_

ARTICLE 14: Aggravating Circumstances

(Def.): Which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, serves to increase the penalty without exceeding the
maximum of the penalty provided by law.
- No matter how many ACs are present, maximum may not be exceeded.
- ACs are never presumed. Must be specifically alleged in the information AND proven as fully as the crime
(to increase the penalty. If absent, can still be considered for exemplary damages).
Basis: Greater perversity of the offender (MPMTP)
1. Motivating power (e.g. P14: reward)
2. Place (e.g. P3: dwelling)
3. Means (e.g. P15: inundation)
4. Time (e.g. P6: nighttime, P7: occasion)
5. Personal Circumstances (e.g. P9: recidivist)

Legaspi
- Accused Legaspi entered the house of Honorata Ong, then raped and robbed her.
- TC found Legaspi guilty of rape aggravated by dwelling and nighttime, and of robbery aggravated by
dwelling despite the ACs not being specified in the information.
- WON Legaspi is to suffer death despite the ACs not being specified in the Information? – NO
- SC: The Rules now require qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be expressly and specifically alleged
in the Complaint or Information, or it will not be considered by even if proved.
- Applies to all criminal cases, not only in cases where ACs would increase penalty to death.

Classes of Aggravating Circumstances

Will not increase the penalty
1. Circumstance in itself constitutes crime
(already has its own penalty) 14(12) use of fire → arson, 14(12) explosion → destruction
2. Used by to define a crime
- 299: robbery in an inhabited house, committed by the means of unlawful entry 14(18) or breaking
any door, wall 14(19)
3. Inherent
- IFBAD (ignonimy in rape, falsification in estafa)

Generic: Generally applies to all crimes Specific: Applies to specific classes of crimes, offset
(CRNAP-D-BUHUC) RATIC
a) Contempt or insult of public authority (par. 2) a) Disregard of Rank, age, or sex due the offended party
b) Recidivism (par. 9) applicable only in crimes against persons and honor
c) Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band (par. 6) (par. 3)
d) Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness (par. 4) b) Abuse of superior strength or means be employed to
e) Place and time of commission of offense (par. 5) weaken the defense applicable only in crimes against
f) Crime committed in the Dwelling of the offended party (par. persons (par. 15)
3) c) Treachery applicable only in crimes against persons (par.
g) Breaking of parts of the house (par. 19) 16)
h) Habituality (par. 10) d) Ignominy applicable only in crimes against persons (par.
i) Use of persons under 15 years of age (par. 20); and 16)
j) Craft, fraud, or disguise (par. 14) e) Cruelty in crimes against persons (par. 21)

Qualifying: Inherent
- Change the nature of the crime (e.g. homicide → - Necessarily accompany commission of crime
murder) (e.g. evident premeditation in adultery)
- When there are 2, one is considered qualifying
and the other mitigating. IFBAD
a) Ignominy in rape
Qualify Murder TRIO-EC b) Fraud in estafa
1. Treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with aid of c) Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry into a house in
armed men, or employing means to weaken defense, or means robbery with the use of force upon things
or persons to insure or afford impunity d) Abuse of public position in malversation of public funds
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise and property
3. Means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, e) Deceit in simple seduction
stranding of vessel, derailment or assault upon railroad, fall of
airship, means of motor vehicles with use of any other means Special: Applies to special conditions, not offset
involving waste and ruin
4. On occasion of any of calamities in preceding paragraph,
earthquake, eruption, destructive cyclone, epidemic, other
public calamity CUTE-Q
5. evident premeditation; and a) Complex Crime
6. cruelty b) Use of unlicensed firearm
c) Taking advantage of public position (par. 1) and
Qualify Theft DAO-MCF membership in an organize/syndicate crime group (par. 2,
1. Domestic servant Article 62)
1. Grave abuse of confidence d) Error in Personae
2. On occasion of any of calamities in preceding paragraph, e) Quasi-Recidivism
earthquake, eruption, destructive cyclone, epidemic, other
public calamity, vehicular accident, civil disturbance
3. Property stolen: motor vehicle, mail, or large cattle
4. Property stolen: coconuts from plantation
5. Property stolen: fish products from fishpond or fishery
 1: Taking Advantage of Public Office
As a means, the public officer must use (IPA)
1. Influence;
2. Prestige, or
3. Ascendancy
Test: did the accused abuse his office in order to commit the crime?
2 kinds of public office:
1. (not aggravating) Public office is a constituent element as defined by statute and the relation between the
crime and offense is the offense committed cannot exist without the office; and
2. Offenses or felonies which are intimately connected with the public office and are perpetrated by while in
the performance of his official functions; through improper or irregular conduct.

Capalac Gapasin Amion

Police Capalac Cockpit PC Member shoots someone Policeman killed another policeman

2: Contempt or Insult to Public Authority

Requisites ENKP
1. (PA) in the Exercise of his functions
2. (PA) is Not the person against whom the crime is committed (if it’s them, direct assault)
3. Knows him to be a public authority (essential, otherwise insult was not intended)
4. Presence does not prevent offender from commission

Public Authorities Public Officers

Any person Any person
1. performing the functions of government 1. holding public office
2. directly vested with jurisdiction 2. by appointment, election, or contract.
3. has the power to govern and execute laws. - Officers of ministry/provincial governments
- Officers: bc they perform functions for the
Reyes: Sometimes called a PIA, is a public officer directly preservation and govt of the State.
vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the - Not PIAs: bc they are not directly vested
power to govern and execute the laws. with jurisdiction
- Not APIAs: bc they are not charged with
Councilor, mayor, governor, etc. are PIAs/PAs. executing the orders of PIAs.

Persons in Authority Agents of a Person in Authority

152: Any person 152: Any person
1. directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an 1. by direct provision of law or by election or
individual or as a member of some court or appointment, charged with
governmental corporation, board, or commission. a. maintenance of public order
- Includes: Barrio captain and a brgy chairman. b. protection & security of life & property
- Includes: barrio councilman, barrio policeman and
Tac-an: Lawyers, teachers, professors, and persons brgy leader and any person who comes to the aid of
supervising public/recognized private schools ONLY in cases persons in authority
of Article 148 (direct assault) and 151 (resistance and 14(2) does not apply.
disobedience).

Rodil: A municipal mayor, brgy captain or tanod are PIAs

OR PAs. The chief of police is also a PIA or PA; vested with
jurisdiction/authority to maintain peace and order and is
specifically duty bound to prosecute and apprehend violators
of laws and municipal ordinances.

Tiongson Magdueño Regala

Detainee escapes, kills 2 persons. Fiscal (PA, Victim), Hired Killer Magallanes Plaza Killing, Pc. Lt is PA

Facts: Tiongson escaped the Facts: Fiscal Dilig was sitting in Facts: Defendants Regala and Flores
Municipal Jail. While escaping, he his jeep parked near his house. were charged for Murder with Assault
killed Patrolman Gelera and He was killed by 2 successive upon an APIA for killing of PC Sgt.
Constable Canela. Tiongson was gunshots on his left side. Desilos who died as a result of a stab
charged with murder qualified by Magdueno was found guilty for wound.
treachery and aggravated by (1) the murder of Fiscal Dilig. - Sgt. Desilos was guarding the
evident premeditation (2) contempt exit gate of the Magallanes Plaza
of/with insult to the public Issue: WON the Insult to Public when Regala and Flores
authorities, (3) committed in an Authority was present? NO. approached the gate wanting to
uninhabited place, and (4) abuse of get in. To stop them, Sgt.
superior strength. Ratio: It must not only be Desilos pushed Flores back, to
shown that the crime was which Regala retaliated and
Issue: is WON Tiongson is guilty of committed in the presence of the stabbed Desilos.
murder? NO, only homicide. public authority but also that the
 crime was NOT committed - Main evidence against them:
Ratio: Pat. Gelera and PC Constable against the public authority eyewitnesses Erlinda and
Canela were the ones against whom himself. Dilig, the public Juanito who positively
the crimes were committed. Pat. authority involved in the crime, identified Regala as the person
Gelera and PC Constable Canela are was the victim. who stabbed Desilos, and Flores
not PIAs, merely APIAs. with Regala at that time.
- The trial court found Regala
SC: This AC requires that the crime guilty of Murder with assault
was NOT committed against the PAs upon an APIA and sentenced to
themselves. AND, in the first place, death.
they were not PAs but merely APIAs.
They were members of the police Issue: WON “public authority” applies
force. to PC Lt. or police — YES

Ratio: Crime was Homicide aggravated

by contempt for or insult to a public
authority. It was not murder since there
was no premeditation nor treachery;
Regala only stabbed Sgt. Desilos
because the latter had pushed Flores.

Tac-an Rodil
Gang bros, teachers not PA Restaurant stabbing, Chief of Police Present (PA/PIA)

Facts: Tac-an shoots Francis in Fact: PC Lt Masana and others were having lunch in a restaurant. Lt
school, a fellow Bronx gang member Masana was in civilian, and he went outside to talk to Rodil who caught his
who he has a sour relationship with attention because he was whistling. Lt Masana introduced himself as a PC
after Francis withdrew from the officer and asked if the gun Rodil had on his waist was licensed. Rodil
Bronx gang. In English class, Francis attempted to draw the gun but Fidel grabbed it. They went inside the
accidentally sat on Tac-An’s restaurant to write a receipt for Rodil’s gun. When asked to sign, Rodil
scrapbook. While the class was pulled out a dagger and stabbed Lt. Masana, causing his death. While the
ongoing, Tac-An slipped out and got stabbing took place, Chief of Police Panaligan happened to also be there,
a gun from home and returned in embraced Rodil and wrestled the dagger from him. then took him to the
time for Math. After a few tries he municipal building.
successfully shoots him. Comes back
later to shoot him fatally in the Issue: W/N the insult to public authority is to be appreciated? -
chest. YES

Issue: WON contempt/insult to PA Ratio:

is to be appreciated? NO. ● Previously this court ruled:
- That PAs refers to a PIAs.
Ratio: Trial court erred in ruling - That a PC lieutenant or town chief of police is not a PA but
that teachers are PIAs. Teachers are merely an APIA
not considered PA under Art. 152. ● Court reexamined this because of the use of PA in 14(2) instead of
They are only PIAs under Articles PIA specifically stated in 148 and 151. Construction: lawmaker
148 and 151. intended a different meaning for the term PA, which includes but is
not limited to PIAs.
● In previous cases:
- A municipal mayor, barrio captain, barrio lieutenant or brgy
captain is a PA or PIA (Reyes).
- But now PIAs include: public school teacher, town
municipal health officer nurse, municipal councilor, agent
of the BIR
- The chief of police should be considered a PA or PIA
- He is vested with jurisdiction or authority to
maintain peace and order and is specifically duty
bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of
the laws and municipal ordinances, more than the
aforementioned officials who cannot prosecute and
who are not even enjoined to arrest malefactors
- The town chief of police heads and supervises the
entire police force in the municipality as well as
exercises his authority over the entire municipality
Herrera:
- Lt. Masana is not a PA or PIA because he is not directly vested with
jurisdiction (power or authority to govern and execute the laws or to
hear and decide a cause)
- He is a mere APIA, being a member of the PC which is a government
military agency in charge of the maintenance of public order and the
security of life and property.
- Even if Lt. Masana were a PIA, cannot be appreciated because he
himself is the offended party.
 3: Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex; Dwelling
Appreciation: Can be considered single or altogether. If all of are present, one aggravating circumstance only
Basis: Personal circumstances of the offended; place
(1) DISREGARD RANK, AGE, AND SEX
- Only in crimes against persons or honor (HARD-PIMP), not against property (SUCC-MM-BRAT)
- Deliberately intended to act with insult/in disregard of respect due
Rank: Designation or title of distinction used to fix relative position of offended party in reference to others
- There must be difference in social condition of offender and offended
Age: both the elderly and the youth
Sex: female sex, NOT male sex
- Killing a woman is not attended absent evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult
the sex of the victim or showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood
Not Applicable
1. Passion and obfuscation (People v. Ibanes)
2. Condition of being a woman is indispensable .e.g abduction, seduction, and rape)
3. No evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the victim
(2) DWELLING
Basis: sanctity of privacy accorded to the human abode.
- One’s dwelling is a sanctuary worthy of respect, thus one who slanders another in the latter’s house is more
severely punished than the one who offends him elsewhere (People v. Kalipaya)
He who goes to another house to hurt/do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere.
What constitutes dwelling
- A building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort.
- NOT: A combination of a house and a store or a market stall where the victim slept.
- Includes every dependency of the house such as the staircase, terrace, and enclosures.
- Dwelling does not mean the permanent residence or domicile of the offended party or that he must be the
owner thereof. However, he must be actually living or dwelling therein even for a temporary duration.
Requisites (DINo)
1. Offender committed the crime in the Dwelling of the offended party
2. Offender Intentionally and deliberately disregard of the respect which the dwelling is entitled; and
3. The offended has Not given provocation
Notes:
- Not necessary accused actually entered; enough that victim was attacked inside (e.g. sniper assassination)
- Even if the killing took place outside, it is aggravating circumstance if the commission began in the
dwelling.
- A condition sine qua non: offended party has not given provocation to the offender.
- Provocation by the offended party waives his right to the respect and consideration.
Dwelling is NOT aggravating:
1. Both are occupants
- Exception: Adultery
2. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things; the aggravating circumstance is inherent
- Exception: Robbery with violence against/intimidation of persons because this can be committed
without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party’s house.
- Dwelling is not important, hence aggravating. e.g. Robbery w/ homicide can be committed
outside the dwelling.
3. Trespass to dwelling; it is inherent or included in the definition of the crime
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation
5. When the victim is not a dweller of the house.

Diaz Arizobal Daniel

2 Cousins, Brothers kill Lolo, Robbed 2 houses, killed father Girl raped in boarding house
age (no) and son, dwelling (yes) (yes)

Facts: While cousins Remgia and Facts: Arizobal & Lignes are Facts: Margarita was threatened
Anita were gathering camotes at a charged with Robbery in Band with with a knife and raped by Daniel in
farm, Diaz embraced Remegia and Homicide. The victims’ wives her boarding house.
touched her breasts. In response, positively identified both.
Anita struck Diaz with a bolo in the Issue: WON dwelling can be
head causing injuries. The cousins Issue: WON the crime constituted appreciated? YES
went to the house of their 62 year dwelling because the robbery was
old Lolo, Tadia. Tadia reported what committed with violence against or Crime Committed: rape with the
happened to the barrio lieutenant. intimidation of persons and the use of a deadly weapon with
While Tadia, Remegia, and Anita commission of the crime begun in dwelling
were ascending a hill, they the dwelling? YES.
encountered Diaz and his brother Ratio: Though Margarita was
Ratio: They forced their way in, merely renting a bedspace in a
Gerardo. They shot Tadia causing looted their houses, intimidated and boarding house, her room
him to roll downhill and die. coerced their inhabitants into constituted for all intents and
submission, disabled Laurencio and purposes a "dwelling"
Issue: WON the killing of Tadia Jimmy by tying their hands before
constitutes disregard of age? NO. killing them. Hence, they are guilty It is not necessary that the victim
of Robbery with Homicide. owns the place where he lives or
Ratio: no evidence that the Diaz dwells.
brothers deliberately intended to
offend or insult the age of the victim. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-
spacer, the place is his home the
sanctity of which the law seeks to
protect and uphold.

