UP08 Crim Circumstance

CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
THERE ARE FIVE CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY:
1. Justifying circumstances; Art. 11 (6)

2. Exempting circumstances; Art. 12 (7)
3. Mitigating circumstances; Art. 13 (10)
4. Aggravating circumstances; Art. 14 (21)
5. Alternative circumstances. Art. 15 (3)
THERE ARE OTHERS WHICH ARE FOUND ELSEWHERE IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE:
1. Absolutory cause; and

2. Extenuating circumstances.
JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AGGRAVATING ALTERNATIVE

CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANCE
NO CRIME THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS A CRIME
No criminal liability No criminal liability Decreased criminal liability Increased criminal liability Increased or decreased liability
No civil liability With civil liability With civil liability With civil liability
Except: Except:
state of necessity 1)accident;
2) insuperable cause
63
100% UP LAW UP BAROPS 2008
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW

(ART 11)
1. Self defense Acts of actor in accordance with
law, hence he incurs no criminal
2. Defense of relatives liability
3. Defense of strangers
4. Defense of property
5. State of Necessity
6. Fulfillment of duty
7. Obedience to a superior order
ELEMENTS
1. Self defense 1. Unlawful aggression Cano v. People (2003)
2. Reasonable necessity of means 1. Conrado and his deceased brother Orlando were rivals
employed to prevent or repel it in the Rush ID Photo business.
2. Condrado borrowed the permit of the Orlando and had
3. Lack of sufficient provocation it photocopied without the latters permission.
on part of defender
3. The deceased confonted Conrado and tried to stab him
Never confuse unlawful aggression with a fan knife.
with provocation. Mere provocation is 4. The latter locked himself in the dark room of his booth
not enough. It must be real and to protect himself but was followed by the deceased and
imminent. they ended up attacking each other. The scuffle resulted
in the death of the Orlando.
Self-defense includes the defense of
ones rights, that is, those rights the Held: Conrados act of killilng his brother was attended by
enjoyment of which is protected by a justifying circumstance of self-defense. It was the
law. deceased who purposely sought and initially attacked
Orlando with a knife.
Retaliation is different from an act of
self-defense. The act of a person armed with a bladed weapon pursuing
another constitutes unlawful agression because it
Battered Woman Syndrome signifies the pursuers intent to commit an assault
with his weapon. There was also lack of sufficient
Battered Woman Syndrome is now also provocation on the part of Condrado. His act of
accepted as a valid defense. In People photocopying the permit of his brother without the
64
Vs. Genosa, the court ruled that the latters permission can hardly be considered as
battered woman syndrome is provocation to merit so deadly an assault with a
characterized by a CYCLE OF bladed weapon.
VIOLENCE, which is made up of three
phases. People vs. Dijan
1) First Phase: THE TENSION- Unlawful aggression must also be a continuing

BUILDING PHASE circumstance or must have been existing at the time the
where minor battering occurs, it could defense is made. Once the unlawful aggression is found to
be a verbal or slight physical abuse or have ceased, the one making the defense of a stranger
another form of hostile behavior. The would likewise cease to have any justification for killing,
woman tries to pacify the batterer or even just wounding, the former aggressor.
through a show of kind, nurturing
behavior, or by simply staying out of Toledo v. People (2004)
the way. But this proves to be 1. Toledo saw his nephew, Ricky, and the latter's friends
unsuccessful as it only gives the about 5 m away from his house, having a drinking spree.
batterer the notion that he has the He ordered them not to make loud noises, and they
right to abuse her. obliged. He then went home to sleep.
2) Second Phase: ACUTE 2. Ricky and his friends also went to sleep after some
BATTERING INCIDENT time. They had not laid down for long when he heard
characterized by brutality, stones being hurled at the roof of the house. Ricky saw
destructiveness, and sometimes death. Toledo stoning their house and asked him why he was
The battered woman has no control; doing the same.
only the batterer can stop the violence.
The battered woman realizes that she 3. Toledo did not answer but met Ricky at the doorstep of
cannot reason with him and resistance his house and without warning stabbed Ricky on the
would only worsen her condition. abdomen with a bolo which resulted to his death.
3) Third Phase: TRANQUIL PERIOD 4. Toledo defended himself by alleging that his bolo
characterized by guilt on the part of the accidentally hit the stomach of the victim and that he was
batterer and forgiveness on the part of able to prove all the essential elements of self defense.
the woman. The batterer may show a
tender and nurturing behavior towards Held: The Court ruled that it is an aberration for Toledo to
his partner and the woman also tries to invoke the two defenses at the same time because the
convince herself that the battery will said defenses are intrinsically antithetical. There is no
never happen again and that her such defense as accidental self-defense in the realm of
partner will change for the better. criminal law.
The court ruled that Toledo was not justified in
stabbing Ricky. There was no imminent threat in his life
necessitating his assault. Records reveal that there is no
unlawful aggression, a condition sine qua non for the
justifying circumstance of self defense, on the part of
Ricky. Ricky arrived at Toledos house unarmed. With no
65
weapon to attack Toledo or defend himself, no sign of

hostility may be deduced from him.
2. Defense Of Relatives Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of means

employed to prevent or repel it
3. in case person attacked

provoked attacker defender
must have no part therein
Relatives entitled to defense:
1) Spouse
2) Ascendants
3) Descendants
4) legitimate, natural or adopted
Brothers/Sisters
5) Relatives by affinity in the same
degree
6) Relatives by consanguinity w/in
66
the 4th civil degree
3. Defense Of Strangers Elements:
Unlawful aggression;
Reasonable necessity of the

means employed to prevent or
repel it;
The person defending be not

induced by revenge, resentment
or other evil motive.
If the person being defended is a

