CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 1

CRIMINAL LAW I (Teacher: Fiscal RodulphCarilllo) classmate walking with his girlfriend. You say: “This is my
chance. I will shoot my classmate”. You shoot your
--- FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY ---- classmate but you missed in shooting him. Instead, you shot
his girlfriend. Are you liable? Will you be liable for an
SOURCES
intentional or culpable felony? If the act is an intentional
felony, why? It was not the girlfriend whom you wanted to
- Revised Penal Code (Book I)
kill. It was her boyfriend. In this case, your classmate. Would
- Jurisprudence
that not amount to a culpable felony?
Tips in answering Fiscal Carillo’s Exam: PRINCIPLES(s),
In the case of DE JOYA vs. JAIL OF BATANGAS, what did De
APPLICATION OF THE LAW
Joya asked from the Supreme Court?
REQUIREMENTS: 3 Major Examinations, Oral
PP vs. GONZALES?
Examinations/Quiz
QUESTION: If I bought a gun with the intent of killing a
Q: Timothy was unhappily married to Maria. He left her and
person without actually killing him, will I be liable for an
joined the Mormons. He became a dedicated missionary
attempted murder?
spreading the gospel of Brigham Young. One day he arrived
in a town to do missionary work and met Clara. They fell in
WHAT IS CRIMINAL LAW?
love with each other. Timothy honestly believed that his
conversion to the Mormon religion allowed him to have -Defines crimes
more than one wife. Without his first marriage to Maria
dissolved, Timothy married Clara. Timothy was charged -Treats of their nature
with bigamy.
-Provides for penalties
Timothy is: Criminally liable because his mistake in the
interpretation of the law does not excuse him from its Primary Purpose
effects.
Prevent harm to society by:
Criminally because his misapprehension of the facts caused
a. Declaring what conduct is criminal
an injury that would result in criminal liability
b. Describing the punishment to be imposed for such
Criminally liable because his imprudence resulted in a
conduct
culpable felony
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Criminally liable because good faith is not a defense in the
case of felonies
-Revised Penal Code
ANSWER:
-Special Laws passed by the Legislature
PRINCIPLE OF LAW: “One who commits an intentional
-Presidential Decrees issued during Martial Law
felony is liable for all the natural and logical consequences
that may result therefrom, whether foreseen, intended or There are no common law crimes.
not.”
No law = no crime.
APPLICATION:
Are court decisions and circulars sources of criminal law?
How does one incur criminal liability? Give an example.
“SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence,
What if you want to kill your classmate because he would Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. This
not allow you to copy his answers in an exam? You see this is just a clarification of our decision.” (NORMA DE JOYA vs.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 2

THE JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY, GR Nos. 159418-19, JURISDICTION IN CRIMINAL CASES
December 10, 2003)
Jurisdiction – power to hear and decide a controversy.
State’s power to define and punish crimes.
In criminal cases:
“A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the
subdivision of which its great powers will admit, and of all Place / Venue
the means by which they may be carried into execution,
Nature of the crime – if penalty is 6 years and 1 day above
would partake of a prolixity of a legal code, and could
(RTC); if drug related case, the RTC specially designated as
scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would
drug court; if the case consists of a minor?
probably never be understood by the public.”
Person committing the crime
A state must be able to define and punish crimes. If you
place the penalties for crimes in the Constitution, it will
WHEN DOES A COURT ATTAIN JURISDICTION?When the
tarnish its characteristic. It will not be brief, broad and
offender surrenders himself; during arraignment; the
definite anymore. If you do that, that will be making our
person surrendering must do it personally, you cannot send
Constitution a broad one.
a messenger
Limits (1987 Constitution)
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:
-Ex-post facto law (Art. III, Sec. 22)
(1) General (refers to the subject of criminal law; ANYONE
WHO LIVES OR SOJOURN IN THE PHILIPPINE TERRITORY
-Due process (Art. III, Sec. 14 [1])
WILL BE SUBJECT TO PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW
-Speedy disposition of cases
(2) Territorial
-Right to bail
(3) Prospective
-Presumption of innocence
JURISDICTION
-Self-incrimination
-Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction over military
-Double jeopardy personnel with Courts martial even in times of war as long
as the civil courts are still functioning
The power of the state to define and punish crimes has a
limitation. These are more or less included in our laws. We GONZALES vs. ABAYA, GR No. 164007, August 10, 2006
can find some of these in the Revised Rules of Court.
RA #7055
LIMITS (Statutory)
GENERAL RULE – AFP, persons subject to military law, who
-Presumption of innocence commit crimes or offenses penalized under the Revised
Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local ordinances –
-Informed of the nature and cause of accusation civil court.

-To be present and defend in person EXCEPTION – Service-connected offenses – military court

-To testify in his own behalf EXCEPTION TO THE EXEPTION – President, interest of
justice – civil court
-Self-incrimination
EXCEPTIONS (These are for purposes of international
-To confront / cross-examine comity)

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 3

- Treaties REPEAL
- Laws of preferential application;
- Sovereigns, Chiefs of State, Ambassadors, If the repeal makes the penalty lighter, the new law shall be
Ministers plenipotentiary, ministers residents applied. (Exception, retroactive, favourable)
and charges d’affaires.
If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the old law shall
- Consuls being commercial representatives have
be applied. (General law, no retroactive effect, not
no such immunity. They do not enjoy the same
favorable)
immunity enjoyed by the above-mentioned
political agencies
If the new law totally repeals the existing law, the crime is
obliterated. (Exception, retroactive, favourable) ; THOSE
2. TERRITORIAL
WHO ARE SERVING SENTENCE, YOU RELEASE THEM ; Anti-
Criminal law is applicable only with respect to acts Subversion Act was totally repealed; Just becoming a
committed within Philippine territory. member of an organization that is subversive, you can be
prosecuted, however, this was already repealed so their
Philippine Territory – Archipelagic doctrine cases were DISMISSED

EXCEPTIONS CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS

Article 2 of the RPC: Against the Government and in favor of the accused.

1. Philippine ship / airship Spanish text is controlling (OLD CODIGO PENAL)

2. Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or As in all rules of statutory construction, these rules are
securities (maskipagnaakagawassaPilipinas, liable applicable only when there is some ambiguity in the
gihaponka!) interpretation of the criminal statute

3. Introduction of items no. 2 into the Philippines PP vs. GONZALES – What was the crime involved in this
case? What particular principle in law would you use if you
4. Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their were the justice in this case? So what if you can establish
functions that the accused did not commit a felonious act punishable
by Article 4 of the RPC? Would it be correct to say that a
5. Crimes against national security / law of nations (EVEN IF
felony cannot be punished merely because it is not proven
YOU COMMIT REBELLION OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES,
that such felony existed?
TENDING TO INDUCE FOREIGNERS TO COMMIT SUCH
CRIME, YOU WILL STILL BE CRIMINALLY LIABLE ; Piracy) ART. 2 EXTENT OF APPLICATION

3. PROSPECTIVE (REGISTERED) Philippine ship or airship

-a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a manner Forge or counterfeit coins, currency notes, obligations or
in……. securities;

EXCEPTION Introduction of items in no. 2 into the Philippines;

When the new law is favourable to the accused Public officers or employees / in the exercise of their
functions;
NOT APPLICABLE (Exception to the exception):
National security / law of nations
Express prohibition;
FISCAL CARILLO: Airplane sir, walailabot?
Habitual criminal
Walailabotnohkywala man dha? Yes or no? (The term

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 4

“AIRSHIP” is found in the OLD CODIGO PENAL so the answer Territorial Waters – TRIABLE in our courts unless – merely
is YES, LABOT) affect things (1) within the vessel or they refer to the (2)
internal management thereof. (ENGLISH RULE)
WHEN COMMITTED ON A PHILIPPINE SHIP OR AIRSHIP.
ENGLISH RULE vs. FRENCH RULE
A person who commits an offense on board a Philippine
ship or airship while the same is outside Philippine territory Crimes committed on board FMV within territorial waters.
can be tried by our courts.
FRENCH RULE – NOT triable unless it affects peace and
Ship or airship must be in international waters. security of the territory

FORGES OR COUNTERFEITS ANY COIN OR CURRENCY ENGLISH RULE – TRIABLE unless they merely affect things
NOTE, OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES within vessel or refer to internal management thereof.
(Take note: THE MOMENT WE GET AN INFORMATION THAT
Making false or counterfeit coins (ART. 163) A FOREIGN MERCHANT VESSEL / AIRSHIP POSSESSES A
PROHIBITED ARTICLE, THE PHILIPPINE COURTS WILL HAVE
A PUBLIC OFFICER/EMPLOYEE, OFFENSE IN THE EXERCISE
JURISDICTION)
OF HIS FUNCTIONS.
EXAMPLE OF ENGLISH RULE
- Direct bribery (Art. 210)
- Indirect bribery (Art. 211) Possession of opium.
- Frauds against the public treasure (Art. 213)
- Malversation (Art. 217) If FMV is in transit – NOT TRIABLE
- Falsification (Art. 171)
- Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216) If Philippines is destination – TRIABLE

CRIMES AGAINST THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW SMOKING OPIUM –triable regardless
OF NATIONS
OPIUM IS LANDED ON PHILIPPINE SOIL- triable regardless
- Treason (Art. 114)
(See PP vs. WONG CHENG, PP vs. LOOK CHAW & PP vs. AH
- Espionage (Art. 117)
SING)
- Piracy (Art. 122)
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED TODAY. WHAT IS
FOREIGN MERCHANT SHIPS
CONTROLLING AT PRESENT IS R.A. 9165
An extension of the territory of the country to which it
ART. 3. FELONIES
belongs.
FELONY is the technical term for violations of the RPC.
In the case of US vs. BULL, a continuing crime on board a
foreign merchant ship sailing to the Philippines istriable by
ELEMENTS:
our courts. The condition was still existing when the ship
was within territorial waters. Act or omission;

WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED ON BOARD A FOREIGN Punishable by the RPC;

MERCHANT SHP
There is dolo or culpa
International Waters – NOT triable in our courts, an
extension of the territory of the country to which the ship ACT OR OMISSION
belongs.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 5

- Act pertains to “any bodily movement tending to Why was AH CHONG brought to court? Was he relieved
produce some effect in the external world.” (PP from criminal liability merely because of his belief that he
vs. GONZALES) was under attack? Is there any principle involved in the case
of AH CHONG that the Supreme Court used in acquitting
ACTS him? Was it not an intentional act on the part of AH CHONG
in killing his victim? So, can you say that “GOOD FAITH” is a
OVERT – done openly, external (not internal), must have a
defense for the crime of homicide?
direct connection with the felony committed.
OANIS Case
Is the act of buying a gun a crime? You bought a gun
because you are going to commit a crime. You bought it for PP vs. VILLACORTA
the purpose of self-defense. You bought it because you
want to join a shooting competition. Even when you draw DIEGO vs. CASTILLO
pistol (loaded) or you just want to threaten a person, IT IS
STILL AN EQUIVOCAL ACT. REQUISITES OF DOLO

OMISSION - FREEDOM – No freedom = not voluntary

- INTELLIGENCE – discern morality of act (your
Omission refers to inaction or the failure to perform a ability to know what is right from wrong; a
positive duty. There must be a law punishing such inaction clinically insane person cannot be held liable for a
or failure. criminal act as this is an exempting circumstance;
you may not know what is right and wrong but
“Mere passive presence at the scene of another’s crime, you may know who is handsome or not)
mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence - INTENT – to commit the felony
of agreement or conspiracy, do not constitute the
cooperation…” The only evidence of the state was that INTENT
SILVESTRE was with her husband and failure on the part of
SILVESTRE to give an alarm. (PP vs. SILVESTRE) Being in a state of mind, intent is hard to prove.

You see somebody in a remote area in danger of dying. Criminal intent is PRESUMED from the commission of an
Nadasmagansiyaug truck and you failed to give assistance, unlawful act. The decision to adopt a means to arrive at a
you will be LIABLE under the above rule. (OMISSION) result is INTENT. You must look at all the circumstances.

FELONIES The act of stabbing is an intentional act but there is no

criminal intent because the person thought he was
DOLO – deceit / malice; deliberate intent defending himself. (AH CHONG Case)

CULPA – fault; no deliberate intent but there is: Because we do not have psychics, we look at all the factors;
the circumstances before, during and after the act. So in
Imprudence – lack of skill, or another case, you don’t look at the results only. A small
scratch on the forehead does not mean that there is an
Negligence – lack of foresight
attempted murder on the person. Look at the weapon used;
the part of the body to which the blow was directed and the
*WHETHER IT BE IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLIGENCE, IT MUST
circumstances attendant to the felonious act. WE LOOK AT
BE VOLUNTARY.
SOMETHING THAT IS READILY OBSERVABLE.
Recall the illustrative case given by Fiscal Carillo (HOUSEBOY
Spouses, brothers and sisters, there is no theft. BECAUSE
& HOUSEMAID / “Ti-uniko, ti-uniko, Sir”)
THERE IS CO-OWNERSHIP.
Houseboy was only used as an instrument
GENERAL INTENT vs. SPECIFIC INTENT

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 6

Intent as an element of dolo is a general intent. And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal
liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in making
Specific intent, e.g., intent to gain in theft and robbery, an arrest.
intent to kill in homicide and murder.
The accused were given the benefit of mitigating
MISTAKE OF FACT circumstances

Misapprehension of facts by the person who causes injury MISTAKE OF FACT vs. MISTAKE OF LAW
to another.
This Court, in People vs. Bitdu, carefully distinguished
No criminal liability on the part of the actor because there between a mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the
is no criminal intent. defense of good faith in a bigamy case, from a mistake of
law, which does not excuse a person, even a lay person,
Whenever there is good faith, it SUPPLANTS the criminal
from liability. Bitdu held that even if the accused, who had
act. You cannot deny your basic instincts.
obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan custom,
honestly believed that in contracting her second marriage,
MISTAKE OF FACT; Requisites
she was not omitting any violation of the law, and that she
Act is LAWFUL had the facts been as the accused believed had no criminal intent, the same does not justify her act.
them to be. (DIEGO vs. CASTILLO, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673, August 11,
2004)
INTENTION of accused is lawful.
GOOD FAITH IS A GOOD DEFENSE.
NO fault or carelessness.
REQUISITES OF CULPA
Good faith happens when mistake of fact is present.
- Freedom;
US vs. AH CHONG, March 19, 1910, GR No. 5272 - Intelligence;
- Imprudence, Negligence, Lack of foresight or Lack
“In broader terms, ignorance or mistake of fact, if such of skill.
ignorance or mistake of fact is sufficient to negative a
particular intent which under the law is a necessary CULPA – no intent to cause injury
ingredient of the offense charged (e.g., in larceny, animus
furendi; in murder, malice; in crimes and misdemeanors The offender in culpable felonies must perform an act
generally some degree of criminal intent) “cancel the without intention to cause injury to another.
presumption of intent,” and works an acquittal except in
If the offender intended to cause injury but the result is
those cases where the circumstances demand a conviction
different from that intended, he is liable for an intentional
under the penal provisions touching criminal negligence.”
felony under Article 4. (INTENTIONAL FELONY =
The circumstances will indicate the intention of the person. mangligisniCarillotungodkycgesiyaugpamusil)

PP vs. OANIS, July 27, 1943, GR No. 47722 Shooting a person in a running mode is UNLAWFUL. It is
wrong for a law enforcer to shoot a running suspect TO
In the instant case, appellants, unlike the accused in the ASCERTAIN WHETHER HE MUST BE ARRESTED OR NOT.
instances cited, found no circumstances whatsoever which
would press them to immediate action. The person in the If the person is an ESCAPE PRISONER, killing him MAY be
room being then asleep, appellants had ample time and justified.
opportunity to ascertain his identity without hazard to
CRIMES OR OFFENSES PUNISHED BY SPECIAL LAWS
themselves, and could even effect a bloodless arrest if any
reasonable effort to that end had been made, as the victim
Intent to commit the crime is not required, it is sufficient if
was unarmed, according to Irene Requinea.
the accused had intent to perpetrate the act.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 7

It is sufficient that the prohibited act is done freely or When does an action result to criminal liability and when
voluntarily. does an action not result to criminal liability?