Apduhan (1968) Pagal (1977) Balansi

Dwelling (yes), robbery with Disregard of the respect due on Kalinga Murder during
violence is a crime that can be account of rank and age (no); wedding
committed anywhere only applies to crimes against
persons Facts: Balansi is a barangay
Facts: Apduhan was accused of captain. The victim/deceased,
murder with band, dwelling, Facts: Pagal and Torcelino were Dalsen was a provincial
nighttime, and superior strength for charged and convicted for Robbery development officer. Balansi went to
the crime of Robbery with Homicide with Homicide for taking P1,281 Dalsen while he was asleep. The
for robbing the Miano spouses and, from Gau Guan, who they killed with incident took place during a wedding
with his 5 other companions, an ice pick and iron pipe. celebration, where Dalsen was
shooting one of the children and sleeping at the house of his parents
someone else who happened to be The RTC convicted them with the opposite to where the wedding was
there, causing their death. The trial penalty of death due to the following held. Those who testified said they
court held that the accused is guilty aggravating circumstances: heard 2 gunshots, and that they saw
for Robbery with homicide and is nighttime, evident premeditation the accused at the steps of the house
therefore sentenced to death. (not appreciated by SC), and leading to where the victim was. One
disregard of the respect due the testimony claimed that the accused
Issue: WON the penalty imposed offended party. had a grudge against victim, whom
for the complex crime of robbery he accused of delaying an alleged
with homicide is correct? YES Ratio: award for construction of a bridge.
- 14(3): SC said that disregard Revenge was supposedly tradition
SC: of the respect due the among Kalingas. RTC ruled that he
- Dwelling is aggravating in offended party on account of was guilty, based on circumstantial
robbery with violence or his RAS may be taken into evidence.
intimidation of persons, account only in crimes
could be committed against persons or honor. Issue: W/N dwelling can be
anywhere, without the - Robbery with homicide is appreciated? YES
necessity of transgressing primarily a crime against
the sanctity of the home property and not against Ratio: SC agrees with
(therefore it’s worse) persons. Homicide is a mere circumstantial evidence, but is not
- Morada is inherent only in incident of the robbery, the
crimes which could be latter being the main convinced that Balansi committed
committed in no other place purpose and object of the murder arising from treachery,
(e.g. trespass, robbery in criminal. evident premeditation, and means
inhabited house) - Only the ACs of nocturnity employed to weaken defense of
- For failure to secure the remains. victim. Not found or cannot be
required number of votes, presumed because there were no
the penalty of death cannot eyewitnesses.
be legally imposed. The - SC affirmed appreciation of
penalty next lower in degree dwelling although the victim
—reclusion perpetua —
should consequently be was not shot in his house
imposed on the accused. (his parents owned it) the
dwelling place need not be
owned by the victim
(sanctity of privacy)
 4: Abuse of Confidence or Obvious Ungratefulness

2 aggravating circumstances. If both present, must be independently appreciated.

- Exception: when they intertwine (e.g. a houseboy was treated like a member of the family, and was
completely trusted, shall be treated as one)

ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
● The confidence must be immediate and personal to give accused some advantage/make it easier to commit
● It is not a mere betrayal of trust since the offended party actually reposed his confidence in the offender.

Requisites for Abuse of Confidence (TAF)

1. The offended party had Trusted the offender
2. The offender Abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party;
3. Abuse of confidence Facilitated the commission of the crime

Abuse of confidence is inherent in (STEM)

1. Qualified Seduction (RPC, Art. 337)
2. Qualified Theft (RPC, Art. 310)
3. Estafa by conversion or misappropriation (RPC, Art. 315)
4. Malversation (RPC, Art. 217)

OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
● Such obvious, clear, and manifest ingratitude on the part of the accused
Requisites for Obvious Ungratefulness (TAO)
1. The offended party had Trusted the offender
2. The offender Abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party
3. The act be committed with Obvious ungratefulness

When Obvious Ungratefulness is Present:

1. When the accused killed his father-in-law in whose house he lived and who partially supported him
2. When the victim was attacked while in the giving the assailants their bread and coffee for breakfast
3. When the accused was living in the house of the victim who employed him, as an overseer and in charge of
carpentry work, and had free access to the house of the victim who was very kind to him, his family, and
who helped him solve his problems
Abuse of Confidence Obvious Ungratefulness

Taking advantage of the confidence reposed by the Commission of a crime instead of being grateful to
victim to facilitate the commission of the crime. the generosities given by the victim to the offender.

Mandolado
Military Men Drunk Killing

Facts: Ortillano, Mandolado, Erinada, and Simon, trainees/draftees of the AFP were passengers of a bus bound for
Midsayap, North Cotabato. Being all in uniform, armed and belonging to the same military outfit, decided to drink
rum, at the said bus terminal. The four hitchiked on a Jeep driven by Tenorio and rode by a passenger Mendoza.
After learning the jeep was not headed to their intended destination, Mondolado started firing his machine gun on
the jeep killing both Mendoza and Tenorio. Ortillano fired his gun on the ground, while Erinada and Simon were
running away to their camp. The two were subsequently arrested, and admitted to the crime. The trial court
sentenced Mandolado to death and Ortillano, as accessory.

Issue: WON the the aggravating circumstances of (1) 'advantage was taken of his being a draftee in the Philippine
Army,' and (2) 'abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness' were properly appreciated by the trial court? [NO]

Ratio: Trial court erred in appreciating the circumstances. On the abuse of confidence, court held there is
absolutely no showing of any personal or immediate relationship upon which confidence might rest between the
victims and the assailants who had just met each other then, Consequently, no confidence and abuse thereof could
have facilitated the crimes.
5: Palace of Chief Executive; Presence, where PAs are engaged in the discharge of their duties; Place
of religious worship
Circumstances
1) The crime is committed in the palace of Chief Executive
2) In his presence
3) Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties
4) In a place dedicated to religious worship

Place Inside the Building Outside the Building

Palace of the President Aggravating even without discharge of executive function or presence of
the President in the Palace

Public authorities are engaged in Aggravating NOT Aggravating

the discharge of their duties
There must be some performance of Note: The aggravating circumstance
Note: Commission in the presence public duties of contempt of public authority
of public authorities who are not shall be appreciated if the crime is
engaged in official functions is NOT Note: An electoral precinct during committed in the presence of a
aggravating election day is a place where public public authority while he is engaged
authorities are engaged in the in the discharge of official duties
discharge of their duties
(NEEDS PERFORMANCE)

Place dedicated to religious worship Aggravating even without NOT Aggravating, even if in the
discharge of religious functions or presence of a priest
Note: Cemeteries are NOT present of the priest in the church
considered as place dedicated to the (PLACE ALONE, AGGRAVATING)
worship of God

Must be dedicated to the public

religious worship; private chapels
are NOT included

6: Nighttime, uninhabited place, by band

3 Aggravating Circumstances
1. [Generic] Nighttime
2. [Generic; Special] In an uninhabited place
3. [Generic; Special] By a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense
**When present in the same case and their element are distinctly palpable and can subsist independently, they shall
be considered separately.

Requisites for Nighttime, Uninhabited Place, or Band (FET)

Note: “Impunity” → to prevent the accused from being recognized or to secure himself against detection and punishment
1. It Facilitated the commission of the crime (objective)
2. Especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
3. The offender Took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity

(1) NIGHTTIME
- Dusk to down; Nights → from sunset to sunrise
- The crime needs to begin and be accomplished at nighttime (if just one, forget it)
- By and of itself, nighttime is not aggravating.
○ It becomes so only when it is especially sought by the offender,
■ or taken advantage by him to facilitate the commission of the crime (Objective test) or
■ to ensure his immunity from capture (Subjective test)
- The darkness of the night and NOT nighttime per se is important

General Rule: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery if it is part of the treacherous means to insure the execution.

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
People v Berdida: SC ruled that “inasmuch as the treachery consisted in the fact that the victim's hands were tied at
the time they were beaten, the circumstance of nighttime is NOT absorbed in treachery, but can be perceived
distinctly therefrom, since the treachery rests upon an independent factual basis.

(2) UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado)

● One where there are no houses at all;
● A place at a considerable distance from town; or
● Where houses are scattered at a great distance from each other

Uninhabited character → determined not by distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime but if there
was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help in the place where the crime was committed

The offenders must choose the place as an aid either:

(1) To an easy and uninterrupted accomplishment of their criminal designs, or
(2) To insure concealment of the offense
Note: It cannot be applied in cases of chance encounters

(3) BAND (cuadrilla)

Definition: Band consists of at least 4 armed malefactors with the intention of carrying out any unlawful design
● Any weapon, by reason of its intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was used, is capable of inflicting
serious or fatal injuries upon the victim may be considered as arms for purposes of the law on cuadrilla
● "Arms" may even refer to stone

NOT aggravating: When armed men met up casually with others and a crime was thereafter committed

Elements of a Band (4AP)

1. There must be at least 4 malefactors
2. At least 4 of them are Armed
3. At least 4 of them took part/acted together in the commission of crime as Principals by direct participation

Conspiracy
● If conspiracy is proved, this aggravating circumstance of cuadrilla can still be appreciated because
conspiracy is NOT an aggravating circumstance, but a means to commit a crime. Cannot absorb.

Brigandage
● Band is inherent in brigandage.
● Cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance
● It is similar to abuse of superior strength whose essence is the utilization of the combined strength of the
assailants to overpower the victim to consummate the offense

Note: Band as a generic aggravating circumstance applies to any crime

● As a qualifying circumstance under Arts. 295 and 296, it applies only to robbery with unnecessary violence
or physical injuries under Art. 263, Pars. 2, 3, and 4 in relation to Art. 294, Pars. 3, 4, and 5.

Garcia Rodas Damaso

Nocturnity (yes), tests Nocturnity (no) Robbery w/ double homicide,
Benefit Dance, Sabado sisters,
Facts: Corazon, the sister of the stabbing, killing uninhabited & band (yes)
deceased, is the lone witness to the Summary
killing of her brother. She went out at People v. Damaso: robbery with double
3AM to fetch her brother after her Facts: Jose Rodas Sr, homicide; People v. Alviar: illegal possession of
husband told her he saw the brother with his sons, armed firearm & ammunition; Jointly hard
drinking with gang members. During with knife, firearm,
her search, she saw her brother being chako, bolo were Facts:
chased/fleeing a group, led by two charged for conspiring - Donata and her son-in-law heard their
people she recognized, Garcia and ang feloniously dogs barking then 2 armed men
Arviso. attacking Titing entered and tied them up.
Asenda, inflicting - Asked where Catalina was. Found her,
They caught up with him and she saw wounds which led to asked Susana was, found her.
her beat him up eventually with one of his death during a - Donata asked son-in-law to check,
them killing him. Benefit dance that had couldn’t be found.
taken place in the - On the same night, Chief of Police and
The trial court found both accused evening. Trial Court, civilians searched for the Sabado
guilty of Murder, with treachery, which was affirmed by sisters and found them dead in a sugar
nocturnity, and superior strength. CA, found that Jose plantation 100 meters away from
Rodas and his son Donata’s house.
Issue: WON nocturnity may be Armando was guilty of - Donata singled out Damaso in a police
considered as an aggravating murder, with line-up.
circumstance in this case. Yes aggravating
 circumstance of Issue: Special complex crime of robbery with
Ratio: nocturnity was correctly nocturnity. double homicide? YES.
assigned, however the crime is just of Ratio:
homicide considering treachery and W/N nocturnity as 1. Robbery: committed.
evident premeditation are not present. aggravating 2. Band
Nocturnity has two tests: circumstance can be - At least 3 were armed.
accepted in this case. - Contention: that Damaso was
Objective: if it facilitated the NO not armed and the other
commission of the crime person was armed with “two
- A group of men were in a Court held no. stones”
drinking spree Although the offense - Assuming the stones aren’t
- One fled, chased by seven. was committed at appreciated, it was proven
- The criminal assault on the night, nocturnity does Damaso was armed.
victim at 3:00 a.m. was invited not become a 3. Treachery: dead with their arms tied
by nocturnal cover, which modifying factor when behind their back.
handicapped the view of the place is 4. Uninhabited place
eyewitnesses and encouraged adequately lighted, - Determined not by distance to
impunity by persuading the which was provided in nearest house but reasonable
malefactors that it would be the testimony that the possibility for victim to receive
difficult to determine their venue was lighted by a help.
identity because of the Petromax, and, thus, - Killing was done during the
darkness and the relative could no longer insure night.
scarcity of people in the streets. the offender’s - Sugarcane was tall enough to
immunity from hide view.
Subjective: if it is sought after by the identification or - Elements of each circumstance subsist
accused capture. independently.
- Failed
(7) Conflagration (Fire), shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other calamity/misfortune CSEE-CM
Reason: During great calamity, instead of lending aid, adds to suffering by taking advantage of misfortune.
Necessary: Offender took advantage of the calamity or misfortune.
- A chaotic condition after the liberation of the PH during the World War counts.
- While a motor failure is a misfortune, it’s not to the level of conflagration, etc.

(8) Aid of armed men/persons who afford impunity Generic, Qualifying

Rule: Mere casual presence of armed men nearby does not count if the defendant did not avail of their aid.
1. ARMED MEN: (def.) Persons equipped with a weapon. Includes armed women.
TAR
1. Armed men took part (as accomplices, if principals they become conspirators) in the commission of
the crime, directly or indirectly
2. That the accused availed of their aid or relied upon them to commit the crime.
- Mere reliance considered; actual aid is not necessary.
- Mere moral or psychological aid or reliance considered.
Exceptions:
1. Attacking party and party attacked were equally armed.
2. Accused and cooperators acted under the same plan and for the same purpose (conspiracy)
Number BAND: At least 4 ARMED MEN: At least 2 (2-3)

Action More than 3 armed malefactors acted together in Present even if 1 of the offenders merely relied on their
the commission of an offense. aid, actual aid is not necessary.
2. PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY
Purposely sought/consciously relied upon persons (no need armed) to secure him from detection and punishment.

(9) Recidivism Generic

Rule/Recidivist: One who, at the time of his trial for one crime, has been previously convicted by final judgment
of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC
TPSC
- Trial for an offense
- Previously convicted by final judgment
- Same title under RPC (e.g. under crimes against persons, under crimes against property)
- Convicted for new offense (recidivism is appreciated here)
- “At the time of his trial for one crime.” From arraignment until after the sentence is announced.
- Pardon no effect, amnesty yes.
- Final when ASWP: (1) after the period of perfecting an appeal, (2) sentence is partially or wholly served,
(3) accused waived in writing his right to appeal, (4) accused applied for probation.
Kinds
Quasi-Recidivi An offender has been previously convicted by final judgment and before/while - Before/while
sm (Sp): serving such sentence, he committed a felony. serving
Art. 160 - 1st crime may be a felony or an offense, but the 2nd MUST be a felony - 2nd must be
- Doesn’t have to be the same felony a felony

Recidivism (G) A person, on separate occasions, is convicted of 2 offenses in the same title. - Both felonies

Reiteracion/ An offender has been previously punished and served the sentence for an - Served (not
Habituality offense serving)
(G) with an equal or greater penalty or for 2 crimes with a lighter penalty

Multi-recidivis A person, within 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the - Does not
crimes of FRETSeI is found guilty of any of the crimes a third time or oftener. apply to
m/Habitual - Does not apply to special penal laws (habitual dangerous drug violater special laws
Delinquency can never be a habitual delinquent) - Falsification,
Robbery, Estafa,
(E) Theft, Serious or
Less Serious
Art. 62(5) Physical Injuries

Rules & Effects

Both offenses were committed on the Considered as only one, hence, they cannot be separately counted in order to constitute recidivism.
same date.

Judgments of conviction handed on the Considered as only one conviction. Code: to be considered as separate convictions, at the time of his
same day. trial for one crime the accused shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of the other.

As a generic aggravating circumstance. Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance, recidivism only affects periods of penalty EXCEPT in
prostitution and vagrancy (Art. 202) and gambling (PD 1602)

Based on the same conviction, the accused Can still be appreciated. But it will affect only the penalty, not to determine the period of the additional
is also a habitual delinquent. penalty for habitual delinquency.

