College of Law

De La Salle University
Taft Ave., Manila

COURSE OUTLINE
CRIMINAL LAW I
BOOK I
Arno V. Sanidad
1st Semester 2013-2014

Scope :
This course is an introduction to Philippine criminal law, felonies, criminal
liability, penalties and their application. It will cover Art. 1 - Art. 113 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended and other relevant special penal laws.

General Instructions:
(1) You are required to read the assigned cases in the original together with the
relevant chapters of Reyes; (2) Recitation shall be graded. A student called to recite
shall not be allowed to read from the book during recitation. A student who is called
and is absent gets a "5.0" for that session; (3) Handwritten digest of all cases assigned
is required and will be checked regularly; (4) There will be written exam on important
provisions of the RPC that are assigned to be remembered and understood; (5) No
computers shall be used during class.

Basis for Final Grade :

Recitation 20% + Case Digest 15% + Final Examinations 65%

Basic Text:
Revised Penal Code Of The Philippines (Act. No. 3185 As Amended)
Reyes, Luis, The Revised Penal Code, Book I, 2012 Ed.

OTHER READINGS: Will be assigned as need arises.

I. CRIMINAL LAW: DEFINITION AND SOURCES

A. Definition & Objective

Theories of Criminal Law, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/criminal-law/)
A.F. Tadiar, Philosophy of a Penal Code, 52 Phil LJ 165 (1977)

-1-
 (http://law.upd.edu.ph/plj/images/files/PLJ volume 52/PLJ Volume 52
number 2 -03- Alfredo F. Tadiar - A Philosophy of a Penal Code p. 165-199.pdf)
David G. Nitafan, A Theory of Crime and Punishment, 210 SCRA 483
David G. Nitafan, Hopeless Mess of Our Criminal Law System,
254 SCRA 745

B. Authority to Define Crime & Appropriate Punishment

1. Authority to define crime and penalty

Constitution (1987), Art. II, Sec. 5
Constitution (1987), Art VI, Sec. 1

Authority to define and punish crimes:

People v. Santiago, 43 Phil 120 (1922)
Right of prosecution and punishment:
US v. Pablo, 35 Phil 94 (1916)
Police power & legislature; Art. 2002 (2) RPC:
People v. Siton, 600 SCRA 476 (2009)
To enact malum prohibitum:
Intengan v. C.A., 377 SCRA 63 (2002)
Purpose of criminal and civil action:
Quinto v. Andres, 453 SCRA 511 (2005)

2. Limitations on Legislature

Constitution (1987) Limitations & Proscriptions:

a. Due Process Clause (Art. III, Sec. 1, 14 (1))

b. Equal Protection Clause (Art. III, Sec. 1)
c. Political Belief (Art. III, Sec. 18 (1))
d. Involuntary Servitude (Art. III, Sec. 18 (2))
e. Excessive Fines, Cruel & Degrading Punishment (Art. III,
Sec. 19 (1))
f. Imprisonment for Debt (Art. III, Sec. 20)
g. Double Jeopardy (Art. III, Sec. 21)
h. Ex post facto legislation (Art. III, Sec. 22)

2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115

Civil Code, Art. 2

Publish before punish:

Pesigan v. Angeles, 129 SCRA 174 (1984)
“Ignorantia legis non excusat”:
Tañada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985)***
Wisdom, efficacy and morality of laws:
Padilla vs. CA, G.R. No. 121917. March 12, 1997

*
En Banc

-2-
C. BASIC PRINCIPLES

1. Punishable by Law
- Nullum Crimen Nulla Peona Sine Lege
RPC, Art. 1
(Reyes, 23-24)
RPC, Arts. 3, 21
(Reyes, 33-63; 601-605)

P.D. 772 & pasture lands:

Bernardo v. People, 123 SCRA 365 (1983)
Total repeal of R.A. No. 1700:
People v. Pimentel, 288 SCRA 542 (1998)**

2. Characteristics of Criminal Law

a) Generality
(Reyes, 6-13)
Constitution (1987), Art. VI, Sec. 1
Civil Code, Art. 14
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), Art. V
- See M.M. Magallona, Legal Issues in the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement
(1999).

US v. Sweet, 1 Phil 18 (1901)

Liang vs. People 355 SCRA 125
Place of detention after conviction:
Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SCRA 438 (2009)**

b) Territoriality
RPC, Art. 2
(Reyes, 24-32)
Constitution (1987), Art. 1
VFA, Art. V
(See Art. 163 & 166, RPC)
R.A. 9851, Sec. 17 & 18

Foreign merchant ship within territorial waters:

U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7
Person on board a foreign vessel in territorial waters:
US v. Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978 (1917)
Crimes on board a foreign vessel within territorial waters;
French and English rule:
People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729 (1922)**
Jurisdiction:
Miquiabas v. Commanding General, 80 Phil. 267 (1948)

c) Prospectivity of Criminal Law

-3-
 Constitution (1987), Art. III, Secs. 18(1) & (2), 19(1), 20, 22
RPC, Art. 366
RPC, Arts. 21, 22
(Reyes, 601-615)
Civil Code, Art. 4
RPC Art. 62

Judicial decisions as part of the law of the land:

Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (1971)
Ex post facto law, requisites:
In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
Bill of attainder defined:
People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
Law at the time of commission with lesser penalty:
People v. Bracamonte, 257 SCRA 380 (1996)
New law advantageous to accused:
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999)**

3. Repeal & Construction of Penal Laws

a. Effects of Repeal
(Reyes, 15-18)
b. Construction of Penal Laws
(Reyes, 18-20)
(i) Strict and Liberal Construction
Constitution (1987), Art. III, Sec. 14 (2)
Pascual v. Board of Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)
Liberal construction in favor of the accused:
People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, 2000

(ii) Spanish Text Controlling

4. Crimes Defined and Penalized By Special Laws

Examples:
B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) S.C.
P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law)
R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002)
R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
R.A. No. 7080 (Anti-Plunder Act)

a. Crimes Mala In Se and Mala Prohibita

Intent to perpetrate the act, not intent to commit the crime:

U.S. v. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 128 (1909)**
Proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) unnecessary:
Padilla v. Dizon, 158 SCRA 127 (1988)**
Anti-Plunder Law (R.A. 7080) and mens rea:
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001)**

-4-
 See: J. Mendoza’s concurring

b. Relation of RPC to special penal laws

RPC, Art. 10
(Reyes, 140-152)
R.A. No. 8484, Sec. 12 & 13

Penalties taken from the RPC:

Padilla v. C.A., 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
Circumstances modifying criminal liability:
People v. Saley, 291 SCRA 715 (1998)
R.A. 7659 adopts penalties under RPC:
People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 (1994)**
See J. Davide concurring and dissenting.
RPC supplementary:
Ladonga v. People, 451 SCRA 673 (2005)
Carnapping not qualified theft or robbery:
People v. Bustinera, 431 SCRA 284 (2004)
“. . . through another”, R.A. 9262
Go-Tan v. Tan, 567 SCRA 231 (2008)

c. Crimes involving moral turpitude

Teves v. Comelec, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009**
J. Brion, Concurring

5. Courts & Acts Not Punished; & Excessive Penalties

RPC, Art. 5
(Reyes, 90-95)
Impose penalty under law:
People v. Veneracion, 249 SCRA 244 (1995)**

6. Evidence in Criminal Cases

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Rule 133, Sec. 2, Rules of Court

Proof of Corpus Delicti

Substantial fact of a crime:
People v. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 624 (1995)
Elements of:
People v. Tuniaco, 610 SCRA 350 (2010)
In homicide:
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120744-46/G.R.
No. 122677/G.R. No. 122776.June 25, 2012.

II. FELONIES

A. HOW COMMITTED

-5-
1. General Elements

a. An act or omission (Actus reus);

b. Committed by means of:
dolus (i.e. wilfully), or
fault (i.e. negligently); and
c. Punished by the Code.

2. Dolo
RPC, Art. 3
(Reyes pp. 33-63)
a. Elements
(i) Freedom
(ii) Intelligence
(iii) Intent

b. INTENT (Actus non facit reum nisi reus sit rea.)

(i) Criminal Intent Presumed
- Mens rea
(ii) General and specific intent
(iii) Intent and motive

Mens rea and actus reus:

Valenzuela v. People, 525 SCRA 306 (2007)**
General criminal intent and specific intent:
Recuerdo v. People, 493 SCRA 517 (2006)
Specific intent must be alleged; distinguished from motive:
People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386, G.R. No. 142773, Jan. 28, 2003**
Lack of motive unessential:
People v. Temblor, 161 SCRA 623 (1988)
When there is doubt as to identity:
People v. Hassan, 157 SCRA 261 (1988)
Proof of motive and positive identification:
People v. Danny Delos Santos, 403 SCRA 153 (2003)**
Two conflicting theories:
People v. Glenn De los Santos, 355 SCRA 415 (2001)**
Motive how proven; Motive and intent same in some instances
Salvador v. People, 559 SCRA 461 (2008)

c. Mistake of Fact (Ignorantia facit excusat)

Mistake negates specific intent:
US v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil 488 (1910)
Mistake without fault or carelessness:
People v. Oanis, 74 Phil 257 (1943)
Absence of bad faith or negligence:
Baxinela v. People, 485 SCRAS 331 (2006)
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120744-46/G.R.
No. 122677/G.R. No. 122776.June 25, 2012.

-6-
 d. Mistake of Law (Ignorantia lege neminem excusat.)
Ignorance or mistake not valid defense:
People v. Marrero, 69 NY 2d 382
Belief her divorce is valid:
People v. Bitdu, G.R. No. L-38230, November 21, 1933**
Mistake of fact distinguished:
Diego v. Castillo, 436 SCRA 67, (2004)

3. Culpa
RPC, Arts. 3, 365
(Reyes, pp. 50-52 & Reyes, Vol. II, pp. 1042-1047)
a. Elements
b. Distinguished from dolo
Punishes imprudent or negligent act, not result:
People v. Buan, 22 SCRA 1383 (1968)**
Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191 (2010)
Homicide through reckless imprudence:
People vs. Pugay, 167 SCRA 439

B. CRIMINAL LIABILITY HOW INCURRED

1. Commission of felony
RPC, Art. 4 (1)
(Reyes, pp. 63-84)

2. Wrongful act different from what was intended

RPC, Art. 4 (1)
Proximate cause, definition:
Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina, 102 Phil. 181
Urbano v. IAC, 157 SCRA 1 (1998)
Natural and logical consequence of wrongful act:
Quinto v. Andres, 453 SCRA 511 (2005)
“Concurrent causation”:
People v. Abiog, 37 Phil. 137 (1917)**

a) Error in personae (Mistake in identity)

RPC, Art. 49
(Reyes, pp. 706-710)
Intentional and negligent act:
People v. Oanis, supra
Killing the wrong man:
People v. Gona, 54 Phil. 605 (1930)

b) Aberratio ictus (Miscarriage in the blow)

RPC, Art. 4 (1)
Incidentally killing another:
People v. Esteban, 103 SCRA 520 (1981)**
Culpability not diminished:
People v. Saballones, 294 SCRA 751 (1998)

-7-
 c) Praeter intentionem (Injurious result greater than that intended)
RPC, Art. 13 (3)
(Reyes, pp. 278-286)
Treachery appreciated:
People v. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524 (1933)
Concealing victim resulting in drowning:
People v. Ortega, 276 SCRA 166 (1997)

3. Impossible crimes
RPC, Art. 4 (2), 59 (Reyes, pp. 83-89; 715-717)
Cannot steal what belongs to him:
Carreon v. Flores, 64 SCRA 238 (1975)
Clumsy falsification:
People v. Balmores, 85 Phil. 493 (1950)
Legal or physical impossibility:
Intod v. CA, 215 SCRA 52 (1992)
Theft of worthless check:
Jacinto v. People, 592 SCRA 426 (2009)

C. PUNISHABLE CONDUCT

1. Wrongful act different from that intended

RPC, Art. 4(1)
- See RPC, Art. 49 (Reyes, pp. 706-710)
Error in personae:
People v. Sabalones, 294 SCRA 751 (1988)
Responsible for one’s criminal act:
People v. Mananquil, 132 SCRA 196 (1984)
Intended consequence of voluntary act:
People v. Toling, 62 SCRA 17 (1975)**

2. Omission
RPC, Arts. 116, 137, 208, 223, 234, 275
Pres. Dec. Nos. 953, 1153

3. Proposal and Conspiracy

RPC, Arts. 8 (Reyes, pp. 127-137) 115, 136, 141, 186, 306, 340
R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 26
R.A. No. 8484, Sec. 11
R.A. No. 9372, Sec. 4 (Human Security Act)

Same degree of proof as the crime:

People v. Escober, 157 SCRA 541 (1988)**
Proof of previous agreement unnecessary; proving conspiracy:
People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386, G.R. No. 142773, Jan. 28, 2003** supra
Overt act in pursuit of conspiracy:
People v. Elijorde, 306 SCRA 188 (1999)**
As a crime under R.A. No. 6425 :
People v. Fabro, 325 SCRA 285 (2000)

-8-
 Direct proof not essential; implied conspiracy:
Li v. People, 427 SCRA 217 (2004)
People v. Listerio, 335 SCRA 40 (2000)
Proof of actual planning not essential:
People v. Bagano, 375 SCRA 470 (2002)
Conduct before during and after evincing common purpose:
People v. Ramos, 427 SCRA 299 (2004)
Not mere presence & transcends companionship:
People v. Comadre, , 431 SCRA 366 (2004)**
Homicide not part of common plan:
People v. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563 (1974)
All liable as principals; for natural and logical consequences:
People v. Ventura, 433 SCRA 389 (2004)**
Conspiracy in special penal laws (B.P. 22)
Ladonga v. People, supra

4. Stages of Punishable Conduct:

a) Attempt
RPC, Art. 6 (Reyes, pp. 95-106)
RPC, Art. 51 (Reyes, pp. 710-714)
R.A. No. 8484, Sec. 12

Never passes subjective phase:

U.S. v. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209 (1917)
Logical relation to a concrete offense:
People v. Lamahang, 61 Phil 703 (1935)
Subjective and objective phase; Intent to kill:
People v. Listerio, 335 SCRA 40 (2000) supra
Attempted, not having performed all acts:
People v. Trinidad, 169 SCRA 51 (1989)

Touching the mons pubis of the pudendum:

People v. Campuhan, 329 SCRA 270 (2000)**
Main element of attempted or frustrated homicide or murder:
Colinares v. People, 662 SCRA 266, G.R. No. 182748. Dec. 13, 2011**
Velasco v. People, GR 166479, February 28, 2006, 433 SCRA 649
Serrano v. People, G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010
In Arson Art. 320:
See discussion in Reyes, Book II, pp. 886-887

b) Frustration
RPC, Art.6
(Reyes, pp. 106-113)
RPC, Art. 50
(Reyes, pp.710-714)
R.A. No. 8484, supra
Perfect penetration:
People v. Orita, 184 SCRA 105 (1990)

-9-
 Subjectively, crime is complete:
People v. Caballero, 400 SCRA 424 (2003)**

c) Consummation
RPC, Art. 6 (Reyes, pp. 113-125)
US v. Adiao, 38 Phil 754 (1955)
Valenzuela v. People, supra
People v. Hernandez, 49 Phil 980 (1925)

D. Classification of Felonies

1. Grave
2. Less Grave
3. Light Felonies
RPC, Art. 9
(Reyes, pp. 137-140)
RPC, Art. 7
(Reyes, pp. 125-127)

III. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

A. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
RPC, Art. 11
(Reyes, pp. 153-224)

(1,2 & 3) SELF-DEFENSE, DEFENSE OF RELATIVES AND STRANGERS, DEFENSE

OF PROPERTY, DEFENSE OF REPUTATION (Reyes, pp. 155-211)

- R.A. 9262 (27 March 2004) Sections 3 & 26 in relation

to People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 (2004)
- Joshua Dressler, Battered Women and Sleeping Abusers:
Some Reflections, 3 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 457
Basis & requisites of self-defense:
People v. Boholst-Caballero, 61 SCRA 180 (1974)
Unlawful Agression against property rights:
People v. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389 (1983)
Unlawful aggression:
People v. Alconga, 78 Phil 366 (1947)
US v. Bumanglag, 14 Phil. 644 (1909)
Doctrine of rational equivalence:
Espinosa v. People, G.R. No. 181701, Mar. 15, 2010
Mere threatening or intimidating attitude insufficient:
Colinares v. People, 662 SCRA 266, G.R. No. 182748. Dec. 13, 2011, EB
Unlawful aggression, nature; drawing of firearm:
Nacnac v. People, G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012
Provocation, sufficient:
Cano v. People 413 SCRA 92 (2003)
Balunueco v. CA, 401 SCRA 76
Retaliation:

-10-
 People v. Bates, 400 SCRA 95 (2003)
Reasonable necessity of means employed:
People v. Sumicad, 56 Phil 643 (1932)
Defense of honor:
People v. Luague, 62 Phil 504 (1935)
People v. Dela Cruz, 61 Phil 344 (1935)
People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174 (1946)
Accidental self-defense?:
Toledo v. People, 439 SCRA 94 (2004)
Self-defense, elements & burden of proof:
People vs. Enfectana 381 SCRA 359 (2002)
Defense of relative:
People v. Ventura, supra
Defense of stranger:
People v. Dijan, 383 SCRA 15 (2002)

(4) STATE OF NECESSITY (AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL)

(Reyes, pp. 211-214)
People v. Retubado, 417 SCRA 393
Ty v. People, 439 SCRA 220 (2004)

(5) FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT

Civil Code, Art. 429
(Reyes, pp. 214-222)
Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA 324(2005)
People v. Delima, 46 Phil 738 (1922)
People v. Oanis, supra
Pomoy v. People, 439 SCRA 439 (2004)
Requisites; Restraint
People v. Ulep, 340 SCRA 688 (2000)
Lacanilao vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 563(1988)
Use of force by authorities only in extreme cases
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 120744-46/G.R.
No. 122677/G.R. No. 122776.June 25, 2012.
“Secret Marshals & Crimebusters”
Hildawa v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-67766, Aug. 14, 1985**

(6) OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDER

(Reyes, pp. 222-224)
People v. Beronilla, 96 Phil 566 (1955)
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, 268 SCRA 332 (1997)

B. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
RPC, Art. 12 (Reyes, pp. 224-264)

(1) INSANITY AND IMBECILITY

(Reyes, pp. 226-234)
In Re: M'Naghten, 8 Eng. Rep. 718
(reserve section Library)

-11-
 Basis of exemption:
People v. Madarang, 332 SCRA 99 (2000)
Burden of proof:
People v. Aquino, 186 SCRA 851 (1990)
. . . dementia praecox
People v. Bonoan, 64 Phil 87 (1937)
. . . expert witness, psychiatric evaluation report:
People v. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA 312 (1998)**
While in a dream:
People v. Taneo, 58 Phil 255 (1933)
Schizophrenia:
People v. Bañez, 301 SCRA 248 (1999)**
Imbecility & Feeblemindedness:
People v. Formigones, 87 Phil 658 (1950)
Mental capacity at perpetration of offense:
People v. Antonio, Jr., 393 SCRA 169 (2002)**
People v. Valledor, 383 SCRA 653 (2002)

