Book 1

Criminal Law 2.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea The act
It is a branch of public substantive law which defines cannot be criminal unless the mind is criminal.
crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their 3.Actus me invito factus non est meus actus An
punishment. It is a public law because it deals with act done by me against my will is not my act.
the relation of the individual with the State (REYES, 4.El que es causa de la causa es causa del mal
The Revised Penal Code, Book One, 17 th ed., 2008 causado He who is the cause of the cause is the
[hereinafter, REYES, Book One], p.1). cause of the evil caused (People v. Ural, G.R. No.
L-30801, March 24, 1974).
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure 5.In dubio, pro reo When in doubt, for the
accused.
Substantive Remedial
Prospective, unless Note: Whenever a penal law is to be construed or
favorable to the Retroactive; in favor applied and the law admits of two interpretations -
accused provided of the ends of one lenient to the offender and one strict to the
that the accused is substantial justice offender that interpretation which is favorable to
not a habitual the offender will be adopted.
delinquent
It can be This is in consonance with the fundamental rule
It only comes from
promulgated by the that all doubts shall be construed in favor of the
the legislative body
judiciary accused and consistent with the presumption of
innocence of the accused (CONST, Art. III, Sec.
Terms 14).
1.Crime the generic term used to refer to a
wrongdoing punished either under the RPC or Characteristics of Criminal Law
under the special law (ORTEGA, 2009); an act 1. General;
committed or omitted in violation of a public law 2. Territorial; and
forbidding or commanding it (REYES, Book One, 3. Prospective.
supra).
2.Felony an act or omission violative of the GENERAL
Revised Penal Code committed either intentionally It is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the
or negligently (Id.). Philippine territory, regardless of nationality, gender,
3.Offense an act or omission violative of a special or other personal circumstances (CIVIL CODE, Art.
law, i.e. any law other than the Revised Penal 14).
Code (Id. at 2).
4.Misdemeanor a minor infraction of law. Note: The Philippines is a sovereign state with the
obligation and the right of every government to
Sources uphold its laws and maintain order within its domain,
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815); and with the general jurisdiction to punish persons
2. Special Penal Laws; and for offenses committed within its territory, regardless
of the nationality of the offender. No foreigner enjoys
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during
in this country extra-territorial right to be exempted
Martial Law.
from its laws and jurisdiction, with the exception of
heads of states and diplomatic representative
Legal Maxims
(People v. Galacgac, 54 O.G. 1027).
1.Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege There is no
crime when there is no law that defines and
Exceptions:
punishes it.
1. Treaty Stipulations
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SUBJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS

VESTER AUSTRIA overall chair, ALLOYSIUS YEBRA subject chair Noveanne Banogon, Lucia
REYNOLD ORSUA chair for academics, LUCILLE GAYE MORENO assistant Fernandez, April Pauliene
JOE VINCENT AGUILA chair for hotel operations, subject chair Maligayo, Miguelle Kassandra
LYNDON RUTOR vice-chair for operations, JAN MARCEL RAGAZA subject edp Mejillano, Angelique Mendoza,
RODEL JAMES PULMA vice-chair for secretariat, MARIA CZABRINA DOMINGO Remegio Mora, Maria Mykeana
DENISE DIANNE MAGBUHOS vice-chair for criminal law 1 Naval, Jacklyn Kim Sy, Lorenz
finance, ROSE ANNE ABIERA criminal law 2 Camillus Banez, Andrea Biolena,
IAN DANIEL GALANG vice-chair for electronic HER LYNN BALARES special laws Androus Rogel Cabauatan,
data processing, Romeo Devora, Flores Encio,
JOMARC PHILIP DIMAPILIS vice-chair for Kathleen Valerio, Diomdelia
logistics Vergara
ALBERTO RECALDE, JR vice-chair for
membership
Under the RPUS Visiting Forces Agreement to approve the request for waiver except if the
(VFA), which was signed on February 10, 1998, crime is of national importance: (HCD)
the Philippines agreed that: 1. Those crimes defined under R.A. 7659 (Heinous
a.US shall have the right to exercise within the crimes);
Philippines all criminal and disciplinary 2. Those crimes defined under R.A. 7610 (Child
jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law Abuse Cases); and
of the US over US personnel in RP. 3. Those crimes defined under R.A. 9165
b.US exercises exclusive jurisdiction over US (Dangerous Drugs cases).
military personnel with regard to offenses
relating to the security of the US punishable 2. Laws of Preferential Application
under the law of US, but not under the laws of a.R.A. 75 penalizes acts which would impair the
RP. proper observance by the Republic and its
c. US shall have primary right to exercise inhabitants of the immunities, rights, and
jurisdiction over US military in relation to: privileges of duly-accredited foreign diplomatic
i. Offenses solely against the property or representatives in the Philippines (ESTRADA,
security of the US or offenses solely against Criminal Law, Book One, 2008, [hereinafter
the property or person of US personnel; and ESTRADA, Criminal Law], p. 8).
ii. Offenses arising out of any act or mission
done in performance of official duty. General Rule: Under R.A. 75, persons who are
exempt from arrest and imprisonment and
Under the VFA, in determining whether one can whose properties are exempt from distraint,
be prosecuted or not, the citizenship is immaterial; seizure and attachment are the following: (MAS)
what is material is ones membership in the U.S i. Public Ministers;
Armed Forces. ii. Ambassadors; and
It is necessary that one is a member of the US
iii. Domestic servants of ambassadors and
armed forces either as: public ministers
1. US military personnel; or
2. US civilian personnel connected to US military Exceptions:
operations. i. The person is a citizen or inhabitant of the
Philippines; and
Rules on Jurisdiction ii. The writ or process issued against him is
founded upon a debt contracted before he
Crimes Jurisdiction
entered upon such service or the domestic
Crimes punishable servant is not registered with the Department
under Philippine RP has the exclusive of Foreign Affairs.
laws but not under jurisdiction.
the laws of the US R.A. 75 is applicable only where the country of
Crimes punishable the diplomatic representative affected provides
under the laws of for similar protection to duly accredited
US has the exclusive
the US but not diplomatic representatives of the Republic of the
jurisdiction.
under Philippine Philippines (Id.).
laws
There is concurrent Example:
jurisdiction but the Q: Gerald, the driver of the US ambassador to
Philippines has the right to the Philippines drove and operated the embassy
Crimes punishable primary jurisdiction, issued car in a reckless and imprudent manner.
both under the US especially when it is a As a consequence, he hit and bumped a young
and Philippine threat to RP security boy peddling in the street resulting to his death.
laws namely: Can Gerald be charged and prosecuted before
a. treason; the Philippine courts?
b. espionage; and
c. sabotage. ANS: No, Gerald cannot be charged and
Crimes committed prosecuted before the Philippine courts. Under
by a US personnel R.A. 75, members of official retinue of the US
against the ambassador in the Philippines are entitled to the
RP has no jurisdiction.
security and immunity enjoyed by the US ambassador. This
property of the US immunity from our criminal jurisdiction however
alone cannot b accorded to Gerald if the United States
Generally, the Philippines cannot refuse the does not provide the same immunity to
request of the US for waiver of jurisdiction and has
2
San Beda College of Law
2010 Centralized Bar Operations
members of the official retinue of the Philippine
ambassador to the United States. The grant of TERRITORIAL
immunity is reciprocal (Id.). General Rule: Penal laws of the Philippines have
Note: The Doctrine of Immunity from suit will force and effect only within its territory (RPC, Art. 2).
not apply and may not be invoked where the
public official is being sued in his private and The national territory is set forth in Article I of the
personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The 1987 Constitution. It composes of 3 domains:
cloak of protection afforded the officers and 1. Terrestrial;
agents of the government is removed the 2. Fluvial; and
moment they are sued in their individual
capacity (Shauf v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
3. Aerial.
90314, November 27, 1990).
Exceptions:
1. RPC shall not be enforced within or outside the
b. Warship Rule a warship of another
Philippine territories if so provided under:
country even though docked in the Philippines is a. Treaties; or
considered as an extension of the territory of
their respective country. Same rule applies to
b.Laws of Preferential Application (RPC, Art. 2
foreign embassies in the Philippines. Philippine and CIVIL CODE, Art. 14).
warship and embassies abroad are deemed
extra-territories of the Philippines. 2. Extraterritoriality refers to the application of the
Revised Penal Code outside the Philippine
Warships are always reputed to be the territory territory (RPC, Art. 2).
of the country to which they belong and cannot
be subjected to the laws of another state Extraterritorial crimes (RPC, Art. 2) i.e.,
(REYES, Book One, supra at 31). enforceable even outside Philippine territory
against those who (5):
c. Principles of Public International Law
The following persons are exempted: (SCAM2) a. Should commit an offense while on
a. Sovereigns and other heads of state; Philippine ship or airship.
b. Charges d affaires; Requisites:
c. Ambassadors; i. The ship or airship must not be within the
d. Ministers plenipotentiary; and territorial jurisdiction of another country (it
e. Ministers resident (ESTRADA, Book One, must be in international waters).
supra at 9). ii. The ship or airship must be registered in the
Philippines under Philippine laws (ESTRADA,
Note: The basis for granting immunity for Book One, supra at 15).
diplomatic heads is par in parem, non habet
imperium that all States are sovereign equals Rules on private or merchant Vessels:
and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. 1. Philippine vessel or aircraft
The proscription is not for the benefit of an a. Must be understood as that which is
individual, but for the State, in whose service registered with the MARINA (Maritime
the diplomatic head is (BOADO, Notes and Industry Authority) in accordance with
Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2008 ed., Philippine laws;
[hereinafter BOADO]), p. 26). b. The RPC applies when such Philippine
vessel is found within:
Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial i. Philippine waters; or
representatives of foreign nations cannot claim ii. The high seas.
the privileges and immunities accorded to Note: Courts in the Philippines have no
ambassadors and ministers and therefore are jurisdiction over crimes committed on the
not exempt from criminal prosecution high seas on board a vessel not registered
(Schneckenburger v. Moran, G.R No. L-44896, or licensed in the Philippines (U.S. v.
July 31, 1936). Fowler, G.R. No. L- 496, December 31,
1902).
Note: The main yardstick in ascertaining
whether a person is a diplomat entitled to 2. Foreign Merchant Vessels
immunity is the determination of whether or not a. In the Philippines, we follow the ENGLISH
he performs duties of diplomatic nature RULE (REYES, Book One, supra at 29).
(Minucher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. b. A distinction must be made between
142396, February 11, 2003). merchant ships and warship; the former are
3
more or less subjected to the territorial laws In the case of a foreign warship, the
(US v. Bull, G.R. No.5270, January 15, nationality of such warship determines the
1910). applicable penal laws to crimes committed
Note: When a merchant ship of Philippine therein, as they are considered to be an
nationality is in the Philippines and a crime extension of the territory of the country to
is committed therein, there is no question as which they belong. Thus, their respective
to the jurisdiction over the crime, it being national laws shall apply to such vessels
within the Philippine territory. If it is in the wherever they may be found.
high seas where no country has jurisdiction,
the Philippines still has jurisdiction. BUT if it b.Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
is within the territory of another country, the currency note of the Philippines or
jurisdiction is generally with that foreign obligations and securities issued by the
State because penal laws are primarily Government (RPC, Arts. 163 & 166).
territorial in application. BUT if that country
will not take cognizance, pursuant to Art.2 of Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or
the RPC, the Philippines can assume bank note or any instrument payable to bearer
jurisdiction (BOADO, supra at 30). or to order the appearance of a true genuine
c. Foreign merchant vessel in transit: document or by erasing, substituting,
possession of dangerous drugs is not counterfeiting or altering, by any means, the
punishable, but use of the same is figures, letters, words or signs contained therein
punishable (REYES, Book One, supra at (RPC, Art. 169).
30).
d. Foreign merchant vessel NOT in transit: If forgery was committed abroad, it must refer
mere possession of dangerous drugs is only to Philippine coin, currency note, or
punishable because it can already be obligations and securities.
considered as illegal importation (US v. Ah
Sing, G.R. No. L-13005, October 10, 1917). If forgery was perpetrated abroad, the object of
the crime must be a coin, currency note or
Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes obligations and securities issued by the
committed aboard a merchant vessels while government (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at
in the territorial waters of another country: 15).
French Rule English Rule Obligations and securities of the GSIS, SSS and
(Flag or Nationality) (Territoriality or Situs Land Bank are NOT of the government because
of the Crime) they have separate charters.
General Rule
Example:
Crimes committed Crimes committed
Q: Jaka was counterfeiting Philippine lotto
aboard a vessel within aboard a vessel within
tickets in his bodega in Japan. One day, his
the territorial waters of the territorial waters of
bodega was raided by Japanese authorities.
another country are another country are
Jaka was arrested. Who has jurisdiction to try
NOT triable in the TRIABLE in that
Jaka for counterfeiting such lotto tickets? Why?
courts of that country. country.
Exception
ANS: The Philippines has jurisdiction over Jaka
When their When the crimes
since his counterfeiting of lotto tickets is
commission affects merely affect things
prohibited by our laws, it being an obligation
the peace and security within the vessel or
secured by the Philippine government (Id. at
of the territory or when when they only refer to
16).
the safety of the state the internal
is endangered management thereof.
c. Should introduce into the country the above-
(REYES, Book One, supra at 29) mentioned obligations and securities.
Note: According to the French theory and Those who introduced the counterfeit items are
practice, matters happening on board a criminally liable even if they were not the ones
merchant ship which do not concern the who counterfeited the obligations and securities.
tranquility of the port or persons foreign to the On the other hand, those who counterfeited the
crew, are justiciable only by the courts of the items are criminally liable even if they did not
country to which the vessel belongs (Id.). introduce the counterfeit items.
3. Foreign Warships
4
d.While being public officers or employees, R.A. 9372, otherwise known as the Human
should commit an offense in the exercise of Security Act of 2007 has extraterritorial
their functions, like: (B3A2F3T-MIC) application.
i. Direct Bribery (Art. 210);
ii. Indirect Bribery (Art. 211); Sec. 58 of R.A. 9372 provides that the Act shall
apply to individual persons who, although
iii. Qualified Bribery (Art. 211-A); physically outside the Philippines shall:
iv. Failure to Render Accounts (Art. 218); i. Conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes
v. Failure to Render Account Before Leaving punished in the Act;
the Country (Art. 219); ii. Commit any of said crimes on board
vi. Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property (Art. Philippine Ship or airship;
220); iii. Commit any of said crimes within the
vii. Failure to Make Delivery of Public embassy, consulate or diplomatic premises
Funds/Property (Art. 221); belonging to or occupied by the Phil.
government in an official capacity;
viii. Falsification (Art. 171);
iv. Commit said crimes against Phil. citizens or
ix. Fraud Against Public Treasury and Similar persons of Phil. descent where their
Offenses (Art. 213); citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the
x. Malversation of Public Funds or Property commission of the crimes; and
(Art. 217); v. Commit said crimes directly against the Phil.
xi. Possession of Prohibited Interest (Art. 216); government.
and
xii. Corruption (Art. 212). PROSPECTIVE
General Rule: Penal laws cannot make an act
Note: A crime committed within the grounds of a punishable in a manner in which it was not
Philippine embassy on foreign soil shall be punishable when committed (REYES, Book One,
subject to Philippine penal laws, although it may supra at 14).
or may not have been committed by a public
officer in relation to his official duties. Embassy Exception: It may be applied retroactively when the
grounds are considered as extensions of the new law is favorable to the accused
sovereignty of the country occupying them.
Thus, a law can be made to retroact only if:
Example: a. It makes the penalty for the crime lighter;
A Philippine consulate official who is validly b. It repeals a law making an act no longer criminal;
married here in the Philippines remarries in a or
foreign country cannot be prosecuted here in c. It is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual
the Philippines for bigamy under No. 4 of Art. 2 delinquent (Id. at 15).
of RPC because the crime has no connection
with his official duties. Nevertheless, if the Exceptions to the Exception:
second marriage is celebrated in the Philippine 1. The new law is expressly made inapplicable to
embassy, the ambassador may be prosecuted pending actions or existing causes of actions
in the Philippines because the embassy (Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. 922, November 8,
grounds are considered the extension of 1902).
sovereignty (ORTEGA, supra). 2. The offender is a habitual criminal (RPC, Art. 22).
e. Should commit any of the crimes against Note: The prospectivity rule applies also to penal
national security and the law of nations circulars such as DOJ Circular No. 12 issued on
defined in Title One of Book Two (RPC, Arts. August 8, 1984, which declared that all checks
114-122). including guaranteed checks are covered by B.P. 22
(Co v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100776, October
When rebellion, coup detat and sedition are 28, 1993).
committed abroad, the Philippine courts will not
have jurisdiction because these are crimes Limitations on the Power of Congress to Enact
against public order (ESTRADA, Book One, Penal Laws:
supra at 18). The Congress, in enacting penal laws are restricted
Terrorism as defined by R.A. 9372, otherwise by the following Constitutional and statutory
known as the Human Security Act of 2007, is limitations:
now a crime against national security and the 1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
law of nations. enacted (CONST. Art. III, Sec. 22).
5
Ex post facto law
a. It is a law that would make a previous act 4. It must be general in application and must clearly
criminal although it was not so at the time it was define the acts and omissions punished as crimes.
committed (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 2).
b. It makes a criminal an act done before the Different Effects of Repeal of Penal Law
passage of the law and which was innocent 1. Absolute or Total Repeal A repeal is absolute
when done, and punishes such an act. when the crime punished under the repealed law
c. It aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it has been decriminalized by the subsequent law
was, when committed. (ORTEGA, supra).
d. It changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime If the new law totally repeals the existing law
when committed. making the act not punishable, the crime is
e. It alters the legal rules of evidence, and obliterated (REYES, Book One, supra at 15).
authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of Effects of total repeal if:
the commission of an offense. a. The case is still pending in court: dismissed,
f. It assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies regardless of whether the accused is a habitual
only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of criminal
a right for something which when done was b.The offender is already serving sentence:
lawful. i. Not a habitual criminal the offender is
g. It deprives a person accused of a crime some entitled to be released; unless the repealing
lawful protection to which he has become law is expressly made inapplicable to those
entitled, such as the protection of a former who are serving sentence at the time of the
conviction or acquittal, or proclamation of repeal.
amnesty (In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., G.R. ii. Habitual criminal he will continue serving
No. L-32485, October 22, 1970). sentence this is so because penal laws should
be given retroactive application to favor only
Note: The prohibition applies only to criminal those who are not habitual delinquents
legislation which affects the substantial rights of (ORTEGA, supra).
the accused (Wright v. CA, G.R. No. 113213,
August 15, 1994). 2. Partial or Relative Repeal a repeal is partial
when the crime punished under the repealed law
Bill of attainder continues to be a crime in spite of the repeal.
It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment
without trial, its essence being the substitution of Effects of partial repeal if:
legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt. a. If the case is still pending in court: the
repealing law which is more favorable to the
It is a legislative act which inflicts punishment accused shall be applied to him regardless of
without judicial trial (People v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L- whether he is a habitual criminal or not; unless,
32613-14, December 27, 1972). It is an there is a reservation in the said law that it shall
encroachment of judicial function by the legislative not apply to pending causes of action.
(BOADO, supra at 5). b.If the offender is already serving sentence:
2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
i. Not habitual criminal the repealing law
offense without due process of law (CONST. Art which is more lenient to him shall be applied
III, Sec. 14[1]). unless there is a reservation to that effect.
ii. Habitual criminal the repealing law which
3. It should not impose cruel and unusual is more favorable to the accused will not be
punishment nor should it impose excessive fines applicable to him.
(CONST. Art.III, Sec. 19[1]).
R.A. 9346 prohibits the imposition of death penalty Effects of Amendment of Penal Law
therefore repealing R.A. 7659. In lieu of the death 1. If the new law makes the penalty lighter, it shall
penalty, the following shall be imposed: be applied except if the offender is a habitual
a. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law delinquent or when the new law is inapplicable to
violated makes use of the nomenclature of the pending action or existing causes of action.
penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or 2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law
b. The penalty of life imprisonment, when the law in force at the time of the commission of the
violated does not make use of the nomenclature offense shall be applied (REYES, Book One,
of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code supra at15).
(R.A. 9346, Sec. 2).
6
3. Intraterritoriality RPC is made applicable within
P RELIMINARY T ITLE the Philippine territory.
Felonies under this Article shall be cognizable by the

ARTICLE 1 proper court where the criminal action was first filed
TIME WHEN ACT TAKES EFFECT (RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, Section 15[d]).
The Revised Penal Code (RPC) was approved on

December 8, 1930. It took effect on January 1, TITLE ONE: FELONIES &
1932. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Two Theories in Criminal Law:
1. Classical or Juristic Theory
b.The basis of criminal liability is human free will ARTICLE 3
and the purpose of the penalty is retribution. FELONIES
c. Man is essentially a moral creature with an
absolutely free will to choose between good and CHAPTER ONE: FELONIES
evil thereby placing more stress upon the effect (ARTS. 3-10)
or result of the felonious act than upon the man,
the criminal himself.
Felonies
d.It has been endeavored to establish a These are acts or omissions punishable by the
mechanical and direct proportion between crime Revised Penal Code (RPC, Art. 3).
and penalty (BOADO, supra at 8-9).
Elements of Felonies (General):
3. Positivist or Realistic Theory
a. Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and 1. That there must be an act or omission, i.e.
morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do there must be external acts;
wrong, in spite of or contrary to his volition. a. Act any bodily movement tending to produce
b. The crime is essentially a social and natural some effect in the external world. It must be
phenomenon and as such it cannot be treated external as internal acts are beyond the sphere
and checked by applying law and jurisprudence of penal law.
nor by imposition of a punishment, fixed and b. Omission is inaction or the failure to perform
determined a priori. a positive duty required by law (REYES, Book
One, supra at 34).
c. The purpose of penalty is reformation (Id. at 9). 2. That the act or omission must be punishable by
the RPC (Based upon the maxim nullum crimen,
Note: Some authorities add a third school of nullapoena sine lege); and
thought (eclectic or mixed theory). 3. That the act is performed or the omission is
incurred by means of dolo (malice) or culpa (fault).
3. Eclectic or Mixed Theory a combination of both
classical and positive theories (Id. at 10). Our The act or omission must be voluntary (Id. at 33).
Code is considered eclectic (i.e., the age of the
offender is taken into consideration, intoxication Classification of Felonies According to the
of the offender in order is considered a mitigating Means by Which They Are Committed:
circumstance unless it is habitual or intentional).
ARTICLE 2 A. Intentional felonies The act is performed or the
APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS omission is incurred with deliberate intent or
malice to do an injury (Id. at 36).
Article 2 sets forth the instances where the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code are applicable Requisites of DOLO or MALICE: (FII)
although the felony is committed outside the 1. Freedom
Philippine Territory.
1. Extraterritoriality RPC is applicable even a. Voluntariness on the part of the person to
though outside the Philippine territory (See commit the act or omission
discussion under Territorial as a characteristic of b. When a person acts without freedom, he is no
criminal law). longer a human being but a tool.
2. Exterritoriality a term of international law which
signifies the immunity of certain persons who, Lack of freedom - offender is exempt from
although in the state, are not amenable to its laws liability (i.e. presence of irresistible force or
(e.g. ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary etc.). uncontrollable fear).
7
2. Intelligence General Criminal Specific Criminal
It is the capacity to know and understand the Intent Intent
consequences of ones act. Without this power, When the crime is in
necessary to determine the morality of human its attempted or
acts, no crime can exist. frustrated stage,
special intent must be
Lack of intelligence - offender is exempt from proved (i.e. When a
liability (i.e. offender is an imbecile, insane, or 15 When the crime is person seriously
years of age or under). consummated, injures another, the
general intent is intent to kill must be
3. Intent (Criminal) presumed (i.e. When proved in order that
a. The purpose to use a particular means to a person killed the charge will be one
effect such result another, the intent to of attempted or
b. Intent to commit an act with malice, being kill is presumed). frustrated homicide,
purely a mental process, is presumed. Such murder, parricide or
presumption arises from the proof of infanticide, as the
commission of an unlawful act. case may be and not
mere physical
Note: The presumption of criminal intent does injuries).
not arise from the proof of the commission of
an act which is not unlawful (US v Catolico, B. Culpable felonies performed without malice.
G.R. No. 6486, March 2, 1911).
Requisites of CULPA: (FIN)
c. A mental state, hence, its existence is shown 1. Freedom;
by overt acts. 2. Intelligence; and
3. Negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight, or lack
Lack of intent - act is justified. Offender incurs of skill (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 25).
NO criminal liability (i.e. existence of a lawful or
insuperable cause, commission by mere The act or omission is voluntary but the intent or
accident) (REYES, Book One, supra at 40-42). malice in intentional felonies is replaced by
imprudence, etc.
Criminal intent is necessary because:
a. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea The Negligence
act itself does not make a man guilty unless It indicates a deficiency of perception; failure to pay
his intentions were so. proper attention and to use diligence in foreseeing
b. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus the injury or damage impending to be caused;
An act done by me against my will is not my usually involves lack of foresight (Id. at 26).
act (U.S. v. Ah Chong, G.R. No. 5272, March
19, 1910). Imprudence
It indicates a deficiency of action; failure to take the
General Criminal Specific Criminal necessary precaution to avoid injury to person or
Intent Intent damage to property; usually involves lack of skill (Id.
An intention to do a An intention to commit at 26).
wrong a definite act
Existence of the intent
Presumed to exist is not presumed Reason for punishing acts of negligence:
from the mere doing of because it is an A man must use his common sense, and exercise
a wrongful act ingredient or element due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be
of a crime. cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct,
then thru fear of incurring punishment (US v.
The burden of proving
Maleza, G.R. No. 5036, November 17, 1909).
the existence of the
The burden of proving
intent is upon the
the absence of intent Note: In Art. 3, culpa is a MODE of committing a
Prosecution, as such
is upon the accused. crime; hence, killing is denominated homicide
intent is an element of
through reckless imprudence. In Art. 365 (quasi-
the crime.
offenses), culpa is the crime punished; hence, the
crime is denominated reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide (BOADO, supra at 42).
8
Intentional Culpable Classification of Crimes According to Nature:

1. Mala prohibita
Act is malicious Not malicious
Crimes punishable by special penal laws whereby
Injury caused is
criminal intent is not, as a rule, necessary, it being
unintentional being
With deliberate sufficient that the offender has the intent to
incident of another
intent perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law. It
act performed
is punishable because the prohibited act is so
without malice.
injurious to the public welfare that it is the crime
Wrongful act results
itself.
from imprudence,
Has intention to
negligence, lack of
cause an injury These are acts made evil because there is a law
foresight or lack of
punishing it. The basis of criminal liability is the
skill.
offenders voluntariness, hence, good faith or lack
of criminal intent is not accepted as a defense,
Honest Mistake of fact unless this is an element of a crime. The act
It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the prohibited is not inherently evil but made evil only
person causing injury to another. Such person is by the prohibition of the statute (BOADO, supra at
NOT criminally liable as he acted without criminal 15).
intent (Ignorantia facti excusat) (REYES, Book One,
supra at 44). General Rule: As a rule, mere commission of
crimes classified as mala prohibita, even without
An honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption criminal intent, is punishable.
of criminal intent which arises upon the commission
of a felonious act (People v. Oanis, G.R. No. L- Exceptions:
47722, July 27, 1943).
a. Cuenca v. People (G.R. No. L-27586, June 26,
Honest Mistake of fact is NOT applicable in 1970)
CULPABLE felonies. Cuenca was entitled to assume that his
employer had the requisite license to possess
Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense: said firearm and ammunition and to turn them
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the over to him while he was on duty as one of the
facts been as the accused believed them to be; regular security guards of a duly licensed
security agency.
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the
act should be lawful; and
b. People v. Landicho ([CA] 55 OG 842)
3. That the mistake must be without fault or The doctrine of the immateriality of animus
carelessness on the part of the accused (REYES, possidendi should be relaxed in certain way.
Book One, supra at 45). Otherwise, the avowed purpose of the
a. US v. Ah Chong (G.R. No. L- 5272, March 19, governments policy cannot be realized.
1910 ) The accused had no alternative but to
take the facts as they appeared to him, and
c. People v. Mallari ([CA] 55 O.G. 1394)
such facts justified his act of killing his
Where the accused had a pending application
roommate.
for permanent permit to possess a firearm, and
b. People v. Oanis (G.R. No. L-47722, July 27,
whose possession was not unknown to an
1943) There was no mistake of fact when the
agent of the law who advised the former to keep
accused police officers were shot Tecson, whom
it in the meantime, any doubt as to his claim
they thought to be Balagtas (a notorious
should be resolved in his favor.
criminal) who was sleeping in his bed, without
ascertaining his identity and the non-existence
d. Mere transient possession of unlicensed
of threat from the part of Tecson.
firearm
While in stealing a firearm the accused must
When Honest Mistake of Fact NOT Applicable:
necessarily come into possession thereof, the
1. When there is mistake in identity (error in
crime of illegal possession of firearms is not
personae);
committed by mere transient possession of the
2. When there is negligence on the part of the
weapon. Thus, stealing a firearm with intent not
accused; and
to use but to render the owner defenseless, may
3. When the accused committed a culpable felony
suffice for purposes of establishing a case of
(The essence of honest mistake of fact is lack of
theft, but would not justify a charge for illegal
intent on the part of the accused) (ESTRADA,
possession of firearm, since intent to hold and
Book One, supra at 33).
eventually use the weapon would be lacking
(People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 84857, January
9
16, 1998, citing People v. Remereta, G.R. No. As to persons criminally liable
L-6971, February 17, 1956). There are three
persons criminally
2. Mala in Se Generally, only the
liable: principal,
Crimes mala in se are acts or omissions which are principal is liable.
accomplice, and
inherently evil (BOADO, supra at 15). accessory.
As to division of penalties
It implies something immoral in itself, regardless Penalties may be
of the fact that it (moral turpitude) is punishable by There is no such
divided into degrees
law or not (Dela Torre v. COMELEC, G.R. No. division of penalties.
and periods.
121592, July 5, 1996).
Note: A malum in se felony, such as reckless
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita imprudence resulting in damage to property cannot
As to Nature absorb a malum prohibitum crime, such as violations
Wrong from its very Wrong because it is of P.D. 1067, P.D. 984 and R.A. 7942. What makes
nature prohibited by law the former a felony is the criminal intent (dolo) or
Use of Good Faith as a Defense negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are
Good faith is a valid the special laws enacting them (Loney v. People,
defense; unless the Good faith is not a G.R. No. 152644, February 10, 2006).
crime is the result of defense.
culpa. Note: Laws that merely amend the provisions of the
Intent as an element RPC, such as P.D. 533 which amended Arts. 308,
Criminal intent is 309 and 310 do not convert their violations into mala
Intent is an element. prohibita (BOADO, supra at 18).
immaterial.
Degree of Accomplishment of the crime
The degree of The act gives rise to a Intent Motive
accomplishment of the crime only when it is The purpose to use a The reason or moving
crime is taken into consummated. particular means to power which impels
account in punishing effect such result one to commit an act
the offender. for a definite result
As to Mitigating and Aggravating An element of the NOT an element of the
Circumstances crime, except in crime
Mitigating and Mitigating and unintentional felonies
aggravating aggravating Essential in intentional Essential only when
circumstances are circumstances are felonies the identity of the
taken into account in generally not taken perpetrator is in doubt
imposing the penalty. into account. (REYES, Book One, supra at 59-60)
Degree of Participation Illustration:
When there is more Degree of A, who is jealous of B shot the latter as a result of
than one offender, the participation is which B died. The intent is to kill while the motive is
degree of participation generally not taken jealousy.
of each in the into account. All who
commission of the participated in the act Motive
crime is taken into are punished to the It is the moving power which impels one to action for
account. same extent. a definite result (REYES, Book One, supra at 59).
As to penalty
Penalty is computed on The penalty on the Motive: When Relevant (CUT-NID)
the basis of whether he offenders are the 1. If the evidence is merely circumstantial;
is a principal offender, same whether they 2. Where the identification of the accused proceeds
or merely an are merely from an unreliable source and the testimony is
accomplice or accomplices or inconclusive and not free from doubt;
accessory. accessories. 3. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic
Laws Violated theories or versions of the killing;
Violation of the RPC Violation of Special 4. Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime,
(General rule) Laws (General rule) and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number
As to stages in execution of persons;
There are three stages: 5. When there is doubt as to the identity of the
No such stages of assailant; and
attempted, frustrated,
execution. 6. When the act is alleged to be committed in
consummated.
defense of a stranger because it must not be
10
induced by revenge, resentment or other evil Page, G.R. No. L-37507, June 7, 1977, citing
motive (Id. at 60). People v. Toling, G.R. No. L-27097, Jan. 17, 1975).
ARTICLE 4 Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the

