Crim Law Notes - Prosec G 2024

2024
Criminal Law Reviewer

PROSECUTOR VICTORIA C. GARCIA
4D UST FCL
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
COURSE OUTLINE
I. BASIC PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW .......................................................................................................................... 1
DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................................................... 1
CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
LIANG v. PEOPLE ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
MINUCHER v. CA ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
DEL SOCORRO v. VAN WILSEM ................................................................................................................................ 4
THEORIES AND DOCTRINES .......................................................................................................................................... 5
MAGNO v. CA ............................................................................................................................................................... 6
LONEY v. PEOPLE ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
PENALOSA v. OCAMPO, JR. ...................................................................................................................................... 9
II. BOOK ONE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
ARTICLE 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
ARTICLE 3 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11
US v. AH CHONG ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
YUPYUCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN .............................................................................................................................. 14
ARTICLE 4 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15
GARCIA v. PEOPLE ................................................................................................................................................... 15
PEOPLE v. FLORA ..................................................................................................................................................... 17
PEOPLE v. ADRIANO................................................................................................................................................. 18
PEOPLE v. SABALONES ........................................................................................................................................... 19
PEOPLE v. SALES ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
INTOD v. PEOPLE ...................................................................................................................................................... 22
JACINTO v. PEOPLE.................................................................................................................................................. 22
ARTICLE 6 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 24
PEOPLE v. LAMAHANG ............................................................................................................................................ 24
BALEROS, JR. v. PEOPLE ........................................................................................................................................ 25
PEOPLE v. TRINIDAD ................................................................................................................................................ 27
PEOPLE v. LABIAGA ................................................................................................................................................. 28
VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE ......................................................................................................................................... 29
PEOPLE v. ORITA ...................................................................................................................................................... 31
PEOPLE v. CAMPUHAN ............................................................................................................................................ 31
PEOPLE v. PAREJA ................................................................................................................................................... 32
PEOPLE v. AGAO....................................................................................................................................................... 32
CRUZ v. PEOPLE ....................................................................................................................................................... 34
ARTICLE 8 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 36
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024 1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
PEOPLE v. DELIM ...................................................................................................................................................... 37

PEOPLE v. CARANDANG .......................................................................................................................................... 38
PEOPLE v. OCTA ....................................................................................................................................................... 38
PEOPLE v. FELICIANO .............................................................................................................................................. 39
PEOPLE v. DIEGA ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
PEOPLE v. CASTILLO ............................................................................................................................................... 42
PEOPLE v. BOKINGCO.............................................................................................................................................. 42
GMA v. PEOPLE ......................................................................................................................................................... 43
FERNAN, JR. v. PEOPLE ........................................................................................................................................... 44
MORILLA v. PEOPLE ................................................................................................................................................. 45
GO-TAN v. TAN .......................................................................................................................................................... 46
ARTICLE 9 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 47
ARTICLE 10 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47
ARTICLE 11 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47
GANAL JR. v. PEOPLE .............................................................................................................................................. 49
PEOPLE v. OLARBE .................................................................................................................................................. 50
ABUYO v. PEOPLE .................................................................................................................................................... 51
PEOPLE v. JAURIGUE ............................................................................................................................................... 53
PEOPLE v. TOLEDO .................................................................................................................................................. 53
PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ ........................................................................................................................................... 57
PEOPLE v. DAGANI ................................................................................................................................................... 58
RA 9262 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 59
PEOPLE v. GENOSA .................................................................................................................................................. 61
ARTICLE 12 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 62
TURALBA v. PEOPLE ................................................................................................................................................ 64
RA 9344, AS AMENDED ................................................................................................................................................. 65
PEOPLE v. SARCIA.................................................................................................................................................... 67
PEOPLE v. MANTALABA .......................................................................................................................................... 67
PEOPLE v. ZZZ ........................................................................................................................................................... 68
SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN v. QUEZON CITY ................................................................. 69
PEOPLE v. LEOCADIO .............................................................................................................................................. 71
ARTICLE 13 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 73
PEOPLE v. ULEP ........................................................................................................................................................ 75
URBANO v. PEOPLE.................................................................................................................................................. 77
MIRANDA v. PEOPLE ................................................................................................................................................ 78
PEOPLE v. PAGAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 80
PEOPLE v. SABALBERINO ....................................................................................................................................... 81
PEOPLE v. IGNAS ...................................................................................................................................................... 82

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
PEOPLE v. MARIANO ................................................................................................................................................ 85

NIZURTADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN ........................................................................................................................... 87
ARTICLE 14 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 88
PEOPLE v. URAL ....................................................................................................................................................... 90
PEOPLE v. TIONGSON .............................................................................................................................................. 91
PEOPLE v. MELENDREZ ......................................................................................................................................... 101
PEOPLE v. VILBAR .................................................................................................................................................. 105
PEOPLE v. DAYRIT .................................................................................................................................................. 106
PEOPLE v. DELA PENA........................................................................................................................................... 107
PEOPLE v. MORENO ............................................................................................................................................... 108
PEOPLE v. ENRIQUEZ ............................................................................................................................................. 108
PEOPLE v. SAULOG ................................................................................................................................................ 109
PEOPLE v. JOSE ...................................................................................................................................................... 111
PEOPLE v. BUTLER ................................................................................................................................................. 111
PEOPLE v. BUMIDANG............................................................................................................................................ 112
PEOPLE v. LUCAS ................................................................................................................................................... 115
ARTICLE 15 ................................................................................................................................................................... 116
RA 10591 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 119
ARTICLE 16 ................................................................................................................................................................... 121
ARTICLE 17 ................................................................................................................................................................... 121
ARTICLE 18 ................................................................................................................................................................... 121
ARTICLE 19 ................................................................................................................................................................... 122
PD 1612 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 122
PEOPLE v. DULAY ................................................................................................................................................... 123
PD 1829 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 126
ONG v. PEOPLE ....................................................................................................................................................... 128
ARTICLE 21 ................................................................................................................................................................... 129
RA 9346 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 130
ARTICLE 26 ................................................................................................................................................................... 131
ARTICLE 34 ................................................................................................................................................................... 132
ARTICLE 45 ................................................................................................................................................................... 132
ARTICLE 37 ................................................................................................................................................................... 132
ARTICLE 29 ................................................................................................................................................................... 133
ARTICLE 39 ................................................................................................................................................................... 134
ARTICLE 63 ................................................................................................................................................................... 136
ARTICLE 64 ................................................................................................................................................................... 137
ACT 4103 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 138
ARTICLE 48 ................................................................................................................................................................... 149

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
PEOPLE v. NELMIDA ............................................................................................................................................... 149

PEOPLE v. PUNZALAN............................................................................................................................................ 150
PEOPLE v. TABACO ................................................................................................................................................ 151
BATULANON v. PEOPLE......................................................................................................................................... 151
SANTIAGO v. GACHITORENA ................................................................................................................................ 152
PD 968 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 154
ARTICLE 88 ................................................................................................................................................................... 156
RA 11362 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 157
ARTICLE 89 ................................................................................................................................................................... 157
PEOPLE v. PANGILINAN ......................................................................................................................................... 159
ARTICLE 94 ................................................................................................................................................................... 161
RA 10592 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 161
INMATES OF NEW BILIBID v. DE LIMA.................................................................................................................. 162
ARTICLE 98 ................................................................................................................................................................... 162
ARTICLE 100 ................................................................................................................................................................. 163
LUMANTAS v. CALAPIZ .......................................................................................................................................... 163
DALURAYA v. OLIVA ............................................................................................................................................... 164
MATOBATO, SR. v. PEOPLE................................................................................................................................... 164
ARTICLE 101 ................................................................................................................................................................. 165
ARTICLE 102 ................................................................................................................................................................. 166
ARTICLE 103 ................................................................................................................................................................. 166
ARTICLE 104 ................................................................................................................................................................. 167
ARTICLE 110 ................................................................................................................................................................. 168
ARTICLE 112 ................................................................................................................................................................. 168

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
January 27, 2024 3. Penal laws enacted by Congress must not

partake the nature of a bill of attainder; and
I. BASIC PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW 4. Penal laws enacted by Congress cannot impose
rule or unusual punishment or excessive fines.
DEFINITIONS
BAR QUESTION
Criminal Law
Distinguish ex post facto law from a bill of attainder.
Criminal law is that branch of public law that deals with
crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their An ex post facto law is a law which makes an act criminal
penalties. although at the time it was committed, it was not yet so;
whereas a bill of attainder is a law that penalizes the
Q: Who are the offended parties to a crime? offender without due process of law. It punishes the
offender without giving him a day in court, without giving
A: The State and the Private Offended party him the opportunity to air his side of the story. Congress
cannot enact these kinds of laws.
In case of conviction, the judge, aside from imposition of
penalty of imprisonment or fine, the judge will also impose CHARACTERISTICS
civil liability, which will go to the private offended party.
FIRST CHARACTERISTIC: GENERALITY
The civil liability is personal, it only pertains to the private
offended party. The State can never waive civil liability The generality characteristic provides that our penal laws
because it is personal to the private offended party. shall be binding on all persons who live, reside, or sojourn
in the Philippines, regardless of race, color, religion, and
Crime other personal circumstances.
When you talk about crime, it refers to an act committed Whoever he is, whether he is a Filipino or foreigner, for as
or omitted in violation of the public law forbidding or long as he is in the Philippines, he is obligated to comply
compelling it. with Philippine penal laws. Otherwise, he can be arrested,
prosecuted, and punished.
Crime is a general word, it includes a felony, an offense,
and an infraction of the law. The generality characteristic of criminal law, however, is
not absolute. It admits of exceptions:
1. Felony refers to an act or omission punished by
the RPC as provided for under Art. 3; 1. General accepted principles of public
2. Offense refers to an act or omission punished by international law; and
a special penal law; 2. Laws of preferential application.
3. Infraction of the law refers to an act or omission
punished by the ordinances enacted by the local First exception – Generally accepted principles of
Sanggunian. public international law
But they are all under the umbrella/generic word of Sovereigns, heads of states, and other diplomatic
“crime”. representatives, such as public ministers, are immune
from the criminal jurisdiction of the country where they are
It is the Philippine legislature or Congress that has the assigned. Hence, the host country cannot arrest or punish
power to enact penal laws. The power of Congress to them for violations against penal laws.
enact penal laws, however, is not absolute.
These diplomatic representatives enjoy blanket
There are certain limitations, which include: diplomatic immunity from suit. Meaning, they cannot be
charged, criminally, civilly, and administratively by the
1. Penal laws enacted by Congress must be general host country.
in its application. Otherwise, it will be violative of
the equal protection clause of the Constitution; NOTE: It is also settled that although consuls are
2. Penal laws enacted by Congress must not diplomatic representatives, they do not enjoy blanket
partake the nature of an ex post facto law; diplomatic immunity from suit. A consul can be
1 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
prosecuted if he violated any of the laws of the host

country, except: RULING: NO. The Courts cannot blindly adhere and
take on its face the communication from the DFA that
1. When the act done by him pertains to his official Liang is covered by any immunity. The DFA's
duty; determination that a certain person is covered by
2. Wherever there is a particular stipulation immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect
agreement in a treaty between a mother country in courts. In receiving ex-parte the DFA's advice and in
of the consul and the host country stating that he motu propio dismissing the two criminal cases without
shall be immune from suit. notice to the prosecution, the latter's right to due
process was violated. It should be noted that due
Q: Ambassador X is a South Korean Ambassador to process is a right of the accused as much as it is of the
the Philippines. It was his son’s birthday, they prosecution. The needed inquiry in what capacity Liang
scheduled a birthday party at the Manila Hotel at was acting at the time of the alleged utterances
3:00PM. Around 2:30PM, they were still at the house. requires for its resolution evidentiary basis that has yet
And so, Ambassador X was driving too fast to reach to be presented at the proper time. At any rate, it has
Manila Hotel on time. He ignored the traffic lights and been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity
suddenly hit a child. The child died. The traffic clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping of the
enforcers arrived at the scene, but Ambassador X charges.
was allowed to leave on the condition that he should
be available anytime they call on him for questioning. The immunity under ADB Headquarters Agreement is
Ambassador X’s wife suggested that they should not absolute, but subject to the exception that the acts
cancel the birthday party as they just hit a child who was done in "official capacity." In this case, slandering
died – it was a bad omen. And so, the Ambassador a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity
told the Manila Hotel that they would no longer agreement because our laws do not allow the
proceed with the birthday, that they will cancel the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the
checks. However, expenses have been incurred by name of official duty. It is well-settled principle of law
Manila Hotel in preparation for the birthday, the that a public official may be liable in his personal private
tables, chairs, balloons, etc. When the Manila Hotel capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by
tried to encash the check, the checks bounced. his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the
scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
Can Ambassador X be held liable for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide for killing the said Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
child and for violation of BP 22? a diplomatic agent, assuming Liang is such, enjoys
immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state
A: NO. Ambassador X enjoys blanket diplomatic immunity except in the case of an action relating to any
from suit. He cannot be prosecuted or charged by any professional or commercial activity exercised by the
court for any violation. Hence, both cases will not prosper. diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his
official functions. As already mentioned above, the
LIANG v. PEOPLE commission of a crime is not part of official duty.
G.R. NO. 125865 | JANUARY 28, 2000 | YNARES-
SANTIAGO, J.
NOTE: In the case of Liang v. People, Liang was
FACTS: Liang was an economist working with the
charged with five counts of oral defamation. When the
Asian Development Bank (ADB). He was charged with
case was penned before the MeTC, the judge received a
two (2) counts of Grave Oral Defamation for allegedly
letter from the DFA stating that Liang is immune from all
uttering defamatory words against Cabal. He was
legal processes based on the agreement between the
arrested and subsequently released on bail.
ADB and Philippines. Because of that, having read the
Thereafter, the MeTC judge received a communication
said letter, the judge moto proprio, without notice to the
from the DFA stating that Liang is immune from suit
prosecution, dismissed the case. SC said that the
under the ADB Headquarters Agreement. Based solely
determination by a government agency that certain
on the said communication, the MeTC dismissed the
criminal cases against Liang without notice to the persons are immune from legal processes is only
prosecution. preliminary in nature. According to the SC, the said MeTC
should have allowed the reception of evidence in order to
determine under what circumstances were those
ISSUE: W/N Liang is entitled to diplomatic immunity
defamatory remarks found; because under Sec. 45 of the
from suit (NO)
agreement between the ADB and Philippines, the said

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
economist can be immune when the act is committed in thus, violating the Doctrine of State Immunity.
the performance of his duties. SC said that slandering a Consequently, Scalzo enjoys State Immunity from suit,
person can never be said to be done by a person in the leading to the dismissal of the case.
performance of his duties.
Q: Can Liang enjoy blanket diplomatic immunity from

suit? NOTE: In the case of Minucher v. CA, the SC said that
Scalzo is not a diplomatic agent of the US because he is
A: NO. Liang is not a diplomatic representative. He is not not here to represent the US on political matters. He is
an ambassador, public minister, or sovereignty. here in the Philippines because of the US Drug
Therefore, the said blanket diplomatic immunity from suit Enforcement Agency, and he was welcomed by the
will not apply. Philippines to help the State contain drug trafficking
activities. Therefore, he is not a diplomatic agent who
enjoys blanket diplomatic immunity from suit.
MINUCHER v. CA
G.R. NO. 142396 | FEBRUARY 11, 2003 | VITUG, J.
How come the SC said that the civil action for damages
filed by Minucher must be dismissed? It is because of the
FACTS: Minucher was engaged in the business of
so-called doctrine, State immunity from suit. According to
selling caviar, Persian carpets, pistachio nuts, and
the SC, a State cannot be sued without its consent. If we
other Iranian products. He was introduced to Scalzo
will proceed with the case filed against Scalzo, it is as if
who showed interest in buying caviar. Scalzo gave
we are filing a case against the US. Hence, SC said that
Minucher his calling card showing that he is a special
although Scalzo is not diplomatic agent, he cannot be
agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the
prosecuted in court based on the doctrine of State
US Department of Justice, and offered his assistance
immunity from suit.
to process the Visas of the Minucher and his wife.
Thereafter, Scalzo went to the house of Minucher and
Second exception – Laws of preferential application
invited him to meet his cousin. When he got out of his
house, Minucher was already surrounded by soldiers
These are certain laws exempting certain individuals from
and was placed in handcuffs. Minucher and Torabian
criminal prosecution.
were charged with violation of Sec. 4 of RA 6425.
However, there were acquitted. Municher then filed for
The best example of this is under the 1987 Constitution,
a civil case for damages against Scalzo on account of
members of Congress, whether a Senator or a
the alleged trumped-up charges of drug trafficking
Congressman, is immune from any criminal liability for
made upon him. In his defense, Scalzo claimed that he
slander, oral defamation, or libel, for every speech or
is entitled to diplomatic immunity.
debate that they may make in the halls of Congress, while
Congress is in its regular or special session.
ISSUE: W/N Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic immunity
from suit (NO)
This is known as the Congressional Privilege Speech.
RULING: NO. Under the Vienna Convention, only
diplomatic agents are granted blanket diplomatic SECOND CHARACTERISTIC: TERRITORIALITY
immunity from both criminal and civil suits. A diplomatic
agent is defined as an individual tasked with The Territoriality Characteristic of Criminal Law provides
representing their state on political matters. In this that our penal laws shall have force and effect only on acts
case, Scalzo, as a special agent of the US Drug committed within the Philippine archipelago, including its
Enforcement Agency, was not in the Philippines in a atmosphere, internal waters, and maritime zones. For
diplomatic capacity. Rather, his presence was aimed at acts committed outside the Philippine territory, our penal
conducting operations to assist the Philippines in laws will no longer apply. Our courts will have no
combating drug trafficking. jurisdiction.
Although Scalzo does not qualify as a diplomatic agent, The exceptions to the Territoriality Characteristic of
he is still immune from suit under the Doctrine of State Criminal Law are found under Art. 2 of the RPC.
Immunity. According to this doctrine, a State cannot be
sued in the courts of a foreign State because suing a Q: X and Y are husband and wife. They have been
representative of the State is essentially equivalent to married for just six months when suddenly, the
suing the State itself. If the Philippines were to sue husband was among those chosen by the company
Scalzo, it would be viewed as suing the United States, to undergo a six-month training in Singapore. And so,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
the husband together with his co-employees chosen

to undergo the said training program went abroad. ISSUE: W/N a foreign national can be held criminally
Just a week after the husband left, the wife received liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to
photos and messages saying that her husband was support his minor child (YES)
having an extramarital affair, and her husband was
actually cohabiting with another Filipina. Six (6) RULING: YES. The SC dismissed Van Wilsem's
months after the training, the husband and the arguments for lack of merit. His claim that being a
employee arrived. The wife filed two (2) complaints foreigner absolves him from complying with Philippine
against the husband. She filed a case for Penal Laws was incorrect. According to the generality
Concubinage under Art. 334 of the RPC and another characteristic of criminal law, individuals present in the
case for violation of Sec. 5 on psychological violence Philippines, whether temporarily or permanently, are
under RA 9262. obligated to adhere to Philippine Penal Laws.
Therefore, Van Wilsem, despite his foreign nationality,
How should the public prosecutor resolve the is required to provide support to his minor son in
complaints? accordance with Philippine law.
A: Insofar as the case of Concubinage is concerned, the Furthermore, the SC invoked the territoriality
public prosecutor should resolve to DISMISS THE CASE. characteristic of criminal law to address Van Wilsem's
The said act of cohabitation with another woman other argument that the failure to provide support occurred in
than the wife occurred outside the Philippines. Hence, our the Netherlands. Even though the initial failure to
courts have no jurisdiction. Likewise, our penal laws do provide support may have transpired in the
not apply. Netherlands, the ongoing failure to fulfill this obligation
continued while Van Wilsem was in the Philippines.
However, insofar as the case of violation of RA 9262 is Consequently, under the territoriality characteristic,
concerned, the case WILL PROSPER. In the case of AAA Van Wilsem remains obligated to provide support to his
vs. BBB, the SC said that in inflicting psychological son, as the failure to do so persists within Philippine
violence against the wife by reason of marital infidelity, the territory.
same is considered as a continuing offense. A continuing
offense is one where the offender can be prosecuted in
any place where any of the elements occurred. In this
case, while the extramarital affair happened in Singapore, NOTE: In the case of Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, the
the mental anguish and distress occurred in the SC said the Van Wilsem, although a foreigner, is obligated
Philippines. Therefore, the husband can be prosecuted to give support to the said son based on RA 9262. Since
before the Philippine courts. Van Wilsem failed to produce that Netherlands document
which supports that he is not obligated to provide support,
then our laws presumed that both laws are the same.
DEL SOCORRO v. VAN WILSEM
Hence, he is obligated to comply with RA 9262 on the
G.R. NO. 193707 | DECEMBER 10, 2014 |
basis of generality characteristic. The act of giving
PERALTA, J.
financial support, although it started in the Netherlands, it
continued here in the Philippines. It is a continuing or
FACTS: Del Socorro and Van Wilsem got married in
the Netherlands and were blessed with a son. transitory offense.
Thereafter, they obtained a Divorce Decree issued by
the appropriate Dutch Court. Del Socorro, together with THIRD CHARACTERISTIC: PROSPECTIVITY
her 18-month-old son, came home to the Philippines.
Van Wilsem made a promise to provide monthly Our penal laws can only be applied prospectively. It
support to their son. However, since their arrival in the cannot be given retroactive application.
Philippines, Van Wilsem never gave support to the son.
Del Socorro later learned that Van Wilsem married Exceptions:
another Filipina and resided in Cebu City. She sent a 1. Under Art. 22 of the RPC, penal laws shall be
demand letter to Van Wilsem seeking support for their given retroactive application if they favor the
son, but it was not heeded. Van Wilsem was charged accused, provided the accused is not a habitual
with violation of R.A. No. 9262 for his unjust refusal to delinquent.
support his minor child with Del Socorro. The case was
dismissed on the ground that the Information do not 2. When it is the penal law itself that provides for its
constitute an offense with respect to the accused, he retroactive application.
being an alien.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
An example is RA 9344 or the Juvenile Justice NOTE: In the case of Hernan v. Sandiganbayan, Hernan
and Welfare Act of 2004. Sec. 68 of the said law was convicted of Malversation. Judgment became final
specifically and explicitly provides for its and executory. Here comes RA 10951, it is beneficial to
retroactive application to minor offenders who the said accused because it lowers the imposable penalty
have already been convicted and are serving for certain crimes which include Malversation. Under Art.
sentence because it is beneficial. It is the law 272, if the amount malversed is less than P40,000.00, the
itself that provides for its retroactive application. penalty is prision mayor. Under RA 10951, it is reduced to
prision correctional with a maximum of six (6) years.
HERNAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NO. 217874 | DECEMBER 5, 2017 | PERALTA, The judgment of Sandiganbayan has already become
J. final and executory. Can it still be reopened by the SC in
violation of the doctrine of immutability of judgment? SC
FACTS: Hernan was a Supervising Fiscal Clerk of the said that once a decision becomes final and executory, it
Department of Transportation and Communication can no longer be reopened. However, when there are
(DOTC) in Baguio City. Her duties involve receiving circumstances that will make the execution or
cash and other collections from customers and clients enforcement of the law to be unjust and inequitable, the
for the payment of telegraphic transfers, toll fees, and SC sitting En banc can amend or reopen the case – not
special message fees, and depositing them to the bank to the touch the merits of the case, but only to reduce the
account of DOTC in the Land Bank of the Philippines. imposable penalty. Hence, the SC, in the case, reduced
After the conduct of audit by the COA, it was found that the imposable penalty.
P11,300.00 was unaccounted for. Hernan was charged
with Malversation Of Public Funds. After the judgment In the latter part of the ruling, the SC even gave advice to
attained finality, RA 1095 was enacted into law. Hernan. The SC said that since the penalty has been
reduced, he can now file for probation.
ISSUE: W/N the judgment rendered by the
Sandiganbayan may still be opened in order to lower THEORIES AND DOCTRINES
the imposable penalty (YES)
DOCTRINE OF PRO REO
RULING: YES. The general rule is that a judgment that
has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any This provides that our penal laws shall always be
respect even if the modification is meant to correct construed and applied liberally in favor of the accused and
erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will strictly against the State. This is only exclusive to penal
be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest laws.
court of the land. When, however, circumstances
transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its Reason: Constitutional presumption of innocence. All
execution unjust and inequitable, the Court may sit en accused are presumed innocent, unless proven guilty
banc and give due regard to such exceptional beyond reasonable doubt.
circumstance warranting the relaxation of the doctrine
of immutability. LENITY RULE
With the recent passage of RA 10951, the SC found

Whenever a penal provision is susceptible of two (2)
that this is a novel situation wherein the judgment
interpretations – one interpretation which is lenient and
convicting the accused has already become final and
will favor the accused, and another interpretation which is
executory and yet the penalty imposed thereon has
strict and will go against the accused in order to bring
been reduced by virtue of the passage of said law.
about his conviction, the lenient provision shall prevail
Because of this, not only must Hernan’s sentence be
over the strict interpretation.
modified respecting the settled rule on the retroactive
effectivity of laws, the sentencing being favorable to the
Reason: Constitutional presumption of innocence. All
accused, she may even apply for probation, as long as
accused are presumed innocent, unless proven guilty
she does not possess any ground for disqualification.
beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the SC reduced the penalty imposed on
Hernan from prision mayor to prision correccional.
EQUIPOSE RULE

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Whenever the evidence of the prosecution is equally use, is to stretch the nicety of BP 22 violated. This
balanced with the evidence of the defense, the scale of maneuvering has serious implications especially with
justice shall be tilted in favor of the accused. respect to the threat of the penal sanction of the law in
issue, as in this case. And, with a willing court system
Reasons: to apply the full harshness of the special law in
1. Constitutional presumption of innocence; and question, using the "mala prohibitia" doctrine, the noble
objective of the law is tainted with materialism and
2. In every criminal prosecution, in every criminal opportunism in the highest, degree.
action filed in court, the conviction of the accused
will depend on the strength of the evidence of the Under the utilitarian theory, the protective theory in
prosecution, and not on the weakness of the criminal law, affirms that the primary function of
evidence of the defense. punishment is the protection of society against actual
and potential wrongdoers. It is not clear whether Magno
The burden is on the prosecution to prove the could be considered as having actually committed the
guilt of the accused. The moment that there is a wrong sought to be punished in the offense charged,
little doubt, it will always be an acquittal. but on the other hand, it can be safely said that the
actuations of Teng amount to that of potential
UTILITARIAN/PROTECTIVE THEORY wrongdoers whose operations should also be clipped
at some point in time in order that the unwary public will
not be failing prey to such a vicious transaction.
The purpose of the penalty or punishment in criminal law
is to protect society from actual and potential wrongdoers. Thus, in applying the punishment imposed upon the
accused, the objective of retribution of a wronged
MAGNO v. CA society, should be directed against the "actual and
G.R. NO. 96132 | JUNE 26, 1992 | PARAS, J. potential wrongdoers." In the instant case, there is no
doubt that Magno’s four (4) checks were used to
FACTS: Magno contracted Mancor Industries, as collateralize an accommodation, and not to cover the
represented by Teng, to supply his car repair service receipt of an actual "account or credit for value" as this
equipment for his car repair shop. However, he lacked was absent, and therefore, Magno should not be
funds with which to purchase the necessary equipment punished for mere issuance of the checks in question.
to make his business operational. Teng then referred
him to LS Finance and Management Corporation for
the provision of credit facilities. The arrangement went
through on the condition that Magno has to put up a NOTE: In the case of Magno v. CA, the SC said that it
warranty deposit equivalent to 30% of the total value of behooves upon the Court that in imposing a penalty, they
the pieces of equipment to be purchased. Magno should only impose it on actual and potential wrongdoers.
requested Gomez to look for a third party who could This will apply even in crimes where criminal intent is
lend him the amount of warranty deposit. Unknown to immaterial – just like violation of BP 22.
Magno, it was Teng who advanced the deposit in
question, on the condition that the same would be paid In this case, Magno was charged with counts of violation
as a short-term loan at 3% interest. After the delivery of of BP 22. Although convicted in the lower courts, SC
equipment to Magno, he then issued post-dated acquitted Magno based on the utilitarian theory. SC said
checks. Later on, Magno could not pay LS Finance the that it is Mrs. Teng, the private complainant who is the
monthly rentals resulting to the pulling out of garage actual wrongdoer and not Magno. She took back the
equipment leased out to him. Teng deposited the machineries, so she is obligated to return the checks to
subject post-dated checks but they were returned for Magno because the checks were not supposed to be in
the reason account closed. Magno was charged with payment of the obligation but only as collateral. So, when
the crime of four (4) counts of BP 22. she received the equipment, she should have returned
the checks but instead, she deposited such checks.
ISSUE: W/N Magno is liable for four (4) counts of BP
22(NO) To penalize Magno is to foster materialism and
opportunism.
RULING: NO. To argue that after the termination of the
lease agreement, the warranty deposit should be The maxim behind the so-called utilitarian/ protective
refundable in full to Teng by Magno when he did not theory is “actus non facet reum nisi men cit rea”, the act
cash out the warranty deposit for his official or personal cannot be criminal when the mind is not criminal.
Therefore, the SC said, in cases of felonies, in case of

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
acts mala in se, there must be the concurrence of both the

The stage of the execution It must always be an act
mens rea – the guilty mind, and the actus reus – the guilty
of the crime whether the done, hence, always
act. Both must be present. And this is important only in
crime is in the attempted, consummated. No
acts mala in se.
frustrated, or frustrated and attempted
consummated stage is stages.
MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA considered in imposing
the said penalty.
Acts mala in se are acts that are inherently evil or wrong,
wrong per se, wrong by their very nature. There need not The degree of There is no degree
be a law to say that it is unlawful, criminal, or illegal. For participation of an considered. All
example, you kill a person, there need not be a law to say offender whether he is a perpetrators are punished
that killing a person is an unlawful act. principal, accomplice, or to the same extent. No
an accessory is principal, no accomplice,
Acts mala prohibita are acts which are only wrong considered in imposing no accessory.
because there is a law that defines and punishes the said the penalty.
act. The best example of this is Illegal Possession of
Loose Firearms. To possess a firearm is not per se illegal,
because according to the SC, firearms are not per se BAR EXAM TIP: If this is asked in the Bar and you see
contraband or illegal items. What makes it illegal is that that the corresponding point is one (1) point, state only 1-
the law imposes punishment, penalties, if the possession 2 distinctions; but if the corresponding points are five (5)
is without license/registration/permit. Therefore, it is the points, you state all the distinctions.
non-registration which will make the offender criminally
liable. LONEY v. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 152644 | FEBRUARY 10, 2006 | CARPIO,
Acts Mala in Se Vis-à-vis Acts Mala Prohibita J.
The following are the distinctions: FACTS: Loney and his co-accused were officers of
Marcopper Mining Corporation, a corporation engaged
MALUM IN SE MALUM PROHIBITUM in mining in the province of Marinduque. Marcopper had
(SINGULAR) / MALA IN (SINGULAR)/ been storing tailings from its operations in a pit in Mt.
SE (PLURAL) MALA PROHIBITA Tapian resulting to the discharge of millions of tons of
(PLURAL) tailings into the Boac and Makalupnit Rivers. They were
charged with the violation of the Water Code, National
Acts which are inherently Acts which are only wrong Pollution Control, and Philippine Mining Act. They were
evil or wrong per se, because there is a law that likewise charged with the violation of Reckless
wrong by their very nature. defines and punishes the Imprudence Resulting in Damage to Property. Loney
act. and his co-accused moved to quash the Informations
on ground that these were duplicitous because there is
The basis of criminal The basis of criminal only a single act. The Informations for violation of the
liability is the moral trait or liability is the actual doing Water Code and Anti-Pollution law were dismissed by
the criminal intent of the of the prohibited act. the MTC. However, the RTC ruled that there is no
offender. absorption by one offense of the three other offenses,
as the acts penalized by these laws are separate and
Good faith or lack of Good faith or lack of distinct from each other.
criminal intent is a valid criminal intent is not a
defense. valid defense unless ISSUE: W/N the three (3) Special Penal Laws are
otherwise provided. absorbed by Reckless Imprudence Causing Damage to
Property (NO)
Modifying circumstances No modifying
such as mitigating and circumstances may be RULING: NO. A single act or incident might offend
aggravating appreciated by the court against two or more entirely distinct and unrelated
circumstances are unless otherwise provisions of law, thus, justifying the prosecution of the
considered by the court in expressly provided. accused for more than one offense. The only limit to this
imposing the penalty. rule is the Constitutional prohibition that no person shall

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
punished by Special Penal Laws are mala prohibita, and

be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for "the same
not all acts punished by the RPC are mala in se.
offense."
Plunder is punished under a Special Penal Law, RA 7080,
The comparative analysis among PD 1067, PD 984, RA
however, the SC in the case of Estrada v.
7942, and Art. 365 of the RPC showed that in each of
Sandiganbayan said that plunder is an act malum in se
these laws on which Loney and his co-accused were
because it is inherently evil or wrong to amass,
charged, there is one essential element not required of
accumulate, or acquire ill-gotten wealth.
the others:
Inflicting psychological violence in the woman or her child
In P.D. 1067 (Philippines Water Code), the additional
by denial of financial support legally due under Sec. 5(i)
element to be established is the dumping of mine
of the RA 9262, the SC said that is an act malum in se,
tailings into the Makulapnit River and the entire Boac
not an act malum prohibitum. A husband's mere denial or
River System without prior permit from the authorities
mere failure to give financial support to the wife or to the
concerned.
child does not automatically mean a conviction. It is an act
malum in se, so it must be proven that he willfully and
In P.D. 984 (Anti-Pollution Law), the additional fact that
consciously denied to give support to his wife and to his
must be proved is the existence of actual pollution.
child in order to inflict upon them emotional and mental
distress. There must be a concurrence of both the guilty
In R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act), the additional fact
mind and the guilty act. These are held by the Court in the
that must be established is the willful violation and gross
cases of Acharon v. People and Calingasan v. People.
neglect on the part of the accused to abide by the terms
and conditions of the Environmental Compliance
Q: In the case of Acharon v. People, nasunog ang
Certificate, particularly that the Marcopper should
pabrika na pinagta-trabahuhan ng asawa kaya hindi
ensure the containment of run-off and silt materials
na siya nakapagbigay ng support sa wife. Nagalit si
from reaching the Mogpog and Boac Rivers.
wife. She then filed a case for psychological violence
because of the failure of the husband to give support.
On the other hand, the additional element that must be
Is the husband guilty?
established in Art. 365 of the RPC is the lack of
necessary or adequate precaution, negligence,
A: NO. The SC said that although he failed to give
recklessness, and imprudence on the part of the
support, it was not deliberate on his part. He has no job,
accused to prevent damage to property. This element
the factory was gutted down by fire, he has no money so
is not required under the previous laws.
how can he give support? There was no deliberate intent,
it was not done willfully and consciously in order to inflict
Moreover, the offenses punished by special law are
upon his wife emotional and mental distress.
mal[a] prohibita in contrast with those punished by the
RPC which are mala in se. Therefore, a mala in se
Also, in the case of Cadajas v. People, the SC said, child
felony cannot absorb mala prohibita crimes. What
pornography, violation of RA 9775, is an act malum in se
makes the former a felony is criminal intent (dolo) or
and not malum prohibitum, although it is punished by
negligence (culpa); what makes the latter crimes are
Special Penal Law. The SC said that there must be intent
the special laws enacting them.
on the part of the accused to commit child pornography
and here, it is present, according to the SC. Cadajas was
already 22 years old, he was the one with mental maturity,
for him to induce his girlfriend who was only 14 years old
NOTE: In the case of Loney v. People, the SC said that
to undress herself and obtain photos of her breasts and
an act malum in se, such as Reckless Imprudence
vagina, and to send it to social media, SC said that is child
Causing Damage to Property, cannot absorb acts mala
pornography. Hence, Cadajas was convicted. It is mala in
prohibita because what makes an act malum in se is the
se, not mala prohibita.
presence of criminal intent or negligence. What makes an
act malum prohibitum is the presence of the special law
BAR QUESTION
that punishes the act.
Q: Mayor X transferred the funds which is
In the case of Dungo v. People, the SC said that it is a
appropriated by an ordinance for the feeding program
misconception to say that acts punished under the RPC
to a construction project. And so, Mayor X was
are acts mala in se and acts punished under Special
charged for violation of Art. 220 – Technical
Penal Laws are mala prohibita, because not all acts
Malversation under the RPC. Mayor X said that he is

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
not liable because he acted in good faith. He lacks committing libel, punishable only under the Cybercrime
criminal intent. The said construction is with urgency Prevention Act.
than that of feeding the malnourished children. Is the
defense of Mayor X tenable? To make cyber libel punishable under Art. 355 of the
RPC is to make a penal law effective retroactively but
A: NO. The SC said that in the case of Isidoro v. People, unfavorably to the accused. This is contrary to Art. 22
violation of Art. 220 – Technical Malversation, although of the RPC.
under the RPC, is not an act malum in se but an act
malum prohibitum. The mere transfer of funds In this case, an allegedly libelous Facebook post made
appropriated by an ordinance to another public use may only be punished under the Cybercrime
makes the offender already criminally liable. Good faith is Prevention Act, not under Art. 355 of the RPC. Since
not a defense. Lack of criminal intent is not a defense. No the Facebook post complained of was made in 2011, a
matter how lawful the objective of Mayor Isidoro is, he is year before the Cybercrime Prevention Act was
liable. SC said that "Dura Lex Sed Lex" – sorry na lang, passed, there was no Libel punishable under Art. 355
nag violate ka. But the SC only imposed a penalty of fine. of the RPC. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege –
there is no crime when there is no law punishing it.
NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA POENA SINE LEGE
PENALOSA v. OCAMPO, JR. Q: A complaint against X was filed, but they cannot
G.R. NO. 230299 | APRIL 23, 2023 | LEONEN, J. find any law that defines and punishes the act
allegedly done by X. What is the duty of the public
FACTS: An allegedly libelous Facebook post against prosecutor?
Ocampo Jr. was posted by Penalosa on her account.
Penalosa was charged with the crime of Libel. The A: DISMISS THE CASE. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine
case was dismissed by the RTC on the ground that at lege. There is no crime when there is no law that punishes
the time the acts were committed, the Cybercrime the act because the Philippines is a civil law country. In
Prevention Act was not yet enacted into law. However, our jurisdiction, no matter how immoral an act is, it will
the CA ruled that his acts constitute Libel in the form of never evolve into an illegal act. There must be a law
writing, which is punishable under the RPC. enacted by Congress defining and punishing the said act,
only then can it be considered as a criminal or illegal act.
ISSUE: W/N making an allegedly libelous Facebook
post before the enactment of the Cybercrime NOTE: In the case of Penalosa v. Ocampo, Jr. penned
Prevention Act of 2012 is punishable under the RPC by Justice Leonen, the SC said that Cyberlibel is not
(NO) within the meaning of ordinary Libel under the Art. 355.
The act by Penalosa was done in 2011 before the
RULING: NO. Under Art. 355 of the RPC, "similar effectivity of the Anti-cybercrime Prevention Act. At the
means" could not have included "online defamation" time, there is still no law that punishes Cyberlibel; and
under the statutory construction rule of noscitur a since Cyberlibel is not included in ordinary Libel, then the
sociis–,"where a particular word or phrase is case has to be dismissed. Nullum crimen nulla poena sine
ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible to various lege.
meanings, its correct construction may be made clear
and specific by considering the company of words in There is just a recently uploaded decision, Causing v.
which it is founded or with which it is associated. People penned by Justice Inting. In the said case,
bumalik na naman ang SC saying that Cyberlibel is
In Art. 355, the associated words clearly excludes nothing new. It is just ordinary Libel under Art. 355. And
"computer systems or other similar means which may so, it just maintained its decision in Disini v. Secretary of
be derived in the future", specifically added in Art. Justice that cyberlibel is nothing new because it is within
4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act. If it were true the meaning of "other similar means".
that Art. 355 of the RPC already includes Libel made
through computer systems, then Congress had no NOTE: Magkaiba ang decision but use this recent one
need to legislate Article 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime that Cyberlibel is nothing new. It is inherent in ordinary
Prevention Act, for the latter legal provision will be Libel.
superfluous. That Congress had to legislate Article
4(c)(4) means that libel done through computer II. BOOK ONE
systems, i.e., Cyber libel, is an additional means of
ARTICLE 2

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
TERRITORIAL AND EXTRA-TERRITORIAL route is Philippines-Malaysia and Malaysia-

JURISDICTIONS Philippines. It is now in the Philippines. It is bound to
go to Malaysia. While the vessel was sailing in
Philippine waters, one of the passengers, a
THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Malaysian, saw by chance Y who is his mortal enemy.
BOOK ONE
It gave X an opportunity for him to get even with Y. Y
at that time was reading the newspaper, X went
ARTICLE 2. Application of its provisions. – Except
behind Y. Thereafter, X took out the icepick that he
as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
was hiding and repeatedly stabbed Y. Y died. People
application, the provisions of this Code shall be
shouted. X is prosecuted for the crime of Homicide
enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
under Art. 249 of the RPC before the Philippine
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
courts. X said that the Philippines has no jurisdiction
maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction,
over him. He is a Malaysian citizen and his victim is
against those who:
also a Malaysian citizen. Is X’s argument meritorious?
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
A: NO. His argument has no merit for two (2) reasons:
ship or airship;
Generality and Territoriality characteristic of penal laws.
He is still in the Philippines. The Philippine vessel is on
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
the Philippine waters. Therefore, the crime is committed
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
within the Philippine territory. Under the Generality
securities issued by the Government of the
characteristic, all those in the Philippines, regardless of
Philippine Islands;
citizenship, are bound to comply with Philippine laws.
Although he is a Malaysian citizen, since he is in the
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
Philippines and he committed the act here, he can be
introduction into these islands of the obligations
prosecuted for Homicide. Likewise, based on the
and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
Territoriality characteristic, the act of killing took place in
Philippine waters.
4. While being public officers or employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;
Q: What if the vessel was already outside the
or
Philippine territory, on the body of sea not owned by
any country when the killing took place. X said that
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
the Philippines has no jurisdiction over him because
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One
the killing happened outside the Philippine territory.
of Book Two of this Code.
Is X’s argument meritorious?
A: NO. His argument has no merit. Here, you apply the

first circumstance of the extraterritorial application of the
Based on Art. 2, the scope of the application of the
RPC. Although the vessel was already outside the
Philippine Criminal Law, the RPC, it may be applied only
Philippine territory, based on the extraterritorial
within the Philippine territory – that is the territoriality application of the RPC the said offender may be
principle.
prosecuted before Philippine courts.
The second paragraph provides for its exceptions. These
Q: What if MV Maria Soleded was already on the
are the instances wherein the RPC may apply
waters of Malaysia and passengers were already
extraterritorial for crimes committed outside the Philippine
disembarking, a passenger X who is a Filipino Citizen
territory.
saw another Filipino Citizen Y, his mortal enemy. X
stabbed Y from behind. He is now behind bars, to be
FIRST CIRCUMSTANCE prosecuted before Malaysian Courts based on
Malaysian Penal Law. He said that the crime was
Those who should commit an offense via Philippine ship committed on board a Philippine vessel; therefore,
or airship. The vessel or the aircraft must be registered only the Philippines has jurisdiction over the offense.
and licensed in the Philippines; otherwise, it cannot fly Is X’s argument meritorious?
with the flag of the Philippines.
A: NO. His argument has no merit. Although the crime
Q: MV Maria Soleded is a vessel registered in the was committed on board the Philippine vessel, the
Philippines, it is a passenger cargo vessel whose Philippine vessel is already in the territory of Malaysia. All

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
penal laws are territorial in nature. Although he is a Secretary Y and the OFW. Another employee was
Filipino citizen who committed a crime on board a Filipino envious, and reported this. Secretary Y was then
vessel, since the Philippine vessel is already in the called and thereafter, was charged of a crime of Direct
territory of Malaysia, it is Malaysia who has jurisdiction Bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC. Will the case
over the criminal offense. prosper?
SECOND AND THIRD CIRCUMSTANCES A: YES. The said act was done in connection with the
performance of the duty of Secretary Y. She committed
direct bribery under the second paragraph. She received
Any person found counterfeiting, forging any coin or note, the marked money in the amount of 50 dollars. The act of
issued by the BSP, or would introduce these to the asking for the documents to be signed is not unlawful in
Philippines, is liable in the Philippines although it was itself, but she would not do it without the bribe. Hence, it
committed outside the Philippine territory. became a crime.
FOURTH CIRCUMSTANCE FIFTH CIRCUMSTANCE
Those while being public officers or employees should Those who should commit a crime against national
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions. These security. So those who should commit Treason,
public officers or employees of the Philippine Government Conspiracy, and Proposal to Commit Treason, Misprision
who are in the foreign land, and while in the foreign land, of Treason, Espionage, Inciting to War, Violation of
they committed a crime. If the crime that they have Neutrality, Correspondence with Hostile Country, Flight to
committed is in any way connected to the performance of Enemy's Country. These are all crimes against national
their functions, they can be prosecuted before the security, anyone committing it even outside the
Philippine courts. But if the crime they committed has no Philippines can be prosecuted before the Philippine
connection with the performance of their official functions, courts. Crimes against the law of nations, we have only
they can only be prosecuted before the courts of the place four: Piracy, Qualified Piracy, Mutiny, Qualified Mutiny on
where the said criminal act was committed. the High Seas. If these are the crimes committed, the
offender can be prosecuted in the Philippines, in fact
Reason: Although they are officials or employees of the anywhere in the world because they are crimes against
Philippine government, they acted in their private the Law of Nations.
capacities. Hence, they may only be prosecuted before
the courts of the foreign land. ARTICLE 3
FELONIES
Q: Y was the secretary of Ambassador X in Japan. Her
salary does not suffice for her big family. And so, Y
engaged in extracurricular jobs – i.e., she has been THE REVISED PENAL CODE
selling jewelry to OFWs. One time, one (1) OFW was BOOK ONE
mad saying that the jewelry was fake, and it has no
value. The OFW wants to file a case against Y, where ARTICLE 3. Definitions. – Acts and omissions
can he file the case? punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
A: The case can only be filed in the COURTS OF JAPAN. Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit
The said Estafa or deceiving the OFW is not in any way (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
connected to the performance of the functions of
secretary Y. Therefore, although she is a public officer, There is deceit when the act is performed with
she acted in her private capacity in committing estafa. deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight,
Q: An OFW is following up a document from the or lack of skill.
Ambassador X because he needed the document
desperately. Secretary Y said, “I can have the
documents signed, just give me 50 dollars”. And so,
the moment Ambassador X arrives, Secretary Y Based on the manner of committing felonies, there are
immediately asked Ambassador X to sign the two (2) kinds of felonies:
document of the OFW. The moment it was signed,
they met outside. Thereafter, there was the exchange 1. Intentional felonies are those which are
of 50 dollars and the signed document between committed by means of deliberate intent; and

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
2. Culpable felonies are those where the wrongful only intention was only to threaten him with his knife.
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of Here, X’s defense has no merit. Since the victim died,
foresight, and lack of skill. intent to kill becomes a general criminal intent because
the best evidence of intent to kill is the fact that the victim
Elements of Intentional Felonies died. Therefore, it requires no proof. The prosecution
need not prove that X has the intention to kill Y because
1. Criminal intent on the part of the offender; since Y died, the law presumes that the intent of X was to
2. Freedom of action in doing the act; and kill the said victim. (CrimRev Prelims Reviewer, 2023)
3. Intelligence of the offender.
MOTIVE
Elements of Culpable Felonies
1. Criminal negligence on the part of the offender; Motive is the moving power which impels a person to do
2. Freedom of action in doing the act; and an act to achieve the desired result.
3. Intelligence of the offender.
Motive precedes criminal intent because motive is the
Both intentional and culpable felonies are voluntary acts. reason behind criminal intent. While criminal intent is
Without voluntariness, there is neither an intentional material to determine the offender's criminal liability,
felony nor a culpable felony. motive is not material to determine an offender’s criminal
liability.
An important element of an intentional felony is criminal
intent. Intent is the use of a particular means to achieve The instances where motive becomes material to
the desired result. determine the offender’s criminal liability are:
CRIMINAL INTENT 1. When the act of the offender will result to variant
crimes;
2. When there is doubt on the identity of the
BAR QUESTION offender;
3. When the prosecution has only circumstantial
Distinguish general criminal intent from specific evidence to prove the guilt of the offender.
criminal intent. Illustrate.
A: General criminal intent is presumed by law from the *** END

mere doing of the act and therefore, it requires no proof;
whereas specific criminal intent is never presumed by law.
Specific criminal intent must be proven by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt just like any element of the
crime.
For example, X stabbed Y. Y sustained a non-fatal wound

near the shoulder and was brought to the hospital. The
doctor said that the wound would heal within a period of
five (5) days. Thereafter, Y filed a case of Attempted
Homicide against X. Since the case filed is Attempted
Homicide, it is the burden of the said private complainant
Y and the State/prosecution to prove intent to kill on the
part of X when he stabbed Y, inflicting upon him a slight
injury on the shoulder. If the State/prosecution failed to
prove X’s specific criminal intent to kill, then X can only be
convicted of Slight Physical Injuries.
On the other hand, if in the same problem, when X

stabbed Y, X intended only to threaten Y. However, when
he tried to stab Y, the said knife hit the heart of Y. It
penetrated through the heart of Y which caused his
instantaneous death. And so, X is now being prosecuted
for Homicide. X said that he has no intention to kill. His

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
February 03, 2024 reinforcing this by placing a chair. At 10’o clock in the
evening, Ah Chong was awakened by someone trying
MISTAKE OF FACT to force open the door of the room. He called out twice
“Who is there?”, but no one answered. Thereafter, the
chair against the door fell hitting him on the knee and
Mistake of fact is the misapprehension of facts on the part making a sound of a blow. This caused him to get his
of the person who caused injury to another. If the person knife and struck down the person who turned out to be
acted under mistake of fact, the offender is absolved from his roommate, resulting to the latter’s death. Ah Chong
criminal liability. Mistake of fact negates criminal liability was charged for the crime of Homicide. In his defense,
because the offender acted without criminal intent. he interposed self-defense.
Elements of Mistake of Fact ISSUE: W/N Ah Chong is criminally liable for the death
of Gualberto (NO)
Before mistake of fact may absolve the offender from
criminal liability, the following elements must be present: RULING: NO. Since evil intent is in general an
inseparable element in every crime, any such mistake
1. That the act done would have been lawful and of fact as shows the act committed to have proceeded
justifiable had the facts been as the accused from no sort of evil in the mind necessarily relieves the
believed them to be; actor from criminal liability, provided always there is no
2. The intention of the offender in performing the act fault or negligence on his part; and as laid down by
must be lawful; and Baron Parke, “The guilt of the accused must depend on
3. The mistake must be without fault, negligence, the circumstances as they appear to him.” That is to
and carelessness on the part of the offender. say, the question as to whether he honestly, in good
faith, and without fault or negligence fell into the
First element – That the act done would have been mistake is to be determined by the circumstances as
lawful and justifiable had the facts been as the they appeared to him at the time when the mistake was
accused believed them to be made, and the effect which the surrounding
circumstances might reasonably be expected to have
Granting for the sake of argument that the facts are what on his mind, in forming the intent, criminal or otherwise,
the accused believed them to be, the act done by the upon which he acted.
accused is justified and lawful.
If, in language not uncommon in the cases, one has
Second element – The intention of the offender in reasonable cause to believe the existence of facts
performing the act must be lawful which will justify a killing – or, in terms more nicely in
accord with the principles on which the rule is founded,
His intention is lawful. He is guided by a legitimate, if without fault or carelessness he does believe them –
justifiable intent. he is legally guiltless of the homicide; though he
mistook the facts, and so the life of an innocent person
Third element – The mistake must be without fault, is unfortunately extinguished. In other words, and with
negligence, and carelessness on the part of the reference to the right of self-defense and the not quite
offender harmonious authorities, it is the doctrine of reason and
sufficiently sustained in adjudication, that
Mistake of fact may be raised only as a defense in case notwithstanding some decisions apparently adverse,
of intentional felony. It is not a defense in culpable felony whenever a man undertakes self-defense, he is
because of the first element of a culpable felony is criminal justified in acting on the facts as they appear to him. If,
negligence and mistake of fact requires that there must without fault or carelessness, he is misled concerning
be no negligence or fault on the part of the offender. them, and defends himself correctly according to what
he, thus, supposes the facts to be the law will not
US v. AH CHONG punish him though they are in truth otherwise, and he
G.R. NO. L-5272 | MARCH 19, 1910 | CARSON, J. was really no occasion for the extreme measures.
FACTS: Ah Chong and Gualberto were living in a small

room, the door of which is not furnished with a
permanent bolt or lock. Robbery was rampant in their NOTE: The classic example of mistake of fact is the case
area and as a measure of security, they had attached of US v. Ah Chong. The SC said that had the facts been
a small hook or catch on the inside of the door and as what Ah Chong believed them to be – that someone
was trying to enter his room, his act is justified. His

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
intention was to protect his life and property. There was mere rookie law enforcers or unskilled neophytes in
no negligence on his part, he asked who was trying to encounters with lawless elements in the streets.
enter but the roommate failed to answer. It was enough
for him to suspect that somebody is trying to go inside his Thus, judging by the location of the bullet holes on the
room. Therefore, all the elements are present. subject jeepney and the firearms employed, the
likelihood of the passenger next to the driver – and in
YUPYUCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN fact even the driver himself – of being hit and injured or
G.R. NO. 120744-46 | JANUARY 25, 2012 | even killed is great to say the least, certain to be
PERALTA, J. precise. This demonstrates the clear intent of Yapyuco
and his co-accused to bring forth death on Licup who
FACTS: Yapyuco and his co-accused police officers was seated on the passenger side and to Villanueva
received an information about the presence in their who was occupying the wheel, together with all the
area of armed members of the NPA on board a green consequences arising from their deed.
Toyota Tamaraw. The passengers of the green Toyota
Tamaraw, in reality, were guests at a barrio fiesta
celebration. When the police officers saw the subject
NOTE: In the case of Yupyucu v. Sandiganbayan, the
vehicle approaching, Pamintuan signaled the jeep to
SC, however, did not appreciate mistake of fact. Granting
stop. They were under the impression that the jeep
for the sake of argument that NPAs were on board the
was not going to stop, but rather, accelerate further.
vehicle, the police officers were not justified in just firing
Yapyuco and his co-accused then fired at the jeep
at them. Their intention was evil, they wanted to kill these
resulting to the death of Licup and others injured. They
people. They are not guided by lawful means. There was
were charged with the crimes of Murder, Frustrated
negligence, carelessness, and fault on their part. They
Murder, and Multiple Attempted Murder. In their
could have easily determined the identities of the said
defense, they interposed mistake of fact.
people inside the vehicle. However, they deliberately did
not do so and opted to just fired at them. All the elements
ISSUE: W/N mistake of fact should be appreciated
of mistake of fact are absent. Therefore, the SC held them
(NO)
liable.
RULING: NO. A "mistake of fact" is a misapprehension
Q: The husband and wife were fast asleep. The
of a fact which, if true, would have justified the act or
husband tried to embrace the wife, but he realized the
omission which is the subject of the prosecution.
wife was not on the bed. He was so afraid because he
heard rumors that the wife was having an affair with
Generally, a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to
the neighbor. So, he got out of bedroom and heard
a charge of crime where it negates the intent
someone whispering in the kitchen. He deliberately
component of the crime. It may be a defense even if the
did not turn on the light. At the bottom of the stairs,
offense charged requires proof of only general intent.
he could see two (2) persons in the darkness kissing
The inquiry is into the mistaken belief of the defendant,
and embracing one another. He suspected that it is
and it does not look at all to the belief or state of mind
the wife and lover. And so, without turning on the
of any other person.
light, he took a table knife and stabbed both persons.
A proper invocation of this defense requires: That was the only time that he turned on the light and
he saw his newly hired helper and long-time gardener.
1. that the mistake be honest and reasonable;
He killed both of them. He was charged with two (2)
2. that it be a matter of fact; and
counts of Homicide. He said that he acted under
3. that it negate the culpability required to commit the
mistake of fact. Will mistake of fact absolve him of
crime or the existence of the mental state which the
criminal liability?
statute prescribes with respect to an element of the
offense.
A: NO. First element: Granting for the sake of argument
that those persons embracing and kissing one another
It must be stressed that the subject jeepney was fired
were his wife and neighbor, still, the act done by the
upon while it was pacing the road and at that moment,
husband was not justified. It was criminal on his part to
it is not as much too difficult to aim and target the tires
thereof as it is to imagine the peril to which its just stabbed them. Second element: His intention was
passengers would be exposed even assuming that the unlawful and criminal in nature. Third element: There was
fault, negligence, and carelessness on his part. He could
gunfire was aimed at the tires – especially considering
have easily determined their identities had he only turned
that Yapyuco and his co-accused do not appear to be
on the light. Therefore, all the elements of mistake of facts
are absent.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The moment there is an efficient intervening cause, the

Q: What if in the same problem, he raised a second offender will not be criminally liable for the resulting felony.
defense that he acted under mistake in the identity.
Will mistake in the identity absolve him from criminal Efficient Intervening Cause
liability?
An efficient intervening cause is an active force which is
A: NO. The SC said, in the case of People v. Sabalones, a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious
mistake in the identity or error in personae is not an act of the offender.
absolutory cause. The offender shall be criminally liable.
Even if the ones killed were the helper and gardener, still, It is one where it has nothing to do nor connected to the
the husband becomes criminally liable. offender’s felonious act. Only then can it be considered as
an efficient intervening cause.
ARTICLE 4
PROXIMATE CAUSE THEORY AND IMPOSSIBLE Insofar as Proximate Cause Doctrine is concerned, for
CRIME DOCTRINE one to be liable under Art. 4(1), it is not necessary that the
offender has touched the body of the victim. It suffices that
THE REVISED PENAL CODE by reason of the offensive act, fear has been generated
BOOK ONE to the mind of the victim and because of the fear, the
victim performed act/s that move them, and offender
ARTICLE 4. Criminal liability. – Criminal liability shall would be liable for such.
be incurred by:
GARCIA v. PEOPLE
1. By any person committing a felony although the G.R. NO. 171951 | AUGUST 28, 2009 | QUISIMBING
wrongful act done be different from that which he J.
intended.
FACTS: Garcia and his group were having a drinking
2. By any person performing an act which would be an spree at the apartment adjacent to the place of Chy.
offense against persons or property, were it not for However, Chy pleaded to the group twice to quiet
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or down. Chy’s request irritated Garcia and was heard
on account of the employment of inadequate or uttering, “This Manny is arrogant, I will lay a hand on
ineffectual means. him.” Days later, Garcia attended a marriage
celebration not far from Chy’s apartment. He was
advised to stop singing lest they be told off again, which
further infuriated him. The following day, Garcia and his
PROXIMATE CAUSE DOCTRINE group went to the store of Esquibel, Chy’s sister, and
decided to have some drinks. Garcia ordered Esquibel
Elements of Art. 4(1) – Proximate Cause Doctrine to call on Chy. When Chy approached Garcia, the latter
suddenly punched him. Chy tried to parry the blows, but
1. That the intended act is a felonious act; he was hit with a bottle of beer at back portion of his
2. The resulting act is a felony; and head. He was able to escape and called his wife in
3. The resulting felony is the direct, natural, and order to call the police. When his wife arrived minutes
logical consequence of the offender’s felonious later, she found Chy lying on the floor and he was
act. pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. The
autopsy showed that he died of myocardial infarction.
Proximate cause is that cause that sets into motion all Garcia was charged with the crime of Homicide. In his
other causes, and which unbroken by an efficient defense, he denied any responsibility to the death of
intervening cause, produces the felony without which the Chy as the latter was found to have died of myocardial
felony could not have resulted. infarction.
Based on this definition of proximate cause, for one to be ISSUE: W/N Garcia is liable for the crime of Homicide
liable under the Proximate Cause Doctrine, it is necessary (YES)
that there is no efficient intervening cause that would have
broken the causal connection between the offender’s RULING: YES. It can be reasonably inferred that
felonious act and the resulting felony. emotional strain from the beating aggravated Chy’s
delicate constitution and led to his death. The inevitable
conclusion then surfaces that the myocardial infarction

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
suffered by the victim was the direct, natural and logical boiling oil on Y, but the latter jumped to avoid it; and
consequence of the felony that petitioner had intended because of that, it was the children who were hit by
to commit. the oil. Both minors sustained burns all over their
body because of the boiling oil. X was charged in
Article 4(1) of the RPC states that criminal liability shall violation of RA 7610. X said that he had no intention
be incurred "by any person committing a felony (delito) in hurting the children; she was aiming for their
although the wrongful act done be different from that mother. Thus, according to X, she should not be liable
which he intended." The essential requisites for the for violation of Child Abuse under RA 7610. Is X liable
application of this provision are: (i) the intended act is for the crime charged?
felonious; (ii) the resulting act is likewise a felony; and
(iii) the unintended albeit graver wrong was primarily A: YES. Although X has no intention against the children
caused by the actor’s wrongful acts. and it was only against Y, since such act is a felonious
act, then X is criminally liable for the felony that resulted
In this case, Garcia was committing a felony when he although different from that which she intended.
boxed the victim and hit him with a bottle. Hence, the
fact that Chy was previously afflicted with a heart The said injury sustained by the children were the direct,
ailment does not alter petitioner’s liability for his death. natural, and logical consequence of X’s actions. Although
As ruled by the SC in the case of US v. Brobst, here, it was not her intent, she becomes criminally liable under
death results as a direct consequence of the use of Art. 4(1).
illegal violence, the mere fact that the diseased or
weakened condition of the injured person contributed Q: Kathryn and Daniel broke up. Kathryn wanted to
to his death, does not relieve the illegal aggressor of commit suicide. She went to the top of the building
criminal responsibility. and jumped. On the ground floor, there were Alden
and Derek. They were having an argument; Derek
In this jurisdiction, a person committing a felony is wanted out of the relationship. Alden embraced Derek
responsible for all the natural and logical tight but the latter pushed the former, resulting in
consequences resulting from it although the unlawful Alden falling to the ground. When Kathryn jumped,
act performed is different from the one he intended; "el she landed on Alden, resulting in his death but the
que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado" former survived. What is Kathryn’s criminal liability?
(he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the What is Derek’s criminal liability?
evil caused). Thus, the circumstance that petitioner did
not intend so grave an evil as the death of the victim A: Kathryn’s act of jumping in order to kill herself is not a
does not exempt him from criminal liability. Since he felonious act. Suicide is not a felony punished by any law.
deliberately committed an act prohibited by law, said Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege. However, although
condition simply mitigates his guilt in accordance with she was not performing a felonious act, since she did not
Art.13(3) of the RPC. Nevertheless, a mitigating do it with due care, she becomes liable for negligence.
circumstance in favor of petitioner must be appreciated Hence, she becomes LIABLE FOR RECKLESS
in the case due to the fact that the physical injuries he IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN HOMICIDE.
inflicted on the victim, could not have resulted naturally
and logically, in the actual death of the victim, if the Insofar as Derek is concerned, he is not liable for any
latter’s heart was in good condition. crime as to push someone embracing him is not a
felonious crime. It is not a felony to push a person who
was embracing him. Since he is not performing a
felonious act, he CANNOT BE HELD CRIMINALLY
NOTE: In the case of Garcia v. People, the SC convicted LIABLE.
Amado of the crime of Homicide. Although his act of
mauling resulted only to slight physical injuries, yet based The first requirement, in order for Art. 4(1) to apply, is that
on the autopsy, would not for the trauma from the mauling, the offender must be performing a felonious act. If the
the victim would not have suffered a heart attack. Thus, offender is not performing a felonious act, he cannot be
the mauling is the proximate cause to the heart attack. liable for any felony which have resulted.
The SC held Amado liable for Homicide under Art. 4(1).
Q: X and Y were having a drinking spree and later
Q: X wanted to get even to Y. They are neighbors but would result into an argument. They would exchange
they are also enemies. X placed some oil and boiled fist blows against one another. X pulled out a knife
it in her casserole. She wanted to pour it at Y. When it and stabbed Y and was hit in the abdomen. When X
was already boiling, X went to the house of Y and saw blood coming out, he ran away. Y wanted to go
when X saw the latter, she was about to pour the said

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
to the hospital, so he walked. As he walked, rain

poured and lightning was striking. Y was hit by the 1. The crime against the intended victim; and
lightning and was burned to death. The autopsy 2. The crime against the actual victim.
report stated that the cause of death was due to the
lightning, but the autopsy report also stated that he THE REVISED PENAL CODE
sustained a stab wound. The wife of Y filed a case of BOOK ONE
Homicide against X. If you were the judge, how would
you rule? ARTICLE 48. Penalty for complex crimes. – When a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
A: If I were the judge, only convict X of FRUSTRATED felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
HOMICIDE and not homicide because of the efficient committing the other, the penalty for the most serious
intervening cause that broke the causal connection crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
between the stabbing and the cause of death. maximum period.
The lightning is an active force, a distinct act absolutely

foreign from the felonious act of stabbing. Hence, it is
considered an efficient intervening cause and X cannot be NOTE: If these two (2) crimes happen to be grave or less
liable for the death of Y. grave felonies, we apply Art. 48 or the complexity of
crimes, hence, the offender will be prosecuted based on
But X stabbed Y, inflicting a fatal wound. The part of the one (1) Information only, a complex crime.
body that was hit was the abdomen. A vital part of the
body. Therefore, it is frustrated homicide. But, if one of the resulting crime/s happens to be only light
felony, Art. 48 will not apply, because Art. 48 does not
Q: What if in the same problem, X stabbed Y. Y was apply to light felonies.
brought to the hospital, but the wound was a non-
serious wound. When Y was under treatment, Y Flora Doctrine
suffered an infection in the bloodstream and suffered
a respiratory disease. Because of all the PEOPLE v. FLORA
complications, Y later died. X is now prosecuted for G.R. NO. 125909 | JUNE 23, 2000 | QUISUMBING,
Homicide. Is X liable under Proximate Cause J.
Doctrine? Or would this sickness be considered an
efficient intervening cause? FACTS: Hermogenes Flora and Oscar had a violent
altercation. They were pacified by Oscar’s uncle,
A: X is LIABLE for the death of Y. The infection and the Ireneo. Days later, Flora and his co-accused attended
disease, Y sustaining all these cannot be considered as a party. However, at around 1:30 in the morning, Edwin
an efficient intervening cause because although they are made a signal to which Hermogenes drew out his .38
active forces, they are not distinct from the act. Had X not caliber revolver and fired twice. The first shot hit Flor
stabbed Y, the latter would not need medical intervention, and Emerita. While the second shot hit Ireneo. When
be hospitalized, etc. Rosalie was uttering "si Bodoy, si Bodoy", referring to
Hermogenes Flora, Edwin poked a knife at her neck,
Three instances where the accused becomes criminally and threatened to kill her. Thereafter, Edwin and
liable for the resulting felony although different from what Hermogenes fled the scene. Emerita and Ireneo died,
he intended under Article 4(1): while Flor sustained injuries. Edwin and Hermogenes
were charged with the crimes of two (2) counts of
1. Abberatio Ictus or mistake in the blow; Murder and Attempted Murder. In their defense, they
2. Error in Personae or mistake in the identity; and interposed alibi.
3. Praetor Intentionem or when the consequence
went beyond the intention. ISSUE: W/N Flora can escape criminal liability on the
basis of aberratio ictus (NO)
ABERRATIO ICTUS OR MISTAKE IN THE BLOW
RULING: NO. When Hermogenes Flora first fired his
gun at Ireneo, but missed, and hit Emerita Roma and
Aberratio Ictus or mistake in the blow is a situation where Flor Espinas instead, he became liable for Emerita's
the offender directed a blow at his intended victim, but death and Flor's injuries. Hermogenes cannot escape
because of poor aim, the blow landed on another person. culpability on the basis of aberratio ictus principle.
Criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a
Generally, Abberatio Ictus will result into two (2) crimes:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
felony, although the wrongful act be different from that Although Bulanan's death was by no means deliberate,
which he intended. we shall adhere to the prevailing jurisprudence
pronounced in People v. Flora, where the Court ruled
The death of Emerita and of Ireneo were attended by that treachery may be appreciated in aberratio ictus.
treachery. In order for treachery to exist, two conditions
must concur namely: (a) the employment of means,
methods or manner of execution which would ensure
Q: X, wanting to get even at Y, waited for the latter’s
the offender's safety from any defense or retaliatory act
arrival to ambush. When he saw Y pass by, X came
on the part of the offended party; and (b) such means,
out of hiding, pulled out his pistol, aimed at Y, with
method or manner of execution was deliberately or
intent to kill, and fired. X is not a sharpshooter. The
consciously chosen by the offender. When
bullet did not hit Y and instead hit Z, an innocent
Hermogenes Flora suddenly shot Emerita and Ireneo,
passerby. Z was hit on the head and died. What are
both were helpless to defend themselves. Their deaths
the crimes committed by X? How many Informations
were murders, not simply homicides since the acts
should be filed against X?
were qualified by treachery.
A: X committed two (2) crimes: Attempted Murder insofar
as the intended victim of Y is concerned; and Murder
PEOPLE v. ADRIANO insofar as Z, the actual victim, is concerned. Since the two
G.R. NO. 205228 | JULY 15, 2015 | PEREZ, J. (2) crimes are both grave felonies, Art. 48 shall apply.
Therefore, X shall be prosecuted based on ONE (1)
FACTS: While police officers were on their way to INFORMATION only. COMPLEX CRIME OF MURDER
Camp Olivas, a speeding blue Toyota Corolla overtook WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER. If convicted, the penalty
them and a maroon Honda CRV. When the Corolla for the most serious crime in the maximum period shall be
reached alongside the CRV, one of the passengers of applied.
the Corolla shot the CRV causing the vehicle to swerve
and fall unto the canal in the road embankment. Why murder? Is it not his intention was to kill Y? Z
Thereafter, four (4) armed men alighted the Corolla and happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. This
proceeded to shot the driver of the CRV, Cabiedes. On is based on the ruling in People v. Flora which the SC
occasion of the shooting, a bystander, Bulanan, was hit reiterated in the case of People v. Adriano where they
by a stray bullet. Cabiedes and Bulanan sustained fatal called it the “Flora Doctrine”.
wounds, resulting to their death. Adriano was identified
as one of the assailants. He was charged with the In the cases mentioned, the SC said that the treachery
crimes of two (2) counts of Murder. that attends the crime of the intended victim is also
present in the killing of the actual victim. The actual victim
ISSUE: W/N Adriano is liable for the death of Bulanan is also defenseless in the commission of the crime, which
(YES) is why it is Murder and not merely Homicide.
RULING: YES. Stray bullets, obviously, kill Q: What if in the same problem, when X fired at Y,
indiscriminately and often without warning, precluding intending to kill Y, the bullet hit Z, a passerby. Z was
the unknowing victim from repelling the attack or hit on the head and was taken to the hospital and an
defending himself. At the outset, Adriano had no immediate operation was done. Due to the operation,
intention to kill Bulanan, much less, employ any Z did not die. What kind of crimes was committed by
particular means of attack. Logically, Bulanan's death X? How many Informations should be filed against X?
was random and unintentional and the method used to
kill her, as she was killed by a stray a bullet, was, by no A: Insofar as the intended victim is concerned, Attempted
means, deliberate. Nonetheless, Adriano is guilty of the Murder. Insofar as the actual victim is concerned, it is
death of Bulanan under Art. 4 of the RPC, pursuant to Serious Physical Injuries.
the doctrine of aberratio ictus, which imposes criminal
liability for the acts committed in violation of law and for The act of firing resulted into a grave felony, Attempted
all the natural and logical consequences resulting Murder, and a less grave felony, Serious Physical Injuries,
therefrom. While it may not have been Adriano's therefore, only ONE (1) INFORMATION OF ATTEMPTED
intention to shoot Bulanan, this fact will not exculpate MURDER WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.
him. Bulanan's death caused by the bullet fired by
Adriano was the natural and direct consequence of Insofar as Z is concerned, why Serious Physical Injuries?
Adriano's felonious deadly assault against Cabiedes. The wounds sustained by Z were fatal. It is because X has
no intention to kill Z. His intent was only to kill Y.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
A: IT DEPENDS – whether you will apply Art. 49 or not.

