Therefore, before an offender can be made to suffer
released. He could not locate him. He tried calling him subsidiary penalty, it is first and foremost necessary that:
on the phone with the number that he left but no one
answers. He also sent a messenger to his house—he 1. He is sentenced with a fine;
needed to confer with him for his testimony, however, 2. The said subsidiary penalty must be expressly
the house was already empty. He does not know where stated in the judgment of the court that in case of
to find him. his insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer
subsidiary penalty.
The judge became mad. The judge immediately issued Rate
an order of arrest. The police officers, armed with the
warrant issued against X, went to his house. The The rate is one day of imprisonment is equal to the highest
neighbors said “Matagal ng wala diyan. Matagal ng minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time
umalis.” The police officers tried to locate him. After of rendition of judgment by the trial court.
talking from one person to another, they learned that
X has a sister who was living in another town, so they Article 39. Subsidiary penalty. - If the convict has no
went to the said town and true enough, they found X in property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the
the house of the said sister. They served the warrant paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be
of arrest on him and bought X behind bars. subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one
day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum
Is the judge correct in issuing the said warrant of wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the
arrest? Is it not that X has already served six years rendition of judgment of conviction by the trial court,
behind bars which is the maximum penalty imposable subject to the following rules:
upon him for attempted homicide?
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional
A: YES. The judge is correct. or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until
his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied,
The said warrant issued against X is a bench warrant. It is but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third
not a warrant for the crime that he has committed. It is a of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue
warrant because he violated the rules. He violated the for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day
rules that he has to appear in the succeeding hearings of shall be counted against the prisoner.
the case.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the
Therefore, he is placed behind bars based on the warrant subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the
of arrest not because of the crime that he has committed culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave
but because he violated the rules and failed to appear. felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light
felony.
Note:
Even if the detention prisoner is released, he has the 3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision
obligation to appear in trial as his release does not correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed
mean the termination of his case. It is without prejudice upon the culprit.
to the continuation of the trial against him. He still has
to appear in every trial and even if the case is already 4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by
on appeal, it is not a termination of his case. confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of
fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time
The only good thing is, if the case reaches the Supreme established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer
Court, and the Court sees that he has already served six the same deprivations as those of which the principal
years, he may be convicted but he may no longer be penalty consists.
ordered to be placed behind bars because he has already
served the maximum sentence which is to be imposed on 5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may
him. have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances
should improve. (As amended by RA 10159, July 25, 2011) Outline of Rules on Subsidiary Imprisonemnt
PRINCIPAL
RULE OF SUBSIDIARY
Q: X is convicted. The penalty imposed upon him is PENALTY
IMPRISONMENT
arresto menor and fine. The judge stated therein that IMPOSED
in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer It shall not exceed one-third (1/3)
Prision
subsidiary penalty. That was the dispositive portion of of the term of the sentence.
Correccional or
Arresto + Fine
X appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed in toto the It shall not exceed one year.
decision of the MTC. X was amenable to the decision It shall not exceed six (6) months,
of the CA. He no longer wanted to further appeal to the in case of grave or less grave
SC. He will now be serving his sentence. felonies.
Fine alone
What shall be the basis of his subsidiary penalty? It shall not exceed fifteen (15) days
in case of light felonies.
A: The basis shall be the highest minimum wage rate Higher than
prevailing in the Philippines at the time the MTC rendered Subsidiary imprisonment cannot
Prision
its decision and not at the time the CA rendered its decision be imposed.
Correccional
two years thereafter. Principal penalty
is not to be
Note: executed in a It shall not exceed one-third (1/3)
The basis is the highest minimum wage rate prevailing penal institution of the term of the sentence.
in the Philippines at the time of rendition of judgment but WITH fixed
by the trial court that heard and decided the case, not duration It shall not exceed one year.
by the appellate court.
(e.g. destierro or
Under Art. 39, as amended, the following are the rules for suspension +
subsidiary penalty: fine)
Principal penalty
1. If the principal penalty imposed by the court, in is not to be
addition to fine, is prision correccional or arresto- executed in a
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one- penal institution
third (1/3) of the term of the sentence, but in no but WITHOUT Subsidiary imprisonment cannot
case to be more than one year. fixed duration be imposed.
2. If the principal penalty imposed by the court is fine (e.g. public

alone, the subsidiary penalty shall not exceed six censure and
(6) months, in case of grave or less grave felonies, fine)
and fifteen (15) days in case of light felonies.
These are the rules for imposition of subsidiary penalty.
3. If the principal penalty imposed by the court that Subsidiary penalty can only be imposed if the penalty
goes with fine is higher than prision correccional, imposed on the offender includes fine. Either fine alone, or
or more than six (6) years, subsidiary penalty fine with any of those penalties enumerated under Art. 39.
cannot be imposed on the offender even in case
of insolvency to pay the fine. Q: X was charged and thereafter convicted by the trial
court of the crime of perjury as amended. The judge
4. If the principal penalty imposed by the court that convicted him and imposed upon him the penalty of
goes with fine is not to be executed by prision mayor and fine. In the dispositive portion, the
confinement in a penal institution, but is of fixed judge also stated that in case of X’s insolvency to pay
duration (for example, destierro and fine; the crime, he shall suffer subsidiary penalty. Is the
suspension and fine), subsidiary penalty shall not judge correct?
exceed one-third (1/3) of the term of the sentence,
but in no case to be more than one year. A: NO. The judge is wrong. The principal penalty imposed
together with fine is prision mayor. It is higher than prision
If the principal penalty that goes with fine is not to be correccional. It is more than six years. Therefore, even if X
executed by confinement in a penal institution, but is is insolvent to pay the crime, he cannot be made to suffer
without fixed duration (for example, fine and public subsidiary penalty.
censure), he cannot be made to suffer subsidiary penalty
even if he is insolvent to pay the fine.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Q: X was charged and thereafter convicted by the MTC 2. Complex crime proper.
of slight physical injuries. The penalties imposed are
arresto menor and fine. The judge stated that in case COMPOUND CRIME
of X’s insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer
subsidiary penalty. Is the judge correct? There is a compound crime when a single act produces
two or more grave or less grave felonies.
A: YES. The judge is correct. Based on the first rule, if the
penalty imposed by the court is arresto and fine, subsidiary Elements of a Compound Crime
penalty shall not exceed one-third of the term of the
sentence, but in no case to be more than one year. 1. The offender performs a single act;
2. The single act produces two or more grave or less
Q: X was convicted by the MTC of reckless grave felonies.
imprudence resulting to damage to property. The RIMREV TRANS GUIDELINES
penalty imposed on him is fine and public censure. In If a person/offender is charged and thereafter convicted of
the dispositive portion, the judge stated that in case of a compound crime, the penalty for the most serious crime
X’s insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer in its maximum period shall be the one imposed.
subsidiary penalty. Is the judge correct?
It is beneficial to the accused. Instead of being charged
A: NO. The judge is wrong. The principal penalty imposed and convicted of different counts of the crime, and be given
together with fine is not to be executed by confinement in multiple sentences, he shall be, let’s say he was charged
a penal institution and is without fixed duration. Therefore, only and convicted of one crime, he will be imposed only
even if X is insolvent to pay the fine, he cannot be made to with one penalty. It is for the most serious crime in its
suffer subsidiary penalty. maximum period.
Q: X was sentenced with penalty of fine. Because of PEOPLE V. NELMIDA
his insolvency, he was made to suffer subsidiary G.R. No. 184500 | 11 September 2012
penalty. A month thereafter, his financial
circumstances improved. But he has already served FACTS: Mayor Tawan-tawan of Salvador, Lanao del
the subsidiary penalty. A month after his release, after Norte, together with his security escorts composed of
being incarcerated because of the subsidiary some members of the Philippine Army, Philippine National
imprisonment, he became rich. Can the state still go Police (PNP) and civilian aides went home on board the
after him to pay the fine imposed on him as a penalty? yellow pick-up service vehicle.
A: YES, as provided for under Art. 39, as amended. Even Upon the arrival of the pick-up of the Mayor, Nelmida and
if the said offender has already suffered subsidiary penalty other accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle
by reason of his insolvency, the state can still go after him using high- powered firearms. Immediately after the
to pay the fine imposed on him in case his financial ambush, Nelmida went to the house of Samuel’s aunt to
circumstances shall improve. get their bags. On the occasion of the ambush, 2 security
escorts died, while the others suffered injuries.
Based on the facts, a month after his release, his financial
circumstances improved. Therefore, the State can go after RULING: Complex crime is not applicable in the case as
him in order to pay the fine already imposed on him. the killing and the wounding of the victims were not the
result of a single act, but of several acts of the appellant.
PENALTIES IN WHICH OTHER ACCESSORY
PENALTIES ARE INHERENT The killing and wounding of the victims were not the result
of a single discharge of firearms by the accused. They
Articles 40 to 45 are the accessory penalties already opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle and the
discussed earlier. victims sustained gunshot wounds in different parts of their
bodies. It can be said that more than one bullet had hit the
ARTICLE 48. COMPLEX CRIMES victims and more than one gunman fired at the vehicle. The
victims sustained gunshot wounds in different parts of their
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act bodies. Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or their respective firearms, aiming each particular moment at
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the different persons constitute distinct and individual acts
other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be which cannot give rise to a complex crime.
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE v. NELMIDA
Under Art. 48, there are two kinds of complex crimes:
The basis of a compound crime is singularity of act, the
1. Compound crime; and singularity of impulse. Therefore, it is necessary for a
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
compound crime to arise that the offender performs only
one act, a single act, and the said single act produces two At around 10 pm, Tabaco suddenly shot Mayor Arreola
or more grave or less grave felonies. with his M-14 rifle, followed by several successive burst of
gunﬁre, resulting in the shooting to death of Mayor Arreola,
In the said case, the Supreme Court said, it is the and 3 others. Thereafter, Retreta tried to pacify Tabaco.
singularity of act that is the basis, singularity of impulse is Meanwhile, Sgt. Raquepo heard the successive gunfire
not written in the law. inside the arena. Then he saw Tabaco and advised to calm
down. Tabaco then pointed his gun at Raquepo. Retreta
Q: Two wary families, family of X vs. the family of Y, and Tabaco then grappled for the possession of the gun,
political families. One of the members of the family of and in the process, the gun went off hitting Raquepo and
Y, they tried to molest a granddaughter of family X. The another civilian which caused the latter’s death. Raquepo
family of X was mad, they wanted to get even. One survived. There were 3 others who were injured on the said
night, X went to the said house of Y, seeing that the night.
window was open, X threw a grenade inside the said
house on the said window. The grenade exploded. As ISSUE: Whether the criminal cases Nos. 259, 270, 284
a result, Y, his wife, his three children and the two and 317, involving the killings of Oscar Tabulog, Jorge
helpers died. What crime/s is/are committed by X? Arreola, Felicito Rigunan and Romeo Regunton,
respectively, should have been prosecuted under only one
A: X committed seven acts of murder. The death of the Information.
Y, wife, the death of the three children, and the death of
the two helpers. But since the seven acts of murder were RULING: NO. In the case at bar, Article 48 of the
the product of the single act of throwing a grenade, he shall Revised Penal Code is not applicable because the death
only be charged of one crime. It is only based on one of each of the five persons who were killed by appellant
information, and that is, the complex crime of multiple and the physical injuries inflicted upon each of the two
murder. The said single act produces seven grave other persons injured were not caused by the performance
felonies, seven murders, so it will be multiple murder. by the accused of one simple act as provided for by said
article. Although it is true that several successive shots
Q: What if in the same problem, when X threw a were fired by the accused in a short space of time, yet the
grenade on the said window, the grenade exploded, Y factor which must be taken into consideration is that, to
died, his wife died, their three children sustained fatal each death caused or physical injuries inflicted upon the
wounds but survived, the two helpers sustained non- victims, corresponds a distinct and separate shot fired by
fatal wounds and survived. What crime/s should be the accused, who thus made himself criminally liable for as
filed against X? many offenses as those resulting from every single act that
produced the same.
A: X performed a single act, and this single act produces
seven grave felonies, two murders, death of Y and his wife, Although apparently he perpetrated a series of offenses
three frustrated murders, the fatal wounds sustained by the successively in a matter of seconds, yet each person killed
three children and they survived, and two attempted and each person injured by him became the victim,
murders because the two helpers did not sustain fatal respectively, of a separate crime of homicide or frustrated
wounds and they survived. Therefore, X should be homicide. Except for the fact that five crimes of homicide
prosecuted based on one information, with the complex and two cases of frustrated homicide were committed
crime of double murder with multiple frustrated murder, successively during the tragic incident, legally speaking
and double attempted murder. The said single act there is nothing that would connect one of them with its
produces two murders, three frustrated murders, and two companion offenses.”
attempted murders. All grave felonies, therefore we have
double murder with multiple frustrated murder, and CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE V. TABACO
double attempted murder. Pag dalawa, double. Pag tatlo
na at higit pa, multiple. There is no triple. The Supreme Court said that if the weapon used is a high-
powered machine gun, M-16 rifle, M-14 rifle, by one pull of
PEOPLE V. TABACO the trigger, different bullets will come out, Supreme Court
G.R. No. 100382 | 19 March 1997 said, you do not take into consideration the singularity of
pulling the trigger. What you take into consideration is the
FACTS: A cock derby was sponsored by the 117th PC in number of bullets that come out that killed and wounded
Aparri, Cagayan. Peace officers in uniform with long the people. In that case, there are as many crimes
firearms were assigned as guards to maintain peace and committed as there as persons killed or wounded.
order inside the cockpit arena.
PEOPLE V. PUNZALAN
At about 9 pm, the group of Mayor Arreola arrived. G.R. No. 199892 | 10 December 2012
Accused Tabaco was seated about 3 meters away from
the Mayor’s group.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
FACTS: 6 seamen 1st class (Andal, Duclayna, Bacosa,
Domingo, Cuya, and Bundang) who were members of the Elements of Complex Crime Proper
Philippine Navy were sent at the Naval Education and
Training Command (NETC) in Zambales. 1. Two offenses committed;
2. Offenses necessary means to commit the other;
One night, they had some drinks at a canteen, then they 3. These offenses are punished by the same
transferred to a nearby videoke where they continued their statute.
drinking session.
When an offense is a necessary means commit the other,
Later on, a heated argument between Bacosa and the Supreme Court, the phrase “necessary means commit the
accused ensued regarding a flickering light inside the other” does not mean that an offense is an indispensable
videoke house. They were pacified by their companions. to commit the other. It only means that an offense is
To avoid further trouble, the navy personnel decided to necessary to facilitate the commission of the crime of
leave the videoke house and return to the camp. another offense.
Along the way, they passed by and stopped at the NETC Q: X, wanting to rape Y, forcibly abducted Y against
sentry gate which was being manned by several navy the will of Y and at the outset there was lewd design.
personnel. After they passed by the gate, 2 personnel He brought Y in a secluded place, and he had carnal
guarding the gate flagged down a rushing and zigzagging knowledge of Y by employing violence and force.
van which was being driven by the accused. After he was
given the go signal to leave, he sped away, swerved to the A: X is liable of Rape with Forcible Abduction. The forcible
right hitting the group of the 6 seamen. As a result, Andal abduction was a necessary means in order to commit the
and Duclayna died while the others suffered injuries. crime of rape.
ISSUE: Whether Punzalan is guilty of the Complex crime PEOPLE V. BATULANON