CRIMINAL LIABILITY wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended:
Par. 1: Criminal Liability for a felony different 1. Error In Personae- mistake in the identity of the
from that which is intended to be committed. victim (Art. 49 penalty for lesser crime in its
maximum period)
Reason: El que es causa dela causa es causa del
mal causa He who is the cause of the cause is the Illustration:
cause of the evil caused (People v. Ural, G.R. No. L- A intended to kill B. One night, A shouted at the
30801, March 27, 1974). person whom he thought to be B. An altercation
ensued. In the process, A fired his gun at the
Requisites: person who died as a consequence. It turned out
1. That an intentional felony has been committed; that the person whom he shot and killed was not B
and but his own father. In this case, A is liable for
parricide, the crime which was actually committed.
No Intentional Felony: When he fired his gun, he acted with intent. He is
a. When the act or omission is not punishable by liable for all the direct, logical and natural
RPC; or consequences of his felonious act, whether
b. When the act is covered by any of the justifying foreseen, intended or unintended. The fact that
circumstances in Art. 11 of RPC. the victim is different from the one A intended to
kill does not exculpate him from criminal liability.
Act or omission should not be punished by a
special law because the offender violating a Applying Art. 49 of the RPC, the penalty
special law may not have the intent to do any imposable is not the penalty for parricide which
injury to another. In such case, the wrongful act was the one committed, but the penalty of
done could not be different, as the offender did not homicide which is the crime intended to be
intend to do any other injury (REYES, Book One, committed, the penalty being lesser than the
supra at 64). penalty for parricide which was actually
committed. But the penalty for homicide which is
2. That the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its
direct, natural and logical consequence of the maximum period (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at
felony committed. 37).
2. Aberratio ictus mistake in the blow (Art. 48 on
Proximate Cause complex crimes penalty for graver offense in its
It is that cause, which, in the natural and maximum period)
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and Illustration:
without which the result would not have occurred A, with intent to kill, hacked B. B was not hit but C
(Vallacar Transit, Inc. v Catubig, G.R. No. 175512, who is also behind B was hit. C died. A is liable for
May 30, 2011). his attempt to kill B. A is also liable for the death of
C. The death of C is the natural consequence of
If the result can be traced back to the original act, the felonious act of A (Id. at 38).
then the doer of the original act can be held
criminally liable.
3. Praeter intentionem injurious result is greater
than that intended (Art. 13 Mitigating
The relation of cause and effect must be shown:
Circumstance).
a. The cause being the felonious act of the
offender; and
Illustration:
b.The effect being the resultant injuries and/or A boxed B with the intention of inflicting a lump on
death of the victim (REYES, Book One, supra at B. As a result of the blow, B lost his balance and
76). fell to the ground with his head hitting the
pavement causing his death. A is liable for
Note: Any person who creates in another persons Homicide (Id. at 38-39).
mind an immediate sense of danger, which causes
the latter to do something resulting in the latters Aberratio Ictus v. Error in personae
injuries, is liable for the resulting injuries (People v. Aberratio Ictus Error in personae
The victim as well as The supposed victim
11
the actual victim are may or may not be in Instances when there is a proximate cause and
both in the scene of the scene of the when there is none:
the crime. crime. Instance Criminally Liable?
The offender delivers The offender delivers When there is an intervening disease
the blow to his the blow not to his If disease is closely
intended victim but intended victim. YES
related to the wound
because of poor aim
If disease is unrelated
landed on someone NO
to the wound
else.
If disease is combined YES. Mortal wound is a
Generally gives rise There is no complex
force with wound contributing factor to
to complex crime crime.
victims death.
unless the resulting
consequence is not a
Note: A mortal wound
grave or less grave
is a contributing factor
felony
when:
i. The wound is
Illustration of Aberratio Ictus: sufficient to cause
a. A shot B but because of lack of precision, it was the victims death
C, a bystander, who was hit as a result of which along with the
C died. There is a complex crime of attempted disease
or frustrated Murder, Homicide, Parricide or ii. The mortal wound
Infanticide and Murder, Homicide Parricide or was caused by
Infanticide(MHPI) actions committed by
the accused
b. If C did not die but sustained injuries, there is
When the death was caused by an infection
still a complex crime of attempted or frustrated
of the wound due to the unskilled medical
MHPI and serious or less serious physical
treatment from the doctors
injuries (note that there is no intent to kill insofar
If the wound is mortal YES. Unskilled
as the case of C is concerned); however, there
treatment and infection
can be no complex crime if C sustained slight
are NOT efficient
physical injuries as the same is only a light
intervening causes
felony.
If the wound is slight NO. Unskilled
treatment and infection
When death is presumed to be the natural
are efficient intervening
consequence of physical injuries inflicted:
causes
(NER)
a. That the victim at the time the physical injuries Efficient Intervening Cause
were inflicted was in normal health; It is the cause which interrupted the natural flow of
b.That the death may be expected from the events leading to ones death. This may relieve
physical injuries inflicted; and the offender from liability.
c. That death ensued within a reasonable time
(People v. Datu Baginda, C.A. 44 O.G. 2287). NOT efficient intervening causes:
a.The weak or diseased physical condition victim;
Note: The offended party is not obliged to submit b.The nervousness or temperament of the victim;
to a surgical operation or medical treatment to c.Causes which are inherent in the victim;
relieve the accused from liability (US v. d.Neglect of the victim or third person(e.g. refusal
Marasigan, G.R. No. L- 9426, August 15, 1914). of medical attendance); and
e.Erroneous or unskilled medical or surgical
Felony committed is NOT the proximate cause treatment (unless the wound is slight or not
of the resulting injury when: mortal) (Id. at 79).
a. There is an active force between the felony
committed and the resulting injury, such active Note: A supervening event can still be the subject
force is distinct from the felony committed. of amendment or of a new charge without
b.The resulting injury is due to the intentional act necessarily placing the accused in double
of the victim, i.e. fault or carelessness of the jeopardy (People v. Petilla, G.R. No. L-5070,
victim to increase the criminal liability of the December 29, 1952).
assailant (REYES, Book One, supra at 76).
Par. 2: Impossible Crime
12
Requisites: (PEIN) 8.Physical Injuries (Arts 262, 263, 264, 265 and
1. That the act performed would be an offense 266)
against persons or property;
2. That the act was done with evil intent; Felonies against property are: (BRUCT-SCAM)
1.Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307);
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible,
2.Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302 and
or that the means employed is either inadequate
303);
or ineffectual; and
3.Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313);
4.Culpable Insolvency (Art. 314);
Inadequate
5.Theft (Arts. 308, 310, and 311);
Insufficient (e.g. small quantity of poison).
6.Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317
and 318);
Ineffectual
7.Chattel Mortgage (Art. 319);
The means employed did not produce the result
8.Arson and other crimes involving destruction
expected (e.g. pressed the trigger of the gun not
(Arts. 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, and 326); and
knowing that it is empty).
9.Malicious Mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330 and
321).
Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment:
a.Legal Impossibility where the intended acts,
Purpose of punishing impossible crimes: To
even if completed would not amount to a crime,
suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies
(e.g. killing a person already dead) (Intod v. CA,
(REYES, Book One, supra at 88).
G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992 citing
Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 1987).
Notes:
b.Physical Impossibility when extraneous
1. Felony against persons or property should not be
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond
actually committed, for otherwise, he would be
his control prevent the consummation of the
liable for that felony; there would be no impossible
intended crime (e.g. when a man with the
crime to speak of.
intention to steal another's wallet and finds the
2. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible
pocket empty; when a person steals a check
crime. It is always consummated and applies only
which was later dishonored) (Intod v. CA, G.R.
to grave or less grave felonies.
No. 103119 October 21, 1992; Jacinto v.
3. Under Article 59, the penalty for impossible crimes
People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009).
is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200-500
4. That the act performed should not constitute a
pesos.
violation of another provision of the RPC
4.The act performed should not constitute another
offense specifically punished by law particularly a
felony against persons or property. The moment
Illustration:
another crime is committed there can be no
The accused fired at the room of the supposed
impossible crime (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at
victim. No one was in the room when the accused
45).
fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire. There
is factual impossibility in this case. The crime
ARTICLE 5
committed is an impossible crime and not attempted
DUTY OF THE COURT
murder. It occurs when extraneous circumstances
unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent
Par. 1. Acts which should be repressed but
the consummation of the intended crime. In this
which are not covered by law.
case, petitioner shoots the place where he thought
his victim would be, although in reality, the victim
Requisites:
was not present in said place and thus, the
1.The act committed by the accused appears not
petitioner failed to accomplish his end (Intod v. CA,
punishable by any law;
G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992).
2.But the court deems it proper to repress such act;
3.In that case, the court must render the proper
Felonies against persons are: (MHPI-DRAP)
decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the
1.Murder (Art. 248); accused; and
2.Homicide (Art 249); 4.The judge must then make a report to the Chief
3.Parricide (Art. 246); Executive, through the Secretary of Justice,
4.Infanticide (Art 255); stating the reasons which induce him to believe
5.Duel (Arts 260 and 261); that the said act should be made the subject of
6.Rape (Art. 266-A); penal legislation (REYES, Book One, supra at
7.Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258 and 259); and 89).
13
The Philippines does not subscribe to the common consummated in one instant by a single act
law crimes system. Under this article, if an act (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 62).
should be repressed but there is no law punishing
the same, the proper decision of acquittal must be Material crimes
made. This is in consonance with the maxim nullum These are crimes which involve the three stages of
crimen nulla poena sine lege (Id. at 89). execution (REYES, Book One supra at 119).
Par. 2. Excessive Penalties Stages of execution: (does not apply to crimes

under special laws unless otherwise provided,
Requisites: crimes by omission and formal crimes)
1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty;
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court (a) Consummated felony
imposes for the crime committed appears to be When all the elements necessary for its execution
clearly excessive because: and accomplishment are present
a. The accused acted with lesser degree of malice,
and/or Note: The offender does not have to do anything
b. There is no injury or the injury caused is of else to consummate the offense. He has already
lesser gravity; reached the objective stage of the offense that he
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the no longer has control of his acts having already
sentence; and performed all that is necessary to accomplish his
4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief purpose (BOADO, supra at 49).
Executive, through the Secretary of Justice,
recommending executive clemency (Id at. 89-90). 2. Frustrated Felony
Elements:
The court must impose the penalty prescribed for a. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
the crime committed although it finds the penalty too b. All the acts performed would produce the felony
harsh considering the conditions surrounding the as a consequence (belief of accused as to
commission of the crime. The most the judge could whether or not he had performed all acts of
do is to recommend to the Chief Executive to grant execution is immaterial);
executive clemency. c. But the felony is not produced; and
d. By reason of causes independent of the will of
Note: Par. 2 not applicable to the offense defined the perpetrator (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at
and penalized by a special law. 57).
ARTICLE 6 What crimes do not admit of frustrated stage?

CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED & They are those which, by the definition of a
ATTEMPTED FELONIES frustrated felony, the offender cannot possibly
perform all the acts of execution to bring the
Formal Crimes or Crimes of Effect desired result without consummating the offense.
These are felonies which by a single act of the
accused consummates the offense as a matter of Examples of crimes which do not admit of
law (i.e. physical injuries, acts of lasciviousness, frustrated stage:
attempted flight to an enemy country, coercion, a. Rape, since the gravamen of the offense is
slander, illegal exaction). carnal knowledge, hence, no matter how slight
the penetration, the felony is consummated;
Those which are always consummated because the b. Indirect Bribery, because it is committed by
offender cannot perform all the acts necessary to accepting gifts offered to the public officer by
consummate the offense without consummating it. reason of his office. If he does not accept, he
For instance, physical injuries are formal crimes does not commit the crime. If he accepts, it is
since these are punished as to result and the gravity consummated;
of the injury cannot be determined whether slight, c. Direct Bribery;
less serious or serious unless and until d. Corruption of Public Officers, because the
consummated. Slander is a formal crime because offense requires the concurrence of the will of
the moment the defamatory words were uttered and both parties, such as that when the offer is
heard by third persons, the crime is consummated accepted, the offense is consummated. But
(BOADO, supra at 49). when the offer is rejected, the offense is merely
attempted;
In formal crimes, there are no attempted and e. Adultery, because the essence of the crime is
frustrated stages of execution because they are sexual congress;
14
f. Physical Injury, since it cannot be determined felony defined by the acts performed by him up to
whether the injury will be slight, less serious, or the time of desistance.
serious unless and until consummated; and
g. Theft, because the unlawful taking immediately Illustration:
consummates the offense and the disposition of The accused was caught opening with an iron bar a
the thing is not an element thereof. wall of a store of cheap goods. He broke one board
and was unfastening another when a patrolling
3. Attempted Felony police caught him. He was charged with attempted
Elements: robbery.
a. The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts; The crime committed is only attempted trespass to
b. He does not perform all the acts of execution dwelling based on the acts performed by him before
which should produce the felony; being caught. There is something yet for him to do
c. He is not stopped by his own spontaneous to make him liable for the offense charged. The final
desistance; and objective of the accused, once he succeeded in
d.The non-performance of all acts of execution entering the store, may be to rob, to cause physical
was due to a cause or accident other than the injury to the inmates, or to commit any other offense.
offenders own spontaneous desistance In such case, there is no justification in finding the
(REYES, Book One, supra at 97). offender guilty of attempted robbery by the use of
force upon things (Id. at 100-102 citing People v.
Overt Act Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530, August 23, 1935).
a. It is some physical activity or deed, indicating
intention to commit a particular crime. Desistance
b. It is more than a mere planning or preparation, It is an absolutory cause which negates criminal
which if carried to its complete termination liability because the law encourages a person to
following its natural course, without being desist from committing a crime (ESTRADA, Book
frustrated by external obstacles, nor by One, supra at 55).
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator will
logically ripen into a concrete offense (REYES, Note: The spontaneous desistance of the offender
Book One, supra at 97). negates only the attempted stage but not
necessarily all criminal liability. If the desistance was
Note: Overt act may not be a physical activity. made when acts done by him already resulted to a
There are felonies where, because of their felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for
nature or the manner of committing them, the the felony brought about by his act (ORTEGA,
overt acts are not performed with bodily supra).
movement or by physical activity (US v. Gloria,
G.R. No. 1740, March 27, 1905). Note: When the cause of the non-performance of all
the acts necessary for the commission of the
Felony is deemed commenced by overt acts offense is other than the offenders spontaneous
when the following are present: desistance, the felony is attempted (People v.
a. That there be external acts; and Pareja, G.R. No. 88043, December 9, 1996).
b. Such external acts have direct connection with
the crime intended to be committed (REYES, Kinds of Desistance
Book One, supra at 97). Legal Desistance Factual Desistance
Definition
Note: To be an attempted crime, the purpose of Desistance referred to Actual desistance of the
the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force in law which would actor; the actor is still
or agency which intervenes and compels him to obviate criminal liability liable for the attempt
stop prior to the moment when he has performed unless the overt or
all the acts which should produce the crime as a preparatory act already
consequence, which act it is his intention to committed in
perform (People v. Caballero, G.R. No. 149028- themselves constitute a
30, April 2, 2003). felony other than what
the actor intended
Indeterminate Offense Time or Period Employed
It is one where the purpose of the offender in Desistance made Desistance made after
performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation during the attempted the attempted stage of
to its objective is ambiguous (REYES, Book One, stage the crime
supra at 100). The accused may be convicted of a
15
Note: The desistance which exempts from criminal
liability has reference to the crime intended to be Factors in determining stage of execution of
committed, and has no reference to the crime felony: (MEN)
actually committed by the offender before his 1.Manner of committing the felony;
desistance (People v. Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-72, 2.Elements constituting the felony; and
January 24, 2008). 3.Nature of the offense (REYES, Book One, supra
at 113).
Two Stages in the Development of a Crime:
1. Internal acts: Murder/Homicide/Parricide/Infanticide (MHPI):
a.Such as mere thoughts or ideas in the mind of 1.With intent to kill, but no mortal wound is inflicted
person. attempted.
b.Not punishable. 2.With intent to kill, and mortal wound is inflicted but
victim does not die frustrated.
2. External acts cover: 3.The moment the victim dies, intent to kill is
a. Preparatory acts ordinarily not punished conclusively presumed consummated.
except when considered by law as independent
crimes (e.g. Art. 304, Possession of Picklocks Rules on crimes against persons (MHPI) and stages
and Similar Tools). of execution:
b. Acts of Execution punishable under the RPC Intent Gravity
(REYES, Book One, supra at 95). Death Crime
to of the
Results Committed
Kill wound
Attempted stage Pre- Mortal
It marks the commencement of the subjective Yes Consummated
sumed wound
phase.
Frustrated
No Yes Mortal
(MHPI)
There is an attempt when the offender begins
Non-
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts No Yes Attempted MHPI
mortal
(Id. at 96).
Overt act
No Yes only no Attempted MHPI
Subjective Phase
wound
It is that portion of the acts constituting the
crime, starting from the point where the offender Mortal Serious physical
No No
begins the commission of the crime to that point wound injuries
where he has still control over his acts, including Non- Less serious/
their (acts) natural course (Id. at 104). No No mortal slight physical
wound injuries
If between those two points the offender is
stopped by reason of any cause outside of his Robbery/ Theft (RPC, Arts. 293 and 309)
own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase 1. Both crimes are committed by the taking of the
has not been passed and it is an attempt (Id.). personal property of another and with the intent to
gain.
If he is not so stopped but continues until he 2. The difference is that in robbery, there is the use
performs the last act, it is frustrated (Id.). of force or violence.
3. So long as there is possession of the property, no
Frustrated stage matter how momentary it may be, the crime is
It is the end thereof and the start of the objective consummated.
phase. 4. In robbery by the use of force upon things, since
the offender must enter the building to commit the
Objective Phase crime, he must be able to carry out of the building
It is the result of the acts of the execution, that the thing taken to consummate the crime.
is, the accomplishment of the crime. 5. In robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons, the crime is consummated the moment
If the subjective and objective phases are the offender gets hold of the thing taken and/or is
present, there is a consummated felony. in a position to dispose of it freely.
6. It does not matter how long the property was in
The spontaneous desistance of the accused is the possession of the accused; it does not matter
exculpatory only: whether the property was disposed or not; what is
i. if made during the attempted stage, and important is whether or not there was asportacion
ii. provided that the acts already committed do or unlawful taking.
not constitute any offense.
Rape
16
The crime of rape is consummated by mere of certain independent accomplishment or
penetration of the male organ no matter how slight cause or of the will of the means
or superficial. accident in the employed by the
which the perpetrator offender is
Note: R.A. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997) offender had inadequate or
provides that mere skin to skin contact between the no part. ineffectual.
penis and the labia now consummates the crime of Attempted Frustrated
rape. As to acts of execution
Not all acts of execution All acts of execution
Instances where there is attempted rape: had been done had been done.
1. 1. When the skirt of the victim has been lifted no
matter what position; As to causes of non-accomplishment
2. When the accused mounted on the body of the The felony was not The reason for the
victim; and produced by reason of frustration is some
3. When there is epidermal touching of the genital cause or accident other cause independent of
organs of the accused and the victim. than the offenders own the will of the
spontaneous perpetrator.
In attempted rape, there is the intent to have carnal desistance.
knowledge or sexual intercourse. In acts of As to the phase of the felony involved
lasciviousness there is none (RPC, Art 226-A as The offender is still in The offender is already
amended and Art. 336). the subjective phase as in the objective phase
he has still control of because all the acts of
There is no crime of frustrated rape. The case of his acts. execution were already
People v. Eria (G.R. No. 26298, January 20, 1927) there.
was an exception since the victim was only 3 years
old. ARTICLE 7
LIGHT FELONIES
Common Crimes and their Stages of Execution:
Consummated Frustrated Attempted Light Felonies
These are infractions of law for the commission of
Arson (RPC, Art. 320)
which the penalty of arresto menor or fine not
The tools used exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided (RPC,
alone are on Art. 9, par. 3).
fire, or a
furniture or General Rule: Light felonies are punishable only
Any part of the The tools to
thing not when they have been consummated.
building be used for
attached to
burned, even if committing
the building is Reason: They produce light, insignificant moral and
only a small the crime are
on fire (US v. material injuries that public conscience is satisfied
portion. in the building.
Valdez, G.R. with providing a light penalty for their consummation.
No. L-14128, If they are not consummated the wrong done is so
December 10, slight that there is no need of providing a penalty at
1918). all (Albert) (REYES, Book One, supra at. 122).
Estafa (RPC, Art. 315)
The money Exception: If committed against persons or
Deceit and No money
taken has not property, punishable even if attempted or frustrated.
Damage on the was taken yet,
been
victim are only deceit is
damaged or Reason for the exception: Such commission
present. present.
spent. presupposes moral depravity (Id. at 123).
1.The exception with regard to crimes against
Comparison and Differences Among: persons is actually unnecessary, as the only light
felony against persons is slight physical injuries
Attempted Frustrated Impossible
which in the first place is always consummated.
Evil intent is not accomplished. 2. The exception can apply however to attempted or
Evil intent is possible of Evil intent cannot frustrated light felonies against property BUT only
accomplishment. be accomplished. principal and accomplices are criminally liable
What What Evil intent cannot while accessories are exempt.
prevented prevented be accomplished
accomplish- accomplish because its Light Felonies under RPC: (STAMI)
ment is the ment are inherently 1. Slight physical injuries (Art. 266);
intervention causes impossible of
17
2. Theft (Art. 309, par. 7 and 8), when the value of 1. Selected acts committed under the Dangerous
thing stolen is less than five pesos and theft is Drugs Act;
committed under the circumstances enumerated 2. Espionage;
under Article 308 par. 3; 3. Illegal Association;
3. Alteration of boundary marks (Art. 313); 4. Highway Robbery;
4. Malicious mischief (Art. 328, par. 3; Art. 329, par. 5. Arson; and
3), when the value of the damage does not 6. Terrorism under the Human Security Act.
exceed two hundred pesos or cannot be
estimated; and Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from
5. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364). conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal
liability
Note: For light felonies, the only ones who can be As a Manner of Incurring
As a Felony
held liable are the principals and accomplices. Criminal Liablity
Conspirators should If the conspirators commit
ARTICLE 8 not actually commit it, say, treason, they will be
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL treason, rebellion, held liable for treason, and
TO COMMIT FELONY etc., it being the conspiracy which they
sufficient that two or had before committing
General Rule: Mere conspiracy or proposal to more persons agree treason is only a manner of
commit a felony is not punishable since they are and decide to incurring criminal liability,
only preparatory acts. commit it. not treated as a separate
offense.
Exception: In cases in which the law specially Felony relates to a Conspiracy is not treated as
provides a penalty therefor. crime actually a separate offense but used
committed. to determine the liability of
Conspiracy the offenders.
It exists when two or more persons come to an In conspiracy, the act of one
agreement concerning the commission of a felony is the act of all (REYES,
and decide to commit it. supra at 125-126).
Agreement may be oral or written, express or General Rule: When conspiracy is established, all
implied. who participated therein, irrespective of the quantity
or quality of his participation is liable equally,
Requisites of Conspiracy: whether conspiracy is pre-planned or instantaneous.
1. That two or more persons came to an agreement;
2. That the agreement pertains to the commission of Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators
a felony; and committed some other crime which is not part of the
3. That the execution of the felony was decided intended crime (People v. Valdez, G.R. No. L-
upon. 75390, March 25, 1988).
There must be participation with a criminal Exception to the Exception: When the act
resolution because simple knowledge thereof by a constitutes a single indivisible offense.
person may only make him liable as an accomplice
(People v. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, June 8, Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy
2004). Conspiracy may be inferred if it is proven that two or
more persons aimed their acts towards the
The law specially provides penalty for mere accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
conspiracy in: doing a part so that their acts although apparently
independent were in fact connected and
Under RPC (TRICSM) cooperative, thus indicating a closeness of personal
1. Treason, (Art. 115); association and a concurrence of sentiment
2. Rebellion, (Art. 136); (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 68).
3. Insurrection, (Art. 136);
It is enough that at the time of the commission of the
4. Coup d etat, (Art. 136); offense, the offenders acted in concert, each doing
5. Sedition, (Art. 141); and his part to fulfill their common design (People v.
6. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade Hernandez, G.R. No. 90641, February 27, 1990).
(Art. 186).
There is unity of purpose and unity in the execution
Under special laws (DEAR-ATe) of the offense (REYES, Book One, supra at 127).
18
Note: Mere knowledge, acquiescence to or
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute
one as party to conspiracy, absent any active
participation in the commission of the crime, with a There is no criminal proposal when:
view to the furtherance of the common design and 1. The person who proposes is NOT determined to
purposeconspiracy transcends companionship commit the felony.
(People v. Patano, G.R. No. 129306, March 14, 2. There is no decided, concrete and formal proposal
2003). but a mere suggestion.
In determining whether there is an implied
3. It is not the execution of a felony that is proposed
conspiracy, it must be based on: (REYES, Book One, supra at 131-132).
1. Overt acts done before, during or after the
commission of the crime; or It is not necessary that the person to whom the
2. Words, remarks or language used before, during proposal is made agrees to commit TRIC, what
or after the commission of the crime. constitutes the felony is the making of the proposal.
a.They must be distinct from each other,
independent or separate. ARTICLE 9
b.They must be closely associated, closely CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
related, closely linked, and coordinated. ACCORDING TO GRAVITY
c.They must be for a common criminal design,
joint criminal interest, unity of criminal purpose, Grave felonies
or concerted action, geared towards the Felonies to which the law attaches the capital
attainment of the felony. punishment or penalties which in any of their periods
are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the Code.
Note: In conspiracy, direct proof of a previous These are:
agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It 1. Reclusion perpetua;
may be deduced from the mode and manner by 2. Reclusion temporal;
which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from 3. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification;
the acts of the accused themselves when such point 4. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification;
to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and 5. Prision mayor; and
community of interest (People v. Liad, G.R. No. 6. Fines more than Php 6000.
133815-17, March 22, 2001).
Less grave felonies
Note: In the absence of conspiracy or unity of Felonies which the law punishes with penalties
criminal purpose and intention immediately before which in their maximum period are correctional, in
the commission of the crime, or community of accordance with Art. 25 of the Code. These are:
criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising 1. Prision correccional
from the acts directed against one and the same 2. Arresto mayor;
person is individual and not collective (Tapalla v. 3. Suspension;
CA, G.R. No. 100682, May 31, 1993). 4. Destierro; and
5. Fines equal to or more than Php 200 but less than
Proposal to Commit a Felony Php 6000.
It is committed when the person who has decided to
commit a felony proposes its execution to some Light felonies
other person or persons. Those infractions of law for the commission of which
the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
Requisites of Proposal: 200 pesos, or both, is provided.
1. That a person has decided to commit a felony
(Decision); and Importance of Classification
2. That he proposes its execution to some other 1. To determine whether these felonies can be
person or persons (Proposal). complexed or not;
2. To determine the prescription of the crime and the
RPC specially provides penalty for mere proposal in prescription of the penalty;
(TRIC) 3. To determine the duration of subsidiary penalty to
1. Treason; be imposed (Art. 39[2]), where the subsidiary
2. Rebellion; penalty is based on severity of the penalty;
3. Insurrection; and 4. To determine the duration of the detention in case
4. Coup d etat. of failure to post the bond to keep the peace (Art.
Note: There is no crime of proposal to commit 35);
sedition. 5. To determine whether or not the person in autority
or his agents have committed delay in the delivery
19
of detained persons to the judicial authority (Art. It the quality by which an act may be ascribed to a
125); and person as its author or owner (Id. at 86). It implies
6. To determine the proper penalty for quasi-offenses that the act committed has been freely and
(BOADO, supra at 65-66). consciously done and may therefore be put down to
the doer as his very own.
ARTICLE 10
OFFENSES NOT SUBJECT Responsibility
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE RPC It is the obligation of taking the penal and civil
consequences of the crime (Id.).
General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary
to special laws. Guilt
It is an element of responsibility, for a man cannot
Exceptions: be made to answer for the consequences of a crime
1. Where the special law provides otherwise; and unless he is guilty (Id.).
2. When the provisions of the RPC are impossible of
application, either by express provision or by ARTICLE 11
necessary implication. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Thus, when the special law adopts the penalties Justifying Circumstances
imposed in the RPC, such as reclusion perpetua Those where the act of a person is said to be in
or reclusin temporal, the provisions of the RPC accordance with law, so that such person is deemed
on imposition of penalties based on stage of not to have transgressed the law and is free from
execution, degree of participation, and attendance both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil
of mitigating and aggravating circumstances may liability, except in par. 4 of Art. 11 where the civil
be applied by necessary implication (ESTRADA, liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act
Book One, supra at 81). (Id.).
An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of proof is

CHAPTER TWO on the accused who must prove it by clear and
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND convincing evidence (Id. at 87).
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT
FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY There is both no crime and no criminal.
(ARTS. 11-12)
Basis: Lack of Criminal Intent
There is both no crime and no criminal.
Five circumstances affecting criminal liability:
1. Justifying circumstances RPC, Art. 11, (6); R.A. It is an affirmative defense, hence, the burden of
9262 VAWC; proof is on the accused who must prove it by clear
2. Exempting circumstances (7) RPC, Art. 12; and convincing evidence (Id. at 87).
3. Mitigating circumstances (10) RPC, Art. 13;
4. Aggravating circumstances (21) RPC, Art. 14; Par. 1. Self-Defense
and
5. Alternative circumstances (3) RPC, Art. 15. Rights Included in Self-Defense:
Self-defense includes not only the defense of the
Other circumstances found elsewhere in the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of
RPC: his rights, the enjoyment of which is protected by
1. Absolutory cause the effect is to absolve the law. Thus, it includes:
offender from criminal liability, although not from 1. Right to Honor Hence, a slap on the face is
civil liability (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 85). considered as unlawful aggression since the face
represents a person and his dignity. It is a serious
2. Extenuating circumstances the effect is to personal attack; a physical assault, coupled with a
mitigate the criminal liability of the offender and willful disgrace; and it may, therefore, be
has the same effect as mitigating circumstances frequently regarded as placing in real danger a
(i.e. concealment of dishonor in the crime of persons dignity, rights and safety (Rugas v.
infanticide insofar as the mother and maternal People, GR No. 147789, January 14, 2004).
grandparents are concerned, the penalty is 2. Defense of Property Rights - It can be invoked if
lowered by two degrees; the crime of adultery there is an attack upon the property although it is
committed by a married woman abandoned by her not coupled with an attack upon the person of the
husband) (Id.). owner of the premises. All the elements for
Imputability
20
justification must however be present (People v. The danger is on the point of happening. It is
Narvaez, G.R. No. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983). not required that the attack already begins, for it
may be too late (Id. at 154).
Subjects of Self-Defense: (PRPH)
1. Defense of Person; c. Must come from the person attacked by the
2. Defense of Rights; accused;
3. Defense of Property; and
4. Defense of Honor. Note: No unlawful aggression when there was
an agreement to fight (People v. Monteroso,
What is important is not the duality of the attack but G.R. No. 28538, August 4, 1928).
whether the means employed is reasonable to
prevent the attack. The challenge to fight must be accepted
(People v. Del Pilar, C.A., 44 O.G. 596).
Reasons for Recognizing Self-defense as a
Justifying Circumstance: But aggression which is ahead of a stipulated
1. Impulse of self-preservation; time and place is unlawful (Severino Justo v.
2. State cannot provide protection for each of its CA, 53 O.G. 4083).
constituents (REYES, Book One, supra at 148).
d.Not merely oral threats or threatening stance or
Stand Ground When in the Right posture;
The law does not require a person to retreat when
his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a Note: Insulting words addressed to the
deadly weapon (US v. Domen, G.R. No. L-12963, accused, no matter how objectionable that may
October 25, 1917). have been, without physical assault, could not
constitute unlawful aggression (US v. Carrero,
Reason: He runs the risk of being attacked in the G.R. No.3956, January 10, 1908). HOWEVER,
back by the aggressor. a slap in the face is an unlawful aggression. The
reason is that the face represents a person and
Requisites: (URL) his dignity, slapping it is a serious personal
1. Unlawful aggression (condition sine qua non); attack (People v. Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734, April
Kinds of aggression: 27, 1967).
a.Lawful
i. In the exercise of a right; and Note: Mere belief in an impending attack is NOT
ii. In the fulfillment of a duty sufficient. Neither is intimidating or threatening
b.Unlawful attitude (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800,
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to March 12, 1996).
prevent or repel it (if by a peace officer,
reasonable necessity of the means employed to e. In relation to mistake of fact, the belief of the
overcome opponent); and accused may be considered in determining the
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the existence of unlawful aggression, e.g. there is
person defending himself. self-defense even if the aggressor used a toy
gun, provided that the accused believed it to be
Unlawful aggression a real gun (People v. Boral, 11 C.A. Rep. 914).
a.Equivalent to an actual physical assault;
Reasonable necessity of the means employed
Actual 1. It involves two elements, necessity for the
The danger must be present, that is, actually in course of action and necessity of the means
existence (Id.). employed, both of which should be reasonable.
2. In determining reasonable means, some factors
Note: The person defending himself must have are to be considered such as: (PINES)
been attacked with actual physical force with the a. Presence of imminent danger;
actual use of weapon (Id. at 155). b. Impelled by the instinct of self-preservation;
c. Nature and quality of the weapon used by the
b.Threatened assault of an immediate and accused compared to the weapon of the
imminent kind which is offensive and positively aggression;
strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause d. Emergency to which the person defending
injury (REYES, Book One, supra at 152); himself has been exposed to;
Imminent
e. Size and/or physical character of the
aggressor compared to the accused and other
21
circumstances that can be considered circumstances of self-defense under the RPC (Sec.
showing disparity between aggressor and 26). The law provides for an additional justifying
accused. circumstance.
This element should be interpreted liberally in Battered Woman Syndrome

favor of the law-abiding citizen. It is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological
and behavioral symptoms found in women living in
Perfect equality between the weapons used by the battering relationships as a result of cumulative
one defending himself and that of the aggressor is abuse (RA, 9262, Sec 3[c]).
not required, neither is the material
commensurability between the means of attack Cycle of violence has three phases: (TAT)
and defense. Rational equivalence is enough 1. The Tension building phase;
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 91). 2. The Acute battering incident; and
3. The Tranquil, loving (or at least non-violent) phase
Reason: Because the person assaulted does not (People v. Genosa G.R. No. 135981, January 15,
have sufficient tranquility of mind to think and to 2004).
calculate (Jayme v. People, G.R. No. 124506,
September 9, 1999). Note: The defense should prove all three (3) phases
of cycle of violence characterizing the relationship of
When Agression Ceases the parties (Id.).
When the aggressor retreats, the aggression
ceases (People v. Alconga and Bracamonte, G.R. Note: The existence of battered woman syndrome
No. L-162, April 30, 1947). in a relationship does not in itself establish a legal
right of a woman to kill her partner. Evidence must
Exception: When retreat is made to take a more still be considered in the context of self-defense
advantageous position to insure the success of (BOADO, supra at 85).
the attack begun, unlawful aggression continues
(REYES, Book One, supra at 164). Four characteristics of the syndrome:
1. The woman believes that the violence was her
Retaliation Self-defense fault;
2. She has an inability to place the responsibility for
Inceptual unlawful Unlawful aggression
the violence elsewhere;
aggression had was still existing
3. She fears for her life and/or her childrens life; and
already ceased when when the aggressor
the accused attacked was injured by the 4. She has an irrational belief that the abuser is
him. person making the omnipresent and omniscient (Id.).
defense.
Only a certified psychologist or psychiatrist can
There must be no prove the existence of the Battery Woman
appreciable time Syndrome in a woman.
interval between the
unlawful aggression Battery
and the killing. It is any act of inflicting physical harm upon the
woman or her child resulting to physical and
Lack of Sufficient Provocation psychological or emotional distress (Sec 3[b]).
Sufficient provocation should not come from the
person defending himself/accused, and it must Par. 2. Defense of Relatives
immediately precede the aggression. Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
Defense of property should be coupled with danger 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
to the person defending oneself; if there is no prevent or repel it; and
danger to the person or the persons life or limb, 3. In case the provocation was given by the person
defense of property cannot be invoked. attacked, the one making the defense had no part
therein.
Under Republic Act 9262, known as the Anti-
Violence against Women and their Children Act Relatives that can be defended: (SADBroSAC4)
of 2004 1. Spouse;
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be 2. Ascendants;
suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome do not 3. Descendants;
incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers and
absence of any of the elements for justifying Sisters, or relatives by Affinity in the same
22
degrees. Death of the spouse terminates the It is only in this par. (4) that the person defending
relationship by affinity; and himself incurs civil liability, since generally in this
5. Relatives by Consanguinity within the fourth (4th) article there is no civil liability on the part of the
civil degree. accused. Such liability is borne by the person
benefited (REYES, Book One, supra at 207).
The fact that the relative defended gave provocation
is immaterial (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 99). Greater evil must not be brought about by the
negligence or imprudence or violation of law by the
There is no distinction in the Revised Penal Code actor.
whether the descendant should be legitimate or
illegitimate; when the law does not distinguish the The damage caused by the accused in the state of
courts cannot distinguish. necessity contemplated here is deliberate, while that
in Par. 4 of Art. 12 is accidentally caused
Justification: It is found not only upon a (REGALADO, Criminal Law Conspectus, 2009 ed.,
humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse [hereinafter, REGALADO], p. 157).
of blood which impels men to rush, on the occasion
of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them Par. 5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of
by ties of blood. right or office
Requisites:
Par. 3. Defense of Stranger 1. That the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
Stranger and
He is any person not included in the enumeration of 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed
relatives under par. 2 of Art. 11. be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such
Damage to another includes injury to persons and right or office.
damage to property.
In People v. Delima (G.R. No. 18660, December 22,
A person defending his common-law spouse or 1922), the deceased who escaped from prison while
adopted child will fall under this paragraph. serving sentence was under the obligation to
surrender, and had no right, after evading the
Requisites: service of his sentence to commit assault and
1. Unlawful aggression; disobedience with a weapon on his hand, which
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to compelled the policeman to resort to such extreme
prevent or repel it; and means, which although it proved to be fatal, was
3. The person defending was not induced by justified by the circumstances.
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
The shooting by prisoner guards of escaping
Motive is relevant only in this kind of defense. prisoners is always justified.
Justification: The ordinary person would not stand A security guard who shot a thief who refused to
idly by and see his companion killed without surrender is not justified.
attempting to save his life.
The executor of death convicts at the Bilibid Prison
Par. 4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury cannot be liable for murder for the executions
performed by him because he was merely acting in
State of Necessity lawful exercise of his office.
Art. 11, par. 4 Art. 12, par. 4
Doctrine of Self-help
Offender deliberately Offender accidentally
Article 429 of the Civil Code is applicable under this
caused damage. caused damage.
paragraph. The article states, The owner or lawful
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any
Requisites: (EIP) person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; this purpose, he may use such force as may be
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual
avoid it; and or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
3. There be no other practical and less harmful usurpation of his property.
means of preventing it.
The actual invasion of property may consist of a
mere disturbance of possession or of a real
23
dispossession. If it is a mere disturbance of Exempting Circumstances (or the
possession, force may be used against it at any time Circumstances for Non-imputability)
as long as it continues, even beyond the prescriptive Those grounds for exemption from punishment,
period of forcible entry. If the invasion consists of a because there is wanting in the agent of the crime
real dispossession, force to regain possession can any of the conditions which makes the act voluntary,
be used only immediately after the dispossession or negligent (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 106).
Illustration: There is a crime but no criminal.

