Criminal Law

CRIMINAL LAW
(Book 1)
Three Inherent Powers of the State
• Police Power
• Power of Eminent domain
• Power of Taxation
Police Power
• The State has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes
and to lay down the rules of criminal procedure. States, as a part of their police
power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and denning criminal
offenses. (People vs. Santiago, 43 Phil. 120, 124)
• In the exercise of police power, property rights of individuals may be subjected to
restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government.
[128]
Otherwise stated, the government may enact legislation that may interfere
with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations to promote the
general welfare.[129] However, the interference must be reasonable and not
arbitrary. And to forestall arbitrariness, the methods or means used to protect
public health, morals, safety or welfare must have a reasonable relation to the
end in view. (SJS v. Chevron Phil. INC., et. al., G.R. No. 156052, February 13, 2008)
Branches of the Government
• Legislative Branch-Enact laws
• Executive Branch-Enforce/Implement Laws
• Judicial Branch-Interpret Laws
Theories of Criminal Law
• Classical Theory-The basis of criminal liability is human free will and
the purpose of the penalty is retribution.
• Positive Theory-Positivist Theory - The basis of criminal liability is the

sum of social, natural and economics phenomena to which the actor
is exposed. The purposes of penalty are prevention and correction.
• Eclectic Theory-Combination of Classical and Positivists

Sources of Philippine Criminal Law
• The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its amendments.
• Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine
Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress of the
Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa.
• Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
(PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612 Anti Fencing Law)
• Penal Executive Orders
(EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 141 PROHIBITION AGAINST THE FORGERY AND
UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE SEAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
PHILIPPINES)
Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege
• There is no crime where there is no law punishing it.
• Common law is not applicable in the Criminal law of the Republic of
the Philippines
JANNECE C. PEÑALOSA, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE
A. OCAMPO, JR., RESPONDENT. G.R. No.
230299. April 26, 2023
That on August 3 2011, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously,
with malice, compose prepare and post for circulation and dissemination in her facebook account, the
following, to wit:
"hoy arkitektong bobo kumain ka para di kalawangin ang utak mong ipis!
grabe my kakamatay lng na tatay nakuha pang magreklamo kung saan san!!! Make yourself bc naman
pls!
grabe naman utusan m ung asawa m na magretire ng makalasap naman ng masarap na buhay at
pagkain mga hampas lupa!
ung totoo nasa patay o nasa barangay para magreklamo. Try m kayo lumaban ng lalake sa lalake.
sino pa ba tatay ni jojo ocampo supot! Daming reklamo sa bahay namen kse walang pangpagawa eh.
supot pls paki sabi sa tatay mong supot manahimik na lang at magjogging na lang twing umaga!!!
lam ko mahirap buhay ngaun pero wag nyo naman pa mukha sa mga taga ayala na patay gutom kayo!!!
tangina kse tatay ni jo ang daming reklamo sa bahay namen. Inggit kse di makapag pagawa ng balay eh."
230299. April 26, 2023
with intent to impute upon the person of JOSE A. OCAMPO, JR. vices or
defects, whether real or imaginary, and made for no other purpose
than to convey, as they did convey to all those whoever read then that
said JOSE A. OCAMPO, JR. is brainless disrespectful of his deceased
father, lazy, a vagabond, a coward, uncircumsized a beggar and an
envious person, thereby exposing him to public ridicule, casting
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon his person, to his damage and
prejudice.
230299. April 26, 2023
• The post was made in 2011 and before the enactment of the
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012;
• the trial court declared that Peñalosa's act constituted internet libel.
However, when the acts complained of were committed on August 3,
2011, Republic Act No. 10175 was yet to be enacted. Therefore,
according to the trial court, Peñalosa's acts were not criminally
punishable when they were committed. Consequently, the trial court
dismissed the case against Peñalosa
230299. April 26, 2023
• the Court of Appeals granted the Petition for Certiorari and annulled the
January 26, 2015 Order of the Regional Trial Court. According to the Court of
Appeals, Peñalosa's act of maligning Ocampo, Jr.'s reputation through a
Facebook post was punishable under the libel provisions of the Revised Penal
Code, specifically, Article 355, which states that libel shall be punishable "by
means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,
theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means."
• In addition, the Court of Appeals interpreted Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 to mean that the libel provision in the Revised Penal
Code covers libelous internet or Facebook posts, being examples of libel by
means of writing. The Court of Appeals thus remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings.
230299. April 26, 2023
• After re-examination of the evidence on record, it is apparent from the reading of the subject
Information that the very alleged libelous statements posted of the subject information that
the very alleged libelous statements posted in accused's Facebook account on August 3, 2011
constitutes Internet Libel. However, the crucial fact is, on August 3, 2011, the date when the
offense charged was allegedly committed, there is no law yet penalizing Internet Libel
considering that Internet Libel became punishable only with the enactment of Republic Act No.
10175 "An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for the Prevention, Investigation, Suppression
and the Imposition of Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes." Said law was approved on
September 12, 2012 and came to effectivity fifteen (15) days from the completion of its
publication in at least two (2) papers of general circulation. The alleged date of commission in
the Information as already mentioned by the court is August 3, 2011. Clearly then the accused
could not have committed the internet libel crime on August 3, 2011 as there is no statute
defining and penalizing internet or online libel on said date.
• It is a basic doctrine in criminal law that there is no crime when there is no law punishing it
(Nullum Crimen, nulla poena sine lege).
Limitations on the power of the
lawmaking body to enact penal
legislation
• The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution imposes the following
limitations:
• 1. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art.
Ill, Sec. 22)
• 2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law. (Art. Ill, Sec. 14[1])
• Criminal laws must be of general application and must clearly define
the acts and commissions punished as crimes
Rights of the Accused
• All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. (Sec. 16)
• 2. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law. (Sec. 14[1])
• 3. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended.
• Excessive bail shall not be required. (Sec. 13)
• 4. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him, to have speedy, impartial, and public
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has
been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. (Sec.
14[2])
• Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
• If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one.
• These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(Sec. 12[1])
• No torture, force, violence; threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. (Sec 12[2])
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. (Sec. 12[3])
• 6. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. (Sec. 19[1])
• 7. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act. (Sec. 21)
• 8. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason
of poverty. (Sec. 11)
Statutory Rights of the Accused
• To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond
reasonable doubt
• To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of
the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment
• To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-
examination on matters covered by direct examination. His silence
shall not in any manner prejudice him.
Statutory Rights of the Accused
• To Confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at trial.
• To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
witnesses and production of other evidence in his behalf.
• To have a speedy, impartial and public trial
• To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law (L.
B. Reyes)
Characteristics of Criminal Law
• General-criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory.
• Territorial- Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed
within Philippine Territory
• Prospective-Penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in
which it was not punishable when committed
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/229617/supreme-
court-upholds-phl-2009-baselines-law/story/
• Exclusive Economic Zone(200 nautical miles (230 miles) beyond a nation's
territorial sea,)- exclusive right to exploit or conserve any resources found
within the water, on the sea floor, or under the sea floor's subsoil.
• Sovereignty, as applied to states, comprises “rights and power over a
territory, responsibility and accountability over a population, general and
specific authorities, and recognition by other sovereign states”; sovereign
rights, meanwhile, as utilised by UNCLOS, “pertains to the entitlements or
privileges of a state to a defined area of a sea called the exclusive economic
zone” and thus “represents the limited rights of a state over its exclusive
economic zone.” (https://www.orfonline.org/research/sovereignty-vs-
sovereign-rights-de-escalating-tensions-in-the-south-china-sea)
Habitual delinquent as exception to
the exception of “Prospective”
• Under the last subsection of paragraph 5 of article 62 of the Revised
Penal Code, a person shall be deemed to be habitually delinquent, if
within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crime of robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, he is
found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (G.R. No.
44988)
Mala In Se and Mala Prohibita
• Mala In Se-the act is wrong from its very nature and criminal intent is
an element for mala in se. (Homicide, kidnapping,rape)
• Mala Prohibita-The Act is wrong because it is prohibited by law
Dungo v. People, the crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum
prohibitum. The act of hazing itself is not inherently immoral, but the
law deems the same to be against public policy and must be
prohibited.
Mens Rea- Guilty Mind
Actus reus-guilty act
Art.3 Felonies
• Acts and omissions punishable by law or felonies (delitos).
• Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa).
• There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
• An Act refers to any bodily movement tending to produce some effect
in the external world, it being unnecessary that the same be actually
produced, as the possibility of its production is sufficient.
• An omission contemplated in criminal law means inaction-failure to

perform a positive duty which one is bound to do. There must be a
law requiring the doing or performance of duty.
• Article 116. Misprision of treason. - Every person owing allegiance to
the Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner,
and having knowledge of any conspiracy against them, conceals or
does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible to
the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city
in which he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an
accessory to the crime of treason.
Elements of felonies
• An act or omission
• Punishable by the Revised Penal Code; and
• The act is performed or the omission incurred by means of deceit or
fault.
Kinds of felonies
• Intentional felonies (dolo)-committed with deliberate intent to cause
injury to another (with Malice)
• Culpable felonies (Culpa) – where the wrongful acts result from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill
(unintentional/without malice)
Requisites of Dolo
• Criminal intent (mens rea)
• Freedom of action
• Intelligence
Requisites of Culpa
• Criminal Negligence
• Freedom of action
• Intelligence
Negligence v. Imprudence
• Negligence-there is deficiency of action and lack of foresight. Failure
to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing injury
or damage to be caused.
• Imprudence-Deficiency of perception and lack of skill. Failure to take
necessary precaution to avoid injury to another
Intent and Motive
• Intent refers to the use of a particular means to effect the desired
result. It is a mental state, the existence of which is demonstrated by
the overt acts of a person
• Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person to a

desired result. Motive is not an alement of a crim and becomes
immaterial in the determination of criminal liability.
Elements of Criminal Liability
• Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act

done be different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against

persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
• In the first paragraph, two elements must be present:
1. A felony committed; and
2. The wrong done to the aggrieved person be the direct consequence
of the crime committed by the perpetrator.
• Doctrine of Proximate Cause – such adequate and efficient cause as,
in the natural order of events, and under the particular circumstances
surrounding the case, which would necessarily produce the event.
• Requisites:
• a. the direct, natural, and logical cause
• b. produces the injury or damage
• c. unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
• d. without which the result would not have occurred
• Proximate Cause is negated by:
a. Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious
act of the accused, which serves as a sufficient intervening cause.
b. Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of the victim.
• Remote cause - something that happened a long time ago and didn't
directly cause the problem, but still played a part in it.
• Immediate cause - something that directly leads to a result.
• Requisite for Presumption that the blow was cause of the death –
Where there has been an injury inflicted sufficient to produce death
followed by the demise of the person, the presumption arises that the
injury was the cause of the death. Provided:
• a. victim was in normal health
• b. death ensued within a reasonable time
Causes which produce a different
result
• Mistake in identity of the Victim (Error in personae) – injuring one
person who is mistaken for another
• Mistake in blow (aberration ictus) - a person directed the blow at an
intended victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on
somebody else.
• Preater intentionem applies when the result is greater than intended
but could be foreseen.
Mistake of Fact
• Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to
another. He is not, however, criminally liable, because he did not act with criminal intent.
• Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense:
1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to
be.
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
• THE UNITED STATES v. AH CHONG, G.R. No. L-5272 March 19, 1910
• 2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
• Requisites:
• a. Act would have been an offense against persons or property
• b. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of
a special penal law
• c. There was criminal intent
• d. Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or
ineffectual means were employed.
• The essence of an impossible crime is the inherent impossibility of
accomplishing the crime or the inherent impossibility of the means
employed to bring about the crime.
• Kinds of inherent impossibility
• Legal impossibility-occurs where the intended acts, even if completed would
not amount to a crime.
• Physical impossibility – occurs where extraneous circumstance unknown to
the accused prevented the consummation of the intended crime.
• Employment of ineffectual means-the means employed cannot in any
way produce the intended crime.
• Employment of inadequate means whose quality or quantity is

sufficient to produce the intended felony.
• Penalty of Impossible Crime – Arresto Mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6
months) or fine
• The reason of such penalty is to teach the offender a lesson because

of his criminal perversity. Although objectively, no crime is committed
but subjectively, he is a criminal.
• However, offender will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he

cannot be punished under some other provision of the RPC.
Pp v. Intud G.R. No. 103119 October
21, 1992
• At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Petitioner,
Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms,
arrived at Palangpangan's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis
Occidental. At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the
location of Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner,
Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out,
however, that Palangpangan was in another City and her home was
then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the
room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun
fire.
Pp v. Intud G.R. No. 103119 October
21, 1992
• This is not true in the Philippines. In our jurisdiction, impossible
crimes are recognized. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal
intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself.
Furthermore, the phrase "inherent impossibility" that is found in
Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between
factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. The factual
situation in the case at bar present a physical impossibility which
rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And
under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is
sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.
• Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but
which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever
a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which
is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to
the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce
the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.
• In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by
the offense.
• Art. 5 covers two situations:
• Where the court cannot convict the accused because the act he committed is not punishable
under the law, but the court deems it proper to repress such act.
• The proper judgment is acquittal.
• The judge must report to the Chief Executive that said act be made subject
of penal legislation and the reasons therefore.
• Where the court after trial finds the accused guilty, and the penalty prescribed for the crime
appears too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the commission of the crime,
• The judge should impose the law (not suspend the execution of the
sentence).
• The most that he could do is recommend to the Chief Executive to grant
executive clemency.
Stages of Acts of Execution
• Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - Consummated
felonies as well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
• A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
• There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than this own spontaneous desistance.
Stages in committing a crime
• Internal acts-mere ideas in the mind of a person. Had they been
carried out, they would constitute a crime.
• External Acts- the preparatory acts and acts of execution.
• 1. preparatory acts- those that do not have a direct connection with the crime
which the offender intends to commit.
• 2. Acts of Execution – punishable under the Revised Penal Code
• Phases of Felony
• Subjective Phase-that portion of execution of the crime starting from the
point where the offender begins up to the point where he still has control
over his acts. If the subjective phase has not yet passed, the felony would be a
mere attempt, if otherwise but the felony was not produced, it is frustrated.
• Objective phase-the offender has performed until the last act and is no longer
in control of its natural course.
Formal and Material Crimes
• Formal Crimes- Consummated in one instant. No attempts.
• Material Crimes-there are three stages of execution (Attempted,
consummated, and frustrated.)
• it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator.
Crimes without frustrated stage
• Rape (slightest degree' of penis penetration into the cleft of the labia
majora consummates rape.)
• Corruption of public officers
• Physical injury
• Adultery
• Theft (Valenzuela v. Pp G. R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007)
• Attempted Felony-There is an attempt when the offender commences
the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous
desistance.
• Overt Acts-Some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than mere planning or preparation,
which if carried to its complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense.
• Indeterminate offense- it is where the purpose of the offender in
performing an act is not certain. Its nature and relation to its objective
is ambiguous.
Attempted v. Frustrated
• In Attempted, the perpetrator only commenced the overt acts but did
not perform all the acts of execution while in Frustrated, the
perpetrator performed all the acts of execution;
• In Attempted, the perpetrator has not passed the subjective phase
while in Frustrated, the offender has reached the objective phase.
• Both are the same that the perpetrator or offender has not
accomplished his criminal purpose.
Crimes, which do not admit of Frustrated and
Attempted Stages:
• 1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the law provides

otherwise
• 2. Formal crimes – consummated in one instance (Ex: Physical injuries,
false testimony, slander, adultery.)
• 3. Impossible Crimes
• 4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt (Ex: treason)
• 5. Felonies by omission
• 6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (Ex: corruption of public
officers)
• Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. - Light felonies are punishable only when
they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or
property.
• Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony are punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes
its execution to some other person or persons.
• Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. - Grave felonies are those to
which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods
are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in
their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above- mentioned Art..
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a
penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
Classification of Felonies
• Grave-Those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance
with Art. 25 of the RPC
• Less grave- those which the law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional, in accordance with Art. 25 of the
RPC
• Light-those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 40,000 pesos, or both, is
provided.
• Article 25. Penalties which may be imposed. - The penalties which may be
imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are those included in
the following:
• Capital punishment:
Death. (REPUBLIC ACT No. 9346 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE IMPOSITION OF DEATH
PENALTY IN THE PHILIPPINES)
• Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua, Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification, Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, Prision mayor.
• Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional, Arresto mayor, Suspension, Destierro.
• Light penalties:
Arresto menor, Public censure.
• "ART. 26. Fine.- When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty.- A fine,
whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, shall be
considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds One million two hundred
thousand 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 (P40, 000); and a light penalty, if
be less than Forty thousand pesos (P40, 000)."
DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH
OF THEIR PERIODS
• Reclusion temporal:
Included in the penalty in its entirety: From 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
Included in its minimum period: From 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months
Included in its medium period: From 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4
months
Included in its maximum: From 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years
Prision mayor, absolute disqualification and special temporary disqualification:
Included in its minimum period: From 6 years and 1 day to 8 years
Included in its medium period: From 8 years and 1 day to 10 years
Included in its maximum: From 10 years and 1 day to 12 years
OF THEIR PERIODS
• Prision correccional, suspension and destierro:
Included in the penalty in its entirety: From 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
Included in its minimum period: From 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
Included in its medium period: From 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2
months
Arresto mayor:
Included in the penalty in its entirety: From 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
Included in its minimum period: From 1 to 2 months
Included in its medium period: From 2 months and 1 day to 4 months
Included in its maximum: From 4 months and 1 day to 6 months
OF THEIR PERIODS
• Arresto menor:
Included in the penalty in its entirety: From 1 to 30 days

Included in its minimum period: From 1 to 10 days
Included in its medium period: From 11 to 20 days
Included in its maximum: From 21 to 30 days
• If disqualification is absolute, the effects of the imposition of such penalties
are: (1) deprivation of the public offices and employments with loss of
retirement and other pension benefits; (2) deprivation of the right to vote or
to be elected; and (3) disqualification for the offices or public employments
and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
• If disqualification is special, the effects of the imposition of such penalty are:
(1) deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected and
(2) disqualification for holding similar offices or employments; or (1)
deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected and (2) prohibition to hold
any public office.
• The classification of disqualification as perpetual or temporary as has
something to do with the duration of the penalty. Perpetual disqualification
deprives or disqualifies the convict from the exercise of rights during his
lifetime. Temporary disqualification deprives or disqualifies the convict from
the exercise of rights during the term of the sentence. However, as a principal
penalty its duration is ranging from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years (Article 27).
• Article 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or
descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be
punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
• Article 124. Arbitrary detention. - Any public officer or employee who,

without legal grounds, detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded
three days;
• "ART. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or
the agents of such person. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine
not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (P100, 000) shall be
imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of
the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in
authority or the agents of such person while engaged in the
performance of official duties.
"When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a

serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from Two
thousand pesos (P2, 000) to Twenty thousand pesos (P20, 000) shall be
imposed upon the offender."
Conspiracy and Proposal
• Conspiracy exist when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
• When conspiracy exists, the degree of participation of each
conspirator is not considered because the act of one is the act of all.
• Requisites of conspiracy
1. Two or more persons came to an agreement
2. Agreement concerned the commission of a crime; and
3. Execution of a felony was decided upon
Mere knowledge or approval of the act without cooperation or at least, agreement

to cooperate, is not enough to constitute conspiracy.
In Conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt

act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be
committed, except if he/she is the mastermind.
• The overt act may include:
• Active Participation
• Moral assistance
• Exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators
Two kinds of Conspiracy
• Conspiracy as a Crime- the mere conspiracy is the crime itself. This is
only true when the law expressly punishes the mere conspiracy.
• Ex. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or
insurrection. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
• Conspiracy as a basis of incurring criminal liability- when the

conspiracy is only a basis of incurring criminal liability, there must be
an overt act done before the conspirators become criminally liable.
Ways in committing conspiracy
• Express Conspiracy- there is an express agreement.
• Implied Conspiracy- the offenders acted in concert in the commission

of the crime. Their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way
indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, and
they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy and their criminal
liability shall be collective, not individual.
Express Conspiracy
• General Rule-The Liability of the conspirators is only for the crime
agreed upon
• Exception:
• The other crime was committed in their presence and they did not prevent its
commission.
• When the other crime is the natural consequence of the crime planned.
• When the resulting crime was a composite crime or a special complex crime.
Implied Conspiracy
• the offenders acted in concert in the commission of the crime. Their
acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that they are
pursuing a common criminal objective, and they shall be deemed to
be acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective,
not individual.
Implied Conspiracy
• Instances unity of purpose is shown:
• Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime is
sufficient to create joint responsibility.
• Active cooperation by all offenders in the perpetuation of a crime will create
joint responsibility.
People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011

“Undoubtedly, the acts of the assailants constitute proof of their unanimity in
design, intent and execution.27 They "performed specific acts with closeness
and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose and design"28
to ensure the death of Cesario. We thus uphold the lower courts’ finding that
appellants conspired to commit the crime of murder against Cesario.”
Chain and Wheel Conspiracy
• Chain Conspiracy-there is successive communication and cooperation
in much the same way as with legitimate business operations
between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer,
and then retailer and consumer.
• There is a single person or group called the “hub”, dealing individually

with two or more other persons or groups known as the “spoke” and
the rim that encloses the spokes is the common goal in the overall
conspiracy. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26,
2022.)
Legal effects of implied conspiracy
• Not all those who are present at the scene will be considered as
conspirators;
• Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the
crime will be considered as co-conspirators; and
• Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime,
without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator.
There is proposal when the person who has decided
to commit a felony proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.
• Requisites of proposal to commit felony:

• That a person has decided to commit a felony; and
• That he proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
Proposals Punishable by Law:
• 1. Rebellion [Art. 136, RPC]

• 2. Coup d’ etat [Art. 136, RPC]
• 3. Insurrection [Art. 136, RPC]
• 4. Treason [Art. 115, RPC]
Four forms of Repetition
• Recidivism/Reincindencia; Art. 14 (9)
• Habituality/Reiteracion/ Repetition; Art. 14 (10)
• Quasi- Recidivism; Art. 160
• Habitual Delinquency; Art. 62 (5)
Recidivism/Reincindencia; Art.
14 (9)
• A Recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the RPC.
• Requisites:
• 1. Offender is on Trial for a felony
• 2. He was Previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
• 3. Both the first and second felonies are embraced in the Same title of
the RPC
• 4. Offender is Convicted of the new offense
Habituality/Reiteracion/ Repetition; Art. 14 (10)
• the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the

law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty.
• Requisites: 1. Offender is on Trial for an offense
• 2. He Previously served sentence for: a. Another offense to which the
law attaches Equal or greater penalty; or b. 2 or more crimes to which
it attaches Lighter penalty than that for the new offense
• 3. Offender is Convicted of the new offense
Quasi- Recidivism; Art. 160
• Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty

imposed for another offense; Penalty. - Besides the provisions of Rule 5
of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having 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 prescribed by law for the new felony.
• Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual
criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have
already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it
after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other
circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.
• Requisites:
• 1. Convicted by final judgment of one offense.
• 2. Committed a new felony Before/During service of such sentence.
[Art. 160, RPC
• Reiteracion and Quasi-recidivism cannot be Simultaneous Since
reiteracion provides that the accused has duly served the sentence for
previous conviction/s, or is legally considered to have done so, quasi-
recidivism cannot at the same time constitute reiteracion, hence the
latter cannot apply to a quasi-recidivist [People v. Layson, G.R. No. L-
25177 (1969)
• Pardon [Art. 160(2), RPC]
• General Rule: A quasi-recidivist may be pardoned and pardon is to be
given to a convict who:
• 1. Is not a habitual criminal;
• 2. Is already at the age of seventy (70) years; and
• 3. Has already served out his original sentence or if he completing it
after reaching such age.
• Exception: If by reason of his conduct, he is deemed not worthy of
such clemency.
Habitual Delinquency; Art. 62
(5)
• Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
• (a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by
law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
• (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided
for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
• (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty
of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
• Requisites
• 1. Offender had been convicted of any of the crimes of Theft;
Falsification; serious or less serious physical Injuries; Robbery; Estafa.
• 2. After conviction or after serving his sentence, he again committed,
and, within 10 years from his release or first conviction, he was again
convicted of any of the said crimes for the 2nd time
• 3. After his conviction of, or after serving sentence for the second
offense, he again committed, and, within 10 years from his last
release or last conviction, he was again convicted of any of said
offenses, the 3rd time or oftener [Art. 62, RPC]
• Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.
Complex Crime Proper
• Malversation through Falsification
• Forcible abduction with rape
• Estafa through falsification
• Qualified theft through falsification
Continuous or Continued Crime (Delito Continuado)
• delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed

during a period of time; unity of penal provision violated; and unity of
criminal intent or purpose, which means that two or more violations of the
same penal provisions are united in one and same intent or resolution
leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim.
• PETRON CORPORATION AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,[1] PETITIONERS,

VS. WILLIAM YAO, SR. LUISA C. YAO, WILLIAM YAO, JR., RICHARD C. YAO AND
ROGER C. YAO, RESPONDENTS.
• G.R. No. 243328, March 18, 2021
• Applying the concept of delito continuado, we treated as constituting only one offense the
following cases:
(1) The theft of 13 cows belonging to two different owners committed by the accused at the
same place and at the same period of time.
(2) The theft of six roosters belonging to two different owners from the same coop and at the
same period of time.
(3) The theft of two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion.
(4) The illegal charging of fees for services rendered by a lawyer every time he collects veteran's
benefits on behalf of a client, who agreed that the attorney's fees shall be paid out of said
benefits. The collection of the legal fees were impelled by the same motive, that of collecting
fees for services rendered, and all acts of collection were made under the same criminal impulse.
transitory / continuing offenses
• In transitory offenses in which some acts material and essential to the
crime and requisite to its consummation occur in one province and
some in another, the court of either province has jurisdiction to try the
case. Ex. Violation of BP22
• A continuing crime is one where some or all the elements of the crime
may occur in one place or in different places, yet by reason of the very
nature of the offense committed, the violation of the law is deemed to
be continuing. Ex. Kidnaping and serious illegal detention for as long as
the kidnappers continue to detain their victim, they may be arrested
without warrant, at any place where they may be found.
Justifying Circumstance
• Defense of person, right, property, or honor
• Defense of relatives
• Defense of Strangers
• Avoidance of greater evil
• Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right
• Obedience to superior order
Defense of Person, Rights, Property
and Honor
• Self Defense
• Requisites:
• Unlawful aggression
• Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it; and
• Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
Unlawful Aggression
1. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable element
2. There is Peril to one’s life, limb, or right (Actual and Imminent) not merely
threatening or intimidating attitude
3. Rules in Unlawful Aggression
a. Aggression must be unlawful
b. Peril to one’s life, limb, or right is actual and imminent.
c. must be continuing circumstance-must have been existing at the time
the defense was made.
d. Retaliation is not allowed when unlawful aggression ceases
e. Picking up a weapon is unlawful aggression if circumstances show
intention to harm defendant
Reasonable Necessity of Means
Employed
• Requisites:
• a. Necessity of the:
• course of action taken
• means employed
• b. The above must be reasonable
• Doctrine of Rational Equivalence
• Rational equivalence presupposes the consideration not only of the
nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender and the
assailant, but of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense
vis-à-vis the unlawful aggression
• Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending
himself and that of the aggressor is not required, nor is the material
commensurability between the means of attack and defense. Rational
equivalence is enough [People v. Samson, G.R. No. 214883 (2015)]
• Test of Reasonableness [Escoto v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118002
(1997)] Reasonableness depends upon the:
• a. Nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor
• b. Aggressor’s physical condition, character, size, and other
circumstances
• c. Circumstances of those of the person defending himself
• d. Place and occasion of the assault
• When the Assault was Without Use of Weapon General Rule:
• A man is not justified in taking the life of one who assaults him with
his fist only, without the use of a dangerous weapon.
• The general rule contemplates the situation where the contestants
are in the open and the person can opt to run away.
• Exception: Where the person assaulted has retreated to the wall and
uses in a defensive way the only weapon at his disposal [People v.
Sumicad, G.R. No. 35524 (1932)].
• Rules in the Use of Firearms
• a. If the attacker is already disarmed – there is no need to further use
violence [People v. Masangkay, G.R. No. L73461 (1988)].
• b. If the attacker was disarmed but struggled to re-obtain the weapon
– violence may be justified [People v. Rabandaban, G.R. No. L-2228
(1950)].
• c. The one defending must aim at the defendant and not
indiscriminately fire his deadly weapon [People v. Galacgac, C.A., 54
O.G. 1027].
3. Lack of Sufficient Provocation
• The accused who claims self-defense must not have provoked the
aggression of the victim.
• Provocation is sufficient when it is proportionate to the aggression,
that is, adequate enough to impel one to attack the person claiming
self-defense. [People v. Boholst-Caballero, supra].
• Insults General Rule: Verbal argument is not considered sufficient
provocation. Exception: Insults in vulgar language are
• Defense of Property
• The defense of property rights can be invoked if there is an attack
upon the property, although it is not coupled with an attack upon the
person of the owner of the premises, so long as all the elements for
justification must however be present [People v. Narvaez, G.R. No. L-
33466- 67 (1983)
• Defense of Home
• Violent entry to another’s house at nighttime; by a person who is
armed with a bolo; and forcing his way into the house, shows he was
ready and looking for trouble [People v. Mirabiles, 45 O.G., 5th Supp.,
277].
• Defense of Honor and Reputation
• Placing a hand by a man on the woman’s upper thigh is unlawful
aggression [People v. Jaurigue, C.A. No. 384 (1946)].
• A slap on the face is also considered as unlawful aggression since the
face represents a person and his dignity [Rugas v. People, G.R. No.
147789 (2004)].
• Stand Your Ground Principle
• A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a
duty to retreat if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary
to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself
[U.S. v. Domen, G.R. No. L-12963 (1917)].
Defense of Relatives
• Requisites
• 1. Unlawful aggression
• 2. Reasonable necessity of means employee; and
• 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of relative, or, in case of
provocation, the one making the defense had no part therein.
• Relatives Covered
• 1. Spouse
• 2. Ascendants
• 3. Descendants
• 4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted Siblings, or relatives by affinity in
the same degrees (parents-in-laws, children-in-law, siblings-in-law)
• 5. Relatives by Consanguinity within 4th civil degree
c. Defense of Stranger
• Requisites
• 1. Unlawful aggression
• 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed; and
• 3. Person defending was Not induced by revenge, resentment, or
other evil motive
• Motive is relevant only in this kind of defense.
• Rationale: What one may do in his defense, another may do for him.
The ordinary man would not stand idly by and see his companion
killed without attempting to save his life [U.S. v. Aviado, G.R. No.
13397 (1918)]
• Stranger-Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives

under par. 2 of Art. 11.
d. State of Necessity (Avoidance of a
Greater Evil)
• Requisites:
• 1. Evil to be avoided actually Exists;
• 2. Evil or injury is Not produced by the one invoking the justifying
circumstance;
• 3. Injury feared by greater than that done to avoid it; and
• 4. No other practical and less harmful Means of preventing it
• Civil Liability
• It is only in this paragraph that the person accused incurs civil liability
despite the justifying circumstance. Said liability is borne by the
person benefited by the act
• State of Necessity
• There is necessity when the situation is of grave peril, actual or
imminent. It is indispensable that the state of necessity is not brought
about by intentional provocation on the part of the party invoking the
same. [People v. Retubado, G.R. No. 124058 (2003)]
• Kind of Evil
• The evil contemplated includes injury to persons and damage to
property. This greater evil must not be brought about by the
negligence or imprudence of the accused. [Ty v. People, G.R. No.
149275 (2004)]
e. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful
Exercise of Right or Office
• Requisites :
• 1. The accused acted in the Performance of a duty or on the lawful
exercise of a right or office; and
• 2. The injury caused or offense committed be the Necessary
consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office
• Police Officers The law does not clothe police officers with authority
to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill, but must be within reasonable
limits [People v. Ulep, G.R. No. 132547 (2000)].
• Warning Shot
• To justify the killing by a policeman of a suspected robber as
fulfillment of his lawful duty, he must have first fire a warning shot
before shooting. [Mamangun v. People, G.R. No. 149152 (2007)
• However, the directive to issue a warning contemplates a situation
where several options are available to the officers. When the threat to
the life of the law enforcer was imminent and there was no other
option but to use force, a police officer conducted himself in the
lawful exercise of a right. [People v. Cabanlig, G.R. No. 148431 (2005)]
f. Obedience to an Order Issued for
Some Lawful Purpose
• Requisites
• 1. An Order has been issued by a superior
• 2. Such order must be for some lawful Purpose; and
• 3. The Means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from
criminal liability. - the following are exempt
from criminal liability:
• 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval.
• When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law
defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the
hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not
be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same
court.
• 2. A person under nine years of age.

Article 12. Circumstances which exempt
from criminal liability. - the following are
exempt from criminal liability:
• 3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted
with discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
• When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in
conformably with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall
commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged
with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to
the care of some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.
• 4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an
injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from
criminal liability. - the following are exempt from
criminal liability:
• 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

• 6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of
an equal or greater injury.
• 7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when
prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
• The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the actor is not liable.
Since the act complained of is actually wrong, there is a crime, but
since the actor acted without voluntariness or negligence, there is no
dolo or culpa.
• There is no criminal liability but there is civil liability (except: accident;
insuperable cause)
a. Insanity or Imbecility
• General Rule: Insanity is an exempting circumstance
• Exception: During a lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence,
thus, is not exempt from criminal liability
Rules in Insanity
• 1. Presumption of Sanity Burden of proof of insanity is on the defense

[People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084 (1990)].
• 2. Insanity should exist before or at the moment of the act or acts
under prosecution [People v. Aquino, supra] Insanity subsequent to
commission of crime is not exempting. He is presumed to be sane
when he committed it [U.S. v. Guevara, G.R. No. 9265 (1914)].
• 3. There must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing
the act. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude
imputability [People v. Formigones, supra; Art. 13, par. 9, RPC]
Mental Illnesses Covered
• 1. Malignant malaria, which affects the nervous system [People v.
Lacena, G.R. No. 46836 (1940)]
• 2. Epilepsy [People v. Mancao and Aguilar, G.R. No. L-26361 (1927)]
• 3. Psychosis or schizophrenia, except when in remission of symptoms
[People v. Antonio, Jr., G.R. No. 144266 (2002)]
• 4. Somnambulism: Sleep-walking [People v. Taneo, G.R. No. L-37673
(1933)]
• 5. Dementia praecox [People v. Bonoan, G.R. No. L-45130 (1937)]
Conditions Not Considered as
Insanity
• 1. Amnesia – in and of itself, it is no defense to a criminal charge unless
it is shown by competent proof that the accused did not know the
nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong [People v.
Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334 (1998)].
• 2. Craziness – Unusual behaviors, such as smiling to oneself and calling
a chicken late at night, are not proof of complete absence of
intelligence because not every aberration of the mind or mental
deficiency constitutes insanity [People v. Miraña, G.R. No. 219113
(2018)].
• 3. Pedophilia – Despite his affliction, a pedophile could still distinguish
between right and wrong [People v. Diaz, G.R. No. 130210 (1999)].
b. Minority
• Note: Pars. 2 and 3 of Art. 12, and Art. 80 of the RPC, have been
amended/repealed by P.D. 603, as amended, and R.A. 9344
• JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT OF 2006 (R.A. 9344) Definition
of Terms:
• 1. Child - person under 18 years.
• 2. Child in conflict with the law - child who is alleged as, accused of, or
adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws. [Sec.
4(e), R.A. 9344]
• 3. Intervention – a series of activities designed to address issues that
caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an
individualized
When Exempt from Criminal Liability
• 1. A child 15 years or under at the time of the commission of the
offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. A child is deemed to be
15 years of age on the date of his/her 15th birthday.
• 2. A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age who acted
without discernment shall be exempt from criminal liability. [Sec. 6,
R.A. 9344]
• In both cases, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program.

[Sec. 6, R.A. 9344]
Discernment
• Capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to
understand the differences between right and wrong and the
consequences of the wrongful act. [Sec. 4, A.M. No. 01-1-18-SC,
Revised Rule on Children in Conflict with the Law]
Determination of Age
• Any person alleging the age of the child in conflict with the law has
the burden of proving the age of such child. [Sec. 7, R.A. 9344]
• 1. Child’s birth certificate
• 2. Baptismal certificate
• 3. Other pertinent documents
• 4. In the absence of such documents, age may be based on: a.
Testimony of the child b. Testimony of a member of the family related
by affinity or consanguinity c. Testimony of other persons d. Physical
appearance of the child e. Other relevant evidence [Sec. 5, A.M. No.
01-1-18-SC
Civil Liability
• General Rule: The parents shall be liable for damages.
• Exception: If they were able to prove that they were exercising
reasonable supervision over the child at the time the child committed
the offense and exerted reasonable effort and utmost diligence to
prevent or discourage the child from committing another offense.
[Sec. 20-D, R.A. 9344, as amended by R.A. 10630]
c. Accident
• An unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that
does not occur in the usual course of events or that could not be
reasonably anticipated; an unforeseen and injurious·occurrence not
attributable to mistake, negligence, neglect, or misconduct [Calera v.
Hoegh Fleet Services Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 250584 (2021)]
• Requisites
• 1. A person is performing a Lawful act;
• 2. Act was done with Due care;
• 3. He causes injury by mere Accident; and
• 4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
• NO CIVIL DAMAGES
d. Irresistible Force
• Requisites
• 1. There was compulsion by means of Physical force
• 2. Physical force must be Irresistible
• 3. Physical force comes from a Third person
• Actus me invite factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against
my will is not my act.
• The person invoking this circumstance must show that the force
exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere instrument who acted
not only without his will but against it [People v. Lising, G.R. No.
106210-11 (1998)].
e. Uncontrollable Fear
• Requisites
• 1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear
• 2. Fear must be Real and Imminent.
• 3. Fear of an injury is Greater than or Equal to that committed [People
v. Petenia, G.R. No. L-51256 (1986)].
• Fear should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote. Such compulsion
must leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or selfdefense in
equal combat [People v. Moreno, G.R. No. L-64 (1946)].
• In Treason In the eyes of the law, nothing will excuse that act of
joining an enemy, but the fear of immediate death [People v.
Bagalawis, G.R. No. L-262 (1947)].
INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSE
• Insuperable
• It means insurmountable. A cause which has lawfully, morally or
physically prevented a person to do what the law commands [People
v. Bandian, G.R. No. 45186 (1936)]
• Requisites
• 1. An act is Required by law to be done
• 2. The person Fails to perform such act
• 3. His failure to perform such act was due to some Lawful or
insuperable cause
• 1. A woman cannot be held liable for infanticide when she left her
newborn child in the bushes without being aware that she had given
birth at all [People v. Bandian, supra].
• 2. A municipal president was exempt from liability in the arbitrary
detention of a prisoner because it was impossible to deliver him to
the nearest judicial authority within the period provided by law given
the only means of transportation available [U.S. v. Vincentillo, G.R.
No. L-6082 (1911)].
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following
are mitigating circumstances;
• 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 not
attendant.
• 2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the
case of the minor, he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80.
• 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that

committed.
• 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party

immediately preceded the act.
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following
are mitigating circumstances;
• 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave

offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants,
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
• 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have

produced passion or obfuscation.
• 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered 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 for the prosecution;
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances.
- The following are mitigating
circumstances;
• 8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering
some physical defect which thus restricts his means of action,
defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
• 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the

will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.
• 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and

analogous to those above mentioned.
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 not
attendant.
• Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not

wholly excusable. - A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable
by reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the
same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases
mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such
conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the
period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and
nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.
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 not attendant.
• Applicability: Applicable when not all the requisites necessary to

justify the act or to exempt from criminal liability under articles 11
and 12 are attendant. Provided, the majority of such conditions are
present.
• Effect: The courts have the discretion of imposing the penalty lower
by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law, in view of the
number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking
• Rules on Incomplete Justification
• 1. When the justifying or exempting circumstance has only two (2)
requisites, the presence of one element is sufficient [People v.
Macbul, G.R. No. L-48976 (1943)].
• 2. Incomplete justification is a privileged mitigating circumstance (it
cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances) [People v. Ulep,
supra].
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age
or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80.
• Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of
age. – When the offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is
one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of
Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be observed:
• 1. A person aged fifteen years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability [R.A.
9344, Sec. 6, as amended by R.A. 10630, Sec. 3].
• 2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age, the penalty
next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the
proper period.
3. That the offender had no
intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed.
• Praeter Intentionem The offender had no intention to commit a grave so
wrong as what was actually committed. [Art. 13 (3), RPC].
• Applicability Only applicable to offenses resulting in death, physical injuries,

or material harm (including property damage) [People v. Galang de Bautista,
C.A., 40 O.G. 4473].
• When Not Applicable
• 1. Where the acts were reasonably sufficient and did actually produce the
death of the victim. [People v. Sales, G.R. No. 177218 (2011)]
• 2. Cases involving defamation or slander. [People v. Galang de Bautista,
supra]
4. That sufficient provocation or threat
on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act.
• Provocation: Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended
party capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone [Pepito v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 119942 (1999)].
• Threat: Threat must not be offensive and positively strong, otherwise,

it may result to unlawful aggression, justifying self-defense. See:
discussion on self-defense [People v. Guysayco, G.R. No. 4912 (1903)]
5. That the act was committed in the
immediate vindication of a grave offense to
the one committing the felony (delito), his
spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees.
• Requisites
• 1. That there be a Grave offense done to the one Committing the felony, his
spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or Relatives by affinity within the same degree.
• 2. That the felony is committed in Vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of
time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the grave offense.
• 3. The vindication need Not be done by the person upon whom the grave offense
was committed.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees.
• Lapse of Time Allowed Although the grave offense which engendered
the perturbation of mind was not so immediate, it was held that the
influence thereof, by reason of its gravity, lasted until the moment the
crime was committed [People v. Parana, G.R. No. L45373 (1937)].
• However, this circumstance cannot be considered where sufficient
time has elapsed for the accused to regain his composure [People v.
Ventura, G.R. No. 148145-46 (2004)].
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
• 1. The accused acted upon an Impulse [Art. 13 (6), RPC];
• 2. The impulse must be so Powerful that it naturally produces passion
or obfuscation in him [Art. 13(6), RPC; People v. Danafrata, G.R. No.
143010 (2003)];
• 3. That there be an Act, both Unlawful and Sufficient to produce such
condition of mind [People v. Comillo, G.R. No. 186538 (2009)]; and
• 4. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed
from the commission of the crime by a considerable Length of time,
during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity
[Del Poso v. People, G.R. No. 210810 (2016)].
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
• There is passion or obfuscation when there are causes naturally producing
in a person the following: 1. Powerful excitement 2. Loss of reason and self-
control 3. Diminution the exercise of his will power [U.S. v. Salandanan, G.R.
No. 951 (1902)].
• When Not Applicable
• 1. When the act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness or revenge [People v.
Bates, G.R. No. 139907 (2003)].
• 2. If the cause of loss of self-control is trivial and slight, obfuscation is not
mitigating [U.S. v. Diaz, G.R. No. 5155 (1910)].
• 3. Act causing obfuscation does not come from the offended party [Alforte
v. People, G.R. No. 159672 (Notice) (2014)]
7. That the offender had voluntarily
surrendered 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 for the
prosecution;
• Requisites
• 1. Offender has Not been actually Arrested
• Exception: Where a person, after committing the offense and having
opportunity to escape, voluntarily waited for the agents of the
authorities and voluntarily gave up, he is entitled to the benefit of the
circumstance, even if he was placed under arrest by a policeman then
and there [People v. Parana, G.R. No. L-45373 (1937)].
prosecution;
• 2. Offender Surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the
latter’s agent.
• Person in authority – one directly vested with jurisdiction. [Art. 152]
• Agent of person in authority – person, who, by direct provision of law,
or by election or by competent authority, is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life
and property and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority. [Art. 152
prosecution;
• 3. Surrender was Voluntary Surrender is voluntary if it is spontaneous
either because he:
• a. Acknowledges his guilt., or
• b. Wishes to save them the trouble and expenses that would be
necessarily incurred in his search and capture [Andrada v. People, G.R.
No.. 135222 (2005)
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered
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 for the prosecution;
• Not Considered Voluntary Surrender
• 1. Merely requesting a policeman to accompany the accused to the police
headquarters [People v. Flores, G.R. No. 137497 (1994)].
• 2. If the only reason for the supposed surrender is to ensure the safety of the
accused whose arrest is inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous and hence
not voluntary [People v. Pinca, G.R. No. 129256 (1999)].
• 3. When the accused surrendered only 14 days after the commission of the
offense, as this shows that his surrender was merely an afterthought [People v.
Agacer, G.R. No. 177751 (2011)].
7. That the offender had voluntarily
prosecution;
Plea of Guilt Requisites
• : 1. Offender Spontaneously confessed his guilt;
• 2. Confession of guilt was made in Open court; and
• 3. Confession of guilt was made Prior to the presentation of evidence
[People v. Crisostomo, G.R. No. L-32243 (1988)]
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind
or otherwise suffering some physical defect
which thus restricts his means of action,
defense, or communications with his fellow
beings.
• Requisites: 1. The offender is:
• a. Deaf and Dumb
• b. Blind, or
• c. Otherwise suffering from some physical defect which thus restricts
his means of:
• i. Action
• ii. Defense, or
• iii. Communication with his fellow beings
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the
exercise of the will-power of the offender without
however depriving him of the consciousness of his
acts.
• Illness Requisites
• 1. Illness of the offender must Diminish the exercise of his Will-Power.
2. Illness should Not Deprive the offender of Consciousness of his acts
[People v. Javier, G.R. No. 130654 (1999)]
• Illness must only diminish and not deprive the offender of the
consciousness of his acts. Otherwise, he will be exempted from
criminal liability [People v. Javier, G.R. No. 130654 (1999)]
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a
similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned
• Any other circumstance of similar nature and analogous to the nine mitigating
circumstances enumerated in Art. 13 may be mitigating.
• Examples:
• 1. Stealing because of extreme poverty is considered as analogous to
incomplete state of necessity [People v. Macbul, G.R. No. 48976 (1943)].
• 2. Over 60 years old with failing sight is considered as analogous to over 70
years of age mentioned in par. 2 [People v. Reantillo, G.R. No L-45685 (1938)].
• 3. Voluntary restitution of stolen goods is considered as analogous to
voluntary surrender [People v. Luntao, 50 O.G. 1182].
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a
similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned
• 4. Impulse of jealous feelings is considered as analogous to passion
and obfuscation [People v. Libria, G.R. No. L-6585 (1954)].
• 5. Testifying for the prosecution, without previous discharge is
considered as analogous to a plea of guilty [People v. Navasca, G.R.
No. L-29107 (1977)].
• 6. Voluntarily taking a stolen cow back to the authorities to save them
the time and effort of looking for the cow is considered as analogous
to voluntary surrender [Canta v. People, G.R. No. 140937 (2001)].
4. Aggravating Circumstances [Art.
14]
• KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
• 1. GENERIC. Those that can generally apply to all crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3
(dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20 except “by means of motor
vehicles”. A generic aggravating circumstance may be offset by a generic
mitigating circumstance.
• 2. SPECIFIC. Those that apply only to particular crimes. Nos. 3 (except
dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and 21. 3.
• 3. QUALIFYING. Those that change the nature of the crime (i.e. Art. 248
enumerate the qualifying AC which qualifies the killing of person to murder). If
two or more possible qualifying circumstances were alleged and proven, only
one would qualify the offense and the others would be generic aggravatin
• 4. INHERENT. Those that are already elements of the felony and are
thus no longer considered against the offender in the determination
of the felony. [Boado Comprehensive Reviewer, p. 55]
• 5. SPECIAL. Those which arise under special conditions to increase the
penalty of the offense and cannot be offset by mitigating
circumstances: a. Quasi-recidivism [Art. 160] b. Complex crimes [Art.
48] c. Error in personae [Art. 49] d. Taking advantage of public
position [Art. 171] e. Membership in an organized/syndicated crime
group [Art. 62] f. Certain Circumstances in relation to Arson [Sec. 4,
P.D. 1613]
4. Aggravating Circumstances [Art.
14]
• 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
• 2. That the crime be committed in contempt 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 his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the
latter has not given provocation.
• 4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
• 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
• 6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever
such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
• Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
• 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic
or other calamity or misfortune.
• 8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
• 9. That the accused is a recidivist.
• A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
• 10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
• 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
• 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of
a vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any
other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
• 13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
• 14. That craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
• 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
• 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
• There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
• 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural
effects of the act.
• 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry. There is an unlawful entry when an
entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
• 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
• 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
• 21. That the Wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commission.
a. Taking Advantage of Public Office
• Kind: Generic & Special Aggravating Circumstance [R.A. 7659]
Requisites [PIPAM]
• 1. Offender is a Public Officer
• 2. Such officer used the Influence, Prestige or Ascendancy which his
office gives him
• 3. The same was used as Means by which he realizes his purpose.
[U.S. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 6344 (1911)]
• Test: “Did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the crime?”
[U.S. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 6344 (1911)]
b. Contempt or Insult to Public
Authorities
• Kind: Generic Aggravating Circumstance Requisites
• 1. Public authority is Engaged in the exercise of his functions
• 2. Public authority is Not the person against whom the crime is
committed
• 3. Offender Knows him to be a public authority
• 4. His Presence has not prevented the offender from committing the
criminal act.
c. Insult or Disregard of the Respect Due the
Offended Party on Account of His: (a) Rank;
(b) Age; or (c) Sex, or that It Be Committed
in the Dwelling of the Offended Party
• Insult or Disregard
• Specific Aggravating Circumstance Specific to crimes against persons or honor
[People v. Pagal, G.R. No. L-32040 (1977)]
• Requisites:
• 1. Insult or disregard was made on account of:
• a. Rank – designation or title used to fix the relative position of the offended party in
reference to others. There must be a difference in the social condition of the offender
and offended party
• b. Age - May refer to old age or tender age of the victim.
• c. Sex - Refers to the female sex [Art. 14 (3), RPC]
• 2. Such insult or disregard was Deliberately intended
c. Insult or Disregard of the Respect Due the
Offended Party on Account of His: (a) Rank; (b)
Age; or (c) Sex, or that It Be Committed in the
Dwelling of the Offended Party
• Deliberately Intended: There must be evidence that in the

commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend
or insult the sex or age of the offended party [People v. Mangsat, G.R.
No. L-34675].
• Dwelling of the offended party
• Kind: Generic Aggravating Circumstance Requisites
• 1. Act was committed in the dwelling, which may pertain to a: a. Building;
or b. Structure, which is c. Exclusively used for Rest and Comfort.
• 2. Offended party must Not give Provocation.
• Building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort. It is not
necessary that the victim owns where she lives or dwells. A lessee,
boarder, or bedspacer can consider such place as his home, the sanctity
of which the law seeks to uphold [People v. Daniel, G.R. No. L40330
(1978)].
• Considered as Aggravating Circumstances:
• 1. Even without entry to dwelling - it is enough that the victim was
attacked inside his own house [People v. Ompaid, G.R. No. L-23513
(1969)].
• 2. When crime was committed outside the dwelling - Dwelling is still
aggravating if the commission of the crime began inside the dwelling
[U.S. v. Lastimosa, G.R. No. 9178 (1914)].
d. Abuse of Confidence or Obvious
Ungratefulness
• 1. Abuse of Confidence Requisites:
1. Offended party Trusted the offender
2. Offender Abused such trust
3. Abuse of confidence Facilitated the commission of the crime
Confidence: Confidence between the offender and the offended party

must be immediate and personal. If two persons just met for the first
time, there can be no personal or immediate relationship upon which
confidence might rest between them [People v. Mandolado, G.R. No. L-
51304-05 (1983)]
• 2. Obvious Ungratefulness
• Requisites:
• 1. Offended party Trusted the offender
• 2. Offender Abused such trust
• 3. Act was committed with obvious Ungratefulness
e. Crime was Committed in the Palace of the
Chief Executive or In His Presence, or Where
Public Authorities are Engaged in the
Discharge of their Duties, or In A Place
Dedicated to Religious Worship
• Kind: Generic Aggravating Circumstance
• Offender must have the intention to commit a crime when he entered
the place [People v. Jaurigue, C.A. No. 384 (1946)].
f. Crime was Committed (1) in the Night
Time, or (2) in an Uninhabited Place, or (3)
by a Band, Whenever Such Circumstances
May Facilitate the Commission of the
Offense
• Requisites: Circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or band:
• 1. Facilitated the commission of the crime
• 2. Was Especially Sought for by the offender to insure the commission
of the crime or for the purpose of impunity [People v. Pardo, G.R. No.
L-562 (1947)
• 1. Nighttime (Nocturnidad) The commission of the crime must begin
and be accomplished in the nighttime (after sunset and before
sunrise, cf. Art. 13, Civil Code).
• Two (2) Tests for Nocturnity 1. Objective test – nighttime is
aggravating because the darkness facilitated the commission of the
offense; [People v. Pardo, G.R. No. L562 (1947)] and
• 2. Subjective test – nighttime is aggravating because the darkness was
purposely sought by the offender [People v. Ventura, supra]
• Nighttime and Treachery
• General Rule: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery if it is part of the
treacherous means to insure the execution of the crime [People v.
Ong, G.R. No. 34497 (1975)].
• Exception: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and
nocturnity were deliberately chosen upon the same case. Both may
be perceived distinct from one another [People v. Berdida, G.R. No. L-
20183 (1966)]
• Uninhabited Place
• It is determined not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene
of the crime but whether or not in the place of the commission of the
offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving
some help [People v. Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262 (1994)].
• Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose [People
v. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843 (1931)].
• Band (Cuadrilla)
• It is necessary that there be more than three armed malefactors
acting together in the commission of the offense [Art. 14(6); People v.
Atencio, G.R. No. L-22518 (1968)
g. On the Occasion of a Conflagration, Shipwreck,
Earthquake, Epidemic or Other Calamity or
Misfortune
• Rationale: The debased form of criminality of one who, in the midst of
a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their
suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune and despoiling them
[U.S. v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 6344 (1911)].
• Requisite: Offender must take advantage of the calamity or
misfortune
h. Aid of Armed Men or Persons Who
Insure or Afford Impunity
• Kind: Generic Aggravating Circumstance Requisites:
• 1. Armed men or persons ( at least two) took part in the commission
of the crime, directly or indirectly; and
• 2. Accused Availed himself of their Aid or relied upon them while the
crime was committed. Armed Men Persons equipped with weapons.
It also covers armed women [People v. Licop, G.R. No. L06061 (1954)].
• Not Considered as an Aggravating Circumstance:
• 1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally
armed. [Albert]
• 2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the
commission of the crime acted under the same plan and for the same
purpose [People v. Piring, G.R. No. 45053 (1936)].
• 3. Casual presence, or when the offender did not avail himself of their
aid nor knowingly count upon their assistance in the commission of
the crime [U.S. v. Abaigar, G.R. No. 1255 (1903)].
• i. Recidivism Kind: Generic Aggravating Circumstance
• j. Reiteracion Kind: Generic Aggravating Circumstance
k. In Consideration of a Price,
Reward, or Promise
• 1. There must be Two or more principals: a. One who gives or Offers price
or promise; and b. One who Accepts it [Reyes, Book 1].
• 2. Price, reward, or promise must be for the purpose of Inducing another
to perform the deed. [Reyes, Book 1]
• When this circumstance is present, it affects not only the person who
received the price or reward, but also the person who gave it. [Reyes, Book
1]
• Voluntarily giving such price or reward without previous promise, as an
expression of appreciation for the sympathy and aid, is not takn into
consideration to increase the penalty [U.S. v. Flores, G.R. No. 9008 (1914)].
l. Committed by Means of Inundation, Fire, Poison, Explosion,
Stranding of a Vessel or Intentional Damage Thereto, Derailment of a
Locomotive, or By the Use of Any Other Artifice Involving Great
Waste and Ruin
• Use of Fire as to Arson and Murder
• 1. If intent is to kill – crime is murder and fire is considered as a
qualifying circumstance, even if the house is burned in the process.
[Art. 248, RPC]
• 2. If the intent is to destroy property – crime is arson even if someone
dies as consequence [People v. Paterno, et al., G.R. No. L-2665
(1950)].
m. Evident Premeditation
• Requisites. The prosecution must prove:
• 1. The Time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
• 2. An Act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
determination; and
• 3. Sufficient Lapse of time between the determination and execution,
to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow
his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will [People v.
Raquipo, G.R. No. 90766 (1990)]
• There must be direct evidence showing a plan or preparation to kill,
or proof that the accused meditated and reflected upon his decision
to kill the victim. Criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious
outward acts evidencing a determination to commit the crime. In
order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the
circumstance must not merely be "premeditation" but must be
"evident premeditation" [People v. Abadies, G.R. No. 135975 (2002)]
• Conspiracy presupposes premeditation [U.S. v. Cornejo, G.R. No. 9773
(1914)] Exception: When conspiracy is merely implied [People v. Upao
Moro, G.R. No. L-6771 (1957)].
• Error in personae – Premeditation is not aggravating when there is
mistake of identity as the victim is not the object of premeditation
[People v. Dueño, G.R. No. L-31102 (1979)].
• Aberratio ictus – When the victim is different from that intended,
premeditation is not aggravating [People v. Hilario, et al., G.R. No.
128083 (2001)].
n. Craft, Fraud, or Disguise was
Employed
• Crime was committed by means of:
• 1. Craft - It is chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of
his criminal design [People v. Zea, G.R. No. L-23109 (1984)].
• 2. Fraud - When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or
machinations, fraud is present. [People v. Labuguen, G.R. No. 127849
(2000)]
• 3. Disguise - When one uses some device to prevent recognition [People v.
Bermas, G.R. Nos. 76416 & 94312 (1999)]. TEST: Whether the device or
contrivance was intended to or did make identification more difficult, such
as the use of a mask, false hair or beard [People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 118649
(1998)].
• If Disguise was Ineffective
• When in spite of the use of disguise, the culprits were recognized by
the victim, disguise is not considered as an aggravating circumstance
[People v. Sonsona, G.R. No. L-8966 (1956)].
• Craft and Fraud absorbed in Treachery
• Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery if they have been
deliberately adopted as the means, methods or forms for the
treacherous strategy. Otherwise, they may co-exist independently
where they are adopted for a different purpose in the commission of
the crime [People v. Lab-eo, supra].
o. (i) Taking Advantage of Superior Strength; or (ii)
Means were Employed to Weaken the Defense
• Kind: Specific Aggravating Circumstance
• Advantage of Superior Strength To use purposely excessive force out
of proportion to the means of defense available to the person
attacked [People v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-31755 (1980)].
• Requisites:
• 1. There is a Notorious Inequality of forces between victim and
aggressor [People v. Barcelon, G.R. No. 144308 (2002)].
• 2. Offender Purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the persons attacked [People v.
Sansaet, G.R. No. 139330 (2002)].
• Considerations in Determining Abuse of Superior Strength
• 1. Age;
• 2. Size; and
• 3. Strength of the parties [People v. Cabato, G.R. No. L-37400 (1988)]
The means used must not totally eliminate possible defense of the victim,
otherwise it will fall under treachery.
Means Employed to Weaken Defense:
The offender employs means that materially weakens the resisting power of
the offended party [People v. Ducusin, G.R. No. 30724 (1929)
p. Treachery (Alevosia)
• Kind: Specific Aggravating Circumstance; Specific to crimes against persons
• Requisites:
• 1. Offender Consciously Adopts particular means, methods, or forms
tending directly and specially to ensure the execution of the crime.
• 2. The employment of such means gave the offended party No opportunity
to defend himself or retaliate [Art. 14, par. 16, RPC].
The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means, method or form

employed by the offender, the offended party was not able to put up any
defense [People v. Tiozon, G.R. No. 89823 (1991)]
• When there is conspiracy in the commission of a crime, treachery can be
appreciated against all conspirators [People v. Ong, G.R. No. L34497 (1975)].
Treachery Absorbs the Following Aggravating Circumstances: [CANAMBES]
• 1. Craft [People v. Malig, G.R. No. L-2083 (1949)]
• 2. Abuse of superior strength [People v. Siaotong, G.R. No. L-9242 (1957)]
• 3. Nighttime [People v. Corpuz & Serquiña, G.R. No. L-12718 (1960)]
• 4. Aid of Armed men [People v. Siaotong, supra]
• 5. Band [People v. Ampo-an, G.R. No. 75366 (1990)]
• 6. Employing means to weaken the defense [People v. Siaotong, supra]
• 7. Disregard of Sex [People v. Clementer, G.R. No. L-33490 (1974)]
q. Ignominy
• Kind: Specific Aggravating Circumstance; Specific to the following
• 1. Coercion (light or grave) [People v. Cantong, C.A., 50 O.G. 5899]
• 2. Murder [U.S. v. de Leon, G.R. No. 522 (1902)]
• 3. Wanton Robbery for personal gain [People v. Racaza, supra]
• 4. Crimes against Chastity
• 5. Less serious physical injuries [Art. 265, RPC] 6. Rape
• Ignominy It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds
disgrace to the material injury caused by the crime [People v. Acaya, G.R.
No. L-72998 (1988)].
EXAMPLE
• 1. Raping a woman from behind. It is something which offends the
morals of the offended woman because this is how animals do it [People
v. Siao, G.R. No. 126021 (2000)].
• 2. Examining a woman’s genitals before raping her in the presence of her
old father were deliberately done to humiliate her, thereby aggravating
and compounding her moral sufferings [People v. Bumidang, G.R. No.
130630 (2000)].
r. Unlawful Entry
• Unlawful Entry
• There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not
intended for that purpose [Art. 14 (18), RPC].
• Inherent in the Following Crimes:
• 1. Trespass to dwelling under Art. 280 [Reyes, Book 1]
• 2. Robbery with force upon things under Art. 299(a) and Art. 302
[Reyes, Book 1]
s. As a Means to the Commission of the Crime,
a Wall, Roof, Floor, Door, or Window Be Broken
• 1. Any of the following be broken:
• a. Wall
• b. Roof
• c. Floor
• d. Door
• e. Window
• 2. Breaking was used as a means to effect Entrance and not merely for
escape
• When Breaking of Door or Window is Lawful
• When an officer, after giving notice of his purpose and authority, is refused
admittance:
• 1. To make an arrest in any building or enclosure where the person to be
arrested is or is reasonably believed to be [Rule 113, Sec. 11, Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure];
• 2. To effect search in the place of directed search [Rule 126, Sec. 7, Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure];
• 3. To liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
detained in the place of directed search [Rule 126, Sec. 7, Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure].
t. Crime was Committed (a) With the Aid of
Persons Under Fifteen Years of Age or (b) By
Means of Motor Vehicles, Motorized
Watercraft, Airships, or Other Similar Means
• 1. With the Aid of Persons Under 15 Years Old
• Rationale: To repress the frequent practice resorted to by professional
criminals of availing themselves of minors taking advantage of their
lack of criminal responsibility (since minors are given leniency when
they commit a crime) [Reyes, Book 1]
• 2. By Means of a Motor Vehicle Requisites:
• 1. That any of the following was used:
• a. Motorized vehicles; or,
• b. Other efficient means of transportation Similar to automobile or airplane.
• 2. That the same was used as Means of Committing the crime, such as
by using the same to:
• a. Go to the place of the crime
• b. Carry away the effects thereof; and
• c. Facilitate their escape [People v. Espejo, G.R. No. L-27708 (1970)]
u. Cruelty
• Kind: Specific Aggravating Circumstance;
• Specific to crimes against persons
• Requisites
• 1. That the injury caused be Deliberately Increased by causing the
other wrong
• 2. The other wrong was Unnecessary for the Execution of the purpose
of the offender
• For cruelty to exist, there must be proof showing that the accused
delighted in making their victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
him unnecessary physical and moral pain in the consummation of the
criminal act [People v. Catian, G.R. No. 139693 (2002)]
• There must be proof that the wounds inflicted on the victim were
done while he was still alive in order to be considered cruelty [People
v. Pacris, G.R. No. 69986 (1991)].
v. Special Aggravating and Qualifying Circumstances
Other Special Aggravating and Qualifying
Circumstances
• 1. Organized or Syndicated crime group
• 2. Use of Explosives
• 3. Use of Loose firearms
• 4. Use of Dangerous drugs
• 5. Arson under P.D. 1613
• Organized/syndicated crime group A group of two or more persons
collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one another for
purposes of gain committing any crime [Art. 62, RPC as amended by
R.A. 7659].
• Use of Explosives The Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/ Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of
Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives [P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A.
8294] provides that the use of explosives or incendiary devices in the
commission of a crime, resulting to death of a person, shall be
considered an aggravating circumstance
• 3. Use of “Loose Firearms” Special Aggravating Circumstance RA
10591 or the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation
Act (2013) expressly repealed Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866 as amended
• 4. Use of Dangerous Drugs Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance A
positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs is a qualifying
aggravating circumstance and the application of the penalty provided
for in the RPC shall be applicable [Sec. 25, R.A. 9165]
• 5. Arson under P.D. 1613 Special Aggravating Circumstance. The
following are considered special aggravating circumstances when the
crime of Arson is committed; that the crime was committed: 1. For
the Benefit of another 2. Because of Hatred towards owner/occupant
3. With Intent to Gain 4. By a Syndicate
• Syndicate Offense is committed by a syndicate if it is planned or

carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons [Sec. 4, P.D. 1613].
5. Alternative Circumstances [Art.
15]
• Those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or
mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission [Art. 15].
• TYPES UNDER ART. 15.
• 1. Relationship
• 2. Intoxication
• 3. Degree of Education/instruction
• a. Relationship
• The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into
consideration when the offended party is the:
• 1. Spouse
• 2. Ascendant
• 3. Descendant
• 4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister (Siblings)
• 5. Relative by Affinity in the same degree of the offender [People v.
Marco, G.R. No. 132392 (2001)
• Relatives by Affinity Includes in-laws, stepfather, or stepmother,
stepchild and the like. It is the duty of the stepparents to bestow upon
their stepchildren a mother’s or father’s affection, care and protection
[People v. Bersabal, G.R. No. 24532 (1925)].
• Other relatives included The relationship of stepfather or stepmother
and stepson or stepdaughter is included by analogy as similar to that
of ascendant and descendant [People v. Bersabal, G.R. No. 24532
(1925); People v. Portento, C.A., 38 O.G. 46].
• Relationship as Exempting Circumstance:
• 1. When the accessory is related to the principal.
• General Rule: This includes spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of
accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article [Art. 20, RPC].
• Exception: When said relatives profited themselves or assisted the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime [Art. 19 (1), RPC].
• Death under exceptional circumstances. A legally married person who
having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person who shall inflict upon them physical
injuries of any other kind (i.e. less serious and slight physical injuries)
[Art. 247, RPC].
• Relationship as Mitigating Circumstance:
• 1. In crimes against property [RUFA] a. Robbery [Arts. 294-302, RPC] b.
Usurpation [Art. 312, RPC] c. Fraudulent insolvency [Art. 314, RPC] d.
Arson [Arts. 321-322, 325-326, RPC]
• 2. When the crime is less serious or slight physical injuries – if the
offended party is a relative of a lower degree than the offender [Art. 263,
RPC].
• 3. In trespass to dwelling - Where a son-in-law, believing his wife to be in
her father's house, attempted to force an entry therein, the relationship
is to be considered in mitigation [U.S. v. Ostrea, 2 Phil. 93, 95 (1903)].
• Persons Attached by Common Law Relations. The law cannot be
stretched to include such relations because there is no blood
relationship or legal bond that links the parties [People v. Atop, G.R.
Nos. 124303-05 (1998)].
• For Relationships by Affinity. Relationships by affinity should not be
deemed to aggravate the crime in the absence of evidence to show
that the offended party is of a higher degree in the relationship than
that of the offender [People v. Canitan, G.R. No. L-16498 (1963)]
b. Intoxication
• Requisites to be Considered as Mitigating Circumstance: 1. Act was
done due to alcoholic intake of the offender, he suffers from
Diminished Self-Control. 2. Offender is Not a Habitual Drinker. 3.
Offender did Not take the alcoholic drink With the Intention to
Reinforce his resolve to commit crime [Reyes, Book 1]
• When Aggravating Circumstance 1. If intoxication is habitual; or 2. If it

is intentional to embolden offender to commit crime [Reyes, Book 1].
c. Degree of Education or Instruction
• Low Degree of Education or Instruction
• The court may exercise its sound discretion to justify a more lenient
treatment of an “ignorant and semicivilized offender” [U.S. v. Marqui,
G.R. No. 8931 (1914)]. General Rule: Low degree of education is a
mitigating circumstance [U.S. v. Reguera, G.R. No. L16639 (1921)].
• If the accused studied up to sixth grade, the Court said that “that is
more than sufficient schooling to give him a degree of instruction as
to properly apprise him of what is right and wrong” [People v. Pujinio,
G.R. No. L-21690 (1969)].
• High degree of education or Instruction The alternative circumstance
of instruction may be considered as aggravating circumstance when
the accused took advantage of his education or instruction in
committing the crime
Persons Liable and Degree of
Participation
• Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for grave and
less grave felonies:
• 1. Principals.
• 2. Accomplices.
• 3. Accessories.
• The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
• 1. Principals
• 2. Accomplices.
• This classification is true only under the RPC and not under special
laws, because the penalties under the latter are never graduated. If
the crime is punishable under special laws, the more appropriate
term would be “offender/s, culprit/s, accused”.
• Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:
• 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

• 2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
• 3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another
act without which it would not have been accomplished.
• 1. Principal by Direct Participation [RPC, Art. 17
• (1)] An active participant in the commission of the offense.
• One who participated in the criminal resolution to commit the offense
[People v. Solomon, G.R. No. 77206 (1988)].
• Those who cooperate in the commission of the crime by performing
overt acts which by themselves are acts of execution [People v. Pilola,
G.R. No. 121828 (2003)]
• Requisites:
• 1. Offender Participated in the criminal resolution; and
• 2. Offender Carried out their plan and Personally took part in its
execution by acts which directly tended to the same end [People v.
Ong Chiat Lay, supra]
• 2. Principal by Inducement [RPC, Art. 17 (2)]
• Those who directly forces or induces others to commit a criminal act.
Requisites:
• 1. Inducement be made with the Intention of procuring the
commission of the crime
• 2. Said inducement is the Determining Cause of the commission of
the crime by the material executor [US v. Indanan, G.R. No. L-8187
(1913)].
• TWO (2) WAYS OF INDUCEMENT
• 1. By using irresistible force or causing uncontrollable fear
• By giving of price or offering of reward or promise or using words of
command
• a. By giving of price or offering of reward or promise – The one giving the
price or offering the reward or promise is a principal by inducement while
the one committing the crime in consideration thereof is a principal by
direct participation. There is collective criminal responsibility.
• b. By using words of command – person who used the words of command
is a principal by inducement while the person who committed the crime
because of the words command is a principal by direct participation.
• Effect of Acquittal of Principal by Direct Participation General Rule:
Conspiracy is negated by acquittal of co-defendant. One cannot be
held guilty of having instigated the commission of a crime without
first being shown that the crime has been actually committed by
another [People v. Ong Chiat Lay, supra].
• Exception: When principal actor is acquitted because he acted
without malice or criminal intent. [People v. Po Giok To, G.R. No. L-
7236 (1955)].
• 3. Principal by Indispensable Cooperation [RPC, Art. 17 (3)]
• Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another,
without which it would not have been accomplished.
• Requisites
• 1. Participation in criminal resolution such that there is Anterior
Conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention before the
commission of the crime.
• 2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing
another act which is Indispensable and without which it would not
have been accomplished [Reyes, Book 1].
• X has a long time crush of Y, a very beautiful woman. However, when
X courted Y, the latter rejected X. Z is the landlady of the apartment
where Y stays. Z happened to be a friend of X. One day X talked to Z
and Z gave the duplicate keys of the gate of the apartment and of the
room of Y. On one evening, passed curfew, X, with the duplicate keys,
opened the gates of the apartment and the room of Y and raped her.
In this case, X is principal by direct participation, and Z as a principal
by indispensable cooperation, as without Z giving the duplicate keys
to X, the crime would not have been committed.
• Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not
being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense
by previous or simultaneous acts.
• An accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous

or simultaneous acts, provided he has no direct participation in its
execution or does not force or induce others to commit it, or his
cooperation is not indispensable to its accomplishment [People v.
Mandolado, supra].
• Requisites:
• a. Community of Design: Knowing and concurring with the criminal
design of the principal by direct participation
• b. Cooperation in the execution of the offense by
previous/simultaneous acts with the intent of supplying
material/moral aid; and
• c. Relationship between acts of the principal and those attributed to
the accomplice [Reyes, Book 1]
• Knowledge of Actual Crime Not Required One can be an accomplice
even if he did not know of the actual crime intended by the principal,
provided he was aware that it was an illicit act [People v. Doctolero,
G.R. No. 34386 (1991) ].
• Accomplice does Not Decide the Crime Accomplices do not decide
whether the crime should be committed; they merely assent to the
plan of the principal by direct participation and cooperate in its
accomplishment [People v. Pilola, G.R. No. 121828 (2003)]
• Liability of Accomplice The liability of accomplices is less than
principals and they shall be meted with the penalty next lower in
degree (1 degree) than that prescribed by law [Arts. 52, 54, & 56,
RPC].
• It is also possible for an accomplice to be liable as such for a different
crime than what the principal committed, such as when he/she
provides transport for someone committing robbery but does not
participate in the killing committed by the latter [People v. Doble, G.R.
No. L-30028 (1982)]
• X hired Y as a look out and at the same time, a driver of a getaway
vehicle. X entered into a Pawnshop and rob the same. After doing so,
X went inside the vehicle and both drove away.
• Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission
of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices,
take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
• 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
• 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof,
in order to prevent its discovery.
• 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime,

provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of
the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
• Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those
who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of
accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article.
• Profiting themselves or Assisting the offender to profit by the effects
of the crime
• Examples: a. Profiting Themselves – Receiving stolen property
knowing that it had been stolen [People v. Tanchoco, G.R. No. L-38
(1946)].
• b. Assisting the Offender to Profit by the Effects of the Crime -
Knowingly receiving stolen property and selling it for the thief’s profit
[US v. Galanco, G.R. No. 4440 (1908)] An accessory should not be in
conspiracy with the principal [US v. Tan Tiap Co, G.R. No. 11643 (1916)
• 2. Concealing/destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery
• Body of the Crime (“corpus delicti”) Fact of the commission of the crime, not
the physical body of the deceased [Rimorin v. People, G.R. No. 146481
(2003)].
• Examples:
• a. Assisting in the burial of a homicide victim to prevent the discovery of the
crime [US v. Leal, G.R. No. 432 (1902)]
• b. Making the victim appear armed to show the necessity of killing him [US v.
Cuison, G.R. No. L-6840 (1911)]
• c. Concealing the effects/instruments of the crime, such as concealing a gun
[Reyes, Book 1]
• 3. Harboring/concealing/assisting in the Escape of the principal of the
crime committed by either a public officer or a private person.
• Liability of Accessories Liability is subordinate to the principal because

their participation is subsequent to the commission of the crime [US
v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 7540 (1912)]. The penalty to be imposed for
accessories is two (2) degrees lower than that prescribed for the
felony [Art. 53, 55, & 57 RPC
• Effect of Acquittal of Principal General Rule: If the facts alleged are
not proven or do not constitute a crime, the legal grounds for
convicting the accessory do not exist [US v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 7540
(1912)].
• Exemption: If the principal was convicted but not held criminally liable
for an exempting circumstance (i.e. insanity, minority, etc.) [Art. 12,
RPC], the accessory may still be held criminally liable since the crime
was still committed [US v. Villaluz, G.R. No. 10726 (1915)].
Determination of the liability of the accessory can proceed
independently of that of the principal [Vino v. People, G.R. No. 84163
(1989)].
• Exemptions from Criminal Liability
• An accomplice is exempted from criminal liability when:
• 1. Crime is a light felony [Art. 19 (c), RPC]; or
• 2. Principal is a relative under the exemptions in RPC Art. 20, except if said
accessory has profited or assisted the principal in profiting from the crime Relatives
Included Under Art. 20
• a. Spouse
• b. Ascendant
• c. Descendant
• d. Legitimate/natural/adopted Brother or Sister
• e. Relative by affinity within the same degree
• Rationale: The ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of
one’s name, which compels one to conceal crimes committed by
relatives so near as those mentioned in this article [People v. Mariano,
G.R. No. 134847 (2000)]
• PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS (PD 1829)
• Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a
fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon
any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and
prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
• (c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he
knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed
any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;
PENALTIES
• TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR PERIODS
• Reclusion temporal:
Included in its minimum period: From 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months
Included in its medium period: From 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months
Prision mayor, absolute disqualification and special temporary disqualification:
Included in its minimum period: From 6 years and 1 day to 8 years
Included in its medium period: From 8 years and 1 day to 10 years
Included in its maximum: From 10 years and 1 day to 12 years
• Prision correccional, suspension and destierro:
Included in the penalty in its entirety: From 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
Included in its minimum period: From 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
Included in its medium period: From 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months
• Arresto mayor:
Included in the penalty in its entirety: From 1 month and 1 day to months
Included in its minimum period: From 1 to 2 months
Included in its medium period: From 2 months and 1 day to 4 months
Included in its maximum: From 4 months and 1 day to 6 months
Arresto menor:
Included in the penalty in its entirety: From 1 to 30 days

Included in its minimum period: From 1 to 10 days
Included in its medium period: From 11 to 20 days
Included in its maximum: From 21 to 30 days
• Major Classification
• 1. Principal Penalties - Those expressly imposed by the court in the
judgment of conviction.
• 2. Accessory Penalties - Those that are deemed included in the
imposition of the principal penalties.
• 3. Subsidiary Penalties - Those imposed in lieu of principal penalties,
i.e., imprisonment in case of inability to pay the fine
Title III, Chapter III, Sec. 2
Article 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. - The penalties of
perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender >may have held even if conferred
by popular election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected to such office.
3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article
shall last during the term of the sentence.
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held.
Article 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special
disqualification. - The penalties of perpetual or temporal special
disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce the
following effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected;
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either

perpetually or during the term of the sentence according to the extent of
such disqualification.
• Article 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of
the right of suffrage. - The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of
suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the
nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any popular election for any public office or to be elected
to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the period
of his disqualification.
• Article 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, profession or calling, or the right
of suffrage. - The suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the exercise of the right of
suffrage shall disqualify the offender from holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or
right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
• The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having similar functions during
the period of his suspension.
• Article 34. Civil interdiction. - Civil interdiction 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 ward, of
marital authority, of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any
act or any conveyance inter vivos.
• Reclusion Temporal
• 1. Civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the
case may be.
• 2. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the offender shall suffer
even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon [Art. 41, RPC].
• Prision Correccional
• 1. Suspension from public office
• 2. Suspension from the right to follow a profession or calling
• 3. Perpetual Special Disqualification for the right of suffrage, if the
duration of the imprisonment shall exceed 18 months
• ACT NO. 3815
• REPUBLIC ACT No. 10592 (AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94, 97, 98
AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
REVISED PENAL CODE)
• IMPLEMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10592
Rule IV
• Section 2. Who are Entitled. - An accused who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited,
either full or four-fifths (4/5) term, for his actual detention or service of his sentence, provided he is not
disqualified under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and under the following section.
Section 3. Who are Disqualified. - the grant of credit of preventive imprisonment shall not apply to the
following:An accused who is a recidivist as defined under Article 14 (9), Chapter III, Book I of the Revised
Penal Code.
• An accused who has been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and
• An accused who, upon being summoned for the execution of his sentence, has failed to surrender
voluntary before a court of law.
• Section 4. Effect of Detainee's Manifestation. - An accused who has undergone preventive imprisonment
shall be credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment if:
• He agrees voluntarily, in writing, to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners; and
• Such undertaking is executed with the assistance of a counsel.
Rule V GCTA
• Section 1. Who are Entitled. - The good conduct for the following
shall entitle them to the deductions describe in Section 2 hereunder
from their sentence as good conduct time allowance (GCTA) pursuant
to Artticle 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and to Sections
2 to 8 hereof;
• A detention prisoner qualified for credit for prevention imprisonment
for his good conduct and exemplary behavior; and
• A prisoner convicted by the final judgment in any other local jail for
his good conduct and exemplary behavior.
• Section 2. Deductible Good Conduct Time Allowance. - A qualified prisoner,
whether detained or convicted by final judgment, shall be entitled to the following
deductions from his sentence for good conduct;
• During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
twenty days for each month of good behavior during detention;
• During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed
a reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
• During the following years until the tenth years, inclusive of his imprisonment he
shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior
during detention; and
• During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during detention.
Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A.
4103, As Amended by Act No. 4225)
• Applicability General
• Rule: Applicable to those sentenced with imprisonment exceeding
one (1) year.
• Application of the law is based on the penalty actually imposed.
Hence, in a case where the court imposes a penalty of prisión
correccional minimum (6 months and 1 day), ISLAW does not apply
[People v. Moises, G.R. No. L-32495 (1975)].
• Exceptions: Not applicable when unfavorable to the accused [People
v. Nang Kay, 88 Phil. 515, 519]
• The following are excluded from coverage: [Sec. 2, ISLAW]
• 1. Convicted of Piracy
• 2. Habitual delinquents (but applies to recidivists).
• 3. Convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or Life
imprisonment.
• RPC
• Penalty which could be properly imposed under the rules of the RPC,
in view of the attending circumstances.
• Court’s discretion, provided that the minimum term is anywhere
within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
RPC for the offense, without regard to its 3 periods
• Special Law
• Maximum term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the special
• Minimum term shall not be less than minimum specified by the law.
• Homicide-Penalty prescribed is Reclusion Temporal
• One Mitigating Circumsance
• Computation is
• Reclusion Temporal 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
• Maximum-17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years
• Medium-14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years
and 4 months
• Minimum-12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8
months
• Prision Mayor 6 years and 1 day to 12 years

• Maximum-10 years and 1 day to 12 years
• Medium-8 years and 1 day to 10 years
• Minimum-6 years and 1 day to 8 years
• Three-Fold Rule [3-40] [Art. 70, RPC]
• 1. Maximum duration of convict’s sentence: Shall not be more than
three (3) times the length of time corresponding to the most severe
penalty imposed upon him.
• 2. Limitation of maximum period: Period shall in no case exceed forty
(40) years.
• 3. Effect if total imposed sentence is more than the maximum
allowed: No other penalty shall be inflicted after the sum total of
those imposed equals the same maximum period.
• X was convicted of four crimes of frustrated homicide.
• Penalty of the first-10 years and 1 day
• Penalty of the second-10 years and 1 day
• Penalty of the third- 10 years and 1 day
• Penalty of the fourth-12 years, and 1 day
-42 years and 4 days

-12 years, and 1 day x 3 = 36 years and 1 day
-36 years and 1 day
• X was convicted of four crimes of homicide.
• Penalty of the first-12 years and 1 day
• Penalty of the second-12 years and 1 day
• Penalty of the third-14 years, 4 months and 1 day
• Penalty of the fifth-12 years, and 1 day
-48 years, 4 months and 4 days

-14 years four months and 1 day x 3 = 43 years and 3 days
-40 years
• Rules in Authorizing Prisoner to be Released on Parole
• Whenever the prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty
imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence that such prisoner is fitted for release, the Board may
authorize his release on parole, upon terms and conditions as may be
prescribed.
Absolutory Causes
• Those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public
policy and sentiment there is no penalty imposed [People v. Talisic,
G.R. No. 97961 (1997)].
• Types of Absolutory Causes:
• 1. Instigation
• 2. Pardon by the offended party
• 3. Other absolutory causes
• 4. Acts Not covered by law and in case of excessive punishment [Art.
5, RPC].
• It is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of
the offense charged in order to prosecute him [People v. Bartolome,
G.R. No 191726 (2013)].
• Instigation as defense against government-Instigation is recognized as
a valid defense that can be raised by an accused. To use this as a
defense, however, the accused must prove with sufficient evidence
that the government induced him to commit the offense (People v.
Legaspi y Lucas, G.R. No. 173485 (2011)].
• Entrapment is Different from Instigation There is entrapment when
law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of
the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is
instigation when the accused was induced to commit the crime
[People v. Periodica, Jr., G.R. No. 73006 (1989)].
• b. Pardon by Offended Party
• Crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except
upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party
cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty
parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have
consented or pardoned the offenders [Art. 344, RPC].
• c. Other Absolutory Causes
• 1. Death under exceptional circumstances [Art. 247, RPC]
• 2. Accessories in light felonies [Art. 16, RPC]
• 3. Light felonies not consummated [Art. 16, RPC]
• 4. Spontaneous desistance [Art. 6, RPC]
• 5. Prescription of crimes [Art. 89, RPC]
• 6. Accessories exempt under Art. 20 [Art. 20, RPC]
• 7. Exemptions from criminal liability for cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief, by virtue of his Relationship to the offended party.
[Art. 332, RPC]
• 8. Trespass to dwelling to prevent serious harm to self [Art. 280, RPC]
• 9. Discovering secrets through Seizure of correspondence of the ward
by their guardian [Art. 219, RPC]
• Article 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but
which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever
a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which
is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to
the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce
the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation.
• In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by
the offense.
• Criminal liability is totally extinguished in the following cases:
• 1. Prescription of Crime
• 2. Prescription of Penalty
• 3. Death of the convict
• 4. Service of sentence
• 5. Amnesty
• 6. Absolute pardon
• 7.. Marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Art. 344 of the
RPC (People vs. Ronie de Guzman, G.R. No. 185843, March 3, 2010)
• a. By Prescription of Crime Prescription
• The loss by the State of the right to prosecute and punish the crime or
to demand the service of the sentence imposed [Santos v.
Superintendent, G.R. No. L-34334 (1930)].
• Commencement Period for Computation
• General Rule: The running of the prescriptive period should
commence from the day following the day on which the crime was
committed [People v. Del Rosario, 97 Phil 67, 70 (1955)].
• Exceptions:
• 1. Blameless ignorance doctrine:
• If violation was not known at the time of its commission, the
prescription begins to run only from the discovery thereof
[Presidential Ad-Hoc Fact Finding Committee on Behest Loans v.
Ombudsman Desierto, G.R. No. 130140 (2011)].
• Note: It is discovery of crime, NOT discovery of offender. The fact that
the culprit is unknown will not prevent the period of prescription
from commencing to run. [Romualdez v. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 165510-
33 (2005)]]. It is not necessary that the accused be arrested [People v.
Joson, 46 Phil. 380, 284].
• 2. False testimony: From time principal case is finally decided [People
v. Maneja, 72 Phil 256 (1941)].
• 3. Election offenses
• a. If the discovery is incidental to judicial proceedings, prescription
begins when such proceedings terminate.
• b. If the falsification committed by inspectors in connection with the
counting of votes and preparation of election returns was known to
the protestants and their election watchers before the filing of the
election protests, the period of prescription begins from the date of
commission of the offense [People v. Cariño, 56 Phil 109 (1931)].
• 4. Continuing crimes:
• Prescriptive period cannot begin to run because the crime does not
end [Arches v. Bellasillo, 81 Phil 190 (1948)].
• Circumstances when computation of period is interrupted [RPC, Art.
91]
• 1. Upon filing of complaint or information It shall commence to run
again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being
convicted or acquitted, or unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to the accused.
• Note: Termination must be final as to amount to a jeopardy that
would bar a subsequent prosecution.
• 2. When offender is absent from Philippine archipelago
• Prescription for Special Laws and Municipal Ordinances [Sec. 1, Act
No. 3326]
Note: The these are not

applicable where the special
law provides for its own
prescriptive period [Sec. 1, Act
No. 3326].
• b. By Prescription of Penalty Prescription
• The State or the People loses the right to prosecute the crime or to demand the
service of the penalty imposed [Santos v. Superintendent, 55 Phil. 345].
• Elements for Application of Prescription of Penalty
• 1. Penalty is imposed by final judgment.
• 2. Convict evaded service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence.
• 3. The convict who has escaped from prison has not given himself up, or been
captured, or gone to a foreign country with which we have no extradition treaty or
committed another crime.
• 4. The penalty has prescribed because of the lapse of time from the date of the
evasion of service of the sentence by the convict [Pangan v. Gatbalite, G.R. No.
141718 (2005)].
• Note: "Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of Art. 93 and 157
of the RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of
his custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison
cannot be said to have escaped therefrom [Del Castillo v. Torrecampo,
G.R. No. 139033 (2002)].
• Commencement Date of Prescription Period Period commences to
run from the date when the culprit evaded the service of sentence
[Art. 93, RPC].
• When Interrupted
• 1. Convict gives himself up [Art. 93, RPC]
• 2. Convict is captured [Art. 93, RPC]
• 3. Convict goes to a foreign country with which the Philippines has no
extradition treaty [Art. 93, RPC]
• 4. Convict commits any crime before the expiration of the period of
prescription [Art. 93, RPC]
• 5. Convict accepts grant of conditional pardon [People v. Puntillas,
G.R. No. 45269 (1938)].
• c. By Death of the Convict General Rule:
• Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes
his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon.
• Exception: Claim of civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of

the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts
and quasi-delicts [People v. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007 (1994)].
• d. By Service of Sentence
• e. By Amnesty
• An act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or general pardon for
a past offense [Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 602 (1896)]. Erases not only
the conviction but the crime itself [Art. 89, par. 3, RPC]. It is granted to
classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political
offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal
prosecution and sometimes after conviction [People v. Casido, G.R.
No. 116512 (1997), citing Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-1278
(1949)].
• f. By Absolute Pardon
• Pardon-An act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the
execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is
bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has
committed. It is a voluntary act of the sovereign, granting outright
remission of guilt and declaring of record that a particular individual is
to be relieved of the legal consequences of a particular crime [Llamas
v. Orbos, G.R. No. 99031 (1991), citing 67A C.J.S. Pardon and Parole S
3].
• Absolute pardon The total extinction of the criminal liability of the
individual to whom it is granted without any condition. It restores to
the individual his civil and political rights and remits the penalty
imposed for the particular offense of which he was convicted [Sec.
2(q), Revised Rules and Regulations of the Board of Pardons and
Parole]
• g. By the Marriage of the Offended Woman and the Offended in the
Crimes of Rape, Abduction, Seduction, and Acts of Lasciviousness
[Art. 344, RPC]
• General Rule: A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish
criminal action [Art. 23, RPC]
• Exception: As to those mentioned under Art. 344
• Effect of Marriage [Art. 344, RPC]
• 1. Marriage of the offender with the offended party in seduction,
abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, extinguishes criminal
action or remits the penalty already imposed.
• 2. It also extinguishes the criminal actions against the co-principals,
accomplices, and accessories.
• Note: The second point does not apply to rape since it has ceased to
be a crime against chastity, but is now a crime against persons, it now
appears that marriage extinguishes that penal action and penalty only
as to the principal (i.e., husband) and not as to the accomplices and
accessories [Art. 266 and Art. 344, RPC].
• Pardon of Offended Party in Offenses Other than those in Art. 344
Only civil liability is extinguished. A crime committed is an offense
against the State. Only the Chief Executive can pardon the offenders
[Art. 23, RPC].
• Criminal liability is partially extinguished in the following cases:
• 1. Conditional pardon
• 2. Commutation of sentence
• 3. Good conduct allowances [Art. 94, RPC as amended by R.A. 10592]
• 4. Special time allowance for loyalty [Art. 94, RPC as amended by R.A.
10592] 5. Parole 6. Probation
• a. By Conditional Pardon [Art. 95, RPC]
• Conditional Pardon refers to the exemption of an individual, within certain limits
or conditions, from the punishment which the law inflicts for the offense he had
committed resulting in the partial extinction of his criminal liability [Section 2(q),
Revised Rules and Regulations of the Board of Pardons and Parole (2002)].
• Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur the obligation of
complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein [Art. 95, RPC]
• Non-compliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation
of the pardon and the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall
be imposed upon the convict. However, if the penalty remitted by the granting of
such pardon be higher than 6 years, he shall then suffer the unexpired portion of
his original sentence [Art. 159, RPC].
• Pardon itself must be explicitly imposed. A “whereas” in the preamble
of the pardon stating that “Joseph Ejercito Estrada has publicly
committed to no longer seek any elective position or office” does not
make the pardon conditional [Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC and Estrada,
supra].
• b. By Commutation of Sentence [Art. 96, RPC]
• The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different
length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter
in the place of the former [Art. 96, RPC].
• c. Allowance for Good Conduct which Culprit Earn while He is Serving
Sentence [Art. 97, RPC]
• Allowance is granted to any prisoner in:
• 1. Penal institution
• 2. Rehabilitation or detention center
• 3. Other local jail [Art. 97, RPC as amended by R.A. 10592]
• Exceptions: The allowance is not applicable to:
• 1. Recidivists
• 2. Habitual delinquents
• 3. Escapees
• 4. Persons charged with heinous crimes [Art. 29 RPC as amended by
R.A. 10592]
• Allowance for good conduct, once granted, cannot be revoked. Time
allowances such as GCTA, TASTM, and STAL, once validly granted by
the authorized official to a qualified PDL, shall not be revoked [Rule 9,
Section 3, Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10592
(2019)].
• d. Special Time Allowance [Art. 98] Special Time Allowance Deduction
in the period of the sentence of a prisoner during the calamity or
catastrophe mentioned in Art. 158 (i.e. conflagration, earthquake,
explosion or similar catastrophe; or mutiny in which he has not
participated). [Art. 98, RPC]
• When prisoner, having evaded his sentence, gives himself up to
authorities within 48 hours following issuance of proclamation by
Chief Executive announcing the passing away of the calamity
• Deduction from period of sentence- 1/5 of period of sentence
• When prisoner chooses to stay in place of confinement.
• Deduction from period of sentence- 2/5 of period of sentence.
• e. By Parole
• Parole
• The conditional release of an offender from a correctional institution
after he has served the minimum of his prison sentence [Sec. 2(l),
Revised Rules and Regulations of the Board of Pardons and Parole].
• g. By Probation Probation
• A disposition under which a defendant after conviction and sentence
is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer [Sec. 3(a), P.D. 968 (Probation Law)].
END
• Sources:
• UP LAW REVIEWER-CRIMINAL LAW 2022
• Revised Penal Code
• Laws and Jurisprudence

Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW

• Positive Theory-Positivist Theory - The basis of criminal liability is the

• Eclectic Theory-Combination of Classical and Positivists

• An omission contemplated in criminal law means inaction-failure to

• Motive is the moving power or force which impels a person to a

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

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against

• Employment of inadequate means whose quality or quantity is

• The reason of such penalty is to teach the offender a lesson because

• However, offender will only be penalized for an impossible crime if he

• 1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the law provides

Prision mayor, absolute disqualification and special temporary disqualification:

Included in the penalty in its entirety: From 1 to 30 days

• Article 124. Arbitrary detention. - Any public officer or employee who,

"When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a

Mere knowledge or approval of the act without cooperation or at least, agreement

In Conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt

• Conspiracy as a basis of incurring criminal liability- when the

• Implied Conspiracy- the offenders acted in concert in the commission

People v. Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, December 14, 2011

• There is a single person or group called the “hub”, dealing individually

• Requisites of proposal to commit felony:

• 1. Rebellion [Art. 136, RPC]

• the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the

• Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty

• delito continuado to exist there should be a plurality of acts performed

• PETRON CORPORATION AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,[1] PETITIONERS,

• Stranger-Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives

• 2. A person under nine years of age.

• 5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

• 1. Presumption of Sanity Burden of proof of insanity is on the defense

• In both cases, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program.

• 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that

• 4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party

• 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave

• 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have

• 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in

• 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the

• 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and

• Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not

• Applicability: Applicable when not all the requisites necessary to

• Applicability Only applicable to offenses resulting in death, physical injuries,

• Threat: Threat must not be offensive and positively strong, otherwise,

• Deliberately Intended: There must be evidence that in the

Confidence: Confidence between the offender and the offended party

The essence of treachery is that by virtue of the means, method or form

• Syndicate Offense is committed by a syndicate if it is planned or

• When Aggravating Circumstance 1. If intoxication is habitual; or 2. If it

• The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

• 1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

• An accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous

• 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime,

• Liability of Accessories Liability is subordinate to the principal because

Prision mayor, absolute disqualification and special temporary disqualification:

Included in the penalty in its entirety: From 1 to 30 days

1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected;

2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either

• Prision Mayor 6 years and 1 day to 12 years

-42 years and 4 days