of double murder with multiple attempted murder. G.R. No. 139857| 15 September 2006
RULING: YES.. Punzalan was animated by a single FACTS: Batulanan was an agent of Polomolok
purpose, to kill the navy personnel, and committed a single Cooperative. She issued cash vouchers allegedly for
act of stepping on the accelerator, swerving to the right persons obtaining loans but in reality, these persons have
side of the road ramming through the navy personnel, no right to obtain the loans on the said cooperative. He was
causing the death of Andal and Duclayna and, at the same charged of 4 counts Estafa through Falsification of
time, constituting an attempt to kill Cuya, Bacosa, Bundang Commercial Document.
and Domingo. The crimes of murder and attempted murder
are both grave felonies as the law attaches an aﬄictive Is a cash voucher a commercial document?
penalty to capital punishment (reclusion perpetua to death)
for murder while attempted murder is punished by prision SC: The CA is correct. A cash voucher is not a commercial
mayor, an afflictive penalty. document because it is not defined and regulated by any
commercial/mercantile law. The CA is correct in saying
CASE DISCUSSION: PEOPLE V. PUNZALAN that a cash voucher is a mere private document. Since a
cash voucher is a mere private document, does it mean
Punzalan was charged with Double Murder with Attempted that the crime to be charged, and the crime to which
Murder. The Supreme Court said Punzalan was correctly Batulanan will be convicted, would be Estafa through
charged and convicted of the complex crime of Double Falsification of Private Document? Supreme Court said
Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder. Punzalan there is no such crime. You cannot complex Estafa through
performed a single act of stepping on the accelerator of his Falsification of Private Document because these two
vehicle, turning it to the right, and ramming over the navy crimes require damage as elements. Estafa without
personnel, resulting to two deaths, and wounding the damage cannot be estafa. Falsification of private
others, hence the Supreme Court said, since Punzalan document without injury cannot be falsification of private
performed a single act, he is correctly charged and document. Both these two crimes require as element
convicted of Double Murder with Multiple Attempted damage, prejudice, or intent to cause damage. Without
Murder. Art. 48, compound crime applies. that, the crime will not be consummated.
The other complex crime under Art. 48 is known as the Since according to the Supreme Court, both estafa and
complex crime proper. falsification of private document require damage as
elements, you cannot complex them because a person
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER cannot be convicted twice for the said damage. Hence,
there is no such crime of Estafa through Falsification of
There is a complex crime proper when an offense is a Private Document.
necessary means to commit the another offense.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
What should be the charge? Should it be estafa or It is one wherein the offender is impelled by a single
falsification of private document? criminal impulse commits a series of overt acts in about the
same time and about the same place violating one and the
SC: According to the Supreme Court, if estafa can be same provision of law. The basis is singularity of impulse.
committed without falsifying the private document, the
proper charge is estafa because the falsification of the Elements of Delito Continuado:
private document is merely incidental.
1. There must be plurality of acts;
If estafa cannot be committed without falsifying the private 2. There must be unity of the penal provision violated;
document, the proper charge is falsification of private 3. There must be unity of criminal intent or purpose.
document because estafa is a mere consequence.
If these are present, it is a continued crime. It is beneficial
In that case, insofar as the three non-cooperative persons to the accused. Instead of being prosecuted for each of the
are concerned, Batulanon was held liable for 3 counts of act committed by him, he shall be prosecuted only of one
Falsification of Private Document because without the crime, and only one penalty shall be imposed upon him.
falsification of the cash voucher, estafa cannot be The civil liability will be on the different offended
committed. So, she was convicted of 3 counts of party/victim.
Falsification of Private Document.
Q: There was this high-rise condominium building
Insofar as her son is concerned, she was convicted of being almost finish along Ortigas. X was among those
Estafa because the falsification of the said cash voucher fast to sell units. X had so many units. One time, X
was merely incidental. needed money. He could not borrow from anyone, and
so he decided to go this condominium building. He
Aside from these two crimes under Art. 48, compound went to five different unit owners. He was the one who
crime or complex crime, and the complex crime proper, we told them to buy from this company, and he
have a third kind of complexity of crime, special complex represented to them, Unit owner A, B, C, D, and E. He
crime. was the one who was entrusted by the corporation to
collect their monthly payment, their monthly
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME installment of P20,000 each.
It is one when, in reality, the offender committed two or A, B, C, D, and E believed although in truth, this said
more crimes but in the eyes of the law, there is only one company never authorized X in order to get the
crime committed. monthly installment. And so these five unit owners
believed, and they give X their monthly installment of
In case of a special complex crime, it is the law that P20,000. When X was asked of the official receipt, X
combines the crime, and it is the law that provides for a said that that he had remitted the money. It was the
particular specific penalty for these combined crimes. time that the company will give the O.R.; they believed,
and they give P20,000 to X.
Example of a Special Complex Crime
X, however, never remitted the money to the said
Art. 294 – Robbery with Homicide company. When this was discovered, these five unit
Art. 267 – Kidnapping with Homicide owners filed a case of estafa under Art. 315 (2)(a), five
counts (A, B, C, D, and E), five cases of estafa against
It is the law the combines the crimes, and the law provides X. The case was filed before the officer of the
for a specific particular penalty for these combined crimes. prosecutor. If you were the investigating public
prosecutor, would you indict X as charged?
Fourth kind of complexity of crimes, the so-called
continued crime or delito continuado. Also known as A: NO, it should only be 1 count of Estafa. It is a
continuous crime. continued crime or delito continuado. X was impelled by
single criminal impulse to deceive these five unit owners.
When you say special complex crime, the bar examiner He committed a series of overt acts. He took P20,000 from
may call a special complex crime as a single indivisible each of them, and in about the same time and about the
offense or a composite crime. One and the same. Special same place violating one and the same provision of law,
complex crime, also known as composite crime, also Art. 315 (2)(a), estafa by means of false pretense.
known as a single indivisible offense. The other one is Therefore, he should be indicted only for one count of
continued crime, delito continuado, or continuous crime. estafa because it is a continued crime or delito continuado.
They are one and the same.
Q: What about the other owners?
CONTINUED CRIME OR DELITO CONTINUADO
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
A: All of them will be included in the body of the looked for his tricycle, the tricycle was never returned by Y.
information, that he was able to receive from A, B, C, D, He looked in the house of Y, it was empty. So, X failing to
and E. The civil liability will belong to all of them. All of them find his tricycle and Y, had the same blottered. Police
will get their particular civil liability if proven. Only this officers helped him in looking for his tricycle, but to no avail
affects the criminal liability instead of being prosecuted for they cannot find it.
five counts, and therefore impose with multiple sentences,
it will only be one charge, and imposing with one sentence. A month thereafter, the police station of Valenzuela City
It is beneficial on the part of the said offender. received a call coming from the police station of
Meycauayan, Bulacan. The police of Meycauayan told the
CONTINUING CRIME OR TRANSITORY OFFENSES PNP of Valenzuela, “Di ba may na-carnapp sa inyong
tricycle? Meron ditong tricycle binebenta murang-mura
Not all crimes are continuing, not all crimes are transitory nakakapagtaka. Tingnan niyo.” Because of that the said
offenses. police officers of Valenzuela together with the owner of the
tricycle X went to Meycauayan police station and X
Example of Transitory Offense/Continuing Crime: immediately identified that the tricycle is his and it was the
tricycle taken by Y. X showed all the evidence that it was
1. Treason his tricycle. Y was arrested and charged with carnapping
2. Rebellion before the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Meycauayan.
3. Evasion of Service of Sentence The case went into trial, the RTC of Meycauayan convicted
4. Estafa by post-dating a check X of carnapping. X went to the CA and affirmed the
5. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention conviction. When the case went to the Supreme Court, the
6. Carnapping case was dismissed.
7. Violation of B.P. 22
Reason? The Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan has no
These are just some examples of continuing or transitory jurisdiction to hear and try the case. The Supreme Court
offenses wherein the offender can be prosecuted before said that although carnapping is a transitory or continuing
the courts of the place where any of the elements of the offense, it is necessary that all the elements of the crime
crime happened provided the moment he is already must take place in these places. In this case, none of the
charged in one court, he can no longer be charged with the elements of carnapping took place in Meycauayan,
same offense in another court. Bulacan.
Q: In payment of his obligation, X issued a check to Y The elements of carnapping that a) There be actual
in Manila. Y deposited the check to his depositary taking of the motor vehicle took place in the public market
bank in Quezon City. The drawee bank in Mandaluyong of Valenzuela, b) the act of taking the motor vehicle must
dishonored the check. Notice of dishonor was sent to belong to another person, it belongs to X who was in
X. He did not make good of the check despite the lapse Valenzuela, c) the act of taking must be done with intent to
of 3 days, despite the lapse of 5 banking days. Where gain, the act of taking with intent to gain was done in
should Y file the case against X? Valenzuela, and lastly d) the taking was done without the
consent of the owner, or with violence against or
A: Y should file the case either before the a) Metropolitan intimidation of persons, or with use of force upon things -
Court of Manila where the issuance of check is, b) the taking was done in Valenzuela. The Supreme Court
Metropolitan Court of Quezon City where the check was said none of the elements of carnapping took place in
deposited, or c) Metropolitan Court of Mandaluyong where Meycauayan, Bulacan. The Meycauayan Court has no
the check was dishonored. In any of the courts of these jurisdiction to hear and try the case. Therefore, case
places where the elements of the crime happened. dismissed. It is necessary that although it is a transitory or
continuing offense, the case may only be filed in the courts
Example: X is a tricycle driver. In the public market of of the place where any of the elements of the crime
Valenzuela City, his tricycle was the first in line in the happened.
TODA (Tricycle Operators and Drivers' Association) at that
time. Here comes a passenger. However, at that particular These are the 5 kinds of complexity of crimes.
moment his wife called asking him immediately to buy
something from the public market. So, he was torn ARTICLES 50-57
between bringing the passenger to his place of destination
or obeying his wife in buying something from the public Article 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a
market. Then, another tricycle driver by the name of Y saw frustrated crime. - The penalty next lower in degree than
his dilemma. Y told X, “Sige na bilhin mo na yung bilin ni that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall
misis. Ako na ang magdadala sa pasahero mo sa tricycle.” be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
So, X was grateful to Y. The passenger boarded the
tricycle of X and Y brought the passenger to his Article 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of
destination. However, Y never returned the tricycle of X. X attempted crimes. - A penalty lower by two degrees than
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall What if the felony is in the frustrated stage, frustrated
be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit homicide? Go one degree lower from reclusion temporal,
a felony. it would be prision mayor.
Article 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in What if the felony is in the attempted stage, attempted
consummated crime. - The penalty next lower in degree homicide? Go two degrees lower from reclusion temporal,
than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall it would be prision correccional.
be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of
a consummated felony. These are the rules in imposing the penalties for frustrated,
attempted, accomplice, and an accessory.
Article 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to
the commission of a consummated felony. - The penalty ILLUSTRATIONS FOR ARTICLES 50-57
lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the Penalty imposed upon accessories and accomplices
accessories to the commission of a consummated for consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies
felony. (Arts. 50-57)
Article 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a Consummated Frustrated Attempted

frustrated crime. - The penalty next lower in degree than Principal Art. 46 -Penalty Art. 50 - The Art. 51 - A
prescribed by penalty next penalty lower
prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be law for the lower in by two
imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a offense. degree than degrees than
frustrated felony. that that
prescribed by prescribed by
law for the law for the
Article 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of consummated consummated
a frustrated crime. - The penalty lower by two degrees felony shall be felony shall be
than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall imposed upon imposed upon
be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of the principal the principals
in a frustrated in an attempt
a frustrated felony. felony. to commit a
felony.
Article 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in Accomplice Art. 52 - The Art. 54 - The Art. 56 - The
an attempted crime. - The penalty next lower in degree penalty next penalty next penalty next
lower in degree lower in lower in
than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a than that degree than degree than
felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an prescribed by prescribed by that
attempt to commit the felony. law for the law for the prescribed by
consummated frustrated law for an
shall be imposed felony shall be attempt to
Article 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of upon the imposed upon commit a
an attempted crime. - The penalty lower by two degrees accomplices in the felony shall be
than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall the commission accomplices imposed upon
be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to of a in the the
consummated commission accomplices
commit a felony. felony. of a frustrated in an attempt
felony. to commit the
From Articles 50-57, the law provides for the penalty to be felony.
imposed in case of a frustrated felony, in case of an Accessory Art. 53 - The Art. 55 - The Art. 57 - The
penalty lower by penalty lower penalty lower
attempted felony, if the offender is a mere accomplice, or two degrees by two by two
if the offender is a mere accessory. than that degrees than degrees than
prescribed by that that
Let us say that the crime committed is Homicide. Under law for the prescribed by prescribed by
consummated law for the law for the
Article 249 the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. felony shall be frustrated attempted
That reclusion temporal prescribed by law for homicide can imposed upon felony shall be felony shall be
only be imposed on the principal of homicide and can only the accessories imposed upon imposed upon
be applied if the crime was consummated. to the the the
commission of a accessories accessories
consummated to the to the attempt
What if the offender is a mere accomplice? Go one felony. commission to commit a
degree lower from reclusion temporal, which is prision of a frustrated felony.
mayor. felony.
(Pacumio, Notes in Criminal Law Review, p. 47)
What if the offender is a mere accessory? Go two
degrees lower from reclusion temporal, which is prision SUMMARY OF ARTICLES 50-57
correccional.
Consummated Frustrated Attempted
Principal 0 1 2
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Accomplice 1 2 3
Accessory 2 3 4 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
attended the commission of the act, the court shall
Note: In this diagram “0” represents the penalty prescribed reasonably allow them to offset one another in
by law in defining the crime, which is to be imposed on the consideration of their number and importance, for the
principal in a consummated offense in accordance with purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the
Article 46, RPC. The other figures represent the degrees preceding rules, according to the result of such
to which the penalty must be lowered, to meet the different compensation.
situations anticipated by law. (Regalado, Criminal Law)
Under Article 63, the law provides for the rules for the
DEGREE OF PENALTY imposition of indivisible penalties. Here are the rules:
It is the penalty prescribed by law and imposed by the court First Rule: If the penalty prescribed by law is a single
in case of conviction. It can either be divisible or indivisible indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed regardless of any
penalties. mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
PERIOD OF PENALTY Second Rule: If the penalty prescribed by law consists of

two indivisible penalties, consider the following rules:
It is the subdivision of the three penalties into three
periods. The first 1/3 portion is the maximum period. The 1. If an aggravating circumstance attended the
second 1/3 portion is the medium period. The third 1/3 commission of the crime with no mitigating
portion is the minimum period. circumstance, the greater penalty should be
imposed.
Only divisible penalties can be divided into maximum,
medium, and minimum periods. Indivisible penalties 2. If only a mitigating circumstance attended the
having no fixed duration cannot be divided into these three commission of the crime with no aggravating
periods. circumstance, the lesser penalty of the two
indivisible penalties should be the one imposed.
Example of indivisible penalties:
3. If there are no mitigating and no aggravating
• Death circumstances present in the commission of the
• Reclusion Perpetua crime, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties
• Perpetual Absolute Disqualification should be the one imposed.
• Perpetual Special Disqualification
• Public Censure 4. If there are both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances present in the commission of the
These are examples of indivisible penalties. Hence, they crime, off-set the two and apply the rules.
cannot be divided into periods.
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. contain three periods. - In cases in which the penalties
- In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a
penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any single divisible penalty or composed of three different
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance
attended the commission of the deed. with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall
observe for the application of the penalty the following
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating
composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules or aggravating circumstances:
shall be observed in the application thereof:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by
only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty law in its medium period.
shall be applied.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, minimum period.
the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating maximum period.
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one Whenever we talk of Article 64, we relate it to Act 4103 as
class against the other according to their relative weight. amended otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
Law (ISLAW).
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to The Indeterminate Sentence Law modified the imposition
the number and nature of such circumstances. of penalties under the RPC and under special penal laws.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law courts are
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the mandated to provide for the maximum term of the sentence
aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a and a minimum term of the sentence. What is the purpose?
greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum So that the moment the offender has already served the
period. minimum term of the sentence, he becomes eligible for
parole. He need not serve the entire sentence behind bars.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine He can be immediately released the moment he has
the extent of the penalty according to the number and served the minimum term of the sentence.
nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by BAR Q: What is the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence
the crime. Law and how is this purpose achieved?
A: The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to