Q: A constructed a small house in a piece of land
which he believed to be a disposable public land. He The burden of proof to prove the existence of an
had been occupying the lot for over a year. One day, exempting circumstance lies with the defense.
B came and claimed ownership over the land. B
proceeded in dismantling the house of A. The latter Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on
pleaded to B to stop but his plea fell on deaf ears. the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
Thereupon, A pulled B to prevent him from further action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on
dismantling the house. In the process, B fell on the the part of the accused (Id.).
ground and suffered physical injuries. Is A liable for
the injuries sustained by B? There is a crime but no criminal.
ANS: No, A is not liable. Under the law, he has the Justifying Exempting
right to employ reasonable force to prevent or repel Circumstance Circumstance
actual or threatened assault on his property. His act
of pulling B was reasonably necessary to protect his It affects the act, not the It affects the actor, not
possessory rights over his property (People v. actor. the act.
Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983). The act is considered to The act complained of
have been done within is actually wrongful, but
Q: Suppose in the same problem, A shot B with his the bounds of law; the actor is not liable.
45 caliber gun instead of pulling down B and B dies hence, legitimate and
as a result. Will your answer be the same? lawful in the eyes of the
law.
ANS: No. This time A is criminally liable for the Since the act is Since the act
death of B. His act of shooting B to death is not considered lawful, there complained of is
reasonably necessary to prevent the invasion of his is no crime. actually wrong there is
property (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 103). a crime but since the
actor acted without
Par. 6. Obedience to an order issued for some voluntariness, there is
lawful purpose no dolo nor culpa.
No crime There is a crime
Requisites: No criminal No criminal
1. That an order has been issued by a superior; No criminal liability No criminal liability
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose; No civil liability (except There is civil liability
and Art. 11, par. 4, where (except Art. 12, par. 4
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry there is civil liability) and 7, where there is
out said order is lawful. no civil liability)
Contemplates May be invoked in
Par. 6 presupposes that what was obeyed by the unintentional acts and culpable felonies
accused was a lawful order; but if the accused hence, are incompatible
complied with an unlawful order under a mistake of with dolo
fact, he should not incur criminal liability
(REGALADO, supra at 58). Par. 1. Imbecility or Insanity
Subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal Imbecility
order if he is not aware of its illegality and he is not It exists when a person, while of advanced age, has
negligent (Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. a mental development comparable to that of children
103501-03, February 17, 1997). between two and seven years of age (REYES, Book
One, supra at 216).
ARTICLE 12
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Insanity
It exists when there is a complete deprivation of
intelligence or freedom of the will. Mere abnormality
24
of mental faculties is not enough especially if the Time when
offender has not lost consciousness of his acts accused Effect on criminal
(People v. Puno, G.R. No, L-33211, June 29, 1981). suffers liability
insanity
Insanity and imbecility, to exempt under Par. 1, must At the time of Exempt from liability.
be complete, and they cannot be graduated in the
degrees of gravity (REGALADO, supra at 60). commission of
the crime
An insane person is not so exempt if it can be During trial Proceedings will be
shown that he acted during a lucid interval. But an suspended and accused
imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability is committed to a
(REYES, Book One, supra at 216). hospital.
After Execution of judgment is
Dementia Praecox is a form of psychosis where judgment or suspended, the accused
homicidal attack is common, because of delusions while serving is committed to a
that he is being interfered with sexually, or that his sentence hospital. The period of
property is being taken. During the period of confinement in the
excitement, such person has no control of his acts hospital is counted for the
(People v. Bonoan, G.R. No. L-45130, February 17, purpose of the
1937). prescription of the penalty
(ESTRADA, Book One,
Somnambulism or sleepwalking must be clearly supra at 107).
proven to be considered as an exempting
circumstance under this Article (People v. Gimena, The fact that a person behaves crazily is not
G.R. No. 33877, February 6, 1931). conclusive that he is insane. The prevalent meaning
of the word crazy is not synonymous with the legal
Feeblemindedness is not exempting but can be terms insane, non compos mentis, unsound
considered as mitigating (People v. Formigones, mind, idiot, or lunatic. The popular conception of
G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950). the word crazy is being used to describe a person
or an act unnatural or out of the ordinary. A man may
Malignant Malaria affects the nervous system and behave in a crazy manner but it does not
causes among others such complication as acute necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally
melancholia and insanity at times, and if clearly so (People v. Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October
proven will be considered as an exempting 8, 2003).
circumstance under this paragraph (People v.
Lacena, G.R. No. 46961, January 15, 1940). Basis: Complete absence of intelligence.
Epilepsy is not a pervading disease but a nerve Par. 2. & 3. Minority (Amended and superseded
disorder. Hence, after a seizure, the victim is normal by R.A. 9344)
for all intents and purposes (People v. Teves, G.R
No. 97435, July 14, 1995). JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF
2006, R.A. 9344 as amended by R.A. 10630 (AN
Two tests of insanity: ACT STRENGTHENING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
1. Test of Cognition complete deprivation of SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES)
intelligence in committing the crime.
2. Test of Volition total deprivation of freedom of Child in conflict with the law
will (People v. Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, It refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or
November 21, 1991). adjudged as, having committed an offense under
Philippine laws (R.A. 9344, Sec. 4[e]).
In the Philippines, both cognition and volition tests
are applied. There must be complete deprivation of 1. Minimum age of Responsibility - Under R.A.
the intellect (cognition) or will or freedom (volition) 9344 as amended, the following are EXEMPT
from criminal liability:
The defense must prove that the accused was a. Child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the
insane at the time of commission of the crime time of the commission of the offense. The child
because the presumption is always in favor of sanity shall be however subject to an intervention
(People v. Bascos, G.R. No. 19605, December 19, program pursuant to Section 20 of the Act.
1922).
If after the intervention, there is no reform, the
minor shall be returned to the court for the
25
promulgation of the decision against the minor; Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended (R.A.
and then the court shall either decide on the 9344, Sec. 20-B).
sentence or extend the intervention.
Note: A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years
If it has been determined that the child taken of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of
into custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, his/her birthdate (R.A. 9344, Sec. 6).
the authority which will have an initial contact
with the child, in consultation with the local b. Child above 15 but below 18 who acted without
social welfare and development officer, has the discernment.
duty to immediately release the child to the
custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the Discernment
absence thereof, the childs nearest relative. It is the mental capacity to understand the
The child shall be subjected to a community- difference between right and wrong as
based intervention program supervised by the determined by the childs appearance, attitude,
local social welfare and development officer, comportment and behavior not only before and
unless the best interest of the child requires the during the commission of the offense but also
referral of the child to a youth care facility or after and during the trial (Guevara v. Almodovar,
Bahay Pag-asa managed by LGUs or licensed G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989).
and/or accredited NGOs monitored by the
DSWD (R.A. 9344, Sec. 20). It is manifested through:
i. Manner of committing the crime
Neglected Child ii. Conduct of the offender
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up
to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits Discernment Intent
parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and Refers to moral Refers to the desired
serious illegal detention where the victim is significance the act of the person
killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, person ascribes to
destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the act
the driver or occupant is killed or raped or
offenses under Republic Act No. 9165 After initial investigation, the local social worker
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) may:
punishable by more than twelve (12) years of a. Proceed in accordance with Section 20 if the
imprisonment, shall be deemed a neglected child is fifteen (15) years or below or above
child under Presidential Decree No. 603, as fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years old,
amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in a who acted without discernment; and
special facility within the youth care faculty or b.If the child is above fifteen (15) years old but
Bahay Pag-asa called the Intensive Juvenile below eighteen (18) and who acted with
Intervention and Support Center (IJISC) (R.A. discernment, proceed to diversion under the
9344, Sec. 20-A). following without undergoing court proceedings
subject to the following conditions: (R.A. 9344,
A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up Sec. 23)
to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits an i. Where the imposable penalty is not more than
offense for the second time or oftener: Provided, six (6) years of imprisonment, the Punong
That the child was previously subjected to a Barangay or law enforcement officer shall
community-based intervention program, shall be conduct mediation, family conferencing and
deemed a neglected child under Presidential conciliation.
Decree No. 603, as amended, and shall ii. Where the imposable penalty exceeds six (6)
undergo an intensive intervention program years imprisonment, diversion measures may
supervised by the local social welfare and be resorted to only by the court.
development officer: Provided, further, That, if
the best interest of the child requires that he/she 2. Exemption from criminal liability herein
be placed in a youth care facility or Bahay Pag- established does not include exemption from civil
asa, the childs parents or guardians shall liability.
execute a written authorization for the voluntary
commitment of the child: Provided, finally, That if 3. Determination of age The child in conflict with
the child has no parents or guardians or if they the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority
refuse or fail to execute the written authorization until he/she is proven to be 18 years old or older
for voluntary commitment, the proper petition for (R.A. 9344, Sec. 7, par.1).
involuntary commitment shall be immediately
filed by the DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant to The age of a child may be determined from:
26
a. Child's birth certificate; liability resulting from the commission of the
b. Baptismal certificate; or offense (R.A. 9344, Sec. 39).
c. Any other pertinent documents.
7. Status Offenses refers to any conduct not
In the absence of these documents, age may be considered an offense or not penalized if
based on information from the child committed by an adult shall not be considered an
himself/herself, testimonies of other persons, the offense and shall not be punished if committed by
physical appearance of the child and other a child.
relevant evidence.
8. Offenses not applicable to children Persons
In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall below 18 years of age shall be exempt from
be resolved in his/her favor. prosecution for the crime of:
a. Vagrancy and Prostitution (RPC,Art. 202);
Any person contesting the age of the child in b.Mendicancy (P.D. No. 1563); and
conflict with the law may:
a. If the case against the child has not yet been c. Sniffing of Rugby (P.D. No. 1619).
filed file a case in a summary proceeding for PROVIDED, that said persons shall undergo
the determination of age prior to the filing of the appropriate counseling and treatment program
information in any appropriate court before the
Family Court which shall decide the case within Summary of Rules
twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the If the judgment is an acquittal, the decision shall
appropriate pleadings of all interested parties. immediately take effect without suspension and the
b. If a case has been fiied against the child in decision shall be promulgated and pronounced.
conflict with the law and is pending in the
appropriate court - file a motion to determine the If the judgment is conviction, the promulgation of the
age of the child in the same court where the decision and the sentence shall be suspended by
case is pending. Pending hearing on the said the court, the minor shall be ordered to undergo
motion, proceedings on the main case shall be intervention, which shall have the following effects:
suspended. a. If after the intervention, there is reform on the part
of the minor, the minor shall be returned to the
4. The prosecutor shall conduct a preliminary court to dismiss the criminal case and dismiss the
investigation and file an information upon charges against the minor.
determination of probable cause in the following b. If after the intervention, there is no reform, the
instances (R.A. 9344, Sec. 33): minor shall be returned to the court for the
a.When the child in conflict with the law does not promulgation of the decision against the minor;
qualify for diversion; and then the court shall either decide on the
b.When the child, his/her parents or guardian sentence or extend the intervention.
does not agree to diversion; and
c.Upon determination by the prosecutor that Note: Only when there is (1) refusal to be subjected
diversion is not appropriate for the child in to reformation or (2) when there is failure to reform
conflict with the law. can the child be subjected to criminal prosecution
and the judicial system.
5. Automatic Suspension of Sentence Once the
child who is under 18 years of age at the time of Basis: Complete absence or lack of intelligence.
commission of the offense is found guilty of the
offense charged, the court shall determine and Par. 4. Accident without fault or intention of
ascertain any civil liability which may have causing it
resulted from the offense committees. However,
instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, Accident
the court shall place the child in conflict with law It is an occurrence that happens outside the sway of
under suspended sentence, without need of our will, and although it comes about through some
application and impose the appropriate disposition act of our will, it lies beyond the bounds of humanly
measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule foreseeable consequences (REYES, Book One,
on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (R.A. 9344, supra at 231).
Sec. 38).
Elements: (LDMW)
6. Upon recommendation of the social worker who 1. A person is performing a lawful act;
has custody of the child, the court shall order the 2. With due care;
final discharge of the child. The discharge of the 3. He causes injury to another by mere accident; and
child in conflict with the law shall not affect the civil 4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
27
Basis: Lack of negligence and intent. Must have been made May be generated by
to operate directly a threatened act
Par. 5. A person who acts under the compulsion upon the person of directed to a 3rd
of an irresistible force the accused person, e.g. the wife
of the accused who
Elements: (PIT) was kidnapped
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical The injury feared may The evil feared must
force; be of a lesser degree be greater or at least
2. That the physical force must be irresistible; and than the damage equal to the damage
3. That the physical force must come from a third caused by the caused to avoid it.
person. accused.
Passion and obfuscation cannot amount to

irresistible force (REYES, Book One, supra at 235). Par. 7. Insuperable cause
The force must be so irresistible as to reduce the Insuperable cause

actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without It is some motive which has lawfully, morally or
will but against his will (People v. Loreno, G.R. No. physically prevented a person to do what the law
L-54414, July 9, 1984). commands.
The person who used the force or created the fear is It applies to felonies by omission (BOADO, supra at
criminally and primarily civilly liable, but the accused 130).
who performed the act involuntarily and under
duress is still secondarily liable (RPC, Art. 101). Elements: (RFI)
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
Basis: Complete absence of freedom. 2. That a person fails to perform such act; and
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to
Par. 6. Uncontrollable fear some lawful or insuperable cause.
Elements: Illustrations:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil The municipal president detained the offended party
greater than, or at least equal to, that which he is for three days because to take him to the nearest
required to commit; and justice of the peace required a journey for three
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and days by boat as there was no other means of
imminence that the ordinary man would have transportation. The distance which required a
succumbed to it (US v. Elicanal, G.R. No. 11439, journey for three days was considered an
October 28, 1916). insuperable cause (US v. Vicentillo, G.R. No. 6082,
March 18, 1911).
Duress as a valid defense should be based on real,
imminent, or reasonable fear for ones life or limb Note: Under the law, the person arrested incident to
and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote arrest must be delivered to the nearest judicial
fear (People v. Borja, G.R. No. L-22947, July 12, authority at most within 36 hours under Art. 125
1979). RPC; otherwise, the public officer will be liable delay
in the delivery to judicial authorities (US v. Vicentillo,
The compulsion must be of such character as to G.R. No. 6082, March 18, 1911).
leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or
self-defense in equal combat (People v. Baldogo, A mother who at the time of childbirth was overcome
G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003). by severe dizziness and extreme debility, and left
the child in a thicket where said child died, is not
It must presuppose intimidation or threat, not force liable for infanticide because it was physically
or violence. impossible for her to take home the child (People v.
Bandian, G.R. No. 45186, September 30, 1936).
Basis: Complete absence of freedom.
The severe dizziness and extreme debility of the
Irresistible Force Uncontrollable Fear woman constitute an insuperable cause (People v.
Offender uses Offender employs Bandian, G.R. No. 45186, September 30, 1936).
violence or physical intimidation or threat
force to compel in compelling another Basis: Lack of intent
another person to to commit a crime.
commit a crime.
28
Absolutory Causes are those where the act crime committed: the former, as principal by
committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy induction; and the latter, as principal by direct
and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed participation (Id.).
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 115).
Examples of Absolutory Causes: (DELIMA2-T2) CHAPTER THREE

1.Spontaneous desistance (Art. 6); CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE
2.Attempted or frustrated light felonies (Art. 7); CRIMINAL LIABILITY
3.Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability
by reason or relationship (Art. 20) and in light ARTICLE 13
felonies; MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
4.Slight or less serious physical injuries inflicted
under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247); Mitigating Circumstances
5.Persons exempt from criminal liability for theft, Those which if present in the commission of the
swindling and malicious mischief (Art. 332); crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal
6.Instigation; liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty
7.Trespass to dwelling when the purpose of entering (REYES, Book One, supra at. 249-250).
anothers dwelling against the latters will is to
prevent some serious harm to himself, the A mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact
occupants of the dwelling or a third person, or for absorbs all the other mitigating circumstances
the purpose of rendering some service to arising from the same fact.
humanity or justice, or when entering cafes,
taverns, inns and other public houses, while the Ordinary Mitigating Privileged Mitigating
same are open (Art. 280, par. 2); Circumstance Circumstance
8.Marriage of the offender and the offended party in Source
cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
Subsections 2-10 of Subsection 1 of Art.
lasciviousness and rape (Art. 344);
Art. 13 (RPC) 13 of RPC, Arts. 68,
9.Adultery and concubinage if the offended party
69 and 64 of RPC
shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
Paragraphs 1 and 2
(Art. 344)
are privileged Article 64 applies only
mitigating under when there are two or
Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-
Article 68 as more ordinary
bust operation conducted in connection with illegal
amended by R.A mitigating
drug-related offenses is a form of entrapment
9344 and Article 69. circumstances without
any generic
Subsection 1 of Art. aggravating
Entrapment Instigation 13 are ordinary circumstances.
Ways and means Instigator induces mitigating
are resorted to for the would-be circumstance, if Art.
the capture of accused to commit 49 is not applicable.
lawbreaker in the the crime, hence he
As to the effect
execution of his becomes a co-
criminal plan. principal. If not offset (by a It operates to reduce
The means The law enforcer generic aggravating the penalty by one or
originates from the conceives the circumstance) it will two degrees.
mind of the criminal. commission of the operate to have the
crime and suggests penalty imposed at its
to the accused who minimum period,
adopts the idea and provided the penalty
carries it into is a divisible one.
execution. As to offset
Not a bar to the It will result in the May be offset by Cannot be offset by a
prosecution and acquittal of the generic aggravating generic aggravating
conviction of the accused. circumstance. circumstance.
lawbreaker.
Note: In self-defense, defense of a relative or
defense of a stranger, it is essential that unlawful
If the one who made the instigation is a private aggression be present, otherwise there can be no
individual, not performing public function, both he must be unlawful aggression and any of the two
and the one induced are criminally liable for the remaining elements. Under Art. 69 of RPC, when
29
only unlawful aggression is present, the accused is Chapter 2 of R.A. 9344 (REYES, Book One, supra
entitled to a penalty lower in degree. If unlawful at 263).
aggression and any of the remaining two elements
are present, the accused is entitled to two degrees Diversion
lower (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 120). It is an alternative, child-appropriate process of
determining the responsibility and treatment of
Par. 1. Incomplete justifying or exempting child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her
circumstances social, cultural, economic, pyschological or
educational background without resulting to formal
Applies when all the requisites necessary to justify court proceedings (RA 9344,Sec 4[j]).
the act or to exempt from criminal liability are NOT
attendant. Provided, majority of the requisites are 6. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
present. accident under par. 4 of Article 12 there are
1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, four requisites, namely:
and defense of a stranger - unlawful a. A person is performing a lawful act;
aggression must be present, it being an b. With due care;
indispensable requisite. It is considered ordinary c. He causes an injury to another by mere
mitigating circumstance if only unlawful accident; and
aggression is present. When two of the three d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
requisities (i.e., unlawful aggression and any one
of the other two), the case should be considered a If the requisites (b) with due care and (d) without
privileged mitigating circumstance referred to in fault are absent Art. 365, in effect there is a
Art. 69 of this Code (REYES, Book One, supra at mitigating circumstance because the penalty is
255). lower than that provided for intentional felony
2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of If the requisites (a) a person is performing a lawful

avoidance of greater evil or injury if any of act and (d) without intention of causing the
the last two requisites is absent (i.e., injury feared accident are absent, (positively stated, the person
be greater than that to avoid it or there be no other committed an unlawful act and had the intention of
practical and less harmful means of preventing it). causing the injury) intentional felony (REYES,
3. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
performance of duty in People v. Oanis, when 7. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
one of the two requisites under par. 5 of Art. 11 uncontrollable fear If only one of the two
was present, Article 69 was applied. Thus, when requisites are present there is only a mitigating
the justifying or exempting circumstance has two circumstance. In People v. Magpantay (C.A., 46
requisites only, it seems that there is no ordinary O.G. 1655) the accused was entitled to the
mitigating circumstance in this case but a mitigating circumstance of grave fear, not entirely
privileged mitigating circumstance. uncontrollable, under par. 1 of Art. 13 in
connection with par. 16 of Art. 12 of the RPC the
4. Incomplete justifying circumstance of fear of the accused was not entirely uncontrollable
obedience to an order the order must always for had he not been so hasty and had he stopped
be from a superior. a few seconds to think, he would have ascertained
that there was no imminent danger.
5. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
minority over 9 and under 15 years of age Par. 2. Over 15 and under 18, if there is
under R.A. 9344, a child below 15 years but below discernment, or over 70 years old
18 years of age shall be exempt from criminal
liability UNLESS he/she acted with discernment It is the age of the accused at the time of the
(R.A. 9344, Sec. 6). In other words, where before, commission of the crime which should be
an offender 15 years or over but under 18 is determined. His age at the time of the trial is
entitled only to the benefits provided under Art. 68 immaterial.
of RPC, under RA 9344, such offender may be
exempt from criminal liability should he/she acted Legal effects of various ages of offender
without discernment. 15 and below Exempting
On the other hand, if such offender acted with

discernment, such child in conflict with the law
shall undergo diversion programs provided under
30
Above 15 but Exempting, unless acted of skill in culpable felonies (REYES, Book One,
under 18 with discernment. But even supra at 273).
with discernment, penalty is 2. Not applicable to felonies where intention is
reduced by one (1) degree immaterial (REYES, Book One, supra at 273);
lower than that imposed 3. Not appreciated in murder qualified by
(RPC, Art 68, par. 2, treachery (People v. Pajenado, G.R. No. L-26458,
amended by R.A. 9344) January 30, 1976); and
Note: In crimes against persons who do not die as
Child in conflict Sentence suspended (RPC, a result of the assault, the absence of intent to kill
with the law Art. 192, R.A. 9344 as reduces the felony to mere physical injuries, but it
under 18 years amended by R.A. 10630) does not constitute a mitigating circumstance
of age who (People v. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1207).
acted with 4. Not appreciated in cases where there is no
discernment material harm done.
18 years or over Full criminal responsibility Note: Applicable only to offenses resulting in
70 years or over Mitigating, no imposition of physical injuries or material harm (REYES, Book
death penalty; if already One, supra at 273).
imposed, execution of death
penalty is suspended and Intent at the time of the commission of the felony,
commuted (ESTRADA, not during the planning stage, should be considered
Book One, supra at 121) (People v. Boyles, G.R. No. L-30849, March 29,
1982).
Child in Conflict with the Law
It refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or Basis: Diminution of intent.
adjudged as, having committed an offense under
Philippine laws. Par. 4. Provocation or threat
Basis: Diminution of intelligence. Provocation

It is any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
Par. 3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong offended party, capable of exciting, inciting or
(Praeter Intentionem) irritating any one (REYES, Book One, supra at 274).
Rule for the application: Can be taken into Requisites: (SOPI)

account only when the facts proven show that there 1. The provocation must be sufficient;
is a notable and evident disproportion between the
means employed to execute the criminal act and its Sufficient
consequences (US v. Reyes, G.R. No. 12635, It means adequate to excite a person to commit a
September 25, 1917). wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to
its gravity (People v. Nabora, G.R. No. 48101,
If the resulting felony could be expected from the November 22, 1941).
means employed, this circumstance cannot be
availed of. As to whether or not the provocation is sufficient
depends upon:
Intention may be ascertained by considering: a. The act constituting the provocation;
(WIMB) b.The social standing of the person provoked; and
1. The weapon used; c. The place and time when the provocation is
2. The injury inflicted; made (REYES, Book One, supra at 274).
3. The manner it is inflicted; and
4. The part of the body injured (ESTRADA, Book 2. It must originate from the offended party;
One, supra at 122). 3. The provocation must be personal and directed to
the accused; and
Instances When the Rule on Praeter Intentionem 4. That the provocation must be immediate to the
Would NOT be Applicable act, or the commission of the crime.
1. Not applicable to felonies by negligence
When the aggression is in retaliation for an insult,
(People v. Medina, C.A., 40 O.G. 4196);
injury or threat, the offender cannot successfully
Note: The reason is that in felonies through
claim self-defense, but at most he can be given
negligence, the offender acts without intent. The
the benefit of mitigating circumstance (US v.
intent in intentional felonies is replaced by
Carrero, G.R. No. 3956, January 10, 1908).
negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack
31
The threat should not be offensive and positively Requisites:
strong. Otherwise, the threat to inflict real injury is 1. That there be an act, both unlawful and
an unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self- sufficient to produce such a condition of mind;
defense (US v. Guysayco, G.R. No. 4912, March 25, 2. That said act which produced the obfuscation
1909). was not far removed from the commission of the
crime by a considerable length of time, during
The liability of the accused is mitigated only insofar which the perpetrator might recover his normal
as it concerns the harm inflicted upon the person equanimity; and
who made the provocation, but not with regard to 3. The act causing such obfuscation was
the other victims who did not participate in the committed by the victim himself (ESTRADA, Book
provocation (US v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 3964, One, supra at 125).
November 26, 1907).
It is a mitigating circumstance only when the same
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent. arises from lawful sentiments (People v. Bates, G.R.
No. 139907, March 28, 2003).
Provocation as
Provocation as
Requisite of It may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the
Mitigating
Incomplete Self- honest belief of the offender (US v Macalintal, G.R.
Circumstance
Defense No. 1331, August 25, 1903).
It pertains to its It pertains to its
absence on the presence on the part The act of the offended party must be unlawful or
part of the person of the offended party unjust (US v. Taylor, G.R. No. 2309, April 19, 1906).
defending himself. (People v. CA, G.R. Exercise of a right or fulfillment of duty is not a
No. 103613, proper source of passion and obfuscation (People v.
February 23, 2001). Noynay and Ruiz, G.R. No. 38715, September 15,
1933).
Par. 5. Vindication of grave offense
Requisites: This mitigating circumstance may be appreciated
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one even if the reported act causing the obfuscation was
committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, not true, as long as it was honestly and reasonably
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted believed by the accused to be true (People v.
brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the Guhiting, G.R. No. L-2843, May 14, 1951).
same degrees; and
2. That the felony is committed in immediate There is passion or obfuscation when the crime was
vindication of such grave offense. committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts due to a
Immediate allows for a lapse of time as long as the legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome
offender is still suffering from the mental agony reason (People v. Danafrata, G.R. No. 143010,
brought about by the offense to him (ESTRADA, September 30, 2003).
Passion or obfuscation is not mitigating when the
Grave offense includes any act that is offensive to relations between the parties are illegitimate. The
the offender or his relatives and the same need not mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in
be unlawful (People v. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042, favor of an accused when the relationship between
February 13, 1975). him and the deceased is illicit, because the causes
which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of
The grave offense must be the proximate cause or self-control are such which originate from legitimate
proximate to the act of the offender. feelings, and not those which arise from vicious,
unworthy and immoral passions (US v. Hicks, G.R.
Factors to determine gravity of offense in No. 4871, September 23, 1909).
vindication:
1. Social standing of the person; To be mitigating, it is important to establish an act
2. Place; and that is sufficient to produce a condition of mind to
3. Time when the insult was made (REYES, Book commit a felony or a crime (ESTRADA, Book One,
One, supra at 283). supra at 125).
Basis: Diminution of the conditions of voluntariness.
Par. 6. Passion or obfuscation
32
Mitigating physical force.
Not Mitigating when:
circumstance when:
Passion or obfuscation It must come from a
The accused acted The act is committed
is in the offender third person.
upon an impulse. in a spirit of
himself.
lawlessness.
It must arise from It is unlawful.
The impulse must be The act is committed
lawful sentiments
so powerful that it in a spirit of revenge.
naturally produced
Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with:
passion or obfuscation
1. Vindication of grave offense;
in him.
2. Evident premeditation;
Passion/Obfuscation Provocation Note: The essence of evident premeditation is
that the execution of the criminal act must be
Produced by an The provocation must preceded by calm thought and reflection upon the
impulse which may be come from the injured resolution to carry out the criminal intent during
caused by provocation party. the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
Offense which Must immediately composed judgement (People v. Pagal, G.R. No.
engenders perturbation precede the L-32040, October 25, 1977).
of mind need not be commission of the 3. Treachery; and
immediate. It is only crime. Note: Passion or obfuscation cannot co-exist with
required that the treachery, for while in the mitigating circumstance
influence thereof lasts of passion or obfuscation the offender loses his
until the moment the reason and self-control, in the aggravating
crime is committed. circumstance of treachery, the mode of attack
The effect is loss of reason and self-control on must be consciously adopted (People v. Wong, 18
the part of the offender. CAR [2s] 934, 940-941).
4. Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong
If obfuscation and provocation arose from one (People v. Cabel, 5 CAR l2s] 507, 515).
and the same act, both shall be treated as only
one mitigating circumstance. Basis: Diminution of intelligence of intent.
Provocation Vindication Par. 7. Surrender and confession of guilt

It is made directly only The grave offense may
to the person be committed also Two mitigating circumstances:
committing the felony. against the offenders 1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his
relatives mentioned by agents; and
law. 2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior
The cause that The offended party to the presentation of evidence for the
brought about the must have done a prosecution.
provocation need not grave offense to the
be a grave offense. offender or his If both are present, there will be two independent
relatives mentioned by ordinary mitigating circumstances.
law.
It is necessary that the The vindication of the Requisites of voluntary surrender: (NSV)
provocation or threat grave offense may be 1. That the offender had not been actually arrested;
immediately preceded proximate, which 2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person
the act. admits of an interval of in authority or to the latters agent; and
time. 3. That the surrender was voluntary (Estacio v.
It is mere spite against It concerns the honor Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 75362, March 6, 1990).
the one giving the of a person.
provocation or threat. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the same
must be spontaneous in such a manner that it
shows the interest of the accused to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because he
Passion/Obfuscation Irresistible Force acknowledge is guilt or because he wishes to save
them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred
Mitigating Exempting in his search and capture (People v. Gervacio, G.R.
circumstance circumstance No. L-21965, August 30, 1968).
It cannot give rise to It requires physical
irresistible force as it force. Cases NOT Constituting Voluntary Surrender
does not involve
33
1. The accused surrendered only after warrant of 2. That the confession of guilt was made in open
arrest was served upon him (People v. Roldan, court, that is, before the competent court that is to
G.R. No. L-22030, May 28, 1968); try the case;
2. Where the accused was actually arrested by his 3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the
own admission or that he yielded because of the presentation of evidence for the prosecution; and
warrant of arrest, although the police blotter used 4. That the confession of guilt was to the offense
the word surrender (People v. Velez, G.R. No. L- charged in the information.
30038, July 18, 1974);
3. Where the accused only went to the police station Plea of guilty is not mitigating in culpable felonies
to report that his wife was stabbed by another and in crimes punished by special laws (REYES,
person and to seek protection as he feared that Book One, supra at 319).
the same assailant would also stab him (People v.
Trigo, G.R. No. 74531, November 30, 1962). Where in the original information the accused
pleaded not guilty, but he pleaded guilty to the
Note: The fact that the order of arrest has already amended information, it is considered a voluntary
been issued is no bar in the consideration of the plea of guilty and considered a mitigating
circumstance because the law does not require that circumstance (People v. Ortiz, G.R. No. L-19585,
surrender be prior the arrest (Rivera v. CA, G.R. No. Nov. 29, 1965).
125867, May 31, 2000).
The plea of guilty must be made at the first
Person in authority opportunity. Thus, plea of guilty in the CFI (now
He is one directly vested with jurisdiction which is RTC) in a case appealed from MTC is NOT
the power to govern and to execute the laws, mitigating (People v. Herminio, G.R. No. 45466,
whether as an individual or as a member of some June 30, 1937).
court or governmental corporation, board or
commission (RPC, Art. 152, as amended by RA Basis: Lesser perversity of the offender.
1978).
Par. 8. Physical defect of offender
Agent of a person in authority
He is one who by direct provision of the law or by When the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or
election or by appointment by competent authority, otherwise suffering from some physical defect,
is charged with the maintenance of public order and restricting his means of action, defense or
the protection and security of life and property and communication with others.
any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority (Id.). The physical defect must relate to the offense
committed. In other words, the defect or illness must
Instances of Voluntary Surrender: be a contributing factor to the commission of the
1. It must be spontaneous. crime. Without such relation, the defect or illness
2. Intent of the accused to submit himself should not be considered (BOADO, supra at 142),
unconditionally to the authorities must be either e.g. blindness does not mitigate estafa.
because:
a. He acknowledges his guilt; or Dumb - means lacking the power of human
b. He wishes to save them the trouble and speech.
expense necessarily incurred in his search and
capture. This paragraph does not distinguish between the
3. The conduct of the accused determines the educated and uneducated person with physical
spontaneity of the arrest. defect.
4. Intention to surrender without actually
surrendering is not mitigating. Basis: Diminution of freedom of action, therefore
5. Not mitigating when defendant was in fact diminution of voluntariness.
arrested.
6. It is not required that, to be appreciated, it be prior
to the issuance of a warrant of arrest (People v.
Turalba, G.R. No. L-29118, February 28, 1974).
7. Surrender of weapons cannot be equated with Par. 9. Illness of the offender
voluntary surrender.
Requisites:
Requisites of voluntary plea of guilty: (SOPO) 1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the
1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his exercise of his will-power; and
guilt;
34
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender Specific Mitigating Circumstances
of consciousness of his acts. 1. Illegal detention (voluntary release within 3 days;
without attaining purpose; before criminal action);
Includes illness of the mind not amounting to 2. Adultery (abandonment of spouse); and
insanity (REYES, Book One, supra at 321).
Kleptomania, feeblemindedness, mistaken belief
3. Infanticide/abortion (intent to conceal dishonor of
that killing witches was for public good and illness of mother).
nerves or moral faculty may be considered as
mitigating circumstances under this subparagraph Aggravating Circumstances
(REYES, Book One, supra at 321-322). CHAPTER FOUR
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH AGGRAVATE
Basis: Diminution of intelligence and intent. CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Par. 10. Similar or Analogous Circumstances