In the first problem, when Z died, that intent becomes a
general criminal intent. Under Art. 49, in case of error in personae, if the intended
felony is different from the felony actually committed, the
ERROR IN PERSONAE OR MISTAKE IN THE lesser of the two (2) penalties shall be imposed at its
IDENTITY maximum period.
But if the intended felony is the same as the actual felony

The second situation under the first paragraph of Art. 4 is committed, Art. 49 does not apply.
known as error in personae or mistake in the identity.
If Art. 49 applies, error in personae will be a mitigating
It is a situation where the offender directed a blow at the circumstance because it will reduce the penalty to the
person whom he thought to be the intended victim. lighter penalty between the intended penalty and felony
actually committed, in its maximum period.
In case of mistake in the blow, both the intended victim
and actual victim are present in the scene of the crime. Q: X boxed Y so hard on the chest that the latter fell
on the ground. He fell face down. X went near Y and
In error in personae, the intended victim was not at the kicked him. Before leaving, he also kicked Y’s butt
scene of the crime. It is only the actual victim. The who was wounded; in severe pain. Y, wanting to get
intended victim is absent; not present in the scene of the even, stood up with all his force and opened a knife
crime. and stabbed the person next to him, thinking it was X.
It was not X but rather, his father who came to help Y.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE Y stabbed his father, resulting to his death. Y is now
BOOK ONE being prosecuted for Parricide. Based on the facts, if
you were the judge, how would you rule?
ARTICLE 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the
principals when the crime committed is different A: If I were the judge, I would convict him of Parricide.
from that intended. – In cases in which the felony Since this is a clear case of error in personae, Art. 49
committed is different from that which the offender applies. Since there is variance between the intended
intended to commit, the following rules shall be felony of Homicide and the actual felony of Parricide,
observed: applying Art. 49, the lesser penalty shall be imposed.
Therefore, although as a judge, I have to convict Y of
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed PARRICIDE, I have to IMPOSE THE PENALTY
be higher than that corresponding to the offense CORRESPONDING ONLY TO HOMICIDE, which is
which the accused intended to commit, the penalty reclusion temporal. In this case, error in personae
corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its mitigates the criminal liability.
maximum period.
PEOPLE v. SABALONES
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed GR 123485 31 August 1998| PANGANIBAN, J.
be lower than that corresponding to the one which
the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the FACTS: At 6’o clock in the evening, Nelson and his
former shall be imposed in its maximum period. group were attending a wedding at the house of Maj.
They met Stephen who asked them to drive his car
3. The rule established by the next preceding home. Thereafter, Nelson and his group, on board
paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts Stephen’s car and an owner-type jeep, drove to the
committed by the guilty person shall also constitute residence of Stephen. However, when they arrived at
an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law the gate of the house of Stephen, an armed group fired
prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter at the jeep. Despite his injury, Nelson was able to
offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the maneuver the car back to their residence. Two (2)
attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed members of Nelson’s group died and others were
in its maximum period. injured. Sabalones and his co-accused were charged
with two (2) counts of Murder and three (3) counts of
Frustrated Murder.
Q: What is the effect of error in personae on the
offender’s criminal liability? ISSUE: W/N aberratio ictus is applicable in this case.
(NO)

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
the felony actually committed. Therefore, since Art. 49 will

RULING: NO. The Court has held that "mistake in the not apply, X shall be held criminally liable for Serious
identity of the victim carries the same gravity as when Physical Injuries although it was done on a different
the accused zeroes in on his intended victim." The case victim.
is better characterized as error personae or mistake in
the identity of the victims, rather than aberratio ictus PRAETER INTENTIONEM OR THE CONSEQUENCE
which means mistake in the blow, characterized by WENT BEYOND THE INTENTION
aiming at one but hitting the other due to imprecision in
the blow.
The last situation under the first paragraph of Art. 4 is
In this case, evidence sufficiently showed that known as praeter intentionem or when the consequence
Sabalones and his co-accused believed that they were went beyond the intention.
suspected of having killed the recently slain Nabing
Velez, and that they expected his group to retaliate It is a situation where the offender directed a blow against
against them. Hence, upon the arrival of the victims' the victim, the latter receiving it but the injurious effects
vehicles, which they mistook to be carrying the are far greater than what would have foreseen from the
avenging men of Nabing Velez, they opened fire. acts done.
Nevertheless, the fact that they were mistaken does not
diminish their culpability. Elements of Praeter Intentionem
1. That a felony has been committed; and

2. That there is a notable disparity between the
BAR QUESTION means employed by the offender and the
resulting felony.
What if X, wanting to get even with Y, went to the
worksite of Y. Upon seeing Y, X armed with a piece of No one could have foreseen that out of the offender's act,
wood, began hitting Y without any warning. Y did not this felony would result.
put a defense as the attack was sudden.
Whenever praeter intentionem is present, it is considered
When X saw that Y was already down on the ground as a mitigating circumstance because it is expressly
and in pain, X left. X had no intention to kill Y. His only provided for under Art.13(3) that the offender has no
intention was to injure him. As X was leaving, he saw intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
Y coming inside the worksite. He was shocked. He It is always and always a mitigating circumstance if the
has just seriously injured Y and now Y is in front of elements were proven.
him.
PEOPLE v. SALES
When X looked back, it was only at that time that he G.R. NO. 177218 | OCTOBER 3, 2011 | DEL
realized that the person that he seriously injured was CASTILLO, J.
the identical twin brother of Y.
FACTS: Noemar and Junior attended a parade of Our
The twin brother filed a case of Serious Physical Lady of Peñafrancia without their parents’ permission.
Injuries against X. X’s defense is that he cannot be Their mother found them the following day in the
held liable for Serious Physical Injuries because, nearby barangay. When they reached home, Sales
according to him, he has no intention to injure the was furious and proceeded to whip them with a stick
twin brother. His intention was to injure Y, not the said which was later broken. Thereafter, he brought his
twin brother. Therefore, according to X, he cannot be children outside their house and tied their hands and
held criminally liable for Serious Physical Injuries feet to a coconut tree. While being tied, Noemar and
because there is the presence of error in personae or Junior were continuously being beaten with a thick
mistake in the identity. Is X’s defense correct? piece of wood. When they returned inside the house,
the mother noticed several injuries on Junior and
A: NO. X’s defense is wrong. As held in the SC in the case Noemar, including a crack on Noemar’s head. Noemar
of People v. Sabalones, error in personae or mistake in suddenly collapsed and lost consciousness. Despite
the identity is not an absolutory cause. It is not an the efforts of the mother to revive Noemar, he remained
exempting circumstance. motionless and he was pronounced dead. Sales was
charged with the crime of Parricide.
It can only be mitigating if there is a variance. In this case,
there was no variance between the intended felony and

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ISSUE: W/N praeter intentionem should be A: YES. he is liable for Parricide under the Proximate
appreciated NO) Cause Doctrine. All the elements are present. First
element: The intended act is a felonious act. Punching the
RULING: NO. In order that a person may be criminally wife on the neck is a felonious act. Second element: It
liable for a felony different from that which he intended resulted to a felony, the death of the wife. Third element:
to commit, it is indispensible (i) that a felony was The said Parricide is the direct, natural, and logical
committed and (ii) that the wrong done to the aggrieved consequence of the husband’s felonious act.
person be the direct consequence of the crime
committed by the perpetrator. Here, there is no doubt Q: In case of admission, can he be given the benefit
appellant in beating his son, Noemar, and inflicting of praeter intentionem?
upon him physical injuries, committed a felony. As a
direct consequence of the beating suffered by the child, A: YES. The husband is entitled to the mitigating
he expired. Appellant’s criminal liability for the death of circumstance of praeter intentionem. All the elements are
his son, Noemar, is, thus, clear. present. First element: A felony has been committed.
Second element: There was a notable disparity between
There is mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender the means employed and the resulting death.
but not lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Appellant adopted means to ensure the success of the No one could have foreseen that out of one’s punch on
savage battering of his sons. He tied their wrists to a the neck, death would immediately proceed. Therefore,
coconut tree to prevent their escape while they were the husband shall be given the benefit of praeter
battered with a stick to inflict as much pain as possible. intentionem.
Noemar suffered injuries in his face, head and legs that
immediately caused his death. BAR EXAM TIP: If you noticed, when I answer a problem,
I took time to state the elements and explain/apply it
The mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit because I want you to answer that way in the exam and
so grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated cannot in the Bar. Always connect the elements to the facts of the
be appreciated where the acts employed by the case.
accused were reasonably sufficient to produce and did
actually produce the death of the victim, such as when IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
the accused adopted means to ensure the success of
the savage battering of his sons.
An impossible crime is one wherein the act done would
have amounted to a crime against persons or property,
but it is not accomplished because of its inherent
NOTE: In the case of People v. Sales, the SC in possibility, or employment of ineffectual or inadequate
convicting Sales of Parricide, did not appreciate praeter means.
intentionem. The acts done by Sales, repeatedly beating
his son with the piece of wood, would indeed produce the In reality, an impossible crime is not indeed a crime. There
death of the boy. There was no notable disparity between is no disturbance of the public order because the act is
the means employed and the resulting crime which is the not accomplished. The act did not produce into a crime.
death of the child. There is that inherent impossibility for the act to
consummate into a crime.
Q: The husband and the wife were fighting over
financial matters. The wife kept on nagging and the However, the offender shall be prosecuted for an
two (2) continued shouting until the husband got so impossible crime in order to prevent or to punish his
mad over the wife, resulting in the former punching criminal tendency or criminal perversity. So, he shall be
the neck of his wife. charged with an Impossible Crime under Art. 4(2) in
relation to Art. 59.
Since at the time, the wife was walking towards the
dining area, she lost control of her balance and fell on Elements of Art. 4(2) – Impossible Crime
the floor. It was a bad fall; her head hit the cemented
pavement. Because of that, there was bleeding, she 1. The act done would have amounted to a crime
went into coma, and then, her death ensued. against persons or property;
2. The act was done with evil intent;
The husband is now prosecuted for the crime of 3. The act was not accomplished because of its
parricide. Is he liable for the said crime? inherent impossibility, or the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means; and

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
4. The act does not fall under any other provision of where the intended acts, even if completed, would not
the RPC. amount to a crime.
Q: X abducted Y, wanting to extort ransom from the Thus, legal impossibility would apply to those
family of Y. Before calling the parents of Y, the police circumstances where (i) the motive, desire and
arrived and arrested X. After investigation, since the expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;
ransom failed, the police filed a case of Impossible (ii) there is intention to perform the physical act, (iii)
Crime of Kidnapping for Ransom against X. If you are there is a performance of the intended physical act; and
the public prosecutor, how will you resolve? (iv) the consequence resulting from the intended act
does not amount to a crime.
A: As the public prosecutor, you have to DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT. The first element is immediately absent On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when
because kidnapping for ransom is under Title 9 – a crime extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or
against personal liberty and security under Art. 267. There beyond his control prevent the consummation of the
can never be an impossible crime for kidnapping with intended crime. One example is the man who puts his
ransom. The second element is present; that the act was hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to
done with evil intent. The third element is not present. The steal the latter's wallet and finds the pocket empty.
act is already accomplished. Under Art. 267, the law does
not require that the ransom is paid. All the law requires is The case at bar belongs to this category. Garcia shot
that the purpose is to extort which was already committed. the place where he thought his victim would be,
although in reality, the victim was not present in said
The first and third element not being met, the proper crime place and thus, Garcia failed to accomplish his end.
charged should be Kidnapping with Ransom.
In our jurisdiction, impossible crimes are recognized.
Inherent Impossibility The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is
not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself.
INTOD v. PEOPLE Furthermore, the phrase "inherent impossibility" that is
G.R. NO. 103119 | OCTOBER 21, 1992 | CAMPOS, found in Art. 4(2) of the RPC makes no distinction
JR., J. between factual or physical impossibility and legal
impossibility. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere
FACTS: Intod and his group went to the house of debemos.
Mandaya. They asked Mandaya to go with them to the
house of Palangpangan. Thereafter, they had a
meeting with Dumalagan. Intod told Mandaya that he
wanted to kill Palangpangan because of a land dispute JACINTO v. PEOPLE
between them and that Mandaya should accompany G.R. NO. 162540 | July 13, 2009 | PERALTA, J.
his group, otherwise, he would also be killed. Intod and
his group arrived at the house of Palangpangan. After FACTS: Jacinto was the then collector of Mega Foam
Mandaya pointed to the location of Palangpangan's International, Inc. She received a BDO check in the
bedroom, Intod and his group fired at the room. amount of P10,000.00 representing the payment for the
However, it turned out that Palangpangan was in purchases of a customer, Aquino. However, she
another city and her home was then occupied by her deposited the check to the Land Bank account of
son-in-law and his family. No one was injured on Generoso, who was the husband of her sister. Another
occasion of the shooting. Intod was charged with the employee, Ricablanca, received a phone call from a
crime of Attempted Murder. customer and learned that the customer was instructed
by Jacqueline to make check payments to Mega Foam
ISSUE: Whether or not Intod is liable for an Impossible payable to cash. Thereafter, she received another call
Crime (YES) from an employee of Land Bank informing her that the
BDO check deposited in the account of Generoso was
RULING: YES. To be impossible under Art. 4(2), the dishonored. Later on, Valencia divulge to Ricablanca
act intended by the offender must be by its nature one the plan to take the cash and divide it equally among
impossible of accomplishment. There must be either (i) themselves. The plan was reported by Ricablanca to
legal impossibility, or (ii) physical impossibility of the owner of Mega Foam. With the assistance of the
accomplishing the intended act in order to qualify the NBI, an entrapment operation was conducted which led
act as an Impossible Crime. Legal impossibility occurs to the arrest of Jacinto and her co-accused. They were
charged with the crime of Qualified Theft.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ISSUE: W/N Jacinto should be convicted of Qualified circumstances, unknown to the offender or
Theft (NO) beyond the control of the offender, prevented the
consummation of the crime.
RULING: NO. Under Art. 4(2), the act performed by the
offender cannot produce an offense against persons or In the case of Intod v. CA, the SC gave an example which
property because: (i) the commission of the offense is is killing a dead person. X stabbed Y but the autopsy
inherently impossible of accomplishment; or (ii) the showed that Y was already dead before the stabbing. X
means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual. To was liable of the Impossible Crime of Murder. There is
be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the legal impossibility.
offender must be by its nature one impossible of
accomplishment. There must be either legal The SC gave another example, when a person places his
impossibility, or physical impossibility of accomplishing hand in the bag of another, wanting to take the wallet of
the intended act in order to qualify the act as an the person but the bag was empty. The crime committed
impossible crime. is Impossible Crime of Theft. There is physical or factual
impossibility.
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts,
even if completed, would not amount to a crime. The In both cases of Intod v. CA and Jacinto v. People,
impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in this physical or factual impossibility is present.
category.
Q: X went to an exhibit of Y. He found a painting and
Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous discovered that his stolen painting was in the exhibit.
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his X wanted his painting so he later went to the house of
control prevent the consummation of the intended Y and took the painting. What crime is committed? Is
crime. Ex.: A man puts his hand in the coat pocket of X liable for an Impossible Crime of Robbery?
another with the intention to steal the latter's wallet, but
gets nothing since the pocket is empty. A: NO. X is not liable for Robbery. In Robbery or Theft, it
is essential that the thing taken belong to another person.
In the case at bar, herein petitioner's case is closely In this case, the thing taken by X belongs to him.
akin to the above example of factual impossibility. In Therefore, in doing the act of taking, there is no intent to
this case, petitioner performed all the acts to gain; thus, he cannot be liable.
consummate the crime of Qualified Theft, which is a
crime against property. Petitioner's evil intent cannot be Is he liable for the said Impossible Crime of Robbery?
denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check First element: The crime, if accomplished, would have
meant for Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be amounted to a crime against property. Second element:
unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check The act was done with evil intent. Third element: The act
bounced, she would have received the face value was not accomplished because of its inherent
thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was impossibility; robbery cannot be accomplished because
only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check the thing he took does not belong to another person.
being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the Fourth element: The fourth element is absent; the act
time, that prevented the crime from being produced. done would fall under another provision in the RPC which
The thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be is Trespass to Dwelling.
absolutely worthless, because the check was
eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received Based on the last element, impossible crimes are crimes
the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check. of last resort; you can only file impossible crimes if the
acts done would not fall under any provision under RPC.
If any act would constitute another violation under the
RPC, that is the proper charge and not impossible crime.
NOTE: In the case of Intod v. CA, the SC discussed the
two (2) kinds of inherent impossibility.
*** END
1. Legal impossibility – There is legal impossibility
when all the intended acts, even if accomplished,
will not produce a crime. Thus, under any and all
circumstances, the act will not ripen into a crime.
2. Physical or factual impossibility – There is

physical or factual impossibility when extraneous

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
February 10, 2024 First element – that the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts
ARTICLE 6
STAGES IN THE EXECUTION OF A FELONY This is the most important element. It simply means that
the attempted felony that is punished by the law is the one
that is directly connected to the overt act committed by the
offender. So, the basis is the overt act done by the
BOOK ONE
offender although he may have a different crime in mind.
It is immaterial what his crime in mind is; what matters is
ARTICLE 6. Consummated, frustrated, and
that to what overt act it is connected – that will be the
attempted felonies. – Consummated felonies as well
attempted felony that is punished by law.
as those which are frustrated and attempted, are
punishable.
Third element – The offender was not able to perform
all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or
A felony is consummated when all the elements
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs
Based on the third element, the offender was not able to
all the acts of execution which could produce the felony
consummate the crime by reason of some cause or
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance;
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will
therefore, if the reason for the non-consummation of the
of the perpetrator.
crime in the attempted stage is desistance, it negates
criminal liability.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
Reason: Desistance negates criminal liability in the
not perform all the acts of execution which should
attempted stage. It absolves the offender of the criminal
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
liability if he desisted in the attempted stage.
other than his own spontaneous desistance.
However, if the desistance comes in the frustrated and
consummated stage, no amount of desistance will negate
criminal liability because in these stages, the offender has
Stages in the Commission of a Felony
performed all the acts of execution and nothing more is
left for him to do. Hence, it is only in the attempted stage
1. Attempted Stage where it negates criminal liability.
2. Frustrated Stage
3. Consummated Stage
PEOPLE v. LAMAHANG
G.R. NO. 43530 | AUGUST 3, 1935 | RECTO, J.
ATTEMPTED FELONY
FACTS: While patrolling on the streets of Iloilo City,
A felony is attempted when the offender commences the Policeman Tomambing caught Lamahang in the act of
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does making an opening on the wall of a store of cheap
not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some goods with the use of an iron bar. The store was owned
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous by Yu, who was sleeping inside the store. Lamahang
desistance. only succeeded in breaking one (1) board and in
unfastening another from the wall, when the policeman
Elements of Attempted Felony showed up and arrested him. He was charged with the
crime of Attempted Robbery.
1. That the offender commences the commission of
a felony directly by overt acts; ISSUE: W/N Lamahang should be convicted of
2. That the offender was not able to perform all the Attempted Robbery (NO)
acts of execution; and
3. The offender was not able to perform all the acts RULING: NO. Under the Penal Code, an attempt to
of execution by reason of some cause or commit an offense is that which has a logical relation to
accident other than his own spontaneous a particular or concrete offense, which is the beginning
desistance. of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the
perpetrator, leading to its realization and

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
consummation. It is not sufficient that an act objectively There is absolutely no dispute about the absence of
performed constitutes a mere beginning of execution; it sexual intercourse or carnal knowledge in the present
is necessary to establish its unavoidable connection case.
with the deed which upon its consummation will
develop into one of the offenses defined and punished The next question is that whether or not the act of the
by this Code. Baleros which is the pressing of a chemical-soaked
cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes an overt act of
Thus, in case of Robbery, in order that the simple act of rape. Overt or external act has been defined as some
entering by means of force or violence another person's physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
dwelling may be considered an attempt to commit this commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning
offense, it must be shown that the offender clearly or preparation, which if carried out to its complete
intended to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of termination following its natural course, without being
some personal property belonging to another. frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
Here, records established that Lamahang was making necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. As it were,
an opening by means of an iron bar on the wall of Yu's Baleros did not commence at all the performance of any
store. Hence, it may only be inferred as a logical act indicative of an intent or attempt to rape Malou.
conclusion that his evident intention was to enter by
means of force in the said store against the will of its It cannot be overemphasized that the Baleros was fully
owner. However, his final objective, once he succeeded clothed and that there was no attempt on his part to
in entering the store, was to rob, to cause physical injury undress Malou, let alone touch her private part. The
to the inmates, or to commit any other offense, was not Information contained an allegation that he forcefully
supported by the records. covered the face of Malou with a piece of cloth soaked
in chemical.
Therefore, the SC ruled that Lamahang was not guilty
of Attempted Robbery but Attempted Trespass to Verily, while the series of acts committed by the Baleros
Dwelling. do not determine Attempted Rape, they constitute
unjust vexation punishable as Light Coercion under the
second paragraph of Art. 287 of the RPC. That Malou,
after the incident in question, cried while relating to her
classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack
BALEROS, JR. v. PEOPLE
and the fact that she filed a case for Attempted Rape
G.R. NO. 138033 | FEBRUARY 22, 2006 | GARCIA,
proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed, if not
J.
distressed by the acts of petitioner.
FACTS: Early in the morning, Baleros, Jr. entered the
room of Malou, and tightly pressed on her face a piece
of cloth soaked with chemical while pinning her down
NOTE: In the cases of Lamahang v. People, and
on the bed. Malou was awakened and struggled to fight
Baleros, Jr. v People, in both instances, the Court did
off Balaeros, Jr. She was able to free her right hand and
not convict the accused of the crime charged.
proceeded to squeeze the sex organ of Baleros, Jr.
Thereafter, Baleros, Jr. let her go and escaped. Malou
In the case of Lamahang v. People, the accused was
reported the incident to the police authorities,
charged with Attempted Robbery. The SC said that it
describing the garments of Baleros, Jr. He was charged
cannot be Attempted Robbery because his overt act of
with the crime of Attempted Rape.
opening the store with the use of an iron bar is not directly
or in any way connected with Robbery. What we have is
ISSUE: W/N Baleros, Jr. should be convicted of
an attempt to commit an indeterminate offense. Once
Attempted Rape (NO)
inside, he may do other things not necessarily to rob the
store. Therefore, he can only be held liable for Attempted
RULING: NO. The attempt which the Penal Code
Trespassing.
punishes is that which has a logical connection to a
particular, concrete offense; that which is the beginning
Q: In the case of Baleros Jr. v. People, is the overt act
of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the
of pressing a cloth soaked with chemical on the face
perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and
of a woman directly connected to the crime of rape?
consummation.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
A: NO. The SC said that the obvious intent of Baleros Jr. shivering, Madam X gave the key to Y. When Y was
was to make Malou unconscious by pressing a cloth opening the said car in order to push Madam X inside
soaked with chemicals on her face. However, the moment the car, the police arrived and arrested Y. Y was
Malou becomes unconscious, Baleros Jr. may do any charged with Attempted Kidnapping. Is Y liable as
other act not necessarily to rape the woman; he may rape, charged for Attempted Kidnapping?
commit acts of lasciviousness, rob, or kill her. The said
overt act of pressing a cloth soaked with chemicals on the A: NO. Y is not liable for attempted kidnapping. The overt
face of Malou is not directly connected to rape. Hence, SC acts performed by Y are not direct overt acts indicative of
said that it cannot be considered as Attempted Rape. He intent to detain or deprive Madam X of her liberty.
is just convicted with unjust vexation which is a form of Therefore, it cannot be Attempted Kidnapping.
Light Coercion under Art. 287 of RPC.
The acts done by Y – going to Madam X, pointing a knife
In both cases of Lamahang v. People, and Baleros, Jr. at her, getting the keys, and trying to open the car – these
v. People, the SC made mention of an indeterminate are not overt acts directly connected to the crime of
offense. Kidnapping. It is rather an indeterminate offense. When
you say an indeterminate offense, the overt act of the
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE offender in relation to his criminal intent is ambiguous.
Therefore, the charge of Attempted Kidnapping is not
correct.
The overt act in relation to the intent of the offender is
ambiguous. Out of the overt act, you cannot know what Q: X was a cruel employer to Y. During lunch time, X
the real intent of the said offender was. ordered Y to eat her leftover food. After eating the
leftover food, Y vomited due to the food’s foul taste
You cannot charge a person with an indeterminate and was hospitalized. Based on the medical
offense because according to SC, an indeterminate examination done to Y, it was revealed that the food
offense has no juridical standpoint in the RPC; hence, you had menstrual blood and urine. Based on the footage
can only charge the offender for the crime which is directly of the CCTV camera, it was revealed that X mixed her
connected to the overt act done by him. menstrual blood and urine with the food of Y to eat. A
claim for Attempted Murder was filed against X before
Overt Act the Office of the City Prosecutor.
It refers to any external act which if allowed to continue In the counter-affidavit filed by X, she argued that she
will naturally and logically ripen into a crime. should be prosecuted only for the Impossible Crime
Of Murder, or merely Attempted Physical Injuries. As
What the law requires is that the overt act must be the public prosecutor, resolve the case. Explain your
directly connected to the intended felony. The offender resolution.
commences the commission of the crime directly by
overt act. BAR EXAM TIP: Tingnan niyo yung tanong ko. Ilang
crimes ang minention ko? Tatlo.
Directly by Overt Act
1. Attempted murder – crime charged
It means that the overt acts performed by the offender 2. Impossible crime of murder – contention of X
must be directly connected to the intended felony. 3. Attempted physical injuries – contention of X
The attempted felony that is punished by law is one In case the Bar examiner mentions 2/3 crimes, you have
which is directly connected to the overt act performed to answer and resolve each one of them.
by the offender although he has admitted the crime.
A: Insofar as Attempted Murder is concerned, I will resolve
to DISMISS THE COMPLAINT because the over act is
BAR QUESTION not directly connected to murder. Her overt act does not
reveal intent to kill, since it was an indeterminate offense.
Madam X parked her car in front of the gate of her In the cases of Lamahang v. People, and Baleros, Jr. v
house. She arrived at nighttime. While Madam X was People, indeterminate offense is one where the intent of
trying to open the gate, she was approached by Y and the offender in performing the act is not certain. Here, the
thereafter, Y grabbed her arm by means of a knife or employer’s purpose in mixing her menstrual blood and
balisong and told her to unlock her car. Afraid and urine on the food of the employee is not an overt act

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
directly connected to killing. Therefore, the murder performed which would produce Homicide, because it
complaint has to be dismissed. was purely accidental that Y was able to evade the shot
twice.
Insofar as Attempted Physical Injuries are concerned, I
will resolve that the contention X MUST FAIL because Q: What if in the same problem, in the course of a
physical Injury is a formal crime, and it has no frustrated fight, X fired at Y. X was aiming at the chest. However,
and attempted stages. It is only punished in the since Y lowered his body, he was hit near the
consummated stage. It is punished based on result and shoulder and subsequently brought to the hospital. It
consequences whether it is serious, less serious, or slight. was stated that the wounds would heal within a period
of 10 days. What crime is committed by X?
FRUSTRATED FELONY
A: X is liable for ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE. His overt acts
of firing at Y, with intent to kill, inflicting a non-fatal wound,
A felony is frustrated when the offender has performed all are directly connected to killing. However, he was not able
the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a to perform all acts of execution which would produce
consequence, but which nevertheless do not produce it homicide because the wound he inflicted was only a non-
by reason of causes independent of the will of perpetrator. fatal wound. It is not sufficient to bring about death. He
must perform another act to consummate the crime.
Elements of Frustrated Felony
Q: What if in the same problem, X fired at Y. Y was hit
1. That the offender has performed all the acts of on the chest and subsequently brought to the
execution to produce the felony; and hospital. The doctor said that an operation must be
2. The felony was not produced by reason of causes done immediately, otherwise, Y would die. After the
independent of the will of the perpetrator. operation, Y survived. What crime is committed by X?
Attempted Felony Vis-à-vis Frustrated Felony A: X is liable for FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE. The moment
X fired at Y inflicting a fatal wound, X has already
The distinctions are: performed all the acts of execution. There was nothing
more to be done but wait for his death. But death did not
ATTEMPTED FELONY FRUSTRATED FELONY supervene because of a cause independent of X’s will
which is the doctor’s immediate medical intervention.
Offender merely Offender has already BALER
commences the performed all the acts of PEOPLE v. TRINIDAD
commission of a felony. execution. Nothing more G.R. NO. 79123-25 | JANUARY 9, 1989 |
He has not yet performed is left to do. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.
all the acts of execution.
FACTS: Soriano, together with Tan and Larao, on
The felony was not The felony was not board a Ford Fiera, drove to Butuan City to sell fish.
produced by reason of produced by reason of Thereafter, Trinidad approached them and asked for a
some cause or accident causes independent of the ride to Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, which was on the
other than the offender’s will of the perpetrator. way to Davao City. However, Tan suddenly heard two
spontaneous desistance. (2) gunshots, and discovered that Trinidad shot
Soriano and Larao on the head with his carbine. Tan
Offender is still in the Offender is already in the alighted the Fiera and hid behind the bushes. He then
subjective phase in objective phase of hailed a passenger jeep, but noticed that Trinidad also
committing the felony. committing the felony. He boarded the jeep. When Trinidad noticed him, the
has no more control of his former ordered Tan to get out and to approach him.
acts. Tan, however, ran around the jeep and clung to its
side, leaving behind Trinidad. Trinidad fired two (2)
shots hitting Tan on his right thigh. Tan was able to
Q: In the course of a fight, X pulled out a gun and fired seek help from a member of the Philippine
at Y, intending to kill him. Y was able to evade the Constabulary who helped him board a bus for Butuan
shot. Again, X fired at Y, but the latter evaded the City. Trinidad was charged with the crimes of two (2)
shot. What crime is committed by X? counts of Murder and Frustrated Murder.
A: X is liable for ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE. X’s overt act
of firing at Y twice – all acts of execution were not

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ISSUE: W/N Trinidad should be convicted of

2. In [a] frustrated felony, the reason for the non-
Attempted Murder, and not Frustrated Murder (YES)
accomplishment of the crime is some cause
independent of the will of the perpetrator; on the
RULING: YES. Trinidad had commenced the
other hand, in [an] attempted felony, the reason for
commission of the felony directly by overt acts but was
the non- fulfillment of the crime is a cause or
unable to perform all the acts of execution which would
accident other than the offender's own
have produced it by reason of causes other than his
spontaneous desistance.
spontaneous desistance, such as, that the jeep to
which Tan was clinging was in motion, and there was
In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing
a spare tire which shielded the other parts of his body.
that the wound would have been fatal were it not for
Moreover, the wound on his thigh was not fatal and the
timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to
doctrinal rule is that where the wound inflicted on the
convince the Court that the wound sustained would
victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is
have caused the victim's death without timely medical
only Attempted Murder, the accused not having
attention, the accused should be convicted of
performed all the acts of execution that would have
Attempted Murder and not Frustrated Murder.
brought about death.
In the instant case, it does not appear that the wound
sustained by Gregorio Conde was mortal. This was
OS, JR. v. PEOPLE
further admitted upon medical examination of Gregorio
PEOPLE v. LABIAGA after the shooting incident.
G.R. NO. 202867 | JULY 15, 2013 | CARPIO, J.
FACTS: Labiaga and his co-accused were outside the

house of Gregorio. When Labiaga was approximately NOTE: In the cases of People v. Trinidad and People v.
five (5) meters away from Gregorio, the former Labiaga, the SC said in case of intentional killings –
suddenly shot the latter. Gregorio called Judy for help. Parricide, Murder, Homicide, Infanticide, in order to bring
However, when Judy rushed to aid him, Labiga shot her about the frustrated stage, it is necessary that the wound
in the abdomen. Thereafter, Labiaga and his co- inflicted must be a fatal/ mortal wound. The offender has
accused fled the scene. Judy was pronounced dead on performed all acts of execution and nothing more is left to
arrival at the hospital, while Gregorio was able to be done. The victim only survived by reason of cause
recover after receiving medical treatment. Labiaga and independent of the will of the perpetrator, and that is the
his co-accused were charged with the crimes of Murder immediate medical intervention.
with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm and Frustrated
Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm. If the wound inflicted upon the victim is a non-fatal wound,
the felony is only in the attempted stage because the
ISSUE: W/N Labiaga should be convicted of Murder infliction of a non-fatal/non-mortal wound means there
and Frustrated Murder (NO) must be an act to be done to consummate the crime. He
merely commences the commission of the crime.
RULING: NO. There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by Thus, if a problem on intentional killing is given, if the
overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of wound inflicted by the perpetrator of the crime upon the
execution which should produce the felony by reason of victim is a non-mortal/non-fatal wound, then it will only be
some cause or accident other than his own in the attempted stage.
spontaneous desistance.
But if the wound inflicted by the accused upon the victim
In Serrano v. People, the Court distinguished a is a mortal/fatal wound, sufficient to bring about death, but
frustrated felony from an attempted felony in this the victim survived because of the immediate medical
manner: intervention, the crime committed is in the frustrated
stage.
1. In [a] frustrated felony, the offender has performed
all the acts of execution which should produce the Factors to Determine Intent to Kill
felony as a consequence; whereas in [an]
attempted felony, the offender merely commences The following are the factors to determine whether or
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts not there is intent to kill:
and does not perform all the acts of execution.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
phase and the attempted stage. Therefore, it cannot be

1. Evidence of motive;
Attempted Parricide because all the acts of execution had
2. The nature and number of weapons used by
already been produced by him. The husband should not
the offender;
be charged with Attempted Parricide. (CrimRev Prelims
3. The nature, number, and location of the
Reviewer, 2023)
wounds inflicted on the victim;
4. Manner of committing the crime; and
Q: In the same problem, what is the proper charge for
5. Acts and statements made by the offender
the crime committed by X?
before, during and after the commission of the
crime.
A: The proper charge would be PHYSICAL INJURIES
depending on the days that the said wife would be
needing medical intervention.
Q: The doctor husband, X, has a mistress. X wanted
to get rid of the wife so that he will be able to live
1. Serious Physical Injuries – if the wife will be
happily with his mistress and also, for insurance
needing medical intervention for a period of more
purposes. And so, he decided to place poison on the
than 30 days;
food of his wife. When the wife ate the food, indeed,
2. Less Physical Injuries – if the said wife will be
she was poisoned. As X was looking at his wife
needing medical intervention for 10-30 days;
suffering, showing signs of being poisoned, he felt
3. Slight Physical Injuries – if the wife will be
pity because they have been together for years.
needing medical intervention for 1-9 days.
Because of that, X went to his bag, took the antidote,
and administered it to his wife. Thereafter, he
immediately brought the wife to the hospital. The wife CONSUMMATED FELONY
survived; the wife did not die. X is now being charged
with the crime of Frustrated Parricide. Is the husband A felony is consummated when all the elements
liable for the said crime? necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
already present.
A: NO. First element: the offender has already performed
all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as When all elements of the crime – Murder, Rape,
a consequence. Here, when the doctor husband placed Homicide, etc. are present, then it is already indeed in the
the poison to the food and the wife ate the food with consummated stage of committing the felony.
poison and showed signs of being poisoned, the doctor
husband has already performed all acts of execution that CRIMES THAT DO NOT ADMIT THE FRUSTRATED
would lead to the death of his wife. Nothing more is left for STAGE
him to do. Thus, the first element is present.
There are certain crimes which do not admit frustrated
Second element: the felony was not produced by reason stage:
of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Here,
the felony of Parricide was not produced because of the 1. Theft
doctor husband’s own will. He was the one who applied 2. Rape
the antidote, and he brought the wife to the hospital. 3. Arson
Therefore, the second element is absent because of a
cause that depended on the voluntary will of X. Theft
The second element being absent, therefore, the husband

is not liable for the crime of Frustrated Parricide. VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE
G. R. NO. 160188 | JUNE 21, 2007 | TINGA, J.
Q: What if in the same problem, X argued that should
he be held liable, it should be for Attempted Parricide. FACTS: Lago saw Valenzuela and Calderon in the
Is the contention of X correct? open parking space of Super Sale Club. Valenzuela
hauled a pushcart with cases of Tide detergent and
A: NO. The first element of attempted felony is unloaded them on the same spot where Calderon was
immediately absent. First element: that the offender waiting. He returned inside the supermarket and
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic. After
act. Here, the doctor husband did not only commence the unloading the cartons, Valenzuela hailed a taxi cab.
commission of the felony; he has already performed all Calderon then loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic
acts of execution. His act has passed the subjective inside the taxi cab and boarded the same. Thereafter,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
the department store. When asked by the

Lago approached the taxi cab and asked Valenzuela for
management, the daughter said that her mother
the receipt of the merchandise. Valenzuela and
forced her to wear them. What crime is committed by
Calderon immediately fled the scene, but they were
the said mother?
subsequently apprehended. They were charged with
the crime of Consummated Theft.
A: The mother is liable for THEFT in the consummated
stage. The moment the said mother asked her to wear all
ISSUE: W/N Valenzuela should be convicted of
the three dresses, they already gained possession of the
frustrated theft (NO)
dresses owned by the department store, even if they did
not have the opportunity to dispose it. Therefore, theft is
RULING: NO. Art. 6 of the RPC provides that a felony
already in the consummated stage.
is consummated when all the elements necessary for
its execution and accomplishment are present. In the
Q: Brothers, X and Y, go around town with their
crime of theft, the following elements should be present:
kariton for bote/dyaryo. They do not have enough
(i) that there be taking of personal property; (ii) that said
money to buy food. On their way home, they passed
property belongs to another; (iii) that the taking be done
by a big warehouse which was opened. They could
with intent to gain; (iv) that the taking be done without
see sacks piled up, which seemed to be sacks of rice.
the consent of the owner; and (v) that the taking be
Since there was no person around, they entered the
accomplished without the use of violence against or
warehouse and took one (1) sack. They brought it to
intimidating of persons or force upon things. The Court
their kariton and hurriedly left.
held that Theft is produced when there is deprivation of
personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is
However, midway to their house, they had a change
immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely
of heart because they remembered their mother’s
dispose the property stolen since he has already
teachings – “huwag kumain ng nakaw.” So, they
committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation
decided to go back in order to return the sack of rice.
from the owner has already ensued from such acts.
But suddenly, the guard saw them. The guard
Therefore, Theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and
apprehended them. X and Y are now being charged
can only be attempted or consummated.
with the crime of Consummated Theft.
Through their counsel, they contended that the case

NOTE: As held in the En banc, landmark case of should be dismissed because they returned the sack
Valenzuela v. People, the SC said that there is no of rice, which amounted to desistance. Is their
frustration in the crime of Theft because by its definition argument meritorious?
under Art. 308 of the RPC, Theft is committed by any
person, who with the intent to gain, shall take the personal A: NO. X and Y are liable for theft in the consummated
property of another without the consent of the owner, stage. The moment the brothers took the sack of rice from
without violence against or intimidation of persons or use the said warehouse and brought it to their kariton,
of force upon things. unlawful taking is complete. Their act of returning cannot
be considered as desistance, but act of restitution.
The only operative act necessary to consummate the Restitution is not desistance. Restitution is the return of
crime of theft is the unlawful taking of the personal the thing which was already taken. Therefore, it only
property of another. And the said act of unlawful taking is proves they have already taken the said sack of rice.
deemed complete the moment the offender gains
possession of the personal property of another even if he According to the SC, restitution is only a mitigating
has no opportunity to dispose the said property. circumstance which is akin to voluntary surrender.
Restitution is not an absolutory cause. Hence, they can
Q: The daughter will be having her 7th birthday. And still be charged with a crime of Theft.
so, the mother wanted to have a beautiful dress for
the daughter, but they do not have the money. They The said act of restitution will only mitigate their criminal
went to the children’s section of the department store. liability. Likewise, there shall be no civil liability awarded
The mother picked five dresses for her daughter and against them.
proceeded to the fitting room. However, the mother
only returned two (2) dresses to the saleslady and Rape
headed on their way out. The saleslady told the guard
to stop the mother and daughter. It was discovered Another crime which does not admit the frustrated stage
that the daughter was wearing the three dresses from is Rape.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
commission of the crime and the moment when

PEOPLE v. ORITA all of the acts have been performed which
G.R. NO. 88724 | APRIL 3, 1990 | MEDIALDEA, J. should result in the consummated crime; while
in the former there is such intervention and the
FACTS: Early in the morning, Abayan arrived at her offender does not arrive at the point of
boarding house, from a party. When she knocked at the performing all of the acts which should produce
door of her boarding house, Orita suddenly held her the crime. He is stopped short of that point by
and poked a knife to her neck. Thereafter, he dragged some cause apart from his voluntary
Abayan to her room and pushed her. Her head was hit desistance.
against the wall. With one hand holding the knife, Orita
undressed himself and ordered Abayan to take off her Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the
clothes. She was told to lie down on the floor. However, offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually
Orita could not fully penetrate her in that position. He attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
then laid down on his back and ordered Abayan to essential elements of the offense have been
mount him. In that position, only a small part again of accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the
his penis was inserted into her vagina. Abayan took the offender, because he has performed the last act
opportunity and escaped. She ran towards the nearby necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is
municipal building to report the incident. The medical consummated.
certificate showed that there was no visible abrasion or
mark at the perineal area or over the vulva. Orita was In a long line of cases, for the consummation of rape,
charged with the crime of Frustrated Rape. perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of
the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry
ISSUE: W/N Orita should be convicted of Frustrated of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture
Rape (NO) of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if
RULING: NO. The requisites of a frustrated felony are: there is no penetration of the female organ because not
(i) that the offender has performed all the acts of all acts of execution was performed. The offender
execution which would produce the felony and (ii) that merely commenced the commission of a felony directly
the felony is not produced due to causes independent by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements
of the perpetrator's will. In the leading case of US v. and manner of execution of the crime of rape and
Eduave, Justice Moreland set a distinction between jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable
attempted and frustrated felonies which is readily how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be
understood even by law students: committed.
xxxx
A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless PEOPLE v. CAMPUHAN

the offender, after beginning the commission of G.R. NO. 129433 | MARCH 30, 2000 | BELLOSILLO,
the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against J.
his will, by some outside cause from
performing all of the acts which should produce FACTS: The mother, Corazon, was preparing Milo
the crime. In other words, to be an attempted chocolate drinks for her two (2) children. She suddenly
crime the purpose of the offender must be heard one of her daughters cry, "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!",
thwarted by a foreign force or agency which which prompted Corazon to rush upstairs. Thereupon,
intervenes and compels him to stop prior to the she saw Campuhan inside her children's room kneeling
moment when he has performed all of the acts before Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and
which should produce the crime as a panty were already removed, while Campuhan’s short
consequence, which acts it is his intention to pants were down to his knees. Corazon claimed that
perform. If he has performed all of the acts Campuhan was forcing his penis into Crysthel’s vagina.
which should result in the consummation of the Campuhan tried to escape, but he was later
crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding apprehended. The medico-legal officer noted that there
further, it cannot be an attempt. The essential was no evident sign of extra-genital physical injury as
element which distinguishes attempted from Crysthel’s hymen was intact and its orifice was only 0.5
frustrated felony is that, in the latter, there is no cm. in diameter. Campuhan was charged with the
intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause crime of Statutory Rape.
or agency between the beginning of the

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ISSUE: W/N Campuhan should be convicted of

Statutory Rape (NO) PEOPLE v. PAREJA
G.R. NO. 188979 | SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 | BRION, J.
RULING: NO. Touching when applied to rape cases
does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking FACTS: At around 3:30 in the morning, AAA was
or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the sleeping beside BBB when the Pareja hugged her and
penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or kissed her nape and neck. AAA cried, but Pareja
the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be covered her and BBB with a blanket. He removed
sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed AAA’s clothes, and took off his short pants and briefs.
touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not He went on top of AAA and then tried to insert his penis
merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an into her vagina. Pareja stopped when AAA’s cry got
accused to be convicted of Consummated Rape. louder. AAA narrated the incident to her older sister,
DDD. Thereafter, AAA and her two (2) siblings reported
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that it to the Women and Children’s Desk of the
Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate Crysthel's Mandaluyong City Police Station. Pareja was charged
vagina however slight. Corazon alleged that she saw with the crime of Rape.
Campuhan poking his penis on the vagina of Crysthel
without explaining her relative position to them as to ISSUE: W/N Pareja should be convicted of Rape (NO)
enable her to see clearly and sufficiently, in automotive
lingo, the contact point. However, there is doubt to the RULING: NO. In People v. Publico, the Court ruled that
veracity of her claim that she saw the inter-genital when the "touching" of the vagina by the penis is
contact between Campuhan and Crysthel. coupled with the intent to penetrate, Attempted Rape is
Campuhan’s kneeling position rendered an unbridled committed; otherwise, the crime committed is merely
observation impossible. Not even a vantage point from Acts of Lasciviousness.
the side of the accused and the victim would have
provided Corazon an unobstructed view of In the present case, Pareja commenced the
Campuhan’s penis supposedly reaching Crysthel's commission of rape by the following overt acts: kissing
external genitalia, i.e., labia majora, labia minora, AAA’s nape and neck; undressing her; removing his
hymen, clitoris, etc., since the legs and arms of clothes and briefs; lying on top of her; holding her
Campuhan would have hidden his movements from hands and parting her legs; and trying to insert his
Corazon's sight, not to discount the fact that penis into her vagina. He, however, failed to perform all
Campuhan’s right hand was allegedly holding his the acts of execution which should produce the crime
penis, thereby blocking it from Corazon's view. It is the of Rape by reason of a cause other than his own
burden of the prosecution to establish how Corazon spontaneous desistance, i.e., the victim's loud cries
could have seen the sexual contact and to shove her and resistance. The totality of the appellant’s acts
account into the permissive sphere of credibility. It is demonstrated the unmistakable objective to insert his
not enough that she claims that she saw what was done penis into the victim’s private parts. For failure of the
to her daughter. It is required that her claim be properly prosecution to discharge its burden of proving all the
demonstrated to inspire belief. The prosecution failed elements of Consummated Rape, Pareja is guilty of
in this respect, thus, the Court cannot conclude without Attempted Rape only.
any taint of serious doubt that inter-genital contact was
at all achieved. To hold otherwise would be to resolve
the doubt in favor of the prosecution but to run
roughshod over the Constitutional right of the accused PEOPLE v. AGAO
to be presumed innocent. G.R. NO. 248049 | OCTOBER 04, 2022 | CAGUIOA,
J.
Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the RPC, rape is
attempted when the offender commences the FACTS: Agao was the step-father of AAA. She was 10
commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not years old when she was first molested by Agao. A year
perform all the acts of execution which should produce later, she was raped by Agao as he was trying to insert
the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident his penis into her vagina managing to reach to her labia
other than his own spontaneous desistance. All the majora, but was unable to fully penetrate because AAA
elements of attempted rape — and only of attempted was fighting back. Thereafter, Agao continued to
rape — are present in the instant case, hence, the molest her thrice a week. In another separate incident,
accused should be punished only for it. Agao raped her, but he was unable to penetrate her
vagina. Over two (2) years since the last assault, AAA
muster the courage to tell her aunt about the sexual

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
assault. Upon genital examination, it was found that charged with two (2) counts of statutory rape, in relation
there is no injury nor hymenal laceration. Nevertheless, to RA 7610, or the Anti-Child Abuse Law.
it was noted that it may be possible that the injury has
healed as two (2) years has passed. Agao was charged The accused Agao raped his stepdaughter, AAA, when
with the crimes of two (2) counts of Statutory Rape. AAA was only 10 years old, and a second time when AAA
was 13 years old.
ISSUE: W/N Agao should be convicted of two (2)
counts of Statutory Rape (NO) After trial on the merits, the RTC convicted Agao as
charged for two (2) counts of Statutory Rape, in relation
RULING: NO. The Court clarified that when to RA 7610. The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction of
jurisprudence refers to "mere touching," it is not Agao.
sufficient that the penis grazed over the pudendum or
the fleshy surface of the labia majora. Instead, what When the case reached the SC, the Court affirmed the
jurisprudence considers as consummated rape when it conviction of Agao. However, the SC modified the
describes a penis touching the vagina is the penis conviction into one (1) count of Statutory Rape when the
penetrating the cleft of the labia maiora, however victim was 10 years old, and one (1) count of Simple Rape
minimum or slight. Similarly, a mere grazing by the when the victim was 13 years old.
penis of the fleshy portion, not the vulval cleft of the
labia majora, will also constitute only Attempted Rape The SC affirmed the conviction of Agao because the
and not Consummated Rape, since the same cannot prosecution was able to establish that Agao’s erect penis
be considered to have achieved the slightest level of touched the labia of the victim’s vagina, therefore, it falls
penetration. Stated differently, the Court here within the operative definition of Consummated Rape.
elucidates that "mere touch" of the penis on the labia
majora legally contemplates not mere surface touch or The SC, however, went further in this case. The Court
skin contact, but the slightest penetration of the vulval clarified the parameters that will distinguish consummated
or pudendal cleft, however minimum in degree. rape from attempted rape, based on the definition of what
constitutes the slightest penile penetration.
Demonstrably, AAA's account in open court vividly
described how Agao's penis was hard and erect as he When is there the slightest touch? When is there the
kept trying to penetrate her vagina as antecedent for slightest penetration that consummates rape by sexual
full penetration, eventually succeeding to introduce his intercourse through penile penetration?
erect penis on the vulval cleft of her vagina.
In this case, the SC even had a drawing of the anatomy
However, the Court ruled that the CA erred in of a female vagina. SC said:
appreciating both incidents of rape as statutory. Only
the rape as charged under Criminal Case No. 1453-V- “Guided by the foregoing anatomical description,
14 is statutory in nature, with AAA aged 10 years old at the Court now reiterates, even as it clarifies, that
the time of the rape. On the other hand, the rape as rape of a female victim by a male person through
charged under Criminal Case No. 1454-V-14 is Simple penile penetration reaches the consummated
Rape, with AAA at age 13 at the time of said incident. stage as soon as the penis penetrates the cleft of
the labia majora, also known as the vulval or
pudendal cleft, or the fleshy outer lip of the vulva,
in even the slightest degree. Simply put, mere
NOTE: In the cases of People v. Orita, People v. introduction, however slight, into the cleft of the
Campuhan (En banc), People v. Pareja, the SC labia majora by a penis that is capable of
reiterated: It is settled, there is no Frustrated Rape. Rape penetration, regardless of whether such penile
has only two (2) stages – the attempted and penetration is thereafter fully achieved,
consummated stages. consummates the crime of rape.”
According to the SC, in all these cases, rape is Otherwise stated, in this case of People v. Agao, the SC
consummated the moment there is a slightest penile clarifies the meaning of slightest penile penetration.
penetration of a woman’s vagina. According to the SC, what jurisprudence considers as
consummated rape is when an erect penis penetrates the
But when is there the slightest penile penetration? This vulval cleft or the pudendal cleft of the labia majora of a
was answered by the SC in the case of People v. Agao woman’s vagina, no matter how slight, no matter how
(En banc). In the said case, the accused, Efren Agao, was minimum.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
After trial on the merits, the RTC convicted Pareja of

Hence, according to the SC, a mere grazing by the penis Rape. The CA affirmed the conviction. When the case
of the fleshy portion, not the vulval cleft, not the pudendal reached the SC, the Court said Pareja is liable only for
cleft of the labia majora, will only constitute Attempted Attempted Rape.
Rape and not Consummated Rape.
The Court said based on the definition of the girl, the penis
The SC in the end said, the genital contact threshold that of Pareja did not touch any part of the said girl’s vagina,
constitutes consummated rape is the erect penis any part – the vulval cleft, the pudendal cleft, or the labia
penetrating the vulval cleft or the pudendal cleft of the majora. What the penis touched was the outer surface of
labia majora of a woman’s vagina, no matter how the girl’s vagina. Therefore, the SC said, the crime
minimum. That is now the definition of slightest penile committed was Attempted Rape.
penetration.
Based on the facts and circumstances, there is on the part
Justice Leonen made a good dissent. According to of Pareja, intent to penetrate. Hence, there is Attempted
Justice Leonen, in the case of People v. Jumawan, we Rape.
have already upgraded the definition of rape. In the said
case, we have stated that rape is not about sex; rape is CRUZ v. PEOPLE
about the violation of the human dignity of a woman. G.R. NO. 166441 | OCTOBER 8, 2014 | BERSAMIN,
Therefore, it does not matter what part of the vagina has J.
been reached by the penis.
FACTS: AAA and BBB were employed by Cruz and his
In giving this definition of slightest penile penetration, wife to help them in selling their wares. Upon arriving
according to Justice Leonen, we went back to the barbaric Bangar, La Union, they set up two (2) tents to serve as
definition of rape. While the woman is being raped, the places to sleep. Early in the morning, AAA was
burden is on her to determine what part of her vagina has awakened when she felt that somebody was on top of
been touched by the penis. Only then can she file for the her. She discovered that it was Cruz who was mashing
crime of Consummated Rape. Therefore, the burden is her breast and touching her private part. Cruz was not
upon her to prove in court what part of her vagina has able to pursue his lustful desires as she was fighting
been reached. back. AAA went out of the tent. When she returned, she
saw Cruz touching the private parts of BBB. AAA
BAR EXAM TIP: But, at present, that is the definition of entered the tent which prompted Cruz to leave. Later
slightest penile penetration. In case that is asked in the that day, AAA and BBB narrated the incident to Jess.
Bar, you can cite the case of Efren Agao because that is Thereafter, they proceeded to the municipal hall in
En banc. order to report it. Cruz was charged with the crimes of
Attempted Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness. The CA,
Attempted Rape Vis-à-vis Acts of Lasciviousness however, acquitted him of Acts of Lasciviousness.
In the case of People v. Pareja, the SC distinguished ISSUE: W/N Cruz should be convicted of Attempted
attempted rape from acts of lasciviousness. The Court Rape (NO)
said what distinguishes attempted rape from acts of
lasciviousness is the intent on the part of the offender to RULING: NO. It is obvious that the fundamental
penetrate the victim. If there is on the part of the offender difference between attempted rape and acts of
intent to penetrate the victim, then the crime committed is lasciviousness is the offender’s intent to lie with the
attempted rape. If, however, there is on the part of the female. In rape, intent to lie with the female is
offender no intent to penetrate, the crime committed is indispensable, but this element is not required in acts
only acts of lasciviousness. of lasciviousness. Attempted Rape is committed,
therefore, when the "touching" of the vagina by the
In the case of People v. Pareja, the girl was sleeping. penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate. The intent
Christopher Pareja entered, undressed the girl, to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the
undressed himself, then placed himself on top of the girl. penis capable of consummating the sexual act touching
The girl cried very loud. Pareja covered themselves with the external genitalia of the female. Without such
a blanket so that the cries of the girl will not be heard. showing, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is
However, the cries of the girl even became louder. Pareja committed.
became afraid; he might be discovered, so he left. Pareja
was charged with the crime of Rape. The information charged that Cruz "remove[d] her
panty and underwear and la[id] on top of said AAA

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
embracing and touching her vagina and breast." With of the neighbors. They cooperated and poured water
such allegation of the information being competently on the fire, hence, the said fire was put out. Only the
and satisfactorily proven beyond a reasonable doubt, hays and straws placed by X were on fire; no part of
he was guilty only of Acts Of Lasciviousness, not the house has yet been damaged. What crime was
Attempted Rape. His embracing her and touching her committed?
vagina and breasts did not directly manifest his intent
to lie with her. The lack of evidence showing his erectile A: The crime committed was ATTEMPTED ARSON. The
penis being in the position to penetrate her when he overt act of placing hays and straws around Y’s house is
was on top of her deterred any inference about his directly connected to arson. Obviously, his intent was to
intent to lie with her. At most, his acts reflected set the house on fire. However, he was not able to perform
lewdness and lust for her. all the acts of execution because it was purely an
accident, a cause that is when the caretaker suddenly
arrived, called the help of the neighbors, and put out the
fire.
NOTE: In Cruz v. People, the girl has her clothing.
However, she was awakened and the master, Cruz, was Q: What if in the same problem, after X placed the
already on top of her, mashing her breasts, touching her hays and straws, he lit the match, and the hays and
private parts. She struggled and thereafter, she was able straws were already burning. The fire already spread
to leave the tent. The master was charged with Attempted on the walls of the rest house. The right wall of the
Rape. house was already on fire when the caretaker arrived.
The caretaker asked the help of the neighbors. With
However, the SC downgraded it only to Acts Of the help of the neighbors and firemen, they were able
Lasciviousness. The Court said without any showing that to put out the fire. However, the right wall of the house
his erect penis was capable of penetration, the acts will was already burned. What crime was committed?
only give rise to Acts Of Lasciviousness. What the master
did was only to place himself on top of her, mash her A: The crime committed was CONSUMMATED ARSON.
breasts, and touch her private parts. The girl did not state The moment any part of a dwelling or building is damaged
that there was any attempt on the part of the master to or destroyed by means of fire, it is already Consummated
penetrate. Arson.
Arson Hence, by reason of its definition, there is no crime of
frustrated arson.
Another crime which does not admit of the frustrated
stage is arson. Arson is the malicious destruction of a Formal Crimes Vis-à-vis Material Crimes
property by means of fire.
Q: What if X was charged with the crime of Homicide.
There are two (2) kinds of arson: destructive arson and W was called to the witness stand. The court
simple arson. Whether it is destructive arson or simple interpreter told W, “Raise your right hand. Do you
arson, there is no such crime as frustrated arson. swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?” And
W said, “Yes, Your Honor.” Thereafter he was told,
By the definition of arson, it is the malicious destruction of “You may sit down.”
property by means of fire. The law does not require that
the entire property, building, dwelling, be damaged by The court interpreter told W, “State your name, your
means of fire. The law does not require that the entire address, your civil status, your job, etc.” After that,
house be gutted down by fire. It suffices that the said the judge told the fiscal, “Fiscal, your witness.” The
house or building is damaged by means of fire. The fiscal stood up.
offender has already performed all the acts of execution,
therefore, it is already in the consummated stage. Hence, Before the fiscal was able to ask the first question, the
by reason of its definition, there is no frustration in the door of the courtroom opened and here comes the
crime of arson. wife of W. The wife told the judge, “The witness is my
husband. My husband was paid. He accepted the
Q: X was mad at Y. He wanted to burn the rest house money because we are in need of money.” The judge
of Y. X placed hay and straws around Y’s house, banged the gavel.
intending to burn the house. With the use of a match,
X set the hays and straws on fire. The hays and straws In the chamber of the judge, W admitted that he was
were already on fire, but suddenly, Z, the caretaker of paid to testify against the accused. Because of this,
the rest house, arrived. Z immediately asked the help

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
W was charged with Attempted False Testimony. Will

the case prosper?
A: NO. The case will not prosper because false testimony Under Art. 8, there is conspiracy when two (2) or more
is a formal crime. It is punished only in the consummated persons come to an agreement concerning the
stage. There are no attempted and frustrated false commission of a felony and they decide to commit it. On
testimony because false testimony is consummated the the other hand, there is proposal to commit a felony when
moment the said offender stated under oath in a judicial a person who has decided to commit a felony proposes
proceeding falsities. its execution to some other person or persons.
In this case, W has not yet stated any falsity. He correctly General rule: Both conspiracy to commit a felony and
stated his address, name, and civil status. He has not yet proposal to commit a felony are not punishable acts
stated any falsity because the fiscal was only about to because they are mere preparatory acts.
start the first question. W has not yet answered any
question. Therefore, he did not commit any crime. False Exception: Paragraph one of Art. 8 provides that
testimony will only be consummated upon making false conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are
testimonies under oath in a judicial proceeding, whether punishable the moment the law specially provides a
criminal or civil. Therefore, the case of Attempted False penalty therefor. The moment the law expressly punishes
Testimony will not prosper. the mere act of conspiring or the mere act of proposing to
commit a felony, conspiracy, and proposal to commit a
Material Crimes felony become crimes by themselves.
Crimes that admit different stages – attempted, frustrated, TWO CONCEPTS OF CONSPIRACY
and consummated – or attempted and consummated.
Examples are Robbery, Theft, and Rape. There are two (2) concepts of conspiracy:
Formal Crimes 1. Conspiracy as a crime by itself, and
2. Conspiracy as a means of committing a felony.
Crimes which are punished only in the consummated
stage. Examples are False Testimony, Physical Injuries, CONSPIRACY AS A CONSPIRACY AS A
and Adultery. They do not admit attempted and frustrated CRIME BY ITSELF MEANS OF
stages because they are punished based on result or COMMITTING A
consequence. FELONY
The mere act of The fact that the offenders
In case of physical injuries, it is punished based on
conspiring will already conspired will not make
whether the physical injuries are serious, less serious, or make the offender liable. them immediately
slight.
criminally liable.
Examples of conspiracy
ARTICLE 8 as a crime by itself:
CONSPIRACY
1. conspiracy to commit
treason,
THE REVISED PENAL CODE 2. conspiracy to commit
BOOK ONE rebellion,
3. conspiracy to commit
ARTICLE 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’etat, and
felony. – Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony 4. conspiracy to commit
are punishable only in the cases in which the law sedition.
specially provides a penalty therefor.
These are all crimes by
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to themselves because
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony Book Two of the RPC
and decide to commit it. prescribes a penalty for
mere conspiracy.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to
commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Q: A, B, C D, and E met, planned, and agreed to kill W. The basis in holding one
They were arrested because someone overheard liable as a conspirator is
them planning the killing. They were charged with the act that he performed
Conspiracy to Commit Murder. Will the case prosper? in the commission of the
crime. Therefore, there
A: NO. The case has to be dismissed because there is no must be an active
such crime as conspiracy to commit murder. A, B, C, D, participation in the
and E must perform at least an overt act for them to be commission of the crime.
held liable for Attempted Murder. Absent that, for merely
entering into an agreement, they are not yet criminally
liable. Here, conspiracy is only a means of committing a The moment conspiracy is established, the act of one is
felony. the act of all. It means that the moment conspiracy is
established, all perpetrators are punished to the same
Direct/Express Conspiracy Vis-à-vis Implied/Inferred extent, regardless of the quantity or quality of their
Conspiracy participation in the commission of the crime.
The two (2) kinds of conspiracy as a means of committing The moment conspiracy is established, you do not ask
a felony are: who inflicted the fatal blow, who merely stood there, who
performed a minor act. Those are immaterial the moment
conspiracy is established.
DIRECT/EXPRESS IMPLIED/INFERRED
CONSPIRACY CONSPIRACY
PEOPLE v. DELIM
The conspirators met, It is a conspiracy deduced
G.R. NO. 142773 | JANUARY 28, 2003 | CALLEJO,
planned, and agreed to from the mode and
SR., J.
commit a crime. It is a manner of committing a
conspiracy based on a crime.
FACTS: Modesto is the adopted brother of Marlon and
preconceived agreement.
his co-accused. At around 6’o clock in the evening,
The conspirators acted
Modesto and his family were preparing for dinner in
simultaneously in a
their home. Marlon and his co-accused, who were
synchronized and
armed with a short handgun, suddenly barged into their
coordinated manner
house. Marlon poked his gun at Modesto, while Robert
toward a common criminal
and Ronald grabbed and hog-tied the victim. A piece of
objective or criminal goal.
cloth was placed in the mouth of Modesto. Marlon and
his co-accused then dragged Modesto out of their
Since it is a conspiracy Since it is a conspiracy
house and warned his wife and son, Rita and Randy,
based on a prior deduced from the mode
to stay where they were. After the group left, Randy
agreement, there need and manner of committing
immediately narrated the incident to Darwin.
not be a direct a crime, before one can
Thereafter, they tried to locate Modesto, but failed to
participation, an active be held liable as a
find him. Days later, Randy found the dead cadaver of
participation in the conspirator, there must be
Modesto under thick bushes in a grassy area. He
commission of the crime. an active participation in
reported it to police authorities and divulged the names
the commission of the
of Marlon and his co-accused as those responsible for
All those who conspired or crime.
the death of Marlon. They were charged with the crime
agreed to commit the
of Murder. In their defense, they interposed denial and
crime, the moment they Mere presence, mere
alibi.
appeared at the scene of approval, acquiescence to
the crime, their mere act the commission of the
ISSUE: W/N Modesto and his co-accused should be
of providing moral crime will not make the
convicted of Murder (NO)
ascendancy will already offender criminally liable.
make them criminally Without an active
RULING: NO. Specific intent is not synonymous with
liable because they were participation in the
motive. Motive is referred to as the reason which
part of the authors of the commission of the crime,
prompts the accused to engage in a particular criminal
criminal design. a conspirator cannot be
activity. Motive is not an essential element of a crime
said to be engaged in an
and hence, the prosecution need not prove the same.
implied conspiracy.
As a general rule, proof of motive for the commission
of the offense charged does not show guilt and
absence of proof of such motive does not establish the