second cousin, it will be defense of
stranger.
Defense Of Property This can only be invoked if
the life and limb of the person
making the defense
is also the subject of unlawful
aggression.
Life cannot be equal to property.
State Of Necessity (Avoidance Elements: Illustrations: Ty v. People (2004)
Of Greater Evil)
1. Evil sought to be avoided A drove his car beyond the speed 1. Ty's mother and sister were confined at the Manila
actually exist limit so much so that when he Doctors' Hospital. Ty signed the "Acknowledgment of
reached the curve, his vehicle skidded Responsibility for Payment" in the Contract of Admission.
2. Injury feared be greater than towards a ravine. He swerved his car
that done to avoid it towards a house, destroying it and 2. The total hospital bills of the two patients amounted to
killing the occupant therein. A cannot P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein
3. There is no other practical & be justified because the state of she assumed payment of the obligation in installments.
less harmful means of necessity was brought about by his
preventing it own felonious act. 3. To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7
postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the
The evil or injury sought to be A and B are owners of adjoining hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank
avoided must not have been created lands. A owns the land for planting due to insufficiency of funds.
by the one invoking the justifying certain crops. B owns the land for
circumstances. raising certain goats. C used another 4. As defense, Ty claimed that she issued the checks
land for a vegetable garden. There because of an uncontrollable fear of a greater injury.
General rule: No liability in was heavy rain and floods. Dam was She averred that she was forced to issue the checks to
justifying circumstances because opened. C drove all the goats of B to obtain release for her mother who was being inhumanely
there is no crime. the land of A. The goats rushed to the treated by the hospital. She alleged that her mother has
67
land to be saved, but the land of A contemplated suicide if she would not be discharged from
Exception: There is CIVIL was destroyed. The author of the act the hospital.
LIABILITY under this paragraph. is C, but C is not civilly liable because
They shall be liable in proportion he did not receive benefits. It was B 5. Ty was found guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of
to the benefit which they may who was benefited, although he was violation of BP22.
have been received. not the actor. He cannot claim that it
was a fortuitous event. B will answer Held:The court sustained the findings of the lower courts.
only to the extent of the benefit The evil sought to be avoided is merely expected or
derived by him. If C who drove all of anticipated. So the defense of an uncontrollable fear of a
the goats is accused of malicious greater injury is not applicable. Ty could have taken
mischief, his defense would be that advantage of an available option to avoid committing a
he acted out of a state of necessity. crime. By her own admission, she had the choice to give
He will not be civilly liable. jewelry or other forms of security instead of postdated
checks to secure her obligation.
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be
availing, the greater injury feared should not have been
brought about by the negligence or imprudence, more so,
the willful inaction of the actor. In this case, the issuance
of the bounced checks was brought about by Ty's own
failure to pay her mother's hospital bills.
Fulfillment Of Duty Or Lawful Elements: People v. Ulep (2000)

Exercise Of Right
1. Offender acted in performance 1. Accused-appellant and the other police officers
of duty or lawful exercise of a involved originally set out to restore peace and order at
right/office Mundog Subdivision where the victim was then running
amuck.
2. The resulting felony is the
unavoidable consequence of the 2. The victim threatened the safety of the police officers
due fulfillment of the duty or despite accused-appellant's previous warning shot and
the lawful exercise of the right verbal admonition to the victim to lay down his weapon.
or office.
3. As a police officer, it is to be expected that accused-
If first condition is present, appellant would stand his ground. Up to that point, his
but the second is not because the decision to respond with a barrage of gunfire to halt the
offender acted with culpa, victim's further advance was justified under the
the offender will be entitled to a circumstances. A police officer is not required to afford
privileged mitigating the victim the opportunity to fight back. Neither is he
circumstance. expected when hard pressed and in the heat of such an
the penalty would be reduced by encounter at close quarters to pause for a long moment
one or two degrees. and reflect coolly at his peril, or to wait after each blow to
determine the effects thereof.
4. But he cannot be exonerated from overdoing his duty
68
when he fatally shot the victim in the head, even after the
latter slumped to the ground due to multiple gunshot
wounds sustained while charging at the police officers.
Sound discretion and restraint dictated that a veteran
policeman should have ceased firing at the victim the
moment he saw the latter fall to the ground. The victim at
that point no longer posed a threa. Shooting him in the
head was obviously unnecessary.
The law does not clothe police officers with authority to

arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill- it must be stressed
that their judgment and discretion as police officers in the
performance of their duties must be exercised neither
capriciously nor oppressively, but within reasonable limits.
Pomoy v. People (2004)
1. Police Srgt Pomoy, went near the door of the jail where
Balboa was detained for robbery and directed the latter to
come out, purportedly for tactical interrogation at the
investigation room. At that time, petitioner had a gun, a
.45 caliber pistol, tucked in a holster which was hanging
by the side of his belt.
2. Balboa tried to remove Pomoys gun and the two

grappled for possession of the gun. Thereafter, 2
gunshots were heard. When the source of the shots was
verified, petitioner was seen still holding a .45 caliber
pistol, facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood.
3. Pomoy invoked the defense of accident for his defense.
Held: Pomoy is acquitted. At the time of the incident,

petitioner was a member of the (PNP) stationed at the
Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force Company. Thus, it was in the
lawful performance of his duties as investigating officer
that, under the instructions of his superior, he fetched the
victim from the latter's cell for a routine interrogation.
The participation of petitioner, if any, in the victim's death
was limited only to acts committed in the course of the
lawful performance of his duties as an enforcer of the law.
The removal of the gun from its holster, the release of the
safety lock, and the firing of the two successive shots
all of which led to the death of the victim were
sufficiently demonstrated to have been consequences of
69
circumstances beyond the control of petitioner. At the

very least, these factual circumstances create serious
doubt on the Pomoys culpability.
Obedience Of Superior Order Elements: Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan (1997)
1. Order must have been issued by 1. Pres. Marcos instructed Tabuena over the phone to
a superior pay directly to the Office of the President in cash what
MIAA owes
2. The order is for some lawful PNCC which later was reiterated in writing.
purpose
2. The Marcos memo indicated the amount of P55m for
3. The means used to carry it out partial payment of the obligation to PNCC.
must be lawful
3. In obedience to Marcos instruction, the accused
A subordinate is not liable for carrying withdrew the amount by means of 3 separate issuances of
out an illegal order of his superior, managers check and encashment in 3 separate dates as
if he is not aware of the illegality well.
of the order and
he is not negligent. 4. The money withdrawn were placed in peerless boxes
and duffle bags and delivered to the private secretary of
Marcos also in 3 separate days. According to the accused,
the disbursement was not in the normal procedure since
there were no vouchers supporting it and no receipt from
PNCC.
5. Tabuena and Peralta were convicted by the