Those which, if attendant in the commission of the
Examples: crime, serve to have the penalty imposed in its
1. Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and maximum period provided by law for the offense or
obfuscation (People v. Ubengen, C.A., 36 O.G. change the nature of the crime (ESTRADA, Book
763); One, supra at 133).
2. Manifestations of Battered Wife Syndrome,
analogous to an illness that diminishes the Basis: Greater perversity of the offender manifested
exercise of will power (People v. Genosa, G.R. in the commission of the felony as shown by:
No. 135981, January 14, 2004); 1. The motivating power itself;
3. Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar to over 2. The place of the commission;
70 years of age under par. 2 (People v. Reantillo 3. The means and ways employed;
and Ruiz, C.A, G.R. No. 301, July 27, 1938); 4. The time; or
4. The act of the accused leading the law enforcers 5. The personal circumstances of the offender, or the
to the place where he buried the instruments he offended party (REYES, Book One at 328).
used to commit the crime is similar to voluntary
surrender; Kinds of aggravating circumstances:
5. Extreme poverty, as similar to a state of necessity, 1. Generic those that can generally apply to all
which may apply to crimes against property but crimes found under subparagraphs 1, 2, 3
not of violence, such as murder (People v. (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 20 except by
Agustin, G.R. No. L-18368, March 31, 1966); means of motor vehicle: (CAD-PRAN-HUCBU)
6. Outraged feeling of unpaid creditor, as akin to a.Contempt or insult of public authority
vindication or obfuscation (People v. Merenillo, b.Taking Advantage taken of public position;
C.A., 36 O.G. 2283); c.Crime committed in the Dwelling of the offended
7. Appeal to the esprit de corps of the accused, as party;
analogous to passion; d.Palace and place of commission of offense;
8. Wartime state of confusion resulting in illegal e.Recidivism;
possession of firearm after the liberation, as being f. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness;
similar to lack of intent to commit so grave a g.Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band;
wrong; h.Habituality;
9. Voluntary return of funds malversed by the i. Unlawful entry;
accused, as equivalent to voluntary surrender; j. Craft, fraud, or disguise;
and k.Breaking of parts of the house; and
10.Testifying for the prosecution without being l. Use of persons under 15 years of age (Id. at
discharged from the information, as being like a 133).
plea of guilty.
2. Specific those which apply only to specific
Circumstances which are neither exempting nor crimes, such as ignominy in crimes against
mitigating: chastity and cruelty and treachery which are
1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus; applicable only to crimes against persons found
under subparagraphs 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16,
2. Mistake in the identity; 17 and 21: (RATIC)
3. Entrapment; a.Disregard of Rank, age, or sex due the offended
4. Accused is over 18 years of age; and party in crimes against persons and honor;
5. Performance of righteous action (REYES, Book b.Abuse of superior strength or means be
One, supra at 327). employed to weaken the defense;
c.Treachery in crimes against persons;
35
d.Ignominy in crimes against chastity; and a. They constitute a crime specially punishable by
e.Cruelty in crimes against persons (Id. at 133- law; or
134). b.They are included by the law in defining a crime
3.Qualifying those that change the nature of the and prescribing a penalty therefore (Id. at 135).
crime:
a. Alevosia (treachery) or evident premeditation Example: That the crime be committed by means
qualifies the killing of a person to murder; and of fire, explosion (RPC, Art. 14, par. 12) is in itself
b. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying aggravating a crime of arson (RPC, Art. 321).
circumstances which qualify the killing of a
person to murder. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to
4. Inherent those which of necessity accompany such a degree that it must of necessity
the commission of the crime, therefore not accompany the commission thereof (RPC, Art. 62,
considered in increasing the penalty to be par. 2).
imposed, such as:
a.Evident premeditation in concubinage, robbery, Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in
adultery, theft, estafa (CRATE); theft, robbery, estafa, adultery and concubinage.
b.Abuse of public office in bribery;
c.Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry into a house 3. Aggravating circumstances which arise:
in robbery with the use of force upon things; a. From the moral attributes of the offender;
d.Fraud in estafa; b. From his private relations with the offended
e.Deceit in simple seduction; party; or
f. Ignominy in rape (Id. at 134). c. From any personal cause, shall only serve to
aggravate the liability of the principals,
5. Special those which arise under special accomplices and accessories as to whom such
conditions to increase the penalty of the offense circumstances are attendant (RPC, Art. 62, par.
and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances, 3) even if there was conspiracy (Id at 136).
such as: (CUTE-Q)
a.Complex crimes (RPC, Art.48); 4. The circumstances which consist:
b.Use of unlicensed firearm in homicide or a. In the material execution of the act, or
murder; b.In the means employed to accomplish it, shall
c.Taking advantage of public position and serve to aggravate the liability of those persons
membership in an organized/syndicated crime only who had knowledge of them at the time of
group (RPC, Art. 62, Par. 1[a]); the execution of the act or their cooperation
d.Error in personae (RPC, Art.49); and therein (Id.).
e.Quasi-recidivism (RPC, Art.160).
Exception: When there is proof of conspiracy in
Generic Aggravating Qualifying which case the act of one is deemed to be the
Aggravating act of all, regardless of lack of knowledge of the
As to its effect facts constituting the circumstance (RPC, Art.
Increases the penalty Gives the crime its 62, par. 4).
which should be proper and exclusive
imposed upon the name and places the 5. Aggravating circumstances, regardless of its kind,
accused to the author thereof in such should be specifically alleged in the information
maximum period but a situation as to AND proved as fully as the crime itself in order to
without exceeding the deserve no other increase the penalty (RULES OF COURT, Rule
limit prescribed by law penalty than that 110, Sec. 9). Such circumstances are not
specially prescribed by presumed (People v. Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-
law for said crime 65, April 20, 2001).
As to whether it can be offset by a mitigating
circumstance 6. When there is more than one qualifying
May be offset by an Cannot be offset by a aggravating circumstance present, one of them
ordinary mitigating mitigating will be appreciated as qualifying aggravating while
circumstance since it circumstance since it is the others will be considered as generic
is not an ingredient of considered an aggravating.
the crime ingredient of the crime
ARTICLE 14
Rules on aggravating circumstances AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Aggravating circumstances shall not be
appreciated if:
36
Par. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender
of his public position. Knowledge that a public authority is present is
essential. Lack of such knowledge indicates lack of
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown: intention to insult the public authority (REYES, Book
1. By the means of personal circumstance of the One, supra at 342).
offender; or
2. By the means used to secure the commission of If the crime committed is against the public authority
the crime. while in the performance of his duty, the offender
commits direct assault without this aggravating
Applicable only when the offender is a public officer. circumstance.
As a means by which he realizes his purpose, the Par. 3.That the act be committed:
public officer must use: (IPA) 1. With insult or in disregard of the respect due
1. Influence; the offended party on account of his
2. Prestige; or a. rank,
3. Ascendancy (REYES, Book One, supra at 336). b.age, or
c. sex; or
It cannot be taken into consideration in offenses 2. That it be committed in the dwelling of the
where taking advantage of official position is an offended party, if the latter has not given
integral element of a crime (ESTRADA, Book One, provocation.
supra at 138), e.g. malversation under Art. 217.
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown
There must be deliberate intent to use the IPA thus by:
when coupled with circumstances where intent is 1. Personal circumstances of the offended party; and
lacking (i.e., the crime was attendant of negligence, 2. The place of the commission of the crime.
passion or obfuscation, vindication, or sufficient
provocation) this aggravating circumstance cannot Definitions:
be appreciated. The designation or title of
distinction used to fix the
It is also inherent in the case of accessories under Rank of the
relative position of the
Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or assisting in offended party
offended party in reference
the escape of the principal of the crime), and in to others
crimes committed by public officers (RPC, Arts. 204- Age of the May refer to old age or the
245). offended party tender age of the victim
Sex of the Refers to the female sex,
Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt
offended party not to the male sex
of or with insult to the public authorities.
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 141)
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown
by his lack of respect for the public authorities. The four circumstances enumerated can be
considered singly or together.
Requisites: (ExNoKP)
1. That the public authority is engaged in the If all the four circumstances are present, they have
exercise of his functions; the weight of one aggravating circumstance only
2. That the public authority is not the person against (REYES, Book One, supra at 342).
whom the crime is committed;
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority; Disregard of rank, age or sex is essentially
and applicable only to crimes against person or honor
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from and has common denominator which is the respect
committing the criminal act (REYES, Book One, due to the offended party (Id. at 343). Thus, it is not
supra at 340). proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in
crimes against property. Robbery with Homicide is
Teachers or professors of a public or recognized primarily a crime against property and not against
private school and lawyers are not public authority persons. Homicide is a mere incident of robbery, the
within the contemplation of this paragraph latter being the main purpose and object of the
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 139). criminal (People v. Pagal, G.R No. L- 32040,
October 25, 1977).
Par 2 of Art. 14 does not apply when crime is
committed in the presence of an agent of a person Offender must deliberately offend the rank, age or
in authority only. sex of the offended party (People v. Mangsant, G.R.
No. 45704, May 25, 1938).
37
Dwelling is not included in the qualifying
There must be a difference in the social condition of circumstance of treachery (People v. Catapang,
the offender and the offended party (REYES, Book G.R. No. 128126, June 25, 2001).
One, supra at 344).
What aggravates the commission of the crime in
The aggravating circumstance of disregard of ones dwelling:
rank, age, or sex is NOT applicable in the 1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party
following cases: reposed in the offender by opening the door to
1. When the offender acted with passion and him; or
obfuscation (People v. Ibaes, C.A.- G.R. No. 2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by
1137-R, March 20, 1948); trespassing therein with violence or against the
2. When there exists a relationship between the will of the owner.
offended party and the offender (People v.
Valencia, C.A. 43 O.G. 3740); and Dwelling was found aggravating in the following
cases although the crime was committed NOT in
3. When the condition of being a woman is the dwelling of the victims:
indispensable in the commission of the crime (e.g.
abduction, seduction and rape) (People v. Lopez,
1. The victim was raped in the boarding house where
G.R. No. L-14347, April 29, 1960). she was a bedspacer (People v. Daniel, G.R. No.
L-40330, November 20, 1978);
Dwelling 2. The victims were raped in paternal home where
It must be a building or structure, exclusively used they were guests at that time (REYES, Book One,
for rest and comfort. A combination of a house and supra at 355);
a store or a market stall where the victim slept is Note: In People v. Ramolete, (G.R. No. L-28108,
not a dwelling (People v. Magnaye, G.R. No. L- Marc 27, 1974), dwelling was not considered
3510, May 30, 1951). aggravating because the victim was a mere visitor
in the house where he was killed.
Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of the 3. The victims, while sleeping as guests in the house
staircase and enclosure under the house (US v. of another person, were shot to death (People v.
Tapan, G.R. No. 6504 September 11, 1911; People Basa, G.R. No. L-2014, May 18, 1949).
v. Alcala, G.R. No. 18988, December 29, 1922).
Note: The Code speaks of dwelling NOT domicile
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires (People v. Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997).
that the crime be wholly or partly committed therein
or in any integral part thereof. A condition sine qua non of this circumstance is that
the offended party has not given provocation to the
Dwelling does not mean the permanent residence or offender (People v. Ambis, G.R. No.
domicile of the offended party or that he must be the 46298,September 30, 1939).
owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living
or dwelling therein even for a temporary duration or Meaning of provocation in the aggravating
purpose (People v. Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May circumstance of dwelling:
14, 1997). The provocation must be: (GSI)
1.Given by the owner of the dwelling;
It is not necessary that the accused should have 2.Sufficient; and
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit 3.Immediate to the commission of the crime.
the offense. It is enough that the victim was attacked
inside his own abode, although the assailant might If all these conditions are present, it is not an
have devised means to perpetrate the assault from aggravating circumstance.
the outside (People v. Bagsit, G.R. No. 148877
,August 19, 2003). The provocation must also have a close relation to
the commission of the crime in the dwelling (People
Even if the killing took place outside the dwelling, it v. Dequia, G.R. No. 41040, August 9, 1934).
is aggravating provided that the commission of the
crime began in the dwelling. Reason: When it is the offended party who has
provoked the incident, he loses his right to the
In People v. Balansi (G.R. No. 77284, July 19, respect and consideration due him in his own house
1990), it was held that the victim need not be the (People v. Ambis, G.R. No. 46298,September 30,
owner or occupant of the dwelling where he was 1939).
shot.
Dwelling is NOT aggravating in the following
cases:
38
1. When both the offender and the offended party moment he made the indecent proposal and
are occupants of the same house (People v. offended her with a kiss. Held: The confidence must
Caliso, G.R. No. 37271, July 1, 1933); facilitate the commission of the crime, the culprit
taking advantage of the offended partys belief that
Exception: In case of adultery in the conjugal the former would not abuse said confidence (Id.).
dwelling, the same is aggravating. However, if the
paramour also dwells in the conjugal dwelling, the The confidence between the offender and the
applicable aggravating circumstance is abuse of offended party must be immediate and personal
confidence (US v. Ibaez, G.R. No. 10672, (People v. Arojado, G.R. No. 130492, January 21,
October 26, 1915). 2001).
2. When robbery is committed by the use of force It is not a mere betrayal of trust, since the offended
upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because it party must be the one who actually reposed his
is inherent (US v. Cas, G.R. No. 5071, August 18, confidence in the offender.
1909);
Note: Abuse of confidence is inherent in: (STEM)
But dwelling is aggravating in robbery with 1. Qualified seduction (RPC, Art. 337).
violence against or intimidation of persons 2. Qualified theft (RPC, Art. 310);
because this class of robbery can be committed 3. Estafa by conversion or misappropriation (RPC,
without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of Art. 315); and
the offended partys house (People v. Cabato, 4. Malversation (RPC, Art. 217);
G.R. No. L-37400, April 12, 1988).
Requisites of obvious ungratefulness: (TAOU)
Dwelling is not inherent, hence aggravating, in 1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
Robbery with Homicide since the author thereof 2. That the offender abused such trust by committing
could have accomplished his heinous deed a crime against the offended party; and
without having to violate the domicile of the victim 3. That the act be committed with obvious
(People v. Mesias, G.R. No. 67823, July 9, 1991). ungratefulness.
3. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is inherent The ungratefulness contemplated by par. 4 must be
or included by law in defining the crime (REYES, such obvious, clear and manifest ingratitude on the
Book One, supra at 355); part of the accused (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient 145).
and immediate provocation (Id.); and
5. The victim is not a dweller of the house (Id.). When Obvious Ungratefulness is Present:
1. When the accused killed his father-in-law in
Par. 4.That the act be committed with whose house he lived and who partially supported
1. Abuse of confidence; or him (People v. Floresca, G.R. Nos. L-8614-15,
2. Obvious ungratefulness. May 31, 1956);
2. When the victim was suddenly attacked while in
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown the act of giving the assailants their bread and
by the means and ways employed (Id.). coffee for breakfast (People v. Bautista, G.R No.
L-38624, July 25, 1975); and
Par. 4 provides two aggravating circumstances 3. When the accused was living in the house of the
which, if present in the same case must be victim who employed him as an overseer and in
independently appreciated. charge of carpentry work, and had free access to
Requisites of abuse of confidence: (TAF) the house of the victim who was very kind to him,
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender; his family, and who helped him solve his problems
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing (People v. Lupango, G.R. No. L-32633, November
a crime against the offended party; and 12, 1981).
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the
commission of the crime (People v. Luchico, G.R. Par. 5.That the crime be committed:
No. 26170, December 6, 1926). 1. In the palace of the Chief Executive;
2. In his presence;
Illustration: After preliminary advances of the 3. Where public authorities are engaged in the
master, the female servant refused and fled. The discharge of their duties; or
master followed and after catching up with her, 4. In a place dedicated to religious worship.
threw her to the ground and committed the crime of
rape. When the master raped the offended party, Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown
she had already lost her confidence in him from the by the place of the commission of the crime, which
39
must be respected (REYES, Book One, supra at Basis: The time and place of the commission of the
361). crime and means and ways employed (REYES,
Must be dedicated to public religious worship;
private chapels not included. There are three aggravating circumstances in this
paragraph.
There must be intention to desecrate the place
dedicated to public religious worship and hold said When present in the same case and their element
worship regularly in said place (People v. Jaurigue, are distinctly palpable and can subsist
G.R. No. CA. No. 384, February 21, 1946). independently, they shall be considered separately
(People v. Santos, G.R. No. L-4189, May 21, 1952).
The President or Chief Executive need not be in the
Palace to aggravate the liability of the offender Not applicable when the mitigating circumstances of
under no. 2 above. As long as he was present, and passion or obfuscation or sufficient provocation are
his presence is known to the accused when he did present in the commission of the crime.
the crime, there is aggravating circumstance
(REYES, Book One, supra at 361). When nighttime, uninhabited place or band
aggravating:
Except for the third which requires that official 1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime
functions are being performed at the time of the (objective);
commission of the crime, the other places 2. When especially sought for by the offender to
mentioned are aggravating per se even if no official insure the commission of the crime or for the
duties or acts of religious worship are being purpose of impunity (subjective); or
conducted there. 3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity (subjective).
Cemeteries are not considered as place dedicated
to the worship of God (Id. at 362). That period of
darkness beginning at
Offender must have intention to commit a crime end of dusk and
Nighttime
when he entered the place (People v. Jaurigue, G.R. ending at dawn.
(obscuridad)
No. CA. No. 384, February 21, 1946). Nights are from
sunset to sunrise
An electoral precinct or polling place during election (CIVIL CODE, Art. 13)
day is a place where public authorities are engaged One where there are
in the discharge of their duties (People v. Canoy, no houses at all; a
G.R. No. L- 6037, September 30, 1954). place at a
considerable distance
Par. 5. Where Public Uninhabited place from town, or where
Authorities are Par. 2. Contempt or (despoblado) the houses are
Engaged in the Insult to Public scattered at a great
Discharge of their Authorities distance from each
Duties other (REYES, Book
Public authorities are in the performance of their One, supra at 369)
duties. Whenever more than
Place where public duty is performed three (i.e. at least four
In their office Outside of their office (4)) armed
malefactors shall
The offended party Band (en cuadrilla) have acted together in
May or may not be the Public authority should the commission of an
public authority not be the offended offense, it shall be
party. deemed committed by
a band (Id. at 372).
Par. 6.That the crime be committed
1. In the nighttime; 1. Nighttime
2. In an uninhabited place; or It is necessary that the commission of the crime
3. By a band, whenever such circumstance may began and was completed at nighttime (US v.
facilitate the commission of the offense. Dowdell, G.R. No. 4191, July 28, 1908).
When the place of the crime is illuminated by light,

nighttime is not aggravating (People v. Moral, G.R
40
No. L- 31139, October 12, 1989). llumination may encounters (People v. Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789,
come from moon, torch, or gasera. HOWEVER, in April 25, 1969).
People v. Berbal, et.al. (G. R. No. 71527, August
10, 1989), the Court held that the fact that 3. Band
matchstick was used does not negate the The four (4) armed persons contemplated in this
presence of this aggravating circumstance. Also, circumstance must all be principals by direct
in People v. Soriano (G.R. No. L- 32244, June 24, participation who acted together in the execution
1983), the Court rejected the contention that of the acts constituting the crime (RPC, Art. 17). In
nocturnity cannot be appreciated because the this case, conspiracy is presumed.
flashlights were used.
If conspiracy is proved, this aggravating
It cannot be applied to cases involving an circumstance of cuadrilla can still be appreciated
accidental meeting, a chance encounter or spurs because conspicary is not an aggravating
of the moment. circumstance, but a means to commit a crime.
THUS, one cannot absorb the other (BOADO,
The circumstance of nocturnity, although not supra at 162).
specially sought for, shall aggravate criminal
liability if it facilitated the commission of the If one of them was a principal by inducement, the
offense or the offender took advantage of the aggravating circumstance of having acted with the
same to commit the crime (People v. Luchico, No. aid of armed men may be considered.
26170, December 6, 1926).
It absorbs the aggravating circumstances of abuse
It is not considered as an aggravating of superior strength and use of firearms (except
circumstance when the crime began at daytime. when the firearm has no license or there is a lack
The commission of the crime should begin and of license to carry the firearm) if they are present
end at nighttime (People v. Luchico, supra). in the commission of the crime (People v.
Escabarte, G.R. No. 42964, March 14, 1988).
General Rule: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
Exception: Where both the treacherous mode of This aggravating circumstance is not applicable in
attack and nocturnity were deliberately decided crimes against chastity, but is considered in
upon in the same case, they can be considered crimes against property, crimes against persons,
separately if such circumstances have different illegal detention, and treason (People v. Corpus,
factual bases. In People v. Berdida (G.R. No. L- C.A. 43 O.G. 2249; People v. Laoto, G.R. No.
20183. June 30, 1966), the Supreme Court ruled 29530, December 8, 1908).
that inasmuch as the treachery consisted in the
fact that the victims' hands were tied at the time This aggravating circumstance is inherent in
they were beaten, the circumstance of nighttime is brigandage (REYES, Book One, supra at 374).
not absorbed in treachery, but can be perceived
distinctly therefrom, since the treachery rests upon Arm may even refer to stone (People v. Manlolo,
an independent factual basis. A special case G.R. No. 40778, January 26, 1989).
therefore is present to which the rule that
nighttime is absorbed in treachery does not When the armed men met up casually with others,
apply. and a crime was thereafter committed, it cannot
be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
2. Uninhabited Place .
The determining factor for the existence of this
Art. 14, Par. 6 By Art. 295 and 296:
circumstance is the reasonable possibility of the
a Band Robbery
victim receiving or securing aid from third persons
(REYES, Book One, supra at 369). Generic Aggravating Applies only to
Circumstance ROBBERY with
This should not be considered when the place unnecessary
where the crime was committed could be seen violence or physical
and the voice of the deceased could be heard injuries under Art.
from a nearby house (People v. Santos, G.R. No. 263, par. 2, 3 and 4
L- 38512, November 16, 1979). in relation to Art.
294, par. 3, 4 and 5.
It must appear that the solitude of the place where
the crime was committed was sought in order to If the classes of robbery mentioned in Art. 294 (1)
better attain the purpose (No. 26170, December and (2) are perpetrated by a band, they would not
6, 1926). It cannot be applied in cases of chance be punishable under Art. 295, but then cuadrilla
41
would be a generic aggravating circumstance crime acted under the same plan and for the same
under Art. 14. purpose (Id. at 377).
Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the Par. 8. With the

occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, Par. 6 By a Band
Aid of Armed Men
earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or
As to their number
misfortune.
Requires more than At least two (2)
three (3) armed
Basis: The time of the commission of the crime
malefactors (i.e., at
least four)
Reason for the aggravation: In the midst of a great As to their action
calamity, the offender, instead of lending aid to the Requires that more This circumstance is
afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage than three (3) armed present even if one
of their misfortune to despoil them. It is necessary malefactors shall (1) of the offenders
that the offender took advantage of the calamity or have acted together merely relied on their
misfortune (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 149). in the commission of aid, for actual aid is
an offense. not necessary.
Other calamity or misfortune As to their liability
It refers to other conditions of distress similar to Band members are Armed men are
those preceding in the enumeration (People v. all principals. mere accomplices.
Corpus, C.A., 43 O.G. 2249).
Mere moral or psychological aid or reliance is
There should be deliberate intent to take advantage sufficient to constitute this aggravating
of this circumstance. It is inapplicable to cases circumstance.
attendant of negligence or carelessness, passion or
obfuscation and chance encounters If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is
absorbed in employment of a band (Id.).
Par. 8.That the crime be committed with the aid
of: Aid of armed men includes armed women
1. Armed men; or (People v. Licop, G.R. No. L-6061, April 29, 1954).
2. Persons who insure or afford impunity.
Persons who insure or afford impunity must have or
Basis: means and ways of committing the crime be in a position to afford impunity, e.g. a judge.
Requisites: Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist

(reincidencia)
1. That armed men or persons took part in the
commission of the crime, directly or indirectly; and
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as shown
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or by his inclination to crimes
relied upon them when the crime was committed
(REYES, Book One, supra at 376). Recidivist
He is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime,
Armed Men shall have been previously convicted by final
These are persons equipped with a weapon (Blacks judgment of another crime embraced in the same
Law Dictionary). title of the RPC (People v. Lagarto, G.R. No. 65833,
May 6, 1991).
This requires that the armed men are accomplices
who take part in that minor capacity directly or Note: A recidivist is entitled to the benefits of the
indirectly, and not when they were merely present at Indeterminate Sentence Law but is disqualified from
the crime scene. Neither should they constitute a availing credit of his preventive imprisonment.
band, for then the proper aggravating circumstance
would be by a band. Requisites: (TC2S)
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
When this aggravating circumstance shall NOT 2. That he was previously convicted by final
be considered: judgment of another crime;
1. When both the attacking party and the party 3. That the offender is convicted of the new offense;
attacked were equally armed. and
2. When the accused as well as those who 4. That both the first and the second offenses are
cooperated with him in the commission of the embraced in the same title of the Code.
42
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously
Meaning of at the time of his trial for one crime punished
1. It is employed in its general sense. 1. For an offense to which the law attaches an
2.It is meant to include everything that is done in the equal or greater penalty; or
course of the trial, from arraignment until after 2. For two or more crimes to which it attaches a
sentence is announced by the judge in open court lighter penalty.
3.In recidivism, it is sufficient that the succeeding Basis: Greater perversity of the offender as shown
offense be committed after the commission of the by his inclination to crimes
preceding offense provided that at the time of his
trial for the second offense, the accused had Requisites of reiteracion or habituality:(TPC)
already been convicted of the first offense (Id.). 1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
4.If both offenses were committed on the same 2. That he was previously served sentence for
date, they shall be considered as only one, hence, another offense to which the law attaches (not the
they cannot be separately counted in order to penalty actually imposed):
constitute recidivism. Also, judgments of a. Equal or greater penalty, or
conviction handed down on the same day shall be b. For two or more crimes to which it attaches a
considered as only one conviction (Galang v. lighter penalty than that for the new offense; and
People, G.R. No. L-45698, December 18, 1937). 3. That he is convicted of the new offense.
5. To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the
same in the information and to attach thereto If the second offense or crime is punishable under a
certified copy of the sentences rendered against special law, it cannot be considered under
the accused (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at reiteracion because Arts. 13, 14 and 15 of the RPC
151). are not applicable to special law crimes.
6. Recidivism must be taken into account no matter
how many years have intervened between the first Reiteracion Recidivism
and second felonies (People v. Jaranilla, G.R. No.
As to the first offense
L-28547, February 22, 1974).
It is necessary that the It is enough that a final
7. Even if the accused was granted a pardon for the
offender shall have judgment has been
first offense, but he commits another felony
served out his rendered in the first
embraced in the same title of the Code, the first
sentence for the first offense.
conviction is still counted to make him a recidivist,
offense.
since pardon does not obliterate the fact of his
As to the kind of offenses involved
prior conviction (US v. Sotelo, G.R. No. 9791,
October 3, 1914; People v. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No. The previous and Requires that the
95320, September 4, 1991). subsequent offenses offenses be included
8. An example of a recidivist is when the accused must not be embraced in the same title of the
was convicted previously of homicide and is now in the same title of the Code.
convicted of the crime of rape. Both are under Code.
Title Eight of Book Two of the RPC, Crimes As to frequency
against persons. Not always an Always to be taken
9. R.A. 8353 also known as Anti-Rape Law of 1997 aggravating into consideration in
reclassified rape as Crime against persons. circumstance fixing the penalty to be
imposed upon the
accused.
When the accused is granted:
Pardon Amnesty Four forms of repetition
Even if the accused In the case of Where a person, on
was granted a amnesty which separate occasions, is
pardon for the first theoretically Recidivism (par.
convicted of two
offense, the first considers the 9,Art. 14) Generic
offenses embraced in
conviction is still previous Aggravating
the same title in the
counted to make him transgressions as Circumstance
RPC.
a recidivist since not punishable. Where the offender has
pardon does not According to Art. 89, Reiteracion or been previously
obliterate the fact of amnesty Habituality(par. 10, punished for an offense
his prior conviction. extinguishes the Art. 14) Generic to which the law
penalty and all its Aggravating attaches an equal or
effects. Circustance greater penalty or for
two crimes to which it
43
attaches a lighter
penalty. Whose liability is aggravated:
Where a person within If Alleged as a If Alleged as
a period of ten (10) General Qualifying
years from the date of Circumstance Circumstance
Multi-recidivism or his release or last Only the liability of Both the liability of
Habitual conviction of the the receiver is the giver and the
delinquency (Art. crimes of serious or affected. receiver are affected.
62, par, 5) less serious physical
Extraordinary injuries, robbery, theft, There must be two or more principals, the one who
Aggravating estafa or falsification, is gave or offered the price or promise and the one
Circumstance found guilty of the said who accepted it, both of whom are principals.
crimes a third time or If without previous promise it was given voluntarily
oftener. after the crime had been committed, it should not be
Where a person taken into consideration for the purpose of
commits felony before increasing the penalty (US v. Flores, G.R. No. 9008,
Quasi-recidivism
beginning to serve or September 17, 1914).
(Art. 160) Special
while serving sentence
Aggravating
on a previous The price, reward or promise need not consist of or
Circumstance
conviction for a felony. refer to material things or that the same were
actually delivered.
Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly
served the sentence for his previous conviction/s, or It is sufficient that the offer made by the principal by
is legally considered to have done so, quasi- inducement be accepted by the principal by direct
recidivism cannot at the same time constitute participation before the commission of the offense
reiteracion, Hence this aggravating circumstance (REYES, Book One, supra at 385).
cannot apply to a quasi-recidivist.
Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means
If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and of (FIPE-SAD)
reiteracion, the liability of the accused should be 1. Fire;
aggravated by recidivism which can easily be 2. Inundation;
proven. 3. Poison;
4. Explosion;
Illustration: Suppose the accused already served a 5. Stranding of a vessel or intentional damage
sentence for the crime of Ill treatment by Deed in thereto;
1965, which falls under Title VIII (Art 266), and once 6. By the use of any other artifice involving great
again being tried for the crime of Homicide in 1978, waste and ruin; or
then there is recidivism because the first and the 7. Derailment of a locomotive.
second offenses are embraced in the same title of
the Code. Although the law requires only final Basis: Means and ways employed
judgement in recidivism, even if the convict has
already served sentence for one offense, there is Inundation
still recidivism, provided that the first and second It refers to the use of water or causing the water to
offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code flood in the commission of the offense.
(People v. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995).
When another aggravating circumstance already
The court must exercise its discretion in applying qualifies the crime, any of these aggravating
this aggravating circumstance in favor of the circumstances shall be considered as generic
accused. aggravating circumstance only (REYES, Book One,
supra at 387).
Par. 11. That the crime be committed in
consideration of a price, reward or promise. When there is no actual design to kill a person in
burning a house, it is plain arson even if a person is
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender, as shown killed. Had there been an intent to kill, the crime
by the motivating power itself committed is murder, qualified by circumstance that
the crime was committed by means of fire (See
To consider this circumstance, the price, reward or RPC, Art. 248).
promise must be the primary reason or primordial
motive for the commission of the crime (ESTRADA, Fire, explosion, and derailment of locomotive
Book One, supra at 156). may be part of the definition of a particular crime,
44
such as, arson, crime involving destruction, and resolution of his will (People v. Lagarto, G.R. No.
damages and obstruction to means of 65883, May 6, 1991).
communication. In these cases, they do not serve to
increase the penalty (REYES, Book One, supra at Essence: The execution of the criminal act is
389). preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent within a
A killing committed through any of these qualifies space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment
the crime to murder, except if arson was resorted to (People v. Abadies, GR No. 135975, August 14,
2002).
but without intent to kill, in view of P.D. 1613 which
There must be sufficient time between the outward
provides a specific penalty for that situation. acts and the actual commission of the crime.
Par. 7 On the
Par. 12 By Means
Occasion of a Evident premeditation is presumed to exist when
of Inundation, Fire,
Conflagration, conspiracy is directly established (People v.
etc.
Shipwreck, etc. Sapigao, et. al., GR No. 144975, June 18, 2003).
The crime is The crime is
committed by means committed on the Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise but
of any such acts occasion of a only insofar as the inducer is concerned since he
involving great waste calamity or obviously reflected thereon in planning the crime but
or ruin. misfortune. not the person induced since one can be a principal
by direct participation without the benefit of due
Rules as to the use of fire: reflection (US v. Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292 ,August
Act of the Accused Crime Committed 28, 1909).
Intent was only to Simple arson but
burn but somebody with a specific In order for evident premeditation to exist, the
died penalty (Art.326) person premeditated against must be the same
If fire was used as a Murder victim of the crime. It is not necessary that the victim
means to kill is identified. It is sufficient that the victim is
If fire was used to Separate crimes of determined so long as he belongs to a group or
conceal the killing arson and murder/ class that may be premeditated against (US v.
homicide Manalinde, supra; ORTEGA, supra).
Under R.A. 8294, Sec. 3, "When a person commits If the offender premeditated on the killing of any
any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code person, it is proper to consider against the offender
or special laws with the use of the aforementioned the aggravating circumstance of premeditation,
explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices, because whoever is killed by him is contemplated in
which results in the death of any person or persons, his premeditation (REYES, Book One, supra at
the use of such explosives, detonation agents or 402).
incendiary devices shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery,
may be aggravating in robbery with homicide if the
Par. 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation included the killing of the victim
premeditation (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 157).
Basis: Reference to the ways of committing the It is a general rule that evident premeditation is not
crime because evident premeditation implies a applicable in error in personae or aberratio ictus,
deliberate planning of the act before executing it. except if there was a general plan to kill anyone to
commit the crime premeditated (People v. Mabug-at,
Requisites: G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926).
The prosecution must prove: (TADS)
1. The time when the offender determined to commit Evident premeditation is compatible with the
the crime; mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has a relative for a grave offense.
clung to his determination;
3. The date and time when the crime was Par. 14 That (CFD)
committed, to compute the lapse of time; and 1. Craft;
4. A sufficient lapse of time between the 2. Fraud; or
determination and execution of the crime, to allow 3. Disguise be employed
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act
and to allow his conscience to overcome the
45
There are three aggravating circumstances under There are two aggravating circumstances under this
this paragraph. paragraph.
Basis: Means employed in the commission of the Basis: Means employed in the commission of the
crime crime.
Involves the use of Par. 15 enunciates two aggravating circumstances

intellectual trickery or either of which qualifies a killing to murder.
cunning on the part of the
Craft(astucia) accused to aid in the To deliberately use
execution of his criminal excessive force that is out of
design (REYES, Book One, Advantage be proportion to the means for
supra at 404) taken of self-defense available to the
Insidious words or superior person attacked (People v.
machinations used to strength Lobrigas, et. al., GR No.
induce the victim to act in a 147649, December 17,
Fraud (fraude)
manner which would enable 2002).
the offender to carry out his Means be The offender employs
design (Id. at 405) employed to means that materially
Disguise Resorting to any device to weaken weakens the resisting power
(disfraz) conceal identity (Id. at 408) defense of the offended party.
Fraud Craft No advantage of superior strength in the

