Parricide

criminologists
11:10 AM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.246
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person is killed;
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused;
3. That the deceased is the
a. father, mother, or
b. child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or
c. legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or
d. legitimate spouse of the accused.

The relationship of the offender with the

victim is the essential element of parricide.
Essential element: relationship of
offender with the victim; except for
spouses, only relatives by blood and
in direct line (adopted are not
included)

Parents and children are not included in the

term ascendants or descendants.
The other ascendant or descendant must be
legitimate. On the other hand, the father,
mother or child may be legitimate or
illegitimate.

The child should not be less than 3 days

old. Otherwise, the offense is infanticide.
Supreme Court ruled that Muslim
husbands with several wives can be
convicted of parricide only in case the
first wife is killed.
Relationship must be alleged and proved.
If not,relationship would only be considered
as aggravating circumstance.
A stranger who cooperates in committing
parricide is liable for murder or homicide.
Even if the offender did not know that the
person he had killed is his son, he is still
liable for parricide because the law does
not require knowledge of the relationship.
Cases of parricide when the penalty
shall not be reclusion perpetua to
death:
1. parricide through negligence (Art.365)
2. parricide by mistake (Art. 49)
3. parricide under exceptional circumstances
(Art. 247)
People vs. Dalag
A stranger who cooperates and
takes part in the commission of the crime
of parricide, is not guilty of parricide but

only homicide or murder, as the case may

be. The key element in parricide is the
relationship of the offender with the
victim.

Death Or Physical Injuries Under Exceptional Circumstances

criminologists
3:49 AM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.247

ELEMENTS:
1. A legally married person or parent surprises his spouse
or daughter (the latter must be under 18 and living with
them) in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person;
2. He/she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or
both of them any serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter; and
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of
his wife or daughter, or that he has not consented to
the infidelity of the other spouse.
This article does not define or penalize a felony, the
penalty is destierro.
Penalty of destierro for killer spouse is meant to protect
him from acts of reprisal by relatives of dead spouse.
It is not necessary that the parent be legitimate for the
application of this article.

This article applies only when the daughter is single.

Surprise means to come upon suddenly or unexpectedly.
Art. 247 is applicable even when the accused did not see
his spouse in the act sexual intercourse with another
person. It is enough that circumstances reasonably show
that the carnal act is being committed or has been
committed.
Sexual intercourse does not include preparatory acts.
Article does not apply: If the surprising took place
before any actual sexual intercourse could be done or
after the actual sexual intercourse was finished
Immediately thereafter means that the discovery, escape,
pursuit and the killing must all form parts of one
continuous act.
Immediately thereafter may be an hour after proximate
result of outrage overwhelming accused after chancing
upon spouse in basest act of infidelity
The killing must be the direct by-product of the rage of
the accused.
No criminal liability is incurred when less
serious or slight physical injuries are inflicted.
Moreover, in case third persons caught in the
crossfire suffer physical injuries, the accused
is not liable for physical injuries. The principle
that one is liable for the consequences of his

felonious act is not applicable, because his

act under Art.247 does not amount to a felony.
Requisites must be established by evidence of the defense
living with parent - is understood to be in their own
dwelling because of the embarrassment and humiliation
done to the parent and parental abode
- If done in a motel, article does not apply.
People v. Puedan
Evidence of the victims promiscuity is inconsequential
to the killing. The offender must prove that he actually
surprised his wife and her paramour in flagrante delicto,
and that he killed the man during or immediately
thereafter.
People v. Abarca
The killing must be the direct result of the outrage
suffered by the cuckolded husband. Although about one
hour had passed between the time the accused discovered
his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and
the time the latter was actually killed, it was held that
Article 247 was applicable, as the shooting was a
continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused.
Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not
murder. Two other persons suffered physical injuries as
they were caught in the crossfire when the accused shot
the victim. A complex crime of double frustrated murder
was not committed as the accused did not have the intent
to kill the two victims. Here, the accused did not commit
murder when he fired at the paramour of his wife. No
aberratio ictus because he was acting lawfully.