Sandiganbayan of malversation.
Held: The accused were acquitted. Theyre entitled to the

justifying circumstance of obedience to an order issued by
a superior for some lawful purpose. Sandiganbayan
claimed that Marcos memo was unlawful because it
orders disbursement of P55M when the Ongpin memo
reveals that the liability is only 34.5M. Granting this to be
true, it will not affect Tabuenas good faith as to make
him criminally liable. Thus, even if the order is illegal if it
is patently legal and subordinate is not aware of its
illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there
would only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith.
70
EXEMPTING IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW

CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Imbecility/ insanity The reason for the exemption lies on
the involuntariness of the act
2. Minority
one or some of the ingredients of
3. Accident voluntariness such as criminal
intent, intelligence, or freedom of
4. Compulsion of action on the part of the offender is
irresistible force missing.
In case it is a culpable felony, there
5. Impulse of is absence of freedom of action or
uncontrollable fear intelligence, or absence of
negligence, imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill.
6. Insuperable or lawful
cause
1. Insanity And IMBECILE People vs. Dungo

Imbecility one who, while advanced in age, has a The insanity that is exempting is limited only to mental
mental development comparable to that of aberration or disease of the mind and must completely
children between 2 and 7 years of age. impair the intelligence of the accused.
Exempt in all cases from criminal liability
People vs. Rafanan
INSANE The following are the two tests for exemption on the
there is a complete deprivation of grounds of insanity:
intelligence in committing the act but
capable of having lucid intervals. During a i. The test of cognition, or whether the accused acted
lucid interval, the insane acts with with complete deprivation of intelligence in committing
intelligence and thus, not exempt from the said crime;
criminal liability.
ii. The test of volition, or whether the accused acted in
Insanity is a defense in the nature of total deprivation of freedom of will.
confession and avoidance and must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt Schizophrenia (dementia praecox) can only be
Evidence of insanity must refer to considered a mitigating circumstance because it does
the time preceding the act under not completely deprive the offender of consciousness of
prosecution or his acts.
at the very moment of its execution.
Insanity subsequent to commission of

crime is not exempting People v. Madarang (2000)
Feeblemindedness is not imbecility
71
(People vs. Formigones) 1. Fernando and his wife quarreled. In the heat of the
fight, the accused stabbed his wife causing her death.
Cases covered under this article:
2. The accused declared that he had no recollection of
Dementia praecox the stabbing incident.
Kleptomania: if found by a competent
psychiatrist as irresistible 3. Court ordered the accuseds confinement in a mental
Epilepsy institution where it was found that he was inflicted with
Somnambulism: sleep-walking schizophrenia. He was submitted to treatment for 2
(People Vs. Taneo) years, after which, he faced the charges against him.
Malignant malaria: which affects the
nervous system Held: The accused failed to prove that he was
completely deprived of intelligence in committing the
act. He did not show any signs of insanity prior to and
immediately after the act. He was only diagnosed of
schizophrenia months after the incident. Also, schizos
have lucid intervals.
2. Minority RA 9344 Juvenile Justice & Welfare Jose v. People (2005)
Act of 2006:
1. Jose, 13 yrs old was in a car with his cousin Zarraga,
1) 15 yrs old or below at the time when the latter inquired from the poseur buyer SPO1
of commission of offense: absolutely Guevarra if he could afford to buy shabu.
exempt from criminal liability but
subject to intervention program 2. When Guevarra replied in the affirmative Zarraga told
Jose to hand over the shabu. Jose gave the plastic
2) Over 15 yrs old but below 18: containing the shabu to Zarraga who handed it to
exempt from criminal liability & subject Guevarra.
to intervention program
3. The trial court convicted both Jose and Zarraga.
If acted w/ discernment: subject to
diversion program Held: Jose is acquitted. The prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that he acted with
3) Below 18 yrs are exempt from: discernment relative to the sale of shabu. Aside from
bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to
a) Status offense Zarraga, Jose merely sat in the car and had no other
participation in the transaction between his cousin and
the poseur buyer. There is no evidence that Jose knew
b) Vagrancy and Prostitution
what was inside the plastic and soft white paper before
and at the time he handed the same to Zarraga.
c) Mendicancy (PD1563)
d) Snuffing of Rugby (PD 1619)
3. Accident Elements: A person who is driving his car within the speed limit, People v. Concepcion (2002)
72
(Damnum Absque while considering the condition of the traffic and the
Injuria) 1. A person performing a lawful act; pedestrians at that time, tripped on a stone with one of 1. Galang was brought to the barangay hall for
his car tires. The stone flew hitting a pedestrian on the questioning by Brgy Captain Capitli because of a quarrel
2. With due care; head. The pedestrian suffered profuse bleeding. There is at plaza.
no civil liability under paragraph 4 of Article 12.
3. He causes an injury to another by Although this is just an exempting circumstance, where 2. Concepcion arrived and fired his rifle twice or thrice
mere accident; generally there is civil liability, yet, in paragraph 4 of past the ears of Galang without injuring him.
Article 12, there is no civil liability as well as criminal
4. Without fault or intention of liability. The driver is not under obligation to defray the 3. Then Concepcion thrust the barrel of the gun against
causing it. medical expenses. the abdomen of Galang. There was an explosion and
Galang was shot in the thigh. At least 3 more shots
ACCIDENT were fired, hitting him in the chest. In his defense
something that happen outside the Concepcion claimed that the shooting was only
sway of our will and although it comes accidental.
about through some act of our will,
lies beyond the bounds of humanly Held: There was no accident. By Concepcions own
foreseeable consequences. testimony, the victim was unarmed. In contrast, he had
an armalite and a handgun. It is highly inconceivable
Under Article 12, paragraph 4, the that an unarmed man could pose bodily harm to
offender is exempt not only from another who is heavily armed. Concepcions gun
criminal but also from civil liability discharged several shots that hit vital parts of the
victim's body. As observed by the trial court, recklessly
appellant had put his finger on the trigger of his cocked
and loaded rifle. In that state, with the slightest
movement of his finger, the rifle would fire readily. And
it did not just once but several fires. Concepcion is
guilty of homicide.
4. Irresistible Force Elements: People v. Lising (1998)
1. That the compulsion is by means 1. Manalili asked Garcia to find someone who could
of physical force. arrest of Herrera the suspect of the killing of his
brother.
2. That the physical force must be
irresistible. 2. Garcia introduced Lising and they had an agreement.
Lisings surveillance group was at the Castanos
3. That the physical force must residence in the hope of spotting Herrera. The group
come from a third person saw a man and a woman (the victims) leave the
residence and followed them and were accosted. Later,
the bodies of the 2 were found.
3. Lower court found that since there was an agreement