Article 64 provides for the imposition of divisible penalties. (1) uplift and redeem valuable human material and (2)
Here are the rules: prevent unnecessary and prolonged deprivation of liberty.
FIRST RULE: If the commission of the crime is attended Q: How is this objective achieved?
by no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, the
penalty should be in its medium period. A: This objective is achieved because the moment the
offender has already served the minimum term of the
SECOND RULE: If the commission of the crime is sentence, he becomes eligible for parole. The moment he
attended by one mitigating with no aggravating is granted parole, he is released from the prison cell, he is
circumstance, the penalty should be in its minimum period. released from imprisonment. He will be serving the
sentence outside, a free man, only he has to report to the
THIRD RULE: If the commission of the crime is attended parole officer depending on the time stated in the grant of
by one aggravating with no mitigating circumstance, the parole.
penalty should be in its maximum period.
PAROLE
FOURTH RULE: If the commission of the crime is attended
by both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, off-set Parole is the conditional release of a prisoner after
the two and apply the rules. conviction, after serving the minimum term of his sentence,
and after he has found to have reformed.
FIFTH RULE: If the commission of the crime is attended
by two or more mitigating circumstances with no Requisites for the Grant of Parole
aggravating circumstance, lower the penalty by one
degree in its proper term. 1. It is necessary that the offender must be serving
an indeterminate sentence that exceeds one year.
SPECIAL MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE 2. It is necessary that he has already served the
minimum term of his sentence.
If there are two or more mitigating circumstances with no 3. The Board of Pardons and Parole found that he
aggravating circumstance, lower the penalty by one has already reformed and that upon his release,
degree. This is known as a special mitigating circumstance he will be a law-abiding citizen and that his beliefs
because its effect is to lower the penalty by one degree in will not be inconsistent with the interest and
its proper term. welfare of the State.
Note: If all these requisites are present, the prisoner may

The moment when there is a Privilege Mitigating apply for parole, and he shall be granted parole.
Circumstance, apply the PMC first before computing the
penalties. Example: The former husband of Senator Loren Legarda,
who was charged with homicide, he was on parole and was
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT NO. 4103)
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
granted parole. This is an example of grant of parole after 7. Those who having been granted conditional
serving the minimum term for homicide. pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated
the terms of the said pardon;
Although the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to both
violations of the RPC and violations of Special Penal Laws, 8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment
there are certain persons who are disqualified to be given does not exceed one year.
an indeterminate sentence. Since they are disqualified,
they shall be given a straight penalty. These are the persons who will be imposed with a straight
penalty. They cannot be given an indeterminate penalty.
Q: What is the difference between an Indeterminate Therefore, there is no way they can go on parole.
Sentence and a Straight Penalty?
Example: X was found guilty. The prosecution was able to
A: An indeterminate sentence has a maximum term and a prove that he is a habitual delinquent. The judge should
minimum term, the moment the offender has served the impose a straight penalty. He cannot be given an
minimum term, he can apply for parole. indeterminate sentence.
A straight penalty has no maximum term and minimum Q: X was convicted and based on the evidence he is a
term. Therefore, there is no way that the offender can avail recidivist, he is a quasi-recidivist, or he is a habitual
of parole. He will serve the entire sentence, the entire criminal (reiteration). Can he be given an
straight penalty. indeterminate sentence?
Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of A: YES. Only a habitual delinquent is disqualified.
offenses punished with death penalty or life-
imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy Q: X was serving his final sentence behind bars at the
or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of bilibid. He saw an opportunity and was able to escape.
misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; Two years thereafter, he was found. X was charged
to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual with evasion of service of sentence under Article 157.
delinquents; to those who have escaped from He was found and charged with evasion. After trial on
confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having the merits, he was guilty. Can he be given an
been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive indeterminate sentence?
shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose
maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one A: NO. He is among those disqualified. Specifically, those
year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment who have escaped from confinement or evaded their
at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in sentence.
Section 5 hereof.
Q: X was convicted, malakas ang tatay, he was granted
Under Section 2 of Act 4103, as amended, the following by the President a conditional pardon. But upon
persons are disqualified to be given an indeterminate release, he violated certain conditions of the said
sentence. They are: pardon. So, he was charged with evasion of service of
sentence under Article 159 or evasion by violation of
1. Those convicted of crimes punished by death conditional pardon. X was convicted. Can he be given
penalty, life-imprisonment, and reclusion an indeterminate sentence?
perpertua (akin to life-imprisonment; People v.
Enriquez); A: NO. Because he violated the terms of his pardon, he is
among those disqualified to be given an indeterminate
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy, or sentence. Specifically, those who having been granted
proposal to commit treason; conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have
violated the terms of the said pardon.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage; Q: X was convicted of rape, the penalty imposed was
reclusion perpetua. Can he be given an indeterminate
4. Those convicted of piracy; sentence?
5. Those who are habitual delinquents; A: NO. He is among those disqualified because the penalty
imposed upon him is reclusion perpetua. Disqualification
6. Those who have escaped from confinement or applies to those convicted of crimes punished by death
evaded their sentence; penalty, life-imprisonment, and reclusion perpertua (akin
to life-imprisonment).
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Q: Is the indeterminate sentence law applicable if the 2. When X killed Y, after the said act of killing, X
penalty imposed is destierro? immediately surrendered to the police authorities.
A: NO. Destierro does not involve imprisonment. No AC RT, minimum period

1 MC: VS - maximum term
COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES of sentence
ARTICLE 64 AND ISLAW

PM, minimum period
Q: How do we compute the penalties? - Minimum term of
the sentence
A: We go first to Art. 64 in relation to the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, which is the rules for imposition of penalties There was no aggravating circumstance and there was
in case of divisible penalties. one mitigating circumstance (voluntary surrender). The
penalty prescribed by law is reclusion temporal.
Scenario: X committed the crime of homicide. X killed Y.
X was charged with the crime of homicide. The penalty for Under Art. 64, if there is one mitigating circumstance with
homicide under Art. 249 is reclusion temporal. no aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be in its
minimum period. That is the maximum term of the
1. No aggravating or mitigating circumstances sentence.
No AC RT, medium period To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it by
- maximum term one degree, that is prision mayor. The range depends
No MC of sentence upon the sound discretion of the court.
Since, the maximum term is in the minimum period, let us

PM, medium period make the minimum term of the sentence also in its
- Minimum term of minimum period.
the sentence
Therefore, the minimum term of the sentence is prision
How do you get the maximum term of the sentence? mayor in its minimum period.
In order to get the maximum term of the sentence, you take 3. X killed Y inside his dwelling.
into consideration the penalty prescribed by law, which is
reclusion temporal. 1 AC: Dwelling RT, maximum period
No MC - maximum term
Under Art. 64, if there are no mitigating and no aggravating of sentence
circumstance, the penalty shall be in its medium period.
Therefore, reclusion temporal medium period shall be the
maximum term of the sentence. PM, maximum period
- Minimum term of
How do you get the minimum term of the sentence? the sentence
Under Act. 4103, as amended (The Indeterminate Therefore, there is one aggravating circumstance present
Sentence Law), you lower the penalty by one degree. The – dwelling, and no mitigating circumstance attended the
range depends on the sound discretion of the court. commission of the crime.
Since the maximum term of the sentence is in the medium First, we get again the penalty prescribed by law, which is
period, let us make prision mayor (one degree lower than reclusion temporal. Under Art. 64, if there is one
reclusion temporal) also in the medium period. aggravating and no mitigating, the penalty shall be in its
maximum period. That is the maximum term of the
Therefore, the minimum term of the sentence is prision sentence.
mayor in its medium period.
To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it by
So, the court will rule, finding the accused guilty beyond one degree, it shall be prision mayor – the range depends
reasonable doubt of homicide. He is hereby sentenced to on the sound discretion of the court.
suffer a penalty the minimum term of which is prision mayor
in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its medium Since the maximum term is in its maximum period, let us
period as the maximum term of the sentence. make the minimum term also in the maximum period.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
4. When X killed Y, the killing took place inside the aggravating circumstances are present, you lower the
dwelling of the victim. After killing, X immediately penalty by one degree. This is called a special mitigating
surrendered to the police authorities. circumstance.
1 AC: Dwelling RT, medium period It is a special mitigating circumstance because it lowers the
1 MC: VS - maximum term penalty, not just by period, but by one degree.
of sentence
Offset then apply Therefore, from reclusion temporal, because of the special
rules under Art. 64 mitigating circumstance (2 MC, no AC), you lower it by one
PM, medium period degree, and it becomes prision mayor.
- Minimum term of
the sentence Since we have already considered the two mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and praeter
Therefore, we have one aggravating circumstance intentionem, it will be prision mayor in its medium period,
(dwelling) and one mitigating circumstance (voluntary because no modifying circumstance is left. That is the
surrender). maximum term of the sentence.
First, we get again the penalty prescribed by law, which is To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it
reclusion temporal. Under Art. 64, when there are again by one degree. The range depends upon the sound
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, we offset the discretion of the court.
two and apply the rules. We thus offset the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling with the mitigating circumstance Since the maximum term of the sentence is in the medium
of voluntary surrender. period, let us make the minimum term of the sentence also
in its medium period.
After offsetting, no more modifying circumstances
attended the commission of the crime and therefore, it 6. X killed Y. The said act of killing was not attended
should be reclusion temporal in its medium period. That is by any aggravating circumstance, but three mitigating
the maximum term of the sentence. circumstances were alleged and proven in court –
voluntary surrender, praeter intentionem, and it was
To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it by only based on passion and obfuscation.
one degree, that is prision mayor. The range depends
upon the sound discretion of the court. No AC RT, indivisible (Art. 63)
3 MC: VS, Praeter Special MC
Since the maximum term of the sentence is in the medium Intentionem, P/O
period, let us make prision mayor (one degree lower than PM, minimum period
reclusion temporal) also in the medium period. - maximum term
5. X killed Y. The said act of killing was not attended

by any aggravating circumstance, but there are two PC, minimum period
mitigating circumstances – voluntary surrender and - minimum term
praeter intentionem. X said he had no intention to kill
the victim. He also voluntarily surrendered. So we have no AC attendant, but there are three MCs.
No AC RT, indivisible (Art. 63) First, we get again the penalty prescribed by law, which is
2 MC: VS, Praeter Special MC reclusion temporal.
Intentionem
PM, medium period There are three mitigating with no aggravating. Under Art.
- maximum term 64, when there are two or more mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstances are present, you lower
the penalty by one degree.
PC, medium period
- minimum term So, reclusion temporal lowered by one degree is prision
mayor.
How do you get the penalty?
We only need two mitigating circumstances in order to
You take into consideration the penalty prescribed by law lower the penalty by one degree. We lower it by one degree
for homicide, which is reclusion temporal. because of voluntary surrender and praeter intentionem.
That is the special mitigating circumstance which caused
Under Art. 64, fifth par., the law provides that when there the lowering of the penalty by one degree.
are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
There remains one more mitigating circumstance (passion Q: What is the effect?
and obfuscation).
A: There were two more mitigating circumstances.
Q: What is the effect of the presence of another Therefore, the penalty should be in its minimum period.
mitigating circumstance? That is the maximum term of the sentence.
A: The third mitigating circumstance means that the To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it
penalty should be in its minimum period. again by one degree. The range depends upon the sound
discretion of the court.
So, we have prision mayor in its minimum period. That is
the maximum term of the sentence. Since the maximum term of the sentence is in its minimum
period, then the minimum term of the sentence is also in
To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it its minimum period.
again by one degree. The range depends upon the sound
discretion of the court. Note:
The special mitigating circumstance can only be
7. X killed Y. The said act of killing was not attended considered once; The penalty can only be reduced by
by any aggravating circumstance, but this time, four one (1) degree regardless of the number of mitigating
mitigating circumstances -- voluntary surrender, circumstances. Others shall only be taken to reduce the
praeter intentionem, the said victim performed an act penalty to minimum.
that brought passion and obfuscation, and at the time
X was intoxicated. He was not a habitual drinker. 8. One aggravating circumstance, four mitigating
circumstances
No AC RT, indivisible (Art. 63)
4 MC: VS, Praeter Special MC 1 AC: Dwelling RT, minimum period
Intentionem, P/O, - maximum term
Intoxicated PM, minimum period 4 MC: VS, Praeter of sentence
- maximum term Intentionem,
Passion/Obfuscation,
Intoxication PM, minimum period
PC, minimum period - Minimum term of
- minimum term the sentence
So we have no AC attendant, but there are four MCs. What if X killed the victim, the said act of killing was
attended by 1 aggravating circumstance – X killed the
First, we get again the penalty prescribed by law, which is victim inside the privacy of his house. So, we have the
reclusion temporal. aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
There are four mitigating with no aggravating. Under Art. There are 4 mitigating circumstances: 1) he voluntarily
64, when there are two or more mitigating circumstances surrendered; 2) he has no intention to commit so grave a
and no aggravating circumstances are present, you lower wrong (praeter intentionem); 3) there was passion and
the penalty by one degree. obfuscation on his part because of an unlawful act done by
the said victim; and 4) X at that time was intoxicated and
So, reclusion temporal lowered by one degree is prision he was not a habitual drinker. So, we have 4 mitigating
mayor. circumstances.
We only need two mitigating circumstances in order to How do you get the penalty?
serve as special mitigating circumstance and lower the
penalty by one degree. We lower it by one degree because You take into consideration the penalty prescribed by law
of voluntary surrender and praeter intentionem. for homicide – reclusion temporal. There is 1 aggravating
with 4 mitigating circumstances, what do you do? You
There remains two more – passion and obfuscation and offset. You offset one mitigating circumstance of voluntary
intoxication. surrender with 1 aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
Q: Are you going to lower the penalty by another After offsetting voluntary surrender with dwelling, there
degree? remains 3 more mitigating circumstances. Therefore, the
penalty should be in its minimum period – that is the
A: NO. You cannot lower the penalty two times. Only one maximum term of the sentence.
time, based on special mitigating circumstance.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
How do you lower in order to get the minimum term of the The penalty for Homicide is reclusion temporal. The
sentence? Again, you lower it by 1 degree. The range moment you see a privilege mitigating circumstance, it
depends upon the sound discretion of the court. That is takes preference over all other things. Therefore, since
minimum and so, it will be prision mayor, minimum period there is the privilege mitigating circumstance of incomplete
which shall be the minimum term of the sentence. self-defense, you lower the penalty. By how many
degrees?
Note:
Special MC under paragraph 5 of Article 64 will only Under Article 69, if majority of the elements are
apply if there is no attendant aggravating present, you lower it by 2 degrees. Therefore from
circumstance. reclusion temporal, you lower it to prision mayor,
and then to prision correccional. 2 degrees
Even if in this case, there are 4 aggravating because of the privilege mitigating circumstance of
circumstances, you cannot reduce the penalty by one incomplete self-defense.
degree. You cannot consider these as special mitigating
circumstance because there is the presence of 1 After lowering it by 2 degrees, we have prision
aggravating circumstance of dwelling. correccional. There are 2 ordinary mitigating circumstance
with no aggravating circumstance. What do you do? You
9. No aggravating circumstance, one privilege apply Art. 65, par. 5 – special mitigating circumstance
mitigating circumstance, two ordinary mitigating when there are two or more mitigating circumstance with
circumstances no aggravating circumstance, you lower it by 1 degree. So,
we now have arresto mayor.
1 PMC: Incomplete RT, minimum period
self-defense Arresto mayor is the maximum term of the sentence.
(unlawful aggression Arresto mayor in its medium period, because you have
and lack SP) (2 degrees, PMC) considered already all mitigating circumstances. You can
no longer lower it in order to get the minimum term of the
2 OMC: Voluntary PC sentence. Reason is arresto mayor is a penalty which does
Surrender, Praeter not exceed 1 year. Since arresto mayor is a penalty which
Intentionem does not exceed 1 year, the ISLaw does not apply. Hence,
(1 degree, Special MC) X’s penalty will be a straight penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium period.
AM, medium period That is how you compute the penalty under Article 64, in
- straight penalty, relation to the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
ISLaw does not
apply to those ARTICLE 63. INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
whose max.
term of Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.
imprisonment - In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible
does not exceed penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any
1 year. mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed.
What if it was proven that X acted in self-defense. Unlawful
aggression is present. It was proven that there was FIRST RULE
unlawful aggression coming from the victim. Likewise, it
was proven that there was no sufficient provocation A. SIMPLE RAPE
coming from X. However, the means used by X, that is
stabbing the victim is not reasonable in order to prevent the Simple Rape RP
unlawful aggression. Since 1 element of self-defense is Penalty: RP
absent, 2 are present, therefore we have the privilege MC: VS, VP - AC and MC not
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. AC: Nighttime considered
Let us say that he voluntarily surrendered and he said he The penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua, a single
has no intention to commit so grave a wrong, it was proven. indivisible penalty. The said act of X of raping the woman
So, we have 2 ordinary mitigating circumstances of 1) was attended with 2 mitigating circumstances: 1) voluntary
voluntary surrender and 2) praeter intentionem. surrender and 2) voluntary plea of guilt. However, there
was the aggravating circumstance of nighttime because he
Compute the indeterminate sentence. took advantage of the darkness of the night in order to rape
the said woman.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The penalty will be the prescribed penalty for simple rape Therefore, in this case, the penalty for death shall be
– reclusion perpetua, a single indivisible penalty. 2 reduced to reclusion perpetua but, without the benefit of
mitigating, 1 aggravating. parole as provided for under Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9346, in
relation to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC.
How do you compute the penalty?
SECOND RULE
The penalty shall be as is – reclusion perpetua because
under Article 63, the first rule provides that if the penalty In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules
imposed regardless of any mitigating or aggravating shall be observed in the application thereof:
circumstances. Therefore, the moment that the penalty
prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, like 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present
reclusion perpetua, you do not consider any mitigating or only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty
aggravating circumstance. The penalty shall be imposed shall be applied.
as is, that is reclusion perpetua.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
B. QUALIFIED RAPE circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance,
the lesser penalty shall be applied.
Qualified Rape, Death
Father raped child Penalty: Reduced to RP 3. When the commission of the act is attended by some
w/out eligibility for parole mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating
Special AC: - By virtue of Sec. circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
Relationship and 3, R.A. No. 9346
Minority 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
attended the commission of the act, the court shall
The crime committed is qualified rape under Art. 266-B. the reasonably allow them to offset one another in
father raped his own daughter. The daughter was a minor. consideration of their number and importance, for the
It was proven that they are biological father-daughter purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the
relationship. preceding rules, according to the result of such
compensation.
Under Art. 266-B no. 1, minority and relationship
are aggravating circumstances which qualify the C. MURDER, qualified by treachery
penalty to death. We have qualified rape and the
prescribed penalty by law is death penalty. Penalty: RP to Death, 2 indivisible penalties
What shall be the penalty imposed by the court? No AC Penalty: RP (the lesser
No MC penalty)
The penalty prescribed by law is death but, you cannot
impose the death penalty by reason of R.A. No, 9346. In the act of killing – murder, qualified by treachery – there
Under Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9346, you have to reduce the was no aggravating circumstance, no mitigating
penalty to reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole. circumstance, what penalty would you impose?
Section 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with Under Art. 63, if there is no mitigating and no aggravating
reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to circumstance, the lesser penalty (reclusion perpetua) shall
reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be be the one imposed.
eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. No AC Penalty: RP (the lesser
1 MC: VS penalty)
Under A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC, 04 August 2015:
In cases where death penalty is imposable, but the The act of killing was not attended by any aggravating
circumstance but, the offender voluntarily surrendered.
same is reduced to RP because of R.A. No. 9346,
Therefore, there is one mitigating circumstance of
the phrase “WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY FOR
PAROLE” shall be used to qualify RP in order to voluntary surrender. What penalty shall be imposed?
emphasize that the accused should have been
Under Ar. 63, the lesser penalty which is recusion perpetua
sentenced to suffer the Death Penalty had it not
shall be the one imposed.
been for R.A. No. 9346 which prohibits the
imposition of Death Penalty.
1 AC: EP Penalty: Death (the
No MC greater penalty)
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Reduced to RP w/out
eligibility for parole under Therefore, the fact that the 2 mitigating, with no
Sec. 3, R.A. No. 9346 aggravating would only mean the lowering of the penalty,
the lesser penalty which is reclusion perpetua.
X act of killing Y was attended by 1 aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation, with no mitigating D. SIMPLE RAPE
circumstance.
Simple Rape RP, indivisible (Art. 63)
The Supreme Court said, if both treachery and evident 1 PMC: Minority PMC: Minority
premeditation attended the commission of the crime, 2 MC: VS, VP
treachery qualifies the killing to murder and evident No AC RT, divisible (Art. 64 &
premeditation shall be considered as a mere generic ISLaw)
aggravating circumstance. So, we have 1 generic Special MC
aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and no
mitigating circumstance. How do you get the penalty? PM, medium period
- maximum term
Under Art. 63, if there is 1 aggravating with no mitigating,
the greater penalty – death shall be the one imposed.
However, you cannot impose Death Penalty by reason of PC, medium period
R.A. No. 9346. Therefore, it has to be reduced to reclusion - minimum term
perpetua without eligibility for parole as provided for under
Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9346. The penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua, a single
indivisible penalty. The offender was a minor. He was only
1 AC: EP Penalty: RP (the lesser 17 years old and he acted with discernment. There were 2
1 MC: VS penalty) mitigating circumstances: 1) he voluntarily surrendered, 2)
he voluntarily pleaded guilty. There was no aggravating
Offset then apply the circumstance.
rules
What penalty would you impose?
X act of killing Y resulting in murder, qualified by treachery
was also attended by the aggravating circumstance of The penalty for simple rape is the single indivisible penalty
evident premeditation and the mitigating circumstance of of reclusion perpetua. Therefore, under art. 63, if the
voluntary surrender. What penalty would you impose? penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty,
you do not consider any mitigating or aggravating
Under Art. 63, if there is 1 aggravating and 1 mitigating circumstance, except when the mitigating circumstance
circumstance, you offset the 2 and then apply the rules. present is a privilege mitigating circumstance like minority
Therefore, you offset the generic aggravating because a privilege mitigating circumstance takes
circumstance of evident premeditation with the ordinary preference over all other things. Hence, in this case, even
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. if Art. 63 provides that a single indivisible penalty shall be
imposed as is, when there is a privilege mitigating
After offsetting the 2, you apply the rules. No more circumstance, it can defeat that rule. Therefore, from
aggravating, no more mitigating. Therefore, the lesser reclusion perpetua, you lower it by one degree to reclusion
penalty – reclusion perpetua shall be the one imposed. temporal.
From an indivisible penalty governed by Art. 63, it is now a