Accused is both a recidivist and a Should be considered a quasi-recidivist since such circumstance cannot be offset by an ordinary
quasi-recidivist on his subsequent mitigating circumstance, which is an appropriate response to the perversity exhibited by the accused.
conviction.
Baldera: Bus hold up on Dec 23, theft on Dec 30, convicted for theft, convicted for bus—but 2nd conviction was for an
offense committed before the 1st conviction
- Baldera was found guilty for robbery in band with homicide by the CFI. Casa Manila bus was held up on the highway by a
group of 5/6 armed men including Baldera, armed with a .45 caliber pistol and shot leading to several shots fired. Several
passengers were wounded. When the firing ceased, Baldera got on the bus and threatened passengers at gunpoint, collecting money. 1
passenger later died from his wounds. There was an investigation and Baldera even confessed. He was also positively identified
by a woman passenger. Baldera was sentenced to death. This case is before the SC. Prosecution presents that after the Bus crime,
Baldera was arrested for the theft of a radio with his features matching the description by highway men during the bus hold-up.
- Issue: Did the lower court err in appreciating the AC of recidivism? YES.
- Band is affirmed, as confessed by Baldera himself that there were more than 3 armed men (not material in robbery with homicide).
- Lower court ERRED in appreciating recidivism because of his previous conviction for theft.
- Bus-hold up took place DECEMBER 23. The theft occurred on DECEMBER 30.No recidivism if the second conviction
(robbery with homicide) is for an offense committed before the offense of the first conviction (theft)

(10) Reiteracion
The offender has been previously punished for an offense with an equal or greater penalty OR for 2 or more crimes with lighter penalties.
TPC
- Trial for an offense
- Previously convicted (equal or greater/2 or more crimes with lighter)
- Convicted of the new offense
No reiteracion if STILL serving. Provides that the accused SERVED the sentence (therefore cannot be concurrent with quasi-recidivism).If the
same facts constitute recidivism AND reiteration, RECIDIVISM.
Reiteracion Recidivism Habitual Delinquency Recidivism

First Shall have served Enough that a final Crime FRETSEI In the RPC
offense its sentence judgment was rendered Committed

Kind of Must not be in Must be in the same title Period of Guilty within 10 years No period of time
offense the same title Time

Aggravat Not always Always taken into Number 3rd time or oftener Second conviction is sufficient
ing aggravating consideration

Effects Additional penalty Not offset by mitigating

circumstance, only increases
penalty to maximum

Melendrez Robbery after being convicted of estafa & theft

Melendrez was found guilty of robbery, after breaking into the store of Tin Bun Boc and stealing his personal properties. The
lower court ruled he is guilty and sentenced an additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent. He was previously convicted
twice by final judgment for theft and once for estafa a year before this case.

W/N recidivism should be still be taken into account regardless of Melendrez’s habitual delinquency - YES
- Based on the RPC, recidivism should be considered in imposing the penalty, regardless if the defendant is also classified
as a habitual delinquent who will suffer an additional penalty.
- J. Abad Santos: recidivism is already an inherent element of habitual delinquency, thus, no need to consider recidivism.

(11) Price, reward, or promise (G, Q)

- Price, reward, promise must be the PRIMARY REASON for the commission
- Must be 2 or more principles—the offerer and the receiver. When present, affects BOTH the persons.
- If there is no offer before but was given voluntarily after, NOT APPRECIATED
- The price, reward, promise does not need to be material things or that it was actually delivered. ENOUGH that the offer was made by
inducement and be accepted before the commission of the offense.
- EFFECT
- GENERAL (?): Only the liability of the receiver is affected.
- QUALIFYING: BOTH liabilities are affected.

(12) IFPESDA (G, Q)

(Inundation, Fire, Poison, Explosion, Stranding/Intentional Damage of a Vessel, Derailment of locomotive, Artifice involving great ruing and waste)
- When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be generic
aggravating. (again the rule is: 1 qualifying, the other becomes generic)
- 12: GREAT WASTE or RUIN, 7: CALAMITY or MISFORTUNE
- As qualifying
- Fire, Explosion, Derailment of locomotive may be part of the definition of a particular crime (arson, destruction, damages
and obstruction to means of communication)—do not increase penalty.
- Use of Fire
- Simple Arson: Main objective is the burning but death is caused
- Murder: Qualified by means of fire; Main objective is to kill (perhaps a person in a building), fire as a means
- Homicide/Murder AND arson: Main objective is to kill, and has done so, but uses fire to cover it up
- RA 8294: When a person commits any of the crime in the RPC with the use of explosives which results in the death of any person/s,
shall be considered an aggravating circumstance.
 (13) Evident Premeditation
Essence: the execution of the criminal act is 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. Necessary that accused underwent cold and deep meditation.
TAS
1. Time when offender determined to commit the crime (ESSENTIAL, because lapse of time is used in 3rd requisite)
2. Act indicating accused clung to his determination (Essence: shows that during the intervening period, did not back out)
3. Sufficient interval between determination and execution, allowing reflection and his conscience to overcome him (but mere lapse of
time is insufficient)
Object of Premeditation
- Important the victim killed is the person who the accused premeditated to kill
- NOT required that he planned to kill a particular person so long as he premeditated to kill anyone
- ERROR IN PERSONAE: Only one victim. Not appreciated.
- ABERRATIO ICTUS: Two victims. Will not be appreciated with the third person since he is not the object of premeditation.
- CONSPIRACY: Express Conspiracy gives rise to disputable presumption of premeditation. Implied Conspiracy would not establish any
of the elements of premeditation.
Evident premeditation as INHERENT
1. Preconceived Act (Robbery, Theft, Estafa)
2. Robbery with Homicide
- Inherent if only the robbery was premeditated and killing was incidental
- Appreciated IF both robbery and killing were premeditated
3. Treason (giving aid and comfort requires persistent determination)

Manalinde Moro man kills Ilaoa Tricycle Bloodstains Bibat Deathnote

Manalinde (a Moro) injured a Ruben was drinking with the Bibat was convicted for the Murder of Lloyd. A
Spaniard and a Chinaman in deceased Nestor. Later, he was heard witness claimed seeing accused speak with
Cotabato with a kris, resulting in arguing with Nestor, and mauled and someone who told him “he’s there” “Siguruhin
the death of the Chinaman. Upon kicked him with the help of their mo lang na itumba mo na.” As the victim was
arrest, Manalinde confessed his going out a gate, the accused hurried towards
wife had died 100 days before and companions. Ruben dragged Nestor him and took a pointed object from a notebook
he was ordered by a Datto to go inside his apartment. Ruben and stabbed him twice. Upon hearing his cries
juramentado to kill somebody in borrowed a tricycle on the pretext that for help, the accused returned and stabbed him
Cotabato, and if successful, he a neighbor was about to give birth. again. Robles, a witness, later testified that
would be given a pretty woman. He was seen driving the tricycle before the incident, he was told about a rumble
alone with a sack. The tricycle was in school where somebody died and the group of
Is there EP? YES. returned with bloodstains on the the Bibat was planning to take revenge.
floor. They were charged with
The circumstances of promise and murder. Is there EP? YES
evident premeditation are present
(both generic because treachery Is there EP? NO - Robles: aware Bibat and co. were armed
already qualifies the crime). and understandably hesitated to testify.
Evident premeditation: Guilty of homicide only, as there was But even without this, there is EP.
● Accepted the offer no showing that the killing was a - 11:30AM: Nona saw accused with co.
● Provided himself with a result of meditation, calculation, or and heard the plan to kill someone.
kris, which he concealed in resolution. (Also no ASS or Cruelty). 1:30PM: Nona saw accused hurry
banana leaves towards the victim, taking a pointed
● Traveled a day and a night Instead, the evidence shows that the thing from a notebook and stabbing
from his home to him on the chest.
Cotabato; sole purpose to series of circumstances leading to the
These overt acts showed he clung to his
kill killing constitutes an unbroken chain determination. In the 2 hours from the time
● No specified target does of events with no interval of time appellant clung to his determination to the
not bar premeditation. separating them for calculation and actual killing, there was a sufficient lapse of time
● Not inherent in promise. meditation. for accused to reflect.

14: Craft, Fraud, Disguise (S, Q)

Fine distinctions not called for bc variants of means to deceive. If all are present, single aggravating circumstance.
● CRAFT: Involves intellectual trickery in carrying out criminal design to not arouse suspicion of victim
- C&F are characterized by intellectual/mental rather than physical means to carry out design.
- C&F may be absorbed in treachery IF they were deliberately adopted as its means.
- Present when A asked permission from B to go home early and was made to believe so. Later
opened the door and was killed by A and friends
● FRAUD: Insidious words as direct inducement for victim to act in a way enabling the offender to carry out
- Inherent in estafa.
- Present when A took his stepdaughter and told her she was to be taken to her godmother’s house
when she was taken to another and raped.
● DISGUISE: Resorted to any device to conceal identity.
- Test: WN device resorted to was intended to make identification difficult.
- Present when A used a mask to conceal his identity to perpetrate robbery.

Empacis Store stabbing

Victim Fidel, was about to close his store when Maldo and Empacis came to buy sardines and rice. After eating,
Maldo told Fidel to sell him cigarettes. After Fidel hands them over, Maldo said “hold-up” and commanded Fidel to
give up his money. A struggle ensued, where Maldo stabbed Fidel thrice. Empacis joined in and stabbed Fidel.
Fidel’s son defended his father with a long bolo. They fled. Fidel died. /// Trial Court found Empacis guilty of
robbery with homicide. 4 ACs were appreciated, including craft or fraud. The SC held there was craft or fraud, as
Empacis pretended to be a bona fide customer and gained entry as such.
 (15) Taking advantage of superior strength, or means employed to weaken the defense (S. Q)
1. ASS
- Present whenever there is notorious inequality between the victim and aggressor, where aggressor
purposely/with deliberate intent sought the advantage.
- Depends on the ASS age, size, strength of the parties.
- 2 attackers does not necessarily establish ASS without proof of relative strength.
- An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon on an unarmed and defenseless woman counts
(sex, weapon, unable to defend herself).
- Victim is old and weak, accused is stronger due to his age.
● Inherent in parricide and rape (inherent when husband kills; rape: gen. acc. man rapes woman)
● Absorbs Cuadrilla/Band (band not separate, have same essence to utilize combined strength)
● Absorbed by Treachery
2. MEWD
- Only applicable to crimes against persons, and sometimes against person & property (robbery with
homicide or physical injuries)
- Suddenly throws cloak over head/throws sand in eyes and then wounds/kills him
- intoxicated him to kill him (if shown that resistance was impossible, treachery can be considered)

Bigcas Bolo and wood in altercation

Bigcas and Butron were found guilty for killing Palapar with ASS. Defense claims that Palapar arrived at the store
where Bigcas and Butron were and drank with them. Palapar became increasingly aggressive and challenged
everyone to fight, and this was reported to the police. Only after 15 minutes, as instructed by the police, did Bigcas
and Butron leave with their companions. Eyewitnesses claim seeing Bigcas, Butron, and Palapar in an altercation.
They saw Butron strike Palapar on his back. Palapar was chased by Bigcas and stabbed by him. Palapar died.

Self-defense: Not appreciated. Butron admitted taking the alleged weapon away from Palapar. U had ceased.
ASS: Not appreciated.
- Cannot determine/deduce based on the events prior
- Palapar was ordered by the police to leave the store first so the parties would not encounter each other.
Thus, it can’t be said that appellants anticipated Palapar’s attack and therefore took advantage of their
combined strength.
- For ASS to be considered, accused must have intended to use advantage superior strength.

(16) Treachery (alevosia)(Sic, Q)

An offender commits a crime against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution which tend directly and specially to insure
its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
Essence: sudden, unexpected, unforeseen attack without the slightest provocation.
Rules:
● ONLY in crimes against persons (HARDPIMP) (but it was appreciated in robbery with homicide)
● Means, methods, and forms need not insure accomplishment
- Sufficient that it was meant to insure the execution
● Mode of attack must be consciously adopted
NoCo
1. No opportunity to defend/retaliate due to the means of execution
- A struggle beforehand forewarns party, offering opportunity of defense
2. Consciously adopted the means of execution
- No treachery if attack is an impulse due to passion
- Passion or obfuscation, offender loses reason and self control. Treachery, consciously adopted.
Treachery can also be appreciated if offender took advantage of defenseless condition
- There is always treachery for minor children; tender age, not expected to put up defense
- Mere fact that back was turned will not constitute treachery; mode of attack must be consciously adopted
with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to fight back or retreat
- Mere suddennes does not constitute treachery even if purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made
all of a sudden and helpless condition was accidental (not always that it’s sudden or unexpected, there’s
treachery)
Frontal attack does not rule out treachery
- Appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so unexpected that deceased had no time to prepare defense
Presence of treachery and stage of attack
● Attack is continuous + fatal wound inflicted at final stage = T must be present at the beginning of attack
● Attack is not continuous + fatal wound was at final stage = T must be present at the final stage
Continuous: no break or intervention. No appreciable time intervening first attack and final attack.
AEP:
- W/N attack succeeds against intended or another (A/E) W/N crime is graver than intended is immaterial.
So long as it is proven that the attack is attended by treachery, it is considered.
Treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance
- Should not qualify Special Complex Crime of Robbery with Homicide to murder.
 - Rule: Treachery will be considered a generic aggravating circumstance, robbery with homicide is a
composite crime with its own definition and penalty in the RPC.
- Special complex crime: 2 or more crimes treated as a single indivisible crime from 1 intent
- Treachery cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance if it is already a qualifying circumstance.
Absorbs CAN-ACE; necessarily included in treachery
- Craft (except when craft was not employed to make treachery effective), ASS, Nighttime, Aid of Armed Men,
Cuadrilla, MEWD
v. Evident Premeditation
- EP: cool thought and reflection
- Treachery: unexpectedness of attack upon the unsuspecting and unarmed victim w/out provocation

Sangalang coconut shot San Pedro (1980) Jeep, craft not Castillo pubhouse killing
absorbed Castillo is charged for the murder of Tony.
Ricardo left his nipa hut to gather Tony was saying goodbye to one of the
tuba from a coconut tree where he San Pedro et al. were charged with the witnesses on his way out a pubhouse. When
was shot 23 times by 5 armed men. crime of robbery with homicide for the accused suddenly arrived and stabbed
His wife Flora and her brother killing Rivera. Banasihan confessed that him on his chest. Another witness claimed
witnessed the shooting and he and his co-accused planned to get the seeing accused walking away and wrapping
identified the men including jeep of Rivea, and hired his jeep on the a bladed weapon.
Sangalang. Sangalang was pretext of hauling coconuts. San Pedro
convicted of murder, to which he told Rivera to stop when they reached a The trial court found accused GUILTY and
defended himself with an alibi that river, where one of them hit Rivera at the gave full credence to the positive
a day before, he went away and only nape with a water pipe. Rivera tried to identification of the two witnesses. They
arrived on the evening of the escape but was chased and stabbed by the appreciated ASS and considered that
incident. group. treachery WAS ABSORBED by ASS
Was there treachery? YES Is craft absorbed by treachery - NO ISSUE: W/N There was treachery? YES.
Because it wasn’t employed to make
The deliberate surprise attack treachery more effective, but to facilitate Court disagrees that there was ASS. Not
shows Sangalang and his the taking of the jeep in the robbery proven that there was a difference in the
companions employed a mode of scheme. Also, treachery is applicable only stature and build of the victim and accused.
execution which insured the killing to crimes against persons. (luring a victim
without any risk to them arising to another barrio, craft is absorbed by But the killing was qualified by treachery.
from any defense which the victim treachery) The accused appeared from nowhere and
could have made. swiftly and unexpectedly stabbed the victim
- Shot while he was Is the single aggravating circumstance of as he was bidding goodbye to his friend.
gathering tuba on top of a treachery offset by the mitigating This made it difficult for the victim to
coconut tree; Unarmed circumstance of lack of instruction - NO defend himself. The presence of "defense
and defenseless LOI NOT applicable to crimes of theft, wounds" does not negate treachery because
- Not expecting to be robbery, homicide because they are the first stab already rendered him
assaulted wrongful acts by their nature and are defenseless.
- No provocation known to be as such, even by the ignorant.

