Revised Penal Code of the

Philippines
When did it take effect? January 1, 1932

ART.1

Criminal law is that branch or division of municipal law which

   - defines crimes,
   - treats of their nature and
   - provides for their punishment.

Characteristics of Criminal Law:

1. General – binding on all persons who reside or sojourn in the Philippines
  
      Exceptions:
      a. Treaty Stipulation
      b. Laws of Preferential Application
      c. Principles of Public International Law

Example
(1). sovereigns and other chiefs of state
(2). Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, minister resident and charges d’affaires (BUT
consuls, vice-consuls and other foreign commercial representatives CANNOT claim the
privileges and immunities accorded to ambassadors and ministers.)

2. Territorial – penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory

Exceptions: (Art. 2 of RPC – binding even on crimes committed outside the Philippines)
a. offense committed while on a Philippine ship or airship
b. forging or counterfeiting any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and
the securities issued by the Government
c. introduction into the country of the above-mentioned obligations and securities
d. while being public officers and employees, an offense committed in the exercise of their
functions
e. crimes against national security and the law of the nations defined in Title One of Book
Two

3. Prospective – the law does not have any retroactive effect.

Exception: when the law is favorable to the accused

Exceptions to the Exception:

a. The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of
action
b. Offender is a habitual criminal

Theories of Criminal Law:

1. Classical Theory – basis is man’s free will to choose between good and evil, that is why
more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.
The purpose of penalty is retribution. The RPC is generally governed by this theory.

2. Positivist Theory – basis is the sum of social and economic phenomena which conditions
man to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition. This is exemplified in the provisions
on impossible crimes and habitual delinquency.

3. Mixed Theory – combination of the classical and positivist theories wherein crimes that
are economic and social in nature should be dealt in a positive manner. The law is thus
more compassionate.
Construction of Penal Laws:
1. Liberally construed in favor of offender

Examples:
a. the offender must clearly fall within the terms of the law
b. an act is criminal only when made so by the statute

2. In cases of conflict with official translation, original Spanish text is controlling,

3. No interpretation by analogy.

LIMITATIONS ON POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

1. ex post facto law
2. bill of attainder
3. law that violates the equal protection clause
of the constitution
4. law which imposes cruel and unusual punishments nor excessive fines

R.A. No. 75 -  penalizes acts which would impair the proper observance by the Republic
and inhabitants of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and privileges of duly accredited
foreign diplomatic representatives in the Philippines
Application of RPC Provisions

Art. 2.

Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in  the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions  of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and  maritime zone, but also
outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

   RULES:

1. Philippine vessel or airship – Philippine law shall apply to offenses committed in vessels
registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs. It is the registration, not the citizenship of
the owner which matters.

2. Foreign vessel
a. French Rule
General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign vessel within the territorial waters of a
country are NOT triable in the courts of such country.

Exception: commission affects the peace and security of the territory, or the safety of the
state is endangered.

b. English Rule
General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign vessel within the territorial waters of a
country are triable in the courts of such country.

Exception: When the crime merely affects things within the vessel or it refers to the internal
management thereof.

This is applicable in the Philippines.

When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, the NATIONALITY of the
vessel will ALWAYS determine jurisdiction because war vessels are part of the sovereignty
of the country to whose naval force they belong.

These rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on the high seas when the crime was
committed, in these cases, the laws of the nationality of the ship will always apply.

The country of registry determines the nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP. A
Filipino-owned vessel registered in China must fly the Chinese flag.

Extraterritorial refers to the application of the Revised Penal  Code outside the Philippines
territory:

Three International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction

a. Free Zone Theory

The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent
state, except for the protection of its national security and public order.

b. Relative Theory
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the atmosphere only to the extent that it can
effectively
exercise control thereof.
    
c. Absolute Theory
1. The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only
to the
innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign country.

NOTE: The Philippines adopts this theory.

2. Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as
it can be
established that it is within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law will govern.

2000 Bar Exam Question

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or

obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;

1. The forgery is committed abroad

2. And it refers to Philippine coin, currency note, obligation and security

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the

exercise of their functions; or

a) Those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country.

b) The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law:
i) to be performed by the public officer
ii) in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government
iii) in a foreign country.

NOTE: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime (whether or not in relation to the
exercise of
public functions) was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy
grounds
in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of
sovereignty.
Thus the crime is deemed to have been committed in Philippine soil.

Illustration:

A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here in the Philippines and who marries
again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because this is a crime not
connected with his official duties. However, if the second marriage was celebrated within
the Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here, since it is as if he contracted the
marriage here in the Philippines.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.

1. Rebellion is not included.

2. Any crime against public order is under the jurisdiction of the host country.
Felonies

Art. 3.

Definitions - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa).

There is deceit when the act  is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the
wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

Felonies – acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

Crime – acts and omissions punishable by any law.

Act – an overt or external act

Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law

ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
a. There must be an act or omission
b. That the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC
c. That the act is performed or the commission incurred by means of dolo or culpa

Dolo - deliberate intent.Must be coupled with freedom of action and intelligence on the part
of the offender as to the act done by him.

Actus Reus - Physical act

Mens rea - a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent. Gravamen of the
offense

Omission is
a. the failure to perform a duty
b. required by law.
c. It is important that there is a law requiring the performance of an act, if there is no positive
duty, there is no liability.
Examples: Omission
1. Failure to render assistance
2. Failure to issue receipt
3. Non disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy against the government.

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

Classification Of Felonies According To The Means By Which They Are Committed:

1. Intentional Felonies- by means of deceit (dolo)
      Requisites:
      a. freedom
      b. intelligence
      c. intent.

MISTAKE OF FACT – (Ignorantia Facti Excusat)misapprehension of fact on the part of the

person who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.
  
Requisites:
a. the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to
be
b. intention is lawful
c. mistake must be without fault or carelessness by the accused

Example:

People v. Ah Chong (1910)

A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a
robber responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out sufficient
warnings and believing himself to be under attack, cannot be held criminally liable for
homicide.

2. Culpable Felonies- by means of fault (culpa)

      Requisites:
      a. freedom
      b. intelligence
      c. negligence (lack of foresight) and imprudence (lack of skill)
Criminal Liability

ART.4

Par.1 Criminal liability for a felony committed different from  that intended to be

committed
Requisites:
1. felony has been committed intentionally
2. injury or damage done to the other party is the direct, natural and logical consequence of
the felony

Hence, since he is still motivated by criminal intent, the offender is criminally liable in:
1. Error in personae – mistake in identity
2. Abberatio ictus – mistake in blow
3. Praetor intentionem - lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong

PROXIMATE CAUSE – the cause, which in the natural and continuous sequence unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, without which the result would not
have occurred

1996 Bar Examination Question (Proximate Cause)

2003 Bar Examination Question (Immediate Cause)

Par. 2 Impossible Crime

Requisites:
1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property.
2. There was criminal intent.
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means are
employed.
4. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of special law.

Impossible crime occurs when there is:

1. inherent impossibility to commit the crime
2. inadequate means to consummate the crime
3. ineffectual means to consummate the crime

Read:

1996 Bar Examination Question (felonious act of scaring)

2000 Bar Examination Question (impossible crime)

1994 Bar Exam Question

Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae.

Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the person
against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended victim.

Error in personae, or mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act was directed at the
person intended, but who turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings about at
least two (2) felonious consequence, ie. the attempted felony on the intended victim who
was not hit and the felony on the unintended victim who was hit. A complex crime of the first
form under Art. 48, RPC generally result. In error in personae only one crime is committed.

1999 Bar Exam Question

What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in personae; and praeter intentionem? Do
they alter the criminal liability of an accused?

ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow at
his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended victim. The
situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two or more grave
or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victim and the
consequence on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for the more serious
crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is only when the resulting
felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the penalties are to be imposed
distinctly for each resulting crime.

ERROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the
person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the victim
intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake in identity
resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit, in which case the
lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall be imposed but in
the maximum period (Art. 49, RPC).

PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the consequence went beyond that intended or

expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13. par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious
disparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, i,e.,
the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the of fender from
the act or means employed by him.

2000 Bar Examination Question

Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing
during the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-
pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started
their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered
firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to
Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started
throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded
inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate,
Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to
calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so
that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after
all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his
firearm to Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came
out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead,
the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously, a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain.

Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide
because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48. RPC).

Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while consummated homicide is a grave felony:
both are punishable by afflictive penalties.
Art. 5:

Duty of the court in connection with acts which should

be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases
of excessive penalties

Note: Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special

law, including profiteering, and illegal possession of firearms
or drugs. There can be no executive clemency for these crimes.

Article 5 covers two situations:

1. The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not
   constitute a crime.
 
   a. The proper judgment is acquittal.
   b. The court is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that
      said act be made subject of penal legislation and why.

2. Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime
   too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the
   commission of the crime,

   a. The judge should impose the law.

   b. The most that he could do is recommend to the Chief
      Executive to grant executive clemency.
ART.6

STAGES OF EXECUTION:
1. CONSUMMATED – when all the elements necessary for its execution
   and accomplishment are present

2. FRUSTRATED

      Elements:
      a. offender performs all acts of execution
      b. all these acts would produce the felony as a consequence
      c. BUT the felony is NOT produced
      d. by reason of causes independent of the will of the
         perpetrator

3. ATTEMPTED

      Elements:
      a. offender commences the felony directly by overt acts
      b. does not perform all acts which would produce the felony
      c. his acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance

Crimes, which do not admit of Frustrated and Attempted Stages:

1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the law
   provides otherwise
2. Formal crimes – consummated in one instance
   (Ex: slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt
   (Ex: attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason, corruption of minors)
5. Felonies by omission
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (Ex: betting in sports: “ending,”
   corruption of public officers)

Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated Stage:

1. Rape
2. Bribery
3. Corruption of Public Officers
4. Adultery
5. Physical Injury

2 stages in the development of a crime:

1. Internal acts
   - e.g. mere ideas of the mind
   - not punishable
2. External acts
   a. Preparatory acts - ordinarily not punishable except when
      considered by law as independent crimes (e.g. Art. 304,
      Possession of picklocks and similar tools)
   b. Acts of Execution - punishable under the RPC
ART.7

General Rule: Punishable only when they have been consummated

   Exception:
   Even if not consummated, if committed against persons or
   property
      Ex: slight physical injuries, theft, alteration of
          boundary marks, malicious mischief, and intriguing
          against honor.
   Note: Only principals and accomplices are liable;
         accessories are NOT liable even if committed against
         persons or property.
Conspiracy

ART.8

Requisites:
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement
2. For the commission of a felony
3. And they decide to commit it

Concepts of Conspiracy:
1. As a crime in itself
   Ex: conspiracy to commit rebellion, insurrection, treason, sedition, coup d’ etat
2. Merely as a means to commit a crime

Requisites:
a. a prior and express agreement
b. participants acted in concert or simultaneously, which is indicative of a meeting of the
minds towards a common criminal objective

Note: Conspiracy to commit a felony is different from conspiracy as a manner of incurring

criminal liability.

General Rule: Conspiracy to commit a felony is not punishable since it is merely a

preparatory act.

              Exception: when the law specifically provides for a penalty

         
                         Ex: rebellion, insurrection, sedition, coup d’ etat

General Rule: The act of one is the act of all.

              Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators committed some other crime
which
                         is not part of the intended crime.