IF IT IS WRONG BY ITS VERY NATURE, IT IS MALA IN SE (Good ART. 4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Faith). IF IT IS WRONG BECAUSE THE ACT COMMITTED IS
PROHIBITED BY LAW, IT IS MALA PROHIBITA (Special Penal Criminal liability is incurred:
Laws; Good faith is NOT a defense). As long as you possess
Committing a felony although the wrongful act done is
the prohibited articles, you are liable.
different from what he intended;
MALA PROHIBITA – there must be knowledge that the
Impossible crime (KILLING AN ALREADY DEAD PERSON)
article in possession is prohibited by law
RULE ON CRIMINAL LIABILITY
MOTIVE and INTENT
A person who commits an intentional felony is responsible
- Motive is the moving power that impels one to
for all the consequences that may naturally and logically
action for a definite result
result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
- Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to
effect such result.
INTENTIONAL FELONY

MOTIVE IS NOT A REQUISITE

For this article to apply, the offender must be committing
an intentional felony (dolo)
Motive is not an essential element of a crime and is,
therefore, not necessary for the conviction of the accused.
“… different from that which he intended.”
EXCEPT:
If the offender was committing a culpable felony this article
does NOT apply
- There is doubt as to the identity of the accused
- There are 2 antagonistic versions
COMMITTING A FELONY (Acts with criminal intent)

DOCTRINE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE

If the person is not committing a felony, the article is not
applicable.
A punches B and B falls to the ground with an improvised
stove sustaining an injury. 12 days later, B died. Is A liable?
BINDOY Case– trying to retain a bolo that was taken from
the owner.
I have a swiss-knife and then somebody grabs it and then I
injure your hand because I was trying to get back my swiss-
VILLANUEVA Case – snatching a bolo because of curiosity.
knife. Am I liable? Does this not fall within the principle that
I should be liable for the consequences of my own actions? “Although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.”
You are a member of the 13 Judas gang. Your mortal
enemies are the 14 Banal gang. The latter ganged up on MISTAKE IN THE IDENTITY – error in personae
you. You are an expert of MMA. So you defend yourself
against their blades. You hurt your own finger. Back to your MISTAKE IN THE BLOW –aberratio ictus
house, you were hiding. When you looked at it, that finger
was already hanging. 4 days after, the finger starts to INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED –
blacken. So you go to court and file a case against the 14- praeterintentionem
Banal. The contention of the counsel for the 14-Banal was
In all three cases, the perpetrator is liable for all the natural
that the victim DID NOT IMMEDIATELY SEEK FOR MEDICAL
and logical consequence that may result from the unlawful
ATTENDANCE. Hence, because of his decision not to seek
act, whether foreseen or not.
for medical assistance, the accused-defendants should not
be liable. Is the counsel for the 14-Banal correct?
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 8

MISTAKE IN INDENTITY – error in personae for the intentional death of that person.” (US vs. VALDEZ ,
41 Phil. 497)
A intended to kill B;
“If the victim had a delicate constitution as he was suffering
A mistakes C for B (darkness); from tuberculosis and died as a result from the fist-blows,
the person who delivered the said blows is liable for the
A shoots C, killing him.
death.” (PP vs. ILLUSTRE, 54 Phil 594)
A is liable for the death of C, since C’s death is the direct,
If the death was accelerated by fist blows delivered because
natural and logical consequence of his felonious act
the victim was suffering from some internal condition, the
(shooting).
person who delivered the blows is liable for the death. (PP
vs. RODRIGUEZ)
MISTAKE IN THE BLOW – aberratio ictus
SEGURITAN vs. PP
X intends to kill Y;
REFUSAL OF OR UNSKLLFUL MEDICAL TREATMENT
X shoots at Y;
Where the victim refuses to submit to surgical operation,
X hits Z (poor aim) killing him.
the person who caused the injuries is still liable as a person
X is liable for the death of Z, since Z’s death is the direct, is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve
natural and logical consequence of his felonious act the accused from the natural or ordinary results of his
(shooting Z) X is also liable for the attempt on Y. crime. (US vs. MARASIGAN)

INJURIOUS RESULT IS GREATER THAN THAT INTENDED – REFUSAL

Praeterintentionem
“…that he who inflicts the injury is not relieved of
A punches B once (no intent to kill); responsibility if the wound inflicted is dangerous, that is,
calculated to destroy or endanger life, even though the
B falls to the ground hitting his head on the pavement; immediate cause of the death was erroneous or unskillful
medical or surgical treatment…” (PP vs. MOLDES, GR No.
B dies as a result of the injuries to his head. 42122, December 1, 1934)

A is liable for the death of B, since B’s falling to the ground PROXIMATE CAUSE
and hitting his head on the pavement is the direct, natural
and logical consequence of his felonious act (punching). “that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
PP vs. CAGOCO, GR No. 38511, October 6, 1933 injury, and without which the result would not have
occurred. The remote cause is not necessarily the
“There is nothing to indicate that it was due to some
proximate cause. It was the negligence of the bus company
extraneous case. It was clearly the direct consequence of
that was the proximate cause.” (VDA.DE BATACLAN vs.
defendants’ felonious act, and the fact that the defendant
MEDINA, GR No. L-10126, October 22, 1957)
did not intend to cause so great an injury does not relieve
him from the consequence of his unlawful act, but is merely A person is NOT liable for all the possible consequences of
a mitigating circumstance.“ his act.

“Direct, natural and logical” “And there is authority that if the consequences resulted
from a distinct act or fact absolutely foreign from the
“A person who threatens or pursues another with a knife
criminal act, the offender is not responsible for such
and causes the latter to jump to the river in order to avoid
consequences.” (PP vs. MARCO, GR Nos. L-28324-5)
him and drowns as he did not know how to swim, is liable
EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 9

Active force that intervenes between the felony and the AGAINST PERSONS OR PROPERTY
resulting injury;
Crimes against persons:
The active force must be a distinct act; or
- Murder, homicide, physical injuries, rape, etc.
A fact absolutely foreign from the felonious act;
Crimes against property:
The resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim
- Robbery, Theft, Estafa, etc.
FAULT OR CARELESSNESS OF THE VICTIM
Kidnapping / serious illegal detention is a crime against
“Malicious act or omission of the victim” (That particular act liberty
now becomes the efficient intervening cause)
Q: Kidnapping a dead body?
PP vs. VILLACORTA (GR No. 186412, September 7, 2011)
A: No criminal liability.
The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct,
natural, and logical consequence of the wounds inflicted EVIL INTENT
upon him by the accused. X XX The medical findings,
There must be intent to injure another.
however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection
of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause
INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE
later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time
of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and Our laws do not distinguish between legal and physical
foreign to the crime. impossibility.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY = opening a safe without money

inside
The felony intended by the offender is not achieved due to:
INTOD vs. PP
Inherent impossibility
Furthermore, the phrase “inherent impossibility” that is
Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
found in Article 4(2) of the RPC makes no distinction
between factual or physical impossibility and legal
IS THIS PUNISHABLE? Yes. Because you are intending to
impossibility. The case of INTOD vs. PP was an impossible
commit a crime. There is a criminal propensity on the part
crime. Shooting a space where the intended victim is not
of offender.
present is an impossible crime.
REQUISITES OF AN IMPOSSIBLE CRIME:
There is no need to distinguish factual from physical
- Persons / Property impossibility because Philippine law is clear, “INHERENTLY
- Evil Intent IMPOSSIBLE”.
- Inherently impossible / means employed is
PP vs. ENOJA
inadequate or ineffectual.
In another case where the accused who claimed that since
Should not constitute another violation of the RPC (The act
they shot the victim after the first shooter had already shot
of pseudomizing a person is a crime of acts of
the victim, they were in effect shooting a person already
lasciviousness; Any person can be a victim of rape as long as
dead, the Supreme Court called their argument merely
you insert penis or an object into the mouth)
speculative.
What is the difference between a finger and a canister? The
ART. 5 – DUTY OF JUDGE WHEN SITUATION NOT COVERED
moral depravity and the criminal intent is the SAME.
BY LAW.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 10

Act is not punished by law – must render a decision THEFT – gaining possession of the item consummates the
according to the law. felony.

EXCESSIVE PENALTIES – must not suspend the execution of There is no frustrated theft. (VALENZUELA vs. PP, GR No.
sentence 1160188, June 21, 2007; Rule of VALENZUELA case is similar
to the ruling of ADIAO case)
*report to the President through the Department of Justice
(DOJ) MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME

ALTERNATIVE PENALTIES NOT ALLOWED FORMAL CRIMES – slander and false testimony

“[s]entences should not be in the alternative. There is MERE ATTEMPT OR PROPOSAL – flight to enemy’s country
nothing in the law which permits courts to impose (ATTEMPT) and corruption of minor (PROPOSAL)
sentences in the alternative.” While a judge has the
discretion of imposing one or another penalty, he cannot MATERIAL CRIMES – rape, homicide or murder
impose both in the alternative. “He must fix positively and
“In Palaganas v. People, we ruled that when the accused
with certainty the particular penalty.” (ABELLANA vs. PP, GR
intended to kill his victim, as shown by his use of a deadly
No. 174654, August 17, 2011)
weapon and the wounds he inflicted, but the victim did not
ART. 6 – STAGES OF EXECUTION die because of timely medical assistance, the crime is
frustrated murder or frustrated homicide. If the victim’s
- Consummated wounds are not fatal, the crime is only attempted murder
- Frustrated or attempted homicide.” (COLINARES vs. PP, GR No.
- Attempted 182748, December 13, 2011)

CONSUMMATED FRUSTRATED

All elements necessary for its execution and - Offender performs all the acts of execution that would
accomplishment are present. produce the felony but does not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
MURDER.It is necessary that you kill the victim for there to
become a consummated felony. ATTEMPTED

THEFT. It is necessary that you take possession of the DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME

objects you intend to gain.
1st Internal Acts – not punishable
FACTORS:
2nd External Acts:
- The nature of the offense.
- The elements constituting the felony. a.) Preparatory Acts – generally not punishable;
- The manner of committing the same.
b.) Acts of Execution – punishable
ARSON
ATTEMPTED STAGE, Elements
If any part of the structure is burned (CONSUMMATED)
Commences the commission of the felony directly by overt
If the fire is started but no part of the structure is burned acts.
(FRUSTRATED)
Does not perform all the acts of execution which should
If no fire has been even started (ATTEMPTED) produce the felony.

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE Acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 11

Due to a cause of accident other than his own spontaneous Does not perform all acts of execution due to his own
desistance. spontaneous desistance – NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY

OVERT ACTS It is a reward for those “having one foot on the verge of
crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the
External Acts; path of righteousness.”

Direct connection with the crime intended to be SPONTANEOUS DESISTANCE

committed.
Absolves one from the crime he intended to commit NOT
“The overt acts must have an immediate and necessary from the crime actually committed before the desistance.
relation to the offense.” –VIADA
PERFORMS ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
EQUIVOCAL vs. UNEQUIVOCAL
Nothing is left to be done by the offense because he has
-drawing a pistol or raising a bolo are equivocal acts. performed the last act necessary to produce the crime.

-drawing a pistol, aiming the same at the victim and, with In attempted crime, offender never passes the subjective
intent to kill, discharge the firearm at the victim can we say phase.
that the acts are not overt acts of homicide/murder.
BELIEF OF THE OFFENDER
PP vs. LAMAHANG
“…this Court has held that is not necessary that the accused
“Directly by overt acts” actually commit all the acts of execution necessary to
produce the death of his victim, but that it is sufficient that
This element requires that the offender personally execute
he believes that he has committed all said acts. PP vs. SY PIO
the commission of the crime.
US vs. EDUAVE GR No. 12155, February 02, 1917
Inducing another to commit a crime, when the person
induced does not accede will not result in criminal liability “A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the
for the inducer as the general rule is mere proposal to offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by
commit a crime is not punishable. overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by some outside
cause from performing all of the acts which should produce
PP vs. LIZADA
the crime.”
“An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity
DESISTANCE AFTER PERFORMING ALL ACTS
or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if “If he has performed all of the acts which should result in
carried out to its complete termination following its natural the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt.” (Ai.Kaluo-
by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator will oyniyaoi.Molakawnalangko.)
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.”
PP vs. DAGMAN, GR No. 23133
DOES NOT PERFORM ALL ACTS OF EXECUTION
The murder should be regarded as frustrated because the
If the offender has performed all acts of execution – offenders performed all of the acts of execution which
consummated stage or frustrated stage should precede the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes
If there is still something else to be done – attempted stage
independent of the will of the perpetrators; in this instance,
the playing possum by Magbual.
“By reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.”
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 12

What if the 2nd person who went with you did not shoot his
gun but just kept on giving you bullets. So the one who
BY REASON OF CAUSES INDEPENDENT OF THE WILL OF THE remained in the car? Must conspiracy be coupled with an
PERPETRATOR external act? What if that person who is left at the car gets
out of the car and starts saying: “Go. Go. Go. Go. Attack.”?
Felony NOT produced – causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator. PP vs. EVANGELIO, GR No. 181902, August 31, 2011

PP vs. LIZADA To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail

of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or
“An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity
need not even know the exact part to be performed by the
or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular
others in the execution of the conspiracy.
crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if
carried out to its complete termination following its natural Let’s say you are a member of band of robbers. Five of you
course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor decide to rob a bank. The first says: I am the only one who
by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will has a driver license. The other one says I have a gun and
logically and necessarily ripen into a crime.” walkie-talkie. That leaves 3, including you to get inside the
bank and to get the money from the bank. As the plan was
A woman filed a case against a man charging the man with
made out, the 2 of you played your roles. You are told by
rape. While the complaint was under investigation, they
your 2 companions to watch the employees and the 2 of
meet each other in a dark alley just the 2 of them and the
them will go inside the vault. You noticed that the teller is
man immediately draws his bolo and says to the girl: “I will
beautiful and you say: Lugosonnalangninako”. You took
kill you, SALAMAMETS”. Then starts hacking at the woman.
with you the teller and bought her inside an office of the
Woman tries to go away but was still slashed at her back.
bank. You raped her. After, you left. Then, 5 of you got
Woman falls down and the man says: “I have killed the
arrested. Nahibongang 4 nimongakaubanngaang title sa
worst enemy”. The man throws the woman to the garbage.
case ky “ROBBERY WITH RAPE”. Tutokclanimo.
Thereafter, the man goes home and announced it publicly
that he killed someone. Not knowing, the woman was able What is the liability of the other four? Let’s say, they all saw
to crawl from the place of incident to the hospital. Woman you drag the girl into the office. Ingonmonga: “Mao
files a case against the man. The man contends as a defense bitawnaang tripping gyudniya. Walapaman sad
that he was liable only for attempted murder. What is the nacyakasuway. Pasagdaaannanato, padayon ta
liability of the man? Will he be liable for attempted murder driugkawat”. The other four did not participate in the rape.
or frustrated murder? Will they still be liable?

Let’s say you and two of your friends are having a drinking ART. 7 – LIGHT FELONIES
session. One of them suddenly says that I am not satisfied
with the government and then you say let us overthrow P- Punishable only when consummated.
Noy and replace him. The two agree. Is there any criminal
liability in this particular situation? Yes or no? If their plan EXCEPT: crimes against persons (SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURY,
was to rob? Is there conspiracy? Punishable?Mere MALTREATMENT) or property
conspiracy to commit robbery? Is this punishable? So you
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
have now decided that you are going to commit rebellion
and the 3 of you go to Malacanang. You parked your car and
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
alighted and said: “ATTACK”. When you reached the gate,
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
didtorakanakibawngaimongmgakauban bag-o
decide to commit it.
ranahuwasan.Waclanikuyognimo. Nagpabilinraclasa auto.
What is the criminal liability of the three? Ikawunsaimong There is proposal when the person who has decided to
liability? How about the two who remained in the car? commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 13

NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY DIRECT PROOF NOT REQUIRED

“…are punishable only in the cases in which the law Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found; circumstantial
specially provides a penalty therefor.” (ART. 8, Par. 1, RPC) evidence is often resorted to in order to prove its existence.
(PP vs. AMODIA, GR No. 173791, April 7, 2009)
Art. 115. Conspiracy to commit treason
PP vs. LAGAT
Art. 136. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat, rebellion or
insurrection. Direct proof that the two accused conspired is not essential
as it may be inferred from their conduct before, during, and
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. (this is not so much after the commission of the crime that they acted with a
of overthrowing the government. This is more of a common purpose and design.
tumultuous uprising; mere civil disobedience)
AMODIA Case
CRIME vs. MANNER OF INCURRING LIABILITY
An accused participates as a conspirator if he or she has
Treason, coup d’etat, sedition is actually committed – performed some overt act as a direct or indirect
conspiracy is NOT a crime but a manner of incurring criminal contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be
liability. committed.

PD No. 1866 vs. PD No. 8294 - Active participation

- Moral assistance by being present
CONSPIRACY
- Exercising moral ascendancy
“Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
(PP vs. MULIT, GR No. 181043, October 8, 2008)
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity Conspiracy is a unity of purpose and intention in the
of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical acts commission of a crime. Where a conspiracy is established,
constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond the precise modality or extent of participation of each
reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act of one individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of
is the act of all.” (QUIDET vs. PP, GR No. 179289, April 8, one is the act of all. The degree of actual participation in the
2010) commission of the crime is immaterial.

REQUISITES? “even if not all the parties committed the same act,”

INDICATION(s) OF CONSPIRACY A conspiracy exists even if not all the parties committed the
same act, but the participants performed specific acts that
When two or more persons aim their acts towards the
indicated unity of purpose in accomplishing a criminal
accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a
design. Moreover, direct proof
part so that their acts, though apparently independent,
were in fact connected and cooperative indicating of previous agreement to commit an offense is not
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of necessary to prove conspiracy – conspiracy may be proven
sentiment, conspiracy may be inferred. And where there is by circumstantial evidence. (PP vs. MALIBIRAN, GR No.
conspiracy, the act of one is deemed the act of all. (PP vs. 178301, April 24, 2009)
ALETA, GR No. 179708, April 16, 2009)
PP vs. REYES

PP vs. EVANGELIO

To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail

*ONE AND THE SAME PURPOSE of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 14

need not even know the exact part to be performed by the - Punishment which in their maximum is
others in the execution of the conspiracy. correctional.

NO CONSPIRACY – separate and individual responsibility CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES (Art. 25)

In the absence of conspiracy, the liability of the defendants - PrisionCorrecional

are separate and individual, each is liable for his own acts, - Arresto Mayor
the damage caused thereby, and the consequences thereof. - Suspension
While the evidence shows that the appellant boxed the - Destierro (maximum radius of 25 kilometers)
deceased, it is, however, silent as to the extent of the
injuries, in which case, the appellant should be held liable LIGHT FELONIES
only for slight physical injuries.
- ArrestoMenor
TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES - Fine not exceeding P200.00 or both

“Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill FELONY – Fine of P200.00, is a light felony.
Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion even before he
*Art. 26, RPC - classifies fines as a penalty. (Fine is a light
sought Col. Their moves were not coordinated because
penalty if it is less than P200.00)
while Bokingco was killing Pasion because of his pent-up
anger, Col was attempting to rob the pawnshop.” (PP vs.
ART. 10.
BOKINGCO)
1st Clause. The RPC is not intended to supersede special
THE CRIME MUST NOT BE COMMITTED
penal laws
If the crime is actually committed, proposal becomes a
2nd Clause. The RPC is supplementary to special laws,
manner of incurring liability, i.e., principal by inducement.
unless the special law provides otherwise.
Acceptance of the proposal is not necessary.
(GO TAN vs. SPS. TAN, GR No. 168852, September 30,
2008)
ART. 9 – GRAVITY OF FELONIES
Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may
- Grave
be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished
- Less Grave
under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262, in which the
- Light
special law is silent on a particular matter.
GRAVE FELONIES
Provisions of the Revised Penal Code not applicable
- Capital Punishment (death)
Art. 71 of the Revised Penal Code – SCALE OF PENALTIES
- Penalties which in any of its period is afflictive.
- Special laws.
AFFLICTIVE (Art. 25)
- Punishes only consummated acts.
- Reclusion Perpetua - No definition of accessories or accomplices.
- Reclusion Temporal - No formula for graduation of penalties.
- Permanent / Temporary Absolute Disqualification
Terms, i.e., penalties are not the same.
- Permanent / Temporary Special Disqualification
- Prision Mayor
Mitigating / Aggravating circumstances cannot be
considered, no graduation of penalties.
LESS GRAVE FELONIES
CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 15

- Justifying (Art. 11) SELF-DEFENSE

- Exempting (Art. 12)
- Mitigating (Art. 13) - In defense of his person or rights.
- Aggravating (Art. 14)
DEFENSE OF PERSON OR RIGHTS
- Alternative (Art. 15)
- Absolutory causes (Minority, Art. 280 last par.,
Person includes danger to one’s:
violent insanity, Art. 332, Art. 344)
- Life
IMPUTABILITY vs. RESONSIBILITY
- Limb
IMPUTABILITY – quality by which an act may be ascribed to
RIGHTS INCLUDES:
a person as the author.
- Right to property
RESPONSIBILITY – obligation of suffering the consequences
of crime. SELF-DEFENSE, Requisites

While an act may be imputable to a person, it may not - Unlawful aggression (INDISPENSABLE);
necessarily mean that he would be responsible for the - Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
same. prevent or repel it;
- Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
ART. 11 – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
person defending himself
In accordance with the law.
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
The actor is not considered to have violated the law.
- This is a condition sine qua non. An essential and
indispensable requisite.
No criminal OR civil liability
- No unlawful aggression, no self-defense whether
No crime committed (Just like in the case of AH CHONG. complete or incomplete.
There was no crime committed.) - The aggression must be unlawful and actual.

COLINARES vs. PP, GR No. 182748, December 13, 2011 PP vs. CONCILLADO

“When the accused invokes self-defense, he bears the COLINARES vs. PP

burden of showing that he was legally justified in killing the
PP vs. GAYRAMA, GR No. 39270, 39271, October 30, 1934
victim or inflicting injury to him. The accused must establish
the elements of self-defense by clear and convincing
“It cannot be said that there was a previous unlawful
evidence. When successful, the otherwise felonious deed
aggression…”
would be excused, mainly predicated on the lack of criminal
intent of the accused.” “….taking into consideration the fact that the purpose of
the deceased in so doing was to succeed in capturing and
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
arresting the appellant…”
- Self-defense
PP vs. MERCED, GR No. 14170, November 23, 1918
- Defense of relatives
- Defense of strangers “…that assault was natural and lawful, for the reason that it
- Avoidance of a greater evil or injury was made by a deceived and offended husband in order to
- Fulfillment of duty / lawful exercise of right or defend his honor and rights by punishing the offender of his
office honor, and if he had killed his wife and the other defendant,
- Obedience to an order issued for some lawful he would have exercised a lawful right,…”
purpose

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 16

Let’s say, 2 persons. Let’s call them Mr. X and Mr. Y. They the latter’s actions would cease to have the true character
are playing cards. X is angry because Y is cheating. That is of a real defense, which, in order to be legally sufficient,
why Y is winning. So, after the game, X goes home, gets his requires primarily and as an essential condition that the
knife and then he goes on looking for Y. He sees Y spending attack be immediately present.”
his winnings buying an adobo. Aso2 pa ang adobo ron!
Nagkurog2 pa angtambok! X attacks. He swoops down with THE NATURE, CHARACTER, LOCATION AND EXTENT OF
a knife but nasangit man at the back of the chair so si Y, WOUND / INJURIES.
hinanaw man ug sine, also gets out a knife. Turns out that Y
Wounds / injuries on the victim would usually indicate
is better in using the knife so he starts slashing X. But si X
whether self-defense is credible or not.
ingoncya: “Murag, alkansikoani da”. So he runs away. So si
Y niingon, “Kani.Hinaymodagan”. X falls down. Y kills X. Y is
Wound / injuries on the accused are not as determinative
charged. Y says self-defense. If you were the judge, can self-
as the injuries on the victim.
defense be invoked? Who is the aggressor?
CANO vs. PP, GR No. 155258, October 7, 2003
AGGRESSION MUST BE ACTUAL
“…the superficiality of the nature of the wounds inflicted on
An actual assault, or
the accused does not, per se, negate self-defense. Indeed,
to prove self-defense, the actual wounding of the person
Threat of an assault of an:
defending himself is not necessary.”
-immediate and imminent;
AGE AND CONDITION OF ALLEGED AGGRESSOR
-offensive and positively strong showing the wrongful
Accused was 24 while victim was a sexagenarian (Diaz)
intent to cause an injury.
The victim was 55 years old, seriously injured, lost his right
ACTUAL AGGRESSION
hand (Ardiza)
“Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and
BEHAVIOR IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE INCIDENT
unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an
imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or
Failure to interpose self-defense after:
intimidating attitude. The attack must be real, or at least
imminent. Mere belief by a person of an impending attack Surrendering – Manansala
would not be sufficient.” (BAXINELA vs. PP, GR No. 149652,
March 24, 2006) Confession – De la Cruz

ACTUAL OR IMMINENT PHYSICAL FINDINGS

ACTUAL – assault with a cane. (US vs. LAUREL) Accused claims that when he stabbed the victim they were
facing each other. The factual findings establish that the
IMMINENT – rocking a boat coupled with threats of wounds were in the back of the victim.
capsizing the same. (PP vs. CABUNGCAL)
The victim still had his gun tucked inside the waistband of
PP vs. MACASO the pants and received 13 gunshot wounds. (Perez)

US vs. FERRER, GR No. 60, November 8, 1901 UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION MUST EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE
ACT CONSTITUTING SELF-DEFENSE.
The unlawful aggression and the defense must be
simultaneous / without appreciable interval of time. “a fleeing man is not dangerous to the one from whom he
flees.”
“If any time intervened between the supposed attack of the
deceased and the firing of the revolver by the defendant,

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 17

“…it is because this Court considered that the requisites of all, that the aggression be real, or at least, imminent, and
self-defense had ceased to exist, principal and not merely imaginary.”
indispensable among these being the unlawful aggression
of the opponent.” (PP vs. ALCONGA, April 30, 1947, GR No. US vs. GUY-SAYCO
L-162)
REASONABLE NECESSITY
PP vs. ACOSTA
ELEMENTS:
PP vs. ALETA
- There must be reasonable necessity in both:
If a person is attacked with bare hands, how should that - Course of action taken by the person defending;
person defend himself? What is the rule as far as - Means used;
reasonable means is concerned? If he uses a knife or a
Determined by:
samurai? If that person has a knife, can you use a gun? What
if that person is super black-belt ninja who can kill with his
- Existence of unlawful aggression and
bare hands? Still, you defense yourself with bare hands?
- The nature and extent of the aggression
If you defend yourself by way of shooting the aggressor in
If you are attacked with a weapon, circumstances dictate
his chest? Would that be reasonable? Why? Shoot him
that you find a weapon, whatever said weapon may be.
three times? BUNGYAO BUNGYAOBUNGYAO! Or shoot him
just once, BUNGYAO? What if the bolo used by the NATURE AND EXTENT OF AGGRESSION
aggressor is dull and rusty, would you be still justified in
killing the person? What is the rule on reasonable Striking a person on the head with a lead pipe causing death
necessity? What does the law require? What is the rule? If – mauled with fist blows by several men. (Ocana)
it is not mathematical equality or perfect equality, what is
sufficient? Shooting a person who was playing a practical joke – place
was dark and uninhabited, “Lie down and give me your
“The moment the aggressor ceases, the person defending money”.
himself is not anymore justified in killing the said aggressor.
There is no more unlawful aggression.” *Refer to PP vs. PP vs. LARA (GR No. 24014, October 16, 1925)
ALCONGA (78 Phil. 366)
It should be borne in mind that in emergencies of this kind
PP vs. JUARIGUE human nature does not act upon processes of formal
reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation
If angpaasalalakihikaponsababae? This cannot be. Crimes and when it is apparent as in this case, that a person has
against chastity is limited only to women. reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the
courts to sanction the act and to hold the actor
She could not have expected that the aggressor would have irresponsible in law for the consequences.”
actually raped her. Kutobragyudcguro to anglalakiughikap-
hikap. There was here a lack of sufficient provocation on the PP vs. MACASAET
part of accused Juarigue.
“Having concluded, however, that under all the
Provocation must come from an unjust conduct. Only circumstances the accused was justified in making use of his
reasonable necessity was lacking in this case. The Supreme knife to repel the unprovoked assault as best he could, it
Court gave JUARIGUE a privileged mitigating circumstance. would be impossible to say that a second or third blow was
unnecessary under all the circumstances of the case, it
PP vs. DE LA CRUZ (GR No. 411487, May 2, 1935) appearing that the accused instantly and without hesitation
inflicted all the wounds at or about the same time.” (BLOWS
“In order that legitimate self-defense may be taken into
MUST BE DELIVERED RAPIDLY.)
account and sustained as a defense, it is necessary, above

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 18

REASONABLE NECESSITY IN THE MEANS USED. “The reasonable and natural thing for him to do under the
circumstances was to fire at the body of his opponent, and
- Rational necessity to employ the means used. thus make sure of his own life.”
- Perfect equality is not required.
PHYSICAL CONDITION, CHARACTER AND SIZE OF THE
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE is what is required. OPPOSING PARTIES.

“One is not required, when hard pressed, to draw fine

distinction as to the extent of the injury which a reckless
US vs. APEGO
and infuriated assailant might probably inflict upon him…”
(PP vs. IGNACIO, GR NO. 40140, November 27, 1933)
“…since there was no real need of wounding with the said
weapon him who had merely caught her arm.”
WHEN ATTACKED BY AN UNARMED ASSAILANT/S
“…there was no just nor reasonable cause for striking a blow
“…there may be other circumstances, such as the very
therewith in the center of the body, whether the principal
violence of the attack or a great disparity in the age or
vital organs are seated, of the man who had not performed
physical ability of the parties, which give deceased
any act which might be considered as an actual attempt
(accused) reasonable ground to apprehend danger of death
against her honor.”
or great bodily harm and justify him in employing a deadly
weapon in self-defense.” (Ignacio)
PP vs. MONTALBO, GR No. 34750, December 31, 1931
CANO vs. PEOPLE GR No. 155258, October 7, 2003
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL vs. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
- Nature and quality of the weapon used
- Physical condition, character and size
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL – prevent or repel aggression.
- Other circumstances of both aggressor and
person defending himself LAW ENFORCEMENT OFICER – overcome his opponent.
- Place and occasion of assault
LACK OF SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
RATIONAL EQUIVALENCE, RATIONALE.
The person defending must not have by his unjust conduct
Because this justifying circumstance is born by necessity provoked the aggression sought to be repelled or
and is resorted only in extreme situations or emergencies, prevented.
the person defending himself is not expected to think coolly
and clearly. The person defending is, therefore, not THERE ARE 4 SITUATIONS WHERE THE 3rd REQUISITE IS
expected to control his blow or draw a distinction as to the CONSIDERED PRESENT:
injury that would result after he delivers his blow.
- No provocation
PP vs. ONAS - Provocation was not sufficient
- Was not given by the person defending himself
US vs. MENDOZA - Was not immediate or proximate

US vs. MACK (GR No. L-3515, October 3, 1907) NEED NOT BE AN ACT OF VIOLENCE

“…court not reasonably be expected to take the chance that Challenging one to come out of the house to fight.
mere ordinary force would be used in striking, or that the
blow would be given upon some protected part of his body, (US vs. McCRAY, 2 Phil 5454, PP vs. VALENCIA, L-58426,
or that the cutting edge of the blade was not keen enough October 31, 1984)
to give him his death blow.”
Hurling insults or imputing the utterance of vulgar
language. (PP vs. SOTELO, 55 Phil 403) But a petty question
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 19

of pride does not justify wounding or killing an opponent. - Unlawful aggression

(“Why are you calling me?” PP vs. DOLFO) - Reasonable necessity

Forcibly trying to kiss the sister of the deceased. (GETIDA, “In case there is sufficient provocation, the person
CA) defending himself had no part therein”

ADMITS TO THE OFFENSE CHARGED (US vs. ESMEDIA GR No. L-5749, October 21, 1910)

*Read the case of (PP vs. NUGAS) “…inasmuch as it has been shown that they inflicted these
wounds upon him in defense of their father who was fatally
PP vs. GENOSA (GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004) wounded at the time. They honestly believed, and had good
ground upon which to found their belief, that Santiago
“First, each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be
would continue his attack upon their father.”
proven to have characterized at least two battering
episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner. PP vs. TORING

Second, the final acute battering episode preceding the “it cannot be said, therefore, that in attacking Samuel,
killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered Toring was impelled by pure compassion or beneficence of
person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her the lawful desire to avenge the immediate wrong inflicted
batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force on his cousin.
in order to save her life.
PP vs. CAABAY (GR Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003)
Third, at the time of the killing, the batterer must have
posed probable – not necessarily immediate and actual – Considering the nature, location and number of the wounds
grave harm to the accused, based on the history of violence sustained by the victims, the appellants’ plea of self-
perpetrated by the former against the latter.” defense and defense of a relative will not hold.

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME BALUNUECO vs. CA

In 27 March 2004 of R.A. 9262 took effect. The injuries on the deceased as well as the relatives of the
accused belie his testimony
Sec. 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense.
The accused failed to present himself to the authorities
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Accused recollection of events
- Spouse
- Ascendant DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
- Descendant
- Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister - Unlawful aggression
- Reasonable necessity
- Relatives by affinity in the same degrees
“The person defending be not induced by revenge,
-parents-in-law resentment or other evil motive.”CABUSLAY vs. PP

-son / daughter-in-law PRESUMPTION IN FAVOR OF SANITY.

-brother / sister-in-law “…that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the

defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing
- Relatives by consanguinity within 4th degree (2nd that fact rests upon him, has been adopted in a series of
degree nga cousin) decisions by this court.” (PEOPLE vs. BASCOS)

The same in self-defense:

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 20

Article 11, Paragraph 4: Avoidance of Greater Evil or injury Requisites:

Requisites: 1. The accused acted in the performance of a duty

or lawful exercise of a right or office.
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists. 2. That the injury caused or the offense committed
2. The injury feared is greater than that done to be the necessary consequence of the due
avoid it. performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
3. There is no other practical and less harmful such right or office.
means of preventing it.
Fulfillment of duty
Cannot be invoked (Avoidance of Greater Evil or injury)
The prevailing jurisprudence is in favor of policemen and
- Negligence, guards who shoot prisoners who attempt to escape
- No evil to be avoided, or (Delima, Valcorza, Lagata, Magno).
- Violation of law by the actor.
Self-defense vs. Fulfillment of duty
No criminal liability but there is civil liability
“Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different
Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.- principles. Self-defense is based on the principle of self-
preservation from mortal harm, while fulfillment of duty is
Second: in cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11,
premised on the due performance of duty.” Cabanlig vs.
the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented
Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148431, July 28, 2005.
shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit in which
they may have received. Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan

Pp vs. Ricohermoso, GR Nos. L-30527-28, March 29, 1974 A policeman in the performance of duty is justified in using
such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain
“… was designed to insure the killing of Geminiano de Leon
the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape,
without any risk to his assailants.”
recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from
bodily harm.
“Juan Padernal was not avoiding any evil when he sought to
disable Marianito.”
Article 11, Paragraph 6: Obedience to an order issued for
some lawful purpose
Tan vs. Standard Vacuum, GR No. L-4160, July 29, 1952
Requisites:
“…the damage caused to the plaintiff was brought about
mainly because of the desire of driver JulitoSto. Domingo to
1. An order has been issued by a superior.
avoid greater evil or harm…”
2. The order must be for some lawful purpose
3. The means used to carry out the order must be
“It cannot be denied that this company is one of those for
lawful.
whose benefit a greater harm has been prevented, and as
such it comes within the purview of said penal provision.”
Illegal orders, the subordinate is liableEXCEPT when:
Ty vsPp, GR No. 149275, Sept. 27, 2004
- He is not aware that the order is illegal;
- He is not negligent.
“…the evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided is merely
Pp vs. Beronilla, GR No. L-4445, February 29, 1955
expected or anticipated or may happen in the future, this
defense is not applicable.” It appearing that the charge is the heinous crime of murder,
and that the accused-appellants acted upon orders, of
Art. 11, Paragraph 5: Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise
superior officers that they, as military subordinates, could
of Right or Office
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 21

not question, and obeyed in good faith, without being Insanity – “there must be complete deprivation of
aware of their illegality, without any fault or negligence on intelligence or that there be a total deprivation of the
their part, we cannot say that criminal intent has been freedom of the will.”
established.
Crazy vs. Insane
Art. 12. Exempting Circumstances
“there is a vast difference between an insane person and
In exempting circumstances the act does not result in one who has worked himself up into such a frenzy of anger
criminal liability because the act is not voluntary or that he fails to use reason or good judgment in what he
negligent. does.”

There is absence of: The fact that a person acts crazy is not conclusive that he is
insane. The popular meaning of the word “crazy” is not
- Intelligence, synonymous with the legal term “insane,” (Ambal)
- Freedom of action,
- Intent, or Presumption is in favor of sanity.
- Negligence
“The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in
Exempting Circumstances the absence of proof to the contrary” xxx “the law always
presumes all acts to be voluntary. It is improper to presume
1. Insanity or imbecility that acts were executed unconsciously.” (Ambal)
2. Minority (15 yrs. of age or under, RA 9344)
3. Minority (above 15 below 18 if acting without Burden of evidence
discernment)
4. Performance of a lawful act with due care In the instant case, the alleged insanity of AMbal was not
(accident) substantiated by any sufficient evidence. The presumption
5. Compulsion of an irresistible force (physical force) of sanity was not overthrown. He was not completely bereft
6. Uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury of reason or discernment and freedom of will when he
(moral or psychological compulsion) mortally wound his wife.
7. Failure to perform an act due to some lawful or
Presumption in favor of sanity.
insuperable cause
“…that when a defendant in a criminal case interposes the
Article 12, Paragraph 1: An imbecile or an insane person
defense of mental incapacity, the burden of establishing
1. An imbecile or an insane person that fact rests upon him, has been adopted in a series of
decisions by this court.” (PEOPLE VS. BASCOS, gr no. 19605,
An imbecile is a person marked by mental deficiency while December 19, 1922)
an insane person is one who has an unsound mind or suffers
from a mental disorder (pp vs. ambal, oct. 17, 1980) BASCOS CASE

An insane person may have lucid interval while imbecile Circumstantial evidence:
does not have.
a. Witnesses say that the accused has been insane
Rule on imbeciles and insane persons for many years,
b. The doctor who examined the accused testified
Imbecile – “…he must be deprived completely of reason or that the accused was a violent maniac and that he
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of may have been insane when he killed the victim,
committing the crime” and
c. Lack of motive on the part of the accused to kill
the victim.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 22

Quantum of evidence act, i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he acted without
the least discernment because there is a complete absence
Insanity as a defense is a confession and avoidance and as of the power to discern
such must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. When the
commission of a crime is established, and the defense of Establishing insanity is a question of fact and may be
insanity is not made out beyond a reasonable doubt, established by:
conviction follows (pp vs. bonoan)
a. A witness who is intimately acquainted with the
BONOAN CASE accused,
b. A witness who has rational basis to conclude that
a. Accused confined at of San Lazaro Hospital twice the accused was instance based on personal
(1922, 1926); witness
b. Dementia praecox is an exempting circumstance c. Expert testimony
(authorities);
c. Insomnia for 4 days before the crime, symptom of Madarang case
or leads to dementia praecox;
d. A day after his arrest he was sent to the “the testimony or proof of the accused’s insanity must
Psychopathic hospital. relate to the time preceding or coetaneous with the
e. Alienist reported that the accused had a form of commission of the offense with which he is charged.”
psychosis – Manic depressive psychosis.
“… proof of abnormal behavior immediately before or
Commission vs. Trial during the commission of the crime”

Insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is PP vs. Opuran

different from insanity at the time of the trial. In the first
A man’s act is presumed voluntary. It is improper to assume
instance, it is an exempting circumstance, in the second the
thecontrary, i.e. that acts were done unconsciously, for the
accused is not exempt but the proceedings are suspended
moral and legal presumptions..”
until the accused is fit to stand trial.
Stringent standard
Pp vs. Legaspi
The stringent standard …requires that there be a complete
“Mere prior confinement does not prove that accused-
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act.
appellant was deprived of reason at the time of the
incident.”
Facts in Opuran
- No evidence that he was adjudged insane.
- Such unusual behavior may be considered as
- Discharge is proof of being cured.
mere abnormality of the mental faculties, which
will not exclude imputability;
“Caught with his pants down”
- Medicine was not shown to be for any mental
“Mental depravity which results not from any disease of the illness;
mind, but from a perverted condition of the moral system, - Was never confined in a mental institution;
where the person is mentally sane, does not exempt one - Dr. Verona’s findings were not based on
from responsibility for crimes committed under its incomplete and insufficient facts’
influence.” (Legaspi) - Failed to invoke insanity at the earliest
opportunity;
PP vs. Madarang
Article 12, Paragraph 2: Minority
The courts have established a more stringent criterion for
insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be RA 9344, Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act (May 20, 2006)
a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 23

New concepts: - Manner of committing a crime

- Conduct of offender
1. Age of criminal responsibility - Appearance of the minor;
2. Effects - Attitude;
3. Presumptions - Comportment;
- Behavior, before, during and after the trial.
Age of criminal responsibility
Determination of age
A child of fifteen (15) years of age and under at the time of
the commission of the offense is exempt from criminal - Birth certificate; (best document to determine
liability. (Sec. 6) age)
- Baptismal certificate;
Child is subject to intervention. Intervention refers to a
- Other pertinent document;
series of activities which are designed to address issues that
caused the child to commit an offense. In the absence of the documents mentioned (these are the
instances where minority will be considered):
Section 3(1), RA 9344
- Testimony of the child or other persons
Intervention refers to a series of activities which are
- Physical appearance
deisgned to address issues that caused the child to commit
- Other relevant evidence
an offense. It may take the form of an individualized
treatment program which may include counseling skills CICL enjoys the presumption of minority. (Sec. 7)
training, education and other activites that will enhance the
capcacity of the child. Imposable Penalty

Child 15 or below, initial contact with child must: Not more than 6 years

- Release parents, guardian or nearest relative. - Mediation, family conferencing and conciliation if
- Notify LSWDO, determine the appropriate appropriate (where there is a private offended
programs. party).
- O/W: - In victimless crimes, diversion or rehabilitation.
-NGO;
-Barangay; More than 6 years
-Local SWD off or DSWD;
Diversion by the court.
Above 15 but below 18
Kinds of Diversion, Sec. 31, Barangay Level.
Without discernment – child is exempt but subject to
- Restitution
intervention.
- Reparation
With discernment – subject to appropriate proceedings, - Indemnification
i.e., diversion. - Written or oral apology
- Care, guidance and supervision orders
No exemption from civil liability. - Counseling
- Trainings, seminars and lectures
Discernment -anger management
-problem solving
Discernment is the mental capacity to understand the
-values formation
difference between right and wrong.
-other skills to aid the child
-participation in community based
It may be shown by:
programs
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 24

-participation in education, vocation - Injury is caused to another by mere accident;

and life skills programs - There is no fault or intention of causing the
injury.
Kinds of Diversion, Law Enforcement Level
Definition
- All the programs at the barangay level
- Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds An accident is something that happens outside the sway of
our will, and although it comes about through some act of
Kinds of Diversion, Court our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences. (Pp vs. Agliday)
- Court
- All programs at barangay and law enforcement Pp vs. Genita, GR NO. 126171, March 11, 2004.
- Written or oral reprimand
- Fine “He must show with clear and convincing proofs that: 1.) he
- Payment of the cost of proceedings was performing a lawful act with due care, 2.) injury caused
- Institutional care and custody was by a mere accident, and 3.) he had no fault or intention
of causing the injury.”
Sec. 58.Offenses not applicable to children.
Basis as an exempting circumstance.
- Vagrancy and Prostitution (Art. 202, RPC);
- Mendicancy (PD 1563); Criminal liability does not arise in case a crime is committed
- Sniffing of Rugby (PD 1619) by “any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
Shall undergo appropriate counseling and treatment. intention of causing it.”

Pp vs. Arpon Performance of a lawful act

Although the acts of rape in this case were committed For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the
before RA No. 9344 took effect on May 20, 2006, the said act has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at another
law is still applicable xxx “with more reason, the Act should is not a lawful act. (Agliday)
apply to a case wherein the conviction by the lower court is
still under review.” Intent is a mental state

Arpon case It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental

state, the existence of which is shown by a person’s overt
- Decision appealed from – 8 counts of rape acts. (Agliday)
- Supreme Court – 3 counts
1st count –exempt, accused 13 years old; Accused got his shotgun and shot his son. A shotgun has to
2nd& 3rd – accused 17 years old, discernment, be cocked first before it could discharged.
Reclusion Perpetua, one degree lower (death)
- Suspension of sentence no longer an option, Dual standard
accused 29 years old;
Thus, in determining whether an “accident” attended the
- Case remanded to trial court for compliance with
incident, courts must take into account the dual standards
Sec. 51, Agricultural camp or other facility.
of lack of intent to kill and absence of fault or
Article 12, Paragraph 4: Accident negligence.(Pomoy vs. Pp, GR No. 150647, September 29,
2004)
Elements:
Accident inconsistent with self-defense
- Performance of a lawful act;
- With due care;

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 25

Self-defense is inconsistent with the exempting - The threat which causes the fear is of an evil
circumstance of accident, in which there is no intent to kill. greater injury
On the other hand, self-defense necessarily contemplates a
premeditated intent to kill in order to defend oneself from Opportunity to escape
imminent danger. (Pomoy)
“ at that the time Narciso Saldana, Elmer Esguerra and
Article 12, Paragraph 5: Compulsion of an irresistible force Romeo Bautista were waiting for both appellants from a
distance of about one (1) kilometer. By not availing of this
Elements: chance to escape, appellants allegation of fear or duress
becomes untenable.
- Compulsion is by physical force;
- The physical force is irresistible; Irresistible force vs. Uncontrollable fear
- The physical force must come from a third
person. Irresistible force

Exempted from criminal liability Article 12, Paragraph 7: Prevented by Insuperable Cause

“because he does not act with freedom.” Elements:

“reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only - An act i

without will but against his will”
Insuperable cause
“must be present, imminent and impending and of such a
Distance and available means of transportation (Vicentillo)
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death
or serious bodily harm if the act is not done.”
Severe dizziness and extreme debility (Bandian)
“A threat of future injury is not enough.”
Absolutory causes
“The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no
Instances where the act committed is a crime but for
opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in
reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no penalty
equal combat.” (Pp vs. Loreno, GR NO. L-54414, July 09,
imposed.
1984)
Absolutory cause in the RPC:
PP vs. Loreno
- Art 6 (spontaneous desistance);
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible
- Art. 20 (accessories who are exempt);
force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable
- Art. 124 (violent insanity)
fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal
- Art. 247 (death under exceptional circumstances)
liability because he does not act with freedom. The force
- Art. 280, paragraph. 3 (exceptions to trespass to
must be irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument
dwelling)
who acts not only without will but against his will… A threat
- Art. 332 (exempt from theft, swindling and
of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of
malicious mischief)
such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused
- Art. 334, par. 4 (marriage of the offender and the
for escape or self-defense in equal combat.
offended party in SARA (Seduction, Abduction,
Rape, Acts of Lasciviousness)
Article 12, Paragraph 6: Impulse of an uncontrollable fear
of an equal or greater injury.
Instigation is an absolutory cause.
Elements:
“Human nature is frail enough at best, and requires no
encouragement in wrongdoing. If we cannot assist another,
and prevent him from committing crime, we should at least
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 26

abstain from any active efforts in the way of leading him crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime
into temptation.” (Saunders vs. Pp, Mich. 218, 222) originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or
prodding him to commit the offense. (Valencia)
Pp vs. Valencia, GR No. 143032, October 14, 2002.
Entrapment has to be proved as a material allegation
“… Instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its
agent lures the accused into committing the offense in The prosecution has to prove all the material elements of
order to prosecute him.” the alleged sale of shabu and the resulting buy-bust
operation. Where the testimony of the informer is
“Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and indispensable, it should be disclosed. (Pp vs. Ong, GR No.
considered an absolutory cause.” 137348, June 21, 2004)

Degree of inducement in instigation Instigation vs. Entrapment

In instigation, the crime would not have been committed if Instigation

it were not for the inducements of the instigator.
- Induces accused into commission of crime
Such inducement must be of such a nature the instigator - The accused must be acquitted
himself becomes a co-principal. - It is the law enforcer who conceives the
commission of the crime and suggests to the
Applicable only to public officers and their agents
accused
In instigation, it is necessary that the instigator is a public
Entrapment
officer or one who is performing public functions.
- Ways and means are resorted to trap and capture
If the instigator is private individual, both the instigator and
lawbreaker in the execution of the offense
the person helping are held to be criminally liable.
- Is not a bar to prosecution
- The means originate from the mind of the
Entrapment vs. Instigation
criminal.
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method
Mitigating circumstances
of apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and
capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan.
Circumstances that reduce the penalty but do not entirely
Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of
free the actor from criminal liability.
the would-be accused into the commission of the offense.
(Pp vs. Legaspi, GR No. 173485, November 23, 2011) Mitigating circumstances whether privileged or ordinary
only serve to reduce the penalty but does not change the
Entrapment is not an absolutory cause
nature of the crime.
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances.
purpose of trapping or capturing the lawbreaker in the
execution of his criminal plan. The means of committing the Circumstances that, if attendant serve to increase the
crime originates from the mind of the criminal. penalty w/o exceeding the maximum of the panlty provided
by law.
Buy-bust operation
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in
recent years has been accepted as a valid means of Generic – is generally applicable to all kinds of crime, e.g.,
arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is dwelling, nighttime or recidivism.
commonly employed by police officers as an effective way
of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 27

Specific – applicable to particular crimes, e.g., ignominy in …using the “influence, prestige or ascendancy which
crimes against chastity and Treachery in crimes against his office gives him as the means by w/c he realizes his
persons. purpose.” (US vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil 150)

Qualifying – changes the nature of the crime, e.g., treachery Pp vs. Villamor
qualifies killing to Murder.
To appreciate this aggravating circumstance, the public
Inherent – must of necessity accompany the commission of officer must use the influence…
the crime. They cannot be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty. (Art. 62, par. 2) US vsTorrida

Generic The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time
placed him in a position to commit these crimes. If he had
- Increases penalty to be imposed w/o exceeding not been councilman he could not have induced the injured
the maximum. parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on account of his
- Can be offset by a mitigating circumstance being councilman that the parties believed that he had the
right to collect fines and it was for this reason that they
Qualifying made the payments.

- Place the offender in no other situation as to Pablo vs. Pp

deserve any other penalty
- Cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance “The mere fact that the three (3) accused were all police
officers at the time of the robbery palced them in a position
Rule 110, Sec. 8, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police officers
they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense – The complaint or
the mobile patrol car and forced them to hand over their
information shall state the designation of the offense given
money. Precisely it was on account of their authority that
by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the
Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact committed a
offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating
crime and would be brought to the police station for
circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense,
investigation unless they gave them determined.”
reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the
statute punishing it. Pp vs. Magayac

PP vs. Elona That accused-appellant was a member of the dreaded

CAFGU and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill
“In accordance with Sections 8 and 9, supra, we have ruled
Jimmy does not necessarily prove that he took advantage
that qualifying and aggravating circumstances, although
of his public position to commit the crime.”
proved during the trial, cannot be appreciated when not
alleged in the information. Although the crimes in the cases Pp vs. Fallo
at bar were committed in 1999, before the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure took effect on Dec 1, 2000, the Court Dwelling of Offended Party
shall give its effect”
Dwelling means a building or structure exclusively used for
1. Advantage be taken by the offender of his public rest and comfort. It may refer to the entire structure or a
position. portion thereof.

What is important is that the offender is a public Privacy and sanctity of home
officer and he takes advantage of his public position to
commit the crime. It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily
because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to
the human abode. He who goes to another’s house to hurt

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 28

him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance
him elsewhere (pp vs. evangelio) primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords
to the human abode. However, in the present case, Rosalyn
Pp vs. Alcala, GR No. L-18988 was not raped therein. Although she was abducted
therefrom, accused-appellant was not charged with forcible
“As to whether the crime must be held to have been
abduction with rape but only with rape. Considering that
committed in the dwelling of the offended party, we take it
she was not raped in her home, dwelling cannot be
that although the accused were found with the deceased at
appreciated.
the foot of the staircase of the house, that place must be
regarded as an integral part of the dwelling of that family. Pp vs. Caliso
The porch of a house, not common to different neighbors,
is a part of the dwelling. “…in the commission of the crime the aggravating
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was present
Sufficient provocation by owner of the dwelling since the appellant was the domestic servant of the family
and was sometimes the deceased child’s amah.”
When there is sufficient provocation by the owner of the
dwelling, this circumstance cannot be appreciated. 5. Palace of the Chief Executive, in his presence, public
authorities are engaged in the discharged of duties or in a
“There must be a close relation between provocation and
place dedicated to public worship.
commission of crime in the dwelling of the person from
whom the provocation came.” Palace of the Chief executive and place dedicated to public
worship – official or religious functions need not be held.
US vs. Licarte, GR No. 6784
Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
In the case at bar the offended party, by calling Filomena
their duties – there must be some performance of public
vile names, started the trouble. This vile language was not
functions.
directed at the accused, but to her daughter. This was,
however, a sufficient provocation to cause the accused to Intent to commit the crime
demand an explanation why her daughter was so grossly
insulted. So under these facts, it was error to hold that the There must be evidence that the accused had the intention
aggravating circumstance of morada existed. to commit a crime when he entered the place.

Pp vs. Dequina, GR No. 41040 6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, by band.

The provocation was not given immediately prior to the “…it has been held that if the aggravating circumstance of
commission of the crime and had no particular relation to nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in the
the house of the deceased. If the defendant had entered commission of the crime, all will constitute one aggravating
the house of the deceased and surprised the deceased and circumstance only as a general rule although they can be
the wife of the defendant in the act of adultery, the considered separately if their elements are distinctly
aggravating circumstance of morada would not exist. perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a
greater degree of perversity.” Pp vs. Librando
When provocation negates dwelling.
PP vs. Silva
1. Provocation must be immediately prior to the
commission of the crime, and “…it becomes aggravating only when: (1) it is especially
2. There must be a close relation between the sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by
provocation and the crime committed. him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime by
ensuring the offender’s immunity from capture.
Pp vs. Agoncillo, GR No. 138983
“The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly
shows that they intended to commit the crime in darkness.”
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 29

Darkness or obscurity The Code does not define or require any particular arms or
weapons; any weapon which by reason of its intrinsic
“The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the nature or the purpose for which it was made or used by the
obscuridad afforded by, and not merely the chronological accused, is capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries upon
onset of, nighttime. the victim of the crime may be considered as arms for
purposes of the law on cuadrilla.
Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity
does not become a modifying factor when the place is Guns and Knives.
adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer insure the
offender’s immunity from identification or capture.” Pp vs. The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the
Carino aggravating circumstance of the commission of a crime by
a band. In the crime of robbery with rape, band is
Uninhabited place considered as an aggravating circumstance.

That there was a reasonable possibility for the victim to 7. On the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,
receive some help in the place of the commission of the earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
crime.
The rule in here is that the offender must take advantage of
Pp vs. Rubia the calamity or misfortune in the commission of the crime.

“The aggravating circumstance of the crime having been 8. Aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
committed in an uninhabited place must be considered, the impunity.
incident having taken place at sea where it was difficult for
the offended party to receive help, while the assailants The armed men must not participate in the execution of the
could easily have escaped punishment…” felony otherwise they are co-principals.

Pp vs. Lumandong Must be accomplices

Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited Aid of armed men or persons affording immunity requires
place under Article 14 (6) was correctly appreciated against that the armed men are accomplices who take part in minor
the appellant. capacity, directly or indirectly. We note that all four accused
were charges as principals. The remaining suspects – were
Band never identified and charged. Neither was proof adduced as
to the nature of their participation. (Lozano)
This circumstance is present when more than three armed
men acted together in the commission of the offense. 9. Recidivism.

In other words the four armed men must directly A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial for one crime,
participate in the execution of the act constituting the shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
crime. another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.

Pp vs. Magdamit Recidivism, requisites.

An offense is committed en cuadrilla when more than three 1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
armed malefactors shall have acted together in the 2. That he was previously convicted by final
commission thereof. In the present case, there were seven judgment of another crime;
armed conspirators involved in the commission of the 3. That both the first and second offense are
composite crime. embraced in the same title of the RPC;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second
Pp vs. Lozano
offense.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 30

Criminal propensity evince even greater moral depravity in the offeror than in
the acceptor. (Alincastre)
10. Reiteracion or Habituality.
12. By means of inundation, fire, poision, explosion,
Requisites: stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto,
derailment of locomotive, or any other artifice involving
1. The accused is on trial.
great waste or ruin.
2. He previously served sentence for another
offense to which the law attaches an equal or Any of the circumstances in this paragraph must be used by
greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to the offender to accomplish the crime, hence the phrase “by
which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for means of…”
the new offense;
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense. Pp vs. Comadre

Recidivism When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and bymeans

of explosives, the latter shall be considered as a qualifying
- Offender is convicted by final judgment circumstance.
- The offenses are included in the same title of the
RPC 13. Evident premeditation.
- The offenses are embraced in the same title of the
RPC, penalty is immaterial Requisites:

Habituality 1. the time when the offender determined to

commit the crime;
- Offender serves out his sentence in the previous 2. an act manifestly indicating the culprit’s
sentence
- two or more crimes: 16. Treachery
light penalty
ELEMENTS OF TREACHERY
11. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
There is treachery when the following essential elements
The price, reward or promise must be the primary are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was
consideration of the offender in committing the crime. not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means,
Includes the person who gives the reward. methods or forms of attack employed by him. (VELASCO v.
PP)
In Pp vs. Talledo, this circumstance was not considered
primarily because there was no conclusive evidence and the Not in a position to defend himself.
circumstance was not alleged in the information.
In this case, the victim was unarmed; and was attacked from
Pp vs. Alicanstre behind and at close range. The assailant further hid behind
the window to mask his presence and identity. (Pp. v. Dela
“The talledo case is not authority on this question.” Pena)

“Indeed, the established rule in the Spanish jurisprudence Means must be consciously adopted.
is to the effect that the aggravating circumstance of the
price.” The suddenness and unexpectedness of the appellant’s
attack rendered Inspector Barte defenseless and without
Greater moral depravity knowing such act.

In fact, under certain conditions such as those obtaining in Baluyot and Canete
the case at bar the circumstance under consideration may
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 31

If the aggression is continuous treachery must be present at superior, female inferior but also the dog position as dogs
the beginning of the assault. do, i.e. entry from behind, as was proven like the crime
itself in the instant case, the aggravating circumstance of
If there is an interruption in the assault, it is sufficient that ignominy attended the commission thereof.
treachery be present at the moment the fatal blow was
delivered. It is this interruption that gives the accused the 18. Unlawful entry.
time to consciously and deliberately adopt the means and
method of execution. When an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the
purpose.
“… with treachery”
Entrance through the window (Pp v. Mendiona)
That Juan Angel, and not his mother, was apparently the
intended victim is not incompatible with the existence of 19. Breaking wall, roof, floor, door or window.
treachery. Treachery may be taken into account even if the
The breaking must be resorted as a means to the
victim of the attack was not the person whom the accused
commission of the crime.
intended to kill. (PP v. Trinidad)
What distinguishes this from unlawful entry is that in the
Frontal assault.
latter the window or point of ingress need not be broken.
Hence, it no longer matters that the assault was frontal
20. Aid of persons under 15 or by means of motor vehicle,
since its swiftness and unexpectedness deprived Cesario of
airships or other similar means.
a chance to repel it or offer any resistance in defense of his
person. (Pp v. Agacer)
The motor vehicle, airship, etc., must be deliberately used
in the commission of the crime.
17. Ignominy.
Besides, it has been established during the trial that the
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the
which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury
crime in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating
caused by the crime.
their escape. (Pp v. Espejo)
Means are employed or circumstances surround the act
21. Cruelty.
that tend to make the crime more humiliating.
Cruelty refers to physical suffering as compared to
US v. De Leon
Ignominy which refers to moral suffering, i.e. disgrace or
There is present also the twelfth generic circumstance of shame.
Article 10, proved by the fact that the deceased, a land
Test in appreciating cruelty
owner, was forced to kneel in front of his four servants
drawn up in line before him.
… whether the accused deliberately and sadistically
augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not
Pp v. Acaya
necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the
The fact that the crime was committed in a public place and victim’s suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or
in the presence of many persons did not necessarily tend to corpse.. the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim
make the effects of the crime more humiliating or put the suffer slowly and gradually, causing him moral and physical
offended party to shame. pain which is unnecessary for the consummation of the
criminal act which he intended to commit. (Pp v. Sitchon)
Pp v. Siao
Art. 15. Alternative circumstances
It has been held that where the accused in committing the
rape used not only the missionary position, i.e. male

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 32

Alternative circumstances may be considered either as The information alleges that Maricel was only 15 yrs old at
aggravating or mitigating circumstances according to the (1) the time of the crime was committed and that she is the
nature and effects of the crime and (2) other conditions daughter of appellant. However, the prosecution merely
attending to its commission. presented the oral testimony and sworn statement of
Maricel. It failed to present independent evidence proving
- Relationship, the age of the victim and her relationship with appellant so
- Intoxication, as to warrant the imposition of death penalty.
- Degree of instruction and education.
Relationship as element of the offense.
Relationship
Parricide – victim is father, mother, child, ascendant,
- Spouse descendant or spouse
- Ascendant
- Descendant Adultery – wife
- Brother or sister
- Relative by affinity Concubinage – husband

Other relatives by analogy. In these cases relationship is neither mitigating nor

aggravating.
- Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or
stepdaughter. Intoxication
- Adopted parent and adopted child.
Mitigating
Not included
(1) not habitual or
- Uncle and niece. (2) unintentional/accidental/not subsequent to the
- Cousins. plan to commit the felony.
- Relationship between a step-grandniece and her
Aggravating
step-grandfather is not one of the relatives
specifically enumerated therein.
(1) habitual or
(2) intentional/subsequent to the plan to commit the
Generally relationship is…
felony.
- Mitigating – crimes against property
Mere proof that offender imbibed intoxicating liquor is
- Aggravating – crimes against persons where
not sufficient.
offended party is of a higher degree than offender
or of the same level.
Although there is no hard and fast rule on the amount of
liquor that the accused imbibed on that occasion, but the
Exceptions
test is that it must have sufficed to affect his mental
- In serious physical injuries relationship is faculties, to the extent of blurring his reason and depriving
aggravating no matter the degree of relationship. him of self-control.
- In homicide or murder relationship is aggravating.
Absent clear and convincing proof as to appellant’s state of
- In crimes against chastity it is always aggravating.
intoxication, we are unable to agree that the alternative
Pp v. Orillosa circumstance of intoxication was present to aggravate the
offense. (pp v. inggo)
The alternative circumstance of relationship under Art. 15
of the RPC should be appreciated against the appellant. Presumption

Pp v. Glodo

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 33

When the accused is established to be drunk, the Only natural persons.

presumption is that it was not habitual but accidental and,
therefore, mitigating. - RPC requires that a person act with malice or with
negligence.
Degree of instruction or education - Juridical persons cannot be deprived of liberty.
- Most penalties can be executed by natural
Mitigatingwhen there is lack of instruction or education. persons.
There must be lack of sufficient intelligence.
Article 17. Principals
Exceptions:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of
- crimes against property the act;
- crimes against chastity 2. Those who directly force or induce others to
- murder commit it.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the
Aggravating when there is high degree of instruction or
offense by another act without which it would
education when taken advantage of by offender.
not have been accomplished.
Pp v. Mangsant
Principal by direct participation.
Lack of instruction cannot apply to one who has studied in
Requisites:
the first grade in a public school, but only to him who really
has not received any instruction. 1. That they participate in the criminal resolution;
2. They carried out their plan and personally took
Persons Criminally liable
part in its execution by acts which directly tended
to the same end.
The general rule is that an offender is criminally liable for
his own actions.
Conspiracy
When there is only one felony, he alone is criminally liable.
Participating in the criminal resolution is conspiracy.
In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability depends on
DEFINITION: Two or more persons come to an agreement
the degree and nature of participation in the criminal act.
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.
Article 16.Who are criminally liable
Conspiracy not as a felony but a manner of incurring
Grave and less grave felonies:
criminal liability.
- Principals
Pp v. Reyes
- Accomplices
- Accessories
Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the
execution of the unlawful objective among the accused.
Light felonies:
When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object,
- Principals one performing one part and the other performing another
- Accomplices part as to complete the crime, with a view to the attainment
of the same object, conspiracy exists.
Subjects in a crime.
Conspiracy may be express or implied.
1. Active subject (criminal)
2. Passive subject (injured party: private individual Stated otherwise, it is not essential that there be proof of
or the State) the previous agreement and decision to commit the crime;

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 34

it is sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert Conspiracy alone does not result in criminal liability
pursuant to the same objective. (Timbol)

Manner of commission of crime Participation in the criminal resolution must either be

before or simultaneous with the criminal act.
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in
which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts Applicable only in crimes committed by means of dolo.
of the accused which show a joint or common purpose and
design, a concerted action and a community of interest 2nd requisite.They carried out their plan and personally took
among the accused. (pp v. Sicad) part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the
same end.
Indicators of conspiracy
He must be at the scene of the crime personally taking part
- Spontaneous agreement in its execution.
- Active cooperation by all the offenders in the
perpetration of the crime It is sufficient that the act performed directly tends to
- Contributing positive acts to the realization of a accomplish the intended crime.
common criminal intent Ex: holding down the victim in murder or rape; acting as a
- Presence during the commission of the crime by lookout/guard.
a band and lending moral support
Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
- Knowing the plan and accepting the role assigned
and actually performing that role.
1. Directly forcing another to commit a crime;
- Using irresistible force;
Where there is no conspiracy.
- Causing uncontrollable fear.
Mere silence does not make one a conspirator (Pp v. 2. Directly inducing another to commit a crime.
Gensola) - Giving price or reward
- Using words of command.
Mere companionship is not conspiracy. (pp v. padrones)
Requisites of a principal by inducement:
When there is no conspiracy, each is liable for his own act.
1. Inducement with the intention of procuring the
Pp v. enriquez commission of the crime.
2. Inducement is the determining cause of the
“if a number of persons agree to commit, and enter upon commission of the crime.
the commission of a crime which will probably endanger
human life such as robbery, all of them are responsible for 1st Requisite.Intention.
the death of a person that ensues as a consequence”
Clear intention to procure the commission of the crime.
Not the object of the conspiracy/necessary or logical
consequence of the crime intended. In Otadora the promise of pecuniary gain (money and
carabaos) and supplying the gun to use in the commission
- In Umali case (96 Phil 185) robbery is not of the crime.
included/necessary or logical consequence of
sedition; In Alcontin, the promise of living together once the husband
- Where the conspiracy specifically targeted one of the inducer is killed.
and only one person, the killing of others would
Does not include
not affect the conspirators. (De laCerna)
- Thoughtless expressions;
Some rules in conspiracy.
- Imprudent advice;

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 35

2nd Requisite.Determining cause. - In such case, we apply our ruling inpp v. ubina
where we held that when an accused does not fall
Must be of such a nature that without it the crime would under any of the three concepts defined in Article
not have been committed. 17 of the RPC, he may only be considered guilty
as an accomplice. (PP v. Carriaga)
It must:
Article 18. Accomplices
1. Precede the act induced, and
2. Influential. 1. Cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts
2. Not a principal
Requisites: Words of Command
3. No conspiracy
1. Intention to procure commission of crime.
Conspirator v. Accomplice
2. Inducer must have ascendancy or influence.
3. Words must be direct, so efficacious, so powerful Conspirators and accomplices know and agree in the
as to amount to physical coercion. criminal design.
4. Uttered prior to the commission of the crime.
5. Material executor has no personal reason to Conspirators participate in the criminal resolution,
commit the crime. accomplices concur in the criminal design.

Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by Requisites

another act without which it would not have been
accomplished. 1. Community of design
2. Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts.
Principal by cooperation. 3. Relation between acts of principal and
accomplice.
Requisites:
1st requisite.Community of design.
1. Participation in criminal resolution.
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by Community of design requires knowledge and concurrence
performing another act, w/o w/c it would not of the criminal design.
have been accomplished.
Prior to the commission of the act.
Cooperation
Knowledge of a crime different from that actually
- Cooperation – implies that there is a desire or committed. As long as it is a natural consequence of the
wish in common. crime intended, an accomplice is liable.
- Another act – the act must be different from the
acts of the principal by direct participation. The 2nd requisite.Cooperation by previous or simultaneous
act must not involve the material execution of the acts.
offense.
- The acts of the accomplice must not be
Ex. Dragging a girl to a place where she is to be indispensable.
raped; certifying a check to facilitate estafa.
3rd requisite.Relation between acts of principal and
Three types of principals. accomplice.

- Even in case of conspiracy, to be liable as a Liable for different crimes.

principal one must fall under any of the three
A attacks B with treachery. Later C and D arrive and take
concepts in Art. 17.
part in killing B.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 36

A – Principal in Murder. 3. Of the crimes of serious and less serious physical

injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification;
C and D – Accomplices in Homicide. 4. Is found guilty of any said crimes a 3rd time or
oftener. (art. 62, par. 5)
*No conspiracy, no knowledge as to the manner A attacked
B. Jurisdiction of the courts

- It is the law at the time of the institution of the

action that determines the jurisdiction of courts
Article 19.Accessories.
- Jurisdiction of the courts is determined by the
allegations in the complaint or information.
Knowledge in the commission of the crime, not being
principals or accomplices, take subsequent part in its
Art. 23. Pardon by the offended party.
commission by:
- Pardon by the offended party does not affect the
1. Profiting or assisting the accused to profit;
criminal action. Civil liability may be expressly
2. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime or
waived by the offended party.
its effects/instruments to prevent its discovery.
- The exception under art. 344 of the RPC must be
3. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape.
made before the institution of the criminal action.
Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the
Article 25.Penalties which may be imposed.
principal.
- Art. 25 is a classification of penalties as to
1. Public officer who abuses his public function (any
principal or accessory penalties.
crime)
- This is also a list of the penalties that may be
2. Private person (treason, parricide, murder
imposed in the RPC.
attempt against the life of the president,
habitually guilty of some other crime.) *RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The
penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed in lieu of
PENALTIES
death.
Article 22.Retroactive effect of penal laws.
Art. 26. Fine – when afflictive, correctional or light penalty
The general rule is that penal laws have prospective effect.
Afflictive – exceeds P6, 000.00
They can only be given retroactive effect if:
Correctional – does not exceed P6,000.00 but is not less
than 200.00.
1. It is favorable to the accused , and
2. The accused is not a habitual criminal.
Light – less than 200.00.
Prospective effect of penal laws
*This classification should not be confused with Art. 9,
which classifies felonies.
Applicable to all penal laws.
Article 27.Duration of penalties.
This rule is applicable even for those serving sentence by
final judgment.
The amendment giving a duration to reclusion perpetua
(20y and 1d to 40y) did not mean that it has reclassified as
Habitual criminal is one who…
a divisible penalty. It remains an indivisible penalty. (Pp v.
1. Within a period of 10 years; Lucas)
2. From the date of the last conviction or release;
Article 28.Computation of penalties.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 37

- If theoffender is in prison, the temporary penalty - Extinguishes criminal liability

– judgment of conviction becomes final.
- If the offender is not in prison, the penalty - Cannot include civil liability
consisting of deprivation of liberty – offender is
- Given after conviction
placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities.
- Duration of other penalties – from the day on w/c
By offended party
the defendant commences to serve his sentence.
- Does not extinguish criminal liability
Article 29.Preventive detention.
- Offended party can waive civil liability
- Given before institution of criminal prosecution
Period of preventive suspension – credited fully in the
(Except: Rape)
service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty
if the detention prisoner agrees in writing to abide by the
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities – order of payment
same disciplinary rules imposed on convicted prisoners.
1. Reparation of damage caused;restitution
Exceptions
2. Indemnification of consequential damages;use
commonly on crimes against persons
- Recidivists and those convicted previously 2 or 3
3. Fine;
items of any crime, and
4. Cost of proceedings.
- Those who fail to surrender voluntarily when
summoned from execution.
*This article is applicable only when the property of the
convict is not sufficient to pay all the pecuniary liabilities.
Rules
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty.
- If the detention prisoner does not abide by the
rules imposed on convicts, he will be credited in
Under the RPC, subsidiary imprisonment is an additional
the service of his sentence with 4/5 of the period
penalty consisting of imprisonment for a convict who has
of preventive detention.
no property to pay the fine at the rate of one day for each
- If the detention prisoner has been in detention
amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate
for a period equal to or more than the possible
prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of
maximum imprisonment of the offense charged
judgment of conviction by the trial court (RA. 10159)
to which he may be sentenced and his case is not
terminated, he shall be released immediately. Rules under the RPC
- In case, the possible penalty is destierro, he shall
be released after 30 days of preventive - If prison correccional or arresto and fine –
imprisonment. subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of
the term of sentence and in no case exceed 1
Article 36.Pardon. year.
- If penalty is only fine – subsidiary imprisonment
Pardon remits the principal penalty but not the accessory
shall not exceed 6 months if prosecuted for grave
penalty, unless the pardon expressly provides otherwise.
or less grave;and not to exceed 15 days if for a
light felony.
Exception: when pardon is granted after the principal
- If penalty imposed is higher than prison
penalty has been fully executed.
correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment.
It is the Chief Executive who pardons.
Rules in special laws
Pardon
- If court imposes a fine – shall not exceed 6
By Chief Executive months

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 38

- If both imprisonment and fine – shall not exceed - There are, however, certain provisions where a
1/3 of the term penalty is provided for a frustrated stage or
attempted stage of a felony.
Art. 45. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the proceeds of the
crime and instruments and tools in the commission of the Art. 47. When death penalty imposed.
crime.
Must be imposed in all cases under existing laws.
- “Every penalty” presupposes that this is an
accessory penalty. Except:
- The confiscation or forfeiture is in favor of the
- Below 18 years of age;
government.
- More than 70 years of age;
- If a third person owns the property and is not
- Required majority in SC is not obtained.
liable for the offense, the property cannot be
confiscated or forfeited in favor of the
Pp v. Mateo
government.
- If the property is not subject of lawful commerce, “If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty
it shall be destroyed regardless of whether it of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is
belongs to the accused or a third person. imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to
provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals
Rules
before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.”
- There must be a criminal case otherwise no
Art. 48 Complex crimes.
penalty can be imposed.
- If the property belongs to a person not included In complex crimes at least two crimes are committed but
in the charge, the court cannot order the they constitute only one crime, as only one penalty is
confiscation/forfeiture of the property. imposed upon the offender. This is intended to benefit the
- If the property was not submitted to the court in offender who is, in the eyes of the law, less criminally
evidence, said property cannot be confiscated. perverse than one who commits two or more separate and
independent crimes.
PDEA v. Brodett
Two kinds of complex crimes:
Art. 45 of the RPC bars the confiscation and forfeiture of an
instrument or tool used in the commission of the crime if - Compound crime – a single act constitutes two or
such “be the property of a third person not liablefor the more grave or less grave felonies. Ex; throwing a
offense.” hand grenade at a group of people causing death
or injuries to several in the group.
Release of property
- Complex crime proper – one offense is a
necessary means for committing the other. Ex;
Property seized must be returned to the person from whom
falsifying cedulas so as to collect the fees from
it was taken or to person who is entitled to itspossession:
persons to whom they are issued.
- No criminal prosecution
Compound crime.
- Unreasonable prosecution
Requisites:
Art. 46. Penalties to be imposed on principals in general.
1. One single act.
- The penalties provided for in the RPC are the
2. The single act produces two or more grave or less
penalties imposed on principals for the
grave felonies.
consummated felony.
One single act.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 39

- Throwing a hand grenade into a group of people Necessary does not mean indispensable otherwise the
is a single act. offense would be considered as an element of the offense
- Placing a bomb in an airplane is a single act. and the result would be one felony committed.
- Firing a gun once is a single act.
The other crime must be a means to commit not to conceal.
Two or more grave or less grave felonies. If the other crime is used to conceal the other, they are
separate offenses.
In case the single act produces light felonies they are either
treated as: Applicability of Art. 48.

- Separate offenses; or Art. 48 is applicable only when the RPC does not provide a
- Absorbed. The rule that light felonies are specific penalty for a Special Complex Crime. Ex: Kidnapping
absorbed should only be applied when there is with Murder or Homicide, Robbery with Homicide, Rape
only one victim. with Homicide.

Pp v. de los Santos Forcible Abduction with Rape.

The slight physical injuries caused by glenn to the ten other The abduction is a necessary means to commit rape. This
victims through reckless imprudence, would, had they been should only be applied to the first rape. If subsequent rapes
intentional, have constituted light felonies. Being light are committed, they are separate felonies, since the
felonies, which are not covered by Article 48, they should abduction was no longer necessary for their commission.
be treated and punished as separate offenses. Separate
information should have, therefore, been filed. Penalty for complex crime

Several offenders and several victims The penalty is for the most serious crime committed to be
applied in its maximum period.
Where there are several offenders and it cannot be
ascertained who among them killed the several deceased, Continued crime.
there is only one crime committed. This ruling should only
A continued, continuing or continuous crime is not
be applied when it cannot be ascertained who among the
specifically provided for in the RPC. The principles on
offenders killed the victims (Sanidad, April 30, 2003; Lawas,
continued crime is based on a single criminal impulse and
June 30, 1955; Abella, Aug 31, 1979)
should result in one criminal liability.
Complex crime proper.
The difference in Dela Cruz and Enguerocase,is that in Dela
Requisites: Cruz there was evidence that there was a general plan to
commit robbery in the vicinity of the eight households.
1. At least two offenses; InEnguerono such evidence was presented.
2. One or some must be a necessary means to
commit the other; Art. 49. Penalty when crime different from that intended.
3. Both offenses must be punished under the same
- This article is only applicable in error in personae.
statute.
- In Aberratio ictus, two crimes are committed,
At least two offenses. therefore, Art. 48 (complex crimes) is applicable;
- In Praeterintentionem, the offender is liable for
- Falsification as a means to commit malversation the crime actually committed.
(barbas)
- Usurpation of official functions as a means to Rules
commit simple seduction.
- Rule 1
Necessary means

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 40

Penalty for felony committed is higher than Reclusion Temporal – penalty next lower in degree
penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony
with lower penalty imposed in maximum. 2nd Rule.Two indivisible penalties or one or more divisible
- Rule 2 penalties to be imposed to their full extent.
Penalty for felony committed is lower than
The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately
penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony
following the lesser of the penalties prescribed.
with lower penalty imposed in maximum.
Two indivisible:
Art. 50-57
Death -
- Rules in determining the imposable penalties for
accomplices and accessories of frustrated and
---------
attempted felonies.
Parricide
- Degree is one entire penalty.
- Period is one of the three equal portions of a Reclusion Perpetua -
divisible penalty.
- A period when prescribed by the RPC as a penalty Reclusion Temporal
for a felony is considered a degree.
2nd rule.One or more divisible penalties to be imposed to
Art. 60. Exceptions. their full extent.

- The rules in Art. 50-57 are not applicable where One divisible penalty to be imposed to its full extent.
the law specifically provides for a penalty for a
frustrated or attempted stage of a felony or Reclusion Perpetua
specifically provides for the penalty of an
Reclusion Temporal - penalty
accomplices or accessory.
Prision Mayor - penalty next lower in degree
Art. 61.Rules for graduating penalties

Basis for graduation of penalties is the scale in Art. 71.

- Death
- Rec Perp
- Rec Temp
- Pr Mayor
- PrCorr
- Arr mayor Two divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent.
- Destierro
- ArrMenor Prision Mayor -
- Public Censure
------ penalty
- Fine
PrisionCorreccional -
1st Rule. Single and indivisible
Arresto Mayor - penalty next lower in degree
The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately
following. 3rd Rule. One or two indivisible penalties and the
maximum period of another divisible penalty
Death
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
Reclusion Perpetua – penalty
medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 41

penalty and the maximum period of that immediately Art. 62. Application of mitigating, aggravating
following. circumstances and habitual delinquency.

Death - 1st Rule.Aggravating circumstances which in themselves

constitute the crime or are included by law in defining the
Reclusion Perpetua - crime – No effect.

Reclusion Temporal (max) - “By means of fire” not taken into consideration in arson.

Reclusion Temporal (med) - “Dwelling” in robbery with force upon things.

Reclusion Temporal (min) - “Abuse of confidence” in qualified theft.

Prision Mayor (max) - Taking advantage of public position and committed by a

syndicate – Maximum regardless of mitigating
Prision Mayor (med) -
circumstances.
Prision Minor (min) -
Syndicate – two or more persons.
4th Rule. Penalty is composed of several periods (at least
Art. 62. Par. 2. Inherent.
3).
When the aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the
– No effect.
period immediately following the minimum prescribed and
of the two next following either from the penalty prescribed Evident premeditation in robbery and theft.
or the penalty immediately following.
Art. 62. Par. 3. Circumstances relating to the persons
Rec Temp – Max participating in the crime.

- Med 1. Moral attributes of the offender.

- Min Ex: Evident premeditation (aggravating)
-Max Passion or obfuscation (mitigating)
2. Private relations of offender and offended party
Pr May - Med
Ex: relationships, e.g., father and son
3. Any other personal cause
- Min
Ex: minority
PrCorr - Max Insanity
recidivism
-Med
- Min In these three instances the aggravating or mitigating
circumstance shall affect only those to whom such
5th Rule. Not specially provided for in Rules 1-4. circumstance is present.

Proceed by analogy. Art. 62. Par. 4. Circumstances consisting in the material

execution of the crime.
- If the penalty consists of two periods, the penalty
next lower in degree is the penalty consisting of Material execution – treachery
two periods immediately down the scale.
- If the penalty consists only of one period, the Means employed – poison, fire, etc.
penalty next lower in degree is the next period
Affects only those who had knowledge of them at the time
immediately down the scale.
of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 42

Art. 62. Par. 5. Habitual Delinquency The mitigating circumstance that constitutes the privilege
mitigating circumstance can no longer be considered in
Rules on Habitual delinquency determining the imposable period.

- Refers only to certain crimes: serious and less Art. 65. Dividing penalties (divisible) into three equal
serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa portions.
and falsification.
- It results in an additional penalty not merely an Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its entirety
increase in the penalty. by ascertaining the minimum and maximum.
- The additional penalty is imposed upon a third
conviction. Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty
- The 10 years shall always be computed from the prescribed by subtracting the minimum from the maximum.
last conviction or release. The minimum subtracted from must not include the 1 day.
- The subsequent crimes must be committed after
Step 3. The difference should be divided into three equal
conviction.
portions.
Art. 63. Indivisible penalties
Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day)is the minimum
Single indivisible – imposed regardless of the presence of of the minimum period. Add the quotient to the minimum
circumstances and you have the maximum of your minimum period.

Two indivisible penalties Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period
and you have the minimum of the medium period. Add the
- One aggravating – greater penalty quotient to the minimum (without including the one day)
- No mitigating no aggravating – lesser penalty and you have the maximum of the medium period of the
- Some mitigating no aggravating – lesser penalty penalty.
- Both – offset according to number and
importance. Step 6. Add 1 day to the maximum of the medium and you
have the minimum of the maximum period of the penalty.
Art 64. Penalties which contain three periods. Add the quotient to the minimum (without including the
one day) and you have the maximum of the maximum
Rule 1. No aggravating and no mitigating – medium period period of the penalty.

Rule 2. Only a mitigating – minimum Prisioncorreccional medium and maximum

Rule 3. Only an aggravating – maximum Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its entirety
by ascertaining the minimum and maximum.
Rule 4. When there are both aggravating and mitigating
circumstances the court shall offset those of one class 2 years 4 months and 1 day to 6 years
against the other.
Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty
Two or more mitigating and no aggravating prescribed by subtracting the minimum from the maximum.
The minimum subtracted from must not include the 1 day.
Rule 5.Two or more mitigating and no aggravating
circumstance – penalty next lower in degree intheperiod 6 years 5 years 12 months
applicable according to the number and nature of
circumstance.This is called a privileged mitigating - Or
circumstance. - 2 years 4 months 2 years 4 months

___________________ _______________

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 43

3 years 8 months Above 15 below 18 –exempt unless acting with discernment

(diversion)
Step 3. The difference should be divided into three euql
portions. Art. 69. Crime not wholly excusable.

1 year 2 months 20 days Some of the elemets of a justifying or exempting

circumstance are present.
_____________________
Majority.
3 ) 3 years 8 months
One or two degrees lower. Privileged mitigating
3 years 6 months circumstance.

____ Art. 70. Service of sentence.

Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day) is the minimum Simultaneous if the nature of the penalties allow otherwise
of the minimum period. Add the quotient to the minimum the penalties must be served successively.
and you have the maximum of your minimum period.
Disqualification, suspension, destierro, censure, civil
2 years 4 months interdiction, confiscation, and costs are penalties that may
be served simultaneously.
+
Penalty of imprisonment
1 year 2 months 20 days
Multiple penalties consisting of imprisonment have to be
3 years 6 months 20 days served successively.

Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period The order of severity in Art. 71 must be observed. The most
and you have the minimum of the medium period. Add the severe must be served first.
quotient to the maximum and you have the maximum of
your maximum period. Three-fold rule

A convict’s sentence shall not exceed more than three times

Art. 66. Imposition of fines. the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed on him.
Wealth or means of the culprit is the primary consideration.
Shall not exceed 40 years.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall also be
considered. Does not preclude the imposition of subsidiary
imprisonment.
Art. 67. Penalty when accident is present.
Art. 71. Graduation of penalties
Accident is an exempting circumstance under art. 12,
paragraph 4. If not all elements are present then the Under art. 9346 death has been effectively eliminated from
offender is punished in the same manner as a person liable the list of imposable penalties under Art. 71.
for reckless imprudence under art. 365.
This affects not only the consummated stage and the
Art. 68. Penalty upon a person under 18. principals but also for the frustrated and attempted stage
as well with respect
RA 9344
Art. 72-74
15 years and under – no criminal liability (intervention)

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 44

Art 72. Satisfaction of civil liability is based on the A penalty with a minimum and a maximum instead of a
chronological order that they are imposed. straight penalty.

Art 73. Accessory penalties under Art’s 40-45 are deemed Authorizes the release of a convict after having served the
imposed. minimum of his sentence.

Art 75. Increasing or decreasing fine by one or more Temp -

degrees.
Pr. May – Medium -
Fines are increased or decreased by one-fourth (1/4) of the
maximum. Pr. Corr – Maximum -

There must be a minimum and a maximum for this article Arr. May -
to be applicable.
ISL does not apply
Only the maximum is increased or decreased, the minimum
1. Convicted; death or life imprisonment
is never changed.
2. Convicted; of treason, conspraicy or proposal to
Increasing or decreasing the fine. commit treason
3. Convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion,
Fine of P200-P2,000 sedition, or espionage
4. Convicted of piracy
¼ of P2,000 = P500 5. Habitual delinquents
6. Escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
One degree lower would be a fine of P200-P1,500
7. Violated the terms of the conditional pardon
8. Imprisonment; maximum does not exceed 1 year
Two degrees lower would be a fine of P200,P1,000
9. Those already sentenced by final judgment at the
Art. 76. Legal periods of divisible penalties time of the approval of the law
10. Destierro or suspension.
The intention of the law is to give the three periods of a
penalty equal or uniform duration due to the ff: RPC and Special Laws

- Equal and uniform durations. Special law.

- Does not require that they be used even when the
- Minimum – not be less than the minimum
periods of a prescribed penalty correspond to
prescribed by law.
different divisible penalties.
- Maximum – not exceed the maximum fixed by
- Will result in the periods not being of equal and
law.
uniform duration.

RPC

- Minimum – shall be within the range of the

Arresto Mayor does not follow the general rule.
penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code
Minimum – 1mo 1 day to 2months for the offense.
- Maximum – that, in view of the attending circ,
Medium- 2mos 1 day to 4 mos could be properly imposed under the rules of the
RPC.
Maximum – 4 mos 1 day to 6 mos
Steps
Indeterminate Sentence Law

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 45

1. Ascertain the penalty prescribed for the offense 2. Apply the attending circ (privileged mitigating
without considering the attending circumstances circ) first. One degree lower than Pr Mayor is Pr
2. Use the said penalty as the basis for determining Corr. (exception to the general rule)
the minimum, which is the penalty next lower in 3. One degree lower than PrCorr is Arr Mayor. Arr
degree. This is the minimum of the indeterminate May is the minimum.
sentence. 4. Maximum is PrisionCorr in its max, because it is a
3. Fix the maximum by imposing the penalty complex crime.
prescribed by the law taking into consideration 5. Indeterminate sentence is Arrestor Mayor to
the attending circumstances. PrCorr Maximum.

Homicide, no mitigating no aggravating. Probation

1. Homicide is punished by Reclusion Temporal. Probation – is a disposition where a convict is released

2. Penlaty next lower in degree to Rec Temp is subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
Prision Mayor. Prision Mayor is the minimum of supervision of a probation officer.
your indeterminate sentence.
3. Maximum is Rec Temp in its medium period since In a probation, a convict’s sentence consisting of
there is no aggravating or mitigating imprisonment is not executed, rather the convict is released
circumstances. subject to the conditions of the probation. When the
4. The indeterminate sentence, therefore, is Prision convict violates the terms, he may be required to serve the
Mayor to Reclusion Temp Medium. sentence.

Frustrated Homicide with Direct Assault When to apply for probation

1. Frustrated Homicide – Pr May; Direct Assault – The application for probation must be filed within the
PrCOrr Med- Max. Penalty for complex crime is period for perfecting an appeal (15 days from
for the graver offense which is Pr May. promulgation).
2. Penalty next lower to Pr Mayor is Pr Corr. PrCorr
When a convict has perfected an appeal, an application for
is the minimum.
probation cannot be granted.
3. Max is Pr Mayor in its maximum (complex crime)
4. Indeterminate sentence is, therefore,
Sable v. Pp
PrisionCorreccional to Prision Mayor Maximum.
“The Probation Law is patently clear that no application for
Privileged Mitigating Circumstnace
probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.”
General rule is: find the penalty next lower in degree to the
penalty prescribed by law without first considering the
“Consequently, probation should be availed of at the first
attending circumstance.
opportunity by convicts who are willing to be reformed and
rehabilitated; who manifest spontaneity, contrition and
Exception is: a privileged mitigating circ (two or more
remorse.”
mitigating circ without any aggravating circ, Art. 64 para. 5).
In this case the privileged mitigating circ is first applied to
Except in the case of Colinares v. Pp
determine the basis for the minimum.
In a real sense, the court’s finding that Arnel was guilty, not
Estafa thru falsification by a public officer with two mit
of frustrated homicide, but only of attempted homicide, is
and no agg (privileged mitigating circ).
an original conviction that for the first time imposes on him
a probationable penalty. Had the RTC done him right from
1. Penalty for the more serious offense
the start, it would have found him guilty of the correct
(falsification) is prision mayor.
offense and imposed on him the right penalty of two years

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 46

and four months maximum. This would have afforded Arnel When death occurs before final judgment, e.g., pending
the right to apply for probation. appeal, the criminal liability of the accused is extinguished
as well as his civil liability if it is based solely on the offense
Disqualified from probation committed.

-sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of more If the civil liability can be predicated on some other source
than 6 yrs; of obligation other than delict (crime), e.g., law, contract
or quasi-delict, the claim for civil liability survives.
- Convicted of subversion, crimes against national security
or public order; Pp v. Bayotas (READ! MU GAWAS NIS EXAM)

- Previously convicted by final judgment by: 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
- Imprisonment of not less than one month, and/or
well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As
- Fine not less than 200.00
opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the
death of the accused prior to final judgment
-Have been once on probation;
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil
- Those already serving sentence at the time the provisions liability directly arising from and based solely on
of the probation law became applicable. the offense committed…
2. Corollariliy, the claim for civil liability survives
Periods of probation notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation
- If the term of imprisonment is not more than 1 other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code
year probation shall not exceed two years. enumerates these other sources of obligation
- If sentenced to more than 1 year probation shall from which the civil liability may arise as a result
not exceed 6 years. of the same act or omission…

Completion of the period of probation anddischargeof the Amnesty and pardon

probationer shall operate to restore him to all civil rights.
- Amnesty completely extinguishes the offense,
Art. 89. Total extinction of criminal liability. the penalty and the effets thereof. However,
amnesty does not extinguish civil liability.
1. Death
- Pardon merely exempts the convict from the
2. Service of sentence
punishment the law inflicts for a crime
3. Amnesty
committed.
4. Absolute pardon
5. Prescription of the crime Amnesty
6. Prescription of the penalty
7. Marriage (art. 344) - Group/class
- Before or after conviction
Death - Looks backward
- Affects recidivism
Personal penalties – extinguished whether death occurs
- Civil liability remains
before or after conviction.
- Public act of president
Pecuniary penalties are extinguished when death occurs
Pardon
before final judgment. Fines and costs shall subsist if death
occurs after final judgment. - Individual
- After conviction
Death before final judgment.
- Looks forward

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 47

- Recidivism stays Rules in Special Laws

- Civil liability remains
- Private act of President - Period of prescription begins from the date of
commission or date of discovery up to the
Prescription of the crime/penalty institution of judicial proceedings.
- Period is interrupted when proceedings are
The state loses the right to prosecute an offender due to instituted against guilty person and begins to run
the lapse of time. again if proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
constituting double jeopardy.
The state loses the right to execute final sentence after the
- Accused cannot be convicted of a lesser offense
lapse of time.
than that charged if the lesser offense has already
prescribed at the time the information was filed.
Marriage of the offended woman (art 344); must be in
good faith.
Art. 91. Computation of period (RPC)
The manner in which the appellant dealt with the girl after
- Commences to run on the day the crime is
the marriage, as well as before, shows that he had no bona
discovered by the offended party, authorities, or
fide intention of making her his wife, and the ceremony
their agents.
cannot be considered binding on her because of duress. The
- It is interrupted by the filing of complaint or
marriage was therefore void for lack of essential consent,
information.
and it supplies no impediment to the prosecution of the
- Commences to run again when the proceedings
wrongdoer.” (Pp v. Santiago)
terminate w/o the accused being convicted or
acquitted or unjustifiably stopped for any reason
Art. 90. Prescription of crimes
not imputable to him.
The state loses the right to prosecute an offender.
Art. 92. Prescription of penalties.
- Death, Rec Perp, Rec Temp – 20 years
The state loses the right to execute final sentence after the
- Other afflictive penalties – 15 years
lapse of time.
- Correctional penalties – 10 years
- Except by arresto mayor – 5 years
Prescriptive period:
- Libel and other similar offenses – 1 year
- Oral defamation and slander by deed – 6 months - Death and Rec Perp – 20 years
- Light offenses – 2 months
Prescription
Prescriptive periods of crimes punished by special laws
(act no. 3763) -Prescription of penalties – sentence must be final.

Punished by: - Prescription of crimes – penalty prescribed by law

- Fine/imprisonment (not more than 1 month) – 1 - Prescription of penalties – penalty imposed.

year
- Imprisonment more than 1 month, less than 2 Art. 93. Computation of period.
years – 4 years
Commences to run when culprit evades service of sentence.
- Imprisonment more than 2 years, less than 6
years – 8 years
Interrupted when convict:
- Imprisonment of 6 years or more – 12 years
- Internal revenue Law – 5 years - Gives himself up.
- Municipal ordinances – 2 months - Captured
- Public service Commission – 2 months

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 48

- Goes to a foreign country with which the Govt has Acquittal

no extradition treaty, or
- Commits another crime before the expiration of Acquittal in the criminal case does not carry with it
the period. extinction of the civil liability.

Evasion of service of sentence is essential for the rules on Exception:when there is a finding in the final judgment that
prescription on apply. the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise
does not exist, the civil liability is deemed extinguished.

Abellana v. Pp.
Art. 94. Partial Extinction
Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of his
- Conditional pardon. Condition usually takes the own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently,
form of an undertaking that the convict shall not causes damage to another. Hence, for petitioner to be
violate any penal law. civilly liable to spouses Alonto, it must be proven that the
- Commutation. Commutation reduces the degree acts he committed had caused damage to the spouses.
of the penalty or reduces the length of
imprisonment. Instances when the extinction of the criminal liability does
- Good conduct allowances. Art. 97. not extinguish civil liability.

Art. 97. Good Conduct Allowance. - Reasonable doubt. When the acquittal is based
that proof beyond reasonable doubt has not been
Good conduct of a prisoner during his imprisonment will presented.
result in a deduction of his sentence: - Non-imputability. Incases of insanity, imbecility
or minority.
- 1st two years – 5 days/ month of good behavior. - In actions for negligence. Civil liability may be
- 3rd to 5th year – 8 days/month of good behavior. based on quasi-delict.
- 6th to 10th year – 10 days/month of good - Independent civil actions. Articles 31, 32, 33 and
behavior. 34 of the NCC.
- 11th and successive years – 15 days/month of
good behavior. Under the Rules of Court; Criminal Procedure.

Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged
- 1/5 of the period of the sentence; shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless:
- Evade service during disorders, conflagrations,
earthquakes, or other calamities; - Offended party waives the civil action;
- Gives himself up within 48 hours following the - Offended party reserves the right to institute it
proclamation announcing the passing away of the separately;
calamity or catastrophe. - Offended party institutes the civil action prior to
- An essential element of this article is that the the criminal action.
convict must leave the penal institution.
Separate civil action.
Art. 100. Civil liability.
- The filing of a criminal action is not necessary to
A person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable. the filing of and prosecution of a civil action, thus
the term “separate civil action”.
This principle is based on the dual character of a crime. A - However, once a criminal action has been filed,
crime is (1) an offense against the State because it disturbs there are two scenarios that may arise.
the social order and (2) it injures a private individual unless
there is no private injury that is inflicted. Separate civil action.
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 49

1. If the criminal action is filed ahead of the separate As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the
civil action – the separate civil action arising following may be awarded: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for
therefrom cannot be instituted until final the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory
judgment has been rendered in the criminal damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; (5)
action. temperate damages

2. If the civil action is filed ahead of the separate civil Without need of further proof.
action – the criminal action is
Civil indemnity is mandaotyr and granted to the heirs of the
suspended.(KUWANG)
victim without need of proof other than the commission of
Applicability of the rules. the crime. In cases of murder and homicide, moral damages
maybe awarded without need of allegation and proof of the
Identity of parties and subject matter. emotional suffering of the heirs, other than the death of the
victim, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing
The claimant in the civil action is the offended party in the of the victim cannot be dnied. (jadap)
criminal action and both cases arise from the same offense
or transaction. Exemplary damages.

Separate civil action. Article 2230 of the CC states that exemplary damages may
be imposed when the crime was committed with one or
- If the offended party has reserved the right to file more aggravating circumstances.
a separate civil action, he loses the right to
intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case. Pp v. Rante
- (KUWANG)
Being corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore,
Prejudicial question. can be awrded, not only in the presence of an aggravating
circ, but also where the circ of the case show the highly
- Generally, a criminal case should be decided first reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the accused.
before the civil action arising from the crime. An
exception to the rule is a prejudicial question. Simple Rape
- A prejudicial question is a civil case that must be
decided first before the criminal action. It As to the amount of damages, the Court finds as correct the
requires (1) a previously instituted civil action awrd of P50, 000.00 as civil indemnity and P50, 000.00 as
whose issues are similar or intimately related ot moral damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence. (Pp v.
the issues raised in a subsequent criminal action, Dalisay)
and (2) the resolution of such issue determines
*Exemplary damages in theamount of P30, 000.00 was also
whether the criminal action may proceed or not.
awarded.
(Sec. 6, Rule 111 RRC)
Qualified Rape
Prejudicial question
Civil indemnity – P75k
- A civil action where the genuineness of a
document is put in issue is prejudicial to the
Moral damages – P75k
criminal case for falsification of the same
document. Exemplary – P30k
- A petition for the annulment of a subsequent
marriage on grounds of duress is a prejudicial Awarded without need of further proof other than the
question to a criminal case for bigamy. commission of the crime. (Pp v. Garcia)

Pp v. Jadap Homicide; civil indemnity

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013

 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 50

Civil indemnity – without need of proof other than the fact Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.
that a crime was committed resulting in the death of
thevictim and that petitioner was responsible therefor – 1. Employers
P50, 000.00 (Seguritan v. Pp) 2. Teachers
3. Persons or corporations engaged in any kind of
Loss of earning capacity industry

The award of P135, 331.00 for the loss of earning capacity - Felony committed by servants, pupils, workmen,
was also in order. The prosecution satisfactorily proved that apprentices, employees while in the discharge of
the victim was earning an annual income of P14, 000.00 duties.
from the harvest of pineapples. - Must be involved in any kind of industry.
- The felon is insolvent.
Actual damages; receipts.
Decision convicting the employee
It is error for the trial court and the appellate court to award
actual damages of P30, 000.00 for the expenses incurred for Binding on the employer. The decision need not expressly
the death of the victim. We perused the records and did not state the liability of the employer.
find evidence to support the plea for actual damages.
(seguritan) The decision regarding the civil liability is binding on the
employer not only with the fact of the liability but also with
Temperate damages respect to the amount.

When pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount What must be proved.
cannot, from the nature of the case, be proven with
certainty, temperate damages may be recovered (P25, 1. Employer of the convicted employee.
000.00). (Seguritan) 2. Engaged in industry
3. Crime committed in the discharge of duty
In Pp v. Villanueva, we held that when actual damages 4. Execution is unsatisfied; employee is insolvent.
proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than
P25k, the award of temperate damages for P25k is justified Need not be in a separate civil action; hearing in the
in lieu of actual damages for a lesser amount. (Quidet v. Pp) criminal action with notice to the employer.

Art. 101. The following shall be civilly liable. Art. 104. What is included in civil liability.

- Insanity, imbecility and minority. The person 1. Restitution

having legal authority or control. If the said 2. Reparation of the damage caused;
person can prove that there was no fault or 3. Indemnification for consequential damages
negligence on his part, the insane, imbecile or
minor shall answer with his own property. Restitution – return of the thing stolen incases of theft.
- Avoidance of greater evil or injury, the person
Reparation – in theft if the thing stolen cannot be returned,
whose benefit the harm has been prevented in
its value.In physical injuries, the expenses for the treatment
proportion to the benefit which he may have
of the injuries.
received.
Indemnification – loss of earning capacity.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability.
Art. 105. Restitution.
Innkeepers, tavernkeepers, any other person where a crime
is committed in their establishment.
Restitution refers to the very same thing taken/stolen.
A violation of municipal ordinance or a general or special
police action is committed by them or their employees.
RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013
 CRIM 1 LAW – PERSONAL NOTES 51

To give something similar in kind, amount, species or quality Those within a particular class (principal, accomplice,
is not restitution. accessory) shall be liable solidarily.

Restitution They are subsidiarily liable for those in another class.

Generally, the owner of a thing illegally taken may recover Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability.
it even form a third person who has acquired it by lawful
means. Same causes for the extinguishment of civil obligations.

When the third person acquires the item in good faith at a - Payment or performance
public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without - Loss of the thing due
reimbursing the price paid therefore. - Condonation or remission
- Confusion or merger
Art. 106. Reparation. - Compensation
- Novation
Reparation will be order by the court if restitution is not
possible.

Reparation includes any damage cause by the felonious act. - THE END -

It includes the item’s special sentimental value to the See you next semester?
injured party.

Art. 107. Indemnification.

Indemnification – crimes against persons.

Reparation – crimes against property.

Examples of indemnification

- Expenses for hospitalization of injured parties

Loss of earning capacity.

Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider

that under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code, the accused are also
jointly and severally liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of Biag and such indemnity should be paid to his
heirs. (Pp v. Lagat)

Factors to be considered

The amount of damages recoverable for the loss of earning

capacity of the deceased isbased on two factors: (1) the
number of years on the basis of which the damages shall be
computed (2) the rate at which the losses

Art. 110. Liability of principals, accomplices and

accessories.

RJU & FRIENDS – EH 410 - | CIRCA 2013