Where there is a direct The act of the following:
inducement by accused done in order 1. One who attacks another with passion and
insidious words or not to arouse the obfuscation does not take advantage of his
machinations, fraud is suspicion of the victim superior strength;
present. constitutes craft. 2. When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal
blow was struck at a time when the aggressor and
This is characterized by the intellectual or his victim were engaged against each other as
mental rather than the physical means to which man to man (REYES, Book One, supra at 410).
the criminal resorts to carry out his design.
For abuse of superior strength, the test is the
Fraud relative strength of the offender and his victim,
According to Justice Regalado, the fine distinctions whether or not he took advantage of his greater
between craft and fraud would not really be strength (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 160).
called for as these terms in Art. 14 are variants of
means employed to deceive the victim and if all are When there are several offenders participating in the
present in the same case, they shall be applied as a crime, they must all be principals by direct
single aggravating circumstance. participation and their attack against the victim must
be concerted and intended to be so (Lumiguis v.
Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if they People, G.R. No. L-20338, April 27, 1967).
have been deliberately adopted as the means,
methods or forms for the treacherous strategy, or In abuse of superior strength, what should be
they may co-exist independently. considered is not that there were three, four or more
assailants as against one victim, but whether the
Fraud is inherent in estafa. aggressors took advantage of their combined
Disguise strength in order to consummate the offense
The test of disguise is whether the device or (People v. Cabangcala, G.R. No. 135065, August 8,
contrivance resorted to by the offender was intended 2001).
to or did make identification more difficult, such as
the use of a mask or false hair or beard. Disguise Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the crime of
contemplates a superficial but somewhat effective parricide where the husband kills the wife (People v.
dissembling to avoid identification (People v. Reyes, Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978).
G.R. No. 118649, March 9, 1998).
Abuse of superior strength is also present when the
Par. 15.That offender uses a weapon which is out of proportion to
1. Advantage be taken of superior strength; or the defense available to the offended party (People
2. Means be employed to weaken the defense. v. Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994).
46
When the victim was alternately attacked, there is party might make (People v. Lacao, Sr., G.R. No.
no abuse of superior strength (People v. Datun, 95320, September 4, 1991).
G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997).
Requisites of treachery:
Abuse of Superior 1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in
By a Band a position to defend himself; and
Strength
Appreciated when The gravamen of 2. That the offender consciously adopted the
the offense is abuse of superiority is particular means, method or form of attack
committed by more the taking advantage employed by him (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at
than three armed by the culprits of their 162).
malefactors collective strength to
regardless of the overpower their The test of treachery is not only the relative position
comparative relatively weaker of the parties but, more specifically, whether or not
strength of the victim or victims. the victim was forewarned or afforded the
victim or victims. opportunity to make a defense or to ward off the
What is taken into attack (Id. at 163).
account here is not
the number of Rules regarding treachery:
aggressors nor the 1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
fact that they are 2. Means, methods or forms need not insure the
armed, but their accomplishment of crime.
relative physical 3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
strength vis-a vis the
offended party. Treachery is taken into account even if the crime
against the person is complexed with another felony
Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla involving a different classification in the Code
(band). (People v. Abdul, G.R. No. 128074, July 13, 1999).
Note: The means employed may amount to The suddenness of attack does not, of itself, suffice
treachery when the victim is not able to put up any to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose
sort of resistance. was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a
sudden and the victims helpless position was
Examples of means employed to weaken accidental (People v. Real, 10 C.A. Rep. 668).
defense:
Treachery must be appreciated in the killing of a
1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly child even if the manner of attack is not shown
throws a cloak over the head of his opponent and (People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27,
while in this situation he wounds or kills him (US v. 2011).
Devela, G.R. No. 1542, April 9, 1904);
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly Treachery is appreciated when the accused
casts sand or dirt upon the latter eyes and then employed means to render the victim defenseless
wounds or kills him (People v. Siaotong, G.R. No. before the commission of the crime, or to eliminate
L-9242, March 29, 1957). the risk of defense on the part of the offended party.
This circumstance is applicable only to crimes
against persons, and sometimes against person and Important questions to answer:
property, such as robbery with physical injuries or 1. Was the attack sudden and unexpected?
homicide (REYES, Book One, supra at 419). 2. Did the offended party have opportunity to defend
himself?
Par. 16. That the act be committed with treachery 3. Was the mode of the attack deliberately or
(alevosia) consciously adopted by the accused to insure
execution without risk to himself?
Basis: Means and ways employed in the
commission of the crime If the answers to all these questions is YES, then
treachery is present.
Treachery (alevosia)
It is present when the offender commits any of the When must treachery be present:
crimes against persons, employing means, methods 1. When the aggression is continuous, treachery
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly must be present in the BEGINNING of the assault
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to (People v. Manalad, GR No. 128593, August 14,
himself arising from the defense which the offended 2002).
47
2. When the assault was not continuous, in that a generic aggravating circumstance, robbery with
there was interruption, it is sufficient that treachery homicide, being a case of composite crime with its
was present at the moment the fatal blow was own definition and special penalty in the Revised
given (US v. Baluyot, 40 Phil 385, 1919). Penal Code (People v. Cando, G.R. No. 128114,
October 25, 2000).
Hence, even though in the inception of the
aggression which resulted to the death of the Par. 17. That means be employed or
deceased, treachery was not present, if there was circumstances brought about which add
a break in the continuity of the aggression and at ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
the time of the fatal wound was inflicted on the
deceased he was defenseless, the circumstance Basis: Means employed
of treachery must be taken into account.
Ignominy
Rules when the Attack is Frontal: It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
If the attack is frontal, there is no treachery as the which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material
mode of attack does not include any risk to the injury caused by the crime (People v. Acaya, G.R.
offender arising from the defense which the party No. L-72998, July 29, 1988).
attacked may make. But there is treachery when the
attack, although frontal, is sudden and unexpected Note: This is inherent in libel and acts of
and perpetrated in such a way to especially insure lasciviousness.
its execution without any risk to the offender.
Meaning of which add ignominy to the natural
Even a frontal attack could be treacherous when effects thereof
unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would The means employed or the circumstances brought
be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it about must tend to make the effects of the crime
(People v. Alfon, G. R. No. 126028 March 14, 2003). more humiliating to victim or to put the offended
party to shame, or add to his moral suffering
Alevosia should be considered even if: (People v. Carmina, G.R. No. 81404, January 28,
1. The victim was not predetermined but there was a 1991).
generic intent to treacherously kill any first two
persons belonging to a class (The same rule Injured party must not be dead when the act causing
obtains for evident premeditation). ignominy was inflicted upon him. It is required that
2. There was aberratio ictus and the bullet hit a the offense be committed in a manner that tends to
person different from that intended. make its effects more humiliating to the victim, that
3. There was error in personae, hence the victim is, add to his moral suffering (People v. Carmina,
was not the one intended by the accused G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991).
Applicable to:
Reason for the rule: When there is treachery, it is 1. Crimes against chastity;
impossible for either the intended victim or the 2. Less serious physical injuries;
actual victim to defend himself against the 3. Light or grave coercion; and
aggression. 4. Murder.
Treachery absorbs (CAN-ACE) Par. 18. That the crime be committed after an
1. Craft; unlawful entry.
2. Abuse of superior strength;
3. Nighttime; Basis: Means and ways employed to commit the
4. Aid of armed men; crime
5. Cuadrilla (band); and
6. Employing means to weaken the defense. Unlawful entry
It is when an entrance (and not for escape) is
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or effected by a way not intended for the purpose
obfuscation (People v. Pansensoy, GR No. 140634, (REYES, Book One, supra at 458).
Sept. 12, 2002).
Reason for aggravation: One who acts, not
The presence of treachery, though, should not result respecting the walls erected by men to guard their
in qualifying the offense to murder from the Special property and provide for their personal safety, shows
Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide, for the a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the
correct rules is that when it obtains in the special law punishes him with more severity (Id.).
complex crime, such treachery is to be regarded as
48
Example: Entering through a window place of directed search after giving notice of his
purpose and authority, may break open any outer or
Unlawful entry is inherent in: inner door or window of a house or any part of a
1. Robbery with the use of force upon things; and house or anything therein to execute the warrant to
2. Trespass to dwelling. liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him
when unlawfully detained therein.
Note: When the accused gained access to the
dwelling by climbing through the window and once Par. 20. That the crime be committed:
inside, murdered certain persons in the dwelling, 1. With the aid of persons under fifteen years of
there were two aggravating circumstances which age; or
attended the commission of the crimesdwelling 2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other
and unlawful entry. Thus, dwelling and unlawful similar means.
entry are taken separately (People v. Bondoy, G.R.
No. 79089, May 18, 1993). Basis: Means and ways employed to commit the
crime
Par. 19 .That as a means to the commission of a
crime, a (WaRooFDoW) Two different circumstances grouped in this
1. Wall; paragraph:
2. Roof; 1. With the aid of persons under fifteen years of age;
3. Floor; Tends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent
4. Door; or practice resorted to by professional criminals to
5. Window be broken. avail themselves of minors taking advantage of
their irresponsibility (REYES, Book One, supra at
Basis: Means and ways employed to commit the 462).
crime 2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other
similar means.
This circumstance is aggravating only in those Intended to counteract the great facilities found by
cases where the offender resorted to any of said modern criminals in said means to commit crime
means to enter the house. The breaking of any of and flee and abscond once the same is
these parts of a house or building must be for the committed (Id.)
commission of the crime (ESTRADA, Book One,
supra at 168). Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the
accused purposely and deliberately used the
Par. 19 Par. 18 motor vehicle in:
a.Going to the place of the crime;
It involves the Presupposes that
b.Carrying away the effects thereof; and
breaking there is no such
c.In facilitating their escape (People v. Espejo,
(rompimiento) of the breaking as by entry
G.R. No. L-27708, December 19, 1970).
enumerated parts of through the window
the house.
Note: If the motor vehicle was used only in
facilitating the escape, it should not be an
If the offender broke a window to enable himself to aggravating circumstance (REYES, Book One,
reach a purse with money on the table near that supra at 463).
window, which he took while his body was outside of
the building, the crime of theft was attended by this Meaning of or other similar means
aggravating circumstance. It is not necessary that It should be understood as referring to motorized
the offender should have entered the building vehicles or other efficient means of transportation
(REYES, Book One, supra at 460). similar to automobile or airplane (REYES, Book
One, supra at 465).
Where Breaking of Door or Window is Lawful: Theft, which is committed by merely taking personal
Under Sec.11, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, it property which need not be carried away cannot be
states that an officer, in order to make an arrest committed by means of a motor vehicle. It would be
either by virtue of a warrant, or without a warrant as stretching the meaning of the law too far to say that
provided in Section 5, may break into any building or the crime was committed by means of motor
enclosure where the person to be arrested is or is vehicles (People v. Real, 10 C.A. Rep. 668).
reasonably believed to be, if he is refused
admittance thereto, after announcing his authority Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission
and purpose. of the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its
Under Sec. 7, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, it commission.
states that the officer, if refused admittance to the
49
circumstance.
Basis: Ways employed to commit the crime If homicide or murder
is committed with the
Cruelty use of an unlicensed
It is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in firearm, such use of
making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, an unlicensed firearm
causing unnecessary physical pain in the shall be considered
consummation of the criminal act (People v. Dayug as an aggravating
and Bannaisan, G.R. No. 25782, September 30, circumstance (P.D.
1926). 1866, Sec. 1, par.3).
Requisites of cruelty: Use of Unlicensed When a person

1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased Firearm commits any crime
by causing other wrong; and (PD No. 1866 as under the Revised
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the amended by R.A. Penal Code or special
execution of the purpose of the offender. 8294) laws with the use of
explosives including
Cruelty is inherent in: but not limited to
1. Crimes against persons; and pillbox, molotov
2. Mutilation. cocktail bombs,
denotation agents or
There must be positive proof that the wounds found incendiary devices
on the body of the victim were inflicted while he was resulting in the death
still alive in order to unnecessarily prolong physical of a person, the same
suffering (People v. Pacris, G.R. No. 69986, March is aggravating (P.D.
5, 1991). 1866, Sec. 3).
The maximum penalty
Number of wounds alone does not show cruelty, it Organized/Syndicated shall be imposed if
being necessary to show that the accused Crime Group under the offense was
deliberately and inhumanly increased the sufferings R.A. 7659 committed by any
of the victims (People v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, person who belongs
February 11, 1931). to an
organized/syndicated
If the victim was already dead when the acts of crime group.
mutilation were being performed, this would also Owner, driver or The penalty of life
qualify the killing to murder due to outraging of his passenger of imprisonment to death
corpse. But since the victim is already dead, cruelty carnapped vehicle is is imposed.
cannot be appreciated in this case (People v. killed or raped
Balisteros, G.R. No. 110289, October 7, 1994).
Organized/syndicated crime group
Ignominy Cruelty It is a group of two or more persons collaborating,
(Par. 17) (Par. 21) confederating or mutually helping one another for
Involves moral Refers to physical the purposes of gain in the commission of any crime
suffering suffering (R.A. 7659, Art. 23).
Unlike mitigating circumstances (RPC, Art. 13, par. Crimes involving gain or profit: (TERI)
10), there is no provision for aggravating 1. Theft;
circumstances of a similar or analogous character. 2. Estafa;
3. Robbery; and
Other Aggravating Circumstances Under Special 4. Illegal Recruitment.
Penal Laws
Thus syndicate is not aggravating in:
When a crime is
1. Homicide;
committed by an
2. Murder;
R.A 9165, offender who is under
3. Rape; and
Comprehensive the influence of
4. Physical Injuries.
Dangerous Drugs Act dangerous drugs,
of 2002 such state shall be
Specific Aggravating Circumstances
considered as a
qualifying aggravating 1. Violation of domicile (nighttime; papers and effects
not returned immediately);
50
2. Interruption of religious worship (violence or iii. Fraudulent Insolvency(Art. 314); and

threats); iv. Arson (Arts. 321-322, 325-326).
3. Direct assault (weapon, offender is a public officer
or employee; offender lays hands upon a person Exempting circumstance in the crimes of
in authority); (TEM):
i. Theft;
4. Grave threats (in writing; thru a middleman); ii. Estafa; and
5. Slavery; iii. Malicious mischief if the offender and the
6. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of offended party lives together (RPC, Art. 332).
persons (uninhabited place, band) EXCEPT:
robbery with homicide or robbery with rape; and b.Crimes against Persons
7. Robbery with force upon things (uninhabited place It is aggravating in crimes against persons in
and by a band). cases where the offended party is a relative of a
higher degree than the offender, or when the
ARTICLE 15 offender and the offended party are relatives of
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES the same level (People v. Alisub, G.R. No.
46588, January 20, 1940).
Alternative Circumstances
Those which must be taken into consideration as i. Serious physical injuries (Art. 263)
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature Aggravating even if the offended party is a
and effects of the crime and the other conditions descendant of the offender. If the offense of
attending its commission. serious physical injuries is committed by the
offender against his child, whether legitimate
The alternative circumstances are: (RID) or illegitimate, or any of his legitimate other
1. Relationship; descendants, relationship is aggravating. But
2. Intoxication; and the serious physical injuries must not be
3. Degree of instruction and education of the inflicted by a parent upon his child by
offender. excessive chastisement (See RPC, Art. 263;
REYES, Book One, supra at 474).
Relationship
Shall be taken into consideration when the ii. Less serious physical injuries or slight
offended party is the: (SADBroSA) physical injuries:
a. Spouse; 1. Mitigating if the offended party is a relative
b. Ascendant; of a lower degree; and
c. Descendant; 2. Aggravating if the offended party is a
d. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister; relative of a higher degree of the offender
e. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the (Id. at 475).
offender. iii. Homicide or murder: relationship is
Other relatives included: aggravating regardless of degree (Id.).
a. The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and iv. Rape: aggravating where a stepfather raped
stepson or stepdaughter (People v. Bersabal, his stepdaughter or in a case where a father
G.R. No. 24532, December 11, 1925). raped his own daughter (Id.).
Reason: It is the duty of the stepparents to
bestow upon their stepchildren a c. Crimes against chastity
mothers/fathers affection, care and protection.
b. The relationship of adopted parent and adopted Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336)
child. relationship is always aggravating, regardless of
But the relationship of uncle and niece is not whether the offender is a relative of a higher or
covered by any of the relationship mentioned lower degree of the offended party.
(People v. Lamberte, G.R. No. L-65153, July 11,
1986). When the qualification given to the crime is
derived from the relationship between the
Application: offender and the offended party, it is neither
mitigating nor aggravating, because it is
a. Crimes against Property inseparable from and inherent in the offense,
e.g. parricide, adultery and concubinage (Id.).
Mitigating in the ff. crimes against property
(RUFA): Intoxication; When intoxication mitigating and
i. Robbery (Arts. 294-302); when aggravating:
ii. Usurpation (Art. 312);
51
Mitigating Aggravating a. Crimes against property, e.g. arson, estafa,
If intoxication is not If intoxication is theft, robbery (US v. Pascual, G.R. No.
habitual habitual, or 3777,January 6, 1908);
If intoxication is not If it is intentional b. Crimes against chastity;
subsequent to the (subsequent to the c. Treason because love of country should be a
plan to commit a plan to commit a natural feeling of every citizen, however
felony felony) - drinks fully, unlettered or uncultured he may be;
knowing its effects, to d. Murder; and
find a stimulant to e. Rape (Molesa v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No.
commit a crime or a 39998, January 24, 1934).
means to suffocate
any remorse TITLE TWO: PERSONS
To be entitled to the mitigating circumstance CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
of intoxication, it must be shown:
a. That at the time of the commission of the ARTICLE 16
criminal act, the accused has taken such WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason
and deprive him of a certain degree of control; For grave and less grave felonies:
and 1. Principals;
b. That such intoxication is not habitual, or 2. Accomplices; and
subsequent to the plan to commit the felony 3. Accessories.
(People v. Boduso, G.R. No. L-30450-51,
September 30, 1974). For light felonies:
1. Principals; and
Habitual Drunkard 2. Accomplices.
He is one given to intoxication by excessive use
of intoxicating drinks. Light Felonies are punishable only when
consummated but in crimes against persons or
The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is property, light felonies are punishable in attempted
unnecessary that it be a matter of daily and frustrated stage but only principal and
occurrence (People v. Camano, G.R. No. L- accomplice are liable (RPC, Art. 7).
36662-63, July 30, 1982).
Accessories are not liable for light felonies (RPC,
To be mitigating, the accuseds state of Art. 16).
intoxication must be proved. Once intoxication is
established by satisfactory evidence, in the Reason: In the commission of light felonies, the
absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed to social wrong as well as the individual prejudice is so
be non-habitual or unintentional (People v. small that penal sanction is deemed not necessary
Fortich, G.R. No. 80399-404, November 13, for accessories (REYES, Book One, supra at 489).
1997).
The classification of the offenders as principal, an
Instruction or Education accomplice, or an accessory is essential under the
As an alternative circumstance, does not refer RPC. The classification may be applied to special
only to literacy but more to the level of intelligence laws only if the latter provides for the same
of the accused. It refers to the lack of sufficient graduated penalties as those provided under the
intelligence and knowledge of the full significance RPC.
of ones acts (People v. Nabong, G.R. No.
172324, April 3, 2007). Two parties in all crimes:
1. Active subject (the criminal)
Low degree of instruction and education or lack of Art. 16 enumerates the active subjects of the
it is generally mitigating. High degree of instruction crime.
and education is aggravating, when the offender
took advantage of his learning in committing the Only natural persons can be the active subject of
crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 482). crime because of the highly personal nature of the
criminal responsibility (Id. at 490).
General Rule: Lack of sufficient education is
mitigating. Reasons:
Exceptions: (PCTMR)
52
a.Under the RPC, persons act with personal
malice or negligence, artificial persons cannot When the second requisite is lacking, there is only
act with malice or negligence. conspiracy (REYES, Book One, supra at 524).
b.A juridical person like a corporation cannot
commit a crime that requires willful purpose or In conspiracy by prior agreement, the principal by
malicious intent. direct participation who does not appear at the
c.There is substitution of deprivation of liberty for scene of the crime is not liable because:
pecuniary penalties in insolvency cases. a. His non-appearance is deemed desistance
d. Other penalties like destierro and imprisonment which is favored and encouraged (ESTRADA,
are executed on individuals only (Id.). Book One, supra at 180).
b.Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the
2. Passive subject (the injured party) law specifically provides a penalty therefor
The holder of the injured right: the man, the juristic (RPC, Art 8). Thus, by merely conspiring, the
person, the group, and the State would-be participator has not yet committed any
crime unless he would appear at the scene of
Corporation and partnership can be a passive the crime and perform any act directly or
subject of a crime. indirectly in the accomplishment of the
conspiracy.
General rule: Corpses and animals cannot be c.There is no basis for criminal liability because
passive subjects because they have no rights that there is no criminal participation.
may be injured (Id.).
Personally took part in its execution
Exception: Under Art. 253, the crime of That the principal by direct participation must be at
defamation may be committed if the imputation the scene of the commission of the crime,
tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead. personally taking part in its execution (Id. at 179)
except when there is conspiracy and the principal
Art. 16 applies only when the offenders are to be by direct participation has already performed his
judged by their individual, and not collective, part prior to the actual commission of the crime.
liability.
Note: The cooperation which the law punishes is
the assistance which is knowingly or intentionally
given and which is not possible without previous
knowledge of the criminal purpose (People v.
ARTICLE 17 Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, November 14, 1990).
PRINCIPALS
Par. 2. Principals by induction
Principal by Principal by Principal by
Direct Induction Indispensable Requisites:
Participation Cooperation 1. That the inducement be made directly with the
Those who Those who Those who intention of procuring the commission of the crime;
take a direct directly force cooperate in and
part in the or induce the 2. That such inducement be the determining cause
execution of others to commission of of the commission of the crime by the material
the act. commit it. the offense by executor (US v. Indanan, G.R. No. 8187, January
another act 29, 1913).
without which
it would not To constitute inducement, there must exist on the
have been part of the inducer the most positive resolution and
accomplished. most persistent effort to secure the commission of
the crime, together with the presentation to the
Par. 1. Principals by direct participation person induced of the very strongest kind of
temptation to commit the crime (US v. Indanan,
Requisites: supra).
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution;
and One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the
2. That they carried out their plan and personally commission of the crime without first being shown
took part in its execution by acts which directly that the crime was actually committed (or attempted)
tended to the same end (People v. Ong Chiat Lay, by another (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 180).
G.R. No. 39086, October 26, 1934).
53
Thus, there can be no principal by inducement (or committed the crime because of the words of
by indispensable cooperation) unless there is a command is a principal by direct participation.
principal by direct participation. But there can be a There is also collective criminal responsibility.
principal by direct participation without a principal by
inducement (or by indispensable cooperation) (Id.). In determining whether the utterances of an
accused are sufficient to make him guilty as co-
The inducement must be the determining cause of principal by inducement, it must appear that the
the commission of the crime by the principal by inducement was of such nature and was made
direct participation that is without such inducement, in such a way as to become the determining
the crime would not have been committed (US v. cause of the crime and that such inducement
Indanan, supra). was uttered with the intention of producing the
result (People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 19238, July
The inducement must precede the act and must be 26, 1966).
so influential, hence if there is a price or reward
involved, without prior promise, there can be no Requisites:
inducement (REYES, Book One, supra at 529). i. That the one uttering the words of command
must have the intention of procuring the
If the crime committed is not contemplated in the commission of the crime;
order given, inducement is not material and not the ii. That the one who made the command must
determining cause thereof. have an ascendancy or influence over the
person who acted;
Two ways of becoming principal by induction: iii. That the words used must be so direct, so
1.By directly forcing another to commit a crime efficacious, so powerful as to amount to
by: physical or moral coercion;
a. Using irresistible force. iv. The words of command must be uttered prior
to the commission of the crime; and
Irresistible Force v. The material executor of the crime has no
It is such physical force as would produce an personal reason to commit the crime.
effect upon the individual that in spite of all
resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument The inducement must precede the act induced and
(US v. Elicanal, G.R. No. October 28, 1916). must be so influential in producing the criminal act
that without it, the act would not have been
b. Causing uncontrollable fear. performed (REYES, Book One, supra at 529).
Uncontrollable Fear If the person who actually committed the crime had
It is a compulsion by means of intimidation or reason of his own to commit the crime, it cannot be
threat that promises an evil of such gravity and said that the inducement was influential in producing
eminence that the ordinary man would have the criminal act (People v. Kiichi Omine, G.R. No.
succumbed to it (U.S. v. Elicanal, supra.). 42476, July 24, 1935).
In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even Note: A distinction should be made between the
a unity of criminal purpose and intention. Only words of command of a father to his sons, under
the one using the force or causing the fear is conditions which determine obedience, and the
criminally liable. The material executor is not excited exclamations uttered by an individual to
criminally liable because of Art. 12, pars. 5 and whom obedience is not due. The moral influence of
6 (exempting circumstances). the words of the father may determine the course of
conduct of a son in cases where the same words
2.By directly inducing another to commit a crime coming from a stranger would make no impression
by: (People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 18989, November 17,
a.Giving of price, or offering of reward or promise. 1922).
The one giving the price or offering the reward
or promise is a principal by inducement while Offender who Made
the one committing the crime in consideration Principal by
Proposal to
thereof is a principal by direct participation. Inducement
Commit a Felony
There is collective criminal responsibility In both
(REYES, Book One, supra at 526). There is an inducement to commit a crime
When liable
b. Using words of command
The person who used the words of command is
a principal by inducement while the person who
54
Becomes liable only The mere proposal 2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by
when the crime is to commit a felony is performing another act, without which it would not
committed by the punishable in have been accomplished.
principal by direct treason or rebellion. a.Cooperation must be indispensable.
participation However, the person b.If dispensable, accused is only an accomplice
to whom the c.If cooperation is necessary in the execution of
proposal is made the offense, accused is considered as a
should not commit principal by direct participation (REYES, Book
the crime, One, supra at 536-538).
otherwise, the Note: The act of the principal by indispensable
proponent becomes cooperation should be different from the act of the
a principal by principal by direct participation.
inducement.
What kind of crime involved Meaning of cooperation in the commission of
Involves any crime The proposal to be the offense
punishable must To desire or wish in common a thing. But that
involve only treason, common will or purpose does not necessarily
rebellion, mean previous understanding, for it can be
insurrection or coup explained or inferred from the circumstances of
d etat (TRIC). each case (People v. Aplegido, G.R. No. L-163,
April 27, 1946).
Effects of acquittal of principal by direct
participation upon liability of principal by Collective Criminal Responsibility
inducement: This is present when the offenders are criminally
1. Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co- liable in the same manner and to the same extent.
defendant. The penalty to be imposed must be the same for all
2. One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the (Id. at 540)
commission of a crime without first being shown
that the crime has been actually committed by Principals by direct participation have collective
another (People v. Ong Chiat Lay, G.R. No. criminal responsibility. Principals by induction,
39086, October 26, 1934). except those who directly forced another to commit
a crime, and principals by direct participation have
But if the one charged as principal by direct collective criminal responsibility. Principals by
participation is acquitted because he acted without indispensable cooperation have collective criminal
criminal intent or malice, his acquittal is not a ground responsibilities with the principals by direct
for the acquittal of the principal by inducement participation (Id.).
(People v. Po Gok To, G.R. No. L-7236, April 30,
1955). Individual Criminal Responsibility
In the absence of any previous conspiracy, unity of
Reason for the rule: In exempting circumstances, criminal purpose and intention immediately before
such as when the act is not voluntary because of the commission of the crime, or community of
lack of intent on the part of the accused, there is a criminal design, the criminal responsibility arising
crime committed, only that the accused is not a from different acts directed against one and the
criminal. same person is individual and not collective, and
each of the participants is liable only for the act
Par. 3. Principal by indispensable cooperation committed by him (Id.).
Requisites: ARTICLE 18
ACCOMPLICES
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is,
there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of
Accomplices
criminal purpose and intention immediately before
They are persons who, not acting as principals,
the commission of the crime charged; and
cooperate in the execution of the offense by
a. Requires participation in the criminal resolution. previous and simultaneous acts, which are not
b. There must be conspiracy. indispensable to the commission of the crime.
c. Concurrence is sufficient.
d. Cooperation is indispensable. They act as mere instruments who perform acts not
essential to the perpetration of the offense.
Requisites:
55
1. That there be community of design; that is, accomplice (People v. Toling, G.R. No. L-28548,
knowing the criminal design of the principal by July 13, 1979).
direct participation, he concurs with the latters
purpose; The person charged as an accomplice should not
have inflicted a mortal wound. If he inflicted a mortal
Mere knowledge of the criminal resolution only wound, he becomes a principal by direct
and not concurrence or participation. participation (People v. Aplegido, supra).
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will
by previous or simultaneous acts, with the be considered that of an accomplice rather than that
intention of supplying material or moral aid in the of a principal (REYES, Book One, supra at 541).
execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by Quasi Collective Responsibility
the principal and those attributed to the person It is one where some of the offenders in the crime
charged as an accomplice (People v. Tamayo, are principals and the others are accomplices.
supra).
Note: It is not enough that a person entertains an Accomplice Conspirator
identical criminal design as that of the principal. They know and agree with the criminal
There must be a relation between the criminal act design.
of the principal by direct participation and that of They come to know They come to know
the person charged as accomplice (REYES, Book about it after the the criminal intention
One, supra at 559). principals have because they
reached the decision, themselves have
An accomplice is also known as accessory before and only then do they decided upon such
the fact. agree to cooperate in course of action.
its execution.
The cooperation of an accomplice may be: They are merely They are the authors
1. By previous act; and instruments who of a crime.
2. By simultaneous acts. perform acts not
essential to the
His participation should only be necessary but not perpetration of the
indispensable (People v. Villegas, et. al., 59 O.G. offense.
7060).
Principal by
Before there could be an accomplice, there must be Indispensable Accomplice
a principal by direct participation (ESTRADA, Book Cooperation
One, supra at 186). Cooperation must be Cooperation is
indispensable. dispensable.
One can be an accomplice even if he did not know Participation in the Cooperates in the
of the actual specific crime intended to be committed criminal resolution, execution of the
by the principal, provided he was aware that the that is, there is either offense by previous
objective of the acts he was tasked to do was illicit. anterior conspiracy or or simultaneous acts,
Also, it is sufficient if there was a common purpose unity of criminal with the intention of
to commit a particular crime and that the crime purpose and intention supplying material or
actually committed was a natural or probable immediately before moral aid in the
consequence of the intended crime (People v. the commission of the execution of the
Largo, et.al., G.R. No. L-4913, August 28, 1956). crime charged crime in an
efficacious way
However, when the owner of the gun knew that it
would be used to kill a particular person, and the Note: The pumpboat owner who helped the
principal used it to kill another person, the owner of offenders by pretending that his pumpboat needed
the gun is not an accomplice as to the killing of the towing by the passing boat of the victim was merely
other person (People v. De la Cerna, G.R. No. L- an accomplice. Here, the offenders transferred to
20911, October 30, 1977). the boat of the victims and the latter robbed and
killed them. The offenders could have asked for the
Absent knowledge of the criminal purpose of the help of other pumpboat owners, hence the
principal, giving aid or encouragement, either accuseds cooperation was not indispensable
morally or materially, in the commission of the crime, (People v. Sotto, G.R. No. 106083-84, March 29,
mere presence at the scene does not make one an 1996).
56
ARTICLE 19 1. Public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the
ACCESSORIES escape of the principal of any crime (not light
felony) with abuse of his public functions; and
Accessories
They are those who: Requisites:
1. Having knowledge of the commission of the crime; a. The accessory is a public officer;
and b. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape
2. Without having participated therein either as of the principal;
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to c. The public officer acts with abuse of his public
its commission in any of the following acts: functions; and
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender d. The crime committed by the principal is any
to profit by the effects of the crime; crime, provided it is not a light felony.
In profiting by the effects of the crime, the 2. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in
accessory must receive the property from the the escape of the author of the crime who is guilty
principal. He should not take it without the of treason, parricide, murder, or attempts against
consent of the principal. If he took it without the the life of the President, or who is known to be
consent of the principal, he is not an accessory habitually guilty of some other crime.
but a principal in the crime of theft (REYES,
Knowledge of the commission of the crime after Requisites:
acquisition of stolen property is sufficient. a. The accessory is a private person;
b. By concealing or destroying the body, effects or b. He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of
instruments of the crime to prevent its the author of the crime; and
discovery; or c. The crime committed by the principal is either:
(MAP-HaT)
Requisites: i. Murder;
i. The fact that the crime was committed; and ii. An attempt against the life of the President;
ii. The participation of the offender in the iii. Parricide;
commission of the crime. iv. That the principal is known to be habitually
guilty of some other crime; or
Body of the crime is equivalent to corpus v. Treason.
delicti.
Where the alleged principal is acquitted, it is neither
Corpus Delicti proper nor possible to convict the defendant as an
It means that a crime has been committed; that accessory. The responsibility of the accessory is
a crime has actually been perpetrated. It means subordinate to that of the principal in a crime (US v.
actual commission by someone of a particular Mendoza, G.R. No. 7540, September 23, 1912).
crime charged, e.g. body of a murdered man,
charred remains of a burned down house However, conviction of an accessory is possible
(People v. Villaseor, G.R. No. L-28574, notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal, if the
October 24, 1970). crime was in fact committed, but the principal was
not held liable, because of an exempting
Elements: circumstance such as insanity or minority. US v.
1. The proof of the occurrence of a certain event; Villaluz, G.R. No. 10726, December 1, 1915).
and
2. Some persons criminal responsibility (People Neither the letter nor the spirit of the law requires
v. Boco, G.R. No. 129676, June 23, 1999). that the principal be convicted before one may be
punished as an accessory. As long as the corpus
c. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the delicti is proved and the accessorys participation as
escape of the principal of the crime, provided such is shown, he can be held criminally responsible
the accessory acts with abuse of his public and meted out the corresponding penalty (Inovero v.
functions or whenever the author of the crime is Coronel, CA, 65 O.G. 3160).
guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or General rule: The prescribed acts of the accessory
is known to be habitually guilty of some other under par. 2 must have been intended to prevent the
crime. discovery of the crime; hence, mere silence is NOT
punishable (US v. Caballeros, G.R. No. 1352, March
Two classes of accessories contemplated in par. 29, 1905).
3 of Art. 19:
57
Exceptions: unless the accessory
1. If, however, the crime involved is conspiracy to is a public officer who
commit treason, his silence may hold him liable for acts with abuse of
misprision of treason (RPC, Art. 116) but as a public functions.
principal thereof. The crime committed The crime committed
2. Knowingly concealing the evil practices by the principal must by the principal is
enumerated in Art. 142 is also punishable as a be under the RPC. punishable under any
principal in Inciting to Sedition (RPC, Art. 142). existing penal law,
including the RPC.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1612 The person who gave The person who gave
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979 assistance is assistance is
punished as an punished as a
Fencing accessory in the principal in the crime
It is an act, with intent to gain, of buying, selling, offense committed by of obstruction of
receiving, possessing, keeping, or in any other the principal. justice.
manner dealing in anything of value which a person Note: For further discussion on P.D. 1829, see
knows or should have known to be derived from the section on Special Penal Laws.
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft (P.D. 1612,
Sec. 2[a]). ARTICLE 20
ACCESSORIES WHO ARE
Fence EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABLITY
He is a person who commits the act of fencing. A
fence who receives stolen property as above- The exemption provided for in this article is based
provided is not an accessory but a principal in the on the ties of blood and the preservation of the
crime defined in and punished by the Anti-Fencing cleanliness of ones name, which compels one to
Law (P.D. 1612, Sec.2 [b]). conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as
those mentioned in this article (REYES, Book One,
Mere possession of anything of value which has supra at 581).
been the subject of robbery or theft shall be prima
facie evidence of fencing (P.D. 1612, Sec. 5). An accessory is exempt from criminal liability
when the principal is his
1. Spouse;
PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF 2. Ascendant;
APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF 3. Descendant; or
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS 4. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1829 relative by affinity within the same degree.
P.D. 1829 penalizes the act of any person who Accessory is NOT exempt from criminal liability
knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates even if the principal is related to him, if such
or delays the apprehension of suspects and the accessory:
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases. 1. Profited by the effects of the crime; or
2. Assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the
The acts enumerated under this decree are crime.
commonly referred to as OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE. It penalizes, inter alia, the act of Reason: Because such acts are prompted not by
harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of affection but by a detestable greed (Id.).
any person he knows or has reasonable ground to
believe or suspect, has committed any offense If a public officer is involved and he furnished the
under existing penal laws in order to prevent his means of escape to his brother who had committed
arrest, prosecution and conviction. Here, he shall be murder, he is NOT criminally liable. Ties of blood or
punished as a principal in the crime of obstruction of relationship constitute a more powerful incentive
justice. than the call of duty. Also, Article 20 of RPC does
not grant the benefits of exemption only to
accessories who profited or helped the offender
Art. 19, RPC P.D. 1829 profit by the effects of the crime. This is the only
The principal who The person who was case where the accessory who is related to the
was assisted assisted committed offender incurs criminal liability (REYES, Book One,
committed only any of any crime. supra at 583).
the enumerated
felonies (MAPHaT)
58
Note: The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do not Reason: Because a law cannot be rationally obeyed
apply to PD 1829. unless it is first shown, and a man cannot be
expected to obey an order that has not been given
TITLE THREE: PENALTIES
ARTICLE 22
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF PENAL LAWS
Penalty
It is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the General Rule: Penal laws are applied prospectively.
transgression of the law (REYES, Book One, supra
at 584). Exception: When retrospective application will be
favorable to the person guilty of a felony, provided
Different juridical conditions of penalty: (P2C3EL) that:
1. Must be productive of suffering, without however 1. The offender is NOT a habitual criminal
affecting the integrity of the human personality; (delinquent) under Art. 62(5); and
2. Must be personal no one should be punished for 2. The new or amendatory law does NOT provide
the crime of another; against its retrospective application.
3. Must be commensurate with the offense
Reason for the exception: The sovereign, in
different crimes must be punished with different
enacting a subsequent penal law more favorable to
penalties;
the accused, has recognized that the greater
4. Must be certain no one may escape its effects; severity of the former law is unjust.
5. Must be correctional;
6. Must be equal for all; and Note: This favorable application of laws applies
7. Must be legal it is the consequence of a equally whether the crime consists of violations of
judgment according to law (Id.). the Revised Penal Code or of special penal laws,
(BOADO, supra at 202).
Purpose of the state in punishing crimes: The
State has an existence of its own to maintain, a Habitual Delinquent
conscience to assert, and moral principles to be He is a person who, within a period of ten years
vindicated. Penal justice must therefore be from the date of his release or last conviction of the
exercised by the State in the service and satisfaction crimes of Falsification, Robbery, Estafa, Theft, or
of a duty, and rests primarily on the moral Serious or Less serious physical injuries
rightfulness of the punishment inflicted (REYES, (FRETSeL), is found guilty of any said crimes a third
Book One, supra at 585). time or oftener (RPC, Art. 62).
The basis of the right to punish violations of penal Ex Post Facto Law
law is the police power of the State. It is an act which when committed was not a crime,
cannot be made so by statute without violating the
Three-fold Purpose of Penalty under RPC: constitutional inhibition as to ex post facto laws.
1. Retribution or expiation;
2. Correction or reformation; and An ex post facto law is one which:
3. Social Defense (Id.). 1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of
the law and which was innocent when done;
Constitutional Restriction on Penalties: The 2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
Constitution directs that excessive fines shall not be was, when committed;
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
CHAPTER ONE punishment than the law annexed to the crime
PENALTIES IN GENERAL (ARTS. 21-24) when committed;
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted conviction upon a less or different testimony than
(CONST. Art. 3, Sec. 19[19]). the law required at the time of the commission of
the offense;
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies
ARTICLE 21 only, in effect imposing a penalty or deprivation of
PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED a right for something which when done was lawful;
and
A felony shall be punishable only by the penalty 6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some
prescribed by law at the time of the commission. lawful protection to which he has become entitled,
such as the protection of a former conviction or
59
acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty (In Re: (People v. Mission, G.R. No. L-3488, November 28,
Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., supra). 1950).
If retroactive effect of a new law is justified, it shall Note: See discussion of retroactive law under the
apply to the defendant even if he is: Prospective characteristic of criminal law.
1. Presently on trial for the offense;
2. Has already been sentenced but service of which ARTICLE 23
has not begun; or EFFECT OF PARDON BY THE
3. Already serving sentence. OFFENDED PARTY
The exception applies to a law dealing with General Rule: Pardon by the offended party does
prescription of crime. NOT extinguish the criminal liability of the offender.
The retroactive effect of criminal statutes does not Reason: A crime committed is an offense against
apply to the culprits civil liability (People v. the State. Only the Chief Executive can pardon the
Panaligan, C.A. 40 O.G. 207). offenders (RPC, Art. 36).
Reason: The rights of offended persons or innocent Note: In criminal cases, the intervention of the
third parties are not within the gift of arbitrary aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses for
disposal of the State. the prosecution.
No retroactive effect even when favorable to the Compromise upon the civil liability arising from an
accused if the new law is expressly made offense may be had; but such compromise shall not
inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of extinguish the public action for the imposition of the
action (Tavera v. Valdez, G.R. No. 922 ,November legal penalty (CIVIL CODE, Art. 2034).
8, 1902).
A contract stipulating for the renunciation of the right
Criminal liability under the repealed law to prosecute an offense or waiving the criminal
subsists: liability is void (CIVIL CODE, Arts. 1306, 1352,
1. When the provisions of the former law are 1409).
reenacted;
The right to punish offenses committed under an Exception: Pardon by the offended party will bar
old penal law is not extinguished if the offenses criminal prosecution in the following crimes:
are still punishable in the repealing penal law (US 1. Adultery and Concubinage (RPC, Art. 344)
v. Cuna, G.R. No. 4504, December 15, 1908). Express and Implied pardon must be given by
offended party to BOTH offenders.
2. When the repeal is by implication; or
When a penal law, which impliedly repealed an old Pardon must be given prior to institution of
law, is itself repealed, the repeal of the repealing criminal action (People v. Lim, G.R. No. 85753
law revives the prior penal law, unless the ,February 13, 1992).
language of the repealing statute provides
otherwise. 2. Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness
(RPC, Art. 344)
If the repeal is absolute, criminal liability is Express pardon given by offended party or her
obliterated. parents or grandparents or guardian
3. When there is a saving clause. Note: People v. Lacson (CA 55 OG 9460) held
When the repeal is absolute, the offense ceases that the pardon by the parents, standing alone, is
to be criminal (People v. Tamayo, supra). inefficacious. Too, the express pardon of a person
guilty of attempted abduction of a minor, granted
Note: No retroactive effect of penal laws as regards by the latters parents, is not sufficient to remove
jurisdiction of court. The jurisdiction of the court to criminal responsibility, but must be accompanied
try a criminal action is to be determined by the law in by the express pardon of the girl herself.
force at the time of instituting the action, not at the
time of the commission of the crime (People v. Pardon must be given prior to the institution of the
Pegarum, G.R. No. 37565, November 13, 1933). criminal action. However, marriage between the
offender and the offended party even after the
Jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined institution of the criminal action or conviction of the
by the allegations of the complaint or information, offender will extinguish the criminal action or remit
and not by the findings the court may make after trial the penalty already imposed against the offender,
60
his co-principals, accomplices, and accessories P.D. No. 603) and for the purposes specified
after the fact. therein;
3. Suspension from the employment or public office
Note: Not applicable in rape, where there are two during the trial or in order to institute proceedings;
or more principals involved and in case of multiple 4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the
rape. exercise of their administrative or disciplinary
powers, superior officials may impose upon their
3. Rape (as amended by R.A. 8353) subordinates; and
The subsequent valid marriage between the 5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the
offender and the offended party shall extinguish civil law may establish in penal form.
criminal liability or the penalty imposed. Marital
pardon granted before the filing of the case, during Reasons why they are NOT penalties:
the proceedings and even after final conviction 1. They are not imposed as a result of judicial
shall extinguish criminal liability and shall remit or proceedings. Those mentioned in paragraphs 1, 3
rebate the penalty already imposed. and 4 are merely preventive measures before
conviction of offenders (REYES, Book One, supra
Pardon by the offended party under Art. 344 is at 600).
only a bar to criminal prosecution; it is not a 2. The offender is not subjected to or made to suffer
ground for extinguishment of criminal liability these measures in expiation of or as punishment
(ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 212). for a crime.
Civil liability may be extinguished by the express Par. 1 does not refer to the confinement of an insane
waiver of the offended party. or imbecile who has not been arrested for a crime. It
refers to accused persons who are detained by
An offense causes 2 classes of injuries: reason of insanity or imbecility.
Social Injury Personal Injury
Paragraphs 3 and 4 refer to administrative
Caused to the victim of suspension and administrative fines and not to
Produced by the the crime who suffered suspension or fine as penalties for violations of the
disturbance and alarm damage either to his RPC.
which are the outcome person, to his property,
of the offense. to his honor or to her The deprivations of rights established in penal form
chastity. by the civil laws is illustrated in the case of parents
who are deprived of their parental authority if found
Is sought to be guilty of the crime of corruption of their minor
repaired through the Is repaired through children, in accordance with Art. 332 of the Civil
imposition of the indemnity. Code.
corresponding penalty.
Where a minor offender was committed to a
The State has an The State has no reformatory pursuant to Art. 80 (now, PD 603), and
interest in this class of reason to insist in its while thus detained he commits a crime therein, he
injury. payment. cannot be considered a quasi-recidivist since his
detention was only a preventive measure, whereas
The offended party
quasi-recidivism presupposes the commission of a
cannot pardon the The offended party
crime during the service of the penalty for a previous
offender so as to may waive the
crime.
relieve him of the indemnity.
penalty.
ARTICLE 25
PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED
ARTICLE 24
MEASURES OF PREVENTION OR SAFETY CHAPTER TWO
WHICH ARE NOT CONSIDERED PENALTIES CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES (ARTS.
25-26)
The following are NOT considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused
persons, as well as their detention by reason of The scale in Art. 25 is only a general classification of
insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their penalties based on their severity, nature and subject
confinement in a hospital; matter.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the
institutions mentioned in Art. 80 (now Art. 192,
61
The scale of penalties in Art. 70 is provided for 3. Suspension is a principal penalty in rendition of
successive service of sentences imposed on the unjust interlocutory orders (RPC, Art. 206).
same accused, in consideration of their severity and
natures. Bond to keep the peace is imposed only in the crime
of threats (Art. 284), either grave (Art. 282) or light
The scales in Art. 71 are for the purpose of (Art. 283).
graduating the penalties by degrees in accordance
with the rules in Art. 61. Note: It is necessary to employ legal terminology in
the imposition of penalties because of the
Classification of Penalties under Article 25: substantial difference in their corresponding legal
A. Based on their severity or gravity effects and accessory penalties (BOADO, supra at
1. Capital; 217). Thus, a sentence of five years in Bilibid is
2. Afflictive; defective because it does not specify the exact
3. Correctional; and penalty prescribed in the Revised Penal Code (US
4. Light. v. Avillar, G.R. Nos. 9609-11, October 2, 1914).
This classification corresponds to the classification R.A. No. 9346,