among Manalili, Garcia and Lising, they were all co-
conspirators. Garcia claimed that he acted under
compulsion of irresistible force.
73
Held: To be exempt from criminal liability, a person

invoking irresistible force must show that the force
exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere
instrument who acted not only without will but against
his will. Garcias participation from when the abduction
was hatched to the killing of the victims is undisputed.
5. Uncontrollable Elements: A is forced at gun point to forge the signature of B US v. Exaltation (1905)
Fear
1. That the threat which causes the 1. Exaltation and Tanchico were convicted w/ rebellion
fear is of an evil greater than or based on documents found in the house of Contreras, a
at least equal to, that which he so-called general of bandits, containing signatures of
is required to commit; defendants swearing allegiance to the Katipunan.
2. That it promises an evil of such 2. Defendants aver that these documents were signed
gravity and imminence that the under duress and fear of death.
ordinary man would have
succumbed to it. 3. They allege further that they were abducted by
thieves and that these men forced the defendants to
A threat of future injury is not enough. sign the documents
The compulsion must be of such a
character as to leave no opportunity Held: The duress under which the defendants acted
to the accused for escape or self- relieved them from criminal liability. Prosecution was
defense in equal combat. unable to prove the guilt of the accused and testimonies
of witnesses for the accused further corroborated their
defense.
6. Insuperable Or Elements: Person was arrested for direct assault at 5:00 pm after People v. Bandian (1936)
Lawful Causes government offices close. Art 125 RPC requires that a
1. That an act is required by law person arrested be delivered to judicial authorities within A woman cannot be held liable for infanticide when she
to be done; prescribed number of hours according to the gravity of left her newborn child in the bushes without being
offense. But complaint may only be filed the next day aware that she had given birth at all. Severe dizziness
2. That a person fails to perform when offices open. The circumstance of time of arrest and extreme debility made it physically impossible for
such act; may be considered as an insuperable cause. Bandian to take home the child plus the assertion that
she didnt know that she had given birth.
3. That his failure to perform
such act was due to some lawful or
insuperable cause
74
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW
1) Incomplete Justification And Mitigating circumstances are those which, if

Exemption present in the commission of the crime,
do not entirely free the actor from criminal
2) Under 18 Or Over 70 Years Of liability,
Age but serve only to reduce the penalty.
3) No Intention To Commit So They are based on the diminution of either

Grave A Wrong freedom of action, intelligence or intent or on the
lesser perversity of the offender.
4) Sufficient Provocation Or
Threat The circumstances under Article 13 are generally
ordinary mitigating,
5) Immediate Vindication Of A except in paragraph 1, where it is privileged,
Grave Offense Article 69 would apply.
when the crime committed is

6) Passion or obfuscation
punishable by a divisible penalty,
two or more of this ordinary mitigating
7) Voluntary surrender
circumstances
if there is no aggravating circumstance at all
8) Voluntary plea of guilt shall have the effect of a privileged
mitigating circumstance
9) Plea to a lower offense
Correlate Article 13 with Articles 63 and 64.
10) Physical defect Article 13 is meaningless without knowing
the rules of imposing the penalties under
11)Illness Articles 63 and 64.
12)Analogous circumstances TIP: In bar problems, when you are given

indeterminate sentences, these articles are very
important.
DISTINCTIONS:
Ordinary MC Privileged MC
Can be offset by any Cannot be offset by
aggravating aggravating circumstance
circumstance
If not offset by The effect of imposing
aggravating upon the offender the
circumstance, produces penalty lower by one or
75
the effect of applying two degrees than that

the penalty provided by provided by law for the
law for the crime in its crime.
min period in case of
divisible penalty
1) Incomplete Justification
And Exemption INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of

relatives, defense of stranger
In these 3 classes of defense, UNLAWFUL

AGGRESSION must always be present. It is
an indispensable requisite.
Par. 1 of Art. 13 is applicable only when
unlawful aggression is present
but the other 2 requisites are not present in
any of the cases referred to in circumstances
number 1, 2 and 3 or Art. 11.
Example:
When the one making defense against unlawful

aggression used unreasonable means to prevent or
repel it, he is entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance.
2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of

avoidance of greater evil or injury.
REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 11:
a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

b. That the injury feared be greater than that done
to avoid it;
c. That there be no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it.
Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying

circumstance if all the three requisites mentioned
in par. 4 of Art. 11 are present.
But if any of the last two requisites is lacking,
76
there is only a mitigating circumstance. People v. Oanis
The SC considered one of the 2 requisites as

3. Incomplete justifying circumstance of constituting the majority. It seems that there is
performance of duty. no ordinary mitigating circumstance under Art.
13 par. 1 when the justifying or exempting
circumstance has 2 requisites only.
a. That the accused acted in the performance of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
and
b. That the injury caused or offense committed be
the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty or the lawful exercise
of such right or office.
INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of

minority over 9 and under 15 years of age.
a. That the offender is over 9 and under 15 years

old; and
b. That he does not act with discernment.
If the minor over 9 and under 15 years of age

acted with discernment, he is entitled only to a
mitigating circumstance, because not all the
requisites to exempt from criminal liability are
present.

accident.
REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 12 :
a. A person is performing a lawful act;

b. With due care;
c. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
and
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
77
If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th requisite

are absent,
the case will fall under Art. 365 which
punishes reckless imprudence.
If the 1st requisite and 2nd part of the 4th requisite

are absent,
it will be an intentional felony.

uncontrollable fear.
a. That the threat which caused the fear was of an

evil greater than, or at least equal to, that which
he was required to commit;
b. That it promised an evil of such gravity and
imminence that an ordinary person would have
succumbed to it.
If only one of these requisites is present, there is

only a mitigating circumstance.
2. Under 18 Or Over 70 Years Of In lowering the penalty:
Age Based on age of the offender at the time of
the commission of the crime not the age
when sentence is imposed
In suspension of the sentence:

Based on age of the offender at the time
the sentence is to be promulgated (See
Art. 80, RPC)
Par. 2 contemplates the ff:
1. An offender over 9 but under 15 of age who

acted with discernment.
2. An offender fifteen or over but under 18
years of age.
3. An offender over 70 years old
LEGAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS AGES OF