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
innocence of accused for the crime charged such as accused were inside. SPO2 Red and his team then
Murder. introduced themselves as police officers. However,
Milan immediately shut the door. When PO2 Alonzo
Here, it was evident on the face of the Information that and SPO2 Red pushed the door open, Carandang
the specific intent of the malefactors in barging into the suddenly fired at them resulting to their instant death.
house of Modesto was to kill him and that he was SPO1 Montecalvo was likewise hit. SPO1 Estores
seized precisely to kill him with the attendant modifying heard Chua telling Milan, “Sugurin mo na!”. Milan then
circumstances. The act of the malefactors of abducting lunged towards SPO1 Montecalvo, but the latter was
Modesto was merely incidental to their primary purpose able to fire his gun and hit Milan. SPO1 Estores went
of killing him. Moreover, there was no specific inside the house and pulled SPO1 Montecalvo out.
allegation in the Information that the primary intent of Carandang and his co-accused negotiated with the
the malefactors was to deprive Modesto of his freedom police authorities and they subsequently surrendered.
or liberty and that killing him was merely incidental to They were charged with the crimes of two (2) counts of
kidnapping. Hence, the crime charged in the Murder and Frustrated Murder.
Information is Murder under Art. 248 of the RPC and
not Kidnapping under Art. 268 thereof. ISSUE: W/N there was conspiracy among the
Carandang and his co-accused (YES)
However, the Court ruled that Marlon and his co-
accused were only guilty of homicide defined and RULING: YES. It was held in People v. Sumalong that
penalized under Art. 249 of the RPC since the conspiracy may also be proven by other means.
qualifying circumstances were not proven clearly and
conclusively as the crime itself. On the other hand, the Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
aggravating circumstances were not alleged in the an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
Information. and decide to commit it. Evidence need not establish
the actual agreement among the conspirators showing
a preconceived plan or motive for the commission of
the crime. Proof of concerted action before, during and
NOTE: In the case of People v. Delim, the Delim brothers
after the crime, which demonstrates their unity of
were held as conspirators for the killing of Modesto.
design and objective, is sufficient. When conspiracy is
Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of
established, the act of one is the act of all regardless of
evidence as the crime itself. Conspiracy must be proven
the degree of participation of each.
by proof beyond reasonable doubt, just like the elements
of the crime.
In the case at bar, the conclusion that Milan and Chua
conspired with Carandang was established by their
And the moment conspiracy is established, the act of one
acts (i) before Carandang shot the victims (Milan's
is the of all. It does not matter who among the accused
closing the door when the police officers introduced
actually killed the victim. According to the SC, in People
themselves, allowing Carandang to wait in ambush);
v. Delim, this is based on the theory of joint or mutual
and (ii) after the shooting (Chua's directive for Milan to
agency for the purpose of committing a common plan. In
attack SPO1 Montecalvo and Milan's following such
the eyes of the law, conspirators are one man, they
instruction). As co-conspirators, all three (3) accused
breathe one breath, they speak one voice, they wield one are considered principals by direct participation.
arm. Hence, they shall be liable at the same time. The
penalty will only be one. The criminal liability will only be
Unlike evident premeditation, there is no requirement
one, that is, the act of one is the act of all the moment
for conspiracy to exist that there be a sufficient period
conspiracy is established by the prosecution beyond
of time to elapse to afford full opportunity for meditation
reasonable doubt.
and reflection. Instead, conspiracy arises on the very
moment the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
PEOPLE v. CARANDANG commit the subject felony.
G.R. NO. 175926 | JULY 6, 2011 | LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.
FACTS: The Drug Enforcement Unit of La Loma Police PEOPLE v. OCTA

Station 1 received a request for assistance regarding a G.R. NO. 195196 | JULY 13, 2015 | SERENO, CJ.
drug deal that would take place at the house of Milan.
Thereafter, SPO2 Red formed a team and proceeded FACTS: Corpuz and Batugias were travelling on board
to Milan’s house. They surrounded the house and saw, a Honda Civic Car. However, their way was blocked by
through an open door, that Carandang and his co- a Mitsubishi Lancer car. Octa and his co-accused, who

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
were armed, alighted and fired at the left window of the

Honda Civic. Thereafter, they handcuffed, blindfolded,
and boxed Corpuz. They asked for the telephone
number of Corpuz’ mother-in-law and called her to PEOPLE v. FELICIANO
meet at a certain place. The wife of Corpuz sought the G.R. NO. 196735 | MAY 5, 2014 | LEONEN, J.
assistance of the Police Anti-Crime and Emergency
Response (PACER). After several communications FACTS: Venturina and his group were members of the
with the kidnappers, an amount of P538,000.00 was Sigma Rho Fraternity. They were eating lunch at the
demanded from the wife. She was then instructed to Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the
deliver the ransom money to the man wearing a red University of the Philippines, Diliman. However, they
cap. After the payment of ransom money, Corpuz and were suddenly attacked by masked men, who were
Batugias were released. Octa was identified as the carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. The attack
man wearing the red cap. He was charged with the resulted to the death of Venturina and others injured.
crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. Feliciano and his co-accused were then identified as
the assailants. They were charged with the crimes of
ISSUE: W/N Octa should be convicted as a co- Murder and Multiple Counts of Attempted Murder. The
conspirator in the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. Appellate Court, however, modified the charge of
(YES) Attempted Murder to Slight Physical Injuries with
respect to the three (3) victims.
RULING: YES. In People v. Bautista, it was held that:
ISSUE: W/N Feliciano and his co-accused should be
“Conspiracy exists when two or more persons convicted of Attempted Murder only against Natalicio
come to an agreement concerning the and Fortes, and not against Mangrobang, Lachica, and
commission of a felony and decide to commit Gaston (NO)
it. Where all the accused acted in concert at the
time of the commission of the offense, and it is RULING: NO. Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect
shown by such acts that they had the same of attaching liability to all of the accused, regardless of
purpose or common design and were united in their degree of participation, thus, Once an express or
its execution, conspiracy is sufficiently implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are
established. It must be shown that all liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and
participants performed specific acts with such character of their respective active participation in the
closeness and coordination as to indicate a commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in
common purpose or design to commit the furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation
felony. of law, the act of one is the act of all. The foregoing rule
is anchored on the sound principle that "when two or
xxxx more persons unite to accomplish a criminal object,
whether through the physical volition of one, or all,
Evidently, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by proceeding severally or collectively, each individual
reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have whose evil will actively contribute to the wrong-doing is
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of in law responsible for the whole, the same as though
the complicity. There must be intentional participation performed by himself alone." Although it is axiomatic
in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the that no one is liable for acts other than his own, "when
common design and purpose.” two or more persons agree or conspire to commit a
crime, each is responsible for all the acts of the others,
The CA is correct in its observation that at the time Octa done in furtherance of the agreement or conspiracy."
received the ransom money, the crime of kidnapping
was still continuing, since both victims were still being The liabilities of Feliciano and his co-accused arose
illegally detained by the kidnappers. While his receipt from a single incident wherein the accused-appellants
of the ransom money was not a material element of the were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes, all in
crime, it was nevertheless part of the grand plan and agreement to do the highest amount of damage
was in fact the main reason for kidnapping the victims. possible to the victims. Some were able to run away
Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or and take cover, but the others would fall prey at the
demanded for the redemption of a captured person or hands of their attackers. The intent to kill was already
persons; or payment that releases from captivity. present at the moment of attack and that intent was
Without ransom money, the freedom of the detained shared by all of the accused alike when the presence
victims cannot be achieved. of conspiracy was proven. It is, therefore, immaterial to
distinguish between the seriousness of the injuries

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
suffered by the victims to determine the respective G.R. NO. 255389 | SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 | LOPEZ,
liabilities of their attackers. What is relevant is only as M, J.
to whether the death occurs as a result of that intent to
kill and whether there are qualifying, aggravating or FACTS: While AAA was walking home, co-accused
mitigating circumstances that can be appreciated. Ismael invited her to hangout. She was later introduced
to Diega and his group. They all proceeded to a nearby
Therefore, Feliciano and his co-accused should be riverbank where they started drinking. Thereafter, they
liable for the Murder of Venturina, and the Attempted went to a vacant lot where they continued the drinking
Murder of Natalicio, Mangrobang, Jr., Lachica, Fortes, session. AAA then felt dizzy and started to drowse off.
and Gaston, Jr. When AAA laid down, she saw Diega removing her
pants and underwear. AAA tried to kick him, but
someone held her legs and spread them apart, and
another held her hands. Diega and his three (3) co-
NOTE: In the cases of People v. Carandang, People v.
accused took turns in having carnal knowledge with
Octa, and People v. Feliciano, the SC appreciated
AAA. Thereafter, Diega and his co-accused fled the
conspiracy. The Court said there was direct or express
scene and left AAA, who fell asleep. After AAA was
conspiracy among the conspirators.
awakened, she went home and narrated the incident to
her parents. They subsequently reported it to the
In People v. Carandang, only Carandang fired the shots
barangay hall and the police station. The medical report
at the police officers that caused the death of two and the
showed recent evidence of blunt penetrating trauma to
fatal wound on the third police officer, Montecalvo. The
the genitalia. Diega and his co-accused were charged
only participation of Milan, the owner of the house, was to
with the crime of Rape.
close the door. The only participation of Chua was to
instruct Milan to fire the shot at Montecalvo. But before
ISSUE: W/N Diega should be convicted of Rape
Milan was able to fire at Montecalvo, the other police
committed by his co-conspirators (YES)
officers already arrived, and they were arrested.
RULING: YES. Jurisprudence consistently teaches us
Q: How can Milan and Chua be considered as
that conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and
conspirators?
manner in which the offense was perpetrated, showing
that at the time of the commission of the offense, all the
A: The SC said that it is evident that there is on the part
perpetrators have the same purpose and were united in
of the accused express or direct conspiracy. According to
its execution.
the Court, conspiracy need not be established by direct
evidence. It is settled that conspiracy may be established
The records show that Carlo and his three (3)
from the conduct of the accused before, during, and
companions successively raped AAA and that while one
immediately after the commission of the crime. These
of them had carnal knowledge of the victim, the others
acts reveal community, unity of purpose and criminal
held her arms and kept her from struggling. Viewed in
design.
its totality, the individual participation of each
perpetrator pointed to a joint purpose and criminal
In this case, Milan shut the door. That act of Milan is very
design.
crucial because when he shut the door, it gave Carandang
the opportunity to wait in ambush for the police officers to
Contrary to Carlos' theory, there was no inconsistency
get inside. Hence, when the police officers entered the
in AAA's testimony as to who raped her. To be sure,
house, Carandang was able to fire at them without the
there is proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt that
officers giving any counter-attack.
Carlo and his three (3) companions conspired and took
turns in raping AAA. The rapes were committed in the
Likewise, according to the Court, the act of Chua showed
following order, first by Carlo, second by Kalbo, third by
that he exercised moral ascendancy on the others
Ismael, and fourth by Obat. Thus, the victim was raped
because he ordered Milan to fire a shot and Milan was
four (4) times.
about to obey. Therefore, based on their acts before,
during, and after the commission of the crime, it is evident
In several cases, the Court held the accused-appellant
that they planned the killing of the said police officers is responsible not only for the Rape he committed but
although it was only Carandang who fired the shots. also for the other counts of Rape that his co-
conspirators perpetrated although they were
BAR CHAIR CASE
unidentified or at large. Where there is a conspiracy, the
PEOPLE v. DIEGA

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
act of one conspirator is the act of all. Consequently, IMPLIED CONSPIRACY

Carlo must be held liable for four (4) counts of Rape.
It is a conspiracy where there is no pre-conceived plan or
pre-conceived agreement. The conspiracy is deduced
NOTE: In the case of People vs. Diega, penned by from the mode and manner of committing the crime. The
Justice Mario Lopez, accused Carlo Diega and his three offenders acted simultaneously in a synchronized manner
other companions were charged as conspirators for the towards a common criminal objective, a common criminal
crime of rape. The three other companions, however, goal.
were never arrested; therefore, they were at large. Only
Carlo Diega was the one arrested and he was arraigned, Q: X was eating in a restaurant. While X was eating in
although the Information alleged that Carlo Diega was a restaurant, then suddenly he said, “It smells
with three other companions (John Does) who were all at Marijuana? It seems that someone is smoking
large. Their victim was a 12-year old minor. Based on the Marijuana”. So X looked on the right side of the table
evidence, Carlo Diega and his three companions had and saw two men. Indeed, these two men were
carnal knowledge with the 12-year old victim by means of smoking Marijuana. And so, X decided to report it to
force. the police. So, X went out of the restaurant, in order
to call for a police officer; and he was lucky, upon
In this case, the SC appreciated conspiracy among the getting out of the restaurant, he saw a police car on
accused. SC said that conspiracy may be deduced from standby and a police officer inside the car wearing
the mode and manner by which the crime was committed. uniform. He immediately told to the police that there
Conspiracy was proven because it was established that is someone smoking Marijuana inside the restaurant,
Carlo Diega and his three other companions successively a public place.
raped the victim, AAA. That while one of them was having
carnal knowledge of AAA, the others were holding her So, the police officer, together with X, went inside the
arms and keeping her from struggling. Therefore, restaurant. The police officer upon getting inside
according to the SC, if you will look at its totality, the immediately smelled Marijuana smoke. The smell was
individual participation of each perpetrator pointed to a coming from the table of Y and Z. The police officer
common criminal purpose, criminal design which is to went to Y and Z, and immediately collared Y and Z and
rape the victim. SC said, based on the evidence, it was said to them, “You are smoking Marijuana in a public
proven by the State beyond reasonable doubt that Carlo place”. When the police officer was holding the right
Diega and his three other companions took turns in raping hand of Y and the left hand of Z, Z surreptitiously
the girl, and the rapes were committed according to the pulled out a knife from his scabbard tucked in his
SC are in order. The first to rape the girl – Carlo Diega, waist and stabbed the police.
second – Kalbo, third – Ismael, and fourth – Obat.
Therefore, according to the SC, based on the evidence, In order to protect himself, the police officer tried to
the said 12-year old girl was raped four (4) times. get his firearm in order to resist the attack coming
from Z; however, Y restrained the hands of the police.
Since the victim was raped four times, accused Carlo Hence, the police officer was not able to get his pistol.
Diega is responsible not only for the act he committed, but Because of this, Z freely stabbed and stabbed the
also for the other acts of his co-conspirators committed. police officer until the police officer died.
Although, these three (3) co-conspirators were
unidentified and at large. SC said that this is on the rule Both Y and Z were charged for the death of the police
on conspiracy that the act of one conspirator is the act of officer. Is Y a co-conspirator of Z in the killing of the
all conspirators. In this case, although the charge against said police officer?
Carlo Diega is one count of Rape, the SC convicted him
for four (4) counts of Rape sentencing him of reclusion A: YES. Y is a co-conspirator of Z in the killing of the said
perpetua for all four (4) counts of Rape. police officer because Y acted as a principal by
indispensable cooperation in the said killing of the police
Because of the reason of conspiracy that the act of one is officer. Y’s act of restraining the hands of the police officer
the act of all, if the victim is raped four (4) times, the said in order to prevent him from getting his pistol, thereby
accused is responsible not only for his own act of rape but allowing Z to stab the police officer repeatedly at the back,
also for the other counts of rape that his co-conspirators it is a positive overt act which established that Y has the
perpetrated although these co-conspirators were not same criminal intent, has the same criminal design as that
identified or not caught. of Z for the killing of the said police officer.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
At that particular moment, an implied conspiracy was action is per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy, unless
established between Y and Z. At that particular moment, proved to have been motivated by a common design.
Y’s act of restraining the hands of the police officer
showed that he has the same criminal intent as that of Z Padayhag's act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof
which is to kill the police officer. Therefore, Y can be of her complicity with Castillo's plan, a plan Padayhag
criminally liable as a co-conspirator of Z in the killing of did not even know. Both accused testified that
the said police officer. What is present is an implied Padayhag met Castillo only because Castillo told
conspiracy. Padayhag that Padayhag's boyfriend was sick. It was
precisely on the pretext that they were to visit
So, the moment that conspiracy is established, the act of Padayhag's boyfriend that the two met. When they met,
one is the act of all. she realized that Castillo had deceived her. Padayhag's
acts before, during and after the crime all point to the
PEOPLE v. CASTILLO conclusion that she was no more than an unwitting tool
G.R. NO. 132895 | MARCH 10, 2004 | EN BANC of Castillo. Castillo misled her into a meeting. Castillo
again misled her into fetching Rocky. Castillo never met
FACTS: Castillo was the former household helper of or contacted her after the day of Rocky's abduction.
Spouses Cebrero. At around 8’o clock in the morning, Castillo also testified that she did not bring Padayhag
Padayhag arrived on board a tricycle in order to fetch along with her when she went to Obando on the day that
Rocky, the six-year-old son of the Spouses. Later on, coincided with the "pay-off."
they were joined by Castillo and proceeded to a house
where Rocky slept “four times”. When Mr. Cebrero
found out his son was missing, he immediately went to
the police station to report it. He then received a call PEOPLE v. BOKINGCO
from a woman who demanded for P1 million. Thereafter, G.R. NO. 187536 | AUGUST 10, 2011 | PEREZ, J.
he was instructed to drop the money on the chapel’s
terrace in Bulacan. The Intelligence Security Group FACTS: Pasion was the owner of a house and several
(ISG) conducted a stakeout in the pay-off area. Two (2) apartment units. Bokingco and Col were tenants of
women took the bag of ransom money and immediately Apartment No. 3. At around 1’o clock in the morning,
left. The ISG team searched the area, but the two Vitalicio heard a commotion from Apartment No. 3.
women were nowhere to be found. Days later, Rocky When he went to the unit, he saw Bokingco hitting
was returned home on board a tricycle. Padayhag something on the floor. He was thereafter attacked by
voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities, while Bokingco with a hammer in his hand. A struggle ensued
Castillo was arrested by virtue of a search warrant. They and Vitalicio was hit several times. Bokingco was
were charged with the crime of Kidnapping and Serious eventually subdued by a co-worker. Vitalicio’s wife told
Illegal Detention. him that Pasion was found dead in the kitchen of
Apartment No. 3. Elsa, Pasion’s wife, testified that when
ISSUE: W/N there was conspiracy to extort ransom she heard banging sounds and her husband’s moan,
(NO) she immediately went down their house to check.
However, before she reached the kitchen she was
RULING: NO. There must be positive and conclusive blocked by Col and the latter forced her to open the vault
evidence that Padayhag acted in concert with Castillo to of the pawnshop. Later on, Elsa saw Bokingco open the
commit the same criminal act. To hold an accused guilty screen door and heard him tell Col, "Tara, patay na
as a co-principal by conspiracy, there must be a siya.". Col immediately let her go and fled the scene.
sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and They were charged with the crime of Murder.
definitely links the accused to the commission of the
crime without any space for baseless suppositions or ISSUE: W/N Col should be convicted as a co-
frenzied theories to filter through. Indeed, conspiracy conspirator (NO)
must be proven as clearly as the commission of the
crime itself. RULING: (NO). Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful
Conspiracy is established by the presence of two act. It may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
factors: (i) singularity of intent; and (ii) unity in execution before, during, and after the commission of the crime.
of an unlawful objective. The two must concur. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and
Performance of an act that contributes to the goal of manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred
another is not enough. The act must be motivated by from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common
the same unlawful intent. Neither joint nor simultaneous purpose and design, concerted action, and community
of interest. Unity of purpose and unity in the execution

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
of the unlawful objective are essential to establish the in escaping but it does not show that they conspired in the
existence of conspiracy. As a rule, conspiracy must be act of killing. Hence, SC said, since the crime charged
established with the same quantum of proof as the here is Murder and Col has nothing to do with the said act,
crime itself and must be shown as clearly as the then he should be acquitted of the crime charged because
commission of the crime. the proper charge against him should be Attempted
Robbery.
Elsa testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that
Pasion had been killed and that they had to leave the Q: Three armed men, A, B, and C, conspired to rob the
place. This does not prove that they acted in concert house of E. A, B, and C has this express agreement
towards the consummation of the crime. It only proves, that no other crime will be committed except to rob
at best, that there were two (2) crimes committed the other house. No killing involved and no other
simultaneously and they were united in their efforts to crime shall be committed. On the day that they
escape from the crimes they separately committed. executed the crime, A, B, and C went to the house of
E. They entered the house of E by passing through
Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill the window. And thereafter, A, B, and C began
Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before ransacking, opening the cabinet, taking every
he sought Col. Their moves were not coordinated valuables that they could get. Suddenly, C told A and
because while Bokingco was killing Pasion because of B, “I will look for the CR, I need to relieve myself.”. So,
his pent-up anger, Col was attempting to rob the C went around the house. C saw the bedroom of the
pawnshop. minor daughter of E. C entered the said bedroom and
then thereafter, by use of force, had carnal knowledge
of the young girl. Later, C went back to A and B, and
all three of them left the house.
Q: What if conspiracy was not established by the
prosecution? What if conspiracy was not proven by They were all arrested. A, B and C are now prosecuted
the State beyond reasonable doubt? What shall be the for the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape
criminal liability of the offenders? as conspirators. Is the crime charged for the special
complex crime of Robbery with Rape against all three
A: If conspiracy is not established by the prosecutor, if of them, A, B, and C, as conspirators correct?
conspiracy was not proven beyond reasonable doubt by
the State, each offender shall be liable only based on the A: NO. Only C should be prosecuted for the special
acts that they performed in the commission of the crime. complex crime of Robbery with Rape. A and B should only
Their liabilities will be individual. be charged with Robbery. Based on the facts of the case,
the express agreement was to commit robbery only and
As held by the SC in the case of People v. Castillo, that no other crime shall be committed. Therefore, as
conspiracy was not established by the prosecution, conspirators, they shall only be liable for the crime agreed
hence, the SC acquitted one of the accused. upon and for such other crimes which could be foreseen
from the crime agreed upon. They can only be liable for
In the case of People v. Bokingco, only Bokingco was the crime agreed upon and for such other crimes which
held criminally liable by the SC. The charge against the are the natural and logical consequence of the crime
accused was Murder, so both Bokingco and Col were agreed upon.
charged with the crime of Murder. SC said that only
Bokingco is liable and it is for Homicide. SC said that Col In the case of Robbery, Rape is not a logical and natural
has nothing to do with the act of killing. While Bokingco consequence of robbery. Therefore, only C shall be held
was killing Noli Pasion, Reynante Col was inside the criminally liable for the special complex crime of Robbery
house, asking the wife of Pasion to open the vault. with Rape. A and B shall be held conspirators for the
Therefore, while Bokingco was busy killing the husband, crime of Robbery, they have nothing to do with the act of
Reynante Col was busy trying to stage a robbery. Hence, rape, having carnal knowledge. C shall only be held
they have different criminal design and criminal intent. criminally liable. A and B are not present during the time
Therefore, they cannot be criminally liable as co- of the rape of the girl. A and B were not given the
conspirators for the act of killing the victim. Only Bokingco opportunity in order to prevent the commission of the
was held liable. crime.
The prosecution argued, Bokingco called Col saying,
GMA v. PEOPLE
“Tara, patay na siya.” while the vault was not yet opened
G.R. NO. 220598 | JULY 19, 2016 | BERSAMIN, J.
by the wife. Thereafter, without taking anything, Col left
together. SC said that it only showed that they conspired

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
FACTS: The findings of an audit review showed that common legal and valid practice of signifying approval
there were commingling of the charity fund, the prize of a fund release by the President.
fund, and the operating fund of the PCSO in violation of
Sec. 6 of RA 1169. It likewise revealed that there were
excessive disbursements of the Confidential and FERNAN, JR. v. PEOPLE
Intelligence Fund (CIF) and advertising expense. G.R. NO. 145927 | AUGUST 24, 2007 | VELASCO,
Uriarte testified that all the confidential intelligence JR, J.
projects she had proposed were approved by President
GMA and signed personally in her presence. However, FACTS: Mangubat and his co-accused hatched an
President GMA’s approvals were in violation of Letter of ingenious plan to garner large sums of money from
Instruction (LOI) 1282 because there were no detailed government coffers. Mangubat had found a way to
specific project proposals and specifications withdraw government money through the use of fake
accompanying the request for additional CIF. The Letter of Advice Allotments (LAAs), vouchers, and other
Ombudsman charged President GMA, Aguas, Uriarte documents and to conceal traces thereof with the
and other members of PCSO and officers of COA with connivance of government officials. Other government
the crime of Plunder. employees allowed their names to be used and they
signed spurious documents. Their scheme was,
ISSUE: W/N there is conspiracy among GMA, Aguas, however, discovered upon COA’s investigation. Fernan,
and Uriarte (NO) Jr. was accused of having allegedly signed six (6) tally
sheets or statements of deliveries. Fernan, Jr. and his
RULING: NO. In terms of proving its existence, co-accused were charged with the crime of Estafa
conspiracy takes two forms. The first is the express through Falsification of Public Documents.
form, which requires proof of an actual agreement
among all the co-conspirators to commit the crime. ISSUE: W/N Fernan, Jr. and his co-accused should be
However, conspiracies are not always shown to have convicted as conspirators (YES)
been expressly agreed upon. Thus, we have the second
form, the implied conspiracy. An implied conspiracy RULING: YES. Indeed, the burden of proving the
exists when two or more persons are shown to have allegation of conspiracy falls to the shoulders of the
aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the prosecution. Considering the difficulty in establishing
same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their conspiracy, settled jurisprudence finds no need to prove
combined acts, though apparently independent, were in it by direct evidence. In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,
fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of there is a so-called wheel or circle conspiracy where
personal association and a concurrence of there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing
sentiment. Implied conspiracy is proved through the individually with two or more other persons or groups
mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or (the spokes). The Court found that the conspiracy in the
from the acts of the accused before, during and after the instant case resembles the wheel conspiracy. The 36
commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint disparate persons who constituted massive conspiracy
purpose, a concert of action and a community of to defraud the government were controlled by a single
interest. hub – Mangubat, Preagido, Sayson, and Cruz who
controlled the separate spokes of the conspiracy.
But to be considered a part of the conspiracy, each of
the accused must be shown to have performed at least
an overt act in pursuance or in furtherance of the
conspiracy, for without being shown to do so none of TWO KINDS OF MULTIPLE CONSPIRACY
them will be liable as a co-conspirator, and each may
only be held responsible for the results of his own acts. In the case of GMA v. People and Fernan, Jr. v. People,
the SC held that there are two (2) types of multiple
Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that President GMA had conspiracy:
been the mastermind of plunder was plainly conjectural
and outrightly unfounded considering that the 1. Wheel or Circle Conspiracy, and
Information did not aver at all that she had been the 2. Chain Conspiracy.
mastermind; hence, the Sandigabayan thereby acted
capriciously and arbitrarily. In the second place, the
WHEEL/CIRCLE CHAIN CONSPIRACY
treatment by the Sandiganbayan of her handwritten CONSPIRACY
unqualified "OK" as an overt act of plunder was
There is wheel or circle When like in ordinary
absolutely unwarranted considering that such act was a
conspiracy when a person business transactions,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
or persons known as the there is continuous discovered shabu inside the ambulance. Morilla then
“hub” deals individually communication and told the police officers that he was with Mayor Mitra in
with another person or interaction among the the hope that the operatives would let him pass.
group of persons known manufacturer with the However, this prompted the police officers to chase the
as the spokes. wholesaler, the Starex van of Mayor Mitra. On plain view, the police
wholesaler with the officers noticed that there were also sacks inside the
retailer, and the retailer Starex like the ones found in the ambulance. Upon
with the consumer. inspection, the contents of the sacks were likewise
found to contain Shabu. Mayor Mitra and Morilla were
charged with the crime of Illegal Transport of Dangerous
Drugs.
NOTE: In the case of GMA v. People, after the
prosecution that is the Office of the Ombudsman had
ISSUE: W/N Morilla should be convicted for conspiracy
presented their piece of evidence against former
to commit the offense charged absent the allegation of
President, GMA, and the other PCSO official, Aguas. The
conspiracy in the Information (YES)
counsel of GMA filed a Demurrer to Evidence. According
to the counsel of the former President, they move to
RULING: YES. A conspiracy exists when two or more
demure the evidence and to dismiss the case because
persons come to an agreement concerning the
according to them, the State failed to prove the guilt of
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
determine conspiracy, there must be a common design
Sandiganbayan denied the said demurrer to evidence, so
to commit a felony.
they went to the SC. The SC granted the demurrer to
evidence and dismissed the case.
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties
actually came together and agreed in express terms to
The SC said, in this case, GMA, together with Aguas and
enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of
other officials of the PCSO, were charged as conspirators
the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime,
for the crime of Plunder. What is present here, according
usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances
to the SC, is wheel or circle conspiracy that allegedly
which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of
these persons were one in committing the act of Plunder.
some complete whole.
However, the SC said that based on the evidence
presented by the prosecution that is the Office of the
In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances
Ombudsman and based on the Information filed by the
leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor
Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan, the prosecution
Mitra in a common desire to transport the dangerous
failed to allege and failed to prove who is the hub, who is
drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of
the main plunderer.
dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to
Manila. Mayor Mitra was able to drive through the
There was no allegation in the Information who is that hub,
checkpoint set up by the police operatives. When it was
who is that public officer or main plunderer that dealt
Morilla’s turn to pass through the checkpoint, he was
individually with other co-conspirators. SC said that
requested to open the rear door for a routinary check.
absent an express statement, absent an express
Noticing white granules scattered on the floor, the police
allegation in the Information as to who is the hub, who is officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If indeed
the main plunderer, they cannot say that it is established
he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he
that there exists a wheel or circle conspiracy. Likewise,
would not have told the police officers that he was with
SC said that the mere act of the former President signing
the Mayor.
“okay” will not make her criminally liable, absent any overt
act which shows that she is one in amassing and
accumulating ill-gotten wealth. Hence in the case, the SC
dismissed the case of the former President. Q: Can there be a conspiracy in violation of Special
Penal Laws?
MORILLA v. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 189833 | FEBRUARY 05, 2014 | PEREZ, J. A: There are two cases where the SC appreciated
conspiracy. In the case of People v. Morilla, the driver of
FACTS: A Starex van and an ambulance van were en the ambulance, Morilla, and Mayor Mitra of Quezon were
route to Manila. The Starex was driven by Mayor Mitra, charged as conspirators for violation of Sec. 5 of RA 9165,
while the ambulance was driven Morilla. The two the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. In particular,
vehicles passed a checkpoint where the ambulance they were charged as conspirators for the act of illegally
was stopped for inspection. The police officers transporting dangerous drugs.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Finally, Sec. 4 of RA 9262 calls for a liberal construction

So, in the case, SC said that Morilla and former Mayor of the law. It bears mention that the intent of the statute
Mitra of Quezon are liable as conspirators. But it is a is the law and that this intent must be effectuated by the
violation of special penal law, how come there is Courts. In the present case, the express language of RA
conspiracy when it is a violation of special penal law? SC 9262 reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal
said that there is conspiracy even if what is involved is a construction as will best ensure the attainment of the
violation of a Special Penal Law, particularly Sec. 5 – object of the law according to its true intent, meaning
Illegal transportation of dangerous drugs because it is and spirit – the protection and safety of victims of
expressly provided under Sec. 26 of RA 9165 that there violence against women and children.
is conspiracy in case of violation of Sec. 5. Since it is the
Special Penal Law itself that provides that there can be However, conspiracy is an evidentiary matter which
conspiracy in illegal transporting of dangerous drugs, then should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits
the said offenders, although violating a Special Penal and cannot be determined in the present petition since
Law, can be held liable as conspirators. the Court is not a trier of facts. It is, thus, premature for
Sharica to argue evidentiary matters since this
GO-TAN v. TAN controversy is centered only on the determination of
G.R. NO. 168852 | SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 | whether respondents may be included in a petition
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. under RA 9262. The presence or absence of conspiracy
can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.
FACTS: Sharica Go-Tan and Steven were married.
Barely six (6) years later, Sharica filed a Petition with
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order
NOTE: Likewise, in the case of violation of RA 9262, in
(TPO) against Steven and her parents-in-law, Spouses
the case of Go-Tan v. Tan, that is Sharica Mari Go-Tan
Tan. She alleged that Steven, in conspiracy with
vs. her husband, Steven Tan. In that case, the wife
Spouses Tan, committed verbal, psychological, and
Sharica Mari filed a petition for the issuance of a
economic abuses upon her in violation of RA 9262. In
Temporary Protection Order (TPO). This petition for the
their defense, Spouses Tan claimed that they are not
issuance of a TPO was filed by Sharica Mari against both
covered by RA 9262 since Sec. 3 thereof explicitly
her husband Steven in conspiracy with her parents-in-law
provides that the offender should be related to the victim
because according to Sharica, her husband and her
only by marriage, a former marriage, or a dating or
parents-in law had been repeatedly causing her verbal,
sexual relationship. The petition was dismissed by the
psychological, and economic abuses. They would not
RTC.
give her money and would not allow her to work, thus, how
can she survive? And so because of that, she filed for a
ISSUE: W/N the principle of conspiracy under the RPC
petition for the issuance of a TPO.
applies to violations of RA 9262 (YES)
Her parents-in-law, however, filed a Motion to Dismiss.
RULING: YES. Legal principles developed from the
According to her parents-in-law, the law only punishes the
Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity
husband or a man who has a relation with the said woman
to crimes punished under special laws, such as RA
who was physically, psychologically, and economically
9262, in which the special law is silent on a particular
matter. abused, but it does not include the parents-in-law. Hence,
the parents-in-law moved to dismiss their inclusion in the
said petition for the issuance of the TPO. Will it lie against
Once conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a
them?
criminal design is shown, the act of one is the act of all
the conspirators, and the precise extent or modality of
According to the SC, RA 9262 does not preclude the
participation of each of them becomes secondary, since
application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC
all the conspirators are principals. It must be further
for two reasons:
noted that Sec. 5 of RA 9262 expressly recognizes that
the acts of violence against women and their children
1. It is expressly stated under Sec. 47 of RA 9262
may be committed by an offender through another. In
that the RPC shall apply suppletory to violations
addition, the protection order that may be issued for the
purpose of preventing further acts of violence against of RA 9262; and
the woman or her child may include individuals other 2. Under Art. 10 of the RPC, it is expressly provided
that the RPC apply suppletory or supplementarily
than the offending husband.
to violations of Special Penal Laws unless
Special Penal Laws provide otherwise.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
There is nothing, in case of violation of RA 9262 that 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provides otherwise, in fact, it is expressly stated under provided that the following circumstances concur:
Sec. 47 of RA 9262 that the RPC may provide suppletory
application. Therefore, conspiracy will lie against the said First. Unlawful aggression;
parents-in-law in case of violation of RA 9262.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
ARTICLE 9
employed to prevent or repel it;
FELONIES ACCORDING TO SEVERITY
AS AMENDED BY RA 10951
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
THE REVISED PENAL CODE of the person defending himself.
BOOK ONE
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
ARTICLE 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies, and of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
light felonies. – Grave felonies are those to which the legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and
in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with those by consanguinity within the fourth civil
Article 25 of this Code. degree, provided that the first and second
requisites prescribed in the next preceding
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes circumstance are present, and the further requisite,
with penalties which in their maximum period are in case the provocation was given by the person
correctional, in accordance with the abovementioned attacked, that the one making defense had no part
article. therein.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the 3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a of a stranger, provided that the first and second
fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of
or both is provided. this article are present and that the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment,
or other evil motive.
ARTICLE 10 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE RPC does an act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present:
BOOK ONE
First. That the evil sought to be avoided
ARTICLE 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions actually exists;
of this Code. – Offenses which are or in the future may
be punishable under special laws are not subject to the Second. That the injury feared be greater than
provisions of this Code. This Code shall be that done to avoid it;
supplementary to such laws unless the latter should
specially provide the contrary. Third. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
ARTICLE 11 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE 6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order
BOOK ONE issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
ARTICLE 11. Justifying circumstances. – The

following do not incur any criminal liability: Justifying circumstances are those circumstances which
if present or attendant in the commission of the felony, the
offender acted within the bounds of the law. The offender
is said to not have transgressed the law. Therefore, there

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
is no crime committed, there is no criminal, there is no Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
criminal liability, and as a rule, there is also no civil liability of the person defending himself.
because the author acted within the bounds of the law. He
did not transgress the law. xxxx
If an accused is charged in court and he raised as a
defense any of the justifying circumstances under Art. 11,
that accused is in effect admitting the commission of the This is otherwise known as self-defense. Self-defense
acts alleged in the Information. That accused is in effect does not only include defense on one’s life and limb. Self-
admitting the commission of the crime, but he is trying to defense also includes defense of one’s honor and
avoid criminal responsibility by saying that his act is chastity, property if coupled by attack on the person
justified. entrusted with the said property.
If an accused invokes a justifying circumstance under Art. Elements of Art. 11(1) – Self-Defense
11, it is both an act of admission and an act of defense. If
he admits as a defense any of the justifying circumstances 1. Unlawful aggression;
under Art. 11, the court will order an inverted trial. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and
In an ordinary criminal proceeding, it is the State, it is the 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
prosecution that has the burden of proving the guilt of the person defending himself.
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the first to
present its evidence would be the State because the First element – Unlawful aggression
burden is on it to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The SC said, the primordial element of self-defense is
unlawful aggression. The unlawful aggression coming
If, however, the accused raised as a defense a justifying from the said offended party is material because without
circumstance, the burden is shifted on him to prove the the unlawful aggression coming from the victim, there is
elements of the justifying circumstance that he is raising. no need for the accused to defend his life and limb.
Hence, trial will be inverted. He is the one to first present Hence, first and foremost, there must be an unlawful
the evidence to prove by clear and convincing evidence aggression coming from the victim.
the elements of the justifying circumstance that he is
raising. If he failed to prove by clear and convincing Elements of Unlawful Aggression
evidence the elements of the justifying circumstance that
he is invoking, definitely, he will be convicted because he This unlawful aggression has three elements:
already admitted the acts alleged in the Information.
1. There must be a physical or material attack or
Under Art. 11, the following do not incur criminal liability: assault;
2. The attack or assault must be actual or at least
1. SELF-DEFENSE imminent; and
3. The attack or assault must be unlawful.
An attack or assault is said to be actual when the attack
BOOK ONE
or assault is done by means physical force or by means
of a weapon.
following do not incur any criminal liability: The attack or assault is said to be imminent when it is
impending or at the point of happening.
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur: Again, unlawful aggression must come from the victim. It
must come from the private offended party.
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second element – Reasonable necessity of the means
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
employed to prevent or repel it;
The means used to defend his life must be reasonable
and rational in order to prevent the unlawful aggression
coming from the victim.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
about to stab X with an icepick. These acts placed X’s life

In order to determine whether the means used by the and limb in actual and imminent danger. Therefore, there
accused to defend his life is reasonable and rational, you is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim – the
take into consideration certain factors: holdupper A.
1. Nature and number of weapons used by the said Second element: The means employed by X was
unlawful aggressor versus that of the person reasonable and rational to repel the unlawful aggression.
defending himself; X was unarmed, A was about to stab him with an icepick,
2. Personal circumstances of the unlawful the only thing he could do to protect his life and limb was
aggressor versus that of the person defending to use the stone he grabbed. It was rational, it was
himself; and reasonable to hit the holdupper, otherwise, he could have
3. Place and occasion of the said assault. been stabbed and could have died. Therefore, the second
element is also present.
These factors will determine if the means used by the
accused in defending himself is reasonable and rational Third Element: Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
in order to prevent the unlawful aggression coming from of the person defending himself. There was no
the victim. provocation at all coming from X, he was merely on his
way home.
Second element – Lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself All the elements of self-defense being present, X has to
be acquitted of the crime charged by reason of self-
There must be no sufficient provocation. There may be defense.
provocation. What the law requires is that there is no
sufficient provocation. Provocation is said to be sufficient GANAL JR. v. PEOPLE
when it is adequate for a person to commit a wrongful act G.R. NO. 248130 | DECEMBER 2, 2020 |
and when it is proportionate to the gravity of the act. LAZARO-JAVIER, J.
NOTE: The maxim behind self-defense is “Stand ground FACTS: When Follante went to the house of Ganal, Jr.,
when in the right”. The law does not require the accused he brought with him stones around two (2) inches in
to retreat when he sees his assailant fast approaching, diameter for driving away dogs along the way. Ganal,
otherwise, he runs the risk of being stabbed at the back. Jr. saw the stones and ordered Follante to surrender
them to him. Thereafter, he showed his gun to Follante
Q: X was walking after withdrawing his salary from and told the latter to go home if he did not want any
the ATM. He happily went towards home then trouble. Follante then proceeded to Alvarez’ house and
suddenly three (3) men A, B and C, surrounded him. narrated the incident. Later on, Alvarez and Ganal, Jr.
These men all pointed an icepick on X, telling him, had a confrontation and in the course thereof, the latter
“We saw you getting money from the ATM, give us shot Alvarez on the chest resulting to his death. After
your bag”. X held tightly unto the bag and ran away. the incident, Ganal, Jr. voluntarily surrendered to the
The three (3) men chased X and caught up with him, police authorities. He was charged with the crime of
they then ganged up on X. All of them boxed and Homicide. In his defense, Ganal, Jr. claimed that
kicked him until X was down on the ground. When X Follante, armed with a knife and holding two (2) stones,
was down on the ground, A forcible took his bag. A advanced towards him and ignored his warning shot.
then went on top of X and was about to stab him with
the icepick, but X was able to grab a huge piece of ISSUE: W/N Ganal, Jr. acted in self-defense (YES)
stone and hit A’s head two (2) times. A bled and lost
consciousness, the other men left. Seeing that he RULING: YES. All the elements of self-defense are
wounded A, X brought him to the hospital. It was the present:
severe damage on the head that caused the death of
the holdupper A. Unlawful aggression
X is not being prosecuted for the death of the Here, stones were hurled at the roof of the adjacent
holdupper A. X raised self-defense. Are all the houses of Ganal, Jr. and his father. The father went out
elements of self-defense present? to check and saw Follante with his uncle, Alvarez. The
father approached and asked them to go home
A: YES. First element: There was unlawful aggression. A, because his wife was suffering from hypertension and
B, and C surrounded X and ganged up on X. A was also should not be disturbed. However, Alvarez replied that

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
he did not care if the wife died – that he would kill all of for its possession, Olarbe was able to grab the bolo and
them. Thereafter, Alvarez managed to push open the he instantly hacked Arca causing his death. Thereafter,
gate and hit Ganal, Sr. with a stone on the chest. Armed Olarbe voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities.
with a knife tucked in his waistband and holding two (2) He was charged with the crime of Murder. In his
stones, Alvarez turned to Ganal, Jr. and advanced defense, he interposed self-defense and defense of
towards him. Despite the warning shot of Ganal, Jr., stranger.
Alvarez continued moving closer to Ganal, Jr. who was
then constrained to shoot him. ISSUE: W/N self-defense and defense of stranger
should be appreciated (YES)
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel unlawful aggression RULING: YES. For a person to exonerate himself on
the ground of self-defense under the RPC, he must
The right of a person to take life in self-defense arises establish the following facts: (i) unlawful aggression on
from his belief in the necessity for doing so; and his the part of the victim; (ii) reasonable necessity of the
belief and the reasonableness thereof are to be judged means employed to prevent or repel such aggression;
in the light of the circumstances as they then appeared and (iii) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
to him, not in the light of circumstances as they would person resorting to self-defense. Olarbe also invoked
appear to others or based on the belief that others may the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger. In
or might entertain as to the nature and imminence of both of these circumstances, the indispensable
the danger and the necessity to kill. requisite for either is unlawful aggression mounted by
the victim against the accused or the stranger. Without
Here, Ganal, Jr. was overcome by the instinct of self- such unlawful aggression, the accused is not entitled to
preservation upon seeing that Alvarez brashly entered the justifying circumstance.
his property and even knocked his father unconscious
for getting in the way. Alvarez was determined to inflict First, there was no credible showing that the shot to the
injury on him as he brought two (2) large stones and head had rendered Arca too weak to draw the bolo and
knife for the purpose. to carry on with his aggression in the manner described
by Olarbe. Second, the State did not demonstrate that
Ganal, Jr. first tried to simply scare off Alvarez by firing the shot from the gun fired at close range sufficed to
a warning shot. However, Alvarez was unfazed and still disable Arca from further attacking with his bolo. Third,
continued to advance towards him with malevolent nothing in the record indicated Arca’s physical
intent. And even after Ganal, Jr. shot him, the latter did condition at the time of the incident. And finally, to rule
not even falter but instead threatened to kill Ganal, Jr. out any further aggression by Arca with his bolo after
and his family. In that particular instance, Ganal, Jr. the shot in the head considering the fact that Arca
must have thought that his actions were so futile would have enough adrenaline to continue with the
because Alvarez was still standing there and shouting assault is also speculative. The SC found that Arca
threats. He then must have felt he had to end it once committed continuous and persistent unlawful
and for all – kill or be killed. aggression against Olarbe and his common-law
spouse that lasted from the moment he forcibly barged
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the into the house and brandished his gun until he
person making the defense assaulted Olarbe’s common-law spouse with a bolo.
Since the assault was not merely a threatening fact,
It is undisputed that it was Alvarez who went to Ganal, Olarbe was justified in believing that he and his
Jr.'s house and instigated the incident. common-law spouse’s lives to be in extreme danger
from Arca.
Going to the other requisites of self-defense, Olarbe

PEOPLE v. OLARBE was able to prove both. Reasonable necessity of the
G.R. NO. 227421 | JULY 23, 2018 | BERSAMIN, J. means employed is still present even if Arca sustained
several wounds; however, these wounds were only
FACTS: Olarbe and his wife were suddenly awakened lacerations whose nature and extent were not
by the sound of a gunshot and shouting from Arca who explained. The lack of explanations has denied the
appeared to be drunk. Armed with a rifle, Arca entered Court the means to fairly adjudge the reasonableness
the house and aimed the gun at them. Olarbe grappled of the means adopted by Olarbe to repel the unlawful
for the possession of the gun and shot Arca on the aggression. To rule out reasonable necessity on the
head. Nevertheless, Arca managed to get his bolo from basis of the number of wounds would be unfair to
his waist and continued to attack them. After struggling

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Olarbe since the rule of reasonable necessity is not

ironclad in its application but is dependent upon the 1. Unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;
established circumstances of each particular case. The 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
absence of any showing that Olarbe had provoked prevent or repel such aggression; and
Arca, or that he had been induced by revenge, 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
resentment, or other evil motive had been equally person resorting to self-defense.
proven by the defense.
In defense of a relative, in lieu of the third element, the
accused must prove that in case of provocation was
given by the person attacked, that the one making the
NOTE: In the cases of Ganal, Jr. v. People and People
defense had no part therein.
v. Olarbe, the SC appreciated self-defense in favor of the
accused. In these cases, the SC said that the test to
Here, there was unlawful aggression when Cesar
determine the presence of self-defense is whether the
attacked Leonardo and attempted to stab Leo. Also,
accused subjectively believed the imminence and
there was no provocation on Leo’s part since the attack
seriousness of the danger, and the reasonableness of his
originated from Cesar and Charles. Leo and his wife
belief must be viewed from the standpoint of the accused
were traversing their way home when Cesar and
at the time that he acted. The right of the person to take
Charles blocked their way and chased them. Similarly,
life in self-defense arises from his belief in the necessity
Leo was already in his father's house when Cesar and
of doing so. That the reasonableness thereof must be
Charles started the commotion.
judged in the light of the circumstances of the accused as
they appear to him, not in the light of the circumstances
The rule is that the reasonable necessity of the means
as they appear to other people. Therefore, if at that
employed to repel or prevent the attack depends upon
particular moment, the accused believed his life was in
the imminent danger of injury. Cesar's act of attacking
danger, he has to save his life. So, in both cases the SC
Leo and Leonardo with a balisong was a very real
acquitted the accused on the ground of self-defense.
danger to their lives. Charles' possession of a gun
exacerbated the danger that lurks on Leo and
BAR CHAIR CASE
Leonardo's mortality. Leo had to repel the best way he
can especially that Leonardo, who was already injured,
These rulings of the SC were also cited in the case of
could not be expected to aid in his defense. Lastly, that
Abuyo vs. People, penned by your Bar chair Justice
the stomach wound which Leo inflicted upon Cesar
Mario Lopez.
proved to be fatal did not make the means he employed
any less reasonable under the circumstances.
ABUYO v. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 250495 | JULY 6, 2022 | M.V. LOPEZ, J.
FACTS: At around 7:30 in the evening, Leo Abuyo and NOTE: Here, Leo and his wife were going home on board
his wife were heading home on board their motorcycle. a motorcycle. Suddenly, two (2) men namely, Ceasar,
Cesar and Charles, armed with a balisong and a gun, armed with a balisong and his son, Charles, armed with a
suddenly blocked their way. Leo sped towards the gun blocked their path. Leo sensed danger and so he
father’s house, Leonardo. Thereafter, Charles entered swerved his motorcycle to the left. Thereafter, Leo
Leonardo’s house. He pointed his gun to people and alighted from his motorcycle and ran towards the house
yelled for Leo to come out. Leonardo tried to pacify of his father. Ceasar and Charles, however, did not stop.
Charles, but Cesar arrived and stabbed Leonardo on Charles followed Leo, he destroyed the bamboo fence,
the lower part of his chest. Cesar then turned to Leo pointed a gun at the people around and shouted for Leo
and tried to stab him, but Leo got hold of a bolo on top to come out of the house. Instead of Leo coming out it was
of the table and hacked Cesar's right hand. Leo’s father, Leonardo, who came out. Leonardo tried to
Consequently, Cesar dropped the balisong. Cesar pacify Charles, however, during this time, Ceasar arrived
managed to pick up the balisong but Leo stabbed him and stabbed Leonardo in the chest. Although he was
again in the lower part of his stomach. Cesar died. After wounded, Leonardo was able to run to the house, but at
the incident, Leo voluntarily surrendered to the police that particular moment, Ceasar still followed. Sensing that
authorities. He was charged for the crime of Homicide. his father was about to be killed, Leo came out of the
house and chased Ceasar. Ceasar then tried to stab Leo
ISSUE: W/N Leo employed means that was reasonably with his balisong, but Leo saw a bolo on top of the table,
necessary to repel the unlawful aggression. (YES) took it and hacked Ceasar. Ceasar died.
RULING: YES. The elements of self-defense are:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The first hack was on the right hand of Ceasar, causing forward and fight with him. There was a struggle
the latter to drop the balisong on the ground, but then between X and Y, and in the course of the struggle, Y
Ceasar picked up the balisong and was about to strike killed X.
again. Leo stabbed him this time on the abdomen. This
caused the death of Ceasar. Leo was charged with the Y is now charged with the crime of Homicide. Y, on
crime of Homicide. his part, said that he merely acted in self-defense. Is
Y entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-
Leo raised self-defense, that he merely acted in self- defense?
defense and in defense of his father. Both the RTC and
the CA convicted the accused of Homicide, but A: NO. First element: Unlawful aggression on the part of
appreciated the privileged mitigating circumstance of the victim is immediately absent. There were two stages
incomplete self-defense stating that the second element in the fight. The first stage was when X stabbed Y,
was absent. inflicting upon Y minor injuries with the use of a kitchen
knife. The second stage, when Y was able to run away to
The SC, through Justice Lopez, acquitted Leo. According the safety of his house. Y then took a bolo and challenged
to the SC, there was unlawful aggression because Ceasar X to a fight.
attacked and pursued the father of Leo. Thereafter,
Ceasar turned to stab Leo. At that particular moment, Leo Since the fight ensued based on the challenge made by
has the right to repel the unlawful aggression in order to Y on X, in that case, Y became the unlawful aggressor.
protect his life and the life of his father. Hence, there was The unlawful aggression that has been commenced by X
unlawful aggression which placed the life and limb of Leo ceased to exist the moment Y reached his house, took the
and his father in actual and imminent danger; bolo, came out and challenged X. Y became the
challenger/ the unlawful aggressor. Hence, Y cannot raise
The third element was also present. There was no the defense of self-defense in order to free him from
provocation coming from Leo, the attack originated from criminal and civil liability.
both Ceasar and his son. At the time when Leo and his
wife were going home, suddenly their path was blocked. BAR QUESTION
Not only that, but when Leo was already in his father’s
house, Ceasar still pursued him and tried to kill him and Q: About 3 o’clock in the morning, the husband came
the father. Therefore, the SC said there was no out to fish. The moment the husband came out, here
provocation coming from the accused Leo. comes the neighbor. The neighbor went to the house,
entered the bedroom, undressed the wife, and had
So, it was confirmed that the first and third elements are carnal knowledge of the wife. The wife allowed it
present. How about the second element? because she thought it was her husband who came
back. After the carnal knowledge, the neighbor
Although the RTC and CA stated that the second element dressed himself up and before leaving, told the wife,
is absent, the SC said that it is present. The SC said that “Maria salamat, sa uulitin”. Thereafter, when the
Leo used reasonable means in order to defend himself neighbor said that, Maria was awakened. It was not
and the life of his father. According to the SC, based on the voice of her husband, she was mad. She then got
the evidence presented, after Leo hacked Ceasar’s hand, a bolo and as the neighbor was leaving, she stabbed
the balisong fell on the ground, but still Ceasar didn’t stop. the neighbor to death.
Ceasar picked up the balisong, therefore, at that moment,
the unlawful aggression did not cease to exist. He picked She was charged with the crime of Homicide for
up the balisong, which means he still wanted to attack having killed the neighbor. Maria now claims defense
Leo. The act of Ceasar of picking up the balisong showed of her honor and chastity. Is there self-defense? Or
his aggravated determination to kill Leo and his father. It defense of one’s honor and chastity so as to free
is evident based on the facts that it was the instinct of self- Maria from criminal liability.
preservation that prevailed upon Leo when he stabbed
Ceasar. He stabbed Ceasar in the act of self-defense. A: NO. In this case, there was unlawful aggression,
Hence, the SC acquitted Leo Abuyo. however, at the time that Maria had stabbed the neighbor,
the said unlawful aggression already ceased. It was
Q: X stabbed Y with a kitchen knife. Y managed to already done. The carnal knowledge was already done.
escape but sustained minor injuries. Y was able to run The first element being absent, the claim of defense of
away to the safety of his house, but X followed him. one’s honor and chastity is absent. Thus, Maria can be
Upon reaching his house, Y took a bolo. Armed with held criminally liable for the crime of Homicide, but she
the bolo, Y went out of his house, and dared X to come

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
can raise the mitigating circumstance of sudden impulse crime of Homicide. She argued that she was merely acting
of passion and obfuscation. on the defense of her honor and chastity.
PEOPLE v. JAURIGUE The SC said that the self-defense of one’s honor and
C.A. NO. 384 | FEBRUARY 21, 1946 | DE JOYA, J. chastity will not lie in her favor. The act of the said victim
placing his hand on the right thigh of Jaurigue cannot be
FACTS: At 8’o clock in the evening, Jaurigue entered considered as unlawful aggression because at that
the chapel of the Seventh Day Adventists to attend moment, she was inside a chapel, wherein it was fully
religious services. Capina then sat beside Jaurigue and lighted, filled with people, and even his father who was the
placed his hand on the upper part of her right thigh. minister was there. At that particular moment, it was very
Avelina Jaurigue, conscious of her personal dignity and unlikely for the victim to have placed an attack on
honor, suddenly grabbed his fan knife and stabbed Jaurigue’s chastity. The first element being absent, the
Amado once at the base of the left side of the neck SC said self-defense will not lie in her favor.
resulting to his death. After the incident, she voluntarily
surrendered to the police authorities. She was charged PEOPLE v. TOLEDO
with the crime of Homicide. In her defense, Jaurigue G.R. NO. 158057 | SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 |
interposed that she acted in the legitimate defense of CALLEJO, J.
her honor.
FACTS: Guarte and his group were having a drinking
ISSUE: W/N Jaurigue acted in the legitimate defense spree at his parent’s house. Toledo approached the
of her honor, therefore, she should be completely group and requested them to refrain from making any
absolved of all criminal responsibility (NO) noise. That night, Guarte heard someone throwing
stones at their house. Upon checking, he saw that it
RULING: NO. The attempt to rape a woman constitutes was Toledo. Thereafter, Guarte got up and proceeded
an unlawful aggression sufficient to put her in a state of to Toledo’s house in order to ask why he was throwing
legitimate defense, inasmuch as a woman's honor stones. However, Toledo did not respond and without
cannot but be esteemed as a right as precious, if not any warning, he stabbed Guarte with a bolo on the
more, than her very existence; and it is evident that a abdomen. Guarte was then brought to the hospital, but
woman who, thus imperiled, wounds nay kills the subsequently died. After the incident, Toledo voluntarily
offender, should be afforded exemption from criminal surrendered. Toledo was charged with the crime of
liability, since such killing cannot be considered a crime Homicide. In his defense, he interposed self-defense
from the moment it became the only means left for her and accident.
to protect her honor from so great an outrage.
ISSUES:
When the deceased sat by the side of defendant and 1. W/N self-defense should be appreciated (NO)
appellant on the same bench, near the door of the 2. W/N accident should be appreciated (NO)
barrio chapel and placed his hand on the upper portion
of her right thigh, without her consent, the said chapel RULING:
was lighted with electric lights, and there were already 1. NO. To prove self-defense, the petitioner was
several people, about ten of them, inside the chapel, burdened to prove the essential elements thereof,
including her own father and the barrio lieutenant; there namely: (i) unlawful aggression on the part of the
was and there could be no possibility of her being victim; (ii) lack of sufficient provocation on the part
raped. And when she gave a thrust at the base of the of the petitioner; and (iii) employment by him of
left side of his neck inflicting upon him a mortal wound reasonable means to prevent or repel the
4½ inches deep, causing his death a few moments aggression. Unlawful aggression is a condition sine
later, the means employed by her in the defense of her qua non for the justifying circumstances of self-
honor was evidently excessive; and under the facts and defense, whether complete or incomplete.
circumstances of the case, she cannot be legally Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual,
declared completely exempt from criminal liability. sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent
danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or
intimidating attitude.
NOTE: In the case of People v. Jaurigue, inside a In this case, Toledo was not justified in stabbing
chapel, the victim placed his hand on the lap of Jaurigue,
Guarte. There was no imminent threat to
the latter then stabbed the said man at the base of the
appellant's life necessitating his assault on Guarte.
neck. The man died. Jaurigue is now being charged of the
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
the justifying circumstance of self-defense. For On the other hand, self-defense is a deliberate and overt
unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must act done by the offender based on the instinct of self-
be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or preservation. In case of self-defense, the offender
imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening deliberately attacked and deliberately killed the victim
or intimidating attitude. In the absence of such because if he did not do so, he will be the one killed.
element, Toledo's claim of self-defense must fail. Hence, self-defense is based on a deliberate and positive
overt act done by the offender intentionally based on the
2. NO. There is no such defense as accidental self- instinct of self-preservation. He has to save his own life,
defense in the realm of criminal law. Self-defense that is why he stabbed the unlawful aggressor.
under Art.11, paragraph 1 of the RPC necessarily
implies a deliberate and positive overt act of the So, the SC said that you cannot raise the exempting
accused to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression circumstance of accident and the justifying circumstance
of another with the use of reasonable means. The of self-defense at the same time because they are
accused has freedom of action. inconsistent with one another.
On the other hand, the basis of exempting 2. DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE

circumstances under Art. 12 of the RPC is the
complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
action, or intent, or the absence of negligence on THE REVISED PENAL CODE
the part of the accused. The basis of the exemption BOOK ONE
in Art. 12, paragraph 4 of the RPC is lack of
negligence and intent. The accused does not ARTICLE 11. Justifying circumstances. – The
commit either an intentional or culpable felony. The following do not incur any criminal liability:
accused commits a crime but there is no criminal
liability because of the complete absence of any of xxxx
the conditions which constitute free will or
voluntariness of the act. An accident is a fortuitous 2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights
circumstance, event or happening; an event of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
happening wholly or partly through human agency, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
an event which under the circumstances is unusual of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and
or unexpected by the person to whom it happens. those by consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree, provided that the first and second
. requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite,
NOTE: In the case of People v. Toledo, accused was in case the provocation was given by the person
charged with the crime of Homicide for killing his distant attacked, that the one making defense had no part
nephew. In the hearing before the RTC, the defense therein.
raised by Toledo was that he stabbed the victim purely by
accident. According to Toledo, the victim was trying to xxxx
enter the house, thus, he took a bolo and unfortunately,
he accidentally hit the victim. The victim died. He raised
the exempting circumstance of accident. The RTC did not
consider the defense raised. When the case was Elements of Art. 11(2) – Defense of a Relative
appealed, Toledo changed his defense to self-defense.
According to Toledo, he killed the victim as an act of self- 1. Unlawful aggression;
defense. 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
The SC said that the defenses he raised were inconsistent 3. In case the provocation was given by the person
with each other. That there is no such thing as accidental attacked, that the one making defense had no
self-defense, you cannot raise accident and self-defense part therein.
at the same time. Accident is something that has
happened when the offender was performing a lawful act NOTE: If you see a problem and it appears that it is a
but suddenly an injury was caused to another, without defense of a relative, for such defense to lie, it is
fault or intent on his part. It is something that happened necessary that the said relative he is defending must be
outside the sway of things, it cannot be prevented. included in the enumeration provided in the second
paragraph:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
case, it is of the same degree as an ascendant. Therefore,

1. Spouse; the said father-in-law is within the meaning of relative
2. Ascendants; under Art. 11(2).
3. Descendants;
4. Legitimate, natural, adopted brothers/sisters; After you determine that the said relative is within the
5. Relatives by affinity within the same degree; and meaning of relative under Art. 11(2), you now take into
6. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil consideration whether the elements are present.
degree.
First element: There was unlawful aggression. The act of
If the relative being defended is not included in the W when he punched the father-in-law and was about to
enumeration of Art. 11(2), then it will fall under defense of stab the latter, that act of W placed the life and limb of the
a stranger. Before applying the elements, see first if the father-in-law in actual and imminent danger. Hence, the
person or relative being defended falls within the meaning first element is present.
of the relative as enumerated in said paragraph, if so,
proceed with the elements. Second element: The means used by X is that he merely
punched W in order to prevent W from stabbing the father-
First and second elements – Unlawful aggression; in-law. It was reasonable in order to prevent the unlawful
and reasonable necessity of the means employed to aggression.
prevent or repel it
Third element: Granting for the sake of argument, the
The first and second elements are the same as that of father-in-law is the one who provoked W, X has nothing to
self-defense. do with it.
Third element – In case the provocation was given by Therefore, all the elements of defense of a relative are
the person attacked, that the one making defense had present. X should be acquitted of the crime charged
no part therein because he acted in defense of his father-in-law, a
relative.
Even if it is the relative being defended who gave the
provocation, there can still be a valid defense of a relative Q: What if in the same problem, instead of X
for as long as the relative making the defense is not a defending the father-in-law, the one he defended is
party to the said provocation. the cousin of his wife. It was the first cousin of his
wife who was to be attacked by W, and X punched W.
Q: It was 6’o clock in the morning and X bought X is now being prosecuted for the crime of Homicide.
pandesal. While on his way home, he heard a He raised a defense that he merely acted in defense
commotion from the other end of the street. There, he of a relative. Will defense of relative lie in his favor?
saw his 70-year-old father-in-law having an argument
with their neighbor, W. They were shouting at each A: NO. A first cousin is not within the meaning of a relative
other. W suddenly punched the face of the father-in- under Art. 11(2). The first cousin is a relative by affinity
law, causing he latter to fall on the ground. X also saw insofar as X is concerned. It must be of same degree as
that W was about stab the father-in-law with a knife. ascendants, descendants, legitimate/natural/adopted
At that particular moment, X ran towards them, and brothers or sisters. The said first cousin is not within the
thereafter, with the use of his fist, he boxed the face enumeration. He is a relative by consanguinity within the
of W. Upon seeing the bleeding head of W, X and the fourth degree of the wife, but not that of X. Therefore,
father-in-law brought the former to the hospital. When defense of a relative will not lie in favor of X.
X was being prosecuted for the crime of Homicide, X’s
defense was that he merely acted in defense of a His defense should be defense of a stranger. All the
relative. Will the defense of a relative lie? elements of defense of a stranger under Art. 11(3) are
present. In this case, X was not ignited by any evil motive.
A: YES. If the problem involves defense of a relative, the His only intention was to save the life of the first cousin of
first thing that you have to look into – is the said relative his wife. Therefore, defense of a stranger will lie in favor
within the meaning of relative based on the enumeration of X.
under Art. 11(2)? The father-in-law is a relative by affinity
insofar as X is concerned because the former is the father 3. DEFENSE OF A STRANGER
of his wife. If it is a relative by affinity, it must be of the
same degree as ascendants, descendants, THE REVISED PENAL CODE
legitimate/natural/adopted brothers or sisters. In this BOOK ONE

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ARTICLE 11. Justifying circumstances. – The First element: There was unlawful aggression. The police
following do not incur any criminal liability: officer was hitting the head of X with a truncheon, that
placed the life and limb of X in imminent danger.
xxxx
Second element: Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights What W used was only an empty bottle of Coke. W only
of a stranger, provided that the first and second hit the arm of the police officer with an empty bottle of
requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of coke in order to prevent him from further hitting a fellow
this article are present and that the person student with a truncheon. The means used are
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, reasonable.
or other evil motive.
Third element: That the person defending be not induced
xxxx by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. Based on
the facts of the case, there was no showing that W was
ignited by any evil motive, his only intention was to help a
fellow student who was being attacked on the head with a
Elements of Art. 11(3) – Defense of a Stranger
police truncheon.
1. Unlawful aggression;
All the elements are present. Therefore, defense of a
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
stranger will lie in favor of W. He should be acquitted of
the crime of direct assault.
3. That the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or any other evil motive.
4. STATE OF NECESSITY
BAR QUESTION
The group of students from the University Belt BOOK ONE
planned to stage a rally at Liwasan, Bonifacio. They
applied for a permit. However, City Mayor Lacuña of
Manila denied their application for a permit to hold a
following do not incur any criminal liability:
rally at Liwasan, Bonifacio. Nevertheless, these
students proceeded with the said rally. They went
from the University Belt, and walked towards xxxx
Liwasan, Bonifacio. The moment they were already
approaching the rally site, these students were met 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
by police officers who were already there. These does not act which causes damage to another,
police officers were armed with truncheon, water provided that the following requisites are present:
hose, all other things, and they began attacking, they
began arresting the said students. When one of the First. That the evil sought to be avoided
students, W, saw a policeman striking X, a fellow actually exists;
student with his truncheon, the said student W hit the
forearm of the police officer with an empty bottle of Second. That the injury feared be greater than
Coke in order to prevent the police officer from further that done to avoid it;
hitting the head of his fellow student with his
truncheon. Other police officers came, and arrested
W. Third. That there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it.
W was charged with Direct Assault. W raised that he
was merely acting in defense of a stranger. Are all the xxxx
elements for defense of a stranger present or is W
liable for direct assault?
Elements of Art. 11(4) – State of Necessity
A: W is NOT LIABLE for direct assault. He merely acted
in DEFENSE OF A STRANGER. All the elements are 1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
present.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done as well as the family, and so, Norma was charged with
to avoid it; and Slander by Deed. To free herself both from criminal and
3. That there be no other practical or less harmful civil liability, she raised as a defense the justifying
means of preventing it. circumstance of state of necessity. Should she be
absolved of criminal liability? Should she be absolved of
It is necessary that the said accused is not the author of civil liability? Is there state of necessity as a justifying
the state of necessity. If the accused authored the state of circumstance?
necessity, then he has no right to raise it as a defense.
First element: That the evil sought to be avoided actually
PEOPLE v. HERNANDEZ exists. SC said that it is present. The SC said that the evil
G.R. NO. 22553-R | APRIL 14, 1959 | GUTIERREZ- sought to be avoided by Norma was to live in a loveless
DAVID, J. marriage with this man all her life.
FACTS: Hernandez and Lascano planned on getting Second element: That the injury feared be greater than
married. They made the necessary wedding that done to avoid it. The injury that she feared to be with
preparations, such as applied for a marriage license, this man whom she doesn’t love all her life is greater than
went to the parish priest, ordered a wedding gown, etc. the embarrassment of not appearing in the said wedding.
However, on the date of the wedding, Hernandez did
not show up which caused great shame and humiliation
to Lascano and his parents. Hernandez was then Third element: That there be no other practical and less
charged with the crime of Serious Slander by Deed. In harmful means of preventing it. There is no other way she
her defense, she insisted that her non-appearance in could prevent herself from being in that situation except
the wedding is justified because, otherwise, she will be not to appear in the said wedding.
trapped in a loveless wedding which is the injury she is
seeking to avoid. The SC said all the elements of state of necessity is
present. Therefore, Norma Hernandez is acquitted for the
ISSUE: W/N Hernandez should be convicted of crime of Slander by Deed. She acted in a state of
Serious Slander By Deed (NO) necessity, otherwise, she will be living a life of a loveless
marriage with this man whom she does not love.
RULING: NO. The malice, one of the essential
requisites of slander, has not been proven; that in the In state of necessity, it does not mean that the offender is
act done by Hernandez, there was no malice because also not civilly liable. Although as a rule, in case of
in changing her mind, assuming that she was in love justifying circumstances, an offender is not criminally and
with Lascano previous to the incident, she was merely civilly liable. An exception to that rule is in case of
exercising her right not to give her consent to the paragraph four – state of necessity. In case of state of
marriage after mature consideration, such consent necessity, the offender is not criminally liable, but civilly
being her prerogative as one of the contracting parties. liable.
The SC appreciated the justifying circumstance of the In this case, although Norma was acquitted of criminal
state of necessity. It agreed that the act of Hernandez liability for Slander by Deed, she was held liable civilly.
in not appearing in the wedding is justified. Otherwise, So, yes, state of necessity is present. However, the SC
it will be tantamount to mandating her to enter into a said that she is liable civilly. There were already expenses
marriage [over] which she, in fact, has the choice of because of the wedding preparations.
contracting into or not. Moreover, to rule otherwise
would result in an injury that Norma seeks to avoid, that
is, being trapped in a loveless wedding. 5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY

BOOK ONE
NOTE: In the case of People v. Hernandez, Norma
Hernandez has this wedding with the private complainant. ARTICLE 11. Justifying circumstances. – The
It is a wedding based on the agreement of the elderlies,
following do not incur any criminal liability:
and Norma Hernandez didn’t love the man. And so, she
did not appear on the date of the wedding because of the
embarrassment, because of the pain. Because of the acts xxxx
done by Norma Hernandez, it brought embarrassment on
the part of the said private complainant, the groom-to-be,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered
in the lawful exercise of a right or office. the life of the accused, who was then forced to inflict
severe wounds upon the assailant by employing
xxxx reasonable means to resist the attack.
The defense was unable to prove that there was

unlawful aggression on the part of Javier. They were
Elements of Art. 11(5) – Fulfillment of Duty unable to present evidence that the victim actually fired
his gun. No spent shells from the .22 caliber pistol were
1. That the offender acted in the due performance of found and no bullets were recovered from the scene of
his duties or in the performance of a lawful the incident. Javier also tested negative for gunpowder
exercise of a right or office; and residue.
2. That the resulting felony is an unavoidable or
necessary consequence of the due performance Even if it were established that Javier fired his gun as
of his duty or in lawful exercise of a right or office. the appellants so insist, the imminence of the danger to
their lives had already ceased the moment Dagani held
In order for fulfillment of duty to lie, it is not only necessary down the victim and grappled for the gun with the latter.
that the said offender is performing his duty; it is also After the victim had been thrown off-balance, there was
necessary that whatever injury that was caused by him, it no longer any unlawful aggression that would have
was the unavoidable consequence of the due necessitated the act of killing.
performance of his duty.
It is settled that reasonable necessity of the means
PEOPLE v. DAGANI employed does not imply material commensurability
G.R. NO. 153875 | AUGUST 16, 2006 | AUSTRIA- between the means of attack and defense. What the
MARTINEZ, J. law requires is rational equivalence.
FACTS: Javier and his group were having a drinking The circumstances in their entirety which surround the
spree at the canteen located inside the compound of grappling of the firearm by Dagani and Javier, such as
the Philippine National Railways (PNR). Dagani and his the nature and number of gunshot wounds sustained
co-accused suddenly entered the canteen and by the victim which amounted to two fatal wounds, that
approached the group of Javier. Dagani then shoved Dagani was able to restrain the hands of Javier and
Miran, causing the latter to fall from his chair. push them away from his body, that Dagani was larger
Thereafter, he held Javier while his co-accused than Javier and had finished Special Weapons and
Santiano shot Javier twice at his left side resulting to Tactics (SWAT) hand-to-hand combat training, and
his death. Dagani and his co-accused were charged Javier, as admitted by the appellants, was inebriated at
with the crime of Murder. In their defense, they the time of the incident, do not justify appellant
interposed self-defense and lawful performance of Santiano’s act of fatally shooting the victim twice.
official duty as PNR security officers.
ISSUE: W/N self-defense should be appreciated (NO)

NOTE: In the case of People v. Dagani, the security
RULING: NO. Self-defense requires that there be (i) an guards at the PNR shot the victim. They raised the
unlawful aggression by the person injured or killed by defense of fulfillment of duty. The SC said that the first
the offender, (ii) reasonable necessity of the means element is immediately absent. It cannot be said that the
employed to prevent or repel that unlawful aggression, said security guards were acting in the due performance
and (iii) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the of their duty because based on the evidence, based on
person defending himself. All these conditions must the timecard presented, they were already off duty at that
concur. time. Their duty has already lapsed at the time of the
incident. Since they were off duty, the first element is
Unlawful aggression, a primordial element of self- immediately absent. Hence, this fulfillment of duty as a
defense, would presuppose an actual, sudden and justifying circumstance was not considered by the SC.
unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and
limb of a person – not a mere threatening or intimidating 6. OBEDIENCE TO A LAWFUL ORDER
attitude – but most importantly, at the time the
defensive action was taken against the aggressor. To
invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been
BOOK ONE

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
officers, “If you will not allow me to leave, I will stab

ARTICLE 11. Justifying circumstances. – The this pregnant woman. It is her life or mine.” X was
following do not incur any criminal liability: trying to walk, holding a knife against the neck of this
pregnant woman held by him as hostage, when
suddenly the said pregnant woman struggled and
xxxx
kicked X. At that particular moment, police officer Y
fired a shot at X hitting him on the head. X instantly
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order died.
issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Police officer Y is now being prosecuted for the crime
xxxx of Homicide. If you are the counsel of police officer Y,
what defenses will you raise in order to free your
client Y from criminal and civil liability?
Elements of Art. 11(6) – Obedience to a Lawful Order
A: You can raise FULFILLMENT OF DUTY. All the
elements are present.
1. That an order has been issued by a superior;
2. The order must be lawful; and
First element: Police officer Y was acting in the
3. The means used by the subordinate to carry out
performance of his duty. It was his duty to first, bring this
the order must also be lawful.
prisoner back to jail; and second, to save the life of this
pregnant woman.
Based on these elements, it is not only necessary that the
order coming from the superior must be lawful; it is also
Second element: The said resulting injury, that is the
necessary that the means used by the subordinate to
death of X, was the unavoidable consequence of the
carry out the order must also be lawful.
police officer’s performance of duty. Had he not fired at X,
the said woman might have been killed.
Q: X was convicted by the RTC of the crime of Murder.
X is now biyaheng Muntinlupa. He was on this vehicle
Both elements are present, therefore, police officer Y
of the BJMP. There was a driver, there was BJMP
merely acted in the fulfillment of his duty, he should be
personnel, there were two police officers, and there
acquitted of the crime charged. His act is justified.
was X inside the vehicle. When they were already
nearing Muntinlupa, X suddenly told the officers that
As a counsel, you could also raise DEFENSE OF A
he wanted to pee. When the officers told him, “No,
STRANGER. All the elements are present.
within 15 minutes, we will already be in Muntinlupa.
You do your act there.” X said, “if you will not do it, I
First element: There is unlawful aggression coming from
will pee here.” Because of that, the police officer told
X, there was a knife pointed at the neck of the pregnant
the driver to stop the vehicle and then thereafter, one
woman.
of the police officers, Y, accompanied X. So, Y
accompanied X behind the tree. X told Y, “Paki-bukas
Second element: Reasonable necessity of the means
po ng zipper ko, naka-handcuffs ako.” The police
employed to avoid or repel the unlawful aggression, the
officer felt degraded, so what he did was he opened
means used by Y was reasonable. Had he not shot X, X
the handcuffs on the hands of X. The moment his
could have killed the said woman.
handcuffs were unlocked, X boxed and kicked police
officer Y. Thereafter, X ran away. Police officer Z and
Third element: Based on the facts of the case, there was
the BJMP personnel, all chased X.
no showing that police officer Y was ignited by any evil
motive, only a motive to save the life of the said pregnant
X went in a community, in a neighborhood. The
woman held as hostage. Therefore, this justifying
people on the neighborhood knew he was an escapee
circumstance may also be raised by the counsel.
because he was wearing an orange shirt with the
letter “P.” They told the police officers, “Doon po
RA 9262
pumunta, doon po sa bahay na yun.” So, police
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
officers X and Z, and the BJMP personnel went to the
said house and called on X to come out. However,
RA 9262
when X came out, he was already holding a pregnant
woman as hostage. A bolo was placed on the neck of
the said pregnant woman. The neck of the pregnant
woman was already bleeding. X told the police

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this husband would ask the wife for forgiveness, the
Act, husband would be loving to the wife. But, come
nighttime, whenever he’s drunk, again, he would
xxxx physically abuse the said wife. This has been going
on every day of the life of the wife for five (5) years.
B. “Battery” refers to an act of inflicting physical harm
One night, the husband arrived home, again he is
upon the woman or her child resulting to the physical
drunk. Upon seeing the husband, the wife told the
and psychological or emotional distress.
husband, “Kumain ka muna bago ka humiga.
Pinaghanda kita ng hapunan.” The husband said,
C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions “Walang hapu-hapunan sakin. Bakit mo ba ako
causing or likely to cause mental or emotional pinagha-handaan ng hapunan?” And thereafter, the
suffering of the victim such as but not limited to husband immediately punched the wife two (2) times
intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to on the face. The wife fell on the floor. She went off
property, public ridicule, or humiliation, repeated balance. She shouted back at the husband, “Bakit
verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing naman?” When the wife answered back, the husband
or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual, again got mad and kicked the wife. The husband
or psychological abuse of a member of the family to pulled out a knife and was about to stab the wife, but
which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in the wife shouted. Because of this, the husband placed
any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to the knife and the cupboard and went to bed and fell
unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to asleep.
custody and/or visitation of common children.
The wife went to the bedroom to get clothing for their
xxxx children. As she was getting out of the bedroom, she
passed by the bed where her husband was fast
asleep. As she was staring at the husband, she was
shivering, she was so afraid. All five (5) years of her
RA 9262
life, she was afraid of this man. In fact, she was
already under treatment and medication by
psychiatrists. As she was staring at this man, tonight
SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a this man was about to stab her. She was afraid,
Defense. – Victim-survivors who are found by the tomorrow she might die. The next day, her children
courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome might be killed. According to the wife, everything
do not incur any criminal and civil liability must end. So, she went to the kitchen, took a knife,
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for and thereafter, the wife stabbed the husband while
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the the husband was fast asleep.
RPC.
The wife is now being prosecuted for the crime of
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman Parricide. The wife raises as a defense of Battered
who was suffering from battered woman syndrome at Woman Syndrome, therefore, was moving for an
the time of the commission of the crime, the courts acquittal.
shall be assisted by expert psychiatrists/
psychologists. NOTE: Battered Woman Syndrome, under Sec. 3(C) of
RA 9262, is the scientifically defined pattern of
psychological symptoms found in women living in
Q: X and Y are married. They had been married for five battering relationship as a result of cumulative abuse.
(5) years. During those five (5) years of marriage, the
wife has suffered gravely at the hands of her Under Sec. 26 of RA 9262, victim-survivors who are found
husband. During those five (5) years of marriage, the by the court suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome do
wife has been the victim of physical abuse from the not incur any criminal liability nor civil liability,
said husband. Every night, whenever the husband notwithstanding, the absence of any of the elements of
would arrive home, the husband would physically the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
abuse the wife, slap the wife, kick the wife; and the
following morning, when the husband would see the Therefore, based on Secs. 3(C) and 26 of RA 9262, if it is
hematoma, the bruises, the contusions, on the face, proven in court that the said accused woman, accused
on the different parts of the body of the wife, the wife, is suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, she

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
incurs no criminal liability and no civil liability, even if none ISSUE: W/N Battered Woman Syndrome should be
of the elements of the justifying circumstance of self- appreciated (NO)
defense is present, even if there was no unlawful
aggression coming from the victim, even if the husband RULING: NO. The battered woman syndrome is
was fast asleep when he was stabbed to death by the characterized by the so-called "cycle of violence, which
wife. has three phases: (i) the tension-building phase; (ii) the
acute battering incident; and (iii) the tranquil, loving (or,
A: In this case, when the said woman raised the defense at least, nonviolent) phase.
of Battered Woman Syndrome, the counsel of the woman
placed on the witness stand the psychiatrist who has been In this case, the defense fell short of proving all three
treating the wife for five (5) years. The psychiatrist testified phases of the "cycle of violence" supposedly
in open court that this woman has been her patient for five characterizing the relationship of Ben and Marivic. No
(5) years, and that she is indeed suffering from Battered doubt that there were acute battering incidents. In
Woman Syndrome at the time of the stabling of the said relating to the Court how the fatal incident that led to
husband. the death of Ben started, Marivic perfectly described
the tension-building phase of the cycle. She was able
What is now the duty of the court? The court has to acquit to explain in adequate detail the typical characteristics
the said woman, no civil liability and no criminal liability, of this stage. However, that single incident does not
even if none of the elements of the justifying circumstance prove the existence of the syndrome. In other words,
of self-defense is present, even if there was no unlawful she failed to prove that in at least another battering
aggression coming from the victim, even if the husband episode in the past, she had gone through a similar
was fast asleep at the time of the said act of stabbing, at pattern.
the time of the said killing.
How did the tension between the partners usually arise
Under the second paragraph of Sec. 26, in order to help or build up prior to acute battering? How did Marivic
the court to determine the state of mind of the said woman normally respond to Ben's relatively minor abuses?
at the time of the commission of the crime, the law What means did she employ to try to prevent the
mandates that there must be an expert testimony coming situation from developing into the next (more violent)
from psychiatrists and psychologists because judges, by stage?
themselves, cannot determine whether the said woman is
suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome. Only the Neither did Marivic proffer sufficient evidence in regard
psychiatrists and psychologists can testify to the fact that to the third phase of the cycle. She simply mentioned
this woman, at the time of the commission of the crime, that she would usually run away to her mother's or
was in the state of Battered Woman Syndrome. If proven, father's house; that Ben would seek her out, ask for her
she shall be acquitted of both criminal and civil liability. forgiveness and promise to change; and that believing
his words, she would return to their common abode.
PEOPLE v. GENOSA
G.R. NO. 135981 | JANUARY 15, 2004 | In sum, the defense failed to elicit from Marivic her
PANGANIBAN, J. factual experiences and thoughts that would clearly
and fully demonstrate the essential characteristics of
FACTS: Marivic and Ben were married. However, after the syndrome.
a year of marriage, the spouses would often quarrel
which results to violence. In those instances, Ben, who
was a habitual drinker, would provoke, slap, beat, or pin
BAR QUESTION
Marivic down on the bed. She had tried to leave her
husband at least five (5) times, but Ben would always
During their marriage, the husband has always been
follow her and ask for forgiveness. Marivic was then
verbally abusing the wife. The wife will just be crying
eight months pregnant. One night, there was a quarrel
in the corner because of the pain, the emotional pain
between Marivic and Ben. Frightened that her husband
brought about by the verbal abuse. One time,
would hurt her and wanting to make sure she would
however, the husband arrived home, this time it was
deliver her baby safely, Marivic shot her Ben while he
was sleeping. She was then charged with the crime of not only verbal abuse, the husband also physically
Parricide. Upon her interview, Marivic was shown to abused the said wife for the first time. That night, the
said wife killed the husband.
have been suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The wife is now being prosecuted for the crime of permitted to leave without first obtaining the
Parricide. Can she raise the defense of Battered permission of the same court.
Woman Syndrome?
2. A person under nine years of age. (Repealed by
A: NO. She cannot raise the defense of Battered Woman Sec. 6 of RA 9344)
Syndrome. Battered Woman Syndrome is the
scientifically defined pattern of psychological symptoms 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
found in women living in battering relationships. unless he has acted with discernment, in which
Therefore, it is necessary that the woman is living in a case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
battering relationship. accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this
Code.
What is battery? If you will look at Sec. 3(B) of RA 9262,
“battery” refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon
the woman or her child resulting to the physical and When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
psychological or emotional distress. Therefore, in order to irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the
be said that the woman was living in a “battering provisions of this and the preceding paragraph,
relationship,” physical harm must be inflicted upon the shall commit him to the care and custody of his
said woman, and not merely verbal abuse. family who shall be charged with his surveillance
and education otherwise, he shall be committed to
In the En banc case of People v. Genosa, the SC said the care of some institution or person mentioned
that there must be two battering episodes of abuses, and in said Art. 80. (Repealed by Sec. 6 of RA 9344)
these two battering episodes of abuses must consist of a
cycle of violence characterized by three phases. 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with
due care, causes an injury by mere accident
These three phases of characterizing battering without fault or intention of causing it.
relationships are:
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of
1. Tension building phase, irresistible force.
2. Acute battering phase, and
3. Tranquil or loving phase. 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
In the Bar problem given, there was only one physical
abuse. All other instances were verbal abuse. Therefore, 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by
it cannot be said that there were two battering episodes. law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable
The said woman cannot raise as a defense of Battered cause.
Woman Syndrome.
ARTICLE 12
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Exempting circumstances are those circumstances which
if present or attendant in the commission of a felony would
THE REVISED PENAL CODE serve to exempt the offender from criminal liability but not
BOOK ONE from civil liability.
ARTICLE 12. Circumstances which exempt from In case of justifying circumstances, as a rule, no criminal
criminal liability. – the following are exempt from liability, no civil liability. In case of exempting
criminal liability: circumstances, no criminal liability, but as a rule, there is
civil liability because a wrong has indeed been committed.
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter
In exempting circumstances, the offender is absolved of
has acted during a lucid interval.
criminal liability because the offender acted without
voluntariness. There is the absence of any of the
When the imbecile or an insane person has
elements of voluntariness. We have discussed that the
committed an act which the law defines as a felony
element of voluntariness, in case of intentional felony, we
(delito), the court shall order his confinement in
have:
one of the hospitals or asylums established for
persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be
1. Criminal intent,
2. Freedom of action, and

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
3. Intelligence on the part of the offender. mental aberration of the advanced in age, but he
mind. That insane person has only the mental
While the elements of voluntariness, in case of culpable cannot distinguish right capacity of a 2 to 7-year-
felony are: from wrong, good from old child.
evil.
1. Criminal negligence,
2. Freedom of action, and Insanity is not exempting Imbecility is exempting
3. Intelligence on the part of the offender. in all circumstances. It is under any and all
necessary that it must be circumstances. There is
In case of exempting circumstances, any of the element proven that the allegedly no lucid interval in so far
of voluntariness is absent. Therefore, since the offender insane person did not act as an imbecile person is
acted without voluntariness, he is absolved of criminal during lucid interval, concerned.
liability but not of civil liability because a wrong, a violation otherwise, he can still be
of the law has indeed been committed. convicted.
If an accused is charged in court and the said accused

raised as a defense any of the exempting circumstances
under Art.12, the said offender is indeed admitting the The law, particularly, the Civil Code, presumes every man
acts alleged in the Information, but he is saying that he is is sane, that every man is of sound mind. The law
absolved of criminal liability because he acted without presumes that all acts done by a man are voluntary and
criminal voluntariness. willful. Therefore, based on this, an offender or an
accused, who pleads the exempting circumstance of
There is already absence in criminal intent, freedom of insanity, has the burden of proving beyond reasonable
action, or intelligence on his part. He will be moving for an doubt that he or she was insane immediately, prior to, or
acquittal – he will be moving that he be absolved for at the time of the commission of the crime.
criminal liability. Therefore, to raise an exempting
circumstance is also an act of admission and an act of If the offender was able to prove that he was insane
avoidance. The offender, in effect, admits the acts alleged immediately prior to, or at the time of the commission of
in the Information but he is trying to avoid criminal the crime, then he shall be absolved of criminal liability
responsibility. because an insane person has no full and clear
understanding of the nature and consequences of his act.
However, if the said insane person failed to prove that he
1. IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON
was insane immediately prior to, or at the time of the
commission of the crime, then he shall be convicted as
THE REVISED PENAL CODE charged.
BOOK ONE
If the said person was sane at the time of the commission
ARTICLE 12. Circumstances which exempt from of the crime, he only became insane while his case was
criminal liability. – the following are exempt from ongoing. Therefore, he only became insane after the
criminal liability: commission of the crime. Such kind of insanity will not free
him from criminal liability because the insanity that is
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter exempting must be present immediately prior to, or at the
has acted during a lucid interval. time of the commission of the crime.
If the insanity existed after the commission of the crime,

xxxx the said offender shall only be brought to the mental
institution. His case shall first be archived, then the
hearing of the case will be suspended. The moment he
Under the first paragraph of Art. 12, we have two (2) regains sanity, he will again be prosecuted before the
exempting circumstances: court except when the crime has already prescribed.
1. Insanity, and Q: X was awakened at 5 o' clock in the morning. Upon
2. Imbecility. getting out of bed, X immediately went to the kitchen.
X took a knife and went to the house of their neighbor
INSANITY IMBECILITY Y. He forcibly entered into the house of Y and went
An insane person is An imbecile person is directly inside the bedroom. Finding Y asleep, X
someone who lacks total someone who is already repeatedly stabbed Y until Y died. While still holding

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
the weapon, X got out of the house of Y and went to

their house. He saw his sister. The sister asked X FACTS: Gregorio was driving his Honda CRV to buy
what happened. X gave the knife to his sister and the some bread. When he arrived, he parked his CRV ten
sister embraced X. Thereafter, X sat on the ground, (10) meters away across the bakery and left the car key
stomping his feet, and crying aloud like a child. The inside the vehicle. He proceeded to the bakery and
relatives of Y saw the incident and called the police. bought bread. However, when he turned around to
The police arrived and invited X for questioning at the check on his car, he noticed that his car was already
police station. moving towards another street. It was being driven by
Oligario Turalba. Gregorio immediately flagged down
X is now being prosecuted for the crime of Murder. and boarded a tricycle to pursue his car. The chase
According to X, he should not be held criminally liable ended when the car was caught on a traffic congestion.
because immediately prior to and at the time of the Gregorio was able to recover his car and Turalba was
commission of the crime, he was suffering from later apprehended. Turalba was charged with the crime
insanity. Hence, X raised the defense of insanity. of Carnapping. In his defense, he interposed that he
was suffering from psychosis.
To prove insanity, the defense counsel presented X
himself. He testified in court that prior to the day of
ISSUE: W/N insanity should be appreciated (NO)
killing Y, he was suffering from all kinds of anxiety,
sleepless nights, lack of appetite and nervousness.
According to X, there was this voice ringing in his RULING: NO. As a defense, insanity is in the nature of
head saying that he has to kill Y and he only obeyed a confession and avoidance. The person who asserts
the said voice. insanity is, in effect, admitting to the commission of the
crime. Consequently, the burden of proof shifts to him,
After X testified in court, the defense counsel who must prove his defense with clear and convincing
presented the sister. The sister testified in court that evidence. Differently stated, after a plea of insanity, the
prior to the day of the killing, she would often see her accused is tried on the issue of sanity alone, and if
brother looking blankly at nowhere and talking to no found to be sane, a judgment of conviction is rendered
one. There was also a time that she saw her brother without any trial on the issue of guilt, because the
hitting himself on the day of the commission of the accused had already admitted committing the crime.
crime. According to the sister, her brother went home
crying and gave her the knife. Thereafter, her brother Insanity is not easily available to the accused as a
sat on the ground and cried aloud like a child. She successful defense. It is an exception rather than the
said her brother is insane immediately prior to, or at rule on the human condition. Insanity as a condition of
the time of the commission of the crime. the mind, is not susceptible of the usual means of proof
as no man can know what is going on in the mind of
Is X’s defense of insanity present so as to free him another, the state of condition of a person's mind can
from criminal liability? Will the defense of insanity lie only be measured and judged by behavior. Thus, the
in his favor? accused must prove the following: first, that the insanity
constitutes a complete deprivation of intelligence,
A: NO. The SC said that, in one of the cases assigned to reason, or discernment; and second, the insanity
you and other similar cases, even assuming that the existed at the time of, or immediately preceding, the
accused's testimony is credible, these are merely commission of the crime.
suggestive of an abnormal mental condition which cannot
be equated with total deprivation of will and total power to To establish insanity, opinion testimony is required
discern. Mere abnormality of mental faculties will not which may be given by a witness who is intimately
exclude imputability. Therefore, his defense of insanity acquainted with the accused, has rational basis to
will not lie in his favor. conclude that the accused was insane based on his
own perception, or is qualified as an expert, such as a
BAR CHAIR CASE psychiatrist. The Court stress that an inquiry into the
mental state of an accused should relate to the period
The case of Turalba v. People was penned by your bar immediately before or at the very moment the felony is
chair, Justice Mario Lopez. committed.
TURALBA v. PEOPLE In the case at bar, no witness was presented by the

G.R. NO. 216453 | MARCH 16, 2022 | LOPEZ, M., J. petitioner to show that he exhibited any symptoms
associated with psychosis immediately before or

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
simultaneous with the carnapping incident. The record A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the
is bereft of even a single account of abnormal or bizarre day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
behavior on the part of the petitioner prior to November
20, 2007. Although Dr. Evangelista opined that he is A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18)
suffering from psychosis, she declared that it is difficult years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal
to assess the exact mental condition of Oligario, having liability and be subjected to an intervention program,
seen the latter only once, and she could not even unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which
identify the kind of psychosis is afflicted with. case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with this Act.
Likewise, no evidence was presented to show proof of
abnormal behavior immediately before or simultaneous The exemption from criminal liability herein established
to the commission of the crime. While it can be true that does not include exemption from civil liability, which
there was some impairment of the petitioner’s mental shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
faculties, since he was said to suffer from psychosis,
the Court held that such impairment was not so
complete as to deprive him of his intelligence or the Q: What is the effect of minority on the criminal
consciousness of his acts. liability of an offender?
A: If the question is vague, you have to qualify your

NOTE: In that case, accused Turalba was charged with answer based on the age of the child in conflict with the
the crime of Carnapping. The defense raised by Turalba law. As provided for under Sec. 6 of RA 9344, as
was insanity. To prove Turalba’s insanity at the time of the amended, or “The Juvenile Justice Act and Welfare Act”,
commission of the crime, the defense counsel presented a child 15 years old or under at the time of the commission
the doctor. According to the doctor, she first met Turalba of the crime shall be totally exempted from criminal liability
at the mental institution in Mariveles and based on his regardless of discernment.
diagnosis of Turalba, Turalba has psychosis or
“nawawala sa sarili” because of his continuous use of If the child is above 15 but below 18 years old, he shall
alcohol and Shabu or drugs. still be exempted from criminal liability unless he acted
with discernment – in which case, he shall be prosecuted
Will such defense be sufficient in order to prove insanity in court. Therefore, you have to first determine based on
for the crime of kidnapping? NO. The SC convicted the facts if this minor child acted with discernment or not.
Turalba. Although it may be true that by reason of
alcoholism and use of drugs which resulted in psychosis, NOTE: Under Sec. 6 of RA 9344, as amended, a child in
the accused has suffered impairment of mental faculties, conflict with the law shall only be exempted from criminal
such impairment does not mean complete deprivation of liability but not from civil liability because a wrong has
his intelligence and of his consciousness in the doing of indeed been committed – that is why it is an exempting
his act. Hence, such defense of insanity will not lie in his circumstance and not a justifying circumstance.
favor.
Q: Who do you consider as a child in conflict with the
MINORITY law?
A: As defined under RA 9344, as amended, a child in

RA 9344, AS AMENDED conflict with the law is a child who alleged as, accused of,
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT or adjudged as having committed an offense under
Philippine Laws.
RA 9344, AS AMENDED
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT RA 9344, AS AMENDED
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT
SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility. – A child fifteen (15) years of age or SECTION 64. Children in Conflict with the Law
under at the time of the commission of the offense shall Fifteen (15) Years Old and Below. – Upon effectivity
be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child of this Act, cases of children fifteen (15) years old and
shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant below at the time of the commission of the crime shall
to Sec. 20 of this Act. immediately be dismissed and the child shall be
referred to the appropriate local social welfare and
development officer. Such officer, upon thorough

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
assessment of the child, shall determine whether to A: In so far as Y is concerned, Y was 16 years old at the
release the child to the custody of his/her parents, or time of the commission of the crime. Y falls under the
refer the child to prevention programs as provided category of above 15 but below 18 years old. Hence,
under this Act. Those with suspended sentences and discernment matters.
undergoing rehabilitation at the youth rehabilitation
center shall likewise be released, unless it is contrary Y acted with discernment. Such discernment is evident
to the best interest of the child. from the fact that Y warned the cousin – which means Y
has knowledge of the consequences of his act. He knew
that killing Z is an unlawful act and that if the authorities
discover such, he will be arrested and prosecuted. Thus,
Q: For the longest time, Brothers X and Y have been the case should PROCEED before the court, and he shall
asking Z to join their Rugby Boys Gang, but Z would be charged with the crime of Homicide.
refuse. As a result, Brothers X and Y have these
feelings against Z.
RA 9344, AS AMENDED
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT
X and Y are on one side of the road. Upon seeing Z
coming, X and Y blocked the path of Z and told him,
SECTION 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. –
“Z, for the nth time, we invite you to join our Rugby
Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age
Boys Gang.” However, Z answered, “X and Y, for the
at the time of the commission of the offense is found
nth time, I do not want to be part of your gang.” Upon
guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine
hearing these words, X and Y were very mad, and
and ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted
repeatedly boxed and mauled Z. For every attack, Z
from the offense committed. However, instead of
would bleed because the fists of X and Y have brass
pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the court shall
knuckles. Z fell on the ground.
place the child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence, without need of application: Provided,
The cousin of Z begged X and Y to stop attacking Z,
however, That suspension of sentence shall still be
otherwise, Z might die. Instead of stopping, X went on
applied even if the juvenile is already eighteen years
the back of Z while Y went on the legs of Z. Thereafter,
(18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement
X strangled the neck of Z resulting to his death. After
of his/her guilt.
killing Z and before leaving, X and Y warned the
cousin of Z, “If you tell anyone what we did, we will
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the
come after you and we will do to you what we did to
various circumstances of the child, the court shall
him.”
impose the appropriate disposition measures as
provided in the SC Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with
At the time of the commission of the crime, X was 14
the Law.
years old, while Y was 16 years old. The cousin
informed the authorities. Hence, X and Y were
arrested. They were charged with the crime of
Homicide for killing Z. Q: Y was charged with Homicide before the RTC. On
the basis of the right to speedy trial, the hearing for
If you are the judge, how will you rule on the said the case proceeded until its termination when Y was
case? 17 years old. Y was still a minor at the time of the
promulgation of judgment finding Y guilty beyond
A: In so far as X is concerned, X was only 14 years old at reasonable doubt.
the time of the commission of the crime. Thus, the case
should be immediately DISMISSED regardless of What is the duty of the court?
discernment.
A: Under Sec. 38 of RA 9344, as amended, when a child
Under Sec. 64 of RA 9344, as amended, the said law in conflict with the law who is under 18 years old at the
categorically provides that in case of children 15 years old time of the commission of the crime is found guilty of the
and below at the time of the commission of the crime, the crime charged, the court shall determine and ascertain his
case shall be immediately dismissed. civil liability arising from the crime committed. However,
instead of pronouncing the judgment of conviction, the
Q: Did Y act with discernment such that he can be court shall place the child in conflict with the law under
prosecuted in court or should the case against him be suspended sentence without need of application.
dismissed because he acted without discernment? Therefore, since the judge found Y guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Homicide at the time when he was

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
still a minor – 17 years old, then the judge shall motu Therefore, he shall be convicted as charged, but his
proprio place Y under suspended sentence without need minority at the time of the commission of the crime will be
of application. There is no need for his counsel to file a considered privileged mitigating circumstance.
motion for a suspended sentence.
NOTE: If minority is not exempting, minority shall always
Q: Y was charged with the crime of Homicide. The trial be a privileged mitigating circumstance because of Art. 68
of the case terminated when Y was already 20 years of the RPC, if the offender is a minor who acted with
old. discernment, such minority at the time of the commission
of the crime shall lower the imposable penalty by one
What is the duty of the court? degree.
A: The court shall place Y under suspended sentence PEOPLE v. SARCIA

without the need of application because under Sec. 38 of G.R. NO. 169641 | SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 |
RA 9344, as amended, the last sentence further provides LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
that this suspended sentence will apply even if the
juvenile offender is already 18 years old or above at the FACTS: AAA was playing with her cousin in the yard of
time of the promulgation of judgment. Even if the said Crisologo. Sarcia approached AAA and invited her to
child in conflict with the law who committed a crime when go with him. Unknown to Sarcia, the cousin of AAA
he was a minor, and became an adult at the time of the followed them. Upon reaching the place, Sarcia
promulgation of judgment, such minor offender shall still removed AAA’s shorts and underwear. He also
be entitled to suspended sentence without need of removed his trousers and brief. Thereafter, he ordered
application. AAA to lie down on her back. He then laid on top of her
and inserted his penis into AAA’s private organ. The
RA 9344, AS AMENDED cousin of AAA witnessed Sarcia’s dastardly act. He
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT was charged with the crime of Rape. In his defense, he
interposed that he was a minor at the time of the
SECTION 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the commission of the crime.
Law to Court. – If the court finds that the objective of
the disposition measures imposed upon the child in ISSUE: W/N minority should be appreciated to exempt
conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child Sarcia from criminal liability (NO)
in conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with
the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation RULING: NO. When accused appellant testified on
program, the child in conflict with the law shall be March 14, 2002, he admitted that he was 24 years old,
brought before the court for execution of judgment. which means that in 1996, he was 18 years of age. As
found by the trial court, the rape incident could have
If said child in conflict with the law has reached taken place "in any month and date in the year 1996."
eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended Since the prosecution was not able to prove the exact
sentence, the court shall determine whether to date and time when the rape was committed, it is not
discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order certain that the crime of rape was committed on or after
execution of sentence, or to extend the suspended he reached 18 years of age in 1996. In assessing the
sentence for a certain specified period or until the child attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority,
reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused, it
being more beneficial to the latter. In fact, in several
cases, this Court has appreciated this circumstance on
the basis of a lone declaration of the accused regarding
Q: Y was charged with the crime of Homicide. Since
his age. Under Art. 68 of the RPC, when the offender
he acted with discernment, trial on the merits ensued
is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than
until its termination at the promulgation of judgment
that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in
when Y was already 23 years old.
the proper period.
Can the judge place him under suspended sentence?
A: NO. As provided for under Sec. 40 of RA 9344, as PEOPLE v. MANTALABA

amended, the suspended sentence can be extended only G.R. NO. 186227 | JULY 20, 2011 | PERALTA, J.
until the child in conflict with the law reaches the maximum
age of 21 years old. Since Y was already 23 years old,
then he is no longer entitled to a suspended sentence.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
FACTS: The Task Force Regional Anti-Crime provided that at the time of the promulgation of judgment,
Emergency Response received a tip from an informant he is not yet beyond 21 years old.
that Allen Mantalaba was selling Shabu. After forming
a buy-bust team, a buy-bust operation was then The moment the said offender, although a minor at the
conducted. After the exchange of a sachet of Shabu time of the commission of the crime, was already beyond
21 years old at the time of the promulgation of judgment,
and marked money, the Mantalaba was arrested. He
the court shall render the judgment of conviction.
was also found in possession of a big sachet of Shabu.
However, the penalty to be imposed shall consider the
He was charged with the crime of Sale of Dangerous privileged mitigating circumstance of minority based on
Drugs and Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA Article 68, second paragraph of the RPC.
9165. In his defense, he interposed that he was a minor
at the time of the commission of the crime. Likewise, based on Sec. 51 of RA 9344, as amended, in
lieu of the confinement in a regular penal institution, this
ISSUE: W/N Mantalaba is entitled to suspended offended who was a minor at the time of the commission
sentence on the ground of minority (NO) of the crime shall serve his sentence in agricultural camps
and other training facilities that may be established,
RULING: NO. While Sec. 38 of RA 9344 provides that maintained, supervised, and controlled by the Bureau of
suspension of sentence can still be applied even if the Correction in coordination with the DSWD.
child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18)
Therefore, for as long as the offender is a minor at the
years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement
time of the commission of the crime, regardless of his age
of his/her guilt, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said
at the time of promulgation of the judgment, he cannot be
suspension of sentence until the child reaches the placed together with hardened criminals in regular penal
maximum age of 21. institutions.
In the present case, Allen, who is now beyond the age In the En banc case of People v. Gambao, the SC held
of twenty-one (21) years can no longer avail of the that in so far as the application of Art. 51, the age of the
provisions of Sections 38 and 40 of RA 9344 as to his child in conflict with the law at the time of the promulgation
suspension of sentence, because such is already moot of judgment is immaterial. What matters is the age of the
and academic. offender at the time of the commission of the crime.
NOTE: For as long as the offender is a minor at the time

of the commission of the crime, in case of conviction, he
Q: In the cases of People v. Sarcia and People v. shall not be made to serve his sentence in regular penal
Mantalaba which were assigned to you: What if the institutions.
case filed against a minor offender is a heinous
crime? Let say the case filed against a minor offender PEOPLE v. ZZZ
is Qualified Rape or Murder. These are heinous G.R. NO. 228828 | JULY 24, 2019 | LEONEN, J.
crimes punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or death.
FACTS: The uncle of the victim testified that when he
Can he still be given suspended sentence as provided was on his way to the store to buy cigarettes, he
for under Sec. 38 of RA 9344, as amended? suddenly saw ZZZ dragging the victim by the wrists
towards a school. Days later, the cadaver of the victim
A: YES. The SC in the cases of People v. Sarcia and was found in a bamboo grove. The autopsy report
People v. Mantalaba said Sec. 38 of RA 9344, as showed visible signs of sexual assault and a cracked
amended, does not distinguish as to the crime committed skull. ZZZ was charged with the crime of Rape with
by a child in conflict with the law. Whether the crime Homicide. In his defense, he interposed that he was a
committed is a heinous crime punishable by Reclusion minor at the time of the commission of the crime.
Perpetua or death, or a crime of lesser penalty, it is the
duty of the court to place the said child in conflict with the ISSUE: W/N ZZZ acted with discernment (YES)
law under suspended sentence without the need of
application. RULING: YES. Under Sec. 6 of the RA 9344, a child
above 15 years old but below 18 years old is not
If the law does not distinguish, neither does the court exempt from criminal liability when the child acted with
distinguish. Hence, regardless of the crime committed by discernment.
the said child in conflict with the law, he is entitled to a
suspended sentence without the need of application,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
In this case, accused-appellant acted with discernment

in carrying out the crime – (i) He perpetrated the crime Q: Can LGUs enact or pass ordinances on status
in a dark and isolated place; (ii) After knowing that he offenses?
had been tagged as the suspect, he evaded authorities
by fleeing to Tarlac and concealing his identity; (iii) As A: YES. Sec. 57 of RA 9344 was amended by RA 10630.
confirmed by the social worker assigned to him, he There is a new Sec. 57-A which provides that LGUs are
knew and understood the consequences of his acts; allowed to enact or pass ordinances on status offenses,
and (iv) Dr. Bandonill concluded that AAA was raped provided they shall be intended for the protection of
by means of force, as evidenced by the contusions all minors or children. Therefore, no penalty shall be
over her body and by the tear from her vaginal area. imposed on children who violate the said ordinances;
instead, these minors or children shall be brought to their
residence, or to the barangay hall to be released to the
custody of their parents only. Likewise, under Sec. 57-A
NOTE: In the case of People v. ZZZ, the SC has defined of RA 9344 was amended by RA 10630, the said minors
discernment as the mental capacity of a minor to fully shall not be called as children in conflict with the law;
appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. instead, they shall be called as children at risk.
RA 9344, AS AMENDED SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT v. QUEZON CITY
G.R. NO. 225442 | AUGUST 8, 2017 | PERLAS-
SECTION 57. Status Offenses. – Any conduct not BERNABE, J.
considered an offense or not penalized if committed by
an adult shall not be considered an offense and shall FACTS: Following the campaign of President Duterte
not be punished if committed by a child." to implement a nationwide curfew for minors, several
local governments in Metro Manila started to strictly
SECTION 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. – implement their curfew ordinances on minors through
Ordinances enacted by local governments concerning police operations. Samahan ng mga Progresibong
juvenile status offenses such as, but not limited to, Kabataan (SPARK) filed a Petition assailing the
curfew violations, truancy, parental disobedience, anti- constitutionality of the Curfew Ordinances of Quezon
smoking and anti-drinking laws, as well as light City, Manila, and Navotas on the ground that the
offenses and misdemeanors against public order or imposition of the penalties thereof contravenes RA
safety such as, but not limited to, disorderly conduct, 9344 which provides that no penalty shall be imposed
public scandal, harassment, drunkenness, public on minors for curfew violations.
intoxication, criminal nuisance, vandalism, gambling,
mendicancy, littering, public urination, and trespassing, ISSUE: W/N Sec. 4 of the Manila Curfew Ordinance
shall be for the protection of children. No penalty shall contravenes Sec. 57-A of R.A. 9344 (YES)
be imposed on children for said violations, and they
shall instead be brought to their residence or to any RULING: YES. The provisions of RA 9344 provisions
barangay official at the barangay hall to be released to do not prohibit the enactment of regulations that curtail
the custody of their parents. Appropriate intervention the conduct of minors, when the similar conduct of
programs shall be provided for in such ordinances. The adults are not considered as an offense or penalized
child shall also be recorded as a ‘child at risk’ and not (i.e., status offenses). Instead, what they prohibit is the
as a ‘child in conflict with the law’. The ordinance shall imposition of penalties on minors for violations of these
also provide for intervention programs, such as regulations. Consequently, the enactment of curfew
counseling, attendance in group activities for children, ordinances on minors, without penalizing them for
and for the parents, attendance in parenting education violations thereof, is not violative of Section 57-A. The
seminars. provisions of RA 9344, as amended, should not be read
to mean that all the actions of the minor in violation of
the regulations are without legal consequences.
Q: What are status offenses? Section 57-A thereof empowers local governments to
adopt appropriate intervention programs, such as
A: Under Sec. 57 of RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630, community-based programs recognized under Section
status offense refers to any conduct not considered an 54 of the same law.
offense or not penalized if committed by a child. These
status offenses include curfew violations, truancy, For imposing the sanctions of reprimand, fine, and/or
parental disobedience, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, etc. imprisonment on minors for curfew violations, portions

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
of Section 4 of the Manila Ordinance directly and

irreconcilably conflict with the clear language of Section
57-A of RA 9344, as amended, and is invalid
NOTE: In the case of Samahan ng mga Progresibong

Kabataan v. Quezon City, here comes the Samahan
which questioned the ordinances of Quezon City, Manila
and Navotas. The curfew ordinance of Quezon City was
declared constitutional by the SC, but the curfew
ordinances of Manila and Navotas were declared
unconstitutional because penalties were imposed on
minors for being arrested in violation of the said
ordinance; therefore, null and void. However, in so far as
the Quezon City ordinance is concerned, there was no
penalty imposed on minors; instead, it will be the parents.
***END

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
February 17, 2024 her mouth and nose, and with both hands tied and
twisted at her back. She died from asphyxia by
4. ACCIDENT suffocation. Further, the medical examiner revealed
that she also sustained hymenal lacerations, and
injuries and abrasions on her body. Leocadio was
THE REVISED PENAL CODE charged with the complex crime of Rape with Homicide.
BOOK ONE In his defense, he interposed accident.
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from Issue: W/N accident should be appreciated (NO)
criminal liability. – The following are exempt from
criminal liability: Ruling: NO. Accident is an affirmative defense in which
the accused is burdened to establish with clear and
xxxx convincing proof. It is incumbent upon him to prove the
presence of the requisites of accident as an exempting
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with circumstance, as follows: (i) a person is performing a
due care, causes an injury by mere accident lawful act; (ii) with due care; (iii) he/she causes an injury
without fault or intention of causing it. to another by mere accident; and (iv) without fault or
intention of causing it.
xxxx
In the present case, the exempting circumstance of
accident is inapplicable.
This is otherwise known as accident. As to the first requisite, the SC held that it is absent.
Milo's act of boxing AAA227396 on the chest is
Elements of Art. 12(4) – Accident unlawful, constituting at least the felony of physical
injuries.
Accident as an exempting circumstance has the following
elements: For the second requisite, it is likewise lacking. Leocadio
acted without due care and prudence as his supposed
1. That the offender is performing a lawful act; unconscious punching of the victim amounts to a
2. That he was performing the lawful act with due negligent act absent evidence that he was totally
care; deprived of his powers of observation and mental
3. That he caused an injury by mere accident; and faculties. It is preposterous to believe that the initial
4. That said injury was caused without fault or intent reaction of a person who was suddenly awakened is to
on the part of the offender. indiscriminately throw punches.
Accident is an exception to the general rule that in case As to the third and fourth requisite, the Court found that
of exempting circumstances, there is no criminal liability Leocadio has intent to kill. It must be noted that
but there is civil liability. If accident is present in the AAA227396 died due to asphyxia by suffocation and
commission of a crime, there is no criminal liability nor civil was found underneath Milo's bed with a cloth wrapped
liability. around her mouth and nose, and with both hands tied
and twisted at her back. Further, she also sustained
BAR CHAIR CASE multiple injuries and abrasions. The report also
supports the conclusion that the injuries were inflicted
PEOPLE v. LEOCADIO to repel any resistance that AAA227396 may offer
G.R. NO. 227396 | FEBRUARY, 22, 2023 | LOPEZ Leocadio.
M., J.
Facts: One afternoon, the parents of AAA337396

NOTE: In the case of People vs. Leocadio, penned by
instructed her and her two brothers to collect the
your Bar chair Justice Mario Lopez, the accused was
payment of rice cakes from their neighbor, Leocadio.
However, AAA337689 failed to return home. Her charged with the special complex crime of Rape with
parents searched for her the whole night, but to no Homicide. The defense raised by the accused was
accident. According to him, he was startled when the
avail. The following day, the lifeless body of
victim tried to awaken him which made him box the chest
AAA337689 was found underneath Leocadio's wooden
of the victim. The SC held that the defense raised by the
bed, lying flat on her back with a cloth wrapped around
accused is inapplicable. One does not raise the defense

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
of accident in the special complex crime of Rape with Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from
Homicide. The SC gave two reasons: criminal liability. – The following are exempt from
criminal liability:
First, the first element of accident requires that the act
done must be lawful. Granting for the sake of argument xxxx
that the act done by the accused was only to punch the
chest of the girl, the same is still unlawful because it
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an
amounts to physical injury.
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
Second, since the victim died, intent to kill becomes a
general criminal intent which is presumed. Thus, the SC xxxx
held that the defense of accident is inapplicable.
Therefore, before accident may be raised by the accused The sixth exempting circumstance – “Any person who
to exempt himself from criminal liability, it is necessary acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an
that first and foremost he was performing a lawful act. equal or greater injury.”
5. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE Elements of Art. 12(6) – Uncontrollable Fear
1. There exists an uncontrollable fear;

THE REVISED PENAL CODE 2. The fear must be real or at least imminent; and
BOOK ONE 3. The fear of the injury must be greater than or
equal to the act committed.
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from
criminal liability. – The following are exempt from Just like the fifth exempting circumstance, the offender
criminal liability: does not have freedom of action – an element of
voluntariness. The said offender has no choice but to do
xxxx the criminal act which he is required to do.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of BAR QUESTION

irresistible force.
Q: X is a victim of gang rape. She became pregnant.
xxxx When she was three (3) months pregnant, she went to
a doctor. She wanted the doctor to perform an
abortion but the doctor refused, saying that his duty
is to save lives and not to kill. After saying that, X took
Elements of Art. 12(5) – Irresistible Force a bottle of Iodine from her bag and threatened the
doctor that if he does not perform an abortion on her,
1. The force must be a physical force; she will drink the bottle of Iodine. The doctor took pity
2. The said physical force must be irresistible; and on her and thereafter, performed the abortion.
3. The physical force must come from a third
person. Can the accused raise the exempting circumstance of
having acted under the impulse of an uncontrollable
It is necessary that the force employed by the third person fear of an equal or greater injury?
on the accused must be irresistible such that it reduced
him to a mere instrument that he acted not only without A: NO. Look at the facts and the phrase used by the Bar
will but also against his will. Totally, there is no freedom examiner. Taking pity on X, the doctor performed the
of choice on the part of the accused. He has no choice but abortion. To take pity on someone means to do an act
to commit the crime which he is being asked to do. voluntarily. Therefore, it cannot be said that in performing
the abortion, the doctor acted under the impulse of an
6. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. It cannot
be said that he had no freedom of action or freedom of
choice. Therefore, this exempting circumstance will not lie
THE REVISED PENAL CODE in his favor.
BOOK ONE

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Q: X was walking when he heard gun shots. Thinking 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by
he was the one being fired at, he sat on the ground. law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable
After several seconds, he realized he was not the one cause.
being shot at. He stood up and decided to proceed
going home, but he heard laughter coming from the xxxx
other side of the road.
X went to the place where the sound was coming from

and there, he saw three (3) men whom he knew to be If the offender fails to perform an act required by law
A, B, and C, and one man whom he knew to be Y. He because of some lawful insuperable cause, he is
saw that the three (3) men were all armed with guns exempted from both criminal and civil liability.
and the victim Y was lying on the ground, bloody.
Justifying Circumstances Vis-à-vis Exempting
X then saw A firing at Y who was hit on the chest. X Circumstances
decided to leave but B and C saw him, and he was
taken to A. X promised them that he will not tell JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING
anything to the authorities. A forced X to open his CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES
mouth and placed the gun in his mouth. Thereafter, A The offender acted within The offender violated the
told X, “Shoot Y. If you do not shoot Y, I will shoot you the bounds of the law. The law.
right now.” Afraid that he will be killed, X shot Y who offender did not
was hit on the head. Y died. transgress the law.
A, B, and C were arrested and they were charged with Affects the act or the Affects the offender.
the crime of Murder but they all pointed to X as the crime committed.
one who inflicted the fatal blow. A, B, and C told the
authorities that X was a co-conspirator. X was also There is no crime nor There is a crime but there
arrested. X raised the exempting circumstance that criminal. is no criminal since the
he merely acted under the impulse of an offender acted without
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. Are voluntariness.
all the elements present?
There is no criminal There is no criminal
A: YES. All the elements are present. First element: There liability nor civil liability. liability but, as a rule,
must exist an uncontrollable fear. What is that there is civil liability
uncontrollable fear? X will be shot causing his death. because a wrong has
Second element: The fear must be real or imminent. X been committed.
saw A firing at Y with his own eyes. Definitely, A can also
fire at him. Third element: The fear of the injury must be
May be raised as a May be raised as a
greater than or equal to the act committed. X feared being defense only in intentional defense in both intentional
killed and this fear is greater than his fear of killing another felonies. and culpable felonies.
person. Therefore, the exempting circumstance under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear may be appreciated in
X’s favor.
ARTICLE 13
7. FAILURE TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
LAW
BOOK ONE
BOOK ONE ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The
following are mitigating circumstances:
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from
criminal liability. – The following are exempt from
criminal liability: 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when
all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are
xxxx not attendant.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or voluntariness, but it is diminished. Thus, its only effect is
over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he to reduce or decrease the imposable penalty.
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80. Kinds of Mitigating Circumstances
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so There are two kinds of mitigating circumstances:
grave a wrong as that committed.
1. Ordinary mitigating circumstances, and
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of 2. Privileged mitigating circumstances.
the offended party immediately preceded the act.
ORDINARY PRIVILEGED
5. That the act was committed in the immediate MITIGATING MITIGATING
vindication of a grave offense to the one CIRCUMSTANCES CIRCUMSTANCES
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, Ordinary mitigating Privileged mitigating
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same circumstances may be circumstances cannot be
degrees. offset by a generic offset by any kind of
aggravating aggravating
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful circumstance. If it is not circumstance. Its effect is
as naturally to have produced passion or offset, its effect is to lower to lower the imposable
obfuscation. the penalty to the penalty by one degree.
minimum period
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered prescribed by law.
himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before
the court prior to the presentation of the evidence
1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING/EXEMPTING
for the prosecution;
CIRCUMSTANCE
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or
otherwise suffering some physical defect which THE REVISED PENAL CODE
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or BOOK ONE
communications with his fellow beings.
ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the following are mitigating circumstances:
exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of the consciousness of his
acts. 1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when
all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar from criminal liability in the respective cases are not
nature and analogous to those above mentioned. attendant.
xxxx
Mitigating circumstances are those which, when present

or attendant in the commission of the felony, would serve
to lower, reduce, or decrease the imposable penalty. Those justifying circumstances or exempting
circumstances when all the elements necessary to justify
The penalty will be lowered because there is a diminution the act or exempt the offender from criminal liability in their
of the offender’s voluntariness in the commission of the respective cases are not attendant. Otherwise stated, we
crime. There is either a diminished criminal intent, a have incomplete justifying circumstance, or incomplete
diminished criminal action, or a diminished intelligence on exempting circumstance.
the part of the accused.
When all the elements necessary to justify the act are not
In exempting circumstances, there is a total lack of present, we have incomplete justifying circumstance.
voluntariness which is why the offender is exempted from When all the elements necessary to exempt the offender
criminal liability. In mitigating circumstances, there is form criminal liability are not present, we have incomplete
exempting circumstance.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The Court is guided by some rules on how they determine responded and arrived at the scene. Eventually, they
whether an incomplete justifying circumstance, or saw Wapili who was armed with a rattan stool and/or
incomplete exempting circumstance shall be considered bolo. Ulep fired a warning shot and told Wapili to drop
as an ordinary mitigating or a privileged mitigating his weapons. However, Wapili did not heed to the
circumstance. The following are the rules: request of Ulep and started to advance towards the
latter. Ulep was constrained to shoot Wapili with his M-
1. If majority of the elements necessary to justify the 16 rifle. Wapili slumped down on the ground, and Ulep
act, or to exempt the offender from criminal walked towards him and shot him in the head. Ulep was
liability attended the commission of the crime, the charged with Murder. In his defense, Ulep raised the
incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance defense of self-defense and performance of duty.
shall be treated as a privileged mitigating
circumstance. Issue: W/N the performance of his official duty and
self-defense should be appreciated (NO)
2. If less than a majority of the elements necessary
to justify the act or exempt the offender from Ruling: NO. Before the justifying circumstance of
criminal liability attended the commission of the fulfillment of a duty may be successfully invoked, the
crime, the incomplete justifying or exempting accused must prove the presence of two (2) requisites:
circumstance shall be treated as an ordinary (i) that he acted in the performance of a duty or in the
mitigating circumstance. lawful exercise of a right or an office; and (ii) that the
injury caused or the offense committed be the
3. If there are only two elements necessary to justify necessary consequence of the due performance of
the act or exempt the offender from criminal duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. The
liability, the presence of only one element shall be second requisite is lacking in the instant case.
considered as a majority. Thus, it shall be
considered as a privileged mitigating Ulep set out to perform a legal duty – to render police
circumstance. assistance and restore peace where Wapili was then
running amuck. There were two (2) stages of the
4. In case of incomplete self-defense, incomplete incident. During the first stage, the victim threatened
defense of a relative, or incomplete defense of a the safety of the police officers by menacingly
stranger, there must always be the element of advancing towards them, notwithstanding, Ulep’s
unlawful aggression. previous warning shot and verbal admonition to the
victim to lay down his weapon or he would be shot.
If only the element of unlawful aggression After all, a police officer is not required to afford the
attended the commission of the crime, the victim the opportunity to fight back. Neither is he
incomplete self-defense shall be considered as expected – when hard pressed and in the heat of such
an ordinary mitigating circumstance. an encounter at close quarters – to pause for a long
moment and reflect coolly at his peril, or to wait after
If aside from unlawful aggression, another each blow to determine the effects thereof.
element attended the commission of the crime,
the incomplete self-defense shall be considered However, Ulep cannot be exonerated from overdoing
as a privileged mitigating circumstance. his duty during the second stage of the incident – when
he fatally shot the victim in the head, perhaps in his
desire to take no chances, even after the latter slumped
PEOPLE v. ULEP to the ground due to multiple gunshot wounds
G.R. NO. 132547 | SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 | sustained while charging at the police officers. The
BELLOSILLO, J. victim at that point no longer posed a threat and was
already incapable of mounting an aggression against
Facts: Wapili was suffering from a high fever and was the police officers. Shooting him in the head was
talking to himself in his room. Leydan tried to pacify obviously unnecessary.
Wapili, but to no avail. Leydan called Pastor Bonid to
help him "pray over" Wapili. However, Wapili was Likewise, the evidence at hand does not favor his claim
already wild and violent. Suddenly, Wapili bolted out of of self-defense. The elements in order for self-defense
his room naked and chased Leydan. He noted that to be appreciated are: (i) unlawful aggression on the
Wapili have completely gone crazy and run in different part of the person injured or killed by the accused; (ii)
directions. Leydan asked Policewoman Plando’s for reasonable necessity of the means employed to
assistance. Thereafter, Ulep, Espadera, and Pillo

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
prevent or repel it; and (iii) lack of sufficient provocation In his case, the first element was present. It was the
on the part of the person defending himself. people who called on the assistance of the police. The
accused was there to perform his duty. However, the
The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine second element is absent. Killing the accused is not an
qua non. In the present case, the records show that the unavoidable consequence. The victim was already on the
victim was lying in a prone position on the ground – ground, wounded. There was no need for the accused to
bleeding from the bullet wounds he sustained, and fire at the head of the victim. Therefore, the second
possibly unconscious – when accused-appellant shot element being absent, there is no justifying circumstance
him in the head. The aggression that was initially begun of fulfillment of duty.
by the victim already ceased when Ulep attacked him.
From that moment, there was no longer any danger to However, the privileged mitigating circumstance of
his life. incomplete fulfillment of duty may be appreciated. It is
privileged since there are only two elements and
Therefore, the appealed Judgment is modified. Ulep is presence of one constitutes a majority. Here, the SC
found guilty of Homicide, instead of Murder. downgraded the crime to Homicide for want of treachery,
with the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete
fulfillment of duty.
NOTE: In the case of People vs. Ulep, the accused was
charged with the crime of Murder. The accused raised two 2. MINORITY AND SENIORITY
justifying circumstances – self-defense and fulfillment of
duty. THE REVISED PENAL CODE
BOOK ONE
Is there self-defense? If there is none, can incomplete
self-defense be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance? Is there fulfillment of duty? In case there is
none, is there incomplete fulfillment of duty?
In this case, the SC held that the justifying circumstance xxxx

of self-defense nor the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense cannot be considered. The 2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or
element that is absent is unlawful aggression. Whether over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
self-defense is invoked as a justifying circumstance or shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
merely a mitigating circumstance, unlawful aggression is provisions of Art. 80.
an indispensable element.
xxxx
The victim’s act of advancing menacingly towards the
police while allegedly armed placed the life and limb of the
police officers in actual and imminent danger. Hence, the
police officers – including the accused – fired at the victim.
This act of the victim can be considered as unlawful THE REVISED PENAL CODE
aggression. However, the moment the victim was fired at BOOK ONE
and he slumped face down on the ground, there was no
longer a reason for the accused Ulep to fire at him. At this ARTICLE 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person
point, unlawful aggression had ceased to exist. Since under eighteen years of age. – When the offender is
unlawful aggression is absent, there can be neither self- a minor under eighteen years and his case is one
defense nor incomplete self-defense. coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to
the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules
What about fulfillment of duty? Fulfillment of duty under shall be observed:
Article 11(5) has only two elements:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of
1. That the offender acted in the due performance of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason
his duty; and of the court having declared that he acted with
2. That the resulting felony is the unavoidable discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be
consequence of the due performance of such imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least
duty. than that prescribed by law for the crime which he
committed.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
1. That a felony has been committed; and

2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen 2. That there is a notable disparity between the
years of age the penalty next lower than that means employed by the offender and the
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in resulting felony
the proper period.
Refer to discussion on Art. 4(1).
4. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
The second mitigating circumstance is “That the offender
is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years.”
Minority, if not an exempting circumstance, is always a BOOK ONE
privileged mitigating circumstance. Minority is considered
a privileged mitigating circumstance when the child in ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The
conflict with the law is over 15 but under 18 and he acted following are mitigating circumstances:
with discernment. It is always a privileged mitigating
circumstance since it is expressly provided under second
paragraph of Art. 68 of the RPC. The moment the offender xxxx
is over 15 but under 18, the penalty shall be lowered by
one (1) degree. Hence, it is a privileged mitigating 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of
circumstance, never an ordinary mitigating circumstance. the offended party immediately preceded the act.
X was borrowing money from Y, but the latter refused. X xxxx

got mad and stabbed Y causing his death. At the time of
the killing, X was 74 years old. X, being beyond 70 years
old, such circumstance shall be considered as an ordinary
mitigating circumstance. It is ordinary only because of RA Elements of Art. 13(4) – Sufficient Provocation
9346.
1. The provocation must be sufficient;
Under RA 9346, if the crime is punished by death penalty, 2. The provocation must originate from the offended
the penalty shall be automatically adjusted to reclusion party; and
perpetua. Therefore, regardless of whether the offender 3. The provocation must be immediate to the
is 70 years old or not, if the crime committed is punishable commission of the crime by the person provoked.
by death, it shall be automatically reduced to reclusion
perpetua not because of the offender’s senior age but It is necessary that the provocation originated from the
because of RA 9346. victim. If the provocation originated from a third person,
the accused cannot invoke this mitigating circumstance.
3. PRAETER INTENTIONEM
The third element does not allow for a lapse of time. To
be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance, the law
THE REVISED PENAL CODE requires that after the victim provoked the accused, the
BOOK ONE accused must immediately commit the wrongful act
against the victim.
following are mitigating circumstances: URBANO v. PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 182750 | JANUARY 20, 2009 | VELASCO,
JR., J.
xxxx
FACTS: Victim Brigido Tomelden and Urbano had a
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so heated altercation wherein former hurled insulting
grave a wrong as that committed. remarks at Urbano. The exchange of words led to an
exchange of blows. They refused to be pacified and
xxxx continued throwing fist blows at each other. Urbano
then delivered a "lucky punch" on Tomelden’s face,
which made Tomelden topple down. Rosario brought
Tomelden to the Sison Memorial Provincial Hospital,
Elements of Art. 13(3) – Praeter Intentionem
where the attending physician diagnosed Tomelden to

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
be suffering from "brain injury, secondary to mauling to death of the victim, this mitigating factor may still be
consider cerebral hemorrhage." Later on, he died. considered when attendant facts and circumstances so
Urbano was charged with the crime of Homicide. warrant, as in the instant case. Considering that
Urbano tried to avoid the fight, being very much smaller
ISSUE: W/N sufficient provocation on the part of the than Tomelden. He tried to parry the blows of
victim and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong Tomelden, albeit he was able, during the scuffle, to
should be appreciated (YES) connect a “lucky punch” that ended the fight. And lest it
be overlooked, Urbano helped carry his unconscious
RULING: YES. The mitigating circumstances of co-worker to the office of the LIWAD’s general
sufficient provocation on the part of the victim and lack manager. Surely, such gesture cannot reasonably be
of intent to commit so grave a wrong are present. expected from, and would be unbecoming of, one
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Art. 13 of the RPC provide, as intending to commit so grave a wrong as killing the
follows: victim. A bare-knuckle fight as a means to parry the
challenge issued by Tomelden was commensurate to
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The following are the potential violence Urbano was facing. It was just
mitigating circumstances: unfortunate that Tomelden died from that “lucky
punch”, an eventuality that could have possibly been
xxxx averted had he had the financial means to get the
proper medical attention. Thus, it is clear that the
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed. grave a wrong as that committed must also be
appreciated in favor of Urbano while finding him guilty
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the of Homicide. That Urbano landed a lucky punch on
offended party immediately preceded the act. Tomelden’s face while their co-workers were trying to
separate them is a compelling indicium that he never
xxxx intended so grave a wrong as to kill the victim.
When the law speaks of provocation either as a

mitigating circumstance or as an essential element of
NOTE: In the case of Urbano vs. People, the SC
self-defense, the reference is to an unjust or improper
considered the mitigating circumstances of praeter
conduct of the offended party capable of exciting,
intentionem and sufficient provocation.
inciting, or irritating anyone. It is not enough that the
provocative act be unreasonable or annoying, the
The Court appreciated praeter intentionem since there
provocation must be sufficient to excite one to commit
was a notable disparity between the means employed by
the wrongful act and should immediately precede the
the accused in hitting the victim with one “lucky” punch
act. This third requisite of self-defense is present: (i)
and the resulting felony which produced the death of the
when no provocation at all was given to the aggressor;
victim. The Court held that the accused did not intend to
(ii) when, even if provocation was given, it was not
commit so grave a wrong, as that of killing the victim.
sufficient; (iii) when, even if the provocation was
sufficient, it was not given by the person defending
himself; and (iv) when even if a provocation was given The Court also considered sufficient provocation. The
acts done by the victim were sufficient to stir the accused
by the person defending himself, it was not proximate
to commit a wrongful act. The wrongful act was
and immediate to the act of aggression.
proportionate to the provocation since it merely ensued
into a confrontation and later, into a fist fight. Therefore,
In the instant case, Tomelden’s insulting remarks
there was sufficient provocation which originated from the
directed at Urbano and uttered immediately before the
victim.
fist fight constituted sufficient provocation. This is not to
mention other irritating statements made by the
deceased while they were having beer in Bugallon. MIRANDA v. PEOPLE
Urbano was the one provoked and challenged to a fist G.R. NO. 234528 | JANUARY 23, 2019 | REYES,
fight. JR., J.
Moreover, the mitigating circumstance that Urbano had FACTS: Pilo and Damaso were already on their way
no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that home from a party when they passed by the house of
committed should also be appreciated in his favor. Miranda and they threw stones at the latter's home.
While intent to kill may be presumed from the fact of the While Pilo was on his way home, Miranda suddenly
went outside and started hacking Pilo. He hit Pilo' s

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
right forehead. Again, Miranda tried to hit Pilo, but the throwing the stones did not place the life and limb of the
latter parried the attack with his left arm. Miranda was accused and his family in actual and imminent danger.
charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. However, while self-defense cannot be appreciated,
Miranda contends that while he admits that he hacked sufficient provocation can be considered. According to the
Pilo, his acts where done in self-defense. SC, the victim’s act of throwing the stones annoyed,
vexed or irritated the accused. Therefore, there is
ISSUE W/N self-defense should be appreciated (NO) sufficient provocation as a mitigating circumstance.
RULING: NO. The SC held that although the justifying 5. IMMEDICATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE
circumstance of self-defense may not be appreciated OFFENSE
in the present case, the mitigating circumstance of
sufficient provocation may be appreciated.
In Gotis v. People, the Court held that while an act BOOK ONE
cannot be considered an unlawful aggression for the
purpose of self-defense, the same act may be regarded ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The
as sufficient provocation for the purpose of mitigating following are mitigating circumstances:
the crime. "As a mitigating circumstance, sufficient
provocation is any unjust or improper conduct or act of xxxx
the victim adequate enough to excite a person to
commit a wrong, which is accordingly proportionate in 5. That the act was committed in the immediate
gravity.” The victim must have committed a prior act vindication of a grave offense to the one committing
that incited or irritated the accused. Likewise, in order the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or
to be mitigating, the provocation must be sufficient and relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
should immediately precede the act.
Although Pilo' s act of hurling stones may not be xxxx

regarded as an unlawful aggression, admittedly,
however, such deed was vexatious, improper, and
enough to incite Miranda into anger. The fact that Elements of Art. 13(5) – Immediate Vindication of a
Miranda was stirred to rage was understandable Grave Offense
considering that his wife and daughter were at his
home, and were peacefully having supper when Pilo 1. That there be a grave offense done to the
threw the stones. accused or to any member of his family; and
2. That the said commission of the crime was done
In fact, in a long line of cases, the Court considered that in immediate vindication of the grave offense.
although there may have been no unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim, if the latter was, nonetheless, Otherwise stated, the grave offense must be the
deemed to have given sufficient provocation, then the proximate cause of the commission of the crime.
accused's liability shall be mitigated. Such acts which
were deemed vexatious range from the victim's act of Under the second element, the word “immediate” allows
challenging the accused's family while armed with a for a lapse of time. The reason given by the SC is that
bolo; or thrusting a bolo at the accused while there was erroneous translation of the Spanish Codigo
threatening to kill him, with the lives of the accused's Penal. In the Spanish Codigo Penal, the word “proxima”
wife and children placed in peril; and the victim was used, which was translated into “immediate” under
attempting to hack the accused. Pilo’s act falls within the RPC. Under the second element, it suffices that the
this range. grave offense is the proximate cause for the commission
of the crime.
NOTE: In the case of Miranda vs. People, the SC held Sufficient Provocation Vis-à-vis Vindication of a
that the act of the victim in throwing stones at the house Grave Offense
of the accused cannot be considered as unlawful
aggression. Thus, the accused’s invocation of self- SUFFICIENT VINDICATION OF A
defense has no merit. It is not unlawful aggression PROVOCATION GRAVE OFFENSE
because based on the facts, the stones only hit the roof Does not allow for a lapse Allows of a lapse of time.
and the door of the house. Therefore, the said act of of time.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
It suffices that the grave FACTS: Pagal and Tarcelino conspiring and
To be appreciated as a offense is the proximate confederating together and mutually helping each
mitigating circumstance, cause for the commission other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
the law requires that after of the crime. feloniously, with intent to gain, and by means of
the victim provokes the violence, take away from the person of Guan, cash
accused, the accused amounting to P1,281.00. On the occasion of the said
must immediately act robbery and for the purpose of enabling them to take,
against the victim. steal, and carry away the said amount, the herein
accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to
kill and taking advantage of their superior strength,
6. SUDDEN IMPULSE OF PASSION AND treacherously attack, assault and use personal
OBFUSCATION violence upon the Guan, by then and there stabbing
him with an icepick and clubbing him with an iron pipe
Now, we have the sixth mitigating circumstance: on different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon
him mortal wounds which were the direct and
THE REVISED PENAL CODE immediate cause of his death thereafter. The
prosecution likewise alleged the generic aggravating
BOOK ONE
circumstances of (1) nighttime purposely sought to
better accomplish their criminal design; (2) evident
ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The premeditation; (3) in disregard of the respect due the
following are mitigating circumstances: offended party; and (4) with abuse of confidence, the
accused being then employees of the offended party.
xxxx Pagal and Tarcelino were charged with the crime of
Robbery with Homicide.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful
as naturally to have produced passion or ISSUES: W/N sufficient provocation and passion and
obfuscation. obfuscation should be appreciated (NO)
xxxx RULING: NO. Since the alleged provocation which

caused the obfuscation of the appellants arose from the
same incident, that is, the alleged maltreatment and/or
ill treatment of the appellants by the deceased, these
Elements of Art. 13(6) – Passion and Obfuscation two mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as
two distinct and separate circumstances but should be
1. There be an act both unlawful and sufficient to treated as one.
produce passion or obfuscation on the part of the
accused; and The circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot
2. The commission of the crime must not be far be mitigating in a crime which — as in the case at bar
removed from the commission of the act that — is planned and calmly meditated before its
produced the passion or obfuscation by a execution. Thus, in People vs. Daos, a case of robbery
considerable length of time during which the with homicide, the Court rejected the claim of the
offender might have recovered his normal appellants therein that passion and obfuscation should
equanimity. have been estimated in their favor, because the death
of the victim therein took place on the occasion of a
That there must be an act both unlawful and sufficient. robbery, which, before its execution, had been planned
Therefore, the passion and obfuscation dealt by the and calmly meditated by the appellants.
accused must arise from lawful sentiments because an
unlawful act had been done against him for there to be The maltreatment that appellants claim the victim to
passion and obfuscation. Again, it must be done have committed against them occurred much earlier
immediately. than the date of the commission of the crime.
Provocation in order to be a mitigating circumstance
PEOPLE v. PAGAL must be sufficient and immediately preceding the act.
G.R. NO. L-32040 | OCTOBER 25, 1977 | The Court held that the trial court did not commit any
CONCEPCION, J. error in not appreciating the said mitigating
circumstances in favor of the appellants.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
In the instant case, there was no showing of

spontaneity on the part of accused-appellant as it was
PEOPLE v. SABALBERINO not he who asked for the police to go to their house.
G.R. NO. 241088 | JUNE 03, 2019 | PERALTA, J. Neither was there proof that he acknowledged his guilt
when apprehended by the police authorities. While it
FACTS: Angela and Jessica, daughters of William appears that he did not resist when the police officers
Sablberino and Delia Sablberino, awoke to the sound brought him to the police station for questioning, such
of their parents shouting at each other. They witnessed lack of resistance does not necessarily equate to his
William punch Delia in the face. As Angela and Jessica voluntary surrender. The voluntariness of one's
rushed to embrace their mother, William went to the surrender should denote a positive act and not a mere
kitchen, got a knife, and proceeded to stab Delia in the compliant or submissive behavior in the presence of
chest below her armpit. Delia then collapsed. William authorities.
then went to her aid, embraced her, and cried. He
asked his children to call for help, but Delia died soon Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as
thereafter. William was charged with the crime of that committed
Parricide. In his defense, William interposed passion or
obfuscation, voluntary surrender and lack of intention This circumstance addresses itself to the intention of
to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. the offender at the particular moment when such
offender executes or commits the criminal act.
ISSUE: W/N passion or obfuscation, voluntary
surrender and lack of intention to commit so grave a In the instant case, the undeniable fact is that when the
wrong as that committed should be appreciated (NO) accused-appellant attacked the victim, the former used
a deadly weapon and inflicted a mortal wound on the
RULING: NO. latter. While intent to kill is purely a mental process, it
may be inferred from the weapon used, the extent of
Passion and obfuscation the injuries sustained by the offended party and the
circumstances of the aggression, as well as the fact
It has been held that there is passional obfuscation that the accused performed all the acts that should
when the crime was committed due to an have resulted in the death of the victim. Indeed the
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust location and nature of Delia's stab wound belie
or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so accused-appellant's claim of lack of intention to commit
powerful as to overcome reason. The obfuscation must so grave a wrong against the victim.
originate from lawful feelings. The excitement which is
inherent in all persons who quarrel and come to blows
does not constitute obfuscation.
NOTE: In the case of People v. Pagal, two of the
In the present case, the prosecution was able to mitigating circumstances raised by Pagal is sufficient
establish that the crime was precipitated by a quarrel provocation and sudden impulse of passion and
between accused-appellant and the victim. However, obfuscation. The SC said that the mitigating circumstance
such kind of argument, no matter how heated or of sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation cannot be
serious it was, is not the kind that would cause the appreciated in a crime that is planned and calmly
passion or obfuscation contemplated under the law. meditated upon. Robbery is always planned and calmly
meditated. Therefore, sudden impulse of passion and
Voluntary surrender obfuscation cannot be appreciated.
As to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary In the case of People v. Sabalberino, the SC did not
surrender, the same can be appreciated if the accused appreciate sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation.
satisfactorily complies with three requisites, to wit: (1) The SC said that the anxiety present in all kinds of quarrel
he has not been actually arrested; (2) he surrendered is not the kind of passion and obfuscation that will mitigate
himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and the criminal liability of an accused because it must arise
(3) the surrender is voluntary. There must be a showing out of lawful sentiments.
of spontaneity and an intent to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because the In this same case, the SC also did not appreciate the
accused acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to spare mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender because
them the trouble and expense concomitant to his the element of spontaneity is not present. It was the
capture. neighbors who were the ones who called the police.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Although William went with the police without any The rule is that the mitigating circumstances of
struggle, voluntarily, willingly, he went to the police for vindication of a grave offense and passion and
questioning and investigation; but the SC said, that will obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same time, if they
not amount to voluntary surrender because voluntary arise from the same facts or motive. In other words, if
surrender requires a positive act and not mere appellant attacked his victim in proximate vindication of
compliance and submissive behavior before public a grave offense, he could no longer claim in the same
authorities. breath that passion and obfuscation also blinded him.
7. VOUNTARY SURRENDER AND Moreover, for passion and obfuscation to be well

VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILT founded, the following requisites must concur: (i) there
should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce
such condition of mind; and (ii) the act which produced
THE REVISED PENAL CODE the obfuscation was not far removed from the
BOOK ONE commission of the crime by a considerable length of
time, during which the perpetrator might recover his
ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The moral equanimity.
Here, the period of two (2) weeks which spanned the
xxxx discovery of his wife’s extramarital dalliance and the
killing of her lover was sufficient time for appellant to
reflect and cool off.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered
himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
Voluntary surrender
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before
the court prior to the presentation of the evidence
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the following
for the prosecution.
requirements must be satisfied: (i) the offender has not
actually been arrested; (ii) the offender surrendered
xxxx himself to a person in authority; and (iii) the surrender
was voluntary.
If both voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilt are Records show, however, that leaflets and posters were
present in the problem, these two will always and always circulated for information to bring the killer of Nemesio
give rise to two separate and distinct mitigating to justice. A team of police investigators from La
circumstances. Trinidad, Benguet then went to Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya
to invite appellant for questioning. Only then did he
PEOPLE v. IGNAS return to Benguet. But he denied the charge of killing
G.R. 140514-15, SEPTEMBER 20, 2003, the victim. Clearly, appellant’s claimed surrender was
QUISUMBING, J neither spontaneous nor voluntary.
FACTS: Wilma and June Ignas were married.

