I.

Criminal Law : Definition and Sources

Criminal Law I
I. Criminal Law:
Definition and Sources
A. DEFINITION
Criminal law is that branch or division of
municipal law which defines crimes, treats of
their nature and provides for their punishment.
It is that branch of public substantive law
which defines offenses and prescribes their
penalties. It is substantive because it defines the
states right to inflict punishment and the
liability of the offenders. It is public law because
it deals with the relation of the individual with
the state.
B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH
CRIME
1. LIMITATIONS
a. Must be general in application.
b. Must not partake of the nature of an ex
post facto law. (19! "onst. #rt III$
%ec.&&'
c. Must not partake of the nature of a bill of
attainder. (19! "onst. #rt III$ %ec &&'
d. Must not impose cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines. (19!
"onst. #rt III$ %ec 19'
2. PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES
a. Utilitarian t!"r# "r $r"t!%ti&!
t!"r#
(he primary purpose of the punishment
under criminal law is the protection of
society from actual or potential wrongdoers.
(he courts$ therefore$ in exacting retribution
for the wronged society$ should direct the
punishment to potential or actual
wrongdoers$ since criminal law is directed
against acts and omissions which the
society does not approve of. "onsistent with
this theory$ the mala prohibita principle
which punishes an offense regardless of
malice or criminal intent$ should not be
utili)ed to apply the full harshness of the
special law.
In Ma'n" &(. CA) decided on *une &+$
199&$ the %upreme "ourt ac,uitted Magno
of violation of -atas .ambansa -lg. && when
he acted without malice. (he wrongdoer is
not Magno but the lessor who deposited the
checks. /e should have returned the checks
to Magno when he pulled out the
e,uipment. (o convict the accused would
defeat the noble ob0ective of the law and
the law would be tainted with materialism
and opportunism.
*. Cla((i%al "r +,ri(ti% $il"("$#
-est remembered by the maxim 1#n eye
for an eye$ a tooth for a tooth.2 34ote5 If
you want to impress the examiner$ use the
latin version6 7culo pro oculo$ dente pro
dente.8
(he purpose of penalty is retribution. (he
offender is made to suffer for the wrong he
has done. (here is scant regard for the
human element of the crime. (he law does
not look into why the offender committed
the crime. "apital punishment is a product
of this kind of school of thought. Man is
regarded as a moral creature who
understands right from wrong. %o that when
he commits a wrong$ he must be prepared
to accept the punishment therefore.
%.P"(iti&i(t "r r!ali(ti% $il"("$#
(he purpose of penalty is reformation.
(here is great respect for the human
element because the offender is regarded as
socially sick who needs treatment$ not
punishment. "ages are like asylums$ 0ails
like hospitals. (hey are to segregate the
offenders from the 1good2 members of
society.
9rom this philosophy came the 0ury
system$ where the penalty is imposed on a
case to case basis after examination of the
offender by a panel of social scientists which
do not include lawyers as the panel would
not want the law to influence their
consideration.
"rimes are regarded as social phenomena
which constrain a person to do wrong
although not of his own volition. # tendency
towards crime is the product of ones
environment. (here is no such thing as a
natural born killer.
(his philosophy is critici)ed as being too
lenient.
-. E%l!%ti% "r .i/!- $il"("$#
(his combines both positivist and classical
thinking. "rimes that are economic and
social by nature should be dealt with in a
positivist manner: thus$ the law is more
compassionate. /einous crimes should be
dealt with in a classical manner: thus$
capital punishment.
%ince the ;evised .enal "ode was
adopted from the %panish "odigo .enal$
which in turn was copied from the 9rench
"ode of 11< which is classical in character$
it is said that our "ode is also classical. (his
is no longer true because with the #merican
occupation of the .hilippines$ many
provisions of common law have been
engrafted into our penal laws. (he ;evised
.enal "ode today follows the mixed or
eclectic philosophy. 9or example$
intoxication of the offender is considered to
mitigate his criminal liability$ unless it is
intentional or habitual: the age of the
offender is considered: and the woman who
killed her child to conceal her dishonor has
in her favor a mitigating circumstance.
C. BASIC PRINCIPLES
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
1. =enerality
&. (erritoriality
>. .rospectivity
?. @egality
A. %trict "onstruction of penal laws against
the %tate
1. GENERALITY OF CRIMINAL LA0
=enerality of criminal law means that the
criminal law of the country governs all persons
within the country regardless of their race$
belief$ sex or creed. /owever$ it is sub0ect to
certain exceptions brought about by
international agreement. #mbassadors$ chiefs
of states and other diplomatic officials are
immune from the application of penal laws
when they are in the country where they are
assigned.
4ote that consuls are not diplomatic
officers. (his includes consul6general$ vice6
consul or and consul in a foreign country$ who
are therefore$ not immune to the operation or
application of the penal law of the country
where they are assigned.
#lso excepted under the law of generality
are Members of the "ongress who are not
liable for libel or slander with any speech in
"ongress or congressional committee. (%ec
11$ #rt BI 19! "onstitution'
=enerality has no reference to territory.
Chenever you are asked to explain this$ it
does not include territory. It refers to persons
that may be governed by the penal law.
(he generality principle of penal laws is also
sub0ect to the principles of public international
law and to treaty stipulations (#rt. 1? "ivil
"ode'. Examples of this would be the B9# and
;# !A (concerning immunities$ rights and
privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the .hilippines.
Take note of the Bisiting 9orces #greement$ #rt. B$
which defines "riminal *urisdiction over Dnited %tates
military and civilian personnel temporarily in the
.hilippines in connection with activities approved by
the .hilippine =overnment
2. TERRITORIALITY OF CRIMINAL LA0
a. G!n!ral r,l!
(erritoriality means that the penal laws of
the country have force and effect only
within its territory. It cannot penali)e crimes
committed outside the same. (his is sub0ect
to certain exceptions brought about by
international agreements and practice. (he
territory of the country is not limited to the
land where its sovereignty resides but
includes also its maritime and interior
waters as well as its atmosphere.
(errestrial 0urisdiction is the 0urisdiction
exercised over land.
9luvial 0urisdiction is the 0urisdiction
exercised over maritime and interior waters.
#erial 0urisdiction is the 0urisdiction
exercised over the atmosphere.
Excepted under the territoriality
characteristic of penal laws are the cases
provided for by #rt. & of the ;evised .enal
"ode. (he "ode therefore has territorial and
extraterritorial applications.
*. T! ar%i$!la'i% r,l!
(he #rchipelagic ;ule states that all
bodies of water comprising the maritime
)one and interior waters abounding different
islands comprising the .hilippine
#rchipelago are part of the .hilippine
territory regardless of their breadth$ depth$
width or dimension.
7n the fluvial 0urisdiction there is
presently a departure from the accepted
International @aw ;ule$ because the
.hilippines adopted the #rchipelagic ;ule as
stated above.
In the International @aw ;ule$ when a
strait within a country has a width of more
than + miles$ the center lane in excess of
the > miles on both sides is considered
international waters.
%. S%"$! "1 a$$li%ati"n "1 t! $r"&i(i"n(
"1 t! r!&i(!- $!nal %"-!
(he provisions in #rticle & embraces two
scopes of applications5
i. Intraterritorial application
Intraterritorial refers to the application
of the ;evised .enal "ode within the
.hilippine territory.
In the intraterritorial application of the
;evised .enal "ode$ #rticle & makes it
clear that it does not refer only to the
.hilippine archipelago but it also includes
the atmosphere$ interior waters and
maritime )one. %o whenever you use the
word territory$ do not limit this to land
area only.
#s far as 0urisdiction or application of
the ;evised .enal "ode over crimes
committed on maritime )ones or interior
waters$ the #rchipelagic ;ule shall be
observed. %o the three6mile limit on our
shoreline has been modified by the rule.
#ny crime committed in the interior
waters comprising the .hilippine
archipelago shall be sub0ect to our laws
although committed on board a foreign
merchant vessel.
# vessel is considered a .hilippine ship
only when it is registered in accordance
with .hilippine laws. Dnder international
law$ as long as such vessel is not within
the territorial waters of a foreign country$
.hilippine laws shall govern.
ii. Extraterritorial application
Extraterritorial refers to the application
of the ;evised .enal "ode outside the
.hilippines territory.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2 of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
Extraterritorial application of the
;evised .enal "ode on a crime committed
on board a .hilippine ship or airship is not
within the territorial waters or
atmosphere of a foreign country.
7therwise$ it is the foreign countrys
criminal law that will apply.
/owever$ there are two situations
where the foreign country may not apply
its criminal law even if a crime was
committed on board a vessel within its
territorial waters and these are5
Chen the crime is committed in a
war vessel of a foreign country$
because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose
navel force they belong:
Chen the foreign country in whose
territorial waters the crime was
committed adopts the 9rench ;ule$
which applies only to merchant
vessels$ except when the crime
committed affects the national
security or public order of such
foreign country.

-. Cri.!( %"..itt!- a*"ar- .!r%ant
&!((!l( 2il! in t! t!rrit"rial 2at!r(
"1 an"t!r %",ntr#
(hese rules apply only to a foreign
merchant vessel if a crime was committed
aboard that vessel while it was in the
territorial waters of another country. If that
vessel is in the high seas or open seas$
there is no occasion to apply the two rules.
If it is not within the 0urisdiction of any
country$ these rules will not apply.
i. (he 9rench ;ule
The French Rule provides that the
nationalit of the vessel follows the flag
which the vessel flies, unless the crime
committed endangers the national
securit of a foreign countr where the
vessel is within !urisdiction in which case
such foreign countr will never lose
!urisdiction over such vessel.
ii. (he English (7r #nglo6%axon 7r
#merican' ;ule
(his rule strictly enforces the
territoriality of criminal law. The law of
the foreign countr where a foreign
vessel is within its !urisdiction is strictl
applied, except if the crime affects onl
the internal management of the vessel in
which case it is sub!ect to the penal law
of the countr where it is registered.
Ce observe the English ;ule. .hilippine
courts have no 0urisdiction over offenses
committed on board foreign warships in
territorial waters.
!. THREE INTERNATIONAL THEORIES
ON AERIAL JURISDICTION
i. 9ree Fone (heory
The atmosphere over the countr is
free and not sub!ect to the !urisdiction of
the sub!acent state, except for the
protection of its national securit and
public order.
Dnder this theory$ if a crime is
committed on board a foreign aircraft at
the atmosphere of a country$ the law of
that country does not govern unless the
crime affects the national security.
ii. ;elative (heory
The sub!acent state exercises
!urisdiction over the atmosphere onl to
the extent that it can effectivel exercise
control thereof.
Dnder this theory$ if a crime was
committed on an aircraft that is already
beyond the control of the sub0acent state$
the criminal law of the state will not
govern anmore. -ut if the crime is
committed in an aircraft within the
atmosphere over a sub0acent state that
exercises control$ then its criminal law will
govern.
iii. #bsolute (heory
#dopted by the .hilippines
The sub0acent state has complete
!urisdiction over the atmosphere above it
sub!ect onl to the innocent passage b
aircraft of a foreign countr.
Dnder this theory$ if the crime is
committed in an aircraft$ no matter how
high$ as long as it can be established that
it is within the .hilippine atmosphere$
.hilippine criminal law will govern.
1. 0!n $,*li% "11i%!r( "r !.$l"#!!(
%"..it an "11!n(! in t! !/!r%i(! "1
t!ir 1,n%ti"n(
(he most common sub0ect of bar
problems in #rticle & is paragraph ?5 1Chile
being public officers or employees$ 3they8
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions52
#s a general rule$ the ;evised .enal "ode
governs only when the crime committed
pertains to the exercise of the public
officials functions$ those having to do with
the discharge of their duties in a foreign
country. (he functions contemplated are
those$ which are$ under the law$ to be
performed by the public officer in the
9oreign %ervice of the .hilippine
government in a foreign country.
Exception" The Revised #enal Code
governs if the crime was committed within
the .hilippine Embass or within the
embass grounds in a foreign countr. This
is because embass grounds are considered
an extension of sovereignt.
Illustration5
$ #hilippine consulate official who is
validl married here in the #hilippines
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
& of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
and who marries again in a foreign
countr cannot be prosecuted here for
bigam because this is a crime not
connected with his official duties.
%owever, if the second marriage was
celebrated within the #hilippine
embass, he ma be prosecuted here,
since it is as if he contracted the
marriage here in the #hilippines.
3. PROSPECTIVITY OF CRIMINAL LA0
(his is also called irretrospectivity.
#cts or omissions will only be sub0ect to a
penal law if they are committed after a penal
law had already taken effect. Bice versa$ this
act or omission which has been committed
before the effectivity of a penal law could not
be penali)ed by such penal law because penal
laws operate only prospectively.
In some textbooks$ an exemption is said
to exist when the penal law is favorable to the
offender$ in which case it would have
retroactive application (;." #rt. &&': provided
that the offender is not a habitual delin,uent
and there is no provision in the law against its
retroactive application.
(his is consistent with the general
principle that criminal laws$ being a limitation
on the rights of the people$ should be
construed strictly against the %tate and
liberally in favor of the accused.
(he exception where a penal law may be
given retroactive application is true only with
a repealing law. If it is an original penal law$
that exception can never operate. Chat is
contemplated by the exception is that there is
an original law and there is a repealing law
repealing the original law. It is the repealing
law that may be given retroactive application
to those who violated the original law$ if the
repealing penal law is more favorable to the
offender who violated the original law. If there
is only one penal law$ it can never be given
retroactive effect.
;ule of prospectivity also applies to
administrative rulings and circulars. In C" &(.
CA 415536) it was held that the principle of
prospectivity of statutes also applies to
administrative rulings and circulars. In this
case$ "ircular 4o. ? of the Ministry of *ustice$
dated Gecember$ 1A$ 191$ provides that
1where the check is issued as part of an
arrangement to guarantee or secure the
payment of an obligation$ whether pre6
existing or not$ the drawer is not criminally
liable for either estafa or violation of -. &&.2
%ubse,uently$ the administrative
interpretation was reversed in "ircular 4o. 1&$
issued on #ugust $ 19?$ such that the claim
that the check was issued as a guarantee or
part of an arrangement to secure an obligation
or to facilitate collection$ is no longer a valid
defense for the prosecution of -. &&. /ence$ it
was ruled in 7,! &(. P!"$l! that under the
new "ircular$ a check issued merely to
guarantee the performance of an obligation is
covered by -. &&. /owever$ consistent with
the principle of prospectivity$ the new doctrine
should not apply to parties who had relied on
the old "ircular and acted on the faith thereof.
4o retrospective effect.
8. LEGALITY 4NULLUM CRIMEN NULLA
POENA SINE LEGE6
(here is no crime when there is no law
punishing the same. (his is true to civil law
countries$ but not to common law countries.
-ecause of this maxim$ there is no
common law crime in the .hilippines. 4o
matter how wrongful$ evil or bad act is$ if
there is no law defining the act$ the same is
not considered a crime.
"ommon law crimes are wrongful acts
which the communityH society condemns as
contemptible$ even though there is no law
declaring the act criminal.
4ot any law punishing an act or omission
may be valid as a criminal law. If the law
punishing an act is ambiguous$ it is null and
void.
9. STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LA0S
AGAINST STATE: THE ;DOCTRINE OF
PRO REO<
Chenever a penal law is to be construed
or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations 6 one lenient to the offender
and one strict to the offender6 that
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to
the offender will be adopted.
(his is in consonance with the
fundamental rule that all doubts shall be
construed in favor of the accused and
consistent with the presumption of innocence
of the accused. (his is peculiar only to criminal
law.
D. BASIC MA=IMS IN CRIMINAL LA0
1. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM) NISI MENS
SIT REA
The act cannot be criminal where the
mind is not criminal. (his is true to a felony
characteri)ed by dolo$ but not a felony
resulting from culpa. (his maxim is not an
absolute one because it is not applied to
culpable felonies$ or those that result from
negligence.
2. ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST
MEUS ACTUS
$n act done b me against m will is not
m act. (his is related to the preceding maxim
and is manifested in .eople vs #h "hong.
3. EL 7UE ES CAUSA DE LA CAUSA ES
CAUSA DEL MAL CAUSADO
%e who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused. (his is the rationale
in par. 1 of #rticle ? which enunciates the
doctrine of proximate cause. /e who commits
an intentional felony is responsible for all the
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
' of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
conse,uences which may naturally and
logically result therefrom$ whether foreseen or
intended or not.
II. De(elo)ment of Criminal
Law in t*e P*ili))ines
A. CODE OF MARAGTAS
If you will be asked about the development
of criminal law in the .hilippines$ do not start
with the ;evised .enal "ode. (he penal
provisions of the Maragtas "ode were allegedly
written and compiled by Gatu %umakwel in
1&A<. #mong the provisions in this "ode were
those dealing with la)iness$ robbery and child
bearing. (hieves and robbers were penali)ed by
cutting of their fingers. # poor family was
prohibited to have more than two children (an
early family planning'.
B. CODE OF >ALANTIAO
Dnder the "ode of Ialantiao$ there were
penal provisions. Dnder this code$ if a man
would have a relation with a married woman$
she is penali)ed. Even offending religious things$
such as gods$ are penali)ed. (he "ode of
Ialantiao has certain penal provisions. (he
9ilipinos have their own set of penology also.
C. SPANISH CODIGO PENAL
Chen the %panish "oloni)ers came$ the
%panish "odigo .enal was made applicable and
extended to the .hilippines by ;oyal Gecree of
1!<. (his was made effective in the .hilippines
on *uly 1?$ 1!+.
D. 0HO IS RAFAEL DEL PAN?
/e drafted a correctional code which was
after the %panish "odigo .enal was extended to
the .hilippines. -ut that correctional code was
never enacted into law. Instead$ a committee
was organi)ed headed by then #nacleto Gia).
(his committee was the one which drafted the
present ;evised .enal "ode.
E. THE PRESENT REVISED PENAL CODE
Chen a committee to draft the ;evised
.enal "ode was formed$ one of the reference
that they took hold of was the correctional code
of Gel .an. In fact$ many provisions of the
;evised .enal "ode were no longer from the
%panish .enal "ode: they were lifted from the
correctional code of Gel .an. %o it was him who
formulated or paraphrased this provision making
it simpler and more understandable to 9ilipinos
because at that time$ there were only a handful
who understood %panish.
F. CODE OF CRIMES BY GUEVARRA
Guring the time of .resident Manuel ;oxas$
a code commission was tasked to draft a penal
code that will be more in keeping with the
custom$ traditions$ traits as well as beliefs of the
9ilipinos. Guring that time$ the code committee
drafted the so6called "ode of "rimes. (his too$
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
+ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
slept in "ongress. It was never enacted into law.
#mong those who participated in drafting the
"ode of "rimes was *udge =uellermo =uevarra.
%ince that "ode of "rimes was never
enacted as law$ he enacted his own code of
crimes. -ut it was the "ode of "rimes that was
presented in the -atasan as "abinet -ill 4o. &.
-ecause the "ode of "rimes prepared by
=uevarra was more of a moral code than a penal
code$ there were several oppositions against the
code.
G. PROPOSED PENAL CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
(hrough #ssemblyman Estelito Mendo)a$
the D. @aw "enter formed a committee which
drafted the .enal "ode of the .hilippines. (his
.enal "ode was substituted as "abinet -ill 4o. &
and this has been discussed in the floor of the
-atasang .ambansa. %o the "ode of "rimes now
in "ongress was not the "ode of "rimes during
the time of .resident ;oxas. (his is a different
one. "abinet -ill 4o. & is the .enal "ode of the
.hilippines drafted by a code committee chosen
by the D. @aw "enter$ one of them was
.rofessor 7rtega. (here were seven members of
the code committee. It would have been enacted
into law if not for the dissolution of the -atasang
.ambansa. (he "ongress was planning to revive
it so that it can be enacted into law.
H. SPECIAL LA0S
Guring Martial @aw$ there are many
.residential Gecrees issued aside from the
special laws passed by the .hilippine @egislature
"ommission. #ll these special laws which are
penal in character$ are part of our .enal "ode.
III. ,elonies
A. FELONIES) OFFENSE)
MISDEMEANOR AND CRIME
1. FELONY
(he term felony is limited only to violations
of the ;evised .enal "ode. Chen the crime is
punishable under a special law you do not
refer to this as a felony$ it is to be understood
as referring to crimes under the ;evised .enal
"ode.
(his is important because there are certain
provisions in the ;evised .enal "ode where
the term 1felony2 is used$ which means that
the provision is not extended to crimes under
special laws. # specific instance is found in
$rticle &'() *uasi)Recidivism, which reads"
$ person who shall commit a
felon after having been convicted
b final !udgment, before
beginning to serve sentence or
while serving the same, shall be
punished under the maximum
period of the penalt.
4ote that the word 1felony2 is used.
2. OFFENSE
# crime punished under a special law is
called a statutory offense.
3. MISDEMEANOR
# minor infraction of the law$ such as a
violation of an ordinance$ is referred to as a
misdemeanor.
8. CRIME
Chether the wrongdoing is punished under
the ;evised .enal "ode or under a special law$
the generic word crime can be used.
B. FELONIES: HO0 COMMITTED
1. ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
a. (here must be an act or omission
b. (hat the act or omission must be
punishable by the ;."
c. (hat the act is performed or the
commission incurred by means of dolo or
culpa
(o be considered as a felony$ there must be
an act or omission: a mere imagination no
matter how wrong does not amount to a
felony. #n act refers to any kind of body
movement that produces change in the
outside world. 9or example$ if #$ a passenger
of a 0eepney seated in front of a lady$ started
putting out his tongue suggesting lewdness$
that is already an act in contemplation of
criminal law. /e cannot claim that there was
no crime committed. If # scratches
something$ this is already an act which annoys
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
- of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
the lady he may be accused of un0ust
vexation$ not malicious mischief. 7n the other
hand$ omission is the failure to perform a duty
re,uired by law. Examples of such are failure
to render assistance$ failure to issue receipt or
non disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy
against the government.
/owever$ it does not mean that if an act or
omission is punished under the ;evised .enal
"ode$ a felony is already committed. (o be
considered a felony$ it must also be done with
dolo or culpa.
2. DOLO
Dnder #rticle >$ there is dolo when there is
deceit. (his is no longer true. #t the time the
;evised .enal "ode was codified$ the term
nearest to dolo was deceit. /owever$ deceit
means fraud$ and this is not the meaning of
dolo.
Golo is deliberate intent otherwise referred
to as criminal intent$ and must be coupled
with freedom of action and intelligence on the
part of the offender as to the act done by him.
a. El!.!nt(
(he term$ therefore$ has three re,uisites
on the part of the offender5
i. "riminal intent:
ii. 9reedom of action: and
iii. Intelligence
If any of these is absent$ there is no dolo.
If there is no dolo$ there could be no
intentional felony 4Vi(*al &(. B,*an)
2@@36.
*. Pr!(,.$ti"n Cri.inal Int!nt
%ince intent is a mental state$ the
existence of which is shown by the overt act
of a person$ so criminal intent is presumed
to exist only if the act is unlawful. It does
not apply if the act is not criminal. (he
presumption of criminal intent may arise
from proof of the criminal act and it is for
the accused to rebut this presumption.
/owever$ in some crimes intent cannot be
presumed being an integral element
thereof: so it has to be proven (i.e. in
frustrated homicide$ specific intent to kill is
not presumed but must be proven$
otherwise it is merely physical in0uries'.
%. Cat!'"ri!( "1 Int!nt
In criminal law$ intent is categori)ed into
two5
i. =eneral "riminal Intent
+eneral criminal intent is presumed
from the mere doing of a wrong act. (his
does not re,uire proof. (he burden is
upon the wrong doer to prove that he
acted without such criminal intent.
ii. %pecific "riminal Intent
,pecific criminal intent is not presumed
because it is an ingredient or element of
a crime, like intent to kill in the crimes
attempted or frustrated homicideH
parricideH murder. (he prosecution has
the burden of proving the same.
-. Di(tin%ti"n B!t2!!n Int!nt an-
Di(%!rn.!nt
Intent is the determination to do a certain
thing, an aim or purpose of the mind. It is
the design to resolve or determination by
which a person acts.
7n the other hand$ discernment is the
mental capacit to tell right from wrong. It
relates to the moral significance that a
person ascribes to his act and relates to the
intelligence as an element of dolo$ distinct
from intent.
!. Di(tin%ti"n B!t2!!n Int!nt an-
M"ti&!
Intent is demonstrated by the use of a
particular means to bring about a desired
result6 it is not a state of mind or a reason
for committing a crime.
7n the other hand$ motive implies
motion. It is the moving power which impels
one to do an act. Chen there is motive in
the commission of a crime$ it always comes
before the intent. -ut a crime may be
committed without motive.
Motive$ unlike intent$ is not an element of
a crime. # man can be convicted with or
without motive$ or with good or bad motive.
It is important only when the identity of the
culprit is in doubt and not when he is
positively identified by a credible witness.
#lso$ lack of motive can aid in showing the
innocence of the accused. (.eople vs
/assan$ 19'
If the crime is intentional$ it cannot be
committed without intent. Intent is
manifested by the instrument used by the
offender. (he specific criminal intent
becomes material if the crime is to be
distinguished form the attempted or
frustrated stage. 9or example$ a husband
came home and found his wife in a pleasant
conversation with a former suitor.
(hereupon$ he got a knife. (he moving force
is 0ealousy. (he intent to resort to the knife$
so that means he desires to kill the former
suitor.
Even if the offender states that he had no
reason to kill the victim$ this is not criminal
intent. "riminal intent is the means resorted
to by him that brought about the killing. If
we e,uate intent as a state of mind$ many
would escape criminal liability.
In a case where mother and son were
living in the same house$ and the son got
angry and strangled his mother$ the son$
when prosecuted for parricide$ raised the
defense that he had no intent to kill his
mother. It was held that criminal intent
applies on the strangulation of the vital part
of the body. "riminal intent is on the basis
of the act$ not on the basis of what the
offender says.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
! of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
-ook into motive to determine the proper
crime which can be imputed to the accused.
If a 0udge was killed$ determine if the
killing has any relation to the official
functions of the 0udge in which case the
crime would be direct assault complexed
with murderH homicide$ not the other way
around. If it has no relation$ the crime is
simply homicide or murder.
1. M!n( R!a
(he technical term mens rea is sometimes
referred to in common parlance as the
gravamen of the offense. To a laman, that
is what ou call the .bullsee/ of the crime.
This term is used snonmousl with
criminal or deliberate intent, but that is not
exactl correct.
Mens rea of the crime depends upon the
elements of the crime. Jou can only detect
the mens rea of a crime by knowing the
particular crime committed. Cithout
reference to a particular crime$ this term is
meaningless. 9or example$ in theft$ the
mens rea is the taking of property of
another with intent to gain. In falsification$
the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery
with intent to pervert the truth. It is not
merely writing something that is not true:
the intent to pervert the truth must follow
the performance of the act.
In criminal law$ we sometimes have to
consider the crime on the basis of intent.
9or example$ attempted or frustrated
homicide is distinguished from physical
in0uries only by the intent to kill. #ttempted
rape is distinguished from acts of
lasciviousness by the intent to have sexual
intercourse. In robbery$ the mens rea is the
taking of the property of another coupled
with the employment of intimidation or
violence upon persons or things: remove
the employment of force or intimidation and
it is not robbery any longer.
'. Mi(taA! "1 Fa%t
Chen an offender acted out of a
misapprehension of fact$ it cannot be said
that he acted with criminal intent. (hus$ in
criminal law$ there is a 1mistake of fact.2
Chen the offender acted out of a mistake of
fact$ criminal intent is negated$ so do not
presume that the act was done with criminal
intent. (his is absolutory if the crime
involved dolo.
Mistake of fact would be relevant only
when the felony would have been
intentional or through dolo$ but not when
the felony is a result of culpa. Chen the
felony is a product of culpa$ do not discuss
mistake of fact. Chen the felonious act is
the product of dolo and the accused claimed
to have acted out of mistake of fact$ there
should be no culpa in determining the real
facts$ otherwise$ he is still criminally liable$
although he acted out of a mistake of fact.
Mistake of fact is only a defense in
intentional felony but never in culpable
felony.
(he re,uisites of mistake of fact are5
i. (hat the act done would have been
lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be:
ii. (hat the intention of the accused in
performing the act should be lawful:
iii. (hat the mistake must be without fault
or carelessness on the part of the
accused. Chen the accused is
negligent$ mistake of fact is not a
defense. (.eople vs 7anis$ 19'.
3. CULPA
#lthough there is no intentional felony$
there could be culpable felony.
Dnder #rticle >$ it is clear that culpa is 0ust
a modality by which a felony may be
committed. # felony may be committed or
incurred through dolo or culpa. "ulpa is 0ust a
means by which a felony may result.
In #rticle >+A$ you have criminal negligence
as an omission which the article definitely or
specifically penali)ed. (he concept of criminal
negligence is the inexcusable lack of
precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform an act. If the
danger impending from that situation is clearly
manifest$ you have a case of reckless
imprudence. -ut if the danger that would
result from such imprudence is not clear$ not
manifest nor immediate$ you have only a case
of simple negligence. #lso$ if you were the one
who put yourself in a situation wherein danger
would most likely happen (e.g. drunk driving'$
this is reckless imprudence. /owever$ if there
is some contributory negligence on the part of
the victim (while driving you hit a person who
was 0aywalking'$ this may be a case of simple
negligence.-ecause of #rticle >+A$ one might
think that criminal negligence is the one being
punished. (hat is why a ,uestion is created
that criminal negligence is the crime in itself.
In P!"$l! &(. Fall!r$ it was stated
indirectly that criminal negligence or culpa is
0ust a mode of incurring criminal liability. In
this case$ the accused was charged with
malicious mischief. Malicious mischief is an
intentional negligence under #rticle >&! of the
;evised .enal "ode. (he provision expressly
re,uires that there be a deliberate damaging
of property of another$ which does not
constitute destructive arson. Jou do not have
malicious mischief through simple negligence
or reckless imprudence because it re,uires
deliberateness. 9aller was charged with
malicious mischief$ but was convicted of
damage to property through reckless
imprudence. (he %upreme "ourt pointed out
that although the allegation in the information
charged the accused with an intentional
felony$ yet the words feloniously and
unlawfully$ which are standard languages in
an information$ covers not only dolo but also
culpa because culpa is 0ust a mode of
committing a felony.
In 7,!B"n &(. J,(ti%! "1 t! P!a%!$
*ustice *.-.@. ;eyes dissented and claimed
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
. of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
that criminal negligence is a ,uasi6offense$
and the correct designation should not be
homicide through reckless imprudence$ but
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
(he view of *ustice ;eyes is sound$ but the
problem is #rticle >$ which states that culpa is
0ust a mode by which a felony may result.
a. El!.!nt(
"ulpa re,uires the concurrence of three
re,uisites5
i. criminal negligence on the part of the
offender$ that is$ the crime was the
result of negligence$ reckless
imprudence$ lack of foresight or lack of
skill:
ii. freedom of action on the part of the
offender$ that is$ he was not acting
under duress: and
iii. intelligence on the part of the offender
in the performance of the negligent act.
*. Di(tin',i(!- Fr". D"l"
-etween dolo and culpa$ the distinction
lies on the criminal intent and criminal
negligence.
%. Di(tin%ti"n B!t2!!n N!'li'!n%! An-
I.$r,-!n%!
In negligence$ there is deficienc of
action. In imprudence$ there is deficienc
of perception.
-. D"%trin!( C"n%!rnin' C,l$a*l!
Cri.!(
i. Emergency ;ule
# person who is confronted with a
sudden emergency may be left no time
for thought$ must make speedy decision
based largely upon impulse or instinct$
and cannot be held to the same conduct
as one who has had an opportunity to
reflect$ even though it later appears that
he made the wrong decision.
(he emergency doctrine is applicable
only where the situation which arises to
confront the actor is sudden and
unexpected$ and is such as to deprive him
of all the opportunity for deliberation.
ii. Goctrine 7f 1@ast "lear "hance2
(he contributory negligence of the
party in0ured will not defeat the action if it
be shown that the accused might$ by the
exercise of reasonable care and prudence$
have avoided the conse,uences of the
negligence of the in0ured party.
iii. ;ule 7f 4egative Ingredient
(his is related to the doctrine of
proximate cause and applicable when
certain causes leading to the result are
not identifiable.
(his rule states that the prosecution
must first identify what the accused failed
to do. 7nce this is done$ the burden of
evidence shifts to the accused. (he
accused must show that the failure did
not set in motion the chain of events
leading to the in0ury. ("arillo vs .eople$
199?'
C. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALICED
BY SPECIAL LA0S
1. CRIMES MALA IN SE AND MALA
PROHIBITA
Biolations of the ;evised .enal "ode are
referred to as malum in se$ which literally
means$ that the act is inherently evil or bad or
per se wrongful. 7n the other hand$ violations
of special laws are generally referred to as
malum prohibitum.
4ote$ however$ that not all violations of
special laws are mala prohibita. Chile
intentional felonies are always mala in se$ it
does not follow that prohibited acts done in
violation of special laws are always mala
prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under
a special law$ if the act punished is one which
is inherently wrong$ the same is malum in se$
and$ therefore$ good faith and the lack of
criminal intent is a valid defense: unless it is
the product of criminal negligence or culpa.
@ikewise when the special laws re,uire that
the punished act be committed knowingly and
willfully$ criminal intent is re,uired to be
proved before criminal liability may arise.
9or example$ .residential Gecree 4o. A>&
punishes piracy in .hilippine waters and the
special law punishing brigandage in the
highways. (hese acts are inherently wrong
and although they are punished under special
laws$ the act themselves are mala in se: thus
good faith or lack of criminal intent is a
defense.
2. TEST TO DETERMINE IF VIOLATION OF
SPECIAL LA0 IS MALUM PROHIBITUM
OR MALUM IN SE
#naly)e the violation5 Is it wrong because
there is a law prohibiting it or punishing it as
suchK If you remove the law$ will the act still
be wrongK
If the working of the law punishing the
crime uses the word 1willfully$2 then malice
must be proven. Chere malice is a factor$
good faith is a defense.
In violation of special law$ the act
constituting the crime is a prohibited act.
(herefore$ culpa is not a basis of liability$
unless the special law punishes an omission.
Chen given a problem$ take note if the
crime is a violation of the ;evised .enal "ode
or a special law.
3. DISTINCTION BET0EEN CRIMES
PUNISHED UNDER THE REVISED PENAL
CODE AND CRIMES PUNISHED UNDER
SPECIAL LA0S
a. A( T" M"ral Trait O1 T! O11!n-!r
In crimes punished under the ;evised
.enal "ode$ the moral trait of the offender
is considered. (his is why liability would
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
% of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the
commission of the punishable act.
In crimes punished under special laws$
the moral trait of the offender is not
considered: it is enough that the prohibited
act was voluntarily done.
*. A( T" U(! O1 G""- Fait A( D!1!n(!
In crimes punished under the ;evised
.enal "ode$ good faith or lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense: unless the crime is
the result of culpa.
In crimes punished under special laws$
good faith is not a defense.
%. A( T" D!'r!! O1 A%%".$li(.!nt O1
T! Cri.!
In crimes punished under the ;evised
.enal "ode$ the degree of accomplishment
of the crime is taken into account in
punishing the offender: thus$ there are
attempted$ frustrated and consummated
stages in the commission of the crime.
In crimes punished under special laws$
the act gives rise to a crime only when it is
consummated: there are no attempted or
frustrated stages$ unless the special law
expressly penali)es a mere attempt or
frustration of the crime.
-. A( T" Miti'atin' An- A''ra&atin'
Cir%,.(tan%!(
In crimes punished under the ;evised
.enal "ode$ mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are taken into account since
the moral trait of the offender is considered.
In crimes punished under special laws$
mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are not taken into account in imposing the
penalty.
!. A( T" D!'r!! O1 Parti%i$ati"n
In crimes punished under the ;evised
.enal "ode$ when there is more than one
offender$ the degree of participation of each
in the commission of the crime is taken into
account in imposing the penalty: thus$
offenders are classified as principal$
accomplice and accessory.
In crimes punished under special laws$
the degree of participation of the offenders
is not considered. #ll who perpetrated the
prohibited act are penali)ed to the same
extent. (here is no principal or accessory to
consider.

8. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LA0S:
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC
7ffenses punishable under special laws are
not sub0ect to the provisions of the ;.". (he
;." shall be supplementary to special laws$
unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary ($rt. &(, R#C'
#rticle 1< is the conse,uence of the legal
re,uirement that you have to distinguish
those punished under special laws and those
under the ;evised .enal "ode. Cith regard to
#rticle 1<$ observe the distinction.
In $rticle &(, there is a reservation
.provision of the Revised #enal Code ma be
applied suppletoril to special laws./ Jou will
only apply the provisions of the ;evised .enal
"ode as a supplement to the special law$ or
simply correlate the violated special law$ if
needed to avoid an in0ustice. If no 0ustice
would result$ do not give suppletory
application of the ;evised .enal "ode to that
of the special law.
In La-"n'a &(. P!"$l!) 891 SCRA DE3) it
was held that the first clause should be
understood to mean only that the special
penal laws are controlling with regard to
offenses therein specifically punished. %aid
clause only restates the elemental rule of
statutory construction that special legal
provisions prevail over general ones. -ex
specialis derogant generali. In fact$ the clause
can be considered as a superfluity$ and could
have been eliminated altogether.
(he second clause contains the soul of the
article. (he main idea and purpose of the
article is embodied in the provision that the
Lcode shall be supplementaryL to special laws$
unless the latter should specifically provide
the contrary.
9or example$ a special law punishes a
certain act as a crime. (he special law is silent
as to the civil liability of one who violates the
same. /ere is a person who violated the
special law and he was prosecuted. /is
violation caused damage or in0ury to a private
party. May the court pronounce that he is
civilly liable to the offended party$ considering
that the special law is silent on this pointK Jes$
because #rticle 1<< of the ;evised .enal "ode
may be given suppletory application to
prevent an in0ustice from being done to the
offended party. #rticle 1<< states that every
person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable. (hat article shall be applied
suppletorily to avoid an in0ustice that would be
caused to the private offended party$ if he
would not be indemnified for the damages or
in0uries sustained by him.
In P!"$l! &(. R"-ri',!B$ it was held that
the use of arms is an element of rebellion$ so
a rebel cannot be further prosecuted for
possession of firearms. # violation of a special
law can never absorb a crime punishable
under the ;evised .enal "ode$ because
violations of the ;evised .enal "ode are more
serious than a violation of a special law. -ut a
crime in the ;evised .enal "ode can absorb a
crime punishable by a special law if it is a
necessary ingredient of the crime in the "ode.
In the crime of sedition$ the use of firearms
is not an ingredient of the crime. /ence$ two
prosecutions can be had5 1. sedition: and &.
illegal possession of firearms.
-ut do not think that when a crime is
punished outside of the ;evised .enal "ode$ it
is already a special law. 9or example$ the
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
crime of cattle6rustling is not a mala
prohibitum but a modification of the crime of
theft of large cattle. %o .residential Gecree
4o. A>>$ punishing cattle6rustling$ is not a
special law. It can absorb the crime of
murder. If in the course of cattle rustling$
murder was committed$ the offender cannot
be prosecuted for murder. Murder would be a
,ualifying circumstance in the crime of
,ualified cattle rustling. (his was the ruling in
P!"$l! &(. Martina-a.
(he amendments of .residential Gecree 4o.
+?&A ((he Gangerous Grugs #ct of 19!&' by
;epublic #ct 47. !+A9$ which adopted the
scale of penalties in the ;evised .enal "ode$
means that mitigating and aggravating
circumstances can now be considered in
imposing penalties. .residential Gecree 4o.
+?&A does not expressly prohibit the
suppletory application of the ;evised .enal
"ode. (he stages of the commission of
felonies will also apply since suppletory
application is now allowed.
9or cases of Illegal possession of firearms$
P!"$l! &. Si."n held that although
.residential Gecree 4o. 1++ is a special law$
the penalties therein were taken from the
;evised .enal "ode$ hence the rules in said
"ode for graduating by degrees or
determining the proper period should be
applied.
D. PUNISHABLE CONDUCT
1. Crongful act different from that intended
&. 7mission
>. .roposal and "onspiracy
?. #ttempt
A. 9rustration
+. "onsummation
1. 0RONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT
INTENDED
"riminal liability under part.1 #rticle is
incurred only when these two re,uisites are
present5 first$ the accused must be
committing a crime and that crime must be a
felony: second$ there must be no supervening
event strong enough to destroy the causal link
between the offenders act and the resulting
harm.
(here are three situations contemplated
under paragraph 1 of #rticle ?5
#berratio ictus or mistake in blow thereby
hitting a different or another victim:
Error in personae or mistake in identity of
the victim:
.raeter intentionem or where the
conse,uence exceeded the intention (in
here the accused is liable for the crimes
committed but he may invoke the
mitigating circumstance that he did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong under
#rt. 1>$ par >'.
2. OMISSION
7mission is the inaction$ the failure to
perform a positive duty which he is bound to
do. (here must be a law re,uiring the doing or
performing of an act.
3. PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY 4INFRA6
8. ATTEMPT 4INFRA6
9. FRUSTRATION 4INFRA6
D. CONSUMMATION 4INFRA6
E. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
(his ,uestion was asked in the bar
examination5 /ow do you classify felonies and
how are felonies classifiedK
Chat the examiner had in mind was #rticles >$
+ and 9. Go not write the classification of
felonies under -ook & of the ;evised .enal "ode.
(hat was not what the examiner had in mind
because the ,uestion does not re,uire the
candidate to classify but also to define.
(herefore$ the examiner was after the
classifications under #rticles >$ + and 9.
9elonies are classified as follows5
1. #ccording to the manner of their commission
&. #ccording to the stages of their execution
>. #ccording to their gravity
1. ACCORDING TO THE MANNER OF THEIR
COMMISSION
Dnder #rticle >$ they are classified as5
a. intentional felonies or those committed
with deliberate intent: and
b. culpable felonies or those resulting from
negligence$ reckless imprudence$ lack of
foresight or lack of skill.
2. ACCORDING TO THE STAGES OF THEIR
E=ECUTION
Dnder #rticle +$ felonies are classified as5
a. attempted felony 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:
b. frustrated felony when the offender
commences the commission of a felony
as a conse,uence but which would
produce the felony as a conse,uence but
which nevertheless do not produce the
felony by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator: and
c. consummated felony when all the
elements necessary for its execution are
present.
(he classification of stages of a felony in
#rticle + are true only to crimes under the
;evised .enal "ode. (his does not apply to
crimes punished under special laws. -ut even
certain crimes which are punished under the
;evised .enal "ode do not admit of these
stages.
(he purpose of classifying penalties is to
bring about a proportionate penalty and
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$$ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
e,uitable punishment. (he penalties are
graduated according to their degree of
severity. (he stages may not apply to all kinds
of felonies. (here are felonies which do not
admit of division.
a. F"r.al Cri.!(
9ormal crimes are crimes$ which are
consummated in one instance. 9or example$
in oral defamation$ there is no attempted
oral defamation or frustrated oral
defamation: it is always in the
consummated stage.
%o also$ in illegal exaction under #rticle
&1> is a crime committed when a public
officer who is authori)ed to collect taxes$
licenses or impose for the government$ shall
demand an amount bigger than or different
from what the law authori)es him to collect.
Dnder sub6paragraph a of #rticle &1> on
illegal exaction$ the law uses the word
1demanding.2 Mere demanding of an
amount different from what the law
authori)es him to collect will already
consummate a crime$ whether the taxpayer
pays the amount being demanded or not.
.ayment of the amount being demanded is
not essential to the consummation of the
crime.
*. Att!.$t An- Fr,(trati"n
(he difference between the attempted
stage and the frustrated stage lies on
whether the offender has performed all the
acts of execution for the accomplishment of
a felony. @iterally$ under the article$ if the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony
as a conse,uence but the felony was not
reali)ed$ then the crime is already in the
frustrated stage. If the offender has not yet
performed all the acts of executionMthere is
something yet to be performedMbut he was
not able to perform all the acts of execution
due to some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance$ then you
have an attempted felony.
Jou will notice that the felony begins
when the offender performs an overt act.
4ot any act will mark the beginning of a
felony$ and therefore$ if the act so far being
done does not begin a felony$ criminal
liability correspondingly does not begin. In
criminal law$ there is such a thing as
preparatory act. (hese acts do not give rise
to criminal liability.
$n overt act is that act which if allowed to
continue its natural course would definitel
result into a felon.
In the attempted stage$ the definition
uses the word 1directly.2 (his is significant.
In the attempted stage$ the acts so far
performed may already be a crime or it may
0ust be an ingredient of another crime. (he
word 1directly2 emphasi)es the re,uirement
that the attempted felony is that which is
directly linked to the overt act performed by
the offender$ no the felony he has in his
mind.
In criminal law$ you are not allowed to
speculate$ not to imagine what crime is
intended$ but apply the provisions of the
law to the facts given.
Chen a person starts entering the
dwelling of another$ that act is already
trespassing. -ut the act of entering is an
ingredient of robbery with force upon
things. Jou could only hold him liable for
attempted robbery when he has already
completed all acts performed by him directly
leading to robbery. (he act of entering
alone is not yet indicative of robbery
although that may be what he may have
planned to commit. In law$ the attempted
stage is only that overt act which is directly
linked to the felony intended to be
committed.
In US &(. Na.a+a$ the accused was
arrested while he was detaching some of
the wood panels of a store. /e was already
able to detach two panels. (o a layman$ the
only conclusion that will come to your mind
is that this fellow started to enter the store
to steal something. /e would not be there
0ust to sleep there. -ut in criminal law$ since
the act of removing the panel indicates only
at most the intention to enter. /e can only
be prosecuted for trespass. (he removal of
the paneling is 0ust an attempt to trespass$
not an attempt to rob. #lthough 4ama0a
was prosecuted for attempted robbery$ the
%upreme "ourt held it is only attempted
trespass because that is the crime that can
be directly linked to his act of removing the
wood panel.
(here are some acts which are
ingredients of a certain crime$ but which
are$ by themselves$ already criminal
offenses.
In abduction$ your desire may lead to acts
of lasciviousness. In so far the woman being
carried is concerned$ she may already be
the victim of lascivious acts. (he crime is
not attempted abduction but acts of
lasciviousness. Jou only hold him liable for
an attempt$ so far as could be reasonably
linked to the overt act done by him. Go not
go far and imagine what you should do.
0esistance
Gesistance on the part of the offender
negates criminal liability in the attempted
stage. Gesistance is true only in the
attempted stage of the felony. If under the
definition of the felony$ the act done is
already in the frustrated stage$ no amount
of desistance will negate criminal liability.
(he spontaneous desistance of the
offender negates only the attempted stage
but not necessarily all criminal liability. Even
though there was desistance on the part of
the offender$ if the desistance was made
when acts done by him already resulted to a
felony$ that offender will still be criminally
liable for the felony brought about his act.
Chat is negated is only the attempted
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$2 of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
stage$ but there may be other felonies
constituting his act.
Illustrations5
$ fired at 1 and 1 was hit on the
shoulder. 1ut 12s wound was not mortal.
3hat $ then did was to approach 1, and
told 1, .4ow ou are dead, I will kill ou./
1ut $ took pit and kept the revolver and
left. The crime committed is attempted
homicide and not phsical in!uries,
because there was an intention to kill.
The desistance was with the second shot
and would not affect the first shot
because the first shot had alread hit 1.
The second attempt has nothing to do
with the first.
In another instance, $ has a ver
seductive neighbor in the person of 1. $
had alwas been looking at 1 and had
wanted to possess her but their status
were not the same. 5ne evening, after $
saw 1 at her house and thought that 1
was alread asleep, he entered the house
of 1 through the window to abuse her.
%e, however, found out that 1 was nude
so he lost interest and left. Can $ be
accused of attempted rape6 4o, because
there was desistance, which prevented
the crime from being consummated. The
attempted stage was erased because the
offender desisted after having
commenced the commission of the
felon.
(he attempted felony is erased by
desistance because the offender
spontaneously desisted from pursuing the
acts of execution. It does not mean$
however$ that there is no more felony
committed. /e may be liable for a
consummated felony constituted by his act
of trespassing. Chen # entered the house
through the window$ which is not intended
for entrance$ it is always presumed to be
against the will of the owner. If the offender
proceeded to abuse the woman$ but the
latter screamed$ and # went out of the
window again$ he could not be prosecuted
for ,ualified trespass. Gwelling is taken as
an aggravating circumstance so he will be
prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated
by dwelling.
In deciding whether a felony is attempted
or frustrated or consummated$ there are
three criteria involved5
i. (he manner of committing
the crime:
ii. (he elements of the
crime: and
iii. (he nature of the crime
itself.
i. Manner 7f "ommitting # "rime
9or example$ let us take the crime of
bribery. "an the crime of frustrated
bribery be committedK 4o. (Incidentally$
the common concept of bribery is that it
is the act of one who corrupts a public
officer. #ctually$ bribery is the crime of
the receiver$ not the giver. (he crime of
the giver is corruption of public official.
-ribery is the crime of the public officer
who in consideration of an act having to
do with his official duties would receive
something$ or accept any promise or
present in consideration thereof.'
(he confusion arises from the fact that
this crime re,uires two to commitMthe
giver and the receiver. (he law called the
crime of the giver as corruption of public
official and the receiver as bribery. =iving
the idea that these are independent
crimes$ but actually$ they cannot arise
without the other. /ence$ if only one side
of the crime is present$ only corruption$
you cannot have consummated corruption
without the corresponding consummated
bribery. (here cannot be a consummated
bribery without the corresponding
consummated corruption. If you have
bribery only$ it is only possible in the
attempted stage. If you have corruption
only$ it is possible only in the attempted
stage. # corruptor gives money to a
public officer for the latter not to
prosecute him. (he public officer received
the money but 0ust the same$ arrested
him. /e received the money to have
evidence of corruption. Go not think that
because the corruptor has already
delivered the money$ he has already
performed all the acts of execution and$
therefore$ the corruption is already
beyond the attempted stage. (hat
thinking does away with the concept of
the crime that it re,uires two to commit.
(he manner of committing the crime
re,uires the meeting of the minds
between the giver and the receiver.
Chen the giver delivers the money to
the supposed receiver$ but there is no
meeting of the minds$ the only act done
by the giver is an attempt. It is not
possible for him to perform all the acts of
execution because in the first place$ the
receiver has no intention of being
corrupted. %imilarly$ when a public
officer demands a consideration by official
duty$ the corruptor turns down the
demand$ there is no bribery.
If the one to whom the demand was
made pretended to give$ but he had
reported the matter to higher authorities$
the money was marked and this was
delivered to the public officer. If the
public officer was arrested$ do not think
that because the public officer already
had the money in his possession$ the
crime is already frustrated bribery$ it is
only attempted bribery. (his is because
the supposed corruptor has no intention
to corrupt. In short$ there is no meeting
of the minds. 7n the other hand$ if there
is a meeting of the minds$ there is
consummated bribery or consummated
corruption. (his leaves out the frustrated
stage because of the manner of
committing the crime.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$& of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
-ut indirect bribery is always
consummated. (his is because the
manner of consummating the crime does
not admit of attempt or frustration.
Jou will notice that under the ;evised
.enal "ode$ when it takes two to commit
the crime$ there could hardly be a
frustrated stage. 9or instance$ the crime
of adultery. (here is no frustrated
adultery. 7nly attempted or
consummated. (his is because it re,uires
the link of two participants. If that link is
there$ the crime is consummated: if such
link is absent$ there is only an attempted
adultery. (here is no middle ground when
the link is there and when the link is
absent.
(here are instances where an intended
felony could already result from the acts
of execution already done. -ecause of
this$ there are felonies where the offender
can only be determined to have
performed all the acts of execution when
the resulting felony is already
accomplished. Cithout the resulting
felony$ there is no way of determining
whether the offender has already
performed all the acts of execution or not.
It is in such felonies that the frustrated
stage does not exist because without the
felony being accomplished$ there is no
way of stating that the offender has
already performed all the acts of
execution. #n example of this is the crime
of rape. (he essence of the crime is
carnal knowledge. 4o matter what the
offender may do to accomplish a
penetration$ if there was no penetration
yet$ it cannot be said that the offender
has performed all the acts of execution.
Ce can only say that the offender in rape
has performed all the acts of execution
when he has effected a penetration. 7nce
there is penetration already$ no matter
how slight$ the offense is consummated.
9or this reason$ rape admits only of the
attempted and consummated stages$ no
frustrated stage. (his was the ruling in
the case of P!"$l! &(. Orita.
In rape$ it re,uires the connection of
the offender and the offended party. 4o
penetration at all$ there is only an
attempted stage. %lightest penetration or
slightest connection$ consummated (the
doctrine in 7rita regarding slight
penetration was modified in P!"$l! &(.
Ca.$,an which re,uired the
penetration of at least the labia ma0ora
for rape to be consummated'. Jou will
notice this from the nature of the crime
re,uiring two participants.
(his is also true in the crime of arson.
It does not admit of the frustrated stage.
In arson$ the moment any particle of the
premises intended to be burned is
blackened$ that is already an indication
that the premises have begun to burn. It
does not re,uire that the entire premises
be burned to consummate arson. -ecause
of that$ the frustrated stage of arson has
been eased out. (he reasoning is that one
cannot say that the offender$ in the crime
of arson$ has already performed all the
acts of execution which could produce the
destruction of the premises through the
use of fire$ unless a part of the premises
has begun to burn. If it has not begun to
burn$ that means that the offender has
yet to perform all the acts of execution.
7n the other hand$ the moment it begins
to burn$ the crime is consummated.
#ctually$ the frustrated stage is already
standing on the consummated stage
except that the outcome did not result. #s
far as the stage is concerned$ the
frustrated stage overlaps the
consummated stage.
-ecause of this reasoning by the "ourt
of #ppeals in P!"$l! &(. Gar%ia$ the
%upreme "ourt followed the analysis that
one cannot say that the offender in the
crime of arson has already performed all
the acts of execution which would
produce the arson as a conse,uence$
unless and until a part of the premises
had begun to burn.
In US &(. Val-!B) the offender had
tried to burn the premises by gathering
0ute sacks laying these inside the room.
/e lighted these$ and as soon as the 0ute
sacks began to burn$ he ran away. (he
occupants of the room put out the fire.
(he court held that what was committed
was frustrated arson.
(his case was much the way before the
decision in the case of P!"$l! &(. Gar%ia
was handed down and the "ourt of
#ppeals ruled that there is no frustrated
arson. -ut even then$ the analysis in the
case of US &(. Val-!B is correct. (his is
because$ in determining whether the
felony is attempted$ frustrated or
consummated$ the court does not only
consider the definition under #rticle + of
the ;evised .enal "ode$ or the stages of
execution of the felony. Chen the
offender has already passed the
sub0ective stage of the felony$ it is
beyond the attempted stage. It is already
on the consummated or frustrated stage
depending on whether a felony resulted.
If the felony did not result$ frustrated.
(he attempted stage is said to be
within the sub0ective phase of execution
of a felony. 7n the sub0ective phase$ it is
that point in time when the offender
begins the commission of an overt act
until that point where he loses control of
the commission of the crime already. If
he has reached that point where he can
no longer control the ensuing
conse,uence$ the crime has already
passed the sub0ective phase and$
therefore$ it is no longer attempted. (he
moment the execution of the crime has
already gone to that point where the
felony should follow as a conse,uence$ it
is either already frustrated or
consummated. If the felony does not
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$' of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
follow as a conse,uence$ it is already
frustrated. If the felony follows as a
conse,uence$ it is consummated.
(he trouble is that$ in the 0urisprudence
recogni)ing the ob0ective phase and the
sub0ective phase$ the %upreme "ourt
considered not only the acts of the
offender$ but also his belief. (hat
although the offender may not have done
the act to bring about the felony as a
conse,uence$ if he could have continued
committing those acts but he himself did
not proceed because he believed that he
had done enough to consummate the
crime$ %upreme "ourt said the sub0ective
phase has passed. (his was applied in the
case of US &(. Val-!B$ where the
offender$ having already put kerosene on
0ute sacks$ lighted the same$ he had no
reason not to believe that the fire would
spread$ so he ran away. (hat act
demonstrated that in his mind$ he
believed that he has performed all the
acts of execution and that it is only a
matter of time that the premises will
burn. (he fact that the occupant of the
other room came out and put out the fire
is a cause independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
(he ruling in the case of US &(. Val-!B
is still correct. -ut in the case of P!"$l!
&(. Gar%ia$ the situation is different.
/ere$ the offender who put the torch over
the house of the offended party$ the
house being a nipa hut$ the torch which
was lighted could easily burn the roof of
the nipa hut. -ut the torch burned out.
In that case$ you cannot say that the
offender believed that he had performed
all the acts of execution. (here was not
even a single burn of any instrument or
agency of the crime.
(he analysis made by the "ourt of
#ppeals is still correct5 that they could not
demonstrate a situation where the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution to bring about the crime of
arson and the situation where he has not
yet performed all the acts of execution.
(he weight of authority is that the crime
of arson cannot be committed in the
frustrated stage. (he reason is because
we can hardly determine whether the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution that would result in arson$ as a
conse,uence$ unless a part of the
premises has started to burn. 7n the
other hand$ the moment a particle or a
molecule of the premises has blackened$
in law$ arson is consummated. (his is
because consummated arson does not
re,uire that the whole of the premises be
burned. It is enough that any part of the
premises$ no matter how small$ bas
begun to burn.
Chat if the contents of the building
were burned but the structure itself was
untouched by the fireK #ccording to the
case of US. V(. G" F"" S,#$ the crime is
consummated arson.
(here are also certain crimes that do
not admit of the attempted or frustrated
stage$ like physical in0uries. 7ne of the
known commentators in criminal law has
advanced the view that the crime of
physical in0uries can be committed in the
attempted as well as the frustrated stage.
/e explained that by going through the
definition of an attempted and a
frustrated felony under #rticle +$ if a
person was about to give a fist blow to
another raises his arms$ but before he
could throw a blow$ somebody holds that
arm$ there would be attempted physical
in0uries. (he reason for this is because
the offender was not able to perform all
the acts of execution to bring about
physical in0uries.
7n the other hand$ he also stated that
the crime of physical in0uries may be
committed in the frustrated stage when
the offender was able to throw the blow
but somehow$ the offended party was
able to sidestep away from the blow. /e
reasoned out that the crime would be
frustrated because the offender was able
to perform all the acts of execution which
would bring about the felony were it not
for a cause independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
(he explanation is academic. Jou will
notice that under the ;evised .enal "ode$
the crime of physical in0uries is penali)ed
on the basis of the gravity of the in0uries.
#ctually$ there is no simple crime of
physical in0uries. Jou have to categori)e
because there are specific articles that
apply whether the physical in0uries are
serious$ less serious or slight. If you say
physical in0uries$ you do not know which
article to apply. (his being so$ you could
not punish the attempted or frustrated
stage because you do not know what
crime of physical in0uries was committed.
ii. Elements 7f (he "rime
In the crime of estafa$ the element of
damage is essential before the crime
could be consummated. If there is no
damage$ even if the offender succeeded
in carting away the personal property
involved$ estafa cannot be considered as
consummated. 9or the crime of estafa to
be consummated$ there must be
misappropriation already done$ so that
there is damage already suffered by the
offended party. If there is no damage yet$
the estafa can only be frustrated or
attempted.
7n the other hand$ if it were a crime of
theft$ damage or intent to cause damage
is not an element of theft. Chat is
necessary only is intent to gain$ not even
gain is important. (he mere intent to
derive some profit is enough but the
thinking must be complete before a crime
of theft shall be consummated. (hat is
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$+ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
why we made that distinction between
theft and estafa.
If the personal property was received
by the offender$ this is where you have to
decide whether what was transferred to
the offender is 0uridical possession or
physical possession only. If the offender
did not receive the personal property$ but
took the same from the possession of the
owner without the latters consent$ then
there is no problem. (hat cannot be
estafa: this is only theft or none at all.
In estafa$ the offender receives the
property: he does not take it. -ut in
receiving the property$ the recipient may
be committing theft$ not estafa$ if what
was transferred to him was only the
physical or material possession of the
ob0ect. It can only be estafa if what was
transferred to him is not only material or
physical possession but 0uridical
possession as well.
Chen you are discussing estafa$ do not
talk about intent to gain. In the same
manner that when you are discussing the
crime of theft$ do not talk of damage.
(he crime of theft is the one commonly
given under #rticle +. (his is so because
the concept of theft under the ;evised
.enal "ode differs from the concept of
larceny under #merican common law.
Dnder #merican common law$ the crime
of larceny which is e,uivalent to out crime
of theft here re,uires that the offender
must be able to carry away or transport
the thing being stolen. Cithout that
carrying away$ the larceny cannot be
consummated.
In our concept of theft$ the offender
need not move an inch from where he
was. It is not a matter of carrying away.
It is a matter of whether he has already
ac,uired complete control of the personal
property involved. (hat complete control
simply means that the offender has
already supplanted his will from the will of
the possessor or owner of the personal
property involved$ such that he could
exercise his own control over the thing.
Illustration5
I placed a wallet on a table inside a
room. $ stranger comes inside the
room, gets the wallet and puts it in his
pocket. I suddenl started searching
him and I found the wallet inside his
pocket. The crime of theft is alread
consummated because he alread
ac7uired complete control of m wallet.
This is so true when he removed the
wallet from the confines of the table.
%e can exercise his will over the wallet
alread, he can drop this on the floor,
etc. 1ut as long as the wallet remains
on the table, the theft is not et
consummated8 there can onl be
attempted or frustrated theft. If he has
started lifting the wallet, it is
frustrated. If he is in the act of tring
to take the wallet or place it under,
attempted.
1(aking2 in the concept of theft$ simply
means exercising control over the thing.
If instead of the wallet, the man
who entered the room pretended to
carr the table out of the room, and the
wallet is there. 3hile taking the table
out of the room, I apprehended him. It
turned out that he is not authori9ed at
all and is interested onl in the wallet,
not the table. The crime is not et
consummated. It is onl frustrated
because as far as the table is
concerned, it is the confines of this
room that is the container. $s long as
he has not taken this table out of the
four walls of this room, the taking is
not complete.
$ man entered a room and found a
chest on the table. %e opened it and
found some valuables inside. %e took
the valuables, put them in his pocket
and was arrested. In this case, theft is
consummated.
1ut if he does not take the
valuables but lifts the entire chest, and
before he could leave the room, he was
apprehended, there is frustrated theft.
If the thing is stolen from a compound
or from a room$ as long as the ob0ect has
not been brought out of that room$ or
from the perimeter of the compound$ the
crime is only frustrated. (his is the
confusion raised in the case of US &(.
Din" compared with P!"$l! &(. E($irit,
an- P!"$l! &(. A-i".
In US &(. Din") the accused loaded
boxes of rifles on their truck. Chen they
were on their way out of the %outh
/arbor$ they were checked at the
checkpoint$ so they were not able to leave
the compound. It was held that what was
committed was frustrated theft.
In P!"$l! &(. E($irit,) the accused
were on their way out of the supply house
when they were apprehended by the
military police who found them secreting
some hospital linen. It was held that what
was committed was consummated theft.
(he emphasis$ which was erroneously
laid in some commentaries$ is that$ in
both cases$ the offenders were not liable
to pass the checkpoint. -ut why is it that
in one$ it is frustrated and in the other$ it
is consummatedK
In the case of US &(. Din") the boxes
of rifle were stocked inside the compound
of the %outh /arbor. #s far as the boxes
of rifle are concerned$ it is the perimeter
of the compound that is the container. #s
long as they were not able to bring these
boxes of rifle out of the compound$ the
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$- of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
taking is not complete. 7n the other
hand$ in the case of P!"$l! &(. E($irit,)
what were taken were hospital linens.
(hese were taken from a warehouse.
/ospital linens were taken from the boxes
that were diffused or destroyed and
brought out of the hospital. 9rom the
moment they took it out of the boxes
where the owner or the possessor had
placed it$ the control is complete. Jou do
not have to go out of the compound to
complete the taking or the control.
(his is very decisive in the problem
because in most problems given in the
bar$ the offender$ after having taken the
ob0ect out of the container changed his
mind and returned it. Is he criminally
liableK Go not make a mistake by saying
that there is desistance. If the crime is
one of theft$ the moment he brought it
out$ it was consummated. (he return of
the thing cannot be desistance because in
criminal law$ desistance is true only in the
attempted stage. Jou cannot talk of
desistance anymore when it is already in
the consummated stage. If the offender
has already ac,uired complete control of
what he intended to take$ the fact that he
changed his mind and returned the same
will no longer affect his criminal liability.
It will only affect the civil liability of the
crime because he will no longer be
re,uired to pay the ob0ect. #s far as the
crime committed is concerned$ the
offender is criminally liable and the crime
is consummated theft.
Illustration5
$ and 1 are neighbors. 5ne
evening, $ entered the ard of 1 and
opened the chicken coop where 1
keeps his fighting cocks. %e discovered
that the fighting cocks were not
phsicall fit for cockfighting so he
returned it. The crime is consummated
theft. The will of the owner is to keep
the fighting cock inside the chicken
coop. 3hen the offender succeeded in
bringing the coop, it is clear that his
will is completel governed or
superseded the will of the owner to
keep such cock inside the chicken coop.
%ence, the crime was alread
consummated, and being
consummated, the return of the
owner2s propert is not desistance
anmore. The offender is criminall
liable but he will not be civill liable but
he will not be civill liable because the
ob!ect was returned.
Chen the receptacle is locked or
sealed$ and the offender broke the same$
in lieu of theft$ the crime is robbery with
force upon things. /owever$ that the
receptacle is locked or sealed has nothing
to do with the stage of the commission of
the crime. It refers only to whether it is
theft or robbery with force upon things.
In the crime of abduction$ the crucial
element is the taking away of the woman
with lewd designs. (he ,uestion is$ should
the mathematical distance be a
consideration in determining the liability
of the offenderK In ;egalados
commentary he pointed out two case
illustrations which seem to show that
distance is a consideration. In P!"$l! &(.
Ra.ir!B$ the woman was taken to
another province in an automobile$ the
crime was consummated abduction. In
P!"$l! &(. D! la Cr,B) the victim was
taken only &< meters away and the court
ruled that the crime is attempted
abduction. ;egalado suggests that
distance should not be a decisive factor
because in every crime there are other
relevant facts which can be considered
such as those indicative of intent$ the
offenders capacity to perform the act and
the stages thereof.
iii. 4ature 7f (he "rime Itself
In crimes involving the taking of human
lifeMparricide$ homicide$ and murderMin
the definition of the frustrated stage$ it is
indispensable that the victim be mortally
wounded. Dnder the definition of the
frustrated stage$ to consider the offender
as having performed all the acts of
execution$ the acts already done by him
must produce or be capable of producing
a felony as a conse,uence. (he general
rule is that there must be a fatal in0ury
inflicted$ because it is only then that
death will follow.
If the wound is not mortal$ the crime is
only attempted. (he reason is that the
wound inflicted is not capable of bringing
about the desired felony of parricide$
murder or homicide as a conse,uence: it
cannot be said that the offender has
performed all the acts of execution which
would produce parricide$ homicide or
murder as a result.
#n exception to the general rule is the
so6called sub0ective phase. (he %upreme
"ourt has decided cases$ which applied
the sub0ective standard that when the
offender himself believed that he had
performed all the acts of execution$ even
though no mortal wound was inflicted$ the
act is already in the frustrated stage. (his
was laid down in the doctrine of P!"$l!
&(. S# Pi". /owever$ this case can be
distinguished from its precedents such as
P!"$l! &(. E-,a&! and P!"$l! &(.
Da'.an. In these cases$ the accused
believed that he had performed all the
elements of the crime but there was no
death$ however$ it is readily distinguished
that the wounds could have resulted in
death . In the case of %y .io even though
he was correctly convicted of attempted
homicide$ the wounds were not in fact not
fatal. /ence$ it was superfluous for the
"ourt to lay down the above6mentioned
dictum because there was no need to
revert to the belief of the accused in light
of the physical evidence.
%. C"n($ira%# An- Pr"$"(al
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$! of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
(wo ways for conspiracy to exist5
(here is an agreement.
(he participants acted in concert or
simultaneously which is indicative of a
meeting of the minds towards a
common criminal goal or criminal
ob0ective. Chen several offenders act
in a synchroni)ed. "oordinated
manner$ the fact that their acts
complimented each other is indicative
of the meeting of the minds. (here is
an implied agreement.
(wo kinds of conspiracy5
"onspiracy as a crime: and
"onspiracy as a manner of incurring
criminal liability.
Chen conspiracy itself as a crime$ no
overt act is necessary to bring about the
criminal liability. (he mere conspiracy is the
crime itself. (his is only true when the law
expressly punishes the mere conspiracy:
otherwise$ the conspiracy does not bring
about the commission of the crime because
conspiracy is not an overt act but a mere
preparatory act. Treason, rebellion, sedition
and coup d2 etat are the onl crimes where
the conspirac and proposal to commit
them are punishable.
Chen the conspiracy is only a basis of
incurring criminal liability$ there must be an
overt act done before the co6conspirators
become criminally liable.
Chen the conspiracy itself is a crime$ this
cannot be inferred or deduced because
there is no overt act. #ll that there is is the
agreement. 7n the other hand$ if the co6
conspirator or any of them would execute
an overt act$ the crime would no longer be
the conspiracy but the overt act itself.
Illustration5
$, 1, C and 0 came to an agreement
to commit rebellion. Their agreement was
to bring about the rebellion on a certain
date. Even if none of them has performed
the act of rebellion, there is alread
criminal liabilit arising from the
conspirac to commit the rebellion. 1ut if
anone of them has committed the overt
act of rebellion, the crime of all is no
longer conspirac but rebellion itself. This
subsists even though the other co)
conspirator does not know that one of
them had alread done the act of
rebellion.
(his legal conse,uence is not true if the
conspiracy is not a crime. If the conspiracy
is only a basis of criminal liability$ none of
the co6conspirators would be liable$ unless
there is an overt act. %o$ for long as anyone
shall desist before an overt act in
furtherance of the crime was committed$
such a desistance would negate criminal
liability.
Illustration5
Three persons plan to rob a bank.
For as long as none of the conspirators
has committed an overt act, there is no
crime et. 1ut when one of them commits
an overt act, all of them shall be held
liable, unless a co)conspirator was absent
from the scene of the crime or he showed
up, but he tried to prevent the
commission of the crime.
#s a general rule$ if there has been a
conspiracy to commit a crime in a particular
place$ anyone who did not appear shall be
presumed to have desisted. (he exception
to this is if such person who did not appear
was the mastermind.
Ce have to observe the distinction
between the two because conspiracy as a
crime$ must have a clear and convincing
evidence of its existence. Ever crime must
be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Chen the conspiracy is 0ust a basis of
incurring criminal liability$ however$ the
same may be deduced or inferred from the
acts of several offenders in carrying out the
commission of the crime. (he existence of a
conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from
the acts of the offenders when such acts
disclose or show a common pursuit of the
criminal ob0ective. (his was the ruling in
P!"$l! &(. Pint") 2@8 SCRA 5.
#lthough conspiracy is defined as two or
more persons coming to an agreement
regarding the commission of a felony and
deciding to commit it$ the word 1person2
here should not be understood to re,uire a
meeting of the co6conspirator regarding the
commission of the felony. # conspiracy of
the second kind can be inferred or deduced
even though they have not met as long as
they acted in concert or simultaneously$
indicative of a meeting of the minds toward
a common goal or ob0ective.
"onspiracy is a matter of substance which
must be alleged in the information$
otherwise$ the court will not consider the
same.
In P!"$l! &(. La,ri") 2@@ SCRA 8F5) it
was held that it must be established by
positive and conclusive evidence$ not by
con0ectures or speculations.
In Ta!r &(. CA) 1FD SCRA 95F@) it was
held that mere knowledge$ ac,uiescence to$
or approval of the act$ without cooperation
at least$ agreement to cooperate$ is not
enough to constitute a conspiracy. (here
must be an intentional participation in the
crime with a view to further the common
felonious ob0ective.
Chen several persons who do not know
each other simultaneously attack the victim$
the act of one is the act of all$ regardless of
the degree of in0ury inflicted by any one of
them. #ll will be liable for the conse,uences.
# conspiracy is possible even when
participants are not known to each other.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$. of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
Go not think that participants are always
known to each other.

Illustrations5
$ thought of having her husband
killed because the latter was maltreating
her. ,he hired some persons to kill him
and pointed at her husband. The goons
got hold of her husband and started
mauling him. The wife took pit and
shouted for them to stop but the goons
continued. The wife ran awa. The wife
was prosecuted for parricide. 1ut the
,upreme Court said that there was
desistance so she is not criminall liable.
$ law student resented the fact that
his brother was killed b $. %e hired 1 to
kill $ and offered him #:(,(((.((. %e
disclosed to 1 that $ was being arraigned
in the Cit %all of ;anila and told him to
execute the plan on following da. In the
evening of that same da, the law
student changed his mind so he
immediatel went to the police and told
them to dispatch police officers to prevent
1 from committing the crime.
<nfortunatel, the police were caught in
traffic causing their dela, so that when
the reached the place, 1 had alread
killed $. In this case, there was no
proposal but a conspirac. The have
conspired to execute a crime but the
crime involved here is murder and a
conspirac to commit murder is not a
crime in itself but merel a basis for
incurring criminal liabilit. This is !ust a
preparator act, and his desistance
negates criminal liabilit.
.roposal is true only up to the point
where the party to whom the proposal was
made has not yet accepted the proposal.
7nce the proposal was accepted$ a
conspiracy arises. .roposal is unilateral$ one
party makes a proposition to the other:
conspiracy is bilateral$ it re,uires two
parties.
#s pointed out earlier$ desistance is true
only in the attempted stage. -efore this
stage$ there is only a preparatory stage.
"onspiracy is only in the preparatory stage.

(he %upreme "ourt has ruled that one who
desisted is not criminally liable. 1Chen a
person has set foot to the path of
wickedness and brings back his foot to the
path of righteousness$ the law shall reward
him for doing so.2
Chere there are several persons who
participated$ like in a killing$ and they
attacked the victim simultaneously$ so much
that it cannot be known what participation
each one had$ all these participants shall be
considered as having acted in conspiracy
and they will be held collectively
responsible.
Go not search for an agreement among
the participants. If they acted
simultaneously to bring about their common
intention$ conspiracy exists. #nd when
conspiracy exists$ do not consider the
degree of participation of each conspiracy
because the act of one is the act of all. #s a
general rule$ they have e,ual responsibility.
(here is conspiracy when the offenders
acted simultaneously pursuing a common
criminal design: thus$ acting out a common
criminal intent.
Illustration5
$, 1 and C have been courting the
same lad for several ears. 5n several
occasions, the even visited the lad on
intervening hours. 1ecause of this, $, 1
and C became hostile with one another.
5ne da, 0 invited the oung lad and
she accepted the invitation. Eventuall,
the oung lad agreed to marr 0. 3hen
$, 1 and C learned about this, the all
stood up to leave the house of the oung
lad feeling disappointed. 3hen $ looked
back at the oung lad with 0, he saw 0
laughing menacingl. $t that instance, $
stabbed 0. C and 1 followed. In this case,
it was held that conspirac was present.
(he common notion is that when there is
conspiracy involved$ the participants are
punished as principals. (his notion is no
longer absolute. In the case of P!"$l! &(.
Ni!rra) the %upreme "ourt ruled that even
though there was conspiracy$ if a co6
conspirator merely cooperated in the
commission of the crime with insignificant
or minimal acts$ such that even without his
cooperation$ the crime could be carried out
as well$ such co6conspirator should be
punished as an accomplice only. (he reason
given is that penal laws always favor a
milder form of responsibility upon and
offender. %o it is no longer accurate to think
that when there is a conspiracy$ all are
principals.
4otwithstanding that there is conspiracy$
a co6conspirator may be held liable only as
an accomplice. (hat means the penalty
which shall be imposed upon him is one
degree lower. 9or example$ there was a
planned robbery$ and the taxi driver was
present during the planning. (here$ the
conspirators told the taxi driver that they
are going to use his taxicab in going to the
place of robbery. (he taxi driver agreed but
said$ 1I will bring you there$ and after
committing the robbery I will return later.2
(he taxi driver brought the conspirators
where the robbery would be committed.
#fter the robbery was finished$ he took the
conspirators back to his taxi and brought
them away. It was held that the taxi driver
was liable only as an accomplice. /is
cooperation was not really indispensable.
(he robbers could have engaged another
taxi. (he taxi driver did not really stay
during the commission of the robbery. #t
most$ what he only extended was his
cooperation. (hat is why he was given only
that penalty for an accomplice.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
$% of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
#$ -$ and "$ under the influence of
mari0uana$ broke into a house because they
learned that the occupants have gone on an
excursion. (hey ransacked the house. # got
a colored (B$ - saw a camera and took that$
and " found a can of salmon and took that.
In the crime of robbery with force upon
things$ the penalty is based on the totality
of the value of the personal property taken
and not on the individual property taken by
him.
In Sit"n &(. CA) it was held that the idea
of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea
of a free for all. (here is no definite
opponent or definite intent as when a
basketball crowd beats a referee to death.
(he prosecution must prove conspiracy by
the same ,uantum of evidence as the felony
charged itself although$ proof of previous
agreement among the malefactors to
commit the crime is not essential to prove
conspiracy. It is not necessary to show that
all the conspirators actually hit and killed
the victim: what is primordial is that all the
participants performed specific acts with
such closeness and coordination as to
indicate a common purpose or design to
bring out the victims death. (P!"$l! &.
B,lan) 2@@9'
Implied Conspirac
In P!"$l! &( Pan'ilinan) it was
reiterated that conspiracy need not be direct
but may be inferred from the conduct of the
parties$ their 0oint purpose$ community of
interest and in the mode and manner of
commission of the offense.
The legal effects of implied conspirac are"
1. 4ot all those present at the crime
scene will be considered conspirators:
&. 7nly those who participated in the
criminal acts during the commission of
the crime will be considered co6
conspirators:
>. Mere ac,uiescence to or approval of
the commission of the crime$ without
any act of criminal participation$ shall
not render one criminally liable as co6
conspirator.
3. ACCORDING TO THEIR GRAVITY
Dnder #rticle 9$ felonies are classified as
grave felonies or those to which attaches the
capital punishment of penalties which in any
of their periods are afflictive: less grave
felonies or those to which the law punishes
with penalties which in their maximum period
was correctional: and light felonies or those
infractions of law for the commission of which
the penalty is arresto menor.
3h is it necessary to determine whether
the crime is grave, less grave or light6
(o determine whether these felonies can be
complexed or not$ and to determine the
prescription of the crime and the prescription
of the penalty. In other words$ these are
felonies classified according to their gravity$
stages and the penalty attached to them. (ake
note that when the ;evised .enal "ode speaks
of grave and less grave felonies$ the definition
makes a reference specifically to #rticle &A of
the ;evised .enal "ode. Go not omit the
phrase 1In accordance with #rticle &A2
because there is also a classification of
penalties under #rticle &+ that was not
applied.
If the penalty is a fine and exactly .&<<.<<$
it is only considered a light felony under
#rticle 9.
If the fine is imposed as an alternative
penalty or as a single penalty$ the fine of
.&<<.<< is considered a correctional penalty
under #rticle &+.
If the penalty is exactly .&<<.<<$ apply
#rticle &+. It is considered as a correctional
penalty and it prescribes in 1< years. If the
offender is apprehended at any time within
ten years$ he can be made to suffer the fine.
(his classification of felony according to
gravity is important with respect to the
,uestion of prescription of crimes.
In the case of light felonies$ crimes
prescribe in two months. #fter two months$
the state loses the right to prosecute unless
the running period is suspended. If the
offender escapes while in detention after he
has been loose$ if there was already 0udgment
that was passed$ it can be promulgated even
if absent under the 4ew ;ules on "riminal
.rocedure. If the crime is correctional$ it
prescribes in ten years$ except arresto mayor$
which prescribes in five years.

8. PLURAL CRIMES
.hilosophy behind plural crimes5 (he
treatment of plural crimes as one is to be
lenient to the offender$ who$ instead of being
made to suffer distinct penalties for every
resulting crime is made to suffer one penalty
only$ although it is the penalty for the most
serious one and is in the maximum period.
.urpose is in the pursuance of the rule of pro
reo.
If by complexing the crime$ the penalty
would turn out to be higher$ do not complex
anymore.
E/a.$l!: Murder and theft (killed with
treachery$ then stole the right'.
P!nalt#: If complex N ;eclusion temporal
maximum to death.
If treated individually N ;eclusion temporal
to ;eclusion .erpetua
"omplex6crime is not 0ust a matter of
penalty$ but of substance under the ;evised
.enal "ode.
.lurality of crimes my be in the form of5
(1' "ompound "rime$
(&' "omplex crime: and
(>' "omposite crime.
a. C".$",n- Cri.!
# compound crime is one where a single
act produces two or more crimes.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2 of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
Sin'l! A%t S!&!ral A%t(
(hrowing a hand
grenade
%ubmachine gun N
because of the number
of bullets released
# single bullet killing
two person
9iring of the revolver
twice in succession
*. C".$l!/ Cri.!(
# complex crime strictly speaking is one
where the offender has to commit an
offense as a means for the commission of
another offense. It is said that the offense
is committed as a necessary means to
commit the other offense. 14ecessary
should not be understood as indispensable$
otherwise$ it shall be considered absorbed
and not giving rise to a complex crime.
# composite crime is one in which
substance is made up of more than one
crime$ but which in the eyes of the law is
only a single indivisible offense. (his is also
known as special complex crime. Examples
are robbery with homicide$ robbery with
rape$ rape with homicide. (hese are crimes
which in the eye of the law are regarded
only as a single indivisible offense.
%. C".$"(it! Cri.!(
(his is one which is substance is made up
of more than one crime but which in the
eyes of the law is only a single indivisible
offense. (his is also known as a special
complex crime. Example are robbery with
homicide$ robbery with rape$ robbery with
physical in0uries and rape with homicide.
(he compound crime and the complex
crime are treated in #rticle ? of the
;evised .enal "ode. -ut in such article$ a
compound crime is also designated as a
complex crime$ but 1complex crimes2 are
limited only to a situation where the
resulting felonies are grave andHor less
grave.
Chereas in a compound crime$ there is no
limit as to the gravity of the resulting crimes
as long as a single act brings about two or
more crimes. %trictly speaking$ compound
crimes are not limited to grave less grave
felonies but covers all single act that results
in two or more crimes.
Illustration5
$ person threw a hand grenade and
the people started scampering. 3hen the
hand grenade exploded, no on was
seriousl wounded all were mere
wounded. It was held that this is a
compound crime, although the resulting
felonies are onl slight.
Illustration of a situation where the term
1necessary2 in complex crime should not be
understood as indispensable5
$betting committed during the
encounter between rebels and
government troops such that the
homicide committed cannot be complexed
with rebellion. This is because the are
indispensable part of rebellion. =Caveat"
5rtega sas rebellion can be complexed
with common crimes in discussion on
Rebellion>
(he complex crime lies actually in the first
form under #rticle 1?.
(he first form of the complex crime is
actually a compound crime$ is one where a
single act constitutes two or more grave
andHor less grave felonies. (he basis in
complexing or compounding the crime is the
act. %o that when an offender performed
more than one act$ although similar$ if they
result in separate crimes$ there is no
complex crime at all$ instead$ the offender
shall be prosecuted for as many crimes as
are committed under separate information.
Chen the single act brings about two or
more crimes$ the offender is punished with
only one penalty$ although in the maximum
period$ because he acted only with single
criminal impulse. (he presumption is that$
since there is only one criminal impulse and
correctly$ only one penalty should be
imposed.
"onversely$ when there are several acts
performed$ the assumption is that each act
is impelled by a distinct criminal impulse$ a
separate penalty. /owever$ it may happen
that the offender is impelled only by a single
criminal impulse in committing a series of
acts that brought about more than one
crime$ considering that "riminal @aw$ if
there is only one criminal impulse which
brought about the commission of the crime$
the offender should be penali)ed only once.
(here are in fact cases decided by the
%upreme "ourt where the offender has
performed as series of acts but the acts
appeared to be impelled by one and the
same impulse$ the ruling is that a complex
crime is committed. In this case it is not
the singleness of the act but the
singlessness of the impulse that has been
considered. (here are cases where the
%upreme "ourt held that the crime
committed is complex even though the
offender performed not a single act but a
series of acts. (he only reason is that the
series of acts are impelled by a single
criminal impulse.
In case the crime committed is a
composite crime$ the conspirator will be
liable for all the acts committed during the
commission of the crime agreed upon. (his
is because$ in the eyes of the law$ all those
acts done in pursuance of the crime agreed
upon are acts which constitute a single
crime.
Illustrations5
$, 1, and C decided to commit
robber in the house of 0. #ursuant to
their agreement, $ would ransack the
second floor, 1 was to wait outside, and C
would sta on the first floor. <nknown to
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2$ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
1 and C, $ raped a girl upstairs. $ll of
them will be liable for robber with rape.
The crime committed is robber with
rape, which is not a complex crime, but
an indivisible felon under the $rticle ?@A
of the Revised #enal Code. Even if 1 and
C did not know that rape was being
committed and the agreed onl and
conspired to rob, et rape was part of
robber. Rape can not be separated from
robber.
$, 1, and C agreed to rob the house
of 0. It was agreed that $ would go to
the second floor, 1 would sta in the first
floor, and C stands guard outside. $ll
went to their designated areas in pursuit
of the plan. 3hile $ was ransacking the
second floor, the owner was awakened. $
killed him. $, 1, and C will be liable for
robber with homicide. This is because, it
is well settled that an killing taking place
while robber is being committed shall be
treated as a single indivisible offense.
#s a general rule$ when there is
conspiracy$ the rule is that the act of one is
the act of all. (his principle applies only to
the crime agreed upon.
(he exception is if any of the co6
conspirator would commit a crime not
agreed upon. (his happens when the crime
agreed upon and the crime committed by
one of the co6conspirators are distinct
crimes.
Exception to the exception5 In acts
constituting a single indivisible offense$
even though the co6conspirator performed
different acts bringing about the composite
crime$ all will be liable for such crime. (hey
can only evade responsibility for any other
crime outside of that agreed upon if it is
proved that the particular conspirator had
tried to prevent the commission of such
other act.
(he rule would be different if the crime
committed was not a composite crime.
Illustration5
$, 1, and C agreed to kill 0. 3hen
the saw the opportunit, $, 1, and C
killed 0 and after that, $ and 1 ran into
different directions. C inspected the
pocket of the victim and found that the
victim was wearing a ringBa diamond
ringBand he took it. The crimes
committed are homicide and theft. $s far
as the homicide is concerned, $, 1, and C
are liable because that was agreed upon
and theft was not an integral part of
homicide. This is a distinct crime so the
rule will not appl because it was not the
crime agreed upon. Insofar as the crime
of theft is concerned, C will be the onl
one liable. ,o C will be liable for homicide
and theft.
9. CONTINUED AND CONTINUING CRIMES
In criminal law$ when a series of acts are
perpetrated in pursuance of a single criminal
impulse$ there is what is called a continued
crime. In criminal procedure for purposes of
venue$ this is referred to as a continuing
crime.
(he term 1continuing crimes2 as sometimes
used in lieu of the term 1continued crimes2$
however$ although both terms are analogous$
they are not really used with the same import.
1"ontinuing crime2 is the term used in criminal
procedure to denote that a certain crime may
be prosecuted and tried not only before the
court of the place where it was originally
committed or began$ but also before the court
of the place where the crime was continued.
/ence$ the term 1continuing crime2 is used in
criminal procedure when any of the material
ingredients of the crime was committed in
different places.
# 1continued crime2 is one where the
offender performs a series of acts violating
one and the same penal provision committed
at the same place and about the same time
for the same criminal purpose$ regardless of a
series of acts done$ it is regarded in law as
one.
In P!"$l! &. -! L!"n$ where the accused
took five roosters from one and the same
chicken coop$ although the roosters were
owned by different persons$ it was held that
there is only one crime of theft committed
because the accused acted out of a single
criminal impulse only. /owever performing a
series of acts but this is one and the same
intent %upreme "ourt ruled that only one
crime is committed under one information.
In P!"$l! &. La2a($ the accused
constabulary soldiers were ordered to march
with several muslims from one barrio to
another place. (hese soldiers feared that on
the way some of the Muslims may escape.
%o @awas ordered the men to tie the Muslims
by the hand connecting one with the other$ so
on one would run away. Chen the hands of
the Muslims were tied$ one of them protested$
he did not want to be included among those
who were tied because he was a /a00ii$ so the
/a00i remonstrated and there was commotion.
#t the height of the commotion$ @awas
ordered his men to fire$ and the soldiers
mechanically fired. Eleven were killed and
several others were wounded. (he ,uestion
of whether the constabulary soldiers should be
prosecuted for the killing of each under a
separate information has reached the
%upreme "ourt. (he %upreme "ourt ruled
that the accused should be prosecuted only in
one information$ because a complex crime of
multiple homicide was committed by them.
In another case$ a band of robbers came
across a compound where a sugar mill is
located. (he workers of said mill have their
,uarters within the compound. (he band of
robbers ransacked the different ,uarters
therein. It was held that there is only one
crime committed N multiple robbery$ not
because of #rticle ? but because this is a
continued crime. Chen the robbers entered
the compound$ they were moved by a single
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
22 of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
criminal intent. 4ot because there were
several ,uarter robbed. (his becomes a
complex crime.
(he definition in #rticle ? is not honored
because the accused did not perform a single
act. (here were a series of acts$ but the
decision in the @awas case is correct. (he
confusion lies in this. Chile #rticle ? speaks
of a complex crime where a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
offenses$ event hose cases when the act is not
a single but a series of acts resulting to two or
more grave and less grave felonies$ the
%upreme "ourt considered this a complex
crime when the act is the product of one
single criminal impulse.
If confronted with a problem$ use the
standard or condition that it refers not only to
the singleness of the act which brought two or
more grave andHless grave felonies. (he
%upreme "ourt has extended this class of
complex crime to those cases when the
offender performed not a single act but a
series of acts as long as it is the product of a
single criminal impulse.
Jou cannot find an article in the ;evised
.enal "ode with respect to the continued
crime or continuing crime. (he nearest article
is #rticle ?. %uch situation is also brought
under the operation of #rticle ?.
In .eople v. =arcia$ the accused were
convicts who were members of a certain gang
and they conspired to kill the other gang.
%ome of the accused killed their victims in one
place within the same penitentiary$ some
killed the others in another place within the
same penitentiary. (he %upreme "ourt ruled
that all accused should be punished under one
information because they acted in conspiracy.
(he act of one is the act of all. -ecause there
were several victims killed and some were
mortally wounded$ the accused should be held
for the complex crime of multiple homicide
with multiple frustrated homicide. (here is a
complex crime not only when there is a single
act but a series of acts. It is correct that
when the offender acted in conspiracy$ this
crime is considered as one and prosecuted
under one information. #lthough in this case$
the offenders did not only kills one person but
killed different persons$ so it is clear that in
killing of one victim or the killing of another
victim$ another act out of this is done
simultaneously. %upreme "ourt considered
this as complex. #lthough the killings did not
result from one single act.
In criminal procedure$ it is prohibited to
charge more than one offense in an
information$ except when the crimes is one
information constitute a complex crime or a
special complex crime.
%o whenever the %upreme "ourt concludes
that the criminal should be punished only
once$ because they acted in conspiracy or
under the same criminal impulse$ it is
necessary to embody these crimes under one
single information. It is necessary to consider
them as complex crimes even if the essence of
the crime does not fit the definition of #rt ?$
because there is no other provision in the
;.".
Guplicity of offenses$ in order not to violate
this rule$ it must be called a complex crime.
In earlier rulings on abduction with rape$ if
several offenders abducted the woman and
abused her$ there is multiple rape. (he
offenders are to be convicted of one count of
rape and separately charged of the other
rapes.
In P!"$l! &. J"(!$ there were four
participants here. (hey abducted the woman$
after which$ the four took turns in abusing
her. It was held that each one of the four
became liable not only for his own rape but
also for those committed by the others. Each
of the four offenders was convicted of four
rapes. In the eyes of the law$ each committed
four crimes of rape. 7ne of the four rapes
committed by one of them was complexed
with the crime of abduction. (he other three
rapes are distinct counts or rape. (he three
rapes are not necessary to commit the other
rapes. (herefore$ separate
complaintsHinformation.
In P!"$l! &. Pa*a(a$ the %upreme "ourt
through *usitce #,uino ruled that there is only
one count of forcible abduction with rape
committed by the offenders who abducted the
two women and abused them several times.
(his was only a dissenting opinion of *ustice
#,uino$ that there could be only one complex
crime of abduction with rape$ regardless of the
number of rapes committed because all the
rapes are but committed out of one and the
same lewd design which impelled the offender
to abduct the victim.
In P!"$l! &. B"+a($ the %upreme "ourt
followed the ruling in P!"$l! &. J"(! that the
four men who abducted and abused the
offended women were held liable for one
crime N one count or forcible abduction with
rape and distinct charges for rape for the
other rapes committed by them.
In P!"$l! &. B,la"n'$ the %upreme "ourt
adopted the dissenting opinion of *ustice
#,uino in .eople v. .abasa$ that when several
persons abducted a woman and abused her$
regardless of the number of rapes committed$
there should only be one complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape. (he rapes
committed were in the nature of a continued
crime characteri)ed by the same lewd design
which is an essential element in the crime of
forcible abduction.
(he abuse amounting to rape is complexed
with forcible abduction because the abduction
was already consummated when the victim
was raped. (he forcible abduction must be
complexed therewith. -ut the multiple rapes
should be considered only as one because
they are in the nature of a continued crime.
4ote5 (his is a dangerous view
because the abductors will commit as much
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2& of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
rape as they can$ after all$ only one complex
crime of rape would arise.
In adultery$ each intercourse constitutes
one crime. #pparently$ the singleness of the
act is not considered a single crime. Each
intercourse bring with it the danger of bringing
one stranger in the family of the husband.
#rticle ? also applies in cases when out a
single act of negligence or imprudence$ two or
more grave or less grave felonies resulted$
although only the first part thereof (compound
crime'. (he second part of #rticle ? does not
apply$ referring to the complex crime proper
because this applies or refers only to a
deliberate commission of one offense to
commit another offense.
/owever$ a light felony may result from
criminal negligence or imprudence$ together
with other grave or less grave felonies
resulting therefrom and the %upreme "ourt
held that all felonies resulting from criminal
negligence should be made sub0ect of one
information only. (he reason being that$
there is only one information and prosecution
only. 7therwise$ it would be tantamount to
splitting the criminal negligence similar to
splitting a cause of action which is prohibited
in civil cases.
#lthough under #rticle ?$ a light felony
should not be included in a complex crime$ yet
by virtue of this ruling of the %upreme "ourt$
the light felony shall be included in the same
information charging the offender with grave
andHor less grave felonies resulting from the
negligence of reckless imprudence and this
runs counter to the provision of #rticle ?. %o
while the %upreme "ourt ruled that the light
felony resulting from the same criminal
negligence should be complexed with the
other felonies because that would be a blatant
violation of #rticle ?$ instead the %upreme
"ourt stated that an additional penalty should
be imposed for the light felony. (his would
mean two penalties to be imposed$ one for the
complex crime and one for the light felony. It
cannot separate the light felony because it
appears that the culpa is crime itself and you
cannot split the crime.
#pplying the concept of the 1continued
crime2$ the following cases have been treated
as constituting one crime only5
(1' (he theft of 1> cows belonging to
two different persons committed by
the accused at the same place and
period of time (P!"$l! &. T,.l"($
+! .hil. >&<':
(&' (he theft of six roosters belonging
to two different owners from the
same coop and at the same period of
time (P!"$l! &. Jaranilla':
(>' (he illegal charging of fees for
service rendered by a lawyer every
time he collected veterans benefits
on behalf of a client who agreed that
attorneys fees shall be paid out of
such benefits (P!"$l! &. Sa**,n$
1< %";# 1A+'. (he collections of
legal fees were impelled by the same
motive$ that of collecting fees for
services rendered$ and all acts of
collection were made under the same
criminal impulse.
7n the other hand$ the %upreme "ourt
declined to apply the concept in the following
cases5
(1' (wo Estafa cases$ one which was
committed during the period from
*anuary 19 to Gecember$ 19AA and
the other from *anuary 19A+ to *uly
19A+ (P!"$l! &. Di%,$a$ 1> .hil
><+'. %aid acts were committed on
two different occasions:
(&' %everal malversations committed
in May$ *une and *uly 19>+ and
falsifications to conceal said offenses
committed in #ugust and 7ctober$
19>+. (he malversations and
falsifications were not the result of
one resolution to embe))le and falsity
(P!"$l! &. CIV$ ++ .hil. >A1':
(>' %eventy6five estafa cases
committed by the conversion by the
agents of collections from the
customers of the employers made on
different dates.
In the theft cases$ the trend is to follow the
single larceny doctrine$ that is taking of
several things$ whether belonging to the same
or different owners$ at the same time and
place$ constitutes one larceny only. Many
courts have abandoned the separate larceny
doctrine$ under which there was distinct
larceny as to the property of each victim5
#lso abandoned is the doctrine that the
government has the discretion to prosecute
the accused for one offense or for as many
distinct offenses as there are victims
(Santia'" &. J,(ti%! Gar%it"r!na$ decided
on Gecember &$ 199>'. /ere$ the accused
was charged with performing a single act N
that of approving the legali)ation of aliens not
,ualified under the law. (he prosecution
manifested that they would only file one
information. %ubse,uently$ >& amended
informations were filed. (he %upreme "ourt
directed the prosecution to consolidate the
cases into one offense because (1' they were
in violation of the same law N Executive 7rder
4o. >&?: (&' caused in0ury to one party only N
the government: and (>' they were done in
the same day. (he concept of delito
continuado has been applied to crimes under
special laws since in #rticle 1<$ the ;evised
.enal "ode shall be supplementary to special
laws$ unless the latter provides the contrary.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2' of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
I/. Criminal Lia0ilit1
A. HO0 INCURRED
%ince in #rticle >$ a felony is an act or
omission punishable by law$ particularly the
;evised .enal "ode$ it follows that whoever
commits a felony incurs criminal liability (it is
important to note that if the criminal liability
arises from an omission such as misprision of
treason or abandonment of helpless persons$
there must be a law re,uiring the performance
of such act'. In paragraph 1 of #rticle ?$ the law
uses the word 1felony$2 that whoever commits a
felony incurs criminal liability. # felony may arise
not only when it is intended$ but also when it is
the product of criminal negligence. Chat makes
paragraph 1 of #rticle ? confusing is the addition
of the ,ualifier 1although the wrongful act be
different from what he intended.2 (his is called
transferred intent.
(o summari)e$ criminal liability arises when
a felony is committed with5 deliberate intent
(dolo'$ constructive intent (culpa' or transferred
intent (aberratio ictus$ error in personae and
preater intentionem'
There Is 4o Crime <nless There Is $ -aw
#unishing It
Chen a person is charged in court$ and the
court finds that there is no law applicable$ the
court will ac,uit the accused and the 0udge will
give his opinion that the said act should be
punished.
#rticle A covers two situations5
1. (he court cannot convict the accused
because the acts do not constitute a crime.
(he proper 0udgment is ac,uittal$ but the
court is mandated to report to the "hief
Executive that said act be made sub0ect of
penal legislation and why.
&. Chere the court finds the penalty
prescribed for the crime too harsh
considering the conditions surrounding the
commission of the crime$ the 0udge should
impose the law. (he most that he could do
is recommend to the "hief Executive to
grand executive clemency.
1. PRO=IMATE CAUSE
9or most felonies$ criminal liability exists
from the concurrence of the mens rea and
the actus reus. 9or example$ # and - are
supposed to meet in #s home but when -
arrived # was not home. - received an %M%
from # telling the former to get the house key
from under the doormat. - lets himself in and
saw an I.7G on the table. - took the I.7G.
Chat is -s criminal liabilityK - is liable only
for theft because the act and the intent
occurred only in the act of taking$ there was
no malicious intent in the act of letting himself
in.
"riminal liability for some felonies$ such as
homicide and its ,ualified forms$ arises only
upon a specific resulting harm such that if the
victim does not die the accused may be liable
only for physical in0uries. #nother example is
the crime of estafa wherein the victim$ for
criminal liability to arise$ must incur damage.
#rticle ?$ paragraph 1 deals with causation
as the third means of determining criminal
liability. (his article presupposes that the act
done is the proximate cause of the resulting
felony. It must be the direct$ natural and
logical conse,uence of the felonious act.
.roximate cause is that cause$ which sets
into motion other causes and which unbroken
by any efficient supervening cause$ produces
a felony and without which such felony could
not have resulted. /e who is the cause of the
cause is the evil of the cause. #s a general
rule$ the offender is criminally liable for all the
conse,uences of his felonious act$ although
not intended$ if the felonious act is the
proximate cause of the felony or resulting
felony. # proximate cause is not necessarily
the immediate cause. (his may be a cause$
which is far and remote from the conse,uence
which sets into motion other causes which
resulted in the felony.
Illustrations5
$, 1, C, 0, and E were driving their
vehicles along 5rtigas $ve. $2s car was
ahead, followed b those of 1, C, 0, and
E. 3hen $2s car reached the intersection
of E0,$ and 5rtigas $venue, the traffic
light turned red so $ immediatel stepped
on his break, followed b 1, C, and 0.
%owever, E was not aware that the traffic
light had turned to red, so he bumped the
car of 0, then 0 hit the car of C, then C
hit the car of 1, then, finall, 1 hit the car
of $. In this case, the immediate cause of
the damage to the car of $ is the car of 1,
but that is not the proximate cause. The
proximate cause is the car of E because it
was the care of E which sets into motion
the cars to bump into each other.
In one case, $ and 1, who are
brothers)in)law, had a 7uarrel. $t the
height of their 7uarrel, $ shot 1 with an
airgun. 1 was hit at the stomach, which
bled profusel. 3hen $ saw this, he put 1
on the bed and told him not to leave
because he will call a doctor. 3hile $ was
awa, 1 rose from the bed, went into the
kitchen and got a kitchen knife and cut
his throat. The doctor arrived and said
that the wound in the stomach is onl
superficial8 onl that it is a bleeder, but
the doctor could no longer save him
because 12s throat was alread cut.
Eventuall, 1 died. $ was prosecuted for
manslaughter. The ,upreme Court
rationali9ed that what made 1 cut his
throat, in the absence of evidence that he
wanted to commit suicide, is the belief
that sooner or later, he would die out of
the wound inflicted b $. 1ecause of that
belief, he decided to shorten the agon
b cutting his throat. That belief would
not be engendered in his mind were it not
because of the profuse bleeding from his
wound. 4ow, that profusel bleeding
wound would not have been there, were
it not for the wound inflicted b $. $s a
result, $ was convicted for manslaughter.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2+ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
In criminal law$ as long as the act of the
accused contributed to the death of the victim$
even if the victim is about to die$ he will still
be liable for the felonious act of putting to
death that victim. In one decision$ the
%upreme "ourt held that the most precious
moment in a mans life is that of the losing
seconds when he is about to die. %o when you
robbed him of that$ you should be liable for
his death. Even if a person is already dying$ if
one suffocates him to end up his agony$ one
will be liable for murder$ when you put him to
death$ in a situation where he is utterly
defenseless.
In US &(. Val-!B$ the deceased is a
member of the crew of a vessel. #ccused is in
charge of the crewmembers engaged in the
loading of cargo in the vessel. -ecause the
offended party was slow in his work$ the
accused shouted at him. (he offended party
replied that they would be better if he would
not insult them. (he accused resented this$
and rising in rage$ he moved towards the
victim$ with a big knife in hand threatening to
kill him. (he victim believing himself to be in
immediate peril threw himself into the water.
(he victim died of drowning. (he accused was
prosecuted for homicide. /is contention that
his liability should be only for grave threats
since he did not even stab the victim$ that the
victim died of drowning$ and this can be
considered as a supervening cause. It was
held that the deceased$ in throwing himself
into the river$ acted solely in obedience to the
instinct of self6preservation$ and was in no
sense legally responsible for his own death. #s
to him$ it was but the exercise of a choice
between two evils$ and any reasonable person
under the same circumstance might have
done the same. (he accused must$ therefore$
be considered the author of the death of the
victim.
(his case illustrates that proximate cause
does not re,uire that the offender needs to
actually touch the body of the offended party.
It is enough that the offender generated in the
mind of the offended party the belief that
made him risk himself.
If a person shouted fire$ and because of
that a moviegoer 0umped into the fire escape
and died$ the person who shouted fire when
there is no fire is criminally liable for the death
of that person.
In a case where a wife had to go out to the
cold to escape a brutal husband and because
of that she was exposed to the elements and
caught pneumonia$ the husband was made
criminally liable for the death of the wife.
Even though the attending physician may
have been negligent and the negligence
brought about the death of the offended party
Min other words$ if the treatment was not
negligent$ the offended party would have
survivedMis no defense at all$ because
without the wound inflicted by the offender$
there would have been no occasion for a
medical treatment.
Even if the wound was called slight but
because of the careless treatment$ it was
aggravated$ the offender is liable for the death
of the victim and not only for the slight
physical in0uries. (he reason for this is that
without the infliction of the in0ury$ there would
have been no need for any medical treatment.
(hat the medical treatment proved to be
careless or negligent$ is not enough to relieve
the offender of the liability for the inflicted
in0uries.
Chen a person inflicted a wound upon
another$ and his victim upon coming home got
some leaves$ pounded them and put lime
there$ and applying this to the wound$
developed locked 0aw and eventually died$ it
was held that the one who inflicted the wound
is liable for the death.
In another instance$ during a ,uarrel$ the
victim was wounded. (he wound was
superficial$ but 0ust the same the doctor put
inside some packing. Chen the victim went
home$ he could not stand the pain$ so he
pulled out the packing. (hat resulted into
profuse bleeding and he died because of loss
of blood. (he offender who caused the wound$
although the wound caused was only slight$
was held answerable for the death of the
victim$ even if the victim would not have died
were it not for the fact that he pulled out that
packing. (he principle is that without the
wound$ the act of the physician or the act of
the offended party would not have anything to
do with the wound$ and since the wound was
inflicted by the offender$ whatever happens on
that wound$ he should be made punishable for
that.
In Ur*an" &(. IAC$ # and - had a ,uarrel
and started hacking each other. - was
wounded at the back. "ooler heads intervened
and they were separated. %omehow$ their
differences were patched up. # agreed to
shoulder all the expenses for the treatment of
the wound of -$ and to pay him also whatever
loss of income - may have suffered. -$ on the
other hand$ signed a forgiveness in favor of #
and on that condition$ he withdrew the
complaint that he filed against #. #fter so
many weeks of treatment in a clinic$ the
doctor pronounced that the wound was
already healed. (hereafter$ - went back to his
farm. (wo months later$ - came home and
was chilling. -efore midnight$ he died out of
tetanus poisoning. (he heirs of - filed a case
of homicide against #. (he %upreme "ourt
held that # is not liable. It took into account
the incubation period of tetanus toxic. Medical
evidence were presented that tetanus toxic is
good only for two weeks. (hat if$ indeed$ the
victim had incurred tetanus poisoning out of
the wound inflicted by #$ he would not have
lasted two months. Chat brought about the
tetanus to infect his body was his work in the
farm using his bare hands. -ecause of this$
the %upreme "ourt said that the act of -
working in his farm where the soil is filthy$
using is own hands$ is an efficient supervening
cause which relieves # of any liability for the
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2- of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
death of -. #$ if at all$ is only liable for the
physical in0uries inflicted upon -.
If you are confronted with these facts of the
Drbano case$ where the offended party died
because of tetanus poisoning reason out
according to the reasoning laid down by the
%upreme "ourt$ meaning to say$ the
incubation period of the tetanus poisoning was
considered. %ince tetanus toxic would affect
the victim for no longer than two weeks$ the
fact that the victim died two months later
shows that it is no longer tetanus brought
about by the act of the accused. (he tetanus
was gathered by his working in the farm and
that is already an efficient intervening cause.
(he one who caused the proximate cause is
the one liable. (he one who caused the
immediate cause is also liable$ but merely
contributory or sometimes totally not liable.
2. 0RONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM
0HAT 0AS INTENDED
a. A*!rrati" I%t,(
In aberratio ictus$ a person directed the
blow at an intended victim$ but because of
poor aim$ that blow landed on someone
else. In aberratio ictus$ the intended victim
as well as the actual victim are both at the
scene of the crime.
Gistinguish this from error in personae$
where the victim actually received the blow$
but he was mistaken for another who was
not at the scene of the crime. (he
distinction is important because the legal
effects are not the same.
In aberratio ictus$ the offender delivers
the blow upon the intended victim$ but
because of poor aim the blow landed on
somebody else. Jou have a complex crime$
unless the resulting conse,uence is not a
grave or less grave felony. Jou have a
single act as against the intended victim
and also giving rise to another felony as
against the actual victim. (o be more
specific$ let us take for example # and -. #
and - are enemies. #s soon as # saw - at
the distance$ # shot at -. /owever$ because
of poor aim$ it was not - who was hit but ".
Jou can readily see that there is only one
single actMthe act of firing at -. In so far as
- is concerned$ the crime at least is
attempted homicide or attempted murder$
as the case may be$ if there is any
,ualifying circumstance. #s far as the third
party " is concerned$ if " were killed$ the
crime is homicide. If " was only wounded$
the crime is only physical in0uries. Jou
cannot have attempted or frustrated
homicide or murder as far as " is
concerned$ because as far as he is
concerned$ there is no intent to kill. #s far
as that other victim is concerned$ only
physical in0uriesM serious or less serious or
slight.
If the resulting physical in0uries were only
slight$ then you cannot complex: you will
have one prosecution for the attempted
homicide or murder$ and another
prosecution for slight physical in0uries for
the innocent party. -ut if the innocent party
was seriously in0ured or less seriously
in0ured$ then you have another grave or
less grave felony resulting from the same
act which gave rise to attempted homicide
or murder against -: hence$ a complex
crime.
In other words$ aberratio ictus$ generally
gives rise to a complex crime. (his being so$
the penalty for the more serious crime is
imposed in the maximum period. (his is the
legal effect. (he only time when a complex
crime may not result in aberratio ictus is
when one of the resulting felonies is a light
felony.
*. Err"r In P!r("na!
In error in personae$ the intended victim
was not at the scene of the crime. It was
the actual victim upon whom the blow was
directed$ but he was not really the intended
victim. (here was really a mistake in
identity.
(his is very important because #rticle ?9
applies only in a case of error in personae
and not in a case of aberratio ictus.
In #rticle ?9$ when the crime intended is
more serious than the crime actually
committed or vice versa$ whichever crime
carries the lesser penalty$ that penalty will
be the one imposed. -ut it will be imposed
in the maximum period. 9or instance$ the
offender intended to commit homicide$ but
what was actually committed was parricide
because the person killed by mistake was
somebody related to him within the degree
of relationship in parricide. In such a case$
the offender will be charged with parricide$
but the penalty that would be imposed will
be that of homicide. (his is because under
#rticle ?9$ the penalty for the lesser crime
will be the one imposed$ whatever crime the
offender is prosecuted under. In any event$
the offender is prosecuted for the crime
committed not for the crime intended.
Illustrations5
$ thought of killing 1. %e
positioned himself at one corner where
1 usuall passes. 3hen a figure
resembling 1 was approaching, $ hid
and when that figure was near him, he
suddenl hit him with a piece of wood
on the nape, killing him. 1ut it turned
out that it was his own father. The
crime committed is parricide, although
what was intended was homicide.
$rticle A@, therefore, will appl because
out of a mistake in identit, a crime
was committed different from that
which was intended.
In another instance, $ thought of
killing 1. Instead of 1, C passed. $
thought that he was 1, so he hit C on
the neck, killing the latter. Cust the
same the crime intended to be
committed is homicide and what was
committed is actuall homicide, $rticle
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2! of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
A@ does not appl. %ere, error in
personae is of no effect.
%ow does error in personae affect criminal
liabilit of the offender6
Error in personae is mitigating if the crime
committed is different from that which was
intended. If the crime committed is the
same as that which was intended$ error in
personae does not affect the criminal
liability of the offender.
In mistake of identity$ if the crime
committed was the same as the crime
intended$ but on a different victim$ error in
personae does not affect the criminal
liability of the offender. -ut if the crime
committed was different from the crime
intended$ #rticle ?9 will apply and the
penalty for the lesser crime will be applied.
In a way$ mistake in identity is a mitigating
circumstance where #rticle ?9 applies.
Chere the crime intended is more serious
than the crime committed$ the error in
personae is not a mitigating circumstance.
%. Pra!t!r Int!nti"n!.
In P!"$l! &(. Ga%"'") 93 Pil 928) two
persons ,uarreled. (hey had fist blows. (he
other started to run away and =acogo went
after him$ struck him with a fist blow at the
back of the head. -ecause the victim was
running$ he lost balance$ fell on the
pavement and his head struck the cement
pavement. /e suffered cerebral
hemorrhage. #lthough =acogo claimed that
he had no intention of killing the victim$ his
claim is useless. Intent to kill is only
relevant when the victim did not die. (his is
so because the purpose of intent to kill is to
differentiate the crime of physical in0uries
from the crime of attempted homicide or
attempted murder or frustrated homicide or
frustrated murder. -ut once the victim is
dead$ you do not have talk of intent to kill
anymore. (he best evidence of intent to kill
is the fact that the victim was killed.
#lthough =acogo was convicted for
homicide for the death of the person$ he
was given the benefit of paragraph > of
#rticle 1>$ that is$ 1that the offender did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed.2
(his is the conse,uence of praeter
intentionem. In short$ praeter intentionem
is mitigating$ particularly covered by
paragraph > of #rticle 1>. In order however$
that the situation may ,ualify as praeter
intentionem$ there must be a notable
disparity between the means employed and
the resulting felony. If there is no disparity
between the means employed by the
offender and the resulting felony$ this
circumstance cannot be availed of. It cannot
be a case of praeter intentionem because
the intention of a person is determined by
the means resorted to by him in committing
the crime.
Illustrations5
$ stabbed his friend when the had
a drinking spree. 3hile the were
drinking, the had some argument
about a basketball game and the could
not agree, so he stabbed him eleven
times. %is defense is that he had no
intention of killing his friend. %e did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed. It was held that the
fact && wounds were inflicted on $2s
friend is hardl compatible with the
idea that he did not intend to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed.
In another instance, the accused
was a homosexual. The victim ridiculed
or humiliated him while he was going to
the restroom. %e was so irritated that
he !ust stabbed the victim at the neck
with a lad2s comb with a pointed
handle, killing the victim. %is defense
was that he did not intend to kill him.
%e did not intend to commit so grave a
wrong as that of killing him. The
contention was re!ected, because of the
instrument used was pointed. The part
of the bod wherein it was directed was
the neck which is a vital part of the
bod. In praeter intentionem, it is
mitigating onl if there is a notable or
notorious disparit between the means
emploed and the resulting felon. In
criminal law, intent of the offender is
determined on the basis emploed b
him and the manner in which he
committed the crime. Intention of the
offender is not what is in his mind8 it is
disclosed in the manner in which he
committed the crime.
In still another case, the accused
entered the store of a Chinese couple,
to commit robber. The hogtied the
Chinaman and his wife. 1ecause the
wife was so talkative, one of the
offenders got a pan de sal and placed it
in her mouth. 1ut because the woman
was tring to wiggle from the bondage,
the pan de sal slipped through her
throat. ,he died because of suffocation.
The offenders were convicted for
robber with homicide because there
was a resulting death, although their
intention was onl to rob. The were
given the benefit of paragraph D of
$rticle &D, .that the did not intend to
commit so grave a wrong as that
committed./ There was reall no
intention to bring about the killing,
because it was the pan de sal that the
put into the mouth. %ad it been a piece
of rag, it would be different. In that
case, the ,upreme Court gave the
offenders the benefit of praeter
intentionem as a mitigating
circumstance. The means emploed is
not capable of producing death if onl
the woman chewed the pan de sal.
$ man raped a oung girl. The
oung girl was shouting so the man
placed his hand on the mouth and nose
of the victim. %e found out later that
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2. of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
the victim was alread dead8 she died
of suffocation. The offender begged
that he had no intention of killing the
girl and that his onl intention was to
prevent her from shouting. The
,upreme Court re!ected the plea saing
that a person who is suffocated ma
eventuall die. 0o the offender was
prosecuted for the serious crime of
rape with homicide and was not given
the benefit of paragraph D of $rticle &D.
0ifferentiating this first case with
the case of the Chinaman and his wife,
it would seem that the difference lies in
the means emploed b the offender.
In praeter inentionem$ it is essential that
there is a notable disparity between the
means employed or the act of the offender
and the felony which resulted. (his means
that the resulting felony cannot be foreseen
from the act of the offender. If the resulting
felony can be foreseen or anticipated from
the means employed$ the circumstance of
praeter intentionem does not apply.
9or example$ if # gave - a karate blow in
the throat$ there is no praeter intentionem
because the blow to the throat can result in
death.
%o also$ if # tried to intimidate - by
poking a gun at the latters back$ and - died
of cardiac arrest$ # will be prosecuted for
homicide but will be given the mitigating
circumstance of praeter intentionem.
In Ra."(GAn-an &. P!"$l! (&<<+' the
court said that the mitigating circumstance
of lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong may not be availed of when fraud is
employed.
3. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Dnder par. &$ #rticle ?$ #n impossible crime
is an act which would be an offense only
against person or property were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
on account of the employment of inade,uate
or ineffectual means.
@iability under this paragraph is incurred
only if the offender has actually performed the
act against the person or property of the
intended victim and such act does not
constitute another felony. Example$ the dead
victim was shot to make it appear that he was
trying to escape$ the accused is not a principal
to an impossible crime but an accessory to the
killing committed by the principal.