of felonies in Art. 9, into grave, less grave and AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF
light. DEATH PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES
B. Based on their nature In lieu of death penalty, the following shall be

1. Principal penalties those expressly imposed imposed:
by the court in the judgment of conviction 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law
(REYES, Book One, supra at 604). May be violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
further classified based on divisibility. penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
a. Divisible those that have fixed duration and 2. The penalty of life imprisonment, when the law
are divisible into three periods. violated does not make use of the nomenclature
b. Indivisible those which have no fixed of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code (R.A.
duration. These are: 9346, Sec. 2).
i. Death
ii. Reclusin perpetua Persons convicted of offenses punished with
iii. Perpetual absolute or special reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be
disqualification reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act,
iv. Public censure shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
2. Accessory penalties are those that are
Law, as amended (R.A. 9346, Sec. 3).
deemed included in the principal penalties (Id.).
ARTICLE 26
C. Based on subject matter
FINE WHEN AFFLICTIVE,
1. Corporal (death);
CORRECTIONAL OR LIGHT
2. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion perpetua and
temporal, prision mayor and correcional, arresto
Fine is: (Whether imposed as a single or as an
mayor and menor);
alternative penalty)
3. Restriction of freedom (destierro);
1. Afflictive over P6,000.00;
4. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and
2. Correctional P200.00 to P6,000.00; or
suspension); and
3. Light penalty less than P200.00
5. Pecuniary (fine).
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Same basis may be applied by analogy to Bond to
perpetual or temporary special disqualification, and
keep the peace.
suspension may be principal or accessory penalties.
The rule herein does not apply where the fine
Examples:
involved is in a compound penalty, that is, it is
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification is a principal
imposed in conjunction with another penalty. In this
penalty in prevaricacion (RPC, Art. 204) and
case, the highest penalty shall be made the basis for
perpetual special disqualification, in malversation
computing the period for the prescription of crimes
(RPC, Art. 217).
(RPC, Art. 90).
2. Temporary absolute disqualification is a principal
penalty when the accessory acts with abuse of
Where the fine in question is exactly P200, under
public functions (RPC, Art, 19[3] and Art. 58) and
Art. 9 it is a light felony, hence the felony involved is
temporary special disqualification, in direct bribery
a light felony; whereas under Art. 26, it is a
(Art. 206).
62
correctional penalty, hence the offense involved is a penalty.
less grave felony. It has been held that this
discrepancy should be resolved liberally in favor of Nature of destierro
the accused, hence Art. 9 prevails over Art. 26 Destierro is a principal, correctional and divisible
(People v. Yu Hai, G.R. No. 9598, August 15, 1956). penalty.
However, according to Justice Regalado there is no In what cases is destierro imposed?

such discrepancy. What is really in issue is the 1. Serious physical injuries or death under
prescription of the offense vis-a-vis the prescription exceptional circumstances (RPC, Art. 247);
of the penalty, the former being the forfeiture of the 2. In case of failure to give bond for good behavior
right of the State to prosecute the offender and the (RPC, Art. 284);
latter being the loss of its power to enforce the 3. As a penalty for the concubine in concubinage
judgment against the convict. (RPC, Art. 334); and
4. In cases where after reducing the penalty by one
Note: In determining the prescription of crimes, or more degrees, destierro is the proper penalty.
apply Art. 9 (P200 fine is light felony). In determining
the prescription of penalty, apply Art. 26 (P200 fine ARTICLE 28
prescribes in 10 years). COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES
Rules:
SECTION ONE DURATION OF PENALTIES 1. When the offender is in prison the duration of
CHAPTER THREE temporary penalties is from the day on which the
DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES judgment of conviction becomes final.
(ARTS. 27 45)
Reason: Under Art. 24, the arrest and temporary
detention of the accused is not considered a
penalty.
Applies in cases of temporary penalties and the

ARTICLE 27 offender is under detention (under preventive
DURATION OF EACH DIFFERENT PENALTIES imprisonment).
Afflictive Examples of Temporary Penalties:

Reclusion Reclusio Prision Mayor a. Temporary absolute disqualification;
Perpetua n andTemporary b. Temporary special disqualification; and
Temporal Disqualification c. Suspension.
20 yrs and 1 12 yrs and 6 yrs and 1 day to 12
day to 40 yrs 1 day to yrs., except when 2. When the offender is not in prison the
20 yrs disqualification is an duration of penalties consisting in deprivation of
accessory penalty, in liberty is from the day that the offender is placed at
which case its the disposal of judicial authorities for the
duration is that of the enforcement of the penalty.
principal penalty
Correctional This rule applies in cases of penalties consisting
Prisin Arresto Arresto Bond to in deprivation of liberty and the offender is not in
correccional mayor Menor keep the prison.
, peace
suspensin, Examples of Penalties Consisting of Deprivation
and of Liberty:
destierro a. Imprisonment; and
b. Destierro.
6 mos. and 1 1 mo. 1 day to The period
day to 6 yrs., And 1 30 days during
3. The Duration of Other Penalties The duration
except when day to 6 which the
is from the day on which the offender commences
suspensin is mos. bond shall
to serve his sentence. Applies in cases of:
an accessory be effective
a. Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty and
penalty, in is
the offender is undergoing preventive
which case its discretionar
imprisonment; but the offender is entitled to a
duration is y on the
deduction of full time or 4/5 of the time of his
that of the court.
detention; and
principal
63
b. Temporary penalties and the offender is not Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
under detention because the offender is imprisonment for a period equal to the possible
released on bail. maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to
which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet
ARTICLE 29, as amended by R.A. 10592 terminated, he shall be released immediately without
PERIOD OF PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or
DEDUCTED FROM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under
review.
Preventive Imprisonment
It is the period of detention undergone by an Computation of preventive imprisonment for
accused where the crime with which he is charged is purposes of immediate release under this paragraph
non-bailable or, even if bailable, he is unable to post shall be the actual period of detention with good
the requisite bail (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at conduct time allowance: Provided, however, That if
225). the accused is absent without justifiable cause at
any stage of the trial, the court may motu proprio
These rules on preventive imprisonment apply to all order the rearrest of the accused: Provided, finally,
sentences regardless of the duration thereof, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and
including the so-called perpetual penalties as long persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded
as they involve deprivation of liberty. It applies to from the coverage of this Act.
destierro (People v. Bastasa, G.R. No. L-32792,
February 2, 1979). In case the maximum penalty to which the accused
may be sentenced is lestierro, he shall be released
When is the detention prisoner entitled to the full after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.
credit of his preventive imprisonment?
General Rule: Under Sec. 41 of R.A. 9344, the child in conflict with
When the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in the law shall be credited in the services of his/her
writing after being informed of the effects thereof sentence with the full time spent in actual
and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the commitment and detention.
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners. SECTION TWO EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES
ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NATURE.
Exceptions:
1. When they are recidivists, or have been ARTICLE 30
convicted previously twice or more times of any EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF PERPETUAL
crime; and OR TEMPORARY
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of ABSOLUTE DISQUALIFICATION
their sentence they have failed to surrender
voluntarily. 1. Deprivation of the public offices and employments
which the offender may have held, even if
Note: Habitual delinquents are included in No. 1. conferred by popular election;
2. Deprivation of the right to vote in any election for
No. 2 refers to convicts who failed to voluntarily any popular elective office or to be elected to such
surrender to serve their penalties under a final office;
judgment, since this is indicative of a greater 3. Disqualification for the offices or public
defiance of authority. It does not refer to failure or employments and for the exercise of any of the
refusal to voluntarily surrender after the commission rights mentioned; and
of the crime. 4. Loss of all rights to retirement pay or other
pension for any office formerly held.
When will he be credited only with four-fifths the
time during which he has undergone preventive Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
imprisonment? It is effective during the lifetime of the convict and
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by even after the service of the sentence.
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
It lasts during the term of the sentence, and is
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of removed after the service of the same.
reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30)
years. Exceptions:
1. Deprivation of the public office or employment; and
64
2. Loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension 1. Deprivation of the rights of parental authority or
for any office formerly held. guardianship of any ward;
2. Deprivation of marital authority; and
A plebiscite is not mentioned or contemplated in Art. 3. Deprivation of the right to manage his property
30, par. 2 (deprivation of the right to vote), hence, and of the right to dispose of such property by any
the offender may vote in that exercise, subject to the act or any conveyance inter vivos.
provisions of pertinent election laws at the time.
But he can dispose of such property by will or
ARTICLE 31 donation mortis causa. The law only mentioned
EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF PERPETUAL dispositions inter vivos (REYES, Book One, supra at
OR TEMPORARY 621).
SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION
A person imposed with the penalty of civil
1. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession interdiction cannot appoint an agent to manage his
or calling affected; and property because the act of an agent is the act of
2. Disqualification for holding similar offices or the principal. Thus, the person civilly interdicted is
employments either perpetually or during the term doing indirectly what the law prohibits to be done
of the sentence, according to the extent of such (ESTRADA, Criminal Law I, supra at 231).
disqualification.
Civil interdiction is imposed when the penalty is:
ARTICLE 32 1. Death which is not carried out;
EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF PERPETUAL 2. Reclusin perpetua; or
OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL DISQUALIFICATION 3. Reclusin temporal.
FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF
SUFFRAGE ARTICLE 35
EFFECTS OF BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
1. Deprive the offender perpetually or during the term
of the sentence of: 1. The offender must present two sufficient sureties
a.The right to vote in any popular election for any who shall undertake that the offender will not
public office; or commit the offense sought to be prevented, and
b.To be elected to such office. that in case such offense be committed they will
2. Not be permitted to hold any public office during pay the amount determined by the Court;
the period of disqualification. 2. The offender must deposit such amount with the
Clerk of Court to guarantee said undertaking; or
Disqualification is the withholding of a privilege, not 3. The offender may be detained, if he cannot give
a denial of right a restriction upon the right of the bond, for a period not to exceed 6 months if
suffrage or to hold office. prosecuted for grave or less grave felony, or for a
period not to exceed 30 days, if for a light felony.
Purpose: To preserve the purity of elections; one
rendered infamous by conviction of felony or other Bond to keep the peace is different from bail bond
base offenses indicative of moral turpitude is unfit to which is posted for the provisional release of a
exercise such rights. person arrested for or accused of a crime.
Imposed as a penalty in threats (RPC, Art. 284)
ARTICLE 33 ARTICLE 36
EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF SUSPENSION PARDON; ITS EFFECTS
FROM ANY PUBLIC OFFICE, PROFESSION, OR
CALLING, OR THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE Effects of pardon by the president:
1. A pardon shall not restore the right to hold public
1. Disqualification from holding such office or office or the right of suffrage.
exercising such right or calling or right of suffrage Exception: When any or both such rights are
during the term of the sentence; and expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
2. If suspended from the public office, the offender 2. It shall not exempt the culprit from the payment of
cannot hold another office having similar functions the civil liability.
during the period of suspension.
Limitations upon the exercise of the pardoning
ARTICLE 34 power:
CIVIL INTERDICTION 1. The power can be exercised only after conviction
by final judgment (CONST. Art. VII, Sec. 19);
65
2. Such power does not extend to cases of and accessories.
impeachment (Cristobal v. Labrador, G.R. No. In adultery and
47941, December 7, 1940); and concubinage, pardon
3. No pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of must include both
sentence for violation of election laws, rules, and offenders.
regulations shall be granted by the President As to whether it can be conditional
without the favorable recommendation of the May be absolute or Cannot validly be made
COMELEC. conditional ifsubject to a condition.
General Rule: When the principal penalty is ARTICLE 37

remitted by pardon, only the effect of that principal COSTS
penalty is extinguished, but not the accessory
penalties attached to it. Costs or costs of suit
These are the expenses of litigation allowed and
Exception: When an absolute pardon is granted regulated by the Rules of Court to be assessed
after the term of imprisonment has expired, it against or to be recovered by a party in litigation (Id
removes what is left of the consequences of at 625).
conviction (REYES, Book One, supra at 624).
The following are included in costs:
Pardon by the 1. Fees; and
Pardon by the Chief
Offended Party (Art. 2. Indemnities, in the course of judicial proceedings.
Executive (Art. 36)
23)
As to the crime covered Costs are chargeable to the accused only in cases
Can extend to any Applies only to crimes of conviction. In case of acquittal, the costs are de
crime, unless otherwise against chastity under officio, meaning each party bearing his own
provided by or subject the RPC and marital expenses.
to conditions in the rape
Constitution or the laws No costs shall be allowed against the Republic of
As to the effect on civil liability the Philippines, unless otherwise provided by law
Cannot affect the civil The offended party can (RULES OF COURT, Rule 142, Sec. 1).
liability ex delicto of the waive the civil liability.
offender The payment of costs is a matter that rests entirely
As to extinguishment of criminal liability upon the discretion of courts (Bacolod-Murcia
Extinguishes criminal Does NOT extinguish Planters Association, Inc. v. Chua, G.R. No. L-1662,
liability criminal liability September 27, 1942).
Although it may
constitute a bar to the
prosecution of the
offender in seduction, ARTICLE 38
abduction and acts of PECUNIARY LIABILITIES
lasciviousness by the
valid marriage of the What are the pecuniary liabilities of persons
victim and the offender, criminally liable?
and in adultery and They are, in the following order: (RIFC)
concubinage, by the 1. Civil
express or implied a. The reparation of the damage caused;
pardon by the offended b. Indemnification of the consequential damages;
spouses. 2. Pecuniary
When granted a. Fine;
Can be extended only Can be validly granted b. Costs of proceedings.
after conviction by final only before the
judgment of the institution of the When Article 38 is applicable
accused criminal action In case the property of the offender should not be
To whom granted sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary
To any or all of the In seduction, abduction liabilities.
accused and acts of
lasciviousness, it The courts cannot disregard the order of payment
benefits the co- (Domalaon v. Yap, C.A., 59 O.G. 6675).
principals, accomplices
66
ARTICLE 39 4. If the penalty Subsidiary penalty shall
SUBSIDIARY PENALTY imposed is not consist in the same
As Amended by R.A. No. 10159 to be executed deprivations as those of the
by confinement, principal penalty, under the
Subsidiary penalty is a subsidiary personal liability but of fixed same rules as nos. 1, 2 and
to be suffered by the convict who has no property duration. 3 above.
with which to meet the fine.
In case the financial circumstances of the convict
New Basis for Daily Computation of Subsidiary should improve, he shall pay the fine,
Penalty notwithstanding the fact that the convict suffered
He shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability subsidiary personal liability therefor.
at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to
the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the When the penalty prescribed for the offense is
Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of imprisonment, it is the penalty actually imposed by
conviction by the trial court. the Court, not the penalty provided for by the Code,
which should be considered in determining whether
Note: This amended the previous rate of one (1) or not subsidiary penalty should be imposed.
day for each eight (8) pesos.
The same deprivations as those of which the
Subsidiary penalty shall be proper only if the principal penalty consists
accused has no property with which to pay the fine If the penalty is imprisonment, the subsidiary penalty
and not as a matter of choice on his part by opting to must be imprisonment also. If the penalty imposed is
go to jail instead of paying. destierro, the subsidiary penalty is also destierro
Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty,
hence it must be specifically imposed by the court in No subsidiary penalty shall be imposed where:
its judgment, otherwise the accused cannot be 1. The penalty imposed is higher than prisin
made to serve the corresponding subsidiary correccional or 6 years;
imprisonment (Ramos v. Gonong, G.R. No. L- 2. Additional penalty for habitual delinquency should
42010, August 31, 1961). be included in determining whether or not
subsidiary penalty should be imposed;
3. For non-payment of reparation or indemnification;
4. For non-payment of cost;
5. Where the penalty imposed is a fine and another
penalty without fixed duration, like censure (Id at
637); and
6. The subsidiary penalty, though properly imposable
Rules as to subsidiary liability is not expressly stated in the judgment;
Penalty Imposed Subsidiary Penalty 7. For non-payment of taxes in case of insolvency
(People v. Balagtas, G.R. No. L-10210, July 29,
1. Prisin Subsidiary imprisonment is
not to exceed 1/3 of the 1959).
correccional or
arresto AND fine term of the sentence, and in
no case to continue for Note: The rules on subsidiary penalty in Art. 39 are
more than one year. applicable to crimes punishable by special laws by
Fraction or part of a day, not force of Art. 10 of the Code.
counted.
2. Fine only Subsidiary imprisonment: There is no subsidiary penalty in cases of censure
a. not to exceed 6 months since it has no fixed duration and is not to be
if the culprit is prosecuted executed by confinement (REYES, Book One, supra
for grave or less grave at 635).
felony, and
b. not to exceed 15 days if SECTION THREE PENALTIES IN WHICH

prosecuted for light felony. OTHER ACCESSORY PENALTIES ARE
INHERENT
3. Higher than No subsidiary
prisin imprisonment.
ARTICLES 40 44
correccional
OUTLINE OF ACCESSORY PENALTIES
INHERENT IN PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
67
(There can be no forfeiture when there is no
1. Death, when not executed by reason of criminal case yet filed).
commutation or pardon: 2. The proceeds and instruments or tools of the
a. Perpetual absolute disqualification; and crime are confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
b. Civil interdiction during 30 years, if not expressly Government.
remitted in the pardon. 3. Property of a third person not liable for the offense
2. Reclusin perpetua and reclusin temporal: is not subject to confiscation and forfeiture.
a. Civil interdiction for life or during the sentence; Note: The statement prevails notwithstanding the
and fact that the third person who is the owner of the
b. Perpetual absolute disqualification, unless property could have been convicted if indicted with
expressly remitted in the pardon of the principal the accused (People v. Delgado, 9 CAR [2s], 960,
penalty. 979-980).
3. Prisin mayor: 4. Property not subject of lawful commerce (whether
a. Temporary absolute disqualification; and it belongs to the accused or to third person) shall
b. Perpetual special disqualification from suffrage, be destroyed.
unless expressly remitted in the pardon of the
principal penalty. The confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds and
4. Prisin correccional: instruments of a crime is an accessory penalty.
a. Suspension from public office, profession or Thus, where the penalty imposed did not include the
calling; and confiscation of the property, the confiscation or
b. Perpetual Special Disqualification from suffrage, forfeiture of the property would be an additional
if the duration of imprisonment exceeds 18 penalty and would tantamount to an increase of the
months, unless expressly remitted in the pardon penalty already imposed, thereby placing the
of the principal penalty. accused in double jeopardy (People v. Sanchez,
There is perpetual special disqualification from G.R. No. L-9768, June 21, 1957).
suffrage, only when the duration of the Articles which are forfeited, when the order or
imprisonment exceeds 18 months. forfeiture is already final, cannot be returned even in
5. Arresto suspension of the right to hold office and case of an acquittal (Commissioner of Customs v.
the right of suffrage during the term of the Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-7598, July 26, 1954).
sentence.
The provisions of Art. 45 cannot apply when:
Note: The Code does not provide for any accessory 1. The instruments belong to innocent third parties;
penalty for destierro. 2. Such properties have not been placed under the
jurisdiction of the court because they must be
Reclusion presented in evidence and identified in judgment
Life Imprisonment
Perpetua (US v. Filart, G.R. No. 10263, March 13, 1915);
Has a specific Has no definite term and
duration of 20 years 3. When it is legally or physically impossible.
and 1 day to 40
years This accessory penalty presupposes a judgment of
Imposable on Imposable on crimes conviction. However, even if the accused is
felonies punished by punishable by acquitted on reasonable doubt, but the instruments
the RPC special laws or proceeds are contraband, the judgment of
Carries with it Does not carry with acquittal shall order their forfeiture for appropriate
accessory penalties it accessory disposition (People v. Salanguit, G.R. No. 133254-
penalties 55, April 19, 2001).
It is only when death penalty is not executed by

reason of commutation or pardon that the accessory CHAPTER FOUR
penalty provided for in Art. 40 of the RPC shall be APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
suffered by the convict. (ARTS. 46-72)
ARTICLE 45
CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF
THE PROCEEDS OF THE CRIME SECTION ONE RULES FOR APPLICATION OF
PENALTIES TO THE PERSONS CRIMINALLY
Outline of the provisions of this article: LIABLE AND FOR THE GRADUATION OF THE
1. Every penalty imposed carries with it the forfeiture SAME
of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments
or tools used in the commission of the crime ARTICLE 46
68
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON PRINCIPALS 1. In complex crime, although 2 or more crimes
IN GENERAL are actually committed, they constitute only
one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in
General rule: The penalty prescribed by law in the conscience of the offender.
general terms shall be imposed upon the principals 2. The offender has only one criminal intent,
for a consummated felony. hence there is only one penalty imposed for
the commission of a complex crime (People v.
Exception: When the penalty to be imposed upon Hernandez, G.R. No. L-6025-26, July 18,
the principal in frustrated or attempted felony is fixed 1956).
by law.
Note: When in obedience to an order several
Graduation of penalties: accused simultaneously shot many persons,
1. By degrees refers to: without evidence how many are killed, there is
a. Stages of execution (consummated, frustrated, only a single offense, there being a single
or attempted); and criminal impulse (People v. Lawas, G.R. No.
b. Degree of the criminal participation of the L-7618, June 30, 1995).
offender (whether as principal, accomplice or
accessory). When a single burst from automatic gun
2. By periods refers to the proper period of the resulted in the numerous killings from a
penalty which should be imposed when number of bullets fired, there is no complex
aggravating or mitigating circumstances attend the crime but there are as many offenses as the
commission of the crime (REYES, Book One, numbers of victims of the bullets fired in view
supra at 650). of the special characteristic or mechanism of
automatic machine guns and the offender who
ARTICLE 47 knew this fact (People v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-
CASES WHEREIN THE DEATH PENALTY SHALL 26222 July 21, 1976).
NOT BE IMPOSED
No longer of any force or effect because the

substantive provisions thereof being inconsistent B. Two kinds of complex crimes:
with R.A 9346, while the procedural measures is 1. Compound crime (delito compuesto) a
superseded by the present revised Rules of Court. single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less
grave felonies.
ARTICLE 48
COMPLEX CRIMES Requisites:
a. That only a single act is performed by the
Plurality of Crimes offender; and
It consists in the successive execution, by the same b. That the single act produces:
individual, of different criminal acts, upon any of i. Two or more grave felonies, or
which no conviction has yet been declared. ii. One or more grave and one or more less
grave felonies, or
Kinds: iii. Two or more less grave felonies.
1. Real or material plurality different crimes in
law, as well as in the conscience of the offender; Light felonies produced by the same act
the offender shall be punished for each and every should be treated and punished as separate
offense that he committed. offenses or may be absorbed by the grave
2. Formal or ideal plurality only one criminal felony (People v. Turla, G.R. No. 26388,
liability (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 247). February 14, 1927).
Three groups under the formal type: When the crime is committed by force of
a. When the offender commits any of the complex violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed
crimes in Art. 48; such as in direct assault and rape. Reason:
b. When the law specifically fixes a single penalty the slight physical injuries are the necessary
for two or more offenses committed (Special consequence of the force or violence inherent
Complex Crimes); and in the crimes of direct assault and rape
c. When the offender commits continuous crimes. (People v. Aplado, G.R. No. 31075, August
12, 1929).
I. Complex Crimes Under Article 48
A. Concept Art. 48 speaks of two or more grave or less
grave felonies resulting from a single act,
69
which excludes crimes punishable by special one of them shall be imposed, the same to be
laws (People v. Araneta, G.R. No. 24622, applied in the maximum period.
January 28, 1926).
When 2 felonies constituting a complex crime are
2. Complex crime proper (delito complejo) an punishable by imprisonment and fine, respectively,
offense is a necessary means for committing only the penalty of imprisonment should be
the other. imposed.
The first offense must be consummated. Reason: Fine is not included in the list of penalties
in the order of severity, and it is the last in the
Requisites: graduated scales in Art. 71 of the RPC (People v.
a. That at least two offenses are committed; Yongco, C.A- G.R. No. 18252-CR, January 26,
b. That one or some of the offenses must be 1977).
necessary to commit the other
Note: The phrase necessary means has When a complex crime is charged and one offense
been interpreted not to mean indispensable is not proven, the accused can be convicted of the
means, because if it did, then the offense as other (People v. Maribung, G.R. No. L-47500, April
necessary means to commit another 29, 1987).
would be an indispensable element of the
latter and would be an ingredient thereof No complex crime of Estafa Thru Falsification of
(Dissenting Opinion, People v. Hernandez, Private Document
G.R. No. L-6025-26, July 18, 1956); and There is no complex crime of estafa thru falsification
c. That both or all of the offenses must be of private document as both crimes require damage
punished under the same statute. as an element which if used for one renders the
other incomplete, hence the query is as to which
C. No complex crime in the following cases: crime was committed first.
1. In case of continuous crimes;
2. When one offense is committed to conceal the If the falsification of a private document is committed
other; as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be
3. When the other crime is an indispensable part charged is falsification; If the estafa can be
or an element of the other offenses; committed without the necessity of falsifying a
4. Where one of the offenses is penalized by a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa
special law; and (Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, September
5. When the provision provides for a two-tiered 15, 2006).
penalty, e.g. usurpation of property (RPC, Art.
312), malicious procurement of a search Complex crime of Abduction with Rape
warrant (RPC, Art 129), bribery (RPC, Art 210 If at the outset, the accused took a woman away
par 1), maltreatment of prisoners (RPC, Art against her will and with lewd designs on his part,
235). and he thereafter raped her, this would clearly be
the complex crime of abduction with rape (People v.
Note: Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit. Oso, G.R. No. 42571, October 10, 1935).
Reason: The offender is deemed less perverse than On the other hand, the rule has been that if he had
when he commits said crimes thru separate and no lewd designs at the time of the forcible taking of
distinct acts (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L- the victim, but the taking advantage later when the
6025-26, July 18, 1956). victim was in his custody he raped her, he
committed two separate crimes of kidnapping, a
The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the crime against personal liberty, and rape, then a
most serious crime, the same to be applied in its crime against chastity (People v. Quitain,,G.R. No.
maximum period. L-8227, May 25, 1956).
When two crimes produced by a single act are Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible
respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of two abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape for
courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher even while the first act of rape was being performed,
jurisdiction shall try the complex crime (Angeles, the crime of forcible abduction was already
etc. v. Jose, et. al., G.R. No. L-6494, November 24, consummated, so that each of the three succeeding
1954). rapes cannot be complexed with forcible abduction
(People v. Jose, No. L-282232, Feb. 6, 1971).
If different crimes resulting from one single act are
punished with the same penalty, the penalty for any No complex crime of Rebellion with Murder
70
There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, 2. When the crimes involved are subject to the rule
arson, robbery, or other common crimes (People v. of absorption of one crime by the other;
Geronimo, et.al., G.R. No. 8936, October 23, 1956). 3. Where the two offenses resulting from a single act
are specifically punished as a single crime, such
Complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder as less serious physical injuries with serious
Where the victim was kidnapped for the purpose of slander of deed, since this is punished under Art.
extorting ransom under pain of death, and he was 265 par. 2, as the single crime of less serious
later killed when no such ransom was paid, the physical injuries with ignominy;
complex crime of kidnapping with murder was 4. In special complex crimes or composite crimes;
committed (REGALADO, supra at 189). and
5. When the crimes involved cannot be legally
Article 48 Does not Apply to Acts Penalized complexed, viz.:
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. a. Malicious obtention or abusive service of search
Article 48 is a procedural device allowing single warrant (Art. 129) with perjury;
prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either b. Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the custody of
of two categories: (1) when a single act constitutes prisoners;
two or more grave or less grave felonies (thus c. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235) with serious
excluding from its operation light felonies; and (2) physical injuries;
when an offense is a necessary means for d. Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312) with serious
committing the other. The legislature crafted this physical injuries; and
procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in lieu of e. Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275)
serving multiple penalties, will only serve the and crimes against minors (Arts. 276 to 278)
maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime. with any other felony.
In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule II. Special Complex Crimes those which are
penalizing not an act defined as a felony but the treated as single indivisible offenses although
mental attitude x x x behind the act, the dangerous comprising more than one specific crime and with
recklessness, lack of care or foresight x x x, a specific penalty.
single mental attitude regardless of the resulting
consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one These refer to two or more crimes that the law
quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences. treats as a single indivisible and unique offense
Article 48 is incongruent to the notion of quasi- for being the product of a single criminal impulse
crimes under Article 365. It is conceptually (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 183091, June 19,
impossible for a quasi-offense to stand for (1) a 2013).
single act constituting two or more grave or less
grave felonies; or (2) an offense which is a Examples:
necessary means for committing another. 1. Rape with homicide;
The homicide must always be consummated,
This ruling secures for the accused facing an Article otherwise, separate offenses. The rape may
365 charge a stronger and simpler protection of their either be consummated or attempted.
constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy
Clause. True, they are thereby denied the beneficent Note: R.A. 8353 provides that when the rape is
effect of the favorable sentencing formula under Art. attempted and a homicide is committed by
48, but any disadvantage thus caused is more than reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
quasi-crime effects qualifying as light offenses (or,
as here, for the more serious consequence When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
prosecuted belatedly). it is so minded, Congress can homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
re-craft Article 365 by extending to quasi-crimes the death. The legislative intent on the import of the
sentencing formula of Article 48 so that only the phrase on the occasion of the rape to refer to a
most severe penalty shall be imposed under a single killing that occurs immediately before or after, or
prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penalized during the commission itself of the attempted or
as grave, less grave or light offenses. This will still consummated rape, where the victim of the
keep intact the distinct concept of quasi-offenses homicide may be a person other than the rape
(Ivler v. San Pedro and Ponce G.R. No. 172716, victim herself for as long as the killing is linked
November 17, 2010). to the rape, became evident (People v.
Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012).
Rules in Art. 48 are NOT applicable:
1. When the crimes subject of the case have 2. Kidnapping with homicide;
common elements; 3. Kidnapping with rape;
71
Kidnapping with rape is different from abduction It is made up of two or It is made up of two or
with rape. In the latter, there is lewd design more crimes being more crimes which are
(People v. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, Feb. 6, punished in distinct considered only as
1971). provisions of the components of a single
4. Robbery with homicide; and Revised Penal Code but indivisible offense being
Additional homicide is not aggravating. alleged in one punished in one
5. Robbery with rape, information either provision of the Revised
Additional rape is not aggravating. because they were Penal Code.
brought about by a
Note: There is no complex crime of Arson with single felonious act or
(Multiple) Homicide. Accordingly, in cases where because one offense is a
both burning and death occur, in order to determine necessary means for
what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated whether committing the other
arson, murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is offense or offenses.
de rigueur to ascertain the main objective of the
malefactor: As to Penalty
a. If the main objective is the burning of the building
or edifice, but death results by reason or on the Penalty for the most It is the penalty
occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and serious crime shall be specifically provided for
the resulting homicide is absorbed; imposed and in its the special complex
b. If, on the other hand, the main objective is to kill a maximum period. crime that shall be
particular person who may be in a building or applied according to the
edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to rules on imposition of
accomplish such goal the crime committed is the penalty.
murder only; and lastly
c. If the objective is, likewise, to kill a particular Note: One information should be filed when a
person, and in fact the offender has already done complex crime is committed (People v. Estipona,
so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up G.R. No. 46978, November 14, 1940).
the killing, then there are two separate and distinct
crimes committed homicide/murder and arson III. Continuous crime a single crime, consisting of
(People of the Philippines v. Edna Malngan G. R. a series of acts, but all arising from one criminal
No. 170470, September 26, 2006). resolution; length of time in the commission is
immaterial (REYES, Book One, supra at 683).
When the crimes involved cannot be legally
complexed, viz: Requisites:
1. Malicious obtention or abusive service of search 1.Multiplicity of acts;
warrant (RPC, Art. 129) with perjury; 2.Unity of criminal purpose or intent; and
2. Bribery (RPC, Art. 210) with infidelity in the 3.Unity of criminal offense violated.
custody of prisoners;
3. Maltreatment of prisoners (RPC, Art. 235) with Not a complex crime because the offender does
serious physical injuries; not perform a single act, but a series of acts, and
4. Usurpation of real rights (RPC, Art. 312) with one offense is not a necessary means for
serious physical injuries; and committing the other.
5. Abandonment of persons in danger (RPC, Art.
275) and crimes against minors (RPC, Arts. 276- In determining venue, a continued, continuous or
278) with another felony. continuing crime is different from a transitory
crime (moving crime) in the latter case, criminal
action may be instituted and tried in the court of
the municipality, city or province wherein any of
Special Complex
Ordinary Complex the essential ingredients thereof took place (Id at
Crime or Composite
Crime 687).
Crime
As to their Concept Real or Material
Continued Crime
Plurality
There is a series of There is a series of
acts performed by the acts performed by the
offender. offender.
72
Each act performed by The different acts Note: For Articles 50-57 and 60, refer to Art. 61
the offender constitute only one herein provided.
constitutes a separate crime, all of the acts
crime, each act is performed arise from ARTICLE 58
generated by a one criminal ADDITIONAL PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON
criminal impulse. resolution. CERTAIN ACCESSORIES
Public officers who help the author of the crime by