No AC Penalty: RP (the lesser divisible penalty governed by Art. 64, in relation to the
2 MC: VS, VP penalty) ISLaw. You lower it, it becomes reclusion temporal, now a
divisible penalty.
The said act of Murder was not attended by any
aggravating circumstance, but there are 2 mitigating There are 2 mitigating with no aggravating, what do you
circumstances. X immediately surrendered. Not only that, do? Under Art. 64, par.5, these are considered as special
X immediately pleaded guilty to the crime of murder. What mitigating circumstance which will lower the penalty to 1
penalty shall be imposed? degree. Therefore, we have prision mayor.
The lesser penalty which is reclusion perpetua. Even if You already considered everything, nothing is left, no more
there are 2 mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender modifying circumstances. Therefore, it will be prision
and voluntary plea of guilt, and there is no aggravating mayor in its medium period – that is the maximum term of
circumstance, the rule provided for in Art. 64, par. 5 – the sentence. To get the minimum term of the sentence,
special mitigating circumstance – does not apply in case of you lower it by one degree, prision correccional. The range
Art. 63. depends on the sound discretion of the court. Since the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
maximum term is in the medium period, I make the 2 MC: VP
minimum term also in the medium period. So, the minimum PM, maximum period
term of the sentence is prision correccional in its medium - maximum term
period.
PENALTY FOR COMPLEX CRIME PC, maximum period

- minimum term
A. DIRECT ASSAULT W/ HOMICIDE
Art. 48: Penalty for the most serious crime in The crime of Direct Assault with Homicide was committed
its maximum period, RT by a 17-year-old minor, and he immediately pleaded guilty
X committed the crime of Direct Assault with Homicide. It How do you get the penalty for the crime of Direct
is a complex crime. Under Art. 48, in case of a complex Assault with Homicide?
crime, the penalty for the most serious crime in its
maximum period shall be the one imposed. You take the penalty for the most serious crime in its
maximum period. What is the most serious crime?
In this case, what is the most serious crime? Homicide is Homicide, reclusion temporal.
the most serious crime. So, the penalty for homicide in its
maximum period shall be the one imposed – reclusion There is one privilege mitigating and one ordinary
temporal. mitigating. Even if the law provides that the penalty for the
most serious crime in its maximum period shall be the one
No AC RT, maximum period imposed, since there is a privilege mitigating circumstance
- maximum term of minority, it should be considered first before the rules in
1 MC: VS of sentence Art. 48. Therefore, reclusion temporal should be lowered
by 1 degree. It now becomes prision mayor, and under Art.
48, in the maximum period. It will be prision mayor in its
PM, maximum period maximum period – that is the maximum term of the
- Minimum term of sentence.
the sentence
To get the minimum period, you lower it by one degree –
The act of killing was not attended by any aggravating prision correccional. The range depends upon the sound
circumstance, with 1 mitigating circumstance of voluntary discretion of the court. I make it also maximum period. The
surrender. minimum term of the sentence is prision correccional in its
maximum period.
How do you get the penalty for the complex crime of
Direct Assault with Homicide? SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
The penalty for the most serious crime, Homicide – Under Act. 4103, in case of special penal laws:
reclusion temporal. Since the law says that the penalty
shall be in its maximum period, therefore it is reclusion 1. If the said special penal law does not have the
temporal in its maximum period. That is the maximum term same nomenclature as that of the RPC, the
of the sentence. maximum term of the sentence shall not go
beyond the prescribe penalty prescribed by law.
What about the mitigating circumstance of voluntary The minimum term of the sentence shall not be
surrender? You do not consider it because the moment it less than the minimum penalty prescribed by law.
is a complex crime under Art. 48, the maximum period of
the most serious penalty should be the one imposed. 2. If the penalty prescribed in the special penal law
Therefore, you do not consider mitigating circumstances. has the same nomenclature of penalty as that of
Therefore, it is reclusion temporal in its maximum period – the RPC, then you consider the rules provided for
that is the maximum term of the sentence. in the Revised Penal Code.
To get the minimum period, you lower the it by one degree, R.A. NO. 9165 COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS
prision mayor. The range depends upon the sound DRUGS ACT
discretion of the court. I make it also the maximum period
because the maximum term of the sentence is in its X was found in possession of less than 5 grams of shabu
maximum period. Therefore, it will be the minimum term of – 0.2 grams of shabu. Under Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 9165,
the sentence – prision mayor, maximum period. illegal possession of dangerous drugs:
1 PMC: Minority RT
PMC: Minority
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
If the shabu found in the possession of the executed successively or as nearly as may be possible,
accused is less than 5 grams, the penalty is 12 should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or
years and 1 day to 20 years. penalties first imposed, or should they have been served
out.
He was proven guilty; how do you get the penalty if you
were the judge convicting him? For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next
preceding paragraph the respective severity of the
The penalty should be anywhere in between 12 years and penalties shall be determined in accordance with the
1 day to 20 years. It should not be less than 12 years and following scale:
1 day; and it should not be more than 20 years. Therefore,
if I were the judge, I will impose the maximum penalty of 1. Death,
12 years and 1 day as the minimum term of the sentence
to 14 years and 8 months as the maximum term of the 2. Reclusion perpetua,
sentence. It is not less than the minimum penalty
prescribed by law; it is not more than the maximum penalty 3. Reclusion temporal,
prescribed by law.
4. Prision mayor,
R.A. NO. 10951 COMPREHENSIVE FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION REGULATION ACT 5. Prision correccional,
No AC PC, medium period 6. Arresto mayor,

No MC - maximum term
of sentence 7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
AM, maximum period
- minimum term of 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
the sentence
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
X was found in possession of an unlicensed firearm – an 11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
unregistered pistol. The said firearm was transferred, so
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
illegal transfer of firearms. Under Sec. 41 of R.A. No.
10591, in case of illegal transfer of firearms, the penalty 12. Public censure.
should be prision correccional.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding,
Therefore, it has the same nomenclature of penalty as the the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not
Revised Penal Code. Hence, in order to get the be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding
indeterminate sentence, you take into consideration the to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No
rules provided for under the RPC.
other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted
after the sum total of those imposed equals the same
The said illegal transfer of firearms was penalized by maximum period.
prision correccional. No mitigating, no aggravating, it
should be in its medium period. That is the maximum term Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
of the sentence.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of
To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it by
perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at
1 degree, arresto mayor. The range depends upon the thirty years.
sound discretion of the court. I make it also the medium
period. Arresto mayor in its medium period – that is the
A convict is given multiple sentences, the father raped his
minimum term of the sentence.
daughter 5 times. So, the father was charged with 5 counts
of rape. The daughter was 25 years old and the father had
ARTICLE 70. SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
carnal knowledge of his own daughter, 5 times.
Article 70. Successive service of sentence. - When the The judge imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion
culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve perpetua for each crime of rape. How shall the said father
them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so serve the sentence of 5 reclusion perpetua?
permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
Under Art. 70:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their
respective severity shall be followed so that they may be
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
1. If a convict is imposed with multiple sentences, he How shall X serve this multiple sentences?
shall serve them simultaneously or SABAY-
SABAY. Provided, that the nature of the penalties NO 3-FOLD RULE APPLY 3-FOLD RULE
allow simultaneous service of the sentence. (e.g.
imprisonment and fine; imprisonment and 3(15) + 10 = 55 years. 15 x 3 = 45 years
suspension; imprisonment and civil interdiction)
2. If the penalties are all imprisonment, the offender Applying the three-fold rule, you take into consideration the
cannot serve it at the same time. The offender is most severe penalty. The maximum duration of a convict’s
only one body, he cannot be place in 5 different sentence shall not exceed 3 times the length of the most
detention cells. Therefore, he shall serve the severe penalty. Therefore, 45 years.
penalty, according to Art. 70, successively or
SUNOD-SUNOD. Is he going to serve 45 years? No, because under Art. 70,
the three-fold rule shall not exceed 40 years. The
THREE-FOLD RULE maximum duration of a convict’s sentence shall not exceed
3 times the length of the most severe penalty, but in no
Under Art. 70, in case of successive service of sentence, case to exceed 40 years. The limit is 40 years.
there is a limitation. The said limitation is the so-called
three-fold rule. Under this rule, the maximum duration of a Therefore, since after applying the three-fold rule, it is still
convict’s sentence shall not exceed 3 times the length of beyond 40 years, he will be serving only 40 years behind
the most severe penalty, but in no case to exceed 40 years. bars. That is the limit.
A. 11 COUNTS OF UNJUST VEXATION PROBATION
MeTC: Convicted in all counts The Probation Law, P.D. 968, has been amended by R.A.
Penalty: 11 days of arresto menor for each count. 10707. So, R.A. 107007 is the new probation law.
How shall he serve the sentence? Probation is a disposition under which a person, after
having been convicted and sentenced, is released subject
NO 3-FOLD RULE APPLY 3-FOLD RULE to conditions imposed by the Court and under the
supervision of a probation officer.
11 x 11 = 121 days/ 4 mos. 11 x 3 = 33 days
Purposes of Probation:
In applying the three-fold rule, you should consider the 1. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an
most severe penalty – 11 days of arresto menor. It will be offender;
multiplied by 3 because the law provides that the maximum 2. To provide for an opportunity for the reformation of a
duration of a convict’s sentence shall not exceed 3 times penitent offender;
the length of the most severe penalty. 3. To prevent further commission of crimes because the
offender is placed under an individualized treatment;
Hence, applying the three-fold rule, instead of serving 4. To decongest cases;
sentence for 4 months for 11 counts of unjust vexation, he 5. To save the Government from spending much-
will be serving only for 33 days or 1 month and 3 days.
needed funds when the offender will be placed
behind bars.
Note:
It refers only to service of sentence.
PROBATION AS A PRIVILEGE
B. 3 COUNTS OF HOMICIDE: 15 years of RT/count
1 COUNT, FRUSTRATED: 10 years of PM Probation is not a matter of right, it is a mere privilege. So,
HOMICIDE not all persons can avail of the benefit of probation. Under
Section 9 of P.D. 968 as amended by R.A. 10707, the
X killed 3 persons, A, B, and C. Thereafter, he also inflicted following cannot avail of the benefit of probation:
a fatal wound on D, but D survived because of immediate
medical intervention. Therefore, X was charged with 3 1. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment is
counts of homicide and 1 count of frustrated homicide. more than 6 years;
RTC judge found him guilty as charged. RTC imposed Note:

upon X the penalty of 15 years of RT/count of Homicide.
For frustrated homicide, RTC imposed 10 years of PM.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The moment the penalty imposed on the offender is Although probation is not a matter of right and it is a mere
more than 6 years (6 years and 1 day), the offender can privilege, even if the offender is not among those
no longer apply for probation. disqualified, the moment the Court deems is proper that
the said application for probation must be denied, then,
he cannot be granted probation. So, the grant or denial
2. Those who have been convicted of subversion and
of the application for probation depends on the sound
crimes against national security; discretion of the trial court.
3. Those who have previously been convicted by
final judgment of an offense punished by Q: Where do you apply an Application for Probation?
imprisonment of more than six (6) months and one
(1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand A: You apply the application of probation before the Court
pesos (P1,000.00); and that heard the case and convicted the accused.
4. Those who have already availed the benefit of
probation because can only be availed of once. Q: When should you file an Application for Probation?
MORENO v. COMELEC A: The application for probation should be filed within the
G.R. No. 168550 | 10 August 2006 period for perfecting an appeal.
FACTS: Moreno wants to run for the barangay election. EFFECT OF PROBATION
However, a motion for disqualification was filed against him
before the COMELEC because he has been previously If probation is granted, as held in the case of Moreno v.
convicted of the crime of arbitrary detention and with the COMELEC and as provided under Section 4 of P.D. 968
said conviction, he applied for probation and was granted as amended by R.A. 10707, the effect of probation is to
such. Because of that, the opposing party filed a motion to suspend the execution of the sentence and nothing more.
disqualify Moreno from the said barangay election. The Under Section 4 of P.D. 968 as amended by R.A. 10707, it
COMELEC granted the said petition to disqualify. The is provided that the Court may, after it convicted and
COMELEC En Banc said that Moreno is disqualified. The sentenced a defendant for a probationable penalty, and
COMELEC En Banc stated that under Section 40 of the upon application by the defendant within the period for
Local Government Code, those sentenced by final perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of a sentence
judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or an and place the defendant on probation for such period and
offense punishable by one (1) year or more of upon such terms and conditions as the Court may deem
imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving of proper. Therefore, clearly, under Section 4 of P.D. 968 as
sentence are disqualified from running for any local amended by R.A. 10707, the only effect of probation is to
position. Therefore, according to the COMELEC, since suspend the execution of the sentence.
Moreno applied for probation and was released from
probation on December 20, 2000, disqualification shall APPEAL AND PROBATION
commence from that date and shall end in two (2) years
thereafter. Hence, at the 2002 barangay elections, he is Q: X is charged with the crime of frustrated homicide.
still disqualified to run. The COMELEC En Banc said that After trial on the merits, the judge found X guilty of
the grant of probation to Moreno merely suspended the frustrated homicide and the judge imposed upon X,
execution of the sentence but did not affect his because of the many mitigating circumstances, the
disqualification from running for elective office. Hence, he privilege mitigating circumstances, and special
is disqualified. mitigating circumstances, the maximum penalty of six
(6) years of prision correcional. X appealed to the
ISSUE: Whether or not Moreno should be disqualified. Court of Appeals and in his appeal to the Court of
Appeals, his crime was downgraded to attempted
RULING: NO, Moreno should not be disqualified. The homicide and imposed upon him a maximum penalty
Supreme Court ruled that probation is not equivalent to of four (4) years. Can he go back to the trial court and
service of sentence. In this case, under Section 40 of the apply for probation?
Local Government Code, it is expressly provided that he
cannot run for any local position within two (2) years after A: No, he cannot go back to the trial court and apply for
serving sentence. Here, he has filed for probation, probation. Under Section 4 of P.D. 968 as amended by
therefore, he did not serve sentence. The phrase “within R.A. 10707, no application for probation shall be
two (2) years after serving sentence” is not applicable entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an
insofar as Moreno is concerned because the effect of appeal from a judgment of conviction. In this case, X
probation is to suspend the execution of the sentence. convicted by the trial court of frustrated homicide and he
Therefore, he never served sentence the moment he was imposed with the penalty of six (6) years, which is a
applied and was granted probation. probationable penalty. When instead of applying for
probation, X appealed to the Court of Appeals, he loses the
Note: right to apply for probation because appeal bars probation
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
and probation bars appeal. No application for probation however, found that Colinares is guilty of attempted
shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has homicide and not of frustrated homicide.
perfected an appeal for a judgment of conviction. In this
case, X perfected an appeal from a judgment of conviction ISSUE: Whether or not Arnel Colinares may still apply for
which imposes a probationable penalty. Therefore, he probation on remand of the case to the trial court.
loses the right to apply for probation.
RULING: YES, Arnel may still apply for probation on
Q: X is charged and thereafter convicted of the crime remand of the case to the trial court. Ordinarily, Arnel
of frustrated homicide. The judge imposed upon him would no longer be entitled to apply for probation, he,
the maximum penalty of eight (8) years of prision having appealed from the judgment of the RTC convicting
mayor. X could not accept the judgment and so, he him for frustrated homicide. But the Court finds Arnel guilty
appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of only of the lesser crime of attempted homicide and holds
Appeals affirmed the conviction but downgraded the that the maximum of the penalty imposed on him should
crime to attempted homicide and imposed upon him be lowered to imprisonment of four months of arresto
the maximum penalty of six (6) years. Can X go back mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of
to the trial court and apply for probation? prision correccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it
would be but fair to allow him the right to apply for probation
A: Yes, X can go back to the trial court and apply for upon remand of the case to the RTC.
probation. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Colinares v. People, which was put into law under R.A. Q: X was convicted of frustrated homicide and the
10707, amending Section 4 of P.D. 968. The law provides maximum penalty imposed is eight (8) years of
that when a judgment of conviction imposing a non- imprisonment, and he appealed to the Court of
probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed and such Appeals and the appellate court downgraded the crime
judgment is modified through the imposition of a to attempted homicide and imposed upon him the
probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to maximum penalty of six (6) of imprisonment years but
apply for probation based on the modified decision before he did not apply for probation, instead, X appealed
such decision becomes final. In this case, X was imposed further to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
by the RTC with a non-probationable penalty of eight (8) convicted X of the same charge, however, the
years and he appealed such non-probationable penalty to Supreme Court downgraded the crime only to four (4)
the CA and the CA modified the said decision and imposed years of imprisonment. Can X go back to the trial court
upon him a maximum penalty of six (6) years, a and apply for probation?
probationable penalty. So now, based on the decision on
Colinares v. People, which was put into law under R.A. A: No, X cannot go back to the trial court and apply for
10707, amending Section 4 of P.D. 968, X can now go probation. Under Section 4 of P.D. 968 as amended by
back to the trial court and apply for probation because it is R.A. 10707 last paragraph, the accused shall lose the
only the appellate court that granted him a probationable benefit of probation should he seek a review of the
penalty. Therefore, he can apply for probation. modified decision which already imposes a probationable
penalty. In this case, the CA already modified the decision
COLINARES v. PEOPLE from a non-probationable penalty to a probationable
G.R. No. 182748 | 13 December 2011 penalty but X was not satisfied and he appealed further to
the Supreme Court. When he appealed further to the
FACTS: Arnel Colinares was charged and found guilty Supreme Court the said probationable penalty, he loses
beyond reasonable doubt of frustrated homicide by the the benefit of probation and he waives his right and
RTC of Camarines Sur. He was sentenced to suffer privilege of being granted probation. Therefore, he can no
imprisonment from two years and four months of prison longer apply for probation even if the Supreme Court
correccional, as minimum, to six years and one day of lowered the imposable penalty to four (4) years of
prison mayor, as maximum. Since the maximum imprisonment.
probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to
six years, Arnel did not qualify for probation. On appeal by Q: There are many offenders, they are: A, B, C, D, and
Colinares, the Court of Appeals sustained the RTC’s E. They were all conspirators in the crime of frustrated
decision. Unsatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision, homicide, and they were all charged of such crime.
petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court and took After trial on merits, the judge imposed upon them the
the position that he should be entitled to apply for probation maximum penalty of 10 years of prision mayor.
in case the Court metes out a new penalty on him that Thereafter, all of them appealed to the Court of
makes his offense probationable, which was strongly Appeals and the Court of Appeals downgraded the
opposed by the Solicitor General reiterating that under the crime to attempted homicide and imposed upon them
Probation Law, no application for probation can be the maximum penalty of six (6) years. Two of them, A
entertained once the accused has perfected his appeal and B, decided to appeal further to the Supreme Court.
from the judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court, However, C, D, and E are already amenable to the
decision and so, they decided to apply for probation.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Can they go back to the trial court and apply for loyal to your wife, you cannot engage in drugs, cannot
probation even if the other two co-conspirators went engage in drunkenness, etc.)
to the Supreme Court for further appeal?
Q: X was charged with reckless imprudence resulting
A: Yes, C, D, and E can go back to the trial court and apply in homicide. He was driving, bumped someone and
for probation even if the other two co-conspirators went to killed someone. After trial on the merits, the judge
the Supreme Court for further appeal. Under Section 4 of convicted X with reckless imprudence resulting in
P.D. 968 as amended by R.A. 10707, in case there are homicide. The MTC Judge imposed upon him the
many offenders, should any one of them decided to further maximum penalty of 4 years. Since it is within the
appeal, the others can still apply for probation. The law probationable penalty, X immediately applied for
does not prohibit co-conspirators from taking different path probation and the judge granted X’s application for
— others appealing to a higher court and others going back probation. However, although X’s application for
to the trial court to apply for probation. probation was granted, X thereafter filed a notice of
appeal. X wanted to appeal the civil indemnities
PERIOD OF PROBATION imposed on him by the MTC. The moment the judge
found out about the notice of appeal, he denied to give
SENTENCE PERIOD OF PROBATION due course to X’s notice of appeal because according
to the judge, X’s application for probation was already
Imprisonment of not granted, therefore, he can no longer appeal. Is the
Will not exceed two years;
more than 1 year; court correct in denying X’s notice of appeal?
Imprisonment of more A: No, the judge is not correct in denying to give due
Will not exceed 6 years; course to X’s notice of appeal. X can definitely appeal the
than 1 year;
civil aspect of the case because probation has nothing to
Not less than nor be more do with civil liability, probation only affects the offender’s
than twice than the total criminal liability because under Section 4 of P.D. 968 as
number of days of amended by R.A. 10707, the only effect of probation is
Fine subsidiary subsidiary imprisonment, suspend the execution of the sentence. Probation cannot
imprisonment in case of taking into account the touch civil liabilities because civil liability is personal to the
insolvency. highest minimum wage rate private offended party, only the private offended party can
at the time of the rendition of waive civil liability, it cannot be touched by probation or
the judgment. parole. Hence, in this case, the court was wrong in denying
X’s notice of appeal insofar as the civil liability imposed on
him is concerned.
CONDITIONS IMPOSED UPON OFFENDER UNDER
PROBATION TERMINATION OF PROBATION
There are two conditions imposed upon a person seeking Q: X was charged and was thereafter convicted. The
probation: penalty imposed upon him is only arresto mayor, so
maximum of 6 months. So, X applied for probation to
1. General/Mandatory Conditions which the judge granted. Attached to the said grant of
2. Discretionary Conditions probation, one of the conditions is that X cannot
change his place of residence. Since the penalty
General/ Mandatory Conditions imposed upon X is a maximum of 6 months of arresto
mayor, it is less than 1 year, therefore, his probation
The following are mandatory conditions imposed by the period should not exceed 2 years. So for 2 years, X
court to the probationer: complied with the said condition, he did not change
his place of residence. However, after 2 years, the
1. Reporting to the probation officer within 72 hours moment the 2-year probation period have lapsed, X
from the receipt of the order; and immediately changed his place of residence. X wanted
2. Reporting every week, every month, every two to live a new life and wanted to live in an environment
months, depending on the conditions attached in where people didn’t know that he was once a convict.
Because of that, the probation officer learned of what
the grant of probation.
X had done, X changing his place of residence, and
because of that, the probation officer became very
Discretionary Conditions
mad and thereafter filed before the court motion to
revoke X’s probation. The judge granted the motion to
In discretionary conditions, the Court can impose any
revoke X’s probation. After revoking the probation
conditions, provided it is not prejudicial to the welfare of the
granted to X, the judge issued a warrant of arrest. X
said offender. (Example: plant trees, live a good life, be
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
was then arrested and was placed behind bars. Is the By virtue of this law on community service, the Supreme
judge correct? Court issued an administrative matter which provides for
the guidelines in the imposition of community service in lieu
A: Yes, the judge is correct. The lapse of the period of of imprisonment. Based on these rules promulgated by the
probation doesn’t ipso facto mean the termination of Supreme Court, after promulgation of a judgment or order
probation. Before probation may be terminated, the judge where the imposable penalty for the crime committed is
must issue an Order of Final Discharge. This Order of Final either arresto menor or arresto mayor, the court shall
Discharge will be issued through the submission of a announce in open court that the accused has three options
report, after the lapse of the period of probation, by the within 15 calendar days from the promulgation of
probation offer to the judge that this probationer complied judgment. Therefore, it is the court who shall announce in
with all the rules and regulation. The judge will review it open court that the accused convicted of a crime where the
and after reviewing that this person complied with all the penalty imposed is either arresto menor or arresto mayor
rules and regulations attached to the grant of probation, the has three options, and he can choose which one he would
judge will now issue an order of final discharge. opt to serve: 1) file an appeal; 2) file an application for
probation; or 3) apply the penalty, that it be served through
Q: What is the effect of an order of final discharge? community service in the place where the crime was
committed.
A: Under Section 16 of P.D. 968 as amended by R.A.
10707, an order of final discharge shall operate to restore The court gives the accused three options. He can file an
all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction, appeal if he is insisting on his innocence; he can apply for
and shall totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the probation; or he can apply that the penalty be served by
offense for which probation was granted. That is the effect him by rendering community service.
of an order of final discharge.
RIMREV TRANS GUIDELINES The Supreme Court also provided in the said guidelines
ARTICLE 88. ARRESTO MENOR that in case the accused chooses to appeal the conviction,
such resort bars any application for community service
Article 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor or probation. If, among the three choices given to the
shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the accused, he chooses to appeal his conviction and insist on
defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the his innocence, he can no longer apply for community
law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into service nor for probation. The benefit of community
consideration the health of the offender and other reasons service shall be given to the accused only once.
which may seem satisfactory to it.
If the accused has under preventive imprisonment, the
Article 88 has been amended by R.A. 11362 or the period shall be deducted on the term of his community
Community Service Act. The said act amended the RPC service. However, community service shall not be allowed
by inserting Article 88-A which provides for community if the accused is a habitual delinquent.
service.
In the said guidelines of the Supreme Court, it was stated
R.A. 11362 allows courts, in the exercise of their discretion, that in case the trial court denies the application of the
to require community service and rehabilitative counseling accused for community service, and the period to file an
in lieu of jail time, if the penalty imposed on the offender appeal has not yet lapsed, the said accused may still
is either arresto mayor or arresto menor. If a person is choose to appeal the said judgment or he can choose to
convicted of a crime and the penalty imposed on him is apply for probation. An accused who has applied and who
either arresto mayor or arresto menor, he can opt for was granted probation in a previous case is not disqualified
community service instead of jail time. to apply for community service in a subsequent case.
Community service is any act or physical activity which TITLE FOUR: EXTINCTION OF
inculcates civic consciousness, and it is intended towards CRIMINAL LIABILITY
the improvement of the public or the promotion of public
service.
ARTICLE 89. HOW CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Under the law, if the convict violates the terms of IS TOTALLY EXTINGUISHED
community service, he shall serve the full term of the
penalty in jail, or he shall be placed in house arrest if the Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. —
penalty is arresto menor. Conversely, if he completes the Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
terms of the community service, the court shall order his
release, unless he is detained for any other offense that he 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties,
has committed. and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs
before final judgment;
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
based solely on the offense committed which is
2. By service of the sentence; civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty 2. The claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding
and all its effects; the death of the accused, if the said civil liability is
predicated on other sources of obligation, i.e., law,
4. By absolute pardon; contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts.
5. By prescription of the crime; 3. When the civil liability survives, an action for
recovery therefor may be pursued by way of filing
6. By prescription of the penalty; and a separate civil action to be enforced either against
the executor or administrator or the estate of the
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in said deceased accused.
Article 344 of this Code.
4. The private offended party need not fear a forfeiture
MODES OF EXTINGUISHING CRIMINAL LIABILITY of his right to file his separate civil action by
prescription because the statute of limitations on
1. Death; civil liability is deemed interrupted during the
2. Service of sentence; pendency of the criminal case under Article 1155
3. Amnesty; of the New Civil Code.
4. Absolute pardon;
5. Prescription of crime; Q: What if X raped his 17-year-old biological daughter?
6. Prescription of penalty; and X was charged with qualified rape. After trial on the
7. Subsequent valid marriage between the offender merits, the trial court judge found him guilty of
and the offended party. qualified rape. X appealed. When the case was being
reviewed by the Supreme Court, the latter received a
1. DEATH letter coming from the Director of Prisons stating that
X was found dead in the morning and based on the
Death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the medico-legal report and autopsy heart, he died of a
proceedings — during trial, before conviction, after heart attack while sleeping. Attached in the letter were
conviction — because the moment the offender dies, there the medico-legal report, autopsy report, and
is no body to serve the personal penalty. everything given by the doctor. What is the effect of
X’s death on his criminal and civil liability since X died
Death extinguishes civil liability if the offender dies before conviction by final judgment?
before conviction of final judgment. The moment he
dies before conviction by final judgment, his civil liability is A: Since X died before the Supreme Court has decided on
totally extinguished. If the offender dies after conviction by his case, and while his case was pending appeal, his
final judgment, his civil liability survives. The private death extinguishes both his criminal and civil liability.
complainant can recover the civil liability from the
administrator of the estate of the deceased convict. Q: X was convicted of qualified rape. He appealed
before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
The civil liability extinguished the moment the offender dies rendered its decision, finding X guilty of qualified rape
before conviction by final judgment is civil liability ex and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion
delicto in senso strictiore. It is the civil liability arising perpetua without eligibility for or the benefit of parole
from and based solely on the crime committed. Even if the because it should be death. X received the judgment.
convict dies before conviction by final judgment, his civil The counsel of X from the Public Attorney’s Office
liability survives if the said civil liability arises from other (PAO) received the judgment, and he is now preparing
sources of obligations, i.e., law, contracts, quasi-contracts, for his Motion for Reconsideration (MR) to be filed
and quasi-delicts. before the Supreme Court.
In the en banc case of People v. Bayotas, the Supreme However, even before the counsel from the PAO was
Court laid down the rules on the extinction of criminal able to file the MR, the Supreme Court received a letter
and civil liability in case of the death of the accused: from the Director of Prisons stating that X died. X was
found dead and based on the medico-legal report and
1. The death of the accused pending appeal of his autopsy report, he died of heart attack.
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well
as his civil liability, based solely thereon. What is the effect of X’s death on his criminal and civil
Therefore, the death of the accused before the liablity?
conviction by final judgment extinguishes both his
criminal and civil liability directly arising from and
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
A: It will extinguish both his criminal and civil liability. committed political
Although the Supreme Court has already rendered its offenses.
decision, the said counsel still has the time to file for MR.
Therefore, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court
has not attained its finality. As such, X’s death occurred 5. PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
before the conviction by final judgment; it then totally
extinguished both his criminal and civil liability. Prescription of crime is the loss or forfeiture of the right of
the State to prosecute an offender who has violated an act
2. SERVICE OF SENTENCE prohibited by law. The moment that crime has prescribed,
the State can no longer file a case against the said offender
Service of sentence means the satisfaction of the penalty who has violated the law. Since the crime has prescribed,
imposed. If the penalty is imprisonment, it means that he the court has nothing to hear, to try. It is the court who shall
has served his sentence behind bars. If it is fine, it means make sure that the cause it is trying has not yet prescribed.
that he has paid the amount.
Periods of Prescription of Crimes
3. AMNESTY
PENALTY OF CRIMES PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
Amnesty is an act of grace from the power of the Chief Death, reclusion perpetua, 20 years
Executive which does not only exempt the offender from and reclusion temporal
the service of penalty for the crime committed, but also
obliterates the effects of the crime. It does not only
suspend the execution of the sentence. It also obliterates
the effects of the crime.
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
4. ABSOLUTE PARDON
Absolute Pardon is an act of grace received from the power Correctional penalties 10 years
entrusted with the execution of the law which exempts the
offender from the penalty prescribed by law for the crime
committed. XPN: Crimes punished by
arresto mayor will
AMNESTY ABSOLUTE PARDON prescribe in 5 years.
Obliterates, erases, all the Merely suspends the Libel and similar offenses 1 year
effects of crime as if no execution of sentence,
crime was committed. erases the penalty to be
Oral defamation and 6 months
imposed. Otherwise
slander by deed
stated, it excuses the
convict from the service of Light felonies 2 months
his sentence.
Granted at any stage of Granted only after
proceedings, before conviction by final
during or after final judgment. Computation of Prescriptive Period
judgment.
In case of prescription of crime, the running of the period
of prescription of crime shall commence from the time the
crime has been committed, except when it is not known.
Public act of the Chief Private act of the Chief
Executive. It is done, Executive. Hence, it must When it is not known, then the said running of the period
granted, with the be pleaded before the of the prescription of crime shall commence from the time
concurrence of Congress. court that tried and it has come to the knowledge of the offended party or to
the government authorities, or to its agents.
Hence, courts take judicial convicted the accused
notice of amnesty; it need before the accused may Q: X went to Y. Y is a tenant of a house owned by X. X
not be pleaded before the be ordered released. went to the said house and told Y: “You failed to pay
court. the rental fee for two months already. You have to pay;
Generally granted to a May be granted to any otherwise, you have to leave my house tomorrow
community or a group of offender for any crime morning.” As a response, Y told X, “I am sorry, I have
offenders who have committed. no money. I have no money right now, X, I lost my job,
and it is only my wife who is working by selling in the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
public market. I’m sorry, but I cannot pay you any of the case before the Office of the Public Prosecutor even
the said rentals.” Because of that, X said, “No, Y. I have for purposes of preliminary investigation.
already given you too much favor. Two months, you
failed to pay. You have to pay me tomorrow morning. I Whether it is a violation of the RPC (e.g., slight physical
will come back. If you fail to pay me by then, better injuries), or a violation of a special penal law (e.g., violation
pack up your things and leave. Otherwise, I will go to of B.P. Blg. 22 in Pangilinan), the moment the complaint or
court so that you will leave my place. Thereafter, X the case is filed before the Office of the Public Prosecutor,
turned his back on Y, he was about to leave. Y was very the running of the period of prescription of crime is
mad, he was begging, he has no money. And so, he interrupted or suspended.
followed X and axed the back of X numerous times
until the latter died. It remains interrupted or suspended until the said accused
is acquitted or convicted of the said crime charged, or the
After killing X, Y became afraid. He went into panic, case is dismissed.
and so he cut the body of X into different parts and
placed them in a sack. He brought the sack at the Q: X and Y had an argument. In the course of the said
backyard and dug the ground and buried the sack argument, X punched Y three times on the face. Y fell.
under the ground. All along, Y thought no one saw him. Thereafter, after seeing that X had wounded Y, X left.
However, Z, a passerby, heard the commotion between Y, however – having decided to file a case –
X and Y, and he was peeping, and he saw everything immediately went to the doctor to get a medical
from the altercation to the threat, to the axing, to the certificate. According to the doctor, the injuries
killing, to the dismembering the body, to the placing of sustained by Y would heal within a period of five (5)
the sack, and to the burying. Z witnessed everything. days. Because of that, he was given a medical
However, he was afraid of Y and that he, too, might be certificate wherein the healing period is 5 days.
killed. So, he left the place and kept everything he saw
to himself. He did not divulge it to the authorities. And so, he filed a case against X before the barangay.
Both parties were called. Both parties did not appear.
21 years have now passed from the commission of the There was no amicable settlement or conciliation at
crime. Z is now old and diagnosed with cancer. He will the barangay level. And so, the barangay chairman
soon die. He wanted to die with a good conscience. Z issued a certification that the case is ripe for filing
called for the police authorities of the place and before the court. Hence, within a month’s period from
divulged to them what he saw 21 years ago of Y killing the time of the slapping (punching) incident, Y filed a
his landlord X. At first, the police did not believe, but complaint for slight physical injuries against X before
later they went to the scene of the crime. The house the Office of the Public Prosecutor.
was empty. They dug the ground and they found truth
from the statement and narrations of Z. The assigned investigating public prosecutor resolved
the case in favor of the private offended party Y and
Can the State still prosecute Y for the crime of prepared an information charging X with slight
homicide? Or has the crime prescribed? physical injuries. But, the said information prepared
by the said investigating public prosecutor was not
A: The State can still prosecute Y for the crime of homicide filed to the proper Metropolitan Trial Court. Somehow,
for having killed his landlord X. The crime has not yet the said resolution of the fiscal got lost and was
prescribed. Here, the period of the prescription of crime forgotten. They only searched for it when Y made a
shall only commence from the time Z, the witness, follow-up. But it has been a year from the time of the
informed the authorities. Even if Z saw the commission of said slapping (punching) incident. When the said
the crime, that is not the start of the counting of the period information was found, immediately, it was filed before