Murder
criminologists
4:22 AM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.248
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him;
3. That the killing was attended by any of the following qualifying
circumstances:
a. with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense
or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity,
b. in consideration of price, reward or promise,
c. by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car
or locomotive, fall of airship, by means of motor vehicles or
with the use of any other means involving great waste or ruin,
d. on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or any other public calamity,
e. with evident premeditation, or
f. with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanely augmenting the
suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person
or corpse; and
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
The victim must be killed in order to consummate the offense.
Otherwise, it would be attempted or frustrated murder.
When the victim is already dead, intent to kill becomes irrelevant.
It is important only if the victim did not die to determine if the

felony is physical injury or attempted or frustrated homicide.

That murder will exist with only one of the circumstances described
in Article 248. When more than one of said circumstances are present,
the others must be considered as generic aggravating.
That when the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one
qualifying circumstance, they cannot be considered as generic
aggravating.
Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the
information. Otherwise, they will only be considered as generic
aggravating circumstances.
Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder with the use
of poison.
PEOPLE vs. SANTOS, GR 127492, 1/16/04
A sudden and unexpected attack under circumstances which render
the victim unable to defend himself by reason of the suddenness
and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia.
PEOPLE vs. ERIC GUILLERMO, GR 147786, 1/20/04
Dismemberment of a dead body is one manner of outraging or
scoffing at the corpse of the victim.
PEOPLE vs. MONTAEZ, GR 148257, 3/17/04
The barefaced fact that Daniel Sumaylo pleaded
guilty to the felony of homicide is not a bar to the
appellant being found guilty of murder as a principal.
It bears stressing that Sumaylo plea-bargained on his
re-arraignment. Even if the public prosecutor and the
father of the victim agreed to Sumaylo's plea, the

State is not barred from prosecuting the appellant for

murder on the basis of its evidence, independently of
Sumaylo's plea of guilt.
People v. Pugay and Samson
Intent to kill must be present for the use of fire to
be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Intending to
make fun of a retard, Pugay poured gasoline on the latter while
Samson set him on fire. The retard died. There was no animosity
between the two accused and the victim such that it cannot be
said that they resort to fire to kill him. It was merely a part
of their fun making but because their acts were felonious, they
are criminally liable.
POISON - Treachery and evident premeditation are inherent in
murder by poison only if the offender has the intent
to kill the victim by use of poison.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
- act of the offender manifestly indicating that he
clung to his determination to kill his victim
- Evident premeditation is absorbed in price, reward or
promise, if without the premeditation the inductor
would not have induced the other to commit the act but
not as regards the one induced.
CRUELTY - Under Article 14, the generic aggravating circumstance
of cruelty requires that the victim be alive, when the
cruel wounds were inflicted and, therefore, must be
evidence to that effect. Yet, in murder, aside from
cruelty, any act that would amount to scoffing or

decrying the corpse of the victim will qualify the

killing to murder.

Homicide
criminologists
4:41 AM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.249
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances;
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Hence,
evidence of intent to kill is required only in attempted or frustrated
homicide.
There is no crime of frustrated homicide through negligence/imprudence.
Physical injuries are one of the essential elements of frustrated
homicide.
Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance in homicide.
In accidental homicide wherein death of a person is brought about
by a lawful act performed with proper care and skill and without
homicidal intent, there is no liability.
When the wounds that caused death were inflicted by 2 different persons,
even if they were not in conspiracy, each one of them is guilty of

homicide.
In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an
element, there must be satisfactory evidence of
(1) the fact of death and
(2) the identity of the victim.
Penalty shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law when the
victim is under 12 years of age
When several assailants not acting in conspiracy inflicted wounds on a
victim but it cannot be determined who inflicted which would which
caused the death of the victim, all are liable for the victims death.
In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent to kill. In
physical injuries, there is none. However, if as a result of the
physical injuries inflicted, the victim died, the crime will be
homicide because the law punishes the result, and not the intent of
the act.
Corpus delicti actual commission of crime charged
PEOPLE vs. DELA CRUZ, G.R. No. 152176, 10/1/03
The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently
established by the prosecution. The prosecution witness did not see
the actual stabbing of the victim. Therefore, there is no way of
determining on how the attack was initiated. In the same way that
no testimony would prove that the appellant contemplated upon the
mode to insure the killing. The crime committed by appellant is
homicide.
GOROSPE vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 147974. 1/29/04
No error was committed by the trial court in characterizing the