Arizobal (2000) Robbed 2, Guzman Stabbed on the way home Villonez Even if forewarned, if
father & son defenseless
After attending a worship service at the
Arizobal & Lignes are charged with INC church, Michael walked home. A close friend of Gerardo was told that
Robbery in Band with Homicide. Guzman and his two companions, who Gerardo was in a fistfight. Coming to his
The victims’ wives positively were drinking nearby, suddenly defense, he passed through 7 armed men
identified both accused. approached Michael. Guzman was at
Michael’s back while his companions were and was hit on the forehead with a bottle.
in front.. In an instant, they grabbed the He escaped and ran past Gerardo. He saw
Is treachery present; they tied the
victims’ hands before killing - NO shoulders of Michael and overpowered the group get hit by wood, bottles, stabbed,
him. One companion repeatedly stabbed and his arms held behind him. Incident was
The crime is a special complex Michael on the stomach. The other illuminated by a fluorescent lamp. Gerardo
crime which is classified as a crime companion took the knife and stabbed died. The trial Court found Villonez, etc.
against property, and not against Michael on the stomach. Lastly, Guzman guilty of the murder of Gerardo. But they
persons, homicide being merely an went in front of Michael, took the knife, ruled out treachery because Gerardo was
incident of robbery, as robbery was and stabbed Michael on the stomach. engaged in a fistfight before the fatal act,
the primary object of the criminals. Lower courts ruled murder with treachery.
warning him of the assault.
WON Treachery is counted in this
circumstance when the crime happened in Is there treachery? YES
a publicly well-lit place — YES
Trial court erred in not appreciating
Treachery is about the sudden and treachery because the victim was engaged in
unexpected attack under the a fight before the killing and was thus
circumstances that renders the victim forwarned.
unable and unprepared to defend himself - Treachery can be appreciated even
by reason of the suddenness and severity
of the attack. It is an aggravating when the victim was forewarned.
circumstance that qualifies the killing of a - What is decisive: the execution of
person to murder. Guzman and his the attack rendering victim
comapnions took advantage of their size, defenseless.
number, and weapon in killing Michael. - Overwhelming # of accused, their
use of weapons, the fact that his
hands were behind his back
precluded defense.
 Escote (2003) bus robbery, retroactive

Escota and Acuyan robbed a bus and killed Manio Jr., a police officer. A month later, Escota was stopped at a checkpoint. Hh
showed the ID of Manio Jr. but because it expired, he was asked to come to the police station where admitted to the crime prior.
Acuyan was also arrested. During the trial, Escota escaped while Acuyan denied the charge. Lower found them guilty of RWH.

Is treachery present? YES, BUT.

Escota and Acuyan are guilty of RWH. Court agrees that there was treachery.
- There is treachery even if the victim knew the danger to his life, provided he was defenseless.
- They suddenly started firing, they got Manio’s gun, etc.
- This court previously ruled (San Pedro) that RWH is a crime against property and thus treachery should not be
appreciated. This is supported by case law determining that homicide is merely incidental to the robbery, with robbery
being the main purpose and object of the criminal.
- However, this court ruled in Cando that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in RWH when the victim of
homicide is killed with treachery.
- Treachery as a GAC to RWH — the law views the homicide and not the robbery. Treachery is applied to the homicide
and not the robbery. RWH remains a crime against property and a special complex and single and indivisible crime.
Treachery merely increases the penalty absent any generic mitigating circumstance.
- Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed by
treachery.
In any case, treachery was not alleged in the information. The new rule is retroactive. But in awarding damages, treachery was
considered since the retroactive application should not impair the right of the heirs to exemplary damages which had accrued
upon commission.

(17) Ignominy (Specific, Inherent)

SPECIFIC (RATIC; classes of crimes, treated like generic in that they can be offset by mitigating)
SPECIAL (CUTE-Q, cannot be offset)
- “Which add ignominy to the natural effects” — Adds disgrace to the material injury
- Make the effects of the crime more humiliating, puts victim to shame, adds to moral suffering
- Carmina: no ignominy when victim is dead.
- Applies to CLCMR
- Crimes against Chastity, Less serious physical injuries, coercion, Murder, Rape
- Includes:
- Rape on occasion of RWH
- Sexual or physical violence in front of child (RA 9262; special)
- Ordering victim to exhibit nakedness before being raped
- Unnatural way of rape; doggy-style
- Inherent in rape
- Specific to crimes against chastity

Torriefel Jose Butler

genital coron grass Actress was raped by 4 men Outrage at corpse; anus not closed

Torrefiel and Ormeo (guerillas of the Actress Maggie was abducted and Butler is charged with the murder of
USAFFE) stopped at the house of raped by 4 men at the Swanky victim Gina. Gina’s housemaid found
Eady and Ceferina to ask for khaki Hotel. One night, she was driving her lying face down on her bed, naked
clothes. But Eady explained they had home when her car collided with up to the waist, legs spread apart, and
none, and the two were scolded by the car of the 4 accused. They a broken figure of Jesus Christ beside
Ceferina. Torrefiel became angry at abducted her and brought her to her head. According to Butler he had
the accusation and threatened the Swanky Hotel. She was ordered sex with Gina and the next morning,
Cordero. They accused Eady and to disrobe and was asked twice or they fought over his missing 5-peso
Cordero of being fifth columnists thrice to turn around. The 4 men note. This led to a fight and him
and wanted to bring them to their took turns in hitting and raping hitting her on the head. Upon medical
headquarters for investigation. As her. examination, it was determined that
they were on route to the Gina died due to suffocation and that
headquarters, Eady escaped. Is there ignominy? YES anal intercourse happened AFTER she
However, Torrefiel after winding died, indicated by her partly opened
cogon grass around his genital Appellants ordered the anus and the presence of sperm
organ, raped her. Afterwards, complainant to exhibit to them her (when alive, anus auto closes).
Ormeo, taking advantage of the fact complete nakedness for about 10
that she could not get up also had minutes, before raping her, Butler was found guilty of murder,
sexual intercourse with her. making the crime more qualified by ASS (Y), treachery (N),
humiliating. and outraging at the corpse (Y)
Is there ignominy? YES
Jose, Pineda, and Aquino were W/N there was ignominy? YES.
The novelty of the manner in which guilty of a complex crime of
the appellant raped the offended forcible abduction with rape. Each SC held that Butler clearly mocked
party by winding coron grass are also convicted of 3 other and outraged Gina’s corpse by having
around his genital organ augmented crimes of rape. anal intercourse with her after she
the wrong done by increasings its was dead. Outraging the corpse is a
pain and by adding ignominy qualifying AC = murder.
 Saylan (1984) Sultan (2000)
Doggy style Alleyway Hold-up

Agno (married school teacher) went Bautista was passing a dark-alley

to a public market and fetched her on her way home. She was held-up
daughter. On their way home on a by Sultan with a sharp object
jeepney, she noticed Saylan. It was pointed to her neck. He brought
6:30PM when they got off and her to a house along the alley, took
walked to Barrio Malinao (3km her belongings and raped her
away). The group of passengers split twice. Bautista reported this to her
where Saylang joined Agno’s group sibling (police officer). They set a
and later took out a dagger and told “planned elopement” trap for the
her not to shout or he would kill her. accused. Once caught, filed for
Saylan pointed the dagger to her special complex crime of
chest and dragged her away and told Robberyw/Rape
the children to stay back. Saylan
ordered Agno to remove her Ignominy is appreciated? NO. No
underwear and lay down on the ACs at all.
ground and proceeded to rape her 5
times. Salyan did not deny having Intimidation was sufficient to
sexual intercourse but said it was make her submit herself. There
with consent. are cases where multiplicity of
rape is considerd. Then there are
Is there ignominy? YES. cases where it’s considered. And
definitively in Regala, Court held
In raping her, did not just use that additional rapes should not be
missionary but doggy style. appreciated as AC despite
"anomalous situation" where
Superiority (Y) Nocturnity (Y) robbery with rape would be on the
Despoblado (Y) Reiteración (N, first same level as robbery with
was Robber in Band after the rape, multiple rapes. There is no law
other was Frustrated Homicide n providing for the additional rape/s
lighter than Rape) or homicide/s such to be
considered as ACs.

(18) Unlawful Entry (G)

When an entrance (not for escape) is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
Basis: Not respecting the walls guarding property and providing personal safety
Inherent
1. Robbery with use of force upon things
2. Trespass to dwelling
Unlawful entry and dwelling separate
- UE: means or way crime is committed
- Dwelling: place crime was committed
- D: Accused gained access to dwelling by climbing through window and once inside, murdered ppl.

(19) Breaking of wall, roof, floor, door, or window (WARD FLoW) as a means
- Breaking must be means to commit the crime.
- Not necessary that they actually entered. What is aggravating is the BREAKING of part of the building
● Breaking of WARDFLOW: Involves the breaking of enumerated parts of the house
- Considered: offender broke a window to reach inside to get a purpose while body was outside.
● Unlawful entry: Presupposes no breaking
Lawful: Officer makes an arrest (warranted or unwarranted, latter under conditinos) and after announcing purpose
and authority and is refused admittance. May break open door or window or any part to execute a warrant.

(20) Aid of persons under 15 years old, use of motor vehicles, airships, other similar means
1. With the aid of persons under 15 years of age
- To repress the practice of professional criminals taking advantage of minors for their
irresponsibility
- Educating a minor how to commit a crime
2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, other similar means
- Purposely and deliberately used motor vehicle in: going to place of crime, carrying away the effects,
and facilitating escape
- NOT APPRECIATED: motor vehicle used only in facilitating escape or just incidental
- Similar means: motorized vehicles, efficient means of transportation similar to automob or plane
 (21) Cruelty (Sic, Q)
Culprit enjoys and delights making victim suffer slowly and gradually causing unnecessary physical pain.

D-Un
1. Injury caused be deliberately increased by the other wrong
2. Other wrong is unnecessary to execute the purpose of offender
Requires deliberate proloingation of suffering
If the victim is already dead, this would qualify the killing due to outraging of his corpse NOT cruelty.
- There must be positive proof that wounds were inflicted while still alive.
- Number of wounds does not alone show cruelty.
- Test: Accused deliberately and sadistically augmented victim’s suffering

● Cruelty v. Ignominy
○ Cruelty: PHYSICAL suffering (e.g. burning face of victim)
○ Ignominy: MORAL suffering
● Cruelty v. Treachery
○ Cruelty: NOT NECESSARY, INTENT is to to prolong physical suffering
○ Treachery: NECESSARY, INTENT is to render defenseless to insure the commission of the crime
● Outraging/Scoffing at the person of the victim/his corpse
○ Qualifying: victim must already be dead

SIDI (Aggravating Circumstances under Special Laws)

Organized or Syndicated Crime Group
A group of 2 or more collaborating, confederating, and mutually helping one another for the purpose of gain in
the commission of any crime
● TERI (Theft, Estafa, Robbery, Illegal Recruitment)
● Not aggravating in HMRP (Homicide, Murder, Rape, Physical Injuries — no intent to gain)
● Owner, Driver, or Passenger of a carnapped vehicle who is Raped or Killed = penalty of life imprisonment
- Special (CUTE-Q)

Use of Illegal firearms or explosives (RA 10591)

● Use of loose firearm, when inherent in a felony or offense, shall be considered an aggravating circumstance
(Special Aggravating; CUTE-Q)
● In the commission of brigandage
- Special when inherent in the crime (by virtue of RA 10591)
- Special (?) in the commission of brigandage

Ladjaalam Celino v. Court of Appeals

30-Police Raid, Unlicensed M14 XXX

30 members of the Zamboanga City Police Celino was accused of having in his possession an
conducted a police raid on residence Ladjaalam . unlicensed assault rifle during the election period, without
Before approaching the main gate, bystanders having proper authority from COMELEC. Two informations
shouted “Police Raid!”. The policemen were met by a were filed against him: for violation of the gun ban
rapid burst of gunfire from the 2nd floor, where (elections) and for illegal possession of firearm. Though
Ladjaalam was firing a gun. Upon reaching the 2nd Celino pleaded NOT GUILTY as to the gun ban charge, he
floor, one policeman saw an M14 rifle, which was filed a MtQ for the illegal possession of firearm charge – his
was unlicensed. Ladjaalam was found guilty of theory was that prosecution under ANY crime barred
“Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition”. For prosecution for illegal possession of firearm. The RTC
firing at the members of the police who had a search denied the MtQ, and the CA denied the petition for
warrant, Ladjaalam was found guilty of Direct certiorari filed by Celino assailing the denial of the MtQ.
Assault with Attempted Homicide.
Celino:
Is there illegal possession of firearm? No. Not a - Ladjaalam: “ accused can be convicted of simple
separate offense if there is another crime committed illegal possession of firearms, provided that ‘no
other crime was committed by the person arrested.’”
Not guilty of illegal posession, and cannot aggravate Solgen
the direct assault. - Margarejo: SC affirmed the denial of a MtQ
information for illegal possession OTG that “the
Section 1 of RA 8294, amending PD 1866: other offense charged (violation of gun ban) is NOT
● “Unlawfully… possess any low powered firearm one of those enumerated under RA 8294.”
(worse penalty)… Provided, no other crime was
committed.” SC: Relian on Ladjaalam MISPLACED.
● “If firearm is classified as a high powered firearm
 (less penalty)... Provided, however, That no other - Ladjaalam: exonerated of illegal possession of
crime was committed by the person arrested. firearms bc of commission – AS SHOWN BY HIS
● “If homicide/murder is committed with the use of CONVICTION – of another crime.
an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed - CASE AT BAR: the proviso does NOT yet apply
firearm, shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.”
because Celino had only been accused of
committing a violation of the COMELEC gun ban –
If an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of accusation is NOT synonymous with guilt.
any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple - What bars prosecution for illegal possession of
illegal possession of firearms. firearm is conviction/confession for any other
crime.
Since direct assault with multiple attempted When the other offense involved is one of those enumerated under
homicide was committed in this case, appellant can R.A. 8294, any information for illegal possession of firearm should
no longer be held liable for illegal possession of be quashed because the illegal possession of firearm would have to
firearms. be tried together with such other offense, either considered as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, or absorbed as
Appellant is only guilty of (1) Direct Assault and an element of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup
Multiple Attempted Homicide with the use of a d'etat. Conversely, when the other offense involved is not one of
weapon; and (2) Maintaining a Drug Den. those enumerated under R.A. 8294, then the separate case for
illegal possession of firearm should continue to be prosecuted.

Dangerous drugs while committing a felony (Sec. 25 of RA 9165)

Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs – Notwithstanding the
provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by
an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.
- Qualifying Circumstance

Use of information and communication technologies in committing a felony (Sec. 6 of RA. 10175)
Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the RPC Code, as amended, and special laws, if committed by, through and with the use of information and
communications technologies shall be covered by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than
that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
- Felonies and offenses committed through and with information and communications technologies =
impose 1 degree higher than what’s provided in the RPC or special laws.
 Article 15: Alternative Circumstances

Alternative Circumstances: taken into consideration as aggravating OR mitigating according to the NATURE and EFFECTS of the
CRIME and the OTHER CONDITIONS affectings its COMMISSION.

Relationship Intoxication Degree of Instruction

When offended party is SADLA:
Spouse, Ascend, Descend, Legitimate/Natural/Adoptive Brother or Sister, Generally
and relative by Affinity in the same degree Miti Agg
Miti Agg
Relatives by Affinity: in-laws, step-parents, step-child, spouse of Not habitual Habitual OR
offender’s Ascen, Descen, and Bro/Sis. Low degree High Degree
Unintentional Intentional;
Common Relationship: not included. But, included under Art ; Not subsequent to
332 as exempting in TSMM. MERE ILLITERACY is NOT a
subsequent to plan, as mitigating circumstance. There
- Common-law between mother and the offender of the the plan to stimulant to
minor rape victim is qualifying must be a LACK OF
commit felony commit or to INTELLIGENCE.
suffocate
Adoptive Relationship: Limited to the adopting parent and remorse
child. Relationship will NOT be considered if offender is the father General Rule: Lack of sufficient
of the victim’s adoptive mother (lolo) Meaning if in habitual, if education is a mitigating
. intentional, will be aggravating circumstance.

Crimes Against Property Habitual Drunkard: one given Exception: Not mitigating, but not
to intoxication by excessive use of aggravating either: PC-TRM
Mitigating: RUFA Exempting: TEM intoxicating drinks. Habit should 1. Against Property
● Robbery ● Theft be actual and confirmed. Not (SUCC-MM-BRAT)
● Usurpation ● Estafa needed to be daily occurrence. 2. Against Chastity
● Fraudulent Insolvency ● Malicious Mischief 3. Treason - love of country
● Arson All IF offender and offended live should be natural in citizens
together 4. Rape
5. Murder/Homicide - to kill is
forbidden by natural law
Crimes Against Persons
McMann (I) San Pedro (D)
Drunk US soliders, habitual Jeep driver killed
Miti: Agg: GHSMR drunkard bc he drinks to get drunk
● Less grave felony or ● Grave felony OR Victim is of San Pedro et al. were charged with
light felony AND higher or equal level of McMann and McKay were drunk the crime of RWH for killing
● Victim is a relative of offender U.S. soldiers. They were asking for Rivera. Banasihan confessed he
lower degree ● Serious physical injuries a matchstick from a Moro who and co-accused planned to get
committed against il/legit would not allow them in his home. Rivera’s jeep, and hired it on the
child or legit descendant(But Irritated, they held their revolvers. pretext of hauling coconuts. San
different from excessive Pedro told Rivera to stop when
While McMann left for a bit, they reached a river, where one of
chastisement between parent them hit Rivera at the nape with a
on his child) McKay was left with the Moro
person and was standing close to water pipe. Rivera tried to escape
● Homicide or murder, each other. Then suddenly, but was chased and stabbed.
regardless of degree McMann fired his revolver and hit
● Rape: if step/father raped McKay behind the head, McKay Is the single agg circ of treachery
step/daughter instantly died. offset by the mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction
The Moro tried running away but - NO
was shot; he somehow survived.
Crimes Against Chastity Upon trial, McMann reasoned that Lack of instruction is NOT
he intended to kill the Moro, not applicable to crimes of theft,
Inherent in: parricide, adultery, concubinage McKay, and that his drunkenness robbery, homicide because they
at the time should not be held are wrongful acts by their nature
When qualification is derived from relationship between and are known to be such, even by
offender/offended, neither M or A because inseparable/inherent against him because it was not
intentional to the crime. ignorants

Acts of Lasciviousness: Always Agg, regardless if offender is The trial court held that the Court considered that Banasihan
higher/lower degree defendant was drunk at the time was a merchant. His argument
the act was committed, held also that he cannot read or write was
Atop that drunkenness was habitual. not tenable.
● Regina is the granddaughter of Trinidad and the accused
Atop is the common law husband of Trinidad. He is WON defendant’s intoxication
should be considered as Lack of instruction is not mere
accused for committing 3 counts of rape. aggravating since he was a habitual illiteracy but the lack of sufficient
● RTC ruled that nighttime and relationship aggravated all drunkard — YES intelligence and knowledge of
the three incidents of rape. one’s acts. In the case, the
The Court held that a habitual appellant alleged that he could not
W/N the aggravating circumstance of relationship should be drunkard is someone who, read or write. However, the court
appreciated considering that Atop is only a common-law husband of whenever he drinks liquor, gets to held that since the appellant was a
Trinidad – NO the point of drunkenness. It does merchant, the alternative
not matter whether the person is circumstance of degree of
Relationship does not include common-law relationships. sober for weeks and only
occasionally drinks. What is instruction could not be
habitual is that every time the appreciated because the criteria
The law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by person drinks, he gets drunk. for lack of instruction is not
common-law relations. Here, there is no blood relationship or legal illiteracy alone, but the lack of
bond that links the appellant to his victim. sufficient intelligence.

Thus, the modifying circumstance of relationship cannot be

considered .
 Article 16: Persons Criminally Liable

For grave and Rule: Light felonies are only Classification of criminals is applicable to Special Laws only if they provide the same
less grave punishable when graduated penalties.
felonies consummated.
1. Principals Ex. Intriguing Rule: When a crime is committed by many without being equally shared, a different
2. Accomplice against honor degree of responsibility is imposed.
3. Accessories Exception: Light felonies Exception: Conspiracy
For light felonies against persons or property
1. Principals are punishable even when Two parties in all crimes:
2. Accomplice attempted or frustrated. [1] Active subject
Ex. Theft - The criminal, only natural persons
Exception to the exception: - Can’t be juridical because: no personal malice, no willful purpose, cannot be
Accessories are not liable for jailed (so only officers/agents of corpo liable)
light felonies (social wrong and - Exception: special laws (Corpo Code, Public Service Law, Securities Law, Elec
indiv prejudice is so small that Code)
penal sanction is unnecessary) [2] Passive subject
- De minimis non - Holder of injured right (can be juridical,)
curat lex - General rule: corpses and animals cannot be passive subjects
- Exceptions: Article 353 for defamation of dead, writ of kalikasan

Article 17: Principals

● Direct Participation = Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act
● Inducement = Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
● Indispensable cooperation = Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.

[DIRECT PARTICIPATION]
Actually perform acts necessary to the commission of the offense

REQUISITES to be co-principals by direct participation:

[1] Participated in the criminal resolution
- 2 or more participated in the criminal resolution when they were in conspiracy

[2] Carried out the plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end
- If 2nd lacking → ONLY conspiracy
- And if the crime they agreed and decided is NOT TRS → NOT criminally liable

CONSPIRACY: If established, all conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of manner and extent of participation
(act of one is the act of all)

OVERT ACT in furtherance of conspiracy: APMAMA

1. Active Participation in actual commission
2. Moral Assistance to co-conspirators by being present at time of commission
3. Exerting Moral Ascendency over other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan

● If one cooperates in the commission by performing overt acts which by themselves are acts of execution → he is a principal by
direct participation, and not merely an accomplice.
● Note: mere silence is NOT a circumstance indicating participation in the same criminal design

CONSPIRACY BY PRIOR AGREEMENT: Principal by direct participation who does not appear at the scene of crime is not liable bc:
1) His non-appearance is deemed a desistance on his part which is favored and encouraged
2) Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the law specifically provides a penalty therefor (RPC, Art 8)
a) Thus, by merely conspiring, would-be participator has not yet committed any crime unless he would appear at the scene of
the crime and perform any act directly or indirectly in the accomplishment of the conspiracy; and
3) There is no basis for criminal liability because there is no criminal participation

∴ Principal by direct participation MUST be at the scene of the commission of the crime, personally taking part in execution.
● Except when there is conspiracy and the principal by direct participation has already performed his part prior

[INDUCEMENT]
His words of advice or the influence have actually moved the hands of the principal/s by direct participation.

ACTS OF (CAIA): Command, Advice, Influence, or Agreement for consideration.

Must be shown that crime was actually attempted or committed by another.

● 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.

REQUISITES for conviction as a Principal by Inducement (ID)

[1] Inducement be made with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
● Inducement must precede the act and must be so influential that without it, the act would not have been performed.
● Inducement is NOT material and NOT the determining cause → If the crime committed is not contemplated in the order given
[2] That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor
- Inducer has the most positive resolution and most persistent effort to secure the commission of the crime, together with the
presentation to the person induced of the very strongest kind of temptation to commit the crime

2 WAYS of becoming Principal by Inducement

[1] By directly FORCING another to commit a crime by using irresistible force or by causing uncontrollable fear
a. Irresistible force: In spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a crime. It
compels his members to act and his mind to obey.
- Force, fear, duress, or intimidation must be present, imminent, impending; and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm, if the act be done
b. Uncontrollable fear: Of such gravity and imminence that ordinary man would have succumbed. Based on a real, imminent or
reasonable fear for one's life or limb.

Mere threat of future injury is not sufficient. Compulsion must be such that it reduced the offender to a mere instrument acting not only
without will but against his will as well. No opportunity for escape.

Note: In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a unity of criminal purpose and intention.
 (1) Only the one using the force or causing the fear is criminally liable.
(2) 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 giving price, or offering of reward or promise or using words of command
● Both are principals, collective criminal responsibility → the one giving the price or offering reward or promise (by
inducement) AND the one committing the crime in consideration (by direct participation)

Requisites of inducement by words of command (InAIDPP)

1) That the one uttering the words of command must have the Intention of procuring the commission of the crime
2) That the one who made the command must have an Ascendancy or Influence over the person who acted
3) That the words used must be so Direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion
4) The words of command must be uttered Prior to the commission of the crime
5) The material executor of the crime has no Personal reason to commit the crime

Generally different from commands of a father to a son that are under conditions which determine obedience and moral influence (But we have
held that words of command of a father may induce his son to commit a crime)

Principal by inducement Offender who made Proposal to commit a felony

Similarity There is an inducement to commit a crime

When liable Becomes liable only when the The mere proposal to commit a felony is punishable in treason or rebellion. However,
crime is committed by the the person to whom the proposal is made should not commit the crime, otherwise, the
principal by direct proponent becomes a principal by inducement.
participation.

What kind of Involves any crime The proposal to be punishable must involve only Treason, Rebellion,
crime is involved Insurrection or Coup d' etat (TRIC)

Effects of Acquittal of Principal by Direct Participation upon Liability of Principal by Inducement (PI liable, PDP acquitted):
1) Conspiracy is negated 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. (PDP acquitted, PI auto acquitted)

RATIONALE: In exempting circumstances, like when the act is not voluntary because of lack of intent on part of the accused, there is a crime
committed, only that the accused is not a criminal

[INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION]
The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered, which cannot exist without previous cognizance of
the criminal act intended to be executed

Meaning of “COOPERATE”
To desire or wish in common a thing
- But common will or purpose does not necessarily mean previous understanding, it can be explained or inferred from the circumstances
- To cooperate is to help, to aid; and necessarily presupposes, knowledge of the ultimate purpose

REQUISITES to be liable as a Principal by Indispensable Cooperation

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.
a) Requires participation in the criminal resolution.
b) There must be conspiracy.
c) Concurrence is sufficient.
d) Cooperation is indispensable.
2) Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which it would not have been accomplished
a) Cooperation must be indispensable
b) If the cooperation is not indispensable, the offender is only an accomplice.
c) If cooperation of one of the accused consists in performing an act necessary in the execution of the crime committed, he is a
principal by direct participation

Note: The act of the principal by indispensable cooperation should be different from the act of the principal by direct participation

Collective Criminal Responsibility

● Present when offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and to the same extent.
● Liable as co-principals unless 1 or some conspirators committed some other crime which is not part of the intended crime
● Principals by direct participation → YES, have collective criminal responsibility
● Principals by inducement → YES, except those who directly forced another to commit a crime, and principals by direct
participation have collective criminal responsibility.
● Principals by indispensable cooperation → YES, have collective criminal responsibility 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
individual and not collective, and each of the participants is liable only for the act committed by him

Quasi Collective Responsibility

● Between collective and individual criminal responsibility.
● Some of the offenders in the crime are principals and the others are accomplices
 (18) Accomplices
NOT PRINCIPALS, but cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous and simultaneous acts (also known as accessory before the act).

REQUISITES TO BE LIABLE AS ACCOMPLICE (CPR):

1. Community of design
- Knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, the accomplice concurs with the principal in his purpose.
- Means that the accomplice knows of and concurs with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation.
- Note that before there could be an accomplice, there must be a principal by direct participation.
- The principal originates the criminal design, while the accomplice merely concurs with the principal in
his criminal purpose
2. Performance by the accomplice of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime
- With the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime
- The accomplice cooperates with the principal by direct participation, but the cooperation of an accomplice is only necessary,
NOT INDISPENSABLE.
3. Relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as an accomplice
- It is not enough that a person entertains an identical criminal design as that of the principal.

Where in doubt as to whether the accused acted as principal or as accomplice, accused should be liable ONLY AS ACCOMPLICE.
- Mere presence at the scene of the incident, knowledge of the plan and acquiescence thereto are NOT SUFFICIENT grounds to hold a
person as a conspirator.
ACCOMPLICE CONSPIRATOR

As to when criminal intent is Accomplices come to know Conspirators know the

shown about the plan AFTER the criminal intention because
principals have reached the they themselves have
decision, and only then do decided upon such course of
they agree to cooperate in its action.
execution.

As to decision of Accomplices merely ASSENT Conspirators decide whether

commission to the plan and cooperate in or not the crime should be
its accomplishment. committed.

As to participation Accomplices are merely Conspirators are the

INSTRUMENTS who perform AUTHORS of a crime.
acts NOT ESSENTIAL to the
perpetration of the offense.

(19) Accessories
● Having knowledge of the commission of the crime and
● Without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices,
● That part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
Profiting themselves or others (NOT EXEMPT UNDER 20)
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
Concealing or destroying the body, effects, or instruments of the crime
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse
of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
Harboring, concealing, assisting in the escape of the principals
Two classes of accessories under Par. 3
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
2. Private persons when author of the crime is guilty of TPMA-H (treason, parricide, murder, or attempt against
the life of the President), or who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

(20) Accessories Exempt from Criminal Liability

The penalties… shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to SADL(NA)A, with the single exception of accessories who
profit for themselves and others

Obstruction of Justice
- Those who assist the principal to escape may be prosecuted under PD 1829 known as the Obstruction of Justice Law, not as an
accessory but as a principal provided that a separate Information for obstruction is filed
- PD 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

Unlike Arts 19 and 20 of the RPC, PD No. 1829 has:

1. No exemption from criminal liability for offender’s relatives
2. No qualification as to offender (whether principal or accomplice or accessory) in the crime whose favor the obstructive acts were
committed; and
3. No distinction between a public officer or private person who commits the acts prohibiteda

(PD 1612) Accessories (Anti-Fencing): Violaters are all offenders guilty as principals, even if they were merely selling stolen goods.

(PD 1829) Accessories (Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders)
 (For reference)
Classification of Felonies by Gravity

Grave: felonies attached with capital punishment or afflictive penalties in accordance with Article 25
(RP-RT-PTAD-PTSD-PM-1.2)
1. Reclusion perpetua
2. Reclusion temporal
3. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification
4. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification
5. Prision mayor
6. Fines of more than P1,200,000

Less Grave (PC-AM-SD-40)

1. Prisión correccional
2. Arresto mayor
3. Suspension
4. Destierro
5. Fines equal to or more than P40,000 but not more than P1,200,000

Light (AM-39.9)
1. Arresto menor OR
2. Fine less than P40,000

Plurality of Crimes
Successive execution by the same individual of different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has been declared.
Ideal Plurality: A single act gives rise to different criminal acts but Real Plurality: An act or different acts with distinct
there is only one criminal liability purposes result in different crimes. The offender shall be
punished for each and every offense
Ex.: Pedro wanted to kill Juan. When he saw Juan, he shot him. But his poor
aim hit a bystander who died (aberratio ictus) = complex crime of Homicide Ex. A hacked B with a bolo. A also hacked C with the same bolo =
& Attempted Homicide = penalty of Homicide in max liable for each crime committed = 2 counts of Homicide.
Three groups:
1. Complex Crimes (Compound & Complex Proper)
2. Special Complex Crimes
3. Continued/Continuous Crimes

Complex Crime
Concept: Though 2 or more crimes are committed, they constitute 1 crime (by law and by the conscience of the offender). Only 1 criminal
intent, therefore there is only 1 penalty.
- Note: When in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously shot many persons, there is only a single offense because there
is just 1 criminal impulse (Lawas)
- Note: Accused are criminally liable for as many offenses resulting from pressing the trigger (Sanchez)
- Note: One information shall be filed for a complex crime (Estipona)

No complex crime in C2ISTA

1. Continuous crimes
2. One offense is committed to conceal the other
3. When the other crime is indispensable/an element of the other offense
Ex. rebellion with murder, arson, robbery, or other common crimes because these are mere ingredients of rebellion
4. Penalized by special law
5. Arson with multiple homicide
Note: distinguish the main motive
- Objective is to burn resulting in death: simply arson
- Objective is to kill and fire is the means: murder only
- Objective is to kill and fire is a cover up: homicide/murder with arson

Rules in Article 48 are not applicable:

1. When the crimes have common elements
2. When the crimes involved are subject to absorption
3. When it is a special complex crime
ex. less serious physical injuries with serious slander of deed because this is punished under Article 265 as the single crime of less
serious physical injuries with ignominy
4. When the crimes cannot be legally complexed
● Malicious obtention or abusive service of search warrant with perjury (129)
● Briber with infidelity in the custody of prisoners (210)
● Maltreatment of prisoners with serious physical injuries ( 235)
● Usurpation of real rights with serious physical injuries ( 312)
● Abandonment of persons in danger (Art 275) with any other felony
● Crimes against minors (276-278) with any other felony

Note: Art 48 is meant to favor the accused, because he is less perverse than someone who commits such crimes separately and distinctly.
Note: When 2 crimes produced by a single act are within the exclusive jurisdiction of 2 courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher
jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
Note: When the different crimes are punished with the same penalty, the penalty for any of them shall be imposed in the maximum period.
Note: When punishable by imprisonment and fine, only imprisonment should be imposed (because fine is not in the list of penalties)
Note: When a complex crime is charged and 1 is not proven, the accused can be convicted of the other.
 Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto) Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)
48: When a single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave 48: When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other… the
felonies….. the penalty for the most serious crime shall be penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period applied in its maximum period
Requisites
Requisites:
1. Only a single act
1. At least 2 crimes are committed
2. Produces:
2. One is necessary to commit another
● 2 or more GF
- Necessary is not indispensable otherwise it becomes
● 2 or more LGF
an element (ex. to speed the act up)
● 1 or more GF AND 1 or more LGF
- INDISPENSABLE MEANS: Ex. Bal envied
FELONY, excludes crimes punishable by SPLs Claude because of his good looks. While
- Ex. A stole the gun of B. The crime committed is theft and Claude was sleeping on the balcony, he threw
illegal possession of a firearm. Illegal possession of a a hand grenade into the balcony which
firearm is a crime punishable by special penal law and exploded and killed Claude. The crime
cannot be complexed. They are two distinct crimes. committed is murder and destruction. Here,
without the explosion, the murder would not
Light Felonies: should be treated as a separate offenses OR
have happened. It is an essential ingredient,
absorbed by the grave felony
and therefore it will not be treated separately.
- Ex. When the crime is committed by force or violence,
- NECESSARY MEANS: Maria was abducted
slight physical injuries are absorbed such as in direct
by Pedro and was carried away to a secluded
assault and rape
place. There, Pedro raped Maria. The crime
- Reason: Slight physical injuries are the necessary
is a complex crime of Rape through
consequence of the force of violence inherent in the
Abduction. Pedro would have still been able
crimes of direct assault and rape
to commit the rape without the abduction.
- Ex. Maria was drunk. Juan offered to bring her home but
- NECESSARY MEANS: Panda gave Frog 20k
instead raped her. Maria suffered from slight physical
to pay the BIR. Frog pocketed the money and
injuries on her gential organs. The crimes committed are
forged a receipt to make it appear he paid the
rape and slight physical injuries. Rape is a grave felony
the P20k. The crime is a complex crime of
while slight physical injuries is a light felony. It is absorbed.
estafa through falsification of public
Examples document. The falsification facilitated the
1. Single bullet successively killed two victims estafa/made it easier.
2. The killing of one victim and the wounding of another arising 3. Both are all the offenses must be punishable under the same
from the accused’s single act of hacking the first victim statute
3. A was heartbroken because B was already in love with C. A
wanted to kill C so he got a gun. He aimed at C but because of Examples:
poor aim, hit another student who became blind. 1. Estafa through falsification of public documents
● The crime committed was the complex crime of attempted - There is no complex crime of estafa through PRIVATE
homicide and serious physical injury. documents. Both require damage as an element which if
○ Attempted Homicide = prision correccional used for one renders the other incomplete, which then
because merely attempted becomes a question of which was committed first.
○ Serious Physical Injury = prison mayor because - If the falsification of a private document is
became blind committed as a means to commit estafa, the
○ Serious physical injury is more serious crime is falsification.
● Req 1: Yes, there was a single act. - If the estafa can be committed without
● Req 2: Produces: falsifying a document, the crime is estafa.
○ Prison correccional is for LGF 2. Forcible abudiction with rape
○ Prison mayor is for GF - Occurs when the abductor has carnal knowledge of
4. The single act of throwing a grenade at one person injuring the woman under the following circumstances
others. One was killed and two suffered minor injuries 1. By using force or intimidation
● The crime committed is the Complex Crime of Murder and 2. When woman is deprived of reason or
Multiple Attempted Murders. unconscious
● Yes, there was a single act. 3. When the woman is under 12 years or
demented
Note: When several victims died from several shots, the crimes of
- BUT if the main objective of the abduction was the
homicide or murder are separate and distinct
rape, he can only be convicted of rape.
Note: In libel, there are as many crimes of libel as there are
persons libeled provided they are identified.

ContinuED/ContinuOUS Crime (Delito Continuado) Special Complex Crimes/Composite

2 or more violations of the same penal provisions are united in the Composed of 2 or more crimes but is treated by law as a single indivisible
same intent. A single crime committed through a series of acts offense for being the product of 1 criminal impulse. In short: Specific
arising from 1 criminal intent. Only 1 penalty. crime with a specific penalty.
Characteristics
Requisites (PUC)
1. Offends only 1 provision of law (whether RPC or SPL)
1. Plurality of acts performed
2. Penalizes 2 specific crimes with 1 specific penalty
2. Unity of penal provision
3. Absorbs all other crimes
3. Unity of criminal intent or purpose
Examples:
Examples
1. Robbery with homicide/rape/mutilation/serious physical
1. A learned B went out of town. B is the caretaker of roosters
injuries
owned by different people. A stole 3 roosters, owned by X,
2. Arson with homicide
Y, and Z. = Single offense of theft.
3. Kidnapping with homicide/rape/serious physical injuries
2. A sent a letter to B threatening to kill him if he doesn’t
4. Rape with homicide
deposit P5k. B deposits 2k. Later A asks for the remaining
3k. B deposits another 2k. Later A asks for the remaining 1k
Complex Crimes v. Special Complex Crimes
but is caught. = One purpose which is to extort money = the
crime committed is a single offense of grave threat.
 3. 3 penetrations during one continuing act of rape
Complex Crimes Special Complex
ContinuING/Transitory Crime
A crime may be prosecuted and tried not only in the court of the Composition Combination not Combination fixed by law
place where it was originally committed or began, but before the specific; generally
court where the crime was continued. GF/LGF
Similar to transitory: only a factor to determine proper venue.
Penalty For the most serious Penalty is specified
- Person charged with a transitory offense can be tried in
any jurisdiction it was partly committed offense in the maximum
- Some acts material and essential to the crime and period
requisite to its consummation occur in one province and
some in another, the court of either province has Crimes If more than 1 count of There is just one
jurisdiction Charged the component crime, composite crime to be
Example: the first is complexed charged, even if there is
1. Victim was kidnapped in Cebu and brought to Palawan
while the other counts more than 1 count of the
where he was locked up until ransom was paid. = can be
tried in Cebu or Palawan may be treated as a component crime (e.g.
separate crime several rapes in
● Multiple Localities kidnapping)
Court of the municipality or territory where the offense
was committed or any of it essential ingredients Absorption Light felony may be Light felony is absorbed
occurred absorbed or subject to
● Inside train, aircraft, or other vehicle separate info
Any municipality or territory where it passed during the
trip, including place of departure and arrival
Law 2 provisions of law 1 provision of law
● Vessel in its voyage

Court of the first port of entry or any municipality or

territory where the vessel passed subject to GAPIL
Research examples: Sedition, rebellion

Quasi-Crimes
Crimes committed through negligence cannot be considered complex crimes EVEN THOUGH the negligent act caused other crimes (Ivler).
Culpable felonies are punished under 365 ( substantive), punishing
1. Mental element behind the act
2. All the injuries that resulted from the act

Article 48 (Complex Crimes) versus Article 365 (Quasi Crimes)

Art 48 is a procedural device allowing single prosecution of Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as
multiple felonies felony but a mental attitude behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight.
 Compound Crime
NOTE: It is the number of the bullets, not the number of times gun is triggered

Tabaco Valdez Sanchez

Firing continuously at a cockpit, 4 murders, Motor to Wedding, NOT compound crime Birthday Party
NOT compound crime
The victims were riding on a tricycle to attend Mayor Sanchez was informed that there
Mario Tabaco was charged with 4 counts of the wedding party of 1’s cousin. On their way, would be a birthday party at the house of
murder and 1 count of homicide with they met appellant Valdez and his Velencia, a political rival, and that Nelson
frustrated homicide for killing and injuring companions who were armed with guns, who Penalosa, one of Velencia’s political leaders,
people at a cockpit arena. fired at them causing the death of 4 and will also be there. Sanchez, Corcolon,
fatal injuries to 2. Valdez was convicted for Peradillas, and Averion (4) then plotted to kill
The trial court found him guilty on all counts the complex crime of Multiple Murder with Penalosa. On the day of the party, the group,
and categorized the murders as a complex Double Frustrated Murder (and Illegal excluding Sanchez, followed the jeep of
crime thus, sentencing him to a single Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions). Penalosa leaving the venue. When they
penalty of reclusion perpetua. caught up, they repeatedly shot at the vehicle
W/N the accused is guilty of a complex killing Penalosa and another person inside.
W/N the murders constitute a compound crime? NO. The trial court found the group guilty for the
crime - NO complex crime of double murder.
The 4 crimes of murder resulted not from a
● Court ruled that Tabaco’s firing of single act but from several individual and W/N the trial court correctly appreciated
several bullets, although resulting distinct acts. the complex crime of double murder? NO
from one continuous burst of [Just 2 Counts of Murder]
gunfire, constitutes distinct acts. It cannot be said that there was only a single
● This means that each person, killed act of firing a single firearm because: Notwithstanding the use of an automatic
by different shots, is a victim of a 1. Several shots were fired. armelite, the court held that the said act does
separate crime of murder. 2. Considering the relative positions not constitute a single offense, but rather
● When various victims are killed of victims, it was impossible for several acts.
from separate shots, such acts them to be hit by a single bullet.
constitute separate and distinct 3. Each act by each gunman pulling The presence of aggravating circumstances
crimes. the trigger of their respective (treachery, Evident Premeditation, use of
● Article 48: is not applicable as there firearms, aiming each particular Motor vehicle, and conspiracy), led the court
were several acts that caused the moment at different persons to conclude that the accused should be
murders. constitute distinct and individual sentenced to the death penalty for each count
● He must be held liable for each acts which cannot give rise to the of murder. However, given the suspension of
and every death. complex crime of multiple murder. the penalty at the time, the accused were
● Tabaco is sentenced to 4 sentences Valdez is guilty, not of a complex crime of sentenced to two penalties of reclusion
of reclusion perpetua. multiple murder, but of 4 counts of murder perpetua.
for the death of the 4 victims in this case, as
well as 2 counts of frustrated murder.

Complex Crime Proper

Hernandez Enrile v. Salazar

Hukabalahap Rebellion Enrile Rebellion

Hernandez was charged for synchronizing the activities of the Feb 1990, petitioner Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by based on a
Communist Party of the Philippines (PKP) in the rebellion against the warrant of arrest by respondent Judge Salazar.
Philippines helping the Hukbalahaps. ● The warrant is based on an Information for the crime of
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder
Hernandez was convicted by the trial court for rebellion complexed allegedly committed during the failed coup attempt from Nov
with murders, arsons, and robberies. And sentenced to life 29–Dec 10, 1990 (Cory)
imprisonment. ● The OSG argued that the Hernandez doctrine should not apply
to Enrile’s case because in Hernandez, the other offenses were
W/N the lower court correctly convicted Hernandez of rebellion committed as a necessary means for the commission of
complexed with murders, arsons, and robberies? NO; it is only rebellion—whereas in Enrile’s case, the offenses were not.
simple rebellion
W/N rebellion may be complexed with other crimes (NO)
The court held that under the allegations of the information against ● The Court held that: maintaining the Hernandez doctrine, the
Amado V. Hernandez. crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with any other offense
- The murders, arsons and robberies described therein are committed on the occasion thereof.
mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly ● The purpose of Article 48 is to prescribe a penalty lower than
committed by said defendants, as means "necessary" for the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed
the perpetration of said offense of rebellion. separately.
- The crime charged in the amended information is simple ● This is because when two or more crimes are the result of a
rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he
murder, arsons and robberies. commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts.
- The maximum penalty imposable under such charge cannot ● If, say for instance, murder were to be complexed with
exceed twelve (12) years of prision mayor and a fine of rebellion, the extreme penalty of death would have to be
P20,000; and that, in conformity with the policy of this imposed on the offender, even without a single aggravating
court in dealing with accused persons amenable to a similar circumstance.
punishment, said defendant may be allowed bail. ● Thus, the complexing of the crime of rebellion would be
unfavorable to the movant.

Garcia Batulanon v. People

Rape
Cleopatra (victim) was walking home from school when a white van Fake Loans Fake Signatures for private documents; NO complex
stopped in front of her. She was abducted and while inside, she was crime
punched in the stomach causing her to go unconscious. When she Petitioner Batulanon worked as a cashier manager for PCCI wherein
woke up, she was naked on a bed. 4 men took turns in raping her. she was in charge of receiving deposits and releasing loans for PCCI
Garcia was the only one arrested for the rape. The trial court found members. During an audit investigation, certain irregularities were
him guilty of the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. found in the release of loans. Hence, Petitioner faced 4 criminal
charges for estafa through falsification of commercial documents.

complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape – YES ✅

ISSUE: W/N the trial court correctly found Garcia guilty of the
The trial court convicted her of the 4 charges. The CA affirmed the
decision, but clarified that the documents were private documents and
The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that not commercial documents. The petitioner appealed her conviction.
occurs when there is carnal knowledge with the abducted woman
under the following circumstances: WON the conviction for the crime of estafa through falsification of
1. By using force or intimidation; private documents is proper — NO
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; The Court held that there is no complex crime for private documents.
3. And when the woman is under 12 or demented The proper crime to convict the Petitioner were separate counts of
falsification for the 3 criminal cases, while 1 count of estafa for the
Information sufficiently alleged the elements of forcible abduction, last case.
i.e., the taking of Cleopatra against her against her will and with lewd
design.

Also alleged that Garcia and his co-accused conspired, confederated

and mutually aided one another in having carnal knowledge of
complainant by means of force and intimidation and against her will.

Aside from alleging the necessary elements of the crimes, the

prosecution convincingly established that the carnal knowledge was
committed through force and intimidation.

HOWEVER, there can only be one complex crime of forcible abduction

with rape. The crime of forcible abduction was only necessary for
the first rape.
- The subsequent acts of rape can no longer be considered as
separate complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape.
They should be detached from and considered
independently of the forcible abduction.
- Garcia should be convicted of 1 complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape and 3 separate acts of
rape.

Continuing Crime

Madrigal-Gonzales Gamboa v. CA
27 falsifications, 1 malversation, NOT a continuing crime 74 estafas

Pacita was charged with malversation of public funds and was charged 124 complaints of estafa were filed against respondent Hayco by his
together with 7 other people with the crime of falsification of public employer, resulting in 75 cases of estafa filed by the City Fiscal. Hayco
documents under 27 separate informations. petitioned for a prohibition with preliminary injunction, asserting
that the 75 informations were only components of 1 crime since they
Trial court ruled that the falsifications were committed to conceal the came from 1 criminal intent. His petition was granted by the Court of
malversation and thus, the 27 cases of falsifications should be tried Appeals.
under 1 information for the crime of falsification as a continuing
offense resulting from only one criminal intent. Issue: W/N the charges in the 75 informations against Hayco
constitute only 1 crime of estafa? NO, they are all separate acts.
W/N the 27 falsifications constituted a continuing offense - NO
● The SC held that the City Fiscal was correct in filing one
● Court ruled that it is not a continuing offense.
information for every single day of abstraction by the
● The 27 informations show that different acts of falsification
accused, because each day of conversion constituted a
were committed on different vouchers with distinct
single act with an independent existence and criminal
amounts, despite being committed within a specific period.
intent of its own.
● The Court cannot assume that the purpose of the 27
● Here, the sole import of estafa as a continuing offense
falsifications was to conceal the malversation. In the
pertains to how the necessary elements of estafa can take
falsification of each document, the criminal intent was
place separately in different territories—but the moment
separate and distinct.
that the elements of the crime have occurred, then an
● Thus, they constitute 27 separate and independent crimes.
individual crime of estafa has occurred.

Mallari Santiago v. Garchitorena

Estafa Falsification of Document Double Jeopardy 32 Amended Informations inappropriate for one crime

Consuel Mallari was charged with the Crime of Estafa through Santiago files a petition to set aside a Sandiganbayan Resolution
Falsification of Public Document before the CFI. The court found which concerns 32 Amended Informations filed against petitioner for
Mallari guilty. On appeal at the CA, the court affirmed the decision of having “favored unqualified” aliens for the Alien Legalization
the trial court. In his motion for reconsideration, Mallari brought up Program, after the express communication of the prosecution that
that the affirmed conviction would put him in double jeopardy since they would only file one amended information. Sandiganbayan
he has been convicted for the same offense in another CA proceeding. admitted the 32 Amended Information.
WON the accused has suffered double jeopardy? YES Because it W/N the filing of the 32 Amended Informations against
was a continuing crime and he was charged twice. petitioner Santiago was appropriate — NO
● The Court finds that there was only one crime that was
● The court held that the two information filed against the committed by petitioner, hence, there should only be one
petitioner refers to the same series of acts. information to be filed against her
● The court explained that a continued crime is a single crime
● The 32 Amended Informations charged what is known as
consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one
delito continuado or continued crime/continuous crime
criminal resolution.
● In this case, the series of Estafa acts committed by Mallari ● In the case at bar, the original information charged
was from the criminal resolution to defraud Tapawan, the petitioner with a single criminal act - that her approving
second victim was dragged into the mess due to Tapawan. the application for legalization of unqualified aliens
● This occurrence of the continuing crime was also justified by ○ Criminal act committed: (1) violation of the law,
the fact that the crime was committed on the same date, (2) caused an undue injury, and (3) was done one
place, time, and occasion. a single day
● 32 Amended Information reproduced verbatim the
allegation of the original information, except that word
“aliens” in the original information, each amended
information states the name of the individual whose
stay was legalized.
○ The 32 Amended Informations aver that the
offenses were committed on the same period of
time
○ Likewise, the public prosecutors manifested at the
hearing of the motion for the bill of particulars
that the Government suffered a single harm or
injury.

Composite Crimes/Special Complex Crime

RWH-KSID-R-RWH-DA
1. Rape with Homicide
2. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
3. Robbery
4. Attempted or Frustrated RWH
5. Destructive Arson

Art 266-B - Rape with Homicide Art 267 - Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
Two special complex crimes under Article 266-B: REQUISITES:
1. Attempted rape with homicide (reclusion perpetua to death) 1. That the offender is:
2. Rape with homicide (death!) a. A private individual who is not any
of the parents of the victim nor a
Rape with homicide female; or
- A special complex crime - NOTE: When the victim
- when homicide is committed not by reason of or on the occasion of rape, is a minor and the
there is no special complex crime of rape with homicide (People v. accused is any of the
Laspardas) parents, the penalty is
that provided for in Art.
Homicide understood in its generic sense (includes murder) 271(2)
- In this special complex crime of rape with homicide, the term ‘homicide’ is b. A public officer who has no duty
to be understood in its generic sense and includes murder and slight under the law to detain a person;
physical injuries committed by reason of or on the occasion of the rape. - NOTE: A public officer
(such as a policeman)
No murder; always rape with homicide who has a duty under the
- Even if any or all of the circumstances have been duly established by the law to detain a person but
prosecution, the same would not qualify the killing to murder and the does so without legal
crime committed by the accused is still rape with homicide (People v. Laog) ground is liable for
arbitrary detention (Art.
124). Thus, a public
officer who has no legal
duty to detain a person
may be prosecuted for
illegal detention and
kidnapping (People v.
Mamantak)
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives the latter of his
liberty;
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must
be illegal; and
- NOTE: Detention is illegal when
not ordered by competent authority
or not permitted by law
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of
 the following circumstances is present:
a. That the kidnapping or detention lasts for
more than 3 days;
b. That it is committed simulating public
authority;
c. That any serious physical injuries are inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or detained or
!threats to kill him are made; or
d. That the person kidnapped or detained is a
Minor, female, or a public official

Things to note:
- The victim need not be placed in an enclosure
- The victim may be taken by the offender
forcefully or fraudulently

WHEN MAXIMUM PENALTY IS IMPOSED:

1. If the purpose is to extort ransom
2. When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention
3. When the victim is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts

ELEMENTS OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM

1. Intent on the part of the accused is to deprive
the victim of his liberty
2. Actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty
3. Motive of the accused, which is extorting
ransom for the release of the victim

Art 294 - Robbery Art 297 - Attempted or Frustrated RWH

Special Complex Crimes Involving Robbery
1. Robbery with homicide or rape or intentional mutilation or arson
2. Robbery with serious physical injuries under subdivision 1, Article 263
3. Robbery with serious physical injuries under subdivision 2 of Article 263
4. Robbery with unnecessary violence and intimidation against any person
not responsible for the commission of physical injuries under subdivision
3 and 4 of Art. 263
5. Robbery with violence against intimidation of any person

PENALTY OFFENSE

Reclusion perpetua to death Homicide by reason or on occasion of

robbery

Reclusion temporal in its medium Robbery accompanied by rape or

period to reclusion perpetua intentional mutilation
● Or if by reason or on
occasion of such robbery, ny
of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 1 of
Article 263 shall have been
inflicted
○ Provided that,
when the robbery
accompanied with
rape is committed
with a deadly
weapon or by two
or more persons,
the penalty shall
be reclusion
perpetua to death

Reclusion temporal By reason or on occasion of the

robbery, any of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 2 of the
article in the next preceding
paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
 Prision mayor (maximum period_ to Violence or intimidation employed in
Reclusion temporal (medium period) the commission of the robbery are
carried to a degree unnecessary for the
commission of the crime
● Or when the course of its
execution, the offender shall
have inflicted upon any
person not responsible for
its commission any of the
physical injuries covered by
sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said
Article 23.

Prision correccional (maximum period) Other case

to prision mayor (medium period)

Art 320 - Destructive Arson

Contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories, and
other military, government or commercial establishments, by any person or group of persons.

The laws on arson in force today are PD 1613 and Art. 320, as amended by RA 7659. The provisions of PD 1613 which are inconsistent with RA
7659 (such as Sec. 2 of PD 1613) are deemed repealed.

Kinds of Arson (SiDe-O)

1) Simple Arson (PD 1613, Sec 1)
2) Destructive Arson (RPC, Art 320 as amended by RA 7659)
3) Other cases of arson (PD 1613, Sec 3)

If by reason of or on the occasion of arson, death results, the penalty of death (now reclusion perpetua, per R.A. No. 9346) shall be imposed.
● It is NOT a complex crime of arson with homicide under Art. 48 but a special complex crime of destructive arson under the last
paragraph of Art. 320

There is also Destructive Arson: (2AM)

1) When the arson is committed by 2 or more persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely to burn or destroy the building or
the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the commission of another violation of the law;
2) When any person shall burn:
a) Any Arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military power or fireworks factory, ordinance, storehouse, archives or general
museum of the Government; or
b) In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive Material

NOTE: The nature of Destructive Arson is distinguished from Simple Arson by the degree of perversity or viciousness of the criminal offender.
● The acts committed under Art. 320 RPC, as amended, constituting Destructive Arson are characterized as heinous crimes “for being
grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and
perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered
society.”
● On the other hand, acts committed under PD 1613 constituting Simple Arson are crimes with a lesser degree of perversity and
viciousness that the law punishes with a lesser penalty.
● Thus, Simple Arson contemplates crimes with less significant social, economic, political and national security implications than
Destructive Arson.
○ However, acts falling under Simple Arson may nevertheless be converted into Destructive Arson depending on the
qualifying circumstances present

Complex Crimes in Relation to Quasi-Crimes

Ivler v. San Pedro

Road Rage Killing; Ivler Doctrine

Ivler was charged before the MeTC for two offenses, one for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries, and another for Reckless
Impurdence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to property. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the crime of Physical Injuries, then invoked double
jeopardy in relation to the information concerning Homicide and Damage to property. The MeTC refused to quash the information on double
jeopardy, the RTC affirmed the decision.

W/N petitioner’s constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 82366. YES

The court held that Reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a quasi-offense. Conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars subsequent
prosecution for the same offense, regardless of the resulting acts. The law penalizes the negligent act, and not the result. The gravity of the
consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. Therefore, the careless act is
single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the offense remains one and the same, and can not be split into
different crimes and prosecutions

YOUTUBE EXPLANATION
 1. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (light felony)(convicted)
2. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property (GF/LGF)
We hold that prosecutions under Article 365 should proceed from a single charge regardless of the number of severity of the consequences.
There will ONLY be one charge. Meaning, there shall be no splitting of charges under article 365, and only 1 information shall be filed. Will not
have to follow the rule under Article 48 where light felonies can be treated separately
Application and Computation
1. General Rules
2. Specific Rules
3. Indeterminate Sentence Law

Execution and Service of Penalties

1. General Rules
2. Probation Law
3. Suspension of Sentence
 Penalties in General
Different juridical conditions of penalties? PCPLE-CeCo
1. PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING - without however affecting the integrity of the human personality.
2. COMMENSURATE WITH THE OFFENSE - different crimes must be punished with different penalty (Art. 25. RPC).
3. PERSONAL - the guilty one must be the one to be punished, no proxy.
4. LEGAL - the consequence must be in accordance with the law.
5. EQUAL - equal for all persons.
6. CERTAIN - no one must escape its effect.
7. CORRECTIONAL - changes the attitude of offenders and become law-abiding citizens.
3-fold purpose of penalty RRS
● Retribution
● Reformation
● Social Defense
Purpose for imposing penalties: secure justice, assert moral principles

PRINCIPAL PENALTIES

Article 25 — Penalties that may be imposed Principal Penalties: CACL + C

Classification of Felonies by Gravity & Corresponding Principal Penalty

Grave = Capital Punishment or Afflictive (RP-RT-PTAD-PTSD-PM-1.2)
1. Reclusion perpetua
2. Reclusion temporal
3. Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification
4. Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification
5. Prision mayor
6. Fines of more than P1,200,000

Less Grave = Correctional (PC-AM-SD-40)

7. Prisión correccional
8. Arresto mayor
9. Suspension
10. Destierro
11. Fines equal to or more than P40,000 but not more than P1,200,000

Light = Light Penalties (AM-39.9)

12. Arresto menor OR
13. Fine less than P40,000

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Death Penalty

Article 3, Section 19 RA 7659 RA 8177

● No excessive fines and cruel, degrading, or Death Penalty for Heinous Crimes (1993) Death Penalty by Lethal Injection
inhuman punishment ● Heinous: inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, ● Executed under the authority of the
● Death penalty shall not be imposed atrocity, and perversity; repugnant and outrageous to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections
○ UNLESS, for compelling reasons common standards and norms of decency and morality in ○ Shall ensure that the lethal
involving heinous crime, Congress a just, civilized and ordered society injection administered is sufficient
provides for it ● TPQQ-PMIK-RDRD to cause instantaneous death
● Death penalty already imposed shall be 1. Treason ● All personnel involved should be trained
2. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters
reduced to reclusion perpetua 3. Qualified piracy ● Death sentence to be carried out not
4. Qualified Bribery earlier than 1 year nor later than 18
5. Parricide
6. Murder (aggravated by TRIO-EC)
months after final judgment, without
7. Infanticide prejudice to executive clemency
8. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention ● Those waiting to undergo death penalty
9. Robbery with violence or intimidation
10. Destructive Arson by electrocution or gas poisoning have
11. Rape their sentences modified
12. Dangerous Drugs Act

RA 9346 Article 40 Article 47

Prohibition on Death Penalty (2006) Death and Accessory Penalties When Death shall NOT be imposed
Instead of death:
● Reclusion perpetua, if the law When NOT EXECUTED because of COMMUTATION or 1. When more than 70
violated uses nomenclature of RPC PARDON, shall carry: 2. Upon appeal or revision, the decision of
● Life imprisonment, if the law violated ● Perpetual absolute disqualification the SC is not unanimous
does not use RPC nomenclature ● Civil Interdiction
Those sentenced with reclusion perpetua or During 30 years following the date sentence UNLESS
are reduced to reclusion perpetua WITHOUT EXPRESSLY REMITTED.
PAROLE under RA 4180 or Indeterminate
Sentence Law

People v. Bon
Attempted Rape, but RA 9346 removed Death. If lower two degrees, would it count from Death or Reclusion Perpetua?
Accused was found guilty by the RTC of 8 counts of rape against his then-minor nieces. The CA then modified it to 6 counts of rape + 2 counts of attempted rape,
sentencing him to reclusion temporal as the maximum penalty for attempted rape.
● Art 51: states that the penalty for attempted felonies must be the penalty lower by 2 degrees for the consummated felony
● Problem is that the appellant was sentenced to a maximum term within reclusion temporal, since that is the penalty two degrees lower than death.
● But, RA 9346 ended the imposition of the death penalty. With this, the Court discusses if the appellant should now be sentenced to a penalty 2 degrees
lower than reclusion perpetua, instead of death.
W/N RA 9346 downgraded the penalties for crimes that warranted the penalty of death? YES
● Death penalty as used in Art 71 shall no longer form part of the equation in the graduation of penalties.
● In this case, the determination of his penalty for attempted rape shall be based NOT from two degrees lower than death, but two degrees lower than
reclusion perpetua. Hence, the maximum term of the accused’s penalty is not reclusion temporal, as ruled by CA, but instead, prision mayor.
 AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES

Reclusion Perpetua
CRIMES PUNISHABLE: TPQQ-PMIK-RDRD (RA 7659: Heinous crimes are punished by reclusion perpetua)
DURATION: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years (Art 27)
NOTE: It is still an indivisible penalty.

People v. Lucas People v. Lucas People v. Latupan

17-year old daughter charged her father Lucas WON Reclusion Perpetua is a divisible penalty? Reclusion perpetua is NOT life imprisonment
for rape against her. NO
Asuncion found his wife dead and his 3 sons injured.
First raped when she was 9, repeatedly molested, [1] No clear legislative intent to alter its original He asked his eldest son who dit it, and he identified
and then raped again at 17. classification as an indivisible penalty. Shall main Latupan. That day, Latupan was seen with a bloodied
as indivisible penalty. knife and clothes, by Ceferino who Latupan chased
The lower court found the father guilty of 2 counts ● Initially intended a three-grade penalty along with his wife. The eldest son died due to his
of rape. (RP → LI → Death) injuries.
● Removed LI and extended duration of
W/N reclusion perpetua, due to RA 7659, has reclusion perpertua Latupan was found guilty of the complex crime of
become a divisible penalty? YES ● Bill sponsor (Tolentino: “Instead of double murder and separate offenses of serious
having 3 penalties in the divisible physical injuries, sentencing him to “life
● Section 21 of RA 7659, amending penalty, we will have 2 indivisible imprisonment” and “10 days imprisonment.”
Article 27 of the RPC, defined the penalties”)
duration of reclusion perpetua (20 years W/N the trial court erred in sentencing Latupan to “life
and 1 day to 40 years) [2] Effects of an Indivisible Penalty imprisonment” and “10 days imprisonment?” YES.
● While the law did not make its intention ● Article 63: In all cases where the law
explicit to convert it into a divisible prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it The proper imposable penalty is reclusion
penalty, Article 65 of the RPC may be shall be applied regardless of any AGG perpetua.They are different.
applied (providing for penalties not or MITI circumstances. If the law
composed of three periods, dividing into prescribes a penalty of 2 indivisible Life Imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua
three equal portions) penalties, then the greater penalty shall
● Thus, the maximum period of be applied IF there is only 1 AGG
reclusion perpetua is 34y,4m,1d to 40 circumstance, and the lesser if there is
Law governing For serious offenses
under Special Laws
Prescribed under the RPC

years and this should be applied to the some MITI circumstances.

present case considering the ● If reclusion perpetua was reclassified Accessory Does not have accessory Has accessory penalties
aggravating circumstance of as a divisible penalty, Article 63 loses Penalties penalties
relationship. its reason and basis for existence.
Duration No definite duration Imprisonment for at least 30,
[3] If Congress intended to reclassify reclusion then eligible for pardon, max
should not exceed 40 years
perpetua, it would have amended Article 63 and
Article 73. Courts must employ proper nomenclature. "Reclusion
perpetua," NOT "life imprisonment" and "10 days of
arresto menor, " NOT "10 days of imprisonment."

Reclusion temporal Perpetual or Temp Absolute Disqualification Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification

DURATION: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years EFFECTS (Art 30 ): PVPR EFFECTS (Article 31): … for public office,
(Art 27) 1. Deprivation of public office and employment profession, or calling OepS
(even if conferred by popular election)
CRIMES PUNISHABLE 2. Deprivation of right to vote or to be elected 1. Deprivation of OEP affected
Infanticide committed by maternal grandparents or (xpn: can join plebiscite) 2. Disqualification from holding similar offices or
either (RA 7659) 3. Disqualification from public office employments either perpetually or during
4. Loss of all rights to retirement and pension sentence
ACCESSORY PENALTIES (Art 41) of any office held
1. Civil interdiction (for life or during the
sentence) PERPETUAL V. TEMPORARY
2. Perpetual absolute disqualification
(unless expressly remitted in the pardon PERPETUAL TEMPORARY
of the principal penalty.)
Effective during Effective during sentence and is
lifetime even after removed after
sentence

Exceptions (continue even after)

1. Deprivation of the
public office or
employment;
2. Loss of all rights to
retirement pay or other
pension for any office
formerly held.
(These are not reinstated after
sentence)

Prision Mayor
DURATION: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years (Art 27)

CRIMES PUNISHABLE
Infanticide committed by mother to hide her dishonor (RA 7659)

CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES

Prisión Correccional Arresto Mayor

DURATION: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years (Art 27) DURATION: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months (Art 27)

SUBSIDIARY PENALTY (Art 39) SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES (Art 39)

● If convict has no property to meet pecuniary liabilities, he is subject ● If convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in
to subsidiary personal liability of P2.50 rate each day subject to the paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a
ff. rules: subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount
equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the
 1. If the principal penalty imposed is prison correccional Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by
or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement trial court, subject to the following rules
until his fine and pecuniary liabilities are satisfied. BUT ● If the principal penalty imposed be prision correctional or arresto
his subsidiary confinement shall not exceed ⅓ of the and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his fine referred in
term of the sentence and in no case shall it continue for the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment
more than 1 year. shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case
2. If principal penalty is only a fine — subsidiary shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a
imprisonment shall not exceed 6 months for grave of less day shall be counted against the prisoner.
grave felony; not exceed 15 days for light felony
3. If principal penalty is higher than prison correccional, no [ACCESSORY PENALTIES]
subsidiary imprisonment. Article 44 of RPC — Arresto:
1. Suspension of the right to hold office
2. Suspension of the right of suffrage
RULES Both DURING

Penalty Imposed Subsidiary Penalty

Prisión correccional or Subsidiary imprisonment is not to exceed 1/3 of the

Arresto AND fine term of the sentence, and in no case to continue for
more than one year. Fraction or part of a day, not
counted.

Fine only Subsidiary imprisonment:

1. Not to exceed 6 months
- if the culprit is prosecuted
for grave or less grave
felony
2. Not to exceed 15 days
- if prosecuted for light
felony

Higher than prisión No subsidiary imprisonment

correccional

If the penalty imposed is not to Subsidiary penalty shall consist in the same
be executed by confinement, deprivations as those of the principal penalty, under
but of fixed duration the same rules as #s 1, 2, 3 above

[ACCESSORY PENALTIES]
Article 43 of RPC:
1. Suspension from public office, profession or calling;
2. Perpetual special disqualification from suffrage, IF the duration of
imprisonment exceeds 18 months
- (unless expressly remitted in the pardon of the principal
penalty).

Suspension Destierro

DURATION: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years (Art 27) DURATION: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years (Art 27)
- except when suspension is an accessory penalty,
in which case its duration is that of the principal penalty DEFINITION
Article 87 of RPC: Shall not be permitted to enter:
DEFINITION ● The place or places designated in the sentence
The penalties of suspension from public office, profession or calling or the right ● Nor within the radius specified (Not more than 250 and not less than
of suffrage produce the following effects: 25 kilometers from the place designated)
a. Disqualification from holding such office or exercising such ● It is a principal, correctional, and divisible penalty.
profession or calling or right of suffrage during the term of the
sentence. WHEN IMPOSED EFCP
b. If suspended from public office, the offender cannot hold 1. Serious physical injuries or death under exceptional circumstances
another office having similar functions during the period of (RPC, Art. 247)
suspension. 2. Failure to give bond for good behavior, (RPC, Art. 284)
3. Penalty for the concubine in concubinage (RPC, Art. 334)
[What suspension from exercise of profession covers] 4. Where after reducing the penalty by one or more degrees, destierro
Deprives the offender of the right of exercising any kind of profession or calling, is the proper penalty.
covers calling or trade of a broker, master plumber, etc.

LIGHT PENALTIES

Arresto Menor Public Censure

[DURATION]
Article 27 of RPC: 1 day to 30 days. [DURATION]
Indivisible penalty
[SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES]
Article 39 of RPC — Subsidiary Penalty:
● If convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage
rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction by trial court, subject to the following
rules
● If the principal penalty imposed be prision correctional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his
fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term
of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted
against the prisoner.

[ACCESSORY PENALTIES]
Article 44 of RPC — Arresto:
3. Suspension of the right to hold office
4. Suspension of the right of suffrage
Both DURING
 COMMON PENALTIES

Fine Bond to keep the peace

[WHEN AFFLICTIVE, CORRECTIONAL, LIGHT]
Article 26 of [BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE]
Fine is: Article 27
1. Afflictive— Over 1,200,000 The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time
2. Correctional— 40,000-1,200,000 as the court may determine.
3. Light Penalty— less than 40,000

[SUBSIDIARY PENALTY] [EFFECTS]

Article 39 Article 35:
● If the convict has no property with which to meet the pecuniary liabilities ● Any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace must:
mentioned in paragraphs 1st, 2nd and 3rd of the next preceding article, he Present 2 sufficient sureties who shall undertake that the
shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for offender will not commit the offense sought to be prevented,
each 2 pesos and 50 centavos, subject to the following rules: and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prisión correccional or amount determined by the court in the judgment OR deposit
arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his such amount in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee
fine and pecuniary liabilities referred in the preceding said undertaking.
paragraph are satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall ● The court shall determine the period of duration of the bond.
not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no ● The offender may be detained if he cannot give the bond, for a
case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction period not exceeding 6 months if prosecuted for grave or less
or part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner. grave felony, or for a period not to exceed 30 days, if for a light
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the felony.
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the
culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave [NOTE]
felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony. ● Bond to keep the peace is not bail bond
○ Bond to keep the peace or for good behavior is
[IMPOSING FINES] imposed as a penalty in threats. (Art. 284)
Article 66 ○ This is different from a bail bond (Rule 114, Revised
● Courts may fix any amounts within the limits established by law Rules of Criminal Procedure) to secure the
● Attention should be giving to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances provisional release of an accused person after his
as well as the wealth and means of the culprit arrest or during trial but before final judgment of
conviction.

ACCESSORY PENALTIES

Principal Penalty Inherent Accessory Penalties

ART 40: Death penalty 1. Civil interdiction during 30 years, if not expressly remitted in the pardon
(when not executed by reason of 2. Perpetual absolute disqualification
commutation or pardon)

ART 41: Reclusion perpetua 1. Civil interdiction for life or during the sentence
Reclusion temporal 2. Perpetual absolute disqualification, unless expressly remitted in the pardon of the principal penalty

ART 42: Prision Mayor 1. Temporary absolute disqualification,

2. Perpetual special disqualification from suffrage, unless expressly remitted in the pardon of the principal penalty

ART 43: Prision correccional 1. Suspension from public office, profession, or calling
2. Perpetual special disqualification from suffrage, if the duration of imprisonment exceeds 18 months, unless
expressly remitted in the pardon of the principal penalty

ART 44: Arresto Suspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.

ART 45: Destierro None provided

DSCIFP

Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Suspension from Public office, the right to Civil Interdiction
Disqualification vote, and be voted for, the profession or
Article 30 — Effects of the penalties of calling [CIVIL INTERDICTION & EFFECTS]
perpetual or temporary absolute Article 34
disqualification PRPR ● Suspension from Civil interdiction shall produce the
1. Deprivation of Public office and ○ Public office following effects:
employment (even if conferred by ○ Right to follow profession or a. Deprivation of the rights of
popular election) calling parental authority or
○ Right to vote and be ford for
2. Deprivation of right to vote or to guardianship of any ward.
● IF: imprisonment exceeds 18 months
be elected ● Disqualification applies EVEN IF b. Deprivation of marital
3. Disqualification from public office pardoned for the principal penalty authority
4. Loss of all rights to retirement and ○ EXCEPT if the principal c. Deprivation of the right to
pension of any office held penalty was expressly manage his property and
remitted in the pardon of the right to dispose of
PERPETUAL TEMPORARY
Absolute Absolute Disqualification
such property by any act or
Disqualification any conveyance inter vivos.

Effective Effective during

 Forfeiture or confiscation of the Payment of the Costs
during lifetime sentence and is
instruments and proceeds of the offense
and even after removed after
sentence [PROVISION]
[PROVISION] Article 37
Exceptions: Article 45 ● Fees and indemnities in the
3. Deprivation of ● Applies to every penalty imposed for a course of the judicial
the public office felony proceedings, whether fixed or
or employment; ● Such proceeds and instruments or tools unalterable amounts previously
and shall be confiscated and forfeited in determined by law or
4. Loss of all rights favor of the Government, unless they be regulations in force, or amounts
to retirement the property of a third person not liable not subject to schedule
pay or other for the offense, but those articles which
pension for any are not subject of lawful commerce shall [INCLUDED]
office formerly be destroyed. 1. Fees
held. 2. Indemnities
(These are not [RULES CITL]
reinstated after 1. Every penalty imposed Carries with it [NOTES]
sentence) the forfeiture of the proceeds of the ● Chargeable to the accused
crime and the instruments or tools used only in cases of conviction.
in the commission of the crime In cases of acquittal, the costs
Perpetual or Temporary Special - NOTE: No forfeiture if no are de officio (each party
Disqualification criminal case is filed bearing his own expenses)
Article 31 — Effects of the Penalties of 2. Confiscated and forfeited In favor of the
Perpetual or Temporary Special Government; ● No costs shall be allowed
3. Property of a Third person not liable for against the Republic of the
Disqualification…. for public office,
the offense shall not besubject to Philippines, unless otherwise
profession or calling: provided by law
confiscation and forfeiture;
1. Deprivation of office affected - NOTE: prevails
2. Disqualification from holding notwithstanding the fact that ● Payment of costs is a matter
similar offices or employments the third person could have that rests entirely upon the
either perpetually or during been convicted if indicted with discretion of courts
sentence the accused
4. Property not subject of Lawful
commerce (whether it belongs to the
accused or to third person) shall be
destroyed.

It is an accessory penalty. Thus, where the penalty

imposed did not include the confiscation of the
property, the confiscation or forfeiture of the
property would be an additional penalty and would
tantamount to an increase of the penalty already
imposed → thereby placing the accused in double
jeopardy

Articles which are forfeited, when the order of

forfeiture is already final, cannot be returned even
in case of an acquittal

[DO NOT APPLY WHEN]

1. The instruments belong to innocent third
parties;
2. Such properties have not been placed
under the jurisdiction of the court
because they must be presented in
evidence and identified in judgment
3. When it is legally or physically
impossible.

The failure of prosecution to prove the seizure of

marijuana without a warrant was conducted in
accordance with the "plain view doctrine.”
● Court held that the marijuana is
inadmissible in evidence against the
accused-appellant.
● However, the confiscation of the drug
must be upheld.

Indemnification
[INDEMNIFICATION]
Article 107

Indemnity refers generally to crimes against persons; reparation to crimes against property.

Contributory negligence on the victim’s part reduces the civil liability of the offender

The civil liability may be increased only if it will not require an aggravation of the decision in the criminal case on which it is based.

Damages Recoverable in case of death:

1. Civil Liability ex delicto
2. Loss of earning capacity of the deceased
 3. Support in favor of a person to whom the deceased was obliged to give
4. Moral damages for mental anguish in favor of spouse, descendant and ascendant of the deceased
5. Exemplary damages in certain cases (Art 2230 of the Civil Code)

In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequence of the act or
omission complained of.

Civil Indemnity and moral damages are mandatory without need of allegation of proof other than the death of the victim in murder and homicide.

Civil indmnity is authimatically awarded upon proof of the commission of the crime of rape by the offender.
- Rape with homicide = 100,000
- Rape by sexual assault = 30,000 as civil indemnity + 30,000 as moral damages

The amount of damages for death caused by a crime is increased from time to time by the Supreme Court

Indemnity for loss of earning

- Net earning capacity = life expectancy x (Gross annual income - living expenses)
- Life expectancy = ⅔ x (80-age of the deceased)

Temperate Damages
Moral Damages
Exemplary Damages

SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES

[RULES AS TO SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES]

Penalty Imposed Subsidiary Penalty

Prision correccional or arresto AND fine Subsidiary imprisonment is not to exceed ⅓ of the term of the sentence, and in
no case to continue for more than one year. Fraction or part of a day, not
counted.

Fine only Subsidiary imprisonment:

a. Not to exceed 6 months — if the culprit is prosecuted for grave or
less grave felony, and
b. Not to exceed 15 days if prosecuted for light felony

Higher than prison correcional No subsidiary imprisonment

If the penalty imposed is not ot be executed by confinemne, but of fixed Subsidary penalty shall consist in the same deprivations as those of the
duration principal penalty under the same rules as nos. 1, 2, and 3 above.

[MEMAID ON SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES]

● What is a subsidiary penalty?
- Liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property with which to meet the fine, at the rate of one day for each
amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing at the time of the rendition of judgment of conviction.
● A judgment of conviction must impose subsidiary imprisonment.
● No Subsidiary Penalty for nonpayment of other pecuniary liabilities
- There is no subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of: (1) Reparation of the damage caused, (2) indemnification of the
consequential damages, and (3) the costs of the proceedings
● Article 39 only applies when the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of Article 38
● The penalty imposed must be (1) prison correcional, (2) arresto mayor, (3) arresto menor, (4) suspension, (5) destierro, or (6) fine only.
- If the penalty imposed by the court is not the abovementioned then subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed.
 Art 70
Application and Computation of Penalties
Art 78
General Rules Art 86-88
Article 5: Duty of the Court
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus, Pete Lagran
Article 21: Penalties that May be Imposed

Article 28: Computation of Penalties

Probation Law (PD 968 as amended)
Article 29: Period of Preventive Imprisonment
See also: RA 10707
Article 46: Penalty for Principals in General
Suspension of Sentence
Article 73-77: Provisions Common in the Last 2
Preceding Sections ● In cases of insanity (Art 79)
● Art 73: Accessory penalties are also ● Minors
deemed imposed (Note: subsidiary penalty ○ Section 31-35 AM No. 02-1-18 SC
is NOT an accessory penalty thus must be ○ RA 9344
expressly stated)
● Art 74: When the penalty is higher than
reclusion perpetua, and death is not
provided, shall be the same penalty and the
accessory penalties of Art. 40
● Art 75: Execution and Service of Penalties
● Art 76:
● Art 77:
General Rules
Specific Rules

Article 48: Comlex Crimes Probation Law

Article 49: Suspension of Sentence

Article 50-57, 60-61

Article 58

Article 59

Article 62-66

Article 67 and 69

Minors

Indeterminate Sentence Law

People v. Lanuza

Talampas v. People

People v. Temporada

Execution and Service of Penalties

General Rules
Article 47
 ACCESSORY PENALTIES

SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES

Compound Crime

Tabaco Valdez

Complex Crime Proper

Hernandez Enrile v. Salazar

Garcia Batulanon v. People

Continuing Crime

Madrigal-Gonzales Gamboa v. CA

Mallari Santiago v. Garchitorena

Composite Crimes/Special Complex Crims

Art 266-B Art 267

Art 294 Art 297

Art 320

Complex Crimes in Relation to Quasi-Crimes