of the prescription of crime because Z is not offended party the Metropolitan Trial Court.
nor the authority. Therefore, 21 years after, when Z
informed the authorities, is the time the running of the Upon the filing of the case of slight physical injuries
period of the prescription of crime commences. The State against X before the MeTC, the counsel of X
can then still file a case of homicide against Y. immediately filed a motion to quash on the ground that
the crime has already prescribed and therefore, the
Q: When is the running of the period of prescription of said case should be dismissed and the said
time interrupted or suspended? information must be quashed. Should the judge grant
or deny the said motion to quash filed by X’s counsel?
A: As held by the Supreme Court in the case of People v.
Pangilinan, and in the case of People v. Bautista, in case A: The said motion to quash must be denied. The crime
of violations of the RPC, and in case of violation of special has not yet prescribed. When Y filed a case before the
penal laws, the running of the period of prescription of Office of the Public Prosecutor within a month’s time – a
crime shall be interrupted or suspended upon the filing of month from the prescriptive period – a month from the date
of slapping (punching), from that time that the said
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
complaint was filed before the fiscal’s office, the running of
the 2-month or 60-day prescriptive period has been Q: X was charged with the crime of homicide. Trial on
interrupted or suspended. the merits ensued. After trial on the merits, the judge
found X guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide.
Therefore, when the case was filed before the MeTC, the The judge imposed upon X the maximum penalty of
said running of the period of the prescription of crime has reclusion temporal, maximum of 20 years
not yet started because it was interrupted when it was filed imprisonment. Since the judgment became final and
before the fiscal’s office. Hence, the case has not yet executory, from the City Jail, X was brought to the New
prescribed. The MeTC can still hear and try the said case. Bilibid Prison/National Penitentiary.
6. PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY Within a months’ time, from the time X was brough to
the Bilibid, a riot took place at the Bilibid. Inmates
Prescription of penalty is the loss or forfeiture of the right versus other inmates. Gang versus another gang.
of the State to execute the final sentence imposed upon a There was riot and X did not participate in any of these
convict. The moment the penalty has already prescribed, riots. However, since the prison authorities were busy
the said convict can no longer be placed behind bars. pacifying everyone or busy trying to contain the said
Since the penalty has already prescribed, he will become commotion and riot inside the National Penitentiary, X
a totally free man. The State can no longer execute the took it as an opportunity to escape. He was able to
final sentence imposed by the courts. successfully leave the said penal institution. That was
a months’ time from the time he was brought to the
Article 92. When and how penalties prescribe. - The National Penitentiary. The police/prison authorities
penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows: looked for X. They asked for a warrant of arrest from
the court, issued. They looked for X. They could not
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years; find X in his last known address, in the houses of his
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years; relatives, in the houses of his friends. They could not
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception find X. From one town to another, they searched for X.
of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five X could not be found.
years;
4. Light penalties, in one year. Twenty-five (25) years thereafter, the police officers
got a tip. The name X was in the manifesto of
passengers of Cebu Pacific coming from Gensan and
the flight will be arriving at NAIA Terminal 3 at exactly
PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES 10:30 in the morning. So, a person by the name of X
was on board Cebu Pacific flight coming from General
Death and Reclusion Perpetua 20 years Santos City. So, because of that, the police authorities
armed with a warrant of arrest issued by the court and
Other Afflictive Penalties 15 years armed with a photo of X. 25 years had passed, he may
already be different. So, they were armed with a photo
Correctional Penalties (except arresto
10 years of X. The police went to the tarmac. The moment the
mayor, which prescribes in 5 years)
flight arrived, they were looking for him intensely, any
Light Penalties 1 year resemblance to the photo, until they found one. And
later, it was confirmed that it was X. So, because of
that, they served the warrant of arrest on him. They
Note: placed handcuffs on him and then thereafter, they
There is a difference between the prescription period of brought him behind bars. The council of X immediately
crimes under Article 90 and period of prescription of filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus on the ground of
penalties under Article 92. prescription of penalty, the penalty has already
prescribed. Should the court grant or deny the said
The running of the period of prescription of penalties shall petition for habeas corpus?
commence from the time the convict evaded the service of
his sentence. A: The judge should grant the petition for habeas
corpus on the ground that the penalty has already
Q: When do you say that a convict has evaded the prescribed. Too late for the police officers. Twenty-five
service of his sentence? (25) years has already lapsed from the time X evaded the
service of his sentence, from the time X escaped from the
A: When the said convict has begun serving his final National Penitentiary wherein he is serving his sentence by
sentence and while serving his final sentence, he escaped. final judgment. Therefore, since 25 years has already
From the time he escaped, that is the time he evaded the lapsed, and the prescriptive period of reclusion temporal is
service of his sentence. That is the time you start counting only fifteen (15) years, he can no longer be placed behind
the running of the period of prescription of penalties. bars. The State can no longer place him behind bars in
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
order to execute the final sentence imposed upon him. Too Should the judge grant or deny the said petition for
late for his arrest. habeas corpus?
Q: X was charged with a crime of homicide. It is a A: The judge should deny the petition for habeas
bailable offense. Bail fixed by the court, P200,000.00. corpus.
X borrowed money and posted bail. So now, he is on
temporary liberty. His case for homicide was set for The jumped bail is not equivalent to evasion of service of
arraignment. He appeared and he pleaded not guilty. sentence. In evasion of service of sentence, the offender
During the preliminary conference, marking of has already been convicted by final judgment and he
exhibits, he also appeared. During the pre-trial escaped. In case of jumping of bail, the said offender, after
conference, he also appeared. However, at the start of posting bail, did not anymore appear during the trial. There
the initial trial of the case, X already failed to appear. is yet no sentence imposed on him when he went into
hiding.
The judge questioned the counsel. The counsel said,
he will try to communicate. On the next scheduled date Therefore, with respect to the prescription of the penalty,
of hearing, again, X was nowhere to be found. And so, the same period has not even commenced to run.
the judge asked the counsel, and it was at the time that Therefore, there is no way that it has prescribed.
the counsel told the judge, “I’m sorry, your honor, I do
not know his whereabouts. I tried to call him—no reply. Hence, the State can still place X behind bars in order to
I sent a messenger to his house, still, according to the execute the final sentence imposed on him by the trial
messenger, the house was empty.” The counsel court.
informed the court that he did not know where X was.
The judge was mad. He issued a warrant of arrest Computation of the Prescription of Penalties
against X. The judge said, “Since Accused X jumped
bail, trial on the merits will proceed in absentia.” Thus, Article 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. -
trial on the merits proceeded in absentia. The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to
run from the date when the culprit should evade the service
After trial, the judge found X guilty beyond reasonable of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant
doubt of homicide. Of course, he was not present should give himself up, be captured, should go to some
during the promulgation of judgment because he foreign country with which this Government has no
already jumped bail, so the judge issued a warrant of extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before
arrest against him. the expiration of the period of prescription.
Armed with the said warrant of arrest, the police The running of the period of prescription of penalty is
officers looked for X – in his last known address, in the interrupted or suspended the moment the offender:
address of his relatives, in the address of his friends,
they could not find him anywhere within nearby towns. 1. is captured/arrested;
After having communicated with other police stations, 2. surrendered to the authorities;
they still could not find him. 3. goes to a country in which the Philippines has no
extradition treaty with; or
Twenty-five (25) years thereafter, the police officers 4. commits another crime before the prescription of
got a tip. The name of X was in the manifesto of penalty.
passengers on board a Cebu Pacific flight coming
from General Santos City, which will be landing at In all these instances, the running of the period of
NAIA Terminal 3 at exactly 10:30. Because of that, the prescription of penalty is interrupted or suspended.
police officers, armed with the warrant of arrest,
issued a report as well as his photo, and went to the 7. SUBSEQUENT VALID MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE
tarmac of NAIA Terminal 3. OFFENDER AND THE OFFENDED PARTY
The moment the said flight arrived, they were looking The last mode for totally extinguishing criminal liability
at all of the passengers disembarking until they found under Art. 89 is the subsequent valid marriage of the
one that resembles X. True enough, it was X. He was offender and the offended party.
immediately served the said warrant of arrest, and
thereafter, he was placed in handcuffs. Then, he was This applies only to one public crime and that is rape, and
bought to the national penitentiary. the private crimes of seduction, abduction and acts of
lasciviousness.
The counsel of X immediately filed a petition for
habeas corpus moving for X’s immediate release on In these crimes, the moment there is a valid marriage
the ground of prescription of penalty. between the accused and the victim, such subsequent
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
valid marriage between the both of them will extinguish the 3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn
offender’s criminal liability. while he is serving his sentence.
Relevant discussion under Art. 334 of the RPC Under Art. 94, we have the modes for partially
extinguishing criminal liability.
Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery,
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of Modes for Partially Extinguishing Criminal Liability
lasciviousness. - The crimes of adultery and concubinage
shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by 1. By conditional pardon;
the offended spouse. 2. By commutation of the sentence;
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution may earn while he is serving his sentence.
without including both the guilty parties, if they are both
alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or CONDITIONAL PARDON
pardoned the offenders.
Conditional pardon, just like absolute pardon, is an act of
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of grace which excuses the convict from the service of his
lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a sentence. However, unlike absolute pardon, conditional
complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, pardon is subject to strict terms and conditions that the said
grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender person granted pardon must comply with. If he failed to
has been expressly pardoned by the above named comply, then he can be arrested and charged with evasion
persons, as the case may be. of service of sentence by violation of conditional pardon
under Art. 159:
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of
party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the sentence. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this minimum period shall be imposed upon the convict who,
paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief
accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above- Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such
mentioned crimes. pardon. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of
such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then
More than that, under Art. 334, Book II of the RPC, the said suffer the unexpired portion of his original sentence.
subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the
offended party will also remit the penalty already imposed That is why it only partially extinguishes the offender’s
on the said accused. criminal liability because he is required to comply with the
conditions attached to the grant of the pardon.
Q: X raped Y. They often see each other in court. They
fell in love. However, trial proceeded. The judge COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
convicted X. The judgment became final and
executory. X was bought to the national penitentiary. Example
The victim had been visiting her rapist, until they
Death penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua. Reclusion
decided to get married. It was a valid marriage, out of
perpetua is the new penalty to be served by the accused,
love. What is the effect of such marriage? no longer the said death penalty.
A: It will remit the penalty already imposed by the trial court.
That is the effect of a subsequent valid marriage – it will GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE
not only extinguish the criminal liability. It will even remit
the penalty already imposed by the court on the part of the Section 3. Article 97 of the same Act (R.A. 10592) is
said convict. hereby further amended to read as follows:
ARTICLE 94. PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL "ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good
LIABILITY conduct of any offender qualified for credit for preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any
Article 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. - Criminal convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or
liability is extinguished partially: detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to
the following deductions from the period of his sentence:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and "1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of good
behavior during detention;
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
provisions have the purpose and effect of diminishing the
"2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his punishment attached to the crime. The further reduction on
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty- the length of the penalty of imprisonment is, in the ultimate
three days for each month of good behavior during analysis, beneficial to the detention and convicted
detention; prisoners alike; hence, calls for the application of Article 22
of the RPC. The prospective application of the beneficial
"3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, provisions of R.A. No. 10592 actually works to the
of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of disadvantage of petitioners and those who are similarly
twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during situated. It precludes the decrease in the penalty attached
detention; to their respective crimes and lengthens their prison stay;
thus, making more onerous the punishment for the crimes
"4. During the eleventh and successive years of his they committed.
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty
days for each month of good behavior during detention; CASE DISCUSSION: INMATES OF NEW BILIBID v. DE
and LIMA
"5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall The Supreme Court said R.A. 10592 which provides for
be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to good conduct time allowance can be given retroactive
numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study, application although it is not a penal law. Although R.A.
teaching or mentoring service time rendered. 10592 does not define a crime, does not prescribe a
penalty, it addresses the rehabilitation component of the
"An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of penal system of the Philippines. Therefore, Supreme Court
entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct." said it can be given retroactive application.
INMATES OF NEW BILIBID v. DE LIMA Art. 22 which provides for the retroactive application will
G.R. No. 212719 | 25 June 2019 apply to R.A. 10592.
FACTS: On May 29, 2013, then President Benigno S. Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws
Aquino III signed into law R.A. No. 10592, amending shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, or the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as
Revised Penal Code (RPC). Pursuant to the amendatory this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code,
law, an IRR was jointly issued by respondents Department although at the time of the publication of such laws a final
of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Leila M. De Lima and sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) the same.
Secretary Manuel A. Roxas II on March 26, 2014 and
became effective on April 18, 2014. Petitioners and Q: X killed Y. X was charged with the crime of murder.
intervenors assail the validity of its Section 4, Rule 1 that Trial on the merits ensued, X was found guilty of the
directs the prospective application of the grant of good crime of murder and the RTC Judge imposed upon X
conduct time allowance (GCTA), time allowance for study, the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The moment X was
teaching and mentoring (TASTM), and special time sentenced to reclusion perpetua from the city jail, X
allowance for loyalty (STAL) mainly on the ground that it was brought to the national penitentiary the next day,
violates Article 22 of the RPC. They contend that the January 1994. He appealed to the Supreme Court. The
provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are penal in nature and Supreme Court affirmed X conviction for murder
beneficial to the inmates; hence, should be given penalized by reclusion perpetua in 1996. Since then,
retroactive effect in accordance with Article 22 of the RPC. he served his sentence at the national penitentiary at
For them, the IRR contradicts the law it implements. the bilibid. With the enactment of R.A. 10592 in 2015, X
filed a petition for habeas corpus moving that he
ISSUE: Whether or not the provisions of RA 10952 shall immediately be released from prison by virtue of R.A.
be applied retroactively. 10592 because according to him, his continued
detention is already illegal against under R.A. 10592 or
RULING: YES. Every new law has a prospective effect. the Good Conduct Time Allowance. He has already
Under Article 22 of the RPC, however, a penal law that is served a total of more than 38 years. Does the good
favorable or advantageous to the accused shall be given conduct time allowance law applies to persons
retroactive effect if he is not a habitual criminal. These are convicted of crimes which are considered heinous in
the rules, the exception, and the exception to the exception nature? Does the good conduct time allowance law
on the effectivity of laws. applies to persons deprived of liberty convicted of
heinous crimes?
While R.A. No. 10592 does not define a crime/offense or
provide/prescribe/establish a penalty as it addresses the A: NO. According to the Supreme Court in Miguel vs.
rehabilitation component of our correctional system, its Director of Prisons (2021), and in the case of In Re:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Issuance of Habeas Corpus (2020), the last paragraph oh following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief
the good conduct time allowance states that “Provided, Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity.
finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and
persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the
the coverage of this Act (R.A. 10592). preceding paragraph, shall give themselves up to the
authorities within the above mentioned period of 48 hours,
Likewise, according to the Supreme Court based on the shall be entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98.
2019 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
10592, the following persons are not entitled to the good Under this, if a prisoner escaped in times of calamities,
conduct time allowance: disorder, and he returned to the prison authorities within 48
hours following the declaration by the Chief Executive that
1. Recidivists; the calamity had already lapsed, he shall be given a credit,
2. Habitual Delinquency; a deduction of 1/5 based on the term of his sentence. If,
3. Escapees; however, the said prisoner despite the calamity,
4. Persons deprived of liberty convicted of heinous conflagration, earthquake, disorder he did not leave, others
crime. left but he stayed put, and he survived, under R.A. 10592,
amending Art. 98, there shall be 2/5 deduction based on
Murder is a heinous crime because it is penalized by the term of his sentence. Therefore, a person/prisoner who
reclusion perpetua to death. Therefore, since X is a person stayed put despite the calamities, and disorder is given a
deprived of liberty having been convicted of heinous crime, greater credit than a person/prisoner who left then
he cannot avail of the benefits of the good conduct time thereafter returned. If he left then thereafter returned, 1/5
allowance. Therefore, in that case, the said petition for credit based on the term of his sentence. If he did not
habeas corpus filed by X shall be denied by the court. leave, 2/5 credit based on the term of his sentence.
Under Art. 98, there is another kind of allowance. Based on the amendment brought about by R.A. 10592,
this special allowance for loyalty will apply not only to
Section 4. Article 98 of the same Act is hereby further prisoners convicted by final judgment, it will also apply
amended to read as follows: even to near detention prisoners (those at the city jail,
provincial jail, municipal jail). The same benefit shall be
ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction given to them.
of one fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to
any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive
TITLE FIVE: CIVIL LIABILITY
imprisonment or the service of his sentence under the
circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives
himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away
of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. -
deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place liable.
of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a
calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Under Art. 100, every person criminally liable is also civilly
Code. liable. So, for every criminal action filed in court, the civil
action goes with it.
"This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether
undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving sentence." Q: X killed Y, the heirs of Y filed a case of murder
against X. Is it necessary for these heirs of Y to file a
This Article should be read together with Art. 158 Book separate and independent action in order to recover
Two of the RPC. civil liability and damages from X?
Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the A: In the very same criminal action for murder, in case of
occasion of disorder, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other conviction, aside from the penalty of imprisonment to be
calamities. - A convict who shall evade the service of his imposed by the court on X, there shall also be civil liability
sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he shall that is included. This civil liability goes to the private
have been confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting complainants, to the private offended parties.
from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar
catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not General Rule: For every criminal action filed in court, the
participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of the time civil action goes with it. No need to file a separate and
still remaining to be served under the original sentence, independent civil action.
which in no case shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to
give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours Exceptions:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
1. When the offender party waives the right to After trial on the merits, the RTC acquitted the doctor for
institute a civil action; the reason that the prosecution/the state failed to prove
negligence on the part of the doctor in the conduct of the
2. When the offender party reserves the right to circumcision of the son. The state failed to prove
institute a civil action, which reservation must be negligence beyond reasonable doubt on the part of the
made before the presentation of the evidence for the doctor. Hence, the said doctor was acquitted.
prosecution; and
But with the acquittal of the doctor comes the imposition of
3. When the offender party instituted the civil action civil liability.
way ahead of the criminal action.
CASE DISCUSSION: LUMANTAS v. CALAPIZ
In all these three instances, the filing of the criminal action
does not carry with it recovery in civil action. So, for every First, why was the doctor acquitted of negligence?
criminal action filed in court, the civil action goes with it. There was a lapse on the part of the state, on the part of
the prosecution. The prosecution failed to present an
Q: What if the accused or offender is acquitted in the expert doctor who could state that in the conduct of the
criminal action, can the private complainant still said circumcision operation, there was negligence.
recover in the civil action? According to the Supreme Court, only the testimony
coming from an expert doctor can say that this doctor acted
A: In Lumantas vs. Calapiz and Daluraya vs. Oliva, the with negligence in the performance of the circumcision
Supreme Court said that it depends on the kind of acquittal. operation. But the state did not present such expert doctor.
In both cases, we have 2 kinds of acquittal. If the acquittal Therefore, the state failed to prove negligence beyond
is based on reasonable doubt, the private complainant (the reasonable doubt on the part of the said doctor.
offender party) can still recover civil indemnity because
civil indemnity can be proven by mere preponderance of However, the RTC Judge said, yes, the negligence was not
evidence. However, if the judgment of acquittal is based on proved beyond reasonable doubt, but it is obvious to me,
the ground that the offender is not the author of the crime, this boy was damaged, this boy suffered injuries. So, the
that the offender did not commit the acts or omissions Judge imposed civil liability. The doctor questioned the
alleged in the information, the said acquittal totally bars imposition of the said civil liability arguing that he had
recovery of civil indemnity. already been acquitted, how come he will still be required
to pay civil liability in favor of the said boy? The Supreme
LUMANTAS v. CALAPIZ Court said, the Judge is correct. The Supreme Court said
G.R. No. 163753 |15 January 2014 there are two kinds of acquittal:
FACTS: In this case, the boy was suffering from severe 1. An acquittal based on the ground that the
tummy ache. The mother brought the boy to a doctor. The offender is not the author of the crime – this
doctor said that an appendectomy operation must be done kind of acquittal totally bars recovery of civil
on your son, but I also noticed that your son is not yet indemnity; and
circumcised. “Hindi pa siya tuli, tuliin na natin.” So, the
doctor said, your son will be opened only once but aside This instance closes the door to civil liability, for
from appendectomy we will also have to perform a a person who has been found to be not the
circumcision. The mother agreed. However, after the said perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and
circumcision, the mother saw that her son has a weird way can never be held liable for such act or
of urinating. The penis of the son was swollen, and the omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex
testicles have blisters. The mother was so alarmed and delicto is out of the question, and the civil action,
went to the doctor that performed the circumcision. The if any, which may be instituted must be based
doctor said that it was normal and prescribed antibiotics. on grounds other than the delict complained of.
However, despite the fact that the said boy already This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of
consumed the prescribed antibiotics, his condition did not the Rules of Court.
better. Because of this, the mother consulted and brought
her son to another doctor. 2. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt
Based on the examination conducted by the second Here, the said offended party can recover civil
doctor, the said son has suffered a damaged urethra. indemnity because civil indemnity can be proven
Which, according to the second doctor, can no longer be only by mere preponderance of evidence.
repaired. The mother took pity of her son because of that
the mother filed a case of reckless imprudence resulting in In this case, the doctor’s acquittal was based on
serious physical injuries against the doctor who performed reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to prove
the circumcision procedure on the boy. his negligence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
said award of civil indemnity against the doctor, in favor of
the boy, is correct according to the Supreme Court. When the respective shares cannot be equitably
determined, even approximately, or when the liability also
DALURAYA v. OLIVA attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the
G.R. No. 210148 | 8 December 2014 inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the
damages have been caused with the consent of the
FACTS: The accused was charged with reckless authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made
imprudence resulting to homicide. During the trial on the in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
merits of the case, however, none of the witnesses
presented by the State was able to pinpoint to the accused Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article
as the driver of the vehicle that hit and killed the victim. 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall
Because of this, the defense counsel filed a demurrer to be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such
evidence. The judge granted the demurrer to evidence. persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always
to the latter that part of their property exempt from
The case was appealed before the Court of Appeals and execution.
at the Court of Appeals, the grant of the demurrer to
evidence was affirmed, however, the Court of Appeals INSANE, IMBECILE, MINOR
imposed civil liability against the said accused. So, the
accused questioned the imposition of civil liability before We have studied in Article 12 that if the accused is an
the Supreme Court. imbecile, an insane, or a minor who is 15 years old or
under, the said accused is exempted from criminal liability
RULING: The CA erred in imposing the civil liability. but not from civil liability. Who shall answer for the said
According to the Supreme Court, the reason for the civil liability?
accused’s acquittal was because he was not the author of
the crime — it was not proven that he was the one who Primarily, the person who has direct control and custody of
committed act/omission alleged in the information. Since it the said insane, imbecile, or minor except when he acted
was not proven that he is the author of the crime, therefore, without fault of negligence. In that case, it is the property
the imposition of the civil liability has no leg to stand on. He of the said insane, imbecile, or minor that shall answer for
is not the author; he did not commit the said act/omission civil liability.
alleged in the information. Therefore, he cannot be
imposed with civil liability. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Likewise under Article 12, if it was proven that the

Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.
- The exemption from criminal liability established in committed a crime because he acted under the compulsion
subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision of an irresistible force, because he acted under the impulse
4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption of an uncontrollable fear of greater or equal injury, he is
from civil liability, which shall be enforced subject to the exempted from criminal liability but not from civil liability.
following rules: Who shall answer for the said civil liability?
Primarily, civil liability shall be adjudged against the third

First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the
person who employed the fear, threat, or irresistible force.
civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane
person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one In case of the third person’s insolvency, the accused
over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted himself shall pay for the said civil liability.
without discernment, shall devolve upon those having such
person under their legal authority or control, unless it SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY
appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers,
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. - In
minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers,
if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall
shall respond with their own property, excepting property be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law. establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal
ordinances or some general or special police regulation
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, shall have been committed by them or their employees.
the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of
which they may have received. goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses from
guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in
proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable. advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall A: It is the proprietor of the establishment who shall pay
furthermore have followed the directions which such the said P5M because X complied with the hotel’s rules
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with and regulations. He deposited the said attaché case that
respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No contains P5M to the proprietor of the establishment.
liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence against Therefore, the said proprietor is subsidiarily civilly liable in
or intimidation of persons unless committed by the case of the robber’s insolvency.
innkeeper's employees.
Q: What if in the very same problem, in the course of
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The the said robbery, the guard saw it and so the said
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article guard asked the robber: “Who are you?” “Why are you
shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and here?” and because of that, there was a change of
corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies plans. The said robber was able to fire a shot at the
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, security guard that caused the death of the guard.
or employees in the discharge of their duties. Later, after taking all the valuables, the said person
was arrested. He was charged with the special
1. For the crimes, wrongdoings committed by their complex crime of Robbery with Homicide under Art.
children, the parents are subsidiary civilly liable. 294.
2. For crimes, wrongdoings committed by students After trial on the merits, he was convicted and aside
and pupils, the teachers and the school are from the penalty of imprisonment, he was required to
subsidiary civilly liable. pay the civil indemnity to restitute the said P5M inside
the attaché case. However, the said writ of execution
3. For crimes, wrongdoings committed by their was returned unsatisfied. He was insolvent. Is the
employees, the employers are subsidiary civilly proprietor of the establishment subsidiarily civilly
liable. liable?
Q: X sold this piece of land. During the payment time, A: Under the law, if it is a case of Robbery with violence
the buyer told X to come to his place, so X went to the against or intimidation of persons under Art. 294 which
place of the said buyer which is two towns from his includes the special complex crime of Robbery with
place. Thereafter, in the house of the buyer, the buyer Homicide, there can be no recovery subsidiarily from
gave to X the payment for the piece of land X sold to the said proprietor of the establishment except when
the buyer. The amount was P5M. It was already the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
nighttime, so X was afraid to go home as he has 5 persons is committed by the employee of the
million pesos in cash. So, he checked-in in a hotel establishments. That is the only time wherein in case of
nearby. In the said hotel, he informed the proprietor of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons,
the said hotel that he has valuables with him. The the said owner of the property can recover from the
proprietor of the said establishment showed him the proprietor of the said establishment.
hotel’s rules and regulations as to the care and
vigilance of valuables. After reading the same, X Q: X works as a driver in a certain corporation. He was
complied, and X deposited his attaché case that told by the secretary of the president to go to this
contains P5M to the proprietor. Thereafter, he went to branch in order to get some pertinent documents
sleep. While everybody was fast asleep that night, a because the said president of the company was now
robbery took place, and the said offender was able to attending a meeting and he needed that document
get all the valuables right there at the front desk and from that branch of the said company. So, X is now
that includes the attaché case of X containing 5 million driving towards the said branch in order to get the said
pesos. pertinent documents.
Later on, the said robber was arrested, and he was While he was driving, he received a call from his wife.
charged with the crime of robbery because he broke The wife told X: “You have to hurry home, I am already
locks of cabinets in the said hotel just to take the said experiencing birth pains. The baby will be out soon.
valuables. After the trial on the merits, he was Come now, bring me to the hospital.” Because of that,
convicted and aside from the penalty of imprisonment, X went into panic. He has to get first the document
he was required to pay civil indemnity and return the before going home. Because of that, he was driving
said P5M in the attaché case. However, the writ of recklessly, very fast.
execution was return by the court sheriff unsatisfied.
The robber was already insolvent. He has already He was driving so fast that he did not see the car that
passed the contents of the attaché case, the P5M to was approaching, and he hit and bumped the car.
another person. How can X recover the said money? Luckily, the driver was able to jump outside and was
Who shall be the one to pay for it in case of the only slightly injured. The car, however, was a total
robber’s insolvency? damage, it was pinned to the wall. Because of that, X
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
has been prosecuted for the crime of reckless caused; and 3) Indemnification for consequential
imprudence causing damage to property. damages.
After trial on the merits, the judge convicted him and RESTITUTION
imposed upon him the penalty of fine, public censure,
and also to pay the civil liability, in particular, the value Article 105. Restitution. — How made. — The restitution
of the said damaged car. However, the writ of of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with
execution was returned unsatisfied. X was insolvent. allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as
He could not pay the value of the damage caused to determined by the court. The thing itself shall be restored,
the car. What is the remedy of the owner of the car? even though it be found in the possession of a third person
who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter
A: His remedy is to go against the employer of X. But, is it his action against the proper person, who may be liable to
necessary for the said owner to file a separate and him. This provision is not applicable in cases in which the
independent action in order to recover from the said thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner
employer of X? and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action
for its recovery.
According to the Supreme Court, no more. According to
the Supreme Court, in the very same criminal action for Restitution is the return of the very thing taken. Even if
reckless imprudence causing damage to property, when the said thing taken is already in the possession of an
the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied, because the innocent purchaser in good faith, it can still be recovered
accused or the convict was insolvent, all that the owner of from him and be given to the owner thereof.
the damaged car has to do is to file a Motion for the
Issuance of a Subsidiary Writ of Execution. This time, EXCEPTION: When the innocent purchaser in good faith
against the employer, not against X. It will be against the bought or acquired it from a public sale in a public fair. If
employer. that happens, restitution is no longer possible.
Supreme Court said although the subsidiary civil liability of The moment restitution is impossible, there will be
the employer is absolute, it is necessary that there must be reparation of damage caused.
a trial on the said motion. According to the Supreme Court,
this Motion for the Issuance of a Subsidiary Writ of
Execution is not an ex parte motion, it is a litigated REPARATION
motion. The said employer must be given notice, must be
given their day in court in the name of due process. Article 106. Reparation. — How made. — Indemnification
Because although the subsidiary civil liability of the for consequential damages shall include not only those
employer is absolute, the following must be proven in caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his
court: family or by a third person by reason of the crime.
1. That there is employer-employee relationship In case of the inability to return the property stolen, the
between X and the said corporation; culprit must pay the value of the property stolen.
2. That the said corporation is engaged in some kind
of industry; The court shall determine the value of the thing taken,
3. That X committed the crime while he was including its special sentimental value, and award it against
performing his task, his duty as an employee of the the accused in favor of the offended party.
said corporation;
4. That X is convicted by final judgment and the writ INDEMNIFICATION
of execution was returned unsatisfied because of
his insolvency. Article 107. Indemnification. — What is included. — The
court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into
If these are present and proven during the trial for the consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible,
Motion for the Issuance of a Subsidiary Writ of Execution, and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and
the subsidiary civil liability of the employer is absolute in reparation shall be made accordingly.
nature. That is the remedy of the owner of the said car that
has been damaged by the employee X. Indemnification of consequential damages refer to 1)
IMREV TRANS GUIDELINES moral damages for the sleepless nights, tension and
ARTICLE 104. WHAT IS INCLUDED IN CIVIL LIABLITY anxiety felt by the private complainant; 2) actual damages
for the expenses incurred by them in the hospitalization of
Article 104. What is included in civil liablity. — The civil the victim, the burial, or in any other acts pertinent to the
liablity established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this said case; or 3) exemplary damages, if the commission
Code includes: 1) Restitution; 2) Reparation of the damage of the crime is attended by any qualifying or aggravating
circumstance.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
accessory. Therefore, the private offended party can
These are some of the damages which may be imposed recover from any of them.
against the accused. If proven during trial, it should be
awarded in favor of the said private offended party. The private offended party can first go against the property
of the principal. If insolvent, he can go against the property
They must also be proven in court. Therefore, in order for of the accomplice. But if he is still insolvent, the private
the civil liability to be awarded in favor of the private offended party can go against the property of the
complainant, the latter must show proof, or they must be accessory. However, since their liability among each other
proven in court. are several, in solidum, the moment anyone of them paid
CRIMREV TRANS GUIDELINES the private complainant, that person who paid (principal,
ARTICLE 109 AND ARTICLE 110 accomplice, or accessory) has the right of action against
the others for their respective quotas.
Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If there CRIMREV TRANS GUIDELINES
are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts ARTICLE 112. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABLITY
shall determine the amount for which each must respond.
Article 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability
Article 110. Several and subsidiary liablity of principals, established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code
accomplices, and accessories of a felony. — Preference in shall be extinguished in the same manner as obligations,
payment. — Notwithstanding the provisions of the next in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.
preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and
accessories, each within their respective class, shall be Under Article 89, the law provides for the modes for totally
liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their extinguishing criminal liability. Under Article 94, the law
quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons provides for the modes for partially extinguishing criminal
liable. The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first liability. The Revised Penal Code expressly provides for
against the property of the principals; next, against that of the mode for totally or partially extinguishing criminal
the accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the liability, but there is nothing which provides for the modes
accessories. Whenever the liability in solidum or the for totally extinguishing civil liability; there is no provision
subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom as to how civil liability will be extinguished.
payment has been made shall have a right of action
against the others for the amount of their respective Rationale: Under Article 112, extinction of civil liability
shares. shall be in accordance with the New Civil Code. Therefore,
the civil liability adjudged against the offender can only be
Q: What if the offenders are conspirators? There are extinguished in the same manner that civil liability is
two or more persons, and they were convicted. The extinguished under the New Civil Code, such that civil
persons who acted in conspiracy — co-conspirators liability shall be extinguished by payment, loss of the thing
— aside from being criminally liable, are also civilly due, remuneration, remission of debt, merger of the rights
liable. Who shall determine their civil liability? of the creditor and debtor, compensation, or novation.
Therefore, there is nothing in the Revised Penal Code
A: Under Article 109, if there are two or more persons which provides for the modes of extinguishing civil liability
civilly liable for a felony, the court shall determine the because said modes shall be in accordance with the New
amount for which each of them must respond to. Civil Code.
If there are co-conspirators, it is the court that shall