              Exception to the exception: When the act constitutes an indivisible offense.

People v. Abut, et al. (GR No. 137601, April 24, 2003)

OVERT ACTS IN CONSPIRACY MUST CONSIST OF:
1. Active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or
2. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of
the crime, or
3. Exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute
or implement the criminal plan

PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY

Requisites:
1. A person has decided to commit a felony
2. And proposes its execution to some other person or persons

People vs. Nierra

If a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or
minimal acts, such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. The common
notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished as principals.
This notion is no longer absolute. The reason given is that penal laws always favor a milder
form of responsibility upon and offender.

Illustration:

There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver was present during the planning. The taxi
driver agreed for the use of his cab but said, “I will bring you there, and after committing the
robbery I will return later.” The taxi driver brought the conspirators where the robbery would
be committed. After the robbery was finished, he took the conspirators back to his taxi and
brought them away. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as an accomplice. His
cooperation was not really indispensable. The robbers could have engaged another taxi.
The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the robbery. At most, what he
only extended was his cooperation.

A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. When several
persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of one is the
act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. All will be liable for
the consequences. Do not think that participants are always known to each other.

The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. As pointed out
earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only a
preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage..

Illustrations:

A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. She hired
some persons to kill him and pointed at her husband. The goons got hold of her husband
and started mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons
continued. The wife ran away. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. But the Supreme
Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminally liable.

Do not search for an agreement among  the participants. If they acted simultaneously to
bring about their common intention, conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do not
consider the degree of participation of each conspiracy because the act of one is the act of
all. As a general rule, they have equal responsibility.

Illustration:

A, B and C have been courting the same lady for several years. On several occasions, they
even visited the lady on intervening hours. Because of this, A, B and C became hostile with
one another. One day, D invited the young lady and she accepted the invitation. Eventually,
the young lady agreed to marry D. When A, B and C learned about this, they all stood up to
leave the house of the young lady feeling disappointed. When A looked back at the young
lady with D, he saw D laughing menacingly. At that instance, A stabbed D. C and B
followed. In this case, it was held that conspiracy was present

People v. Pangilinan,
Implied Conspiracy Conspiracy need not be direct but may be inferred from the conduct of
the parties, their joint purpose, community of interest and in the mode and manner of
commission of the offense. The legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
a. Not all those present at the crime scene will be considered conspirators;
b. Only those who participated in the criminal acts during the commission of the crime will
be considered co-conspirators;
c. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator.

Siton vs. CA,

The idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free for all. There is no definite
opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death.
Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies and Light Felonies

ART.9

Importance of Classification
1. To determine whether the felonies can be complexed or not.
2. To determine the prescription of the crime and of the penalty.

Penalties (imprisonment):
1. Grave felonies – afflictive penalties: 6 yrs. and 1 day to reclusion perpetua (life)
2. Less grave felonies – correctional penalties: 1 month and 1 day to 6 years
3. Light felonies - arresto menor (1 day to 30 days)

As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave or light felony:

1. When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are criminally liable.
2. But where the felony is only light, only the principal and the accomplice are liable. The
accessory is not.
Therefore, it is only when the light felony is against persons or property that criminal liability
attaches to the principal or accomplice, even though the felony is only attempted or
frustrated, but accessories are not liable for light felonies.
ART.10

General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws.

   Exceptions:
   1. when special law provides otherwise
   2. when provision of RPC are impossible of application, either
      by express provision or by necessary implication

Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws:

   - Art. 16 Participation of Accomplices
   - Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the accused
   - Art. 45 Confiscation of instruments used in the crime

Note: When the special law adopts the penalties

      imposed in the RPC i.e. penalties as reclusion
      perpetua, prision correccional, etc. the provisions of
      the RPC on imposition of penalties based on stages
      of execution, degree of participation and attendance
      of mitigating and aggravating circumstance may be
      applied by necessary implication
Justifying Circumstances –  where the act of a person is in accordance with law such that
said person is deemed not to have violated the law.

General Rule: No criminal and civil liability incurred.

Exception: There is civil liability with respect to par. 4 where the liability is borne by persons
benefited by the act.

Par. 1 Self-defense
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression
- indispensable requirement
- There must be actual physical assault or aggression or an immediate and imminent threat,
which must be offensive and positively strong.
- The defense must have been made during the existence of aggression, otherwise, it is no
longer justifying.
- While generally an agreement to fight does not constitute unlawful aggression, violation of
the terms of the agreement to fight is considered an exception.

2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it

Test of reasonableness depends on:
(1) weapon used by aggressor
(2) physical condition, character, size and  other circumstances of aggressor
(3) physical condition, character, size and circumstances of person defending himself
(4) place and occasion of assault

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

NOTE: Perfect equality between the weapons used, nor material commensurability between
the means of attack and defense by the one defending himself and that of the aggressor is
not required

REASON: the person assaulted does not have sufficient opportunity or time to think and
calculate.

Rights included in self-defense:

   1. defense of person
   2. defense of rights protected by law
   3. defense of property (only if there is also an actual and imminent danger on the person
of the one defending)
   4. defense of chastity

Kinds of Self-Defense:
1. self-defense of chastity – there must be an attempt to rape the victim
2. defense of property – must be coupled with an attack on the person of the owner, or on
one entrusted with the care of such property.

People v. Narvaez, (GR No. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983) Attack on property alone was
deemed sufficient to comply with element of unlawful aggression.

3. self-defense in libel – justified when the libel is aimed at a person’s good name.

“Stand ground when in the right” - the law does not require a person to retreat when his
assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.

NOTE: Under Republic Act 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004), victim-survivors who are found by the Courts to be suffering from Battered Woman
Syndrome (BWS) do not incur any criminal or civil liability despite absence of the necessary
elements for the justifying circumstance of self-defense in the RPC. BWS is a scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.

2002 Bar Exam Question

Justifying Circumstances: Defense of Honor

When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took
his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with Homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of
his daughter's honor.

Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any mitigating circumstance or

circumstances?

No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's honor in having killed B since rape
was already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no aggression
to defend against and no defense to speak of.

A may, however, invoked the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in
immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par.5,
article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

2003 Bar Exam Question and Answer (Defense of Property)

The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent
robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to
investigate what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After seeing what 
appeared to him as an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his
gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim
turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The
accused was indicted for serious physical injuries.

Should the accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why?

The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief,
his act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his person is not
justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun at a
burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate
danger. Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not
absolved from criminal liability.

Alternative Answer:

Considering the given circumstances, namely: the frequent robberies in the neighborhood,
the time was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be an armed burglar in the dark and
inside his house, the accused could have entertained an honest belief that his life and  limb
or those of his family are already in immediate and imminent danger. Hence, it may be 
reasonable to accept that he acted out of an honest mistake of fact and therefor without 
criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact negatives criminal intent and thus absolves the
accused from criminal liability.

2000 Bar Exam Question; Defense of Honor

Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their
nipa hut beside the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her.
Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang
continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have
sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said "salamat osang" as he
turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged,
Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried for
homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor.

Should the claim be sustained? Why?

No, Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on
her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under
paragraph 1, Article 11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that there be 1.Unlawful
aggression and 2.Reasonable necessity of the means employed to to prevent or repel it.
The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by
the person making a defense.

But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist
when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and
not a defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the code does not govern.

Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is
not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against
her, which is only mitigating.

1996 Bar Exam Question (Defense of Property)

A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a factory compound which he was
guarding, shot and killed the latter. Upon investigation by the police who thereafter arrived
at the scene of the shooting, it was discovered that the victim was unarmed. When
prosecuted for homicide, the security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of
property and in the performance of his duty as a security guard.

If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide? Explain.

Yes. I would convict the security guard for homicide if I were the judge, because his claim of
having acted in defense of property and in the performance of a duty cannot be fully
justified. Even assuming that he victim was scaling the wall of the factory compound to
commit a crime inside the same, shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that such
act is considered unlawful aggression on property rights. In People vs. Narvaes, 121 SCRA
329, a person is justified to defend his property rights, but all the elements of self-defense
under Art.11 , must be present. In the instant case, just like in Narvaes, the second element
(reasonable necessity of the means employed) is absent. Hence, he should be convicted of
homicide but entitled to incomplete self-defense.
Par. 2 Defense of Relative
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression (indispensable requirement)
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the defense
had no part in such provocation.

   Relative entitled to the defense:

   1. spouse
   2. ascendants
   3. descendants
   4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or
      relatives by affinity in the same degrees
   5. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree

NOTE: The relative defended may be the original aggressor. All that is required to justify the
act of the relative defending is that he takes no part in such provocation.

Par. 3 Defense of Stranger

Elements:
1. unlawful aggression (indispensable requirement)
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive

2002 Bar Exam Question

A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men, was 
about to stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had
earlier challenged the three men to a fight. A shot C as the latter was about to stab B.

May A invoked the defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why?

Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not
involved in the fight and he shot C, when the latter was about to stab B. There being no
indication that A was induced by revenged, resentment or any other evil motive in shooting
C, his act is justified under paragraph 3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.

Par. 4 State of Necessity (Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury)

Elements:
1. evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it

NOTE: The necessity must not be due to the negligence or violation of any law by the actor.
2004 Bar Exam Question

Par. 5 Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Right or Office

Elements:
1. accused acted in the performance of duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
2. the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of the duty, or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

NOTE: The accused must prove that he was duly appointed to the position claimed he was
discharging at the time of the commission of the offense. It must also be shown that the
offense committed was the necessary consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or lawful
exercise of a right or office.

2000 Bar Examination Question (Fulfillment of Duty)

Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, at
about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory
reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer.Lucresia noticed her bracelet around the
right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to the nearby police
stationand sought the help of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia
to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes introduced himself as a policeman
and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat. Reyes  chased him and
fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was about seven
meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he
crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through an opening underneath. When Pat.
Reyes was about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at  the right
lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he
eventually died. Pat. Reyes was subsequently charged with Homicide. During the trial, Pat.
Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that he acted in the  fulfillment of a duty.

Is the defense tenable? Explain.

No, the defense of Pat.Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the fulfillment
of a duty requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed be the
unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due performance of duty (People vs. Oanis,
et. al, 74 Phil. 257). It is not enough that the accused acted in the fulfillment of a duty.

After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling, there was no need for Pat.
Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which brought
about the cause of death of the victim.

Par. 6 Obedience to a Superior Order

Elements:
1. an order has been issued
2. order has a lawful purpose (not patently illegal)
3. means used by subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

NOTE: The superior officer giving the order cannot invoke this justifying circumstance.
Good faith is
material, as the subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order if he is not aware of
its illegality and he is not negligent.

General Rule: Subordinate cannot invoke this circumstance when order is patently illegal.

Exception: When there is compulsion of an irresistible force, or under impulse of

uncontrollable fear.
ART.12

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES – grounds for exemption from punishment because there

is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or
negligent.

Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of intelligence,
freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused.

Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be proved by the
defendant to the satisfaction of the court.

Par. 1 Imbecility or Insanity

IMBECILE – one while advanced in age has a mental development comparable to that of
children between 2 and 7 years old. He is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.

INSANE – one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligence/reason or without the least
discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of will. Mere abnormality of the mental
faculties will not exclude imputability.

   General Rule: Exempt from criminal liability

   Exception: The act was done during a lucid interval.

NOTE: Defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of
the crime because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.

Par. 2 Under Nine Years of Age

Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime.
There is absolute criminal irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9 years of age.
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice And Welfare Act a minor 15 years and
below is exempt from criminal liability

1998 Bat Exam Question

John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the television program "Zeo Rangers"." One
evening while he was engrossed watching his favorite television show, Petra, a maid
changed the channel to enable her to watch "Home along the Riles." This enraged John
who got his father's revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at the back of her head
causing her instantaneous death.

Is John Criminally liable?

No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only 8 years old when he
committed the killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from criminal
liability although not from civil liability. (Art.12, par.2, RPC).

Par. 3 Person Over 9 and Under 15 Acting Without Discernment

NOTE: Such minor must have acted without discernment to be exempt. If with discernment,
he is criminally liable.
 
Presumption: The minor committed the crime without discernment.

DISCERNMENT – mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of the unlawful act,
which is shown by the:
1. manner the crime was committed
2. conduct of the offender after its commission

NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 a minor over 15 but but below 18 who acted without discernment is
exempt from criminal liability

2000 Bar Examination Question

While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping
repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13 days old
classmate in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena turned around
and swung at Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit the right eye Pomping
which bleed profusely. Realizing what she had caused, Katreena immediately helped 
Pomping. When investigated, she freely admitted to the school principal that she was
responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, she executed a
statement admitting her culpability. Due to the injury, Pomping lost his right eye.

a. Is Karen criminally liable? Why?

b. Discuss the attendant circumstances and effect thereof.

a. No, Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable. Being a minor less than
fifteen (15) years old although over nine (9) years of age, she is generally exempt from
criminal liability. The exception is where the prosecution proved that the  act was committed
with discernment. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the  accused acted with
discernment.

The presumption is that such minor acted without discernment, and this is strengthened by
the fact that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she must be using in class at the
time, and only to stop Pomping's vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other
words, the injury was accidental.

b. The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:

1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstances under Art.12. paragraph 3,

Revised Penal Code, where she shall be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was proved
that she acted with discernment. She is however, civilly liable.

2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused is a privilege mitigating

circumstance. A discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2) degrees than that prescribed
for the crime committed shall be imposed in accordance with Art.68. paragraph 1, Revised
Penal Code. The sentence, however, should automatically be suspended in accordance
with Section 5(a) of Republic Act No.8369 otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of
1997".

(1) Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of not intending to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed, under Art.13. paragraph 3, Revised Penal
Code; and

(2) The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the 
offended party immediately preceded the act.

Par. 4 Accident without fault or intention of causing it

Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. with due care
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.

Par. 5 Irresistible Force

IRRESISTIBLE FORCE – offender uses violence or physical force to compel another

person to commit a crime.
   Elements:
   1. The compulsion is by means of physical force.
   2. The physical force must be irresistible.
   3. The physical force must come from a third person

   NOTE: Force must be irresistible so as to reduce the individual to a mere instrument.

Par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR – offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling another

to commit a crime.

DURESS – use of violence or physical force

Elements:
1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which
he is required to commit.
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.

NOTE: Duress to be a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or reasonable fear
for one’s life or limb. It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote fear. A
threat of future injury is not enough.

ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS – Any act done by me against my
will is not my act.

PAR 7. Insuperable Cause

INSUPERABLE CAUSE – some motive, which has lawfully, morally or physically prevented
a person to do what the law commands

Elements:
1. An act is required by law to be done.
2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.

Ex:
1. A priest can’t be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him.
2. No available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary detention
3. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, leaving child to die
– not liable for infanticide (People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530)

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES – where the act committed is a crime but for some reason of
public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed. Exempting and justifying
circumstances are absolutory causes.

Examples of such other circumstances are:

1. spontaneous desistance (Art. 6)
2. accessories exempt from criminal liability (Art. 20)
3. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
4. persons exempt from criminal liability from theft, swindling, malicious mischief (Art 332)
5. instigation

NOTE: Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-bust operation conducted in

connection with illegal drug-related offenses is a form of entrapment.

Entrapment from Instigation

1. The ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. while The Instigator practically induces the
would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal
2. In Entrapment, not a bar to accused prosecution and conviction while in Instigation,
Accused will be acquitted.
3. Entrapment is not an absolutoty cause while Instigation is an absolutory cause.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES – those which if present in the commission of the crime
reduces the penalty of the crime but does not erase criminal liability nor change the nature
of the crime.

NOTE: A mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact absorbs all the other mitigating
circumstances arising from that same fact.

ART.13

Par. 1 Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances

NOTE: This applies when not all the requisites are present. If two requisites are present, it
is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance. However, in reference to Art.11(4) if any
of the last two requisites is absent, there is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Remember though, that in self-defense, defense of relative or stranger, unlawful aggression
must always be present as it is an indispensable requirement

Par. 2 Under 18 or Over 70 Years Old

NOTE: Age of accused is determined by his age at the date of commission of crime, not
date of trial.

Par. 3 No Intention to Commit so Grave a Wrong

NOTE: Can be used only when the proven facts show that there is a notable and evident
disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its
consequences.

Factors that can be considered are:

1. weapon used
2. injury inflicted
3. part of the body injured
4. mindset of offender at the time of commission of crime

This provision addresses the intention of the offender at the particular moment when the
offender executes or commits the criminal act, not to his intention during the planning stage

NOTE: In crimes against persons – if victim does not die, the absence of the intent to kill
reduces the felony to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating. It is mitigating
only when the victim dies.

NOTE: It is not applicable to felonies by negligence because in felonies through negligence,

the offender acts without intent. The intent in intentional felonies is replaced by negligence
or imprudence. There is no intent on the part of the offender, which may be considered as
diminished

Par. 4 Provocation or Threat

Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of
exciting, inciting or irritating anyone.

Requisites:
1. provocation must be sufficient
2. it must originate from the offended party
3. must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked

NOTE: Threat should not be offensive and positively strong. Otherwise, it would be an
unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self-defense and thus no longer a mitigating
circumstance.

Par. 5 Vindication of Grave Offense

Requisites:
1. a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees
2. the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense

NOTE: “Immediate” allows for a lapse of time, as long as the offender is still suffering from
the mental agony brought about by the offense to him. (proximate time, not just immediately
after)

Par. 6 Passion or Obfuscation

Requisites:
1. offender acted upon an impulse
2. the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in him

NOTE: Act must have been committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge; act must
come from lawful sentiments.

Act, Which Gave Rise To Passion And Obfuscation:

1. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust
2. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind
3. That the act was proximate to the criminal act, not admitting of time during which the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity
4. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation

NOTE: Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery since this means that the
offender had time to ponder his course of action.

Passion or Obfuscation from Irresistable Force

1. Passion or obfuscation is mitigating while Irresistable force is exempting
2. Passion or Obfuscation, no physical force needed while irresistable force requires
physical force.
3. Passion and Obfuscation must come from the offender himself while Irresistable Force
must come from 3rd peson
4. Paasion or Obfuscation must come from lawful sentiments while Irresistable force is
unlawful.

Par. 7 Surrender and Confession of Guilt

WHEN SURRENDER VOLUNTARY

- must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally
to the authorities, either because:
1. he acknowledges his guilt; or
2. he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and
capture.

NOTE: If both are present, considered as two independent mitigating circumstances.

Further mitigates penalty

NOTES:
Plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to the
mitigating circumstance.
If accused pleaded not guilty, even if during arraignment, he is entitled to mitigating
circumstance as long as he withdraws his plea of not guilty to the charge before the fiscal
could present his evidence.

Plea to a lesser charge is not a Mitigating Circumstance because to be such, the plea of
guilt must be to the offense charged.

Plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the original
info, is Mitigating Circumstance.

1999 Bar Exam Question (Mitigating;Plea of Guilty)

An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded "not guilty" during the preliminary
investigation before the municipal court. Upon the elevation of the case to the Regional Trial
Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment.

Can his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court be considered spontaneous and thus
entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty under Art.13(7),
RPC?

Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered spontaneous, for
which he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty
before the Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made during the preliminary investigation
only and before a court not competent to render judgment.

1999 Bar Exam Question (Mitigating;Plea of Guilty;Requisites)

In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be complied with?

For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:

1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded to the crime charged;

2. That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and render
judgment; and
3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.

1997 Bar Exam Question (Mitigating;Plea of Guilty;Requisites)

After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the police until he
surfaced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged with murder, he
pleaded not guilty but, after the prosecution had presented two witnesses implicating him to
the crime, he changed his plea to that of guilty.

Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be considered
in favor of the accused?

Suggested Answer:

Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. After two years, the
police were still unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the latter could have
continued to elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the accused should be considered
mitigating because it was done spontaneously, indicative of the remorse or repentance on
the part of said accused and therefore, by his surrender, the accused saved the government
expenses, efforts, and time.

Alternative Answer:

Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the accused. Two years is too long a
time to consider the surrender spontaneous (People vs. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure
the government had already incurred considerable efforts and expenses in looking for the
accused.

Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because the

prosecution had already started with the presentation of evidence (Art.13, par.7 RPC).

1996 Bar Examination (Mitigating;Voluntary Surrender)

Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed and latter.
After the stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of police of the town, accompanied
by several policemen, went to hilario's house, Hilario, upon seeing the approaching
policemen, came down from his house to meet them and voluntarily went with them to the
police station to be investigated in connection with the killing. When eventually charged with
and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal, faulted the trial court for not appreciating in
his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Is he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance?

Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux of the
issue is whether the fact that Hilario went home after the incident, but came down and met
the police officers and went with them is considered "voluntary surrender". The
voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous showing the intent of the
accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. This must be either (a) because
he acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Thus, the act of the accused in hiding after
commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with the policemen  who had gone to his
hiding place to investigate, was held to be mitigating circumstance.(People vs. Dayrit)

Par. 8 Physical Defect of Offender

The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect,
restricting his means of action, defense or communication with others.

NOTE: The physical defect must relate to the offense committed.

Par. 9 Illness of the Offender

Requisites:
1. The illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power.
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.

Par. 10 Similar and Analogous Circumstances

Example:
1. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of one over 70
years old.
2. Outraged feeling of an owner of an animal taken for ransom is analogous to vindication of
grave offense.
3. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and obfuscation.
4. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender.
5. Extreme poverty, similar to incomplete justification based on state necessity.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES – Those which, if attendant in the commission of the
crime, serve to have the penalty imposed in its maximum period provided by law for the
offense or those that change the nature of the crime.

BASIS: The greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony as
shown by:
1. the motivating power itself,
2. the place of the commission,
3. the means and ways employed
4. the time, or
5. the personal circumstances of the offender, or the offended party.

KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. Generic - those which apply to all crimes
2. Specific - those which apply only to specific crimes,
3. Qualifying - those that change the nature of the crime
4. Inherent - which of necessity accompany the commission of the crime, therefore not
considered in increasing the penalty to be imposed
5. Special - those which arise under special conditions to increase the penalty of the offense
and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances

2003 Bar Exam Question (Qualifying; Elements of a Crime)

When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime?

A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when

- it changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime and a heavier
penalty;
- it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed; and
- it is specifically alleged in the information and proven during trial.

Alternative answer:

A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it is specifically stated by

law as included in the definition of a crime, like treachery in the crime of murder.

Generic Aggravating Circumstance Distinguished From Qualifying Aggravating

Circumstance
1. Generic Aggravating Circumstances - EFFECT : When not set off by any mitigating
circumstance, Increases the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused to the
maximum period but without exceeding the limit prescribed by law

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance - EFFECT: Gives the crime its proper and exclusive
name and places the author of the crime in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty
than that specially prescribed by law for said crimes (People v. Bayot, 64 Phil 269, 273)

2. Generic Aggravating Circumstances - If not alleged in the information, a qualifying

aggravating circumstance will be considered generic

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - To be considered as such, MUST be alleged in the

information.

3. Generic Aggravating Circumstances - May be offset by a mitigating circumstance.

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances - Cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance.

RULES ON AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. Aggravating circumstances shall NOT be appreciated if:
a) They constitute a crime specially punishable by law, or
b) It is included by the law in defining a crime with a penalty prescribed, and therefore shall
not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.

Ex: “That the crime be committed by means of ...fire,... explosion” (Art. 14, par. 12) is in
itself a crime of arson (Art. 321) or a crime involving destruction (Art. 324). It is not to be
considered to increase the penalty for the crime of arson or for the crime involving
destruction.

2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the
crime to such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof (Art.62,
par.2)

3. Aggravating circumstances which arise:

a) From the moral attributes of the offender;
b) From his private relations with the offended party; or
c) From any personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the principals,
accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances and a attendant. (Art.62, par.
3)

4. The circumstances which consist :

a) In the material execution of the act, or
b) In the means employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of only
those persons who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein. Except when there is proof of conspiracy in which case the act of one
is deemed to be the act of all, regardless of lack of knowledge of the facts constituting the
circumstance. (Art. 62, par.4)

5. Aggravating circumstances, regardless of its kind, should be specifically alleged in the

information AND proved as fully as the crime itself in order to increase the penalty. (Sec. 9,
Rule 110, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure)

6. When there is more than one qualifying aggravating circumstance present, one of them
will be appreciated as qualifying aggravating while the others will be considered as generic
aggravating.

Aggravating Circumstances

ART.14

Par. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position

Requisites:
1. Offender is public officer
2. Public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which his office gives him
as means to realize criminal purpose

It is not considered as an aggravating circumstance where taking advantage of official

position is made by law an integral element of the crime or inherent in the offense,

Ex: malversation (Art. 217), falsification of a document committed by public officers (Art.
171).

When the public officer did not take advantage of the influence of his position, this
aggravating circumstance is not present

NOTE : Taking advantage of a public position is also inherent in the case of accessories
under Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the
crime), and in crimes committed by public officers (Arts. 204-245).

Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to public authorities

Requisites:
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against
whom the crime is committed.
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.

PERSON IN AUTHORITY – public authority, or person who is directly vested with

jurisdiction and has the power to govern and execute the laws
Ex:
1. Governor
2. Mayor
3. Barangay captain/ chairman
4. Councilors
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police

NOTE: A teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school is not a “public

authority within the contemplation of this paragraph. While he is a person in authority under
Art. 152, that status is only for purposes of Art. 148 (direct assault) and Art.152 (resistance
and disobedience)

The crime should not be committed against the public authority (otherwise it will constitute
direct assault under Art.148) This is NOT applicable when committed in the presence of a
mere agent.

AGENT – subordinate public officer charged w/ the maintenance of public order and
protection and
security of life and property
              Ex: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman

Par. 3. That the act be committed:

(1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his
           (a)rank, 
           (b) age, or 
           (c) sex or
(2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation

Rules regarding par 3(1):

1. These circumstances shall only be considered as one aggravating circumstance.
2. Rank, age, sex may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor, they
cannot be
invoked in crimes against property.
3. It must be shown that in the commission of the crime the offender deliberately intended to
offend or insult the sex, age and rank of the offended party.

RANK – The designation or title of distinction used to fix the relative position of the offended
party in reference to others (There must be a difference in the social condition of the
offender and the offended party).
AGE – may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim.

SEX– refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.

The AC of disregard of rank, age, or sex is not applicable in the following cases:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the crime.
(Ex: in parricide, abduction, seduction and rape)

People vs. Lapaz, March 31, 1989

Disregard of sex and age are not absorbed in treachery because treachery refers to the
manner of the commission of the crime, while disregard of sex and age pertains to the
relationship of the victim.

DWELLING – must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort
(combination of house and store not included), may be temporary as in the case of guests
in a house or bedspacers. It includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and the
enclosure under the house

NOTES:
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires that the crime be wholly or partly
committed therein or in any integral part thereof.

Dwelling does not mean the permanent residence or domicile of the offended party or that
he must be the owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living or dwelling therein even
for a temporary duration or purpose.

It is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim
to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house,
although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from without.

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

1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the offender by opening the
door to him; or
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing therein with violence or against
the will of the owner.

Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling:

The provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling,
2. Sufficient, and
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime.

NOTE: If all these conditions are present, the offended party is deemed to have given the
provocation, and the fact that the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party is
NOT an aggravating circumstance.
REASON: When it is the offended party who has provoked the incident, he loses his right to
the respect and consideration due him in his own house

Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:

1. When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house, and
this is true even if offender is a servant in the house.
exception: In case of adultery in the conjugal dwelling, the same is aggravating.
However, if the paramour also dwells in the conjugal dwelling, the applicable aggravating
circumstance is abuse of confidence.

2. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating
because it is inherent.

However, dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons

because
this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of
the offended party’s house.

3. In the crime needed to see this picture. dwelling, it is inherent or included by law in
defining the crime.

4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation.

There must exist a close relation between the provocation made by the victim and the
commission of the crime by the accused.

5. The victim is not a dweller of the house.

Par. 4. That the act be committed with: (1) abuse of confidence or (2) obvious
ungratefulness

There are two aggravating circumstances present under par.4 which must be independently
appreciated if present in the same case.

While one may be related to the other in the factual situation in the case, they cannot be
lumped together. Abuse of confidence requires a special confidential relationship between
the offender and the victim, while this is not required for there to be obvious ungratefulness

Requisites Of Abuse Of Confidence:

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.

NOTE: Abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified theft (Art. 310),
estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and qualified seduction (Art. 337).
Requisites of obvious ungratefulness:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.

NOTE: The ungratefulness contemplated by par. 4 must be such clear and manifest
ingratitude on the part of the accused.

Par. 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his
presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or
in a place dedicated to religious worship.

Actual performance of duties is not necessary when crime is committed in the palace or in
the presence of the Chief Executive.

Requisites Regarding Public Authorities:

1. crime occurred in the public office
2. public authorities are actually performing their public duties

Requisites (Place Dedicated To Religious Worship):

1. The crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of God regardless of religion
2. The offender must have decided to commit the crime when he entered the place of
worship

Except for the third which requires that official functions are being performed at the time of
the
commission of the crime, the other places mentioned are aggravating per se even if no
official duties or acts of religious worship are being conducted there.

Cemeteries, however respectable they may be, are not considered as place dedicated to
the worship of God.
Par. 6. That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in an uninhabited
place, or (3) by a band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission
of the offense

NOTE: When present in the same case and their element are distinctly palpable and can
subsist
independently, they shall be considered separately.

When nighttime, uninhabited place or band aggravating:

1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for
the purpose of impunity; or
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity

NIGHTTIME (obscuridad) – that period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and ending
at dawn.

Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime. When the place
of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating. It is not considered
aggravating when the crime began at daytime.

Nighttime is not especially sought for when the notion to commit the crime was conceived of
shortly before commission or when crime was committed at night upon a casual encounter

However, nighttime need not be specifically sought for when

(1) it facilitated the commission of the offense, or
(2) the offender took advantage of the same to commit the crime

A bare statement that crime was committed at night is insufficient. The information must
allege that nighttime was sought for or taken advantage of, or that it facilitated the crime

GENERAL RULE: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery.

EXCEPTION: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and nocturnity were deliberately
decided upon in the same case, they can be considered separately if such circumstances
have different factual bases. Thus:

In People vs. Berdida, et. al. (June 30, 1966),

- nighttime was considered since it was purposely sought, and treachery was further
appreciated because the victim’s hands and arms were tied together before he was beaten
up by the accused.

In People vs. Ong, et. al. (Jan. 30, 1975), there was treachery as the victim was stabbed
while lying face up and defenseless, and nighttime was considered upon proof that it
facilitated the commission of the offense and was taken advantage of by the accused.

UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) – one where there are no houses at all, a place at a
considerable distance from town, where the houses are scattered at a great distance from
each other.

Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose.

What should be considered here is whether in the place of the commission of the offense,
there was
a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.

BAND (en cuadrilla) – whenever there are more than 3 armed malefactors that shall have
acted together in the commission of an offense

NOTE: There must be four or more armed men

If one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by inducement, they do not form a band
because it is undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct participation.
“By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or against persons or in the crime of
illegal detention or treason but does not apply to crimes against chastity

“By a band” is inherent in brigandage

 This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance of abuse of superior

strength

1994 Bar Exam Question (Aggravating;Nighttime;Band)

At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street,
Manila, Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but
suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny, and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino.
Steve, Danny, Nonoy, and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result,
Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy, and Johnny were charged with homicide.

Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band?

No, nighttime can not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no

indication that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the
commission of the crime or that they took advantage of nighttime.(People vs. De los Reyes,
203 SCRA 707).

Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well lighted.

However, Band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three
armed malefactors. In a recent Supreme Court Decision, stones or rocks are considered
deadly weapons.

1996 Bar Examination (Aggravating Circumstances)

Jose,Domingo,Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the
morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters
were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando,
noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally
caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing
back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family.

a. What crime did Jose,Domingo,Manolo, and Fernando commit? Explain.

b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo
inside the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent
identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain.

c. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances maybe appreciated against
the four? Explain.

a. Jose,Domingo, and Manolo committed robbery, while Fernando committed complex

crime of Robbery with Rape.

b. The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to
prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed
and the fact that several persons were killed (homicide), would be considered as
aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with ignominy  and the additional
killing synonymous with cruelty.(People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA
531)

c. The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the premises are:

1. Band because all the four offenders are armed.
2. Nocturnity because evidently the offenders took advantage of nighttime.
3. Dwelling; and
4. Uninhabited place because the house where the crimes were committed was "at a
desolate place" and obviously the offenders took advantage of this circumstance in
committing the  crime.

Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.

Requisites:
1. The crime was committed when there was a calamity or misfortune
2. The offender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition from such
misfortune

If the offended was PROVOKED by the offended party during the calamity/misfortune, this
aggravating circumstance may not be taken into consideration.

Par. 8.That the crime be committed with the aid of

       (1) armed men or
       (2) persons who insure or afford impunity

Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or
indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was
committed

NOTE: This aggravating circumstance requires that the armed men are accomplices who
take part in a minor capacity directly or indirectly, and not when they were merely present at
the crime scene. Neither should they constitute a band, for then the proper aggravating
circumstance would be cuadrilla.

When This Aggravating Circumstance Shall Not Be Considered:

1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed.
2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the commission of the
crime acted under the same plan and for the same purpose.
3. When the others were only “casually present” and the offender did not avail himself of
any of their aid or when he did not knowingly count upon their assistance in the commission
of the crime

If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in employment of a band. If
there are three armed men or less, aid of armed men may be the aggravating circumstance.

“Aid of armed men” includes “armed women.”

Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist

RECIDIVIST – one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.

Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.

MEANING OF “at the time of his trial for one crime.” It is employed in its general sense,
including the rendering of the judgment. It is meant to include everything that is done in the
course of the trial, from arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in open
court.

What is controlling is the TIME OF THE TRIAL, not the time of the commission of the
offense.

GENERAL RULE: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the information
and to attach thereto certified copy of the sentences rendered against the accused.

Exception: If the accused does not object and when he admits in his confession and on the
witness stand.

Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened between
the
first and second felonies.

Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects. However, pardon does not obliterate the
fact that
the accused was a recidivist. Thus, even if the accused was granted a pardon for the first
offense but he commits another felony embraced in the same title of the Code, the first
conviction is still counted to make him a recidivist

Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance, recidivism affects only the periods of a

penalty, except in prostitution and vagrancy (Art. 202) and gambling (PD 1602) wherein
recidivism increases the penalties by degrees. No other generic aggravating circumstance
produces this effect

In recidivism it is sufficient that the succeeding offense be committed after the commission
of the
preceding offense provided that at the time of his trial for the second offense, the accused
had
already been convicted of the first offense.

If both offenses were committed on the same date, they shall be considered as only one,
hence, they
cannot be separately counted in order to constitute recidivism. Also, judgments of convicted
handed down on the same day shall be considered as only one conviction.
     
REASON: Because the Code requires that to be considered as a separate convictions, at
the time of his trial for one crime the accused shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of the other.

2001 Bar Exam Question (Aggravating;Recidivism)

Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when
he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial judge considered
against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and
contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of
recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency.

Is the appeal meritorious? Explain.

No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual
delinquency.

Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for theft
and again found guilty of Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against property,
embraced under the same title (title ten, book 2) of the Revised Penal Code. The implication
is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in
the conviction for Robbery with Homicide.

Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is

convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered.

Par. 10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the
law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty.

Requisites Of Reiteracion Or Habituality:

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an
a) Equal or
b) Greater penalty, or
c) For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new
offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense

Habituality vs Recidivism
1. As To The First offense
Habituality - It is necessary that the offender shall shall have served out his sentence for the
first offense.
Recidivism - It is enough that a final judgment  has been rendered in the first offense.
2. As to the kind of offenses involved
Habituality - The previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in the same title
of the code.
Recidivism - Requires that the offenses be included in the same title of the code.

THE FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION ARE:

1. Recidivism (par. 9, Art. 14) – Where a person, on separate occasions, is convicted of two
offenses
embraced in the same title in the RPC. This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
2. Reiteracion or Habituality (par. 10, Art. 14) – Where the offender has been previously
punished for
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two crimes to which
it attaches
a lighter penalty. This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
3. Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency (Art.62, par, 5) – Where a person within a period
of ten
years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of the said crimes a
third time or oftener. This is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance.
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – Where a person commits felony before beginning to serve
or while
serving sentence on a previous conviction for a felony. This is a special aggravating
circumstance.

Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly served the sentence for his previous
conviction/s, or is legally considered to have done so, quasi-recidivism cannot at the same
time  constitute reiteracion, hence  this  aggravating circumstance cannot apply to a  quasi-
recidivist.

If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and reiteracion, the liability of the accused
should be
aggravated by recidivism which can easily be proven.
Par. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of price, reward or promise.
   
         Requisites:
         1. There are at least 2 principals:
               - The principal by inducement (one who offers)
               - The principal by direct participation (accepts)
         2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to
            and in consideration of the commission of the
            criminal act

         NOTE: The circumstance is applicable to both principals.

         It affects the person who received the price / reward as
         well as the person who gave it.

         If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after

         the crime had been committed asan expression of his      
         appreciation for the sympathy and aid shown by the other
         accused, it should not be taken into consideration for the
         purpose of increasing the penalty.

         The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer

         to material things or that the same were actually delivered,
         it being sufficient that the offer made by the principal
         by inducement be accepted by the principal by direct
         participation before the commission of the offense.

         The inducement must be the primary consideration for the

         commission of the crime.

Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, explosion,

stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by
use of any artifice involving great waste and ruin 

   The circumstances under this paragraph will only be considered

   as aggravating if and when they are used by  the offender as a
   means to accomplish a criminal purpose

   When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the

   crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be
   considered as generic aggravating circumstance only

   When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is

   qualified to murder.
Par. 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation

   Requisites:
   The prosecution must prove –
   1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
   2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to
      his determination; and
   3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
      execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
      of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the
      resolution of his will.

   Essence of premeditation: The execution of the criminal act

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

   To establish evident premeditation, it must be shown that there

   was a period sufficient to afford full opportunity for
   meditation and reflection, a time adequate to allow the
   conscience to overcome the resolution of the will, as well as
   outward acts showing the intent to kill. It must be shown that
   the offender had sufficient time to reflect upon the
   consequences of his act but still persisted in his determination
   to commit the crime. (PEOPLE vs. SILVA, et. al., GR No.
   140871, August 8, 2002)

   Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise.

   When the victim is different from that intended, premeditation

   is not aggravating. However, if the offender premeditated on
   the killing of any person, it is proper to consider against
   the offender the aggravating circumstance of premeditation,
   because whoever is killed by him is contemplated in his
   premeditation.

Par. 14. That (1) craft, 

                       (2) fraud, or 
                       (3) disguise be employed.

   Requisite
   The offender must have actually used craft, fraud, or disguise
   to facilitate the commission of the crime.

   CRAFT (astucia) – involved the use of intellectual trickery or

   cunning on the part of the accused. A chicanery resorted to
   by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design.
   It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime

   FRAUD (fraude) – insidious words or machinations used to induce

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

   Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery ifthey have been

   deliberately adopted as the means, methods or forms for the
   treacherous strategy, or they may co-exist independently where
   they are adopted for a different purpose in the commission
   of the crime.

      Ex:
      In People vs. San Pedro (Jan. 22, 1980),
      where the accused pretended to hire the driver in order to
      get his vehicle, it was held that there was craft directed
      to the theft of the vehicle, separate from the means
      subsequently used to treacherously kill the defenseless
      driver.

      In People vs. Masilang (July 11, 1986)

      there was also craft where after hitching a ride, the accused
      requested the driver to take them to a place to visit somebody,
      when in fact they had already planned to kill the driver.

   DISGUISE (disfraz) – resorting to any device to conceal identity

   The test of disguise is whether the device or contrivance

   resorted to by the offender was intended to or did make
   identification more difficult, such as the use of a mask or
   false hair or beard.

   The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel

   constitutes disguise.

Par. 15. That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or 

                       (2) means be employed to weaken the defense.

   Par. 15 contemplates two aggravating circumstances, either of

   which qualifies a killing to murder.

   MEANING OF “advantage be taken”:To deliberately use excessive

   force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense
   available to the person attacked. (PEOPLE vs. LOBRIGAS, et.
   al., GR No. 147649, December 17, 2002)

   No Advantage Of Superior Strength In The Following:

   1. One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation does
      not take advantage of his superior strength.
   2. When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was
      struck at a time when the aggressor and his victim were
      engaged against each other as man to man.

   TEST for abuse of superior strength: the relative strength of

   the offender and his victim and whether or not he took
   advantage of his greater strength.

   When there are several offenders participating in the crime,

   they must ALL be principals by direct participation and their
   attack against the victim must be concerted and intended
   to be so.

   Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the crime of

   parricide where the husband kills the wife. It is generally
   accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife.

   Abuse of superior strength is also present when the offender

   uses a weapon which is out of proportion to the defense
   available to the offended party.

   NOTE: Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla (“band”).

   MEANING OF “Means employed to weaken defense” - the offender

   employs means that materially weaken the resisting power of
   the offended party.

      Ex:
      1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a
         cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this
         situation he wounds or kills him.
      2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand
         or dirt upon the latter eyes and then wounds or kills him.
      3. When the offender, who had the intention to kill the
         victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially
         weakening the latter’s resisting power.

   NOTE: This circumstance is applicable only to  crimes against

   persons, and sometimes against person and property, such as
   robbery with physical injuries or homicide.

Par. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)

   TREACHERY – when the offender commits any of the crimes against

   the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
   thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
   execution without risk to himself arising from the defense
   which the offended party might make.

   Requisites:
   1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
      position to defend himself; and
   2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
      method or form of attack employed by him.

   TEST: It is not only the relative position of the parties but,

   more specifically, whether or not the victim was forewarned or
   afforded the opportunity to make a defense or to ward off
   the attack.

   Rules Regarding Treachery:

   1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
   2. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime.
   3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.

   Treachery is taken into account even if the crime against the

   person is complexed with another felony involving a different
   classification in the Code. Accordingly, in the special complex
   crime of robbery with homicide, treachery but can be
   appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned.

   The suddenness of attack in itself does not constitute treachery,

   even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was
   made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless position was
   accidental.

   Treachery applies in the killing of a child even if the manner

   of attack is not shown.

   Treachery must be convincing evidence proved by clear and

   Treachery is considered against all the offenders when there

   is conspiracy.
   WHEN MUST TREACHERY BE PRESENT:
   1. When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present
      in the beginning of the assault. (PEOPLE vs. MANALAD, GR
      No. 128593, August 14, 2002)

      Thus, even if the deceased was shot while he was lying wounded
      on the ground, it appearing that the firing of the shot was
      a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased was
      wounded, with no appreciable time intervening between the
      delivery of the blows and the firing of the shot, it cannot
      be said that the crime was attended by treachery.

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

         Hence, even though in the inception of the aggression

         which ended in the death of the deceased, treachery
         was not present, if there was a break in the continuity of
         the aggression and at the time of the fatal wound was
         inflicted on the deceased he was defenseless, the
         circumstance of treachery must be taken into account.

   Treachery Should Be Considered Even If:

   1. The victim was not predetermined but there was a generic
      intent to treacherously kill any first two persons belonging
      to a class. (The same rule obtains for evident premeditation).
   2. There was aberratio ictus and the bullet hit a person different
      from that intended. (The rule is different in evident
      premeditation).
   3. There was error in personae, hence the victim was not the
      one intended by the accused. (A different rule is applied in
      evident premeditation).

   REASON FOR THE RULE: When there is treachery, it is impossible

   for either the intended victim or the actual victim to defend
   himself against the aggression.

   TREACHERY ABSORBS:
   1. Craft
   2. Abuse of superior strength
   3. Employing means to weaken the defense
   4. Cuadrilla (“band”)
   5. Aid of armed men
   6. Nighttime
Par. 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add
ignominy to the natural effects of the act

   IGNOMINY – is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,

   which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused
   by the crime.
 
   MEANING OF “which add ignominy to the natural effects thereof”
   The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend
   to make the effects of the crime more humiliating to victim or
   to put the offended party to shame, or add to his moral
   suffering. Thus it is incorrect to appreciate ignominy where
   the victim was already dead when his body was dismembered, for
   such act may not be considered to have added to the victim’s
   moral suffering or humiliation. (People vs. Carmina,
   G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991)

   Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical

   injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder.

Par. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

UNLAWFUL ENTRY - when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.

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

REASON FOR AGGRAVATION: One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to
guard their property and provide for their personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a
greater audacity; hence, the law punishes him with more severity.

1997 Bar Examination Question(Treachery;Unlawful Entry)

The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a separate dwelling
unit of one big house.The accused suspected his wife of having an illicit relation with the
victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together on board a vehicle. In the
evening of that day, the accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed
over the suspected relation between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. later in the
night, he resolved to kill the victim. He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered
the apartment of the victim through an unlock window. Inside, he saw the victim soundly
asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several wounds,
which caused his death within a few hours.

Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating circumstances
of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime, and unlawful entry?
1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he resolved to
kill the victim "later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.

2. Treachery may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter was
sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and methods which directly and specially
insured the execution of the act without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
victim might have made.(People vs. Dequina, 60 Phil. 27, People vs. Miranda,et.al, 90 Phil.
91)

3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused

deliberately sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act. The intention to
commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission.(People vs. Pardo, 79 Phil.
568) Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery.

4. Unlawful entry may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, in as much as the

accused entered the room of the victim through the window, which is not the proper place
for entrance into the house.(Art.14. par.18. Revised Penal Code, People vs. Baruga, 61
Phil. 318)

Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or
window be broken.

Applicable only if such acts were done by the offender to effect ENTRANCE. If the wall,
etc., is broken in order to get out of the place, it is not an aggravating circumstance.

It is NOT necessary that the offender should have entered the building Therefore, If the
offender broke a window to enable himself to reach a purse with money on the table near
that window, which he took while his body was outside of the building, the crime of theft was
attended by this aggravating circumstance.

NOTE: Breaking in is lawful in the following instances:

1. An officer, in order to make an arrest, may break open a door or window of any building
in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be;
2. An officer, if refused admittance, may break open any door or window to execute the
search warrant or liberate himself,
3. Replevin, Section 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court

Par. 20. That the crime be committed

         (1) with the aid of persons under fifteen (15) years of age, or
         (2) by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.

TWO DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES GROUPED IN THIS PARAGRAPH:

1. With the aid of persons under fifteen years of age:
Intends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by professional
criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their irresponsibility.

2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means:

Intended to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in said means to
commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed.

Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused purposely and deliberately used the
motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof, and in
facilitating their escape.

MEANING OF “or other similar means” Should be understood as referring to motorized

vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.

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

CRUELTY – there is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer
slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the
criminal act.

Requisites:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.

Cruelty is not inherent in crimes against persons.

In order for it to be appreciated, there must be positive proof that the wounds found on the
body of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive in order unnecessarily to prolong
physical suffering.

Cruelty cannot be presumed

If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed, this would
also qualify the killing to murder due to outraging of his corpse.

Ignominy involves moral suffering. Cruelty refers to physical suffering.

Unlike mitigating circumstances (par. 10, Art. 13), there is NO provision for aggravating
circumstances of a similar or analogous character.

1994 Bar Examination Question (Cruelty;Relationship)

Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly
undressed her and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face with a lighted cigarette.
Like a madman, he laugh while raping her.

What aggravating circumstances are present in this case?

a. Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a lighted cigarette, thereby deliberately
augmenting the victim's suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the offender
delighted and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in pain.(People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316)

b. Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender and
considering that the crime is one against chastity.
Alternative Circumstances – Those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. (Art.15)

Basis
The nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.

The Alternative Circumstances Are:

1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.

Relationship
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the
offended party is the –
1. Spouse,
2. Ascendant,
3. Descendant,
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.

Other Relatives Included (By Analogy):

1. The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter.

REASON: It is the duty of the step-parents to bestow upon their stepchildren a

mother’s/father’s affection, care and protection.

2. The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child.

NOTE: But the relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationship
mentioned.

When Relationship Mitigating And When Aggravating:

1. As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property, by analogy to the
provisions of Art. 332.
Thus, relationship is mitigating in the crimes of robbery (Arts. 294-302), usurpation (Art.
312), fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314) and arson (Arts. 321-322, 325-326).

2. In crimes against persons –

a) It is aggravating where the offended party is a relative of
(1). a higher degree than the offender, or
(2). when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level (e.g. brothers)

b) But when it comes to physical injuries:

(1). It is aggravating when the crime involves serious physical injuries (Art.263), even if the
offended
party is a descendant of the offender. But the serious physical injuries must not be inflicted
by a parent upon his child by excessive chastisement.
(2). It is mitigating when the offense committed is less serious physical injuries or slight
physical injuries, if the offended party is a relative of a lower degree.
(3). It is aggravating if the offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender.

c) When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim of the
crime is a relative of a lower degree.

d) In rape, relationship is aggravating where a stepfather raped his stepdaughter or in a

case where a father raped his own daughter.

3. In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336), relationship is always
aggravating, regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of
the offended party. When the qualification given to the crime is derived from the relationship
between the offender and the offended party, it is neither mitigating nor aggravating,
because it is inseparable from and inherent in the offense. (e.g. parricide, adultery and
concubinage).

Intoxication - When Intoxication Mitigating And When Aggravating:

1. Mitigating –
a. If intoxication is not habitual, or
b. If intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.
2. Aggravating –
a. If intoxication is habitual, or
b. If it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony).

To Be Entitled To The Mitigating Circumstance Of Intoxication, It Must Be Shown:

1. That at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the accused has taken such
quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of
control, and
2. That such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.

To be mitigating, the accused’s state of intoxication must be proved. Once intoxication is

established by satisfactory evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed
to be non-habitual or unintentional.
2000 Bar Exam Question (Non-Intoxication)

Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing
during the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-
pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started
their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered
firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to
Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started
throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded
inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate,
Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted.A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to
calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so
that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after
all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his
firearm to Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came
out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead,
the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously.

a. What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain.

b. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor of
your clients? Explain.

a. Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with
homicide because a single act caused a less grave and and a grave felony.(Art.48 RPC)

b. If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following defenses:

1. That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as they
merely intended to frighten Jepoy.

2. That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication  thereby impairing his will power
or capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a
mitigating circumstance (People vs. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997); Art.15, RPC).

2002 Bar Examination Question (Alternative Circumstances;Intoxication)

A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many, A and B had
a heated argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious physical
injuries.

May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or mitigating?

The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be considered aggravating as there is
no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part of
A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed; they should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

Instruction or Education
As an alternative circumstance it does not refer only to literacy but more to the level of
intelligence of the accused.

Refers to the lack or presence of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full
significance of one’s acts.

Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is generally mitigating. High degree of
instruction and education is aggravating, when the offender took advantage of his learning
in committing the crime.

GENERAL RULE: Lack of sufficient education is mitigating

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Crimes against property (e.g. arson, estafa, theft, robbery)
2. Crimes against chastity, and
3. Treason – because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen, however
unlettered or uncultured he may be.
ART.16

Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one person
participated in the commission of the crime, the law looks into
their participation because in punishing offenders, the Revised
Penal Code classifies them as:

      PRINCIPAL;
      ACCOMPLICE; OR
      ACCESSORY.

This classification is true only under the Revised Penal Code

and is not applied under special laws, because the penalties
under the latter are never graduated.

Do not use the term “principal” when the crime committed is a

violation of special law (use the term “offender/s, culprit/s,
accused”).

As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave

or light felony:
1. When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are
   criminally liable.
2. But where the felony is only light, only the principal and
   the accomplice are liable. The accessory is not.

   Therefore, it is only when the light felony is against persons

   or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal
   or accomplice, even though the felony is only attempted or
   frustrated, but accessories are not liable for light felonies.

Note that accessories are not liable for light felonies.

   REASON: In the commission of light felonies, the social wrong

   as well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal
   sanction is unnecessary.

   The classification of the offenders as principal, accomplice

   or an accessory is essential under the RPC. The classification
   maybe applied to special laws only if the latter provides for
   the same graduated penalties as those provided under the RPC.

There Are Two Parties In All Crimes:

1. Active subject (the criminal)
  
   Art. 16 enumerates the active subjects of the crime.

2. Passive subject (the injured party) Is the holder of the

   injured right: the man, the juristic person, the group, and
   the State.

Note: Only natural persons can be the active subject of crime

because of the highly personal nature of the criminal
responsibility.

However, corporation and partnership can be a passive subject of

a crime.

GENERALLY: Corpses and animals cannot be passive subjects

because they have no rights that may be injured.
   EXCEPTION: Under Art. 253, the crime of defamation may be
   committed if the imputation tends to blacken the memory of
   one who is dead.

   This article applies only when the offenders are to be judged

   by their individual, and not collective, liability.
Principal By Direct Participation

ART.17.PRINCIPALS

THREE TYPES OF PRINCIPALS:

1. Principal by DIRECT PARTICIPATION (par.1)
2. Principal by INDUCTION (par.2)
3. Principal by INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION (par.3)

Par. 1 – Principals by direct participation

Requisites:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; and (conspiracy
2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end.

NOTE: If the second element is missing, those who did not participate in the commission of
the acts of execution cannot be held criminally liable, unless the crime agreed to be
committed is treason, sedition, coup d’ etat or rebellion

MEANING OF “personally took part in its execution”

 - That the principal by direct participation must be at the scene of the commission of the
crime, personally taking part in its execution.

- Under conspiracy, although he was not present in the scene of the crime, he is equally
liable as a principal by direct participation.

Ex: One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal by direct participation

CONSPIRACY – there is unity of purpose and intention.

How conspiracy is established:

- It is proven by overt act beyond reasonable doubt.
- Mere knowledge or approval is insufficient
- It is not necessary that there be formal agreement
- Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were united in
execution.
- Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime may be shown in the
following cases:
1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime
2. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
3. Contribution by positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent
4. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support
thereto.

While conspiracy may be implied from the circumstances attending the commission of the
crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence.

NOTES:

Conspirator is not liable for the crimes of the others which are not the object of the
conspiracy nor are logical or necessary consequences thereof

Regarding multiple rape – each rapist is liable for another’s crime because each cooperated
in the commission of the rapes perpetrated by the others

EXCEPTION: in the crime of murder w/ treachery – all the offenders must at least know that
there will be treachery in executing the crime or cooperate therein.

No such thing as conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence. However, special

laws may make one a co-principal.

Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co-defendant.

Those who are liable:

1. Materially execute the crime
2. Appear at the scene of the crime
3. Perform acts necessary in the commission of the offense

Why one who does not appear at the scene of the crime is not liable:
1. His non-appearance is deemed desistance which is favored and encouraged;
2. Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the law specifically provides a penalty
therefor.
3. There is no basis for criminal liability because there is no criminal participation.
Principal by induction/Inducement

Art.17 Par 2. Principal By Induction

Requisites:
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of
the crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the
material executor.

One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of the crime without first
being shown that the crime was actually committed (or attempted) by another.

Thus, there can be no principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation) unless

there is a principal by direct participation. But there can be a principal by direct participation
without a
principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation).

Two Ways Of Becoming Principal By Induction:

1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime by :
      a) Using irresistible force.
      b) Causing uncontrollable fear.

In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a unity of criminal purpose and intention.
Only the one using the force or causing the fear is criminally liable. The material executor is
not criminally liable because of Art. 12, pars. 5 and 6 (exempting circumstances)

2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime by –

a) Giving of price, or offering of reward or promise.

The one giving the price or offering the reward or promise is a principal by inducement while
the one
committing the crime in consideration thereof is a principal by direct participation. There is
collective criminal responsibility.

b) Using words of command The person who used the words of command is a principal by
inducement while the person who committed the crime because of the words of command is
a principal by direct participation. There is also collective criminal responsibility.