;odified Concept of impossible crime
In a way$ the concept of impossible crime
has been modified by the decision of the
%upreme "ourt in the case of Int"- &(. CA)
!t. al.) 2F9 SCRA 92. In this case$ four
culprits$ all armed with firearms and with
intent to kill$ went to the intended victims
house and after having pinpointed the latters
bedroom$ all four fired at and riddled the said
room with bullets$ thinking that the intended
victim was already there as it was about
1<5<< in the evening. It so happened that the
intended victim did not come home on that
evening and so was not in her bedroom at
that time. Eventually the culprits were
prosecuted and convicted by the trial court for
attempted murder. (he "ourt of #ppeals
affirmed the 0udgment but the %upreme "ourt
modified the same and held the petitioner
liable only for the so6called impossible crime.
#s a result$ petitioner6accused was sentenced
to imprisonment of only six months of arresto
mayor for the felonious act he committed with
intent to kill5 this despite the destruction done
to the intended victims house. %omehow$ the
decision depreciated the seriousness of the act
committed$ considering the lawlessness by
which the culprits carried out the intended
crime$ and so some members of the bench
and bar spoke out against the soundness of
the ruling. %ome asked ,uestions$ was it really
the impossibility of accomplishing the killing
that brought about its non6accomplishmentK
Cas it not purely accidental that the intended
victim did not come home that evening and$
thus$ unknown to the culprits$ she was not in
her bedroom at the time it was shot and
riddled with bulletsK %uppose$ instead of using
firearms$ the culprits set fire on the intended
victims house$ believing that she was there
when in fact she was not$ would the criminal
liability be for an impossible crimeK
Dntil the Intod case$ the prevailing attitude
was that the provision of the ;evised .enal
"ode on impossible crime would only apply
when the wrongful act$ which would have
constituted a crime against persons or
property$ could not and did not constitute
another felony. 7therwise$ if such act
constituted any other felony although different
from what the offender intended$ the criminal
liability should be for such other felony and
not for an impossible crime. (he attitude was
so because #rticle ? of the "ode provides two
situations where criminal liability shall be
incurred$ to wit5
#rticle ?. "riminal liabilityM
"riminal liability shall be incurred5
1. -y any person committing a
felony (delito' although the
wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended.
&. -y any person performing an
act which would be an offense
against persons or property$
were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its
accomplishment or on
account of the employment of
inade,uate or ineffectual
means.
.aragraph 1 refers to a situation where the
wrongful act done constituted a felony
although it may be different from what he
intended. .aragraph & refers to a situation
where the wrongful act done did not constitute
any felony$ but because the act would have
given rise to a crime against persons or
against property$ the same is penali)ed to
repress criminal tendencies to curtail their
fre,uency. -ecause criminal liability for
impossible crime presupposes that no felony
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
2% of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
resulted form the wrongful act done$ the
penalty is fixed at arresto mayor or a fine
from .&<<.<< to .A<<.<<$ depending on the
1social danger and degree of criminality shown
by the offender2(#rticle A9'$ regardless of
whether the wrongful act was an impossible
crime against persons or against property.
(here is no logic in applying paragraph & of
#rticle ? to a situation governed by paragraph
1 of the same #rticle$ that is$ where a felony
resulted. 7therwise$ a redundancy or duplicity
would be perpetrated.
In the Intod case$ the wrongful acts of the
culprits caused destruction to the house of the
intended victim: this felonious act negates the
idea of an impossible crime. -ut whether we
agree or not$ the %upreme "ourt has spoken$
we have to respect its ruling.
B. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
(here are five circumstances affecting criminal
liability5
1. *ustifying circumstances: #rt. 11 (+'
&. Exempting circumstances: #rt. 1& (!'
>. Mitigating circumstances: #rt. 1> (1<'
?. #ggravating circumstances: #rt. 1? (&1'
A. #lternative circumstances. #rt. 1A (>'
(here are others which are found elsewhere in
the provisions of the ;evised .enal "ode5
1. #bsolutory cause: and
&. Extenuating circumstances.
In 0ustifying and exempting circumstances$
there is no criminal liability. Chen an accused
invokes them$ he in effect admits the
commission of a crime but tries to avoid the
liability thereof. (he burden is upon him to
establish beyond reasonable doubt the re,uired
conditions to 0ustify of exempt his acts from
criminal liability. Chat is shifted is only the
burden of evidence$ not the burden of proof.
*ustifying circumstances contemplate
intentional acts and$ hence$ are incompatible
with dolo. Exempting circumstances may be
invoked in culpable felonies.
0istinctions between !ustifing circumstances
and exempting circumstances
*ustifying
"ircumstances
Exempting
"ircumstances
(he circumstance
affects the act$ not he
actor
(he circumstances
affect the actor$ not the
act
(he act complained of is
considered to have
been done within the
bounds of law: hence$ it
is legitimate and lawful
in the eyes of the law
(he act complained of is
actually wrongful$ but
the actor acted without
voluntariness. /e is a
mere tool or instrument
of the crime
%ince the act is
considered lawful$ there
is no crime$ and
because there is no
crime$ there is no
criminal
%ince the act
complained of is
actually wrongful$ there
is a crime. -ut because
the actor acted without
voluntariness$ there is
absence of dolo or
culpa. (here is no
criminal
,ince there is no crime
or criminal, there is no
criminal liabilit as well
as civil liabilit.
,ince there is a crime
committed but there is
no criminal, there is
civil liabilit for the
wrong done. -ut there
is no criminal liability.
/owever$ in paragraphs
? and ! of #rticle 1&$
there is neither criminal
nor civil liability.
(#ccident and
insuperable cause'
Chen you apply for 0ustifying or exempting
circumstances$ it is confession and avoidance
and burden of proof shifts to the accused and he
can no longer rely on the weakness of the
prosecutions evidence.
1. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
%ince the 0ustifying circumstances are in the
nature of defensive acts$ there must be
always unlawful aggression. (he
reasonableness of the means employed
depends on the gravity of the aggression. If
the unlawful aggressor was killed$ this can
only be 0ustified if it was done to save the life
of the person defending or the person being
defended. (he e,uation is 1life was taken to
save life.2
a. S!l1GD!1!n(!
In 0ustifying circumstances$ the most
important is self6defense. Chen this is given
in the bar$ it is the element of unlawful
aggression that is in issue. 4ever confuse
unlawful aggression with provocation. Mere
provocation is not enough.
Illustration5
$ and 1 are long standing
enemies. 1ecause of their continuous
7uarrel over the boundaries of their
ad!oining properties, when $ saw 1 one
afternoon, he approached the latter
with a bolo in his hand. 3hen he was
about five feet awa from 1, 1 pulled
out his revolver and shot $ on the
chest, killing him. Is 1 criminall liable6
3hat crime was committed, if an6
The act of $ is nothing but a
provocation. It cannot be characteri9ed
as an unlawful aggression because in
criminal law, an unlawful aggression is
an attack or a threatened attack which
produces an imminent danger to the
life and limb of the one resorting to
self)defense. In the facts of the
problem given above, what was said
was that $ was holding a bolo. That
bolo does not produce an real or
imminent danger unless $ raises his
arm with the bolo. $s long as that arm
of $ was down holding the bolo, there
is no imminent danger to the life or
limb of 1. Therefore, the act of 1 in
shooting $ is not !ustified.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
& of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
In .eople vs. Gi0an$ it was held that
unlawful aggression must also be a
continuing circumstance or must have been
existing at the time the defense is made.
7nce the unlawful aggression is found to
have ceased$ the one making the defense of
a stranger would likewise cease to have any
0ustification for killing$ or even 0ust
wounding$ the former aggressor.
In P!"$l! &(. C,!t") 2@@3) the "ourt
held that self6defense is ,uestionable when
there is 9@I=/($ for such is an act of
evading the course of 0ustice and
responsibility. It tends to indicate guilt.
It was also held that the facts constituting
treachery are irreconcilable with self6
defense (S,ll"n &. P!"$l!) 2@@9'

In S"$l!nt! &. P!"$l! 42@@96$ the
"ourt that the determination of whether
there is unlawful aggression for the
purposes of self6defense
In P"."# V(. P!"$l!) (&<<?'$ it was
held that %elf defense is inconsistent with
accidents because in the latter has killer no
intent to kill when in the former$ the killer
has.
Gefense of rights is included in the
circumstances of defense and so is defense
of honor.
In US &(. Mat!") while a woman was
sleeping$ her sister and brother6in6law went
to see a movie and came home late that
evening. (he accused was already asleep.
(he brother6in6law came up first while his
wife was still in the staircase. /e started
feeling through the dark$ and in the
process$ he awakened the accused.
-elieving that her honor was at stake$ she
got a pair of scissors and stabbed the man.
Chen the lights were turned on$ she
reali)ed that she had stabbed her brother6
in6law. (he accused claimed as having acted
in defense of her honor and mistake of fact.
%he said that she believed that her own
honor was at stake. It was held that the
whole matter is purely her imagination.
(ouching the arm could not produce such
danger as would really be imminent to the
honor of the woman.
#pparently$ under the ;evised .enal
"ode$ the honor of a woman in respect of
her defense is e,uated with her virginity.
In US &(. Ja,ri',!$ it was held that it
was not possible to rape the accused
because the whole thing transpired in the
church$ where there were so many people.
(herefore$ her availing of defense of honor
is not tenable. %he could not possibly be
raped in that place. Gefense of honor here
is being e,uated with one of abuse of
chastity of a woman. In this case$ the
offended party placed his hand on the thigh
of the woman who was then praying. (here
was already some sort of aggression but it
was not enough to warrant the act resorted
to by the accused in getting a small knife
from her bag and thrusting it on the chest
of the offended party.
Go not confuse unlawful aggression with
provocation. Chat 0ustifies the killing of a
supposed unlawful aggressor is that if the
offender did not kill the aggressor$ it will be
his own life that will be lost. (hat will be the
situation. If that is not the situation$ even if
there was an unlawful aggression that has
already begun$ you cannot invoke self6
defense.
Illustration5
Two policemen 7uarreled inside a
police precinct. 5ne shot the other. The
other was wounded on his thigh. The
policeman who was wounded on the
thigh !umped on the arm of the fellow
who shot him. In the process, the
wrestled for possession of the gun. The
policeman who shot the other gu fell
on the floor. 5n that point, this
policeman who was shot at the thigh
was alread able to get hold of the
revolver. In that position, he started
empting the revolver of the other
policeman who was ling on the floor.
In this case, it was held that the self)
defense is not available. The unlawful
aggression alread ceased.
In P!"$l! &(. R"-ri',!B) a woman went
into the house of another woman whom she
suspected of having an affair with her
husband. %he started pouring gasoline on
the house of the woman. %ince the woman
has children inside the house$ she 0umped
out to prevent this other woman from
pouring gasoline around the house. (he
woman who was pouring gasoline had a
bolo$ so she started hacking the other
woman with it. (hey grappled with the bolo.
#t that moment$ the one who 0umped out of
the house was able to wrest the bolo away
and started hacking the other woman. It
was held that the hacking was not 0ustified.
#ctually$ when she killed the supposed
unlawful aggressor$ her life and limb were
no longer in imminent danger. (hat is the
focal point.
#t the time the accused killed the supposed
unlawful aggressor$ was her life in dangerK
If the answer is no$ there is no self6defense.
-ut while there may be no 0ustifying
circumstance$ do not forget the incomplete
self6defense. (his is a mitigating
circumstance under paragraph 1 of #rticle
1>. (his mitigating circumstance is either
privileged or ordinary. If ordinary$ it has the
effect of reducing the imposable penalty to
the minimum period. -ut if it is privileged$ it
has the effect of lowering the penalty by
one to two degrees$ depending on how the
court will regard the absence or presence of
conditions to 0ustify the act.
7ne who invokes self6defense admits
responsibility for the killing. #ccordingly$ the
burden of proof shifts to the accused who
must then prove the 0ustifying
circumstance. /e must show by clear and
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
&$ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
convincing evidence that he indeed acted in
self6defense$ or in defense of a relative or a
stranger. (Ca*,(la# &. P!"$l!) 2@@9'
1attered 3oman ,ndrome
1attered 3oman ,ndrome is now also
accepted as a valid defense. In P!"$l! V(.
G!n"(a$ the court ruled that the battered
woman syndrome is characteri)ed by a
1"J"@E 79 BI7@E4"E2$ which is made up of
three phases.
2 9irst .hase N (/E (E4%I746-DI@GI4=
./#%E N phase where minor battering
occurs$ it could be a verbal or slight
physical abuse or another form of hostile
behavior. In this phase$ the woman tries
to pacify the batterer through a show of
kind$ nurturing behavior$ or by simply
staying out of the way. -ut this proves
to be unsuccessful as it only gives the
batterer the notion that he has the right
to abuse her.
2 %econd .hase N #"D(E -#((E;I4=
I4"IGE4( N characteri)ed by brutality$
destructiveness$ and sometimes death.
Guring this incident the battered woman
has no control: only the batterer can
stop the violence. (he battered woman
reali)es that she cannot reason with him
and resistance would only worsen her
condition.
2 (hird .hase N (;#4ODI@ .E;I7G N
characteri)ed by guilt on the part of the
batterer and forgiveness on the part of
the woman. (he batterer may show a
tender and nurturing behavior towards
his partner and the woman also tries to
convince herself that the battery will
never happen again and that her partner
will change for the better.
*. D!1!n(! O1 R!lati&!(
(his may be availed of if one acts in
defense of the person of rights of ones
spouse$ ascendants$ descendants$
legitimate$ natural or adopted brothers or
sisters$ or of his relatives by affinity in the
same degree and those by affinity to the
fourth degree. (he re,uisites for self6
defense must likewise be present.
%. D!1!n(! O1 Stran'!r(
If the person being defended is already a
second cousin$ you do not invoke defense of
a relative anymore. It will be defense of
stranger. (his is vital because if the person
making the defense acted out of revenge$
resentment or some evil motive in killing
the aggressor$ he cannot invoke the
0ustifying circumstance if the relative
defended is already a stranger in the eyes
of the law. 7n the other hand$ if the relative
defended is still within the coverage of
defense of relative$ even though he acted
out of some evil motive$ it would still apply.
It is enough that there was unlawful
aggression against the relative defended$
and that the person defending did not
contribute to the unlawful aggression.
-. D!1!n(! O1 Pr"$!rt#
(his can only be invoked if the life and
limb of the person making the defense is
also the sub0ect of unlawful aggression. @ife
cannot be e,ual to property.
!. Stat! O1 N!%!((it# 4A&"i-an%! O1
Gr!at!r E&il6
(o invoke this 0ustifying circumstance$ the
evil sought to be avoided must actually exist
and the in0ury feared must be greater than
that done to avoid it. #lso$ there should be
no other practical and less harmful means
of preventing it.
(he evil or in0ury sought to be avoided
must not have been created by the one
invoking the 0ustifying circumstances. 9or
example$ # drove his car beyond the speed
limit so much so that when he reached the
curve$ his vehicle skidded towards a ravine.
/e swerved his car towards a house$
destroying it and killing the occupant
therein. # cannot be 0ustified because the
state of necessity was brought about by his
own felonious act.
"ivil liability referred to here is based not
on the act committed but on the benefit
derived from the avoidance of the evil or
in0ury. %o the accused will not be civilly
liable if he did not receive any benefit out of
such avoidance. 7n the other hand$ persons
who did not participate in the damage or
in0ury would be pro tanto civilly liable if they
derived benefit from the same. (his is
based on the principle that 1no one should
enrich himself at the expense of another.2
Illustration5
$ and 1 are owners of ad!oining
lands. $ owns the land for planting
certain crops. 1 owns the land for
raising certain goats. C used another
land for a vegetable garden. There was
heav rain and floods. 0am was
opened. C drove all the goats of 1 to
the land of $. The goats rushed to the
land to be saved, but the land of $ was
destroed. The author of the act is C,
but C is not civill liable because he did
not receive benefits. It was 1 who was
benefited, although he was not the
actor. %e cannot claim that it was a
fortuitous event. 1 will answer onl to
the extent of the benefit derived b
him. If C who drove all of the goats is
accused of malicious mischief, his
defense would be that he acted out of a
state of necessit. %e will not be civill
liable.
1. F,l1ill.!nt O1 D,t# Or La21,l
E/!r%i(! O1 Ri't
In the 0ustifying circumstance of a person
having acted out of fulfillment of a duty and
the lawful exercise of a right or office$ there
are only two conditions5
i. (he felony was committed while the
offender was in the fulfillment of a duty
or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office:
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
&2 of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
ii. (he resulting felony is the unavoidable
conse,uence of the due fulfillment of
the duty or the lawful exercise of the
right or office.
Invariably$ when you are given a problem
on this premise$ and the first condition is
present$ but the second is not because the
offender acted with culpa$ the offender will
be entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance. (his is what you call
incomplete 0ustification of fulfillment of duty
or incomplete 0ustification of exercise of a
right. In that case$ the penalty would be
reduced by one or two degrees.
In P!"$l! &(. Oani( an- Callanta) the
accused "hief of .olice and the constabulary
soldier were sent out to arrest a certain
-alagtas$ supposedly a notorious bandit.
(here was an order to kill -alagtas if he
would resist. (he accused arrived at the
house of a dancer who was supposedly the
girlfriend of -alagtas. Chen they were
there$ they saw a certain person who
resembled -alagtas in all his bodily
appearance sleeping on a bamboo bed but
facing the other direction. (he accused$
without going around the house$ started
firing at the man. (hey found out later that
the man was not really -alagtas. (hey tried
to invoke the 0ustifying circumstance of
having acted in fulfillment of a duty.
(he second re,uisite is absent because
they acted with negligence. (here was
nothing that prevented them from looking
around the house and looking at the face of
the fellow who was sleeping. (here could
not be any danger on their life and limb.
/ence$ they were held guilty of the crime of
murder because the fellow was killed when
he was sleeping and totally defenseless.
/owever$ the %upreme "ourt granted them
the benefit of incomplete 0ustification of
fulfillment of duty and the penalty was
reduced by one or two degrees.
Go not confuse fulfillment of a duty with
self6defense.
Illustration5
$, a policeman, while waiting for
his wife to go home, was suddenl
stabbed at the back b 1, a hoodlum,
who mistook him for someone else.
3hen $ saw 1, he drew his revolver
and went after 1. $fter firing a shot in
the air, 1 did not stop so $ shot 1 who
was hit at a vital part of the bod. 1
died. Is the act of $ !ustified6
Ees. The !ustifing circumstance of
self)defense cannot be invoked because
the unlawful aggression had alread
ceased b the time $ shot 1. 3hen the
unlawful aggressor started fleeing, the
unlawful aggression ceased. If the
person attacked runs after him, in the
ees of the law, he becomes the
unlawful aggressor. ,elf)defense
cannot be invoked.
Eou appl paragraph : on
fulfillment of dut. The offender was
not onl defending himself but was
acting in fulfillment of a dut, to bring
the criminal to the authorities. $s long
as he was not acting out of malice
when he fired at the fleeing criminal, he
cannot be made criminall liable.
%owever, this is true onl if it was the
person who stabbed was the one killed.
If, let us sa, the policeman was
stabbed and despite the fact that the
aggressor ran into a crowd of people,
the policeman still fired
indiscriminatel. The policeman would
held criminall liable because he acted
with imprudence in firing toward
several people where the offender had
run. 1ut although he will be criminall
liable, he will be given the benefit of an
incomplete fulfillment of dut.
'. O*!-i!n%! O1 S,$!ri"r Or-!r
(he order must have been issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose and the
means used to carry it out must be lawful.
(his is based on the doctrine of actus non
facit reum, nisi mens rea (a crime is not
committed if the mind of the person
performing the act complained of be
innocent'
2. E=EMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
In exempting circumstances$ the reason for
the exemption lies on the involuntariness of
the actMone or some of the ingredients of
voluntariness such as criminal intent$
intelligence$ or freedom of action on the part
of the offender is missing. In case it is a
culpable felony$ there is absence of freedom of
action or intelligence$ or absence of
negligence$ imprudence$ lack of foresight or
lack of skill.
a. In(anit# An- I.*!%ilit#
(here is complete absence of intelligence.
(he intellectual deficiency is permanent.
(here is no lucid interval unlike in insanity.
#n imbecile is a person whose mental
development is like that of a child between
& to ! years of age.
(he insanity that is exempting is limited
only to mental aberration or disease of the
mind and must completely impair the
intelligence of the accused. Dnder common
law countries$ emotional or spiritual insanity
are exempting circumstances unlike in this
0urisdiction because the ;evised
#dministrative "ode$ as defined is limited to
mental aberration of the mind. (his was the
ruling in P!"$l! &(. D,n'".
In P!"$l! &(. Ra1anan) the following are
the two tests for exemption on the grounds
of insanity5
i. (he test of cognition$ or whether the
accused acted with complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing
the said crime:
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
&& of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
ii. (he test of volition$ or whether the
accused acted in total deprivation of
freedom of will.
,chi9ophrenia =dementia praecox' can
only be considered a mitigating
circumstance because it does not
completely deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.
In P!"$l! &( Gali'a") the defense of
insanity$ to be tenable$ should be based on
more than the non6medical opinion of the
defense counsel that his client is insane.
In P!"$l! &(. F"r.i'"n!() It was held
that feeblemindedness is 47( an exempting
circumstance since it does not remove the
persons ability to discern right from wrong.
In P!"$l! V(. Tan!"$ 9F Pil 299$ it
was held that sleepwalking is an exempting
circumstance when the accused killed his
wife and wounded his friends and father.
*. Min"rit#
;epublic act no. 9>?? or the *uvenile
*ustice and Celfare act of &<<+ provides for
a new minimum age for criminal
responsibility.
%ec. +$ entitled ;inimum $ge of Criminal
Responsibilit, states that a child fifteen
(1A' years of age or under at the time of
the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. /owever$ the
child shall be sub0ected to an intervention
program pursuant to %ection &< of this #ct.
# child above fifteen (1A' years but below
eighteen (1' years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be
sub0ected to an intervention program$
unless heHshe has acted with discernment$
in which case$ such child shall be sub0ected
to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this #ct.
(he exemption from criminal liability
herein established does not include
exemption from civil liability$ which shall be
enforced in accordance with existing laws.
(he burden is upon the prosecution to
prove that the offender acted with
discernment. It is not for the minor to prove
that he acted without discernment. #ll that
the minor has to show is that he is within
the age bracket. If the prosecution would
want to pin criminal liability on him$ it has
to prove that the crime was committed with
discernment. /ere$ if the offender was
exempt from criminal liability because the
prosecution was not able to prove that the
offender acted with discernment$ he is only
civilly liable but he will be committed to the
surveillance of his parents who will be
re,uired to report to the court periodically
on the progress or development of the
offender.
%E". >. $utomatic ,uspension of
,entence. 6 7nce the child who is under
eighteen (1' years of age at the time of
the commission of the offense is found
guilty of the offense charged$ the court shall
determine and ascertain any civil liability
which may have resulted from the offense
committed. /owever$ instead of
pronouncing the 0udgment of conviction$ the
court shall place the child in conflict with the
law under suspended sentence$ without
need of application5 #rovided$ however$
(hat suspension of sentence shall still be
applied even if the 0uvenile is already
eighteen years (1' of age or more at the
time of the pronouncement of hisHher guilt.
%E". :F. 5ffenses 4ot $pplicable to
Children. 6 .ersons below eighteen (1'
years of age shall be exempt from
prosecution for the crime of vagrancy and
prostitution under %ection &<& of the
;evised .enal "ode$ of mendicancy under
.residential Gecree 4o. 1A+>$ and sniffing
of rugby under .residential Gecree 4o.
1+19$ such prosecution being inconsistent
with the Dnited 4ations "onvention on the
;ights of the "hild5 #rovided$ (hat said
persons shall undergo appropriate
counseling and treatment program.
%. A%%i-!nt 4Da.n,. A*(H,! In+,ria6
Dnder #rticle 1&$ paragraph ?$ the
offender is exempt not only from criminal
but also from civil liability. (his paragraph
embodies the @atin maxim 1damnum
abs,ue in0uria.2
Illustration5
$ person who is driving his car
within the speed limit, while
considering the condition of the traffic
and the pedestrians at that time,
tripped on a stone with one of his car
tires. The stone flew hitting a
pedestrian on the head. The pedestrian
suffered profuse bleeding. 3hat is the
liabilit of the driver6
There is no civil liabilit under
paragraph A of $rticle &?. $lthough this
is !ust an exempting circumstance,
where generall there is civil liabilit,
et, in paragraph A of $rticle &?, there
is no civil liabilit as well as criminal
liabilit. The driver is not under
obligation to defra the medical
expenses.
/owever$ correlate paragraph ? of #rticle
1& with the second paragraph of #rticle &!A.
#rticle &!A gives you the crime of
abandoning the victim of ones own
accident. It is a crime. /ere$ the accident
referred to in paragraph & of #rticle &!A is
in the concept of paragraph ? of #rticle 1&.
(his means that the offender must be
performing a lawful act$ that he was doing it
with due care but somehow$ in0ury resulted
by mere accident without fault or intention
of causing it.
If at the very beginning$ the offender was
negligent$ you do not apply #rticle &!A$
paragraph &. Instead$ it will be #rticle >+A
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
&' of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
on criminal negligence. 4otice that in the
last paragraph of #rticle >+A$ in the case of
the so6called hit and run drivers who have
in0ured somebody and would abandon the
victim of the accident$ the penalty is
,ualified to a higher degree. /ere$ under
paragraph ? of #rticle 1&$ the infliction of
the in0ury by mere accident does not give
rise to a criminal or civil liability$ but the
person who caused the in0ury is duty bound
to attend to the person who was in0ured. If
he would abandon him$ it is in that
abandonment that the crime arises which is
punished under the second paragraph of
#rticle &!A.
-. Irr!(i(ti*l! F"r%! I Un%"ntr"lGLa*l!
F!ar
(he offender must be totally deprived of
freedom. If the offender still has freedom of
choice$ whether to act or not$ even if the
force was employed on him or even if he is
suffering from uncontrollable fear$ he is not
exempt from criminal liability because he is
still possessed with voluntariness. In
exempting circumstances$ the offender
must act without voluntariness.
In a situation where the offender would
otherwise be exempt$ but the re,uisites for
exemption are not all present$ the offender
is still entitled to a mitigating circumstance
of incomplete exemption under paragraph 1
of #rticle 1>. #pply the rule if ma0ority of
the re,uisites to exempt from criminal
liability are present. (he offender shall be
given the benefit of privileged mitigating
circumstances. (hat means that the penalty
prescribed of the crime committed shall be
reduced by one or two degrees in
accordance with #rticle +9 of the ;evised
.enal "ode. If less than a ma0ority of the
re,uisites for exemption are present$ the
offender shall be given only the benefit of
ordinary mitigating circumstances. (hat
means the penalty shall be reduced to the
minimum period of the prescribed penalty$
unless the mitigating circumstance is offset
by an aggravating circumstance.
!. In(,$!ra*l! Or La21,l Ca,(!(
Insuperable cause is an exempting
circumstance which applies to felonies by
omission. (he law imposes a duty on the
offender to perform an act but his failure to
do so is due to a lawful or insuperable
cause. 9or example$ #rticle 1&A provides
for the number of hours when a person
arrested must be delivered to the 0udicial
authorities.
3. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Di(tin%ti"n( *!t2!!n "r-inar# .iti'atin'
%ir%,.(tan%!( an- $ri&il!'!- .iti'atin'
%ir%,.(tan%!(
7rdinary .rivileged
1. #s to the nature of the circumstances
7rdinary mitigating
circumstances can be
offset by aggravating
circumstances
.rivileged mitigating
circumstance can never
be offset by any
aggravating
circumstance.
&. #s to effect
7rdinary mitigating
circumstances$ if not
offset$ will operate to
reduce the penalty to
the minimum period$
provided the penalty is
a divisible one
.rivileged mitigating
circumstances operate
to reduce the penalty
by one or two degrees$
depending upon what
the law provides
Jou can easily detect whether the
circumstance which mitigates the liability of
the offender is privileged or not$ that is$ if the
penalty is reduced by one degree. If the
penalty is lowered by one or two degrees$ it is
privileged: therefore$ even if there is an
aggravating circumstance$ do not compensate
because that would be violating the rules.
(he circumstances under #rticle 1> are
generally ordinary mitigating$ except in
paragraph 1$ where it is privileged$ #rticle +9
would apply.
#lthough the bulk of the circumstances in
#rticle 1> are ordinary mitigating
circumstances$ yet$ when the crime committed
is punishable by a divisible penalty$ two or
more of this ordinary mitigating circumstances
shall have the effect of a privileged mitigating
circumstance if there is no aggravating
circumstance at all.
"orrelate #rticle 1> with #rticles +> and +?.
#rticle 1> is meaningless without knowing the
rules of imposing the penalties under #rticles
+> and +?.
In bar problems$ when you are given
indeterminate sentences$ these articles are
very important.
Chen the circumstance which mitigates
criminal liability is privileged$ you give effect
to it above all considerations. In other words$
before you go into any circumstance$ lower
first the penalty to the proper degree. (hat is
precisely why this circumstance is considered
privileged$ it takes preference over all other
circumstances.
a. In%".$l!t! J,(ti1i%ati"n An-
E/!.$ti"n
Chen you say incomplete 0ustifying
circumstance$ it means that not all the
re,uisites to 0ustify the act are present or
not the re,uisite to exempt from criminal
liability are present.
/ow$ if at all$ may incomplete self6
defense affect the criminal liability of the
offenderK
If the ,uestion specifically refers to
incomplete self6defense$ defense of relative
or defense of stranger$ you have to ,ualify
your answer.
9irst$ to have incomplete self6defense$ the
offended party must be guilty of unlawful
aggression. Cithout this$ there can be no
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
&+ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
incomplete self6defense$ defense of relative$
or defense of stranger.
%econd$ if only the element of unlawful
aggression is present$ the other re,uisites
being absent$ the offender shall be given
only the benefit of an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
(hird$ if aside from the element of
unlawful aggression another re,uisite$ but
not all$ are present$ the offender shall be
given the benefit of a privileged mitigating
circumstance. In such a case$ the imposable
penalty shall be reduced by one or two
degrees depending upon how the court
regards the importance of the re,uisites
present or absent.
If the ,uestion refers generally to
0ustifying or exempting circumstances$ the
,uestion should be$ 1how many incomplete
0ustifying circumstance can affect criminal
liability of the offender$ if at allK2
Make a separate answer with respect to
self6defense$ defense of relative or defense
of stranger because in these cases$ you
always shave to specify the element of
unlawful aggression: otherwise$ there would
be no incomplete self6defense$ defense of
relative or defense of stranger. In general$
with respect to other circumstances$ you
need only to say this5 If less than a ma0ority
of the re,uisites necessary to 0ustify the act
or exempt from criminal liability are
present$ the offender shall be entitled to an
ordinary mitigating circumstance.
If a ma0ority of the re,uisites needed to
0ustify the act or exempt from criminal
liability are present$ the offender shall be
given the benefit of a privileged mitigating
circumstance. (he penalty shall be lowered
by one or two degrees. Chen there are only
two conditions to 0ustify the act or to
exempt from criminal liability$ the presence
of one shall be regarded as the ma0ority.
*. Un-!r 1F Or O&!r E@ Y!ar( O1 A'!
9or purposes of lowering the penalty by
one or two degrees$ the age of the offender
at the time of the commission of the crime
shall be the basis$ not the age of the
offender at the time the sentence is to be
imposed. -ut for the purposes of suspension
of the sentence$ the age of the offender at
the time the crime was committed is not
considered$ it is the age of the offender at
the time the sentence is to be promulgated.
%. N" Int!nti"n T" C"..it S" Gra&! A
0r"n'
(he common circumstance given in the
bar of praeter intentionem$ under paragraph
>$ means that there must be a notable
disproportion between the means employed
by the offender compared to that of the
resulting felony. If the resulting felony could
be expected from the means employed$ this
circumstance does not avail. (his
circumstance does not apply when the crime
results from criminal negligence or culpa.
Chen the crime is the product of reckless
imprudence or simple negligence$ mitigating
circumstances does not apply. (his is one of
the three instances where the offender has
performed a felony different from that which
he intended. (herefore$ this is the product
of intentional felony$ not a culpable one.
-. S,11i%i!nt Pr"&"%ati"n Or Tr!at
(his is mitigating only if the crime was
committed on the very person who made
the threat or provocation. (he common set6
up given in a bar problem is that of
provocation was given by somebody. (he
person provoked cannot retaliate against
him: thus the person provoked retaliated on
a younger brother or on an elder father.
#lthough in fact$ there is sufficient
provocation$ it is not mitigating because the
one who gives the provocation is not the
one against whom the crime was
committed.
(he commission of the felony must be
immediate to the threat or provocation in
order that this circumstance be mitigating.
If there is no sufficient break of time before
the provocation or threat and the
conse,uent commission of the crime$ the
law presupposes that during that interval$
whatever anger or diminished self6control
may have emerged from the offender had
already vanished or disappeared. In
applying this mitigating circumstance$ the
courts are generally considering that there
must be no break between the provocation
or threat and the commission of the felony.
In other words$ the felony was committed
precisely because he was then and there
provoked.
/owever$ the recent rulings of the
%upreme "ourt$ as well as the "ourt of
#ppeals$ has stretched this criterionMit is
not only a matter of time anymore. -efore$
there was a ruling that if a period of one
hour had lapsed between the provocation
and the commission of the felony$ this
mitigating circumstance is no longer
applicable.
Illustration5
The accused went to a barrio
dance. In that gathering, there was a
bull and he told the accused that he is
not allowed to go inside. The accused
tried to reason out but the bull
slapped him several times in front of so
man people, some of whom were
ladies who were being courted b the
accused, so he was humiliated and
embarrassed. %owever, he cannot fight
the bull at that time because the latter
was much bigger and heavier. $ccused
had no choice but to go home. 3hen
he saw the bull again, this time, he
was armed with a knife and he stabbed
the bull to death. The evidence for the
accused showed that when he went
home, he was not able to sleep
throughout the night, thinking of the
humiliation and outrage done to him,
despite the lapse of about ?? hours.
The ,upreme Court gave him the
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
&- of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
benefit of this mitigating circumstance.
The reason stated b the ,upreme
Court for allowing the accused to be
benefited b this mitigating
circumstance is that the effect of the
humiliation and outrage emitted b the
offended part as provocation upon
the accused was still present when he
committed the crime and, therefore,
the reason for paragraph A still applies.
The accused was still acting under a
diminished self)control because he was
thinking of the humiliation he suffered
in the hands of the offended part. The
outrage was so serious unless
vindicated.
(his is the correct interpretation of
paragraph ?$ #rticle 1>. #s long as the
offender at the time he committed the
felony was still under the influence of the
outrage caused by the provocation or
threat$ he is acting under a diminished self6
control. (his is the reason why it is
mitigating.
Jou have to look at two criteria5
i. If from the element of time$ there is a
material lapse of time stated in the
problem and there is nothing stated in
the problem that the effect of the
threat of provocation had prolonged
and affected the offender at the time he
committed the crime$ they you use the
criterion based on the time element.
ii. /owever$ if there is that time element
and at the same time$ facts are given
indicating that at the time the offender
committed the crime$ he is still
suffering from outrage of the threat or
provocation done to him$ then he will
still get the benefit of this mitigating
circumstance.
In P!"$l! &(. Di"An") a "hinaman
eloped with a woman. #ctually$ it was
almost three days before the accused was
able to locate the house where the
"hinaman brought the woman. /ere$
sufficient provocation was one of the
mitigating circumstances considered by the
%upreme "ourt in favor of the accused.
!. I..!-iat! Vin-i%ati"n O1 A Gra&!
O11!n(!
(he word 1offense2 should not be taken
as a crime. It is enough if what was imputed
or what was done was wrong. In
considering whether the wrong is a grave
one upon the person who committed the
crime$ his age$ education$ and social status
will be considered.
/ere$ in vindication of a grave offense$
the vindication need not be done by the
person upon whom the grave offense was
committed. %o$ unlike in sufficient threat or
provocation where the crime should be
inflicted upon the very person who made
the threat or provocation$ here$ it need not
be the same person who committed the
grave offense or who was offended by the
wrong done by the offended party.
(he word 1immediate2 here does not
carry the same meaning as that under
paragraph ?. (he word 1immediate2 here is
an erroneous %panish translation because
the %panish word is 1proxima2 and not
1immediatementa.2 (herefore$ it is enough
that the offender committed the crime with
the grave offense done to him$ his spouse$
his ascendant or descendant or to his
brother or sister$ whether natural$ adopted
or legitimate and that is the proximate
cause of the commission of the crime.
1. Pa((i"n Or O*1,(%ati"n
(his stands on the premise or proposition
that the offender is suffering from a
diminished self control because of the
passion or obfuscation. (he same is true
with the circumstances under paragraphs ?
and A. %o$ there is a ruling to the effect that
if the offender is given the benefit of
paragraph ?$ he cannot be given the benefit
of paragraph A or +$ or vice6versa. 7nly one
of the three mitigating circumstances should
be given in favor of the offender.
/owever$ in one case$ one of the
mitigating circumstances under paragraphs
?$ A$ and + stands or arises from a set of
facts$ and another mitigating circumstance
arises from another set of facts. %ince they
are predicated on different sets of facts$
they may be appreciated together$ although
they arose from one and the same case.
/ence$ the prohibition against considering
all these mitigating circumstances together
and not as one applies only if they would be
taken on the basis of the same set of facts.
If the case involves a series of facts$ then
you can predicate any one of these
circumstances on one fact and the other on
another fact and so on.
(he passion must be legitimate. #s a rule$
it cannot be based on common law
relationship because common law
relationships are illicit. /owever$ consider
whether passion or obfuscation is generated
by common law relationship or some other
human consideration.
In a case where the relationship between
the accused and the woman he was living
with was one of common law$ he came
home and surprised his common law wife
having sexual intercourse with a friend. (his
infuriated him. /e killed the friend and he
claimed passion or obfuscation. (he trial
court denied his claim because the
relationship was a common law. 7n review$
the accused was given the benefit of the
circumstances and the basis of considering
passion or obfuscation in favor of the
accused was the act of the common law
wife in committing adultery right from the
con0ugal bed. Chether or not they are
married$ any man who discovers that
infidelity was committed on the very bed
provided by him to the woman would
naturally be sub0ected to obfuscation.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
&! of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
Chen a married person surprised his
better half in the act of sexual intercourse
with another$ he gets the benefit of #rticle
&?!. /owever$ that re,uisite which in the
first place$ the offender must have surprised
hisH her spouse actually committing sexual
intercourse should be present. If the
surprising was done not in the actual act of
sexual intercourse but before or after it$
then #rticle &?! does not apply.
#lthough this is the ruling$ still$ the
accused will be given the benefit of
sufficient provocation if the intercourse was
done in his dwelling. If this act was done
somewhere else and the accused kills the
paramour or the spouse$ this may be
considered as mitigation of a grave offense
to him or otherwise as a situation sufficient
to create passion or obfuscation. (herefore$
when a married man upon coming home$
surprises his wife who was nude$ #rticle &?!
does not apply. If he kills them$ vindication
of a grave offense will be mitigating in favor
of the offender.
Illustrations5
$ is courting 1, a receptionist in a
beerhouse. C danced with 1. $ saw this
and stabbed C. It was held that
!ealous is an acknowledged basis of
passion.
$, a male classmate is escorting 1,
a female classmate. 5n the wa out,
some men whistled lustfull. The male
classmate stabbed said men. This was
held to be obfuscation.
3hen a man saw a woman
bathing, almost naked, almost naked,
for which reason he raped her, such
man cannot claim passion as a
mitigating circumstance.
$ man and a woman were living
together for &: ears. The man left the
village where the were living and
never returned home. The common law
wife learned that he was getting
married to a classmate. 5n the
scheduled wedding da, she stabbed
the groom in the chest, instantl killing
him. ,he confessed and explained that
an woman cannot tolerate what he did
to her. ,he gave him the best ears of
her life. ,he practicall waited for him
da and night. It was held that passion
and obfuscation were considered
mitigating. Ingratitude was shown
here.
'. V"l,ntar# S,rr!n-!r
(he essence of voluntary surrender
re,uires that the offender$ after having
committed the crime$ had evaded the law
enforcers and the law enforcers do not know
of his whereabouts. In short$ he continues
to elude arrest. If$ under this circumstance$
the offender would come out in the open
and he gives himself up$ his act of doing so
will be indicative of repentance and he also
saves the government the time and the
expense of looking for him.
#s a general rule$ if after committing the
crime$ the offender did not flee and he went
with the responding law enforcers meekly$
voluntary surrender is not applicable.
/owever$ there is a ruling that if after
committing the crime$ the offender did not
flee and instead waited for the law enforcers
to arrive and he surrendered the weapon he
used in killing the victim$ the ruling was that
voluntary surrender was mitigating. In this
case$ the offender had the opportunity to go
into hiding$ the fact that he did not flee is
not voluntary surrender.
/owever$ if he comes out from hiding
because he is seriously ill and he went to
get medical treatment$ the surrender is not
considered as indicative of remorse or
repentance. (he surrender here is only done
out of convenience to save his self. /ence$
it is not mitigating.
Even if the offenders may have gone into
hiding$ if the law enforcers had already
known where he is hiding and it is 0ust a
matter of time before he is flushed out of
that place$ then even if the law enforcers do
not know exactly where he was hiding and
he would come out$ this is not voluntary
surrender.
Chether or not a warrant of arrest had
been issued against the offender is
immaterial and irrelevant. (he criterion is
whether or not the offender had gone into
hiding and the law enforcers do not know of
his whereabouts. If he would give up$ his
act of surrendering under such
circumstances indicates that he is willing to
accept the conse,uences of the wrong he
has done and also thereby saves the
government the effort$ the time and the
expenses to be incurred in looking for him.
Chere the offender went to the municipal
building not to own responsibility for the
killing$ such fact is not tantamount to
voluntary surrender as a mitigating
circumstance. #lthough he admitted his
participation in the killing$ he tried to avoid
responsibility by claiming self6defense which
however he was not able to prove. P!"$l!
&(. Min-a%.
%urrender to be considered voluntary and
thus mitigating$ must be spontaneous$
demonstrating an intent to submit himself
unconditionally to the person in authority or
his agent in authority$ because 1. he
acknowledges his guilt$ &. he wishes to save
the government the trouble and expenses of
searching and capturing him. Chere the
reason for the surrender of the accused was
to insure his safety$ his arrest by policemen
pursuing him being inevitable$ the surrender
is not spontaneous.
. Pl!a O1 G,ilt
R,l! 11D) (!%. 3) 8) 2@@@ R,l!( "n
Cri.inal Pr"%!-,r! G
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
&. of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
Chen the accused pleads guilty to a
capital offense$ the court shall conduct
a searching in,uiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of
the conse,uences of his plea and shall
re,uire the prosecution to prove his
guilt and the precise degree of
culpability. (he accused may present
evidence in his behalf.

When the accused pleads
guilty to a non-capital
offense, the court may
receive evidence from the
parties to determine the
penalty to be imposed.
i. Pl!a T" A L!((!r O11!n(!
R,l! 11D) (!%. 2) R,l!( "n Cri.inal
Pr"%!-,r! G
#t arraignment$ the accused$ with the
consent of the offended party and
prosecutor$ may be allowed by the trial
court to plead guilty to a lesser offense
which is necessarily included in the
offense charged. #fter arraignment but
before trial$ the accused may still be
allowed to plead guilty to said lesser
offense after withdrawing his plea of
not guilty. 4o amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary.
+. P#(i%al D!1!%t(
(he physical defect that a person may
have must have a relation to the
commission of the crime. In a case where
the offender is deaf and dumb$ personal
property was entrusted to him and he
misappropriated the same. (he crime
committed was estafa. (he fact that he was
deaf and dumb is not mitigating since that
does not bear any relation to the crime
committed.
4ot any physical defect will affect the
crime. It will only do so if it has some
relation to the crime committed. If a person
is deaf and dumb and he has been
slandered$ he cannot talk so what he did
was he got a piece of wood and struck the
fellow on the head. (he crime committed
was physical in0uries. (he %upreme "ourt
held that being a deaf and dumb is
mitigating because the only way is to use
his force because he cannot strike back in
any other way.
If the offender is blind in one eye$ as long
as his means of action$ defense or
communication with others are not
restricted$ such circumstance is not
mitigating. (his circumstance must also
have a bearing on the crime committed and
must depend on how the crime was
committed.
A. Illn!((
Illness must only diminish and not deprive
the offender of the consciousness of his
acts. 7therwise he will be exempt from
criminal liability.
l. Anal"'",( Miti'atin' Cir%,.(tanGC!(
(he act of the offender of leading the law
enforcers to the place where he buried the
instrument of the crime has been
considered as e,uivalent to voluntary
surrender. (he act of a thief in leading the
authorities to the place where he disposed
of the loot has been considered as
analogous to voluntary surrender.
%tealing by a person who is driven to do
so out of extreme poverty is considered as
analogous to incomplete state of necessity.
/owever$ this is not so where the offender
became impoverished because of his own
way of living his life. If his lifestyle is one of
having so many vices$ as a result of which
he became poor$ his subse,uent stealing
because of his poverty will not be
considered mitigating by incomplete state of
necessity.
8. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Iinds of aggravating circumstances5
a. =eneric or those that can generally apply
to all crimes:
b. %pecific or those that apply only to a
particular crime:
c. Oualifying or those that change the
nature of the crime:
d. Inherent or those that must of necessity
accompany the commission of the crime.
(he aggravating circumstances must be
established with moral certainty$ with the
same degree of proof re,uired to establish the
crime itself.
(he most important of the classification of
aggravating circumstances are the ,ualifying
and the generic aggravating circumstances.
In practice$ the generic aggravating
circumstances are referred to simply as
aggravating circumstances. (he so6called
,ualifying aggravating circumstances are
simply referred to as ,ualifying circumstances.
(his is so because there is no ,ualifying
circumstance that is not aggravating. (o say
,ualifying aggravating circumstance is
redundant. In the examination$ if you find
,ualifying circumstances$ you have to think
about these as aggravating circumstances
which are the ingredients of the crime.
Di(tin%ti"n( *!t2!!n a''ra&atin' an-
H,ali1#in' %ir%,.(tan%!(:
In aggravating
circumstances
In 7ualifing
circumstances
(he circumstance can
be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance
(he circumstance
affects the nature of the
crime itself such that
the offender shall be
liable for a more serious
crime. (he circumstance
is actually an ingredient
of the crime
It is not an ingredient of
the crime. It only
affects the penalty to be
imposed but the crime
-eing an ingredient of
the crime$ it cannot be
offset by any mitigating
circumstance
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
&% of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
remains the same
Oualifying
circumstances to be
appreciated as such
must be specifically
alleged in the complaint
or information. If not
alleged but proven
during trial$ it will be
considered only as a
generic aggravating
circumstance. If his
happens$ they are
susceptible of being
offset by a mitigating
circumstance.
#n aggravating circumstance is ,ualifying
when it is an ingredient of the crime.
(herefore it is included in the provision of law
defining the crime. If it is not so included$ it is
not ,ualifying.
In #rticle &?$ in the crime of murder$ the
law specifically mentions several
circumstances which are aggravating under
#rticle 1?. #ll of these will ,ualify a killing
from homicide to murder: however$ you
understand that only one is ,ualifying.
If let us say that the accused was charged
with murder. (hree of these circumstances5
treachery$ evident premeditation and act was
done in consideration of a price$ reward or
promise were alleged as aggravating. 7nly
one of these is ,ualifying. If any one of the
three circumstances was proven$ the crime
was already murder. If the other two are also
proven$ even if they are not alleged in the
information or complaint$ they are only to be
taken as generic. If there is any mitigating
circumstance in favor of the offender$ the two
other circumstances which are otherwise
,ualifying could be offset by the mitigating$
provided the mitigating circumstance is not a
privileged mitigating circumstance. (herefore$
if there are three of the ,ualifying
circumstances alleged in the complaint or
information$ only one will ,ualify the crime.
(he others will merely be considered as
generic. (hus$ if there is any ordinary
mitigating circumstance in favor of the
accused$ such will be wiped out by these
circumstances$ although initially they are
considered as ,ualifying. Go not hesitate to
offset on the principle that a ,ualifying
circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance because only one is
necessary.
Even if any of the ,ualifying circumstances
under #rticle &? on murder was proven$ if
that is not the circumstance alleged in the
information$ it cannot ,ualify the crime. @et us
say$ what was alleged in the information was
treachery. Guring the trial$ what was proven
was the price$ reward or promise as a
consideration for killing. (he treachery was
not proved. *ust the same$ the accused cannot
be convicted of murder because the
circumstance proven is not ,ualifying but
merely generic. It is generic because it is not
alleged in the information at all. If any of
these ,ualifying circumstances is not alleged
in the information$ it cannot be considered
,ualifying because a ,ualifying circumstance is
an ingredient of the crime and it cannot be
taken as such without having been alleged in
the information because it will violate the right
of the accused to be informed of the nature of
the accusation against him.
"orrelate #rticle 1? with #rticle +&. #rticle
+& gives you the different rules regarding
aggravating circumstances. #ggravating
circumstances will not be considered when it is
the crime itself. If the crime charged is
,ualified trespass to dwelling$ dwelling is no
longer aggravating. Chen the aggravating
circumstance refers to the material execution
of the crime$ like treachery$ it will only
aggravate the criminal liability of those who
employed the same.
Illustration5
$ person induced another to kill
somebod. That fellow killed the other
gu and emploed treacher. $s far as
the killing is concerned, the treacher will
7ualif onl the criminal liabilit of the
actual executioner. The fellow who
induced him becomes a co)principal and
therefore, he is liable for the same crime
committed. %owever, let us sa, the
fellow was hired to kill the parent of the
one who hired him. %e killed a stranger
and not the parent. 3hat was committed
was different from what was agreed
upon. The fellow who hired him will not
be liable for the crime he had done
because that was not the crime he was
hired to commit.
#ll aggravating circumstances$ whether
generic or ,ualifying must be alleged in the
criminal information pursuant to the &<<<
;evised ;ules of "riminal .rocedure.
If not alleged$ they may still be considered
in the award of damages.
a. TaAin' A-&anta'! O1 P,*li% O11i%!
(he public officer must use influence$
prestige$ or ascendancy which his office
gives him as the means by which he reali)es
his purpose.
*. In C"nt!.$t O1 Or 0it In(,lt T"
P,*li% A,t"riti!(
;e,uisites5
i. (he public authority is engaged in the
discharge of his duties:
ii. 7ffender knows the identity of the
public authority:
iii. (he crime was committed in his
presence. It must not be against the
person in authority for then the crime
would be direct assault and this
circumstance will be absorbed being
inherent therein.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
' of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
# person in authority is one vested with
0urisdiction or authority. # chief of police is
a public authority because he is specifically
duty6bound to prosecute and apprehend
violators of the laws and municipal
ordinances. /e heads and supervises the
entire police force in the municipality. #
-arangay "hairman is also a person in
authority because he has 0urisdiction over
the barangay and as expressly provided
under the @ocal =overnment "ode.
%. 0it In(,lt Or La%A O1 R!'ar- D,! T"
O11!n-!- Part# B# R!a("n O1 RanA)
A'! Or S!/
#ggravating only in crimes against
persons and honor$ not against property like
;obbery with homicide. (P!"$l! &(. Ga)
19D SCRA E5@6
(eachers$ professors$ supervisors of
public and duly recogni)ed private schools$
colleges and universities$ as well as lawyers
are persons in authority for purposes of
direct assault and simple resistance$ but not
for purposes of aggravating circumstances
in paragraph &$ #rticle 1?. (P!"$l! &(.
Ta"an) 1F2 SCRA D@1'
-. D2!llin'
Gwelling will only be aggravating if it is
the dwelling of the offended party. It should
also not be the dwelling of the offender. If
the dwelling is both that of the offender and
the offended party$ dwelling is not
aggravating.
Gwelling need not be owned by the
offended party. It is enough that he used
the place for his peace of mind$ rest$
comfort and privacy. (he rule that dwelling$
in order to be aggravating must be owned
by the offended party is no longer absolute.
Gwelling can be aggravating even if it is not
owned by the offended party$ provided that
the offended party is considered a member
of the family who owns the dwelling and
e,ually en0oys peace of mind$ privacy and
comfort.
Illustration5
%usband and wife 7uarreled.
%usband inflicted phsical violence
upon a wife. The wife left the con!ugal
home and went to the house of her
sister bringing her personal belongings
with her. The sister accommodated the
wife in her home. The husband went to
the house of the sister)in)law and tried
to persuade the wife to return to the
con!ugal home but the wife refused
since she was more at peace in her
sister2s home than in their con!ugal
abode. 0ue to the wife2s refusal to go
back to the con!ugal home and live with
her husband, the latter pulled out a
knife and stabbed the wife to death. It
was held that dwelling was aggravating
although it is not owned b the victim
since she is considered a member of
the famil who owns the dwelling and
that place is where she en!oed
privac, peace of mind and comfort.
Even a room in a hotel if rented as a
dwelling$ like what the salesmen do when
they are assigned in the provinces and they
rent rooms$ is considered a dwelling. #
room in a hotel or motel will be considered
dwelling if it is used with a certain degree of
permanence$ where the offended party
seeks privacy$ rest$ peace of mind and
comfort.
If a young man brought a woman in a
motel for a short time and he gets killed
there$ dwelling is not aggravating.
# man was killed in the house of his
common law wife. Gwelling is aggravating in
this case because the house was provided
by the man.
Gwelling should not be understood in the
concept of a domicile. # person has more
than one dwelling. %o$ if a man has so many
wives and he gave them places of their
own$ each one is his own dwelling. If he is
killed there$ dwelling will be aggravating$
provided that he also stays there once in a
while. Chen he is only a visitor there$
dwelling is not aggravating.
(he crime of adultery was committed.
Gwelling was considered aggravating on the
part of the paramour. (he paramour is not a
resident of the same dwelling. /owever$ if
the paramour was also residing in the same
dwelling$ it will not be aggravating.
(he term 1dwelling2 includes all the
dependencies necessary for a house or for
rest or for comfort or a place of privacy. If
the place used is on the second floor$ the
stairs which are used to reach the second
floor is considered a dwelling because the
second floor cannot be en0oyed without the
stairs. If the offended party was assaulted
while on the stairs$ dwelling is already
aggravating. 9or this reason$ any
dependency necessary for the en0oyment of
a place of abode is considered a dwelling.
Illustrations5
$ and 1 are living in one house. $
occupies the ground floor while 1 the
upper floor. The stairs here would form
part of part onl of 12s dwelling, the
same being necessar and an integral
part of his house or dwelling. %ence,
when an attack is made while $ is on
the stairs, the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling is not present.
If the attack is made while 1 was on
the stairs, then the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling is present.
Chenever one is in his dwelling$ the law
is presuming that he is not intending to
commit a wrong so one who attacks him
while in the tran,uility of his home shows a
degree of perversity in him.
Gwelling is not limited to the house
proper. #ll the appurtenances necessary for
the peace and comfort$ rest and peace of
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
'$ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
mind in the abode of the offended party are
considered dwellings.
Illustrations5
$ man was fixing something on the
roof of his house when he was shot. It
was held that dwelling is aggravating.
The roof still forms part of the house.
In the provinces where the comfort
rooms are usuall far from the house
proper, if the offended part while
answering the call of nature is killed,
then dwelling is aggravating since the
comfort room is a necessar
dependenc of the house proper.
$ person while in the room of his
house, maintaining the room, was shot.
0welling is aggravating. If the offender
entered the house and the offended
part !umped out of the house, even if
the offender caught up with him as he
was alread out of the house, dwelling
is still aggravating. The reason is
because he could not have left his
dwelling were it not for the fact that
the attacker entered his house.
If the offended part was inside
the house and the offender was outside
and the latter shot the former inside
the house while he was still outside.
0welling is still aggravating even
though the offender did not enter the
house.
$ garage is part of the dwelling
when connected with an interior
passage to the house proper. If not
connected, it is not considered part of
the dwelling.
5ne)half of a house is used as a
store and the other half is used for
dwelling but there is onl one entrance.
If the dwelling portion is attacked,
dwelling is not aggravating because
whenever a store is open for business,
it is a public place and as such is not
capable of being the sub!ect of
trespass. If the dwelling portion is
attacked where even the store is open,
there is another separate entrance to
the portion used for dwelling, then the
circumstance is aggravating. %owever,
in case the store closed, dwelling is
aggravating since here, the store is not
a public place as in the first case.
$ balcon is part of the dwelling
because it is appurtenant to the house.
Gwelling is aggravating in robbery with
homicide because the crime can be
committed without the necessarily
transgressing the sanctity of the home.
(P!"$l! &(. D! L"( R!#!() -!%i-!-
O%t"*!r 22) 1552'
Gwelling is aggravating where the place
is$ even for a brief moment$ a 1home$2
although he is not the owner thereof as
when the victim gets shot in the house of
his own parents.
!. A*,(! O1 C"n1i-!n%! An- O*&i",(
Un'rat!1,ln!((
Go not confuse this with mere betrayal of
trust. (his is aggravating only when the
very offended party is the one who reposed
the confidence. If the confidence is reposed
by another$ the offended party is different
from the fellow who reposed the confidence
and abuse of confidence in this case is not
aggravating.
Illustrations5
$ mother left her oung daughter
with the accused because she had
nobod to leave the child with while
she had to go on an errand. The
accused abused the child. It was held
that the abuse of confidence was not
aggravating. 3hat is present is
betraal of trust and that is not
aggravating.
In a case where the offender is a servant$
the offended party is one of the members of
the family. (he servant poisoned the child.
It was held that abuse of confidence is
aggravating. (his is only true$ however$ if
the servant was still in the service of the
family when he did the killing. If he was
driven by the master out of the house for
some time and he came back to poison the
child$ abuse of confidence will no longer be
aggravating. (he reason is because that
confidence has already been terminated
when the offender was driven out of the
house.
1. Cri.! In Pala%! Or In Pr!(!n%! O1
T! Ci!1 E/!%,ti&!
.erformance of function is not necessary
in the circumstances of the offense being
committed in the palace of the "hief
Executive$ in a place devoted to religious
worship or in the presence of the "hief
Executive.
7ffender must have sought any of the
four places in paragraph A of #rticle 1?
(.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.) for the commission of the crime.
'. Ni'tti.!
Chat if the crime started during the
daytime and continued all the way to
nighttimeK (his is not aggravating.
#s a rule$ the crime must begin and end
during the night. "rime began at day and
ended at night as well as crime began at
night and ended at day is not aggravated by
the circumstance of nighttime.
Garkness is what makes this circumstance
aggravating. (he darkness of night must be
purposely sought.
Illustration5
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
'2 of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
5ne evening, a crime was
committed near the lamppost. The
,upreme Court held that there is no
aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
Even if the crime was committed at
night, but there was light, hence,
darkness was not present, no
aggravating circumstance !ust b the
fact of nighttime alone.
Even if there was darkness but the
nighttime was only and incident of a chance
meeting$ there is no aggravating
circumstance. It must be shown that the
offender deliberately sought the cover of
darkness and the offender purposely took
advantage of nighttime to facilitate the
commission of the offense.
4octurnity is the period of time after
sunset to sunrise$ from dusk to dawn.
. Unina*it!- Pla%!
It is determined not by the distance of the
nearest house to the scene of the crime but
whether or not in the place of the
commission of the offense$ there was a
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving
some help.
Illustration5
$ is on board a banca, not so far
awa. 1 and C also are on board on
their respective bancas. ,uddenl, 0
showed up from underwater and
stabbed 1. Is there an aggravating
circumstance of uninhabited place
here6 Ees, considering the fact that $
and C before being able to give
assistance still have to !ump into the
water and swim towards 1 and the time
it would take them to do that, the
chances of 1 receiving some help was
ver little, despite the fact that there
were other persons not so far from the
scene.
Evidence tending to prove that the
offender took advantage of the place and
purposely availed of it is to make it easier to
commit the crime$ shall be necessary.
i. 0it A Ban-
In band$ there should at least be four
persons. #ll of them should be armed. Even
if there are four$ but only three or less are
armed$ it is not a band. Chenever you talk
of band$ always have in mind four at the
very least. Go not say three or more
because it is four or more. (he way the law
defines a band is somewhat confusing
because it refers simply to more than >$
when actually it should be ? or more.
"orrelate this with #rticle ><+M
-rigandage. (he crime is the band itself.
(he mere forming of a band even without
the commission of a crime is already a
crime so that band is not aggravating in
brigandage because the band itself is the
way to commit brigandage.
/owever$ where brigandage is actually
committed$ band becomes aggravating.
+. On O%%a(i"n O1 A Cala.it#
RPC) Art. 31@ G
(he crime of theft shall be punished by
the penalties next higher by two degrees
than those respectively specified in the next
preceding article$ if committed by a
domestic servant$ or with grave abuse of
confidence$ or if the property stolen is
motor vehicle$ mail matter or large cattle or
consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of the plantation or fish taken
from a fishpond or fishery$ or if property is
taken on the occasion of fire$ earth,uake$
typhoon$ volcanic erruption$ or any other
calamity$ vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
A. Ai- O1 Ar.!- M!n Or M!an( T"
En(,r! I.$,nit#
Elements of aid of armed men are5
i. #rmed men or persons took part in the
commission of the crime$ directly or
indirectly: and
ii. (he accused availed himself of their aid
or relied upon them when the crime
was committed.
"ompared with the circumstance of a
band5
i. Inband there must be at least four
armed men: in aid of armed men$ there
is no re,uired number of malefactors:
ii. (he band members are all principals for
they take part in the commission of the
felony under the same plan and for the
same purpose. (he armed men who
aided the principal offender are mere
accomplices for they give material and
moral aid and encouragement in the
commission of the crime.
iii. -and absorbs aid of armed men.
l. R!%i-i&i(.) R!it!rati"n Or
Ha*it,alit#
0ifferent forms of repetition or habitualit
of offender
i. ;ecidivism under #rticle 1? (9'M(he
offender at the time of his trial for one
crime shall have been previously
convicted by final 0udgment of another
embraced in the same title of the
;evised .enal "ode.
ii. ;epetition or reiteracion under #rticle
1? (1<'M(he offender has been
previously punished for an offense to
which the law attaches an e,ual or
even greater penalty or for two or more
crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty.
iii. /abitual delin,uency under #rticle +&
(A'M(he offender within a period of 1<
years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes of serious
or less serious physical in0uries$ robo$
hurto$ estafa or falsification$ is found
guilty of any of the said crimes a third
time or another.
iv. Ouasi6recidivism under #rticle 1+<M
#ny person who shall commit a felony
after having been convicted by final
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
'& of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
0udgment before beginning to serve
such sentence or while serving such
sentence shall be punished by the
maximum period prescribed by law for
the new felony.
Di(tin%ti"n( *!t2!!n r!%i-i&i(. an-
a*it,al -!linH,!n%#
In recidivismB In habitual delin7uenc
B
(wo convictions are
enough
#t least three
convictions are re,uired
(he crimes are not
specified: it is enough
that they may be
embraced under the
same title of the
;evised .enal "ode
(he crimes are limited
and specified to5 a.
serious physical
in0uries$ b. @ess serious
physical in0uries$ c.
robbery$ d. theft$ e.
estafa or swindling and
f. falsification
(here is no time limit
between the first
conviction and the
subse,uent conviction.
;ecidivism is
imprescriptible
(here is a time limit of
not more than 1< years
between every
conviction computed
from the first conviction
or release from
punishment thereof to
conviction computed
from the second
conviction or release
therefrom to the third
conviction and so on
It is a generic
aggravating
circumstance which can
be offset by an ordinary
mitigating
circumstance. If not
offset$ it would only
increase the penalty
prescribed by law for
the crime committed to
its maximum period
/abitual delin,uency is
a special aggravating
circumstance$ hence it
cannot be offset by any
mitigating
circumstance. #side
from the penalty
prescribed by law for
the crime committed$
an additional penalty
shall be imposed
depending upon
whether it is already the
third conviction$ the
fourth$ the fifth and so
on
(he circumstance must
be alleged in the
information.
/abitual delin,uency
need not be alleged n
the information
i. ;ecidivism
In recidivism$ the emphasis is on the
fact that the offender was previously
convicted by final 0udgment of a felony
and subse,uently found guilty of another
felony embraced in the same title of the
;evised .enal "ode. (he law considers
this aggravating when a person has been
committing felonies embraced in the
same title because the implication is that
he is speciali)ing on a king of crime and
the law wants to prevent any
speciali)ation. /ence$ ordinarily$ when a
person commits a crime under different
titles$ no aggravating circumstance is
present. It is important that the
conviction which cam earlier must refer to
the crime committed earlier than the
subse,uent conviction.
Illustration5
In &@F(, $ committed robber.
3hile the case was being tried, he
committed theft in &@FD. %e was also
found guilt and was convicted of
theft also in &@FD. The conviction
became final because he did not
appeal anmore and the trial for the
earlier crime which was robber
ended in &@FA where he was also
convicted. %e also did not appeal this
decision. Is the accused a recidivist6
The subse7uent conviction must refer
to a felon committed later in order
to constitute recidivism. The reason
for this is as the time the first crime
was committed, there was no other
crime of which he was convicted so
he cannot be regarded as a repeater.
In recidivism$ the crimes committed
should be felonies. ;ecidivism cannot be
had if the crime committed is a violation
of a special law.
;ecidivism does not prescribe. 4o
matter how long ago the offender was
convicted$ if he is subse,uently convicted
of a crime embraced in the same title of
the ;evised .enal "ode$ it is taken into
account as aggravating in imposing the
penalty.
.ardon does not erase recidivism$ even
if it is absolute because only it only
excuses the service of the penalty$ not
the conviction.
If the offender has already served his
sentence and he was extended an
absolute pardon$ the pardon shall erase
the conviction including recidivism
because there is no more penalty so it
shall be understood as referring to the
conviction or the effects of the crime.
;ecidivism may be considered even
though not alleged in the information
because this is only a generic aggravating
circumstance.
It is necessary to allege recidivism in
the information$ but if the defense does
not ob0ect to the presentation of evidence
during the trial and the same was proven$
the court shall consider such aggravating
circumstance because it is only generic.
In recidivism$ although the law defines
it as a circumstance where a person
having been convicted by final 0udgment
was previously convicted also by final
0udgment for a crime embraced in the
same title of the ;evised .enal "ode$ it is
necessary that the conviction must come
in the order in which they are committed.
ii. /abitual Gelin,uency
Ce have to consider the crimes in it
and take note of the titles of crimes in the
;evised .enal "ode.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
'' of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
If the offender had committed and was
convicted of each of the crimes under
each category so that no two crimes fall
under the same title of the ;evised .enal
"ode$ you have a situation where the
offender is a habitual delin,uent because
no two crimes fall under the same title of
the "ode.
If the first conviction is for serious
physical in0uries and the second
conviction is for robbery$ theft or estafa
and the third is for falsification$ then the
moment the habitual delin,uent is on his
fourth conviction already$ you cannot
avoid that he is a habitual delin,uent and
at the same time a recidivist because at
least$ the fourth time will have to fall
under any of the three categories.
Chen the offender is a recidivist and a
the same time a habitual delin,uent$ the
penalty for the crime for which he will be
convicted will be increased to the
maximum period unless offset by a
mitigating circumstance. #fter
determining the correct penalty for the
last crime committed$ an added penalty
will be imposed in accordance with #rticle
+&.
/abitual delin,uency$ being a special or
specific aggravating circumstance must
be alleged in the information. If it is not
alleged in the information and in the
course of the trial$ the prosecution tried
to prove that the offender is a habitual
delin,uent over the ob0ection of the
accused$ the court has no 0urisdiction to
consider the offender a habitual
delin,uent. Even if the accused is in fact a
habitual delin,uent but it is not alleged in
the information$ the prosecution when
introducing evidence was ob0ected to$ the
court cannot admit the evidence
presented to prove habitual delin,uency
over the ob0ection of the accused.
7n the other hand$ recidivism is a
generic aggravating circumstance. It need
not be alleged in the information. (hus$
even if recidivism is not alleged in the
information$ if proven during the trial$ the
court can appreciate the same. If the
prosecution tried to prove recidivism and
the defense ob0ected$ the ob0ection
should be overruled. (he reason is that
recidivism is a generic aggravating
circumstance only. #s such$ it does not
have to be alleged in the information
because even if not alleged$ if proven
during the trial$ the trial court can
appreciate it.
;ight now$ the present rule is that it
can be appreciated even if not alleged in
the information. (his is the correct view
because recidivism is a generic
aggravating circumstance. (he reason
why habitual delin,uency cannot be
appreciated unless alleged in the
information is because recidivism has
nothing to do with the crime committed.
/abitual delin,uency refers to prior
conviction and therefore this must be
brought in the information before the
court can ac,uire 0urisdiction over this
matter.
=enerally$ when the prosecutor alleges
habitual delin,uency$ it must specify the
crimes committed$ the dates when they
were committed$ the court which tried the
case$ the date when the accused was
convicted or discharged. If these are not
alleged$ then the information is defective.
/owever$ in a relatively recent ruling of
the %upreme "ourt$ it was held that even
though the details of habitual delin,uency
was not set forth in the information$ as
long as there is a habitual delin,uent$
that is enough to confer 0urisdiction upon
a court to consider it. In the absence of
details set forth in the information$ the
accused has the right to avail of the so6
called bill of particulars. Even in a criminal
case$ the accused may file a motion for a
bill of particulars. If the accused fails to
file such$ he is deemed to have waived
the re,uired particulars and so the court
can admit evidence of the habitual
delin,uency$ even though over and above
the ob0ection of the defense.
iii. ;eiteration
(his has nothing to do with the
classification of the felonies. In
reiteracion$ the offender has already
tasted the bitterness of punishment. (his
is the philosophy on which the
circumstance becomes aggravating.
It is necessary in order that there be
reiteracion that the offender has already
served out the penalty. If the offender
had not yet served out his penalty$ forget
about reiteracion. (hat means that he has
not yet tasted the bitterness of life but if
he had already served out the penalty$
the law expects that since he has already
tasted punishment$ he will more or less
refrain from committing crimes again.
(hat is why if the offender committed a
subse,uent felony which carries a penalty
lighter than what he had served$
reiteracion is not aggravating since the
law considers that somehow$ this fellow
was corrected because instead of
committing a serious crime$ he committed
a lesser one. If he committed another
lesser one$ then he becomes a repeater.
%o$ in reiteracion$ the penalty attached
to the crime subse,uently committed
should be higher or at least e,ual to the
penalty that he has already served. If that
is the situation$ that means that the
offender was never reformed by the fact
that he already served the penalty
imposed on him on the first conviction.
/owever$ if he commits a felony carrying
a lighter penalty$ subse,uently$ the law
considers that he has somehow been
reformed but if he$ again commits
another felony which carries a lighter
penalty$ then he becomes a repeater
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
'+ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
because that means he has not yet
reformed.
Jou will only consider the penalty in
reiteracion if there is already a second
conviction. Chen there is a third
conviction$ you disregard whatever
penalty for the subse,uent crimes
committed. Even if the penalty for the
subse,uent crimes committed are lighter
than the ones already served$ since there
are already two of them$ subse,uently
the offender is already a repeater.
/owever$ if there is only a second
conviction$ pay attention to the penalty
attached to the crime which was
committed for the second crime. (hat is
why it is said that reiteracion is not
always aggravating. (his is so because if
the penalty attached to the felony
subse,uently committed is not e,ual to or
higher than the penalty already served$
even if literally the offender is a repeater$
repetition is not aggravating.
iv. Ouasi6;ecidivism
(his is found in #rticle 1+<. (he
offender must already be convicted by
final 0udgment and therefore to have
served the penalty already$ but even at
this stage$ he committed a felony before
beginning to serve sentence or while
serving sentence.
Illustration5
5ffender has alread been
convicted b final !udgment.
,entence was promulgated and he
was under custod in ;untinlupa.
3hile he was in ;untinlupa, he
escaped from his guard and in the
course of his escape, he killed
someone. The killing was committed
before serving sentence but
convicted b final !udgment. %e
becomes a 7uasi)recidivist because
the crime committed was a felon.
The emphasis here is on the
crime committed before sentence or
while serving sentence which should
be a felon, a violation of the Revised
#enal Code. In so far as the earlier
crime is concerned, it is necessar
that it be a felon.
Reverse the situation. $ssume
that the offender was found guilt of
illegal use of prohibited drugs. 3hile
he was serving sentence, he got
involved in a 7uarrel and killed a
fellow inmate. %e is a 7uasi)recidivist
because while serving sentence, he
committed a felon.
The emphasis is on the nature of
the crime committed while serving
sentence or before serving sentence.
It should not be a violation of a
special law.
Ouasi6recidivism is a special
aggravating circumstance. (his cannot be
offset by any mitigating circumstance and
the imposition of the penalty in the
maximum period cannot be lowered by
any ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Chen there is a privileged mitigating
circumstance$ the penalty prescribed by
law for the crime committed shall be
lowered by 1 or & degrees$ as the case
may be$ but then it shall be imposed in
the maximum period if the offender is a
,uasi6recidivist.
.. Pri%!) R!2ar- Or Pr".i(!
(he %upreme "ourt rulings before indicate
this circumstance aggravates only the
criminal liability of the person who
committed the crime in consideration of the
price$ promise or reward but not the
criminal liability of the person who gave the
price$ reward or consideration. /owever$
when there is a promise$ reward or price
offered or given as consideration for the
commission of a crime$ the person making
the offer is an inducer$ a principal by
inducement while the person on the
receiving end is a principal by direct
participation. /ence$ their responsibilities
are the same. (hey are both principals and
that is why the recent rulings of the
%upreme "ourt are to the effect that this
aggravating circumstance affects or
aggravates not only the criminal liability of
the receiver of the price$ reward or promise
but also the criminal liability of the one
giving the offer.
n. In,n-ati"n) Fir!) P"i("n
9ire is not aggravating in the crime of
arson.
Chenever a killing is done with the use of
fire$ as when you kill someone$ you burn
down his house while the latter is inside$
this is murder.
(here is no such crime as murder with
arson or arson with homicide. (he crime is
only murder.
If the victim is already dead and the
house is burned$ the crime is arson. It is
either arson or murder.
If the intent is to destroy property$ the
crime is arson even if someone dies as a
conse,uence. If the intent is to kill$ there is
murder even if the house is burned in the
process.
Illustration5
$ and 1 were arguing about
something. 5ne argument led to
another until $ struck 1 to death with a
bolo. $ did not know that C, the son of
1 was also in their house and who was
peeping through the door and saw what
$ did. $fraid that $ might kill him too,
he hid somewhere in the house. $ then
dragged 12s bod and poured gasoline
on it and burned the house altogether.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
'- of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
$s a conse7uence, C was burned and
eventuall died too.
$s far as the killing of 1 is
concerned, it is homicide since it is
noted that the were arguing. It could
not be murder. $s far as the killing of C
is concerned, it is arson since he
intended to burn the house onl.
4o such crime of arson with homicide.
@aw enforcers only use this to indicate that
a killing occurred while arson was being
committed. #t most$ you could designate is
as death as a conse,uence of arson.
". E&i-!nt Pr!.!-itati"n
9or evident premeditation to be
aggravating$ the following conditions must
concur5
i. (he time when the accused determined
to commit the crime.
ii. #n act manifestly indicating that the
accused has clung to his determination.
iii. %ufficient lapse of time between such
determination and execution$ to allow
him to reflect upon the conse,uences of
his act.
Illustration5
$, on ;onda, thought of killing 1
on Frida. $ knew that 1 is coming
home onl on Frida so $ decided to kill
1 on Frida evening when he comes
home. 5n Thursda, $ met 1 and killed
him. Is there evident premeditation6
4one. 1ut there is treacher as the
attack was sudden.
"an there be evident premeditation when
the killing is accidentalK 4o. In evident
premeditation$ there must be a clear
reflection on the part of the offender.
/owever$ if the killing was accidental$ there
was no evident premeditation. Chat is
necessary to show and to bring about
evident premeditation aside from showing
that at some prior time$ the offender has
manifested the intention to kill the victim$
and subse,uently killed the victim.
Illustrations5
$ and 1 fought. $ told 1 that
someda he will kill 1. 5n Frida, $
killed 1. $ and 1 fought on ;onda but
since $ alread suffered so man
blows, he told 1, .This week shall not
pass, I will kill ou./ 5n Frida, $ killed
1. Is there evident premeditation in
both cases6 4one in both cases. 3hat
condition is missing to bring about
evident premeditation6 Evidence to
show that between ;onda and Frida,
the offender clung to his determination
to kill the victim, acts indicative of his
having clung to his determination to kill
1.
$ and 1 had a 7uarrel. $ boxed 1.
$ told 1, .I will kill ou this week./ $
bought firearms. 5n Frida, he waited
for 1 but killed C instead, was there
evident premeditation6 There is
aberratio ictus. ,o, 7ualif. Insofar as 1
is concerned, the crime is attempted
murder because there is evident
premeditation. %owever, that murder
cannot be considered for C. Insofar as
C is concerned, the crime is homicide
because there was no evident
premeditation.
Evident premeditation shall not be
considered when the crime refers to a
different person other than the person
premeditated against.
Chile it is true that evident premeditation
may be absorbed in treachery because the
means$ method and form of attack may be
premeditated and would be resorted to by
the offender. Go not consider both
aggravating circumstances of treachery and
evident premeditation against the offender.
It is only treachery because the evident
premeditation is the very conscious act of
the offender to ensure its execution.
-ut there may be evident premeditation
and there is treachery also when the attack
was so sudden.
# and - are enemies. (hey fought on
Monday and parted ways. # decided to seek
revenge. /e bought a firearm and practiced
shooting and then sought -. Chen # saw -
in a restaurant with so many people$ # did
not dare fire at - for fear that he might hit a
stranger but instead$ # saw a knife and
used it to stab - with all suddenness.
Evident premeditation was not absorbed in
treachery because treachery refers to the
manner of committing the crime. Evident
premeditation is always absorbed in
treachery.
(his is one aggravating circumstance
where the offender who premeditated$ the
law says evident. It is not enough that there
is some premeditation. .remeditation must
be clear. It is re,uired that there be
evidence showing meditation between the
time when the offender determined to
commit the crime and the time when the
offender executed the act. It must appear
that the offender clung to his determination
to commit the crime. (he fact that the
offender premeditated is not prima facie
indicative of evident premeditation as the
meeting or encounter between the offender
and the offended party was only by chance
or accident.
In order for evident premeditation to
exist$ the very personHoffended party
premeditated against must be the one who
is the victim of the crime. It is not
necessary that the victim is identified. It is
enough that the victim is determined so he
or she belongs to a group or class that may
be premeditated against. (his is a
circumstance that will ,ualify a killing from
homicide to murder.
Illustration5
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
'! of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
$ person who has been courting a
lad for several ears now has been
!ilted. 1ecause of this, he thought of
killing somebod. %e then bought a
knife, sharpened it and stabbed the
first man he met on the street. It was
held that evident premeditation was
not present. It is essential that the
victim be identified from the beginning.
# premeditated kill of any member of a
particular fraternity. /e then killed one. (his
is murderMa homicide which has been
,ualified into murder by evident
premeditation which is a ,ualifying
circumstance. (he same is true where #
planned to kill any member of the Iglesia ni
Iristo.
(here are some crimes which cannot be
aggravated by evident premeditation
because they re,uire some planning before
they can be committed. Evident
premeditation is part of the crime like
kidnapping for ransom$ robbery with force
upon things where there is entry into the
premises of the offended party$ and estafa
through false pretenses where the offender
employs insidious means which cannot
happen accidentally.
$. Cra1t) Fra,- Or Di(',i(!
#ggravating in a case where the offenders
pretended to be bona fide passengers of a
0eepney in order for them not to arouse
suspicion$ but once inside the 0eep$ robbed
the passengers and the driver. (P!"$l! &(.
L!!'
H. S,$!ri"r Str!n't Or M!an( T"
0!aA!n D!1!n(!
(here must be evidence of notorious
ine,uality of forces between the offender
and the offended party in their age$ si)e and
strength$ and that the offender took
advantage of such superior strength in the
commission of the crime. (he mere fact that
there were two persons who attacked the
victim does not per se constitute abuse of
superior strength. (P!"$l! &(. Car$i") 151
SCRA 12'
r. Tr!a%!r#
(reachery refers to the employment of
means$ methods and form in the
commission of the crime which tend directly
and specially to ensure its execution without
risk to himself arising form the defense
which the offended party might make. (he
means$ method or form employed may be
an aggravating circumstance which like
availing of the total darkness in nighttime or
of superior strength taken advantage of by
the offender$ employing means to weaken
the defense.
Illustration5
$ and 1 have been 7uarreling for
some time. 5ne da, $ approached 1
and befriended him. 1 accepted. $
proposed that to celebrate their
renewed friendship, the were going to
drink. 1 was having too much to drink.
$ was !ust waiting for him to get
intoxicated and after which, he stabbed
1.
$ pretended to befriend 1, !ust to
intoxicate the latter. Intoxication is the
means deliberatel emploed b the
offender to weaken the defense of the
other part. If this was the ver means
emploed, the circumstance ma be
treacher and not abuse of superior
strength or means to weaken the
defense.
3hat is the essence of treacher6
(he essence of treachery is that by virtue
of the means$ method or form employed by
the offender$ the offended party was not
able to put up any defense. If the offended
party was able to put up a defense$ even
only a token one$ there is no treachery.
Instead$ some other aggravating
circumstance may be present but it is no
longer treachery.
Illustration5
$ and 1 7uarreled. %owever, $ had
no chance to fight with 1 because $ is
much smaller than 1. $ thought of
killing 1 but he cannot !ust attack
because of the latter2s si9e. ,o $
thought of committing a crime at
nighttime with the cover of darkness. $
positioned himself in the darkest part of
the street where 1 passes on his wa
home. 5ne evening, $ waited for 1 and
then stabbed the latter. %owever, 1
pulled a knife as well and also stabbed
$. $ was wounded but not mortal so he
managed to run awa. 1 was able to
walk a few steps before he fell and
died. 3hat crime was committed6
The crime is onl homicide. The
aggravating circumstance is onl
nocturnit and nocturnit is not a
7ualifing circumstance. Treacher
cannot be considered here because the
offended part was able to put up a
defense and that negates treacher. In
treacher, the offended part, due to
the means, method or form emploed
b the offender, the former was denied
the chance to defend himself. If
because of the cover of darkness, 1
was not able to put up a defense and $
was able to flee as 1 died, the crime
will be murder due to the presence of
treacher. In the first situation, the
crime was onl homicide, the nighttime
being a generic aggravating
circumstance.
In the example where $ pretended
to befriend 1 and invited him to
celebrate their friendship, if 1 despite
intoxication was able to put up some
fight against $ but 1 eventuall dies,
then treacher is no longer present but
means emploed to weaken the
defense. The crime committed is
murder but the proper 7ualifing
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
'. of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
circumstance is the emploment of
means to weaken the defense.
In the same manner, if the
offender avails of the services of men
and in the commission of the crime,
the took advantage of superior
strength but somehow, the offended
part fought back, the crime is still
murder if the victim dies. $lthough the
7ualifing circumstance is abuse of
superior strength and not treacher,
the former also makes it murder under
$rticle ?AF.
(reachery is out when the attack was
merely incidental or accidental because in
the definition of treachery$ the implication is
that the offender had consciously and
deliberately adopted the method$ means
and form used or employed by him. %o$ if #
and - casually met and there and then #
stabbed -$ although stabbing may be
sudden since # was not shown to have the
intention of killing -$ treachery cannot be
considered present.
(here must be evidence on how the crime
was committed. It is not enough to show
that the victim sustained a treacherous
wound. Example5 # had a gunshot wound at
the back of his head$ the %" ruled that this
is only homicide since treachery must be
proven. It must be shown that the victim
was totally defenseless.
%uddenness of the attack does not by
itself constitute treachery in the absence of
evidence that the manner of attack was
consciously adopted by the offender to
render the victim defenseless. (P!"$l! &(.
Ila'an) 151 SCRA D83'
-ut where children of tender years were
killed$ being one year old and 1& years old$
the killing is murder even if the manner of
attack was not shown. (P!"$l! &(. Ga"n)
-!%i-!- "n A$ril 3@) 1551'
In P!"$l! &(. La$an) -!%i-!- "n J,l#
D) 1552) the accused was prosecuted for
robbery with homicide. ;obbery was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt. (he
accused was held liable only for the killings.
#lthough one of the victims was barely six
years old$ the accused was convicted only
for homicide$ aggravated by dwelling and in
disregard of age.
(reachery is not appreciated where
,uarrel and heated discussion preceded a
killing$ because the victim would be put on
guard (P!"$l! &(. G,$"'. -ut although a
,uarrel preceded a killing where the victim
was atop a coconut tree$ treachery was
considered as the victim was not in a
position to defend himself (P!"$l! &(.
T"ri*i"'.
(reachery may still be appreciated even
when the victim was forewarned of danger
to his person. Chat is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible
for the victim to defend himself or to
retaliate. (hus$ even a frontal attack could
be treacherous when unexpected and on an
unarmed victim who would be in no position
to repel the attack or avoid it (P!"$l! &.
Mal!+ana) 2@@D'.
4either does the fact that other people
were present during the shooting negate
the attendance of treachery. (he
suddenness of the attack prevented the
victims unarmed companions from coming
to his aid (P!"$l! &. Mal!+ana) (,$ra'.
9urthermore$ if there is conspiracy$
treachery shall be considered against all
perpetrators (Ri&!ra &. P!"$l!) 2@@D'.
(. I'n".in# An- Cr,!lt#
0istinction between ignomin and cruelt
Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of
man while cruelty is physical. Ignominy
refers to the moral effect of a crime and it
pertains to the moral order$ whether or not
the victim is dead or alive. "ruelty refers to
the physical suffering of the victim so he
has to be alive. In plain language$ ignominy
is adding insult to in0ury. # clear example is
a married woman being raped before the
eyes of her husband.
In a case where the crime is rape and the
accused abused the victims from behind$
the %upreme "ourt held the crime as
aggravated by ignominy. /ence$ raping a
woman from behind is ignominous because
that is not the normal form of intercourse$ it
is something which offends the morals of
the offended woman. (his is how animals do
it.
In a case of homicide$ while the victim
after having been killed by the offender$ the
offender shoved the body inside a canal$
ignominy was held aggravating.
#fter having been killed$ the body was
thrown into a pile of garbage$ ignominy is
aggravating. (he %upreme "ourt held that it
added shame to the natural effects of the
crime.
"ruelty and ignominy are circumstances
brought about which are not necessary in
the commission of the crime.
Illustration5
$ and 1 are enemies. $ upon
seeing 1 pulled out a knife and stabbed
1 '( times. 3ill the fact be considered
as an aggravating circumstance of
cruelt6 4o, there is cruelt onl when
there are evidence that the offender
inflicted the stab wounds while
en!oing or delighting seeing the victim
in pain. For cruelt to exist as an
aggravating circumstance, there must
be evidence showing that the offender
inflicted the alleged cruel wounds
slowl and graduall and that he is
delighted in seeing the victim suffer in
pain. In the absence of evidence to this
effect, there is no cruelt. ,ixt stab
wounds do not ipso facto make them
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
'% of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
aggravating circumstances of cruelt.
The crime is murder if '( wounds were
inflicted graduall8 absence of this
evidence means the crime committed
was onl homicide.
"ruelty is aggravating in rape where the
offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt
her face with a lighted cigarette while raping
her laughing all the way. (P!"$l! &(.
L,%a() 1F1 SCRA 319'
t. Unla21,l Entr#) Br!aAin' 0all) Fl""r)
R""1
Dnlawful entry is inherent in the crime of
robbery with force upon things but
aggravating in the crime of robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons.
(here is unlawful entry when an entrance
is effected by a way not intended for that
purpose. -ut breaking a door to enter is
not unlawful entry since this is covered by
paragraph 19 of #rticle 1?$ which states
that 1as a means to the commission of the
crime a wall$ roof$ door or window be
broken2 showing that unlawful entry
excludes ingress by means of such
breaking.
,. 0it Ai- O1 P!r("n( Un-!r 19
#id of minor shows greater perversity of
the offender.
&. B# M"t"r V!i%l!
(he %upreme "ourt considers strictly the
use of the word 1committed$2 that the crime
is committed with the use of a motor
vehicle$ motori)ed means of transportation
or motori)ed watercraft. (here is a decision
by the "ourt of #ppeals that a motori)ed
bicycle is a motor vehicle even if the
offender used only the foot pedal because
he does not know how to operate the motor
so if a bicycle is used in the commission of
the crime$ motor vehicle becomes
aggravating if the bicycle is motori)ed.
(his circumstance is aggravating only
when used in the commission of the
offense. If motor vehicles are used only in
the escape of the offender$ it is not
aggravating. It must have been used to
facilitate the commission of the crime to be
aggravating.
#ggravating when a motori)ed tricycle
was used to commit a crime.
2. Or'aniB!- Or S#n-i%at!- Cri.!
Gr",$
In the same amendment to #rticle +& of
the ;evised .enal "ode$ paragraphs were
added which provide that the maximum
penalty shall be imposed if the offense was
committed by any person who belongs to an
organi)ed or syndicated crime group.
#n organi)ed or syndicated crime group
means a group of two or more persons
collaborating$ confederating or mutually
helping one another for the purpose of gain
in the commission of a crime.
Cith this provision$ the circumstance of
an organi)ed or syndicated crime group
having committed the crime has been added
in the "ode as a special aggravating
circumstance. (he circumstance being
special or ,ualifying$ it must be alleged in
the information and proved during trial.
7therwise$ if not alleged in the information$
even though proved during trial$ the court
cannot validly consider the circumstances
because it is not among those enumerated
under #rticle 1? of the "ode as aggravating.
It is noteworthy$ however$ that there is an
organi)ed or syndicated group even when
only two persons collaborated$ confederated
or mutually helped one another in the
commission of a crime$ which acts are
inherent in a conspiracy. (herefore$ where
conspiracy in the commission of a crime is
alleged in the information$ the allegation
may be considered as procedurally sufficient
to warrant receiving of evidence on the
matter during trial and conse,uently$ the
said special aggravating circumstance may
be appreciated if proven.
/. U(! O1 Dr,'(
Dnder the Gangerous Grugs #ct of &<<&
(%ection &A'$ notwithstanding the provisions
of any law to the contrary$ a positive finding
for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a
,ualifying aggravating circumstance in the
commission of a crime by an offender$ and
the application of the penalty provided for in
the ;evised .enal "ode shall be applicable.
9. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
9our alternative circumstances
a. ;elationship:
b. Intoxication:
c. Gegree of instruction: and
d. Education
Dse only the term alternative circumstance
for as long as the particular circumstance is
not involved in any case or problem. (he
moment it is given in a problem$ do not use
alternative circumstance$ refer to it as
aggravating or mitigating depending on
whether the same is considered as such or the
other. If relationship is aggravating$ refer to
it as aggravating. If mitigating$ then refer to
it as such.
Except for the circumstance of intoxication$
the other circumstances in #rticle 1A may not
be taken into account at all when the
circumstance has no bearing on the crime
committed. %o the court will not consider this
as aggravating or mitigating simply because
the circumstance has no relevance to the
crime that was committed.
Go not think that because the article says
that these circumstances are mitigating or
aggravating$ that if the circumstance is
present$ the court will have to take it as
mitigating$ if not mitigating$ aggravating.
(hat is wrong. It is only the circumstance of
intoxication which if not mitigating$ is
automatically aggravating. -ut the other
circumstances$ even if they are present$ but if
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
+ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
they do not influence the crime$ the court will
not consider it at all. ;elationship may not be
considered at all$ especially if it is not inherent
in the commission of the crime. Gegree of
instruction also will not be considered if the
crime is something which does not re,uire an
educated person to understand.
a. R!lati"n(i$
;elationship is not simply mitigating or
aggravating. (here are specific
circumstances where relationship is
exempting. #mong such circumstances are5
In the case of an accessory who is
related to the principal within the
relationship prescribed in #rticle &<:
#lso in #rticle &?!$ a spouse does not
incur criminal liability for a crime of
less serious physical in0uries or serious
physical in0uries if this was inflicted
after having surprised the offended
spouse or paramour or mistress
committing actual sexual intercourse.
(hose commonly given in #rticle >>&
when the crime of theft$ malicious
mischief and swindling or estafa.
(here is no criminal liability but only
civil liability if the offender is related
to the offended party as spouse$
ascendant$ or descendant or if the
offender is a brother or sister or
brother6in6law or sister6in6law of the
offended party and they are living
together. Exempting circumstance is
the relationship. (his is an absolutory
cause.
It is aggravating in ";IME% #=#I4%(
.E;%74% in cases where the offended part
is a relative of a higher degree than the
offender$ or when the offender and the
offended part are relatives of the same
level$ as killing a brother$ a brother6in6law$
a half6brother or adopted brother.
Chen the ";IME #=#I4%( .E;%74% is
any of the %E;I7D% ./J%I"#@ I4*D;IE%
(#rt. &+>'$ even if the offended party is a
descendant of the offender$ relationship is
an #==;#B#(I4= "I;"DM%(#4"E. -ut the
serious physical in0uries must not be
inflicted by a parent upon his child by
excessive chastisement.
Chen the crime is less serious physical
in0uries or slight physical in0uries$ ordinary
rule applies: relationship is MI(I=#(I4= if
the offended party is a relative of lower
degree and #==;#B#(I4= if the offended
party is a relative of a higher degree than
the offender.
Chen the crime against persons is
homicide or murder$ relationship is
aggravating even if the victim of the crime
is a relative of lower degree.
(he relationship stepfather or stepmother
and stepson or stepdaughter and adopted
parent and adopted child may by analogy be
considered similar to that of ascendant and
descendant.
;elationship is neither mitigating nor
aggravating$ when relationship is an
element of the offense.
%ometimes$ relationship is a ,ualifying
and not only a generic aggravating
circumstance. In the crime of ,ualified
seduction$ the offended woman must be a
virgin and less than 1 years old. -ut if the
offender is a brother of the offended woman
or an ascendant of the offended woman$
regardless of whether the woman is of bad
reputation$ even if the woman is +< years
old or more$ crime is ,ualified seduction. In
such a case$ relationship is ,ualifying.
In crimes against chastity$ relationship is
always aggravating.
*. Int"/i%ati"n
(his circumstance is ipso facto mitigating$
so that if the prosecution wants to deny the
offender the benefit of this mitigation$ they
should prove that it is habitual and that it is
intentional. (he moment it is shown to be
habitual or intentional to the commission of
the crime$ the same will immediately
aggravating$ regardless of the crime
committed.
Intoxication to be considered mitigating$
re,uires that the offender has reached that
degree of intoxication where he has no
control of himself anymore. (he idea is the
offender$ because of the intoxication is
already acting under diminished self6control.
(his is the rationale why intoxication is
mitigating. %o if this reason is not present$
intoxication will not be considered
mitigating. %o the mere fact that the
offender has taken one or more cases of
beer of itself does not warrant a conclusion
that intoxication is mitigating. (here must
be an indication that because of the
alcoholic intake of the offender$ he is
suffering from diminished self6control.
(here is diminished voluntariness insofar as
his intelligence or freedom of action is
concerned. It is not the ,uantity of alcoholic
drink. ;ather it is the effect of the alcohol
upon the offender which shall be the basis
of the mitigating circumstance.
Illustration5
In a case, there were two laborers
who were the best of friends. ,ince it
was pada, the decided to have
some good time and ordered beer.
$fter drinking two cases of beer the
became more talkative until the
engaged in an argument. 5ne pulled
out a knife and stabbed the other.
3hen arraigned, he invoked
intoxication as a mitigating
circumstance.
Intoxication does not simply mean that
the offender has partaken of so much
alcoholic beverages. (he intoxication in law
re,uires that because of the ,uality of the
alcoholic drink taken$ the offender had
practically lost self control. %o although the
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
+$ of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
offender may have partaken of two cases of
beer$ but after stabbing the victim he hailed
a tricycle and even instructed the driver to
the place where he is sleeping and the
tricycle could not reach his house and so he
has to alight and walk to his house$ then
there is no diminished self control. (he
%upreme "ourt did not acknowledge the
mitigating circumstance because of the
number of wounds inflicted upon the victim.
(here were 11 stab wounds and this$ the
%upreme "ourt said$ is incompatible with
the idea that the offender is already
suffering from diminished self control. 7n
the contrary$ the indication is that the
offender gained strength out of the drinks
he had taken. It is not the ,uantity of drink
that will determine whether the offender
can legally invoke intoxication. (he conduct
of the offender$ the manner of committing
the crime$ his behavior after committing the
crime must show the behavior of a man who
has already lost control of himself.
7therwise$ intoxication cannot legally be
considered.
%. D!'r!! O1 In(tr,%ti"n An- E-,%ati"n
(hese are two distinct circumstances. 7ne
may not have any degree of instruction but
is nevertheless educated. Example5 # has
been living with professionals for sometime.
%he may 0ust be a maid in the house with
no degree of instruction but she may still be
educated.
It may happen also that the offender
grew up in a family of professionals$ only he
is the black sheep because he did not want
to go to school. -ut it does not follow that
he is bereft of education.
If the offender$ who did not go higher
than =rade > was involved in a felony$ was
invoking lack of degree of education$ would
this be considered as a mitigating
circumstanceK. (he %upreme "ourt held
that although he did not receive schooling$
yet it cannot be said that he lacks education
because he came from a family of
professionals. %o he understands what is
right or wrong.
(he fact that the offender did not have
schooling and is illiterate does not mitigate
his liability if the crime committed is one
which he inherently understands as wrong$
such as parricide. If a child would kill his or
her parent$ illiteracy will not mitigate
because the low degree of instruction has
no bearing on the crime.
In the same manner$ the offender may be
a lawyer who committed rape. (he fact that
he has knowledge of the law will not
aggravate his liability$ because such
knowledge has nothing to do with the
commission of the crime. -ut if he
committed falsification and he used his
special knowledge as a lawyer$ then such
will serve to aggravate his criminal liability.
D. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES AND OTHER
SPECIAL SITUATIONS
a. Entrapment and Instigation
b. .ardon
c. #bsolutory "auses
d. #cts not covered by law and in case of
excessive punishment (art. A'
(hen$ #rticle 9 provides how criminal
liability is extinguished5
Geath of the convict as to the personal
penalties$ and as to pecuniary
penalties$ liability therefore is
extinguished is death occurs before
final 0udgment:
%ervice of the sentence:
#mnesty:
#bsolute pardon:
.rescription of the crime:
.rescription of the penalty: and
Marriage of the offended woman as
provided in #rticle >??. (under pardon'
#bsolutory cause has the effect of an
exempting circumstance and they are
predicated on lack of voluntariness like
instigation. Instigation is associated with
criminal intent. Go not consider culpa in
connection with instigation. If the crime is
culpable$ do not talk of instigation. In
instigation$ the crime is committed with dolo.
It is confused with entrapment.
a. Entra$.!nt An- In(ti'ati"n
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause.
Entrapment does not exempt the offender
or mitigate his criminal liability. -ut
instigation absolves the offender from
criminal liability because in instigation$ the
offender simply acts as a tool of the law
enforcers and$ therefore$ he is acting
without criminal intent because without the
instigation$ he would not have done the
criminal act which he did upon instigation of
the law enforcers.
0ifference between instigation and
entrapment
In instigation$ the criminal plan or design
exists in the mind of the law enforcer with
whom the person instigated cooperated so it
is said that the person instigated is acting
only as a mere instrument or tool of the law
enforcer in the performance of his duties.
7n the other hand$ in entrapment$ a
criminal design is already in the mind of the
person entrapped. It did not emanate from
the mind of the law enforcer entrapping
him. Entrapment involves only ways and
means which are laid down or resorted to
facilitate the apprehension of the culprit.
Illustrations5
$n agent of the narcotics command
had been tipped off that a certain
house is being used as an opium den
b prominent members of the societ.
The law enforcers cannot themselves
penetrate the house because the do
not belong to that circle so what the
did was to convince a prominent
member of societ to visit such house
to find out what was reall happening
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
+2 of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
inside and that so man cars were
congregating there. The law enforcers
told the undercover man that if he is
offered a cigarette, then he should tr
it to find out whether it is loaded with
dangerous drugs or not. This fellow
went to the place and mingled there.
The time came when he was offered a
cigarette and he tried it to see if the
cigarette would affect him.
<nfortunatel, the raid was conducted
and he was among those prosecuted
for violation of the 0angerous 0rugs
$ct. Is he criminall liable6
4o. %e was onl there upon
instigation of the law enforcers. 5n his
own, he would not be there. The reason
he is there is because he cooperated
with the law enforcers. There is
absence of criminal intent.
The defense of the user was that
he would not give a cigarette if he was
not asked. Is he criminall liable6
Ees. This is a case of entrapment
and not instigation. Even if the law
enforcer did not ask for a cigarette, the
offender was alread committing a
crime. The law enforcer ascertained if it
is a violation of the 0angerous 0rugs
$ct. The means emploed b the law
enforcer did not make the accused
commit a crime. Entrapment is not an
absolutor cause because in
entrapment, the offender is alread
committing a crime.
$ policeman suspected a fellow
was selling mari!uana. The law enforcer
asked him, .$re ou selling that6 %ow
much6 Could ou bring that to the
other fellow there6/ 3hen he brought it
there, the person, who happens to be a
law enforcer, to whom the package was
brought to found it to be mari!uana.
Even without bringing, he is alread
possessing the mari!uana. The fact that
he was appointed to another person to
find out its contents, is to discover
whether the crime is committed. This is
entrapment.
$ fellow wants to make mone. %e
was approached b a law enforcer and
was asked if he wanted to deliver a
package to a certain person. 3hen that
fellow was delivering the package, he
was apprehended. Is he criminall
liable6 This is a case of instigation8 he
is not committing a crime.
(he element which makes instigation an
absolutory cause is the lack of criminal
intent as an element of voluntariness.
If the instigator is a law enforcer$ the
person instigated cannot be criminally
liable$ because it is the law enforcer who
planted that criminal mind in him to commit
the crime$ without which he would not have
been a criminal.
If the instigator is not a law enforcer$
both will be criminally liable$ you cannot
have a case of instigation. In instigation$
the private citi)en upon instigation of the
law enforcer incriminates himself. It would
be contrary to public policy to prosecute a
citi)en who only cooperated with the law
enforcer. (he private citi)en believes that he
is a law enforcer and that is why when the
law enforcer tells him$ he believes that it is
a civil duty to cooperate.
If the person instigated does not know
that the person is instigating him is a law
enforcer or he knows him to be not a law
enforcer$ this is not a case of instigation.
(his is a case of inducement$ both will be
criminally liable.
In entrapment$ the person entrapped
should not know that the person trying to
entrap him was a law enforcer. (he idea is
incompatible with each other because in
entrapment$ the person entrapped is
actually committing a crime. (he officer who
entrapped him only lays down ways and
means to have evidence of the commission
of the crime$ but even without those ways
and means$ the person entrapped is actually
engaged in a violation of the law.
Instigation absolves the person instigated
from criminal liability. (his is based on the
rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his
mind is not criminal. 7n the other hand$
entrapment is not an absolutory cause. It is
not even mitigating.
Mistake of fact is not an absolutory cause.
(he offender is acting without criminal
intent. %o in mistake of fact$ it is necessary
that had the facts been true as the accused
believed them to be$ this act is 0ustified. If
not$ there is criminal liability$ because there
is no mistake of fact anymore. (he offender
must believe he is performing a lawful act.
Example of entrapment 6 6 #$ a
government anti6narcotics agent$ acted as a
poseur buyer of shabu and negotiated with
-$ a suspected drug pusher who is unaware
that # is a police officer. # then paid - in
marked money and the latter handed over a
sachet of shabu. Dpon signal$ the cops
closed in on -.
In instigation$ the idea and design to
bring about the commission of the crime
originated in the mind of the law enforcers.
(hey induce or incite a person not otherwise
minded to commit a crime and would not
otherwise commit it to do so. (his absolved
the accused from liability.

Example of instigation 6 6 #$ leader of an
anti6narcotics team$ approached and
persuaded - to act as a buyer of shabu and
transact with "$ a suspected pusher. - was
given marked money to pay " for a sachet
of shabu. #fter the sale was consummated$
the cops closed in and arrested both - and
".
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
+& of %!
I. Criminal Law : Definition and Sources
Criminal Law I
*. E11!%t O1 Par-"n
=enerally$ pardon does not extinguish
criminal action (#rt &>'. /owever$ pardon
by marriage between the accused and the
offended party in cases of seduction$
abduction$ rape and acts of lasciviousness
shall extinguish the criminal action or remit
the penalty imposed upon him (#rt >??'
%. A*("l,t"r# Ca,(!(
%pontaneous desistance
@ight felonies not consummated
#ccessories in light felonies
#ccessories exempt under #rticle &<
(respass to dwelling to prevent
serious harm to self
exemption from criminal liability in
crimes against property
Dnder #rticle >>&$ exemptions from
criminal liability for cases of theft$
swindling and malicious mischief.
(here would only be civil liability.
Geath under exceptional
circumstances (#rt. &?!'
Dnder #rticle &19$ discovering secrets
through sei)ure of correspondence of
the ward by their guardian is not
penali)ed.
Cays on how criminal liability is
extinguished under #rt 9.
-. A%t( N"t C"&!r!- B# La2 An- In Ca(!
O1 E/%!((i&! P,ni(.!nt
#rticle A covers two situations5
i. 1. (he court cannot convict the accused
because the acts do not constitute a
crime. (he proper 0udgment is
ac,uittal$ but the court is mandated to
report to the "hief Executive that said
act be made sub0ect of penal legislation
and why.
ii. &. Chere the court finds the penalty
prescribed for the crime too harsh
considering the conditions surrounding
the commission of the crime$ the 0udge
should impose the law. (he most that
he could do is recommend to the "hief
Executive to grand executive clemency.
E. E=TENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES
(he effect of this is to mitigate the criminal
liability of the offender. In other words$ this
has the same effect as mitigating
circumstances$ only you do not call it
mitigating because this is not found in #rticle
1>.
Illustrations5
$n unwed mother killed her child in order
to conceal a dishonor. The concealment of
dishonor is an extenuating circumstance
insofar as the unwed mother or the
maternal grandparents are concerned,
but not insofar as the father of the child
is concerned. ;other killing her new born
child to conceal her dishonor, penalt is
lowered b two degrees. ,ince there is a
material lowering of the penalt or
mitigating the penalt, this is an
extenuating circumstance.
(he concealment of honor by mother in the
crime of infanticide is an extenuating
circumstance but not in the case of parricide
when the age of the victim is three days old
and above.
In the crime of adultery on the part of a
married woman abandoned by her husband$
at the time she was abandoned by her
husband$ is it necessary for her to seek the
company of another man. #bandonment by
the husband does not 0ustify the act of the
woman. It only extenuates or reduces criminal
liability. Chen the effect of the circumstance
is to lower the penalty there is an extenuating
circumstance.
# kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the
temptation of stealing things which appeal to
his desire. (his is not exempting. 7ne who is a
kleptomaniac and who would steal ob0ects of
his desire is criminally liable. -ut he would be
given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance
analogous to paragraph 9 of #rticle 1>$ that of
suffering from an illness which diminishes the
exercise of his will poser without$ however$
depriving him of the consciousness of his act.
%o this is an extenuating circumstance. (he
effect is to mitigate the criminal liability.
UP LAW BAROPS 2! O"# UP
+' of %!
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Dnder the ;evised .enal "ode$ when more
than one person participated in the commission of
the crime$ the law looks into their participation
because in punishing offenders$ the ;evised .enal
"ode classifies them as5
1. principal:
&. accomplice: or
>. accessory.
(his classification is true only under the
;evised .enal "ode and is not applied under
special laws$ because the penalties under the
latter are never graduated. Go not use the term
1principal2 when the crime committed is a violation
of special law (use the term 1offender2'. #lso$
classify offenders only when more than one took
part in the commission of the crime to determine
the proper penalty to be imposed. %o$ if only one
person committed a crime$ do not say 1principal.2
Dse 1the offenders$2 1culprits$2 or 1the accused.2
Chen a problem is encountered where there
are several participants in the crime$ the first thing
to find out is if there is a conspiracy. If there is$
as a general rule$ the criminal liability of all will be
the same$ because the act of one is the act of all.
/owever$ if the participation of one is so
insignificant$ such that even without his
cooperation$ the crime would be committed 0ust as
well$ then notwithstanding the existence of a
conspiracy$ such offender will be regarded only as
an accomplice. (he reason for this ruling is that
the law favors a milder form of criminal liability if
the act of the participant does not demonstrate a
clear criminal perversity.
#s to the liability of the participants in a
felony$ the "ode takes into consideration whether
the felony committed is grave$ less grave$ or light.
Chen the felony is grave$ or less grave$ all
participants are criminally liable.
-ut where the felony is only light$ only the
principal and the accomplice are liable. (he
accessory is not.
-ut even the principal and accomplice will not
be liable if the felony committed is only light and
the same is not consummated unless such felony
is against persons or property. If they are not and
the same is not consummated$ even the principal
and the accomplice are not liable.
(herefore$ it is only when the light felony is
against persons or property that criminal liability
attaches to the principal or accomplice$ even
though the felony is only attempted or frustrated$
but accessories are not liable for light felonies.
A. PRINCIPALS
1. BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
.rincipals by direct participation are those who
materially execute the crime. (hey must appear at
the scene of the crime and perform acts necessary in
the commission of the offense to be liable.
In conspiracy by prior agreement$ the principal by
direct participation who does not appear at the scene
of the crime is not liable because5
a. /is non6appearance is deemed desistance which
is favored and encouraged:
b. "onspiracy is generally not a crime unless the
law specifically provides a penalty therefor.
(hus$ by merely conspiring$ the would6be
participator has not yet committed any crime
unless he would appear at the scene of the
crime and perform any act directly or indirectly
in the accomplishment of the conspiracy.
c. (here is no basis for criminal liability because
there is no criminal participation.
2. BY INDUCTION
"oncept of inducementMone strong enough that
the person induced could not resist. (his is
tantamount to an irresistible force compelling the
person induced to carry out the crime. Ill6advised
language is not enough unless he who made such
remark or advice is a co6conspirator in the crime
committed.
Chile in the course of a ,uarrel$ a person shouted
to #$ 1Iill himP Iill himP2 # killed the other person. Is
the person who shouted criminally liableK Is that
inducementK 4o. (he shouting must be an irresistible
force for the one shouting to be liable.
(here was a ,uarrel between two families. 7ne of
the sons of family # came out with a shotgun. /is
mother then shouted$ 1%hootP2 /e shot and killed
someone. Is the mother liableK 4o.
Examples of inducement5
1I will give you a large amount of money2
1I will not marry you if you do not kill -2
In P!"$l! &. Bal-!rra.a) Ernesto shouted to his
younger brother 7scar$ 1-irahin mo na$ birahin mo
naP2 7scar stabbed the victim. It was held that there
was no conspiracy. *oint or simultaneous action per
se is not indicia of conspiracy without showing of
common design. 7scar has no rancor with the victim
for him to kill the latter. "onsidering that Ernesto
had great moral ascendancy and influence over
7scar$ being much older (>A years old'$ than the
latter$ who was 1 years old$ and it was Ernesto who
provided his allowance$ clothing$ as well as food and
shelter$ Ernesto is principal by inducement.
In P!"$l! &. A'a$ina#$ 1FF SCRA F12$ the one
who uttered 1kill him$ we will bury him.2 while the
felonious aggression was taking place cannot be held
liable as principal by inducement. Dtterance was said
in the excitement of the hour$ not a command to be
obeyed.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
In P!"$l! &. Ma-all) 1FF SCRA D5) the son
was mauled. (he family was not in good terms
with their neighbors. (he father challenged
everybody and when the neighbors approached$
he went home to get a rifle. (he shouts of his
wife 1here comes another$ shoot him2 cannot
make the wife a principal by inducement. It is
not the determining cause of the crime in the
absence of proof that the words had great
influence over the husband. 4either is the wifes
act of beaming the victim with a flashlight
indispensable to the killing. %he assisted her
husband in taking good aim$ but such assistance
merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting.
"onsidering that it was not so dark and the
husband could have accomplished the deed
without his wifes help$ and considering further
that doubts must be resolved in favor of the
accused$ the liability of the wife is only that of
an accomplice.
(he principal by induction becomes liable only
when the principal by direct participation
committed the act induced.
(he effects of ac,uittal of principal by direct
participation upon the liability of principal by
inducement are5
#. "onspiracy is negated by the ac,uittal of
co6defendant.
b. 7ne cannot be held guilty of having
instigated the commission of a crime
without first being shown that the crime
has been actually committed by another.
3. BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
0istinguished from an accomplice
It is not 0ust a matter of cooperation$ it is
more of whether the crime could have been
hardly committed. It is not that the crime would
not be committed because if that is what you
would imply$ it becomes an ingredient of the
crime and that is not what the law
contemplates.
In the case of rape$ where three men were
accused$ one was on top of the woman$ one held
the hands$ and one held the legs$ the %upreme
"ourt held that all participants are principals.
(hose who held the legs and arms are principals
by indispensable cooperation.
(he accused are father and son. (he father
told his son that the only way to convince the
victim to marry him is to resort to rape. %o
when the opportunity came$ the young man
grabbed the woman$ threw her on the ground
and placed himself on top of her while the father
held both legs of the woman and spread them.
(he %upreme "ourt held that the father is liable
only as an accomplice.
(he focus is not 0ust on participation but on
the importance of participation in committing
the crime.
In the first situation$ the facts indicate that if the
fellow who held the legs of the victim and spread
them did not do so$ the offender on top could hardly
penetrate because the woman was strong enough to
move or resist. In the second situation$ the son was
much bigger than the woman$ so considering the
strength of the son and the victim$ penetration is
possible even without the assistance of the father.
(he son was a robust farmer and the victim was
undernourished. (he act of the father in holding the
legs merely facilitated the penetration$ but even
without it$ the son would have succeeded in what he
wanted to do.
(he basis is the importance of the cooperation to
the consummation of the crime. If the crime could
hardly be committed without such cooperation$ then
such cooperation would bring about a principal. -ut if
the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the
consummation of the crime$ this would make the
cooperator merely an accomplice.
In a case$ the offender was running after the
victim with a knife. #nother fellow came and blocked
the way of the victim and as a result$ the one
chasing caught up with the victim and stabbed the
latter at the back. It was held that the fellow who
blocked the victims way is a principal by
indispensable cooperation because if he did not block
the way$ the offender could not have caught up with
the latter.
In another case$ # was mauling -. "$ a friend of -
tried to approach but G stopped " so that # was able
to continuously maul -. (he liability of G is as an
accomplice. 7bviously$ he did not cooperate in the
mauling$ he only stopped " from rescuing - in the
hands of #.
In case of doubt$ favor the lesser penalty or
liability. #pply the doctrine of pro reo.
B. ACCOMPLICES
Chen there is no conspiracy between or among
the defendants but they were animated by one and the
same purpose to accomplish the criminal ob0ective$
those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous act
but cannot be held liable as principals are accomplices.
#n accomplice does not have a previous
agreement or understanding or is not in conspiracy
with the principal by direct participation.
"74%.I;#(7; #""7M.@I"E
(hey know and agree with the criminal design.
"onspirators know the
criminal intention
because they
themselves have
decided upon such
course of action.
#ccomplices come to
know about it after the
principals have reached
the decision and only
then do they agree to
cooperate in its
execution.
"onspirators decide
that a crime should be
committed.
#ccomplices merely
assent to the plan and
cooperate in it
accomplishment
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
"onspirators are the
authors of a crime
#ccomplices are merely
instruments who
perform acts not
essential to the
perpetration of the
offense.
;EODI%I(E%5
1. (hat 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:
&. (hat 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: and
>. (hat there be a relation between the acts done
by the principal and those attributed to the
person charged as accomplice.
PRINCIPAL *#
COOPERATION
ACCOMPLICE
"ooperation is
indispensable in the
commission of the act.
"ooperation is not
indispensable in the
commission of the act.
C. ACCESSORIES
(wo situations where accessories are not
criminally liable5
1. Chen the felony committed is a light felony
&. Chen the accessory is related to the principal
as spouse$ or as an ascendant$ or descendant$
or as brother or sister whether legitimate$
natural or adopted or where the accessory is a
relative by affinity within the same degree$
unless the accessory himself profited from the
effects or proceeds of the crime or assisted the
offender to profit therefrom.
7ne cannot be an accessory unless he knew of
the commission of the crime. 7ne must not have
participated in the commission of the crime. (he
accessory comes into the picture when the crime is
already consummated. #nyone who participated
before the consummation of the crime is either a
principal or an accomplice. /e cannot be an
accessory.
Chen an offender has already involved
himself as a principal or accomplice$ he cannot be
an accessory any further even though he performs
acts pertaining to an accessory.
#n acessory is exempt from criminal liability$
when the principal is his5
1. spouse$
&. ascendant$
>. descendant$
?. legitimate$ natural or adopted brother$ sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree.
Even if only two of the principals guilty of
murder are the brothers of the accessory and the
others are not related to him$ such accessory is
exempt from criminal liability.
#n accessory is 47( exempt from criminal liability
even if the principal is related to him$ if such accessory
(1' profited by the effects of the crime$ or (&' assisted
the offender to profit by the effects of the crime
1. ACCESSORY AS A FENCE
(he ;evised .enal "ode defines what manners of
participation shall render an offender liable as an
accessory. #mong the enumeration is 1by profiting
themselves or by assisting the offender to profit by
the effects of the crime.2 %o the accessory shall be
liable for the same felony committed by the
principal. /owever$ where the crime committed by
the principal was robbery or theft$ such participation
of an accessory brings about criminal liability under
.residential Gecree 4o. 1+1& (#nti69encing @aw'.
7ne who knowingly profits or assists the principal to
profit by the effects of robbery or theft is not 0ust an
accessory to the crime$ but principally liable for
fencing under .G 1+1&.
#ny person who$ with intent to gain$ ac,uires
andHor sell$ possesses$ keeps$ or in any manner
deals with any article of value which he knows or
should be known to him to be the proceeds of
robbery or theft is considered a 1fence2 and incurs
criminal liability for 1fencing2 under said decree. (he
penalty is higher than that of a mere accessory to
the crime of robbery or theft.
@ikewise$ the participation of one who conceals the
effects pf robbery or theft gives rise to criminal
liability for 1fencing2$ not simply of an accessory
under paragraph & of #rticle 19 of the "ode. Mere
possession of any article of value which has been the
sub0ect of robbery or theft brings about the
presumption of 1fencing.2
.residential Gecree 4o. 1+1& has$ therefore$
modified #rticle 19 of the ;evised .enal "ode.
2. AC7UIRING THE EFFECTS OF PIRACY OR
BRIGANDAGE
It is relevant to consider in connection with the
criminal liability of accessories under the ;evised
.enal "ode$ the liability of persons ac,uiring
property sub0ect of piracy or brigandage.
(he act of knowingly ac,uiring or receiving
property which is the effect of the proceeds of a
crime generally brings about criminal liability of an
accessory under #rticle 19$ paragraph 1 of the
;evised .enal "ode. -ut if the crime was piracy or
brigandage under .residential Gecree A>& (#nti6
piracy and #nti6/ighway ;obbery @aw of 19!?'$ said
act constitutes the crime of abetting piracy or
abetting brigandage as the case may be$ although
the penalty is that for an accomplice$ not 0ust an
accessory$ to the piracy or brigandage. (o this end$
%ection ? of .G A>& provides that any person who
knowingly and in any mannerQ ac,uires or receives
property taken by such pirates or brigands or in any
manner derives benefit therefromQ shall be
considered as an accomplice of the principal
offenders in accordance with the ;ules prescribed by
the ;evised .enal "ode.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
It shall be presumed that any person who
does any acts provided in this %ection has
performed them knowingly$ unless the
contrary is proven.
#lthough ;epublic #ct !+A9$ in amending
#rticle 1&& of the ;evised .enal "ode$
incorporated therein the crime of piracy in
.hilippine territorial waters and thus
correspondingly superseding .G A>&$ section ?
of said Gecree$ which punishes said acts as a
crime of abetting piracy or brigandage$ still
stands as it has not been repealed nor modified$
and is not inconsistent with any provision of ;#
!+A9.
3. DESTROYING THE CORPUS DELICTI
Chen the crime is robbery or theft$ with
respect to the second involvement of an
accessory$ do not overlook the purpose which
must be to prevent discovery of the crime.
(he corpus delicti is not the body of the
person who is killed. Even if the corpse is not
recovered$ as long as that killing is established
beyond reasonable doubt$ criminal liability will
arise and if there is someone who destroys the
corpus delicti to prevent discovery$ he becomes
an accessory.
8. HARBORING OR CONCEALING AN
OFFENDER
In the third form or manner of becoming an
accessory$ take note that the law distinguishes
between a public officer harboring$ concealing$
or assisting the principal to escape and a private
citi)en or civilian harboring$ concealing$ or
assisting the principal to escape.
In the case of a public officer$ the crime
committed by the principal is immaterial. %uch
officer becomes an accessory by the mere fact
that he helped the principal to escape by
harboring or concealing$ making use of his
public function and thus abusing the same.
7n the other hand$ in case of a civilian$ the
mere fact that he harbored$ concealed$ or
assisted the principal to escape does not ipso
facto make him an accessory. (he law re,uires
that the principal must have committed the
crime of treason$ parricide$ murder or attempt
on the life of the "hief Executive. If this is not
the crime$ the civilian does not become an
accessory unless the principal is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime. Even if the
crime committed by the principal is treason$ or
murder$ or parricide$ or attempt on the life of
the "hief Executive$ the accessory cannot be
held criminally liable without the principal being
found guilty of any such crime. 7therwise$ the
effect would be that the accessory merely
harbored or assisted in the escape of an
innocent man$ if the principal is ac,uitted of the
charges.
Illustration5
Crime committed is kidnapping for ransom.
#rincipal was being chased b soldiers. %is aunt
hid him in the ceiling of her house and she told
the soldiers that her nephew had never visited
her. 3hen the soldiers left, the aunt even gave
mone to her nephew for the latter to go to the
province. Is the aunt criminall liable6 4o.
$rticle ?( does not include an aunt. %owever,
this is not the reason. The principal must have
committed either treason, parricide, murder, or
attempt on the life of the Chief Executive, or
that the principal is known to be habituall
guilt of some other crime, for a person who is
not a public officer and who assists an offender
to escape or otherwise harbors, or conceals such
offender, to be criminall liable. In this case, the
crime committed was kidnapping.
(he crime committed by the principal is
determinative of the liability of the accessory who
harbors or conceals$ knowing that the crime is
committed. If the person is a public officer$ the
nature of the crime is immaterial. Chat is material is
that he used his public function is assisting the
escape.
#lthough under paragraph > of #rticle 19$ the law
specifies the crimes that should be committed in
case a civilian aids in the escape$ there is a special
law which punishes the same act but does not
specify a particular crime. .residential Gecree 1&9$
which took effect on *anuary 1+$ 191$ penali)es
acts commonly referred to as 1obstructions of
0ustice2. (his decree penali)es$ under %ection 1(c'$
the act$ inter alia$ of 1harboring or concealing$ or
facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect$ has
committed any offense under existing penal laws in
order to prevent his arrest$ prosecution and
conviction.2
Dnder this law (.G 1&9'$ there is no specification
of the crime to be committed by the offender in
order that criminal liability be incurred by private
persons for harboring$ concealing or facilitating the
escape of the offender$ and the offender need not
even be the principal. Dnder .G 1&9$ a private
individual who assists in the escape of an offender of
any crime is no longer an accessory. /e is simply an
offender without regard to the crime of the person
assisted to escape. %o in the problem$ the aunt is
not criminally liable under the ;evised .enal "ode
because the crime is kidnapping$ but under .G 1&9.
9. 0HETHER THE ACCOMPLICE AND THE
ACCESSORY MAY BE TRIED AND CONVICTED
EVEN BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL IS FOUND
GUILTY
(here is an earlier %upreme "ourt ruling that the
accessory and accomplice must be charged together
with the principal and that if the latter is ac,uitted$
the accomplice and accessory shall also not be
criminally liable$ unless the ac,uittal is based on a
defense which is personal only to the principal.
#lthough this ruling may be correct if the facts
charged do not make the principal criminally liable at
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
all because there is no crime committed$ this is
not true in all cases. It is not always true that
the accomplice and accessory cannot be
criminally liable without the principal being first
convicted. Dnder ;ule 11< of the ;evised ;ules
on "riminal .rocedure$ it is re,uired that all
those involved in the commission of the crime
must be included in the information that may be
filed. #nd in filing an information against the
person involved in the commission of a crime$
the law does not distinguish between principal$
accomplice$ and accessory. #ll will be accused
and whether a certain accused will be principal$
accomplice$ or accessory will depend on what
the evidence would show. In other words$ the
liability of the accused will depend on the
,uantum of evidence adduced by the
prosecution against the particular accused. -ut
the prosecution must initiate the proceedings
against the principal.
Even if the principal is convicted$ if the
evidence presented against a supposed
accomplice or accessory does not meet the
re,uired proof beyond reasonable doubt$ then
said accused will be ac,uitted. %o the criminal
liability of an accomplice or accessory does not
depend on the criminal liability of the principal
but depends on the ,uantum of evidence. -ut if
the evidence shows that the act done does not
constitute a crime and the principal is ac,uitted$
then the supposed accomplice and accessory
should also be ac,uitted. If there is no crime$
then there is no criminal liability$ whether
principal$ accomplice$ or accessory.
Dnder paragraph >$ #rticle 19$ take note that
before the civilian can be held liable as an
accessory in assisting the escape of an offender
of the particular crimes specified$ the principal
must first be found guilty of the crime charged$
either treason$ parricide$ murder$ or attempt on
the life of the "hief Executive. If the principal is
ac,uitted$ the civilian who harbored$ concealed$
or assisted in the escape did not violate #rticle
19. (hat is as far as the ;evised .enal "ode is
concerned. -ut not .G 1&9. (his special law
does not re,uire that there be prior conviction.
It is a malum prohibitum$ no need for guilt$ or
knowledge of the crime.
In Ta!r &. CA$ accused received from his co6
accused two stolen male carabaos. "onspiracy
was not proven. (aer was held liable as an
accessory in the crime of cattle6rustling under
.G A>>. 3(aer should have been liable for
violation of the #nti69encing @aw since castle6
rustling is a form of theft or robbery of large
cattle$ except that he wasnt charged with
fencing.8
In Enril! &. A.in) a person charged with
rebellion should not be separately charged under
.G 1&9. (he theory of absorption must not
confine itself to common crimes but also to
offenses punished under special laws which are
perpetrated in furtherance of the political
offense.
/I. Penalties
A. MEASURES OF PREVENTION NOT
CONSIDERED AS PENALTY
(he following are the measures of prevention or
safety which are not considered penalties under #rticle
&?5
1. (he arrest and temporary detention of accused
persons as well as their detention by reason of
insanity or imbecility or illness re,uiring their
confinement in a hospital.
&. (he commitment of a minor to any of the
institutions mentioned in #rt. < for the purposes
specified therein.
>. %uspension from the employment or public office
during the trial or in order to institute proceedings.
?. 9ines and other corrective measures which$ in the
exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers$
superior officials may impose upon their
subordinates.
A. Geprivation of rights and reparations which the civil
laws may establish in penal form.
Chy does the ;evised .enal "ode specify that
such detention shall not be a penalty but merely a
preventive measureK
(his article gives 0ustification for detaining the
accused. 7therwise$ the detention would violate the
constitutional provision that no person shall be
deprived of life$ liberty and property without due
process of law and also$ the constitutional right of an
accused to be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved.
B. REPEAL OF ARTICLE F@
3hen ma a minor be committed to a reformator6
If the minor is between 961A years old and acted
with discernment$ sentence must first be suspended
under the following conditions5
1. "rime committed is not punishable by death or
reclusion perpetua:
&. /e is availing of the benefit of suspension for the
first time:
>. /e must still be a minor at the time of
promulgation of the sentence.
C. CORRELATING ARTICLE 28 0ITH
ARTICLE 25
#lthough under #rticle &?$ the detention of a
person accused of a crime while the case against him is
being tried does not amount to a penalty$ yet the law
considers this as part of imprisonment and generally
deductible from the sentence.
Chen will this credit applyK If the penalty imposed
consists of a deprivation of liberty. 4ot all who have
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be given
credit.
Dnder #rticle &?$ preventive imprisonment of an
accused who is not yet convicted is not a penalty. Jet
#rticle &9 provides that if the accused is ultimately
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
convicted and the penalty imposed involves
deprivation of liberty$ the period during which he
had undergone preventive detention will be
deducted from the sentence$ unless he is one of
those dis,ualified under the law.
%o$ if the accused has actually undergone
preventive imprisonment$ but if he has been
convicted of two or more crimes whether or not he
is a recidivist$ or when he has been previously
summoned but failed to surrender and so the court
has to issue a warrant for his arrest$ whatever
credit he is entitled to shall be forfeited.
If the offender is not dis,ualified from the
credit or deduction provided for in #rticle &9 of the
;evised .enal "ode$ then the next thing to
determine is whether he signed an undertaking to
abide by the same rules and regulations governing
convicts. If he signed$ then it means that while he
is suffering from preventive imprisonment$ he is
suffering like a convict. (hat is why the credit is
full.
-ut if the offender did not sign an
undertaking$ then he will only be sub0ected to the
rules and regulations governing detention
prisoners. #s such$ he will only be given <R or
?HA of the period of his preventive detention.
9rom this provision$ one can see that the
detention of the offender may sub0ect him only to
the treatment applicable to convicts$ but since he
is not convicted yet$ while he is under preventive
imprisonment$ he cannot be sub0ected to the
treatment applicable to convicts unless he signs
and agrees to be sub0ected to such disciplinary
measures applicable to convicts.
Getention prisoner has more freedom within
the detention institution rather than those already
convicted. (he convicted prisoner suffers more
restraints and hardship than detention prisoners.
Dnder what circumstances may a detention
prisoner be released$ even though the proceedings
against him are not yet terminatedK
#rticle &9 was amended by a -atas .ambansa
that took effect on %eptember &<$ 19<. (his
amendment is found in the ;ules of "ourt$ under
the rules on bail in ;ule 11?.
In the amendment$ the law does not speak of
credit. Chether the person is entitled to credit is
immaterial. (he discharge of the offender from
preventive imprisonment or detention is predicated
on the fact that even if he would be found guilty of
the crime charged$ he has practically served the
sentence already$ because he has been detained
for a period already e,ual if not greater than the
maximum penalty that would be possibly imposed
on him if found guilty.
If the crime committed is punishable only by
destierro$ the most the offender may be held
under preventive imprisonment is >< days$ and
whether or not the proceedings are terminated$
such detention prisoner shall be discharged.
Dnderstand the amendment made to #rticle &9.
(his amendment has been incorporated under ;ule 11?
precisely to do away with arbitrary detention.
.roper petition for habeas corpus must be filed to
challenge the legality of the detention of the prisoner.
D. DURATION OF PENALTIES
1. RECLUSION PERPETUA
3hat is the duration of reclusion perpetua6
Go not use #rticle &! in answering this ,uestion.
(he proper answer would be that reclusion perpetua
has no duration because it is an indivisible penalty
and indivisible penalties have no duration.
Dnder #rticle &!$ those sentenced to reclusion
perpetua shall be pardoned after undergoing the
penalty for >< years$ unless such person$ by reason
of his conduct or some other serious cause$ shall be
considered by the "hief Executive as unworthy of
pardon.
Dnder #rticle !< (the (hree69old ;ule'$ the
maximum period shall in no case exceed ?< years. If
the convict who is to serve several sentences could
only be made to serve ?< years$ with more reason
that one who is sentenced to a single penalty of
reclusion perpetua should not serve for more than ?<
years.
(he duration of ?< years is not a matter of
provision of law: this is only by analogy. (here is no
provision of the ;evised .enal "ode that one
sentenced to reclusion perpetua cannot be held in
0ail for ?< years and neither is there a decision to
this effect.
2. DESTIERRO
3hat is the duration of destierro6
(he duration of destierro is from + months and 1
year to + years$ which is the same as that of prision
correccional and suspension. Gestierro is a principal
penalty. It is a punishment whereby a convict is
banished from a certain place and is prohibited from
entering or coming near that place designated in the
sentence for not less than &A kilometers. /owever$
the court cannot extend beyond &A< kms. If the
convict should enter the prohibited places$ he
commits the crime of evasion of service of sentence
under #rticle 1A!. -ut if the convict himself would go
further from which he is banished by the court$ there
is no evasion of service of sentence because the
&A<km limit is upon the authority of the court in
banishing the convict.
Dnder the ;evised .enal "ode$ destierro is the
penalty imposed in the following situations5
a. Chen a legally married person who had
surprised his or her spouse in the act of sexual
intercourse with another and while in that act or
immediately thereafter should kill or inflict
serious physical in0uries upon the other spouse$
andHor the paramour or mistress. (his is found
in #rticle &?!.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
b. In the crimes of grave threats andHor light
threats$ when the offender is re,uired to
put up a bond for good behavior but failed
or refused to do so under #rticle &?$ such
convict shall be sentenced with destierro so
that he would not be able to carry out his
threat.
c. In the crime of concubinage$ the penalty
prescribed for the concubine is destierro
under #rticle >>?.
d. Chere the penalty prescribed by law is
arresto mayor$ but the offender is entitled
to privileged mitigating circumstances and$
lowering the prescribed penalty by one
degree$ the penalty becomes destierro.
(hus it shall be the one imposed.
3. CIVIL INTERDICTION
"ivil interdiction is an accessory penalty. "ivil
interdiction shall deprive the offender during the
time of his sentence5
a. (he rights of parental authority$ or
guardianship either as to the person or
property of any ward:
b. Marital authority:
c. (he right to manage his property: and
d. (he right to dispose of such property by
any act or any conveyance inter vivos.
"an a convict execute a last will and
testamentK JE%.
E. DIVISIBLE AND INDIVISIBLE
PENALTIES
Chen we talk of period$ it is implying that the
penalty is divisible.
If$ after being given a problem$ you were
asked to state the period in which the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is to be imposed$ remember
that when the penalty is indivisible$ there is no
period. Go not talk of period$ because when you
talk of period$ you are implying that the penalty is
divisible since the period referred to is the
minimum$ medium and maximum. If it is
indivisible$ there is no such thing as a minimum$
medium$ or maximum period.
F. PRIMARY CLASSIFICATION OF
PENALTIES
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES AND ACCESSORY
PENALTIES
S$!%i1i% Prin%i$al P!nalti!(
1. "apital .unishment
&. #fflictive .enalties
a. ;eclusion .erpetua
b. ;eclusion (emporal
c. .rision Mayor
>. "orrectional .enalties
a. .rision "orreccional
b. #rresto Mayor
?. @ight .enalties
a. #rresto Menor
b. .ublic "ensure
A. .enalties common to afflictive$ correctional and
light penalties
a. 9ine
b. -ond to Ieep the .eace
A%%!(("r# P!nalti!(
1. .erpetual or (emporary #bsolute Gis,ualification
&. .erpetual or (emporary %pecial Gis,ualification
>. %uspension from .ublic 7ffice$ the ;ight to Bote
and be Boted for$ the ;ight to .ractive a .rofession
or "alling
?. "ivil Interdiction
A. Indemnification or "onfiscation of Instruments or
.roceeds of the 7ffense
+. .ayment of "osts
T! $!nalti!( 2i% ar! *"t $rin%i$al an-
a%%!(("r# $!nalti!( ar! t! 1"ll"2in':
1. .erpetual or temporary absolute dis,ualification:
&. .erpetual or temporary special dis,ualification.
(he classification of principal and accessory is found
in #rticle &A.
In classifying the penalties as principal and
accessory$ what is meant by this is that those penalties
classified as accessory penalties need not be stated in
the sentence. (he accessory penalties follow the
principal penalty imposed for the crime as a matter of
course. %o in the imposition of the sentence$ the court
will specify only the principal penalty but that is not the
only penalty which the offender will suffer. .enalties
which the law considers as accessory to the prescribed
penalty are automatically imposed even though they
are not stated in the 0udgment. #s to the particular
penalties that follow a particular principal penalty$
#rticles ?< to ?A of the ;evised .enal "ode shall
govern.
If asked what are the accessory penalties$ do not
0ust state the accessory penalties. %tate the principal
penalty and the corresponding accessory penalties.
P!nalti!( in 2i% "t!r a%%!(("r# $!nalti!( ar!
in!r!nt:
1. #rticle ?<. GeathMperpetual absolute
dis,ualification$ and civil interdiction during ><
years following date of sentence:
&. #rticle ?1. ;eclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporalMcivil interdiction for life or during the
period of the sentence$ as the case may be$ and
perpetual absolute dis,ualification:
>. #rt. ?&. .rision mayorMtemporary absolute
dis,ualification$ perpetual special dis,ualification
from the right of suffrage:
?. #rt. ?>. .rision correccionalMsuspension from
public office$ from the right to follow a profession or
calling$ and perpetual special dis,ualification from
the right of suffrage if the duration of the
imprisonment shall exceed 1 months:
A. #rt. ??. #rrestoMsuspension of the right to hold
office and the right of suffrage during the term of
the sentence.
(here are accessory penalties which are true to
other principal penalties. #n example is the penalty of
civil interdiction. (his is accessory penalty$ and$ as
provided in #rticle >?$ a convict sentenced to civil
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
interdiction suffers certain dis,ualification during
the term of the sentence. 7ne of the
dis,ualifications is that of making conveyance of
his property inter vivos.
Illustration5
$ has been convicted and is serving the
penalt of prision maor. 3hile serving
sentence, he executed a deed of sale over his
onl parcel of land. $ creditor moved to annul
the sale on the ground that the convict is not
7ualified to execute a deed of conveance
inter vivos. If ou were the !udge, how would
ou resolve the move of the creditor to annul
the sale6
"ivil interdiction is not an accessory penalty in
prision mayor. (he convict can convey his
property.
D!(i'nati"n "1 $!nalt#
%ince the principal penalties carry with them
certain accessory penalties$ the courts are not at
liberty to use any designation of the principal
penalty. %o it was held that when the penalty
should be reclusion perpetua$ it is erroneous for
the court to use 1life imprisonment2. In other
words$ the courts are not correct when they
deviate from the technical designation of the
principal penalty$ because the moment they
deviate from this designation$ there will be no
accessory penalties that will go with them.
T! %a$ital $,ni(.!nt
Jou were asked to state whether you are in
favor or against capital punishment. Dnderstand
that you are not taking an examination in
(heology. Explain the issue on the basis of social
utility of the penalty. Is it beneficial in deterring
crimes or notK (his should be the premise of your
reasoning.
T! D!at P!nalt#
;# 9>?+ or 1#n #ct .rohibiting the Imposition
of Geath .enalty in the .hilippines2 expressly
repealed ;# 1!! or 1#ct Gesignating Geath by
@ethal In0ection2 and ;# !+A9 or 1Geath .enalty
@aw2.
;# 9>?+ repealed all the other laws imposing
death penalty. %ection & states that5
1In lieu of the death penalty$ the following shall be
imposed5
a. the penalty of reclusion perpetua$
when the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the ;evised .enal
"ode: or
b. the penalty of life imprisonment$
when the law violated does not make use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the ;evised .enal
"ode.2
R!%l,(i"n $!r$!t,a a( ."-i1i!-
-efore the enactment of ;epublic #ct !+A9$
which made amendments to the ;evised .enal
"ode$ the penalty of reclusion perpetua had no
fixed duration. (he ;evised .enal "ode provides in
#rticle &! that the convict shall be pardoned after
undergoing the penalty for >< years$ unless by
reason of his conduct or some other serious cause$
he is not deserving of pardon. #s amended by
%ection &1 of ;# !+A9$ the same article now provides
that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be from &<
to ?< years. -ecause of this$ speculations arose as to
whether it made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty.
#s we know$ when a penalty has a fixed duration$
it is said to be divisible and$ in accordance with the
provisions of #rticles +A and !+$ should be divided into
three e,ual portions to form one period of each of the
three portions. 7therwise$ if the penalty has no fixed
duration$ it is an indivisible penalty. (he nature of the
penalty as divisible or indivisible is decisive of the
proper penalty to be imposed under the ;evised .enal
"ode inasmuch as it determines whether the rules in
#rticle +> or the rules in #rticle +? should be observed
in fixing the penalty.
(hus$ consistent with the rule mentioned$ the
%upreme "ourt$ by its 9irst Givision$ applied #rticle +A
of the "ode in imposing the penalty for rape in P!"$l!
&. C"nra-" L,%a() GR N". 1@F1E2GE3) Ma# 29)
1558. It divided the time included in the penalty of
reclusion perpetua into three e,ual portions composing
a period as follows5
MinimumM&< years and one day to &+ years
and eight months:
MediumM&+ years$ eight months and one day
to >> years and four months:
MaximumM>? years$ four months and one
day to ?< years.
"onsidering the aggravating circumstance of
relationship$ the "ourt sentenced the accused to
imprisonment of >? years$ four months and one day of
reclusion perpetua$ instead of the straight penalty of
reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court. (he
appellee seasonably filed a motion for clarification to
correct the duration of the sentence$ because instead
of beginning with >> years$ four months and one day$
it began with >? years$ four months and one day. (he
issue of whether the amendment of #rticle &! made
reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty was raised$ and
because the issue is one of first impression and
momentous importance$ the 9irst Givision referred the
motion to the "ourt en banc.
In a resolution promulgated on *anuary A$ 199A$ the
%upreme "ourt en banc held that reclusion perpetua
shall remain as an indivisible penalty. (o this end$ the
resolution states5
#fter deliberating on the motion and re6examining
the legislation history of ;# !+A9$ the "ourt concludes
that although %ection 1! of ;# !+A9 has fixed the
duration of ;eclusion .erpetua from twenty (&<' years
and one (1' day to forty (?<' years$ there was no clear
legislative intent to alter its original classification as an
indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible
penalty.
Berily$ if reclusion perpetua was classified as a
divisible penalty$ then #rticle +> of the ;evised .enal
"ode would lose its reason and basis of existence. (o
illustrate$ the first paragraph of %ection &< of the
amended ;# 4o. +?&A provides for the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death whenever the dangerous
drugs involved are of any of the ,uantities stated
herein. If #rticle +> of the "ode were no longer
applicable because reclusion perpetua is supposed to
be a divisible penalty$ then there would be no statutory
rules for determining when either reclusion perpetua or
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
death should be the imposable penalty. In fine$
there would be no occasion for imposing reclusion
perpetua as the penalty in drug cases$ regardless
of the attendant modifying circumstances.
4ow then$ if "ongress had intended to
reclassify reclusion perpetua as divisible penalty$
then it should have amended #rticle +> and #rticle
!+ of the ;evised .enal "ode. (he latter is the law
on what are considered divisible penalties under
the "ode and what should be the duration of the
periods thereof. (here are$ as well$ other
provisions of the ;." involving reclusion perpetua$
such as #rt ?1 on the accessory penalties thereof
and paragraphs & and > of #rt +1$ which has not
been touched by the corresponding amendment.
Dltimately$ the ,uestion arises5 1Chat then
may be the reason for the amendment fixing the
duration of reclusion perpetuaK2 (his ,uestion was
answered in the same case of P!"$l! &. L,%a( by
,uoting pertinent portion of the decision in P!"$l!
&. R!#!() 212 SCRA 8@2$ thus5
(he imputed duration of thirty (><' years for
reclusion perpetua$ thereof$ is only to serve as the
basis for determining the convicts eligibility for
pardon or the application of the three6fold rule in
the service of penalties. %ince$ however$ in all the
graduated scales of penalties in the "ode$ as set
out in #rticle &A$ !< and &1$ reclusion perpetua is
the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion
temporal$ it follows by necessary implication that
the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (&<'
years and one (1' day with a maximum duration
thereafter to last for the rest of the convicts
natural life$ although pursuant to #rticle !< $ it
appears that the maximum period for the service
of the penalties shall not exceed forty (?<' years.
It would be legally absurd and violative of the
scales of penalties in the "ode to reckon the
minimum of ;eclusion .erpetua at thirty (><'
years since there would thereby be a resultant
lacuna whenever the penalty exceeds the
maximum twenty (&<' years of ;eclusion
(emporal but is less than thirty (><' years.
B"n- t" A!!$ t! $!a%!
7ne of the principal penalties common to the
others is bond to keep the peace. (here is no
crime under the ;evised .enal "ode which carries
this penalty.
B"n- 1"r '""- *!a&i"r
-ond for good behavior is prescribed by the
;evised .enal "ode for the crimes of grave threats
and light threats under #rticle &>?. Jou cannot
find this penalty in #rticle &A because #rticle &A
provides for bond to keep the peace. ;emember
that no felony shall be punished by any penalty
not prescribed by law prior to its commission
pursuant to #rticle &1.
G. SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES
Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penaltyK
4o.
If the convict does not want to pay a fine and has
so many friends and wants to prolong his stay in 0ail$
can he stay there and not pay the fineK 4o.
#fter undergoing subsidiary penalty and convict is
already released from the 0ail and his financial
circumstances improve$ can he made to payK Jes$ for
the full amount with deduction.
#rticle >9 deals with subsidiary penalty. (here are
two situations there5
1. Chen there is a penalty of imprisonment or any
other principal penalty and it carries with it a fine:
and
&. Chen penalty is only a fine.
(herefore$ there shall be no subsidiary penalty for
the non6payment of damages to the offended party.
(his subsidiary penalty is one of important matter
under the title of penalty. # subsidiary penalty in not
an accessory penalty. %ince it is not an accessory
penalty$ it must be expressly stated in the sentence$
but the sentence does not specify the period of
subsidiary penalty because it will only be known if the
convict cannot pay the fine. (he sentence will merely
provide that in case of non6payment of fine$ the convict
shall be re,uired to serve subsidiary penalty. It will
then be the prison authority who will compute this.
%o even if subsidiary penalty is proper in a case$ if
the 0udge failed to state in the sentence that the
convict shall be re,uired to suffer subsidiary penalty in
case of insolvency to pay the fine$ that convict cannot
be re,uired to suffer the accessory penalty. (his
particular legal point is a bar problem. (herefore$ the
0udgment of the court must state this. If the 0udgment
is silent$ he cannot suffer any subsidiary penalty.
(he subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty
that follows the principal penalty as a matter of course.
It is not within the control of the convict to pay the fine
or not and once the sentence becomes final and
executory and a writ of execution is issued to collect
the fine$ if the convict has a property to levy upon$ the
same shall answer for the fine$ whether he likes it or
not. It must be that the convict is insolvent to pay the
fine. (hat means that the writ of execution issued
against the property of the convict$ if any$ is returned
unsatisfied.
In P!"$l! &. S,*i-") it was held that the convict
cannot choose not to serve$ or not to pay the fine and
instead serve the subsidiary penalty. # subsidiary
penalty will only be served if the sheriff should return
the execution for the fine on the property of the
convict and does not have the properties to satisfy the
writ.
0

!
n

i
(

(
,
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
*(i-
iar#
$!n
alt#
a$$l
i!-
1. If the subsidiary penalty prescribed for the
non6payment of the which goes with the
principal penalty$ the maximum duration of the
subsidiary penalty is one year$ so there is no
subsidiary that goes beyond one year. -ut this
will only be true if the one year period is higher
than 1H> of the principal penalty$ the convict
cannot be made to undergo subsidiary penalty
more than 1H> of the duration of the principal
penalty and in no case will it be more than 1
year N get 1H> of the principal penalty N
whichever is lower.
&. If the subsidiary penalty is to be imposed for
non payment of fine and the principal penalty
imposed be fine only$ which is a single penalty$
that means it does not go with another
principal penalty$ the most that the convict will
be re,uired to undergo subsidiary
imprisonment is six months$ if the felony
committed is grave or less grave$ otherwise$ if
the felony committed is slight$ the maximum
duration of the subsidiary penalty is only 1A
days.
(here are some who use the term subsidiary
imprisonment. (he term is wrong because the
penalty is not only served by imprisonment. (he
subsidiary penalty follows the nature of the
principal penalty. If the principal penalty is
destierro$ this being a divisible penalty$ and a
penalty with a fixed duration$ the non6payment of
the fine will bring about subsidiary penalty. (his
being a restriction of liberty with a fixed duration
under #rticle >9 for the nonpayment of fine that
goes with the destierro$ the convict will be
re,uired to undergo subsidiary penalty and it will
also be in the form of destierro.
Illustration5
$ convict was sentenced to suspension
and fine. This is a penalt where a public
officer anticipates public duties, he entered
into the performance of public office even
before he has complied with the re7uired to
undergo subsidiar penalt6
Ees, because the penalt of suspension
has a fixed duration. <nder $rticle ?G,
suspension and destierro have the same
duration as prision correccional. ,o the
duration does not exceed six ears. ,ince it is
a penalt with a fixed duration under $rticle
D@, when there is a subsidiar penalt, such
shall be &HD of the period of suspension which
in no case beond one ear. 1ut the
subsidiar penalt will be served not b
imprisonment but b continued suspension.
If the penalty is public censure and fine even
if the public censure is a light penalty$ the convict
cannot be re,uired to pay the fine for subsidiary
penalty for the non6p<ayment of the fine because
public censure is a penalty that has no fixed duration.
Go not consider the totality of the imprisonment
the convict is sentenced to but consider the totality or
the duration of the imprisonment that the convict will
be re,uired to serve under the (hree69old ;ule. If the
totality of the imprisonment under this rule does not
exceed six years$ then$ even if the totality of all the
sentences without applying the (hree69old ;ule will go
beyond six years$ the convict shall be re,uired to
undergo subsidiary penalty if he could not pay the fine.
Illustration5
$ collector of 4$3$,$ collected from :(
houses within a certain localit. 3hen he was
collecting 4$3$,$ bills, the charges of all these
consumers was a minimum of &(. The collector
appropriated the amount collected and so was
charged with estafa. %e was convicted. #enalt
imposed was arresto maor and a fine of #?((.((
in each count. If ou were the !udge, what
penalt would ou impose6 ;a the convict be
re7uired to undergo subsidiar penalt in case he
is insolvent to pa the fine6
The Three)Fold Rule should not applied b the
court. In this case of :( counts of estafa, the
penalt imposed was arresto maor and a fie of
#?((.((. $rresto maor I #?((.(( x :(. $rresto
;aor is six months x :( J ?: ears. #?((.(( x
:( J #&(,(((.((. Thus, I would impose a penalt
of arresto maor and a fine of #?((.(( multiplied
b :( counts and state further that .as a !udge, I
am not in the position to appl the Three)Fold
Rule because the Three)Fold Rule is to be given
effect when the convict is alread serving
sentence in the penitentiar. It is the prison
authorit who will appl the Three)Fold Rule. $s
far as the court is concerned, that will be the
penalt to be imposed./
9or the purposes of subsidiary penalty$ apply the
(hree69old ;ule if the penalty is arresto mayor and a
fine of .&<<.<< multiplied by >. (his means one year
and six months only. %o$ applying the (hree69old
;ule$ the penalty does not go beyond six years.
/ence$ for the non6payment of the fine of .1<$<<<.<<$
the convict shall be re,uired to undergo subsidiary
penalty. (his is because the imprisonment that will be
served will not go beyond six years. It will only be one
year and six months$ since in the service of the
sentence$ the (hree69old ;ule will apply.
It is clearly provided under #rticle >9 that if the
means of the convict should improve$ even if he has
already served subsidiary penalty$ he shall still be
re,uired to pay the fine and there is no deduction for
that amount which the convict has already served by
way of subsidiary penalty.
H. APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
ARTICLES D3 AND D8
If crime committed is parricide$ penalty is
reclusion perpetua. (he accused$ after committing
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
parricide$ voluntarily surrendered and pleaded
guilty of the crime charged upon arraignment. It
was also established that he was intoxicated$ and
no aggravating circumstances were present. Chat
penalty would you imposeK
;eclusion perpetua$ because it is an indivisible
penalty.
Chen there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance$ penalty to be imposed shall be one
degree lower to be imposed in the proper period.
Go not apply this when there is one aggravating
circumstance.
Illustration5
There are about four mitigating
circumstances and one aggravating
circumstance. Court offsets the aggravating
circumstance against the mitigating
circumstance and there still remains three
mitigating circumstances. 1ecause of that,
the !udge lowered the penalt b one degree.
Is the !udge correct6
4o. In such a case when there are
aggravating circumstances, no matter how
man mitigating circumstances there are,
after offsetting, do not go down an degree
lower. The penalt prescribed b law will be
the penalt to be imposed, but in the
minimum period. Cannot go below the
minimum period when there is an aggravating
circumstance.
=o into the lowering of the penalty by one
degree if the penalty is divisible. %o do not apply
the rule in paragraph A of #rticle +? to a case
where the penalty is divisible.
ARTICLE DD
Chen there are mitigating circumstance and
aggravating circumstance and the penalty is only
fine$ when it is only ordinary mitigating
circumstance and aggravating circumstance$ apply
#rticle ++. -ecause you determine the imposable
fine on the basis of the financial resources or
means of the offender. -ut if the penalty would be
lowered by degree$ there is a privileged mitigating
circumstance or the felony committed is attempted
or frustrated$ provided it is not a light felony
against persons or property$ because if it is a light
felony and punishable by fine$ it is not a crime at
all unless it is consummated. %o$ if it is attempted
or frustrated$ do not go one degree lower because
it is not punishable unless it is a light felony
against person or property where the imposable
penalty will be lowered by one degree or two
degrees.
P!nalt# $r!(%ri*!- t" a %ri.! i( l"2!r!- *#
-!'r!!( in t! 1"ll"2in' %a(!(:
1. Chen the crime is only attempted or frustrated
a. If it is frustrated$ penalty is one degree
lower than that prescribed by law.
b. If it is attempted$ penalty is two degrees
lower than that prescribed by law.
(his is so because the penalty prescribed by
law for a crime refers to the consummated
stage.
&. Chen the offender is an accomplice or accessory
only
a. .enalty is one degree lower in the case of an
accomplice.
b. .enalty is two degrees lower in the case of an
accessory.
(his is so because the penalty prescribed by
law for a given crime refers to the consummated
stage.
>. Chen there is a privilege mitigating circumstance in
favor of the offender$ it will lower the penalty by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by law
depending on what the particular provision of the
;evised .enal "ode states.
?. Chen the penalty prescribed for the crime
committed is a divisible penalty and there are two
or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstances whatsoever$ the penalty
next lower in degree shall be the one imposed.
A. Chenever the provision of the ;evised .enal "ode
specifically lowers the penalty by one or two
degrees than what is ordinarily prescribed for the
crime committed.
.enalty commonly imposed by the ;evised .enal
"ode may be by way of imprisonment or by way of fine
or$ to a limited extent$ by way+ of destierro or
dis,ualification$ whether absolute or special.
In the matter of lowering the penalty by degree$
the reference is #rticle !1. It is necessary to know the
chronology under #rticle !1 by simply knowing the
scale. (ake note that destierro comes after arresto
mayor so the penalty one degree lower than arresto
mayor is not arresto menor$ but destierro. Memori)e
the scale in #rticle !1.
In #rticle >!$ with respect to the range of each
penalty$ the range of arresto menor follows arresto
mayor$ since arresto menor is one to >< days or one
month$ while arresto mayor is one month and one day
to six months. 7n the other hand$ the duration of
destierro is the same as prision correccional which is
six months and one day to six years. -ut be this as it
is$ under #rticle !1$ in the scale of penalties graduated
according to degrees$ arresto mayor is higher than
diestierro.
In homicide under #rticle &?9$ the penalty is
reclusion temporal. 7ne degree lower$ if homicide is
frustrated$ or there is an accomplice participating in
homicide$ is prision mayor$ and two degrees lower is
prision correccional.
(his is true if the penalty prescribed by the
;evised .enal "ode is a whole divisible penalty N one
degree or & degrees lower will also be punished as a
whole. -ut generally$ the penalties prescribed by the
;evised .enal "ode are only in periods$ like prision
correccional minimum$ or prision correccional minimum
to medium.
#lthough the penalty is prescribed by the ;evised
.enal "ode as a period$ such penalty should be
understood as a degree in itself and the following rules
shall govern5
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
1. Chen the penalty prescribed by the ;eised
"ode is made up of a period$ like prision
correccional medium$ the penalty one degree
lower is prision correccional minimum$ and the
penalty two degrees lower is arresto mayor
maximum. In other words$ each degree will be
made up of only one period because the
penalty prescribed is also made up only of one
period.
&. Chen the penalty prescribed by the "ode is
made up of two periods of a given penalty$
every time such penalty is lowered by one
degree you have to go down also by two
periods.
Illustration5
If the penalt prescribed for the crime
is prision correccional medium to maximum,
the penalt one degree lower will be arresto
maor maximum to prision correccional
minimum, and the penalt another degree
lower will be arresto maor minimum to
medium. Ever degree will be composed of
two periods.
>. Chen the penalty prescribed by the ;evised
.enal "ode is made up fo three periods of
different penalties$ every time you go down
one degree lower$ you have to go down by
three periods.
Illustration5
The penalt prescribed b the Revised
#enal Code is prision maor maximum to
reclusion temporal medium, the penalt one
degree lower is prision correccional
maximum to prision maor medium.
$nother degree lower will be arresto maor
maximum to prision correccional medium.
(hese rules have nothing to do with mitigating
or aggravating circumstances. (hese rules refer to
the lowering of penalty by one or two degrees. #s
to how mitigating or aggravating circumstances
may affect the penalty$ the rules are found in
#rticles +> and +?. #rticle +> governs when the
penalty prescribed by the ;evised .enal "ode is
divisible. Chen the penalty is indivisible$ no
matter how many ordinary mitigating
circumstances there are$ the prescribed penalty is
never lowered by degree. It takes a privileged
mitigating circumstance to lower such penalty by
degree. 7n the other hand$ when the penalty
prescribed by the ;evised .enal "ode is divisible$
such penalty shall be lowered by one degree only
but imposed in the proper period$ when there are
two or more ordinary mitigating circumstance and
there is no aggravating circumstance whatsoever.
THE THREEGFOLD RULE
<nder this rule, when a convict is to serve
successive penalties, he will not actuall serve the
penalties imposed b law. Instead, the most
severe of the penalties imposed on him shall be
multiplied b three and the period will be the onl
term of the penalt to be served b him.
%owever, in no case should the penalt exceed A(
ears.
(his rule is intended for the benefit of the convict
and so$ you will only apply this provided the sum total
of all the penalties imposed would be greater than the
product of the most severe penalty multiplied by three
but in no case will the penalties to be served by the
convict be more than ?< years.
#lthough this rule is known as the (hree69old ;ule$
you cannot actually apply this if the convict is to serve
only three successive penalties. (he (hree69old ;ule
can only be applied if the convict I to serve four or
more sentences successively. If the sentences would
be served simultaneously$ the (hree69old ;ule does
not govern.
(he chronology of the penalties as provided in
#rticle !< of the ;evised .enal "ode shall be followed.
It is in the service of the penalty$ not in the
imposition of the penalty$ that the (hree69old ;ule is to
be applied. (he (hree69old ;ule will apply whether the
sentences are the product of one information in one
court$ whether the sentences are promulgated in one
day or whether the sentences are promulgated by
different courts on different days. Chat is material is
that the convict shall serve more than three successive
sentences.
9or purposes of the (hree6fold ;ule$ even
perpetual penalties are taken into account. %o not only
penalties with fixed duration$ even penalties without
any fixed duration or indivisible penalties are taken into
account. 9or purposes of the (hree69old ;ule$
indivisible penalties are given e,uivalent of >< years.
If the penalty is perpetual dis,ualification$ it will be
given and e,uivalent duration of >< years$ so that if he
will have to suffer several perpetual dis,ualification$
under the (hree69old ;ule$ you take the most severe
and multiply it by three. (he (hree69old ;ule does not
apply to the penalty prescribed but to the penalty
imposed as determined by the court.
Illustration5
#enalties imposed are K
7ne prision correccional N minimum N &
years and ? months
7ne arresto mayor N 1 month and 1 day
to + months
7ne prision mayor N + years and 1 day to
1& years
0o not commit the mistake of appling the
Three)Fold Rule in this case. 4ever appl the
Three)Fold Rule when there are onl three
sentences. Even if ou add the penalties, ou
can never arrive at a sum higher than the
product of the most severe multiplied b three.
(he common mistake is$ if given a situation$
whether the (hree69old ;ule could be applied. If
asked$ if you were the 0udge$ what penalty would you
impose$ for purposes of imposing the penalty$ the court
is not at liberty to apply the (hree69old ;ule$ whatever
the sum total of penalty for each crime committed$
even if it would amount to 1$<<< years or more. It is
only when the convict is serving sentence that the
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
prison authorities should determine how long he
should stay in 0ail.
Illustration5
$ district engineer was sentenced b the
court to a term of @&A ears in prison.
$ person was sentenced to three death
sentences. ,ignificance" If ever granted
pardon for & crime, the two remaining
penalties must still be executed.
(his rule will apply only if sentences are to be
served successively.
ART. E9 J FINES
Cith respect to the penalty of fine$ if the fine
has to be lowered by degree either because the
felony committed is only attempted or frustrated
or because there is an accomplice or an accessory
participation$ the fine is lowered by deducting S of
the maximum amount of the fine from such
maximum without changing the minimum amount
prescribed by law.
Illustration5
If the penalt prescribed is a fine ranging
from #?((.(( to #:((.((, but the felon is
frustrated so that the penalt should be
imposed one degree lower, L of #:((.((,
shall be deducted therefrom. This is done b
deducting #&?:.(( from #:((.((, leaving a
difference of #DG:.((. The penalt one
degree lower is #DG:.((. To go another
degree lower, #&?:.(( shall again be
deducted from #DG:.(( and that would leave
a difference of #?:(.((. %ence, the penalt
another degree lower is a fine ranging from
#?((.(( to #?:(.((. If at all, the fine has to
be lowered further, it cannot go lower than
#?((.((. ,o, the fine will be imposed at
#?((.((. This rule applies when the fine has
to be lowered b degree.
4ote5 (his article does not apply when the
law does not fix the minimum of the fine.
(hus$ it is in the discretion of the court to
impose any amount without exceeding the
minimum.
I. ACT NO. 8@13 4INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE LA06) AS AMENDED
(hree things to know about the Indeterminate
%entence @aw5
1. Its purpose:
&. Instances when it does not apply: and
>. /ow it operates
Indeterminate %entence @aw governs whether
the crime is punishable under the ;evised .enal
"ode or a special @aw. It is not limited to
violations of the ;evised .enal "ode.
It applies only when the penalty served is
imprisonment. If not by imprisonment$ then it does
not apply.
P
U
R
P
O
S
E
(he purpose of the Indeterminate %entence law is
to avoid prolonged imprisonment$ because it is proven
to be more destructive than constructive to the
offender. %o$ the purpose of the Indeterminate
%entence @aw in shortening the possible detention of
the convict in 0ail is to save valuable human resources.
I other words$ if the valuable human resources were
allowed prolonged confinement in 0ail$ they would
deteriorate. .urpose is to preserve economic
usefulness for these people for having committed a
crime N to reform them rather than to deteriorate them
and$ at the same time$ saving the government
expenses of maintaining the convicts on a prolonged
confinement in 0ail.
If the crime is a violation of the ;evised .enal
"ode$ the court will impose a sentence that has a
minimum and maximum. (he maximum of the
indeterminate sentence will be arrived at by taking into
account the attendant mitigating andHor aggravating
circumstances according to #rticle +? of the ;evised
penal "ode. In arriving at the minimum of the
indeterminate sentence$ the court will take into
account the penalty prescribed for the crime and go
one degree lower. Cithin the range of one degree
lower$ the court will fix the minimum for the
indeterminate sentence$ and within the range of the
penalty arrived at as the maximum in the
indeterminate sentence$ the court will fix the maximum
of the sentence. If there is a privilege mitigating
circumstance which has been taken in consideration in
fixing the maximum of the indeterminate sentence$ the
minimum shall be based on the penalty as reduced by
the privilege mitigating circumstance within the range
of the penalty next lower in degree.
If the crime is a violation of a special law$ in fixing
the maximum of the indeterminate sentence$ the court
will impose the penalty within the range of the penalty
prescribed by the special law$ as long as it will not
exceed the limit of the penalty. In fixing the minimum$
the court can fix a penalty anywhere within the range
of penalty prescribed by the special law$ as long as it
will not be less than the minimum limit of the penalty
under said law. 4o mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are taken into account.
(he minimum and the maximum referred to in the
Indeterminate %entence @aw are not periods. %o$ do
not say$ maximum or minimum period. 9or the
purposes of the indeterminate %entence @aw$ use the
term minimum to refer to the duration of the sentence
which the convict shall serve as a minimum$ and when
we say maximum$ for purposes of I%@#C$ we refer to
the maximum limit of the duration that the convict
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
may be held in 0ail. Ce are not referring to any
period of the penalty as enumerated in #rticle !1.
"ourts are re,uired to fix a minimum and a
maximum of the sentence that they are to impose
upon an offender when found guilty of the crime
charged. %o$ whenever the Indeterminate
%entence @aw is applicable$ there is always a
minimum and maximum of the sentence that the
convict shall serve. If the crime is punished by the
;evised .enal "ode$ the law provides that the
maximum shall be arrived at by considering the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the crime according to the proper
rules of the ;evised .enal "ode. (o fix the
maximum$ consider the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances according to the rules
found in #rticle +?. (his means N
1. #enalties prescribed b the law for the crime
committed shall be imposed in the medium
period if no mitigating or aggravating
circumstance8
&. If there is aggravating circumstance, no
mitigating, penalt shall be imposed in the
maximum8
>. If there is mitigating circumstance, no
aggravating, penalt shall be in the minimum8
?. If there are several mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, the shall offset against each
other. 3hatever remains, appl the rules.
A. If there are two or more mitigating
circumstance and no aggravating
circumstance, penalt next lower in degree
shall be the one imposed.
;ule under #rt +? shall apply in determining
the maximum but not in determining the
minimum.
In determining the applicable penalty
according to the Indeterminate %entence @aw$
there is no need to mention the number of years$
months and days: it is enough that the name of
the penalty is mentioned while the Indeterminate
%entence @aw. (he attendant mitigating andHor
aggravating circumstances in the commission of
the crime are taken into consideration only when
the maximum of the penalty is to be fixed. -ut in
so far as the minimum is concerned$ the basis of
the penalty prescribed by the ;evised .enal "ode$
and go one degree lower than that. -ut penalty
one degree lower shall be applied in the same
manner that the maximum is also fixed based only
on ordinary mitigating circumstances. (his is true
only if the mitigating circumstance taken into
account is only an ordinary mitigating
circumstance. If the mitigating circumstance is
privileged$ you cannot follow the law in so far as
fixing the minimum of the indeterminate sentence
is concerned: otherwise$ it may happen that the
maximum of the indeterminate sentence is lower
than its minimum.
In one %upreme "ourt ruling$ it was held that
for purposes of applying the Indeterminate
%entence @aw$ the penalty prescribed by the
;evised .enal "ode and not that which may be
imposed by court. (his ruling$ however$ is
obviously erroneous. (his is so because such an
interpretation runs contrary to the rule of pro reo$
which provides that the penal laws should always be
construed an applied in a manner liberal or lenient to
the offender. (herefore$ the rule is$ in applying the
Indeterminate %entence @aw$ it is that penalty arrived
at by the court after applying the mitigating and
aggravating circumstances that should be the basis.
"rimes punished under special law carry only one
penalty: there are no degree or periods. Moreover$
crimes under special law do not consider mitigating or
aggravating circumstance present in the commission of
the crime. %o in the case of statutory offense$ no
mitigating and no aggravating circumstances will be
taken into account. *ust the same$ courts are re,uired
in imposing the penalty upon the offender to fix a
minimum that the convict should serve$ and to set a
maximum as the limit of that sentence. Dnder the law$
when the crime is punished under a special law$ the
court may fix any penalty as the maximum without
exceeding the penalty prescribed by special law for the
crime committed. In the same manner$ courts are
given discretion to fix a minimum anywhere within the
range of the penalty prescribed by special law$ as long
as it will not be lower than the penalty prescribed.
Di(H,ali1i%ati"n .a# *! -i&i-!- int" tr!!)
a%%"r-in' t"
1. (he time committed:
&. (he penalty imposed: and
>. (he offender involved.
0HEN 0OULD THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
LA0 BE INAPPLICABLE?
(he Indeterminate %entence @aw is not
inapplicable to5
1. .ersons convicted of offense punishable with death
penalty or life imprisonment:
N"t!: Chat is considered here is the penalty
a%t,all# i.$"(!-) not the penalty that may be
imposed.
&. .ersons convicted of treason$ conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason:
>. .ersons convicted of misprision of treason$
rebellion$ sedition$ espionage:
?. .ersons convicted of piracy:
A. .ersons who are habitual delin,uents:
N"t!: # recidivist for the first time may be given
the benefit of the law.
+. .ersons who shall have escaped from confinement
or evaded sentence:
N"t!: "onfinement being contemplated here is
imprisonment. Escaping from the 4ational
Mental /ospital or .hilippine (raining %chool for
-oys are not considered 1escaped from
confinement2.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
!. (hose who have been granted conditional
pardon by the "hief Executive and shall have
violated the term thereto:
. (hose whose maximum term of imprisonment
does not exceed one year:
N"t!: It only covers divisible penalties and
does not include indivisible penalties. (his
also applies to destierro and suspension.
9. (hose already sentenced by final 0udgment at
the time of the approval of Indeterminate
%entence @aw:
1<. (hose whose sentence imposes penalties which
do not involve imprisonment$ like destierro:
11. ;eclusion perpetua is e,uated to life
imprisonment for purposes of the
Indeterminate %entence @aw. (here the said
law will be inapplicable to persons convicted of
offenses punishable with the said penalty
4P!"$l! &. EnriH,!B) Jr.6.
N"t!: #lthough the penalty prescribed for
the felony committed is death or reclusion
perpetua$ if after considering the attendant
circumstances$ the imposable penalty is
reclusion temporal or less$ the
Indeterminate %entence @aw applies
(P!"$l! &. C!.$r"n) 1FE SCRA 2EF6.
S!%ti"n 3: Cr!ati"n "1 B"ar- "1 Par-"n an-
Par"l!: Its members shall hold office for + years.
"omposed of %ec. of *ustice and four members
provided there should be a trained sociologist$
clergymanHeducator$ and psychiatrist. #lso$ at
least one member should be a woman.
S!%ti"n 8: R,l!( an- R!',lati"n "1 t! B"ar-:
(hey can adopt such rules and regulations as may
be necessary. # ma0ority of all the members shall
constitute a 7uorum and a ma0ority vote is
necessary to reach a decision. (hey are also
entitled to receive compensation of .A< for each
meeting actually attended and reimbursements of
traveling expenses provided it will not be more
than > times a week.
S!%ti"n 9: D,ti!( "1 t! B"ar-: Chenever the
prisoner a( (!r&!- t! .ini.,. $!nalt#
i.$"(!- on him and it appears from the report of
the prisoners work and conduct that such prisoner
is fitted for release and will not violate any laws or
its not incompatible with the welfare of society$
the -oard may$ in it( -i(%r!ti"n$ authori)ed the
release of the prisoner on parole. (hey shall also
look on offenders not falling in %ection (wo of this
law who have been sentenced for more than a
year by final 0udgment prior to the dated of this
#cts effectivity and r!%"..!n-( who is deem
,ualified for parole provided they have serve a
period of imprisonment not less than the minimum
period for which they have been sentenced.
S!%ti"n D: D,t# "1 t! $ri("n!r r!l!a(!-
,n-!r ti( C"-!: ;eport $!r("nall# to such
government officials or other parole officers
appointed by the -oard for a period of surveillance
e,uivalent to the remaining portion of the
maximum sentence imposed upon him or until final
release by the -oard. If it is shown that he is a law6
abiding citi)en and did not violate any laws of the
country$ the -oard may issue a final certificate of
release which will entitle him to final release and
discharge.
S!%ti"n E: Filin': (he -oard shall file with the court
which passed 0udgment on the case and with the "hief
"onstabulary$ a certified copy of conditional or final
release and discharge issued by them.
S!%ti"n F: Vi"lati"n( "1 t! %"n-iti"n( "1 t!
$ar"l!: If heHshe violates any of the conditions of the
parole$ the -oard may issue his warrant of arrest. If
capturedHarrested$ he shall serve the remaining
unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which
he was originally committed unless a new parole was
granted.
J. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 5DF
4PROBATION LA06
#mong the different grounds of partial extinction
of criminal liability$ the most important is probation.
Pr"*ati"n is a disposition under which a defendant$
after conviction and sentence$ is released sub0ect to
the conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of a probation officer. (his may be availed
of before the convict begins serving sentence by final
0udgment and provided that he did not appeal anymore
from conviction. (he filing of application for probation
is a waiver of the right to appeal. (he applications
resolution (denied or granted' is not appealable.
#n order placing the defendant on probation is not
a 1sentence2 but rather a (,($!n(i"n "1 t!
i.$"(iti"n "1 (!nt!n%!. -eing a privilege$ it is in the
discretion of the court to grant the defendant
probation. If granted$ a%%!(("r# $!nalti!( ar!
-!!.!- (,($!n-!-. -ut$ granting such probation
a( n" *!arin' "n i( %i&il lia*ilit#.
Cithout regard to the nature of the crime$ only
those whose penalty does not exceed six years of
imprisonment are those ,ualified for probation. If the
penalty is six years plus one day$ he is no longer
,ualified for probation.
If the offender was convicted of several offenses
which were tried 0ointly and one decision was rendered
where multiple sentences imposed several prison terms
as penalty$ the basis for determining whether the
penalty dis,ualifies the offender from probation or not
is the term of the individual imprisonment and not the
totality of all the prison terms imposed in the decision.
%o even if the prison term would sum up to more than
six years$ if none of the individual penalties exceeds six
years$ the offender is not dis,ualified by such penalty
from applying for probation.
7n the other hand$ without regard to the penalty$
those who are convicted of subversion or any crime
against the public order are not ,ualified for probation.
%o know the crimes under (itle III$ -ook & of the
;evised .enal code. #mong these crimes is #larms
and %candals$ the penalty of which is only arresto
menor or a fine. Dnder the amendment to the
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
.robation @aw$ those convicted of a crime against
public order regardless of the penalty are not
,ualified for probation.
;a a recidivist be given the benefit of #robation
-aw6
#s a general rule$ no.
E/%!$ti"n: If the earlier conviction refers to
a crime the penalty of which does not exceed ><
days imprisonment or a fine of not more than
.&<<.<<<$ such convict is not dis,ualified of the
benefit of probation. %o even if he would be
convicted subse,uently of a crime embraced in the
same title of the ;evised .enal "ode as that of the
earlier conviction$ he is not dis,ualified from
probation provided that the penalty for the current
crime committed does not go beyond six years and
the nature of the crime committed by him is not
against public order$ national security or
subversion (S!%.5) Pr"*ati"n La2'.
#lthough a person may be eligible for
probation$ the moment he perfects an appeal from
the 0udgment of conviction$ he cannot avail of
probation anymore. %o the benefit of probation
must be invoked at the earliest instance after
conviction. /e should not wait up to the time
when he interposes an appeal or the sentence has
become final and executory. (he idea is that
probation has to be invoked at the earliest
opportunity.
#n application for probation is exclusively
within the 0urisdiction of the trial court that
renders the 0udgment. 9or the offender to apply in
such court$ he should not appeal such 0udgment.
If the offender would appeal the conviction of
the trial court and the appellate court reduced the
penalty to say$ less than six years$ that convict
can still file an application for probation$ because
the earliest opportunity for him to avail of
probation came only after 0udgment by the
appellate court.
Chether a convict who is otherwise ,ualified
for probation may be give the benefit of probation
or not$ the courts are always re,uired to conduct a
hearing. If the court denied the application for
probation without the benefit of the hearing$
where as the applicant is not dis,ualified under the
provision of the .robation @aw$ but only based on
the report of the probation officer$ the denial is
correctible by certiorari$ because it is an act of the
court in excess of 0urisdiction or without
0urisdiction$ the order denying the application
therefore is null and void.
.urpose5 .robation is intended to promote
the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by
providing him with individuali)ed treatment: to
provide an opportunity for the reformation of a
penitent offender which might be less probable if
he were to serve a prison sentence: to prevent the
commission of offenses: to decongest our 0ails:
and to save the government much needed finance
for maintaining convicts in 0ail.
.robation is only a privilege. %o even if the
offender may not be dis,ualified of probation$ yet the
court believes that because of the crime committed it
was not advisable to give probation because it would
depreciate the effect of the crime$ the court may refuse
or deny an application for probation.
Moreover$ the Gangerous Grugs #ct of &<<&
(%ection &?' expressly provides that 1#ny person
convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under the #ct$
regardless of the penalty imposed by the "ourt$ cannot
avail of the privilege granted by the .robation @aw.2

"onsider not only the probationable crime$ but
also the probationable penalty. If it were the non6
probationable crime$ then regardless of the penalty$
the convict cannot avail of probation. =enerally$ the
penalty which is not probationable is any penalty
exceeding six years of imprisonment. 7ffenses which
are not probationable are those against natural
security$ those against public order and those with
reference to subversion.
#ersons who have been granted of the benefit of
probation cannot avail thereof for the second time.
.robation is only available once and this may be
availed only where the convict starts serving sentence
and provided he has not perfected an appeal. If the
convict perfected an appeal$ he forfeits his right to
apply for probation. #s far as offenders who are under
preventive imprisonment$ that because a crime
committed is not bailable or the crime committed$
although bailable$ they cannot afford to put up a bail$
upon promulgation of the sentence$ naturally he goes
back to detention$ that does not mean that they
already start serving the sentence even after
promulgation of the sentence$ sentence will only
become final and executory after the lapse of the 1A6
day period$ unless the convict has waived expressly his
right to appeal or otherwise$ he has partly started
serving sentence and in that case$ the penalty will
already be final and executory$ no right to probation
can be applied for.
CRITERIA FOR PLACING AN OFFENDER ON
PROBATION
(he court shall consider5
all information relative to the N
C haracter
A ntecedents
M ental
P hysical
E nvironment
#vailable institutions and community resources
It can be denied if the court finds that5
(he offender is in need of correctional
treatment that can be provided most
effectively by his commitment to an institution
Dndue risk during the period of probation for
the offender will commit another crime
.robation will depreciate the seriousness of the
offense committed
S!%ti"n 5: Di(H,ali1i!- O11!n-!r:
%entenced to serve a maximum of the term of
imprisonment "1 ."r! tan D #!ar($
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
"onvicted of subversion of an# %ri.!
a'ain(t t! nati"nal (!%,rit# "r $,*li%
"r-!r)
Pr!&i",(l# %"n&i%t!- by final 0udgment
of an offense punished by imprisonment
of n"t l!(( tan "n! ."nt an- "n!
-a# an-I"r 1in! "1 n"t ."r! tan t2"
,n-r!- $!("(.
On%! *!!n "n $r"*ati"n under the
provisions of the Gecree
Alr!a-# (!r&in' (!nt!n%! at the time
the substantive provisions of the Gecree
became applicable pursuant to %ection >>
thereof (*anuary >$ 19!'
T! $r"*ati"n la2 i.$"(!( t2" Ain-( "1
%"n-iti"n(
1. Mandatory conditions: and
&. Giscretionary conditions.
Mandatory conditions5
1. (he convict must report to the .robation
7fficer (.7' designated in the court order
approving his application for .robation within
!& hours from receipt of 4otice of such order
approving his application: and
&. (he convict$ as a probationer$ must report to
the .7 at least once a month during the period
of probation unless sooner re,uired by the .7.
(hese conditions being mandatory$ the
moment any of these is violate$ the probation is
cancelled.
Giscretionary conditions5
(he trial court which approved the application
for probation may impose any condition which may
be constructive to the correction of the offender$
provided the same would not violate the
constitutional rights of the offender and sub0ect ot
this two restrictions5 (1' the conditions imposed
should not be unduly restrictive of the probationer$
and (&' such condition should not be incompatible
with the freedom of conscience of the probationer.
>. RA 5388 ;JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
0ELFARE ACT OF 2@@D<
Minimum #ge of "riminal ;esponsibility. 6 #
child fifteen (1A' years of age or under at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
from criminal liability. /owever$ the child shall be
sub0ected to an intervention program pursuant to
%ection &< of this #ct.
# child above fifteen (1A' years but below
eighteen (1' years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be sub0ected to
an intervention program$ unless heHshe has acted
with discernment$ in which case$ such child shall
be sub0ected to the appropriate proceedings in
accordance with this #ct.
(he exemption from criminal liability herein
established does not include exemption from civil
liability$ which shall be enforced in accordance with
existing laws.
"hildren -elow the #ge of "riminal ;esponsibility.
6 If it has been determined that the child taken into
custody is fifteen (1A' years old or below$ the authority
which will have an initial contact with the child has the
duty to immediately release the child to the custody of
hisHher parents or guardian$ or in the absence thereof$
the childTs nearest relative. %aid authority shall give
notice to the local social welfare and development
officer who will determine the appropriate programs in
consultation with the child and to the person having
custody over the child. If the parents$ guardians or
nearest relatives cannot be located$ or if they refuse to
take custody$ the child may be released to any of the
following5 a duly registered nongovernmental or
religious organi)ation: a barangay official or a member
of the -arangay "ouncil for the .rotection of "hildren
(-"."': a local social welfare and development officer:
or when and where appropriate$ the G%CG. If the child
referred to herein has been found by the @ocal %ocial
Celfare and Gevelopment 7ffice to be abandoned$
neglected or abused by his parents$ or in the event
that the parents will not comply with the prevention
program$ the proper petition for involuntary
commitment shall be filed by the G%CG or the @ocal
%ocial Celfare and Gevelopment 7ffice pursuant to
.residential Gecree 4o. +<>$ otherwise $known as L(he
"hild and Jouth Celfare "odeL.
"hildren in "onflict with the @aw 9ifteen (1A' Jears
7ld and -elow. 6 Dpon effectivity of this #ct$ cases of
children fifteen (1A' years old and below at the time of
the commission of the crime shall immediately be
dismissed and the child shall be referred to the
appropriate local social welfare and development
officer. %uch officer$ upon thorough assessment of the
child$ shall determine whether to release the child to
the custody of hisHher parents$ or refer the child to
prevention programs as provided under this #ct. (hose
with suspended sentences and undergoing
rehabilitation at the youth rehabilitation center shall
likewise be released$ unless it is contrary to the best
interest of the child.
"hildren Getained .ending Gial. 6 If the child is
detained pending trial$ the 9amily "ourt shall also
determine whether or not continued detention is
necessary and$ if not$ determine appropriate
alternatives for detention.
If detention is necessary and heHshe is detained
with adults$ the court shall immediately order the
transfer of the child to a youth detention home.
Inventory of L@ocked6upL and Getained "hildren in
"onflict with the @aw. 6 (he .4.$ the -*M. and the
-D"7; are hereby directed to submit to the **C"$
within ninety (9<' days from the effectivity of this #ct$
an inventory of all children in conflict with the law
under their custody.
"hildren Cho ;each the #ge of Eighteen (1'
Jears .ending Giversion and "ourt .roceedings. 6 If a
child reaches the age of eighteen (1' years pending
diversion and court proceedings$ the appropriate
diversion authority in consultation with the local social
welfare and development officer or the 9amily "ourt in
consultation with the %ocial %ervices and "ounseling
Givision (%%"G' of the %upreme "ourt$ as the case
may be$ shall determine the appropriate disposition. In
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
case the appropriate court executes the 0udgment
of conviction$ and unless the child in conflict the
law has already availed of probation under
.residential Gecree 4o. +<> or other similar laws$
the child may apply for probation if ,ualified under
the provisions of the .robation @aw.
"hildren Cho /ave -een "onvicted and are
%erving %entence. 6 .ersons who have been
convicted and are serving sentence at the time of
the effectivity of this #ct$ and who were below the
age of eighteen (1' years at the time the
commission of the offense for which they were
convicted and are serving sentence$ shall likewise
benefit from the retroactive application of this #ct.
(hey shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions
provided under this #ct and their sentences shall
be ad0usted accordingly. (hey shall be immediately
released if they are so ,ualified under this #ct or
other applicable law.
/II. #3tinction of Criminal
Lia0ilit1
#lways provide two classifications when answering
this ,uestion.
A. TOTAL E=TINCTION
#mong the grounds for total extinction as well as
those for partial extinction$ you cannot find among
them the election to public office. In one case$ a public
official was charged before the %andiganbayan for
violation of #nti6=raft and "orrupt .ractices #ct.
Guring the ensuing election$ he was nevertheless re6
elected by the constituents$ one of the defenses raised
was that of condonation of the crime by his
constituents$ that his constituents have pardoned him.
(he %upreme "ourt ruled that the re6election to public
office is not one of the grounds by which criminal
liability is extinguished. (his is only true to
administrative cases but not criminal cases.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS TOTALLY E=TINGUISHED
AS FOLLO0S:
1. -y the death of the convict as to personal
penalties: and as to pecuniary penalties$ liability
therefore is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final 0udgment
E=CEPTION: if the civil liability may also be
predicated on a source of obligation other than
delict such as in Art. 33 "r *a(!- "n %"ntra%t(.
(hus$ if upon extinction of the civil liability$ they
may file a separate civil action for the same act or
omission which arises from a 7uasi)delict or
contract. Even if the accused dies pending appeal$
the right to file a separate civil action is not lost.
&. -y %ervice of sentence
>. -y #mnesty
?. -y #bsolute .ardon
A. -y prescription of crime
+. -y prescription of penalty
!. -y the marriage of the offended woman and the
offender as in the crimes of rape$ abduction$
seduction and acts of lasciviousness. (his must be
contracted in good faith. (#rt. >??'
DEATH OF THE CONVICT
Chere the offender dies before final 0udgment$ his
death extinguishes both his criminal and civil liabilities.
%o while a case is on appeal$ the offender dies$ the
case on appeal will be dismissed. (he offended party
may file a separate civil action under the "ivil "ode if
any other basis for recovery of civil liability exists as
provided under #rt 11A! "ivil "ode. (P!"$l! &.
Ba#"ta($ decided on %eptember &$ 199?'
Di11!r!n%! *!t2!!n A.n!(t# an- A*("l,t!
Par-"n
A.n!(t# A*("l,t! $ar-"n
-lanket pardon to
classes of persons$
guilty of political
offenses
Includes any crime and
is exercised individually
May still be exercised (he person is already
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
even before trial or
investigation
convicted
@ooks backward N put
into oblivion the
offense itself. (as if he
has no offense'. (hus$
an ex6convict becomes
no longer a recidivist if
he is given amnesty
unlike pardon
@ooks forward N relieves
from the conse,uences
of the offense but does
not restore rights unless
explicitly restored by the
terms of the pardon
-oth do not extinguish civil liability
.ublic act which the
court shall take 0udicial
notice
.rivate act of the
.resident and must be
pleaded and proved by
the person pardoned
(he effects of amnesty as well as absolute
pardon are not the same. #mnesty erases not
only the conviction but also the crime itself. %o
that if an offender was convicted for rebellion and
he ,ualified for amnesty$ and so he was given an
amnesty$ then years later he rebelled again and
convicted$ is he a recidivistK 4o. -ecause the
amnesty granted to him erased not only the
conviction but also the effects of the conviction
itself.
%upposed$ instead of amnesty$ what was
given was absolute pardon$ then years later$ the
offended was again captured and charged for
rebellion$ he was convicted$ is he a recidivistK
Jes. .ardon$ although absolute does not erase the
effects of conviction. .ardon only excuses the
convict from serving the sentence. (here is an
exception to this and that is when the pardon was
granted when the convict had already served the
sentence such that there is no more service of
sentence to be executed then the pardon shall be
understood as intended to erase the effects of the
conviction.
%o if the convict has already served the
sentence and in spite of that he was given a
pardon that pardon will cover the effects of the
crime and therefore$ if he will be subse,uently
convicted for a felony embracing the same title as
that crime$ he cannot be considered a recidivist$
because the pardon wipes out the effects of the
crime.
-ut if he was serving sentence when he was
pardoned$ that pardon will not wipe out the effects
of the crime$ unless the language of the pardon
absolutely relieve the offender of all the effects
thereof. "onsidering that recidivism does not
prescribe$ no matter how long ago was the first
conviction$ he shall still be a recidivist.
Illustration5
3hen the crime carries with it moral
turpitude, the offender even if granted pardon
shall still remain dis7ualified from those falling
in cases where moral turpitude is a bar.
#edro was prosecuted and convicted of
the crime of robber and was sentenced to six
ears imprisonment or prision correccional.
$fter serving sentence for three ears, he was
granted absolute pardon. Ten ears later,
#edro was again prosecuted and convicted of the
crime of theft, a crime embraced in the same title,
this time he shall be a recidivist. 5n the other
hand, if he has served all six ears of the first
sentence, and his name was included in the list of
all those granted absolute pardon, pardon shall
relieve him of the effects of the crime, and
therefore even if he commits theft again, he shall
not be considered a recidivist.
In M"n(ant" V. Fa%t"ran) Jr.) 1E@ SCRA 151) it
was held that absolute pardon does not ipso facto
entitle the convict to reinstatement to the public office
forfeited by reason of his conviction. #lthough pardon
restores his eligibility for appointment to that office$
the pardoned convict must reapply for the new
appointment.
.ardon becomes valid only when there is a final
0udgment. If given before this$ it is premature and
hence void. (here is no such thing as a premature
amnesty$ because it does not re,uire a final 0udgment:
it may be given before final 0udgment or after it.
Di11!r!n%! *!t2!!n Pr!(%ri$ti"n "1 Cri.! an-
Pr!(%ri$ti"n "1 t! P!nalt#
Pr!(%ri$ti"n "1 %ri.! Pr!(%ri$ti"n "1 t!
$!nalt#
9orfeiture of the state
to prosecute after a
lapse of a certain time
9orfeiture to execute
the final sentence after
the lapse of a certain
time
.rescription of the crime begins$ as a general rule
on the day the crime was committed$ unless the crime
was concealed$ not public$ in which case$ the
prescription thereof would only commence from the
time the offended party or the government learns of
the commission of the crime.
1"ommission of the crime is public2 N (his does
not mean alone that the crime was within public
knowledge or committed in public.
Illustration5
In the crime of falsification of a document that
was registered in the proper registr of the
government like the Registr of #ropert or the
Registr of 0eeds of the Civil registr, the
falsification is deemed public from the time the
falsified document was registered or recorded in
such public office so even though, the offended
part ma not reall know of the falsification, the
prescriptive period of the crime shall alread run
from the moment the falsified document was
recorded in the public registr. ,o in the case
where a deed of sale of a parcel of land which was
falsified was recorded in the corresponding
Registr of #ropert, the owner of the land came
to know of the falsified transaction onl after &(
ears, so he brought the criminal action onl then.
The ,upreme Court ruled that the crime has
alread prescribed. From the moment the falsified
document is registered in the Registr of #ropert,
the prescriptive period alread commenced to run.
Chen a crime prescribes$ the %tate loses the right
to prosecute the offender$ hence$ even though the
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
offender may not have filed a motion to ,uash on
this ground the trial court$ but after conviction and
during the appeal he learned that at the time the
case was filed$ the crime has already prescribed$
such accused can raise the ,uestion of prescription
even for the first time on appeal$ and the appellate
court shall have no 0urisdiction to continue$ if
legally$ the crime has indeed prescribed.
(he prevailing rule now is$ prescription of the
crime is not waivable$ the earlier 0urisprudence to
the contrary had already been abrogated or
overruled. Moreover$ for purposes of prescription$
the period for filing a complaint or information
may not be extended at all$ even though the last
day such prescriptive period falls on a holiday or a
%unday.
9or instance$ light felony prescribes in +< days
or two months. If the +<th day falls on a %unday$
the filing of the complaint on the succeeding
Monday is already fatal to the prosecution of the
crime because the crime has already prescribed.
(he rules on "riminal .rocedure for purposes
of prescription is that the filing of the complaint
even at the public prosecutors office suspends the
running of the prescriptive period$ but not the
filing with the barangays. %o the earlier rulings to
the contrary are already abrogated by express
provision of the ;evised ;ules on "riminal
.rocedure.
The prescription of the crime is interrupted or
suspended K
1. Chen a complaint is filed in a proper barangay
for conciliation or mediation as re,uired by
"hapter !$ @ocal government "ode$ but the
suspension of the prescriptive period is good
only for +< days. #fter which the prescription
will resume to run$ whether the conciliation or
mediation is terminated for not:
&. Chen criminal case is filed in the prosecutors
office$ the prescription of the crime is
suspended until the accused is convicted or the
proceeding is terminated for a cause not
attributable to the accused.
-ut where the crime is sub0ect to %ummary
.rocedure$ the prescription of the crime will be
suspended only when the information is already
filed with the trial court. It is not the filing of the
complaint$ but the filing of the information in the
trial which will suspend the prescription of the
crime.
7n the prescription of the penalty$ the period
will only commence to run when the convict has
begun to serve the sentence. #ctually$ the penalty
will prescribe from the moment the convict evades
the service of the sentence. %o if an accused was
convicted in the trial court$ and the conviction
becomes final and executory$ so this fellow was
arrested to serve the sentence$ on the way to the
penitentiary$ the vehicle carrying him collided with
another vehicle and overturned$ thus enabling the
prisoner to escape$ no matter how long such
convict has been a fugitive from 0ustice$ the
penalty imposed by the trial court will never
prescribe because he has not yet commenced the
service of his sentence. 9or the penalty to prescribe$
he must be brought to Muntinlupa$ booked thee$ placed
inside the cell and thereafter he escapes.
Chether it is prescription of crime or prescription
of penalty$ if the sub0ect could leave the .hilippines
and go to a country with whom the .hilippines has no
extradition treaty$ the prescriptive period of the crime
or penalty shall remain suspended whenever he is out
of the country.
Chen the offender leaves for a country to which
the .hilippines has an extradition treaty$ the running of
the prescriptive period will go on even if the offender
leaves .hilippine territory for that country. .resently
the .hilippines has an extradition treaty with (aiwan$
Indonesia$ "anada$ #ustralia$ D%# and %wit)erland. %o
if the offender goes to any of these countries$ the
prescriptive period still continues to run.
In the case of the prescription of the penalty$ the
moment the convict commits another crime while he is
fugitive from 0ustice$ prescriptive period of the penalty
shall be suspended and shall not run in the meantime.
(he crime committed does not include the initial
evasion of service of sentence that the convict must
perform before the penalty shall begin to prescribe$ so
that the initial crime of evasion of service of sentence
does not suspend the prescription of penalty$ it is the
commission of other crime$ after the convict has
evaded the service of penalty that will suspend such
period.
MARRIAGE
In the case of marriage$ do not say that it is
applicable for the crimes under #rticle >??. It is only
true in the crimes of rape$ abduction$ seduction and
acts of lasciviousness. Go not say that it is applicable
to private crimes because the term includes adultery
and concubinage. Marriages in these cases may even
compound the crime of adultery or concubinage. It is
only in the crimes of rape$ abduction$ seduction and
acts of lasciviousness that the marriage by the offender
with the offended woman shall extinguish civil liability$
not only criminal liability of the principal who marries
the offended woman$ but also that of the accomplice
and accessory$ if there are any.
"o6principals who did not themselves directly
participate in the execution of the crime but who only
cooperated$ will also benefit from such marriage$ but
not when such co6principal himself took direct part in
the execution of the crime.
Marriage as a ground for extinguishing civil liability
must have been contracted in good faith. (he offender
who marries the offended woman must be sincere in
the marriage and therefore must actually perform the
duties of a husband after the marriage$ otherwise$
notwithstanding such marriage$ the offended woman$
although already his wife can still prosecute him again$
although the marriage remains is avoided or annulled.
(he marriage still subsists although the offended
woman may re6file the complaint. (he %upreme "ourt
ruled that marriage contemplated must be a real
marriage and not one entered to and not 0ust to evade
punishment for the crime committed because the
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
offender will be compounding the wrong he has
committed.
B. PARTIAL E=TINCTION
"riminal liability is partially extinguished as
follows5
1. "onditional .ardon
&. "ommutation of sentence
>. 9or good conduct$ allowances which the culprit
may earn while he is serving sentence
?. .arole
A. .robation
CONDITIONAL PARDON
If delivered and accepted$ it is a contract
between the executive and the convict tat the
former will release the latter upon compliance with
the condition. 7ne usual condition is 1not again
violate any of the penal laws of the country2.
;All"2an%!( 1"r '""- %"n-,%t< 4Art. 5E6
(his includes the allowance for loyalty under
#rticle 9$ in relation to #rticle 1A. # convict who
escapes the place of confinement on the occasion
of disorder resulting from a conflagration$
earth,uake or similar catastrophe or during a
mutiny in which he has not participated and he
returned within ? hours after the proclamation
that the calamity had already passed$ such convict
shall be given credit of 1HA of the original sentence
from that allowance for his loyalty of coming back.
(hose who did not leave the penitentiary under
such circumstances do not get such allowance for
loyalty. #rticle 1A refers only to those who leave
and return.
P!ri"- "1
i.$ri("n.!nt
D!-,%ti"n
9irst & years A days for each month
of good behavior
>
rd
yr.N A
th
yr. days for each month
of good behavior
+
th
yr. N 1<
th
yr. 1< days for each month
of good behavior
11
th
yr. and successive
years
1A days for each month
of good behavior
N"t!: N"t an a,t".ati% ri't for it has to
be granted by the Girector of .risons (Art.
55'. #lso$ he must be serving his sentence.
(hus$ if released because of conditional
pardon$ this provision is not applicable.
PAROLE
Gefinition5 suspension of the sentence of a
convict after serving the minimum term of the
indeterminate penalty$ without granting a pardon$
prescribing the term which the sentence shall be
suspended.
(his correspondingly extinguishes service of
sentence up to the maximum of the indeterminate
sentence. (his is the partial extinction referred to$
so that if the convict was never given parole$ no partial
extinction.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
/III. Ci(il Lia0ilit1 Arisin4
from a ,elon1
"ivil liability of the offender falls under three
categories5
1. ;estitution or ;estoration
&. ;eparation of the damage caused
>. Indemnification of conse,uential damages
A. RESTITUTION OR RESTORATION
;estitution or restoration presupposes that
the offended party was divested of property$ and
such property must be returned. If the property is
in the hands of a third party$ the same shall
nevertheless be taken away from him and restored
to the offended party$ even though such third
party may be a holder for value and a buyer in
good faith of the property$ except when such third
party buys the property from a public sale where
the law protects the buyer.
9or example$ if a third party bought a
property in a public auction conducted by the
sheriff levied on the property of a 0udgment
creditor for an obligation$ the buyer of the
property at such execution sale is protected by
law. (he offended party cannot divest him
thereof. %o the offended party may only resort to
reparation of the damage done from the offender.
%ome believed that this civil liability is true
only in crimes against property$ this is not correct.
;egardless of the crime committed$ if the property
is illegally taken from the offended party during
the commission of the crime$ the court may direct
the offender to restore or restitute such property
to the offended party. It can only be done if the
property is brought within the 0urisdiction of that
court.
9or example$ in a case where the offender
committed rape$ during the rape$ the offender got
on of the earnings of the victim. Chen
apprehended$ the offender was prosecuted for
rape and theft. Chen the offender was asked why
he got on of the earnings of the victim$ the
offender disclosed that he took one of the earnings
in order to have a souvenir of the sexual
intercourse. %upreme "ourt ruled that the crime
committed is not theft and rape but rape and
un0ust vexation for the taking of the earning. (he
latter crime is not a crime against property$ this is
a crime against personal security and liberty under
(itle IU of -ook II of the ;.". #nd yet$ the
offender was re,uired to restore or restitute the
earning to the offended woman.
.roperty will have to be restored to the
offended party even this would re,uire the taking
of the property was divested from the offended
party pursuant to the commission of the crime$ the
one who took the same or accepted the same
would be doing so without the benefit of the 0ust
title. %o even if the property may have been
bought by the third person$ the same may be
taken from him and restored to the offended party
without an obligation on the part of the offended party
to pay him whatever he paid.
(he right to recover what he has paid will be
against the offender who sold it ot him. 7n the other
hand$ if the crime was theft or robbery$ the one who
received the personal property becomes a fence$ he is
not only re,uired to restitute the personal property but
he incurs criminal liability in violation of the #nti6
9encing @aw.
If the property cannot be restituted anymore$ then
the damage must be repaired$ re,uiring the offender to
pay the value thereof$ as determined by the court.
(hat value includes the sentimental value to the
offended party$ not only the replacement cost. In most
cases$ the sentimental value is higher than the
replacement value. -ut if what would be restored is
brand new$ then there will be an allowance for
depreciation$ otherwise$ the offended party is allowed
to enrich himself at the expense of the offender. %o
there will be a corresponding depreciation and the
offended party may even be re,uired to pay something
0ust to cover the difference of the value of what was
restored to him.
(he obligation of the offender transcends to his
heirs$ even if the offender dies$ provided he died after
0udgment became final$ the heirs shall assume the
burden of the civil liability$ but this is only to the extent
that they inherit property from the deceased$ if they do
not inherit$ they cannot inherit the obligations.
(he right of the offended party transcends to heirs
upon death. (he heirs of the offended party step into
the shoes of the latter to demand civil liability from the
offender.
B. REPARATION OF THE DAMAGE CAUSED
In case of human life$ reparation of the damage
cause is basically .A<$<<<.<< value of human life$
exclusive of other forms of damages. (his .A<$<<<.<<
may also increase whether such life was lost through
intentional felony or criminal negligence$ whether the
result of dolo or culpa.
It was held in the case of E($aKa &. P!"$l!
42@@96 that the award for civil indemnity ex delicto is
mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim
without need of proof other than the commission of the
crime.
#lso in the crime of rape$ the damages awarded to
the offended woman is generally .><$<<<.<< for the
damage to her honor. In earlier rulings$ the amount
varied$ whether the offended woman is younger or a
married woman. %upreme "ourt ruled that even if the
offended woman does not adduce evidence or such
damage$ court can take 0udicial notice of the fact that if
a woman was raped$ she inevitably suffers damages.
Dnder the ;evised ;ules on "riminal .rocedure$ a
private prosecutor can recover all kinds of damages
including attorneys fee. (he only limitation is that the
amount and the nature of the damages should be
specified. (he present procedural law does not allow a
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
blanket recovery of damages. Each kind of
damages must be specified and the amount duly
proven.
C. INDEMNIFICATION OF
CONSE7UENTIAL DAMAGES
Indemnification of conse,uential damages
refers to the loss of earnings$ loss of profits. (his
does not refer only to conse,uential damages
suffered by the offended party$ this also includes
conse,uential damages to third party who also
suffer because of the commission of the crime.
(he offender carnapped a bridal car while the
newly6weds were inside the church. %ince the car
was only rented$ conse,uential damage not only to
the newly6weds but also to the entity which rented
the car to them.
Most importantly$ refer to the persons who are
civilly liable under #rticles 1<& and 1<>. (his
pertains to the owner$ proprietor of hotels$ inns$
taverns and similar establishments$ an obligation
to answer civilly for the loss or property of their
guests.
Dnder #rticle 1<&$ two conditions must be
present before liability attaches to the innkeepers$
tavern keepers and proprietors5
1. (he guest must have informed the
management in advance of his having brought
to the premises certain valuables aside from
the usual personal belongings of the guest:
and
&. (he guest must have followed the rules and
regulations prescribed by the management of
such inn$ tavern$ or similar establishment
regarding the safekeeping of said valuables.
(he %upreme "ourt ruled that even though
the guest did not obey the rules and regulations
prescribed by the management for safekeeping of
the valuables$ this does not absolve management
from the subsidiary civil liability. 4on6compliance
with such rules and regulations but the guests will
only be regarded as contributory negligence$ but it
wont absolve the management from civil liability.
@iability specially attaches when the
management is found to have violated any law or
ordinance$ rule or regulation governing such
establishment.
Even if the crime is robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons or committed by
the innkeepers employees$ management will be
liable$ otherwise$ not liable because there is duress
from the offender$ liable only for theft and force
upon things.
Dnder #rticle 1<>$ the subsidiary liability of an
employer or master for the crime committed by his
employee or servant may attach only when the
following re,uisites concur.
1. (he employer must be engaged in business or
in trade or industry while the accused was his
employee
&. #t the time the crime was committed$ the
employee6employer relationship must be existing
between the two:
>. (he employee must have been found guilty of the
crime charged and accordingly held civilly liable:
?. (he writ of execution for the satisfaction of the civil
liability was returned unsatisfied because the
accused6employee does not have enough property
to pay the civil liability.
Chen these re,uisites concur$ the employer will be
subsidiarily$ civilly liable for the full amount that his
employee was ad0udged civilly liable. It is already
settled in 0urisprudence that there is no need to file a
civil action against the employer in order to enforce the
subsidiary civil liability for the crime committed by his
employee$ it is enough that the writ of execution is
returned unsatisfied. (here is no denial of due process
of law because the liability of the employer is
subsidiary and not primary. /e will only be liable if his
employee does not have the property to pay his civil
liability$ since it is the law itself that$ provides that
such subsidiary liability exists and ignorance of the law
is not an excuse.
"ivil liability of the offender is extinguished in the
same manner as civil obligation is extinguished but this
is not absolutely true. Dnder civil law$ a civil obligation
is extinguished upon loss of the thing due when the
things involved is specific. (his is not a ground
applicable to extinction of civil liability in criminal case
if the thing due is lost$ the offender shall repair the
damages caused.
Chen there are several offenders$ the court in the
exercise of its discretion shall determine what shall be
the share f each offender depending upon the degree
of participation N as principal$ accomplice or accessory.
If within each class of offender$ there are more of
them$ such as more than one principal or more than
one accomplice or accessory$ the liability in each class
of offender shall be subsidiary. #nyone of them may
be re,uired to pay the civil liability pertaining to such
offender without pre0udice to recovery from those
whose share have been paid by another.
If all the principals are insolvent$ the obligation
shall devolve upon the accomplice(s' or accessory(s'.
-ut whoever pays shall have the right of covering the
share of the obligation from those who did not pay but
are civilly liable.
(o relate with #rticle >$ when there is an order or
preference of pecuniary (monetary' liability$ therefore$
restitution is not included here.
(o relate with #rticle >$ when there is an order or
preference of pecuniary (monetary' liability$ therefore$
restitution is not included here.
(here is not subsidiary penalty for non6payment of
civil liability.
S,*(i-iar# %i&il lia*ilit# i( i.$"(!- in t!
1"ll"2in':
1. In case of a felony committed under the compulsion
of an irresistible force. (he person who employed
the irresistible force is subsidiarily liable:
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
&. In case of a felony committed under an
impulse of an e,ual or greater in0ury. (he
person who generated such an impulse is
subsidiarily liable.
(he owners of taverns$ inns$ motels$ hotels$
where the crime is committed within their
establishment due to noncompliance with general
police regulations$ if the offender who is primarily
liable cannot pay$ the proprietor$ or owner is
subsidiarily liable.
9elonies committed by employees$ pupils$
servants in the course of their employment$
schooling or household chores. (he employer$
master$ teacher is subsidiarily liable civilly$ while
the offender is primarily liable.
In case the accomplice and the principal
cannot pay$ the liability of those subsidiarily liable
is absolute.
In P!"$l! &(. T,$al) 2@@3$ exemplary
damages were awarded when the offense was
committed with at least 1 aggravating
circumstance.
5uestions 6 Answers
71: I1 a 1"r!i'n .!r%ant &!((!l i( in t! %!nt!r
lan! an- a %ri.! 2a( %"..itt!- t!r! 2at
la2 2ill a$$l# ,n-!r t! International Law
Rule? t! Archipelagic Rule?
A: Dnder the International ;ule$ the law of the
country where that vessel is registered will apply$
because the crime is deemed to have been
committed in the high seas.
/owever$ under the #rchipelagic ;ule as declared
in #rticle I of the 19! "onstitution$ all waters in
the archipelago regardless of breadth$ width or
dimension are part of our national territory. Dnder
this ;ule$ there is no more center lane$ all these
waters$ regardless of their dimension or width are
part of .hilippine territory.
%o if a foreign merchant vessel is in the center
lane and a crime was committed$ the crime will be
prosecuted before .hilippine "ourts.
72: A) a $ri("n!r) l!arn( tat ! i( alr!a-#
"&!r(ta#in' in +ail *!%a,(! i( +ail ',ar-) B)
2" a$$!n( t" *! a la2 (t,-!nt a-&i(!- i.
tat t!r! i( n" ."r! l!'al 'r",n- 1"r i(
%"ntin,!- i.$ri("n.!nt) an- B t"l- i. tat
! %an '". A '"t ",t "1 +ail an- 2!nt ".!.
0a( t!r! an# %ri.! %"..itt!-?
A: #s far as #$ the prisoner who is serving sentence$
is concerned$ the crime committed is evasion of
sentence.
#s far as -$ the 0ail guard who allowed # to go$ is
concerned$ the crime committed is infidelity in the
custody of prisoners.
73: On! *"# 2a( a%%,(!- "1 $arri%i-! an- 2a(
1",n- ',ilt#. Ti( i( $,ni(!- *# r!%l,(i"n
$!r$!t,a t" -!at. A((,.in' #", 2!r! t!
+,-'!) 2",l- #", 'i&! t! a%%,(!- t!
*!n!1it "1 t! In-!t!r.inat! S!nt!n%! La2
4ISLA06? T! ISLA0 -"!( n"t a$$l# 2!n
t! $!nalt# i.$"(!- i( li1! i.$ri("n.!nt "r
-!at. 0",l- #", %"n(i-!r t! $!nalt#
i.$"(a*l! "r t! $!nalt# i.$"(!-) taAin' int"
%"n(i-!rati"n t! .iti'atin' %ir%,.(tan%! "1
.in"rit#?
A: If you will answer 1no$2 then you go against the
doctrine of .ro ;eo$ because you can interpret the
I%@#C in a more lenient manner. (aking into
account the doctrine$ we can interpret the I%@#C
to mean that the penalty imposable and not the
penalty prescribed by law$ since it is more
favorable for the accused to interpret the law.

/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
78: Tr!! i+a%A!r( a%%"(t!- t! $il"t "1 an
air$lan!. T!# %".$!ll!- t! $il"t t"
%an'! -!(tinati"n) *,t *!1"r! t! (a.!
%",l- *! a%%".$li(!-) t! .ilitar# 2a(
al!rt!-. 0at 2a( t! %ri.! %"..itt!-?
A: =rave coercion. (here is no such thing as
attempted hi0acking. Dnder special laws$ the
penalty is not imposed unless the act is
consummated. "rimes committed against the
provisions of a special law are penali)ed only
when the pernicious effects$ which such law
seeks to prevent$ arise.
79: A .a#"r a2ar-!- a %"n%!((i"n t" i(
-a,'t!r. S! 2a( al(" t! i'!(t
*i--!r. T! a2ar- 2a( !&!n !n-"r(!- *#
t! .,ni%i$al %",n%il a( t! ."(t
a-&anta'!",( t" t! .,ni%i$alit#. T!
l"(in' *i--!r %all!n'!- t! &ali-it# "1
t! %"ntra%t) *,t t! trial %",rt (,(tain!-
it( &ali-it#. T! %a(! '"!( t" t!
San-i'an*a#an an- t! .a#"r '!t(
%"n&i%t!- 1"r &i"lati"n "1 R!$,*li% A%t N".
3@15 4AntiGGra1t an- C"rr,$t Pra%ti%!(
A%t6. H! a$$!al( all!'in' i( -!1!n(!(
rai(!- in t! San-i'an*a#an tat ! -i-
n"t $r"1it 1r". t! tran(a%ti"n) tat t!
%"ntra%t 2a( a-&anta'!",( t" t!
.,ni%i$alit#) an- tat ! -i- n"t a%t 2it
int!nt t" 'ain. R,l!.
A: *udgment #ffirmed. (he contention of the
mayor that he did not profit anything from the
transaction$ that the contract was
advantageous to the municipality$ and that he
did not act with intent to gain$ is not a
defense. (he crime involved is malum
prohibitum.
7D: Di(tin',i() in t!ir r!($!%ti&! %"n%!$t(
an- l!'al i.$li%ati"n() *!t2!!n %ri.!(
.ala in (! an- %ri.!( .ala $r"i*ita.
A: #(%uggested'5 In concept$ crimes mala in se
are those where the acts and omissions
penali)ed are inherently wrong that they are
universally condemned. In crimes mala
prohibita$ the acts are not inherently evil but
prohibited by law for public good$ welfare and
interest.
In legal implications$ good faith or lack of
criminal intent is a defense in crimes mala in
se but not in crimes mala prohibita$ where
mere voluntary commission of the prohibited
act suffices. In crimes mala prohibita$ criminal
liability is incurred when the crime is
consummated while in mala in se$ criminal
liability is incurred even when the crime is
only attempted or frustrated. #lso$ in crimes
mala in se$ mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are appreciated in imposing
penalties but not in crimes mala prohibita$
unless the special law has adopted the
schemeHscale of penalties in the ;.".
7E: A &!((!l i( n"t r!'i(t!r!- in t! Pili$$in!(. A
%ri.! i( %"..itt!- ",t(i-! Pili$$in!
T!rrit"rial 2at!r(. T!n t! &!((!l !nt!r!-
",r t!rrit"r#. 0ill t! R!&i(!- P!nal C"-!
a$$l#?
A: Jes. Dnder the old ;ules of "riminal .rocedure$ for
our courts to take cogni)ance of any crime
committed on board a vessel must be registered in
the .hilippines in accordance with .hilippine laws.
Dnder the ;evised ;ules of "riminal .rocedure$
however$ the re,uirement that the vessel must be
licensed and registered in accordance with
.hilippine laws has been deleted from %ection &A$
paragraph c of ;ule 11< of the ;ules of "ourt. (he
intention is to do away with the re,uirement so
that as long as the vessel is not registered under
the laws of any country$ our courts can take
cogni)ance of the crime committed in such vessel.
More than this$ the revised provision added the
phrase .in accordance with generall accepted
principles of International -aw./ %o the intention is
clearly to adopt generally accepted principles of
international law in the matter of exercising
0urisdiction over crimes committed in a vessel
while in the course of its voyage. <nder
international law rule, a vessel which is not
registered in accordance with the laws of an
countr is considered a pirate vessel and pirac is
a crime against humanit in general, such that
wherever pirates ma go, the can be prosecuted
=M pirac is hostes humanis generis>.
.rior to the revision$ the crime would not have
been prosecutable in our court. Cith the revision$
registration is not anymore a re,uirement and
replaced with generally accepted principles of
international law. .iracy is considered a crime
against the law of nations.
In your answer$ reference should be made to the
provision of paragraph c of %ection 1A of the
;evised ;ules of "riminal .rocedure. (he case may
be regarded as an act of piracy as long as it is
done with 1intent to gain.2
7F: A %"n(,l 2a( t" taA! a -!$"(iti"n in a "t!l in
Sin'a$"r!. A1t!r t! -!$"(iti"n) t! -!$"n!nt
a$$r"a%!- t! %"n(,lL( -a,'t!r an-
r!H,!(t!- %!rtain $art( "1 t! -!$"(iti"n *!
%an'!- in %"n(i-!rati"n "1 M1@)@@@.@@. T!
-a,'t!r $!r(,a-!- t! %"n(,l an- t! latt!r
a'r!!-. 0ill t! %ri.! *! (,*+!%t t" t!
R!&i(!- P!nal C"-!? I1 (") 2at %ri.! "r
%ri.!( a&! *!!n %"..itt!-?
A: Jes. 9alsification. 4ormally$ the taking of the
deposition is not the function of the consul$ his
function being the promotion of trade and
commerce with another country. Dnder the ;ules
of "ourt$ however$ a consul can take depositions
or letters rogatory. (here is$ therefore$ a definite
provision of the law making it the consuls function
to take depositions. Chen he agreed to the
falsification of the deposition$ he was doing so as a
public officer in the service of the .hilippine
government.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
75: I1 a $ri("n!r 2" i( (!r&in' (!nt!n%! i(
1",n- in $"((!((i"n "1 -an'!r",( -r,'()
%an ! *! %"n(i-!r!- a H,a(iGr!%i-i&i(t?
A: 4o. (he violation of .residential Gecree 4o.
+?&A ((he Gangerous Grugs #ct of 19!&' is
not a felony. (he provision of #rticle 1+<
specifically refers to a felony and felonies are
those acts and omissions punished under the
;evised .enal "ode.
71@: I( ill!'al $"((!((i"n "1 a *la-!-
2!a$"n a 1!l"n#?
A: 4o. It is not under the ;.".
711: 0at r!H,i(it!( .,(t %"n%,r *!1"r! a
1!l"n# .a# *! %"..itt!-?
A: (here must be (1' an act or omission: (&'
punishable by the ;evised .enal "ode: and
(>' the act is performed or the omission
incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
712: 0at -" #", ,n-!r(tan- *#
;&"l,ntarin!((< in %ri.inal la2?
A: (he word voluntariness in criminal law does
not mean acting in ones own volition. In
criminal law$ voluntariness comprehends the
concurrence of freedom of action$ intelligence
and the fact that the act was intentional. In
culpable felonies$ there is no voluntariness if
either freedom$ intelligence or imprudence$
negligence$ lack of foresight or lack of skill is
lacking. Cithout voluntariness$ there can be
no dolo or culpa$ hence$ there is no felony.
In a case decided by the %upreme "ourt$ two
persons went wild boar hunting. 7n their way$
they met .edro standing by the door of his
house and they asked him where they could
find wild boars. .edro pointed to a place
where wild boars were supposed to be found$
and the two proceeded thereto. Dpon getting
to the place$ they saw something moving$
they shot$ unfortunately ricocheted killing
.edro. It was held that since there was neither
dolo nor culpa$ there is no criminal liability.
In US &(. Bin-"#$ accused had an altercation
with U. U snatched the bolo from the accused.
(o prevent U from using his bolo on him$
accused tried to get it from U. Dpon pulling it
back towards him$ he hit someone from
behind$ instantly killing the latter. (he
accused was found to be not liable. In criminal
law$ there is pure accident$ and the principle
damnum abs,ue in0uria is also honored.
Even culpable felonies re,uire voluntariness.
It does not mean that if there is no criminal
intent$ the offender is absolved of criminal
liability$ because there is culpa to consider.
713: Ma# a %ri.! *! %"..itt!- 2it",t %ri.inal
int!nt?
A: Jes. "riminal intent is not necessary in these
cases5 (1' Chen the crime is the product of culpa
or negligence$ reckless imprudence$ lack of
foresight or lack of skill: and (&' Chen the crime is
a prohibited act under a special law or what is
called malum prohibitum.
718: T! a%%,(!- an- i( 1a.il# li&!- in a
n!i'*"r""- tat "1t!n 2a( t! (%!n! "1
1r!H,!nt r"**!ri!(. At "n! ti.! $a(t
.i-ni't) t! a%%,(!- 2!nt -"2n(tair(
2it a l"a-!- ',n t" in&!(ti'at! 2at !
t",'t 2!r! 1""t(t!$( "1 an ,n2ant!-
',!(t. A1t!r (!!in' 2at a$$!ar!- t" i.
an ar.!- (tran'!r ",t t" r"* t!.) ! 1ir!-
i( ',n an- (!ri",(l# in+,r!- t! .an.
0!n t! li't( t,rn!- "n) t! .an t,rn!-
",t t" *! a *r"t!rGinGla2 "n i( 2a# t" t!
Ait%!n 1"r (".! (na%A(. T! a%%,(!- 2a(
in-i%t!- 1"r (!ri",( $#(i%al in+,ri!(.
S",l- ! *! a%H,itt!- "r %"n&i%t!-) 'i&!n
t! %ir%,.(tan%!(? 0#?
A: /e should be ac,uitted. "onsidering the given
circumstances 6 6 fre,uent neighborhood
robberies$ time was past midnight$ and the victim
appeared to be a robber in the dark$ the accused
could have entertained an honest belief that his
life and limb and those of his family are already in
immediate and imminent danger. /ence$ it may be
reasonable to accept that he acted out of an
honest MI%(#IE 79 9#"($ without criminal intent.
#n honest mistake of fact negatives criminal intent
and absolves the accused from liability.
719: I( %,l$a "r %ri.inal n!'li'!n%! a %ri.!?
A: 9irst$ point out #rticle >. Dnder #rticle >$ it is
beyond ,uestion that culpa or criminal negligence
is 0ust a mode by which a felony may arise: a
felony may be committed through dolo or culpa.
/owever$ *ustice *.-.@. ;eyes pointed out that
criminal negligence is a ,uasi6offense. /is reason
is that if criminal negligence is not a ,uasi6offense$
and only a modality$ then it would have been
absorbed in the commission of the felony and
there would be no need for #rticle >+A as a
separate article for criminal negligence. (herefore$
criminal negligence$ according to him$ is not 0ust a
modality: it is a crime by itself$ but only a ,uasi6
offense.
71D: A .an t",'t "1 %"..ittin' (,i%i-! an-
2!nt "n t"$ "1 a tall *,il-in'. H! +,.$!-)
lan-in' "n (".!*"-# !l(!) 2" -i!-
in(tantl#. I( ! %ri.inall# lia*l!?
A: Jes. # felony may result not only from dolo but
also from culpa. If that fellow who was committing
suicide acted negligently$ he will be liable for
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
criminal negligence resulting in the death of
another.
71E: A a- *!!n %",rtin' = 1"r t! la(t 1i&!
#!ar(. = t"l- A) ;L!t ,( +,(t *! 1ri!n-(.
I 2ant a la2#!r 1"r a ,(*an- an- I
a&! alr!a-# 1",n- (".!*"-# 2". I
a'r!!- t" .arr#. An#2a#) t!r! ar!
(till a l"t "1 la-i!( ar",n-N #", 2ill (till
a&! #",r %an%! 2it an"t!r la-#.<
A) tr#in' t" ("2 tat ! i( a ($"rt)
2!nt -"2n 1r". t! ",(! "1 =) 2!nt
in(i-! i( %ar) an- (t!$$!- "n t!
a%%!l!rat"r t" t! li.it) %l"(!- i( !#!()
(tart!- t! &!i%l!. T! &!i%l!
B"".!-) r,nnin' "&!r all $!-!(trian(
"n t! (tr!!t. At t! !n-) t! %ar
(t"$$!- at t! 1!n%!. H! 2a( taA!n t"
t! "($ital) an- ! (,r&i&!-. Can !
*! !l- %ri.inall# lia*l! 1"r all t"(!
inn"%!nt $!"$l! tat ! ran "&!r)
%lai.in' tat ! 2a( %"..ittin'
(,i%i-!?
A: /e will be criminally liable$ not for an
intentional felony$ but for culpable felony. (his
is so because$ in paragraph 1 of #rticle ?$ the
term used is 1felony$2 and that term covers
both dolo and culpa.
71F: A $r!'nant 2".an t",'t "1 Aillin'
!r(!l1 *# %li.*in' ,$ a tall *,il-in'
an- +,.$!- -"2n *!l"2. In(t!a- "1
1allin' in t! $a&!.!nt) (! 1!ll "n t!
"2n!r "1 t! *,il-in'. An a*"rti"n
r!(,lt!-. I( (! lia*l! 1"r an
,nint!nti"nal a*"rti"n? I1 n"t) 2at
$"((i*l! %ri.! .a# a&! *!!n
%"..itt!-?
A: (he relevant matter is whether the pregnant
woman could commit unintentional abortion
upon herself. (he answer is no because the
way the law defines unintentional abortion$ it
re,uires physical violence coming from a third
party. Chen a pregnant woman does an act
that would bring about abortion$ it is always
intentional. Dnintentional abortion can only
result when a third person employs physical
violence upon a pregnant woman resulting to
an unintended abortion.
715: A ar",(!- t! ir! "1 !r ,(*an-) B.
In%!n(!- 2it an'!r al."(t *!#"n- i(
%"ntr"l) B %",l- n"t !l$ *,t in1li%t
$#(i%al in+,ri!( "n A. M".!nt( a1t!r B
(tart!- ittin' A 2it i( 1i(t() A
(,--!nl# %".$lain!- "1 (!&!r! %!(t
$ain(. B) r!aliBin' tat A 2a( in (!ri",(
tr",*l!) i..!-iat!l# *r",'t !r t" t!
"($ital. D!($it! !11"rt( t" all!&iat! AL(
$ain() (! -i!- "1 a !art atta%A. It
t,rn!- ",t (! 2a( (,11!rin' 1r". a
!art ail.!nt. 0at %ri.!) i1 an#) %",l-
B *! !l- ',ilt# "1?
A: .arricide. #lthough # died of a heart attack$ the
said attack was generated by -s felonious act of
hitting her with his fists. %uch felonious act was
the immediate cause of the heart attack$ having
materially contributed to and hastened #s death.
Even though - had no intent to kill his wife$ lack of
such intent is of no moment when the victim dies.
-. however$ may be given the mitigating
circumstance of having acted without intent to
commit so grave a wrong (#rt. 1>(>'$ ;."'.
72@: On i( 2a# ".! 1r". t! "11i%!) CC r"-! in
a +!!$n!#. S,*(!H,!ntl#) == *"ar-!- t!
(a.! +!!$n!#. U$"n r!a%in' a (!%l,-!-
($"t in 7C) == $,ll!- ",t a 'r!na-! 1r".
i( *a' an- ann",n%!- a "l-G,$. H! t"l-
CC t" (,rr!n-!r i( 2at%) 2all!t an-
%!ll$"n!. F!arin' 1"r i( li1!) CC +,.$!-
",t "1 t! &!i%l!. B,t a( ! 1!ll) i( !a-
it t! $a&!.!nt) %a,(in' i( in(tant
-!at. I( == lia*l! 1"r CCL( -!at? E/$lain
*ri!1l#.
A: (%uggested'5 Jes$ UU is liable for FFs death
because his acts of pulling a grenade and
announcing a hold6up$ coupled with a demand for
the watch$ wallet and cellphone of FF is felonious$
and such felonious act was the proximate cause of
FFs 0umping out of the 0eepney$ resulting in the
latters death. %tated otherwise$ the death of FF
was the direct$ natural and logical conse,uence of
UUs felonious act which created an immediate
sense of danger in the mind of FF who tried to
avoid such danger by 0umping out of the 0eepney
(.eople v. #rpa$ &! %";# 1<>+'.
721: T! 1a%t( 2!r! "n! "1 a*!rrati" i%t,() *,t
t! 1a%t( (tat!- tat t! "11!n-!r ai.!-
%ar!l!((l# in 1irin' t! ("t. I( t! 1!l"n#
t! r!(,lt "1 -"l" "r %,l$a? 0at %ri.! 2a(
%"..itt!-?
A: #ll three instances under paragraph 1$ #rticle ?
are the product of dolo. In aberratio ictus$ error in
personae and praeter intentionem$ never think of
these as the product of culpa. (hey are always the
result of an intended felony$ and$ hence dolo. Jou
cannot have these situations out of criminal
negligence. (he crime committed is attempted
homicide or attempted murder$ not homicide
through reckless imprudence.
722: A%%,(!- 2a( a ",(!*"# in a ",(! 2!r!
"nl# a ($in(t!r r!(i-!(. It i( %,(t".ar# 1"r
t! ($in(t!r t" (l!!$ in t! n,-! *!%a,(!
!r r"". 2a( 2ar.. It 2a( al(" t! a*it
"1 t! ",(!*"# tat 2!n!&!r (! !nt!r(
!r r"".) t! ",(!*"# 2",l- 1"ll"2 an-
$!!A int" t! A!#"l!. Finall#) 2!n t!
",(!*"# %",l- n" l"n'!r r!(i(t t! ,r'!)
! %li.*!- int" t! %!ilin') 2!nt in(i-! t!
r"". "1 i( .a(t!r) $la%!- i.(!l1 "n t"$
"1 !r an- a*,(!- !r) n"t An"2in' tat
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
(! 2a( alr!a-# -!a- 1i&! .in,t!(
!arli!r. 0a( an i.$"((i*l! %ri.!
%"..itt!-?
A: Jes. -efore$ the act performed by the offender
could not have been a crime against person or
property. (he act performed would have been
constituted a crime against chastity. #n
impossible crime is true only if the act done
by the offender constitutes a crime against
person or property. /owever$ with new rape
law amending the ;evised .enal "ode and
classifying rape as a crime against persons$ it
is now possible that an impossible crime was
committed. 4ote$ however$ that the crime
might also fall under the ;evised
#dministrative "odeMdesecrating the dead.
723: A 2a( -ri&in' i( %ar ar",n- R"/a(
B",l!&ar- 2!n a $!r("n it%!- a
ri-!. B!%a,(! ti( $!r("n 2a(
!/H,i(it!l# -r!((!-) A r!a-il#
2!l%".!- t! 1!ll"2 in(i-! i( %ar an-
! %"ntin,!- -ri&in'. 0!n ! r!a%!-
a ."t!l) A (,--!nl# (2!r&!- i( %ar
in(i-!. A (tart!- Ai((in' i( $a((!n'!r)
*,t ! 1",n- ",t tat i( $a((!n'!r
2a( n"t a 2".an *,t a .an) an- (" !
$,(!- i. ",t "1 t! %ar an- 'a&! i.
1i(t *l"2(. I( an i.$"((i*l! %ri.!
%"..itt!-? I1 n"t) i( t!r! an# %ri.!
%"..itt!- at all?
A: It cannot be an impossible crime$ because the
act would have been a crime against chastity.
(he crime is physical in0uries or acts of
lasciviousness$ if this was done against the
will of the passenger. (here are two ways of
committing acts of lasciviousness.
Dnder #rticle >>+$ where the acts of
lasciviousness were committed under
circumstances of rape$ meaning to say$ there
is employment of violence or intimidation or
the victim is deprived of reason. Even if the
victim is a man$ the crime of acts of
lasciviousness is committed. (his is a crime
that is not limited to a victim who is a woman.
#cts of lasciviousness re,uire a victim to be a
woman only when it is committed under the
circumstances of seduction. If it is committed
under the circumstances of rape$ the victim
may be a man or a woman. (he essence of an
impossible crime is the inherent impossibility
of accomplishing the crime or the inherent
impossibility of the means employed to bring
about the crime. Chen we say inherent
impossibility$ this means that under any and
all circumstances$ the crime could not have
materiali)ed. If the crime could have
materiali)ed under a different set of facts$
employing the same mean or the same act$ it
is not an impossible crime: it would be an
attempted felony.
Dnder #rticle ?$ paragraph &$ impossible crime
is true only when the crime committed would
have been against person or against property.
It is therefore important to know what are the
crimes against (itle BIII$ against persons and
those against property under (itle U. #n impossible
crime is true only to any of those crimes.
728: A !nt!r!- a -!$art.!nt (t"r! at a*",t
.i-ni't) 2!n it 2a( alr!a-# %l"(!-. H!
2!nt -ir!%tl# t" t! r"". 2!r! t! (a1! "r
&a,lt 2a( *!in' A!$t. H! (,%%!!-!- in
"$!nin' t! (a1!) *,t t! (a1! 2a( !.$t#.
I( an i.$"((i*l! %ri.! %"..itt!-? I1 n"t)
2at %ri.! 2a( $"((i*l# %"..itt!-?
A: (his is not an impossible crime. (hat is only true if
there is nothing more to steal. -ut in a department
store$ there is plenty to steal$ not only the money
inside the vault or safe. (he fact that the vault had
turned out to be empty is not really inherently
impossible to commit the crime of robbery. (here
are other things that he could take. (he crime
committed therefore is attempted robbery$
assuming that he did not lay his hands on any
other article. (his could not be trespass to dwelling
because there are other things that can be stolen.
729: A an- B 2!r! l"&!r(. B 2a( 2illin' t" .arr#
A !/%!$t tat A i( alr!a-# .arri!-. A
t",'t "1 Aillin' i( 2i1!. H! $r!$ar!- !r
*r!aA1a(t !&!r# ."rnin') an- !&!r#
."rnin') ! $la%!- a littl! -"(! "1 ar(!ni%
$"i("n int" t! *r!aA1a(t "1 t! 2i1!. T!
2i1! %"n(,.!- all t! 1""- $r!$ar!- *# !r
,(*an- in%l,-in' t! $"i("n *,t n"tin'
a$$!n!- t" t! 2i1!. B!%a,(! "1 t!
&"l,.! "1 t! ",(!"l- %"r!( tat t!
2i1! a- t" att!n- t" -ail#) (! -!&!l"$!- a
$#(i%al %"n-iti"n tat r!n-!r!- !r (tr"n'
an- r!(i(tant t" an# Ain- "1 $"i("nin') ("
t! a.",nt "1 $"i("n a$$li!- t" !r
*r!aA1a(t a- n" !11!%t "n !r. I( t!r! an
i.$"((i*l! %ri.!?
A: 4o impossible crime is committed because the fact
itself stated that what prevented the poison from
taking effect is the physical condition of the
woman. %o it implies that if the woman was not of
such physical condition$ the poison would have
taken effect. /ence$ it is not inherently impossible
to reali)e the killing. (he crime committed is
frustrated parricide.
If it were a case of poisoning$ an impossible crime
would be constituted if a person who was thinking
that it was a poison that he was putting into the
food of the intended victim but actually it was
vetsin or sugar or soda. Dnder any and all
circumstances$ the crime could not have been
reali)ed. -ut if due to the ,uantity of the vetsin$
sugar or soda$ the intended victim developed @-M
and was hospitali)ed$ then it would not be a case
of impossible crime anymore. It would be a case of
physical in0uries$ if the act done does not amount
to some other crime under the ;evised .enal
"ode.
Go not confuse an impossible crime with the
attempted or frustrated stage.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
72D: S%"tt an- Carl!( ar! r""..at!( in a
*"ar-in' ",(!. E&!r#-a#) S%"tt l!a&!(
1"r 2"rA *,t *!1"r! l!a&in' ! 2",l-
l"%A t! 1""- %a*in!t 2!r! ! A!$t i(
1""-. Carl!( r!(!nt!- ti(. On! -a#)
! '"t an !l!%tri% %"r-) ti!- t! "n! !n-
t" t! -""r An"2 an- $l,''!- t! "t!r
!n- t" an !l!%tri% ",tl!t. T! i-!a 2a(
tat) 2!n S%"tt %".!( ".! t" "$!n
t! -""rAn"*) ! 2",l- *!
!l!%tr"%,t!-. UnAn"2n t" Carl!()
S%"tt i( 2"rAin' in an !l!%tri% ("$
2!r! ! r!%!i&!- a -ail# -"(a'! "1
!l!%tri% ("%A. 0!n S%"tt "$!n!- t!
-""rAn"*) n"tin' a$$!n!- t" i.. H!
2a( +,(t (,r$ri(!- t" 1in- ",t tat
t!r! 2a( an !l!%tri% %"r- $l,''!- t"
t! ",tl!t an- t! "t!r !n- t" t!
-""rAn"*. 0a( an i.$"((i*l! %ri.!
%"..itt!-?
A: It is not an impossible crime. (he means
employed is not inherently impossible to bring
about the conse,uence of his felonious act.
Chat prevented the consummation of the
crime was because of some cause
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
72E: A an- B ar! !n!.i!(. A) ,$"n (!!in' B)
'"t t! r!&"l&!r "1 i( 1at!r) ("t B)
*,t t! r!&"l&!r -i- n"t -i(%ar'!
*!%a,(! t! *,ll!t( 2!r! "l-) n"n! "1
t!. -i(%ar'!-. 0a( an i.$"((i*l!
%ri.! %"..itt!-?
A: 4o. It was purely accidental that the firearm
did not discharge because the bullets were
old. If they were new$ it would have fired.
(hat is a cause other than the spontaneous
desistance of the offender$ and therefore$ an
attempted homicide.
-ut if let us say$ when he started s,uee)ing
the trigger$ he did not reali)e that the firearm
was empty. (here was not bullet at all. (here
is an impossible crime$ because under any and
all circumstance$ an unloaded firearm will
never fire.
Chenever you are confronted with a problem
where the facts suggest that an impossible
crime was committed$ be careful about the
,uestion asked. If the ,uestion asked is5 1Is
an impossible crime committedK2 (hen you
0udge that ,uestion on the basis of the facts.
If the facts really constitute an impossible
crime$ then you suggest that an impossible
crime is committed$ then you state the reason
for the inherent impossibility.
If the ,uestion asked is 1Is he liable for an
impossible crimeK2 this is a tricky ,uestion.
Even though the facts constitute an impossible
crime$ if the act done by the offender
constitutes some other crimes under the ;evised
.enal "ode$ he will not be liable for an impossible
crime. /e will be prosecuted for the crime so far
by the act done by him. (he reason is an offender
is punished for an impossible crime 0ust to teach
him a lesson because of his criminal perversity.
#lthough ob0ectively$ no crime is committed$ but
sub0ectively$ he is a criminal. (hat purpose of the
law will also be served if he is prosecuted for some
other crime constituted by his acts which are also
punishable under the ;evised .enal "ode.
72F: A an- B ar! n!i'*"r(. T!# ar! +!al",( "1
!a% "t!rL( ("%ial (tat,(. A t",'t "1
Aillin' B (" A %li.*!- t! ",(! "1 B
tr",' t! 2in-"2 an- (ta**!- B "n t!
!art) n"t An"2in' tat B -i!- a 1!2
.in,t!( a'" "1 *an',n'"t. I( A lia*l! 1"r
an i.$"((i*l! %ri.!?
A: 4o. # shall be liable for ,ualified trespass to
dwelling. #lthough the act done by # against -
constitutes an impossible crime$ it is the principle
of criminal law that the offender shall be punished
for an impossible crime only when his act cannot
be punished under some other provision of the
;evised .enal "ode.
In other words$ this idea of an impossible crime is
one of last resort$ 0ust to teach the offender a
lesson because of his criminal perversity. If he
could be taught of the same lesson by charging
him with some other crime constituted by his act$
then that will be the proper way. If you want to
play safe$ you state there that although an
impossible crime is constituted$ yet it is a principle
of criminal law that he will only be penali)ed for an
impossible crime if he cannot be punished under
some other provision of the ;evised .enal "ode.
If the ,uestion is 1Is an impossible crime
committedK2$ the answer is yes$ because on the
basis of the facts stated$ an impossible crime is
committed. -ut to play safe$ add another
paragraph5 /owever$ the offender will not be
prosecuted for an impossible crime but for VVVVV
3state the crime8. -ecause it is a principle in
criminal law that the offender can only be
prosecuted for an impossible crime if his acts do
not constitute some other crimes punishable under
the ;evised .enal "ode. #n impossible crime is a
crime of last resort.
725: A an- B ar! ,(*an- an- 2i1!. A .!t C 2"
2a( 2illin' t" .arr# i.) *,t ! i( alr!a-#
.arri!-. A t",'t "1 !li.inatin' B an- t"
$"i("n !r. S") ! 2!nt t" t! -r,'(t"r!
an- *",'t ar(!ni% $"i("n. On t! 2a# ",t)
! .!t D. D a(A!- i. 2" 2a( (i%A in t!
1a.il#) A %"n1i-!- t" D tat ! *",'t t!
$"i("n t" $"i("n i( 2i1! in "r-!r t" .arr#
C. A1t!r tat) t!# $art!- 2a#(. D 2!nt
-ir!%tl# t" t! $"li%! an- r!$"rt!- tat A i(
'"in' t" Aill i( 2i1!. S" t! $"li%!.!n
2!nt t" AL( ",(! an- 1",n- A (till
,n2ra$$in' t! ar(!ni% $"i("n. T!
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
$"li%!.!n a(A!- A i1 ! 2a( $lannin'
t" $"i("n i( 2i1! B an- A (ai- #!(. T!
$"li%! arr!(t!- i. an- %ar'!- i.
2it att!.$t!- $arri%i-!. I( t! %ar'!
%"rr!%t?
A: 4o. 7vert act begins when the husband mixed
the poison with the food his wife is going to
take. -efore this$ there is no attempted stage
yet.
73@: A a2aA!n!- "n! ."rnin' 2it a .an
(l!!$in' in i( ("1a. B!(i-! t! .an
2a( a *a' %"ntainin' $i%Al"%A( an-
(i.ilar t""l(. H! 1",n- ",t tat t!
.an !nt!r!- t! (ala *# %,ttin' t!
(%r!!n "n i( 2in-"2. I1 #", 2!r! t"
$r"(!%,t! ti( 1!ll"2) 1"r 2at %ri.!
ar! #", '"in' t" $r"(!%,t! i.?
A: (he act done by him of entering through an
opening not intended for the purpose is only
,ualified trespass. Oualified trespass because
he did so by cutting through the screen. (here
was force applied in order to enter. 7ther than
that$ under #rticle ><? of the ;evised .enal
"ode$ illegal possession of picklocks and
similar tools is a crime. (hus$ he can be
prosecuted for two crimes5 1. ,ualified
trespass to dwelling$ and &. illegal possession
of picklocks and similar tools: not complex
because one is not necessary means to
commit the other.
731: I( t!r! an att!.$t!- (li't $#(i%al
in+,ri!(?
A: If there is no result$ you do not know.
"riminal law cannot stand on any speculation
or ambiguity: otherwise$ the presumption of
innocence would be sacrificed. (herefore$ the
commentators opinion cannot stand because
you cannot tell what particular physical
in0uries was attempted or frustrated unless
the conse,uence is there. Jou cannot classify
the physical in0uries.
732: A tr!2 .,riati% a%i- "n t! 1a%! "1 B.
T! in+,ri!( 2",l- a&! r!(,lt!- in
-!1"r.it# 2!r! it n"t 1"r ti.!l# $la(ti%
(,r'!r#. A1t!r t! (,r'!r#) B *!%a.!
."r! an-(".!. 0at %ri.! i(
%"..itt!-? I( it att!.$t!-) 1r,(trat!-
"r %"n(,..at!-?
A: (he crime committed here is serious physical
in0uries because of the deformity. Chen there
is deformity$ you disregard the healing
duration of the wound or the medical
treatment re,uired by the wound. In order
that in law$ a deformity can be said to exist$
three factors must concur5
1. (he in0ury should bring about the
ugliness:
&. (he ugliness must be visible:
>. (he ugliness would not disappear through
natural healing process.
#long this concept of deformity in law$ the plastic
surgery applied to - is beside the point. In law$
what is considered is not the artificial or the
scientific treatment but the natural healing of the
in0ury. %o the fact that there was plastic surgery
applied to - does not relieve the offender from the
liability for the physical in0uries inflicted. (he crime
committed is serious physical in0uries. It is
consummated. In determining whether a felony is
attempted$ frustrated or consummated$ you have
to consider the manner of committing the felony$
the element of the felony and the nature of the
felony itself. (here is no real hard and fast rule.
733: Uni"n A $r"$"(!- a%t( "1 (!-iti"n t" Uni"n
B. I( t!r! a %ri.! %"..itt!-? A((,.in'
Uni"n B a%%!$t( t! $r"$"(al) 2ill #",r
an(2!r *! -i11!r!nt?
A: (here is no crime committed. .roposal to commit
sedition is not a crime. -ut if Dnion - accepts the
proposal$ there will be conspiracy to commit
sedition which is a crime under the ;evised .enal
"ode.
738: T!r! ar! (!&!ral "11!n-!r( 2" a%t!-
(i.,ltan!",(l#. 0!n t!# 1l!-) a &i%ti.
2a( 1",n- -!a-. 0" (",l- *! lia*l! 1"r
t! Aillin' i1 2" a%t,all# Aill!- t! &i%ti.
i( n"t An"2n?
A: (here is collective responsibility here. Cithout the
principle of conspiracy$ nobody would be
prosecuted: hence$ there is the rule on collective
responsibility since it cannot be ascertained who
actually killed the victim.
739: St"r! +anit"r( A O B $lann!- t" Aill t!ir
!.$l"#!r C at .i-ni't an- taA! t! ."n!#
A!$t in t! %a( r!'i(t!r. A O B t"'!t!r
-r!2 t! (A!t% "1 t! (t"r!) 2!r! t!#
An!2 C 2",l- *! (l!!$in') an- $lann!- t!
(!H,!n%! "1 t!ir atta%A. S"rtl# *!1"r!
.i-ni't) A O B 2!r! r!a-# t" %arr# ",t t!
$lan. 0!n A 2a( a*",t t" li1t CL( ."(H,it"
n!t t" tr,(t t! -a''!r) a $"li%! %ar 2it
(ir!n( *larin' $a((!- *#. S%ar!-) B ran
",t(i-! t! (t"r! an- 1l!-) 2il! A 2!nt "n
t" (ta* C t" -!at) $,t t! ."n!# in t!
*a' an- ran ",t(i-! t" l""A 1"r B. T! latt!r
2a( n"2!r! in (i't. UnAn"2n t" i.) B
alr!a-# l!1t t! $la%!. 0at 2a( t!
$arti%i$ati"n an- %"rr!($"n-in' %ri.inal
lia*ilit# "1 !a%) i1 an#?
A: (%uggested'5 (here was an expressed conspiracy
between # and - to kill " and take his money. (he
planned killing and taking of the money appears to
be intimately related as component crimes$ a
special complex crime of robbery and homicide.
(he conspiracy being expressed$ both are bound
as co6conspirators after they have planned and
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
agreed on the se,uence of attack prior to the
commission of the crime. In conspiracy$ the
act of one is the act of all.
(#lternative'5 7nly # is liable for robbery with
homicide. - spontaneously desisted before all
acts of execution were performed. "onspiracy
to rob and kill is not per se punishable.
73D: Stat! t! %"n%!$t "1 ;i.$li!-
%"n($ira%#< an- 'i&! it( l!'al !11!%t(.
A: #n 1implied conspiracy2 is one which is only
inferred or deduced from the manner the
participants in the commission of the crime
carried out its execution. Chere the offenders
acted in concert in the commission of the
crime$ meaning their acts are coordinated or
synchroni)ed in a way indicative of a common
criminal ob0ective$ they are deemed acting in
conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be
collective.
(he legal effects of implied conspiracy are5
1. 4ot all those present at the crime
scene will be considered conspirators:
&. 7nly those who participated in the
criminal acts during the commission of
the crime will be considered co6
conspirators:
>. Mere ac,uiescence to or approval of
the commission of the crime$ without any
act of criminal participation$ shall not
render one criminally liable as co6
conspirator.
73E: Di(tin',i( 1,ll# *!t2!!n !ntra$.!nt
an- in(ti'ati"n. E/!.$li1# !a%.
A: In entrapment$ the criminal design originates
from and is already in the mind of the
lawbreaker even before entrapment. (he law
enforcers merely resort to ways and means
for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in
flagrante delicto. (his circumstance is no bar
to the prosecution and conviction of the
lawbreaker.
Example of entrapment 6 6 #$ a government
anti6narcotics agent$ acted as a poseur buyer
of shabu and negotiated with -$ a suspected
drug pusher who is unaware that # is a police
officer. # then paid - in marked money and
the latter handed over a sachet of shabu.
Dpon signal$ the cops closed in on -.
In instigation$ the idea and design to bring
about the commission of the crime originated
in the mind of the law enforcers. (hey induce
or incite a person not otherwise minded to
commit a crime and would not otherwise
commit it to do so. (his absolved the accused
from liability.
Example of instigation 6 6 #$ leader of an anti6
narcotics team$ approached and persuaded -
to act as a buyer of shabu and transact with
"$ a suspected pusher. - was given marked money
to pay " for a sachet of shabu. #fter the sale was
consummated$ the cops closed in and arrested
both - and ".
73F: T! $!r("n *!in' -!1!n-!- 2a( a r!lati&!P
a 1ir(t %",(in. B,t t! 1!ll"2 2" Aill!- t!
a''r!(("r a- (".! (%"r! t" (!ttl! 2it t!
a''r!(("r. I( ! !ntitl!- t" a +,(ti1#in'
%ir%,.(tan%!?
A: Jes. In law$ the condition that a person making
the defense did not act out of revenge$ resentment
or evil motive is not a re,uirement in defense of
relative. (his is only re,uired in defense of
strangers.
735: BB an- CC) *"t ar.!- 2it Ani&!()
atta%A!- FT. T! &i%ti.L( ("n) ST) ,$"n
(!!in' t! atta%A) -r!2 i( ',n *,t 2a(
$r!&!nt!- 1r". (""tin' t! atta%A!r( *#
AA) 2" 'ra$$l!- 2it i. 1"r t!
$"((!((i"n "1 t! ',n. FT -i!- 1r". Ani1!
2",n-(. AA) BB an- CC 2!r! %ar'!- 2it
.,r-!r. In i( -!1!n(!) AA in&"A!- t!
+,(ti1#in' %ir%,.(tan%! "1 'r!at!r !&il "r
in+,r#) %"nt!n-in' tat *# $r!&!ntin' ST
1r". (""tin' BB an- CC) ! .!r!l#
a&"i-!- a 'r!at!r !&il. 0ill AAL( -!1!n(!
$r"($!r? R!a("n *ri!1l#.
A: 4o$ ##s defense will not prosper because
obviously there was a conspiracy among --$ ""
and ##$ such that the principle that when there is
a conspiracy$ the act of one shall be the act of all
shall govern. (he act of %($ the victims son$
appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives:
hence 0ustified as a defense of his father against
the unlawful aggression by -- and "". %(s act to
defend his fathers life cannot be regarded as an
evil inasmuch as it is$ in the eyes of the law$ a
lawful act.
Chat ## did was to stop a lawful defense$ not a
greater evil$ to allow -- and "" to achieve their
criminal ob0ective of stabbing 9(.
78@: A 2a( 2 ."nt( *!l"2 1F #!ar( "1 a'!
2!n ! %"..itt!- t! %ri.!. H! 2a(
%ar'!- 3 ."nt( lat!r an- 2a( 23 #!ar(
"l- 2!n ! 2a( 1inall# %"n&i%t!- an-
(!nt!n%!-. In(t!a- "1 $r!$arin' t" (!r&! a
+ail t!r.) ! (",'t a (,($!n(i"n "1
(!nt!n%! "n t! 'r",n- "1 *!in' a +,&!nil!
"11!n-!r. I( ! !ntitl!- t" (,($!n(i"n?
A: 4o$ # is not entitled to a suspension of sentence
since he is no longer a minor at the time of the
promulgation of the sentence. /e was already &>
years old. 9or purposes of suspension of sentence$
his age at the time of promulgation is the
determining factor$ not the age at the time of
commission of the offense.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
781: Can +,&!nil! "11!n-!r() 2" ar!
r!%i-i&i(t() &ali-l# a(A 1"r t!
(,($!n(i"n "1 (!nt!n%!?
A: JE%$ so long as the offender is still a minor at
the time of promulgation of sentence. ;#
>+9 provides that if the minor is found guilty$
the court should promulgate the sentence and
ascertain any civil liability incurred. /owever$
the sentence shall be suspended without need
of application pursuant to .G +<>. Dnder .G
+<>$ suspension of sentence is re,uired and
thereunder it is one of the conditions for
suspension of sentence that the convict is a
first time offender. ;# >+9 already displaced
such.
782: A 1EG#!ar "l- *"# %"..itt!- $arri%i-!.
0ill ! *! 'i&!n t! *!n!1it "1 t!
In-!t!r.inat! S!nt!n%! La2? T!n)
t! 1a%t( (tat!) $!nalt# 1"r $arri%i-! i(
r!%l,(i"n $!r$!t,a t" -!at.
A: Jou have learned that the Indeterminate
%entence @aw does not apply$ among other
situations$ when the penalty imposed is death
or life imprisonment. -ut then in the problem
given$ the offender is a 1!6year old boy$
therefore the penalty would go one degree
lower and the penalty for parricide which now
stands at reclusion perpetua will go down to
reclusion temporal. ;eclusion temporal is
already governed by the Indeterminate
%entence @aw.
(he answer$ therefore$ is yes. /e shall be
given the benefit of the Indeterminate
%entence @aw. #lthough the penalty
prescribed for the crime committed is
reclusion perpetua$ that is not the imposable
penalty$ since being 1! years old is a
privileged mitigating circumstance. (hat
privilege lowers the penalty by one degree.
(he imposable penalty$ therefore$ is reclusion
temporal. (he Indeterminate %entence @aw
applies to this and so the offender will be
given its benefit.
"riminal laws are to be construed always in a
manner liberal or lenient to the offender.
-etween giving the offender the benefit of the
Indeterminate %entence @aw and withholding
it away from him$ there is more reason to give
him its benefit. It is wrong for you to
determine whether the Indeterminate
%entence @aw will apply or not on the basis of
reclusion perpetua because that is not the
imposable penalty. (he moment you do that$
you disregard the privileged character of
minority. Jou are only treating it as an
ordinary mitigating circumstance. .rivileged
mitigating circumstances will apply over and
above all other considerations. Chen you
arrive at the correct penalty$ that is the time
when you find out whether the Indeterminate
%entence @aw will apply or not.
9or purposes of lowering the penalty by one or two
degrees$ the age of the offender at the time of the
commission of the crime shall be the basis$ not the
age of the offender at the time the sentence is to
be imposed. -ut for the purposes of suspension of
the sentence$ the age of the offender at the time
the crime was committed is not considered$ it is
the age of the offender at the time the sentence is
to be promulgated.
783: A 2a( 2alAin' in 1r"nt "1 t! ",(! "1 B. B
at tat ti.! 2a( 2it i( *r"t!r C. C t"l- B
tat (".!ti.! in t! $a(t) A *"/!- i.)
an- *!%a,(! ! 2a( (.all) ! -i- n"t 1i't
*a%A. B a$$r"a%!- A an- *"/!- i.) *,t A
%ann"t it *a%A at B *!%a,(! B i( *i''!r) ("
A *"/!- C. Can A in&"A! (,11i%i!nt
$r"&"%ati"n t" .iti'at! %ri.inal lia*ilit#?
A: 4o. %ufficient provocation must come from the
offended party. (here may actually be sufficient
provocation which immediately preceded the act$
but if the provocation did not come from the
person offended$ paragraph ? of #rticle 1> will not
apply.
788: 0!n 2",l- H,ali1#in' %ir%,.(tan%!( *!
-!!.!-) i1 at all) !l!.!nt( "1 a %ri.!?
A: # ,ualifying circumstance would be deemed an
element of a crime when 6 6
1. it changes the nature of the offense$ bringing
about a more serious crime and a heavier
penalty:
&. it is essential to the crime involved$ otherwise
some other crime is committed:
>. it is specifically alleged in the information
and proven during the trial.
789: In 15E9) t! (a.! "11!n-!r %"..itt!-
r"**!r#. 0il! t! (a.! 2a( *!in' tri!- in
15EF) ! %"..itt!- t!1t. In 15F@) ! 2a(
%"n&i%t!- "1 t!1t an- ! -i- n"t a$$!al t!
-!%i(i"n. T! trial 1"r r"**!r# !n-!- in
15F1. Ma# t! +,-'! in i.$"(in' t!
$!nalt# 1"r r"**!r# %"n(i-!r t! a%%,(!- a
r!%i-i&i(t %"n(i-!rin' tat ! 2a( alr!a-#
%"n&i%t!- in 15F@ 1"r t! %ri.! "1 t!1t
2i% i( ,n-!r t! (a.! titl! "1 t! R!&i(!-
P!nal C"-! a( tat "1 r"**!r#?
A: 4o$ because the robbery which was committed
earlier would be decided later. It must be the
other way around. (his is because in 19!A when
he committed the robbery$ there was no crime
committed yet. (hus$ even though in imposing the
penalty for robbery$ there was already a prior
conviction$ if that conviction is subse,uent to the
commission of robbery$ he is not a recidivist. If
you will interpret the definition of recidivism$ this
would seem to be covered but that is not so.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
78D: Ma# "n! 2" $r"1it!- ",t "1 t!
$r"%!!-( "1 !(ta1a "r .al&!r(ati"n *!
$r"(!%,t!- ,n-!r t! AntiGF!n%in'
La2?
A: 4o. (here is only a fence when the crime is
theft or robbery. If the crime is embe))lement
or estafa$ he is still an accessory to the crime
of estafa$ not a fence.
78E: I1 $rin%i$al %"..itt!- r"**!r# *#
(nat%in' a 2ri(t2at% an- 'a&! it t"
i( 2i1! t" (!ll) i( t! 2i1! %ri.inall#
lia*l!? Can (! *! $r"(!%,t!- a( an
a%%!(("r# an- a( a 1!n%!?
A: (he liability of the wife is based on her
assisting the principal profit and that act is
punishable as fencing. %he will no longer be
liable as an accessory to the crime of robbery.
In both laws$ .G 1+1& and the ;evised .enal
"ode$ the same act is the basis of liability and
you cannot punish a person twice for the
same act as that would go against the double
0eopardy rule.
78F: I1 t! "11!n-!r a( alr!a-# *!!n
r!l!a(!-) 2at i( t! ,(! "1 %"ntin,in'
t! $r"%!!-in'(?
A: (he proceedings will determine whether or not
the accused is liable. If he is criminally liable$
it follows that he is also civilly liable. (he civil
liability must be determined. (hat is why the
trial must go on.
785: I1 t! $!nalt# "1 (,($!n(i"n i( i.$"(!-
a( an a%%!(("r#) 2at i( t! -,rati"n?
A: Its duration shall be that of the principal
penalty.
79@: I1 t! $!nalt# "1 t!.$"rar#
-i(H,ali1i%ati"n i( i.$"(!- a( a
$rin%i$al $!nalt#) 2at i( t! -,rati"n?
A: (he duration is six years and one day to 1&
years.
791: 0at -" 2! r!1!r t" i1 it i( $!r$!t,al "r
t!.$"rar# -i(H,ali1i%ati"n?
A: Ce refer to the duration of the
dis,ualification.
792: 0at -" 2! r!1!r t" i1 it i( ($!%ial "r
a*("l,t! -i(H,ali1i%ati"n?
A: Ce refer to the nature of the dis,ualification.
793: 0at a%%!(("r# $!nalt# i( %".."n t"
all $rin%i$al $!nalti!(?
A: "onfiscation or forfeiture of the instrument of the
proceeds of the crime.
798: I( t! *"n- t" A!!$ t! $!a%! t! (a.! a(
*"n- 1"r '""- *!a&i"r?
A: 4o. (he legal effect of each is entirely different.
(he legal effect of a failure to post a bond to keep
the peace is imprisonment either for >< days or +
months$ depending on whether the felony
committed is grave or less grave on the one hand$
or it is light only on the other hand. (he legal
effect of failure to post a bond for good behavior is
not imprisonment but destierro under #rticle &?.
799: T! -!at $!nalt# %ann"t *! in1li%t!- ,n-!r
2i% "1 t! 1"ll"2in' %ir%,.(tan%!(:
1. 0!n t! ',ilt# $!r("n in at l!a(t 1F
#!ar( "1 a'! at t! ti.! "1 t!
%"..i((i"n "1 t! %ri.!.
2. 0!n t! ',ilt# $!r("n i( ."r! tan
E@ #!ar( "1 a'!.
3. 0!n) ,$"n a$$!al "r a,t".ati%
r!&i!2 *# t! S,$r!.! C",rt) t!
r!H,ir!- .a+"rit# 1"r t! i.$"(iti"n
"1 t! -!at $!nalt# i( n"t "*tain!-.
8. 0!n t! $!r("n i( %"n&i%t!- "1 a
%a$ital %ri.! *,t *!1"r! !/!%,tin
*!%".!( in(an!.
9. 0!n t! a%%,(!- i( a 2".an 2il!
(! i( $r!'nant "r 2itin "n! #!ar
a1t!r -!li&!r#.
E/$lain #",r an(2!r an- %"i%! *ri!1l#.
A: (%uggested'5 Dnderstanding the word 1inflicted2 to
mean the imposition of death penalty$ not its
execution$ the circumstance in which the death
penalty cannot be inflicted is no.&5 1when the
guilty person is more than !< years of age2 (#rt.
?!$ ;evised .enal "ode'. Instead$ the penalty shall
be commuted to reclusion perpetua$ with the
accessory penalties provided in #rticle ?<$ ;.".
In circumstance no.1 when the guilty person is at
least 1 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime$ the death penalty can be
imposed since the offender is already of legal age
when he committed the crime.
"ircumstance no. > no longer operates$
considering the decision of the %upreme "ourt in
.eople v. Efren Mateo (=.;. 4o. 1?!+!6!$ *uly
!$ &<<?' providing an intermediate review for such
cases where the penalty imposed us death$
reclusiNn perpetua or life imprisonment before
they are elevated to the %upreme "ourt.
In circumstances no. ? W A$ the death penalty can
be imposed if prescribed by the law violated
although its execution shall be suspended when
the convict becomes insane before it could be
executed and while he is insane.
@ikewise$ the death penalty can be imposed upon
a woman but its execution shall be suspended
during her pregnancy and for one year after her
delivery.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
(#lternative'5 (he word 1I49@I"(EG2 is found
only in #rt. > to the effect that the death
penalty may not be 1I49@I"(EG2 upon a
pregnant woman$ such penalty is to be
suspended.
If 1I49@I"(EG2 is to be construed as
1EUE"D(I74$2 then 4o.A is the choice.
79D: T! $!nalt# i.$"(!- *# t! +,-'! i(
1in! "nl#. T! (!ri11 t!n tri!- t" l!&#
t! $r"$!rt# "1 t! -!1!n-ant a1t!r it
a( *!%".! 1inal an- !/!%,t"r#) *,t it
2a( r!t,rn!- ,n(ati(1i!-. T! %",rt
t!n i((,!- an "r-!r 1"r (ai- %"n&i%t t"
(,11!r t! (,*(i-iar# $!nalt#. T!
%"n&i%t 2a( -!tain!-) 1"r 2i% r!a("n
! 1il!- a $!titi"n 1"r a*!a( %"r$,(
%"nt!n-in' tat i( -!t!nti"n i( ill!'al.
0ill t! $!titi"n $r"($!r?
A: Jes. (he 0udgment became final without
statement as to subsidiary penalty$ so that
even if the convict has no money or property
to satisfy the fine$ he cannot suffer subsidiary
penalty because the latter is not an accessory
and so it must be expressly stated. If the
court overlooked to provide for subsidiary
penalty in the sentence and its attention was
later called to that effect$ thereafter$ it tried to
modify the sentence to include subsidiary
penalty after period to appeal had already
elapsed$ the addition of subsidiary penalty will
be null and void. (his is tantamount to double
0eopardy.
If the fine is prescribed with the penalty of
imprisonment or any deprivation of liberty$
such imprisonment should not be higher than
six years or prision correccional. 7therwise$
there is no subsidiary penalty.
79E: 0!n 2",l- t! In-!t!r.inat!
S!nt!n%! La2 *! ina$$li%a*l!?
A: (he Indeterminate %entence @aw is not
inapplicable to5
(1' .ersons convicted of offense punishable
with death penalty or life
imprisonment:
(&' .ersons convicted of treason$
conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason:
(>' .ersons convicted of misprision of
treason$ rebellion$ sedition$ espionage:
(?' .ersons convicted of piracy:
(A' .ersons who are habitual delin,uents:
(+' .ersons who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence:
(!' (hose who have been granted conditional
pardon by the "hief Executive and shall
have violated the term thereto:
(' (hose whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one year:
(9' (hose already sentenced by final 0udgment
at the time of the approval of Indeterminate
%entence @aw:
(1<' (hose whose sentence imposes penalties
which do not involve imprisonment$ like
destierro:
(11';eclusion perpetua is e,uated to life
imprisonment for purposes of the
Indeterminate %entence @aw. (here the said
law will be inapplicable to persons convicted
of offenses punishable with the said penalty
4P!"$l! &. EnriH,!B) Jr.6. #lthough the
penalty prescribed for the felony committed
is death or reclusion perpetua$ if after
considering the attendant circumstances$
the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal
or less$ the Indeterminate %entence @aw
applies (P!"$l! &. C!.$r"n) 1FE SCRA
2EF6.
79F: J,an 2a( %"n&i%t!- *# t! RTC "1 a %ri.!
an- (!nt!n%!- t" (,11!r a $!nalt# "1
i.$ri("n.!nt 1"r a .ini.,. "1 !i't
#!ar(. H! a$$!al!- *"t i( %"n&i%ti"n an-
t! $!nalt# i.$"(!- ,$"n i. t" t! CA.
CA (,(tain!- i( %"n&i%ti"n *,t r!-,%!- i(
(!nt!n%! t" a .a/. "1 8 #!ar( an- F
."nt(. C",l- J,an 1"rt2it 1il! an
a$$li%ati"n 1"r $r"*ati"n? E/$lain.
A: 4o. *uan can no longer apply for probation
because he appealed from the 0udgment of
conviction of the trial court. %ec. ? of the .robation
@aw mandates that no application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the accused has
perfected an appeal from a 0udgment of
conviction.
795: TRY 2a( 'i&!n t! -!at $!nalt#. B,t
(,*(!H,!ntl# ! 2a( 'rant!- $ar-"n *# t!
Pr!(i-!nt. T! $ar-"n 2a( (il!nt "n t!
$!r$!t,al -i(H,ali1i%ati"n "1 TRY t" "l-
an# $,*li% "11i%!. A1t!r i( $ar-"n) TRY ran
1"r "11i%! a( Ma#"r "1 APP) i( ".!t"2n.
Hi( "$$"n!nt (",'t t" -i(H,ali1# i.. TRY
%"nt!n-!- tat ! i( n"t -i(H,ali1i!-
*!%a,(! ! 2a( alr!a-# $ar-"n!- *# t!
Pr!(i-!nt ,n%"n-iti"nall#. I( TRYL(
%"nt!nti"n %"rr!%t? R!a("n *ri!1l#.
A: 4o$ (;Js contention is not correct. #rticle ?< of
the ;evised .enal "ode expressly provides that
when the death penalty is not executed by reason
of commutation or pardon$ the accessory penalties
of perpetual absolute dis,ualification and civil
interdiction during thirty (><' years from the date
of the sentence shall remain as the effects thereof$
unless such accessory penalties have been
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
expressly remitted in the pardon. (his is
because pardon only excuses the convict from
serving the sentence but does not relieve him
of the effects of the conviction unless
expressly remitted in the pardon.
7D@: O0 i( a $ri&at! $!r("n !n'a'!- in
%attl! ran%in'. On! ni't) ! (a2 AM
(ta* CV tr!a%!r",(l#) t!n tr"2 t!
.anL( *"-# int" a ra&in!. F"r 29 #!ar()
CVL( *"-# 2a( n!&!r (!!n n"r 1",n-N
an- O0 t"l- n" "n! 2at ! a-
2itn!((!-. Y!(t!r-a#) a1t!r %"n(,ltin'
t! $ari( $ri!(t) O0 -!%i-!- t" t!ll t!
a,t"riti!( 2at ! 2itn!((!-) an-
r!&!al!- tat AM Aill!- CV 29 #!ar(
a'". Can AM *! $r"(!%,t!- 1"r .,r-!r
-!($it! t! la$(! "1 29 #!ar(? R!a("n
*ri!1l#.
A: Jes$ #M can be prosecuted for murder despite
the lapse of &A years$ because the crime has
not yet prescribed and legally$ its prescriptive
period has not even commenced to run.
(he period of prescription of a crime shall
commence to run only from the day on which
the crime has been discovered by the
offended party$ the authorities or their agents
(#rticle 91$ ;."'. 7C$ a private person who
saw the killing but never disclosed it$ is not
the offended party nor has the crime been
discovered by the authorities or their agents.
7D1: Di(tin',i( *!t2!!n an "r-inar#
%".$l!/ %ri.! an- a ($!%ial %".$l!/
%ri.! a( t" t!ir %"n%!$t( an- a( t" t!
i.$"(iti"n "1 $!nalti!(.
A: #n ordinary complex crime is made up of & or
more crimes being punished in distinct
provisions of the ;." but alleged in one
information$ so that only 1 penalty will be
imposed$ because either they were brought
about by a single act or one offense was a
necessary means to commit another. (he
penalty for the most serious crime shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
7n the other hand$ a special complex crime is
made up of & or more crimes that are
considered only as components of a single
indivisible offense punished in one provision of
the ;.". (he component crimes are not
regarded as distinct crimes so only one
penalty is specifically prescribed for all of
them.
7D2: A l!arn!- t2" -a#( a'" tat B r!%!i&!-
-"llar *ill( 2"rt M1@)@@@ 1r". i(
-a,'t!r 2"rAin' in t! US. 0it t!
int!nti"n "1 r"**in' B) A !nt!r!- BL(
",(! at .i-ni't) ar.!- 2it a Ani1!
,(!- t" 'ain !ntr# an- *!'an H,i!tl#
(!ar%in' t! -ra2!r( an- "t!r liA!l#
r!%!$ta%l!( 1"r %a(. 0il! -"in' tat) B
a2"A!) r,(!- ",t "1 i( r"". an-
'ra$$l!- 2it A 1"r t! $"((!((i"n "1 t!
Ani1!. A (ta**!- B t" -!at) 1",n- t!
latt!rL( 2all!t *!n!at t! $ill"2) 2i%
2a( *,l'in' 2it t! -"llar *ill( ! 2a(
l""Ain' 1"r. A t""A t! *ill( an- l!1t t!
",(!. 0at %ri.!I( 2a(I2!r!
%"..itt!-?
A: (he crime committed was robbery with homicide$
a composite crime. #s primordial criminal intent is
to commit a robbery and in the course of the
robbery$ - was killed. -oth robbery and the killing
were consummated$ thus giving rise to the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. (he
primary criminal intent being to commit a robbery$
any killing on the 1occasion2 of the robbery$
though not by reason thereof$ is considered a
component of the crime of robbery with homicide
as a single indivisible offense.
7D3: 0at ar! t! %a(!( t! $r"&i(i"n( "1 t!
ROC ar! .a-! a$$li%a*l! !&!n i1 t! 1!l"n#
i( %"..itt!- ",t(i-! t! Pili$$in!(? 4Bar
1595) 15D8) 15E3) 15F26
A: In these cases when the offender5
1. "ommit an offense while on a .hilippine ship
or airship
&. 9orge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
of the .hilippines or obligations and
securities issued by the =overnment
>. be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into the .hilippines of the
obligations and securities (e.g. forged and
counterfeited coins$ notes$ obligations'
?. is an officer or employee and should commit
an offense in the exercise of his functions:
and
A. "ommit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations.
7D8: T! A.!ri%an %"n(,l a%%r!-it!- t" t!
Pili$$in!( 2il! -ri&in' i( %ar r!%Al!((l#
an- i.$r,-!ntl# al"n' R"/a( B",l!&ar-
*,.$!- a $!-!(trian 2" 2a( %r"((in' t!
(tr!!t an- t! latt!r -i!- a( a %"n(!H,!n%!
"1 i( in+,ri!(. Pr"(!%,t!- in %",rt 1"r t!
%ri.! "1 ".i%i-! tr, r!%Al!((
i.$r,-!n%!) t! C"n(,l %lai.!- -i$l".ati%
i..,nit# all!'in' tat ! i( n"t (,*+!%t t"
Pili$$in! la2 an- r!',lati"n(. I( i(
-!1!n(! t!na*l!? 4Bar 15E96
A: "onsuls under international law do not en0oy the
diplomatic immunity en0oyed by sovereigns or
heads of states$ ambassadors$ ministers
plenipotentiary and ministers resident: hence$ his
defense is not tenable because he could be
criminally prosecuted.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
7D9: P!nal la2 -!1in!( -i(tin%t %la((!( "1
%ri.!(. Di(%,(( an- !l,%i-at! "n t!ir
-i(tin%ti"n(. 4Bar 15EF6
A: .enal laws or crimes in general may refer to
any act or omission punishable by the ;."
and special laws. "rimes punished under the
;." are called felonies and those penali)ed by
special laws are called statutory offenses. #s a
rule felony is an act mala in se which is
wrongful from its very nature while an offense
is an act mala prohibita which is a wrong only
because there is a law punishing it.
Misdemeanors are infractions of the law such
as violations of ordinances.
;." also classifies felonies as intentional$ if
dolo or malice is present$ and culpable$ if
there is culpa or fault.
#ccording to gravity$ felonies are grave$ if
penalty is capital or afflictive in nay of its
periods: less grave$ if the penalty in its
maximum period is correctional: and light$ if
the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding .&<<.<< or both.
7DD: I( .ali%! "r %ri.inal int!nt an !((!ntial
r!H,i(it! "1 all %ri.!(? E/$lain 4Bar
15EF6
A: 4o. Malice or criminal intent is not an
essential element in all crimes. (his element is
only essential in crimes classifiable as mala in
se: however$ in offenses classified as mala
prohibita$ criminal intent is not an element.
7DE: Ma# %ri.inal int!nt *! $r!(,.!- t"
!/i(t? 4Bar 15EF6
A: %ince intent is a mental state$ the existence of
which is shown by the overt act of a person$
so criminal intent is presumed to exist only if
the act is unlawful. It does not apply if the act
is not criminal. (he presumption of criminal
intent may arise from proof of the criminal act
and it is for the accused to rebut this
presumption. /owever$ in some crimes intent
cannot be presumed being an integral element
thereof: so it has to be proven (i.e. in
frustrated homicide$ specific intent to kill is
not presumed but must be proven$ otherwise
it is merely physical in0uries'.
7DF: Di(tin',i( int!nt 1r". ."ti&! in
%ri.inal la2 4*ar 155D6
A: Motive is the moving power which impels one
to action for a definite result: whereas$ intent
is the purpose to use a particular means to
effect such results. Motive is not an essential
element of a felony and need not be proved
for purposes of conviction: while intent is an
essential element of felonies by dolo.
7D5: 0!n ar! li't 1!l"ni!( $,ni(a*l! an- 2"
ar! lia*l! 1"r li't 1!l"ni!(? 4Bar 15FF6
A: Dnder #rt. ! of the ;7"$ light felonies are
punishable only when they have been
consummated$ with the exception$ however$ of
those committed against persons or property.
.rincipals and accomplices are liable under #rt. 1+
of the ;.".
7E@: 0at i( .!ant *# i.$"((i*l! %ri.!? 4Bar
158E6 E/$lain i.$"((i*l! %ri.! 4Bar 1553)
2@@@6
A: #n impossible crime is an act which would be an
offense against person or property were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or
on account of the en0oyment of inade,uate or
ineffectual means.
7E1: B,--# al2a#( r!(!nt!- i( %la((.at!) J,n.
On! -a# B,--# $lann!- t" Aill J,n *#
.i/in' $"i("n in i( l,n%. N"t An"2in'
2!r! ! %an '!t $"i("n) ! a$$r"a%!-
an"t!r %la((.at!) J!rr# t" 2". !
-i(%l"(!- i( !&il $lan. B!%a,(! ! i.(!l1
ar*"r!- r!(!nt.!nt t"2ar-( J,n) J!rr#
'a&! B,--# a $"i("n) 2i% B,--# $la%!-
"n J,nL( 1""-. H"2!&!r) J,n -i- n"t -i!
*!%a,(! ,nAn"2n t" *"t B,--# an- J!rr#)
t! $"i("n 2a( a%t,all# $"2-!r!- .ilA.
4a6 0at %ri.! "r %ri.!() i1 an#) -i-
J!rr# an- B,--# %"..it 4Bar 15556
4*6 S,$$"(! tat) *!%a,(! "1 i( (!&!r!
all!r'# t" $"2-!r!- .ilA) J,n a- t"
*! "($italiB!- 1"r 1@ -a#( 1"r
in'!(tin' it. 0",l- #",r an(2!r t"
t! 1ir(t H,!(ti"n *! t! (a.! 4Bar
15556
A: (a' *erry and -uddy are liable for the so6called
impossible crime. In other words$ the act done
with criminal intent by *erry and -uddy would
have constituted a crime against person were it
not for the inherent inefficacy of the means
employed.
(b' 4o. (his time both are liable for less serious
physical in0uries$ for causing such hospitali)ation
resultant from mixing the food with powdered
milk.
7E2: A) B) C) an- D) all ar.!- 2it ar.alit!(
$r"%!!-!- t" t! ",(! "1 =. Y) a n!i'*"r
"1 =) 2" a$$!n!- t" *! $a((in' *#)
$"int!- t" t! 1",r %,l$rit( t! r"". tat =
"%%,$i!-. T! 1",r %,l$rit( $!$$!r!- t!
r"". 2it *,ll!t(. Un(ati(1i!-) A !&!n
tr!2 an- 'r!na-! tat t"tall# -!(tr"#!-
=L( r"".. H"2!&!r) ,nAn"2n t" t! 1",r
%,l$rit() = 2a( n"t in(i-! t! r"". an-
n"*"-# 2a( it "r in+,r!- -,rin' t!
in%i-!nt. Ar! A) B) C) an- D) lia*l! 1"r an#
%ri.!? E/$lain. 4Bar 2@@@6
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
A: Jes. #$ -$ "$ and G are chargeable or liable for
destructive arson because of the destruction
of Us room with the use of an explosive (hand
grenade'. #s noted$ liability for an impossible
crime is to be imposed only if the act would
not constitute any other crime under the ;.".
7E3: A a2aA!n!- "n! ."rnin' 2it a
(l!!$in' *a' in i( ("1a. B!(i-! t!
.an 2a( a *a' %"ntainin' $i%Al"%A(
an- (i.ilar t""l(. H! 1",n- ",t tat t!
.an !nt!r!- i( (ala *# %,ttin' t!
(%r!!n "n i( 2in-"2. I1 #", 2!r! t"
$r"(!%,t! ti( 1!ll"2) 1"r 2at %ri.!
ar! #", '"in' t" $r"(!%,t! i.?
A: /e cannot be charged for robbery because
there is no overt act to that direction.
/owever$ he can be charged with two crimes$
namely5 ,ualified trespass to dwelling and
illegal possession of picklocks and other
similar tools.
7E8: A) B) C) an- D all ar.!-) r"**!- a *anA)
an- 2!n t!# 2!r! a*",t t" '!t ",t "1
t! *anA) $"li%!.!n %a.! an- "r-!r!-
t!. t" (,rr!n-!r *,t t!# 1ir!- "n t!
$"li%! "11i%!r( 2" 1ir!- *a%A an- ("t
it ",t 2it t!..
4a6 S,$$"(!) a *anA !.$l"#!! 2a(
Aill!- an- t! *,ll!t 2i% Aill!-
i. %a.! 1r". t! 1ir!ar. "1 t!
$"li%! "11i%!r() 2it 2at %ri.!
(all #", %ar'! A) B) C) an- D?
4*6 S,$$"(!) it 2a( r"**!r D 2" 2a(
Aill!- *# t! $"li%!.!n an- t!
$r"(!%,t"r %ar'!- A) B) an- C 2it
r"**!r# an- ".i%i-!. T!#
-!.,rr!- ar',in' tat t!# 4A) B)
C6 2!r! n"t t! "n!( 2" Aill!-
r"**!r D) !n%!) t! %ar'! (",l-
"nl# *! r"**!r#. H"2 2",l- #",
r!("l&! t!ir ar',.!nt 4Bar 155F6
A: (a' (hey should be charged properly with the
crime of robbery with homicide (composite
crime' with all elements present because
there was death brought about by the acts of
said offenders on the occasion of such robbery
(.eople v %umallo$ ><! %";# A&1 (1999''
(b' (he argument is not tenable. (he filing of
composite crime of robbery with homicide is
correct. (he death of the robber is on the
occasion of such robbery (.eople v %umallo$
><! %";# A&1 (1999': .eople v .araiso >19
%";# ?&& (1999''. If two separate offenses
be filed we have anomalous situation of two
cases5 robbery against the robbers. /omicide
against the policemen.
7E9: Ar! %"n($ira%# an- $r"$"(al t" %"..it a
1!l"n# $,ni(a*l!? 0!n ar! t!#
%"n(i-!r!- 1!l"ni!(? 4Bar 15936
A: 4o$ generally$ unless there is a law which
specifically provides a penalty therefor. ;eason for
the rule5 conspiracy and proposals are only
preparatory acts.
7ED: Di(tin',i( %"n($ira%# t" %"..it a %ri.!
1r". %"n($ira%# a( a .!an( t" %"..it a
%ri.!? 4Bar 15936
A: In both cases there is an agreement but mere
conspiracy to commit a crime is not punished
except in treason$ rebellion$ coup detat$ sedition$
or arson. Even then$ if the treason for instance is
actually committed$ conspiracy will be considered
as a means of committing it and the accused will
all be liable for treason and not for conspiracy to
commit a crime. In conspiracy to commit a crime$
mere agreement is sufficient whereas$ in
conspiracy as a means to commit a crime$ overt
acts to reali)e the criminal purpose must also be
performed by the conspirators.
7EE: 0at i( t! -"%trin! "1 i.$li!- %"n($ira%#?
4Bar 15556
A: (he doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or
more persons participating in the commission of a
crime collectively responsible and liable as con6
conspirators although absent any agreement to
that effect$ when they act in concert$
demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a
common purpose or ob0ective. (he existence of a
conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their
criminal participation in pursuing a crime and thus
the act of one shall be deemed as the act of all.
7EF: A a- a 'r,-'!- a'ain(t F. D!%i-in' t" Aill
F) A an- i( 1ri!n-( B) C) an- D) ar.!-
t!.(!l&!( 2it Ani&!( an- $r"%!!-!- t"
t! ",(! "1 F) taAin' a ta/i%a* 1"r t!
$,r$"(!. A*",t 2@ .!t!r( 1r". t!ir
-!(tinati"n) t! 'r",$ ali't!- an- a1t!r
in(tr,%tin' E) t! -ri&!r) t" 2ait) tra&!l!-
"n 1""t t" t! ",(! "1 F. B $"(iti"n!-
i.(!l1 at a -i(tan%! a( t! 'r",$L(
l""A",t. C an- D (t""- ',ar- ",t(i-! t!
",(!. B!1"r! A %",l- !nt!r t! ",(!) D
l!1t t! (%!n! 2it",t t! An"2l!-'! "1
"t!r(. A (t!altil# !nt!r!- an- (ta**!- F.
F ran t" t! (tr!!t *,t 2a( *l"%A!- *# C)
1"r%in' i. t" 1l!! t"2ar-( an"t!r
-ir!%ti"n. I..!-iat!l# a1t!r A a- (ta**!-
F) A al(" (ta**!- G 2" 2a( &i(itin' F.
T!r!a1t!r) A !/it!- 1r". t! ",(! an-)
t"'!t!r 2it B an- C) r!t,rn!- t" t!
2aitin' ta/i%a* an- ."t"r!- a2a#. G -i!-)
F (,r&i&!-. 0" ar! lia*l! 1"r t! -!at "1
G an- t! $#(i%al in+,ri!( "1 F? 4Bar 155E6
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
A: 9or the death of =$ only # is solely liable
because he was never the ob0ect of
conspiracy. (he ob0ective is to kill 9 only.
-esides -$ "$ and G did not know about the
stabbing of =. -ut for the physical in0uries
(frustrated murder' of 9$ #$ -$ and " should
be all answerable being the ob0ect of such
conspiracy. E$ the driver has no liabilityMhe
was not part of the conspiracy and did not
know the stabbing of 9 and =.
7E5: D,rin' a t"2n 1i!(ta) a 1r!! 1"r all 1i't
!r,$t!- in t! $,*li% $laBa. A( a r!(,lt
"1 t! t,.,lt,",( a11ra#) A (,(tain!-
"n! 1atal an- tr!! (,$!r1i%ial (ta*
2",n-() ! -i!- a -a# a1t!r. B) C) D)
an- E 2!r! $r"&!n t" *! $arti%i$ant( in
t! r,.*l!) !a% ,(in' a Ani1! a'ain(t
A) *,t it %",l- n"t *! a(%!rtain!- 2")
a."n' t!.) in1li%t!- t! ."rtal
in+,r#. 0" (all *! !l- %ri.inall#
lia*l! 1"r t! -!at "1 A an- 1"r 2at?
4Bar 155E6
A: -$ "$ G$ and E$ proven participants in that
tumultuous affray are criminally liable for #s
death. (hey are all liable for the crime of
death caused in a tumultuous affray under
#rt. &A1 of the ;.".
7F@: =) Y) an- C 1ir!- t!ir ',n( al."(t
(i.,ltan!",(l# at t! $rin%i$al &i%ti.)
r!(,ltin' in i( -!at an- i( -ri&!r. I(
t!r! %"n($ira%# a."n' t! a%%,(!- in
t! %"..i((i"n "1 t! %ri.!? R!a("n
4Bar 15ED6
A: "onspiracy is evident by their simultaneous
firing and acting in concert to a common
ob0ective of unity of action and intention
(.eople v %an @uis A .hil ?A'. (o establish
conspiracy$ proof of previous agreement is not
necessary. It is enough that at the time of the
commission of the crime$ all the accused has
the same purpose and united in its execution
(.eople v -inasing$ et. #l. +> 7= A&<'. (he
existence of conspiracy may be inferred and
proven through the acts of the accused that
point to a common purpose$ a concert of
action or a community of interest (.eople v
Macahia >< %";# ?<? (1999''.
7F1: 0at ar! t! $ri.ar# an- (!%"n-ar#
%ir%,.(tan%!( a11!%tin' %ri.inal
lia*ilit#? Int" "2 .an# %la((!( "1
%ir%,.(tan%!( a11!%tin' %ri.inal
lia*ilit# -i&i-!-? 4Bar 158E) 15DE6
A: (he primary circumstances affecting criminal
liability are5
1. *ustifying circumstances (#rt. 11'
&. Exempting circumstances (#rt. 1&'
>. Mitigating circumstances (#rt. 1>'
?. #ggravating circumstances (#rt. 1?'
A. #lternative circumstances (art. 1A'
(he secondary circumstances affecting criminal
liability by way of addition are5
1. #bsolutory causes (#rt. &<$ <$ >&$ 1&?$ &<$
>??'
&. Extenuating circumstances
7F2: 4a6 0at ar! t! !((!ntial !l!.!nt( "1 (!l1G
-!1!n(!? 4Bar 158E) 15D@6N AND 4*6 0at
.,(t *! $r"&!n %l!arl# an- %"n&in%in'l# *#
t! a%%,(!- in&"Ain' (!l1 -!1!n(!?
A: (a' (he elements of self6defense are5
1. Dnlawful aggression
&. ;easonableness of the means employed
to prevent or repeal it
>. @ack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself
(b' %ince accused must rely on the strength of his
own evidence and not on the weakness of that of
the prosecution$ he must prove with clear and
convincing evidence5
1. (hat he was not the unlawful aggressor
&. (here was lack of sufficient provocation
on his part$ and
>. (hat he employed reasonable means to
prevent or repel the aggression
7F3: O(an') a .arri!- 2".an in !r !arl#
t2!nti!() 2a( (l!!$in' "n a *ani' "n t!
1l""r "1 t!ir ni$a ,t *!(i-! t! (!a("r!
2!n (! 2a( a2aA!n!- *# t! a%t "1 a
.an .",ntin' !r. TinAin' tat it 2a( !r
,(*an- Gar-") 2" a- r!t,rn!- 1r".
1i(in' in t! (!a) O(an' %"ntin,!- !r
(l!!$ an- all"2!- t! .an) 2" 2a(
a%t,all# t!ir n!i'*"r J,li" t" a&! (!/,al
int!r%",r(! 2it !r. A1t!r J,li" (ati(1i!-
i.(!l1) ! (ai- ;Sala.at O(an'<) a( !
t,rn!- t" l!a&!. Onl# t!n -i- O(an'
r!aliB! tat t! .an 2a( n"t !r ,(*an-.
Enra'!-) O(an' 'ra**!- a *ali("n' 1r".
t! 2all an- (ta**!- J,li" t" -!at. 0!n
tri!- 1"r ".i%i-! O(an' %lai.!- -!1!n(!
"1 "n"r. S",l- t! %lai. *! (,(tain!-?
4Bar 2@@@6
A: (he claim of defense of honor could not be
sustained in favor of 7sang because there was no
aggression when she stabbed *ulio. (he elements
of par. 1$ #rt. 11 are not all present.
/owever$ in the problem given$ 7sang may claim
mitigation on ground of immediate vindication of a
grave offense committed against her.
7F8: 0il! t!# 2!r! (tan-in' in lin! a2aitin'
t!ir &a%%inati"n at t! (%""l %lini%)
P".$lin' r!$!at!-l# $,ll!- ",t t! $"n#tail
"1 >atr!!na) i( 11 #!ar() 2 ."nt( an- 13
-a#( "l- %la((.at! in Gra-! 9 at t!
Sa.$al"% El!.!ntar# S%""l. Irritat!-)
>atr!!na t,rn!- ar",n- an- (2,n' at
P".$lin' 2it a *all$!n. T! t"$ "1 t!
*all$!n it t! ri't !#! "1 P".$lin' 2i%
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
*l!- $r"1,(!l#. R!aliBin' 2at (! a-
%a,(!-) >atr!!na i..!-iat!l# !l$!-
P".$lin'. 0!n in&!(ti'at!-) (! 1r!!l#
a-.itt!- t" t! (%""l $rin%i$al tat (!
2a( r!($"n(i*l! 1"r t! in+,r# t"
P".$lin'L( !#!. A1t!r t! a%%i-!nt (!
!/!%,t!- a (tat!.!nt a-.ittin' !r
%,l$a*ilit#. D,! t" t! in+,r# P".$lin'
l"(t i( ri't !#!.
4a6 I( >atr!!na %ri.inall# lia*l!? 0#?
4*6 Di(%,(( t! att!n-ant
%ir%,.(tan%!( an- !11!%t( t!r!"1?
4Bar 2@@@6
A: (a' 4o$ Iatreena is not criminally liable
because she is less than 1A years old and
therefore generally exempt thereof. In the
problem above there is no showing that she
acted with discernment. /er purpose is merely
to stop the vexatious act of .ompling pulling
her pony tail. (he in0ury is purely accidental.
(b' (he attendant circumstances are5
1. Minority of the accused which is an
exempting circumstance under par. >$
#rt. 1& of ;."
&. #ssuming there was discernment then the
attending circumstance would be
mitigatingMdiscretionary penalty of at
least & degrees lower than that prescribed
by law. %he is also entitled to suspension
of sentence under the Jouth and Celfare
"ode as amended and under %ec. A(a'$
;#47 >&+9 otherwise known as 9amily
"ourts of 199!.
>. #lso$ another mitigating circumstances not
intending to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed (par. > #rt. 1> ;."': and
ordinary mitigating circumstance of
sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the
act.
7F9: Di(tin',i( +,(ti1#in' %ir%,.(tan%!(
1r". !/!.$tin' %ir%,.(tan%!(. 4Bar
155F) 158F) 15956
A: Gistinguishing the two5
(1' # person who acts by virtue of a 0ustifying
circumstance does not transgress the
law: his act is both un0ust and lawful$
whereas$ in exempting circumstance$
there is a crime$ no criminal.
(&' (he rule in 0ustifying circumstances is that
since there is neither crime nor criminal$
no civil liability$ excepting par. ? (causing
damage to another in state of necessity':
in exempting circumstance while there is
no criminal$ there is civil liability$
excepting$ however$ pars. ? (in0ury by
accident' and ! (failing to act due to
some insuperable cause' of #rt. 1&$ ;.".
7FD: In "r-!r tat t! $l!a "1 ',ilt# .a# *!
.iti'atin') 2at r!H,i(it!( .,(t *!
%".$li!- 2it? 4Bar 15556
A: (hese three re,uisites entitle one to mitigation5
1. (hat the offender spontaneously confessed
his guilt
&. (hat the confession of guilty was made in
open court$ that is$ before the competent
court that is to try the case: and
>. that the confession of guilt was made prior to
the presentation of evidence for the
prosecution
7FE: Di(tin',i( '!n!ri% a''ra&atin'
%ir%,.(tan%!( 1r". H,ali1#in'
%ir%,.(tan%!(. 4Bar 15556
A: Gistinguishing them5
1. # generic aggravating circumstance can be
offset by an ordinary mitigating which is not
so in the case of ,ualifying aggravating
circumstance
&. # ,ualifying aggravating circumstance cannot
be proved as such unless alleged in the
information: whereas$ a generic aggravating
circumstance may be proved even though
not alleged. /owever$ a ,ualifying
aggravating circumstance not alleged in the
information may be proved as a generic
aggravating circumstance.
>. =eneric aggravating circumstances not offset
have the effect of increasing the penalty to
the maximum but not beyond that provided
by law. # ,ualifying aggravating
circumstance changes not only the nature
but also the name of the offense and the
offender becomes liable for the new offense
which is more serious in nature.
7FF: 0!n i( ni'tti.!) ,nina*it!- $la%! "r
*an- a''ra&atin'? 4Bar 15D36
A: 1. Chen it facilitated the commission of the crime:
or
&. Chen especially sought for by the offender to
insure the commission of the crime or for
the purpose of impunity
>. Chen the offender took advantage thereof for
the purpose of impunity
7F5: 0!n i( n"%t,rnit# I ni'tti.! I
n"%t,rni-a- an a''ra&atin' %ir%,.(tan%!?
4Bar 15D36
A: (he mere fact that the offense was committed at
nighttime will not suffice to sustain a finding of
nocturnity. -y and of itself$ nighttime is not an
aggravating circumstance$ however$ it becomes
only when5
1. It is especially sought by the offender: or
&. It is taken advantage of by him: and
>. It facilitates the commission of the crime by
ensuring the offenders immunity from
capture.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
4ighttime as an aggravating circumstance
must have been especially sought to
consummate the crime$ facilitate its success
or prevent recognition of the felon.
75@: 0at i( tr!a%!r#? 4Bar 158D6
A: (here 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 ensure its execution$ without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. (he essence of
treachery is that the attack comes without
warning and in a swift$ deliberate and
unexpected manner$ affording the hapless$
unarmed and suspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape.
751: 0!n i( r!lati"n(i$ a .iti'atin'
%ir%,.(tan%!? 4Bar 15D9) 15DF6
A: ;elationship is mitigating in the crimes of
robbery (#rts. &9?6><&'$ usurpation (#rt.
>1>'$ fraudulent insolvency (#rt. >1?'$ and
arson (#rt. >&16>&&$ #rt. >&A6>&+'.
;elationship is mitigating in trespass to
dwelling$ where son6in6law believing his wife
to be in his fathers house force an entry
thereof. Chen the offense committed is less
serious physical in0uries (#rt. &+A' or slight
physical in0uries (#rt. &++' relationship is
mitigating circumstance$ if the offended party
is a relative of a lower degree of the offender.
752: 0!n i( r!lati"n(i$ a''ra&atin'? 4Bar
15D96
A: In the following cases$ relationship is
aggravating5
1. Chen the offense committed is less serious
physical in0uries (#rt. &+A' or slight
physical in0uries (#rt. &++'$ relationship is
aggravating if the offended party is a
relative of a higher degree of the
offender.
&. Chen the crime against persons is homicide
or murder$ relationship is aggravating
even if the victim of the crime is a
relative of lower degree$ i.e.$ killing of a
stepfather by her stepmother is
aggravating.
>. In crimes against chastity$ like rape (art.
>>A'$ or acts of lasciviousness (#rt. >>+'
relationship is aggravating regardless of
whether the offender is a relative of a
higher or lower degree of the offended
party. ;elationship is aggravating in a
case where a stepfather (or a father'
raped his own daughter.
753: 0!n i( r!lati"n(i$ !/!.$tin'
%ir%,.(tan%!? Ar! t!r! $!r("n( !/!.$t
1r". %ri.inal lia*ilit# 1"r (2in-lin'
4!(ta1a6? I1 (") 2" ar! t!#? 4Bar 159@6
A: Dnder #rt. >>& of the ;7"$ no criminal but only
civil liability shall result from commission of the
crime of theft$ swindling or estafa or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by
spouses$ ascendants and descendants or relatives
by affinity in the same line: brothers and sisters
and brothers6in6law and sister6in6law$ if living
together.
758: A ,(*an- ,$"n !arin' t! (%r!a. "1 i(
2i1!) %allin' 1"r !l$ an- %".in') a( ! -i-
2it",t $r!&i",( An"2l!-'!) ,$"n an
ar.!- .an !n'a'!- in a .,r-!r",( atta%A
in i( "2n ".! in t! $r!(!n%! "1 i(
2i1!) Aill!- t! intr,-!r. I( t! ,(*an-
%ri.inall# lia*l!? Stat! #",r r!a("n. 4Bar
15856
A: 4o$ since he was acting in defense of his wife in
their own dwelling and in the problem the intruder
was sown to be the aggressor.
759: A Al!$t".ania% 2a( $r"(!%,t!- 1"r t!
t!1t "1 +!2!l( %"..itt!- in (!&!ral (t"r!(.
T! -"%t"r( 2" !/a.in!- !r an- "*(!r&!
an- anal#B!- !r *!a&i"r an- $a(t
!/$!ri!n%!( r!$"rt!- tat t! a%%,(!-
An"2( 2at i( ri't an- 2at i( 2r"n' an-
tat (! !&!n An"2( tat t" (t!al i( 2r"n')
*,t tat 2!n!&!r (! a( a %an%! (!
%ann"t "&!r%".! !r i.$,l(! t" (t!al)
$arti%,larl# +!2!l(. I( t! a%%,(!-
%ri.inall# r!($"n(i*l! ,n-!r ",r C"-!?
Gi&! r!a("n(. 4Bar 159@6
A: Jes. /owever$ because of her psychological
ailmentMkleptomaniaMaffecting the exercise of
her will power$ mitigating circumstance may be
extended to her under par. 9 #rt. 1>$ ;.".
75D: A 2ait!- in a.*,( B t" Aill i.. H! (a2 C
a 1!2 .!t!r( a2a# an- *!li!&in' C t" *! B)
! 1ir!- ,$"n an- Aill!- C 2I" t! (li't!(t
int!nti"n "1 ,rtin' t! latt!r. Can A %lai.
!/!.$ti"n 1r". %ri.inal lia*ilit# 1"r CL(
-!at? Gi&!r #",r r!a("n 1"r t! an(2!r.
4Bar 159F6
A: (here is no exemption from criminal liability to be
availed of. (his is a case of a mistaken identity for
which # is criminally responsible.
75E: Ma# "n! in&"A! la%A "1 !-,%ati"n a( a
%ir%,.(tan%! in i( 1a&"r i1 ! -"!( n"t
An"2 "2 t" 2rit! *,t a$$!ar( t" *!
!/%!$ti"nall# al!rt an- int!lli'!nt t" t!
!/t!nt tat ! %",l- r!aliB! t! 1,ll
%"n(!H,!n%!( "1 i( a%t(? 4Bar 15D86
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
A: 4o. Mere illiteracy is not sufficient to
constitute a mitigating circumstance. (here
must be also of intelligence.
75F: 0il! Ant"ni" 2a( .aAin' r"$! in i(
"2n ",(!) R,(ti%" (,--!nl# an-
,n!/$!%t!-l# 1ir!- at i. 1r". ",t(i-!)
in1li%tin' "n i. ',n("t 2",n-( 2i%
%a,(!- i( -!at. At t! trial 1"r
".i%i-!) R,(ti%" %"nt!n-!- tat t!
a''ra&atin' %ir%,.(tan%! "1 -2!llin'
(",l- n"t *! taA!n int" a%%",nt. I(
ti( %"nt!nti"n t!na*l!? 4Bar 15E86
A: 4o$ because he was charged with homicide$
and it is important to impose him the
maximum penalty. /ad he been charged with
murder$ correctly due to treachery$ then
dwelling is absorbed by the aggravating
circumstance of treachery.
755: At a*",t .i-ni't A) t! a%%,(!-)
atta%A!- 1atall# an ,nar.!- 8 1!!t 11
in%!( 'irl 2it a ,ntin' Ani1! 2!n
(! 2a( al"n! in !r r"".. 0at
a''ra&atin' %ir%,.(tan%!4(6 2!r!
$r!(!nt in t! %"..i((i"n "1 t!
%ri.!? 4Bar 15ED6
A: (he aggravating circumstances reflective in
the problem are5 dwelling and abuse of
superior strength. #buse of superior strength
because the girl is defenseless and unarmed.
/er *!in' attacked in he room without any
provocation on her part$ makes dwelling an
aggravating circumstance.
71@@: An a%%,(!- 2a( %ar'!- 2it ill!'al
$"((!((i"n "1 a %ali*!r .89 $i(t"l.
U$"n arrai'n.!nt) ! $l!a-!- ',ilt#
t" t! %ar'! an- in&"A!- i( $l!a a(
a .iti'atin' %ir%,.(tan%! in
i.$"(in' t! $r"$!r $!nalt# "n i..
0#?
Can t! %",rt %"n(i-!r tat $l!a
a( .iti'atin' %ir%,.(tan%! in
i.$"(in' t! $r"$!r $!nalt# "n i.?
4Bar 15F16
A: 4o mitigating circumstance can be considered
on the plea of guilty because the offense is
punished by special law$ not by the ;.".
Imposition of penalty on special laws is
discretionary on the court. #lso the penalty of
the special law is indeterminate$ no divisible
periods of fix duration.
71@1: A) int!n-in' t" Aill B) atta%A!- t!
latt!r 2it a *"l". In tr#in' t" -!1!n-
i.(!l1 2it a $i!%! "1 2""- #
$arr#in' t! *l"2( -!li&!r!- *# A) B
it C) an "nl""A!r) "n t! !a- a( a
r!(,lt "1 2i% C -i!-. I( B lia*l! 1"r
CL( -!at ,n-!r t! l!'al $r"&i(i"n tat
;alt",' t! 2r"n' -"n! *! -i11!r!nt
1r". t! int!n-!-?< E/$lain #",r an(2!r.
4Bar 15F26
A: - is not liable because he was acting in self6
defense. (he legal maxim ,uoted 1although the
wrong done be different from that intended2
contemplates the commission of a felony and the
wrong done is the direct$ natural$ and logical
conse,uence thereof even though not intended. -
did not commit such felony$ hence$ inapplicable.
71@2: Hilari") ,$"n (!!in' i( ("n !n'a'!- in a
(%,11l! 2it R!n!) (ta**!- an- Aill!- t!
latt!r. A1t!r t! (ta**in') ! *r",'t i(
("n ".!. T! Ci!1 "1 P"li%! "1 t!
t"2n) a%%".$ani!- *# (!&!ral $"li%!.!n)
2!nt t" Hilari"L( ",(!. Hilari") ,$"n
(!!in' t! a$$r"a%in' $"li%!.!n) %a.!
-"2n 1r". i( ",(! t" .!!t t!. an-
&"l,ntaril# 2!nt 2it t!. t" t! P"li%!
Stati"n t" *! in&!(ti'at!- in %"nn!%ti"n
2it t! Aillin'. 0!n !&!nt,all# %ar'!-
2it an- %"n&i%t!- "1 ".i%i-!) Hilari")
"n a$$!al) 1a,lt!- t! trial %",rt 1"r n"t
a$$r!%iatin' in i( 1a&"r t! .iti'atin'
%ir%,.(tan%! "1 &"l,ntar# (,rr!n-!r. I(
! !ntitl!- t" (,% a .iti'atin'
%ir%,.(tan%!? E/$lain. 4Bar 155D6
A: Jes$ the claim for that mitigation is correct. (he
voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is
spontaneous showing the intent of the accused to
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities.
(his must be either5 (a' because he acknowledges
his guilty$ or (b' because he wishes to save them
the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in
his search and capture.
71@3: 0!n i( (,rr!n-!r *# an a%%,(!-
%"n(i-!r!- &"l,ntar# an- %"n(tit,ti&! "1
t! .iti'atin' %ir%,.(tan%! "1 &"l,ntar#
(,rr!n-!r? 4Bar 15556
A: # surrender by an offender is considered voluntary
when it is spontaneous$ indicative of an intent to
submit unconditionally to the authorities. (o be
mitigating$ the surrender must be5
1. %pontaneous$ that is$ indicative of
acknowledgment of guilty and not for
convenience
&. made before the government incurs
expenses$ time and effort in tracking down
the offenders whereabouts: and
>. made to a person in authority or the latters
agent.
71@8: Di(tin',i( *!t2!!n %"n($ira%# an-
!&i-!nt $r!.!-itati"n. 4Bar 15E26
A: Evident premeditation re,uires that a sufficient
period of time must elapse to afford full
opportunity for premeditation and reflection on the
possible conse,uences of the intended act$ while
conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
agree$ expressly or impliedly$ to commit the
felony and forthwith decide to accomplish it.
71@9: I1 a %i!1 "1 $"li%! -!li*!rat!l# i-!(
i( ("n 2" a( *!!n a%%,(!- "1
.,r-!r) -"!( (ai- %i!1 in%,r an#
%ri.inal lia*ilit#? 4Bar 15D16
A: #lthough the chief of police is an accessory of
the crime$ nevertheless$ he is exempted as
such because of his relationship.
71@D: D!1!n-ant (",t!- t" i( ("n) ;>ill
i.<. At t! ti.! t! 1at!r (",t!-)
i( ("n a- alr!a-# -!li&!r!- t!
1atal *l"2 t" t! &i%ti. an- 2a(
a*",t t" -!li&!r a (!%"n- *l"2. T!
("nL( &i%ti. -i!- a( a r!(,lt "1 t!
t2" *l"2(. T!r! 2a( n" %"n($ira%#
*!t2!!n 1at!r an- ("n 0at i( t!
%ri.inal lia*ilit# "1 t! 1at!r an-
("n. R!a("n. 4Bar 15E86
A: 7nly the son is liable. (he father could not be
prosecuted as principal by inducement
because the inducement is nil$ not being an
inducing factor.
71@E: A( S!r'i") Y"#"n) C"il") an- 0arlit"
!n'a'!- in a -rinAin' ($r!! at
H!artr"* Di(%") S$!%ial P"li%!
O11i%!r 3 4SPO 36 Man"l" Ya*an'
(,--!nl# a$$r"a%!- t!.) ai.!- i(
r!&"l&!r at S!r'i" 2". !
r!%"'niB!- a( a 2ant!- Aill!r an-
1atall# ("t t! latt!r. 0!r!,$"n)
Y"#"n') C"il" an- 0arlit" 'an'!- ,$
"n Ya*an'. 0arlit" ,(in' i( "2n
$i(t"l) ("t an- 2",n-!- Ya*an'.
4a6 0at ar! t! %ri.inal lia*iliti!( "1
Y"#"n') C"il") an- 0arlit" 1"r t!
in+,r# "1 Ya*an'? 0!r! t!r!
%"n($ira%# an- tr!a%!r#? 4Bar 15526
4*6 In t,rn) i( Ya*an' %ri.inall# lia*l! 1"r
t! -!at "1 S!r'i"? 4Bar 15526
A: (a' Each will be individually accountable for
his acts because there was no conspiracy but
spontaneous and reflex response of the acts
of Jabang. (here was no treachery to be
appreciated in the problem given. (hey may
even legally put up the defense of stranger
under pars. 1 and & of #rt. 11 of the ;.".
(b' Jes$ he is liable for homicide. (he fact that
%ergio I a wanted killer does not 0ustify the
shooting.
71@F: E1r!n) Gr!''# an- Hilari") 2!arin'
1ati',!( an- %arr#in' ,nli%!n(!-
1ir!ar.( *ar'!- int" t! r!(i-!n%! "1
Arn,l1" Dilar at S%",t LaB%an" St. 4*!1"r!
.aAin' t!ir !ntran%!) t!# 'a&!
in(tr,%ti"n( t" t!ir %".$ani"n SaAa# t"
(tan- 2at% ",t(i-!6. On%! in(i-!) t!#
ann",n%!- tat t!# 2!r! .!.*!r( "1
t! PNP "n an "11i%ial .i((i"n. In(i-! t!
.a(t!r *!-r"".) t!# -!.an-!- 1r".
L,nin'nin') t! 2i1! "1 Arn,l1") %a( an-
+!2!lr# *,t *!1"r! t! ."n!# %",l- *!
an-!- t" t!.) t!# !ar- t!ir
%".$ani"n SaAa# (",tin': ;P,li()
P,li(Q<. Pani%G(tri%A!n) E1r!n ("t Arn,l1"
2" 2a( (!ri",(l# in+,r!-. Gr!''# an-
Hilari" $i%A!- ,$ t! +!2!lr# *"/ 2"(!
%"nt!nt( ($ill!- "&!r t! 1l""r a( t!#
r,(!- ",t. B!1"r! t! %",l- .aA! '""-
t!ir !(%a$!) "2!&!r) t! $"li%! *l"%A!-
t!ir 2a#) "n! "1 t!. %l,t%in' SaAa#
*# t! %"llar. T!# 2!r! 1"rt2it
*r",'t t" t! P"li%! H!a-H,art!r(
n!ar*#. Di(%,(( t! in-i&i-,al an-
%"ll!%ti&! %ri.inal lia*iliti!( "1 E1r!n)
Gr!''#) Hilari" an- SaAa#. 4Bar 15526
A: (he four of them can be collectively responsible for
the complex crime of robbery with serious physical
in0uries for conspiracy existed among them. %ince
only three are armed with %akay the lookout
unarmed$ there is no band to aggravate.
71@5: In %a(! "1 a%H,ittal) .a# t! a%H,itt!-
$!r("n *! (,*+!%t!- t" $,*li% %!n(,r!?
4Bar 15FF6
A: 4o. "ensure$ being a penalty is not proper in
ac,uittal.
711@: P 2a( (!nt!n%!- 1r". D #!ar( an- 1 -a#
t" 12 #!ar( an- 1 -a# an- "r-!r!- t" $a#
a 1in! "1 P2@@@.@@. Ma# P *! %".$!ll!- t"
(!r&! (,*(i-iar# i.$ri("n.!nt in %a(! "1
1ail,r! t" $a# t! 1in!? 4Bar 15F@6
A: 4o$ because the principal penalty imposed is
higher than prision correccional. /ad it been solely
a fine$ the answer would be otherwise.
7111: Car'!- 2it !(ta1a in S!$t!.*!r 15F3)
t! a%%,(!- 2a( 1",n- ',ilt# an-
(!nt!n%!- t" an in-!t!r.inat! $!nalt# "1
8 #!ar() 2 ."nt( an- 1 -a# "1 $ri(i"n
%"rr!%%i"nal) a( .ini.,.) t" F #!ar( an-
1 -a# "1 $ri(i"n .a#"r) a( .a/i.,.) an-
t" $a# a 1in! "1 P3)@@@ a(i-! 1r". t!
in-!.ni1i%ati"n "1 t! &i%ti.) 2it
(,*(i-iar# i.$ri("n.!nt 1"r *"t 1in!
an- in-!.nit# in %a(! "1 in("l&!n%#. 0a(
t! (,*(i-iar# i.$ri("n.!nt $r"$!rl#
i.$"(!-? E/$lain. 4Bar 15F36
A: 4o$ because the principal penalty (prision mayor'
is higher than prision correccional (par. >. #rt. >9
of ;."'.
/. Persons Criminall1 Lia0le
Criminal Law I
7112: A 2a( %"n&i%t!- "1 t! %".$l!/ %ri.!
"1 -!at tr",' 1al(i1i%ati"n "1
$,*li% -"%,.!nt. Sin%! t! a.",nt
in&"l&!- -i- n"t !/%!!- P2@@) t!
$!nalt# $r!(%ri*!- *# la2 1"r !(ta1a
i( arr!(t" .a#"r in it( .!-i,. an-
.a/i.,. $!ri"-(. T! $!nalt#
$r!(%ri*!- *# la2 1"r 1al(i1i%ati"n "1
$,*li% -"%,.!nt i( $ri(i"n .a#"r
$l,( 1in! n"t t" !/%!!- P9@@@.
I.$"(! t! $r"$!r $ri("n $!nalt#.
4Bar 155E6
A: (he proper imposable penalty is any range
within prision correccional as minimum to any
range within prision mayor as maximum.
7113: A 2a( %ar'!- 2it t!1t an- ,$"n
arrai'n.!nt) $l!a-!- ',ilt# t" t!
%ar'!. H! 2a( -!tain!- 1"r 1ail,r! t"
$"(t *ail. A1t!r 2 ."nt() a -!%i(i"n
2a( r!n-!r!-) (!nt!n%in' A t" an
in-!t!r.inat! (!nt!n%! "1 D ."nt(
an- 1 -a# a( .ini.,. t" 1 #!ar an-
1 ."nt a( .a/i.,. an- t" $a# t!
"11!n-!- $art# t! a.",nt "1 PE@@.
On Jan,ar# 1D) 15F9 t! &!r# -a# t!
(!nt!n%! 2a( r!a- t" A) t! +,-'!
i((,!- a C"..it.!nt Or-!r
a--r!((!- t" t! Pr"&in%ial Jail
2ar-!n. On Jan. 31) 15F9 A a$$li!-
1"r $r"*ati"n *,t i( a$$li%ati"n 2a(
-!ni!- "n t! 'r",n- tat t!
(!nt!n%! "1 %"n&i%ti"n *!%a.! 1inal
an- !/!%,t"r# "n Jan. 1D) 15F9 2!n
A %"..!n%!- t" (!r&! i( (!nt!n%!.
I( A !li'i*l! 1"r $r"*ati"n? 4Bar
15F56
A: # is still eligible for probation because he filed
the application within the period for perfecting
an appeal. Chat is provided by law is that no
application for probation shall be entertained
or granted if the defendant has perfected an
appeal from the 0udgment of conviction. (he
commitment order issued before finality of
decision is void and ineffectual.
7118: A all!'!-l# ("l- t" B a $ar%!l "1 lan-
2i% A lat!r ("l- t" =. B *r",'t a
%i&il a%ti"n 1"r n,lli1i%ati"n "1 t!
(!%"n- (al! an- a(A!- tat t! (al!
.a-! *# A in i( 1a&"r *! -!%lar!-
&ali-. A t!"riB!- tat ! n!&!r ("l-
t! $r"$!rt# t" B an- i( $,r$"rt!-
(i'nat,r! a$$!arin' in t! 1ir(t -!!-
"1 (al! 2!r! 1"r'!ri!(. T!r!a1t!r) an
in1"r.ati"n 1"r !(ta1a 2a( 1il!-
a'ain(t A *a(!- "n t! (a.! -",*l!
(al! tat 2a( (,*+!%t "1 t! %i&il
a%ti"n. A 1il!- a M"ti"n 1"r
S,($!n(i"n "1 A%ti"n in a %ri.inal
%a(!) %"nt!n-in' tat t! r!("l,ti"n
"1 t! i((,! in t! %i&il %a(! 2",l-
n!%!((aril# *! -!t!r.inati&! "1 i( ',ilt
"r inn"%!n%!. I( t! (,($!n(i"n "1 t!
%ri.inal a%ti"n in "r-!r? 4Bar 15556
A: Jes$ because if the first sale is null and void$ there
would be no double sale and # would be innocent
of the offense of estafa.