determine the amount for which each of the co-conspirator
must civilly respond.
Q: X, Y, and Z were charged with the crime of robbery.

X was charged as a principal; Y, as an accomplice; and
Z was charged as an accessory. They were all charged
in one Information, and they were all convicted. How
shall they answer for the said civil liability?
A: Under Article 110, principals, accomplices, and

accessories are liable severally or in solidum among
themselves for their respective quotas, and subsidiarily for
those other persons who are liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced 1) against the

property of the principal; 2) against the property of the
accomplice; and 3) against the property of the

Criminal Law Review Book I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Review Book I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Review Book I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

UST Faculty of Civil Law | A.Y. 2022 – 2023 | Golden Nuggets

CRIMINAL LAW Whether it is a felony, an offense, or an infraction of the

Crime is an encompassing word – it includes: GENERALITY

Exceptions to Generality A: NO. President W of Country X enjoys blanket diplomatic

Note: PHILOSOPHIES UNDERLYING THE CRIMINAL LAW

ARTICLE 3. DEFINITIONS X stabbed Y, Y sustained a non-fatal wound in the

Elements of Mistake of Fact

MISTAKE OF FACT RULING: Supreme Court acquitted Ah Chong. It ruled that

Elements of Impossible Crime CASE DISCUSSION: INTOD v. CA

INTOD v. CA In the case of Intod v. CA, the crime charged was

If the reason failed to consummate the crime is his own

ISSUE: Is petitioner Valenzuela guilty only of frustrated CANCERAN v. PEOPLE

Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Felony CONSPIRACY AS A MEANS OF COMMITTING A

MULTIPLE CONSPIRACY These cash advancements were not supported by

GO-TAN v. TAN 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a

RULING: The right of self-defense proceeds from 1. Spouse;

Elements of Defense of Stranger In so far as X is concerned, the first cousin is a relative by

2 & 3. MINORITY A: Insofar as X is concerned, since he was, at the time

1. He perpetrated the crime in a dark and isolated Q: In what manner?

2. MINORITY AND SENIORITY Elements of Praeter Intentionem

Q: When is minority exempting? 1. That the provocation must be sufficient;

SENIORITY 1. When it is adequate to stir a person to commit an

No mitigating circumstance was considered by the SC in 7. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER/

Third Element Is the judge correct?

The said surrender is voluntary in nature. A: YES. The judge is correct.

First element During pre-trial, the defense counsel moved that

Note: This is the mitigating circumstance of physical defect. For

Q: There was an argument between two parents. They

9. ILLNESS 1) Generic Aggravating Circumstances;

SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

On occasion of any calamities enumerated in the

3. DISREGARD OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX, OR These are the following instances:

Also, in cases of stealing, par. 7 is also a qualifying 1. Recidivism;

So, habitual delinquency is an extraordinary aggravating 2. YES. X is also a recidivist.

PEOPLE v. JOSE In the case of People v. Butler, the Supreme Court

As a rule, relationship is considered as a mitigating DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

As an Aggravating Circumstance A: Intoxication shall be considered as a mitigating

1. Principals A principal by direct cooperation and a principal by

ISSUE: WON Ong is guilty of violating the Anti-Fencing PENALTIES IN GENERAL

1. Principal Penalties; and ACCESSORY PENALTIES

Capital punishment: Capital punishment or death penalty is the penalty

RECLUSION PERPETUA LIFE IMPRISONMENT Disqualification, particularly temporary disqualification, can

If temporary disqualification is imposed as a principal

Disqualification, whether absolute or special, can either be SUSPENSION

1. The reparation of the damage caused.

2. If the principal penalty imposed by the court is fine (e.g. public

ISSUE: Whether Punzalan is guilty of the Complex crime PEOPLE V. BATULANON

Article 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a Consummated Frustrated Attempted

PERIOD OF PENALTY Second Rule: If the penalty prescribed by law consists of

A: The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to

Note: If all these requisites are present, the prisoner may

A: NO. Destierro does not involve imprisonment. No AC RT, minimum period

ARTICLE 64 AND ISLAW

Since, the maximum term is in the minimum period, let us

5. X killed Y. The said act of killing was not attended

From an indivisible penalty governed by Art. 63, it is now a

PENALTY FOR COMPLEX CRIME PC, maximum period

No AC PC, medium period 6. Arresto mayor,