(2 & 3) MINORITY
(Reyes, pp. 234-240)
R.A. 9344 Sec. 6 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)
RPC, Art. 80 (Reyes, pp. 839-850)
Pres. Dec. No. 603, Arts. 189 et seq.
Rule on Commitment of Children ( A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC)
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law (A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC)

Intent and discernment, difference:

Guevarra vs. Almodovar, 169 SCRA 476(1989)
People v. Doquena, 68 Phil 580 (1939)
People v. Arpon, 662 SCRA 506, G.R. No. 183563. Dec. 14, 2011
Discernment & age of criminal responsibility:
Madali v. People, G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009
Acted with discernment & burden of proof:
Jose v. People, 448 SCRA 116(2005)
Llave v. People, 488 SCRA 376 (2006)

(4) ACCIDENT
(Reyes, pp. 240-245)
US v. Tanedo, 15 Phil. 196 (1910)
People v. Bindoy, 56 Phil 15 (1931)
People v. Concepcion, 386 SCRA 74 (2002)
People v. Agliday, 367 SCRA 273 (2001)

(5) IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

(Reyes, pp. 245-247)
Present, imminent, formidable force:
People v. Del Rosario, 305 SCRA 740 (1999)**

(6) UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR

-12-
 (Reyes, pp. 247-251)
People v. Lising, 285 SCRA 595 (1998)
U.S. v. Elicanal, 35 Phil 209 (1916)
U.S. v. Caballeros, 4 Phil 350 (1905)
People v. Fronda, 222 SCRA 71 (1993)
Ty v. People 439 SCRA 220 (2004)

(7) INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSES

(Reyes, pp. 252-254)
US v. Vincentillo, 19 Phil 118 (1911)
People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530 (1936)

C. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
RPC, Art. 13

(1) INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION/EXEMPTION

RPC, Art. 69
(Reyes, pp. 265-274)
People vs. Ulep, 340 SCRA 688 (2000)

(2) UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OF AGE

(Reyes, pp. 274-278)

(3) NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG

(Reyes, pp. 287-286)
People v. Ural, 56 SCRA 138 (1974)
People v. Amit, 32 SCRA 95 (1970)
People v. Regato, 127 SCRA 287 (1984)

(4) SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT

(Reyes, pp. 286-292)
Sufficient & immediate to act:
People v. Pagal, 79 SCRA 570 (1977)**
. . . and passion and obfuscation:
Romera v. People 434 SCRA 467 (2004)
. . . at beginning is lost:
People v. Alconga, supra

(5) IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

(Reyes, pp. 292-298)
US v. Ampar, 37 Phil 201 (1917)
People v. Parana, 64 Phil 331 (1937)
People v. Diokno, 63 Phil 601 (1936)
Unlawful aggression ceased:
People v. Torpio, 431 SCRA 9 (2004)
Avenge stabbing of brother:
People v. Capalac, 117 SCRA 874 (1982)**

-13-
 “Proximate” not “immediate”:
People v. Ventura, supra

(6) PASSION OR OBFUSCATION

(Reyes, pp. 298-311)
People v. Muit, 117 SCRA 696 (1982)
Arising from lawful sentiments:
US v. Hicks, 14 Phil 217 (1909)
US v. Dela Cruz, 22 Phil. 429 (1912)
. . . not lawlessness:
People v. Bates, 400 SCRA 95 (2003)
Passion & Treachery:
People v. Germina, 290 SCRA 146 (1998)
Mere shouting at:
People v. Gonzalez, Jr. 359 SCRA 352 (2001)
Unlawful Act:
People v. Lab-eo, 373 SCRA 461 (2002)
Immediately precedes offense:
People v. Ventura, supra
Contradictory to planning:
Pagal, supra
. . . sufficient provocation:
Romera v. People, supra

(7) a) VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

(Reyes, pp. 312-325)

When arrest inevitable; unconditional:

People v. Pinca, 318 SCRA 270 (1999)**
. . . a week after:
People v. Amaguin, 229 SCRA 166 (1994)
Intent unconditional; surrrender of gun:
People v. Dulos, 237 SCRA 141 (1994)
Spontaneous & unconditional:
Andrada v. People, 452 SCRA 685 (2005)

b) PLEA OF GUILT
(Reyes, pp. 325-332)

Requisites:
People v. Montinola, 360 SCRA 631 (2001)**
After arraignment and resumption of trial:
People v. Coronel, 17 SCRA 509 (1966)
Offer of plea of guilt to a lesser offense:
People v. Dawaton, 389 SCRA 277 (2002)
Admits circumstances of commission:
People v. Jose et al., 37 SCRA 450 (1971)
Pagal, supra
When evidence inadequate to sustain treachery etc.:

-14-
 People v. Gravino, 122 SCRA 123 (1983)**

(8) PHYSICAL DEFECTS

(Reyes, pp. 332-333)

Requisite; No left arm:

People v. Doepante, 263 SCRA 691

(9) ILLNESS
(Reyes, pp. 333-335)
Schizo-affective disorder; “in remission of symptoms”:
Antonio, Jr., supra

(10) ANALOGOUS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

(Reyes, pp. 336- 341)
Voluntary surrender:
Canta v. People, 353 SCRA 250

D. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
RPC, Art. 14
(Reyes, pp. 331- 470)
Rule 110, Sec. 8 & 9, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure

Aggravating from Qualifying:

People v. Mendoza, 327 SCRA 695 (2000)
Must allege in information:
Antonio, Jr., supra
People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (2002)**
Though not alleged, consider for award of damages:
Suela, supra

(1) TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC OFFICE

RPC, Art. 19(3)
(Reyes, pp. 335- 440)
Policeman merely a brother:
People v. Capalac, 117 SCRA 874 (1982)**
Use of issued firearm:
People v. Gapasin, 231 SCRA 728 (1994)
Position not integral to offense:
People v. Villamor, 373 SCRA 254 (2002)

(2) IN CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

(Reyes, pp. 340- 342)
Accused knew victim to be P.C. officer:
People v. Rodil, 109 SCRA 308 (1981)**
Committed against public officer:
People v. De Mesa, 354 SCRA 397 (2001)

(3) (a) WITH INSULT OR LACK OF REGARD DUE TO OFFENDED PARTY BY REASON

-15-
 OF RANK, AGE, OR SEX
(Reyes, pp. 342-349)
Not absorbed by treachery:
People v. Lapaz, 171 SCRA 539 (1989)
Deliberate intent to insult:
People v. Taboga, 376 SCRA 500 (2002)**
Security bank and bank manager:
People v. Nismal, 114 SCRA 487**
Only crimes against persons & honor:
Pagal, supra
Guidelines, age as element of the crime or qualifying circumstance
People v. Arpon, 662 SCRA 506, G.R. No. 183563. Dec. 14, 2011, supra

(b) DWELLING
(Reyes, pp. 349-357)
Boarding house:
People v. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511 (1978)
Accused & victim live in same house:
People v. Bañez, supra
Video shop on lower floor:
People v. Taño, 331 SCRA 449 (2000)**
Dependency of house; exemplary damages:
People v. Rios, 333 SCRA 823 (2000)**
In robbery with homicide:
People v. Arizobal, 348 SCRA 143 (2000)**
Sanctity of privacy of abode:
People v. Ventura, 433 SCRA 389 (2004), supra

(4) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE AND OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS

(Reyes, pp. 357-360)
No prior trust breached:
People v. Mandolado, 123 SCRA 133 (1983)
Immediate and personal:
People v. Arrojado, 350 SCRA 679 (2001)

(5) CRIME IN PALACE OR IN PRESENCE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

(Reyes, pp. 361-363)

(6) a) NIGHTTIME
(Reyes, pp. 363-369)
Elements:
People v. Silva, 387 SCRA 77 (2002)**
Incidental & lighted:
People v. Arizobal, supra
Two alternative tests:
People v. Ventura, supra
Deliberate to facilitate:
Pagal, supra
Distinct from treachery:

-16-
 People v. Benjamin Ong, 62 SCRA 174 (1975)*

b) UNINHABITED PLACE, OR
(Reyes, pp. 369-371)
Not distance to houses:
People v. Desalisa, 229 SCRA 35 (1994)
Abandoned subdivision:
Benjamin Ong, supra

c) WITH A BAND
(Reyes, pp. 372-374)
RPC, Art. 296
Requisites:
People v. Ancheta, 431 SCRA 42 (2004)
When concurs with nighttime and uninhabited place:
People v. Librando, 335 SCRA 232 (2000)

(7) ON OCCASION OF A CALAMITY

(Reyes, pp. 374-375)

(8) AID OR ARMED MEN OR MEANS TO ENSURE IMPUNITY

(Reyes, pp. 375-378)

(9) RECIDIVISM
(Reyes, pp. 378-380)
RPC, Art. 160
Requisite proof:
People v. Molina, 336 SCRA 400 (2000)**
People v. Dacillo, 427 SCRA 528 (2004)**

(10) REITERACION OR HABITUALITY

(Reyes, pp. 381-384)
Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency:
RPC, Arts. 62(5), 160
Quasi-recidivism:
RPC, Art. 160
Requisites:
People v. Gaorana, 289 SCRA 652 (1998)
Previously punished. . .:
People v. Villapando, 178 SCRA 341 (1989)
People v. Cajara, 341 SCRA 192 (2000)**

(11) PRICE, REWARD OR PROMISE

(Reyes, pp. 385-386)
Principal by inducemenet:
RPC, Art. 17 (2)
Qualifying circumstance:
RPC, Art. 248 (2)

-17-
(12) INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION, ETC.
(Reyes, pp. 387-389)
Comadre, supra

(13) EVIDENT PREMEDITATION

(Reyes, pp. 390-402)
Requisites:
People v. Bibat, 290 SCRA 27 (1998)
People v. Lug-aw, 229 SCRA 308 (1994)
People v. Camilet, 142 SCRA 402 (1986)
Same, meditation, calculation, resolution:
People v. Ilaoa, 233 SCRA 231 (1994)
Same, planning & preparation:
People v. Mondijar, 392 SCRA 356 (2002)
Same, in heat of anger:
Torpio, supra
Not mere presumption or speculation:
People v. Bernal, 388 SCRA 211 (2002)**
Degree of proof:
People v. Biso, 400 SCRA 483 (2003)
When appreciated in robbery with homicide:
Pagal, supra
Preceded by cool thought and reflection:
People v. Ventura, supra

(14) CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE

(Reyes, pp. 403-409)
Stratagems & ruses:
People v. Empacis, 222 SCRA 59 (1993)
Disguise or craft?:
People v. Marquez, 117 SCRA 165 (1982)
Intellectual trickery & cunning:
People v. Labuguen, 337 SCRA 488 (2000)
Disguise; Wore masks:
People v. Cabato, 160 SCRA 98 (1988)
Absorbed by treachery:
People v. Lab-eo, supra

(15) SUPERIOR STRENGTH OR MEANS TO WEAKEN DEFENSE

(Reyes, pp. 409-419)
Requisites:
People v. Ruelan, 231 SCRA 650 (1994)
Nature of weapon:
People v. Padilla, 233 SCRA 46 (1994)
Take advantage of numbers:
People v. Lobrigas, 394 SCRA 170 (2002)
Force, out of proportion:
People v. Barcelon, 389 SCRA 556 (2002)**
Mere superiority in number:

-18-
 People v. Sansaet, 376 SCRA 426 (2002)
Excessive or disproportionate force:
People v. Ventura, supra
Based on external facts, not surmises or presumptions:
People v. Ruby Mariano, 347 SCRA 109 (2002)**

(16) TREACHERY (Alevosia)

(Reyes, pp. 420-455)
Requisites; Two conditions:
People v. Roberto Castillo, 289 SCRA 213 (1998)
People v. Dumadag, 431 SCRA 65 (2004)
People v. Verchez, 233 SCRA 174 (1994)
People v. Delim, 396 SCRA 386** supra
Velasco v. People, 433 SCRA 649 supra
On top of coconut tree:
People v. Sangalang, 58 SCRA 737 (1974)
Preceded by challenge to fight:
People v. Gutierrez, 158 SCRA 614 (1988)
Location of wounds:
People v. Rendaje, 344 SCRA 738 (2000)
Proof of:
People v. Umayam, 381 SCRA 323 (2002)
People v. Piedad, 393 SCRA 488 (2002)
Frontal but kneeling . . .:
Dulos, supra
Effect in conspiracy:
People v. Benjamin Ong, 62 SCRA 174
Mere suddenness:
People v. Camilet, supra
Use of explosives:
People v. Comadre, supra
Deliberate mode of attack:
People v. Lab-eo, 373 SCRA 461 (2002), supra
Mode of attack not resulting crime; single continuous attack:
People v. Gonzalez, Jr., 359 SCRA 352 (2001) supra
Rear & sudden attack not preconcieved:
People v. Bates, 400 SCRA 95 (2003), supra
Mode of attack purposely adopted:
People v. Torpio, supra
In robbery with homicide, generic aggravating:
People v. Escote, 400 SCRA 603 (2003)**
Same; as to the homicide:
Ancheta, supra
As qualifying circumstance (Art. 248):
People v. Lab-eo, supra
Murder, no intent to kill:
People v. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524 (1933), supra

(17) IGNOMINY

-19-
 (Reyes, pp. 455-458)
Adds disgrace & obloquy:
People v. Abaigar, 2 Phil., 417 (1913)
More humiliating, add to moral suffering:
People v. Bumidang, 346 SCRA 807 (2000)**
Dog position:
People v. Siao, 327 SCRA 231 (2000)
Dismemberment after death:
People v. Cachola, 420 SCRA 520 (2004)**

(18) UNLAWFUL ENTRY

(Reyes, pp. 458-460)
Not intended for ingress:
People v. Baello, 224 SCRA 218 (1993)

(19) BREAKING WALL, FLOOR, ROOF

(Reyes, pp. 460-461)

(20) WITH AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 OR BY MOTOR VEHICLE

(Reyes, pp. 462-465)
Motor vehicle:
Benjamin Ong, supra

(21) CRUELTY (ensañamiento)

(Reyes, pp. 465-471)

Not number of wounds; deliberate, sadistic augmented:

People v. Lacao, 60 SCRA 89 (1974)
Suffer, unnecessary physical or moral pain:
People v. Catian, 374 SCRA 514 (2002)
Number of wounds & dismemberment:
Ilaoa, supra
Severed head then cut penis:
People v. Guerrero, 389 SCRA 389 (2002)
Augmented wrong by another wrong:
People v. Mariano, 347 SCRA 109 (2000)**

E. SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE / QUALIFYING

RPC, Art. 266-B
PD 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294 (06 July 1997)
Rape of child below 7:
People v. Balgos, 323 SCRA 372 (2000)
Unlicensed firearm used in any crime:
People vs Ladjaalam, 340 SCRA 617 (2000)

F. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
(Reyes, pp. 472-488)
RPC, Art. 15

-20-
 Crimes against property
RPC, Art. 332
Not applicable to complex crimes:
Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong vs. People of
the Philippines And William Sato, 612 SCRA 274 (2010)

Crimes against persons

RPC, Art. 263 (4)
- Art. 246
- Art. 248

Crimes against chastity

(1) RELATIONSHIP
(Reyes, pp. 472-477)

Excludes common law relationsjhips:

People v. Atop, 286 SCRA 157 (1998)
Brothers:
People v. Marcos, 349 SCRA 537 (2001)

(2) INTOXICATION
(Reyes, pp. 477-482)
Drunkenness not necessarily aggravating:
People v. Renejane, 158 SCRA 258 (1988)
When aggravating or mitigating:
People v. Camano, 115 SCRA 688 (1982)**
Burden of proof:
Bernal, supra
Prior to act; Proof of quantity and effect:
Pinca, supra

(3) DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION

(Reyes, pp. 482-488)
To kill is unlawful:
People v. Lapaz, supra

G. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES AND OTHER SPECIAL SITUATIONS

(Reyes, pp. 242-249)

a. Entrapment and Instigation

(Reyes, pp. 242-249)
Importation and order for drugs already planned:
People v. Lua Chu, 56 Phil. 44 (1931)
Origin of criminal intent:
Araneta v. CA, 142 SCRA 532 (1986)
Entrapment & Instigation Distinguished:
People v. Pacis, 384 SCRA 684 (2002)

-21-
 b. Effect of Pardon
RPC, Art. 23
(Reyes, 597-600)
Rep. Act No. 8353

c. Absolutory Causes
RPC, Arts. 6(3), 7, 20, 16, 247, 280, 332, 344
Carungcong v. People, 612 SCRA 274 , February 11, 2010 (supra)

IV. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE

A. In Grave and Less Grave Felonies

(Reyes, 489-493)
RPC, Art. 16

1. Principals
(Reyes, 493-540)
RPC, Art. 17

a. By direct participation
(Reyes, 495-524)
Requisites; Effect of Conspiracy:
Dacillo,** supra
Several accused in rape:
People v. Nunag, 173 SCRA 274 (1989)
Acts not contemplated by perpetrators:
People v. Dela Cerna, 21 SCRA 569 (1967)

b. By induction
(Reyes, 524-536)
Ransom as inducement:
People v. Dela Cruz, 97 SCRA 385 (1980)**
The inducement caused the crime:
US v. Indianan, 24 Phil. 203 (1913)
Words as powerful as coercion:
People vs. Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil. 609
Command or advice as inducement:
People v. Baharan, 639 SCRA 157 (2011)

c. By indispensable cooperation
(Reyes, 536-540)
Requisites:
People v. Montealegre, 161 SCRA 700 (1988)
Lack of united purpose:
People vs. Tolentino, 380 SCRA 171 (2002)

2. Accomplices
RPC, Art. 18
(Reyes, 541-562)

-22-
 Cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts:
People v. Mandolado, supra
Material & moral aid:
People v. Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 (1991)
Community of design:
People v. Roche, 330 SCRA 91 (2000)
Do not decide the crime:
People v. Pilola, 405 SCRA 134
Conspirator and accomplice distinguished:
People v. Garcia, 373 SCRA 134 (2002)**
Requisites of:
People v. Cachola, 420 SCRA 520 (2004), supra
Prior knowledge of criminal design:
People v. Tolentino, 380 SCRA 171 (2002) supra

3. Accessories
RPC, Arts. 19, 20
(Reyes, 563-583)
Presidential Decree No. 1612
P.D. No. 1829

Denies knowing assailants:

People v. Talingdan, 84 SCRA 19 (1978)
Assistance due to fear:
People v. Tolentino, supra
Relationship exempting; Art. 20:
People v. Mariano, 347 SCRA 109 (2000)**,supra

4. In Special Penal Laws

Accomplice in Piracy & Highway Robbery:
P.D. 532, Sec. 4 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery)
Accomplice and Accessories in Terrorism:
R.A. No. 9372, Sec. 4, 5 & 6 (Human Security Act)

B. In Light Felonies

V. PENALTIES
(Reyes, 584-873)

A. General Principles

1. No ex post facto laws and other Constitutional prohibitions (Prospectivity of Criminal

Law, supra)
(Reyes, 584-587)
RPC, Art. 21
Constitution (1987), Art. III, Secs. 18(1) & (2), 19(1), 20, 22

Requisites of ex post facto laws:

In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)

-23-
 Must identify groups, persons and reach past conduct:
People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
Retroactivity & Non-retroactivity:
People v. Bracamonte, 257 SCRA 380 (1996)
Retroactivity when advantageous:
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999)** supra

2. Prospectivity; Exception
RPC, Arts. 21, 22
(Reyes, 584-597)
Civil Code, Art. 4

Judicial decisions as law; retroactive even decision is final:

People v. Gallo, 315 SCRA 461 (1999)**
Non-retroactivity to impair rights:
People v. Patalin, 311 SCRA 186 (1999)**

3. Effect of Repeal of Penal Laws

a. With reenactment
b. Without reenactment

CASE:
People v. Pimentel, 288 SCRA 542 (1988)** supra

B. Penalties which may be imposed

RPC, Art. 25
(Reyes, 502-606)
1. Principal Penalties
2. Accessory Penalties

C. Specific Principal and Accessory Penalties

1. Capital Punishment
Republic Act No. 9346 (Prescribing the imposition of death penalty)
R.A. 9346 and Art. 71 (RPC) harmonized:
People vs. Bon, 506 SCRA 168, October 30, 2006 **

Republic Act No. 7659

Republic Act No. 8177 and Implementing Rules and Regulations
Constitution (1987), Art. III, Sec. 19
RPC, Arts. 40, 47, 81-85
(Reyes, 641; 650-656; 827-829)
People v. Echegaray, 257 SCRA 561 (1996)
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601,
Resolution dated 4 and 19 January 1999
301 SCRA 96

-24-
 People v. Esparas, et al. 260 SCRA 539 (1996)
People v. Munoz, 170 SCRA 107 (1989)

2. Afflictive Penalties
RPC, Arts. 27, 41-42
(Reyes, 608-610; 640-643)

a. Reclusion Perpetua

i. As Indivisible Penalty
Duration; finality of judgment:
People v. Gatward, 267 SCRA 785 (1997)
Indivisible:
People v. Ramirez, 356 SCRA 595 (2001)

ii. Distinguish from Life Imprisonment

Not reclusion perpetua:
People v. Ballabare, 264 SCRA 350 (1996)

b. Reclusion Temporal
c. Prision Mayor

3. Correctional Penalties

a. Prision Correccional
b. Arresto Mayor
RPC, Arts. 27, 39, 43, 44
(Reyes, 608-610; 628-640; 640-643)
4. Light Penalties

a. Arresto Menor
b. Public Censure
RPC, Arts. 27, 39, 44
(Reyes, 608-610; 628-640; 640-643)

5. Penalties common to afflictive, correctional and light penalties

a. Fine
b. Bond to keep the peace
RPC, Arts. 25, 26, 35, 66
(Reyes, 602-606; 606-607; 619-622; 739-741)

C. Accessory Penalties
RPC, Arts. 30-34, 41-45
(Reyes, 617-622; 640-648)

1. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification;

2. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification;
3. Suspension from Public Office, the Right to Vote and be Voted for,

-25-
 the Right to Practice a Profession or Calling;
4. Civil Interdiction;
5. Indemnification or Confiscation of Instruments or Proceeds of the
Offense
6. Payment of Costs

D. Measures Not Considered Penalty

RPC, Art. 24
(Reyes, 600-601)
Family Code, Art. 228-229

E. Application and Computation of Penalties

1. Generally
RPC, Arts. 28, 29, 46
(Reyes, 610-617; 649-650)

Attention of the Chief Executive:

People v. Formigones, 87 Phil. 658 (1950)

2. Principals, Accomplices and Accessories in Consummated,

Frustrated and Attempted Felonies
RPC, Arts. 46, 50-57, 60-61
(Reyes, 649-650; 692-696)

People v. Campuhan, supra

3. Effects of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances

RPC, Arts. 62-64, 67, 69
(Reyes, 707-736; 741-742; 743-745)

Penalty for incomplete justification:

Lacanilao v. CA, 162 SCRA 563 (1988)

F. Special Rules

1. Complex Crimes
RPC, Art. 48
(Reyes,656-687)
Pro reo
People v. Comadre, 431 SCRA 366 (2004), supra**
People v. Gaffud, Jr., 566 SCRA 76 (2008)**
Distinguished from Art. 365 RPC:
Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, supra
Convicted only of offense proved:
Taboga, supra

a) Compound Crime (delito compuesto)

Murder with multiple attempted murder:

-26-
 People v. Comadre, supra
Murder and frustrated murder:
People v. Mision, 194 SCRA 432, G.R. No. L-63480, Feb. 26, 1991
People v. Glenn Delos Santos, 355 SCRA 415 (2001)** supra
Two grave or less grave felonies:
People v. Gonzalez, Jr., 359 SCRA 352 (2001), supra
Several gunmen, several victims:
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999)** supra

b) Complex Crime Proper (delito complejo)

Forcible abduction with rape and simple rape:
People v. Velasquez, 345 SCRA 728 (2000)
Effect of acquittal for a component offense:
Monteverde v. People, 387 SCRA 196 (2002)
Composite crimes & compound crimes distinguished (rape with homicide):
People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012

c) Complex crime & Absolutory Cause under Art. 332:

Carungcong v. People, 612 SCRA 274 , February 11, 2010

2. Special Complex Crimes (Delito especial complejo)

RPC 266-A, 267, 294, 297, 320 as amended

Principals did not endeavor to prevent homicide:

People v. Escober, 157 SCRA 541 (1988) supra**
Robbery w/ Homicide & Rape:
People v. Fabon, 328 SCRA 302 (2000)**
Crimes committed by reason or on occasion:
People v. Escote, 400 SCRA 603 (2003)**supra
Kidnapping with murder or homicide or rape:
People v. Larranaga, 421 SCRA 530 (2004)**
Composite crime; Rape with homicide:
People v. Laog, 658 SCRA 654 (2011)
People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012
Robbery with homicide and rape:
People v. Hipona, 613 SCRA 291 (2010)

3. Continuing Crime (delito continuado)

Taking two roosters same place and occasion:
People v. De Leon, 49 Phil. 437(1926)
Taking of six roosters from a coop:
People v. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563 (1974) supra
Ideal plurality and real plurality; delito continuado:
Gamboa v. C.A., 68 SCRA 308 (1975)
Perpetrated by different acts:
Toling, 62 SCRA 17 (1975)**supra
Single motivation and single purpose:
People v. Pincalin, 102 SCRA 136 (1981)**
See J. Makasiar dissenting

-27-
 Co-conspirators in a single assault:
People v. Garcia, 96 SCRA 497 (1980)**

4. Absorption doctrine
One crime of Rebellion; political offenses:
People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1956)
As means or in furtherance:
People v. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90 (1956)
Complex crime?:
Ponce Enrile v. Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990)**
See dissenting and concurring opinions.

5. Crime different from that intended

RPC, Art. 49
(Reyes,687-691)

6. Impossible Crimes
RPC, Arts. 4(2), 59
(Reyes, 83-88 & 697-698)

7. Additional penalty for certain accessories

RPC, Art. 58
(Reyes, 696-697)

8. Where the offender is below 18 years old

RPC, Art. 68
(Reyes, 742-743)
Presidential decree No. 603, Art. 192

9. The Three-Fold Rule

RPC, Art. 70
(Reyes, 645-655)
Not about “imposition of penalty”:
Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan, 151 SCRA 399 (1987)**

10. Where the penalty is composed of three periods

RPC, Art. 65
(Reyes, 736-739)
G. The Indeterminate Sentence Law
Act No. 4103
RPC, Art. 64
(Reyes, 729-736)
Prof. Esteban B. Bautista, Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
78 SCRA 54
Penalty next lower:
People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008**
People v. Saley, supra
Reclusion perpetua:
People vs. Bon, supra **

-28-
 Maximum penalty not to exceed 20 years (Art. 315):
Dela Cruz v. CA, 265 SCRA 299 (1996)
Exceptions:
People v. Lab-eo, 373 SCRA 461 (2002), supra
Applicability to special penal laws:
Malto v. People, 533 SCRA 643 (2007)

H. Execution and Service of Penalties

1. Execution of Penalties
RPC, Arts. 78, 86-88
Rules and Regulations to Implement RA No. 8177
Simultaneous service of penalty:
In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of
Pete C. Lagran, 363 SCRA 275 (2001)

2. Effects of Probation Law

(Reyes, 795-813)
Presidential Decree No. 968 (as amended)
Not a penal statute:
Llamado v. CA, 174 SCRA 566 (1989)
When appeal not bar to probation:
Francisco v. C.A., 243 SCRA 384 (1995)**
Final order of discharge:
Bala v. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459 (1990)
Waiver right to appeal:
Salgado v. CA, 189 SCRA 304 (1990)
Probation on appeal:
Colinares v. People,, G.R. No. 182748. Dec. 13, 2011,662 SCRA 266**,
supra; See dissenting opinions
Not pardon:
Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado,
260 SCRA 624 (1996)**

3. Suspension in case of Insanity or Minority

Republic Act No. 9344
RPC, Art. 79-80
(Reyes, 815-827)
Presidential Decree no. 603, Arts. 189-204
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, Sec. 32

VI. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

A. Total Extinction
RPC, Arts. 89-93, 36
(Reyes, 837-866; 622-625)
Effect of pardon:
Monsanto v. Factoran, 170 SCRA 190 (1989)**
R.A. 3019 and prescription:
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on

-29-
 Behest Loans v. Desierto, 363 SCRA 489 (2001)**
Prescription of B.P. 22:
People v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012
Death of accused pending appeal:
People v. Abungan, 341 SCRA 258 (2000)
Waiver of prescription:
Recebido v. People, 346 SCRA 881 (2000)
Escape and prescription of penalties:
Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, 394 SCRA 221 (2002)
Amnesty, its effects:
People v. Patriarca, 341 SCRA 464 (2000)
Marriage (Art. 344, RPC):
People v. De Guzman, 614 SCRA 221 (2010)

B. Partial Extinction
RPC, Arts. 94-99
(Reyes, 867-873)

C. Compromise, Affidavit of Desistance, Payment of Civil Liability

Compromise
Trinidad vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 539 SCRA 415, (2007)
Affidavit of Desistance:
People v. Orje, 657 SCRA 427 (2011)
Payment of Civil Liability:
Spouses Cabico v. Dimaculangan-Querijero, 522 SCRA 300 (2007)**

VII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A FELONY

A. General Rule
RPC, Art. 100
(Reyes, 874-894)
Civil Code, Arts. 20, 1161, 2176, 2177
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 111

Deemed instituted, unless . . .:

Quinto v. Andres, supra
Basis of civil liability:
Chua v. CA 443 SCRA 142 (2004)
Employer subsidiary liability, requisites:
Basilio v. CA, 328 SCRA 341 (2000)
Test of negligence:
People v. Glenn De Los Santos, supra

B. Special Cases

1. Insanity, Imbecility and those Over 9 and Under 15 Years of Age

2. State of Necessity

-30-
 3. Irresistible Force, Uncontrollable Fear of Greater or Equal
Injury
RPC, Art. 101
(Reyes, 894-899)
4. Innkeepers and Similar Persons
RPC, Art. 102
(Reyes, 899-901)
5. Subsidiary Liability of Other Persons
RPC, Art. 103
(Reyes, 901-909)
Reckless imprudence & employer’s liability:
Vda. De Paman v. Señeris, G.R. No. L-37632 July 30, 1982
Only civil liability from crime:
Philippine Rabbit v. People 427 SCRA 526 (2004)

C. What Civil Liability Includes

RPC, Arts. 104-108
(Reyes, 910-935)
Recovery in criminal or civil case:
Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos, 27 SCRA 327

D. Persons Civilly Liable

RPC, Arts. 108-111
(Reyes, 934-937)
Employer’s subsidiary liability:
Carpio v. Doroja, 180 SCRA 1 (1989)

E. Extinction of Civil Liability

RPC, Arts. 112-113
(Reyes, 938-941)
Civil Code, Art. 1231
Death pending appeal:
People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239**

-31-