Romenda, however, informed June about the On the other hand, if par. 4 – sufficient provocation, par.
extramarital affair between Wilma and Nemesio. June 5 – immediate vindication of a grave offense, and par. 6 –
became furious and declared that he is going to kill sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation are present in
Nemesio. One evening thereafter, June shot Nemesio the commission of the crime and they arose from the
resulting to his death. June was charged with the crime same facts and circumstances, the SC said, in the cases
of Murder. of People v. Ignas and People v. Pagal, that all these
three (3) shall be appreciated only as one mitigating
ISSUE: W/N immediate vindication of a grave offense, circumstance.
passion and obfuscation, and voluntary surrender
should be appreciated (NO) Therefore, if these three (3) arose from the same facts
and circumstances, they shall be considered only as one
RULING: NO. mitigating circumstance. However, if voluntary surrender
and voluntary plea of guilt are both present, they shall
Immediate vindication of a grave offense always be considered as two separate and distinct
Passion and obfuscation mitigating circumstances because voluntary surrender

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
and voluntary plea of guilt will never arise from the same A plea of guilt is said to be done spontaneously when it is
facts and circumstances. on the original crime charged. It is said to be done
unconditionally when the plea of guilt is not subject to any
Elements of Voluntary Surrender condition.
1. That the offender has not been actually arrested; Q: X was charged with Frustrated Homicide. He
2. That he surrendered to a person in authority or pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, through his
his agent; and counsel, X stated that he wanted to enter into a valid
3. The said surrender must be done voluntarily. plea-bargaining agreement and he wanted to plead
guilty to a lesser crime of Serious Physical Injuries.
First element – That the offender has not been The court granted the motion of the counsel. Hence,
actually arrested on the next hearing date, X was re-arraigned. This
time, the Information charges him with Serious
Even if there is already a warrant of arrest issued by the Physical Injuries. He immediately pleaded guilty.
court, if the police officers have not yet exerted any effort After determining the civil aspect of the case, the
to arrest the said accused or offender, if he has not yet judge convicted X. In imposing the penalty upon X,
been actually arrested and he voluntarily went to the the judge did not consider his plea of guilt as a
police to give himself up, that would still amount to mitigating circumstance. Is the judge correct?
voluntary surrender.
A: YES. The judge is correct because X’s plea of guilt was
Second element – That he surrendered to a person in not done spontaneously. It was not done in the original
authority or his agent crime charged of Frustrated Homicide, rather, it was to a
lesser crime based on a valid plea-bargaining agreement.
1. A person in authority Absent that spontaneity, the plea of guilt cannot be
a. Judge considered as a mitigating circumstance.
b. Mayor
c. Governor Q: X was charged as a co-conspirator in the crime of
Robbery. He was the only one arrested, all others
d. Barangay chairman
were in hiding and at large. The Information alleges
that X committed the crime with three (3) other John
2. Agents of persons in authority Does.
a. Police officers
b. Barangay tanods During arraignment, X pleaded not guilty. During pre-
trial, X, through his counsel, moved that he wanted to
Third element – The surrender must be done enter into a plea-bargaining agreement. He wanted to
voluntarily be re-arraigned and to plead guilty as a mere
accessory to the crime of Robbery. The judge granted
Surrender is said to be done voluntarily if it is done X’s motion. He was re-arraigned. He was charged with
spontaneously and unconditionally. The offender felt the same crime of Robbery, but only as an accessory
remorse and he wanted to plead guilty or he wanted to and not as a co-principal and co-conspirator.
save the government from the funds, the time, or the
efforts that they will exert if they look for him. Surrender is The judge rendered his decision finding him guilty of
said to be done voluntarily. Robbery, but he did not consider his plea of guilt as a
mitigating circumstance. Is the judge correct?
Elements of Voluntary Plea of Guilt
A: YES. The judge is correct. Although the plea of guilt
1. That the offender pleaded guilty spontaneously was on the original crime charged of Robbery, it was
and unconditionally; subject to a condition that he becomes a mere accessory,
2. The plea of guilt must be done in open court; and instead of a co-principal or co-conspirator. Therefore, the
3. The plea of guilt must be done before the said plea of guilt cannot be considered as a mitigating
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. circumstance.
First element – That the offender pleaded guilty Second element – The plea of guilt must be done in
spontaneously and unconditionally open court

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
It should be done in open court which is the court that tried the said act of rape and the act of killing. Therefore, there
the case – MTC or RTC, not before the appellate court. was also a sudden impulse of passion and obfuscation.
Third element – The plea of guilt must be done before NOTE: However, the judge shall consider them only as
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution one (1) mitigating circumstance in computing the penalty.
It must be done before the presentation of the evidence (c) NO. Voluntary Surrender cannot be considered in this
for the prosecution. case. Two (2) years have lapsed, thus, the element of
spontaneity is absent. Even if after two (2) years, he felt
Q: X was on his way home. He heard the cries of his remorse and he wanted to plead guilty, two (2) years is
sister. Upon opening the door, he saw his 7-year-old already a long time. It cannot be said that the surrender
sister down on the floor, naked, and the neighbor, Y, was done spontaneously because by that time, the
on top of his sister, who was also naked. When X saw Government and police officers have already exerted
this, he shouted aloud in anger. When Y noticed him, efforts to look for him based on the warrant of arrest.
Y immediately jumped out the window and ran away.
X was very mad. He got his pistol and chased Y. Q: What if in the same problem, after killing Y, X
Thereafter, he repeatedly fired at Y resulting to his immediately went to his uncle who is the Barangay
death. After committing the act of killing Y, X went Chairman. X told his uncle what he did and that he
into hiding. was afraid to be placed behind bars. The uncle
advised him that he has to surrender and told him, “I
Two (2) years later, X voluntarily came out from will bring you to the police station.” The uncle
hiding, and went to the police and gave himself up. X prevailed and X was brought to the police station. Is
is now being charged with the crime of Homicide. voluntary surrender a mitigating circumstance in this
case?
X raised the justifying circumstance of defense of a
relative. Is there defense of a relative or incomplete A: NO. Voluntary surrender is not a mitigating
defense of a relative? circumstance in this case. When he surrendered to his
uncle, there was no intent on his part to surrender
A: NONE. There is no defense of a relative nor the voluntarily. His intention was to tell his uncle that he was
incomplete defense of a relative because the element of afraid to be placed behind bars and arrested. It was only
unlawful aggression is absent. The act done by the his uncle who prevailed that brought him to the police
neighbor on the sister constituted unlawful aggression. station. Therefore, absent his intent to surrender
However, the moment the neighbor ran away, X should voluntarily because he felt remorse and he wanted to save
not have followed and killed Y. The moment the neighbor the Government from the funds and efforts to be exerted,
ran away, the unlawful aggression had ceased to exist. At the act of X cannot be considered as voluntary surrender.
the time Y was killed by X, the unlawful aggression had
already ceased. Since unlawful aggression is the element Q: X was found in possession of Shabu. He was
that is absent, there is neither defense of a relative nor the charged with violation of Sec. 11 of RA 9165, as
incomplete defense of a relative. amended – Illegal possession of dangerous drugs. He
pleaded guilty. The judge rendered a decision finding
Q: What if in the same problem, X raised the him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal
mitigating circumstances of (a) immediate vindication Possession of Dangerous Drugs. However, the judge
of a grave offense, (b) sudden impulse of passion and did not appreciate his plea of guilt as a mitigating
obfuscation, and (b) voluntary surrender. Are these circumstance. Is the judge correct?
mitigating circumstances present?
A: YES. The judge is correct. His plea of guilt cannot be
A: (a) YES. There is immediate vindication of a grave considered as a mitigating circumstance because what he
offense. The act done by the neighbor in raping the sister violated is a special penal law. Generally, in special penal
is a grave offense. The act of killing took place laws, you do not consider modifying circumstances, such
immediately. as voluntary plea of guilt.
(b) YES. There is also a sudden impulse of passion and Another reason is that under Sec. 98 of RA 9165, it
obfuscation. The act done by the neighbor was an expressly provides that the RPC cannot apply to it
unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation suppletory. Therefore, since it is the special penal law
on the part of X. There was no lapse of time in between itself that provides that RPC cannot apply to it, then

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
modifying circumstances cannot be considered, except The man was severely injured. X was afraid, and so,
when the offender is a minor. he left immediately. Next morning, X learned in the
news that the man he hit was already dead. X,
Q: X was found in possession of a caliber .38 revolver, bothered by his conscience, went to the police and
a low-powered pistol. He was charged with violation confessed that he was the driver of the car that hit and
of RA 10591 – Illegal possession of loose firearms. He killed the victim. X was charged with Reckless
immediately pleaded guilty. The judge rendered a Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. X felt remorse
decision finding him guilty of violation of RA 10591. and he was so sorry for what he did. And so, during
In imposing the penalty, the judge did not consider the arraignment, X pleaded guilty. After determining
his plea of guilt as a mitigating circumstance. Is the the civil aspect of the case, the judge convicted X of
judge correct? Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
However, the judge did not consider the mitigating
A: NO. The judge is wrong. RA 10591 carries the same circumstances of voluntary surrender and voluntary
nomenclature of penalty as that of the RPC – Prision plea of guilt. Is the judge correct?
mayor. Therefore, applying Art. 10 of the RPC, the RPC
applies suppletory to violations of RA 10591. A: YES. The judge is correct. As held by the SC in the
case of People v. Mariano, the case filed against X is a
PEOPLE v. MARIANO quasi-offense under Title 14, Art. 365. The SC said that
G.R. NO. 178145 | JULY 7, 2014 | BERSAMIN, J. as expressly stated in Art. 365(5), in case of quasi-
offenses, the court shall impose the penalty based on its
FACTS: De Leon was driving his owner-type jeep, sound discretion without the need to appreciate modifying
while Mariano was driving his Toyota red pick-up. De circumstances as provided for under Art. 64 of the RPC.
Leon and Mariano had a traffic altercation, but was
pacified by De Leon’s uncle. Thereafter, De Leon So, in imposing the penalty in case of quasi-offenses,
decided to go to his mother’s house to pick up some courts are not mandated to consider Art. 64 of the RPC
items. He parked his car in front of his mother’s house because in imposing the penalty, the court shall only be
and alighted the car. However, he was bumped by the guided by their sound discretion. Whether to appreciate
moving vehicle driven by Mariano. De Leon lost or not these mitigating circumstances, they are not
consciousness and was brought to the hospital. mandated to comply with Art. 64.
Mariano was charged with the crime of Frustrated
Homicide. Upon review of the CA, the charged of Art. 64 provides for the rules and imposition of divisible
Frustrated Homicide was modified to Reckless penalties by appreciating mitigating and aggravating
Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries. circumstances.
Mariano interposed voluntary surrender.
ISSUE: W/N voluntary surrender should be appreciated Q: Public officer X and his subordinates were all
(NO) charged with the crime of Plunder as conspirators.
The case was filed by Office of the Ombudsman
Ruling: (NO) The mitigating circumstance of voluntary before the Sandiganbayan and raffled to the first
surrender cannot be appreciated in his favor. The division.
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot
be appreciated. In the imposition of the penalties, the The first division found probable cause and therefore,
courts shall have their sound discretion, without regard a warrant was issued. They even had a press
to the rules prescribed in Art. 64 of the RPC. The conference wherein the justices of the first division
rationale behind the law is that in quasi offenses, the before national television stated that they already
carelessness, imprudence, or negligence may vary issued a warrant of arrest against X and his
from one situation to another, in nature, extent, and subordinates.
resulting consequences. In order that there may be a
fair and just application of the penalty, the courts must X and his subordinates were watching the television
have ample discretion in its imposition, without being and upon learning that a warrant of arrest has already
bound by what the mathematical formula provided for been issued against them, they immediately went to
in Article 64. the Sandiganbayan and surrendered. They were
placed behind bars. The crime is not bailable. After
trial on the merits, the first division of the SB found X
Q: X came from a party. He was drunk and driving guilty of Plunder. In imposing the penalty, they
recklessly. He hit and bump a pedestrian crossing. considered his voluntary surrender as a mitigating

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
circumstance. Are the justices correct in considering

the voluntary surrender? ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The
A: YES. They are correct. The special penal law itself,
Sec. 2 of RA 7080 – The Anti-Plunder Act, provides that
xxxx
in imposing the penalty, the court shall consider mitigating
or extenuating circumstances. It is the law itself that
commands the courts to appreciate mitigating and 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the
extenuating circumstances. exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of the consciousness of his
NOTE: Only mitigating and extenuating circumstances acts.
are included, not aggravating circumstances. Only
circumstances that will lower the imposable penalty. xxxx
8. PHYSICAL DEFECT
The illness must only diminish the exercise of the
THE REVISED PENAL CODE offender’s will power. It must not totally deprive the
BOOK ONE offender of his consciousness of his actions; otherwise,
that will be an exempting circumstance.
ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The Q: X could not speak and could not hear by virtue of
following are mitigating circumstances: an accident. He was a newspaper boy. X raped Y. X
was charged with Rape. He raised that his physical
xxxx defect must be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance. Will his physical defect mitigate his
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or criminal liability?
otherwise suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or A: NO. His physical defect cannot mitigate his criminal
communications with his fellow beings. liability. His defect of not being able to speak and not
being able to hear is not related to the crime of Rape. It
xxxx did not restrict his use of action, defense, or
communication with his fellow beings. Therefore, physical
defect cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance
in this case.
This mitigating circumstance is otherwise known as
“physical defect”. Q: X was contaminated by Polio virus as a young boy.
He lost both of his legs and he grew up crippled. He
Elements of Art. 13(8) – Physical Defect roamed around on board a skateboard. One time, he
snatched a bag of a woman. He was charged with the
1. That the offender is suffering from physical crime of Theft. He raised that his physical defect must
defect; be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. Will his
2. The said physical defect has restricted his means physical defect mitigate his criminal liability?
of action, defense, or communications with his
fellow beings. A: NO. It will not mitigate his criminal liability. The fact that
he was crippled has nothing to do with the crime of Theft.
NOTE: The physical defect must have a relation, must be It did not restrict his use of action, defense, or
connected, to the crime committed by the offender. communication in committing the crime of Theft.
Absent that connection or relation, whatever may be the Therefore, physical defect cannot be considered as a
physical defect, it cannot be considered as a mitigating mitigating circumstance in this case.
circumstance.
Q: X has a chronological age of 25 years old, but she
9. ILLNESS was clinically diagnosed to have only the mental
capacity of a 7-year-old child. X was playing with the
other 7 and 8-year-old girls. One of the playmates
THE REVISED PENAL CODE combed the hair of her favorite doll, however, the hair
BOOK ONE loosened and the hair fell. X became mad because

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
that was her favorite doll. Thereafter, X used the doll and encashed the check, thereby using the cash
and hit the head of the said playmate repeatedly. The proceeds to furnish loans to borrowers. He was
said playmate sustained Serious Physical Injuries. X charged with Malversation of Public Funds through
only stopped when her mother arrived. X is now falsification of public documents. In his defense, he
charged with Serious Physical Injuries. Should X interposed voluntary surrender and restitution.
claim the mitigating circumstances of (a) physical
defect, and (b) illness? ISSUE: W/N voluntary surrender and restitution should
be appreciated (YES)
A: NO. X should not only claim the mitigating
circumstance. X should claim for the exempting RULING: YES. Voluntary surrender may be treated as
circumstance of imbecility. X was suffering from mental a modifying circumstance independent and apart from
retardation. He was already of advanced age of 25 years restitution of the questioned funds by Nizurtado. The
old, yet he has only the mental capacity of a 7-year-old Court was convinced that Nizurtado had no intention to
child. An imbecile is one who is already advanced in the commit so grave a wrong as that committed, entitling
age, but has only the mental capacity of a 2 to 7-year-old him to three distinct mitigating circumstances.
child. Since X is an imbecile, therefore, there is no lucid
interval. The actual attendance of two separate mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and restitution
So, it is better to claim for the exempting circumstance of entitles the accused to the penalty next lower in degree.
imbecility and not the mitigating circumstances of physical For purposes of determining that next lower degree, the
defect and illness. full range of the penalty prescribed by law for the
offense, not merely the imposable penalty because of
10. ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES its complex nature, should, a priori, be considered. In
fine, the one degree lower than prision mayor
maximum to reclusion temporal minimum is prision
THE REVISED PENAL CODE mayor minimum to prision mayor medium the full range
BOOK ONE of which is six years and one day to ten years. This one
degree lower penalty should, conformably with Article
ARTICLE 13. Mitigating circumstances. – The 48 of the Code (the penalty for complex crimes), be
following are mitigating circumstances: imposed in its maximum period or from eight years,
eight months and one day to ten years.
xxxx
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar NOTE: In the case of Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan, the
nature and analogous to those above mentioned. SC said that Nizurtado’s act of restituting public funds
malversed, it amounted to a mitigating circumstance
xxxx analogous to voluntary surrender. Not only in the crime of
malversation, even in other crimes – robbery, theft, or
estafa, or in any other crimes that involves the taking of
personal property, the moment the offender restituted the
So, all circumstances which are similar in nature from thing taken, that act of restitution is analogous to voluntary
paragraphs 1 to 9 have the same effect which is to surrender which will serve to mitigate or extenuate the
extenuate the accused’s criminal liability. offenders criminal liability.
Jealousy can be considered as analogous to sudden
impulse of passion and obfuscation. *** END
NIZURTADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. NO. 107383 | DECEMBER 7, 1994 | VITUG, J.
FACTS: Nizurtado was the Barangay Captain. He

received a check in the amount of P10,000.00 for the
barangay's livelihood program. The barangay council
discussed the project in which to invest the P10,000.00;
however, the councilmen failed to agree on any
livelihood project. Nizurtado then took the opportunity

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
February 24, 2024 4. Special aggravating circumstances are those

which if present in the commission of a felony
ARTICLE 14 would require the imposition of the maximum
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES penalty prescribed by law. The moment a special
aggravating circumstance is present in the
Aggravating circumstances are those circumstances commission of the crime, the maximum penalty
which, if present or attendant in the commission of the prescribed by law shall be the one imposed
felony, would serve to increase the imposable penalty. regardless of mitigating circumstances. It cannot
The presence of an aggravating circumstance will be offset by any mitigating circumstance because
increase the imposable penalty because it reveals the it is special.
greater criminality and dangerousness on the part of the
offender. Example: Quasi-recidivism – The moment an
offender is a quasi-recidivist, the maximum
NOTE: No matter how many aggravating circumstances penalty prescribed by law for the crime that he
attends the commission of the crime, the court cannot has committed shall be the one imposed. No
impose a penalty beyond the maximum penalty mitigating circumstance shall be considered in his
prescribed by law. That is the limit. favor except privileged mitigating circumstance.
KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES 5. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances are

those which change the nature of the crime to
bring about a more serious crime with a higher
1. Generic aggravating circumstances are those penalty, or even without changing the nature of
which apply to all kinds of crimes. the crime, it brings about the imposition of a
higher penalty.
Examples:
a. Recidivism – A recidivist is one who, at the Example: Treachery and all those enumerated
time of his trial for one crime, shall have been under Art. 248 for the crime of Murder are
previously convicted by final judgment of considered as qualifying aggravating
another crime embraced in the same title of circumstances. The presence of any one of them
this Code. in the act of killing will change the nature of the
b. Nighttime – Whatever be the crime, if the killing from Homicide to become Murder to bring
offender deliberately sought the cover of about a higher penalty of reclusion temporal in
darkness to ensure the commission of the case of Homicide to reclusion perpetua to death
crime, then nighttime will be considered as an in case of Murder.
aggravating circumstance.
Aggravating Circumstances Alleged in the
2. Specific aggravating circumstances are those Information
which apply only to certain or particular crimes
Whatever be the kind of aggravating circumstance –
Example: Treachery – As expressly provided whether it is specific, generic, inherent, special, or
under paragraph 16 of Art. 14, treachery can be qualifying, for the said aggravating circumstance to be
appreciated only in crimes against persons. considered by the court against the accused, it must be
alleged in the Information and proven during trial.
3. Inherent aggravating circumstances are those
which are considered as ingredients in the If it is not alleged in the Information, it cannot be
commission of the crime. Hence, when they are considered by the court even if it was proven during trial.
present, they are no longer to be considered so You do not consider, you do not allege in the Information
as to increase the imposable penalty because justifying, mitigating and exempting circumstances
they are considered as elements in the because these are matters of defense on the part of the
commission of the crime. They are simply accused. It is the accused who must prove justifying,
absorbed in the commission of the crime. mitigating, and exempting circumstances; but for
aggravating, it is the State/prosecution because its effect
Example: Evident premeditation – The SC ruled is to increase the imposable penalty. Therefore, it must be
that evident premeditation is inherent in all crimes alleged in the Information just like the elements of the
under Title X – Crimes against property. crime, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
THE REVISED PENAL CODE 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a
BOOK ONE price, reward, or promise.
ARTICLE 14. Aggravating circumstances. – The 12. That the crime be committed by means of
following are aggravating circumstances: inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or international damage thereto, derailment
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
public position. involving great waste and ruin.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with 13. That the act be committed with evidence
insult to the public authorities. premeditation.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard 14. That craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
of the respect due the offended party on account of
his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or
dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not means be employed to weaken the defense.
given provocation.
16. That the act be committed with treachery
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence (alevosia).
or obvious ungratefulness.
There is treachery when the offender commits any
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the of the crimes against the person, employing
Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their which tend directly and specially to insure its
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship. execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in
an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such 17. That means be employed or circumstances
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the brought about which add ignominy to the natural
offense. effects of the act.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful
shall have acted together in the commission of an entry. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance
offense, it shall be deemed to have been is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
committed by a band.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune. 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of
persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
21. That the Wrong done in the commission of the
9. That the accused is a recidivist. crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commission.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for
one crime, shall have been previously convicted by
final judgment of another crime embraced in the
FIRST AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by THE REVISED PENAL CODE
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or BOOK ONE
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which
it attaches a lighter penalty.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
inside the precinct. How shall the court appreciate

ARTICLE 14. Aggravating circumstances. – The taking advantage of one’s public position?
following are aggravating circumstances:
A: The crime committed is Qualified Rape. Taking
advantage of his public position to commit the crime of
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his
rape is a QUALIFYING aggravating circumstance. It
public position.
changes the nature of the rape from Simple Rape
punished by reclusion perpetua to Qualified Rape
xxxx punished by death penalty.
PEOPLE v. URAL
The offender obviously is a public officer, because only a G.R. NO. L-30801 | MARCH 27, 1974 | AQUINO, J.
public officer can take advantage of his public position in
committing the crime. A public officer is said to have taken FACTS: Alberto, a former detention prisoner, decided
advantage of his public position in the commission of the to sleep in the municipal building. Upon arrival, he
crime when the said public officer used, misused, or witnessed Policeman Ural inside the jail cell boxing the
abused his public position in order to commit the crime. Napola. Napola collapsed on the floor. Thereafter, Ural
The said public officer took advantage of the prestige, the stepped on Napola’s prostrate body. Ural went out of
ascendancy, and the influence that his office affords him the cell and eventually returned with a bottle. He
in order to commit the crime. poured its contents on Napola's recumbent body.
Thereafter, he ignited it with a match and left the cell.
Q: A public officer was charged with the crime of Napola screamed in agony. He shouted for help, but
Estafa by taking advantage of his public position. The nobody came to help him. When Alberto left the
public officer committed Estafa through municipal building, Ural warned him not to tell what he
misappropriation and conversion under Art. 315, 1(b) saw. Later on, Napola died. Ural was charged with the
by taking advantage of his public position in order to crime of Murder.
ensure the commission of the crime. It was proven
that he was taking advantage of his public position. If ISSUE: W/N taking advantage of public position was
you were the judge, how will you appreciate taking present (YES)
advantage of one’s public position in committing the
crime of Estafa? RULING: YES. Under Art. 14, paragraph 1, a public
officer is said to have taken advantage of his public
A: It would be considered as INHERENT or absorbed position in the commission of the crime when he used,
because the crime committed is Other Frauds under Art. misused, or abused his public position in the
214 of the RPC. Under Art. 214, it is committed by a public commission of the crime.
officer who by taking advantage of his public position
commits any of the act of Estafa under Arts. 315, 316, In the case at bar, the trial court correctly held that the
317, or 318. In this case, taking advantage of his public accused took advantage of his public position (Par. 1,
position is simply absorbed as it is an inherent element in Art. 14, RPC). He could not have maltreated Napola if
the commission of the crime. It is an inherent aggravating he was not a policeman on guard duty. Because of his
circumstance. position, he had access to the cell where Napola was
confined. The prisoner was under his custody.
Q: A public officer took advantage of his public
position in falsifying a public document. How shall
the court appreciate taking advantage of one’s public Q: A police officer extorted money by taking
position? advantage of his public position. Charged with
robbery, it was alleged in the Information that he took
A: It would be considered as an INHERENT aggravating advantage of his public position in order to commit
circumstance. Under Art. 171 of the RPC, in case of the act of Robbery. How shall the court appreciate
falsification of a public document, it is an element that the taking advantage of one’s public position?
public officer must have taken advantage of his public
position. A: It shall be considered as a SPECIAL aggravating
circumstance. In the old case of People v. Ural, the SC
Q: A police officer arrested a woman, placed the appreciated taking advantage of one’s public position.
woman behind bars, took the woman, and raped her However, the SC considered it at that time as a generic
aggravating circumstance and therefore, offset it. Since it

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
was offset, it was no longer present. However, now it can Q: The Mayor and his councilors were eating in a
no longer be offset because based on Art. 62, as restaurant. They were having lunch. Here comes X
amended by RA 7659, a public officer taking advantage and Y, two of their constituents. Upon seeing the
of his public position in the commission of the crime, it will Mayor and the Councilors, friends X and Y greeted
be considered as a special aggravating circumstance them. Thereafter, X and Y sat next to them. After
because the law provides that the maximum penalty taking their orders and while eating, X and Y were
prescribed by law shall be the one imposed. It is a special discussing about some issues and matters in their
aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any office. Later, they were both standing up and shouting
ordinary mitigating circumstance. at each other, and they were already having a heated
argument. The Mayor went to X and Y, told them to
SECOND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE pacify and shake hands. The Mayor was telling them,
“This is a public place, why are you shouting at each
other? Why are you creating a disturbance, a
THE REVISED PENAL CODE commotion? You stop, the both of you. You shake
BOOK ONE hands”. However, instead of obeying the Mayor, X
pulled out his knife and stabbed Y right in front of the
ARTICLE 14. Aggravating circumstances. – The Mayor. Y sustained a fatal wound but survived. X is
following are aggravating circumstances: now being prosecuted for Frustrated Homicide. In the
Information, it was alleged that the crime was
xxxx committed in contempt or with insult to the public
authorities. Is it present?
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with
A: YES. First element: That a public authority is in the
insult to the public authorities.
discharge of his duties. Although the Mayor was eating
with the councilors, it is not a public act. The moment the
xxxx Mayor went to these two persons who were fighting
against one another and trying to pacify them, the Mayor
was already discharge his duties. It is his duty to maintain
Elements of Art. 14(2) – In Contempt or With Insult to peace and order in his jurisdiction. The first element is
Public Authorities present. Second element: That he is not the person
against whom the crime was committed. It was Y. Third
1. That the public authority is engaged in the element: That the offender knows him to be a public
discharge of his function; authority. X knows him to be a public authority, that he is
2. That he is not the person against whom the crime the Mayor. In fact, X greeted him. Fourth element: The
is committed; presence of the public authority did not stop, prevent, or
3. That the offender knows him to be a public deter the accused from committing the crime. Despite the
authority; and presence of the Mayor, it did not deter or prevent X from
4. That the presence of the public authority did not stabbing Y. All the elements are present. The crime was
prevent the offender from committing the crime. committed in contempt or with insult to the public
authorities.
It is necessary that at the time of the commission of the
crime, a public authority was there discharging his duties, PEOPLE v. TIONGSON
the offender knows he is there; nevertheless, his G.R. NO. L-35123-24 | JULY 25, 1984 |
presence did not stop the offender from proceeding with CONCEPCION JR., J.
the commission of the crime.
FACTS: Tiongson, together with dela Cruz and
The basis is disrespect, insult, defiance of public Santiago, escaped from the Municipal Jail where they
authorities. Therefore, it shows the greater criminality on were detained under the charge of Attempted
the part of the offender. It is necessary, however, for this Homicide. While in the act of escaping, Tiongson killed
aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, that the two (2) persons: Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the
public authority must not be the victim because if he is the police force who was guarding him, and PC Constable
victim the crime committed is Direct Assault and in case Aurelio Canela from the PC Detachment who went in
of Direct Assault, in contempt of or with insult to public pursuit of them. He was charged with the crime two (2)
authority is absorbed. counts of Murder.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ISSUE: W/N treachery, in contempt of or with insult to crime, is the aggravating circumstance of in contempt
the public authorities, uninhabited place, and abuse of of or with insult of public authorities present?
superior strength are present (NO)
A: NO. As held in the case of People v. Tiongson, a
RULING: NO. peace officer, a police officer is not a public authority. A
police/peace officer is merely an agent of public authority.
Treachery Therefore, if the crime was committed in his presence, the
SC held that you do not appreciate this second
There is treachery when the offender commits any of aggravating circumstance of in contempt of or with insult
the crimes against the person, employing means, of public authority.
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution, without THIRD AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. Here, it does not appear THE REVISED PENAL CODE
how and in what position the victim was when he was BOOK ONE
killed so that it cannot be said for certain that the
accused had adopted a mode or means of attack
ARTICLE 14. Aggravating circumstances. – The
tending directly to insure or facilitate the commission of
the offense without risk to himself arising from the following are aggravating circumstances:
defense or retaliation which the victim might put up.
xxxx
In Contempt Of Or With Insult To The Public
Authorities 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard
of the respect due the offended party on account of
Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela were the very his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the
ones against whom the crime were committed. dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not given provocation.
persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in
authority. xxxx
Uninhabited Place
It has not been shown, however, that the offense was In the third paragraph we have four (4) aggravating
committed in an isolated place, far from human circumstances:
habitation. Besides, the record does not show that the 1. Disregard of rank,
place was intentionally sought by the accused to 2. Disregard of age,
facilitate the commission of the crime. It is necessary 3. Disregard of sex, and
that the place of occurrence be where there are no 4. Disregard of the privacy of the offended party’s
houses at all, a considerable distance from the village dwelling.
or town, or where the houses are a great distance
apart. Disregard of Rank
Abuse Of Superior Strength There is disregard of rank when in the commission of the
crime, the offender deliberately insulted or disregarded
No direct evidence that the accused employed superior the offended party’s high social standing in society.
strength in the killing of Pat. Gelera. The accused was
then a detainee and was unarmed while Pat. Gelera Disregard of Age
had his service pistol with him. With respect to PC There is disregard of age when in the commission of the
Constable Canela, the accused was alone against crime, the offender deliberately insulted or disregarded
three armed pursuers either the minor age or the senior age of the victim.
Disregard of Sex
Q: What if in the same problem, instead of the Mayor, There is disregard of sex when in the commission of the
this time it is a police officer who tried to mediate and crime, the offender deliberately insulted, disregarded,
pacify X and Y. But despite the presence of the police disrespected the womanhood of the victim.
officer, X still stabbed Y. In the commission of the

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Dwelling Elements of Art. 14(4) – Abuse of Confidence
If the crime committed inside the dwelling of the offended 1. That the offended party has trusted the offender;
party, it will be considered an aggravating circumstance. 2. That the offender has violated, abused the trust
It is aggravating because it violates the Constitutional and confidence reposed on him;
provision on giving respect to the privacy of one’s abode. 3. The said abuse of trust and confidence facilitated
It shows greater criminality on the part of the accused. the commission of the crime.
Instead of committing the crime outside, he chose to
commit the crime while the victim was inside the privacy Ungratefulness
of his abode.
For it to be considered as an aggravating circumstance, it
What is necessary for dwelling to be considered as an must be obvious, apparent, or evident, otherwise, it will
aggravating circumstance is that the victim was inside his not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
dwelling, inside the privacy of his abode. The law does not
require that the perpetrator must have also entered the Q: X wanted to take a revenge on Y. However, X could
dwelling, he may devise ways and means to commit the not penetrate the conjugal house of Y because it was
crime from the outside for as long as the victim is inside so big, so thick with glasses and concrete. So, he
the privacy of his abode. conducted a surveillance on Y and he learned that
every Friday night, instead of going to the conjugal
When Dwelling is Not an Aggravating Circumstance house, Y will go to the house of his mistress. And in
the house of his mistress, he will be staying there
When you say dwelling, it refers to building or structure until Sunday night. After which, he will be going back
which is used for rest or comfort. If the crime is committed to the conjugal house. And so, what X did in order to
inside the privacy of one’s dwelling, it is an aggravating easily kill Y, he waited for him in the house of the
circumstance. But there are certain instances wherein mistress. As early as 6 o’clock, he was already there
even if the crime was committed inside the dwelling of the waiting for the arrival of Y. Around 8 o’clock in the
victim, dwelling is not an aggravating circumstance: evening, Y arrived while X was in hiding. Y went
upstairs where he and the mistress kissed and
1. When it is the offended party who gave embraced each other. The moment they closed the
provocation to the accused; door, X suddenly barged inside and without any
2. When both the accused and the offended party warning, repeatedly stabbed Y resulting to his death.
are living in the same dwelling; or In the commission of the crime, is dwelling
3. When dwelling is inherent in the commission of aggravating?
the crime.
A: YES. Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. To
In these three (3) instances, dwelling is not considered an appreciate dwelling as an aggravating circumstance,
aggravating circumstance even if the crime is committed ownership is immaterial. Therefore, even if Y is not the
against the victim while he is inside his dwelling. owner of the said dwelling, even if the said dwelling is
owned by the lessors, and the fact that he used the place
FOURTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE for rest and comfort from Friday night to Sunday night, it
is within the meaning of dwelling. When Y was still there,
dwelling is an aggravating circumstance. X violated the
THE REVISED PENAL CODE privacy of Y’s abode.
BOOK ONE
Q: X was a helper of couple Y and Z. He is a stay-out
ARTICLE 14. Aggravating circumstances. – The helper for two years. His hours of work are 5 o'clock
following are aggravating circumstances: in the morning until 5 o'clock in the afternoon. It was
Saturday, Y and Z, together with their grandchildren,
xxxx decided to go to the mall. Y and Z told X, “If you are
done with the household chores, if it is not yet 5
o'clock, you may already leave. Just make sure that
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence
all doors and windows are closed and locked.”
or obvious ungratefulness.
Thereafter, Y and Z and their grandchildren left. Hours
later, X called his two friends, A and B. A and B
xxxx arrived. A and B were armed with axes and X allowed
them to enter. And once inside, all of them A, B, and

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
C ransacked the said house by breaking all the doors, crime. Had not Y and Z trusted X, they would not have left
all the locked cabinets, and took all the jewelry, cash, X alone in the house. But because of the trust and
and anything of value. Once they were done, they confidence, they allowed X to be left alone in the house;
were about to leave but X heard the arrival of the car and that facilitated the commission of the crime. Once X
of Y and Z. They were afraid that they might be was alone, he called A and B and they committed the
discovered so they all hid. The moment Y and Z, crime of Robbery. Therefore, in this case, disregard of
together with their grandchildren, entered the house, rank and disregard of age cannot be appreciated, dwelling
they were shocked to see everything in disarray and can be appreciated and abuse of confidence can be
broken. They were about to ask help from the people appreciated only insofar as X is concerned as an
when suddenly X, A and B came out and killed Y and aggravating circumstance.
Z and the grandchildren. Y and Z, at that time, were
both 70 years old, while the grandchildren were 9 FIFTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
years old and 10 years old. In the commission of the
crime, are the aggravating circumstances of
disregard of: (a) rank, (b) age, (c) dwelling and (d) THE REVISED PENAL CODE
abuse of confidence present? BOOK ONE
A: (a)(b) NONE. There is no disregard of rank and no ARTICLE 14. Aggravating circumstances. – The
disregard of age for two reasons: following are aggravating circumstances:
1. Disregard of rank and disregard of age can only xxxx

be appreciated in Crimes against Persons under
Title VIII and in Crimes against Honor under Title
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the
XIII. The crime committed by X, A, and B is the
Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
which is a Crime against Property under Title X.
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
Therefore, since it is a Crime against Property
under Title X, disregard of rank and disregard of
age cannot be considered. xxxx
2. In the commission of the crime based on the facts

of the case, there was no showing that in killing In the fifth paragraph of Art. 14, all of these are places.
Y, Z and the grandchildren, X, A and B had the These are places which the law requires to be respected
deliberate intent to insult, disregard and but instead of respecting the place, the offender
disrespect the senior age and the minor age of committed a crime in this place, therefore, it shows
the victims. Therefore, for these reasons, greater criminality and perversity on the part of the
disregard of rank and disregard of age cannot be offender.
considered in this case.
If the crime is committed in the palace of the Chief
(c) YES. Dwelling can be considered in the special Executive, it will always be aggravating even though there
complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Dwelling is only is no social or political function involved.
inherent in the crime of Robbery with use of force upon
things under Art. 299. But dwelling is not inherent in the If it is committed in the presence of President Bongbong
crime of Robbery with violence against or intimidation of Marcos, it will always be another aggravating
persons under Art. 294, which includes the special circumstance. He is the highest man of the land. He ought
complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Robbery with to be respected.
Homicide can be committed even outside the dwelling of
the victim, hence, if it is committed inside the dwelling, it If the crime is committed in the place where public
will be an aggravating circumstance. authorities are discharging their duties, it is necessary that
at the time of the commission of the crime, these public
(d) YES. Abuse of confidence can be appreciated BUT authorities are actually performing or discharging their
ONLY INSOFAR AS X IS CONCERNED, it will not apply duties in order to show disrespect.
to A and B because the offended parties, Y and Z, only
trusted X. But X abused the trust and confidence reposed If the crime is committed in a place devoted to religious
on him being the houseboy/house helper. The said abuse worship, such as the mosque of the Muslim, church of the
of trust and confidence facilitated the commission of the Iglesia ni Kristo, church of Aglipayan, and Catholic Church

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
– all places of worship. If the crime is committed in these

places, it shows greater criminality of the said offender.
He could have committed the crime outside, but he chose 6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in
the said places. It shows greater criminality. an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
Q: There was a cabinet meeting in Malacañang. offense.
Everyone was there, including all cabinet secretaries.
The waiters were serving lunches to the cabinet
Whenever more than three armed malefactors
secretaries. X, a newly hired waiter, was so nervous
shall have acted together in the commission of an
that the spoon and fork fell on the floor. It caused a
offense, it shall be deemed to have been
disturbance that everybody stopped in the meeting. X
committed by a band.
felt ashamed and apologized. Thereafter, X went to
the kitchen and the head waiter scolded him. The
xxxx
head waiter stated bad and foul words against X. The
head waiter was about to stab X, when suddenly X
pulled out a knife and stabbed him. The head waiter
sustained a non-fatal wound. X is now being In paragraph 6, there are three aggravating
prosecuted for attempted homicide. In the circumstances:
commission of the crime, is the aggravating 1. Nighttime
circumstance that the crime was committed in the 2. Uninhabited place, and
palace of the Chief Executive present? 3. By a band.
A: NO. X did not deliberately seek the place to commit the Nighttime is considered as an aggravating circumstance
crime. It cannot be said that he disrespected the said when the following elements are present:
place because the act of stabbing happened in the spur 1. That the offender deliberately sought the cover of
of the moment, when he was being scolded and darkness, and
embarrassed by the head waiter. Therefore, it cannot be 2. The purpose of the offender is to ensure the
considered as an aggravating circumstance. commission of the crime, or to ensure or avoid
impunity.
Q: X and his family were hearing the mass inside the
church. When Y entered the church, he saw X and The offender deliberately sought the darkness of the night
seated next to X. When it was about time to say, to ensure that he will be able to consummate the crime
“peace be with you”, Y greeted X. X was shocked without any interference or anyone stopping him from
upon seeing Y, but he nevertheless stated, “peace be doing it; or he deliberately sought the cover of darkness
with you” to him. However, at that particular moment, to ensure that his identity will not be revealed, or his
Y stabbed X. Is an aggravating circumstance present identity will be concealed because the darkness of the
in this case? night. Nighttime shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
A: YES. In the commission of the crime the aggravating
circumstance that the crime was committed in a place Even if the offender sought the cover of darkness in order
devoted to religious worship is present. Y could have to ensure the commission of the crime, if at the time of
waited X to go outside and stab him outside – not inside committing the crime, the scene was illuminated by any
the church, not inside the place of religious worship, not light, then nighttime is no longer an aggravating
inside a place of prayer. It shows greater criminality. circumstance.
Therefore, it will be an aggravating circumstance.
According to the SC, lights coming from nearby houses,
SIXTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE passing vehicles, lamps, streetlights, or moon shining
brightly – if all of these illuminated the scene of the crime,
nighttime is no longer present as an aggravating
THE REVISED PENAL CODE circumstance.
BOOK ONE
An Uninhabited place is considered as an aggravating
ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The circumstance when:
following are aggravating circumstances: 1. In the place where the crime was committed,
there was little or remote possibility for the victim
xxxx to receive help, and

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
2. The offender deliberately took advantage of the Q: In the same problem, was there abuse of superior
said place in order to ensure or facilitate the strength?
commission of the crime.
A: NO. Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the act of
The mere fact that the place is far from town or other rape. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an
houses, that alone will not suffice in order for an aggravating circumstance.
uninhabited place to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. It is necessary in that place – was that very Q: X was boarding at Dapitan. At past 9:00PM, X went
little or remote possibility for the victim to be given help? out because he needed to buy a thing needed for his
Did the offender deliberately seek the place to ensure the project. He was about to go back to his boarding
commission of the crime? If the answer is yes, then an house, when suddenly five men, A, B, C, D, and E,
uninhabited place is present as an aggravating crowded him. Without any warning, A, B, C, D, and E
circumstance. suddenly boxed, hit, mauled, and punched him
everywhere on the different parts of his body. They
A band is considered an aggravating circumstance when only stopped when the barangay chairman arrived.
more than three armed malefactors shall have acted Thereafter, A, B, C, D, and E were arrested. In the
together in the commission of the crime. Therefore, there commission of the crime, are the aggravating
must be at least four armed malefactors who should have circumstances of nighttime and a band present?
acted together in the commission of the crime. They all
participated in the commission of the crime. They are co- A: Nighttime is NOT PRESENT. A, B, C, D, and E did not
conspirators in the commission of the crime. seek the cover of darkness to ensure the commission of
the crime. It is a matter of fact that Dapitan at 9:00PM is
Q: X went to the public market. It was already 6:00PM. still very, very lighted. It cannot be considered as a dark
After buying goods needed by his family, he boarded place. Therefore, nighttime cannot be considered.
the jeepney enroute to his house. The jeepney was
still waiting for it to be full capacity. Y arrived and A band is NOT PRESENT. Even though there are five
seated next to X. The moment the jeepney was full, it men who mauled X, there was no mention in the problem
already left, and stopped at a gas station which is the that they were armed. For a band to be considered, the
end of its route. Thereafter, all passengers alighted. X law requires that there must be at least four armed
was walking about 20 meters towards her house. malefactors who shall have acted together in the
Unknown to her, she has been followed by Y. That commission of the crime. In the problem, A, B, C, D, and
was past 7:00PM. Y suddenly grabbed her and E punched and boxed him, but there was no mention that
covered her mouth. Thereafter, he forcibly dragged they were armed. Therefore, there is no band as an
her to a creek, wherein there was a small body of aggravating circumstance.
water and no houses, but only grasses and tall
grasses in the said area. Y had carnal knowledge with SEVENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
X by means of force and violence. In the commission
of the crime, are the aggravating circumstances of THE REVISED PENAL CODE
nighttime and uninhabited place present? BOOK ONE
A: Nighttime is NOT PRESENT. There was no showing ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The
that Y deliberately sought the cover of darkness to ensure following are aggravating circumstances:
the commission of the crime. It just so happened that the
jeepney reached the place at 7:00PM. Therefore, Y, not xxxx
having sought the cover of darkness in the commission of
the crime, then nighttime is not to be appreciated as an
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a
aggravating circumstance.
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.
An uninhabited place is PRESENT. Y deliberately
dragged X to a creek, near a small body of water and
there were no houses, but only trees and grasses. There xxxx
and then, he had carnal knowledge with X. In the said
place, there was little or remote possibility for X to be
given help. Y obviously deliberately sought that place in If the crime committed on the occasion of these calamities
order to ensure the act of rape. is that of killing a person, it will be a qualifying aggravating

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
circumstance. It will change the nature of the crime from EIGHTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
homicide to murder.
If the crime committed on the occasion of these calamities THE REVISED PENAL CODE
is that stealing, it will be a qualifying aggravating BOOK ONE
circumstance. It will change the nature of the crime from
simple theft to qualified theft. ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The
BOOK TWO xxxx
TITLE EIGHT
Crimes Against Persons 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed
men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
ARTICLE 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling
within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, xxxx
shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, if
committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances: The armed men merely aided the perpetrator in the
commission of the crime. They merely gave support
xxxx whether direct or indirect to the actual perpetrator in the
commission of the crime. Therefore, these armed men are
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in their accomplices to the commission of the crime. With or
without them, the crime will nevertheless be committed.
the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption
of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
The different forms of habituality are:
public calamity.
1. Recidivism,
xxxx 2. Reiteracion,
3. Habitual delinquency, and
4. Quasi-recidivism.
NINTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

BOOK TWO
TITLE TEN THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Crimes Against Property BOOK ONE
ARTICLE. 310. Qualified theft. — The crime of theft ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The
shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two following are aggravating circumstances:
degrees than those respectively specified in the next
preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, xxxx
or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property
stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or 9. That the accused is a recidivist.
consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the
plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for
property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, one crime, shall have been previously convicted by
typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity, final judgment of another crime embraced in the
vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (As amended by same title of this Code.
R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980).
xxxx
Paragraph 7 is included among the qualifying

circumstances for murder under Article 248. It is included Elements of Art. 14(9) – Recidivism
among the qualifying circumstances for qualified theft
under Article 310. The elements of recidivism are:
1. That the offender is on trial for one crime,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
2. At the time of the said trial, he was previously years in between the first crime and the second
convicted by final judgment of another crime, crime?
3. Both the first crime and second crime are
embraced in the same title of the RPC, and A: YES. Based on the provision on paragraph 9,
4. He is also convicted of the new crime for which recidivism requires no prescriptive period in between the
he is on trial. first crime and second crime. It has no prescriptive period.
The law does not require any lapse of time between the
In so far as recidivism is concerned, the law requires that first crime and second crime. What the law requires only
there must be two convictions: is that they come from the same title of the RPC.
1. The first is a conviction of final judgment. It must Therefore, even if 12 years have been gone from the first
be on the first crime. conviction to the second conviction, for as long as they fall
2. The second is the conviction on the case for under the same title of the RPC, that offender is a
which he is on trial. It is on the second conviction recidivist.
wherein the court shall consider the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism. Q: How do you prove recidivism? Is it necessary for
the prosecution to present the judge to testify that the
Recidivism is a generic aggravating circumstance. It can offender has been priorly convicted by final judgment
be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. If it is of a crime?
not offset, the effect is to increase the penalty for the crime
committed to the maximum period of the penalty A: NO. There is no need for the judge to go to the witness
prescribed by law. stand to testify. A mere certification of the said conviction
coming from the court with the signature of the judge and
Recidivism requires that the crimes are embraced in the his dry seal will suffice. It is considered as a public
same title of the RPC. Both the first crime and second document which is presumed genuine and authentic.
crime must fall under the same title of the RPC. Therefore, that will suffice and there is no need to present
any oral testimony. Documentary evidence will suffice.
Q: X was charged and convicted of serious physical
injuries. He served out the sentence. After the service Q: X is charged and convicted of serious physical
of his sentence, he is now out of prison. Once out of injuries. The maximum penalty imposed on him is
prison, he tried to live a good life until he engaged in four years of prision correctional. Since the maximum
a fight. He was being bullied as an ex-convict. He penalty is within the probationable penalty, X,
could no longer contain it, so he engaged in a fight. through his counsel, immediately applied for
He killed that person. He is now being charged for the probation. The MeTC judge granted the said
crime of homicide. After trial on the merits, the Judge application for probation. After the determination of
found him guilty of homicide and sentenced him the the said probation, X is now totally free. However, X
penalty thereof. Can the judge consider recidivism? killed Y because X saw Y molesting his daughter. X is
now being prosecuted for homicide. The judge found
A: YES. First element: He is on trial for homicide. Second him guilty of homicide and imposed him the penalty
element: At the time of the said trial, he has been thereof. Can the judge consider recidivism?
previously convicted by final judgment of serious physical
injuries. Third element: Both serious physical injuries and A: YES. First element: He is on trial for homicide. Second
homicide are under Title 8 – Crimes against persons. Last element: At the time of the said trial, he must be previously
element: He is also convicted of the new crime, homicide. convicted by final judgment of another crime. He was
Therefore, in imposing the penalty for homicide, the judge convicted by the MeTC of serious physical injuries, but he
can consider the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. applied for probation and was granted thereof. Is that a
conviction by final judgment? Yes, it is akin to a conviction
Q: What if in the same problem, X was charged and by final judgment. Reason is that the moment the offender
convicted of serious physical injuries. He served out applied for an application for probation instead of filing an
the sentence. After the service of his sentence, he appeal, that offender is amenable to his conviction. He is
tried to live a good life. 12 years thereafter, he in effect admitting the commission of the crime. He is no
engaged in a fight and killed his opponent. He is now longer questioning his conviction and merits of the case.
being prosecuted for homicide. The judge found him Therefore, in that case, it is considered as a conviction by
guilty of homicide. In imposing the penalty for final judgment. Third element: Both serious physical
homicide, can the judge consider the aggravating injuries and homicide fall under the same title of the RPC.
circumstance of recidivism despite the lapse of 12 Last element: He is also convicted of the new crime. All

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
the elements are present. Hence, recidivism can be 2. At the time of the said trial, he has previously
considered by the court. served sentence for an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty, or two or
Q: X was charged and convicted of rape. The more crimes to which the law attaches lighter
judgment became final and executory. Thereafter, he penalties;
was brought to the Bilibid Prison. The president 3. He is also convicted of the new crime for which
granted X absolute pardon on the crime of rape. X was he is on trial; and
released from prison. Just a year thereafter, X 4. The crimes are not embraced in the same title of
committed a crime of homicide. He is now charged the RPC.
with homicide. In imposing the penalty for homicide,
can the judge consider the aggravating circumstance NOTE: The SC added a fourth element. The law is silent
of recidivism? on this; but according to the SC, in reiteracion, the crimes
are not embraced in the same title of the RPC. Therefore,
A: YES. First element: He is on trial for homicide. Second the fourth element is jurisprudential. It is not the law that
element: At the time of the said trial, he has been provides it, but it is the SC.
previously convicted by final judgment of qualified rape;
but he was granted pardon by the president. Does that Just like recidivism, reiteracion is a generic aggravating
conviction stay because pardon, unlike amnesty, does not circumstance. Therefore, it can be offset by any ordinary
erase or obliterate the effects of the crime. If the president mitigating circumstance. If not offset, the maximum period
granted pardon on the said offender, he remains to be a of the penalty prescribed by law shall be the one imposed
convicted felon because the effect of pardon is only to on the offender.
excuse the offender from the service of his sentence –
unlike amnesty which obliterates all the effects of the Recidivism Vis-à-vis Reiteracion
crime as if no crime has been committed. The offender is
only excused from the service of his sentence, and RECIDIVISM REITERACION
remains to be convicted of rape. Therefore, the second A mere conviction by final The offender must have
element is present. Third element: Both rape and judgment insofar as the served sentence for the
homicide are under Title 8 of the RPC – Crimes against first crime is concerned first crime he committed.
persons. Last element: He is also convicted of homicide. will suffice.
All the elements are present. In imposing the penalty for
homicide, the judge can consider recidivism. The crimes are embraced The crimes are not
in the same title of the embraced in the same title
TENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE RPC. of the RPC.

BOOK ONE You have to know that based on the second element of
reiteracion, there are two (2) situations:
ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The
following are aggravating circumstances: 1. If there are only two (2) crimes committed by the
offender, the law requires that the first crime that
xxxx he have served sentence must carry a penalty
equal to or greater than that of the new crime.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or 2. If there are three (3) crimes committed by the
greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which offender, the law requires that the first two (2)
it attaches a lighter penalty. crimes that he had served sentence must carry
lighter penalties than that of the new crime.
xxxx
Q: X was charged with Perjury. The judge found him
guilty of Perjury and imposed upon him the maximum
penalty of prision mayor – 12 years. The judgment
Elements of Art. 14(10) – Reiteracion became final and executory, and X served his
sentence. After service of his sentence, X is now out
Reiteracion or habituality has the following elements: of prison. One time, when X came from the church, on
1. That the offender is on trial for one crime;
his way home, he saw his neighbor molesting his

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
daughter under a tree. Because of that, X killed the Slight Physical Injuries and he was found guilty. In
neighbor. X was prosecuted for Homicide. The judge imposing the penalty, can the judge consider
found him guilty of Homicide. In imposing the penalty, reiteracion?
can the judge consider reiteracion as an aggravating
circumstance? A: NO. First element: That the offender is on trial for one
crime. He is on trial for Slight Physical Injuries. Second
A: NO. First element: That the offender is on trial for one element: At the time of the said trial, he has previously
crime. X was on trial for a crime of Homicide. Second served sentence for an offense to which the law attaches
element: At the time of the said trial, he has previously an equal or greater penalty. He has been convicted of
served sentence for an offense to which the law attaches Malicious Mischief, but he applied for probation. When he
an equal or greater penalty. The second element is applied for probation, he did not serve his sentence.
absent. The first crime for which he have served sentence
was Perjury wherein the penalty was prision mayor. The SC said in the case of Moreno v. COMELEC,
Prision mayor is lighter penalty than Homicide which is probation is not similar, equal to service of sentence
reclusion temporal. Therefore, the second element being because the effect of probation to suspend the execution
absent, reiteracion cannot be considered by the court in of sentence. Therefore, the moment a convict is placed
imposing the penalty of Homicide. on probation, he never served his sentence. Thus, the
second element of reiteracion is not present.
Q: X was charged and thereafter, convicted of
Malicious Mischief. Penalty imposed is arresto mayor Habitual Delinquency
– 6 months. After service of his sentence, he is now
out of prison. Once out of prison, he committed Slight The third form of habituality is Habitual delinquency.
Physical Injuries in the course of a fight. He was
prosecuted for Slight Physical Injuries. The judge THE REVISED PENAL CODE
found him guilty. In imposing the penalty, can the BOOK ONE
judge consider reiteracion?
ARTICLE 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating
A: YES. First element: That the offender is on trial for one or aggravating circumstances and of habitual
crime. X was trial for a crime of Slight Physical Injuries. delinquency. – Mitigating or aggravating
Second element: At the time of the said trial, he has circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken
previously served sentence for an offense to which the into account for the purpose of diminishing or
law attaches an equal or greater penalty. He have served increasing the penalty in conformity with the following
sentence for malicious mischief – arresto mayor which is rules:
greater than Slight Physical Injuries – arresto menor.
Second element is present. Third element: X is also xxxx
convicted of the new crime, Slight Physical Injuries.
Fourth element: Malicious Mischief and Slight Physical For purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed
Injuries do not fall under the same title in the RPC. to be a habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten
Malicious Mischief is under Crimes against Property years from the date of his release or last conviction of
under Title 10, while Slight Physical Injuries is a Crime the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
against Persons under Title 8. Therefore, the judge can robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of
consider aggravating circumstance of reiteracion in any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
imposing the penalty of Slight Physical Injuries.
Q: What if in the same problem, when X was convicted

for Malicious Mischief – arresto mayor, since the A person is deemed to be a habitual delinquent if he is
penalty imposed on him is only a maximum of six (6) found guilty of the crimes of Serious Physical Injuries,
months, X immediately applied for probation. His Less Serious Physical Injuries, Robbery, Theft, Estafa, or
application for probation was granted by the court. Falsification, a third time or oftener each within the period
Since the penalty imposed is not more than one (1) of 10 years from the date of last release or last conviction.
year, the probation only for two (2) years. After two (2)
years of complying with the probation, the probation This is Habitual Delinquency under Art. 62, as amended
was terminated. by RA 7659.
X engaged in a fight and inflicted Slight Physical Elements of Art. 62 – Habitual Delinquency
Injuries upon his opponent. He was prosecuted for
1. The crimes are specified:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
a. Serious Physical Injuries, A: YES. First element: He is being tried for the fourth time
b. Less Serious Physical Injuries, for the crime of Robbery. Second element: He has been
c. Robbery, previously convicted by final judgment of the crime of
d. Theft, Theft. Third element: Each conviction of Theft come within
e. Estafa, or 10 years from the date of his last release. Therefore, he
f. Falsification. is a habitual delinquent.
2. The law requires that there must be at least three
(3) convictions; and Q: What if in the same problem, the prosecution also
3. It is necessary that each conviction must come stated that he is a recidivist. Should the judge also
within a period of 10 years from the date of his consider recidivism against him? Should the judge
last release or last conviction. consider this as another aggravating circumstance?
Recidivism is generic. Reiteracion is generic. Habitual A: YES. All elements of recidivism are present. First
delinquency is an extraordinary aggravating element: He is on trial for robbery. Second element: He
circumstance. has been convicted by final judgment of Theft. Third
element: Theft and Robbery are both under the same title.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE Fourth element: He is convicted of the crime of Robbery.
BOOK ONE Therefore, he is also a recidivist.
ARTICLE 62. Effects of the attendance of mitigating PEOPLE v. MELENDREZ

or aggravating circumstances and of habitual G.R. NO. L39913 | DECEMBER 19, 1993 |
delinquency. – Mitigating or aggravating AVANCENA, C.J.
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken
into account for the purpose of diminishing or FACTS: In 1993, Melendrez was charged with
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following Robbery. In the Information, it was alleged that
rules: Melendrez is a habitual delinquent for having been
previously convicted by final judgment twice of the
xxxx crimes of Theft and Estafa, the last one on September
3, 1992. Melendrez argued that the aggravating
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total circumstance of recidivism cannot be appreciated
of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, based on the ruling of the SC in People v. Aguinaldo
in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 which was promulgated while the old Penal Code was
years. in effect.
xxxx ISSUE: W/N Recidivism should be appreciated (YES)
RULING: YES. A recidivist is one who at the time of the

trial for one crime, shall have been convicted by final
As provided by Art. 62, as amended, if a convict is found
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title
to be a habitual delinquent, aside from the penalty
in the RPC. After reviewing all the decisions affecting
prescribed by law for the crime he has committed, an the matter, the Court held that the aggravating
additional penalty shall be imposed for being a habitual
circumstance of recidivism should be taken into
delinquent, provided if you add the penalty for the crime
account in imposing the principal penalty in its
he has committed and the additional penalty for being a
corresponding degree, notwithstanding the fact that the
habitual delinquent, it must not exceed 30 years.
defendant is also sentenced to suffer an additional
penalty as a habitual delinquent.
Q: X was charged for the crime of Robbery. Based on
the evidence, X has been previously convicted 3
times for theft. Each conviction for theft had come
within 10 years from the date of his last release. In the Q: As for the defense of the accused, granting for the
Information filed, it was stated therein that the sake of argument that both recidivism and habitual
offender has committed the crime of Theft a third time delinquency are present, based on the Doctrine Of
and he is now being tried for Robbery. After trial on Pro Reo, the judge should only consider recidivism
the merits, the judge convicted him of the crime of against X and not habitual delinquency. How should
Robbery. The judge decided to appreciate habitual the judge rule on this contention?
delinquency. Is the judge correct?