OFFENDER:
78
1. Under 9 years of age, an exempting

circumstance. (Art. 12, par. 2)
2. Over 9 and under 15 years of age, also an
exempting circumstance, unless he acted with
discernment (Art. 12, par. 3)
3. Minor delinquent under 18 years of age, the
sentence may be suspended. (Art. 192, PD No.
603 as amended by PD 1179)
4. Under 18 years of age, privileged mitigating
circumstance (Art. 68)
5. 18 years or over, full criminal responsibility.
3. No Intention To Commit So There must be a notable disproportion People v. Calleto (2002)

Grave A Wrong between the means employed by the offender 1. Alfredo, Lecpoy and Eduardo were watching a
compared to that of the resulting felony. game. Out of nowhere, Calleto appeared behind
Alfredo and stabbed the latter on the left
The intention, as an internal act, is judged shoulder near the base of the neck with a 9-inch
not only by the proportion of the means hunting knife.
employed by him to the evil produced by his
act, 2. Instinctively, Alfredo stood up and managed
but also by the fact that the blow was or was to walk a few meters. When he fell on the
not aimed at a vital part of the body; ground, Lecpoy and Eduardo rushed to help him
this includes: the weapon used, the injury but Alfredo died shortly.
inflicted and his attitude of the mind when
the accused attacked the deceased. 3. Calleto voluntary surrendered. He claims that
his liability should be mitigated by the fact that
This circumstance does not apply when the crime he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
results from criminal negligence or culpa.
Held: The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong so
Only applicable to offense resulting in physical grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on
injuries or material harm. It is not applicable to the weapon used, the part of the body injured,
defamation or slander. the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted.
The fact that the accused used a 9-inch hunting
This mitigating circumstance is not applicable knife in attacking the victim from behind, without
when the offender employed brute force. giving him an opportunity to defend himself,
clearly shows that he intended to do what he
Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is not actually did, and he must be held responsible
appreciated where the offense committed is therefor, without the benefit of this mitigating
characterized by treachery. circumstance.
In crimes against persons who do not die as a

result of the assault, the absence of the intent to
kill reduces the felony to mere physical injuries,
but it does not constitute a mitigating
79
circumstance under Art. 13(3).
4. Sufficient Provocation Or Threat PROVOCATION: Romera v. People (2004)

Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, 1. Romera heard the victim Roy call him and his
capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating wife, asking if they had beer and a fighter for
anyone. sale. He did not answer Roy because he knew
that Roy was already drunk.
Elements:
2. As Roy was persistent, Romera went down
1. That the provocation must be sufficient the house but as he opened the door Roy thrust
his bolo at him w/c he parried
2. That it must originate from the offended
party 3. Roy said he would kill Romera. Romera tried
to prevent Roy from entering as Roy kept
3. That the provocation must be immediate hacking at the wall.
to the act, i.e., to the commission of the
crime by the person who is provoked. 4. Romera tried to ward off Roys assault as he
grappled for the bolo and stabbed Roy in the
stomach. Wounded, Roy begged for forgiveness.
TIP:
Romera desisted for fear he might kill Roy.
The common set-up given in a bar problem is that of
provocation given by somebody to whom the person
Held: There was sufficient provocation and the
provoked cannot retaliate against; thus the person
circumstance of passion or obfuscation attended
provoked retaliated on a younger brother or on an
the commission of the offense. Thrusting his bolo
elder father. Although in fact, there is sufficient
at Romera, threatening to kill him, and hacking
provocation, it is not mitigating because the one who
the bamboo walls of his house are sufficient
gives the provocation is not the one against whom
provocation to enrage any man, and obfuscate
the crime was committed.
his thinking, more so when his family are in
danger. Romera stabbed Roy as a result of the
You have to look at two criteria:
provocations, and while he was in a fit of rage.
The court however stressed that provocation
1.If from the element of time, there is a
and passion or obfuscation are not 2
a. material lapse of time stated in the problem
separate mitigating circumstances. It is well-
and
settled that if these 2 circumstances are based
b. there is nothing stated in the problem that
on the same facts, they should be treated
the effect of the threat of provocation had
together as one mitigating circumstance. It
prolonged and affected the offender at the
is clear that both circumstances arose from the
time he committed the crime,
same set of facts. Hence, they should not be
c. then you use the criterion based on the time
treated as two separate mitigating
element.
circumstances.
2.If there is that time element and at the same time,
a. facts are given indicating that at the time the
80
offender committed the crime, he is still

suffering from outrage of the threat or
provocation done to him,
b. then he will still get the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.
5. Immediate Vindication Of A Elements: People v. Torpio (2004)

Grave Offense
1. That there be a grave offense done to 1. During a drinking spree in a cottage, Anthony
the one committing the felony, his spouse, tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin and as the
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with gin
or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by and mauled him several times.
affinity within the same degree.
2. Dennis crawled beneath the table and
2. That the felony is committed in Anthony tried to stab him with a 22 fan knife but
vindication of such grave offense. A lapse of did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran towards
time is allowed between the vindication and their home.
the doing of the grave offense.
3. Upon reaching home, he got a knife. He went
The vindication need not be done by the back to the cottage. Upon seeing Dennis,
person upon whom the grave offense was Anthony ran towards the creek but Dennis
committed blocked him and stabbed him.
Basis to determine the gravity of offense in 4. When he was hit, Anthony ran but got
vindication entangled with a fishing net and fell on his back.
Dennis then mounted on him and continued
The question whether or not a certain stabbing him resulting to the latters death.
personal offense is grave must be decided
by the court, having in mind 5. Then Dennis left and slept at a grassy
the social standing of the person, meadow near a Camp. In the morning, he went
the place and to Estrera, a police officer to whom he
the time when the insult was made. voluntarily surrendered.
Vindication of a grave offense and passion or Held: The mitigating circumstance of having
obfuscation cannot be counted separately and acted in the immediate vindication of a grave
independently. offense is properly appreciated. Dennis was
humiliated, mauled and almost stabbed by the
Anthony. Although the unlawful aggression had
ceased when Dennis stabbed Anthony, it was
nonetheless a grave offense for which the Dennis
may be given the benefit of a mitigating
circumstance.
However, the mitigating circumstance of
sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart
81
from the circumstance of vindication of a grave