Note: A continued/continuing crime is not a misusing their office and duties shall suffer the
complex crime because the offender in additional penalties of:
continued/continuing crime does not perform a 1. Absolute perpetual disqualification, if the principal
single act, but a series of acts, and one offense is offender is guilty of a grave felony; or
not a necessary means for committing the other 2. Absolute temporary disqualification if the principal
(Id. at 686). offender is guilty of less grave felony.
ARTICLE 49 This article applies only to public officers who
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON THE abused their public functions.
PRINCIPALS WHEN THE CRIME COMMITTED IS
DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED
ARTICLE 59
Rules: PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED IN CASE OF
1. If the penalty for the felony committed be higher FAILURE TO COMMIT THE CRIME BECAUSE
than the penalty for the offense which the accused THE MEANS EMPLOYED OR THE AIMS SOUGHT
intended to commit, the lower penalty shall be ARE IMPOSSIBLE
imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty for the felony committed be lower Impossible Crime
than the penalty for the offense which the accused The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor
intended to commit, the lower penalty shall be (imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day to 6 months) or
imposed in its maximum period. fine ranging from 200-500pesos.
Art. 49 applies only when there is a mistake in the
identity of the victim of the crime, and the penalty for Basis for the imposition of proper penalty:
the crime committed is different from that for the 1. Social danger; and
crime intended to be committed. Also, it is applicable 2. Degree of criminality shown by the offender
only when the intended crime and the crime actually
committed are punished with different penalties. He who attempts to commit a light felony of
impossible materialization may be punished under
It does not apply to abberatio ictus because in this this Article as the law speaks of offense or crime,
case, there is complex crime committed under Art. which include light felony (REYES, Book One, supra
48: the crime intended to be committed and the at 698).
crime actually committed (People v. Guillen, G.R.
No. L-1477, January 18, 1950). ARTICLE 60
EXCEPTIONS TO RULES ESTABLISHED IN
It also does not apply to praeter intentionem ARTICLES 50 TO 57
because in this case, the crime befalls the same
person. Art. 49 has no application to cases where a Arts. 50-57, which refers to the rules regarding
more serious consequence not intended by the graduating penalties shall not apply if:
offender befalls the same person (People v. 1. The law expressly prescribes the penalty provided
Albuquerque, G.R. No. 38773, December 19, 1933). for frustrated or attempted felony; or
2. The law expressly prescribes the penalty to be
imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
Article 49 Article 48 ARTICLE 61

RULES OF GRADUATING PENALTIES
Lesser penalty is Penalty for the more
imposed, to be applied or most serious crime According to Arts. 50-57, the penalty prescribed by
in maximum periods. shall be imposed, to law for the felony shall be lowered by one or two
be applied in its degrees, as follows:
maximum period. 1. For the principal in frustrated felony one degree
lower;
73
2. For the principal in attempted felony two Exceptions:
degrees lower; The following accomplices are punished with the
3. For the accomplice in consummated felony one same penalty imposed upon the principal:
degree lower; and 1. The ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers
4. For the accessory in consummated felony two and any person who by abuse of authority or
degrees lower; confidential relationship, shall cooperate as
accomplices in the crimes of rape, acts of
Diagram of the application of Arts. 50- 57: lasciviousness, seduction, corruption of minors,
white slave trade or abduction (RPC, Art. 346);
Consumm
Frustrated Attempted and
ated
2. One who furnished the place for the perpetration
Principal 0 1 2 of the crime of slight illegal detention (RPC, Art.
Accomplice 1 2 3 268).
Accessory 2 3 4
When penalty prescribed is single and indivisible
the penalty next lower in degree shall be that
In this diagram, 0 represents the penalty prescribed immediately following that indivisible penalty in the
by law in defining a crime, which is to be imposed on respective graduated scale in Article 71.
the principal in a consummated offense, in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 46. The other If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
figures represent the degrees to which the penalty three periods, corresponding to different divisible
must be lowered, to meet the different situations penalties, the penalty next lower in degree is the
anticipated by law. penalty consisting in the three periods down in the
scale.
Bases for the determination of the extent of
penalty to be imposed under the RPC: If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in two
1. Stage reached by the crime in its development periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the
(either attempted, frustrated or consummated); penalty consisting in two periods down in the scale.
2. Participations therein of the persons liable; and
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
attended the commission of the crime. only one period, the penalty next lower in degree is
the next period down in the scale.
Degree
It is one entire penalty, one whole penalty or one Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
unit of the penalties enumerated in the graduated disregarded in the application of the rules for
scales provided for in Art. 71. graduating penalties.
When there is mitigating or aggravating Example: (Note the difference between Period
circumstance, the penalty is lowered or increased by and Degree when referred to in Art. 61)
period only. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is
composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the
Exception: When the penalty is divisible and there maximum period of another divisible penalty, the
are two or more mitigating and without aggravating penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of
circumstances, in which case the penalty is lowered the medium and minimum periods of the proper
by degree. indivisible penalty and the maximum period of that
immediately following in the said respective
Period graduated scale (RPC, Art. 61, par. 3).
It is one of the three equal portions, called minimum,
medium and maximum, of a divisible penalty. Reclusion temporal in its minimum period to
reclusion perpetua is an example of the maximum of
Exceptions to the rules established in Arts. 50 to divisible penalty and indivisible penalty. One degree
57: lower is prision mayor in its maximum period to
Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to cases where the law reclusion temporal in its minimum and medium
expressly prescribes the penalty for a frustrated or periods.
attempted felony, or to be imposed upon
accomplices or accessories (RPC, Art. 60).
Death
General Rule: An accomplice is punished by a Reclusion Perpetua One indivisible penalty
penalty one degree lower than the penalty imposed (RP) and the maximum of RT
upon the principal. Reclusion Temporal
(RT) Penalty for the principal
74
-maximum in consummated (Id. at 705)
murder.
Reclusion Temporal One degree lower is
(RT) PMa in its maximum SECTION TWO RULES FOR THE APPLICATION
-medium period to RT in its OF PENALTIES WITH REGARD TO THE
-minimum minimum and medium MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
Prision Mayor (PMa) periods CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HABITUAL
-maximum DELINQUENCY
Penalty for accomplice;
or penalty for principal
in frustrated murder ARTICLE 62
Prision Mayor (PMa) EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING
-medium OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND OF
-minimum HABITUAL DELIQUENCY
(REYES, Book One, supra at 704)
Rules regarding aggravating and mitigating
Note: Death is included in the above example only circumstances:
to show the scale of penalties. However, pursuant to 1. Aggravating circumstances which (a) in
RA 9346, death penalty can no longer be imposed. themselves constitute a crime especially punished
by law or which (b) are included by the law in
When the penalty prescribed for the crime is defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
composed of several periods, corresponding to therefor are not to be taken into account to
different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in increase the penalty.
degree shall be composed of the period immediately Maximum penalty shall be imposed:
following the minimum prescribed and of the two a. When in the commission of the crime,
next following, which shall be taken from the penalty advantage was taken by the offender of his
prescribed if possible; otherwise from the penalty public position;
immediately following in the above mentioned b. If the offense was committed by any person who
respective graduated scale (RPC, Article 61, par. 4). belongs to an organized/syndicated crime
group.
An example of a penalty composed of several 2. The preceding rule applies with respect to
periods corresponding to different divisible penalties aggravating circumstances which are inherent in
is prision mayor (PMa) in its maximimum period to the crime.
reclusion temporal (RT) in its minimum and medium 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
periods. arise from:
a. The moral attributes of the offender;
In the range of penalty from PMa maximum to RT in b. From his private relations from the offended
its minimum and maximum, the minimum period is party; or
PMa in its maximum period, the medium period is c. From any other personal cause, serve to
RT minimum and the maximum is RT medium. aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
principals, accomplices and accessories as to
In lowering the penalty by one degree, count three whom such circumstances are attendant.
periods down and that is equivalent to one degree 4. The circumstances which consist in:
lower. a. Material execution of the act, or
b. The means employed to accomplish it, shall
Death serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability only of
RP those persons who had knowledge of them at
RT -maximum the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
-medium MAXIMUM 5. Additional penalty for habitual delinquency:
-minimum MEDIUM a.Upon 3rd conviction culprit shall be sentenced
PMa -maximum MINIMUM to the penalty provided by law for the last crime
PMa -medium of which he is found guilty and to the additional
-minimum ONE penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
DEGREE maximum periods.
LOWER b.Upon a 4th conviction the culprit shall be
Prision Correccional
sentenced to the additional penalty of prision
(PC) -maximum
mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
c.Upon 5th or additional conviction the culprit
-medium shall be sentenced to the additional penalty of
-minimum
75
prision mayor in its maximum period to As to the crimes committed
reclusion temporal in its minimum period. The crimes are It is sufficient that the
Total of the two penalties shall not exceed 30 years. specified. accused on the date of
his trial, shall have
Effects: been previously
1. Aggravating circumstances (generic and specific) convicted by final
have the effect of increasing the penalty, without judgment of another
however exceeding the maximum period provided crime embraced in the
by law. same title.
2. Mitigating circumstances have the effect of As to the period of time the crimes are
diminishing the penalty. committed
3. Habitual delinquency has the effect, not only of The offender is found No period of time
increasing the penalty because of recidivism guilty within ten years between the former
which is generally implied in habitual delinquency, from his last release or conviction and the last
but also of imposing an additional penalty. last conviction. conviction.
As to the number of crimes committed
Requisites of habitual delinquency: (ConCom10) The accused must be The second offense is
1. That the offender had been convicted of any of found guilty the third for an offense found in
the crimes of (FRETSeL) time or oftener of the the same title.
a. Falsification, crimes specified.
b. Robbery,
c. Estafa,
d. Theft or As to their effects
e. Serious or less serious physical injuries; An additional penalty If not offset by a
2. That after conviction or after serving his sentence, is also imposed. mitigating
he again committed, and, within 10 years from his circumstance, it serves
last release of first conviction, he was again to increase the penalty
convicted of any of the said crimes for the second only to the maximum
time; and
3. That after his conviction of, or after serving A convict can be a habitual delinquent without being
sentence for the second offense, he again a recidivist when no two of the crimes committed are
committed, and, within 10 years from his last embraced in the same title of the RPC.
release or last conviction, he was again convicted
of any of said offenses, the third time or oftener. The imposition of additional penalty for habitual
delinquency is constitutional because it is neither an
Illustration: ex post facto law nor does its imposition constitute
A was convicted of the following crimes: double jeopardy since it is not imposed for the same
Offense Date of Date of Date of offense but for the moral depravity of the accused
Commission Conviction Release (People v. Montera, G.R. No. 34431, August 11,
1931).
Theft Aug 1914 April 1915 Sept 1916
Estafa Nov 1920 April 1923 April 1925 ARTICLE 63
Robbery July 1932 April 1934 RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF INDIVISIBLE
PENALTIES
As regards the estafa committed in Nov 1920, the
starting point is the date of the last release or Sept Imposable penalty
1916 in the crime of theft and in such case, there is It is the penalty that will be imposed after applying
only a difference of 7 years since the period within the RPC and ISL.
which we should count the 10 year-rule is from the
date of last release to the date of conviction (April Prescribed penalty
1923) (REYES, Book One, supra at 716). It is the penalty prescribed by the RPC after
considering the mitigating and aggravating
Subsequent crime must be committed after circumstances.
conviction of former crime (People v. Ventura, G.R.
No. 35194, August 27, 1931). Outline of the rules:
1. When the penalty is single indivisible, it shall be
In determining the courts jurisdiction, additional applied regardless of any mitigating (except if
penalty is NOT considered. privilege mitigating) or aggravating circumstances.
2. When the penalty is composed of two indivisible
Habitual penalties, the following rules shall be observed:
Recidivism
Deliquency
76
a. When there is only one aggravating mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser
circumstance, the greater penalty shall be extent of the evil produced by the crime.
imposed.
b. When there is neither mitigating nor aggravating Cases in which mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be circumstances are NOT considered in the
imposed. imposition of penalty:
c. When there is a mitigating circumstance and no 1. When the penalty is single and indivisible (except
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty if privileged mitigating);
shall be imposed. 2. In felonies through negligence (People v. Quijano,
d. When both mitigating and aggravating 43 O.G. 2214; Art. 365);
circumstances are present, the court shall allow
them to offset one another.
3. When the penalty is only a fine imposed by an
Note: As mentioned in Chapter Three, for such ordinance (People v. Kuan, G.R. No. 48515,
offset to apply, the mitigating circumstance must November 11, 1942); and
be generic and specific. 4. When the penalties are prescribed by special laws
3. When the penalty is composed of two indivisible (People v. Respecia, 58 O.G. 458).
penalties, the penalty cannot be lowered by one
degree, no matter how many ordinary mitigating ARTICLE 65
circumstances are present. RULES IN CASES OF PENALTY NOT
COMPOSED OF THREE PERIODS
Exception: When a privileged mitigating
circumstance under Art. 68 or Art. 69 is present. The courts shall apply the rules in the preceding
articles by:
Note: The imposable penalty for the crime of rape 1. dividing into three (3) equal portions the time
is reclusion perpetua. The accused being entitled included in the penalty prescribed; and
to the privileged mitigating circumstance of 2. forming one period of each of the three portions.
minority, the imposable penalty is reclusion
temporal in its medium period, absent any other Illustration:
mitigating or aggravating circumstance (People v. 1. Let us take as an example Prision Mayor which
Galang, G. R. No, 70713, June 29, 1989). has a duration of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.
2. Subtract the minimum(disregarding the 1 day)
ARTICLE 64 from the maximum, thus
RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES, 12 years 6 years = 6 years
WHICH CONTAIN 3. Divide the difference by 3, thus
THREE PERIODS 6 years / 3 = 2 years
4. Use the minimum of 6 years and 1 day of Prision
Outline of the rules: Mayor as the minimum of the minimum period.
1. No aggravating and no mitigating medium Then add 2 years to the minimum (disregarding
period. the 1 day) to get the maximum of the minimum
2. Only mitigating minimum period. period. Thus
3. Only aggravating maximum period. We have 8 years as the maximum of the minimum
4. Where there are aggravating and mitigating the period. The range of the minimum period is 6
court shall offset those of one class against the years and 1 day to 8 years.
other according to their relative weight. 5. Use the maximum of the minimum period as the
5. Two or more mitigating and no aggravating minimum of the medium period, and add 1 day to
penalty next lower, in the period applicable, distinguish it from the maximum of the minimum
according to the number and nature of such period; we have 8 years and 1 days. Then add 2
circumstances. years to the minimum of the medium period
6. If there are three mitigating circumstances but two (disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum of
aggravating circumstances, the rule is not the medium period. The range of the medium
applicable. The effect is to fix the period at the period is 8 years and 1 day to 10 years.
minimum only. 6. Use the maximum of the medium period as the
7. No penalty greater than the maximum period of minimum of the maximum period, and add 1 day
the penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed, to distinguish it from the maximum of the medium
no matter how many aggravating circumstances period; we have 10 years and 1 day. Then add 2
are present. years to the minimum of the maximum period
8. The court can determine the extent of the penalty (disregarding 1 day) to get the maximum of the
within the limits of each period, according to the maximum period. Hence, the range of the
number and nature of the aggravating and maximum period is 10 years and 1 day to 12
years (REYES, Book One, supra at 737).
77
ARTICLE 66 Upon the recommendation of the social worker
IMPOSITION OF FINES who has custody of the child, the court shall
dismiss the case against the child and shall order
Outline of the provision: the final discharge of the child if it finds that the
1. The court can fix any amount of the fine within the objective of the disposition measures have been
limits established by law. fulfilled (R.A. 9344 as amended, Sec. 39).
2. The court must consider:
a. the mitigating and aggravating circumstances; A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up
and to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits
b. more particularly, the wealth or means of the parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping and
culprit. serious illegal detention where the victim is killed
3. The court may also consider: or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape,
a. the gravity of the crime committed; destructive arson, rape, or carnapping where the
b. the heinousness of its perpetration; and driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses
c. the magnitude of its effects on the offenders under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
victims (People v. Manuel, CA-G.R. Nos. Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by
14648-61-R,July 6, 1957). more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment,
shall be deemed a neglected child under
Note: Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and
When the minimum of the fine is not fixed by law, shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility
the determination of the amount of fine is left to the within the youth care faculty or Bahay Pag-asa
sound discretion of the court, provided it shall not called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and
exceed the maximum authorized by law (People v. Support Center (IJISC) (sec. 20-A, RA 9344 as
Quinto, G. R No. 40934, August 16, 1934). amended).
Wealth or means of culprit is the main consideration 2.This article has been repealed or amended in the
in the imposition of fines (People v. Kuan, supra). sense that the accused in par. 1 thereof is
completely absolved from criminal liability under
ARTICLE 67 RA 9344, hence there is no basis for considering
WHEN NOT ALL REQUISITES OF any privileged mitigating circumstance in his favor.
ACCIDENT ARE PRESENT
3.That circumstance may, however, be involved in
If not all the conditions necessary to exempt from its par. 2 where the accused is over 15 and below
liability under Art. 12(4) are present, the act should 18 years of age but he acted with discernment,
be considered as: and he is returned to the other correlative
1. Reckless imprudence, if the act is executed proceedings, if any, have not achieved their
without taking those precautions or measures purposes and, in effect, the accused has been
which the most common prudence would require; found to be incorrigible.
and
2. Simple imprudence, if it is a mere lack of If the court finds that the objective of the
precaution in those cases where either the disposition measures imposed upon the child in
threatened harm is not imminent or the danger is conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if
not openly visible (REYES, Book One, supra at the child in conflict with the law has willfully failed
742). to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition
or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with
ARTICLE 68 the law shall be brought before the court for
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON A promulgation (not execution) of judgment (R.A.
PERSON UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE 9344 as amended, Sec. 40).
Application of Art. 68: If said child in conflict with the law has reached
1. This article is not immediately applicable to a eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended
minor under 18 years of age, because when such sentence, the court shall determine whether to
minor is found guilty of the offense charged, the discharge the child, to order execution of
court shall determine the penalty in the judgment sentence, or to extend the suspended sentence
of conviction but shall suspend the promulgation for a certain specified period or until the child
(not the execution) and orders commitment to a reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21)
reformatory institution, if the court therefor years (R.A. 9344 as amended, Sec. 40).
approves his application (R.A. 9344 as amended,
Sec. 38). ARTICLE 69
78
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED WHEN THE CRIME 4. Subsidiary penalty forms part of the penalty
COMMITTED IS NOT WHOLLY EXCUSABLE (Bagtas v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L- 3215,
October 6, 1949).
Penalty: Lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law Example: A person is sentenced to suffer14
years, 8 months and 1 day for homicide; 17 years, 4
Application: When there is lack of some of the months and 1 day in another case; 14 years and 8
conditions required to justify the deed or to exempt months in the third case; and in a case of frustrated
from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned homicide, he is sentenced to 12 years, or a total of
in Arts. 11 and 12; PROVIDED THAT, the majority of 59 years, 8 months and 2 days.
such conditions be present.
The most severe of those penalties is 17 years, 4
Unlawful aggression is indispensable in self- month and 1 day. Three times that penalty is 52
defense, defense of relatives and defense of years and 3 days. But since the law has limited the
stranger, without which, the offender is not entitled duration of the maximum term of imprisonment to
to reduction (US v. Navarro, G.R. No. 1878, March not more than 40 years, the accused will have to
9, 1907). suffer 40 years only (Id. at 749).
ARTICLE 70 Different systems of penalty, relative to the

SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE execution of two or more penalties imposed on
one and the same accused:
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, 1.Material accumulation system
he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of No limitation whatever, and accordingly, all the
the penalties will so permit. penalties for all the violations were imposed even
if they reached beyond the natural span of human
Otherwise, the order of their severity (under this life.
article) shall be followed so that they may be 2.Juridical accumulation system
executed successively Limited to not more than three-fold the length of
time corresponding to the most severe and in no
Penalties which may be simultaneously served are: case to exceed 40 years. This is followed in our
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification; jurisdiction.
2. Perpetual special disqualification; 3. Absorption system
3. Temporary absolute disqualification; The lesser penalties are absorbed by the graver
4. Temporary special disqualification; penalties (REYES, Book One, supra at 754-755).
5. Suspension;
6. Destierro; ARTICLE 71
7. Public censure; GRADUATED SCALES
8. Fine and bond to keep the peace;
9. Civil interdiction; and Apply this article in determining the proper degree
10. Confiscation and payment of costs. where the law prescribes a penalty lower or higher
by two or more degrees than another given penalty.
If the sum total of all the penalties does not exceed
the most severe of all the penalties multiplied by Scale No. 1 Scale No. 2
three, the three-fold rule does not apply. 1. Death 1.Perpetual absolute
2. Reclusion perpetua disqualification
The Three-Fold Rule: (3:4:40) 3. Reclusion temporal 2.Temporary absolute
1. The maximum duration of the convicts sentence 4. Prision mayor disqualification
shall not be more than three times the length of 5. Prisioncorreccional 3.Suspension from
time corresponding to the most severe of the 6. Arresto mayor public office, the
penalties imposed upon him. 7. Destierro right to vote and be
2. But in no case to exceed 40 years. 8. Arrestomenor voted for, and the
3. This rule shall apply only when the convict is to 9. Public censure right to follow a
serve 4 or more sentences successively. 10. Fine profession or calling
Note: This rule applies only when the convict has 4.Public censure
to serve continuous imprisonment for several 5.Fine
offenses. If the convict already served sentence
for one offense, that imprisonment will not be ARTICLE 72
considered (REYES, Book One, supra at 750- PREFERENCE IN THE PAYMENT
751). OF CIVIL LIABILITIES
79
Civil liability is satisfied by following the of them shall be the minimum, the next the medium,
chronological order of the dates of the final and the most severe the maximum period.
judgment.
An example of this is the present penalty for treason
SECTION THREE PROVISIONS COMMON IN by a resident alien, which is reclusion temporal to
THE LAST TWO PRECEDING SECTIONS death (Article 114).
(ARTS.73-77)
With the abolition of the death penalty, such concept
Art. 73 Accessory penalties are also deemed of a complex penalty finds no application now in the
imposed upon the convict. computation of penalties, but it is submitted that the
impasse may be resolved through the process of
The accessory penalties provided for in Arts. 40 to computation stated in the second paragraph
45 are deemed imposed by the courts without the (REGALADO, Criminal Law Conspectus, 4th Edition,
necessity of making an express pronouncement of 2009, p. 247)
their imposition (REYES, Book One, supra at 761).
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ISL)
Art. 74 The penalty higher than reclusion Act No. 4103 as amended
perpetua, when death is not provided by law, shall by Act No. 4225
be the same penalty and the accessory penalties of
Article 40. Concept of Indeterminate Sentence
It is a sentence with a minimum term and a
Reason: penalty of death must be specifically maximum term which, the court is mandated to
imposed by law as a penalty for a given crime. impose for the benefit of a guilty person who is not
disqualified therefore, when the maximum
Art. 75 When necessary, fine shall be increased or imprisonment exceeds one (1) year. It applies to
reduced for each degree, by of the maximum both violations of Revised Penal Code and special
amount prescribed by law, without however, laws.
changing the minimum.
Purpose of ISL: To uplift and redeem valuable
Fines are graduated into degrees for the human material and prevent unnecessary and
accomplices and accessories and for the principals excessive deprivation of personal liberty and
in frustrated and attempted felonies (Id. at 763). economic usefulness (People v. Ducosin, G.R. No.
L-38332, December 14, 1933; People v. Onate,
Distinctions between fine with a minimum and G.R. No. 27481, July 28, 1977).
fine without a minimum.
1. In both, the law fixes the maximum of the fine. (i) Sentence in the ISL if the PENALTY is
2. When the law fixes the minimum of the fine, the
court cannot change the minimum; whereas, when Imposed by:
the law does not state the minimum of the fine but RPC Special Law
only the maximum, the court can impose any Maximum Term
amount not exceeding such maximum. That which could be Must not exceed the
3. When the law fixes both the minimum and the properly imposed maximum term fixed
maximum, the court can impose an amount higher under the RPC, by said law.
than the maximum; whereas, when only the considering the
maximum is fixed, it cannot impose an amount aggravating and
higher than the maximum (Id. at 764-765). mitigating
circumstances
Art.76 The legal period of duration of penalties Minimum Term
shall be considered as divided into three parts, Within the range of Must not be less than
forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, the penalty one the minimum term
and the maximum. degree lower than prescribed by the
that prescribed by the same.
ARTICLE 77 RPC, without
WHEN THE PENALTY IS A COMPLEX ONE considering the Note: For special
COMPOSED OF THREE DISTINCT PENALTIES circumstances laws, it is anything
within the inclusive
Complex Penalty Note: BUT when range of the
It is a penalty prescribed by law composed of three there is a privileged prescribed penalty.
distinct penalties, each forming a period: the lightest mitigating Courts are given
circumstance, so that discretion in the
80
the penalty has to be imposition of the
lowered by one indeterminate penalty. Article II. Release of the Prisoner on Parole
degree, the The aggravating and The Board of Pardons and Parole may authorize
STARTING POINT for mitigating the release of a prisoner on parole, after he shall
determining the circumstances are not have served the minimum penalty imposed on
minimum term of the considered unless the him, PROVIDED that:
indeterminate penalty special law adopts the
is the penalty next same terminology for
1. Such prisoner is fitted by his training for
release.
lower than that penalties as those
prescribed by the used in the RPC 2. There is reasonable probability that he will live
Code for the offense. (such as reclusion and remain at liberty without violating the law.
perpetua and the 3. Such release will not be incompatible with the
like). welfare of society (ISL, Sec. 5).
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense C.Entitlement to Final Release and Discharge
punished by the Revised Penal Code or special If during the period of surveillance such paroled
penal laws, the court shall sentence the accused to prisoner shall:
an indeterminate sentence, which has a maximum 1. Show himself to be a law-abiding citizen and,
and a minimum term based on the penalty 2. Shall not violate any law, the Board may issue a
ACTUALLY IMPOSED. final certification in his favor, for his final release
and discharge (ISL, Sec. 6).
ISL application is mandatory, where imprisonment
would exceed one year (Romero v. People, G.R. D.Sanction for Violation of Conditions of the
No. 171644, November 23, 2011). Parole
When the paroled prisoner shall violate any of the
BUT only when ISL would be favorable to the conditions of his parole:
accused; if it would result in lengthening his prison 1. The Board may issue an order for his arrest,
sentence, ISL should NOT be applied. and thereafter,
2. The prisoner shall serve the remaining
Note: The modifying circumstances are considered unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for
only in the imposition of the maximum term of the which he was originally committed to prison
indeterminate sentence (They are not considered in (ISL, Sec. 8).
fixing the minimum) (People v. Dela Joya, G.R. No.
L-6587, January 27, 1956). E. Reasons for Fixing the Maximum and
Minimum Terms in the Indeterminate Sentence
B.When benefit of the ISL is NOT applicable: The minimum and maximum terms in the ISL
The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply must be fixed, because they are the basis for the
to the following persons: 1D2P2 THEM following:
1. Maximum term of imprisonment actually 1. Whenever a prisoner has: (a) served the
imposed does not exceed 1 year; MINIMUM penalty imposed on him, and (b) is fit
2. Sentenced to the penalty of destierro or for release of the prisoner on parole, upon
suspension only; terms and conditions prescribed by the Board
3. Sentenced to death penalty, reclusion (REYES, Book One, supra at 794).
perpertua, or life imprisonment; 2. But when the paroled prisoner violates any of
4. Convicted of piracy; the conditions of his parole during the period of
surveillance, he may be rearrested to serve the
5. Granted with conditional pardon by the
remaining unexpired portion of the MAXIMUM
president, but violated the terms thereof;
sentence (ISL, Secs. 5 and 8).
6. Convicted of treason, or conspiracy or proposal 3. Even if a prisoner has already served the
to commit treason;
MINIMUM, but he is not fitted for release on the
7. Habitual delinquent; parole, he shall continue to serve until the end
8. Escaped from confinement as a prisoner, or of the MAXIMUM term (REYES, Book One,
evaded sentence; and supra at 794).
9. Convicted misprision of treason, espionage
rebellion, or sedition (MERS) (REYES, Book In fixing the minimum penalty, it is necessary for the
One, supra at 790). court to consider the criminal, first, as an individual
and, second, as a member of society.
BUT a recidivist for the first time may be given the
benefits of the ISL.
81
F. Illustrations of Application of Indeterminate court. Having the power to grant the probation, it
Sentence Law follows that the trial court also has the power to
1. Under the Revised Penal Code: order its revocation in a proper case and under
A penalty of reclusion temporal was imposed proper circumstances (Soriano v. CA, G.R. No.
upon A for committing homicide. 123936, March 4, 1999).
a. There is no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance B.Three- Fold Purpose
i. Maximum Term reclusion temporal which 1. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of
should be imposed in the medium period an offender by providing him with individualized
(Art 64 par. 1). treatment;
ii. Minimum Term anywhere within the 2. To provide an opportunity for the reformation of
range of prision mayor, the penalty next a penitent offender which might be less
lower from reclusion temporal. probable if he were to serve a prison sentence;
b. There is one ordinary mitigating and
circumstance 3. To prevent the commission of offenses (P.D.
i. Maximum term reclusion temporal, in its 968, Sec. 2).
minimum period, after considering the
mitigating circumstance. C.Application
ii. Minimum term anywhere within the range This shall apply to all offenders except those
of prision mayor without reference to any entitled to benefits under P.D. 603 and similar
of its period. laws (P.D.968, Sec. 1)
c. There is one aggravating circumstance
i. Maximum Term reclusion temporal, in its May be granted even if the sentence is fine only,
maximum period, after considering the but with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
aggravating circumstance. insolvency (REYES, Book One, supra at 805).
ii. Minimum Term anywhere within the
range of prision mayor without reference to D.Where and When to File the Application:
any of its period. An application for probation shall be filed by the
defendant with the trial court within the period for
2.Under Special Law: perfecting an appeal (P.D. 968, Sec. 4).
A is convicted of illegal possession of firearms
punishable by 1 year and 1 day to 5 years of Note: No application for probation shall be
imprisonment. entertained or granted if the defendant has
a. Maximum Term shall not exceed 5 years perfected an appeal from the judgment of
as fixed by law. conviction.
b. Minimum Term shall not be less than the
minimum of 1 year and 1 day prescribed by E. Effects of Filing and Grant/Denial of
said law. Application
a. Filing of application for probation operates as a
waiver of the right to appeal (REYES, Book
One, supra at 806).
b. The order granting or denying probation shall
not be appealable (P.D. 968, Sec. 4).
Note: It is not a final judgement but an
interlocutory judgement in the nature of a
PROBATION LAW OF 1976 conditional order placing the convicted
(PD 968, as amended) defendant under the supervision of the court for
his reformation, to be followed by a final
A.Concept judgement of discharge, if the conditions of the
Probation probation are complied with, or by a final
It is a disposition under which a defendant after judgement of sentence if the conditions are
conviction and sentence is released subject to violated (Baclayon v. Mutia, G.R. No. L-59298,
conditions imposed by the court and to the April 30, 1984).
supervision of a probation officer (P.D. 968, Sec. c. Accessory penalties are deemed suspended
3). once probation is granted.
d. Civil liability is not affected by the suspension of
Probation is not an absolute right. It is a mere the sentence imposed on the accused who is
privilege whose grant rests upon the discretion of granted probation; court must hear the civil
the trial court. Its grant is subject to certain terms aspect (Castillo v. Donato, G.R. No. L-70230,
and conditions that may be imposed by the trial June 24, 1985).
82
J. Conditions of Probation
The court may, after it shall have convicted and Two kinds of conditions imposed:
sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and 1. Mandatory or general once violated, the
upon application at any time, place the child on probation is cancelled. They are:
probation in lieu of his/her sentence, taking into a. Probationer: Presents himself to the
account the best interest of the child. For this probation officer designated to undertake his
purpose, Section 4 of presidential Decree No. supervision, at such place as may be
968, otherwise known as the Probation Law of specified in the order, within 72 hours from
1976 is hereby amended accordingly (R.A. 9344, receipt of order.
Sec. 42). b. He reports to the probation officer at least
once a month (P.D. 868, Sec. 10).
F. Post-sentence Investigation
The convict is not immediately placed on 2. Discretionary or special additional conditions
probation. There shall be a prior investigation by listed, which the courts may additionally impose
the probation officer and a determination by the on the probationer towards his correction and
court. He may, however, be released under his rehabilitation outside prison (P.D. 968, Sec. 10).
bail filed in the criminal case or on recognizance
(P.D. 968, Secs. 6 and 7). However, the enumeration is not inclusive.
Probation statutes are liberal in character and
G.Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation enable the courts to designate practically ANY
The court shall consider: term it chooses, as long as the probationers
1. All information relative to the character, Constitutional rights are not jeopardized. Also,
antecedents, environment, mental, and they must not be unduly restrictive of
physical condition of the offender. probationer, and not incompatible with the
2. Available institutional and community resources freedom of conscience of probationer
(P.D. 968, Sec. 8). (Baclayon v. Mutia, G.R. No. L-59298, April 30,
1984).
H.Probation shall be denied if the court finds
that: K.Period of Probation
1. The offender is in need of correctional For how long may a convict be placed on
treatment that can be provided effectively by probation?
his commitment to an institution. 1. If the convict is sentenced to a term of
2. There is undue risk of committing another imprisonment of not more than one year, the
crime. period of probation shall not exceed 2 years.
3. Probation will depreciate the seriousness of the 2. In all other cases, if he is sentenced to more
offense committed (P.D. 968, Sec. 8). than one year, said period shall not exceed 6
years.
I. Disqualified Offenders 3. When the sentence imposes a fine only and the
The benefits of the Decree shall not be extended offender is made to serve subsidiary
to those: imprisonment. The period of probation shall be
1. Sentenced to serve a maximum term of twice the total number of days of subsidiary
imprisonment of more the 6 years; imprisonment (P.D. 968, Sec. 14).
2. Convicted of subversion or any crime against
the national security or public order; L. Arrest of Persons on Probation and
3. Previously convicted by final judgment of an Subsequent Dispositions
offense punished by imprisonment of not less 1. At any time during probation, the court may
than 1 month and 1 day and/or a fine not less issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer
than P200; for any serious violation of the conditions of
4. Once placed on probation (P.D. 968, Sec. 5); probation, or upon commission of another
5. Who appealed; offense.
6. Convicted of drug trafficking or drug pushing 2. If violation is established, the court may (a)
(RA 9165, Sec. 24); and revoke his probation, or (b) continue his
7. Convicted of election offenses under the probation and modify the conditions thereof.
Omnibus Election Code (Omnibus Election This order is not appealable.
Code, Sec. 261). 3. If revoked, the probationer shall serve the
sentence originally imposed (P.D. 968, Sec.
Note: No. 5 does not apply to minor offenders. A 15).
child in conflict with law can apply probation
ANYTIME (R.A. 9344, Sec. 42). M. Termination of Probation
83
The court may order the final discharge of the ARTICLE 78
probationer upon finding that, he has fulfilled the WHEN AND HOW PENALTY IS TO BE EXECUTED
terms and conditions of his probation (P.D. 968,
Sec. 16). Only penalty by final judgment can be executed. A
penalty shall be executed in the form prescribed by
N. Effects of Termination of Probation law and with any circumstances or incidents
1. Case is deemed terminated. expressly authorized thereby.
2. Restoration of all civil rights lost or suspended.
3. Fully discharges liability for any fine imposed. In addition to the provisions of the law, the special
regulations prescribed for the government of the
Note that the probation is not coterminous with its institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered
period. There must be an order issued by the shall be observed with regard to the character of the
court discharging the probationer (Bala v. work to be performed, the time of its performance,
Martinez, G.R. No. 67301, January 29, 1990). and other incidents connected therewith, the
relations of the convicts among themselves and
other persons, the relief which they may receive,
and their diet.
ARTICLE 79
SUSPENSION OF THE EXECUTION AND
SERVICE OF THE PENALTIES IN CASE OF
INSANITY
Rules regarding execution and service of

penalties in case of insanity:
1. When a convict becomes insane or imbecile after
final sentence has been pronounced, the
execution of such sentence is suspended only as
regards the personal penalty;
2. If he recovers his reason, his sentence shall be
executed unless the penalty has prescribed;
3. Even if while serving his sentence, the convict
becomes insane or imbecile, the above provisions
shall be observed; and
4. But the payment of his civil or pecuniary liabilities
shall not be suspended.
Note: Art. 80 has been repealed by P.D. 603 which

was amended by R.A. 9344. The latter was
amended by R.A. 10630.
THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE

(PD 603, As Amended)
Who is a Youthful Offender?