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
A: The judge should still CONSIDER BOTH RECIDIVISM Before or while serving his sentence, he committed a
AND HABITUAL DELINQUENCY. felony, a violation of the RPC.
As held in the case, People v. Melendrez, the SC said Q: X was charged with a crime of Homicide. He was
that if both recidivism and habitual delinquency are convicted, and judgment became final and executory.
present, they can be appreciated by the court at the same One morning, all the inmates were already up but X
time because they have different elements in imposing was still in bed. When his fellow inmates went to X,
the penalty. The fact that the offender is a recidivist, it they held his hand, and they realized X’s fever was
means that in imposing the penalty of Robbery, the judge very high. The inmates immediately informed the
shall impose it in its maximum period if recidivism is not authorities of Bilibid. An ambulance arrived and X
offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. The fact was now being lifted to be brought to the nearest
that he is a habitual delinquent means that an additional hospital. The moment they lifted X, the police
penalty must be imposed aside from the penalty of authorities found plastic sachets of Shabu under his
Robbery. Therefore, both can be considered by the court bed. Because of this, X was charged with Illegal
because they have different effects on the penalty to be Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sec. 11 of RA
imposed on the part of the said offender. 9165. After trial on the merits, the judge found him
guilty of violation of Sec. 11 of RA 9165. Can the judge
Recidivism Vis-à-vis Habitual Delinquency consider quasi-recidivism as an aggravating
circumstance in imposing the penalty for violation of
RECIDIVISM HABITUAL Sec. 11 of RA 9165?
DELINQUENCY
The law requires at least The law requires at least A: NO. The judge cannot consider quasi-recidivism as an
two (2) convictions. three (3) convictions. aggravating circumstance because the second crime that
he has committed while serving his sentence is not a
No prescriptive period 10 years from the date of felony, but a violation of a special penal law, that is Illegal
between first conviction his last release/conviction Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
and second crime
Q: X was charged and convicted of Carnapping. He is
The crimes are embraced The crimes are specified: now behind bars. One time, one of the prison guards
in the same title in the 1. Serious/Less Serious was doing his rounds when X suddenly appeared and
RPC. Physical Injuries stabbed the prison guard with an icepick. When the
2. Falsification prison guard fell, X took the keys and tried to escape
3. Robbery but he was arrested. In the commission of the crime,
4. Theft is the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism
5. Estafa present?
It is a generic aggravating It is an extraordinary A: YES. X was serving his sentence for carnapping when
circumstance which be aggravating circumstance he committed tow (2) felonies: Qualified Direct Assault
offset by any ordinary which provides for an with Murder. He attacked the prison authority, an agent of
mitigating circumstance. additional penalty and person in authority. Likewise, he committed Attempted
cannot be offset by any Evasion of Service of Sentence. He took the keys and
ordinary mitigating attempted to escape. Therefore, while he was serving his
circumstance. sentence, after having been convicted by final judgment
of an offense, Carnapping, a violation of the Anti-
Carnapping Law, he committed two (2) felonies. Since the
crimes he committed while serving his sentence were
Quasi-Recidivism felonies, the judge can consider quasi-recidivism in
imposing the penalty.
Fourth form of habituality is quasi-recidivism.
A person is deemed to be a quasi-recidivist if, after having BOOK TWO
been convicted by final judgment, he shall commit a felony TITLE THREE
while serving sentence, or before serving sentence. Crimes Against Public Order
It is necessary, first and foremost, that the offender has ARTICLE 160. Commission of another crime during
already been convicted by final judgment of a crime. service of penalty imposed for another offense;

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Penalty. — Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article

62, any person who shall commit a felony after having TWELVETH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to
serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall
be punished by the maximum period of the penalty THE REVISED PENAL CODE
prescribed by law for the new felony. BOOK ONE
xxxx ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The

xxxx
Under Art. 160 of the RPC, the maximum penalty
prescribed by law shall be the one imposed, therefore, it
12. That the crime be committed by means of
is a special aggravating circumstance. It cannot be offset
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
by any mitigating circumstance.
vessel or international damage thereto, derailment
of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
NOTE: To summarize:
involving great waste and ruin.
1. Recidivism – generic aggravating circumstance
2. Reiteracion – generic aggravating circumstance
3. Habitual Delinquency – extraordinary xxxx
aggravating circumstance
4. Quasi-recidivism – special aggravating
circumstance If the crime committed by any of these means is that of
killing a person, it will be a qualifying aggravating
ELEVENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE circumstance.
Examples:
THE REVISED PENAL CODE 1. X killed Y by burning Y, the crime committed is
BOOK ONE Murder, qualified by use of fire.
ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The 2. X killed Y by using poisoning Y, the crime
following are aggravating circumstances: committed is Murder, qualified by using of poison.
xxxx THIRTEENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a

price, reward, or promise. THE REVISED PENAL CODE
BOOK ONE
xxxx
For this aggravating circumstance to be considered xxxx
against the accused, it is necessary that the main or
primary reason why the crime was committed was the
13. That the act be committed with evidence
said price, reward or promise offered by the principal by
premeditation.
inducement.
xxxx
This aggravating circumstance can be considered both
against:
1. The person who gave the price, reward or Evident premeditation is the stubborn adherence to a
promise – Principal by inducement; decision to commit the crime. It requires deliberate
planning on the part of the offender before the actual
2. The person who accepted the price, reward or execution of the crime. He deliberately planned it before
promise in order to commit the crime – Principal actually executing the said crime.
by direct participation

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Elements of Art. 14(13) – Evident Premeditation

3. Disguise refers to means, ways, or methods
1. Time when the offender has determined to used by the offender in order to conceal his real
commit the crime; identity.
2. An overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to
his determination; and Craft, fraud, or disguise may be considered collectively or
3. A sufficient lapse of time in between the independently of each other.
determination and the actual execution of the
crime, time for him to reflect upon the FIFTEENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
consequences of his acts.
It is necessary for the prosecution to prove each one of BOOK ONE
these elements. Otherwise, it cannot be considered.
Evidence to be Established following are aggravating circumstances:
1. The prosecution must show when the accused xxxx
decided to commit the crime;
2. The prosecution must prove what act was done
by the accused to show that he clung to his 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or
determination; means be employed to weaken the defense.
3. The prosecution must establish how long a time
had lapsed between the determination and the xxxx
actual execution of the crime. Was there a
sufficient time for him to reflect the consequence
of his act? Elements of Art. 14(15) – Abuse of Superior Strength
If the three has been proven by the prosecution, evident 1. That there exists a notorious inequality of forces
premeditation shall be considered against the accused. between the offender and the offended party; and
2. That the offender took advantage of his
FOURTEENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE superiority of his strength in order to ensure or
facilitate the commission of the crime.
THE REVISED PENAL CODE First element – Notorious Inequality Of Forces
BOOK ONE
These notorious inequality of forces between the offender
ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The and offended party may come in different forms:
1. When the offenders are greater in number than
xxxx that of the offended party – offenders are five (5)
while victim is alone;
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed. 2. When the offender is armed and the victim is not
armed – offender has a bolo while victim was
xxxx unarmed;
3. When the offender is greater in personal
circumstances than that of the offended party –
offender is a big man with full of muscles while
1. Craft refers to cunning and intellectual trickery
victim is a small man, weakling, or a very thin man
resorted to by the accused so that the victim will
perform an act that will make the accused carry
All of these will show the notorious inequality of forces
out his evil design.
between the offender and the offended party. However,
that is only the first element.
2. Fraud refers to deceit and it is evidenced by
insidious words and machinations resorted to by
Second element – That the offender took advantage
the accused so that the victim will perform an act
of his superiority of his strength in order to ensure or
that will make the accused carry out his evil
facilitate the commission of the crime
design.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ISSUE: W/N treachery was present (NO)

Even if the offenders are ten and the victim is one, if there
is no evidence showing that they took advantage of their RULING: NO. Where the meeting between the
numerical superiority to ensure the commission of the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was
crime, then it cannot be said that abuse of superior done impulsively, there is no treachery even if the
strength attended the commission of the crime. attack was sudden and unexpected.
SIXTEENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE The circumstance that an attack was sudden and
unexpected to the person assaulted did not constitute
the element of alevosia necessary to raise homicide to
THE REVISED PENAL CODE murder, where it did not appear that the aggressor
BOOK ONE consciously adopted such mode of attack to facilitate
the perpetration of the killing without risk to himself.
ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The Treachery cannot be appreciated if the accused did not
following are aggravating circumstances: make any preparation to kill the deceased in such
manner as to insure the commission of the killing or to
xxxx make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to
retaliate or defend himself.
16. That the act be committed with treachery
(alevosia). While it appears that the attack upon the victim was
sudden, the surrounding circumstances attending the
There is treachery when the offender commits any stabbing incident, that is, the open area, the presence
of the crimes against the person, employing of the victim’s families and the attending eyewitnesses,
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof works against treachery. If accused-appellant wanted
which tend directly and specially to insure its to make certain that no risk would come to him, he
execution, without risk to himself arising from the could have chosen another time and place to stab the
defense which the offended party might make victim. Yet, accused-appellant nonchalantly stabbed
the victim in a public market at 7:00 o’clock in the
xxxx evening. The place was well-lighted and teeming with
people. He was indifferent to the presence of the
victim’s family or of the other people who could easily
identify him and point him out as the assailant. He
Elements of Art. 14(16) – Treachery showed no concern that the people in the immediate
vicinity might retaliate in behalf of the victim. In fact, the
1. That the offender deliberately and consciously attack appeared to have been impulsively done, a spur
adopted the ways, means, and methods employed by of the moment act in the heat of anger or extreme
him in the commission of the crime; and annoyance. There are no indications that accused-
2. By reason of the said ways, means, and methods appellant deliberately planned to stab the victim at said
employed by the offender, the victim was totally time and place. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that
without any defense. accused-appellant, who at that time was languishing in
his alcoholic state, acted brashly and impetuously in
PEOPLE v. VILBAR suddenly stabbing the victim. Treachery just cannot be
G.R. NO. 191759 | MARCH 02, 2020 | HERNANDO, J. appreciated.
FACTS: Maria Liza was watching her child while

attending to their store in the public market. Guilbert,
her husband, arrived from work. However, Guilbert NOTE: In the case of People v. Vilbar, the SC said that
admonished a man urinating at one of the tables in front the first element – that the offender deliberately and
of their store. The man was among those engaged in a consciously adopted the ways, means, and methods
drinking spree in a nearby store. Guilbert then put down employed by him in the commission of the crime means
his child when the Vilbar rose from his seat. Upon that the offender must be given time to reflect on what
approaching Guilbert, Vilbar suddenly drew out a knife means or methods he will use to commit crime. Therefore,
and stabbed him below his breast resulting to his death. treachery cannot apply in case of killing at the spur of the
Vilbar and his group fled the scene. Vilbar was charged moment, based on chance encounter, impulsive killing
with the crime of Murder. because the offender was not given the time to reflect
upon the ways, means or methods he will use in order to
commit the crime.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
premeditation. Are these qualifying circumstances

Mere suddenness or the mere fact that the victim was present?
without any defense will not suffice because that is only
the second element. A: (a) YES. X deliberately adopted the ways, means and
methods in what he will use to ensure the death of Y. He
Q: X was walking when A, B, and C surrounded X. waited for an opportune time, sharpened the bolo, and
Armed with knives, they attacked X at the same time. when it was raining hard, no people around, he executed
X was fell down on the ground. A, B, and C knelt down the killing. Y was without any means of defending himself.
and repeatedly stabbed him with their knives. They Treachery attended the commission of the crime.
did not stop until he is no longer breathing.
Thereafter, A, B, and C left. Arrested, they were (b) NO. But there was no abuse of superior strength.
charged as conspirators for the crime of Murder There was no showing that X took advantage of the fact
qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength. that he was armed with a bolo in the killing of the victim.
If you were the judge, how would you rule? He just did what he needed to do to kill Y. The facts did
not show abuse of superior strength.
A: If you were the judge, you have to convict A, B, and C
as conspirators for the crime of MURDER qualified by (c) There was evident premeditation. The time when X
treachery. There was treachery in the commission of the determined to kill Y; an overt act showing that he clung to
crime. Obviously, the fact that X walking alone when A, B, his determination to kill Y – he sharpened his bolo and
and C appeared while armed with weapons, showed that waited for the opportune time; and two (2) weeks
they planned the commission of the crime, they planned thereafter, that was a long time for him reflect upon the
the killing of X. Because of that, X was without any sequences of his plan. Evident premeditation attended
defense. the commission of the crime.
There was also abuse of superior strength. A, B, and C How should the court appreciate this? The court shall
attacked X at the same time. To ensure that he will die, convict X of murder, qualified by treachery and evident
the group repeatedly stabbed him while he is down. They premeditation is a generic aggravating circumstance.
took advantage of their superiority in number and
weapons in order to ensure the death of X. Therefore, PEOPLE v. DAYRIT
abuse of superior strength attended the commission of G.R. NO. 241632 | OCTOBER 14, 2020 | PERALTA,
the crime. C.J.
As the Judge, you have to convict A, B and C of Murder FACTS: Ontiveros saw Dayrit who was wearing a black
qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength is jacket and a helmet on board a green and black
absorbed. Therefore, abuse of superior strength has no motorcycle. Dayrit was observing a group of persons
effect in the imposition of penalty because abuse of and among them was Ariel Sernilla. Thereafter,
superior strength is simply absorbed by treachery. Ontiveros went to the store to buy cigarettes. While on
his way, he noticed that the two (2) persons on board
The SC said that it is settled in jurisprudence that the motorcycle he saw earlier were following Ariel and
whenever both treachery and abuse of superior strength Lourdes. When they reached the store, Ontiveros
attended the commission of the crime, treachery absorbs stayed behind, while the spouses continued walking
abuse of superior strength. Not the other way around. towards the tricycle. As the spouses were boarding the
tricycle, two (2) persons on board a motorcycle blocked
Q: X was mad at Y after losing a fight. X warned Y that their way and the back-rider shot the spouses four (4)
the next time they see each other, he will kill the latter. times resulting to their death. The motorcycle then sped
Since then, X planned the killing of Y. He sharpened away and went to the direction of Serrano Street. Dayrit
his bolo and waited for the opportune time to kill Y. was charged with the crime of two (2) counts of Murder.
Two weeks later, X was waiting outside his house, it
was raining and there were no people around. X saw ISSUE: W/N treachery, premeditation, and use of
Y alighting from a tricycle and he was opening his motor vehicle are present (YES)
gate. He immediately took his bolo, run towards Y and
hacked him. RULING: YES.
X was arrested for Murder with the qualifying Treachery

aggravating circumstances of: (a) treachery, (b)
abuse of superior strength and (c) evident

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two his escape after the consummation of his plan to kill
(ii) elements must be present: (i) at the time of the Ariel and Lourdes.
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself
or to retaliate or escape; and (iii) the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular
NOTE: In the case of People v. Dayrit, the SC convicted
means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him.
In the instant case, the records show Ariel and Lourdes the accused of Murder qualified by treachery and evident
premeditation was merely a generic aggravating
were merely boarding a tricycle, unaware of the
circumstance because you only need one qualifying
danger. All of a sudden, Dayrit, while on board a
circumstance to change the nature of the killing from
motorcycle, launched an attack, shooting at his victims
Homicide to Murder and treachery will suffice. The other
successively. It was clear that the manner of attack
qualifying aggravating circumstance shall merely be a
employed by Dayrit was deliberate and unexpected.
generic aggravating circumstance.
Likewise, there was no opportunity for the victims to
defend themselves. With the given circumstances, it is
impossible for the victims to retaliate. Clearly, the PEOPLE v. DELA PENA
prosecution has established that the qualifying G.R. NO. 238120 | FEBRUARY 12, 2020 | INTING,
circumstance of treachery is present. J.
Evident Premeditation FACTS: Ernie, son of victim Olipio, went back to their
nipa hut after tending to their carabaos. When he was
The requisites for the appreciation of evident a few meters away, he saw Dela Peña enter the nipa
premeditation are: (i) the time when the accused hut where his father was sleeping. Olipio was lying face
determined to commit the crime; (ii) an act manifestly down when Dela Peña stabbed him at the back with a
indicating that the accused had clung to his bolo locally known as "pinuti." He heard his father shout
determination to commit the crime; and (iii) the lapse of for help while he watched accused-appellant stab the
a sufficient length of time between the determination former several times. Dela Peña then threatened to kill
and execution to allow him to reflect upon the Ernie prompting him to run towards home to tell his
consequences of his act. In the present case, Dayrit mother about the incident. Dela Peña was charged with
initially monitored the presence of Ariel and the crime of Murder.
subsequently drove back and forth, ensuring that Ariel
was still in the area. Dayrit was also seen wearing a ISSUE: W/N treachery is present (YES)
black jacket and helmet for him not to be recognized
and he secretly followed Ariel and Lourdes while they RULING: YES. The essence of treachery is the sudden
were on their way to a tricycle. Further, it was clearly and unexpected attack by an aggressor of an
shown that Dayrit and his companion planned the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real
means on how to carry out and facilitate the killing of chance to defend himself and thereby insuring its
the victims. The essence of evident premeditation is commission without risk to the aggressor.
that the execution of the criminal act is preceded by
cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry In People v. Clariño, the Court discussed that the lower
out the criminal intent within a space of time sufficient court correctly appreciated the circumstance of
to arrive at a calm judgment. In this case, the time that treachery since the victim was asleep at the time of the
had elapsed while monitoring the victims and while assault. Accordingly, the essence of treachery is the
waiting for the perfect opportunity to execute the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor of an
shooting is indicative of a cool thought and reflection on unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real
the part of Dayrit to carry out his criminal intent. chance to defend himself and thereby insuring its
commission without risk to the aggressor. In this
Use Of Motor Vehicle relation, a sleeping victim is not in a position to defend
himself, take flight or avoid the assault, thus ensuri ng
The aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle that the crime is successfully executed without any risk
is present. The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating to the latter.
when it is used either to commit the crime or to facilitate
escape. Here, it was established that Dayrit was riding In this case, Ernie categorically stated that his father
a motorcycle when he followed and fatally shot Ariel was sleeping inside the nipa hut when accused-
and Lourdes. Afterwards, he fled the crime scene on appellant stabbed him using a "pinuti". Olipio was lying
board the motorcycle. Clearly, a motor vehicle was on his stomach, with his face down, and it was in that
used as a means to commit the crime and to facilitate position that he was killed by accused-appellant. Under
such circumstance, there is no doubt that he was not in

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
a position to put up any form of defense against his

assailant. Further, We find that the appellant consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or
form of attack in order to ensure the execution of the
crime. He stabbed Mijares several times so that he
NOTE: If a victim is killed while he was fast asleep,
would not be a risk to himself. He lodged a bladed
treachery attended the crime. In the cases of People v. weapon on the victim's chest and back. Indeed, the
Dela Pena and People v. Moreno, the killing of the
attack on Mijares was treacherous thereby qualifying
sleeping victim is always attended by treachery because
the killing to murder.
a sleeping victim has no opportunity to take flight, evade
the blow, or put up a defense. Therefore, it is always done
treacherously.
NOTE: In the case of People v. Moreno, however,
PEOPLE v. MORENO Moreno attacked Mijares while fast asleep. Mijares had
G.R. NO. 186541 | FEBRUARY 1, 2012 | the opportunity to kick and push Moreno outside the
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. house. But since he was fatally attacked, he fell on the
floor and thereafter, he died. Moreno was charged for the
FACTS: Adelriza Mijares was awakened from her crime of Murder qualified by treachery. The victim was
sleep when a hard object hit her head. When she able to put up a defense, he was awakened and kicked
turned on the lights, a man, wearing khaki shorts and Moreno. Is there still treachery? The SC said that there is
white t-shirt, leap on their bed and repeatedly stabbed still treachery even if the victim was able to retaliate as a
her husband, Cecil Mijares, on the leg and chest. Cecil result of his reflexes, for as long as he was not able to
was able to kick the man out of the room and even repel the initial attack. When he was attacked initially, he
close the door. Immediately thereafter, Cecil collapsed was fast asleep. He was not able to repel. Since at the
and fell on the floor. Adelriza shouted for help and their initial attack, there was no defense; even if he was able to
neighbor came to their rescue. Cecil was then brought retaliate the as a result of reflexes. Treachery still attends
to the PGH. Unfortunately, Cecil died while undergoing the commission of the crime.
treatment. Moreno was charged with the crime of
Murder. PEOPLE v. ENRIQUEZ
G.R. NO. 238171 | JUNE 19, 2019 | CAQUIOA, J.
ISSUE: W/N treachery is present (YES)
FACTS: At around 9:30 in the evening, Luisa and her
RULING: YES. In order for the qualifying circumstance daughter, Jessica, were in their house watching the
of treachery to be appreciated, the following requisites television when they heard someone moaning at a
must be shown: (1) the employment of means, method, nearby house. As they peeped out from the window,
or manner of execution that would ensure the safety of they saw a bloodied Dela Cruz coming out of his house
the malefactor from the defensive or retaliatory acts of and upon reaching the door, he got stabbed in the back
the victim, and (2) the means, method, or manner of by Enriquez with a bread knife. Dela Cruz managed to
execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by ask for help from his uncle's house before collapsing.
the offender. The essence of treachery is a deliberate He was then brought to the hospital but was
and sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and unfortunately pronounced dead on arrival due to
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. multiple stab wounds in the neck and thorax. Enriquez
was charged with the crime of Murder.
Appellant's sudden attack on Mijares while asleep in his
own home amply demonstrates treachery in the ISSUE: W/N treachery is present (NO)
commission of the crime. Mijares had no inkling of the
impending attack that night; or any peril to his person Ruling: NO. In a catena of cases, the Court has
as he felt secured in his home. Mijares was not able to consistently held that treachery cannot be appreciated
put up an effective defense. where the prosecution only proved the events after the
attack happened, but not the manner of how the attack
Although he kicked and pushed the appellant out of commenced or how the act which resulted in the
their room, this did not negate the presence of victim's death unfolded. In treachery, there must be
treachery. In People v. Baltazar, we ruled that clear and convincing evidence on how the aggression
treachery must still be appreciated even if the victim was made, how it began, and how it developed. Where
was able to retaliate as a result of his reflexes, so long no particulars are known as to the manner in which the
as he did not have the opportunity to repel the initial aggression was made or how the act which resulted in
assault. the death of the victim began and developed, it cannot

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
be established from suppositions drawn only from

circumstances prior to the very moment of the FACTS: At around 2’o clock in the morning, April heard
aggression, that an accused perpetrated the killing with her parents yelling outside her bedroom. She got up
treachery. Accordingly, treachery cannot be and turned on the light. Upon opening her bedroom
considered where the lone witness did not see the door, she witnessed Saulog in the act of hacking her
commencement of the assault. sister. Afraid that she might be the next one killed, April
turned off the lights and hid. Later on, Saulog fled the
In the instant case, the evidence presented by the scene. April’s parents and her sister died. Saulog was
prosecution only proved the events after the initial charged with the crime of three (3) counts of Murder.
attack had already happened. The prosecution
witnesses, Luisa and Jessica, did not see the manner ISSUE: W/N treachery, evident premeditation,
of how the attack commenced or how the acts which nighttime, abuse of superior strength, ignominy and
resulted in the victim's death unfolded as the attack cruelty are present (NO)
started inside the house of the victim. They merely saw
Dela Cruz, already bloodied, coming out of his house. Ruling: NO.
It was only at this point that they saw Enriquez stab the
victim again with a bread knife. . Treachery
In order to appreciate treachery, both elements must In a catena of cases, the Court has consistently ruled
be present. It is not enough that the attack was that treachery cannot be appreciated where the
"sudden," "unexpected," and "without any warning or prosecution only proved the events after the attack
provocation.” There must also be a showing that the happened, but not the manner of how the attack
offender consciously and deliberately adopted the commenced or how the act which resulted in the
particular means, methods and forms in the execution victim's death unfolded.
of the crime which tended directly to insure such
execution, without risk to himself. Here, April neither saw the commencement of the
assault nor the unfolding of the events that ultimately
In the present case, however, Luisa and Jessica were resulted in the death of the Maglantay family. April
only able to witness the events that transpired after the chanced upon a slim portion or momentary episode of
initial attack inside the house, it was not established the attack. Thereafter, April hid from Sualog. The
whether Enriquez deliberately or consciously employed prosecution also did not establish with moral certainty
the particular method he used so as to deprive the that the three victims were utterly oblivious to the
victim any opportunity to defend himself Even more impending attack or that they had no opportunity to
telling is the fact that the victim was able to escape from mount a meaningful defense. Inarguably, there was
Enriquez and even ask for help from his uncle's house reasonable doubt on how the aggression started,
before collapsing. developed, and ended.
Evident premeditation
NOTE: In the cases of People v. Enriquez and People
The Court will not appreciate evident premeditation
v. Saulog, the SC said that in order for treachery to be absent showing that there was enough time that had
considered, it must be present at the inception of the
lapsed between the conception and execution of the
attack. Someone must have witnessed how the attack
crime to allow the accused to reflect upon the
commenced. Therefore, if the witness did not see how the
consequences of their acts.
attack commenced, that the victim really had no defense,
then treachery cannot be appreciated.
Meanwhile, there is no evidence as to the period of time
when Sualog resolved to commit the crime and had
In People v. Enriquez, the witness saw that the victim
cool thought and reflection to arrive at a calm judgment.
had been crawling outside the door of the house. He was
April did not testify on this matter and even attested that
already bloodied and the accused was still hitting him. The
she was unaware of any quarrel between Sualog and
said witness did not see how the attack commenced.
her foster family. It must be emphasized that "[t]he
There is no treachery because no one could say that at premeditation to kill must be plain and notorious; it must
the initial attack, the victim was without any defense. be sufficiently proven by evidence of outward acts
showing the intent to kill. In the absence of clear and
PEOPLE v. SAULOG positive evidence, mere presumptions and inferences
G.R. NO. 250852 | OCTOBER 10, 2022 | LOPEZ, M.,
J.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
of evident premeditation, no matter how logical and Q: X was going to the office. He bought new shoes
probable, are insufficient." and as he was waiting for a ride, he bought candies
and saw a beggar asking for alms. The beggar
Nighttime stepped on his new shoes. X was very mad. He got
pissed that aside from scolding the beggar, he took
Nighttime could not be appreciated as an aggravating out his pistol and shot the beggar in the head
circumstance absent evidence suggesting that Sualog resulting to his death. Is there treachery in the
especially sought or took advantage of nocturnity to commission of the crime?
facilitate the commission of the crime or conceal his
identity as he stabbed the victims inside their home. A: NONE. As held in the cases of People v. Vilbar and
People v. Corpuz, the attack happened at the spur of the
Abuse of superior strength moment, a chance encounter. The meeting between X
and the beggar was a chance encounter, the killing was
Abuse of superior strength requires the purposeful use done impulsively. Therefore, the said offender did not
of excessive force out of proportion to the means of have the opportunity to reflect on the ways, means and
defense available to the person attacked… also, the methods he will use in order to ensure the commission of
prosecution failed to present evidence to show the the crime. The first element being absent, hence, he is not
relative disparity in age, size, strength, or force liable for Murder but only for Homicide.
between Sualog and his victims. The presence of
Sualog who was armed with a bolo, is insufficient to Treachery Appreciated in Robbery with Homicide
indicate superior strength against the three unarmed
victims. It is settled that in the special complex crime of Robbery
with Homicide, treachery can be appreciated insofar as
Ignominy the killing is concerned. Although the special complex
crime of Robbery with Homicide is a crime against
Ignominy refers to the means employed by the accused property, treachery can be appreciated in the act of killing
that adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury if the offender did so treacherously. If the offender
caused by the crime. planned it and did so treacherously, treachery can be
appreciated. However, it can only be appreciated only as
Cruelty a generic aggravating circumstance in the special
complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
In cruelty, "it must be shown that the accused, for his
pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer SEVENTEENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary
physical and moral pain." However, the infliction of
multiple stab wounds upon the Maglantay family does THE REVISED PENAL CODE
not denote the deliberate intention on the part of Sualog BOOK ONE
to humiliate them or increase their suffering.
xxxx
NOTE: In the case of People v. Sualog, the family of the
victim was killed and the survivor, April, only saw her
17. That means be employed or circumstances
sister being attacked by John Francis. Charged with three
brought about which add ignominy to the natural
(3) counts of Murder, the SC said that it should be three
effects of the act.
(3) counts of Homicide because there is no treachery.
Only small portion of the attack was seen by April. After
seeing her sister, April hid to protect herself. Therefore, xxxx
she did not see the inception of such attack, how it
developed and ended. It cannot be totally said that there
is total lack of defense at the inception of the attack. Ignominy is the moral circumstance which adds disgrace
to the natural effect of the crime. Aside from the acts
If the attack happens at the spur of the moment, impulsive necessary in order to consummate the crime, the offender
killing, chance encounter, there is no treachery. performs another act that brought about moral pain,
humiliation, embarrassment on the part of the said victim.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
If ignominy attends the commission of the crime, then it altercation. There was no showing that the accused
will be treated as an aggravating circumstance. planned it. It was Maggie who first spoke and so, the
accused were annoyed and took her to get even. The fact
PEOPLE v. JOSE that it was nighttime, it was not deliberately sought the
G.R. NO. L-28232 | FEBRUARY 6, 1971 | PER cover of darkness to ensure the commission of the crime.
CURIAM Yet the SC appreciated it.
FACTS: At about 4:30 in the morning, Jose and his co- I also do not agree in the appreciation of the aggravating
accused abducted Maggie. They brought her to a hotel. circumstance of abuse of superior strength because it is
While inside the hotel room, they forced her to perform inherent in the crime of Rape. Rape is always committed
burlesque. Thereafter, they took turns in having carnal by use of force and intimidation. We have Qualified Rape
knowledge with Maggie. Jose and his co-accused were when rape is committed by two (2) or more persons.
charged with the crime of Forcible Abduction with Therefore, it is an inherent, part or element of the crime
Rape. and hence, it should no longer be considered as
aggravating circumstance so as to increase the
ISSUE: W/N nighttime, abuse of superior strength, imposable penalty. Here, all the accused sentenced to
ignominy and use of a motor vehicle are present (YES) death penalty and thereafter, executed through electric
chair.
RULING: YES.
PEOPLE v. BUTLER
Nigttime G.R. NO. L-50276 | JANUARY 27, 1983 |
GUERRERO, J.
The accused having purposely sought such
circumstance to facilitate the commission of these FACTS: Butler and the victim, Gina, went to the latter’s
crimes. place after coming from a restaurant. The two
proceeded to Gina’s room upon arrival. Gina went out
Abuse of superior strength of her room and asked her housemaid to wake her up
the following day. The following day, when the
The crime having been committed by the four housemaid went to Gina’s room, she found that Gina
appellants in conspiracy with one another. lying on her bed, facing downward, naked up to the
Ignominy waist, with legs spread apart; and there was a broken
figurine beside her head. Butler was charged with the
Since the accused, in ordering Maggie to exhibit to crime of Murder.
them her complete nakedness for about ten minutes, .
before raping her, brought about a circumstance which ISSUES:
tended to make the effects of the crime more 1. W/N abuse of superior strength is present (YES)
humiliating. 2. W/N treachery and scoffing at the corpse of the
victim are present (NO)
Use of a motor vehicle
RULING:
It is undisputed that a motor vehicle was used in the 1. YES. In People vs. Cabiling, a guideline to
commission of the crime. determine whether there is abuse of superior
strength has been laid down. In that case this Court
ruled: "To take advantage of superior strength
means to purposely use excessive force out of
NOTE: In the case of People v. Jose, the SC appreciated
proportion to the means of defense available to the
ignominy because based on the evidence presented,
person attacked. This circumstance should always
Maggie was told to undress herself, to remove her
be considered whenever there is notorious
clothes, and dance in front of the accused naked. All the
inequality of forces between aggressor, assuming
accused were staring at her naked body while dancing.
a situation of superiority of strength notoriously
That is an act of ignominy because it brought the said
advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken
victim moral pain, embarrassment. advantage of by him in the commission of the
crime. To properly appreciate it, not only is it
I do not however agree with the SC in appreciating
necessary to evaluate the physical conditions of
nighttime and abuse of superior strength. It was a chance
the protagonists or opposing forces and the arms
encounter. Maggie was on her way home when a car
or objects employed by both sides, but it is also
arrived and got bumped into – it was like a traffic

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
necessary to analyze the incidents and episodes minority of the said accused excused him from criminal
constituting the total development of the event. liability. Nevertheless, according to the SC, the anal
intercourse that took place after the victim was killed is an
It is not only the notorious advantage of height that outrage on the corpse of the victim. Hence, ignominy
Michael had over his helpless victime, he being 6 attended the commission of the crime.
feet tall and weighing 155 lbs. while the girl was
only 4 ft. 11 inches tall, but also his strength which PEOPLE v. BUMIDANG
he wielded in striking Gina with the figurine on the G.R. NO. 130630 | DECEMBER 4, 2000 | PER
head and in shoving her head and pressing her CURIAM
mouth and nose against the bed mattress, which
pressure must have been very strong and powerful FACTS: At around 2’o clock in the morning, Melencio
to suffocate her to death and without risk to himself was awakened by Bumidang who was calling out to
in any manner or mode whatsoever that she may open the door of the house. When Melencio opened th
have taken to defend herself or retaliate since she door, Bumidang got a spear. He pointed the weapon at
was already struck and helpless on the bed, that Melencio and ordered him to lie in a prone position.
convinced the SC to find and rule that the crime Bumidang then proceeded to the room of Gloria. He
committed is murder with the qualifying used a flashlight against Gloria’s genitals and raped
circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Gloria while threatening her with the spear. Thereafter,
Bumidang fled the scene. He was charged with the
2. NO. While the SC reject the presence of treachery, crime of Rape.
however, it find and sustain the finding of the lower
court that the aggravating circumstance of ISSUE:
outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the deceased 1. W/N dwelling is present (YES)
applies against Michael since it is established that 2. W/N nighttime is present (NO)
he mocked or outraged at the person or corpse of 3. W/N ignominy is present (YES)
his victim by having an anal intercourse with her
after she was already dead. The fact that the RULING:
muscles of the anus did not close and also the 1. YES. The trial court correctly appreciated the
presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as aggravating circumstance of dwelling. There was a
testified to by Dr. Angeles Roxas, the medico-legal clear violation of the sanctity of the victim's place of
officer, and confirmed to be positive in the abode when Gloria, who apparently did not gave
Laboratory Report, Exhibit "B-1", clearly any provocation, was raped in her own house.
established the coitus after death. This act of Dwelling is considered an aggravating
Michael in having anal intercourse with the woman circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of
after killing her is, undoubtedly, an outrage at her privacy the law accords to human abode.
corpse.
2. NO. The trial court erred in appreciating the
It is true as maintained by the defense that the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. Nighttime is
aggravating circumstance of outraging at the an aggravating circumstance when (1) it is
corpse of the victim is not alleged in the information especially sought by the offender; (2) it is taken
and that the lower court found it had been proved advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the
but its contention that the said aggravating commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's
circumstance should not have been appreciated immunity from capture. In this case, other than the
against the accused is without merit. And this is so fact that the crime was committed at about 2:00
because the role is that a generic aggravating o'clock in the morning, nothing on the record
circumstance not alleged in the information may be suggests that Bumidang deliberately availed
proven during the trial over the objection of the himself or took advantage of nighttime nor proved
defense and may be appreciated in imposing the that Bumidang used the darkness to facilitate his
penalty. Aggravating circumstances not alleged in evil design or to conceal his identity.
the information but proven during the trial serve
only to aid the court in fixing the limits of the penalty 3. YES. The aggravating circumstance of
but do not change the character of the offense. ignominy shall be taken into account if means are
employed or circumstances brought about which
add ignominy to the natural effects of the offense;
or if the crime was committed in a manner that
NOTE: In the case of People v. Butler, the Supreme
tends to make its effects more humiliating to the
Court appreciated ignominy, although in this case,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
victim, that is, add to her moral suffering. It was

established that Bumidang used the flashlight and ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The
examined the genital of Gloria before he ravished following are aggravating circumstances:
her. He committed his bestial deed in the presence
of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly show that xxxx
Bumidang deliberately wanted to further humiliate
Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding her 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a
moral sufferings. Ignominy was appreciated in a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
case where a woman was raped in the presence of
her betrothed, or of her husband, or was made to xxxx
exhibit to the rapists her complete nakedness
before they raped her.
Art. 14(18) Vis-à-vis Art. 14(19)
NOTE: In the case of People v. Bumidang, the act of the Where lies the difference between the 18th and 19th
accused of examining Gloria's genitalia with a flashlight in aggravating circumstance?
front of the father before the act of rape, it is ignominy. It
added moral pain and embarrassment on her part. That is PARAGRAPH 18 PARAGRAPH 19
an act not necessary to consummate the crime of Rape. The crime was committed The breaking of the wall,
It was done by the accused to embarrass her, therefore, after the unlawful entry. roof, floor, door, or
ignominy is present in the commission of the crime. window was the very
Another aggravating circumstance appreciated by the SC So, the offender entered means used by the
in that case is dwelling. first through an opening offender in order to
not intended for entrance commit the crime.
EIGHTEENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE or egress and after
entering, that is the time
he committed the crime.
BOOK ONE
ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The There are certain crimes wherein paragraphs 18 and 19
following are aggravating circumstances: are considered inherent and absorbed. Therefore, they
shall no longer be considered as an aggravating
xxxx circumstance so as to increase the imposable penalty
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful Q: X wanting to kill Y, entered the house of Y by
entry. passing through an open window in the second floor
of the house. X climbed the house and entered. Once
inside, X looked for Y and stabbed him. Is the
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is
aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry present?
effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
A: YES. In the commission of the crime, unlawful entry is
xxxx
present. After X's entered through the window, an opening
not intended for entrance or egress, X committed a crime.
Therefore; unlawful entry attended the commission of the
There is an unlawful entry when the offender enters the crime.
premises of another through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress. Q: X entered the house of Y by passing through an
open window on the second floor. Once inside, he
Let us relate this to the 19th aggravating circumstance. ransacked the house. He took every valuables by
breaking all the locks of the cabinet. Is the
NINETEENTH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry present?
A: NO. In the commission of the crime, unlawful entry is

THE REVISED PENAL CODE inherent. Therefore, it is no longer to be considered as an
BOOK ONE aggravating circumstance. The crime committed is

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Robbery by use of force upon things under Art. 299, first

paragraph and there, unlawful entry is an inherent
element in the commission of the crime, one of the modes
BOOK ONE
in committing Robbery by use of force upon things.
Q: X entered the house of Y by passing through an ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The
open window. The moment he was inside, he took all
valuables. But Y was awakened. Y put up a fight. X
xxxx
stabbed Y resulting to his death. In the commission
of the crime, is the aggravating circumstance of
unlawful entry present? 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of
persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
A: YES. The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or
is present because the crime committed is not robbery other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
with use of force upon things under Art. 299, but the
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide which is xxxx
a form of Robbery with violence or intimidation of persons
under Art. 294. In case of Robbery with violence or
intimidation of persons, the said unlawful entry shall be If the crime was committed by an offender with the
considered as an aggravating circumstance because the assistance of a minor, taking advantage of minors under
crime can be committed even without unlawful entry. 15 years of age, it poses greater criminality. He took
advantage of the minority and induced them to be part of
Q: X was passing by when suddenly, he broke the the commission of the crime. And because of this, it is
window, placed his hand inside the window, and then considered as an aggravating circumstance.
took the bag that is on top of the table. In the
commission of the crime, is the aggravating If the offender uses motor vehicles, motorized watercraft,
circumstance that a window was broken as a means airships, it will also be considered as aggravating
to commit the crime present? circumstance. In the case of People v. Dayrit, the use of
a motor vehicle was considered by the SC as an
A: YES. It is present because the crime committed is aggravating circumstance.
Theft. Since the crime committed is theft, the breaking of
the said window in order to get the personal property, in
TWENTY-FIRST AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
this case, the bag, will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
Q: X broke the window, X entered the premises. Upon BOOK ONE
entering, X took the bag and left. In the commission
of the crime is the aggravating circumstance that a ARTICLE. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The
window was broken as a means to commit the crime following are aggravating circumstances:
present?
xxxx
A: NO. It is inherent in the commission of the crime
because the crime committed this time is Robbery with
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the
use of force upon things under Art. 299. In this case, the
crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
breaking of the window is inherent because it is one of the
wrong not necessary for its commissions.
modes of committing Robbery under Art. 299, first
paragraph
xxxx
NOTE: To summarize:
1. If the said offender did not enter the premises in
order to take the personal property – Theft Cruelty refers to an additional physical pain inflicted on
2. If the offender entered the premises of another the victim which is not necessary in order to consummate
where personal property was taken – Robbery the crime.
with use of force upon things
TWENTIETH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
In other words, aside from the acts necessary in order to Here, cruelty was present where Jovencio tied the
commit the crime, the offender performs another act that victim to bed, burnt her face with a lighted cigarette
adds physical pain on the said victim. while raping her and laughed as he did all these.
The test in determining the presence of cruelty if there is

evident showing that the offender deliberately and
sadistically added physical pain on the part of the said NOTE: In the case of People v. Lucas, the father, in
victim. Therefore, in order for cruelty to be appreciated, it raping his own daughter, tied the daughter to the bed.
is necessary that: After tying the daughter, the father burned the face of his
own daughter with lighted cigarettes. The SC said that
1. The victim was still alive when the said additional burning the face of the daughter with lighted cigarettes
physical pain was inflicted upon him because a showed acts of cruelty because that is not necessary to
deceased victim can no longer suffer additional consummate the crime of Rape. Therefore, cruelty
physical pain. attended the commission of the crime.
2. It is necessary that the offender enjoys and Q: X was mad at Y. X killed Y. After killing Y, X
delights in seeing his victim agonize because of dismembered the different parts of the body of Y and
the additional physical pain that he is inflicting on then, hid the different parts of the body on different
the said victim. places so that it would not be discovered. In the
commission of the crime is cruelty attendant as
aggravating circumstance?
PEOPLE v. LUCAS
G.R. NO. 80102 | JANUARY 22, 1990 | CORTES, J.
A: NO. It is not present because the victim, when the parts
of his body were dismembered, was already deceased.
FACTS: On the night of the incident, 13-year-old
Therefore, he can no longer suffer the pain of being cut
Mauricia was fetched by his father from her workplace.
into pieces. Cruelty did not attend the commission of the
She was brought by his father to a dark room, where
crime.
her father tied both her hands and feet to a bed,
undressed her, lighted a cigarette and burned her face
with it. The father also proceeded to kiss her, fondle her
*** END
private parts, and finally, pointing a knife approximately
eight (8) inches long at her neck, have carnal
knowledge with her. All throughout the forced sexual
intercourse, his father was laughing. It was further
revealed that Mauricia had been raped by her father
twice before the subject incident. Lucas was charged
with the crime of Rape.
ISSUE: W/N relationship and cruelty are present (YES)
RULING: YES. The alternative circumstance of

relationship is taken into consideration when the victim
is the descendant of the offender.
Here, Jovencio abused the filial trust reposed in him by

his daughter to carry out the crime to his every
advantage. He personally fetched the victim, his
daughter, at her place of work, took her to the scene of
the crime, and forced himself sexually.
Moreover, there is cruelty when the offender enjoys

and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing unnecessary physical pain the
consummation of the offense.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
March 2, 2024 1. Relationship

2. Intoxication
ARTICLE 15 3. Degree of instruction and education
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
RELATIONSHIP
BOOK ONE
Relationship is considered as an alternative circumstance
ARTICLE 15. Their concept. – Alternative if the offender is related to the offended party as:
circumstances are those which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to 1. his spouse,
the nature and effects of the crime and the other 2. ascendant,
conditions attending its commission. They are the 3. descendant,
relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction 4. legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
and education of the offender. 5. relative by affinity in the same degrees.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be Relationship as an Aggravating Circumstance

taken into consideration when the offended party in the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or As a rule, relationship is an aggravating circumstance:
adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the
same degrees of the offender. 1. In crime against persons when the crime
committed is Serious Physical Injuries and Less
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into Serious Physical Injuries.
consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the 2. When the offender is of a lower degree than that
offender has committed a felony in a state of of the offended party and the offended party is of
intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent a higher degree than that of the offender.
to the plan to commit said felony but when the
intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be NOTE: Relationship is inherent in the crime of Parricide
considered as an aggravating circumstance. because it is a crime based on relationships.
Relationship as a Mitigating Circumstance

Alternative circumstances are those if present or As a rule, relationship is considered as a mitigating
attendant in the commission of a felony can be circumstance in crimes under Title 10 – Crimes against
appreciated by the court either as an aggravating Property.
circumstance or as a mitigating circumstance depending
on its effect in the commission of the crime. Reason: Under Art. 332 of the RPC, in three (3) crimes
against property – Theft, Estafa or Swindling, and
All the three (3) alternative circumstances under Art. 15 Malicious Mischief, relationship is an absolutory cause or
may be considered by the trial court as either aggravating an exempting circumstance.
or mitigating:
Therefore, if in the crimes of Theft, Estafa or Swindling,
1. Considered as aggravating – If the prosecution and Malicious Mischief, relationship is an absolutory
was able to prove all the elements of the said cause, then, in all other crimes against property,
aggravating circumstance, and that the said relationship is considered as a mitigating circumstance.
alternative circumstance facilitated the
commission of the crime. According to the SC, the purpose is to ensure harmony in
the family.
2. Considered as mitigating – If the defense was
able to prove the said alternative circumstance, it INTOXICATION
shall be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance.
Intoxication may be considered either as a mitigating
They are alternative because they can be considered as circumstance or an aggravating circumstance. The
either aggravating or mitigating. Under Art. 15, the three offender has taken such an amount of liquor, as to affect
(3) alternative circumstances are: his capability to appreciate the consequences of his act.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Intoxication as a Mitigating Circumstance and just places his thumb mark. He killed his
For intoxication to be considered as a mitigating neighbor in the course of a fight.
circumstance, it is necessary for the defense to show that Can his low degree of education be considered as a
the intoxication is: mitigating circumstance?
1. Not habitual on the part of the offender; A: NO. His degree of education will not mitigate his
2. Not subsequent to a plan to commit the felony; criminal liability because the crime he committed has
and nothing to do with his low degree of education. No matter
3. That the intoxication did not affect his mental how ignorant he is, he knows that he has no right to take
facilities. the life of another person. Killing is as criminal to a learned
person as to an ignorant. It is a crime that is inherently evil
If these are present, then intoxication shall be considered or wrong.
as a mitigating circumstance.
Degree of Instruction and Education as an
Intoxication as an Aggravating Circumstance Aggravating Circumstance
Intoxication shall be considered as an aggravating A high degree of education will be considered as an

circumstance if the prosecution/State was able to prove aggravating circumstance if the offender took advantage
that: of his high degree of education to facilitate the
commission of the crime.
1. The intoxication was done habitually by the
offender; Example: A lawyer committing Estafa through
2. The offender has deliberately taken liquor falsification of a deed of absolute sale, amounting to
subsequent to a plan to commit the crime Estafa through falsification of a public document. The
because he found in liquor the stimulant, the lawyer took advantage his high learnings in law in order
strength for him to commit the crime. to swindle someone of his property by falsifying deed of
absolute sale. Therefore, the lawyer’s high degree of
DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION education will be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
Degree of Instruction and Education as a Mitigating But if the lawyer, in the course of an argument with
Circumstance another person, lost control of himself and stabbed the
other person to death, his high degree of education has
As a rule, a low degree of instruction or education shall be nothing to do with the act of killing. The lawyer did not take
considered as a mitigating circumstance. advantage of his high learnings in law to kill that person.
Therefore, his high degree of education will not be
Exception: The rule shall not apply if the crime considered as an aggravating circumstance.
committed by the said uneducated or ignorant man, is
a crime inherently evil or wrong. Q: X and Y are sisters. X is a Dean’s Lister, an honor
student with all good grades. On the other hand, Y
A crime which is inherently evil or wrong is as wrong to passed only one (1) subject and in all other subjects,
an ignorant man as to a learned man. Y failed. Their parents got disappointed with Y and
thus, Y was not given allowance for the entire
semester as punishment. The best friend of Y will
Q: An ignorant, uneducated man who had never been celebrate her birthday party in one of the luxurious
to school, does not even know how to write his name clubs in BGC. Y has to attend since it was her best
and just places his thumb mark. He falsified a public friedn who will be celebrating her birthday. Y wanted
document. Can his low degree of education be to buy a gift, but she has no money.
considered as a mitigating circumstance?
Y entered the bedroom of X, and broke the lock of the
cabinet, broke the jewelry box and took her sister's
A: YES. His low degree of education will be considered as
expensive necklace. Thereafter, Y sold the necklace
a mitigating circumstance.
for P50,000.00 and used the money in order to buy a
Q: An ignorant, uneducated man who had never been gift, and to go to the birthday party.
to school, does not even know how to write his name

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Will the relationship exempt Y from criminal liability 1. Mistake of fact

or will the relationship merely mitigate Y’s criminal 2. Desistance in the attempted stage
liability? 3. Death under exceptional circumstances under
Art. 247
A: The crime committed by Y is Robbery. It is robbery not 4. Relationship under Art. 332
theft because in the taking of the personal property of her 5. Instigation
sister, she employed force in breaking the locked cabinet,
breaking the sealed jewelry box, and taking the necklace. Instigation
Since there was force in the act of stealing, the crime
committed was Robbery with the use of force under Art. It is an absolutory cause because the mens rea or the evil
299, second paragraph. Y is an insider and employed or criminal intent originated from the mind of the public
force in order to take necklace with intent to gain. officer. The said public officer merely lured and/or induced
the offender to commit the crime, so that he would have
Since the crime committed by Y is Robbery, relationship someone to arrest and prosecute.
is MERELY A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE because
relationship is only an absolutory cause under Art. 332 for Since the mens rea or the evil intent origination from the
the crimes of Theft, Estafa or Swindling, and Malicious mind of the public officer, by reason of public policy, the
Mischief. said offender is absolved from criminal liability and it is the
public officer who shall be held criminally liable as a
Q: X and Y are common-law spouses and cohabiting principal by inducement.
as husband and wife. The husband, a gambler, was in
need of money. He went inside their bedroom and Entrapment
thereafter, he saw the Rolex watch of his common-law
wife. The husband took the watch, valued 2.5M pesos, It is not an absolutory cause because the mens rea or the
and sold it. He used the proceeds for his personal evil or criminal intent originated from the mind of the
benefit. offender himself. The public officer merely devised ways
and means in order to trap and capture the offender in
In the commission of the crime, is the common-law flagrante delicto, in the actual act of committing the crime.
husband both criminally and civilly liable or will their
relationship exempt him from criminal liability? It is an act allowed by law in order to trap and capture a
criminal in flagrante delicto.
A: The relationship will EXEMPT him from criminal
liability, he shall be liable only civilly. The crime committed Instigation Vis-à-vis Entrapment
was Theft because there was no force employed in the
taking of the said Rolex watch of the common-law spouse. INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT
Under Art. 332, in the crime of Theft between spouses, The mens rea or the evil The mens rea or the evil
relationship is an absolutory cause. The SC ruled that or criminal intent or criminal intent
spouses include not only legally married couples, but also originated from the mind originated from the mind
include common-law relationships. Since the offender is of the public officer, who of the offender himself.
the common-law spouse of the private offended party, merely lured the offender The public officer merely
such relationship will absolve him from the criminal to commit the crime, so devised ways and means
liability. In this case, relationship is not a merely mitigating that he would have in order to trap and
but an absolutory case or an exempting circumstance. someone to arrest and capture him in flagrante
prosecute. delicto.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES AND EXTENUATING
CIRCUMSTANCES By reason of public policy, The offender is criminally
the offender is absolved liable.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES from criminal liability.
It is the public officer who The public officer incurs

Absolutory causes are those circumstances which have becomes liable as no criminal liability.
the same effect as exempting circumstances, that is it principal by inducement.
exempts or absolves the offender from criminal liability but
not from civil liability.
Examples: Q: X is selling fish in the public market, but based on

the information coming from the police officer,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
reliable assets and informants, X is not only selling The Police officer learned that X was release and went
fish but also Shabu. The police officers wanted to to the house of X.
confirm this and so, police officer W pretended to be
a security guard and he went to X. Police officer: “X, naka-laya ka na pala ha. Kamusta?”
Police officer W: “X, ikaw ha, ang galing galing mo, X: “Mabuti naman po.”
napaka-strong mo. Hindi ka ba nahihirapan? Alam mo
ako, lagi akong inaantok. Meron ka ba dyang Police officer: “Alam mo habang nakakulong ka, itong
pampasigla? Anong ginagamit mong pampasigla?” si W, winawasak ang kinabukasan ng ating mga
kabataan. Nagbebenta ng droga. Alam mo ang mga
X: “Umiinom lang ako ng Redbull. Subukan mo mag subject niya mga minor. So, we need your help. We
Red bull.” need you to act as our poser buyer in our buy bust
operation. Can you do that?”
Police officer W: “Nako, walang effect sa akin ang
Redbull. Lagi pa rin akong tulog on duty, kaya lagi ako X rejected, but the police officer insisted. X still
napapagalitan. Meron ka ba dyang mas matindi? rejected and so, the police officer left.
Shabu? May shabu ka ba dyan?”
After two (2) weeks, the police officer went to the
X:“Oo, meron ako. Wag ka lang maingay. Bukas house of X with the chief of police. The chief of police
bumalik ka, bibigyan kita.” asked and insisted that X be their poser buyer in the
planned buy bust operation against W. There is a big
The so next day, police officer W went back to X and chance of success of the buy bust operation if X will
asked him, “Nasaan na yung pangako mong Shabu?” act as their poser buyer because W will not become
X handed a plastic sachet of shabu and the police suspicious of X as he was W’s former customer. X
officer handed over the marked money. Thereafter, he agreed since it was the chief of police who asked for
placed handcuffs on X, informing X that he was help.
actually a police officer in disguise.
During the buy bust operation, X acted as the poser
X was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs buyer, he bought shabu from W. The moment W
under Sec. 5 of RA 9165. X argued that he is not handed him the sachet and the moment X handed the
criminally liable because he was merely instigated to marked money to W, the police officers arrested W
commit the crime, and therefore, by reason of public but also arrested X.
policy, he should be absolved of criminal liability. Is
X’s argument meritorious? X was struggling and asked why he was being
arrested, he was just acting as a poser buyer. He was
A: NO. X’s argument has no merit. What happened was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
not instigation, but is an entrapment. The police officers In his defense, X said that he was merely instigated in
already have reports and information that X was into order to act as a poser buyer, in order to buy Shabu
drugs and that he is selling drugs. They only devised ways from W. Will his defense lie in his favor?
and means to trap and capture X in the actual act of
selling drugs. Entrapment is an act and procedure A: YES. His defense will lie in his favor. In the given facts,
enjoined by law and the courts to trap and capture it is obviously an instigation and not an entrapment. The
criminals in inflagrante delicto. Therefore, X shall be held evil intent or mens rea orginated from the said public
criminally liable for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. officer. They merely induced and lured X to act as the
poser buyer because they wanted to arrest X again,
Q: X was walking on the street. The police officers because they failed in convicting him. By reason of public
stopped him and allegedly he was in possession of policy, X has to be acquitted of the crime charged;
Shabu. And so, X was charged with Illegal Possession otherwise, it is the chief of police, the police officer who
of Dangerous Drugs. It is a bailable offense, but X is lured him to commit the crime who will be criminally liable
a poor man, he cannot post bail. So, he is in city jail as a principal by inducement or induction.
while his case is ongoing. After trial on the merits, the
judge acquitted X for violation of Sec. 11, Illegal RA 10591
Possession of Dangerous Drugs. After two (2) years
of continuous trial, X was acquitted by the court and
RA 10591
released from prison.
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
aggravating circumstance; therefore, the maximum

LAW ON FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AND
penalty prescribed by law for Homicide shall be imposed
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
without considering any mitigating circumstance.
THEREOF
Q: X killed Y by stabbing Y, and was arrested. The
SECTION 29. Use of Loose Firearms in the
knife he used was confiscated. He was holding a bag
Commission of a Crime. – The use of a loose firearm,
and the police seized the bag. When the bag was
when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable
opened, it contained a caliber 0.45 pistol. It was also
under the RPC or other special laws, shall be
confiscated as X was not able to give a permit to
considered as an aggravating circumstance:
carry.
Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a
X was charged with two (2) crimes, one is Homicide
loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
for killing Y and the other one is Illegal Possession of
penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the
Loose Firearms under RA 10591. Are the charges
preceding section for illegal possession of firearm, the
correct?
penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be
imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged:
A: YES. The charges are correct. If the use of a loose
Provided, further, That if the crime committed with the
firearm is not inherent in the commission of the crime,
use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a
Under Sec 29, paragraph 3 of RA 10591, such use of
maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed under
loose firearm shall constitute as a distinct and separate
the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms,
offense from Homicide. In the said case, X killed Y by
the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall
stabbing Y, therefore, the use of loose firearm is not
be imposed in addition to the penalty for the crime
inherent in the commission of the act of killing. Therefore,
punishable under the RPC or other special laws of
it will constitute as a separate and distinct charge. X shall
which he/she is found guilty.
be prosecuted with Homicide and violation of RA 10591.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident
to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion or EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation
shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of Extenuating circumstances are those circumstances
rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat. which mitigate, extenuate, lowers, or reduces the
imposable penalty. It has the same effect as a mitigating
If the crime is committed by the person without using circumstance under Art. 13.
the loose firearm, the violation of this Act shall be
considered as a distinct and separate offense. Examples:
1. Concealment of dishonor in the cases of
Infanticide under Art. 255
Q: X killed Y by shooting the latter twice. Thereafter, 2. Intentional abortion under 258.
X was arrested. Upon his arrest, the pistol that he
used to fire was confiscated from him. The police NOTE: The offender must be the mother of the child.
officer filed a case against X for the complex crime of
Homicide with Illegal Possession of Loose Firearms Infanticide under Art. 255
before the Office of the Public Prosecutor. If you were
the prosecutor assigned to the said case, Will you If the offender, who killed her child less than three (3) days
indict X as charged by the police officer? old or 72 hours, was the mother of the child herself the
reason why the mother killed her baby was to conceal her
A: NO. You should not indict X with complex crime of dishonor. Such concealment of dishonor is an extenuating
Homicide with Illegal Possession Of Loose Firearms, but circumstance. It will lower the imposable penalty by two
indict X, rather, with Homicide and the use of loose degrees, from reclusion perpetua to merely prison mayor.
firearms shall be considered as a special aggravating Therefore, it is akin to a privileged mitigating
circumstance. It must merely be alleged in the Information circumstance.
as a special aggravating circumstance.
Intentional Abortion under Art. 258
Under Sec 29, first paragraph of RA 10591, if the use of a
loose firearm is inherent in the commission of a crime, it If the pregnant woman expelled the fetus from her womb
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance, and in order to conceal her dishonor, such concealment of
based on a jurisprudence, the SC said that it is a special

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
dishonor will mitigate her criminal liability for intentional 2. Principal by induction or inducement – He
abortion. The penalty will be lowered by periods. need not be present at the scene of the crime.
Even if he is absent at the scene of the crime, he
Concealment of dishonor is a good example of can still be convicted as a principal if the following
extenuating circumstance which will lower, reduce, or elements are present:
decrease the imposable penalty on the part of the
offender. a. The inducement must be made directly with
the deliberate intent of procuring the
ARTICLE 16 commission of the crime; and
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES b. The inducement is the primary reason or the
main consideration why the crime has been
THE REVISED PENAL CODE committed.
BOOK ONE
If these two (2) are present, even if he was absent
ARTICLE 16. Who are criminally liable. – The at the scene of the crime, he can still be convicted
following are criminally liable for grave and less grave as a principal by induction or inducement.
felonies:
3. Principal by indispensable cooperation – He
1. Principals must also be present at the scene of the crime.
2. Accomplices Without his act, the crime will not be
3. Accessories accomplished. His participation is indispensable
in order to accomplish or consummate the crime.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies: Therefore, he must be present at the scene of the
crime.
1. Principals
2. Accomplices NOTE: Both the principal by direct participation and the
principal by indispensable cooperation must be present at
the scene of the crime, but not a principal by induction or
inducement.
ARTICLE 17
PRINCIPALS ARTICLE 18
ACCOMPLICES
BOOK ONE THE REVISED PENAL CODE
BOOK ONE
ARTICLE 17. Principals. – The following are
considered principals: ARTICLE 18. Accomplices. – Accomplices are those
persons who, not being included in Article 17,
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous
act; or simultaneous acts.
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit
it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the
Elements Before One Can Be Held Liable as an
offense by another act without which it would not
Accomplice
have been accomplished.
1. That there exists a community of design;
2. That the offender performs acts previous or
KINDS OF PRINCIPALS simultaneous to the commission of the crime; and
3. That there is a direct connection between the acts
1. Principal by direct participation – He must done by the principal and those attributed to an
necessarily be present at the scene of the crime. accomplice.
He is the one who commits the crime; he is the
one who executes the criminal act. Without him, There is a community of design the moment the
no crime is committed. accomplice concurs with the criminal design authored by
the principal, and after concurring with the criminal design
authored by the principal, the accomplice performs acts

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
previous or simultaneous to the commission of the crime An accessory does not know the criminal design of the
which are directly related to the acts performed by the principal concurred in by an accomplice. What the
principal. accessory knows is that a crime has been committed, and
despite having knowledge that a crime has been
Principal by Indispensable Cooperation Vis-à-vis committed, still, he participated after the commission of
Accomplice the crime. He takes part subsequent to the commission of
the crime. Hence, his participation is after the fact, after
PRINCIPAL BY the commission of the crime.
INDISPENSABLE ACCOMPLICE
COOPERATION ACTS OF AN ACCESSORY
A principal by An accomplice is not a co-
First act – By profiting themselves or assisting the
indispensable conspirator. The act of an
offender to profit by the effects of the crime
cooperation is a co- accomplice is not
conspirator. Without his indispensable in order to
Either the accessory himself profited or he assisted the
act, the crime will not be consummate the crime.
principal to profit from the effects or proceeds of the crime.
consummated or With or without the
accomplished. Hence, a performance of the act by
PD 1612
principal by indispensable an accomplice, the crime
ANTI-FENCING LAW
cooperation is a co- will nevertheless be
conspirator. consummated. His act is
Accessory Vis-à-vis Fence
minor in character; he
merely provides moral aid
ACCESSORY FENCE
or support on the part of
(ART. 19(1), RPC) (PD 1612)
the said principal.
The crime committed by The crime committed by
the principal may be any the principal must only be
crime. Robbery or Theft. Fencing
ARTICLE 19 will not apply to any other
ACCESSORIES crime.
The prosecution has the The law does not require
burden of proving beyond that he has knowledge
BOOK ONE
reasonable doubt that the that a crime of Robbery or
accused charged as an Theft has been committed
ARTICLE 19. Accessories. – Accessories are those
accessory has knowledge because it suffices that it
who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime,
that a crime has been should have been known
and without having participated therein, either as
committed. to him that a thing in his
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its
possession is the
commission in any of the following manners:
proceeds of Robbery or
Theft.
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
profit by the effects of the crime.
Reason: Under Sec. 5 of
PD 1612, the law provides
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime,
for a prima facie
or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to
presumption of fencing.
prevent its discovery.
Under Sec. 5 of PD 1612,
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape
any person found in
of the principals of the crime, provided the
possession of any article,
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
item, object, or anything of
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason,
value which is the
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of
proceeds of Robbery or
the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually
Thievery, the law
guilty of some other crime.
presumes that he is a
fence.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
1. Public officer – If the accessory who harbors,

Example: A valuable ballpen was lost. It was found in the conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal
possession of Mario. Mario can be held liable as a fence is a public officer, the crime committed by the
under PD 1612. He can be charged as a fence because principal may be any crime, provided that the act
the law presumes that he ought to know that the thing in of harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
his possession is the proceeds of Robbery or Thievery. escape of the principal is done by the public
The burden is on him to rebut the presumption provided officer by abusing his public functions.
for by law under Sec. 5 of PD 1612.
2. Private individual – If, however, the act of
Second act – By concealing or destroying the body of harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape
the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in of the principal is done by a private person, what
order to prevent its discovery the law requires is that the author of the crime is
guilty of Treason, Parricide, Murder, or an
Body of the crime/substance of the crime/corpus delicti Attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or
refers to the fact that a crime has been committed by is known to be habitually guilty of some other
someone. crime.
Elements of Body of the Crime PEOPLE v. DULAY

G.R. NO. 193854 | SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 |
1. Proof of the occurrence of a certain event; and PERALTA, J.
2. Proof of a person’s criminal responsibility
therefor. FACTS: AAA was 12 years old when the whole incident
happened. AAA's sister introduced the Dulay to AAA as
Example: X killed Y. After X killed Y, he looked around. someone who is nice. Thereafter, Dulay convinced
He believes no one saw him killed Y. He cut the deceased AAA to accompany her at a wake in Paranaque City.
body of Y into pieces, placed them inside a sack, placed AAA, appellant and the latter's boyfriend proceeded to
the sack in the trunk of his car, and drove his car near the the Kubuhan located at the back of the Bulungan Fish
ocean. Thereafter, he threw the cut pieces of the body of Port. When they reached the Kubuhan, AAA suddenly
Y into the ocean. pulled AAA inside a room where a man known by the
name "Speed" was waiting. AAA saw "Speed" give
But unknown to X, all the criminal acts that he did were money to appellant and heard "Speed" tell appellant to
witnessed by W. W saw the killing. W saw X cutting the look for a younger girl. Thereafter, "Speed" wielded a
body of Y into pieces. W saw X placing the deceased body knife and tied AAA's hands to the papag and raped her.
of Y inside a sack. W followed X as X went to the ocean AAA asked for AAA's help when she saw the latter
and threw the cut pieces of the body of Y into the ocean. peeping into the room while she was being raped, but
appellant did not do so. After the rape, "Speed" and
Even if the prosecution could not find the deceased body appellant told AAA not to tell anyone what had
of Y in the ocean, X can still be convicted. The body of the happened or else they would get back at her. Dulay
crime is the fact that W, as a witness, saw everything. W was charged with the crime of Rape under Article 266-
can prove the occurrence of the killing, and W can point A(1)(a) of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of RA
to X as the one responsible for the killing of Y. Hence, 7610.
there still exists the body of the crime/substance of the
crime/corpus delicti by reason of the testimony to be ISSUE: W/N Dulay is criminally liably for the crime of
provided by W, the witness. Rape as co-principal by indispensable cooperation.
(NO)
Third act – By harboring, concealing, or assisting in
the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the RULING: NO. An accused may be considered a
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, indispensable cooperation. To be a principal by
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the
Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of criminal resolution, a conspiracy or unity in criminal
some other crime purpose and cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act without which it
Two Kinds of an Accessory Under the Third Act would not have been accomplished.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Nothing in the evidence presented by the prosecution Q: X has decided to kill Y, his mortal enemy. X, after
does it show that the acts committed by appellant are deciding to kill Y, needed a lookout. X went to his best
indispensable in the commission of the crime of rape. friend, Z. X said, “Z, my best friend, can you help me?
The events narrated by the CA, from the time appellant Can you serve as my lookout?” According to X, he is
convinced AAA to go with her until appellant received going to kill Y and tonight is the night, but he needed
money from the man who allegedly raped AAA, are not someone to serve as a lookout. Z told X, “Of course,
indispensable in the crime of rape. Anyone could have what are friends for. I will help you.”
accompanied AAA and offered the latter's services in
exchange for money and AAA could still have been So, X and Z went in front of the house of Y on the other
raped. Even AAA could have offered her own services side of the street. They were now looking at the house
in exchange for monetary consideration and still end up of Y. X told Z, “I’m going inside. You wait here. You
being raped. Thus, this disproves the indispensable serve as a lookout. If you see any untoward incident
aspect of the appellant in the crime of rape. It must be happening or if you see any person who will be
remembered that in the Information, as well as in the entering the house of Y, give me a call. That missed
testimony of AAA, she was delivered and offered for a call, I will consider it as you calling me, and I will
fee by appellant, thereafter, she was raped by "Speed." immediately leave the house. Thereafter, X went
inside the house of Y while Z remained outside
serving as a lookout.
In the case of People v. Dulay, Dulay was charged as a X killed Y. After X killed Y, X left the place, and
principal by indispensable cooperation in the crime of together with Z, they left the area. What are the
Rape. The prosecution alleged that without Dulay’s act, criminal liabilities of X and Z in the death of Y?
Speed would not be able to commit the act of rape on the
girl. A: X is liable as a PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
PARTICIPATION in the crime of Murder. He is the one
When the case reached the SC, the Court said that Dulay who directly executed the crime after planning the killing
is not liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation in of Y.
the crime of Rape. The Court said all the acts done by
Dulay – befriending the girl, bringing the girl in the port Z is liable as a mere ACCOMPLICE in the crime of
area, pushing the girl inside a kubuhan for the girl to be Murder. Z is not liable as a principal by indispensable
raped by Speed – are not indispensable to consummate cooperation because with or without Z’s act as a lookout,
the crime of Rape. X would nevertheless have committed the act of killing Y.
According to the Court, the girl may herself present her All the elements of an accomplice are present. After X had
body before Speed and still, rape will be committed. The authored the criminal design, he informed Z and Z
acts done by Dulay can be performed by another person concurred. Z performs acts previous or simultaneous to
not necessarily Dulay. The SC said that Dulay is not a the commission of the crime as he acted as a lookout, and
principal by indispensable cooperation. With or without his act is directly connected to the act of X. Therefore, Z
her acts, Speed could still have raped the girl. is liable as an accomplice in the commission of the crime
of Murder.
The Court said that what Dulay did was an act of procuring
child prostitute. Therefore, the liability of Dulay would be Q: X sought the help of his best friend, Z, to act as a
a violation of RA 7610 as a procurer of a child prostitute. lookout after he has decided to kill Y. So, X and Z went
in front of the house of Y. X gave this instruction to Z,
It is evident that the SC looked at the girl as a child “If you see any untoward incident happening or any
prostitute. When the Court said that the girl can present person arriving, give me a call, a signal that I have to
herself to Speed and still, rape will be committed, the leave the place.” X went inside the house of Y while Z
Court believes that the girl is a child prostitute who sells remained outside acting as a lookout.
her body. Hence, according to the SC, it is not necessary
that there be a Dulay to bring her to a customer. Few minutes later, Z saw some barangay tanods and
he overheard the name of Y. It seemed that the
The SC said that the act done by Dulay is not barangay tanods are going to the house of Y. Z went
indispensable in order to consummate the crime of Rape; into panic. His friend was still inside the house. He
the liability will be under RA 7610 as a procurer of a child gave X a call. Despite the number of times Z called X,
prostitute. X was not coming out.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Out of panic, Z left his place outside and went inside broke the lock of the said cabinet and upon opening,
the house of Y. There, he saw Y bloodied down on the she saw pieces of jewelry and huge amounts of cash.
floor, full of stab wounds. Z saw his friend X still She placed everything inside her bag. Thereafter, she
armed with a knife, dripping with blood. hurriedly left the place of her masters in Makati.
Z told X, “Tayo na, may mga tanod na darating, X lives in Manila. She immediately went to her mother
mukhang dito pupunta. Tayo na!” But X told Z, in Manila. She confessed to her mother what she did.
“Sandali, dalhin mo muna itong body ni Y doon sa Her mother was so afraid. X was her only daughter
well. Itapon mo sa deep well.” Z dragged the and her only companion in life, and now her daughter
deceased body of Y to the said deep well and then he will be arrested. That cannot be. So, the mother told
threw it. X and Z left. her daughter X, “I have a distant friend in Tarlac. You
go to Tarlac. Go to the bus station. I will call my friend
The barangay tanods indeed went inside the house of and she will harbor you there. Go now because I’m
Y and when no one was answering, the tanods sure the moment Y and Z learned of the stealing, the
entered the house because the door was open. They police will immediately arrive at our house. Hence, X
saw blood everywhere. They followed the traces of immediately went away.
blood that ended near the deep well. There, they saw
the deceased body of Y floating. X left all the pieces of jewelry and the cash to her
mother. The mother knew that at any time, the police
Based on the autopsy report, the cause of death of Y will arrive. So, the mother left the house and went to
was drowning. When Z threw the body of Y into the the house of a friend nearby. She told her friend,
well, Y was still alive. What are the criminal liabilities “Friend, I won in the lotto. Look, I have this bag full of
of X and Z? money. Can you keep this bag of money secretly? Do
not show it to anybody. I promise to give you a big
A: X is liable as a PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT share. Just keep it a secret.” And the friend said,
PARTICIPATION in the crime of Murder. Z is liable as a “Yes, of course,” provided that she will be given a
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION in the share. The mother promised to give her friend a
crime of Murder. Without Z’s act, the crime of murder will share. Thereafter, the mother left.
not be consummated. Without Z’s act, Y will not die.
Therefore, since Z’s act is indispensable to commit the Knowing that at any time she will be followed, the
crime, Z is a co-conspirator of X. Z is liable as a co- mother checked in at a hotel. She slept there. The
principal, that is, a principal by indispensable cooperation following morning, she checked out. Her mission now
in the crime of Murder. is to look for a store where she can sell the pieces of
jewelry stolen by her daughter.
Q: When is a lookout a mere accomplice and when is
a lookout a principal or a co-conspirator? So, from Manila, the mother went to Makati, then
Mandaluyong, San Juan, and Quezon City. Finally,
A: A lookout is a co-conspirator or co-principal when he is she went to Caloocan. There, she saw a small jewelry
an author of the crime. He is part of the planning. He is store and she sold the pieces of jewelry.
part of the criminal design and his task was that of acting
as a lookout. He is a co-conspirator; he is a co-principal. The store owner appraised the pieces of jewelry. After
appraisal, the store owner gave back the pieces of
However, a lookout is a mere accomplice if the principals jewelry. The store owner admitted to the mother, “I’m
have already authored the crime and they only secured sorry. I do not have the money to buy your pieces of
the services of the offender to serve as a lookout. In that jewelry.” The mother inquired, “Why? How much are
case, he will be a mere accomplice. With or without his these pieces of jewelry based on your appraisal?”
participation, the crime will nevertheless be The store owner said, “They cost more or less P5
consummated. million. I do not have that money.”
Q: X is a trusted helper in the house of Y and Z. Y and So, the mother took the pieces of jewelry and placed
Z went to a party. X was alone. X took the said them again inside her bag. She was about to leave but
absence of the owners of the house as an opportunity she saw two police officers outside. There was also a
for her. She broke the lock of the door of the master’s police car. The two police officers were walking back
bedroom. Thereafter, she entered the master’s and forth. The mother was afraid. She believes those
bedroom. She was looking around. She took notice of police officers were after her. Hence, the mother told
this particular cabinet separated from the others. She the store owner, “How much money do you have?”

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The store owner said, “I have only P50,000.00.” The

mother said, “Can you add a little more?” The store b. altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any
owner said, “I can give you, at the most, P100,000.00. paper, record, document, or object, with intent to
I have nothing more.” impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or
The mother took the P100,000.00, left the pieces of official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used
jewelry, and hurriedly left the store. She boarded a in the investigation of, or official proceedings in,
jeepney and left. After the mother left, the two police criminal cases;
officers entered, but not only them, a woman also
entered – the employer of X, the owner of the pieces c. harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape
of jewelry. The pieces of jewelry were still in the of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground
possession of the store owner, and the woman said, to believe or suspect, has committed any offense
“Those are pieces of jewelry stolen from me.” So, the under existing penal laws in order to prevent his
store owner was arrested. What are the criminal arrest prosecution and conviction;
liabilities of X, of the mother, and of the store owner?
d. publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of
A: X is liable as a PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the
PARTICIPATION in the crime of Robbery. It is Robbery, execution of a judgment, or concealing his true
not Theft, because the act of taking is attended by the use name and other personal circumstances for the
of force upon things. It is robbery by use of force upon same purpose or purposes;
things under Art. 299, second paragraph. X, being an
insider, was able to take with intent to gain the personal e. delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by
properties inside by employing force, that is, by breaking obstructing the service of process or court orders or
the closed or sealed receptacle, doors, chests. She broke disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in
the lock of the door. She broke the lock of the cabinet Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
wherein the pieces of jewelry and the money were kept.
Therefore, X is liable for robbery as a principal by direct f. making, presenting or using any record, document,
participation under Arti. 299, second act. paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with
intent to affect the course or outcome of the
Q: What about the mother? What are the acts done by investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
the mother? cases;
A: The first act done by the mother is harboring, g. soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any
concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal that benefit in consideration of abstaining from,
is her daughter. So, that pertains to the third act of an discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a
accessory. criminal offender;
PD 1829 h. threatening directly or indirectly another with the

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate member or
THE REVISED PENAL CODE members of his family in order to prevent such
BOOK ONE person from appearing in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing
SECTION 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to
maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 prevent a person from appearing in the investigation
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
delays the apprehension of suspects and the i. giving of false or fabricated information to mislead
investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by or prevent the law enforcement agencies from
committing any of the following acts: apprehending the offender or from protecting the life
or property of the victim; or fabricating information
a. preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal from the data gathered in confidence by
proceeding or from reporting the commission of any investigating authorities for purposes of background
offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of information and not for publication and publishing or
bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, disseminating the same to mislead the investigator
force or threats; or to the court.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
can be prosecuted for a violation of PD 1829, Obstruction

If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any of Justice.
other law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall
be imposed. Q: What is the last act done by the mother?
A: The mother sold the pieces of jewelry to the store

owner. In doing so, the mother profited from the effects of
Q: Is the mother liable as an accessory? the crime. The mother assisted her daughter to profit from
the effects of the crime. Therefore, the mother performed
A: NO. The mother is not liable as an accessory based on the first act of an accessory under Art. 19. This time, Art.
the third act for two reasons. First, under the third act of 20 will not apply because relationship as an absolutory
an accessory, if the offender is a private person, the cause under the said article will not lie if the act done by
principal must be guilty of Treason, Parricide, Murder, or the accessory pertains to the first act. So, the mother can
an Attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is be held liable as an accessory under the first act.
known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
Robbery is not included. Q: What about the store owner? What is the criminal
liability of the said store owner?
Another reason is, under Art. 20 of the RPC, the mother,
being an ascendant of the principal X, the said A: The store owner shall be liable for fencing under PD
relationship will exempt her from criminal liability. Under 1612. All the elements of fencing are present.
Art. 20, relationship will exempt the accessory from
criminal liability if she is related to the principal as a First element: That a crime of Robbery or Theft has been
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, and committed. In this case, Robbery has been committed.
adopted brother and sister, or a relative by affinity within
the same degrees, if the act committed by the accessory Second element: That the offender who is neither a
pertains to the second and the third acts. principal nor an accomplice is found in the possession of
any article, item, object, or anything of value which is the
In this case, the act done by the mother pertains to the proceeds of Robbery or Thievery. The store owner was
third act. Therefore, Art. 20, absolutory cause of found in possession of the pieces of jewelry, which are the
relationship, applies here. So, for these two reasons, the proceeds of Robbery, and he is neither a principal nor an
mother cannot be held liable as an accessory under the accomplice. The second element of fencing is also
third act even if she assisted in the escape of her present.
daughter, the principal.
Third element: The store owner did not know that the said
The mother can, however, be charged for a violation of jewelries came from Robbery; however, he ought to know
PD 1829, Obstruction of Justice. In assisting in the escape that these jewelries were the proceeds of the crime of
of her daughter, she frustrated, hampered the arrest of her Robbery or Theft because the jewelries were sold to him
daughter, and the prosecution and investigation of the for very, very low price. He was the one who appraised
crime committed by her daughter. the jewelries amounting to more or less P5 million, yet it
was sold to him only for P100,000.00. No rightful owner of
Q: What is the second act done by the mother? a jewelry will sell jewelries at such price; therefore, the
third element is present because the store owner ought to
A: The mother brought the money to her friend and asked know that the thing that was in possession was the
the friend to hide the money, telling the friend that those proceeds of Robbery or Theft.
were her winnings in the lotto. Therefore, in that case, the
mother committed the second act under Art. 19 – by Fourth element: There is in his part an intent to gain.
concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the Obviously, he has already gained. He only paid
effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its P100,000.00 for jewelries at the cost P5 million.
discovery. She concealed the money so that the crime will Therefore, all the elements of Fencing are present. He
not be discovered. Therefore, she committed the second should be charged of the said offense under PD 1612.
act.
Q: And so, because of that the said store owner was
Q: Can the mother be held liable as an accessory? arrested by the police. They are Makati police officers
A: NO. The mother is exempted by reason of relationship because the robbery took place at the house of the
under Art. 20. She is an ascendant; the principal is her employers in Makati. And so, the police officers
descendant. By reason of their relationship, she is brought the store owner in the City Jail of Makati.
exempted as an accessory under Art. 20. However, she

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
There he was interrogated; there he was investigated. anything of value has been derived from the proceeds
After that, a complaint for violation of PD 1612 or of the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) there is, on the
Fencing was filed by the Police Officers of Makati part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for
before the Office of Public Prosecutor of Makati. If you another.
are the fiscal at the Office of the Public Prosecutor
assigned in the case, how will you resolve the charge In the present case, the SC ruled that the requisites of
of Fencing? fencing are present. First, private complainant testified
that the crime of robbery had been committed on 17
A: The complaint of Fencing is now filed against the store February 1995. He was able to prove ownership of the
owner. If you were the public prosecutor handling the tires through Sales Invoice No. 4565 dated 10
case, you have to outrightly DISMISS THE CASE on the November 1994 and an Inventory List.
ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Second, although there was no evidence to link Ong as
The SC said that Fencing or violation of PD 1612 is not a the perpetrator of the robbery, he never denied the fact
continuing or transitory offense. Since it is not a continuing that 13 tires of the private complainant were caught in
or transitory offense, the offender can only be prosecuted his possession. The Court finds that the serial numbers
at the place where he is found in possession of the said of stolen tires corresponds to those found in Ong’s
stolen items. In this case, the store owner was found in possession.
possession of the said stolen items in Caloocan.
Therefore, the case of Fencing or violation of PD 1612 can Third, the accused knew or should have known that the
only be filed before the Office of the Public Prosecutor of said article, item, object or anything of value has been
Caloocan; it can only be heard before the trial courts of derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
Caloocan. Makati or Manila has no jurisdiction over the theft. The words "should know" denote the fact that a
said case; it must be outrightly dismissed. person of reasonable prudence and intelligence would
ascertain the fact in performance of his duty to another
ONG v. PEOPLE or would govern his conduct upon assumption that
G.R. NO. 190475 | APRIL 10, 2013 | SERENO, C.J. such fact exists. Ong, who was in the business of buy
and sell of tires for the past 24 years, ought to have
FACTS: Private complainant was the owner of 44 known the ordinary course of business in purchasing
Firestone trucks, and uses chalk to mark them before from an unknown seller. Admittedly, Go approached
storing in the warehouse. 6 tires were sold. However, Ong and offered to sell the 13 tires and he did not even
the remaining 38 tires were stolen. Upon checking the ask for proof of ownership of the tires. The entire
area, private complainant chanced upon Jong's transaction, from the proposal to buy until the delivery
Marketing, owned and operated by Ong. Private of tires happened in just one day. His experience from
complainant inquired if Ong was selling any Firestone the business should have given him doubt as to the
tires, to which the latter replied in the affirmative. legitimate ownership of the tires considering that it was
Appellant brought out a tire fitting the description, which his first time to transact with Go and the manner it was
private complainant recognized as one of the tires sold is as if Go was just peddling the 13 tires in the
stolen from his warehouse based on the chalk marking streets.
and the serial number thereon. Ong was arrested when
the police conducted a buy-bust operation on his store. Finally, there was evident intent to gain for himself,
Ong was charged with violation of PD 1612. considering that during the buy-bust operation, Ong
was actually caught selling the stolen tires in his store,
ISSUE: W/N Ong is criminally liable of violation of the Jong Marketing.
Anti-Fencing Law (YES)
Further, fencing is malum prohibitum, and P.D. 1612
RULING: YES. The essential elements of fencing are creates a prima facie presumption of fencing from
as follows: (1) a crime of robbery or theft has been evidence of possession by the accused of any good,
committed; (2) the accused, who is not a principal or on article, item, object or anything of value, which has
accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery been the subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a
or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, higher penalty based on the value of the property.
conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of
value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the
Q: What if the defense raised by the store owner is
crime of robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or
that he acted in good faith, he lacks criminal intent. Is
should have known that the said article, item, object or
good faith a defense?

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Prision mayor.
A: NO. In case of Ong v. People, the SC said that good
faith or lack of criminal intent is not a valid defense in 3. Correctional penalties:
Fencing because Fencing or violation of PD 1612 is an Prision correccional,
act malum prohibitum; it is not an act malum inse. Since Arresto mayor,
it is an act malum prohibitum, criminal intent is immaterial. Suspension,
Good faith is not a defense; therefore, the mere fact that Destierro.
the store owner was found in possession of the said
jewelries which are the subject of a Robbery, he becomes 4. Light penalties:
liable of the offense of Fencing or violation of PD 1612, Arresto menor,
unless he was able to rebut it by clear and convincing Public censure.
evidence.
5. Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
ARTICLE 21 Fine, and
PENALTIES Bond to keep the peace.
Penalties are the punishment imposed by law on a person ACCESSORY PENALTIES

who has committed either an intentional felony or a Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
culpable felony. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
THE REVISED PENAL CODE voted for, the profession or calling.
BOOK ONE Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
ARTICLE 21. Penalties that May Be Imposed. – No Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds
felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed of the offense,
by law prior to its commission. Payment of costs.
Under Art. 21, only those penalties prescribed by law prior Art. 25 lists down the principal penalties, and the
to its commission may be imposed by the court. This is in accessory penalties, which may be imposed by the court.
accordance with the ex-post facto provision of the There two (2) kinds of penalties are:
Constitution. So, penalties are prescribed by law enacted
by Congress. Judges only imposed penalties; courts only 1. Principal penalties are the penalties prescribed
imposed penalties as prescribed by law. And they can by law and imposed by courts in case of
only impose those penalties prescribed by law prior to its conviction.
commission.
2. Accessory penalties are those penalties that
THE REVISED PENAL CODE follow the principal penalties as a matter of law.
BOOK ONE Hence, in every judgment, the judge need not
state the accessory penalty. All that the judge
ARTICLE 25. Penalties which may be imposed. – need to state is the principal penalty. Because
The penalties which may be imposed according to this even without stating the accessory penalty, it
Code, and their different classes, are those included in necessarily follows the principal penalty to which
the following: it attaches. That is automatic.
SCALE
Example: The judge convicted X of Murder
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES imposing upon him reclusion perpetua. There is
1. Capital punishment: no need for the judge to state that X is also civilly
Death. interdicted. Civil interdiction necessarily follows
reclusion perpetua as a matter of law.
2. Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT OR DEATH PENATLY
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute Capital punishment or death penalty, at the moment,
disqualification, cannot be imposed by the court.
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Carries with it accessory Has no attached

RA 9346 penalties accessory penalties
PROHIBITING ON THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH
PENALTY
RA 9346 Those are the distinctions. Hence, they should never be

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH used interchangeably because they are two separate
PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES and distinct penalties.
Section 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with
RECLUSION TEMPORAL
reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced
to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be
eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known Under Art. 27, it has a duration of 12 years and 1 day to
as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. 20 years.
DISQUALIFICATION
Reason: RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of death
penalty.
Disqualification, whether absolute or special, can either
For every heinous crime wherein the prescribed penalty be perpetual or temporary:
is death and the accused is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. The judge has to reduce the imposable 1. Perpetual disqualification is effective during
penalty to reclusion perpetua. the lifetime of the convict, and even after the
service of the sentence.
If the penalty ought to be death and it was reduced to
reclusion perpetua, the SC said that there must be the 2. Temporary disqualification is effective only
qualification “without eligibility for parole”. This is during the term of his sentence, and it is
necessary in order to show that this accused should have removed after the service of his sentence,
been penalized and imposed with death, only by reason except the right to public office or employment,
of RA 9346, death cannot be imposed. and the right to wages and other special benefits
like retirement pay for offices previously held.
RECLUSION PERPETUA
Disqualification can be imposed either as a principal or
an accessory penalty.
Reclusion perpetua is not the same as Life
Imprisonment. Reclusion perpetua and Life 1. If disqualification is imposed as a principal
Imprisonment are two separate and distinct penalties. penalty, and it is a temporary disqualification, its
The SC said that they should not be used duration is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.
interchangeably.
2. If it is imposed as an accessory penalty, it merely
Reclusion perpetua Vis-à-vis Life Imprisonment follows the duration of the principal penalty to
which it attaches.
RECLUSION LIFE IMPRISONMENT
PERPETUA PRISION MAYOR
A penalty prescribed A penalty imposed as
under the RPC. prescribed by Special
Penal Laws. Under Art. 27, it has a duration of 6 years and 1 day to 12
years.
It has a fixed duration. It has no fixed duration
Under Art. 27 of the RPC, PRISION CORRECCIONAL
as amended by RA 7659,
it is 20 years and 1 day to Under Art. 27, it has a duration of 6 months and 1 day to
40 years. 6 years.
ARESTO MAYOR

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
(P40,000); and a light penalty, if it be less than Forty

Under Art. 27, it has a duration of 1 month and 1 day to 6 thousand pesos (P40,000). (As amended by Republic
months. Act No. 10951)
SUSPENSION
Fine under Art. 26, as amended by RA 10951, can either
Suspension can be imposed as either a principal penalty be afflictive, correctional or light. Based on the
and an accessory penalty: amendment brought by RA 10951, fine is:
1. If suspension is imposed as a principal penalty, 1. Afflictive – if it exceeds P1.2 million

it has the same duration as prision correccional, 2. Correctional – between P40,000.00 to P1.2
which is 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. million
3. Light – less than P40,000.00
2. If suspension is imposed merely as an
accessory penalty, it merely follows the duration BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
of the principal penalty to which it attaches.
It is a penalty imposed on an offender. Although it is
DESTIERRO included in Art. 25 as a principal penalty, there is no felony
in Book 2 which prescribes bond to keep the peace as a
Destierro does not involve imprisonment or incarceration. penalty. What we have is Bond for good behavior under
A person convicted and penalized with destierro is Art. 284 in case of grave threats and light threats.
prohibited from entering the place designated in the
judgment of the court. If he enters the said prohibited If imposed upon an offender under Art. 25, the offender is
place, he becomes liable for Evasion of Service of required to present two (2) sureties who shall ensure that
Sentence under Art. 157. he will not make good of the crime he intended to commit.
If he failed to present these two (2) sureties, he shall be
detained six (6) months in case of grave or less grave
ARRESTO MENOR
felonies, and 30 days in case of light felonies.
It has duration of 1 to 30 days. ACCESSORY PENALTIES
PUBLIC CENSURE
Under Art. 25, the accessory penalties that follow the
principal penalties include:
Public Censure is indivisible. It has no fixed duration. You
cannot divide a reprimand, hence, it is indivisible. 1. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
2. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
FINE 3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote or
be voted, or to practice one’s profession or
calling,
It is pecuniary penalty imposed by the court on a convict. 4. Civil interdiction,
5. Indemnification,
ARTICLE 26 6. Forfeiture and confiscation of proceeds and
FINE instruments of the crime, and
7. Payment of cost.
BOOK ONE CIVIL INTERDICTION
ARTICLE 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light

penalty. – A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty to the principal
alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalties of Death – if it is not executed, Reclusion
penalty, if it exceeds One million two hundred thousand Perpetua and Reclusion Temporal.
pesos (P1,200,000); a correctional penalty, if it does
not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos
(P1,200,000) but is not less than Forty thousand pesos

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
If the penalty imposed on an offender is reclusion ARTICLE 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the
perpetua, reclusion temporal, automatically civil proceeds or instruments of the crime. – Every
interdiction attaches. penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall
carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime
ARTICLE 34 and the instruments or tools with which it was committed.
CIVIL INTERDICTION
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be
THE REVISED PENAL CODE confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government,
BOOK ONE unless they be property of a third person not liable for the
offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful
ARTICLE 34. Civil interdiction. - Civil interdiction commerce shall be destroyed.
shall deprive the offender during the time of his
sentence of the rights of parental authority, or
guardianship, either as to the person or property of any
Under Art. 45, this is an accessory penalty to all kinds of
ward, of marital authority, of the right to manage his
principal penalty. Whatever the kind of principal penalty,
property and of the right to dispose of such property by
the proceeds, instruments, and effects used in the
any act or any conveyance inter vivos.
commission of the crime shall always be forfeited in favor
of the State/Government.
Under Art. 34, a person who is civilly interdicted is Exception: It cannot be forfeited in favor of the
deprived of certain rights: Government if it belongs to an innocent person.
1. Rights of parental authority, Exception to the exception: But even if it belongs to an

2. Rights of guardianship over the persons or innocent third person but it is outside the lawful commerce
property of his ward, of men, it has to be destroyed by the appropriate
3. Rights of marital authority, government agency.
4. Rights to manage his property, and
5. Right to dispose of his property by any act or PAYMENT OF COSTS
conveyance inter vivos.
A person who is civilly interdicted cannot exercise any of ARTICLE 37

this rights. COST
It is settled that, according to the SC, he can prepare a THE REVISED PENAL CODE
last will and testament because what the law prohibits is BOOK ONE
the disposal, the conveyance of one’s property inter vivos
or during his lifetime. ARTICLE 37. Cost - What are included. – Costs shall
include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial
The SC said that although a last will and testament is proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable
prepared inter vivos, its effect will only be mortis causa or amounts previously determined by law or regulations in
after the death of the decedent. Hence, the disposal of the force, or amounts not subject to schedule.
property is already allowed.
INDEMNIFICATION
Costs refer to expenses of litigation. Under Art. 37, costs
include fees and indemnities in the course of judicial
It refers to the damages in favor of the private
proceedings.
complainant.
ARTICLE 45 In case of conviction, it is the accused who shall shoulder

the cost of litigation. In case of acquittal, each party shall
CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF THE
shoulder their respective costs of proceedings.
PROCEEDS OR INSTRUMENTS OF THE CRIME
THE REVISED PENAL CODE PECUNIARY LIABILITES

BOOK ONE

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Under Art. 25, we have two (2) pecuniary penalties:

imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees
1. Fine, and
voluntarily in writing after being informed of the effects
2. Cost of proceedings.
thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by
the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
Pecuniary penalties are different from pecuniary liabilities.
prisoners, except in the following cases:
Under Art. 38, pecuniary liabilities include:
1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted
1. Reparation of damage caused,
previously twice or more times of any crime; and
2. Indemnification of consequential damages,
3. Fine, and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of
4. Costs of the proceedings.
their sentence they have failed to surrender
voluntarily.
BOOK ONE If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
ARTICLE 38. Pecuniary Liabilities – Order of prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance
Payment. – In case the property of the offender should of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his
not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has
liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order: undergone preventive imprisonment.
1. The reparation of the damage caused. Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of
2. Indemnification of consequential damages. reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30)
3. The fine. years.
4. The costs of the proceedings.
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to the possible
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to
Under Art. 38, if the offender is imposed with pecuniary which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet
liabilities and he does not have sufficient funds and terminated, he shall be released immediately without
property to pay the same, the order of payment is needed: prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.
1. Reparation of damage caused, Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes
2. Indemnification of consequential damages, of immediate release under this paragraph shall be the
3. Fine, and actual period of detention with good conduct time
4. Payment of costs. allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is
absent without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial,
Reparation of damage caused and indemnification are the court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the
both given to private offended party. The law requires the accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual
accused to prioritize the payment of those owing to the delinquents, escapees and persons charged with
private offended party, reparation of damage caused and heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this
indemnification, than those owing to the State, fine and Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused
costs of proceedings. may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released
after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.
ARTICLE 29
PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT
Preventive imprisonment is the detention of an offender

while his case is ongoing trial either because:
BOOK ONE
1. The crime charged against him is non-bailable
ARTICLE 29. Period of preventive imprisonment
offense and evidence of guilt is strong; or
deducted from term of imprisonment. – Offenders
2. the crime charged is a bailable offense but he
or accused who have undergone preventive
does not have the money or property to post the
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their
bail fixed by the court.
sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full
time during which they have undergone preventive

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Because of that, he is placed behind bars in the city jail, Q: X, the wife, found that Y, his husband, was having
provincial jail, or the municipal jail or BJMP. His case is an affair. The husband was cohabiting with a
ongoing trial and he is merely detention prisoner. He is concubine. X was able to gather pieces of evidence.
merely there because of preventive imprisonment in order X filed a complaint for Concubinage, there was
to prevent his escape. He is not yet convicted by final probable cause, the case was filed before the MeTC
judgment. He is still presumed innocent unless the State by the Office of the Public Prosecutor. The MeTC
proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. judge found probable cause. A warrant of arrest was
issued against the husband, as well as the concubine.
Under Art. 29, as amended by RA 10592, the period of They were placed behind bars. They could not post
preventive imprisonment that a detention prisoner has bail because they have no money. They are now
undergone may be deducted from his final sentence behind bars for a period of 35 days and trial has not
based on the following rules: yet started. Because of this, the counsel from Public
Attorneys Office filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus
1. There shall be full credit if the detention prisoner moving for their immediate release on the ground of
voluntarily agrees in writing in the presence of the Art. 29, as amended by RA 10952. If you are the judge,
counsel to abide by the same rules and will you grant or deny the said Petition for Habeas
regulations imposed on convicted prisoners; or Corpus?
2. There shall only be four-fifth credit if the said A: If you were the judge, you have to GRANT the Petition
detention prisoner does not agree in writing in the for Habeas Corpus filed by the PAO Counsel IN SO FAR
presence of the counsel to abide with the same AS THE CONCUBINE IS CONCERNED. Under Art. 29,
rules and regulations imposed on convicted as amended, if the maximum imposable penalty is
prisoners. destierro, the detention prisoner has to be immediately
released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment.
Whether he agrees or not to abide with the same rules
and regulations imposed on convicted prisoners, RA The penalty for the concubine in the crime of
10592 requires that it must be done in writing and in the Concubinage under Art. 34 is destierro. And since the
presence of a counsel of his choice. The obligation of his concubine is behind bars for already 35 days, she has to
counsel is to explain to him the consequences of his act, be immediately released. Her continued detention is
the benefit, and counter-benefits. It must be explained to already illegal in nature.
him fully the consequences of his act of agreeing or not
agreeing. It must be in writing in the presence of counsel Under Art. 29, as amended, she can only be held behind
of his choice. If he does not have counsel of his choice, bars undergoing preventive imprisonment for a maximum
the government shall provide him with a counsel. of 30 days.
Under Art 29, as amended by RA 10592, if a detention In so far as the husband is concerned, the penalty for
prisoner has undergone preventive imprisonment for Concubinage is prision correccional, therefore, he has not
period equal to the maximum penalty imposable on him yet served the said maximum service of his sentence. The
for the crime he has committed, he shall be immediately time of 35 days behind bars is not yet equivalent to the
released without prejudice to the continuation of the trial maximum penalty of prision correccional. Therefore, the
against him or without prejudice to appeal if his case is said Petition for Habeas Corpus IN SO FAR AS THE
under review by the appellate court. HUSBAND IS CONCERNED has to be DENIED.
Therefore, the fact that he is released because he already ARTICLE 39

served the maximum penalty which may be imposed on SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
him in case that he is convicted, he shall be released but
the trial goes on. If it is on appeal, the appeal goes on. If THE REVISED PENAL CODE
it is on trial, he is obligated by RA 10952 to appear in every BOOK ONE
hearing of the case.
ARTICLE 39. Subsidiary penalty. – If the convict has
He is only released because his time was served. Even if no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in
he is convicted, he will no longer be ordered to be placed the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall
behind bars. You are already had undergone preventive be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate
imprisonment for a period equal to the penalty which may of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following
be imposed on him. rules:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision

correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain One day imprisonment equals to the highest minimum
under confinement until his fine referred to in the wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of
preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary rendition of judgment by the trial court.
imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the
term of the sentence, and in no case shall it Rules for the Imposition of Subsidiary Penalty
continue for more than one year, and no fraction or
part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner. Under Art. 39, as amended, the following are the rules for
the imposition of subsidiary penalty:
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine,
the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six 1. If the principal penalty imposed by the court that
months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted goes with fine is prision correccional or aresto,
for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not subsidiary penalty shall not exceed 1/3 of the
exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. term of the sentence but in no case to be more
than one (1) year;
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision
correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be 2. If the principal penalty imposed by the court is fine
imposed upon the culprit. alone, subsidiary penalty shall not exceed six (6)
months in case of grave or less grave felonies,
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be and shall not exceed 15 days in case of light
executed by confinement in a penal institution, but felonies;
such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during
the period of time established in the preceding 3. If the principal penalty imposed by the court that
rules, shall continue to suffer the same goes with fine is higher than six (6) years, is
deprivations as those of which the principal penalty higher the prision correccional, there is no
consists. subsidiary penalty even if the accused is
insolvent to pay the fine;
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict
may have suffered by reason of his insolvency 4. If the principal penalty imposed by the court that
shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his goes with fine is not to be executed by
financial circumstances should improve. (As confinement in a penal institution but is a fixed
amended by RA 5465) duration (e.g. fine and suspension, fine and
destierro), subsidiary penalty shall not exceed 1/3
of the term of the sentence but in no case to be
more than one (1) year.
Subsidiary Penalty is the substitute penalty for fine and
fine alone. 5. If the principal penalty that goes with fine is not to
be executed by confinement in a penal institution
Requisites Before an Offender can be Made to Suffer but is without fixed duration and indivisible
Subsidiary Penalty penalty (e.g. fine and public censure) even if he
is insolvent to pay the fine, he cannot be made to
1. The penalty imposed by courts include fine; suffer subsidiary penalty.
2. The accused is insolvent to pay the fine; and
3. There is an express statement in the judgment of Q: X was charged and thereafter, convicted of
the court that in case the accused is insolvent to Falsification of Private Document. The judge imposed
pay the fine, he shall suffer subsidiary penalty. upon him the penalty of prision correccional and fine.
It was further stated that in case of insolvency to pay
Without the express statement, X cannot be made to the fine, X shall suffer subsidiary penalty. Is the judge
suffer subsidiary penalty even if he is insolvent to pay the correct?
fine.
A: YES. Based on the first rule, if the principal penalty that
Reason: Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty goes with fine is prision correccional, subsidiary penalty
that merely follows the principal penalty. Subsidiary shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence, but in no
penalty is a substitute penalty for fine alone by reason of case to be more than one (1) year.
insolvency to pay the fine.
Rate

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Q: X was charged and was thereafter, convicted of that in case of insolvency to pay the fine, he shall
Perjury. The judge imposed upon him prision mayor suffer subsidiary penalty;
and fine. The judge stated that in case of X’s 3. If the penalty imposed by the court together with
insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer subsidiary the fine is higher than prision correccional;
penalty. Is the judge correct? 4. If the penalty imposed by the court together with
fine is not to be executed by confinement in a
A: NO. The judge is wrong. The principal penalty that he penal institution and is without fixed duration; or
imposed together with fine is prision mayor which is higher 5. If what the accused failed to pay is not fine but
than six (6) years, higher than prision correccional. damages.
Therefore, even if X is insolvent to pay the fine, he cannot
be made to suffer subsidiary penalty. In these instances, he cannot be made to suffer subsidiary
penalty.
Q: X was sentenced with a penalty of fine. The writ of
execution was returned unsatisfied because there is COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES
an express statement in the judgement that incase of
X’s insolvency to pay the fine, he shall suffer
subsidiary penalty. The judge issued a warrant of When you say degree of penalty, it refers to the entirety
arrest. X was arrested, placed behind bars to suffer of a penalty, the penalty prescribed by law imposed by the
subsidiary penalty. court.
After a year, he was released. Upon reaching the When you say period of penalty, it is the division of a
house there was a lawyer waiting for him. It was the divisible penalty into minimum, medium and maximum
lawyer of his grandparents who died in an accident. periods. The first one-third portion is known as the
The lawyer told X that he is the sole heir of his rich minimum period; the second one-third portion is known as
grandparents. X is now a wealthy man. X’s wealth was the medium; and the third and last one-third portion is
the talk of the town, until it reached the fiscal’s office. known as the maximum period.
The fiscal conducted an investigation and they
learned that indeed X is now a rich man because of Only divisible penalties may be divided into periods.
his inheritance. The Office of the Public Prosecutor
immediately filed a motion before the court to order X Indivisible penalties, which have no fixed duration, cannot
to pay the fine imposed on him. His counsel filed an be divided into minimum, medium and maximum periods.
opposition to the said motion saying that X already
served the substitute penalty of subsidiary Examples of indivisible penalties:
imprisonment, therefore, he cannot be made to pay 1. Reclusion perpetua,
the fine imposed on him. Is the counsel correct? 2. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
3. Perpetual special disqualification,
A: NO. The counsel is wrong in his opposition. Art. 39, as 4. Fine, and
amended, expressly provides that even if the offender has 5. Public censure.
already undergone subsidiary penalty by reason of his
insolvency to pay the fine, he shall still be required to pay These cannot be divided into three (3) periods.
the fine imposed by the court the moment his financial
circumstances improve. In this case, his financial ARTICLE 63
circumstance has greatly improved by reason of INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES
inheritance. Therefore, he is obligated by law to pay the
fine imposed on him. THE REVISED PENAL CODE
BOOK ONE
Q: In what instances can an accused not be allowed
to suffer subsidiary penalty? ARTICLE 63. Rules for the Application of Indivisible
Penalties. – In all cases in which the law prescribes a
A: In the following circumstances the accused cannot be single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the
made to suffer subsidiary penalty: courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the commission
1. If the penalty imposed by the court does not of the deed.
include fine;
2. If the penalty of the accused includes fine but
there is no express statement in the judgement

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty circumstance, the lesser of the two indivisible
composed of two indivisible penalties, the following penalties shall be imposed;
rules shall be observed in the application thereof:
In the given example, reclusion perpetua
1. When in the commission of the deed there is shall be the one imposed.
present only one aggravating circumstance, the
greater penalty shall be applied.
d. If there are both mitigating and aggravating
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances present in the commission of
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the the crime, you offset the two (2)
lesser penalty shall be applied. circumstances and apply the rules.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by These are the rules for the imposition of indivisible
some mitigating circumstance and there is no penalties under Art. 63.
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall
be applied. ARTICLE 64
PENALTIES WITH THREE PERIODS
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
circumstances attended the commission of the act, THE REVISED PENAL CODE
the courts shall reasonably allow them to offset one BOOK ONE
another in consideration of their number and
importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty ARTICLE. 64. Rules for the application of penalties
in accordance with the preceding rules, according which contain three periods. – In cases in which the
to the result of such compensation. penalties prescribed by law contain three periods,
whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of
three different penalties, each one of which forms a
period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76
Under Art. 63, the rules for the imposition of indivisible and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the
penalties are: penalty the following rules, according to whether there
are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. If the penalty prescribed by law is a single
indivisible penalty it shall be imposed regardless
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
of mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty
prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. If the penalty prescribed by law consists of two (2)
indivisible penalties, the following are the rules:
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in
the commission of the act, they shall impose the
Example: reclusion perpetua to death
penalty in its minimum period.
a. If the commission of the crime is attended by
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in
one (1) aggravating with no mitigating, the
the commission of the act, they shall impose the
greater of the two penalties shall be imposed;
penalty in its maximum period.
In the given example, death shall be the one
4. When both mitigating and aggravating
imposed.
circumstances are present, the court shall
reasonably offset those of one class against the
b. If the commission is attended by one (1)
other according to their relative weight.
mitigating with no aggravating the lesser
penalty shall be imposed;
5. When there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
In the given example, reclusion perpetua
are present, the court shall impose the penalty next
shall be the one imposed.
lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it
may deem applicable, according to the number and
c. If the commission of the crime is not attended
nature of such circumstances.
by any mitigating or aggravating

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the imposing a penalty, they must provide for the maximum
aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not and the minimum term of a sentence.
impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by
law, in its maximum period. The moment the minimum term has already been served
by the convict, he becomes eligible for parole. If his
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall application for parole is granted, he shall be released
determine the extent of the penalty according to the subject to the conditions of the parole.
number and nature of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and the greater and BAR QUESTION
lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
Q: What is the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law? How is the purpose achieved?
Art. 64 provides the rules for the imposition of penalties, A: The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to
those which can be divided into minimum, maximum, and uplift and relieve valuable human material and to prevent
minimum periods. The following are the rules: prolonged and unnecessary deprivation of liberty.
1. If the commission of the crime is not attended by This purpose is achieved because the moment the
any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the offender has served the minimum of his sentence, he
penalty shall be in its medium period; becomes eligible for parole. He need not stay behind bars
to serve until the maximum, he can be released provided
2. If the commission of the crime is attended by one that the following requisites for the grant of parole are
(1) mitigating circumstance and no aggravating, present;
the penalty shall be in its minimum period;
1. It is necessary that the offender is serving an
3. If the commission of the crime is attended by one indeterminate sentence that exceeds one (1)
(1) aggravating circumstance with no mitigating, year;
the penalty shall be in its maximum period; 2. That the offender has served the minimum term
of his sentence; and
4. If the commission of the crime is attended by both 3. The Board of Pardons and Parole has found that
mitigating and aggravating circumstances, offset this offender has been reformed. That upon
the two (2) and apply the rules previously release, he will be a law-abiding citizen and that
mentioned; his release is not inconsistent with the interest
and welfare of the State.
5. If the commission of the crime is attended by two
(2) or more mitigating circumstances and no If all of these are present, his application for parole will be
aggravating, lower the penalty by one (1) degree. granted and he will be released.
NOTE: This situation of two (2) mitigating Example: The former husband of Sen. Loren Legarda
circumstances with no aggravating is known as was convicted of Homicide for killing his best friend. After
special mitigating circumstance; they are special serving the minimum term of reclusion termporal, he
because their effect is to lower the imposable applied and was granted parole, hence, he was released
penalty by one (1) degree. It only applies if the from prison.
two (2) mitigating circumstance is not attended by
any aggravating circumstance. NOTE: Although the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies
to both to the RPC and Special Penal Laws, although it
If there is a privilege mitigating circumstance, apply it applies to all offenders, there are certain offenders who
first before computing penalty. are disqualified to avail and to be given an indeterminate
sentence.
ACT 4103
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW Under Sec. 2 of Act 4103, as amended, they are the
following:
Whenever we look at Art. 64, we should always consider
Act 4103, as amended, otherwise known as the 1. Those convicted of crimes punished by death,
Indeterminate Sentence Law. This law modified the reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
imposition of penalties under the RPC and Special Penal
Laws. This law mandates courts and judges, that in

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
2. Those who are guilty of the crime of treason, A: If found GUILTY, he CANNOT be given an
conspiracy and proposal to commit treason; indeterminate sentence. He is now among those
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, disqualified because he evaded the term of his sentence.
rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy; (f) X was granted conditional pardon. He violated the
5. Those who are habitual delinquents; terms of his pardon. He was charged with violating
6. Those who have escaped from confinement or Art. 159 – Evasion of Service of Sentence by violation
evaded the term of their sentence; of conditional pardon.
7. Those who have been granted conditional pardon
by the Chief Executive but have violated the A: Once CONVICTED, he CANNOT be given an
terms of said pardon; or indeterminate sentence, only a straight penalty because
8. Those whose maximum term of sentence does he is disqualified.
not exceed one (1) year.
(g) X is sentenced to arresto menor.
These are the persons disqualified to be given an
indeterminate sentence. A: NO. He cannot be given an indeterminate sentence
because arresto menor does not exceed one (1) year.
Q: So, what would be the penalty imposed on them? Therefore, he is disqualified to be given an indeterminate
sentence.
A: They shall be imposed with a straight penalty. A
straight penalty, unlike an indeterminate sentence, has no Q: How do you compute the indeterminate sentence?
maximum or minimum term. Therefore, the
offender/convict is obligated to serve the penalty in its Violations of the RPC
entirety. There is no way that he may be released by
reason of parole. A: Take into consideration the penalty prescribed by law
and the rules provided for under Art. 64 in order to
Q: Are the following offenders qualified to be given an determine whether it should be in the minimum, medium
indeterminate sentence? or maximum period. Whatever is the penalty prescribed
by law, consider the attendant mitigating and aggravating
(a) X was convicted of qualified rape. circumstances based on the rules provided for under Art.
64.
A: NO. The penalty is death reduced to reclusion
perpetua. It is a straight penalty, he cannot be imposed After you get the maximum term of the sentence, you
with an indeterminate sentence. lower the penalty by one (1) degree to get the minimum
term of the sentence. In lowering the penalty by one
(b) X is convicted of piracy. degree, you no longer consider Art. 64 or the mitigating
and aggravating circumstances, just get the maximum
A: NO. X is not qualified for an indeterminate sentence, and then lower it by one (1) degree to get the minimum of
the penalty shall be a straight penalty. the sentence. That is for violation of RPC.
(c) X is found to be a habitual delinquent. Violations of Special Penal Laws
A: NO. He is disqualified to be given an indeterminate For violation of Special Penal Laws, it is easy. The
sentence. Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that, in imposing
an indeterminate sentence if it is a violation of a Special
(d) X is found to be a recidivist/quasi-recidivist. Penal Law, then the penalty shall not go beyond the
maximum penalty prescribed by law and the minimum
A: YES. X should be given an indeterminate sentence. term of the sentence shall not be less than the minimum
Only a habitual delinquent is disqualified. penalty prescribed by law.
(e) X while serving his sentence for Homicide, For example: If the penalty is 12 years to 20 years, the
escaped. He saw his opportunity and left. However, a judge can impose any penalty in between, provided it is
few hours later, he was arrested. He is now charged not more than 20 years, provided it is not less than 12
with Evasion of Service of Sentence. years. It can be 12 to 18 years, 15 to 20 years, or anything
in between.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
COMPUTATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES (voluntary surrender) Prision Mayor, in its

minimum period
Q: X committed a crime of Homicide. X killed Y, the Penalty: RT in its minimum period, to PM in its
penalty of Homicide is reclusion temporal. Let us say minimum period
that the act of killing was not attended by any
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. How would
you compute the penalty? A: Under Art. 64, if there is no aggravating circumstance
and there is one mitigating circumstance, the penalty shall
Aggravating Maximum term: be in its minimum period. That is the maximum term of the
Circumstances: 0 Reclusion Temporal, in sentence.
its medium period
Mitigating To get the minimum term of the sentence, again you lower
Circumstances: 0 Minimum Term: it by one degree, that is prision mayor. The range depends
Prision Mayor, in its on the sound discretion of the court. Since the maximum
medium period term is in the minimum period, let us make the minimum
term of the sentence also in its minimum period.
Penalty: RT in its medium period, to PM in its medium Therefore, the minimum term of the sentence is prision
period mayor in its minimum period.
Q: X killed Y inside his dwelling. Therefore, there is

A: First, in order to get the maximum term of the sentence, one (1) aggravating circumstance of dwelling and no
you take into consideration the penalty prescribed by law mitigating circumstance attended the commission of
which is reclusion temporal; and under Art. 64, if there are the crime. How would you compute the penalty?
no mitigating and aggravating circumstances, then the
penalty shall be in its medium period. Therefore, reclusion Aggravating Maximum term:
temporal in its medium period shall be the maximum term Circumstances: 1 Reclusion Temporal, in
of the sentence. (dwelling) its maximum period
How do you get the minimum term of the sentence? Under Mitigating Minimum Term:
Act 4103, as amended, to get the minimum term, you Circumstances: 0 Prision Mayor, in its
lower the penalty by one degree. The range depends on maximum period
the sound discretion of the court. Since the maximum term
of the sentence is in the medium period, let us make Penalty: RT in its maximum m period, to PM in its
prision mayor also in the medium period. Therefore, the maximum period
minimum term of the sentence is prision mayor in its
medium period.
A: First, get the penalty prescribed by law, that is reclusion
So, the court will rule finding the accused guilty beyond temporal. Under Art. 64, if there one aggravating
reasonable doubt of Homicide. He is hereby sentenced to circumstance with no mitigating circumstance, the penalty
suffer a penalty, the minimum term of which is prision shall be in its maximum period. That is the maximum term
mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its of the sentence.
medium period as a maximum term of the sentence.
To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it by
Q: When X killed Y, after the act of killing, X one degree, it shall be prision mayor. The range depends
immediately surrendered to the police authorities. on the sound discretion of the court. Since the maximum
There is no aggravating circumstance and there is term is in the maximum period, then let us make the
one (1) mitigating circumstance of voluntary minimum term also in the maximum period. Therefore, it
surrender. Again, the penalty prescribed by law is shall be prision mayor in its maximum period as the
reclusion temporal. How would you compute the minimum term of the sentence.
penalty?
Q: When X killed Y, the killing took place inside the
Aggravating Maximum term: dwelling of the victim. After killing, X surrendered to
Circumstances: 0 Reclusion Temporal, in the authorities. So, we have one (1) mitigating
its minimum period circumstance of voluntary surrender and one (1)
Mitigating aggravating circumstance of dwelling. How would
Circumstances: 1 Minimum Term: you compute the penalty?

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
lowers the penalty by one degree, not just by period but

Aggravating Maximum term: by degree.
Circumstances: 1 Reclusion Temporal, in
(dwelling) its medium period So, from reclusion temporal, it is lowered by one degree
to prision mayor. Since you have already considered the
Mitigating Minimum Term: two mitigating circumstances as a special mitigating
Circumstances: 1 Prision Mayor, in its circumstance, then there are no more modifying
(voluntary surrender) medium period circumstances remaining. Therefore, it shall be in its
medium period. That is the maximum term of the sentence
Penalty: RT in its medium period, to PM in its medium
period To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it
again by one degree. Again, the range depends on the
sound discretion of the court. Since the maximum term is
A: First, get the penalty prescribed by law, that is reclusion in its medium period, let us make the minimum term also
temporal. Under Article 64, when there are aggravating in its medium period.
and mitigating circumstances, we offset the two and apply
the rules. So, you offset the aggravating circumstance of Q: The act of killing was attended by three (3)
dwelling with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary mitigating circumstances, we have voluntary
surrender. After offsetting, no more modifying surrender, praeter intentionem and passion and
circumstances attended the commission of the crime. obfuscation, with no aggravating circumstance. How
Therefore, it shall be reclusion temporal in its medium would you compute the penalty?
period. That is the maximum term of the sentence.
Aggravating Maximum term:
To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower by Circumstances: 0 Prision Mayor, in its
one degree, that is prision mayor. The range depends on minimum period
the sound discretion of the court. Since the maximum term Mitigating
is in the medium period, then let us make the minimum Circumstances: 3 Minimum Term:
term also in the medium period. Therefore, the minimum (voluntary surrender, Prision Correccional, in
term shall be prision mayor in its medium period. praeter intentionem, its minimum period
pasion and obfuscation)
Q: The crime committed was Homicide. The killing
was not attended by aggravating circumstance but
Penalty: PM in its minimum period, to PC in its
there are two (2) mitigating circumstances. We have
minimum period
voluntary surrender and praeter intentionem. X said
that he has no intent to kill the victim, and that he
immediately surrender. How would you compute the A: First, get the penalty prescribed by law, that is reclusion
penalty? temporal. Under Art. 64, when there are two or more
mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
Aggravating Maximum term: circumstance, you lower the penalty by one degree. It
Circumstances: 0 Prision Mayor, in its becomes prision mayor.
medium period
Mitigating You only need two mitigating circumstances to lower the
Circumstances: 2 Minimum Term: penalty by one degree, so lower it because of voluntary
(voluntary surrender, Prision Correccional, in surrender and praeter intentionem. That is the special
praeter intentionem) its medium period mitigating circumstance. There remains one more which
is the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
Penalty: PM in its medium period, to PC in its What is the effect of another mitigating circumstance?
medium period The third remaining mitigating circumstance lowers the
period to the minimum. So, we have prision mayor in its
minimum period, that is the maximum term of the
A: Take into consideration the penalty prescribed by law sentence.
for Homicide, that is reclusion temporal. There is no
aggravating circumstance with two mitigating To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it by
circumstances. Under Art. 64, paragraph 5, there are two one degree, it is prision correccional in its minimum
or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating period. This is the minimum term of the sentence.
circumstance, you lower the penalty by one degree. This
is called special mitigating circumstance because it

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Q: The act of killing was not attended by any done by the said victim, and, X, at the time was
aggravating circumstance but attended by four (4) intoxicated, he was not a habitual drinker. So, we
mitigating circumstances, voluntary surrender, have four mitigating circumstances. How would you
praeter intentionem, passion and obfuscation and at compute the penalty?
the time X the accused was intoxicated. He was not a
habitual drink, thus, it is considered as a mitigating Aggravating Maximum term:
circumstance. How would you compute the penalty? Circumstances: 1
(Dwelling) Reclusion Temporal, in
Aggravating Maximum term: its minimum period
Circumstances: 0 Mitigating
Prision Mayor, in its Circumstances: 4 Minimum Term:
Mitigating minimum period (Voluntary Surrender,
Circumstances: 4 Praeter Intentionem, Prision Mayor, in its
(voluntary surrender, Minimum Term: Passion and Obfuscation) minimum period
praeter intentionem,
pasion and obfuscation, Prision Correccional, in Penalty: RT in minimum period, to PM in minimum
intoxication) its minimum period period
Penalty: PM in its minimum period, to PC in its

A: Again, you take into consideration the penalty
minimum period
prescribed by law for Homicide, reclusion temporal. There
is one aggravating with four mitigating circumstances.
A: First, get the penalty prescribed by law, that is reclusion What do you do? You off-set. So, you off-set one
temporal. Under Art. 64, paragraph 5, when there are two mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender with one
mitigating circumstances with no aggravating aggravating circumstance of dwelling. After off-setting
circumstance, you lower the penalty by one degree, so voluntary surrender with dwelling, there remains three
from reclusion temporal to prision mayor. You only need more mitigating circumstances, therefore, the penalty
two mitigating circumstances for a special mitigating should be in its medium period. That is the maximum term
circumstance to lower the penalty by one degree. of the sentence.
There remains two more mitigating circumstance, passion How do you lower? in order to get the minimum term of
and obfuscation and intoxication. However, you cannot the sentence, again, you lower it by one degree. The
lower the penalty two times. Only once based on the range depends upon the sound discretion of the court,
special mitigating circumstance. So, the effect would be that is minimum and so, it will be prision mayor minimum
the penalty shall be in its minimum period. That is the period shall be the minimum term of the sentence.
maximum term of the sentence.
NOTE: Special mitigating circumstances under paragraph
To get the minimum term, lower it by one degree. The 5 of Art. 64 will only apply if there is no aggravating
range depends on the sound discretion of the court. Since circumstances.
the maximum term is in the minimum period, then the
minimum term shall also be in its minimum period. So, even if in this case, there are four mitigating
circumstances, you cannot reduce the penalty by one
NOTE: Special Mitigating circumstance can only be degree. You cannot consider this as a special mitigating
considered once. The penalty can only be reduced by one circumstance because there is the presence of one
(1) degree regardless of the number of mitigating aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Special mitigating
circumstances. The other mitigating circumstances shall circumstances under paragraph 4 of Art. 64 will only apply
only be considered to reduce the penalty in its minimum if there is no attendant aggravating circumstance.
period.
Q: The crime committed by X is Homicide. What if, his
Q: X killed the victim. The said act of killing was defense is that he acted in self-defense. Unlawful
attended by one aggravating circumstance. X killed aggression was present. It was proven that there was
the victim inside the privacy of his house. So, we have unlawful aggression coming from the victim.
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. And there Likewise, it was proven that there was no sufficient
are four (4) mitigating circumstances – he voluntarily provocation from X. However, the means used by X
surrendered, he has no intention to commit so grave that is stabbing the victim is not reasonable in order
a wrong (praeter intentionem), there was passion and to prevent the unlawful aggression. Therefore, since
obfuscation on his part because of an unlawful act one element of self-defense is absent, two (2) are

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
present, therefore, we have the privileged mitigating

circumstance of incomplete self-defense. And then, NOTE: The indeterminate sentence law does not apply to
let us say that he voluntarily surrendered and he said those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not
he has no intention to commit so grave a wrong, it exceed one (1) year.
was proven, so we have two (2) ordinary mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and praeter So, that is how you compute the penalty under Article 64,
intentionem. How would you compute the penalty? in relation to the indeterminate sentence law.
Aggravating Maximum term: COMPUTATION OF INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES

Circumstances: 0
Reclusion Temporal, in
its minimum period First Rule – In all cases in which the law prescribes a
Mitigating ↓ (2 degrees, PMC) single indivisible penalty
Circumstances: 3
(1 PMC – Incomplete Self Prision Correccional Q: The crime committed is Simple Rape. The penalty
Defense) ↓ (1 degree, SMC) for Simple Rape is reclusion perpetua. Reclusion
perpetua is a single indivisible penalty. The said act
(2 OMCs – Voluntary Arresto Mayor of X – the act of raping the woman, was attended by
Surrender, Praeter two (2) mitigating circumstances – there were
Intentionem) Minimum Term: voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilt.
Prision Mayor, in However, there was the aggravating circumstance of
minimum period nighttime because he took advantage of the darkness
of the night in order to rape the said woman. So, the
Penalty: Straight penalty of arresto mayor in its prescribed penalty for rape is reclusion perpetua, a
medium period. single indivisible penalty. 2 mitigating 1 aggravating,
how do you compute the penalty?
A: Again, the penalty for Homicide is reclusion temporal. Aggravating

The moment you see a privilege mitigating circumstance, Circumstances: 1 AC and MC are not
it takes preference over all other things. Therefore, since (Nighttime) considered
there is the privilege mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense, you lower the penalty. How Mitigating
many degrees? Under Art. 69, if majority of the elements Circumstances: 2
are present, you lower it by two degrees. Therefore, from (Voluntary Surrender,
reclusion temporal, you lower it to prision mayor and then Voluntary Plea of Guilt)
to prision correccional; two degrees because of the
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense. After Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua
lowering it by two degrees, we have prision correccional.
There are two ordinary mitigating circumstances with no A: The penalty shall be as is – reclusion perpetua because
aggravating circumstance. You apply Art. 64, paragraph under Article 63, the first rule provides that if the penalty
5. Special mitigating circumstance – when there are two prescribed by the law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall
or more mitigating with no aggravating, you lower it by one be imposed regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
degree, so, now we have arresto mayor. circumstances. Therefore, the moment the penalty
prescribed by law is single indivisible penalty like
Arresto mayor – this is the maximum term of the sentence. reclusion perpetua, you do not consider any mitigating or
Arresto mayor in its medium period because we have aggravating circumstance. The penalty shall be imposed
considered already all mitigating circumstances. Arresto as is – that is reclusion perpetua.
mayor in its medium period.
Q: The Crime committed is Qualified Rape. Under
You can no longer lower it in order to get the minimum Article 266-B, the father raped his own daughter. The
term of the sentence. daughter was a minor, it was proven that they have a
biological father and daughter relationship. Under
Reason: Arresto mayor is a penalty which does not Article 266-B(1), minority and relationship are special
exceed one year, meaning the indeterminate sentence aggravating circumstances which qualify the penalty
law does not apply. Hence, X‘s penalty will be a straight to death. So, we have qualified rape – the prescribed
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
penalty by law is death penalty. What should be the Under Article 63, if there is no mitigating and aggravating
penalty imposed by the court? circumstance, the lesser penalty reclusion perpetua
should be imposed.
Aggravating Death, reduced to RP
Circumstances: 2 without eligibility of parole Q: The crime committed by X is Murder qualified by
(minority, relationship) by virtue of Sec. 3, R.A. treachery. What if the act of killing was not attended
No. 9346 by any aggravating circumstance but the offender
Mitigating voluntarily surrendered? Therefore, there is one
Circumstances: 0 mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. What
penalty shall you impose?
Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility of
parole (death reduced to RP under Sec. 3 of RA Aggravating Reclusion perpetua to
9346) Circumstances: 0 death
Mitigating
A: The penalty prescribed by law is death but you cannot Circumstances: 1
impose the death penalty by reason of RA 9346. Under (Voluntary surrender)
Sec. 3 of RA 9346, you have to reduce the penalty to
reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole.
Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua
Under the SC Administrative Circular 15-08-02 which was
released last August 4, 2015, the SC said that in cases A: Under Art. 63, the lesser penalty which is reclusion
where death penalty is imposable, but the same is perpetua shall be the one imposed.
reduced to reclusion perpetua because of RA 9346, that
phrase “without elegibility for parole” shall be used to Q: The crime committed by X is Murder qualified by
qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the treachery. What if X’s act of killing Y was attended by
accused should have been sentenced to suffer death one (1) aggravating circumstance of evident
penalty had it not been for RA 9346 which prohibits the premeditation with no mitigating circumstances?
imposition of death penalty.
Aggravating Reclusion perpetua to
Therefore, in this case, the penalty for death shall be Circumstances: 1 death
reduced to reclusion perpetua but without the benefit of (Evident premeditation)
parole, as provided for under section 3 of RA 9346 in
relation to the Supreme Court administrative matter. Mitigating
Circumstances: 0
Second Rule – If the penalty prescribed by law consist
of two indivisible penalties Penalty: reclusion perpetua without eligibility for
parole (death reduced to RP under Sec. 3 of RA
Q: The crime committed by X is Murder qualified by 9346)
treachery. The penalty prescribed for Murder under
Art. 248 is reclusion perpetua to death. Reclusion
perpetua is indivisible, death penalty is indivisible, A: The SC said, if both treachery and evident
therefore, the penalty for murder is consist of 2 premeditation attended the commission of the crime,
indivisible penalties. Let us say that in the act of treachery qualifies the killing to murder and evident
killing – murder qualified by treachery, there was no premeditation shall be considered as a mere generic
aggravating circumstance, no mitigating aggravating circumstance. So, we have one generic
circumstance. What penalty would you impose? aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation and
no mitigating circumstance.
Aggravating Reclusion perpetua to
Circumstances: 0 death How do you get the penalty? Under Article 63, if there is
one aggravating with no mitigating, the greater penalty
Mitigating which is death shall be imposed. However, you cannot
Circumstances: 0 impose death penalty by reason of RA 9346. Therefore, it
must be reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility
for parole as provided for under Sec. 3 of RA 9346.
Penalty: Reclusion Perpetua

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Q: What if murder – X act of killing Y, resulting to NOTE: The rule provided for under Article 64 for special
Murder, qualified by treachery, was also attended by mitigating circumstance does not apply in case of Article
the aggravating circumstance of evident 64.
premeditation and the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender? What penalty would you Q: The crime committed is Simple Rape. The penalty
impose? for Simple Rape is reclusion perpetua, a single
indivisible penalty. The offender was a minor. He is
Aggravating Reclusion perpetua to only 17 years old and he acted with discernment. And
Circumstances: 1 death there were two mitigating circumstances – he
(Evident premeditation) voluntarily surrendered and he voluntarily pleaded
guilty. There was no aggravating circumstance. What
Mitigating penalty would you impose?
Circumstances: 1
(Voluntary surrender) Aggravating Maximum term:
Circumstances: 0
Penalty: reclusion perpetua Reclusion perpetua
↓ (PMC: minority)
Mitigating
A: Under. Article 63, if there is one aggravating and one Circumstances: 3 Reclusion Temporal
mitigating circumstance, what do you do? You off-set the (1 PMC – Minority) ↓ (Special MC)
two and then apply the rules. Therefore, you off-set the Prision Mayor in medium
generic aggravating circumstance of evident (2 OMCs -Voluntary period
premeditation with the ordinary mitigating circumstance of Surrender, Voluntary plea
voluntary surrender. After off-setting the two, you apply of guilt) Minimum Term:
the rules, no more aggravating, no more mitigating,
therefore, the lesser penalty – reclusion perpetua shall be Prision correccional in
the one imposed. medium period
Q: What if the said act of murder was not attended by
Penalty: PM in medium period, to PC in medium
any aggravating circumstance but there are two
period
mitigating circumstances. X immediately
surrendered, X immediately pleaded guilty to the
crime of murder. What penalty shall be imposed? A: The penalty for simple rape is the single indivisible
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Therefore, under Art. 63, if
Aggravating Reclusion perpetua to the penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible
Circumstances: 0 death penalty, you do not take into consideration any mitigating
or aggravating circumstances. Except when the mitigating
Mitigating circumstance present is a privilege mitigating
Circumstances: 2 circumstance like minority because a privilege mitigating
(Voluntary surrender, circumstance takes preference above other things.
voluntary plea of guilt)
Hence, in this case, even if Art. 63 provides that a single
Penalty: reclusion perpetua indivisible penalty shall be imposed as is, when there is a
privilege mitigating circumstance, it can defeat that rule.
Therefore, from reclusion perpetua, you lower it by one
A: The lesser penalty which is reclusion perpetua. Even if degree to reclusion temporal. From an indivisible penalty
there are two mitigating circumstances of voluntary governed by Art. 63, it is now a divisible penalty governed
surrender and there is no aggravating circumstance, the by Art. 64 in relation to Act 4103.
rule provided for under Art. 64 for special mitigating
circumstance does not apply in case of Art. 64. There are two mitigating circumstances with no
aggravating, what do you do? Under Art. 64, these are
Therefore, the fact that there are two mitigating with no considered special mitigating circumstances which lowers
aggravating would only mean the lowering of the penalty the penalty by one degree, therefore you have prision
which is the lesser penalty, reclusion perpetua. mayor.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
You already considered everything, no more modifying Q: The crime committed was Direct Assault with
circumstances left, therefore it will be prision mayor in its Homicide. But, this time it was committed by a minor,
medium period, that is the maximum term of the sentence. a 17-year old and he immediately pleaded guilty. How
do you get the penalty?
To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it by
one degree, prision correccional. The range depends on Aggravating Maximum term:
the sound discretion of the court. Since the maximum term Circumstances: 0
is in the medium period, let us make the minimum term Reclusion Temporal
also in the medium period. So, the minimum term of the ↓ (PMC: minority)
sentence is prision correccional in its medium period. Mitigating
Circumstances: 2 Prision mayor
COMPUTATION OF PENALTY OF COMPLEX CRIMES
(PMC – minority) Minimum Term:
Q: X committed the crime of Direct Assault with (OMC -Voluntary plea of
Homicide. Under Art. 48, In case of a Complex Crime, guilt) Prision correccional
the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum
period shall be the one imposed. In this case, Penalty: PM in maximum period, to PC in maximum
Homicide is the most serious crime. So, the penalty period
for Homicide in its max period shall be the one
imposed. What is the penalty for homicide? It is A: You take the penalty for the most serious crime in its
reclusion temporal. Let us say that the act of killing maximum period. What is the most serious crime?
was not attended by any aggravating circumstance Homicide. Now, there is one (1) Privileged mitigating
with one mitigating circumstance of vol surrender. circumstance and one (1) ordinary mitigating
How do you get the penalty? circumstance. Even if the law provides that the penalty for
the most serious crime in its maximum period shall be the
Aggravating Maximum term: one imposed, since there is a privileged mitigating
Circumstances: 0 circumstance of minority, it shall be considered first before
Reclusion Temporal the rules in Art. 48.
Mitigating Minimum Term: Therefore, reclusion temporal shall be lowered by one
Circumstances: 1 degree because of the privileged mitigating circumstance
(Voluntary Surrender) Prision Mayor of minority, it now becomes prision mayor. And, under
Article 48 in the maximum period, so it will be prision
Penalty: RT in maximum period, to PM in maximum mayor in maximum period, that is the maximum term of
period the sentence.
A: Again, the penalty for the most serious crime, that is To get the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it by
reclusion temporal, since the law says the penalty should one degree, prision correccional. The range depends
be in the max period, therefore it is reclusion temporal in upon the sound discretion of the court, I make it also
its maximum period, that is the maximum term of the maximum period, that is the min term of the sentence.
sentence. What about the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender? You do not consider it, because the COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES OF SPECIAL PENAL
moment it is a complex crime, under Art. 48, the maximum LAWS
period of the most serious crime shall be the one imposed.
Therefore, you do not consider mitigating circumstances.
Under Act 4103, In case of Special Penal Laws, if the said
Therefore, it is reclusion temporal in its maximum period,
special penal law does not have the same nomenclature
that is the maximum term of the sentence.
of penalties as that of the RPC, the maximum term of the
sentence shall not go beyond the maximum penalty
To lower the penalty by one degree, prision mayor. Again,
prescribed by law and the minimum term of the sentence
the range depends upon the sound discretion of the court,
shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by
let us make it also maximum period because the
law.
maximum term of the sentence is in the maximum period.
This will be the minimum of the sentence.
If the penalty prescribed in the Special Penal Law, has the
same nomenclature of penalty as that of the RPC, then
you consider the rules provided for in the RPC.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
COMPUTATION OF SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF

Q: Let us say that X was found in possession of less SENTENCE
than 5 grams of shabu, let us say .02 grams of shabu.
Under Sec. 11 of RA 9165, Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs, if the shabu found in the Q: Let’s say, the father raped his own daughter five
possession of the accused is less than 5 grams, the times. So, the father was charged with five counts of
penalty is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years. He was rape. The daughter was 25 years old. The judge
proved guilty. How do you get the penalty if you are imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua
the judge convicting him? for each count of rape. How shall the said father serve
the sentence of five reclusion perpetua?
A: The penalty should be anywhere in between 12 years
and 1 day to 20 years. It shall not be less than 12 years A: Under Article 70, if a convict is imposed with multiple
and 1 day, and it shall not be more than 20 years. sentences, he shall serve them simultaneously or “sabay
sabay.” That is, if the nature of the penalty allows
Therefore, if I were the judge, I will impose the penalty of simultaneous service of sentence. Penalties which could
12 years and 1 day as the minimum term of the sentence be served simultaneously, for example, imprisonment and
to 14 years and 8 months as the maximum term of the fine, imprisonment and suspension, imprisonment and
sentence. It is not less than the minimum penalty civil interdiction. They can be at the same time.
prescribed by law and it is not more than the maximum
penalty prescribed by law. But, if the penalties are all imprisonment, the offender
cannot serve it at the same time. The offender has only
Q: X was found in possession of an unlicensed one body, he cannot be placed in five different detention
firearm. It is an unregistered pistol. The said firearm cells. Therefore, how shall he serve the penalty?
was transferred, so illegal transfer of firearms. According to Article 70, he shall serve the penalty
successively or “sunod-sunod.”
Aggravating Maximum term:
Circumstances: 0 Three-Fold Rule
Prision Correccional
Under Article 70, in case of successive service of
Mitigating sentence, there is a limitation, and the said limitation is
Circumstances: 0 Minimum Term: the so called three-fold rule. Under the three-fold rule, the
maximum duration of a convict sentence shall not exceed
Arresto menor three times the length of the most severe penalty, but in
no case to exceed 40 years.
Penalty: PC in medium period, to AM in medium
period Q: X was charged with 11 counts of unjust vexation.
All 11 counts were filed with the MTC. After trial on
the merits, the MTC found X guilty of all 11 counts of
A: Under Sec. 41 of RA 10951, the degree on illegal unjust vexation. The judge convicted X of 11 days of
possession of loose firearms, in case of illegal transfer of arresto menor for each count of unjust vexation. How
firearms, the penalty is prision corrreccional. Therefore, it should he serve the sentence?
has the same nomenclature as the RPC. Hence, in order
to get the indeterminate sentence, you take into NO THREE-FOLD WITH THREE-FOLD
consideration the rules provided for under the RPC. The RULE RULE
said illegal transfer of firearm is penalized by prision 11 counts of unjust You take into consideration
correccional. No mitigating and no aggravating vexation x 11 days = 121 the most severe penalty,
circumstances, therefore it should be in its medium days which is 11 days. Multiply it
period. That is the maximum term of the sentence. To get by 3. This is because the
the minimum term of the sentence, you lower it by one He will be serving for 121 law provides that the
degree, arresto menor. The range depends on the sound days or 4 months. maximum duration of the
discretion of the court. Let us make it also in the medium convict sentence shall not
period. That is the minimum term of the sentence. exceed 3 times the length
of the most severe penalty.
Those are the ways on how you compute the penalties Therefore:
based on Article 63 and Article 64 in relation to the
Indeterminate Sentence Law. 11x3 = 33 days

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
A: Hence, applying the three-fold rule, instead of serving

sentence for 4 months for 11 counts of unjust vexation, he
will be serving only for 33 days, 1 month and 3 days. That
is the effect of the three-fold rule.
NOTE: It refers only to service of sentence.
Q: X killed 3 persons, A, B, C. Thereafter, he also

inflicted a fatal wound on D. But D survived because
of immediate medical intervention. Therefore, X was
charged with three (3) counts of Homicide and one (1)
count of Frustrated Homicide. The RTC judge found X
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 3 counts of
homicide and 1 count of Frustrated Homicide. For
three (3) counts of homicide, the RTC imposed upon
X the penalty of 15 years of reclusion temporal per
count of Homicide, and in the case of Frustrated
Homicide, the judge imposed upon X 10 years of
prision mayor. How shall X serve these multiple
sentences?
NO THREE-FOLD WITH THREE-FOLD

RULE RULE
15 years x 3 = 45 We take into consideration
10 years x 1 = 10 the most severe penalty.
55 years The maximum duration of
the sentence shall not
Therefore, X shall be exceed 3 times the length
serving 55 years behind of the most severe penalty.
bars Therefore:
15 x 3 = 45 years
But, will X serve 45 years?

NO. Because under Art. 70,
the three-fold rule shall not
exceed 40 years.
A: Since, after applying the three-fold rule, it is still beyond

40 years, X will only be serving 40 years behind bars. That
is the limit.
*** END

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
March 09, 2024 Mayor Tawan-tawan died, while others sustained

injuries.
ARTICLE 48
ISSUE: W/N Art. 48 applies in the case (NO)
BOOK ONE RULING: NO. The Court emphasized that Art. 48
applies only when there is singularity of the criminal act.
ARTICLE 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a Where separate and distinct acts resulted in several
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave victims, such acts constitute separate and distinct
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for crimes not a complex crime.
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its The Court explained that the killing and wounding of the
maximum period. victims were not the result of a single act but of several
distinct acts by the assailants. Appellants and their co-
accused fired several gunshots at the victims' vehicle
resulting in the death of two victims and injury to five
Under Art. 48, there are different kinds of complexity of others. More than one bullet hit the victims. Also, more
crimes: than one gunman fired at the vehicle. Each act of
pulling the trigger constituted distinct and individual
1. Compound crime; acts that cannot give rise to a complex crime under
2. Complex crime proper; Article 48, which requires a "single act."
NOTE: In the Bar syllabus, there are five (5) kinds. The The Court also ruled that there was conspiracy
three (3) others are: attending the commission of the crime. The assailants
cooperated and coordinated in positioning themselves
3. Special complex crime proper to ambush the victims. With conspiracy, the act of one
4. Continued crime/continuous crime/delito is the act of all. Each one of the conspirators is made
continuado criminally responsible for the crime committed. Thus,
5. Continuing offense/transitory offense collective criminal responsibility replaced individual
responsibility, making the Lawas doctrine on
1. COMPOUND CRIME impossibility of ascertaining who actually killed the
victim inapplicable.
There is a compound crime when a single act produces Therefoer, the SC instead ruled that Wenceslao and
two (2) or more grave or less grave felonies. Ricardo should be convicted of separate crimes of two
(2) counts of murder and seven (7) counts of attempted
Elements of Compound Crime murder instead of the complex crime.
1. That the offender performed a single act;
2. That the said single act produced/resulted to two
(2) or more grave or less grave offenses. NOTE: In the case of People v. Nelmida, the SC said that
the basis of a compound crime is singularity of act, not
singularity of impulse. For a compound crime to arise, only
PEOPLE v. NELMIDA one act must be performed and it brought about two (2) or
G.R. NO. 184500 | SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 | PEREZ, more grave or less grave offenses.
J.
What is the effect? The penalty for the most serious crime
FACTS: Mayor Tawan-tawan, together with his in its maximum period shall be imposed upon the said
security escorts, while on board the yellow pick-up offender.
service, were ambushed by the group of Wenceslao
and Ricardo. Prior the ambush, the assailants brought Q: X and Y are husband and wife. They were having
Samuel and instructed the latter to stay in the waiting an argument inside the car. The husband was jealous
shed while they assembled themselves in a diamond and the wife kept denying another man. The husband
position on both sides of the road. The assailants then got so mad that he opened the compartment of the
opened fire at the Mayor's vehicle as it passed by the car and took his gun. Thereafter, he shot his wife on
waiting shed where the attackers were positioned. On the head. The same bullet hit the head of their 8-
the occasion of the ambush, two (2) security escorts of

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
month-old son. Both of them died. What crime/s Bundang, on the other hand, suffered injuries on his
should be charged against the husband X? right foot.
A: The husband X should be charged with DOUBLE ISSUE: W/N Punzalan is criminally liable of the
PARRICIDE. The offender performed a single act which complex crime of Double Murder with Multiple
is firing a shot. It resulted to two (2) grave felonies – Attempted Murder (YES)
Parricide for the death of his wife and Parricide for the
death of their son. Therefore, the crime charged against RULING: YES. Article 48 of the RPC provides that
the husband would be the complex crime of Double when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
Parricide. grave felonies, or when an offense isn a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for the
Q: X wanted to kill the family of Y. The window of the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
Y’s house was open and X threw a grenade inside. applied in its maximum period.
The grenade exploded resulting to the death of Y, his
wife, and the yaya. Their two (2) children, however, In the present case, Punzalan was animated by a
survived despite the fatal wounds because of single purpose, to kill the navy personnel, and
immediate medical intervention. What case should be committed a single act of stepping on the accelerator,
filed against X? swerving to the right side of the road ramming through
the navy personnel, causing the death of SN1 Andal
A: X should be charged with the complex crime of and SN1 Duclayna and, at the same time, constituting
MULTIPLE MURDER WITH DOUBLE FRUSTRATED an attempt to kill SN1 Cuya, SN1 Bacosa, SN1
MURDER. X performed a single act which is throwing a Bundang and SN1 Domingo. The crimes of murder and
grenade. The single act resulted to five (5) grave felonies attempted murder are both grave felonies as the law
– Murder of Y, Murder of the wife, Murder of the yaya, and attaches an afflictive penalty to capital punishment
Frustrated Murder of the two (2) children. Therefore, X (reclusion perpetua to death) for murder while
should be prosecuted for one (1) Information only and the attempted murder is punished by prision mayor, an
crime should be complex crime of Multiple Murder with afflictive penalty.
Double Frustrated Murder.
NOTE: When it is two (2) cases, use “double”. When it is

three (3) or more cases, use “multiple”. There is no triple. NOTE: In the case of People v. Punzalan, the accused
was convicted of the complex crime of Double Murder with
Multiple Attempted Murder. The SC said that Punzalan
PEOPLE v. PUNZALAN
performed a single act which is stepping on the
G.R. NO. 199892 | DECEMBER 10, 2012 |
accelerator of his car, turning to the right, and running
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
over the navy personnel resulting to killing two (2) persons
while others were wounded. Hence, the SC said that the
FACTS: Navy personnel SN1 Andal, SN1 Duclayna,
accused is liable for Double Murder with Multiple
SN1 Bacosa, SN1 Domingo, SN1 Cuya, and SN1
Attempted Murder.
Bundang were having a drinking session in the videoke
bar, “Aquarius”. A heated argument ensued between
SN1 Bacosa and Punzalan regarding the flickering light In the case of People v. Nelmida, the crime charged was
the complex crime of Double Murder with Multiple
bulb inside the bar. When SN1 Bacosa suggested that
Frustrated Murder and Double Attempted Murder. In the
the light be turned off, Punzalan who must have
said ambush, two (2) died and seven (7) were wounded.
misunderstood and misinterpreted SN1 Bacosa’s
Hence, the charge of the complex crime. Both RTC and
statement, belligerently reacted asking, "Sinong
CA convicted the accused as charged because the mayor
papatayin?", thinking that SN1 Bacosa’s statement was
and another bodyguard were unharmed. The SC said that
directed at him. The argument was pacified, but
the conviction is wrong. Art. 48 does not apply because
Punzalan was still visibly angry, mumbling unintelligible
here, there are many offenders. Each offender was armed
words and pounding his fist on the table. To avoid
with a gun and different bullets came out from the barrel
trouble, the Navy personnel left Aquarius and walked
of the gun. It is settled that where there are many
back to NETC. However, a rushing and zig-zagging
maroon Nissan van driven by a drunk Punzalan hit the perpetuators of the crime and there are many acts
group. SN1 Andal and SN1 Duclayna died. SN1 committed. There are as many crimes committed as there
are persons killed or wounded. Here, there is no single act
Bacosa and SN1 Cuya were thrown away, and had to
performed. There are many perpetuators armed with guns
be confined in a hospital for medical treatment. SN1
and different bullets came out from the guns. Hence,
Nelmida and the other accused were each convicted of

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
two (2) counts of Murder and seven (7) counts of NOTE: In the case of People v. Tabaco, the SC said that
Attempted Murder, resulting to multiple penalties and when the gun used is a high-powered firearm such that by
sentences. just one pull of the trigger, different bullets come out, you
do not consider it as a single act performed; Instead, you
PEOPLE v. TABACO consider the bullets that came out of the barrel of the gun
G.R. NO. 100382 – 100385 | MARCH 19, 1997 | and hit the victims. There are as many crimes committed
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J. as there are persons killed or wounder.
FACTS: A cock derby was sponsored by the 117th PC 2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
in Aparri, Cagayan. Peace officers in uniform with long
firearms were assigned as guards to maintain peace
and order inside the cockpit arena. Tabaco was seated There is a complex crime proper when an offense is a
near the place where the late Mayor and his group were necessary means to commit the other offense.
seated. However, Tabaco suddenly without warning or
provocation, shot the late Mayor Arreola with his M-14 Elements of Complex Crime Proper
rifle, followed by several successive burst of gunfire,
resulting to the deaths of the late Mayor Arreola, Capt. 1. That there be two (2) or more offenses;
Tabulog, Rigunan, and Pat. Regunton. 2. That one (1) or more of these offenses be
necessary to commit the other offense; and
ISSUE: W/N Art. 48 applies in this case (NO) 3. All offenses are punished by the same Statute.
RULING: NO. Art. 48 applies if there must be Q: X forcibly abducted Y against her will. At the
singularity of criminal act; singularity of criminal impulse outset, there was lewd design. He brought Y to a
is not written into the law." secluded place. That night, X had carnal knowledge
of Y by employing force and violence. What crime is
The firing of several bullets by Tabaco, although committed by X?
resulting from one continuous burst of gunfire,
constitutes several acts. Each person, felled by A: X is liable for the complex crime of RAPE THROUGH
different shots, is a victim of a separate crime of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION. Forcible abduction was the
murder. There is no showing that only a single missile necessary means in order to rape the victim. Hence, the
passed through the bodies of all four victims. The killing crime committed is Rape through Forcible Abduction.
of each victim is thus separate and distinct from the
other. Q: A lawyer swindled his neighbor by falsifying a
Deed of Absolute Sale and assigning the property of
Although it is true that several successive shots were the neighbor to him. Hence, the property was
fired by the accused in a short space of time, yet the transferred to his name. What crime is committed by
factor which must be taken into consideration is that, to the said lawyer?
each death caused or physical injuries inflicted upon
the victims, corresponds a distinct and separate shot A: He is liable for ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION
fired by the accused, who thus made himself criminally OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. A Deed of Absolute Sale is
liable for as many offenses as those resulting from a public document. It was falsified in order to swindle the
every single act that produced the same. neighbor. Hence, the crime committed is Estafa through
Falsification of a Public Document.
Although apparently, he perpetrated a series of
offenses successively in a matter of seconds, yet each BATULANON v. PEOPLE
person killed and each person injured by him became G.R. NO. 139857 | SEPTEMBER 15, 2006 |
the victim, respectively, of a separate crime of homicide YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
or frustrated homicide. Except for the fact that five
crimes of homicide and two cases of frustrated FACTS: PCCI employed Batulanon as its
homicide were committed successively during the Cashier/Manager. She was in charge of receiving
tragic incident, legally speaking there is nothing that deposits from and releasing loans to the member of the
would connect one of them with its companion cooperative. During an audit conducted, certain
offenses.” irregularities concerning the release of loans were
discovered. It was established that Batulanon released
four (4) cash vouchers to individuals that were not
eligible to obtain loan from PCCI. Batulanon was

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
charged with four (4) counts of Estafa through Falsification of a Private Document because
Falsification of Commercial Documents Estafa is a mere consequence.
ISSUE: W/N the proper charge is Estafa through 3. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
Falsification of Private Document (NO)
RULING: NO. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that There is a special complex crime proper when, in reality,
the subject vouchers are private documents and not there are two (2) or more crimes committed but in the eyes
commercial documents because they are not of the law, only one (1) crime is committed. In case of a
documents used by merchants or businessmen to special complex crime, also known as a composite crime
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor are or a single indivisible offense, it is the law that combines
they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce the crimes and prescribes particular/specific penalties for
or other commercial law. Rather, they are private these combined crimes.
documents, which have been defined as deeds or
instruments executed by a private person without the Examples of special complex crime:
intervention of a public notary or of other person legally 1. Art. 294 – when by reason or on occasion of
authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is robbery, a crime of Homicide is committed, we
proved, evidenced or set forth. have the special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide. The penalty prescribed by law is
As there is no complex crime of estafa through reclusion perpetua to death.
falsification of private document, it is important to 2. Art. 266-E – when by reason or on occasion of
ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with rape, a crime of Homicide is committed, we the
falsification of a private document or with estafa. If the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide.
falsification of a private document is committed as a The penalty prescribed by law is death.
means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be 3. Art. 267 – when the victim is killed as a
charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed consequence of kidnapping or detention, we have
without the necessity of falsifying a document, the the special complex crime of Kidnapping with
proper crime to be charged is estafa. Homicide/ Kidnapping with Murder. The
penalty prescribed by law is death.
4. CONTINUED CRIME/CONTINUOUS
NOTE: In the case of Batulanon v. People, the accused CRIME/DELITO CONTINUADO
was charged with four (4) counts of Estafa through
Falsification of a Commercial Document because he
falsified the cash voucher in order to obtain loans in the It is one where the offender, compelled by a single
name of other people. The SC said that a cash voucher is impulse, commits a series of overt acts at about the same
not considered as a commercial document because a time, in about the same place, and violating one and the
cash voucher is not defined and regulated by the Code of same provision of the law.
Commerce or any other Mercantile Law. Hence, a cash
voucher is merely a private document. SANTIAGO v. GACHITORENA
G.R. NO. 109266 | DECEMBER 2, 1993 |
You cannot complex Falsification of a Private Document QUIASON, J.
with Estafa because both offenses have damage as
elements. One and the same damage cannot give rise to FACTS: Santiago was charged with violation of Section
two (2) crimes. According to the SC, you can only charge 3(e) of RA 3019 for favoring "unqualified" aliens with
a person either of Estafa or Falsification of a Private the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. After the
Document. denial her Motions, the Court admitted 32 Amended
Informations and ordered Santiago to post the
How would you know? According to the SC: corresponding bail bonds within ten (10) days from
notice.
1. If Estafa can be committed even without falsifying
the private document, the proper charge is Estafa ISSUE: W/N the filing of 32 Informations is proper (NO)
because the falsification of the private document
is merely incidental; RULING: NO. For delito continuado to exist there
2. If Estafa cannot be committed without falsifying should be a plurality of acts performed during a period
the private document, the proper charge is of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of
criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
more violations of the same penal provisions are united of the law – Art. 308 in relation to Art. 309. Therefore, W
in one and the same intent or resolution leading to the should only be prosecuted with one (1) count of Theft. It
perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim. is favorable and beneficial to the accused. Instead of
being charged with five (5) counts of Theft, only one (1)
In appearance, a delito continuado consists of several count because it is a delito continuado.
crimes but in reality there is only one crime in the mind
of the perpetrator. Such offense as consisting of a 5. CONTINUING CRIME/TRANSITORY OFFENSE
series of acts arising from one criminal intent or
resolution.
Continuing crime or transitory offense is one wherein the
The original information charged petitioner with offender can be prosecuted before the courts of the place
performing a single criminal act – that of her approving where any of the elements of the crime happened. Not all
the application for legalization of aliens not qualified crimes are continuing or transitory offenses. There are
under the law to enjoy such privilege. only few crimes that are continuing or transitory, such as:
The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses 1. Treason

were committed on the same period of time, i.e., on or 2. Rebellion
about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even 3. Evasion of service of sentence
exists that the approval of the application for the 4. Kidnapping
legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a 5. Estafa by postdating a check
single stroke of the pen, as when the approval was 6. Violation of BP 22
embodied in the same document. 7. Carnapping
Q: X obtained a loan from Y. In payment of the said

loan, X went to the office of Y in Manila and issued a
Elements of Continued Crime/Continuous Crime/ check in the amount P100,000.00. Y immediately went
Delito Continuado to the depository bank in Quezon City and deposited
the check. However, the drawee bank, BDO-Caloocan
In the case of Santiago v. Gachitorena, the SC City, dishonored the check. And so, Y sent a notice of
enumerated the elements of continued crime/continuous dishonor to X. Despite of five (5) banking days, X
crime/delito continuado: failed to make good the face value of the check. In the
filing the case for violation of BP 22, where should Y
1. There must be plurality of acts; file a case?
2. There must be singularity or unity of criminal
intent, purpose, or impulse; and A: Y can file the case before the courts of MANILA where
3. There must be singularity or unity of the criminal the issuance took place, or before the courts of QUEZON
provision of the law. CITY where the deposit took place, or before the courts of
CALOOCAN CITY where the dishonor took place;
Q: Brothers, A, B, C, D, and E are living within the Provided, the moment Y filed a case for violation of BP 22
same compound. The five brothers have fighting against X in any of these courts, you can no longer file it
cocks enclosed in coops. At 11’o clock on a Sunday in any other court.
night, when everybody were fast asleep, W took one
(1) fighting cock each from the coops of A, B, C, D and X is a member of the Valenzuela City Toda. In the line of
E. The following morning, the act was discovered tricycles in the market, the tricycle of X is the first in line.
through the footage of the CCTV and W was identified He received a call from his wife, telling him to buy
as the thief. A, B, C, D, and E separately filed their something in the public market and to bring the same to
complaints for Theft against W. Should the public her. At that particular moment when X was about to go, a
prosecutor indict W for five (5) counts of Theft? passenger arrived and immediately boarded his tricycle.
A fellow passenger, Y, saw X. Thereafter, Y told X to go
A: NO. The public prosecutor should indict W only for one ahead to the public market and that he will bring the
(1) count of Theft. It is a continued crime/continuous passenger to his place of destination and go back. Since
crime/delito continuado. W was impelled by a single X knew Y, he allowed him. It is already late in the
criminal impulse which is to steal with intent to gain. He afternoon, but still, the tricycle was not yet returned. X
committed a series of over acts of taking fighting cocks became so worried and went to the house of Y, but the
from A, B, C, D, and E at about the same time – at 11’o latter was not there. And so, X proceeded to the police
clock on a Sunday night, in about the same place – within station to have blottered. Two (2) months thereafter, the
the compound, and violating one and the same provision

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
PNP of Sta. Maria, Bulacan called the PNP of Valenzuela filed a motion for reconsideration stating that he is
City and reported that there was a suspicious tricycle among those qualified under Sec. 9; therefore, the
being sold. Together with the PNP of Valenzuela City, X judge must grant his application for probation. Still,
went to the said place and confirmed that it was his the judge denied his motion for reconsideration. And
tricycle. Y was then arrested and a complaint for so, he wanted to file an appeal on the denial of his
Carnapping was filed before the Office of the City motion for reconsideration. Can it be the subject of an
Prosecutor of Bulacan. After the finding of probable appeal?
cause, the case was filed before the RTC of Sta. Maria,
Bulacan. After trial on the merits, Y is now convicted. CA A: NO. It cannot be the subject of an appeal. Under Sec.
affirmed the conviction. When the case reached the SC, 4 of PD 968, as amended by RA 10707, an order granting
it acquitted the accused. or denying an application for probation is not appealable
– that is why it is a mere privilege. Its grant or denial
The SC said that although carnapping is a continuing or depend solely on the sound discretion of the judge, and it
transitory offense, it is necessary that all the elements cannot be the subject of an appeal; although, of course,
must take place in the place wherein the crime was he can always go to the SC and file a petition for certiorari.
committed. In this case, all the elements of Carnapping
took place in Valenzuela and none of the elements took PD 968
place in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The unlawful taking of the PROBATION LAW
tricycle, with intent to gain, without the consent of the
owner, with violence or intimidation against persons or SECTION 9. Disqualified Offenders. –The benefits of
force upon things – all took place in Valenzuela City. this Decree shall not be extended to those:
Therefore, the case is ought to be dismissed. All hearing
and proceedings are null and void because it was heard
1. sentenced to serve a maximum term of
by the court which has no jurisdiction over the case.
imprisonment of more than six years;
PD 968
2. convicted of any offense against the security of the
PROBATION LAW
State;
Under PD 968, as amended by RA 10707, probation is
the disposition under which an offender, after conviction 3. who have previously been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment
and serving of sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and the supervision of a probation of not less than one month and one day and/or a
fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos;
officer.
Purposes of Probation 4. who have been once on probation under the

provisions of this Decree; and
1. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an
offender; 5. who are already serving sentence at the time the
2. To provide an opportunity for the reformation of substantive provisions of this Decree became
the penitent offender; applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.
3. To prevent further commission of crimes;
4. To decongest the jails; and
5. To save government funds which will be incurred Persons Disqualified from Availing the Benefit of
if the offender is placed behind bars. Probation
Probation is not a matter of right, but a mere privilege on 1. Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of
the part of the offender or a person convicted of a crime. imprisonment of more than six (6) years;
The grant or denial of an application for probation 2. Those who have been convicted of crimes
depends solely upon the sound discretion of the trial court against national security;
that heard the case. 3. Those previously convicted by final judgment of
crimes with a penalty of more than six (6) months
Q: X was charged with Illegal Possession of Drug and one (1) day, or with a fine of more than
Paraphernalia. Penalty imposed on him is at a P1000.00;
maximum of four (4) years which is within the 4. Those who have been once on probation;
probationable penalty. He applied for probation, but it
was denied by the judge. And so, he questioned it and

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
These are the persons disqualified to avail the benefit of of six (6) years. X filed an appeal before the CA. Upon
probation under Sec. 9 of PD 968, as amended by RA review, the CA downgraded the crime to Attempted
10707. Homicide, with a maximum imposable penalty of only
four (4) years. Can X go back to the trial court and
Place and Period to File the Application for Probation apply for probation?
You file the application for probation before the trial court A: NO. X can no longer go back to the trial court to file an
that heard and convicted the accused. The accused must application for probation. Under Sec. 4 of PD 968, as
file it within 15 days from promulgation of judgment – that amended by RA 10707, no application for probation shall
is the period for perfecting an appeal. be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected
an appeal from a judgment of conviction – that is, if the
PD 968 penalty imposed is a probationable penalty because
PROBATION LAW appeal bars probation and probation bars appeal. This is
the general rule. The moment the penalty imposed on the
SECTION 4. Grant of Probation. – Subject to the said accused by the trial court is already a probationable
provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall penalty, no appeal can no longer be entertained because
have convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon appeal bars probation and probation bar appeal.
application at any time of said defendant, suspend the
execution of said sentence and place the defendant on Q: X was convicted for the crime of Attempted Rape.
probation for such period and upon such terms and The penalty imposed is prision mayor, with a
conditions as it may deem best. maximum period of 12 years. He filed an appeal
before the CA. Upon review, the CA downgraded the
crime to Acts of Lasciviousness with a maximum
Probation may be granted whether the sentence
penalty of prision correccional – that is six (6) years.
imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An
Can X go back to the trial court and apply for
application for probation shall be filed with the trial court,
probation?
with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been
taken from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the
A: YES. As an exception to the general rule, under Sec. 4
application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to
of PD 968, as amended by RA 10707, when a judgment
appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending
of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is
appeal.
appealed or reviewed and it is modified to a probationable
penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for
An order granting or denying probation shall not be probation. The penalty imposed by the RTC upon X is a
appealable. non-probationable penalty of 12 years. When he
appealed, the crime was downgraded and the penalty
was reduced to a maximum of six (6) years. Therefore, it
Effect of the Grant of Probation is within the probationable penalty. This is the exception
to the general rule.
In case the said application for probation is granted, its
effect is to suspend the execution of sentence. Q: What if in the same problem, the CA downgraded
the crime to Acts of Lasciviousness with a maximum
Under the first paragraph of Sec. 4 of PD 968, as penalty of only prision correccional. However,
amended by RA 10707, the court shall, after it had instead of applying for probation, X appealed further
convicted and sentenced a defendant with a to the SC. The SC affirmed the conviction, but
probationable penalty, and upon application of the said reduced the imposable penalty to a maximum of only
defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, four (4) years. Can X go back to the trial court and
suspend the execution of the sentence and place the apply for probation?
defendant on probation based on such terms and period
as provided by law. A: NO. Under Sec. 4 of PD 968, as amended by RA
10707, the said accused shall lose the benefit of probation
Q: X was convicted for the crime of Frustrated the moment he appeals the modified decision already
Homicide. However, because of the presence of the imposing a probationable penalty. In that case, the
privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete penalty was already reduced by the CA to a probationable
self-defense, and a mitigating circumstance of penalty of six (6) years, but he still did not apply for
voluntary surrender, the penalty imposed by the court probation and opted to appeal. Therefore, he loses the
was reduced to prision correccional, with a maximum benefit or privilege of probation.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
granted the same on the ground of Sec. 40 of the LGC.

Period of Probation Under the said provision, those convicted of crimes
involving moral turpitude and those convicted of crimes
SENTENCE PERIOD OF punished by one (1) year or more are disqualified to run
PROBATION for local position within two (2) years from service of
Imprisonment of not more Probation shall not sentence. According to the COMELEC, Moreno was only
than one (1) year exceed two (2) years. released on probation on 20 December 2000 – the time
you count the two-year eligibility period. Hence, he can
Imprisonment of more Probation shall not only run for public office after 20 December 2002. But the
than one (1) year exceed six (6) years. election was July 2002; therefore, he is ineligible.
Fine and he is required to Probation shall not be less The SC said that the COMELEC En banc is wrong
suffer subsidiary than nor more than twice because a person who has been granted probation and
imprisonment in case of the number of days of undergoing probation is not serving his sentence.
insolvency subsidiary imprisonment Probation cannot be equated to service of sentence
computed at the rate of because it is expressly provided under Sec. 4 that the
the highest minimum effect of probation is to suspend the execution of his
wage prevailing in the sentence. Since the execution of his sentence was
Philippines and at the time suspended, therefore, the two-year eligibility period did
of rendition of judgment not even commence. The SC said that he is qualified to
by the trial court. run for public office.
Another reason given by the SC is that the court has

already issued an order of final discharge to Moreno.
Conditions Attached to the Grant of Probation Therefore, all his civil rights, including the right to vote and
be voted, and to apply for public position, have already
1. Mandatory or general condition – requires the been restored.
probationer to report the probation officer within
72 hours from receipt of the order of probation, Order of Final Discharge
and reporting thereafter based on the said
probation; and Under Sec. 16 of PD 968, as amended by RA 10707, an
2. Discretionary or special condition – any order of final discharge can be issued by the trial court
condition which may be attached by the court, after the probation officer has submitted a report stating
provided that it is not prejudicial to the reformation that the probationer has complied with the conditions
of the said probationer. attached to the grant of probation. Upon review, the trial
court will grant the said recommendation of the probation
Q: X was convicted for the crime of Reckless officer and will issue an order of final discharge. An order
Imprudence resulting to Homicide. He was sentenced of final discharge shall restore upon him all civil rights lost
to a maximum of four (4) years which is within the or suspended by reason of the conviction, and shall totally
probationable penalty. And so, X applied for extinguish his criminal liability for the crime upon which is
probation and the court granted the same. Thereafter, granted for probation.
X filed a notice of appeal on the civil liability imposed
on him. The judge denied to give due course because NOTE: Therefore, it can be included among those modes
the probation was already granted; hence, you can no for totally extinguishing the criminal liability.
longer appeal. Is the judge correct?
ARTICLE 88
A: NO. The judge is wrong because the said probation
that he granted on X only affects the criminal aspect of his THE REVISED PENAL CODE
case, not the civil aspect. Its only effect is to suspend the BOOK ONE
execution of sentence. It has nothing to do and it can
never touch upon the civil liability imposed on the said
ARTICLE 88. Arresto menor. – The penalty of arresto
offender because civil liability is personal to the private
menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the
offended party. Only the victim can waive it. It cannot be
house of the defendant himself under the surveillance
touched upon by parole, pardon, or probation.
of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its
decision, taking into consideration the health of the
In the case of Moreno v. COMELEC, a motion to
disqualify Moreno was filed. The COMELEC En banc

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
offender and other reasons which may therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
seem satisfactory to it. offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;

Under Art. 88 of the RPC, if the offender is convicted and
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the
sentenced with arresto menor, he may serve his sentence
penalty and all its effects;
in the municipal jail or in his house under surveillance of
a peace officer, taking into consideration his health and
4. By absolute pardon;
other personal circumstances. Therefore, a person
sentenced with arresto menor need not be brought to the
Bilibid or the national penitentiary. 5. By prescription of the crime;
RA 11362 6. By prescription of the penalty;

COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as
Art. 88 has been amended by RA 11362 or the provided in Article 344 of this Code.
Community Service Act. So, now we have Art. 88-A which
provides that a person convicted of a crime wherein the
penalty imposes either arresto mayor or arresto menor, in Under Art. 89, the modes for totally extinguishing criminal
lieu of jail time, he can file for community service to be liability are:
rendered in the place where the crime was committed.
1. Death,
If the offender was convicted and sentenced with arresto 2. Service of sentence,
mayor or arresto menor, the judge will announce that this 3. Amnesty,
offender has three (3) options and that he shall give his 4. Absolute pardon,
decision on which option he is taking within 15 days from 5. Prescription of crime,
the promulgation of judgment. The options are: 6. Prescription of penalty, and
7. Subsequent valid marriage between the offender
1. He can file an appeal; and offended party
2. He can file for probation; or
3. He can file for community service in the place
1. DEATH
where the crime was committed.
If he opted to file for community service and it was denied, Effect on Criminal Liability
he can still either appeal or file for probation, provided
there is still a remaining period within the 15 days from the Death extinguishes criminal liability at any stage of the
time of promulgation of judgment. proceedings – be it during trial, before conviction, or even
after conviction. The moment he dies, his criminal liability
Even if the said offender has already been granted is totally extinguished because he is irreplaceable. No one
probation in a previous case, in the subsequent case, he can serve imprisonment, no can serve the personal
can still apply for community service. So, the fact that he penalty except him.
had already undergone probation in a former case, it will
not disqualify him to apply for community service in the Effect on Civil Liability
subsequent case.
1. Death extinguishes civil liability if the offender
ARTICLE 89 dies before conviction by final judgment. This civil
liability pertains to ex delicto in senso strictiore,
THE REVISED PENAL CODE which is civil liability arising from and based solely
BOOK ONE on the crime committed.
ARTICLE 89. How criminal liability is totally NOTE: This does not apply if the civil liability
extinguished. – Criminal liability is totally extinguished: arises from other sources of obligations, such as
law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delict.
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal In that case, the civil liability survives even if he
penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability dies before conviction by final judgment.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
2. If the offender dies after conviction by final It is a public act of the It is only a private act of
judgment, the civil liability survives. Chief Executive. There is the Chief Executive.
usually a concurrence Therefore, it has to be
Q: X was convicted for the crime of Rape, with a with Congress. Hence, pleaded before the court
penalty of reclusion perpetua. An award was courts take judicial notice for it to issue an order of
rendered against him consisting of P100,000.00 civil of amnesty. release.
liability and P100,000.00 moral damages. The CA
affirmed the decision. When the case was pending Generally granted to a May be granted to any
before the SC, the SC received a letter of group or community of offender and for any crime
communication from the Director of Prisons stating prisoners who have committed
that X was found dead. The medico-legal showed that committed political
he suffered from heart attack. When the victim Y offenses
learned of X’s death, she was so afraid because she
does not know what will happen to the civil liability
and damages awarded in her favor. Her counsel told
her that she will still receive the award. Is the counsel NOTE: In pardon, it suspends the service of the sentence.
correct? In absolute pardon, it excuses the convict from the service
of his sentence.
A: NO. The counsel is wrong. Since the accused X died
before conviction by final judgment, both his criminal and 5. PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
civil liabilities are totally extinguished. Therefore, the said
civil liability will not go to the private offended party
Prescription of crime is the loss or forfeiture of the right of
because he died before conviction by final judgment.
the State to prosecute an offender who has violated the
public law. The moment the crime has prescribed, the only
2. SERVICE OF SENTENCE jurisdiction of the court is to dismiss the case. The court
cannot try or hear the case; otherwise, there is gross
Service of sentence is the satisfaction of the penalty. If ignorance of the law because the crime has already
imprisonment, he has served it. If fine, he has paid it. prescribed.
Penalty is served.
Prescriptive Period of Crimes
3. AMNESTY
PENALTY PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
4. ABSOLUTE PARDON
Death, reclusion 20 years
perpetua, and reclusion
Amnesty and absolute pardon are both acts of grace from temporal
the Chief Executive which exempt the offender from the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime he has committed. Other afflictive penalties 15 years
The offender will no longer serve the penalty prescribed
by law. Correccional penalties 10 years
except arresto mayor
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION
Arresto mayor 5 years
Amnesty Vis-à-vis Absolute Pardon
Libel and similar offenses 1 year
AMNESTY ABSOLUTE PARDON
Obliterates/erases all the Only excuses the convict Oral Defamation and 6 months
effects of the crime as if from the service of his Slander by Deed
no crime has been sentence Light felonies 2 months or 60 days
committed
May be granted at any May only be granted after

Running of Prescriptive Period
stage of the proceedings conviction by final
judgment; otherwise, it
1. The running of the prescriptive period of crimes
has no effect.
shall commence from the time of the commission

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
of the crime – from the date the crime has been constructive notice to the whole world is erroneous. The
committed if it is known. said constructive notice to the whole world only applies in
2. If the time of the commission of the crime is not case of transactions involving, or registration of
known, it shall commence from the time it has conveyance or disposal of real property before the Office
come to the knowledge of the offended party, or of the Registry of Deeds. It does not apply in registration
public authorities or agents of public authorities. of Certificate of Marriage and Certificate of Live Birth.
Therefore, the case for Bigamy will still prosper.
Q: X killed Y with the presence of treachery.
Thereafter, X disposed the body of the crime. X Interruption in the Running of Prescriptive Period
thought no one witnessed his act, but Z, a passerby,
witnessed it. Z kept silent because he was afraid to be The running of the prescriptive period shall be interrupted
involved in such crime. After 25 years, Z, who was or suspended the moment the case is filed before the
bothered by his conscience, went to the police station Office of the Public Prosecutor, even if for the purpose of
and narrated what he saw. And so, the police officers conducting preliminary investigation.
conducted an investigation and found truth. A case
for Murder was filed against X. Has the crime PEOPLE v. PANGILINAN
prescribed? G.R. NO. 152662 | JUNE 13, 2012 | PEREZ, J.
A: NO. The crime has not yet prescribed. No one knows FACTS: Virginia Malolos filed an affidavit-complaint for
the date and time of the commission of the crime except Estafa and violation of BP 22 against Ma. Theresa
Z. He was neither the offended party, nor public authority Pangilinan with the Office of the City Prosecutor of
nor agent of public authority. Therefore, the time he has Quezon City. The complaint alleges that Pangilinan
knowledge will not commence the running of the issued nine (9) checks with an aggregate amount of
prescriptive period. The said prescriptive period only P9,658,592.00 in favor of Malolos, which were
commenced the moment Z informed the authorities. dishonored upon presentment for payment. The
Hence, the crime has not yet prescribed. criminal proceedings were suspended pending the
outcome of the civil action Pangilinan filed against
Q: X and Y are husband and wife. The husband, Malolos. Upon appellate review, the SOJ ordered the
together with his friends, have a business in filing of Informations for two (2) counts of violation of
Mindanao. Since then, the husband has been going BP 22. The motion to quash filed by Pangilinan was
back-and-forth to Mindanao. One time, the husband granted on the ground that sher criminal liability has
was being interviewed by national television. The wife prescribed.
was watching. However, during the interview, a
woman Z arrived and gave her husband a kiss. ISSUE: W/N the filing of the affidavit-complaint with the
Thereafter, the husband introduced Z as his wife. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City interrupted
wife conducted an investigation, and learned that her the period of prescription of the offense (YES)
husband and Z were married. She further investigated
and discovered that the Certificate of Marriage of the RULING: YES. In cases involving special laws, this
husband and Z were registered before the Civil Court held that the institution of proceedings for
Registry. The wife filed a case for Bigamy against the preliminary investigation against the accused interrupts
husband. the period of prescription. And in the case of
Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, which is in all
The husband, however, moved for the dismissal of fours with the instant case, this Court ruled that
the case on the ground that the crime has already commencement of the proceedings for the prosecution
prescribed. Bigamy is punished by prision mayor of the accused before the Office of the City Prosecutor
which prescribes in 15 years. According to the effectively interrupted the prescriptive period for the
husband, the date of registration of their certificate of offenses they had been charged under BP 22.
marriage in the Office of the Civil Registry was 20
years before. Therefore, by reason of constructive In the case at bar, the contention that a different rule
notice to the whole world, the wife is deemed to have should be applied to cases involving special laws is
known of the said marriage between the husband and bereft of merit. There is no more distinction between
Z. Will the case for Bigamy prosper? cases under the RPC and those covered by special
laws with respect to the interruption of the period of
A: YES. The Bigamy case will prosper because the crime prescription.
has not yet prescribed. The husband’s defense that the
registration of the said Certificate of Marriage constituted

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
interrupted upon the execution of judicial proceedings –

The latter part of 1995 is the reckoning date of the upon filing of the case before the proper court.
commencement of presumption for violations of BP
Blg. 22, such being the period within which herein But in the case of People v. Pangilinan, what is involved
respondent was notified by private complainant of the is a violation of BP 22, a special penal law. And so, SC
fact of dishonor of the checks and the five-day grace said that when it is a violation of the RPC or special penal
period granted by law elapsed. The affidavit-complaints law, the running of the prescriptive period of crime is
for the violations were filed against respondent on 16 interrupted the moment the case is filed before the Office
September 1997. The cases reached the MeTC of of the Public Prosecutor for purposes of preliminary
Quezon City only on 13 February 2000 because in the investigation.
meanwhile, respondent filed a civil case for accounting
followed by a petition before the City Prosecutor for 6. PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
suspension of proceedings on the ground of
"prejudicial question". The matter was raised before
theSecretary of Justice after the City Prosecutor Prescription of penalty is the loss or forfeiture of the right
approved the petition to suspend proceedings. It was of the State to execute the final sentence imposed on an
only after the Secretary of Justice so ordered that the offender. The moment the penalty has already prescribed,
informations for the violation of BP Blg. 22 were filed the State can no longer bring the said offender behind
with the MeTC of Quezon City. bars to serve his sentence.
Clearly, it was respondent’s own motion for the Prescriptive Period of Penalties
suspension of the criminal proceedings, which motion
she predicated on her civil case for accounting, that PENALTY PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
caused the filing in court of the 1997 initiated Death and reclusion 20 years
proceedings only in 2000. perpetua
Other afflictive penalties 15 years

NOTE: In the case of People v. Pangilinan, the SC said, Correccional penalties 10 years
it is settled that whether it is a case under the RPC or a except arresto mayor
case under special penal law, the said running of the
prescriptive period of crime is interrupted or suspended
Arresto mayor 5 years
the moment the case is filed before the Office of the Public
Prosecutor for the purpose of preliminary investigation.
Light felonies 1 year
In the said case, however, the CA said that the crime of
violation of BP 22 has already prescribed. BP 22 has a
Running of Prescriptive Period
four-year prescriptive period counting from the time of
receipt of notice of dishonor by the offender. According to
the CA, the crime has already prescribed based on Act The running of the prescriptive period of penalty shall
No. 3326. In the En banc case of Zaldivia v. Reyes, the commence from the time the convict evaded the service
SC said that the running of the prescriptive period of crime of his sentence. A convict is said to have evaded the
shall only be interrupted or suspended upon the institution service of his sentence if the judgment imposed on him
has already become final and executory, he was already
of criminal proceedings. The SC interpreted the word
serving it at the National Penitentiary, and then he
“proceedings” as judicial proceedings. Therefore, it can
only be interrupted upon the filing of the case before the escaped. From the time of escape, that is the time he
evaded his service of his sentence.
proper court.
The SC, however, said that the CA’s reliance on Zaldivia Q: X was convicted for the crime of Murder, with the
v. Reyes is erroneous because the crime involved in that penalty of reclusion perpetua. X was brought to the
case was a violation of a municipal ordinance. The said National Penitentiary. Within a month, X escaped
offender committed quarrying without Mayor’s permit from Bilibid. A warrant of arrest was issued against X,
which is prohibited by a municipal ordinance. Therefore, but the police officers could not locate him. 25 years
in that case, Act No. 3326 applies since it is a mere thereafter, the PNP Station of Manila received a call
violation of the ordinance, a mere infraction of the law. from the PNP Station of Cebu. They were informed
The running of the prescriptive period of crime will only be that X was on board the PAL flight arriving in NAIA at
10:30 in the morning. And so, the PNP of Manila,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
armed with a warrant of arrest and an old photo of X, This will only apply in one (1) public crime of Rape and in
went to the tarmac of NAIA. They looked at every private crimes of Abduction, Seduction, and Acts of
person disembarking from the plane until they saw Lasciviousness. The subsequent valid marriage between
one with the same eyes as X. And so, they cornered the accused and private offended party will extinguish the
and interrogated him. It turned out to be X and he was accused’s criminal liability for the crime committed.
immediately arrested.
ARTICLE 94
His counsel immediately filed a petition for habeas
corpus on the ground of prescription of penalty. THE REVISED PENAL CODE
Should the judge grant the petition? BOOK ONE
A: YES. The judge should grant the petition for habeas ARTICLE 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability.
corpus because the penalty has already prescribed. The – Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
crime for which he was convicted was Murder, with a
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Under Art. 92, it prescribes
1. By conditional pardon;
in 20 years. It was too late when they were able to arrest
X. It was already 25 years from the time he evaded the
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
service of his sentence – he escaped from the National
Penitentiary. Therefore, X can no longer be placed behind
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may
bars in order to serve his final sentence.
earn while he is serving his sentence.
Q: X was charged with the crime of Homicide. It was
a bailable offense. He posted bail. He appeared during
arraignment, but he no longer appeared during the Art. 94 provides the modes for partially extinguishing
preliminary conference, pre-trial, and trial proper. criminal liability:
When the counsel was asked of X’s whereabouts, the
counsel said that he was not aware where X was. And 1. Conditional pardon,
so, the judge conducted trial in absentia. After trial on 2. Commutation of sentence, and
the merits, X was convicted of Homicide, with a 3. Good conduct allowance to be determined by the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period Director of Prisons
of 20 years. After the finality of judgment, the judge
issued a warrant of arrest. The police officers, 1. CONDITIONAL PARDON
however, cannot locate him. 20 years thereafter, they
got a tip from a reliable informer that X was seen in a
secluded barangay in Quezon Province. The police Conditional pardon also excuses the convict from the
officers went there and served the warrant of arrest service of his sentence. However, unlike absolute pardon,
upon X. in the grant of conditional pardon, there are attached
terms and conditions for which the offender must comply.
His counsel immediately filed a petition for habeas Otherwise, he can be charged with Evasion of Service of
corpus on the ground of prescription of penalty. Sentence for violation of conditional pardon under Art.
Should the judge grant the petition? 159.
A: NO. The judge should deny the petition because the 2. COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
penalty has not yet prescribed. No matter how long a time
had lapsed from the time he jumped bail, he can still be
placed behind bars because he has not yet begun the It is where a new penalty is imposed in lieu of the original
service of his sentence. Therefore, there is no way that he sentence. Death reduced to reclusion perpetua.
could have evaded the service of his sentence. The Reclusion Perpetua is the new penalty to be served by the
running of the prescriptive period of penalty has not yet said convict.
even commenced because he has never evaded the
service of his sentence. RA 10592
7. SUBSEQUENT VALID MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE 3. GOOD CONDUCT TIME ALLOWANCE

OFFENDER AND OFFENDED PARTY
Art. 97 and other articles have been amended by RA
10592.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
that it is favorable to the offender because the penalty to

INMATES OF NEW BILIBID v. DE LIMA be served by the offender will be lowered/reduced. Under
G.R. NO. 212719 | JUNE 25, 2019 | PERALTA, J. Art. 22, penal laws shall be given retroactive application if
they favor the accused, provided the accused is not a
FACTS: After RA 10592 was enacted into law, the IRR habitual delinquent. The SC said that the penal laws being
was jointly issued by the DOJ Secretary De Lima and referred to Art. 22 refers only to substantive penal laws.
DILG Secretary Roxas II. The Inmates of New Bilibid, RA 10952 is not a substantive penal law because it does
through then counsel, filed a Petition for certiorari and not define a crime and prescribe a penalty. However,
prohibition with prayer for the issuance of preliminary although it is not a substantive penal law, Art. 22 may be
injunction contending that the provisions of RA 10592 applied. Even if it is not a substantive penal law, it has an
are penal in nature and beneficial to the inmates, effect on the rehabilitation aspect of the correctional
hence, they should be given retroactive effect in system of the Philippines. Its effect is to reduce/decrease
accordance with Art. 22 of the RPC. the time to be spent by the offender behind bars. It is
greatly favorable to the said offender. Therefore, it can be
ISSUE: W/N RA 10592 should be given retroactive given retroactive application.
application (YES)
Persons Disqualified of Retroactive Application of
RULING: YES. Every new law has a prospective effect. GCTA
Art. 22 of the RPC, however, states that a penal law
that is favorable or advantageous to the accused shall Under RA 10952, the following persons are disqualified:
be given retroactive effect if he is not a habitual
criminal. These are the rules, the exception, and the 1. Recidivists,
exception to the exception on the effectivity of laws. 2. Habitual delinquents,
3. Escapees, and
In criminal law, the principle favorabilia sunt amplianda 4. Persons deprived of liberty after having been
adiosa restrigenda (penal laws which are favorable to convicted of heinous offenses.
the accused are given retroactive effect) is well
entrenched. ARTICLE 98
Here, the Court recognized that although R.A. No. THE REVISED PENAL CODE
10592 does not define a crime/offense or BOOK ONE
provide/prescribe/establish a penalty as it addresses
the rehabilitation component of our correctional ARTICLE 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A
system, its provisions have the purpose and effect of deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentence shall
diminishing the punishment attached to the crime. The be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded the
further reduction on the length of the penalty of service of his sentence under the circumstances
imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis, beneficial to mentioned in Article 58 of this Code, gives himself up to
the detention and convicted prisoners alike; hence, the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of
calls for the application of Art. 22 of the RPC. a proclamation announcing the passing away of the
calamity or catastrophe to in said article.
The prospective application of the beneficial provisions
of R.A. No. 10592 works to the disadvantage of the
Inmates and those who are similarly situated. It
precludes the decrease in the penalty attached to their 1. If a prisoner leaves the penal institution in times
respective crimes and lengthens their prison stay; thus, of calamities and disorder, and he returns within
making more onerous the punishment for the crimes 48 hours following the declaration of the Chief
they committed. Depriving them of time off to which Executive that the calamity has already passed.
they are justly entitled as a practical matter result in He will then be given a credit of special allowance
extending their sentence and increasing their for loyalty, which is a deduction of one-fifth based
punishment. Evidently, this transgresses the clear on the term of his sentence.
mandate of Art. 22 of the RPC.
2. If despite the calamity or disorder, the prison did
not leave the penal institution, he will then be
given a greater credit of deduction of two-fifth
NOTE: In the case of Inmates of New Bilibid v. De Lima, based on the term of his sentence.
the retroactive application of RA 10592 was inquired: Can
RA 10592 be given retroactive application? Considering

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
ARTICLE 100 FACTS: Spouses Calapiz brought their son Hanz to

the hospital for an emergency appendectomy. Hanz
THE REVISED PENAL CODE was attended by Dr. Lumantas who suggested that
BOOK ONE Hanz should also undergo circumcision at no added
cost. The spouses consented to the same, and Hanz
ARTICLE 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of underwent two surgeries. The following day, Hanz
felony. – Every person criminally liable for a felony is complained of pain in his penis which exhibited blisters.
also civilly liable. His testicles were also swollen. Hanz also urinated
abnormally after Dr. Lumantas forcibly removed the
catheter. Subsequently, Hanz was discharged but he
was confined again because of the abscess formation
For every criminal action in court, the civil action goes with between the base and the shaft of his penis. Hanz was
it. There is no need for the victim or the private offended then diagnosed to have a damaged urethra. Thus,
party to file a separate and independent civil action to Hanz underwent another surgery. However, Hanz’s
recover civil liability and damages. If it is proven in court, urethra could not be fully repaired. Lumantas was
the judge will automatically award it to the private charged with the crime of Reckless Imprudence
complainant. That is the general rule. Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries. He was,
however, acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
General Rule: For every criminal action filed in court, the
civil action goes with it. ISSUE: W/N Lumantas is civilly liable despite his
acquittal of the crime (YES)
Exceptions:
1. When the offended party waives the right to RULING: YES. Every person criminally liable for a
institute a civil action; felony is also civilly liable. Nevertheless, the acquittal
2. When the offended party reserves the right to of an accused of the crime charged does not
institute a civil action, which reservation must be necessarily extinguish his civil liability.
made before the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution; and The Court elucidates on the two kinds of acquittal
3. When the offended party institutes a civil action recognized by our law as well as on the different effects
way ahead of the criminal action. of acquittal on the civil liability of the accused.
Q: Does it mean that for every acquittal, the private 1. Acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the
complainant can no longer recover any civil liability? author of the act or omission complained of. a. This
instance closes the door to civil liability, for a
A: It DEPENDS on the kind of acquittal. The SC said that person who has been found to be not the
there are two (2) of acquittal: perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can
never be held liable for such act or omission. There
1. Acquittal based on the ground that the being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the
offender is not the author of the crime. question, and the civil action, if any, which may be
Therefore, the offender did not commite the acts instituted must be based on grounds other than the
or omission alleged in the Information. This kind delict complained of. This is the situation
of acquittal totally bars recovery of civil liability. contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
2. Acquittal based on the failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond 2. Acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of
reasonable doubt. It is an acquittal based on the accused. a. In this case, even if the guilt of the
reasonable doubt. In this kind of acquittal, there accused has not been satisfactorily established, he
can still be recovery of civil liability because a civil is not exempt from civil liability which may be
action can only be proven by preponderance of proved by preponderance of evidence only.
evidence.
Here, although it found the Prosecution's evidence
Lumantas v. Calapiz Vis-à-vis Daluraya v. Oliva insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction against
Dr. Lumantas for the crime charged, the RTC did not
LUMANTAS v. CALAPIZ err in determining and adjudging his civil liability for the
G.R. NO. 163753 | JANUARY 15, 2014 | same act complained of based on mere preponderance
BERSAMIN, J. of evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
The failure of the prosecution to prove Dr. Lumantas’ determine if the act or omission from which the civil
criminal negligence with moral certainty did not forbid liability might arise did not exist." An examination of the
against the latter being civilly liable based on MeTC's Order will show that Daluraya's acquittal was
preponderance of evidence based on the conclusion that the act or omission from
which the civil liability may arise did not exist, given that
the prosecution was not able to establish that he was
the author of the crime imputed against him. Such
NOTE: In the case of Lumantas v. Calapiz, the accused
conclusion is clear and categorical when the MeTC
doctor was acquitted for the failure of the prosecution to
declared that "the testimonies of the prosecution
prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was
witnesses are wanting in material details and they did
negligence on his part in the performance of the
not sufficiently establish that the accused precisely
circumcision of the boy. So, the negligence of the doctor
committed the crime charged against him."
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the
judge imposed civil liability because he saw that the boy
was indeed harmed. And so, the doctor questioned that
how come there is civil liability awarded against him, when NOTE: In the case of Daluraya v. Oliva, the crime
in fact, he was acquitted. The SC said that the RTC is charged was Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide.
correct because the acquittal is based on reasonable After the prosecution presented his evidence, the defense
doubt. Since the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt counsel filed a Demurer to Evidence which was granted
and civil liability can only be proven by preponderance of by the trial court. CA affirmed the grant, but CA said that
evidence, the award of civil liability against the doctor is there must be an award of civil liability in favor of the
correct. private offended party. The SC said that the CA is wrong.
Since the accused was acquitted based on the ground
DALURAYA v. OLIVA that there was no proof that he was the author of the crime
G.R. NO. 210148 | DECEMBER 8, 2014 | PERLAS- and that he committed the acts alleged in the Information,
BERNABE, J. then the award of civil liability has no leg to stand on.
Therefore, the SC said that the award of civil liability was
FACTS: Marina Oliva was crossing the street when a erroneous.
Nissan Vanette allegedly being driven by Daluraya ran
her over. Marina was brought to the hospital, but she MATOBATO, SR. v. PEOPLE
eventually died. Daluraya was charged with Reckless G.R. NO. 229265 | FEBRUARY 15, 2022 | LOPEZ,
Imprudence resulting in Homicide. The case was, M., J.
however, dismissed for failure of the prosecution to
sufficiently establish that Daluraya committed the FACTS: In September 1994, the Municipality of
crime. Pantukan authorized the transfer of municipal funds
from the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to the
ISSUE: W/N Daluraya is civilly liable despite being Davao Cooperative Bank (DCB). However, DCB went
acquitted from the criminal charge on the ground of bankrupt in 1998, leading to the municipality being
insufficiency of evidence. (NO) unable to withdraw the funds. The Commission on
Audit (COA) found discrepancies in the handling of
RULING: If an acquittal is based on the ground that the these funds and recommended legal action against the
accused is not the author of the act or omission officials involved. Subsequently, the Ombudsman filed
complained of, this instance closes the door to civil charges under RA 3019 against several municipal
liability, for a person who has been found to be not the officials, including Silvino Matobato, Walter Bucao, and
perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can Cirila Engbino.
never be held liable for such act or omission. There
being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the Following a trial, the Sandiganbayan acquitted the
question, and the civil action, if any, which may be accused due to lack of evidence of gross negligence.
instituted must be based on grounds other than the However, they were held civilly liable for the
delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated unrecovered funds.
in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: W/N Matobato, Sr. is civilly liable (YES)
In case of an acquittal, the ROC requires that the
judgment state "whether the evidence of the
RULING: YES. Every person criminally liable for a
prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the
felony is also civilly liable. Yet, the dismissal of the
accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond
criminal action does not carry with it the extinction of
reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
the civil liability where: "(a) the acquittal is based on

reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence In that case, Matobato and his co-accused were not held
is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the criminally liable for violation of Sec. 3 of RA 3019. The
accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the second element was absent because there was no proof
accused does not arise from or is not based upon the that they acted with gross inexcusable negligence. The
crime of which the accused is acquitted. "The quantum Sandiganbayan said that there still negligence, although
of proof to establish civil liability is preponderance of not gross inexcusable. Hence, while there were acquitted
evidence which is defined as the "weight, credit, and from criminal liability, they are still liable for civil liability.
value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered to be synonymous with the term ARTICLE 101
'greater weight of the evidence' or 'greater weight of the
credible evidence.' It is evidence which is more THE REVISED PENAL CODE
convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that BOOK ONE
which is offered in opposition thereto." Notably, the ARTICLE 101. Rules regarding civil liability in
Sandiganbayan acquitted Silvino, Walter, and Cirila certain cases. – The exemption from criminal liability
because their guilt were not proven beyond reasonable established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12
doubt. Thus, any civil liability survives because only and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not
preponderant evidence is necessary to establish it. include exemption from civil liability, which shall be
enforced subject to the following rules:
Silvino, as Municipal Treasurer, failed to exercise
reasonable care and caution in safeguarding municipal First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12,
funds. He disregarded warning signs and continued the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or
depositing funds with DCB despite its unstable financial insane person, and by a person under nine years of age,
situation, ultimately leading to the municipality's or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who
inability to withdraw and utilize the funds. Silvino's has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon
negligence breached his duties under PD No. 1445 and those having such person under their legal authority or
the Local Government Code. His argument against civil control, unless it appears that there was no fault or
liability pending DCB's liquidation was dismissed as the negligence on their part.
municipality had already suffered damage due to his
negligence. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile
or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or
Similarly, Walter and Cirila cannot evade responsibility control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane,
by invoking the presumption of regularity. Their imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property,
negligence in approving the fund transfer and reliance excepting property exempt from execution, in
on verbal assurances from the bank manager accordance with the civil law.
contradicted their duties as Sangguniang Bayan
members. They failed to scrutinize the investment Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article
proposal adequately, allowing the transfer of 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
substantial municipal funds to a risky bank. prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the
benefit which they may have received.
Under the "threefold liability rule," the wrongful acts or
omissions of public officers may give rise to civil, The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the
criminal, and administrative liabilities. Corollary, public proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
officers could still be held civilly liable to reimburse the
injured party notwithstanding their acquittal. When the respective shares cannot be equitably
determined, even approximately, or when the liability
also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of
the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever
BAR CHAIR CASE
the damages have been caused with the consent of the
authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be
In the case of Matobato, Sr. v. People, penned by your
made in the manner prescribed by special laws or
Bar Chair Justice Mario Lopez, the SC said that there is regulations.
a so-called three-fold liability rule in case of public officers.
For every act or omission committed by public officers, he
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of
can be held liable civilly, criminally, or administratively.
Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the
Therefore, even if he is acquitted from criminal liability, he
fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there
can still be held liable civilly and administratively.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person
saving always to the latter that part of their property representing him, of the deposit of such goods within
exempt from execution. the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the
directions which such innkeeper or his representative
may have given them with respect to the care and
vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in
IMBECILE, INSANE PERSON, OR A MINOR case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons unless committed by the innkeeper's
If the offender is an imbecile, insane person, or a minor of employees.
15 years old or under, these are exempting
circumstances. Therefore, the offender is not criminally
liable but only civilly liable. ARTICLE 103
General rule: Civil liability shall be adjudged against the THE REVISED PENAL CODE
person who has direct control and custody of the said BOOK ONE
imbecile, insane person, or a minor.
ARTICLE 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other
Exception: If that person can prove there was no fault or
persons. – The subsidiary liability established in the
no negligence on his part, then it is the property of the said
next preceding article shall also apply to employers,
imbecile, insane person, or a minor who shall answer for
teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any
the said civil liability.
kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants,
pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE/UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR discharge of their duties
If the offender is charged in court and it was proven that

he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force or For crimes committed by their children, the parents shall
impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, be subsidiarily civilly liable.
he is exempted from criminal liability but not from civil
liability. For crimes committed by their pupils, the teachers and
schools shall be subsidiary civilly liable.
The said civil liability shall be born primarily by the person
who employed the said threat or intimidation. However, if For crimes committed by their employees in the
that person is insolvent, then the offender shall answer for performance of their functions, the employers shall be
the civil liability. subsidiary civilly liable.
civilly liable.
General Rule: The proprietor of the establishment shall
ARTICLE 102 only be subsidiarily civilly liable in crimes of Robbery
through use of force upon things and in crimes of Theft if:
BOOK ONE 1. The said guest informed the proprietor of the
establishment that he has valuables with him;
ARTICLE 102. Subsidiary civil liability of and
innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of 2. He complied with the rules and regulations of the
establishments. – In default of the persons criminally establishment as to the care and vigilance of the
liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other said the valuables.
persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
committed in their establishments, in all cases where a Exception: When the crime committed is a form of
violation of municipal ordinances or some general or Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
special police regulation shall have been committed by under Art. 295.
them or their employees.
Exception to the exception: Even if there is Robbery
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution with violence against or intimidation of persons, the
of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses proprietor of the establishment shall subsidiarily civilly if
from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the the crime is committed by his very own employees.
value thereof, provided that such guests shall have

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
Q: X checked in at a hotel. She brought expensive absolute, the following must be proven in court in the
jewelries, but she decided not to inform the proprietor name of due process:
of the establishment. When she used the bathroom in
her hotel room, the flush of the toilet bowl was not 1. That there is employer-employee relationship
working. And so, she called for a hotel employee to between X and ABC Corporation;
fix the said toilet bowl. While fixing the toilet bowel, 2. That ABC Corporation is engaged in some kind of
the hotel employee suddenly took notice of the industry;
expensive jewelries of X. Thereafter, he took an ice 3. That X committed a crime in the exercise of
pick and pointed it towards the neck of X. The hotel function as a driver of ABC Corporation; and
employee was able to take all the expensive jewelries 4. That X was charged and convicted, the judgment
of X. The employee was subsequently arrested and became final and executory, and the writ of
convicted for the crime of Simple Robbery. However, execution was returned unsatisfied.
the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied
because the employee was insolvent and all the ARTICLE 104
jewelries were gone. Is the proprietor of the
establishment subsidiarily civilly liable? THE REVISED PENAL CODE
BOOK ONE
A: YES. The case falls under the exception to the
exception. The very person who committed Simple ARTICLE 104. What is included in civil liability. –
Robbery on the guest is the employee of the house The civil liability established in Arts. 100, 101, 102, and
keeping department of the said establishment. Even if the 103 of this Code includes:
said guest did not inform the hotel that she has valuables
with her, but since the offender is the employee of the
1. Restitution;
hotel, then the owner of the said hotel is subsidiarily civilly
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
liable.
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
Q: X was a driver of ABC Corporation. The President
of ABC Corporation instructed him to get the
pertinent documents in his house, which will be used The civil liabilities imposed on the accused are:
for his meeting. When X was on his way, he received
a call from his pregnant wife. The wife told him that 1. Restitution,
she needs to be brought to the hospital as she was 2. Reparation of damage caused, and
about to give birth to their baby. The wife wanted the 3. Indemnification of consequential damages.
husband to be beside her in the hospital. And so, X
tried to drive fast towards the house of the President. 1. RESTITUTION
However, he hit a car causing severe damage to it. X
was convicted for the crime of Reckless Imprudence
resulting to Damage to Property. The penalty Restitution is the return of the thing taken. Even if the thing
imposed upon him is fine, including the payment of take was already in possession of an innocent purchaser
the value of the damage to the car. The writ of in good faith, it can still be taken from him and returned to
execution was returned unsatisfied because he was the owner except when the innocent purchaser in good
insolvent. What is the remedy of the owner of the car? faith bought it in a public sale or public bidding.
A: The remedy of the owner of the damaged car is to go 2. REPARATION OF DAMAGE CAUSED
after the employer of X, which is ABC Corporation. In
going after the employer, it is not necessary for the owner
of the damaged car to file a separate and independent If restitution is impossible, we have reparation of damage
civil action. In the same criminal action, all that the owner caused. The judge shall determine the value of the thing
of the damaged car has to do is to file a motion for the taken, including its special sentimental value, and award
issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution against ABC it in favor of the private offended party.
Corporation.
3. INDEMNIFICATION OF CONSEQUENTIAL
The SC said that subsidiary civil liability of the employer DAMAGES
for acts or omission done by his employees in the exercise
of their functions is absolute. However, even if it is
1. Moral damages – for the anxiety, tension, etc.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
2. Exemplary damages – if the crime was attended ARTICLE 112

by aggravating and qualifying aggravating
circumstances THE REVISED PENAL CODE
3. Actual damages – for the expenses incurred for BOOK ONE
the hospitalization, burial, etc. If these can be
proven by receipts, the judge can award them in ARTICLE 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil
favor of the private offended party. liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of
this Code shall be extinguished in the same manner as
ARTICLE 110 obligations, in accordance with the provisions of
the Civil Law.
BOOK ONE
Under Art. 89, the law provides for the modes for totally
ARTICLE 110. Several and subsidiary liability of extinguishing criminal liability.
principals, accomplices and accessories of a
felony; Preference in payment. – Notwithstanding the Under Art. 94, the law provides for the modes for partially
provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, extinguishing criminal liability.
accomplices, and accessories, each within their
respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) But there is nothing in the RPC which provides for the
among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for modes for extinguishing civil liability because under Art.
those of the other persons liable. 112, the modes for extinguishing civil liability shall in
accordance with the New Civil Code.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against
the property of the principals; next, against that of the 1. Payment
accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories. 2. Loss of the thing due
3. Remission
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary 4. Merger
liability has been enforced, the person by whom 5. Compensation
payment has been made shall have a right of action 6. Novation
against the others for the amount of their respective
shares. *** END
Q: A, B, and C were convicted as co-conspirators.

Civil liability was imposed. Who shall determine the
civil liability?
A: The court shall determine and divide proportionately

the civil liability against co-conspirators A, B, and C.
If A, B, and C were convicted as principal, accomplice,

and accessory, respectively. The civil liability of A, B, and
C as principal, accomplice, and accessory shall be in
solidum among themselves. Therefore, the private
offended party can get the subsidiary liability in the
following order:
1. Property of the principal

2. Property of the accomplice
3. Property of the accessory
If any of co-accused has paid the private offended part,

the one who paid shall have a right of action against his
other co-accused.

Crim Law Notes - Prosec G 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Law Notes - Prosec G 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Law Notes - Prosec G 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2024

Criminal Law Reviewer

I. BASIC PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW .......................................................................................................................... 1

II. BOOK ONE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024 1

PEOPLE v. DELIM ...................................................................................................................................................... 37

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024 2

PEOPLE v. MARIANO ................................................................................................................................................ 85

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024 3

PEOPLE v. NELMIDA ............................................................................................................................................... 149

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024 4

January 27, 2024 3. Penal laws enacted by Congress must not

1 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

prosecuted if he violated any of the laws of the host

2 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

Q: Can Liang enjoy blanket diplomatic immunity from

3 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

the husband together with his co-employees chosen

4 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

With the recent passage of RA 10951, the SC found

5 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

6 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

acts mala in se, there must be the concurrence of both the

7 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

punished by Special Penal Laws are mala prohibita, and

8 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

9 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

TERRITORIAL AND EXTRA-TERRITORIAL route is Philippines-Malaysia and Malaysia-

A: NO. His argument has no merit. Here, you apply the

10 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

FOURTH CIRCUMSTANCE FIFTH CIRCUMSTANCE

11 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

A: General criminal intent is presumed by law from the *** END

For example, X stabbed Y. Y sustained a non-fatal wound

On the other hand, if in the same problem, when X

12 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

FACTS: Ah Chong and Gualberto were living in a small

13 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

14 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

The moment there is an efficient intervening cause, the

15 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

16 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

to the hospital, so he walked. As he walked, rain

The lightning is an active force, a distinct act absolutely

17 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

18 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

A: IT DEPENDS – whether you will apply Art. 49 or not.

But if the intended felony is the same as the actual felony

19 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

the felony actually committed. Therefore, since Art. 49 will

1. That a felony has been committed; and

20 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

21 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

22 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

2. Physical or factual impossibility – There is

23 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

24 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

25 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024

26 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW | 4D UST FCL | 2024