offense. These two circumstances arose from one
and the same incident, i.e., the attack on the
appellant by Anthony, so that they should be
considered as only one mitigating circumstance.
6. Passion or obfuscation Elements: Illustrations: People v. Bates (2003)
1. The accused acted upon an impulse. 1. A is courting B, a receptionist 1. While Edgar, Simon, and Jose are along a trail
in a beerhouse. C danced with B. leading to the house of Carlito Bates, the latter
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it A saw this and stabbed C. It was suddenly emerged from the thick banana
naturally produce passion or obfuscation in held that jealousy is an plantation surrounding the trail, aiming his
him. acknowledged basis of passion. firearm at Jose who was then walking ahead of
his companions.
Passion or obfuscation not applicable when: 2. A, a male classmate is
escorting B, a female classmate. 2. Jose tried to wrest possession of the firearm.
The act committed in a spirit of LAWLESSNESS. On the way out, some men While the 2 were grappling for possession, the
The act is committed in a spirit of REVENGE. whistled lustfully. The male gun fired, hitting Carlito.
classmate stabbed said men. This
The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation was held to be obfuscation. 3. At that instant, Marcelo Bates and his son
arising from jealousy cannot be invoked in Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and nephew of
favor of the accused whose relationship with 3. When a man saw a woman Carlito, respectively, emerged from the banana
the woman was illegitimate. bathing, almost naked, almost plantation and attacked Jose hacking him several
naked, for which reason he raped times. Jose fell to the ground and rolled but
Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from her, such man cannot claim Marcelo and his son kept on hacking him.
causes existing only in the honest belief of passion as a mitigating
the offender. circumstance. Held: Passion and obfuscation may not be
properly appreciated in favor of the appellant. To
be considered as a mitigating circumstance,
passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful
sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness
or revenge or from anger and resentment. In the
present case, clearly, Marcelo was infuriated
upon seeing his brother, Carlito, shot by Jose.
However, a distinction must be made between

the first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the
second time that the former hacked the latter.
When Marcelo hacked Jose right after seeing the
latter shoot at Carlito, and if appellant refrained
from doing anything else fter that, he could have
validly invoked the mitigating circumstance of
passion and obfuscation.
But when, upon seeing his brother Carlito dead,
Marcelo went back to Jose, who by then was
82
already prostrate on the ground and hardly

moving, hacking Jose again was a clear case of
someone acting out of anger in the spirit of
revenge.
7. Voluntary Surrender Elements: Andrada v. People (2005)
1. That the offender had not been actually 1. In a restaurant, Andrada scolded Cpl. Ugerio
arrested. while the latter was talking to a woman who
passed by their table.
2. That the offender surrendered himself to
a person in authority or to the latters agent. 2. Sgt. Sumabong, identifying himself as a PC
non-commissioned officer, advised Andrada to
3. That the surrender was voluntary. pay his bill and go home as he was apparently
drunk. Andrada left the restaurant.
2 Mitigating Circumstances Under This
Paragraph: 3. While Sgt. Sumabong was paying his bill, he
heard Cpl. Ugerio, seated about a meter away,
1. Voluntary Surrender To A Person In Authority Or moaning in pain. Sgt. Sumabong then saw
His Agents; Andrada hacking Cpl. Ugerio on the head with a
bolo.
2. Voluntary Confession Of Guilt Before The Court
Prior To The Presentation Of Evidence For The 4. As Sgt. Sumabong approached them Andrada
Prosecution. ran away. He was eventually arrested at a
waiting shed. Andrada invoked the mitigating
Whether or not a warrant of arrest had been circumstance of voluntary surrender.
issued immaterial and irrelevant.
The criterion is whether or not Held: Andrada, after attacking the victim, ran
the offender had gone into hiding away. He was apprehended by responding
and the law enforcers do not know of his officers at a waiting shed. For voluntary
whereabouts. surrender to be appreciated, the surrender
must be spontaneous, made in such a
manner that it shows the interest of the
accused to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledges his
guilt or wishes to save them the trouble and
expenses that would be necessarily incurred in
his search and capture. Here, the surrender was
not spontaneous.
8. Plea Of Guilt Elements: People v. Montinola (2001)
1. That the offender spontaneously 1. Montinola entered a plea of not guilty but
confessed his guilt; withdrew the same after the prosecution
Plea of guilty on appeal is not mitigating. presented 3 witnesses. When rearraigned, he
pleaded "guilty" to 2 charges.
83
2. That the confession of guilty was made

in open court, that is, before the competent Held: The mitigating circumstance of plea of
court that is to try the case; guilty cannot be credited in favor of Montinola
The extrajudicial confession made by the since the change of his plea from "not
accused is not voluntary confession because it guilty" to "guilty" was made only after the
was made outside the court. presentation of some evidence for the
prosecution. To be entitled to such mitigating
3. That the confession of guilt was made circumstance, the accused must have voluntarily
prior to the presentation of evidence for the confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
prosecution. presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
The change of plea should be made at the first
opportunity when his arraignment was first set.
A conditional plea of guilty is not mitigating
9. Plea To A Lesser Offense Rule 116, sec. 2, ROC People v. Dawaton (2002)
At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the 1. Information for murder was filed against
offended party and prosecutor, may be allowed by Dawaton.
the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which
is necessarily included in the offense charged. After 2. When first arraigned he pleaded not guilty,
arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be but during the pre-trial he offered to plead guilty
allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after to the lesser offense of homicide but was
withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of rejected by the prosecution.
the complaint or information is necessary.
3. The trial court sentenced him to death. He
avers that he is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty.
Held: While the accused offered to plead guilty to

the lesser offense of homicide, he was charged
with murder for which he had already entered a
plea of not guilty. We have ruled that an offer to
enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot
be considered as an attenuating circumstance
under the provisions of Art. 13 of RPC because to
be voluntary the plea of guilty must be to the
offense charged.
Also, Sec. 2, Rule 116, of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor before an
accused may be allowed to plead guilty to a
lesser offense necessarily included in the offense
charged. The prosecution rejected the offer of
the accused.
10. Physical Defects This paragraph does not distinguish between Where the offender is deaf and
educated and uneducated deaf-mute or blind dumb, personal property was
84
persons. entrusted to him and he