felonious assault as frustrated homicide and convicting appellant

therefor. The appellant acted with intent to kill in firing the gun at
Miguel. Usually, the intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon
used by the offender and the parts of the victims body at which the
weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted.
ARADILLOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 135619, 1/15/04
An accused may be convicted of slight, less serious or serious physical
injuries in a prosecution for homicide or murder, inasmuch as the
infliction of physical injuries could lead to any of the latter
offenses when carried to its utmost degree despite the fact that an
essential requisite of the crime of homicide or murder - intent to
kill - is not required in a prosecution for physical injuries.
People v. Castillo
There is no offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence.
Accused pharmacist prepared the medicine on prescription but
erroneously used a highly poisonous substance. When taken by the patient,
the latter nearly died. Accused is guilty only of physical injuries
through reckless imprudence. The element of intent to kill in frustrated
homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence.

Death Caused In A Tumultuous Affray

criminologists
5:03 AM

Crimes Against Persons

Tumultuous Affray

Death Caused In A Tumultuous Affray

ELEMENTS:
1. That there be several persons;
2. That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally;
3. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a
confused and tumultuous manner;
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray;
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or
who used violence can be identified.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. person/s who inflicted serious physical injuries
2. if it is not known who inflicted serious physical injuries on the
deceased, all persons who used violence upon the person of the victim.
Tumultuous affray exists when at least 4 persons take part in it.
When there are 2 identified groups of men who assaulted each other,
there is no tumultuous affray.

The person killed need not be a participant in the affray

Those who used violence are liable for death caused in a tumultuous
affray only if it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious
physical injuries on the deceased
Tumultuous in Article 153 more than three persons who are armed
or provided with means of violence
Tumultuous affray is a commotion in a confused manner to an extent
that it would not be possible to identify who the killer is if death
results, or who inflicted the serious physical injury, but the person or
persons who used violence are known.
If there is conspiracy, this crime is not committed.
If nobody could still be traced to have employed violence upon the
victim, nobody will answer. The crimes committed might be
disturbance of public order, or if participants are armed, it could be
tumultuous disturbance, or if property was destroyed, it could be
malicious mischief.

Physical Injuries Inflicted In A Tumultuous Affray

criminologists
5:20 AM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.252
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding
article;
2. That a participant or some participants thereof suffer serious

physical injuries or physical injuries of a less serious nature

only;
3. That the person responsible therefor cannot be identified; and
4. That all those who appear to have used violence upon the person
of the offended party are known.
Persons liable: All those who have used violence on the person of
the offended party.
Injured party must be a participant of the tumultuous affray
If the one who caused physical injuries are known, he will be liable
for physical injuries actually committed
Slight physical injuries not included
Physical injury should be serious or less serious
No crime of physical injuries resulting from a tumultuous affray if
the physical injury is only slight. Slight physical injury is
considered as inherent in a tumultuous affray.

Giving Assistance to Suicide

criminologists
5:31 AM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.253
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is
consummated or not.
2. Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent
of doing the killing himself.

A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally liable.

Giving assistance to suicide means giving means (arms, poison, etc.)
or whatever manner of positive and direct cooperation (intellectual
aid, suggestions regarding the mode of committing suicide, etc.).

A pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide by means of poison but

instead of dying, the fetus in her womb was expelled, is not liable
for abortion.
If the person does the killing himself, the penalty is similar to
that of homicide, which is reclusion temporal. There can be no
qualifying circumstance because the determination to die must come
from the victim. This does not contemplate euthanasia or mercy killing
where the crime is homicide (if without consent; with consent, covered
by Article 253).

Assistance to suicide is different from mercy- killing. Euthanasia or

mercy-killing is the practice of painlessly putting to death a person
suffering from some incurable disease. In this case, the person does
not want to die. A doctor who resorts to euthanasia may be held liable
for murder.
Penalty is mitigated if suicide is not successful.
The person attempting to commit suicide is not liable if he survives.
Euthanasia is not lending assistance to suicide. In euthanasia, the

victim is not in a position to commit suicide. A doctor who resorts to

euthanasia of his patient may be liable for murder.

Discharge Of Firearms
criminologists
5:42 AM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.254
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender discharges a firearm against or at another
person; and
2. That the offender has no intention to kill that person.
The offender must shoot at another with any firearm without
intention of killing him. If the firearm is not discharged at a
person, the act is not punished under this article.
No crime if firearm is not discharged.
A discharge towards the house of the victim is not discharge of
firearm. Firing a gun at the house of the offended party, not
knowing in what part of the house the people were, is only alarm
under Art. 155.
Usually, the purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or
frighten the offended party.
If there is intention to kill, it may be classified as frustrated
or attempted parricide, murder, or homicide.
No intent to kill if the distance is 200 meters.

There is a special complex crime of illegal discharge of firearm with

serious or less serious physical injuries.
It is essential for prosecution to prove that the discharge of
firearm was directed precisely against the offended party.
Intent to kill is negated by the fact that the distance between
the victim and the offender is 200 yards.
A person can be held liable for discharge even if the gun was not
pointed at the offended party when it fired as long as it was
initially aimed at or against the offended party.

Infanticide
criminologists
5:53 AM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.255
ELEMENTS:
1. That a child was killed;
2. That the deceased child was less than three days (72 hours)
of age; and
3. That the accused killed the said child.
When the offender is the father, mother or legitimate ascendant,
he shall suffer the penalty prescribed for parricide. If the
offender is any other person, the penalty is that for murder.
In either case, the proper qualification for the offense is infanticide.
If the offender is the parent and the victim is less than three days
old, the crime is infanticide and not parricide. The fact that the
killing was done to conceal her dishonor will not mitigate the criminal

liability anymore because concealment of dishonor in killing the child

is not mitigating in parricide.
Only the mother and maternal grandparents of the child are entitled
to the mitigating circumstance of concealing the dishonor.

When infanticide is committed by the mother or maternal grandmother of

the victim in order to conceal the mothers dishonor, such fact is
only mitigating.
The delinquent mother who claims that she committed the offense to conceal
the dishonor must be of good reputation. Hence, if she is a prostitute,
she is not entitled to a lesser penalty because she has no honor to protect.
There is no infanticide when the child was born dead, or although born
alive it could not sustain an independent life when it was killed.
A stranger who cooperates in the perpetration of infanticide committed
by the mother or grandparent on the mothers side, is liable for
infanticide, but he must suffer the penalty prescribed for murder.
Concealment of dishonor is not an element of infanticide. It merely
lowers the penalty. If the child is abandoned without any intent to
kill and death results as a consequence, the crime committed
is not infanticide but abandonment under Article 276.

Intentional Abortion
criminologists
6:10 AM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.256

ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman;
2. That violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered,
or that the accused otherwise acts upon such pregnant woman;
3. That as a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages
upon her, or any other act of the accused, the fetus dies,
either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
4. That the abortion is intended.

A fetus about six months old cannot subsist by itself, outside

the maternal womb. Abortion usually means expulsion before 6th
month or before term of its viability
Viada: Abortion, as long as fetus dies as a result of violence
used or drugs administered
Infanticide, if: (1) Fetus could sustain independent life after
its separation from maternal womb, and
(2) it is killed
Fetus survives in spite of attempt to kill it or use of violence:
a. Abortion intended, all acts of execution performed
frustrated intentional abortion
b. Abortion not intended, fetus does not die physical injuries
No frustrated unintentional abortion
Ways of committing intentional abortion
1. Using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman;
2. Acting, but without using violence, without the consent of
the woman. (By administering drugs or beverages upon such
pregnant woman without her consent.)