Requisites for words of command to be considered inducement:

1. Commander has the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
2. Commander has ascendancy or influence
3. Words used be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful
4. Command be uttered prior to the commission
5. Executor had no personal reason

NOTE: Words uttered in the heat of anger and in the nature of the command that had to be
obeyed do not make one an inductor

The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so influential in producing the
criminal act that without it, the act would not have been performed. Mere imprudent advice
is not inducement.
If the person who actually committed the crime had reason of his own to commit the crime,
it cannot be said that the inducement was influential in producing the criminal act.

Effects Of Acquittal Of Principal By Direct Participation Upon Liability Of Principal By

Inducement:
1. Conspiracy is negatived by the acquittal of co- defendant.
2. One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of a crime without first
being shown that the crime has been actually committed by another.

But if the one charged as principal by direct participation is acquitted because he acted
without criminal intent or malice, his acquittal is not a ground for the acquittal of the principal
by inducement.

REASON FOR THE RULE: In exempting circumstances, such as when the act is not
voluntary because of lack of intent on the part of the accused, there is a crime committed,
only that the accused is not a criminal.

Examples:

While in the course of a quarrel, a person shouted to A, “Kill him! Kill him!” A killed the other
person. Is the person who shouted criminally liable? Is that inducement?
- No. The shouting must be an irresistible force for the one shouting to be liable.

There was a quarrel between two families. One of the sons of family A came out with a
shotgun. His mother then shouted, “Shoot!” He shot and killed someone. Is the mother
liable?
- No.

People v. Balderrama 226 SCRA 537 (1993),

Ernesto shouted to his younger brother Oscar, “Birahin mo na, birahin mo na!” Oscar
stabbed the victim. It was held that there was no conspiracy. Joint or simultaneous action
per se is not indicia of conspiracy without showing of common design. Oscar has no rancor
with the victim for him to kill the latter. Considering that Ernesto had great moral
ascendancy and influence over Oscar, being much older (35 years old), than the latter, who
was 18 years old, and it was Ernesto who provided his allowance, clothing, as well as food
and shelter, Ernesto is principal by inducement.

People v. Agapinay, 188 SCRA 812 (1990),

The one who uttered “kill him, we will bury him.” while the felonious aggression was taking
place cannot be held liable as principal by inducement. Utterance was said in the
excitement of the hour, not a command to be obeyed.

People v. Madall, 188 SCRA 69 (1990),

The son was mauled. The family was not in good terms with their neighbors. The father
challenged everybody and when the neighbors approached, he went home to get a rifle.
The shouts of his wife “here comes another, shoot him” cannot make the wife a principal by
inducement. It is not the determining cause of the crime in the absence of proof that the
words had great influence over the
husband. Neither is the wife’s act of beaming the victim with a flashlight indispensable to the
killing. She assisted her husband in taking good aim, but such assistance merely facilitated
the felonious act of shooting. Considering that it was not so dark and the husband could
have accomplished the deed without his wife’s help, and considering further that doubts
must be resolved in favor of the accused, the liability of the wife is only that of an
accomplice.

2002 Bar Exam Question

A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B

was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him but because he
also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C is
killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement?

No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he promised B
is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about criminal liability of a
co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which
caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which the crime would not have
been committed. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A,
had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.

1994 Bar Exam Question

Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted
to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So, she insured
the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary
consideration, to burn her building so she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and
Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What is their respective criminal
liability?

Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly induced Yoboy and Yongsi, for a
price or monetary consideration, to commit arson which the latter would not have committed
were it not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by direct participation.

Principal By Indispensable Cooperation

Art.17 Par. 3 – Principal by indispensable cooperation

Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity
of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime charged;
and
 2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which it
would not have been accomplished.

MEANING OF “cooperation in the commission of the offense”

- To desire or wish in common a thing. But that common will or purpose does not
necessarily mean previous understanding, for it can be explained or inferred from the
circumstances of each case.

NOTE: If the cooperation is not indispensable, the offender is only an accomplice.

Collective Criminal Responsibility:

- This is present when the offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and to the
same extent. The penalty to be imposed must be the same for all.

Principals by direct participation have collective criminal responsibility. Principals by

induction, (except those who directly forced another to commit a crime) and principals by
direct participation have collective criminal responsibility. Principals by indispensable
cooperation have collective criminal responsibilities with the principals by direct
participation.

Individual Criminal Responsibility:

- In the absence of any previous conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission of the crime, or community of criminal design, the
criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same person
is considered as individual and not collective, and each of the participants is liable only for
the act committed by him.

QUASI-COLLECTIVE criminal responsibility: Some of the offenders in the crime are

principals and the others are accomplices.

What is the essence of being a principal by indispensable cooperation:

- The focus is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in committing
the crime.
- The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime.
- If the crime could hardly be committed without such cooperation, then such cooperation
would bring about a principal.
- If the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime, this would
make the cooperator merely an accomplice.

In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or liability. Apply the doctrine of pro reo.

2000 Bar Exam Question

Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing
during the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-
pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started
their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered
firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to
Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started
throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded
inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate,
Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to
calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so
that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after
all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his
firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at
Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy
came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target.
Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously, If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case? Explain.

I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal by

Indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should be
held liable as co-principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas'
criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that
criminal design by providing the firearm.
Accomplice

ART.18

ACCOMPLICES - Persons who do not act as principals but cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous and simultaneous acts, which are not indispensable to the
commission of the crime. They
act as mere instruments that perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense.

Requisites: (the following must concur)

1. That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter his purpose;
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with
the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious
way; and
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the
person charged as an accomplice.

NOTES:
Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a principal by direct participation.

The person charged as an accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound. If he
inflicted a mortal wound, he becomes a principal by direct participation.

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

When is one regarded as an accomplice:

Determine if there is a conspiracy.

- If there is, as a general rule, the criminal liability of all will be the same, because the act of
one is the act of all.

     Exception:
        - If the participation of one is so insignificant
        - such that even without his cooperation,
        - the crime would be committed just as well,
        - then notwithstanding the existence of a conspiracy,
          such offender will be regarded only as an accomplice.

What are the other traits of an accomplice

- does not have a previous agreement or understanding; or
- is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct participation

In Principal by Cooperation - Cooperation is indispensable in the commission of the act.

Accomplice - Cooperation is not indispensable in the commission of the act.

Who are Accessories ?

ART.19

Accessories are those who:

1. having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
2. without having participated therein either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following acts:
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
b. Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
c. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery.

In profiting by the effects of the crime, the accessory must receive the property from the
principal. He should not take it without the consent of the principal. If he took it without the
consent of the principal, he is not an accessory but a principal in the crime of theft.

EXAMPLE:
PAR. 1 - person received and used property from another, knowing it was stolen
               Read: Illustrative case, 1998 Bar Exam Question
PAR. 2 - placing a weapon in the hand of the dead who was unlawfully killed to plant
evidence, or burying the deceased who was killed by the principals
PAR. 3 -
a) public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any crime
(not light felony) with abuse of his public functions.
b) private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime –
guilty of
treason, parricide, murder or an attempt against the life of the President, or who is known to
be habitually guilty of some crime.

GENERAL RULE: If the Principal is acquitted the Accessory is also acquitted. The
responsibility of the accessory is subordinate to that of the principal in a crime.

Exception: When the crime was in fact committed by the principal, but the principal is
covered by exempting circumstances (Art 12) and as a result he is not held liable. However,
it is possible that the accessory may still be held liable even if the principal was acquitted by
an exempting circumstance.

Trial of accessory may proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge against
the principal because the criminal responsibilities are distinct from each other.

Two classes of accessories contemplated in par. 3 of art. 19

1. PUBLIC officers, who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any crime
(not light felony) with abuse of his public functions.

Requisites:
1. The accessory is a public officer.
2. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal.
3. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions.
4. The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony.

2. PRIVATE persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime
who is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or attempts against the life of the President, or
who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

Requisites:
1. The accessory is a private person.
2. He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the author of the crime.
3. The crime committed by the principal is either:
a. Treason,
b. Parricide,
c. Murder,
d. An attempt against the life of the President, or
e. That the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

Neither the letter nor the spirit of the law requires that the principal be convicted before one
may be punished as an accessory. As long as the corpus delicti is proved and the
accessory’s participation as such is shown, he can be held criminally responsible and
meted out the corresponding penalty (Inovero vs. Coronel, CA, 65 O.G.3160).

The prescribed acts of the accessory under par.2 must have been intended to prevent the
discovery of the crime, hence, mere silence does not make one an accessory. If, however,
the crime involved is a conspiracy to commit treason, his silence may hold him liable for
misprision of treason (Art. 116) but as a principal thereof.

Where the accused misleads the authorities by giving them false information, such act is
equivalent to concealment and he should be held as an accessory.

Principal Distinguished from Accessory

1. Principal - Takes direct part or cooperates in, or induces the commission of the crime.

Accessory - Does NOT take direct part or cooperates in, or induces the commission of the
crime.

2. Principal - cooperates in the commission of the offense by acts either prior thereto or
simultaneous therewith.

Accessory - does not take part in the commission of the offense.

3. Principal - Participates during commission of the crime.

Accessory - Participation of the accessory in all cases always SUBSEQUENT to the

commission of the crime.

2004 Bar Exam Question (Criminal Liability;Non-Exemption as Accessory)

DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings
with TBI pawnshop as a pledge for Php500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised the defense
that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory.

Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason briefly.

No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of an
accessory by virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who
themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the
crime. This non-exemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the crime, is
expressly provided in Art.20 of the Revised Penal Code.
Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability

ART.20

BASIS:
The exemption provided for in this article is based on the ties of blood and the preservation
of the cleanliness of one’s name, which compels one to conceal crimes committed by
relatives so near as those mentioned in this article.

AN ACCESSORY IS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHEN THE PRINCIPAL IS

HIS :
1. spouse, or
2. ascendant, or
3. descendant, or
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative by affinity within the same degree.

Accessory Is Not Exempt From Criminal Liability Even If The Principal Is Related To Him, If
Such Accessory –
1. profited by the effects of the crime, or
2. assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

REASON: Because such acts are prompted not by affection but by a detestable greed.

NOTES:

Nephew and Niece not included

Public officer contemplated in par. 3 of Art. 19 is exempt by reason of relationship to the

principal, even if such public officer acted with abuse of his official functions.

REASON: Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more powerful incentive than the call of
duty.

P.D. 1829 penalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of
criminal cases.

The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do not apply to PD 1829. PD 1829 - The law
penalizing obstruction of justice.

Art.21 Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be

punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.

PENALTY – suffering inflicted by the State for the transgression

of a law.

Different Juridical Conditions Of Penalty:

1. Must be productive of suffering, without however affecting the
   integrity of the human personality.
2. Must be commensurate with the offense – different crimes must
   be punished with different penalties.
3. Must be personal – no one should be punished for the crime of
   another.
4. Must be legal – it is the consequence of a judgment according
   to law.
5. Must be certain – no one may escape its effects.
6. Must be equal for all.
7. Must be correctional.

Purpose Of The State In Punishing Crimes

   - The State has an existence of its own to maintain, a
     conscience to assert, and moral principles to be vindicated.
     Penal justice must therefore be exercised by the State in
     the service and satisfaction of a duty, and rests primarily
     on the moral rightfulness of the punishment inflicted
     (to secure justice). The basis of the right to punish
     violations of penal law is the police power of the State.

Theories Justifying Penalty:

1. Prevention – to prevent or suppress the danger to the State
   arising from the criminal act of the offender.
2. Self-defense – so as to protect society from the threat and
   wrong inflicted by the criminal.
3. Reformation – the object of punishment in criminal cases is
   to correct and reform the offender.
4. Exemplarity – the criminal is punished to serve as an
   example to deter others from committing crimes.
5. Justice – that crime must be punished by the State as an act
   of retributive justice, a vindication of absolute right and
   moral law violated by the criminal.

Three-Fold Purpose Of Penalty Under The Code:

1. Retribution or expiation – the penalty is commensurate with
   the gravity of the offense.
2. Correction or reformation – shown by the rules which regulate
   the execution of the penalties consisting in deprivation of
   liberty.
3. Social defense – shown by its inflexible severity to
   recidivists and habitual delinquents.
ART.22

NOTE: According to Reyes, Art. 22 is NOT applicable to the

provisions of the RPC. Its application to the RPC can only be
invoked where some former or subsequent law is under consideration

GENERAL RULE: Penal laws are applied prospectively.

   EXCEPTION: When retrospective application will be favorable

   to the person guilty of a felony; Provided that:
      1. The offender is NOT a habitual criminal (delinquent)
         under Art. 62(5);
      2. The new or amendatory law does NOT provide against its
         retrospective application.

The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find the

defendant in one of the 3 situations:
1. The crime has been committed and the prosecution begins
2. The sentence has been passed but service has not begun
3. The sentence is being carried out

HABITUAL DELINQUENT - A person who, within a period of ten years

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

EX POST FACTO LAW - An act which when committed was not a crime,
cannot be made so by statute without violating the constitutional
inhibition as to ex post facto laws. An ex post facto law is one
which:
      1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law
         and which was innocent when done;
      2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,
         when committed;
      3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
         than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
      4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
         conviction upon a less or different testimony than the
         law required at the time of the commission of the offense;
      5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
         effect imposing a penalty or deprivation of a right for
         something which when done was lawful; and
      6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
         protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
         protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
         proclamation of amnesty.

If retroactive effect of a new law is justified, it shall apply

to the defendant even if he is:
1. presently on trial for the offense;
2. has already been sentenced but service of which has not begun; or
3. already serving sentence

The retroactive effect of criminal statutes does NOT apply to

the culprit’s civil liability.

   REASON: The rights of offended persons or innocent third

   parties are not within the gift of arbitrary disposal of
   the State.

The provisions of Art. 22 are applicable even to special laws

which provide more favorable conditions to the accused.

New law may provide that its provisions not to be applied to

cases already filed in court at the time of the approval of
such law.

Criminal liability SUBSISTS: under the repealed law

1. When the provisions of the former law are reenacted; or

      Note: The right to punish offenses committed under an old

      penal law is not extinguished if the offenses are still
      punishable in the repealing penal law.)

2. When the repeal is by implication; or

      Note: When a penal law, which impliedly repealed an old

      law, is itself repealed, the repeal of the repealing law
      revives the prior penal law, unless the language of the
      repealing statute provides otherwise. If the repeal is
      absolute, criminal liability is obliterated.)

3. When there is a saving clause.

BILL OF ATTAINDER – A legislative act which inflicts punishment
without trial.
ART.23

GENERAL RULE: Pardon by the offended party does not extinguish

the criminal liability of the offender.

   REASON: A crime committed is an offense against the State.

   Only the Chief Executive can pardon the offenders.

   EXCEPTION: Pardon by the offended party will bar criminal

   prosecution in the following crimes:
   1. Adultery and Concubinage (Art. 344,RPC)
         - EXPRESS or IMPLIED pardon must be given by offended
           party to BOTH offenders.
         - Pardon must be given PRIOR to institution of criminal
           action.
   2. Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness (Art. 344, RPC)
         - EXPRESS pardon given by offended party or her parents
           or grandparents or guardian
         - Pardon must be given PRIOR to the institution of the
           criminal action.
           However, marriage between the offender and the
           offended party EVEN AFTER the institution of the
           criminal action or conviction of the offender will
           extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty
           already imposed against the offender, his co- principals,
           accomplices and accessories after the fact.
   3. Rape (as amended by R.A. 8353)
         - The subsequent valid marriage between the offender
           and the offended party shall extinguish criminal
           liability or the penalty imposed. In case the legal
           husband is the offender, subsequent forgiveness by
           the wife as offended party shall also produce the same
           effect.

NOTE:

Pardon by the offended party under Art. 344 is ONLY A BAR to

criminal prosecution; it is NOT a ground for extinguishment of
criminal liability. It DOES NOT extinguish criminal liability.
It is not one of the causes that totally extinguish criminal
liability in Art 89.
ART.24

The Following Shall Not Be Considered As Penalties:

1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as
   well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility,
   or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned
   in Art. 80 (now Art. 192, PD No. 603) and for the purposes
   specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment or public office during the
   trial or in order to institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of
   their administrative or disciplinary powers, superior officials
   may impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil law
   may establish in penal form.

Reasons why they are not penalties:

1. Because they are not imposed as a result of judicial
   proceedings. Those mentioned in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are
   merely preventive measures before conviction of offenders.
2. The offender is not subjected to or made to suffer these
   measures in expiation of or as punishment for a crime.

Note: Those in par 1, 3 and 4 are merely preventive measures

before the conviction of offenders.

Par. 1 refers to “accused persons” who are detained “by reason of

insanity or imbecility.” It does not refer to the confinement of
an insane or imbecile who has not been arrested for a crime.

Paragraphs 3 and 4 refer to administrative suspension and

administrative fines and not to suspension or fine as penalties
for violations of the RPC. Fines in par. 4 do not constitute as
penalties because they are not imposed by the court.

The deprivations of rights established in penal form by the civil

laws is illustrated in the case of parents who are deprived of
their parental authority if found guilty of the crime of
corruption of their minor children, in accordance with Art. 332
of the Civil Code.

Where a minor offender was committed to a reformatory pursuant

to Art. 80 (now, PD 603), and while thus detained he commits a
crime therein, he cannot be considered a quasi-recidivist since
his detention was only a preventive measure, whereas a quasi-
recidivism presupposes the commission of a crime during the
service of the penalty for a previous crime.

Commitment of a minor is not a penalty because it is not imposed

by the court in a judgment. The imposition of the sentence in
such a case is suspended.
Art. 25

The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and

their different classes, are those included in the following:

Capital punishment:
   - Death

Afflictive penalties:
   - Reclusion perpetua,
   - Reclusion temporal,
   - Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
   - Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
   - Prision mayor.

Correctional penalties:
   - Prision correccional,
   - Arresto mayor
   - Suspension
   - Destierro

Light penalties:
   - Arresto menor,
   - Public censure

Penalties common to the three preceding classes:

   - Fine, and
   - Bond to keep the peace.

SCALE OF ACCESSORY PENALTIES

   - Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
   - Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
   - Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
        for, the profession or calling.
   - Civil interdiction,
   - Indemnification,
   - Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of
        the offense,
   - Payment of costs.

MAJOR CLASSIFICATION
   1. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES – those expressly imposed by the court
      in the judgment of conviction.
   2. ACCESSORY PENALTIES – those that are deemed included in the
      imposition of the principal penalties.

Other classifications of penalties:

According to their divisibility:
   1. Divisible - those that have fixed duration and are
      divisible into three periods.
   2. Indivisible - those which have no fixed duration.
         - Death
         - Reclusion perpetua
         - Perpetual absolute or special disqualification
         - Public censure

According to subject-matter
   1. Corporal - (death)
   2. Deprivation of freedom - (reclusion, prision, arresto)
   3. Restriction of freedom - (destierro)
   4. Deprivation of rights - (disqualification and suspension)
   5. Pecuniary - (fine)

According to their gravity

   1. Capital
   2. Afflictive
   3. Correctional
   4. Light

Note:

Public censure is a penalty,

   - thus, it is not proper in acquittal.
   - However, the Court in acquitting the accused may criticize
     his acts or conduct.

Penalties that are either principal or accessory:

1. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
2. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, and
3. Suspension
  
   May be principal or accessory penalties, because they formed in
   the 2 general classes.
ART.26

Fines:
1. Afflictive – over 6000
2. Correctional – 201 to 6000
3. Light – 200 and less

NOTES:

The classification applies if the fine is imposed as a single

or alternative penalty. Hence, it does not apply if the fine
is imposed together with another penalty.

Fines are imposed either as alternative (Ex: Art 144 punishing

disturbance of proceedings with arresto mayor or fine from 200
pesos to 1000 pesos) or single (Ex. fine of 200 to 6000 pesos)

Penalty cannot be imposed in the alternative since it is the

duty of the court to indicate the penalty imposed definitely
and positively. Thus,the court cannot sentence the guilty
person in a manner as such as “to pay fine of 1000 pesos, or
to suffer an imprisonment of 2 years, and to pay the costs.”

If the fine imposed by the law for the felony is exactly 200
pesos, it is a light felony.

People vs. Yu Hai (99 Phil. 725):

Under Art. 9, where the fine in question is exactly P200, it
is a light penalty, thus the offense is a light felony; whereas
under Art. 26, it is a correctional penalty, hence the offense
involved is a less grave felony. It that this discrepancy
should be resolved liberally in favor of the accused, hence
Art. 9 prevails over Art. 26

Distinction between classification of Penalties in Art. 9

and Art. 26

   Article 9 - Applicable in determining the prescriptive period

   of felonies

   Article 26 - Applicable in determining the prescriptive

   period of penalties
ART.29

Instances when accused undergoes preventive suspension:

1. offense is non-bailable
2. bailable but can’t furnish bail

Notes:

The full time or 4/5 of the time during which the offenders have
undergone preventive suspension shall be deducted from the
penalty imposed:

   full time: if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in

   writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
   imposed upon convicted prisoners

   four-fifths of the time: if the detention prisoner does not

   agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
   convicted prisoners

In the case of a youthful offender who has been proceeded against

under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, he shall be credited in
the service of his sentence with the full time of his actual
detention, regardless if he agreed to abide by the same
disciplinary rules of the institution or not.

Offenders not entitled to be credited with the full time or

four-fifths of the time of their preventive imprisonment.

   Recidivists or those convicted previously twice or more

   times of any crime.

   Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their

   sentence, failed to surrender voluntarily (convicts who
   failed to voluntarily surrender to serve their penalties
   under a final judgment, not those who failed or refused to
   voluntarily surrender after the commission of the crime)

Habitual Delinquents are not entitled to credit of time under

preventive imprisonment since he is necessarily a recidivist or
has been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime.

Duration of RP is to be computed at 30 years, thus, even if the

accused is sentenced to life imprisonment, he is entitled to
the full time or 4/5 of the time of preventive suspension.

Credit is given in the service of sentences consisting of

deprivation of liberty (imprisonment and destierro), whether
perpetual or temporal. Thus, persons who had undergone
preventive imprisonment but the offense is punishable by a fine
only would not be given credit.

Destierro is considered a “deprivation of liberty.”

If the penalty imposed is arresto menor to destierro, the

accused who has been in prison for 30 days (arresto menor to
30 days) should be released because although the maximum penalty
is destierro (6 months and 1 day to 6 years), the accused
sentenced to such penalty does not serve it in prison.