misappropriated the same. The
Physical defect referred to in this paragraph is crime committed was estafa. The
such as being armless, cripple, or a stutterer, fact that he was deaf and dumb is
whereby his means to act, defend himself or not mitigating since that does not
communicate with his fellow beings are bear any relation to the crime
limited. committed.
The physical defect that a person may have must If a person is deaf and dumb and
have a relation to the commission of the crime. he has been slandered, he cannot
talk so what he did was he got a
piece of wood and struck the
fellow on the head. The crime
committed was physical injuries.
The Supreme Court held that
being a deaf and dumb is
mitigating because the only way
is to use his force because he
cannot strike back in any other
way.
11. Illness Elements: A mother who, under the
influence of a puerperal fever,
1. That the illness of the offender must killed her child the day following
diminish the exercise of his will-power. her delivery.
2.That such illness should not deprive the

offender of consciousness of his acts.
When the offender completely lost the

exercise of will-power, it may be an
exempting circumstance.
It is said that this paragraph refers only to

diseases of pathological state that trouble the
conscience or will.
12. Analogous Mitigating The act of the offender of leading

Circumstances the law enforcers to the place
where he buried the instrument of
the crime has been considered as
equivalent to voluntary surrender.
85
Stealing by a person who is

driven to do so out of extreme
poverty is considered as
analogous to incomplete state of
necessity.
AGGRAVATING IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW

CIRCUMSTANCE
1) Taking Advantage of Those circumstances which raise the penalty for a crime in its
Public Office maximum period provided by law applicable to that crime or
change the nature of the crime.
2) In Contempt Of Or
With Insult To The aggravating circumstances must be established with
Public Authorities moral certainty, with the same degree of proof required to
establish the crime itself.
3) With Insult Or Lack
Of Regard Due To According to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, BOTH
Offended Party By generic and qualifying aggravating circumstances must be
Reason Of Rank, alleged in order to be appreciated.
Age Or Sex
The list in this Article is exclusive there are no analogous
4) Abuse Of Confidence circumstances.
And Obvious
Ungratefulness Basis:
the motivating power behind the act
5) Crime In Palace Or the place where the act was committed
In Presence Of The the means and ways used
Chief Executive the time
the personal circumstance of the offender and/or of the
victim
6) Nighttime;
Uninhabited Place;
Kinds:
With A Band
1) GENERIC Those that can generally apply to all crimes. Nos. 1,
7) On Occasion Of A
2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20 except by
Calamity
means of motor vehicles.
8) Aid Of Armed Men 2) SPECIFIC Those that apply only to particular crimes. Nos. 3
Or Means To Ensure (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and 21.
Impunity
3) QUALIFYING Those that change the nature of the crime. Art.
248 enumerates the qualifying AC which qualify the killing of
86
9) Recidivism person to murder.
10) Reiteration Or 4) INHERENT Those that must accompany the commission of the
Habituality crime and is therefore not considered in increasing the penalty to
be imposed such as evident premeditation in theft, robbery,
11)Price, Reward Or estafa, adultery and concubinage.
Promise
5) SPECIAL Those which arise under special conditions to increase
12)Inundation, Fire, the penalty of the offense and cannot be offset by mitigating
Poison circumstances such as:
quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)
13)Evident complex crimes (Art. 48)
Premeditation error in personae (Art. 49)
taking advantage of public position and membership in an
organized/syndicated crime group (Art. 62)
14)Craft, Fraud Or
Disguise
When there are several applicable qualifying aggravating
circumstances, only one will be deemed as such and the others
15)Superior Strength
will be deemed as generic.
Or Means To
Weaken Defense
Generic aggravating Qualifying aggravating
circumstances circumstances
16)Treachery
The effect of a generic AC, The effect of a qualifying AC is not
not offset by any mitigating only to give the crime its proper
17)Ignominy circumstance, is to increase and exclusive name but also to
the penalty which should be place the author thereof in such a
18)Unlawful Entry, imposed upon the accused situation as to deserve no other
to the MAXIMUM PERIOD. penalty than that specially
19)Breaking Wall, prescribed by law for said crime.
Floor, Roof
It is not an ingredient of the The circumstance affects the
20)With Aid Of Persons crime. It only affects the nature of the crime itself such that
Under 15 By Motor penalty to be imposed but the offender shall be liable for a
Vehicle the crime remains the same more serious crime. The
circumstance is actually an
21)Cruelty ingredient of the crime
The circumstance can be Being an ingredient of the crime,
22)Organized Or offset by an ordinary it cannot be offset by any
Syndicated Crime mitigating circumstance mitigating circumstance
Group
23)Use Of Drugs
87
1) Taking Advantage of The public officer must People v. Villamor (2002)

Public Office use the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office 1) Brothers Jerry and Jelord Velez
gives him were on their way home on board a
as the means by which he realizes his purpose. motorcycle.
2) Jerry was driving. As they
The essence of the matter is presented in the inquiry, did neared a junction, they heard a
the accused abuse his office in order to commit the speeding motorcycle fast
crime? approaching from behind. The
brothers ignored the other
When a public officer motorcycle, which caught up with
commits a common crime independent of his official them.
functions and 3) As they were about to cross
does acts that are not connected with the duties of his office, the bridge leading to their home,
he should be punished as a private individual without this gunshots rang out from behind
AC. them. They abruptly turned the
motorcycle around towards the
Even if defendant did not abuse his office, direction of the gunfire. The light of
if it is proven that he has failed in his duties as such their motorcycle's headlamp fell on
public officer, their attackers aboard the second
this circumstance would warrant the aggravation of motorcycle.
his penalty. 4) The assailants fired at them a
second time and fled. Jerry saw PO3
The circumstance cannot be taken into consideration in Villamor and Maghilom on board the
offenses where motorcycle behind them. Maghilom
taking advantage of official position is made by law an was driving the motorcycle while
integral element of the crime Villamor was holding a short gun
such as in malversation (Art. 217) or falsification of public pointed at them.
documents under Art. 171. 5) Jerry sustained gunshot
wounds but survived. Jelord,
Taking advantage of public position is also inherent in the case however, died on the spot during the
of first gunburst.
accessories under Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing or
assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime) and Held: There was no showing that
in Title VII of Book Two of the RPC (Crimes committed by Villamor took advantage of his
public officers). being a policeman to shoot Jelord
Velez or that he used his "influence,
prestige or ascendancy" in killing the
victim. Villamor could have shot Velez
even without being a policeman. In
other words, if the accused could have
perpetrated the crime even without
occupying his position, there is no
abuse of public position.
88
The mere fact that accused-appellant