3. Acting (by administering drugs or beverages), with the consent

of the pregnant woman.
If the mother as a consequence of abortion suffers death or physical
injuries, you have a complex crime of murder or physical injuries
and abortion.
In intentional abortion, the offender must know of the pregnancy
because the particular criminal intention is to cause an abortion.
If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and someone performs
an abortion upon her, he is liable for an impossible crime if the
woman suffers no physical injury. If she does, the crime will be
homicide, serious physical injuries, etc.
Frustrated abortion is committed if the fetus that is expelled is
viable and, therefore, not dead as abortion did not result despite
the employment of adequate and sufficient means to make the
pregnant woman abort.

Unintentional Abortion
criminologists
4:08 PM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.257
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman;
2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without
intending an abortion;
3. That the violence is intentionally exerted; and
4. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in
the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.

Committed only by violence(giving of bitter substance with no

intention to cause abortion is not unintentional abortion)
Violence must be intentionally exerted
Unintentional abortion may be complexed with other crimes such
as parricide or homicide
The accused can only be held liable if he knew that the woman
was pregnant. If there is no intention to cause abortion
and neither was violence exerted, Arts. 256 and 257 does not apply.
Unintentional abortion requires physical violence inflicted
deliberately and voluntarily by a third person upon
the pregnant woman.
If the pregnant woman aborted because of intimidation, the crime
committed is not unintentional abortion because there is no
violence; the crime committed is light threats.
If the pregnant woman was killed by violence by her husband,
the crime committed is the complex crime of parricide with
unlawful abortion.
Unintentional abortion may be committed through negligence as
it is enough that the use of violence be voluntary.
If the act of violence is not felonious, that is, act of
self-defense, and there is no knowledge of the womans
pregnancy, there is no liability. If the act of violence is
not felonious, but there is knowledge of the womans pregnancy,

the offender is liable for unintentional abortion.

People vs. Jose
Unintentional abortion can also be committed through negligence.
Jose is declared guilty of the crime of unintentional abortion
through reckless imprudence for having bumped a calesa which
resulted a pregnant woman to bump her abdomen against the wall of
the calesa and eventually led to an abortion.
People v. Salufrania
Mere boxing of the stomach taken together with the immediate
strangling of the victim in a fight, is not sufficient
proof to show an intent to cause abortion. The accused must
have merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily
to cause abortion. The accused is liable for complex crime of
parricide with unintentional abortion for it was merely
incidental to the killing.
People v. Carnaso
For the crime of abortion, even unintentional, to be held committed,
the accused must have known of the pregnancy.

Abortion Practiced By The Woman Herself Or By Her Parents

criminologists
4:21 PM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.258
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;
2. That the abortion is intended; and
3. That the abortion is caused by
a. the pregnant woman herself

b. any other person, with her consent, or

c. any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor.

The liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if the purpose

is to conceal her dishonor. However, there is no mitigation for
the parents of the pregnant women even if their purpose is to
conceal their daughters dishonor, unlike in infanticide.

Abortion Practiced By A Physician Or Midwife And Dispensing

Of Abortives
criminologists
4:30 PM

Crimes Against Persons

ART.259
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;
2. That the abortion is intended;
3. That the offender, who must be a physician or midwife, causes or
assists in causing the abortion; and
4. That said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her
scientific knowledge or skill.

It is not necessary that the pharmacist knew that the abortive would
be used to cause abortion. What is punished is the act of dispensing
an abortive without the proper prescription. It is not necessary that
the abortive be actually used.
If the pharmacist knew that the abortive would be used to cause
abortion and abortion results, he is liable as an accomplice.

RA 4729: regulates the sale, dispensation, and/or distribution of

contraceptive drugs and devices
If the abortion is produced by a physician to save the life of the
mother, there is no liability.
It is not unlawful if Sale, dispensation or distribution of
contraceptive drug or contraceptive device is by a duly licensed
drug store or pharmaceutical company and with prescription of
qualified medical practitioner.