Sec 6, R.A. 9344 as amended (Juvenile Justice &
Welfare Act of 2006) repealed P.D. 603 (The Child
and Youth Welfare Code) on the matter so that a
child 15 years of age or below at the time of the
commission of the offense is exempt from criminal
liability. If the child is over 15 but less than 18 years
of age, he is likewise exempt from criminal liability
UNLESS he acted with discernment.
What is the Purpose of the Code?

The purpose is to avoid a situation where juvenile
offenders would commingle with ordinary criminals
in prison.
CHAPTER FIVE Guidelines:

EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF
PENALTIES
(ARTS. 78-88)
84
If the court finds that the youthful offender temporal, prision mayor, prisioncorrecional & arresto
committed the crime charged against him, it shall mayor)
determine the imposable penalty and the civil liability
chargeable against him. ARTICLE 87
DESTIERRO
The court may not pronounce judgment of conviction Destierro
but instead suspend all further proceedings (P.D. It is considered as a principal, correctional and
603, Sec. 38) divisible penalty. Therefore jurisdiction over crimes
punishable with destierro lies with the Municipal Trial
The PD 603 and Supreme Court (SC) Rule provide Court.
that the benefit of suspended sentence would not
apply to a child in conflict with the law if, among Only in the following cases is destierro imposed:
others, he/she has been convicted of an offense 1. Death or serious physical injuries is caused or are
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life inflicted under exceptional circumstances (RPC,
imprisonment. In construing Sec. 38 of R.A. No. Art. 247);
9344, the Court is guided by the basic principle of 2. Failure to give bond for good behavior in grave
statutory construction that when the law does not and light threats (RPC, Art. 284);
distinguish, we should not distinguish. Since R.A. 3. Penalty for the concubine in concubinage (RPC,
No. 9344 does not distinguish between a minor who Art. 334); and
has been convicted of a capital offense and another 4. When, after reducing the penalty by one or more
who has been convicted of a lesser offense, the degrees, destierro is the proper penalty.
Court should also not distinguish and should apply
the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in Entering the prohibited area is evasion of the service
conflict with the law who has been found guilty of a of the sentence (People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-
heinous crime (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, 1414, April 16, 1948).
March 16, 2011).
ARTICLE 88
The youthful offender shall be RETURNED to the ARRESTO MENOR
committing court for pronouncement of judgment,
when the youthful offender: Served in:
1. Has been found incorrigible, 1. Municipal jail; or
2. Has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of 2. House of defendant himself under the surveillance
his rehabilitation programs; or of an officer of law but only when the court so
3. When his continued stay in the training institution provides in its decision.
would be inadvisable (PD 603, Sec. 40). Grounds: health of the offender; other reasons
When the youthful offender has reached the age of satisfactory to the court
eighteen while in commitment, the court shall
determine whether-
1. To dismiss the case, if the youthful offender has TITLE FOUR: EXTINCTION OF
behaved properly and has shown his capability to CRIMINAL LIABILITY
be a useful member of the community; or
2. To pronounce the judgment of conviction, if the
conditions mentioned are not met (PD 603, Sec. ARTICLE 89
40).
In the latter case, the convicted offender may CHAPTER ONE
apply for probation (P.D. 603, Sec. 42) In any TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
case, the youthful offender shall be credited in the LIABILITY
service of his sentence with the full time spent in (ARTS. 89-93)
actual commitment and detention (PD 603, Sec.
41).
CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS
The final release of a youthful offender, based on TOTALLY EXTINGUISHED
good conduct as provided in Art. 196 shall not
obliterate his civil liability for damages (P.D. 603, How criminal liability totally extinguished:
Sec. 39). (DSP3AM)
1. By the death of the convict as to personal
Note: Arts. 8185 refer to execution of Death penalties; but as to pecuniary penalties, liability is
Penalty; Arts. 86 refers to execution and service of extinguished only when the death of the offender
other penalties (reclusion perpetua, reclusion occurs before final judgment;
85
2. By service of sentence; however, it does not
extinguish the civil liability (Salgado v. Court of Pardon
Appeals, G.R. No. 89606, August 30, 1990); It is an act of grace, proceeding from the power
3. By absolute pardon; entrusted with the execution of the laws, which
4. By prescription of the crime; exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from
5. By prescription of penalty; the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has
6. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the committed (REYES, Book One, supra at 842).
penalty and all its effects; and
7. By marriage of the offended woman with the Pardon must be given AFTER final judgment,
offender in the crimes of rape, seduction, (People v. Pariarca, Jr., G.R. No. 135457,
abduction, and acts of lasciviousness. In the September 29, 2000); otherwise, there will be
crimes of rape, seduction, abduction, and acts of violation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.
lasciviousness, the marriage, as provided under
Art. 344, must be contracted in good faith. Absolute Pardon Conditional Pardon
Extinction of criminal liability does not automatically The total extinction of The exemption of an
extinguish civil liability (Petralba v. Sandiganbayan, criminal liability of the individual within
G.R. no. 8137, August 16, 1991). individual to whom it certain limits or
is granted without conditions from the
Death of the offended party will not extinguish the any condition. punishment which the
criminal liability of the accused even in private law inflicts for the
offenses (People v. Bundalian, G.R. No. L-29985, It restores to the offense he had
October 23, 1982). individual his civil and committed resulting
political rights and in the partial
Civil liability is extinguished only when death occurs remits the penalty extinction of his
before final judgment (REYES, Book One, supra at imposed for the criminal liability.
838). particular offense of
which he was
Judgment becomes final: convicted.
1. After the lapse of the period for perfecting an
appeal;
2. When the sentence has been partly or totally
satisfied or served; or Pardon Amnesty
3. The defendant has expressly waived in writing his Includes any crime and A blanket pardon to
right to appeal (RULES OF COURT, Rule 16, Sec. is exercised individually classes of persons or
7). by the President communities who may
be guilty of political
Effect of death of the accused pending appeal of offenses.
his conviction
General Rule: The death of the accused pending Exercised when the May be exercised even
the appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal person is already before trial or
liability as well as his civil liability based solely on convicted investigation is had
the offense committed (People v. Alison, G.R. No. L-
30612, April 27, 1972). Merely looks forward Looks backward and
and relieves the abolishes and puts into
Exception: Civil liability arising from sources other offender from the oblivion the offense
than the crime committed survives and may be consequences of an itself; it so overlooks and
pursued in a separate civil action. Sources of civil offense of which he has obliterates the offense
liability other than crime are law, contracts, quasi- been convicted; it does with which he is charged
contracts and quasi-delicts (People v. Bayotas, G.R. not work for the that the person released
No. 152007, September 2, 1994). restoration of the rights by amnesty stands
to hold public office, or before the law precisely
Amnesty the right of suffrage, as though he had
It is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion unless such rights are committed no offense.
or general pardon for a past offense, and is rarely if expressly restored by
ever exercised in favor of a single individual, and is means of pardon.
usually extended in behalf of certain classes of
persons who are subject to trial but have not yet
been convicted (REYES, Book One, supra at 841,
citing Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 602).
86
Does not alter the fact Makes an ex-convict no When fine is an alternative penalty higher than the
that the accused is a longer a recidivist, other penalty which is by imprisonment, prescription
recidivist as it produces because it obliterates of the crime is based on the fine (People v. Basalo,
only the extinction of the the last vestige of the G.R. No. L-9892, April 15, 1957).
personal effects of the crime
penalty Illegal recruitment prescription is determined
from the time the accused is certified as an illegal
Does not extinguish the Does not extinguish the recruiter.
civil liability of the civil liability of the
offender offender Rule where last day of prescriptive period falls
on a Sunday or legal holiday
Being a private act by Being a Proclamation of The information can no longer be filed on the next
the President, it must be the Chief Executive with day as the crime has already prescribed
pleaded and proved by the concurrence of (Yapdiangco v. Buencamino, G.R. No. L-28841,
the person pardoned Congress; it is a public June 24, 1983).
act of which the courts
should take judicial Period will not be prolonged because doubt should
notice (REYES, Book be resolved in favor of the accused.
One, supra at 843-844).
When the penalty is a compound one:
ARTICLE 90 The highest penalty is the basis of the application of
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES the rules contained herein (People v. Cruz, G.R. No.
L-15132, May 25, 1960).
Prescription of the crime
It is the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to Q: Is there a conflict between the provisions of the
prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain Revised Penal Code on prescription of crimes and
time (Santos v. Spt. of the Philippine Training School Section 8, Rule 117 of Rules of Court (time-bar)?
for the Girls, G.R. No. 34334, November 28, 1930). Ans: NO, it is but a limitation of the right of the State
to revive a criminal case against the accused after
Based on the penalty prescribed by the RPC. the Information had been filed but subsequently
provisionally dismissed with the express consent of
In computing the period of prescription, the first is to the accused. If a criminal case is dismissed on
be excluded and the last day included (CIVIL motion of the accused because the trial is not
CODE, Art. 13). concluded within the period therefor, the prescriptive
periods under the Revised Penal Code are not
Prescriptive periods of crimes: thereby diminished. But whether or not the
1. Crimes punishable by prosecution of the accused is barred by the statute
a. Death, reclusin perpetua or reclusin temporal of limitations or by the lapse of the time-line under
20 years the new rule, the effect is basically the same.
b. Afflictive penalties 15 years
c. Correctional penalties 10 years except those Violations penalized by special laws (Act. No.
punishable by arresto mayor which shall 3326, as amended by Act. No. 3763)
prescribe in 5 years. Such offenses are, unless otherwise provided in
2. Crime of libel 1 year their respective special penal laws, prescribe in
3. Offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed accordance with the following rules:
6 months 1. After 1 year for offenses punished only by a fine or
a. Simple slander 2 months by imprisonment for not more than one month, or
b. Grave slander 6 months both;
4. Light offenses 2 months 2. After 4 years for those punished by imprisonment
5. Crimes punishable by fines for more than one month, but less than two years;
a. If fine is afflictive 15 years 3. After 8 years for those punished by imprisonment
b. If it is correctional 10 years for two years or more, but less than six years; and
c. If it is light 2 months 4. After 12 years for any other offense punished by
imprisonment for six years or more, except the
The subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of the fine crime of treason, which shall prescribe after
should not be considered in determining the period twenty years.
of such crimes (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 5. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall
346). prescribe after 2 months (Act No. 3326)
87
When prescription of violations penalized by or information, not by the result of proof (People v.
special laws and ordinances begins to run Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-15140, December 29,
It begins from the day of the commission of the 1940).
violation, and if the same be not known at the time,
from the discovery thereof and the institution of Accused cannot be convicted of lesser offense
judicial proceedings for its investigation and included within the offense charged, if the latter has
punishment (Act No. 3326, Sec. 2). already prescribed (Francisco v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. L-45674, May 30, 1983).
When prescription interrupted
It shall be interrupted when proceedings are Situations which do NOT follow Art. 91:
instituted against the guilty party, and shall begin to 1. Continuing crimes, because there could be no
run again if the proceedings are dismissed for termination of continuity and the crime does not
reasons not constituting jeopardy (Act No. 3326, end (People v. Sabbun, G.R. No. L-18510,
Sec. 2). January 31, 1964).
2. In crimes against false testimony
Note: In Romualdez v. Marcelo et al. (GR No. a.If the testimony is against the defendant from
165510-33, July 28, 2006) the Court ruled that the the date final judgment was rendered;
running of the prescription of an offense punished by b.If the testimony is in favor of the defendant
a special law is not tolled by the absence of the from the date when testimony was given
offender from Philippine soil. (People v. Maneja, G.R. No. 47684, June 10,
1941).
ARTICLE 91 3. Election offenses
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION a. If discovery of offense is incidental to judicial
OF OFFENSES proceedings, prescription begins when such
proceeding terminates; otherwise
Outline: b. From the date of commission of offense (People
1. Period of prescription commences to run from the v. Cario, G.R. No. 33413, September 16,
day on which the crime is discovered by the 1931).
offended party, the authorities, or their agents. 4. Bigamy although marriage is registered,
The period of prescription of crime commences to prescriptive period commences from date of
run from the commission of the offense or its discovery (Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 119063,
discovery, if the commission of the same was January 27, 1997)
unknown (People v. Tamayo, 40 O.G. 2313).
2. It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or Effect of filing an amended complaint or
information corresponding to the offense information upon period of prescription
committed with the prosecutor except in cases If the amendment charges a different crime, the date
falling under the Rules on Summary Procedure of the amended complaint or information should be
(must be filed with the court) and when filed with considered. If it is merely a correction of a defect,
the Punong Barangay (interruption should not the date of the original complaint or information
exceed 60 days). should be considered (LTB v. Ramos, G.R. No.
Note: The complaint or information that will 41399, August 9, 1934),
interrupt the period must be the proper information
or complaint corresponding to the offense (People ARTICLE 92
v. Abuy, G.R. No. L-17616, May 30, 1962). PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
3. It shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being Prescription of the penalty
convicted or acquitted, or unjustifiably stopped for It is the loss or forfeiture of the right of the
any reason not imputable to the accused. government to execute the final sentence, after the
The termination contemplated here refers to a lapse of a certain time.
termination that is final as to amount to a jeopardy
that would bar a subsequent prosecution (REYES, Prescription of penalties is based on the penalty
Book One, supra at 858) imposed.
4. The term of prescription shall not run when the
offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. Prescriptive periods of penalties:
1. Death and reclusion perpetua Twenty (20)
The filing of the complaint with the municipal trial years;
court, although only for preliminary investigation, 2. Other afflictive penalties Fifteen (15) years;
interrupted and suspended the period of prescription 3. Correctional penalties Ten (10) years except for
in as much as the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal the penalty of arresto mayor which prescribes in
case is determined by the allegation in the complaint five (5) years; and
88
4. Light penalties One (1) year 5. That the penalty has prescribed, because of the
lapse of time from the date of the evasion of
The penalties must be imposed by final sentence. service of the sentence by the convict; and
Hence, if the convict appealed and thereafter fled to 6. Acceptance of conditional pardon interrupts the
the mountains, the penalty imposed upon him would prescriptive period;
never prescribe, because pending the appeal, the
sentence is not final (REYES, Book One, supra at Should the evasion of service of sentence, being
861). in itself a crime, interrupt the running of the
prescriptive period of penalties?
If the accused was never arrested to serve his NO. The evasion of the service of the sentence,
sentence, the prescriptive period cannot commence which is a requisite in the prescription of penalties,
to run. must necessarily take place before the running of
the period of prescription; hence, cannot interrupt it
Prescription of the Prescription of the (REYES, Book One, supra at 865-866).
Crime Penalty
Period of prescription that ran during the
The forfeiture or loss of The forfeiture or loss of evasion is not forfeited
the right of the State to the right of the If the culprit is captured and evades again the
prosecute government to execute service of his sentence, the period of prescription
the final sentence that has run in his favor should be taken into
account (REYES, Book One, supra at 864).
It is the penalty It is the penalty imposed
prescribed by law that that should be
should be considered. considered.
ARTICLE 93 CHAPTER TWO

COMPUTATION OF THE PRESCRIPTION PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
OF PENALTIES LIABILITY (ARTS. 94-99)
Outline:
1. Period of prescription commences to run from the ARTICLE 94, as amended R.A. 10592
date when the culprit evaded the service of his PARTIAL EXTINCTION
sentence. OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2. It is interrupted if the convict:
a. Gives himself up; Criminal liability is partially extinguished:
b. Be captured; 1. By conditional pardon;
c. Goes to a foreign country with which we have Conditional Pardon delivered and accepted is
no extradition treaty; or considered a contract between the sovereign
d. Commits another crime before the expiration of power of the executive and the convict that the
the period of prescription. former will release the latter upon compliance with
the condition (REYES, Book One, supra at. 867).
The period of prescription of penalty shall 2. By commutation of sentence;
commence to run again when the convict escapes The commutation of the original sentence for
again, after having been captured and returned to another of a different length and nature shall have
prison (REYES, Book One, supra at 863). the legal effect of substituting the latter in place of
the former.
Elements: 3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit
1. That the penalty is imposed by final judgment; may earn while he is undergoing preventive
2. That the convict evaded the service of his imprisonment or serving his sentence;
sentence by escaping during the term of his 4. By parole; or
sentence;
3. The convict who escaped from prison has not
a. Parole is the suspension of the sentence of a
convict, after serving the minimum term of the
given himself up, or been captured, or gone to a
indeterminate penalty, without being granted a
foreign country with which we have no extradition
pardon, prescribing the terms upon which the
treaty, or committed another crime;
sentence shall be suspended
4. If our Government has extradition treaty with the
b. If the convict fails to observe the condition of the
country to which the offender escaped, but the
parole, the board of pardons and parole is
crime committed is not included in the treaty, it is
authorized to:
believed that it would interrupt the running of the
i. Direct his arrest and return to custody and
prescriptive period;
thereafter;
89
ii. To carry out his sentence without deduction
of the time that has elapsed between the date 4. During the eleventh and successive years of his
of the parole and the subsequent arrest imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
(REYES, Book One, supra at 868). thirty days for each month of good behavior during
5. By probation. detention; and
Conditional Pardon Parole 5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he

May be given at any May be given after the shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in
time after final prisoner has served addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each
judgment; is granted the minimum penalty; month of study, teaching or mentoring service time
by the Chief Executive is granted by the rendered.
under the provisions of Board of Pardons and
the Administrative Parole under the An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of
Code provision of the entitlement to the above allowances for good
Indeterminate conduct (RPC, Art. 97, as amended by R.A. 10592).
Sentence Law
For violation of the For violation of the Special time allowance for loyalty
conditional pardon, the terms of the parole, the A deduction of one fifth of the period of his sentence
convict may be convict cannot be shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded
ordered re-arrested or prosecuted. Under Art. his preventive imprisonment or the service of his
re-incarcerated by the 159 of the RPC, he sentence under the circumstances mentioned in
Chief Executive, or can be re-arrested and Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the
may be prosecuted re-incarcerated to authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of
under Art. 159 of the serve the unserved a proclamation announcing the passing away of the
Code portion of his original calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article.
penalty (REYES, Book
One, supra at 869). A deduction of two-fifths of the period of his
sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner
Obligation incurred by a person granted chose to stay in the place of his confinement
conditional pardon notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or
He must comply strictly with the conditions imposed catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code
in the pardon.
Note: It shall apply to any prisoner whether
Failure to comply with the condition shall result in undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving
the revocation of the pardon. Under Section 64(i), sentence (RPC, Art. 98, as amended by R.A.
Revised Administrative Code, the Chief Executive 10592).
may order his arrest and reincarceration (RPC, Art.
96; REYES, Book One, supra at 870). Who grants allowances for good conduct:
Whenever lawfully justified, the following shall grant
He becomes liable under Art. 159 (This is the allowances for good conduct:
judicial remedy). 1. Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
2. Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and
Allowance for good conduct is not given to prisoners Penology; and/or
released under conditional pardon (People v. Martin, 3. Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city
G.R. No. 46432, May 16, 1939). jail.
Allowance for Good Conduct Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he (RPC, Art. 99, as amended by R.A. 10592).
shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days for each
month of good behavior during detention; In order to be entitled to the special allowance for
loyalty, the convict must have actually escaped.
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of
twenty-three days for each month of good behavior TITLE FIVE: CIVIL LIABILITY
during detention;
3. During the following years until the tenth year,

inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of twenty-five days for each month of CHAPTER ONE
good behavior during detention; PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
(ARTS. 100-103)
90
ARTICLE 100 2. The acquittal was due to an exempting
CIVIL LIABILITY OF A PERSON circumstance in favor of an imbecile or an insane
GUILTY OF FELONY person, and a person under 15 years of age, or
those over 15 but under 18, who has acted
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also without discernment, or those acting under the
civilly liable (RPC, Art. 100). compulsion of an irresistible force or under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or
Exceptions: greater injury (RPC, Art. 12);
1. Victimless crimes; and 3. When the court finds and states in its judgment
2. Flight to enemy country. that there is only civil responsibility; and
4. When civil liability arises from other sources of
A crime has a dual character: obligations.
1. As an offense against the State, because of the
disturbance of the social order; and ARTICLE 101
2. As an offense against the private person injured RULES REGARDING CIVIL LIABILITY
by the crime (REYES, Book One, supra at 874), IN CERTAIN CASES
unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion,
espionage, contempt, and others wherein no civil Civil liability is still imposed in cases falling under
liability arises on the part of the offender, either exempting circumstances, except:
because there are no damages to be 1. No civil liability in paragraph 4 of Art. 12 which
compensated or there is no private person injured provides for injury caused by mere accident.
by the crime. 2. No civil liability in paragraph 7 of Art. 12 which
provides for failure to perform an act required by
Effect of acquittal law when prevented by some lawful or
Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it insuperable cause.
extinction of the civil; unless the extinction proceeds
from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact Persons civilly liable for acts of insane or minor
from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. exempt from criminal liability (Paragraphs 1, 2
(See RULES OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 1; Civil and 3, Art. 12)
liability arising from other sources of obligations is The civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or
not impliedly instituted with the criminal action). insane or minor exempt from criminal liability shall
devolve upon the person having legal capacity or
Effect of dismissal of case control over them, if the latter are at fault or
The dismissal of the information or the criminal negligent. They are primarily liable.
action does not affect the right of the offended party
to institute or continue the civil action already If there is no fault or negligence on their part, or
instituted arising from the offense, because such even if at fault or negligent but insolvent, or should
dismissal or extinction of the penal action does not there be no person having such authority or control,
carry with it the extinction of the civil action (RULES the insane, imbecile, or such minor shall respond
OF COURT, Rule 111, Sec. 3). with their own property not exempt from execution
Effect of death of the offender
If the offender dies prior to the institution of the Persons civilly liable for acts of minors over 15
action or prior to the finality of judgment, civil liability years of age who act with discernment
ex-delicto is extinguished (De Guzman v. People, Art. 201 of the Child Youth Welfare Code, as
G.R. No. 154579, October 8, 2003). amended provides that the civil liability for acts
committed by a youth offender shall devolve upon
In all these cases, civil liability from sources other the following persons:
than delict are not extinguished. 1. Offenders father;
2. Mother, in case of the fathers death or incapacity;
Rule if the offender is acquitted, insofar as the and
civil liability is concerned 3. Guardian, in case of mothers death or incapacity.
Persons civilly liable for acts committed by

As a rule, if the offender is acquitted, the civil liability persons acting under irresistible force or
is extinguished, except: uncontrollable fear
1. If the acquittal is on the ground that the guilt has 1. The persons using violence or causing the fear
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (CIVIL are primarily liable.
CODE, Art. 29);
91
2. If there be no such persons, those doing the act 2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,
shall be liable secondarily (REYES, Book One, apprentices, or employees commits a felony while
supra at 899). in the discharge of his duties; and
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not
No civil liability is imposed in cases falling under satisfied his civil liability.
justifying circumstances, except under paragraph 4
of Article 11, where a person does an act, causing Industry
damage to another, in order to avoid evil or injury, It refers to a form of productive work, especially of
the person benefited by the prevention of the evil or manufacture, or a particular class of productive work
injury shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit itself, a trade or manufacture (Telleria v. Garcia, CA
he received. 40 O.G. Supp. No. 12, p. 115).
ARTICLE 102 Any department or branch of art, occupation or

SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS, business; especially, one which employs so much
TAVERNKEEPERS, AND PROPRIETORS labor and capital and is distinct branch of trade
OF ESTABLISHMENTS (REYES, Book One, supra at 903).
Elements under paragraph 1: Notes:

1. That the innkeeper, tavernkeeper or proprietor of A hospital doing charitable service is not engaged in
establishment or his employee committed a industry; hence, not subsidiarily liable for acts of
violation of municipal ordinance or some general nurses (Clemente v. Foreign Mission Sisters, C.A.,
or special police regulation; 38 O.G. 1594).
2. That the crime is committed in such inn, tavern or
establishment; and The employment of the diligence to be expected of a
3. That the person criminally liable is insolvent. good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of his employees will not exempt the
Concurrence of all elements makes the innkeeper, parties subsidiarily liable for damages (Arambulo v.
tavernkeeper, or proprietor civilly liable for the crime Meralco, G.R. No. 33229, October 23, 1930).
committed in his establishment.
Subsidiary liability of employer arises only after the
Elements under paragraph 2: conviction of the employee in the criminal action
1. That the guests notified in advance the innkeeper (ESTRADA, Book One, supra at 373).
or the person representing of the deposit of their
goods within the inn or house; The subsidiary liability may be enforced only upon a
2. The guests followed the directions of the motion for subsidiary writ of execution against the
innkeeper or his representative with respect to the employer and upon proof that the employee is
care of and vigilance over such goods; and insolvent (Basilio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein were 113433, March 17, 2000).
taken by robbery with force upon things or theft
committed within the inn or house. If committed by a family driver, employer may be
held liable on a quasi-delict (Heirs of Redentor
No liability shall attach in case of robbery with Completo v. Albayda, Jr., G.R. No. 172200, July 6,
violence against or intimidation of persons, unless 2010).
committed by the innkeepers employees (REYES,
It is not necessary that the effects of the guest be

actually delivered to innkeeper (De los Santos v.
Tam Khey, C.A., 58 O.G. 7693).
ARTICLE 104
ARTICLE 103 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY CIVIL LIABILITY
OF OTHER PERSONS
Restitution
Elements:
Restitution of the thing itself must be made
1. The employer, teacher, person, or corporation is
whenever possible even when found in the
engaged in any kind of industry;
possession of a third person except when acquired
92
CHAPTER TWO
WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES (ARTS.
104-111)
by such person in any manner and under the Contributory negligence on the part of the offended
requirements which, by law, bar an action for its party reduces the civil liability of the offender
recovery (RPC, Art. 105). (People v. De Guia, C.A., G.R. No. 11769-R,
August 29, 1955).
Restitution cannot be ordered before final judgment
(Chua Hai v. Kapunan, G.R. No. L-11108, June 10, The obligation to make restoration or reparation for
1958). damages and indemnification for consequential
damages devolves upon the heirs of the person
The liability to return a thing must arise from a liable. The action to demand restoration, reparation
criminal act, not from a contract. and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of
the person injured (RPC, Art. 108).
Restitution can be ordered even if accused was
acquitted but the thing was proved to belong to a Payment of Civil Liability (RPC, Arts. 109 and
third person (People v. Concepcion and Alejano, 110)
G.R. No. 33667, October 4, 1930). 1. Only principals - Pro rata
- Solidary obligation
In addition to the return of the property, the culprit 2. Principal, accomplice, and accessory:
will be ordered to pay such amount representing the Principals - Pro rata, 50 % of the civil liability
deterioration or diminution of value, if any (REYES, Accomplices - 2/3 of 50%
Book One, supra at 913). Accessories - 1/3 of 50%
The principals, accomplices and accessories shall
Limited only to crimes against property but: be liable severally among themselves and
1. In a treason case, the defendant was ordered to subsidiarily for those of the other persons liable.
return the money he took from another person
when he committed the treasonous act (People v. Any person who has participated gratuitously in the
Logo, G.R. No. L-1317, February 27, 1948). proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make
2. In an abduction case, the defendant was ordered restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of
to return the money taken from the offended girl such participation (RPC, Art. 111).
(U.S. v. Banila, G.R. No. 6624, March 20, 1911).
Note: The person who participate gratuitously in the
Reparation of damages proceeds of felony referred to in this article is not
Reparation will be ordered by the court if restitution criminally liable (REYES, Book One, supra at 937).
is not possible. The court shall determine the
amount of damage, taking into consideration the In computing the loss of the victims earning
price of the thing, whenever possible, and its special capacity, as an item of civil liability ex delicto, the
sentimental value to the injured party. It refers Supreme Court has constantly adopted the
generally to crimes against property (RPC, Art. 106). American Expectancy Table of Mortality in the
Computation thereof, using the following formulae:
If there is no evidence as to the value of the thing
unrecovered, reparation cannot be made (People v. Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy x (Gross
Dalena, C.A., G.R. Nos. 11387-R and 11388-R, Annual Income Living Expenses)
October 25, 1954). 1. Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 age at death)
2. Gross annual income = Monthly earnings x
The civil damages which may be recovered in number of months
criminal action are limited to consequential damage 3. Living Expenses = 50% of Gross Annual Income
caused by, and flowing from, the commission of the (People v. Bantilan, G.R. No. 129286, September
crime of which the accused is convicted (REYES, 14, 1999).
Indemnification for Damages CHAPTER THREE

Includes not only those caused the injured party, but EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF CIVIL
also, those suffered by his family or by a third LIABILITY
person by reason of the crime (RPC, Art. 107). (ARTS. 112-113)
It is ordinarily the remedy granted to the victims of
crimes against persons.
Reparation of and indemnification for damages may ARTICLE 112

be obtained only from the accused and his heirs EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Civil Liability Is Extinguished (PC3NO)
93
1. By payment or performance;
2. By the condonation or remission of the debt;
3. By the confusion or merger of the rights of the
creditor and debtor;
4. By compensation;
5. By novation;
6. Other causes of extinguishment of obligations,
such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a
resolutory condition, and prescription.
Note: Civil liability in criminal cases is not

extinguished by the loss of the thing due because
reparation will be ordered by the court in such
cases. Except as provided in Article 112, the
offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the
civil liability arising from the crime committed by him.
ARTICLE 113
OBLIGATION TO SATISFY CIVIL LIABILITY
The offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy

the civil liability resulting from the crime committed
by him, notwithstanding the fact:
1. That he has served his sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty or other rights; or
2. That he has not been required to serve the same
by reason of
a. Amnesty;
b. Pardon;
c. Commutation of sentence; or
d. Any other reason.
94

Book 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Book 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law 2.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SUBJECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Felonies under this Article shall be cognizable by the

The Revised Penal Code (RPC) was approved on

Intentional Culpable Classification of Crimes According to Nature:

ARTICLE 4 Thus, the person is still criminally liable although the

Par. 2. Excessive Penalties Stages of execution: (does not apply to crimes

ARTICLE 6 What crimes do not admit of frustrated stage?

An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of proof is

This element should be interpreted liberally in Battered Woman Syndrome

Illustration: There is a crime but no criminal.

Passion and obfuscation cannot amount to

The force must be so irresistible as to reduce the Insuperable cause

Examples of Absolutory Causes: (DELIMA2-T2) CHAPTER THREE

2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of If the requisites (a) a person is performing a lawful

On the other hand, if such offender acted with

Basis: Diminution of intelligence. Provocation

Rule for the application: Can be taken into Requisites: (SOPI)

Basis: Diminution of the conditions of voluntariness.

Par. 6. Passion or obfuscation

Provocation Vindication Par. 7. Surrender and confession of guilt

Par. 10. Similar or Analogous Circumstances

When the place of the crime is illuminated by light,

Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the Par. 8. With the

Requisites: Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist

Involves the use of Par. 15 enunciates two aggravating circumstances

Fraud Craft No advantage of superior strength in the

Requisites of cruelty: Use of Unlicensed When a person

2. Interruption of religious worship (violence or iii. Fraudulent Insolvency(Art. 314); and

This classification corresponds to the classification R.A. No. 9346,

B. Based on their nature In lieu of death penalty, the following shall be

However, according to Justice Regalado there is no In what cases is destierro imposed?

Applies in cases of temporary penalties and the

Afflictive Examples of Temporary Penalties:

Imposed as a penalty in threats (RPC, Art. 284)

General Rule: When the principal penalty is ARTICLE 37

b. not to exceed 15 days if SECTION THREE PENALTIES IN WHICH

It is only when death penalty is not executed by

No longer of any force or effect because the

Public officers who help the author of the crime by

Article 49 Article 48 ARTICLE 61

ARTICLE 70 Different systems of penalty, relative to the

Rules regarding execution and service of

Note: Art. 80 has been repealed by P.D. 603 which

THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE

Who is a Youthful Offender?

What is the Purpose of the Code?

CHAPTER FIVE Guidelines:

ARTICLE 93 CHAPTER TWO

Conditional Pardon Parole 5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he

3. During the following years until the tenth year,

Persons civilly liable for acts committed by

ARTICLE 102 Any department or branch of art, occupation or

Elements under paragraph 1: Notes:

It is not necessary that the effects of the guest be

Indemnification for Damages CHAPTER THREE

Reparation of and indemnification for damages may ARTICLE 112

Note: Civil liability in criminal cases is not

The offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy