commentary notes

Reviewer in Criminal Law I Judge Rico Liwanag

I. Introduction

a. Definition of Criminal Law Criminal Law is that branch or division of public law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and

provides for their punishment A CRIME is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it

General Rule: A crime is public in nature Exception: Private crimes (crimes against chastity)

Why “People v accused”? Because even if the victim does not want to file a complaint, a case can still be filed by the

“people” since crimes are offenses against the State

b. Sources of Philippine Criminal Law Revised Penal Code (Act 3815) and its amendments

Effective January 1, 1932 Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature,

National Assembly, Congress, Batasang Pambansa Penal Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law

c. Characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law1. Generality

Criminal Law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory Exceptions:

1. Treaties and Laws of preferential application2. Public International Law and treaty stipulations

a. Sovereigns and other chiefs of stateb. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, charges d’affaires

2. Territoriality Criminal Laws are enforceable only within Philippine territory (within the Philippine archipelago, including its

atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone) Exceptions:

1. One who should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship2. One who should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and

securites issued by the Government of the Philippines

Karen Feliz Supnad UST Faculty of Civil Law


3. One who should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions5. One who should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defines in

Title I of Book II of the RPC3. Prospectivity

A penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed Exceptions:

1. When the law so provides for its retroactivity2. When a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused

a. Except:i. When the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of actionii. Where the offender is a habitual criminal

A person is a habitual delinquent if within a period of ten years from the date of his last release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo (robbery), hurto (theft), estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener

Requisites of habitual delinquency:1. That the offender had been convicted of any of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,

robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification2. That after that 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 second time3. That 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 third time or oftener

Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defines in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounces and the convict is serving the same

Art. 1. Time when Act takes effect. – This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen-hundred and thirty two.

Art. 2. Application of its provisions. – Except as provided in the treaties and laws of

preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine archipelago including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:



(1) Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;

(2) Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines;

(3) Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number;

(4) While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or

(5) Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title I of Book II of this Code.

When the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on said ship is subject to the laws of that foreign country

A Philippine vessel or aircraft is one which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs

Registration according to Philippine Law, not citizenship of the owner, matters

Crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public functions:

Direct bribery Indirect bribery

Frauds against public treasury Possession of prohibited interest Malversation of public funds or property Failure of accountable officer to render

accounts Illegal use of public funds or property Failure to make delivery of public funds or

property Falsification by a public officer or employee

committed with abuse of his official position Crimes against national security and the law of

nations: Treason Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason Espionage Inciting to war and giving motives for

reprisals Violation of neutrality Correspondence with hostile country Flight to enemy’s country Piracy and mutiny on the high seas

Enumerated offenses cognizable by RTC in which the charge is first filed

RTCs have original jurisdiction over all crimes and offenses committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any country on board a ship or warcraft of any kind registered or licensed in the Philippines in accordance with its laws

Philippine maritime zone is until three miles from the coastline, starting from the low mater mark

Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country



French Rule – crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered

English Rule – crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof

Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach of public order aboard merchant vessels anchored in Philippine jurisdictional waters

Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another state

Art. 3. Definition. – Acts and omissions punishable by law are 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.

Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the RPC

Elements of felonies: An ACT is 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 Must be defined by the RPC as constituting

a felony or at least, an overt act of that felony, that is, an external act which has direct connection with the felony intended to be committed

The act must be external, because internal acts are beyond the sphere of penal law

Omission – inaction; failure to perform a positive duty which one is bound to do

There is no crime when there is no law punishing it (NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE)

Classification of felonies ACCORDING TO THE MEANS by which they are committed Intentional felonies – the act or omission is

malicious (DOLO) the act is performed with deliberate

intent or malice there is intention to do an injury to the

person, property, or right of another Culpable felonies – the act or omission is not

malicious (CULPA) The injury caused is unintentional, it

being simply the incident of another act performed

Imprudence –deficiency of action; failure to take necessary precaution to avoid injury to another; lack of skill

Negligence – deficiency of perception; failure to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in foreseeing injury or damage to be caused



A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, of not from instinct, then from fear of incurring punishment

A criminal act is presumed to be voluntary Fact prevails over assumption, and in the

absence of indubitable explanation the act must be declared voluntary and punishable

When there is compulsion or prevention by force or intimidation, there is no voluntariness in the act

Requisites of dolo or malice FREEDOM INTELLIGENCE – determines morality of

human acts INTENT – a mental state, the existence of

which is shown by the overt acts of a person Mistake of fact – relieves criminal liability

(ignorantia facti excusat); misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused injury to another Requisites of mistake of fact as a defense

That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be

That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful

That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused

Requisites of fault or culpa FREEDOM INTELLIGENCE IMPRUDENCE, NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF

FORESIGHT or SKILL

When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to commit the crime is not necessary (mala prohibita)

When the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered that te act is injurious to public welfare and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself

Differences between mala in se and mala prohibita: As to effects:

Mala in se: those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members

Mala prohibita: violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of societal affairs

As to punishing law: Mala in se: generally penalized by

the RPC, except acts which are inherently immoral, even if punished by special laws

Mala prohibita: generally made criminal by special laws

Intent – the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result General intent – generally presumed from

the commission of a crime Specific intent – generally included in

elements of crime; must be proved as a fact Motive – moving power which impels one to

action for a definite result



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

(1) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended;

(2) By any person performing a 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.

A person committing a felony is criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are not intended by him

Rationale: Doctrine: He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused (El que es causa de la causa as causa del mal causado)

Causes which may produce a result different from that which the offender intended: Mistake in the identity of the victim (error in

personae)People v MagalonaGR 143294, July 17, 2003

Facts:On May 25, 1990, around 3 am, Cirilo Magalona

threw a hand grenade under the house of Rosendo Arimbuyutan. Inside the hut were his spouse Rosario, their children, Rosalyn, Rosemarie, Roldan, and Resty. After the explosion, they were brought to the medical center of the neighboring town. It was on the way to the

hospital that Resty died. All them sustained injuries and the attending doctor said that if it weren’t for the medicine and treatment administered to Rosemarie and Roldan, they would have died as well.

According to witnesses, the perpetrator was Cirilo Magalano a.k.a. William. They testified that they saw William hiding by the outgrowth near Rosendo’s house. According to them, when they heard the explosion, they saw William fleeing from the scene.

One of the witnesses, Adelina Mendoza testified that she knew William because he was her neighbor and that while she was drinking coffee a few nights before the incident, William confided that he was angry with Rosendo at that he would return and kill him. Issue:

W/N William, with the intention to kill Rosendo, is liable for the death of Resty and the injuries sustained by the rest of the familyHeld:

Yes. William is liable for all the consequences of his unlawful act. Where such unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence. Where malice or intention to cause injury exists, the act should be qualified by the felony it has produced

Mistake in the blow (aberratio ictus)People v Guillen85 Phil 307 [1950]

Facts:Julio Guillen, although not affirmed with any

particular political group, has voted for the defeated candidate in the presidential elections in 1946. That year, Manuel Roxas assumed presidency and according



to Guillen, he was disappointed in President Roxas for the latter’s failure to redeem the pledges and fulfill the promises he made during his campaign. Because of this and other reasons relating to the administration of President Roxas, Guillen decided to kill him. The opportunity presented itself when the President, with his wife and daughter, attended a popular meeting in Plaza Miranda. Prominent government officials were situated in a platform where the President delivered his speech about one of his programs.

Guillen at first intended to use a revolver but having lost the gun, he thought of using two hand grenades given to him by an American soldier. The morning before the meeting, Guillen went to the house of his friend, Amando Hernandez, and asked the latter to prepare for him a document, stating therein his confession to what he was about to do.

During the meeting, Guillen threw the grenade in the direction of the President , but General Castaneda who was standing at the platform near the President kicked the grenade towards the end of the platform, and covered the President with his body. The explosion killed Simeon Varela, and injured Alfredo Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carillo and Emilio Maglalang. Guillen was thereafter arrested and upon investigation, he readily admitted his responsibility although trying, at the same time, to justify his action by saying that he meant to hit the President.Issue:

W/N Guillen is liable only for imprudence since he was actually aiming at the PresidentHeld:

No. In throwing the hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him, Guillen acted with malice. He is therefore liable for all the consequences of

his wrongful acts; for in accordance with Art. 4 of the RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony althout the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being cimply the incident of another act performed without malice. A deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence. Where such unlawful act is willfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence.

Injurious result is greater than that intended (praeter intentionem)

Urbano v IacJan. 7, 1988

Facts:On October 23, 1980, Filomeno Urbano went to

his ricefield in Pangasinan. When he came to where he stored his palay, he saw that it was flooded with water coming from the irrigation canal nearby which had overflowed. He went to the elevated portion of the canal to see what had happened and there he saw Marcelo Javier and Emilio Erfe cutting grass. He asked them who was responsible for the opening of the irrigation canal and Javier admitted that he was the one. Urbano got angry and demanded for Javier to pay for his soaked palay. They fought and Urbano took out his bolo and hacked Javier, hitting him on his palm. Javier ran away, but he was overtaken by Urbano who hacked him again, this time hitting him on the left leg with the dull edge of the bolo. When Urbano tried to hack Javier once more, his daughter begged him to stop. Erfe and his brothers then brought Javier to his house. Thereafter, upon the



advice of barrio councilman Felipe Solis, they went to the police station to report the incident. Javier was then brought to a physician. A few days after, Urbano and Javier came to an agreement that Urbano would pay for the medical expenses of Javier.

22 days after the hacking incident, Javier was rushed to the hospital in a very serious condition. He had lockjaw and was having convulsions. The attending doctor found that it was caused by tetanus. The next day, Javier died.Issue:

W/N Urbano is liable for the death of JavierHeld:

No. When Javier was brought to the hospital immediately after the hacking incident on October 23, and it was after 22 days that he suffered the symptoms of tetanus. From the records culled, Javier was probably infected with mild tetanus since its symptoms appeared only 22 days after the hacking, and only mild tetanus can incubate for 14 dayd or more. In the case of mild tetanus, the onset time should be more than 6 days. However, Javier died on the 2nd day from the onset time. The more credible conclusion is that at the time Javier’s wound was inflicted by Urbano, the tetanus that killed him was not yet present. In this case, Art. 4 of the RPC does not apply. The proximate cause of the death of Javier is not Urbano’s wrongful act, but his own negligence

Requisites of par. 1 That an intentional felony has been

committed That the wrong done to the aggrieved party

be the direct, natural and logical

consequence of the felony committed by the offender

The felony committed must be the proximate case of the resulting injury Proximate Cause – that cause which, in

natural and continuous consequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred

Proximate legal cause – that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately, or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor

The felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:

There is an active force that intervened between the felony committed and the resulting injury, and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or

The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim

The death of the victim is presumed to be the natural consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, when the following facts are established: That the victim at the time the physical

injuries were inflicted was in normal health That death may be expected from the

physical injuries inflicted



That death ensued within a reasonable time A person is not liable criminally for all possible

consequences which may immediately follow his felonious act, but only for such as are proximate

A supervening event may be the subject of amendment of original information or of a new charge without double jeopardy

Requisites of Impossible Crimes: That the act performed would be an offense

against persons or property That the act was done with evil intent That its accomplishment is inherently

impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual

That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC

Felonies against persons: Parricide Murder Homicide Infanticide Abortion Duel Physical Injuries Rape

Felonies against property: Robbery Brigandage Theft Usurpation Culpable Insolvency Swindling and other deceits Chattel Mortgage

Arson and other crimes involving destruction

Malicious mischief In impossible crimes, the act performed by the

offender cannot produce an offense against persons or property because: The commission of the offense is inherently

impossible legally and/or physically The means employed is either inadequate or

ineffectual The purpose of the law in punishing an

impossible crime is to suppress criminal propensity or criminal tendencies

Intod v CA215 SCRA 52

Facts:In the morning of Feb. 4, 1979, Intod, Pangasian,

Tubio and Daligdis went to Mandaya’s house and asked him to go with them to the house of one Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, they had a meeting with one Aniceto Dumalagan, wherein the ltter said that he wanted Bernardina killed because of a land dispute between them. At 10pm that day, they went to Bernardina’s house armed with heacy-duty firearms. They all fired at Bernardina’s house upon Mandaya’s pointing of the location of the former’s bedroom. It turned out that Bernardina was in another city and that it was her brother-in-law and his family who were in the house. But since no one was staying in her room, nobody got hurt.Issue:

W/N the accused are guilty of an impossible crime rather than attempted murderHeld:



Yes. To be impossible under Art. 4 of the RPC, the act intended by the offender must be by its nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either legal impossibility or physical impossibility. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Physical impossibility, meanwhile, occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime. This case belongs to the 2nd category. They shot at the place where they thought the victim would be, but she was not there so they failed to accomplish their end.

The factual situation in this case presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Art. 4 of the RPC, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.

Art. 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 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 penal 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 the 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.

Requisites of par. 1 The act committed by the accused appears

not punishable by any law But the court deems it proper to repress

such act In that case, the court must render the

proper decision by dismissing the case and acquitting the accused

The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which induce him to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation

Basis of par. 1 There is no crime if there is no law that

punishes the act (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege)

Requisites of par. 2 The court, after trial, finds the accused

guilty The penalty provided by law and which the

court imposes for the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive because:

Accused acted with lesser degree of malice; and/or

No injury or injury caused is of lesser gravity

The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence



The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of Justice, recommending executive clemency

The 2nd par. Of this Article has no application to: Offenses defined and penalized by a special

law Cases involving acts mala prohibita

People v Veneracion249 SCRA 244

Facts:This case involves the rape and murder of Angel

Alquiza. She was found floating along the streets of Manila. There were lacerations on her face and on her genitalia. Her head was also bashed in. Her body was wrapped in a sack and yellow table cloth, ties with a nylon cord with both feet and left hand protruding from it.

The trial court rendered a judgment sentencing all the surviving accused of reclusion perpetua with all the accessories provided for by law.

The City Prosecutor of Manila disagreed with the sentence imposed, praying that the same be modified to the penalty of death, as according to RA 7659Issue:

W/N the trial court was correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, thus going against the letter of RA 7659Held:

No. The trial court judge found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide. The law in force at the time of the commission of he crime was RA 7659, which provides that “when by the reason or by the occasion of the rape,

a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.” While RA 7659 punishes cases of ordinary rape with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, it allows judges the discretion to impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua only in cases of rape with the use of a deadly weapon, or when the rape is committed by two or more persons, or when the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed on the occasion thereof. But the provision of the law that states that consummated rape with homicide shall exact the penalty of death is unequivocal and is not open to the exercise of discretion. The judge should impose the proper penalty and civil liability provided by law.

Art. 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 by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.



Stages of committing a crime: Internal acts

Mere ideas in the mind of a person; not punishable

Mere intention producing no effect is no more a crime than a mere effect without intention

INTENTION and EFFECT must concur External acts

PREPARATORY ACTS – ordinarily not punishable , except when the law provides for their punishment in certain felonies

ACTS OF EXECUTION – punishable under the RPC; attempted, frustrated, consummated

ATTEMPTED FELONY There is an attempt when the offender

begins the commission of a felony directly by overt acts

The offender never passes the SUBJECTIVE PHASE of the offense The subjective phase is the portion of the

acts constituting the crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where he still has control over his acts, including their natural course

Elements: The offender commences the commission

of the felony directly by overt acts He does not perform all the acts of

execution which should produce the felony

The offender’s act is not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance

The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance

“Commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts” Requisites:

That there be external acts That such external acts have direct

connection with the crime intended to be committed

One who takes part in planning a criminal act but desists in its actual commission is exempt from criminal liability BUT desistance should be made BEFORE all

the acts of execution are performed FRUSTRATED FELONY

Elements: The offender performs all the acts of

execution All the acts performed would produce the

felony as a consequence But the felony is not produced By reason of causes independent of the

will of the perpetrator Requisites:

That the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony

That the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator’s will



In frustrated felony, nothing more is left to be done by the offender because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime

Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. – Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against persons or property.

Light felonies – infractions of law for the commission of which, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided

Light felonies punished by the RPC: GR: Light felonies are punishable only when

they have been consummated (REASON: such felonies produce such light and insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with providing a light penalty. If not consummated, the effect is so slight that a penalty isn’t needed) EXCEPTION: Light felonies committed

against persons or property are punishable even if attempted or frustrated (REASON: presupposes in the offender, moral depravity)

Art. 16, par. 2: The following are criminally liable for light felonies: Principals Accompliceso Accessories are not liable for light felonies because in the commission of the same, the social wrong as well as the individual prejudice

is so small that penal sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories

Rules relative to light felonies: Light felonies are punishable only when they

have been consummated (Art. 7) But when light felonies are committed

against persons or property, they are punishable even if they are only in the attempted or frustrated stage of execution (Art. 7)

Only principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies (Art. 16)

Accessories are not liable for light felonies, even if they are committed against persons or property (Art. 16)

Art. 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 therefore.

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.

Generally, conspiracy isn’t a crime except when the law specifically provides a penalty therefore as in treason, rebellion and sedition Reason:

Conspiracy and proposal are only preparatory acts, and the law regards



them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and exceptional cases

GR: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are not punishable EXCEPTION: cases in which the law specially

provides a penalty therefor Requisites of conspiracy:

That 2 or more persons come to an agreement

That the agreement concerned the commission of a felony

That the execution of the felony be decided upon

o The elements of conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence; must be proven beyond reasonable doubt

Requisites of proposal: That a person has decided to commit a

felony That he proposes its execution to some

other person or persons

People v Manuel234 SCRA 532

Facts:Jesus Tolentino met Lucila Manuel in 1984 when

she worked as a receptionist at the Marbella Condominium in Pasay City. She, and two other employees, was brought by their manager to keep company a group of people, among them Tolentino, who were indulged in some kind of gambling. From that day forward, they became lovers. They would meet daily and Tolentino would always give Lucila P1,500 that she

could spend on the gambling table. On February 1985, Segundo Manuel, Lucila’s first cousin, also became her lover even while she maintained her relationship with Tolentino.

On the evening of March 20, 1985, Dominador Santos, Tolentinio’s driver was instructed by him to fetch Lucila. Lucila refused to go with Santos, saying that she preferred to be picked up by Tolentino personally. Santos then returned with his boss. Tolentino and Santos were found shot to death inside the car.

According to Segundo, he did kill Santos and Tolentino, but only in self-defense, and that Lucila had no part in it. It was only according to witness Teresa Manuel, Lucila’s roommate, that the possibility of conspiracy to kill Tolentino between Lucila and Segundo arose.Issue:

W/N conspiracy is attendant in this caseHeld:

No. The elements of conspiracy, like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy itself need not be established by direct evidence, the evidence must be reasonably strong enough to show a community of criminal design. Conspiracy transcends companionship. It arises when the offenders come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The fact of agreement must be clearly and convincingly shown.

Art. 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 Article 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 article.

Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine nor exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided.

This article classifies felonies according to their gravity, which is determined by the penalties attached to them by law

Although the word “any” is used in the first par., when the penalty prescribed for the offense is composed of two or more distinct penalties, the higher/highest of the penalties must be an afflictive penalty

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

Courts having jurisdiction: Grave felonies – RTC

Less grave felonies and light felonies – MTC/MeTC

Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. – Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.

The provisions of the RPC on penalties cannot be applied to offenses punishable under special laws

Special laws amending the RPC are subject to its provisions

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. – The following do not incur any criminal liability:

(1) Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression;Second. Reasonable

necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;

Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

(2) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted



brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.

(3) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

(4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:

First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;

Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

(5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

(6) Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

In stating that the persons mentioned do not incur any criminal liability, this article recognizes the acts of such persons as justified; THERE IS NO CRIME COMMITTED

The circumstances mentioned in this article are matters of defense and it is incumbent upon the accused, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance claimed by him to the satisfaction of the court

SELF-DEFENSE Where the accused invokes self-defense, it

is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself; he must rely on the strength of his won evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution

Self-defense must be proved with certainty by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence that excludes any vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it and it can’t be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but, in itself, is extremely doubtful.

In self-defense, the burden of proof rests upon the accused

Self-defense includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted



but also that of his rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is protected by law

Because it would be quite impossible for the State in all cases to prevent aggression upon its citizens, and offer protection to the person unjustly attacked, penal law makes self-defense lawful

The law on self-defense finds justification in man’s natural instinct to protect, repel, and save his person or rights from impending danger or peril (SELF-PRESERVATION) To the CLASSICISTS, lawful defense is

grounded on the impossibility on the part of the State to avoid a present unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked, and therefore it is inconceivable for the State to require that the innocent succumb to an unlawful aggression without resistance

To the POSITIVISTS, lawful defense is an exercise of a right, an act of social justice done to repel the attack of an aggression

REQUISITES OF SELF-DEFENSE:1. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION This requisite, along with the second, is

common to self-defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger

There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself

For the right of self-defense to exist, it is necessary that we be assaulted or that we be attacked, or at least, that we be

threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner

If there is no unlawful aggression, THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT OR REPEL

There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life or limb or right is either actual or imminent

Actual – the danger must be present, that is, actually in existence

Imminent – that the danger is on the point of happening; it is not required that the attack already begins, for it may be too late

Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient; neither is an intimidating or threatening attitude

In case of threat, the same must be offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause an injury

Unlawful aggression refers to an attack that has actually broken out or materialized or at the very least is clearly imminent; it cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture

To constitute unlawful aggression, it is necessary that an attack or material aggression, an offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury shall have been made

Since the face represents a person and his dignity, slapping it is a serious personal attack; it is a physical assault coupled with a willful disregard, nay, a defiance, of an individual’s personality



When a person who was insulted, slightly injured or threatened made a strong retaliation by attacking the one who gave the insult, caused the slight injury or made the threat, the former became the offender, and the insult, injury or threat should be considered only as a provocation mitigating his liability

In order to justify homicide on the ground of self-defense, it is essential that the killing of the deceased by the defendant be simultaneous with the attack made by the deceased, or at least, both acts succeeded each other without appreciable interval of time

The nature, character, location, and extent of the wound of the accused allegedly inflicted by the injured party may belie claim of self-defense

When unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists, because the aggressor runs away, the one making a defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor

If it clear that the purpose of the aggressor in retreating is to take a more advantageous position to insure the success of the attack already begun by him, the unlawful aggression is considered still continuing, and the one making a defense has a right to pursue him in his retreat and to disable him

There is no unlawful aggression in a concerted or agreed fight because each of the protagonists is at once assailant

and assaulted and neither can invoke the right of self-defense, because aggression which is an incident in the fight is bound to arise from one or the other of the combatants

When parties mutually agree to fight, it is immaterial who attacks or receives the wound first, for the first act of force is an incident of the fight itself and in no wise is it an unwarranted and unexpected aggression which alone can legalize self-defense

When there was a mutual agreement to fight, an aggression ahead of the stipulated time and place would be unlawful

Where the accused is where he has the right to be, the law does not require him to retreat when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.

If one flees from an aggressor, he runs the risk of being attacked in the back

Defense of property is not such of importance as right to life, and defense of property ca be invoked as a justifying circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of one entrusted with said property

2. REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO PREVENT OR REPEL IT



This requisite, along with the first, is common to self-defense, defense of a relative, and defense of a stranger.

This requisite presupposes the existence of unlawful aggression, which is either imminent or actual

This requisite of defense means that there be a reasonable necessity of the course of action taken by the person making a defense, and that there be a reasonable necessity of the means used

The reasonableness of either or both necessities depends on the existence of unlawful aggression and upon the nature and extent of the aggression

In emergencies where the person or life of another is imperiled, human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation

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

Whether or not the means employed is reasonable, will depend upon the NATURE and QUALITY of the weapon used by the aggressor, his PHYSICAL CONDITION, CHARACTER, SIZE and other circumstances, and those of the person defending himself, and also the place and occasion of the assault

Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one defending himself and

that of the aggressor is NOT REQUIRED, because the person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind to think, to calculate, and to choose which weapon to use

Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply MATERIAL COMMENSURABILITY between the means of attack and defense; the law requires RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE, which includes the IMMINENT DANGER present to the defender, and the INSTINCT, MORE THAN REASON, that moves or impels the defense, the PROPORTIONATENESS THEREOF does not depend upon the harm done, but RESTS UPON THE IMMINENT DANGER OF SUCH INJURY

Although one weapon is deadlier than another, the use of a deadlier weapon in self-defense must be deemed reasonable if it cannot be shown that the person assaulted (1) HAD OTHER AVAILABLE MEANS, or (2) IF THERE WERE OTHER MEANS, HE COULD COOLLY CHOOSE THE LESS DEADLY WEAPON TO REPEL THE ASSAULT

Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel unlawful aggression must be liberally construed in favor of law-abiding citizens

A police officer, in the exercise of his duties, is not required to afford a person attacking him, the opportunity for a fair and equal struggle; his duty requires him



to stand his ground and overcome his opponent

3. LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION ON THE PART OF THE PERSON DEFENDING HIMSELF

To be entitled to the benefit of self-defense as a justifying circumstance, the one defending himself must not have given cause for the aggression by his unjust conduct or by inciting or provoking the assailant

Cases in which this requisite is considered present:

When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself; or

When, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; or

When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by the person defending himself; or

When, even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression

The provocation must be sufficient, which means that it should be proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir the aggressor to its commission

Gotis v PeopleGR 157201, Sept. 14, 2007

Facts:

On the evening of Oct. 21, 1990, brothers Nemrod and Nahom Gotis arrived at Eddie Bautista’s coconut plantation in Sorsogon, armed with bolos, looking for Serafin Gotis. Serafin’s wife, Carmen, and daughter, Nilda were there and when they were asked by the brothers where Serafin was, they weren’t able to answer and because of this, Nahom pointed his bolo at Nilda and said, “We will kill you father!” Carmen and Nilda then went to the house of Adolfo Malinao to wait for Serafin. When he arrived, Carmen told him what happened and prevented him from going home, but Serafin insisted that they do.

On their way home, they had to pass by Nahom’s house, and when they did, Serafin called for Nahom and asked him to come out. When Nahom heard Serafin, he immediately called Nemrod for help. Nemrod came over and advised Serafin to go home, but he refused to leave, and instead, attempted to hack Nemrod and tried to enter Nahom’s house. Nahom then struck Serafin on the head with a bolo while Nemrod entered the house to look for a bolo of his own.

After being hit, Serafin ran away but Nemrod pursued him and hit him several times on the back and arm. Carmen followed them and cried for help, but before Jose, Serafin’s brother, could help, Nemrod poked a Batangas knife on his neck, which didn’t connect because Jose was able to block the attack with his arm. Serafin was brought to a hospital but died during treatment.

During trial, Nemrod entered a plea of self-defense. Issue:

W/N self-defense can be appreciated as a justifying circumstance in this caseHeld:



No. The first element of self-defense, which is unlawful aggression, is not attendant in this case. The unlawful aggression against Nemrod’s life had already ceased when Serafin the former went inside his brother’s house while the latter ran away. Unlawful aggression is a primordial element of self-defense. To be appreciated, the unlawful aggression must be a continuing circumstance or must have been existing at the time the defense is made. A person making a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor when the unlawful aggression has ceased. The moment Serafin turned and ran away, there was no longer any danger on Nemrod or Nahom’s life and therefore, there was no longer any necessity to defend himself by pursuing and attacking Serafin.

People v TusonGR 106345, Sept. 16, 1996

Facts:Brothers Loreto and Ceferino Villarin were drunk

and tipsy on the night of Oct. 11, 1990, after celebrating another brother’s birthday at Forest Hills. At around 10:45 pm, Ceferino saw Loreto, who was clad in his underwear, make his way to the common lavatory shared by the families in the compound they were living in Quezon City. Amongst the families, who were all of kin, living in said compound was Romeo Tuson. According to Ceferino, when Loreto was in front of Tuson’s house on his way to the bathroom, he was suddenly shot in the neck by the latter who was standing by the door of his slightly-elevated house. Ceferino rushed to rescue his brother was shot likewise in the face by Tuson.

Ceferino’s wife, Evelyn and nephew, Hernani Villeta ran to the door of their house upon hearing the first gunshot and saw Tuson shoot Ceferino in the face. Loreto’s wife, Rosalinda heard everything but was to scared to look out. According to the witnesses, when Ceferino was already down, he was threatened by Tuson to stay down unless he wanted to be shot again. Hernani pleaded with Tuson to stop. Tuson then fled from the police and went into hiding for 9 days. Ceferino, meanwhile, was saved just in time. Loreto didn’t survive.

According to Tuson, he shot the brothers in self-defense. He said that during that night, he was sleeping with his wife, Teresita, and their 2 children when Loreto barged into their one-room house and ordered him to stand up. He said that he heard Ceferino fro outside the house shouting, “he has a gun.” Tuson claims that he tried to get the gun from Loreto and while grappling for possession of the gun, they both fell bear the three-step stairway, with Loreto on top of him and the gun went off. He adds that upon seeing Ceferino armed with a bladed weapon, he also shot the latter. His story was corroborated by his wife and older sister, however, no bladed weapon was recovered from the crime scene.Issue:

W/N the justifying circumstance of self-defense is attendant in this caseHeld:

No. There was no unlawful aggression in this case. According to Tuson, the brothers were shouting threats and banged on his door but these acts hardly constitute unlawful aggression, considering that Tuson was within the security of his home, which was surrounded by neighbors who also happened to be close relatives. By Tuson’s account, Loreto barged into his house and



ordered him to stand up, which is far from threatening. Without the finding of unlawful aggression, the crimes charged can never be justified, for there is nothing to prevent or repel even if there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of Tuson.

People v GalasGR 114007, Sept. 24, 1996

Facts:On December 23, 1985, at around 9pm, Federico

Gamayon and his 15-year old son Crisanto and 6-year old nephew, Joemar, were on their way home after selling copra to a certain Gabileo. When they passes in front of the house of Gonzalo Galas, Federico was called by Gonzalo, and when the former approached, the latter suddenly hacked him with a bolo. Federico fell to the ground, then Josue and Noe Galas, Dimas Acma, and Maximo Delgado ganged up on him. Gonzalo and Josue were armed with bolos, while the others had pieces of wood. Federico was unable to fight back and the two children, in fear, ran from the scene and weren’t able to help Federico. Crisanto was able to return to crime scene and report the incident to the police only the day after.

According to Galas and his friends, on that night, he was away from his house tending the carabaos when he was called and challenged to a fight by Federico. When he approached Federico, the latter stabbed him with a bolo. He then grabbed his own bolo and used it to defend himself. When Federico fell, Galas went home to ask help to get to the doctor. He asserted that he had no previous quarrel with Federico and that the latter was drunk that night, and invoked self-defense during trial. He also challenges the credibility of the witnesses

on the grounds that Crisanto was the victim’s father and that Joemar was only 6 years old at the time of the incident.Issue:

W/N self-defense is present in this caseHeld:

No. The rule is unbending that where the accused admits the killing of the victim but invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in defense of himself. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence for, even if the latter were weak, it would not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing.

Furthermore, assuming that Galas’ statement of facts was the real one, that Federico came to his house and challenged him to a fight, accepting the challenge and immediately approaching Federico, he placed himself in an unlawful status. Settled is the rule that when parties mutually agree to fight, it is immaterial who attacks or received the wound first, for the first act of force is an incident of the fight itself and in no way is it an unwarranted and unexpected aggression which alone can legalize self-defense. A personal fight freely and voluntarily accepted creates an illegal state of affairs which comes within the sanction of criminal law, during which no application can be made to either party of the circumstances modifying criminal liability, arising from facts or accidents, physical or otherwise, of the fight itself.

DEFENSE OF RELATIVES Relatives that can be defended:

Spouse



Ascendants Descendants Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers

and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees

Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and brother or sister-in-law

Death of the spouse terminates the relationship by affinity unless the marriage has resulted in issue who is still living, in which case the relationship of affinity continues

Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree

Consanguinity refers to blood relatives Brothers and sisters = 2nd civil degree Uncle/aunt and niece/nephew = 3rd

civil degree First cousins = 4th civil degree

The justification of defense of relatives by reason of which the defender is not criminally liable is founded not only upon a humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the impulse of blood which impels men to rush, on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue of those close to them by ties of blood

REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES:1. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION Refer to discussion on self-defense Can be made to depend upon the honest

belief of the one making a defense


Refer to discussion on self-defense

3. IN CASE THE PROVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE PERSON ATTACKED, THE ONE MAKING A DEFENSE HAD NO PART THEREIN

There is still a legitimate defense of relative even if the relative being defended has given provocation, provided that the one defending such relative has no part in the provocation

Although the provocation prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not reach the defender who took no part in it, because he was prompted by some noble or generous sentiment in protecting and saving a relative

DEFENSE OF A STRANGER The RPC requires that the defense of a

stranger be actuated by a disinterested or generous motive, when it puts down “revenge, resentment, or other evil motive” as illegitimate

Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives mentioned in par. 2 of this article, is considered a stranger

REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF A STRANGER1. UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION Refer to discussion on self-defense




Refer to discussion on self-defense

3. THE PERSON DEFENDING BE NOT INDUCED BY REVENGE, RESENTMENT, OR OTHER EVIL MOTIVE

Even if a person has a standing grudge against the assailant, if he enters upon the defense of a stranger out of generous motive to save the stranger from harm or possible death, this requisite still exists

This requisite will be lacking if such person was prompted by his grudge against the assailant, because the alleged defense of the stranger would only be a pretext

Furnishing a weapon to one in serious danger of being throttled is defense of stranger

AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY “Damage to another” covers injury to

persons and damage to property If the evil sought to be avoided is merely

expected or may happen in the future, par. 4 of this article is not applicable

NB: the instinct of self preservation will always make one feel that his own safety is of greater importance than that of another

The greater evil should not be brought about by the negligence or imprudence of the actor

The evil which brought about the greater evil sought to be avoided must not result from a violation of law by the actor

Although as a rule, there is no civil liability in justifying circumstances, it is only in this paragraph where there is civil liability, but such civil liability is borne by the persons benefited

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE REQUISITES:

1. THAT THE ACCUSED ACTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF A DUTY OR IN THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF A RIGHT OR OFFICE

2. THAT THE INJURY CAUSED OR THE OFFENSE COMMITTED BE THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY OR THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHT OR OFFICE

Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, protect himself from bodily harm, he is never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating him with wanton violence, or in resorting to dangerous means when the arrest could be effected otherwise “No violence or unnecessary force shall

be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary



for his detention” (Rule 113, Sec. 2, par. 2, Rules of Court)

Actual invasion of property may consist of a mere disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession If it is mere disturbance of possession,

force may be used against it at any time as long as it continues, even beyond the prescriptive period for an action of forcible entry

If the invasion consists of a real dispossession, force to regain possession can be used only immediately after the dispossession

If the property is immovable, there should be no delay in the use of force to recover it; a delay, even if excusable will bar the right to the use of force

Once the usurper’s possession has become firm by the lapse of time, the lawful possessor must resort to the competent authority to recover his property

OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE REQUISITES:

1. THAT AN ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED BY A SUPERIOR

Both the person who gives the order and the person who executed it, must be acting within the limitations prescribed by law

2. THAT SUCH ORDER MUST BE FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable

The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order of his superior, provided he is not aware of the illegality of the order, and he is not negligent

No criminal intent and no negligence = no crime

3. THAT THE MEANS USED BY THE SUBORDINATE TO CARRY OUT SAID ORDER IS LAWFUL

Art. 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 imbecility or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one fo 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

A child fifteen years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability under RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)



(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 Article 80 of this Code.When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformity 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 Article 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.

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

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

(7) Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when

** Impliedly repealed by RA 9344

prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.

Exempting circumstances are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent

This exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent; or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused

AN IMBECILE OR AN INSANE PERSON, UNLESS THE LATTER HAS ACTED DURING A LUCID INTERVAL The exempting circumstance of insanity or

imbecility is based on the complete absence of intelligence, an element of voluntariness

An imbecile is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age; he is one who is deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime

In order that the exempting circumstance of insanity may be taken into account, it is necessary that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence while committing the act, that is, that the accused be deprived of reason; that he acts without the least discernment; or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will



Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not enough, especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his acts

The defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, because the presumption is always in favor of sanity

In order to ascertain a person’s mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind during a reasonable period both before and after that time The evidence of insanity must refer to

the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution

Direct testimony is not required, nor are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense

To prove insanity, circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, will suffice

If the insanity is only occasional or intermittent, the presumption of its continuance does not arise

When the offender was sane at the time of the commission of the crime, but he become insane at the time of the trial, he is liable criminally but the trial will be suspended until the mental capacity of the accused is restored in order to afford him a fair trial

The court shall order the imbecile or insane person’s confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave

without first obtaining the permission of the court But the court has no power to permit the

insane person to leave the asylum without first obtaining the opinion of the Director of Health that he may be released without danger

People v Ambal100 SCRA 325

Facts:Honorato Ambal, on January 20, 1977, went to the

house of the barangay captain, and upon seeing that he was not there, confessed to the latter’s wife that he had killed his own wife, Felicula. He then boarded a tricycle, went to the police station, and confessed his crime. The barangay captain found Felicula under flowering plants. She died 40 minutes after having been brought to the hospital.

During trial, Honorato pleaded insanity. One doctor found that he was suffering from psychosis during the time of the attack, even though he was normal before and after it. A second doctor found that he was suffering from psychoneurosis, but that he was not insane. He was normal, but nervous. He had no mental disorder.Issue:

W/N the plea of insanity may be appreciatedHeld:

No. The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary. The law always presumes all acts to be voluntary. It is improper to presume that acts were executed unconsciously. We have adopted the rule based on Spanish jurisprudence, that in order for a person to be



regarded as an imbecile within the meaning of Art. 12 of the RPC, he must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time of committing the crime. In this case, the alleged insanity of Ambal was not substantiated by any sufficient evidence. The presumption of sanity was not overthrown. He was not completely bereft of reason or discernment and freedom of will when he mortally wounded his wife. He was not suffering from any mental disease or defect.

People v NunezJuly 23, 1997

Facts:Two boys, Joseph Rivera and Neil Quillosa were

kidnapped by Michael Nunez and Rodolfo Cayetano. A ransom was asked for the release of the two boys and when they refused to cooperate in making a tape, they were brought to the lake and the poorer of the two, Neil, was bound at his arms and legs and left there to drown. After this, Joseph, out of fear, agreed to record a tape to convince his parents to pay the ransom. One day, however, he was left alone by both kidnappers and he escaped, called up his grandmother, and was subsequently saved.

The court found both men guilty but Cayetano interposed the defense of imbecility, claiming that he had the mental faculties of a 6-10 year old child, and should be proceeded against according to the Child and Youth Welfare Code, or not at all.Issue:

W/N Cayetano could be said to be an imbecile under the definition of the RPCHeld:

No. Imbecility under Art. 12 of the RPC, is defined as feeblemindedness or a mental condition approaching that of one who is insane. It is analogous to childishness and dotage. An imbecile, within the meaning of Art. 12, is one who must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. The law presumes everyone to be of sound mind. In this case, the presumption of sanity was not overthrown.

People v Dungo199 SCRA 860

Facts:Rosalino, on March 16, 1987, stabbed one Belen

Sigua to death in her office. During trial, he pleaded insanity and presented several witnesses, including doctors from the National Mental Hospital, who all said that he was suffering from organic mental disorder secondary to cerebro-vascular accident or stroke.

It appears that he was working in Lebanon a few years back, and in Riyadh a few months after and while in Riyadh, suffered a stroke. The doctors suggest that this event was what triggered the mental disability, since when he returned to the Philippines, his attitude had changed considerably.

The prosecution claimed that during the commission of the crime, it was a lucid interval for Rosalino because when he was being treated in the mental hospital, he was shouting that he killed Mrs. Sigua.Issue:

W/N the defense of insanity can be appreciatedHeld:



No. Insanity in our law exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence. The statement of one of the witnesses that the accused knew the nature of what he had done makes it highly doubtful that he was insane when he committed the act charged.

Generally, in criminal cases, every doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. But in the defense of insanity, doubt as to the fact of insanity should be resolved in favor of sanity. The burden of proving the affirmative allegation of insanity rests on the defense. The quantum of evidence required to overthrow the presumption of sanity is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Insanity is a defense in a confession and avoidance and as such must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Insanity must be clearly and satisfactorily proved in order to acquit the accused. In this case, Rosalino has not successfully discharged the burden of overcoming the presumption that he committed the crime as charged freely, knowingly, and intelligently.

A PERSON UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE The exempting circumstance of minority is

based also on the complete absence of intelligence

This circumstance is to be understood as covering persons nine years old or less

RA 9344 raised the age of absolute irresponsibility from 9 to 15 years of age, and the child shall be subject to an intervention program***

A PERSON OVER NINE YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER FIFTEEN UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, IN WHICH CASE, SUCH MINOR

*** Sec. 20, RA 9344 (Ibid)

SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 80 OF THIS CODE The exempting circumstance of minority is

based also on the complete absence of intelligence

This provision has been deemed repealed by the provision of RA 9344, declaring a child 15 years of age and under as exempt from criminal responsibility

Under RA 9344, a minor under 18 but above 15 must have acted with discernment to incur criminal liability It is incumbent upon the prosecution to

prove that such minor, over 15 and under 18 years of age, acted with discernment

The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under 15 years of age but over 9, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial

The officer or court called upon to make a finding as to the age of the accused should state in the record, not merely a general statement of the personal appearance of the accused, but the particular fact or facts



concerning personal appearance which would lead such officer or court to believe that his age was as stated by said officer or court

ANY PERSON WHO, WHILE PERFORMING A LAWFUL ACT WITH DUE CARE, CAUSES AN INJURY BY MERE ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT OR INTENTION OF CAUSING IT This exempting circumstance is based on

lack of negligence and intent. Under this circumstance, a person does not commit either an intentional felony or a culpable felony

This exempting circumstance refers to purely accidental cases where there was absolutely no intention to commit the wrong done; it contemplates a situation where a person is in the act of doing something legal, exercising due care, diligence and prudence but in the process, produces harm or injury to someone or something not in the least in the mind of the actor – an accidental result flowing out of a legal act

Elements of this provision:1. A person is performing a lawful act;2. With due care;3. He causes injury to another by mere

accident;4. Without fault or intention of causing it

The person performing a lawful act must do so with due care, without fault or negligence

An accident is something that happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will,

lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences If the consequences are plainly

foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence

ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE This exempting circumstance is based in the

complete absence of freedom, an element of voluntariness

This circumstance presupposes that a person is compelled by means of force or violence to commit a crime

Elements:1. That the compulsion is by means of

physical force2. That the physical force must be

irresistible3. That the physical force must come from a

third person Before a force can be considered to be

irresistible, it must produce such an effect upon the individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a crime

The duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm of the act is not done

The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat



ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY This circumstance is also based on the

complete absence of freedom (actus me invito factus non est meus actus – an act done by me against my will is not my act)

This exempting circumstance also presupposes that a person is compelled to commit a crime by another, but the compulsion is by means of intimidation or threat, not force or violence

Elements:1. That the threat which causes the fear is

of an evil greater than or at least equal to, that which he is required to commit

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

For the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear to be invoked, the following requisites must concur:1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear2. The fear must be real and imminent3. The fear of an injury greater than or at

least equal to that committed Duress as a valid defense should be based

on real, imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and should not be speculative, fanciful, or remote fear

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

ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN ACT REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE This circumstance exempts the accused

from criminal liability because he acts without intent, the third condition of voluntariness in intentional felony

Elements:1. That an act is required by the law to be

done2. That a person fails to perform such act3. That his failure to perform such act was

due to some lawful or insuperable cause ABSOLUTORY CAUSES

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

Other absolutory causes: Spontaneous desistance during

attempted stage and no crime under another provision of the RPC or other penal law is committed

Light felony is only attempted or frustrated, and is not against persons or property

The accessory is a relative of the principal

Legal grounds for arbitrary detention Legal grounds for trespass The crime of theft, swindling, malicious

mischief is committed against a relative When only slight or less serious physical

injuries are inflicted by the person who surprised his spouse or daughter in the



act of sexual intercourse with another person

Marriage of the offender with the offended party when the crime committed is rape, abduction, seduction, or acts of lasciviousness

InstigationPeople v DoriaGR 125299 January 22, 1999

Facts:Doria was arrested through an entrapment

operation whereby the police officers bought one kilo of marijuana for P1,600. During trial, Doria interposed that he was induced by the police authorities and that he really had no intention of selling marijuana to anyoneIssue:

W/N an arrest through an entrapment operation is validHeld:

Yes. Entrapment in the Philippines is different from entrapment in other States. In the US, for example, entrapment is carried out through the inducement by a police operative of a person for the latter to commit a crime, thus making the police officer a co-principal. In the Philippines, this is called instigation, and is frowned upon by law.

Entrapment in the Philippines are more commonly known as buy-bust operation wherein police officers pretend to buy narcotics from certain people who have been pointed out as drug pushers. In our form of entrapment, there is no form of forcing the person to commit the crime, as he commits it of his own accord.

Art. 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.

(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.

(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.

Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty

Mitigating circumstances only reduce the penalty but do not change the nature of the crime

Classes of mitigating circumstances: Ordinary mitigating

Those enumerated in subsection 1-10 of this Article

Privileged mitigating Art. 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. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.

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

Art. 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.

Art. 64 - Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed



of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:xxx5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.xxx

Distinctions between ordinary mitigating and privileged mitigating: As related to mitigating circumstances:

OM: susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance

PM: cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances

As to imposable penalty: OM: apply penalty in its minimum period,

in case of divisible penalty PM: impose penalty lower by one or two

degrees THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING

CHAPTER WHEN ALL THE REQUISITES NECESSARY TO JUSTIFY THE ACT OR TO EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES ARE NOT ATTENDANT

This clause has reference to justifying circumstances and exempting circumstances

In the cases of self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression must be present because if there is no unlawful aggression, there could be no defense, whether complete or incomplete

In cases of the justifying circumstance of avoidance of a greater evil or injury, the requisite of the evil sought to be avoided must always be present

THAT THE OFFENDER IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER 70 YEARS. IN THE CASE OF THE MINOR, HE SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 80 (now Art. 192, PD 603) This mitigating circumstance is based on the

diminution of intelligence, a condition of voluntariness

Art. 13, par. 2 of the RPC has been repealed by the provision of RA 9344 declaring a child above 15 but below 18 to be exempt from criminal liability unless the child acted with discernment

Children in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion programs without undergoing court proceedings subject to the following conditions:1. Where the imposable penalty for the

crime committed is not more than 6 years imprisonment, the law enforcement office or Punong Barangay with the assistance of the local social welfare and development officer or other



members of the Local Councils for the Protection of Children (LCPC) shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and conciliation and, where appropriate, adopt indigenous modes of conflict resolution in accordance with the best interest of the child.

2. In victimless cases where the imposable penalty is not more than 6 years of imprisonment, the local social welfare and development officer shall meet with the child and the parents or guardians for the development of the appropriate diversion and rehabilitation program

3. Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed exceeds 6 years imprisonment, diversion measures may be resorted to only by the court

DIVERSION refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law in the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to formal court proceedings

DIVERSION PROGRAMS refers to the program that the child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after he/she is found responsible for an offense without resorting to formal court proceedings

The fact that the offender is 70 years of age or above is only a generic mitigating circumstance except:

1. When he committed an offense punishable by death, that penalty shall not be imposed (reclusion perpetua)

2. When death sentence is already imposed, it shall be suspended and commuted (reclusion perpetua)

THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG AS THAT COMMITTED The basis of this exempting circumstance is

that intent, an element of voluntariness in intentional felony, is diminished

This circumstance an be taken into account only when the facts proven show that there is a notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its consequences

Intention, being an internal state, must be judge by external acts

It is the intention of the offender at the moment when he committed the crime which is considered

This exempting circumstance is not applicable to felonies by negligence because in such cases, there is no intent on the part of the offender

Ramos-Andan v PeopleGR 136388, March 14, 2006

Facts:Anicia Ramos-Andan and Potenciana Nieto went to

the house of Elizabeth Calderon and persuaded her to sell her 18-carat diamond ring to them. Elzabeth agreed and in turn, Potenciana drew three post-dated checks. Inasmuch as all three checks were payable to cash,



Elizabeth required Anicia to endorse them, which she did. She also affixed her signature on the receipt evidencing the sale.

When Elizabeth went to deposit the checks upon maturity to the drawee bank, said checks bounced for the reason “account closed.” Issue:

W/N Anicia is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack intention to commit so grave a wrongHeld:

No. Anicia knew of the plan of Potenciana to induce and defraud Elizabeth. In fact, she was the one who mediated the sale, and she was the one who directly and personally negotiated it. It was she who handed the checks to Elizabeth and endorsed them as payment for the ring. She employed fraud, and that is why Elizabeth parted with her ring. Obviously, such mitigating circumstance has no place here.

THAT SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT ON THE PART OF THE OFFENDED PARTY IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE ACT This exempting circumstance is based on

the diminution of intelligence and intent Provocation is any unjust or improper

conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone

Requisites:1. That the provocation must be sufficient

“Sufficient” means adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong and must accordingly be proportionate to its gravity

As to whether or not a provocation is sufficient depends on the act constituting the provocation, the social standing of the person provoked, the place and the time when the provocation is made

2. That it must originate from the offended party

3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act

People v Rivero242 SCRA 354

Facts:Rivero was the son-in-law of Leon Gutierrez. On

March 18, 1982, Leon was found dead thirty meters from Rivero’s house. He had numerous bolo wounds, and one in particular at the back, which, according to the doctor who conducted the autopsy, could have very well the blow that made it impossible for Leon to defend himself.

Rivero, upon surrendering, admitted that he killed Leon, but argued that he did so in self-defense, because when he told Leon that he was leaving her daughter, Leon told him to rethink, lest he wanted to die.Issue:

W/N there self-defense is attendant in this caseHeld:

No. Culling from the autopsy reports, the first wound was the one on Leon’s back. This tells us that he was attacked from behind. Also, Rivero had no wounds or injuries on him, despite being the smaller man between him and Rivero.

But there is a mitigating circumstance present in this case since the threat of Leon to Rivero could be and



is treated as sufficient provocation on the part of the victim. Rivero might have thought that Leon was going to stick to his word of killing him if Rivero left her daughter, and therefore prevented that possibility by eliminating the threat to his life.

THAT THE ACT WAS COMMITTED IN THE IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE TO THE ONE COMMITTING THE FELONY, HIS SPOUSE, ASCENDANTS, DESCENDANTS, LEGITIMATE, NATURAL OR ADOPTED BROTHER OR SISTERS, OR RELATIVES BY AFFINITY WITHIN THE SAME DEGREES This mitigating circumstance is based on the

diminution of the conditions of voluntariness 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 degrees

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

The greater leniency in the case of vindication as compared to provocation is due undoubtedly to the fact that it concerns the honor of a person, an offense which is more worthy of consideration than mere spite against the one giving the provocation or threat

The question whether or not a certain personal offense is grave must be decided by the court having in mind the social standing of the person, the place, and the time when the insult was made

Vindication of a grave offense and passion or obfuscation cannot be counted separately and independently

Bacabac v PeopleGR 149372, Sept. 11, 2007

Facts:Jonathan and Edzel, nephews of Ricardo Bacabac,

herein accused were purportedly mauled and manhandled by a group of boys during a dance in their town. A witness to the mauling, went to the house of the Councilor of their district, Jose Talanquines, who was Edzel’s father and told him what was happening. Jose and Ricardo then went to confront the group. Upon meeting them, Ricardo fired a warning shot and immediately thereafter, Jose sprayed the boys with bullets from his armalite gun. The ones who were hit died due to the wounds caused by the armalite rifle.Issue:

W/N Ricardo is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offenseHeld:

No. For such mitigating circumstance to be credited, the act should be committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense 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. The offense committed



against Edzel was hitting his ear with a stick, which is hardly a grave offense.

THAT OF HAVING ACTED UPON AN IMPULSE SO POWERFUL AS NATURALLY TO HAVE PRODUCED PASSION OR OBFUSCATION When there are causes naturally producing

in a person powerful excitement, he loses his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his willpower

Elements:1. The accused acted upon an impulse2. The impulse must be so powerful that it

naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him

Requisites:1. That there be an act, both unlawful and

sufficient to produce such a condition of mind

2. 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

The crime committed must b the result of a sudden impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury

Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments

People v Tiongco236 SCRA 458

Facts:

On March 20, 1991, Eduardo Tiongco was watching television at his house when the ballcaster of his swivel chair broke. He called for his stepson, Francis to get a new ballcaster. Francis, at that time, was still sleeping and didn’t respond. He woke Francis angrily and repeated his orders. Francis got up and proceeded to the bathroom to brush his teeth. This infuriated Eduardo and when Francis passed him in the hall, he beat Francis up. While he was being pacified by the other people in the house, Francis went out. Eduardo just couldn’t be stopped and he boarded a tricycle and went to where Francis was, carrying a gun. He confronted Francis and pointed the gun at the latter and when Francis ran away, he shot him. Eduardo then went to where Francis was lying down, he again pointed his gun at Francis and kicked him. Francis died in the hospital because he bled out due to the gunshot wound.Issue:

W/N Eduardo is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscationHeld:

No. What irked him was Francis’ slow response to his instructions to buy a ballcaster. The anger of Eduardo at Francis did not arise from lawful sentiments, the delay of Francis in obeying Eduardo’s request to buy a ballcaster being too trivial a matter as to fairly and justly cause such over-reaction on the part of Eduardo.

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



The basis for these mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty is the lesser perversity of the offender

Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or his agents Requisites:

That the offender had not been actually arrested

That the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latter’s agent

That the surrender was voluntary What the law considers as mitigating is

the voluntary surrender of the accused before his arrest, showing either acknowledgement of his guilt or an intention to save the authorities from the trouble and expense that his search and capture would require

When the accused surrendered only after the warrant of arrest had been served upon him, it is not mitigating

A “person in authority” is one directly vested with jurisdiction: a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws

An “agent of a person in authority” is one 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

Voluntary confession guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution Requisites:

That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt

That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case

That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution

A conditional plea of guilty is not a mitigating circumstance

People v QuimzonGR 133541, April 14, 2004

Facts:On March 7, 1992, Marlo Casiong and some

friends were at a dance party in the social hall of their town. That evening, he had an altercation with several people, including Quimzon. Quimzon and his friends started attacking Marlo with bolos until he died of his injuries before his sister and their friend were able to bring him to the hospital.

The trial court found the accused guilty, but appreciated modifying circumstances. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender when Quimzon allegedly surrendered to the police in Leyte on August 18, 1994.Issue:

W/N the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be appreciated in this caseHeld:

No. For the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the accused must satisfactorily comply with three requisites: (1) he has not actually been arrested; (2) he surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agents; and (3)



the surrender is voluntary. The surrender in this case was far from being spontaneous and unconditional. The warrant of arrest was issued on July 17, 1992, and all the accused remained at large. It took Quimzon two years before surrendering to the police. Before his surrender, he filed a Motion to Fix Bail Bond without submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court. This act may be considered as a condition set by him before he surrenders to proper authorities.

THAT THE OFFENDER IS DEAF AND DUMB, BLIND OR OTHERWISE SUFFERING FROM SOME PHYSICAL DEFECT WHICH THIS RESTRICTS HIS MEANS OF ACTION, DEFENSE, OR COMMUNICATION WITH HIS FELLOW BEINGS This paragraph does not distinguish

between educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons

SUCH ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER AS WOULD DIMINISH THE EXERCISE OF THE WILL-POWER OF THE OFFENDER WITHOUT HOWEVER DEPRIVING HIM OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF HIS ACTS Requisites:

1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his willpower

2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts

People v VillanuevaGR 172697, Sept. 25, 2007

Facts:In the afternoon of January 21, 2000, Reynaldo

Villanueva killed his niece, Angelica, and mauled his nephews, Rexie and Enrique. Reynaldo pleaded insanity

and claimed that he did not know that he killed his niece and that he had hurt his nephews. He was, however, able to narrate the events prior to the incident, from where he went, and who he met.

Dr. Dy testified that Reynaldo was suffering from a mental disorder classified as paranoid schizophrenia.Issue:

W/N the mitigating circumstance of illness diminishing the will power is attendant in this caseHeld:

Yes. There is no dispute that Reynaldo has a history of mental illness, which was characterized by intermittent episodes of psychotic signs and symptoms. Such illness diminished the exercise of Reynaldo’s willpower without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.

AND, FINALLY, ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE OF A SIMILAR NATURE AND ANALOGOUS TO THOSE ABOVE-MENTIONED This paragraph authorizes the court to

consider in favor of the accused any other circumstance of a similar and analogous nature

Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:

(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 the 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 the 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, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).

(21) That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commissions.

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

These circumstances are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by: The motivating power itself The place of commission The means and ways employed The time The personal circumstances of the offender,

or of the offended party Kinds of aggravating circumstances:

Generic – can generally apply to all crimes



Specific – applies only to particular crimes (pars. 1-14, 18-20, except dwelling)

Qualifying – changes the nature of the crime Inherent – those that must of necessity

accompany the commission of the crime Differences between a qualifying aggravating

circumstance and a generic aggravating circumstance: As to imposable penalty

QA: gives the crime its proper and exclusive name and metes out no other penalty than that specially prescribed by law for said “new” crime

GA: increases the penalty up to the maximum period

Vis-à-vis mitigating circumstances QA: cannot be offset by a mitigating

circumstance GA: may be compensated by a mitigating

circumstance As to allegation in the information

QA: must be alleged in the information, if not alleged, it is only a generic aggravating circumstance

GA: even if not alleged in the information, may be proved over the objection of the defense

Aggravating circumstances which do not have the effect of increasing the penalty: Aggravating circumstances which:

In themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law

Are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor

Any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime committed to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof

Aggravating circumstances which arise: (a) from the moral attributes of he offender, or (b) from his private relations with the offended party, or (c) from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant

The circumstance which consist (1) in the material execution of the act, or (2) in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein

An aggravating circumstance should be proved as fully as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty

THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION This circumstance is based on the greater

perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal circumstance of the offender and also by the means used to secure the commission of the crime

The public officer must use the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by which he realizes his purpose

Failure in official duties is tantamount to abusing of office



If the accused could have perpetrated the crime even without occupying the public position, there is no abuse thereof

THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES This is based on the greater perversity of

the offender, as shown by his lack of respect for the public authorities

Requisites: A public authority, sometimes called a

person in authority, is a public officer who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the power to govern and execute the laws. An agent of a person in authority is any

person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property

If the crime is committed against the public authority while he is in the performance of his official duty, the offender commits direct assault

Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a public authority is present indicates lack of intention to insult the pubic authority

THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED (1) WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS (A) RANK, (B) AGE, OR (C) SEX, OR (2) THAT IT BE COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF THE

OFFENDED PARTY, OF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION These circumstances are based on the

greater perversity of the offender, as shown by personal circumstances of the offender party and the place of the commission of the crime

These circumstances are applicable only to crimes against persons or honor

The 4 circumstances in this paragraph may be considered individually or together

If all four circumstances are present, they have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only

It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim is a woman or an old man, or one of high rank, showing insult or disregard of sex, or age, or rank, in order that it may be considered as an aggravating circumstance

“of the rank of the offended party” There must be a difference in the social

condition of the offender and the offended party

RANK refers to: A high social position or standing as a

grade in the armed forcer; A graded official standing or social

position or station To the order or place in which officers

are placed in the army or navy in relation to others

To the designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in order to fix his relative position in reference to



other officers in matters privilege, precedence, and sometimes of command or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as in the case of army staff officers

To a grade or official standing, relative position in civil or social life, or in any scale of comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status or scale of comparison within a position

“of the age of the offended party” The circumstance of lack of respect due

to age applies in cases where the victim is of tender age, as well as of old age

The circumstance of old age cannot be considered aggravating in the absence of evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the victim

“of the sex of the offended party” This refers to the female sex, not to the

male sex Killing a woman is not attended by this

aggravating circumstance if the offender did not manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards her sex

This aggravating circumstance is not to be considered in the following cases:

When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation

When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender

When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime

“it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party” DWELLING must be a building or

structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort

Dwelling is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode

What aggravates the commission of the crime in one’s dwelling are:

The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the offender y opening the door to him

The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing therein with violence or against the will of the owner

When it is the offended party who has provoked the incident, he loses his right to the respect and consideration due him in his own house

Requisites of provocation in this aggravating circumstance:

The provocation must be given by the owner of the dwelling

The provocation must be sufficient The provocation must be immediate to

the commission of the crime It is not necessary that the accused

should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the



offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked while inside his own house, although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from outside

Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:

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

When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things because it is inherent

When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation

When the dwelling where the crime was committed did not belong to the offended party

When adultery is committed in the dwelling of the husband, even if it is also the dwelling of the unfaithful wife, it is aggravating because besides the latter’s breach of the fidelity she owes he husband, she and her paramour violated the respect due to the conjugal home and they both thereby injured and committed a very grave offense against the head of the house

But dwelling is not aggravating in adultery if the paramour also lives in the same house

THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH (1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE, OR (2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

These circumstances are based on the greater perversity of the offender as shown by the means and ways employed

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE This circumstance exists only when the

offended party has trusted the offender who later abuses such trust by committing the crime

Requisites: That the offended party had trusted

the offender That the offender abused such trust by

committing a crime against the offended party

That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime

The confidence must facilitate the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended party’s belief that the former would not abuse said confidence

The confidence between the offender and the offended party must be immediate and personal

OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS 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 The President need not be in Malacanang The offender must have the intention to

commit a crime when he entered the places mentioned in this paragraph



THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) IN THE NIGHTTIME, OR (2) IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE, OR (3) BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE MAY FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE There is no absolute and general rule which

would exclude the possibility of these circumstances being considered separately when their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity

All three circumstances are aggravating when: When it facilitated the commission of the

crime; or When especially sought for by the

offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity; or

When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity

“NIGHTTIME” The commission of the crime must begin

and be accomplished in the nighttime When the place of the crime is

illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating

“UNINHABITED PLACE” An uninhabited place is one where there

are no houses at all, a lace at a considerable distance from town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other

Whether or not the crime committed is attended by this aggravating circumstance should be determined not

by the distance of the nearest house from 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

The offender must choose the place as an aid either:

To an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal designs

To insure concealment of the offense that he might thereby be better secured against detection and punishment

“BY A BAND” 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

If one of the four armed persons is a principal by inducement, they do not form a band

This circumstance is not applicable to crimes against chastity

THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE The reason for the existence of this

circumstance is found in the debased form of criminality in 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 to despoil them

THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE AID OF (1) ARMED MEN, OR (2) PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY Requisites:

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

That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed

The casual presence of armed men near the place where the crime was committed does not constitute an aggravating circumstance when it appears that the accused did not avail himself of their aid or rely upon them to commit the crime

If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in employment of a band

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 the RPC

Requisites: What is controlling is the time of the trial,

not the time of the commission of the crime Except where the death penalty is imposed,

a judgment in a criminal case becomes final: (1) after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or (2) when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or (3) the accused has

waived in writing his rights to appeal, or (4) the accused has applied for probation. (Rule 120, Sec. 7, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused was a recidivist; but amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects

THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED FOR AN OFFENSE TO WHICH THE LAW ATACHES AN EQUAL OR GREATER PENALTY OR FOR TWO OR MORE CRIMES TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES A LIGHTER PENALTY Requisites:

That the accused is on trial for an offense That he previously served sentence for

another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense, and

That he is convicted of the new offense Even if the accused served the penalty of

prision mayor in its minimum period and is not convicted of an offense for which the penalty of prision mayor maximum is imposed, there is still habituality, provided that the penalty attached to the two offenses is prision mayor in its full extent

If both recidivism and reiteracion are present, appreciate recidivism: Reiteracion is discretionary Recidivism is more favorable to the

accused Recidivism is easier to prove



Four forms of repetition:1. Recidivism

Generic Aggravating2. Reiteracion or habituality

Generic Aggravating3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency

Extraordinary Aggravating A person, within a period of ten years

from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener

4. Quasi-recidivism Special Aggravating 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

THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN CONSIDERATION OS A PRICE, REWARD OR PROMISE When this aggravating circumstance is

present, there must be two or more principals: the one who gives or offers the price or promise, and: the one who accepts it

For this aggravating circumstance to be considered against the person induces, the said inducement must be the primary

consideration for the commission of the crime by him

THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR INTENTIONAL DAMAGE THERETO, DERAILEMTN OF A LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE USE OF ANY OTHER ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN Unless used by the offender as a means to

accomplish a criminal purpose, any of these circumstances cannot be considered to increase the penalty or to change the nature of the offense

THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH EVIDENT PREMEDITATION The essence of premeditation is that the

execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment

There must be evidence showing that the accused meditated and reflected on his intention between the time when the crime was conceived by him and the time it was actually perpetrated

The premeditation must be evident and not merely suspected

Requisites of evident premeditation:1. The time when the offender determined

to commit the crime; The date and, if possible, the time

when the offender determined to commit the crime is essential, because the lapse of time for the purpose of the



third requisite is computed from that date and/or time

2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination; and

The premeditation must be based upon external acts and not presumed from mere lapse of time

The criminal intent evident from outward acts must be notorious and manifest, and the purpose and determination must be plain and have been adopted after mature consideration on the part of the persons who conceived and resolved upon the perpetration of the crime, as a result of deliberation, meditation and reflection sometime before its commission

3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will

When the victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating

THAT (1) CRAFT, (2) FRAUD, OR (3) DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED CRAFT

Involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused

Craft is not attendant where the unlawful scheme could have been carried out just the same even without the pretense

Where craft partakes of an element of an offense, the same may not be appreciated independently for the purpose of aggravation

The act of the accused was done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the victim

FRAUD Insidious words or machinations used to

induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender to carry out his design

There is a direct inducement DISGUISE

Resorting to any device to conceal identity

THAT (1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR (2) MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE To take advantage of superior strength

means to use purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked

When the attack was made on the victim alternately, there is no abuse of superior strength

The mere fact of there being a superiority of numbers is not sufficient to bring the case within aggravating circumstances

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties

The aggravating circumstance of employing means to weaken the defense is applicable only to crimes against persons



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 to directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make

Requisites of treachery:1. That at the time of the attack, the victim

was not in a position to defend himself2. That the offender consciously adopted

the particular means, method, or form of attack employed by him

Rules regarding treachery:1. Applicable only to crimes against persons2. Means, methods, or forms need not

insure accomplishment of crime3. The mode of attack must be consciously

adopted The characteristic and unmistakable

manifestation of treachery is the deliberate, sudden and unexpected attack of the victim from behind, without any warning and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself or repel the initial assault

Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence and cannot be presumed

When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of the assault

When the assault was not continuous, in that there was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present at the moment the fatal blow was given

In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not the victim was the same person whom the accused intended to kill

Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength, aid of armed men, by a band and means to weaken the defense

Treachery cannot co-exist with passion or obfuscation

THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the

moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime

This circumstance is applicable to the crimes against chastity, less serious physical injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder

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

Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape

THAT AS A MEANS TO THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN



THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) WITH THE AID OF PERSON UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE, OR (2) BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS Use of a motor vehicle will not be

considered as an aggravating circumstance where there is no showing that the motor vehicle was purposely used to facilitate the commission of the crime or where it is not shown that without it, the offense charged could not have been committed

THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONGS NOT NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSION There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and

delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act

Requisites of cruelty: Cruelty requires deliberate prolongation of

the physical suffering of the victim

Art. 15. Their concept. – Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication, and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration

when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

The alternative circumstances are: Relationship

Shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the:

Spouse Ascendant Descendant Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother

or sister, or Relative by affinity in the same degree

of the offender 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

The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child may also be included, as similar to that of ascendant and descendant



As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property, by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332

Mitigating in the crimes of robbery, usurpation, fraudulent insolvency, and arson

No criminal, only civil liability results from the commission of theft, swindling, ot malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants, and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together

Relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons in cases where the offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the offender, or when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level

When the crimes against persons is any of the serious physical injuries, even if the offended party is a descendant of the offender, relationship is an aggravating circumstance, provided the serious physical injury is not inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive chastisement

When the crime is less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, the ordinary rule applies:

If the offended party is a relative of a lower degree of the offender, relationship is mitigating

If the offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender, relationship is an aggravating circumstance

When the crime against persons is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim is a relative of lower degree

Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating when relationship is an element of the offense

In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravating because of the nature and effect of the crime committed

Intoxication Mitigating, if:

Intoxication is not habitual, or Intoxication is not subsequent to the

plan to commit a felony Aggravating, if:

Intoxication is habitual, or Intoxication is intentional (dutch

courage) To be mitigating, the state of intoxication

must be proved, and once so, by satisfactory evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional

The RPC says nothing about the degree of intoxication needed to mitigate, but obviously to produce such an effect, it must diminish the agent’s capacity to know the injustice of his acts, and his will to act accordingly



Intoxication is mitigating in some circumstances because when a person is under the influence of liquor, his exercise of will power is impaired

Intoxication is aggravating in other circumstances because it is intentional, because the offender resorted to it in order to bolster his courage to commit a crime

When intoxication is habitual, it is aggravating because the constant use of intoxicating liquor lessens the individual resistance to evil thoughts and undermines the will power making himself a potential evildoer

The presumption is that intoxication is accidental

Degree of instruction and education of the offender Low degree of instruction and education

or lack of it is generally mitigating Must be positively and directly proven

and cannot be based on mere deduction or inference

High degree of instruction and education is aggravating, when the offender avails himself of his learning in committing the crime

Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. – The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:

1. Principals.2. Accomplices.

3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals.2. Accomplices.

The treble division of persons criminally responsible for an offense rests upon the very nature of their participation in the commission of the crime

When a crime is committed by many, without being equally shared by all, a different degree of responsibility is imposed upon each and every one of them

Only natural persons can be the active subject of crime (the criminal) because of the highly personal nature of the criminal responsibility

Only a natural person can be the offender because: The RPC requires that the culprit should

have acted with personal malice or negligence

A juridical person, like a corporation, cannot omit a crime in which a willful purpose or a malicious intent is required

There is substitution of deprivation of liberty (subsidiary imprisonment) for pecuniary penalties in case of insolvency of the accused

Other penalties consisting in imprisonment and other deprivation of liberty, like destierro, can be executed only against individuals



A corporation can act only through its officers or incorporators and that as regards a violation of the law committed by an officer of a corporation, in the exercise of his duties, he answers criminally for his acts, and not the corporation to which he belongs, for bring an artificial person, it cannot be prosecuted personally Juridical persons are criminally liable under

certain special laws Act 1459 (Corporation Law) Act 146 (Public Service Law) The Securities Law The Election Code

Only the officers of the corporation who participated either as principals by direct participation or principals by induction or by cooperation, or as accomplices in the commission of an act punishable by law are liable

The manager of a partnership is liable even if there is no evidence of his participation in the commission of the offense

The passive subject of crime is the holder of the injured right

Art. 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.

PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION Personally takes part in the execution of the

act constituting the crime Two or more persons may take direct part in

the execution of the act, in which case they may be principals by direct participationREQUISITES: That they participated in the criminal

resolution Two or more persons are said to have

participated in the criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime

A person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged

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

This means that he must be at the scene of the commission of the crime, personally taking part in its execution

While the principals by direct participation personally take part in the execution of their common purpose, it is not necessary that each of them should perform a positive act directly contributing to the



accomplishment of their common purpose

When this requisite is lacking, there is only conspiracy

Conspiracy: A conspiracy exists when two or more

persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it

To be a party to a conspiracy, one must have the intention to participate in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose

Art. 18. Accomplices. – Accomplices are the persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

An accomplice does not have previous agreement or understanding or is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct participation

In QUASI-COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY, some of the offenders in the crime are principals and the others are accomplices

The punishable element of every punishable complicity consists in the concurrence of the will of the accomplice with the will of the author of the crime

In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered that of an accomplice rather than that of a principal

When the participation of an accused is not disclosed, he is only an accomplice

Distinction between conspirators and accomplices: As to knowledge of criminal intent

Conspirators know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action

Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution

As to decision in the commission of a crime Conspirators decide that a crime should

be committed Accomplices do not decide whether the

crime should be committed, they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment

As to criminal responsibility Conspirators are the authors of a crime Accomplices are merely instruments who

performs acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense

In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the following requisites must concur: That there be community of design; that is,

knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose

That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or



moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way

That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice

Art. 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 principal 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.

Entertaining suspicion that a crime has been committed is not enough proof of knowledge that a crime has been committed

Two classes of accessories are contemplated in par 3 of this article, and their requisites: Public Officers

The accessory is a public officer He harbors, conceals, or assists in the

escape of the principal The public officer acts with abuse of his

public functions The crime committed by the principal is

any crime, provided it is not a light felony Private persons

The accessory is a private person He harbors, conceals or assists in the

escape of the author of the crime The crime committed by the principal is

either: (a) treason, (b) parricide, (c) murder, (d) an attempt against the life of the President, or (e) that the Principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime

General Rule: If the principal is acquitted, the accessory is also acquitted Exceptions:

If the crime was in fact committed but the principal was not held criminally liable because of an exempting circumstance

If the principal is still unknown or at large

Art. 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.

The exemption provided for in this article is based on 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

Even if only two of the principals guilty of a crime are the brothers of the accessory and the others are not related to him, such accessory is exempt from criminal liability

Title III. – PENALTIES

CHAPTER 1. Penalties in General

PENALTY is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of a law

PENALTY in its general sense signifies pain; especially considered in the juridical sphere, it means suffering undergone, because of the action of human society, by one who commits a crime

Different juridical conditions of penalty: Must be productive of suffering, without

however affecting the integrity of the human personality

Must be commensurate with the offense – different crimes must be punished with different penalties

Must be personal – no one should be punished for the crime of another

Must be legal – it is the consequence of a judgment according to law

Must be certain – no one may escape its effects

Must be equal for all Must be correctional

The purpose of the State in punishing crimes is to secure justice The State has an existence of its own to

assert, and moral principles to be vindicated Penal justice must be exercised by the State

in the service and satisfaction of a duty, and rests primarily on the moral rightfulness of the punishment inflicted

Theories justifying penalty: PREVENTION – The State must punish the

criminal to prevent or suppress the danger to the State arising from the criminal acts of the offender

SELF-DEFENSE – The State has a right to punish the criminal as a measure of self-defense so as to protect society from the threat and wrong inflicted by the criminal

REFORMATION – The object of punishment in criminal cases is to correct and reform the offender

EXEMPLARITY – The criminal is punished to serve as an example to deter others from committing crimes

JUSTICE – That crime must be punished by the State as an act of retributive justice, a vindication of absolute right and moral law violated by the criminal



Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of death

The penalty under this Code has a three-fold purpose: RETRIBUTION or EXPIATION – The penalty is

commensurate with the gravity of the offense

CORRECTION or REFORMATION – As shown by the rules which regulate the execution of the penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty

SOCIAL DEFENSE – Shown by its inflexible severity to recidivists and habitual delinquents

Constitutional restriction on penalties: Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor

cruel and unusual punishment inflicted The punishment is cruel and unusual

when it is so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock the moral sense of all reasonable men as to what is right and proper under the circumstances.

Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. – No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.

Purpose of this article: AN act or omission cannot be punished by the State if at the time it was committed there was no law prohibiting it, because a law cannot be rationally obeyed unless it is first shown, and a man cannot be expected to obey an order that has not been given

Subsidiary penalty for a crime cannot be imposed, if it was not prescribed by law prior to its commission

Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

This article is not applicable to the provisions of the RPC unless some former or subsequent law is under consideration

This article applies to a law dealing with prescription of an offense which is intimately connected with that of the penalty, for the length of time for prescription depends upon the gravity of the offense

Giving a law retroactive effect, if unfavorable to the accused, will violate the constitutional inhibition as to ex post facto laws An ex post facto law is one which:

Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act

Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed

Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed



Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony that the law required at the time of the commission of the offense

Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful

Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty

The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find the defendant in one of three situations: The crime has been committed and

prosecution begins Sentence has been passed but service has

not begun The sentence is being carried out

The principal that criminal statutes are retroactive so far as they favor the culprit does not apply to the latter’s civil liability, because the rights of offended persons or innocent third parties are not within the gift of arbitrary disposal of the State

In order that a subsequent statute may have retroactive effect, it must in the first place refers to the same deed or omission penalized by the former statute and must seek the same end and purpose

The rule that criminal laws have retroactive effect when favorable to the accused has no

application where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action

The provisions of this article are applicable even to special laws which provide more favorable conditions to the accused

Criminal liability under the repealed law subsists: When the provisions of the former law are

reenacted When the repeal is by implication; or When there is a saving clause

The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be determined by the law in force at the time of instituting the action, not at the time of the commission of the crime

Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. – A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by his express waiver.

Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties. – The following shall not be considered as penalties.

1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.

2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in the



Child and Youth Welfare Code and for the purposes specified therein.

3. Suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings.

4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative or disciplinary powers, superior officials may impose upon their subordinates.

5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil law may establish in penal form.

The above mentioned are not penalties because they are not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings

CHAPTER 2. Classification of Penalties

Art. 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:

SCALE

PRINCIPAL PENALTIES

Capital Punishment

Death

Afflictive Penalties

Reclusion perpetuaReclusion temporalPerpetual or temporary absolute disqualificationPerpetual or temporary special disqualificationPrision mayor

Correctional Penalties

Prision correccionalArresto mayorSuspensionDestierro

Light Penalties

Arresto MenorPublic Censure

Penalties common to the three preceding classes

Fine, andBond to keep the peace

ACCESSORY PENALTIES

Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualificationPerpetual or temporary special disqualificationSuspension from public office, the right to vote

and be voted for, the profession or callingCivil interdictionIndemnificationForfeiture or confiscation of instruments and

proceeds of the offensePayment of cost



This article classifies penalties into: Principal penalties

Divisible Those that have fixed duration and are

divisible into three periods Indivisible

Death Reclusion perpetua Perpetual absolute or special

disqualification Public censure

Accessory penalties Classification of penalties according to subject-

matter: Corporal (death) Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision,

arresto) Restriction of freedom (destierro) Deprivation of rights (disqualification and

suspension) Pecuniary (fine)

Classification of penalties according to their gravity: Capital Afflictive Correctional Light

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 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200

pesos; and a light penalty, if it be less than 200 pesos.

CHAPTER 3. Duration and Effect of Penalties

Sec. 1. – DURATION OF PENALTIES

Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. — Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon.

Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years.

Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.

Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.



Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months.

Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days.

Bond to keep the peace. — The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may determine.

Temporary disqualification and suspension, when imposed as accessory penalties, have different durations – they follow the duration of the principal penalty

Destierro is imposed in the following cases: Serious physical injuries or death under

exceptional circumstances In case of failure to give bond for good

behavior As a penalty for the concubine in

concubinage In cases where after reducing the penalty by

one or more degrees destierro is the proper penalty

Art. 28. Computation of penalties. — If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the temporary penalties shall be computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final.

If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant commences to serve his sentence.

Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. — Offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:

1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and

2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.

If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.



Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.

Sec. 2. – EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES ACCORDING TO THEIR RESPECTIVE NATURE

Art. 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.

Art. 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.

Art. 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.

Art. 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.

Art. 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.

Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. — It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined

by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking.

The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of duration of the bond.

Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six months, is he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if for a light felony.

Art. 36. Pardon; its effects. – A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.

A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.

Effects of pardon by the President: A pardon shall not restore the right to hold

public office or the right of suffrage except when any or both such rights is or are expressly restored by the terms of the pardon

It shall not exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity

Limitations upon the exercise of the pardoning power

Pardon may be granted only after conviction by final judgment



Pardon granted in general terms does not include accessory penalty

Art. 37. Costs – What are included. – Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to schedule.

Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities – Order of payment. – In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shal be met in the following order:

1. The reparation of the damage caused.

2. Indemnification of the consequential damages.

3. The fine.4. The costs of the proceedings.

Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules:

1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his

subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner.

2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.

3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.

4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists.chan robles virtual law library

5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve.

Subsidiary penalty is subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property with which to meet the fine, at the



rate of one day for each 8Php, subject to the rules provided for in this article

The judgment of conviction must impose subsidiary imprisonment

Sec. 3. – PENALTIES IN WHICH OTHER ACCESSORY PENALTIES ARE INHERENT

Art. 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. — The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years following the date sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory penalties. — The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case may be, and that of 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. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it that of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in the article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. — The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the right too hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.

Accessory penalty need not be expressly imposed; they are deemed important

Art. 73 provides that whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties according to th provisions of Articles 40-45, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict

Accessory penalties do not determine jurisdiction

Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. — Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds



of the crime and the instruments or tools with which it was committed.

Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless they be property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.

There can be no forfeiture where there is no criminal case

Courts cannot order the confiscation of property belonging to a third person if the third person is not indicted

Courts may order confiscation only if the property is submitter in evidence or placed at the disposal of the court

Things which are forfeited, when the order of forfeiture is already final, cannot be returned even in case of an acquittal

When the accused has appealed, confiscation and forfeiture not ordered by the trial court may be imposed by the appellate court

CHAPTER 4. Application of Penalties

Sec. 1. – RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES TO THE PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE AND FOR THE GRADUATION OF THE SAME

Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. – The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony.

Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony.

General Rule: The penalty prescribed by law in general terms shall be imposed: Upon the principals For consummated felony

Exception: When the penalty to be imposed upon the principal in frustrated or attempted felony or attempted felony is fixed by law

Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed. — The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases:

1. When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age.

2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme court, all the members thereof are not unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. For the imposition of said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court imposing the death sentence, the Supreme Court shall render its decision per curiam, which shall be signed by all justices



of said court, unless some member or members thereof shall have been disqualified from taking part in the consideration of the case, in which even the unanimous vote and signature of only the remaining justices shall be required.

Art. 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 imposed for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

This article requires the commission of at least two grave or less grave felonies which must be the result of a single act, or an offense must be a necessary means for committing the other

In complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender, who has only one criminal intent

Two kinds of complex crimes: COMPOUND – When a single act constitutes

two or more grace or less grave felonies Requisites:

That only a single act is performed by the offender

That the single act produces (1) two or more grave felonies, or (2) one or more grave and one or more less

grave felonies, or (3) two or more less grave felonies

COMPLEX CRIME PROPER – When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other Requisites:

That at least two offenses are committed

That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other

That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute

Rape with homicide is a special complex crime not covered by this article

This article is applicable to crimes through negligence

In complex crime, when the offender executes various acts, he must have a single purpose

When two crimes produced by a single act are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of two courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction shall try the complex crime

The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period

This article applies only to cases where the Code does not provide a definite specific penalty for a complex crime

PLURALITY OF CRIMES – consists in the successive execution by the same individual of different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared Kinds:

Formal or ideal – There is only one criminal liability



When the offender commits any of the complex crimes defined in this article

When the law specifically fixes a single penalty for two or more offenses committed

When the offender commits continued crimes

Real or material – There are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the offender; the offender shall be punished for each and every offense that he committed

Each act performed by the offender constitutes a separate crime, because each act is generated by a criminal impulse

CONTINUED CRIME – a single crime consisting of a series of acts but al arising from one criminal resolution; it is a continuous, unlawful act or series or series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force, however long a time it may occupy

Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. — In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be observed:

1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to

the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.

2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.

3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.

This article is applicable only when the intended crime and the crime actually committed are punished with different penalties

Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.

Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. — A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.



Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a consummated felony.

Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a consummated felony.

Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony.

Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony.

Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the felony.

Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a felony.

Bases for the determination of the extent of the penalty to be imposed under the RPC: The stage reached by the crime in its

development The participations therein of the persons

liable The aggravating or mitigating

circumstances which attended the commission of the crime

Art. 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories. — Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony.

Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims sought are impossible. — When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act



intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.

Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. — The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.

Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties. — For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed:

1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.

2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or

of one or more divisible penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.

3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale.

4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale.

5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt



to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.

Sec. 2. – RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES WITH REGARD TO THE MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HABITUAL DELINQUENCY

Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:

1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.

3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the

principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.

4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.

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.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be



imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.

For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

Requisites of habitual delinquency: That the offender had been convicted of any

of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification

That after that 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 second time

That 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 third time or oftener

Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.

2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.

Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one



of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:

1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.

2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its minimum period.

3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its maximum period.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.

5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.

6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the

courts shall not impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.

7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.

Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. — In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions.

Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.

Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are present.— When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be



imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.chan robles virtual law library

Art. 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. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.

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.

Art. 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.

Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:

In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out.

For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:

1. Death, 2. Reclusion perpetua, 3. Reclusion temporal, 4. Prision mayor, 5. Prision correccional,chan robles virtual law library 6. Arresto mayor, 7. Arresto menor, 8. Destierro, 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification, 10. Temporal absolute disqualification.



11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and12. Public censure.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum period.

Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.

In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.

Art. 71. Graduated scales. — In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.

The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty.

The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:

SCALE NO. 11. Death,2. Reclusion perpetua,3. Reclusion temporal,4. Prision mayor,5. Prision correccional,6. Arresto mayor,7. Destierro,8. Arresto menor,9. Public censure,10. Fine. SCALE NO. 21. Perpetual absolute disqualification,2. Temporal absolute disqualification3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote

and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,

4. Public censure,5. Fine.

Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order of time.

Sec. 3. – PROVISION COMMON TO THE LAST TWO PRECEDING SECTIONS.

Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties,



according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict.

Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another given penalty, without specially designating the name of the former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the next higher penalty.

Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum.

The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional.

Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.

Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW


commentary notes

Documents