is a policeman and used his
government issued .38 caliber revolver
to kill is not sufficient to establish that
he misused his public position in the
commission of the crime.
2) In Contempt Of Or Elements:
With Insult To
Public Authorities 1) That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his
functions.
2) That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of his

functions is not the person against whom the crime is
committed.
3) The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4) His presence has not prevented the offender from

committing the criminal act.
Public Authority / Person in Authority

directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who
has the power to govern and execute the laws.
The councilor, mayor, governor, barangay captain, barangay
chairman etc. are persons in authority.
A school teacher, town municipal health officer, agent of the
BIR, chief of police, etc. are now considered a person in
authority.
Par. 2 is not applicable if committed in the presence of an

agent only such as a police officer.
Agent
A subordinate public officer charged
with the maintenance of public order and
the protection and security of life and property,
such as barrio policemen, councilmen, and any person who
comes to the aid of persons in authority.
Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential.

Lack of such knowledge indicates lack of intention to insult public
authority.
89
If crime is committed
against the public authority
while in the performance of his duty,
the offender commits direct assault
without this aggravating circumstance.
3) With Insult Or Lack Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph, People vs. Ga, 156 SCRA 790
Of Regard Due To which can be considered singly or together.
Offended Party By If all the 4 circumstances are present, they have the Aggravating only in crimes against
Reason Of Rank, weight of one aggravating circumstance only. persons and honor, not against
Age Or Sex property like Robbery with homicide.
There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime,
the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the People vs. Taoan, 182 SCRA 601
sex or age of the offended party. Teachers, professors, supervisors of
public and duly recognized private
1) RANK OF THE OFFENDED PARTY schools, colleges and universities, as
Designation or title used to fix the relative position of the well as lawyers are persons in
offended party in reference to others. authority for purposes of direct assault
There must be a difference in the social condition of the and simple resistance, but not for
offender and the offended party. purposes of aggravating circumstances
in paragraph 2, Article 14.
2) AGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
May refer to old age or tender age of the victim.
3) SEX OF THE OFFENDED PARTY

This refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
4) DWELLING People vs. De Los Reyes, 1992

Building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort.
Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with
This is considered an AC because in certain cases, there is an homicide because the crime can be
abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in Husband and wife quarreled. Husband committed without the necessarily
the offender by opening the door to him. inflicted physical violence upon a wife. transgressing the sanctity of the
The wife left the conjugal home and went home.
Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. to the house of her sister bringing her
It is enough that he used the place for his peace of mind, personal belongings with her. The sister
rest, comfort and privacy. accommodated the wife in her home.
Dwelling should not be understood in the concept of a domicile. The husband went to the house of the
A person has more than one dwelling. sister-in-law and tried to persuade the
So, if a man has so many wives and he gave them wife to return to the conjugal home but
places of their own, each one is his own dwelling. the wife refused since she was more at
If he is killed there, dwelling will be aggravating, peace in her sisters home than in their
provided that he also stays there once in a while. conjugal abode. Due to the wifes refusal
The crime of adultery was committed. the husband pulled out a knife and
90
Dwelling was considered aggravating on the part of the stabbed the wife to death. It was held
paramour. that dwelling was aggravating
However, if the paramour was also residing in the same although it is not owned by the
dwelling, it will not be aggravating. victim since she is considered a
member of the family who owns the
The offended party must not give provocation. dwelling and that place is where she
enjoyed privacy, peace of mind and
It is not necessary that the accused should have actually comfort.
entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense;
it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own
house,
although the assailant may have devised means to
perpetrate the assault.
Dwelling includes dependencies,

the foot of the staircase
and the enclosure under the house.
4) Abuse Of Confidence Par. 4 provides two aggravating circumstances which,

And Obvious if present in the same case
Ungratefulness must be independently appreciated.
In a case where the offender is a
1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE servant, the offended party is one of the
members of the family. The servant
Elements: poisoned the child. It was held that
abuse of confidence is aggravating. This
a. That the offended party had trusted the offender. is only true, however, if the servant
was still in the service of the family
b. That the offender abused such trust by committing a when he did the killing. If he was
crime against the offended party. driven by the master out of the house for
some time and he came back to poison
c. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the the child, abuse of confidence will no
commission of the crime. longer be aggravating. The reason is
because that confidence has already
The confidence between the offender and the offended party been terminated when the offender
must be immediate and personal. was driven out of the house.
It is inherent in malversation, qualified theft, estafa by

conversion or misappropriation and qualified seduction.
2. OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
91
Elements:
a. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
b. That the offender abused such trust by committing a

crime against the offended party;
c. That the act be committed with obvious

ungratefulness.
The ungratefulness must be obvious manifest and clear.

5) Crime In Palace Or If it is the Malacaang palace or a church,
In Presence Of The it is aggravating,
Chief Executive regardless of whether State or official or religious functions
are being held.
The President need not be in the palace.

His presence alone in any place where the crime is
committed is enough to constitute the AC.
It also applies even if he is not engaged in the discharge of
his duties in the place where the crime was committed.
Offender must have the intention to commit a crime when

he entered the place.
Cemeteries are not places dedicated for religious worship.
Par. 2 Par. 5
Contempt or insult to Where public authorities are
public authorities engaged in the discharge of their
duties.
Public authorities are engaged in the performance of their duties.
Public duty is Public duty is performed outside of
performed in their their office
office
The offended party The public authority should not be the
may or may not be the offended party
public authority
6) Nighttime; These 3 circumstances may be considered separately
Uninhabited Place; when their elements are distinctly perceived and
With A Band can subsist independently,
revealing a greater degree of perversity.
92
Aggravating:
When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or

When especially sought for by the offender to insure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity; or
When the offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity.
1) NIGHTTIME
The commission of the crime must begin and be

accomplished in the nighttime.
People v. Berdida
The offense must be actually committed in the darkness of Nighttime was considered since it was
the night. purposely sought and treachery is
When the place is illuminated by light, nighttime is not further appreciated because the
aggravating. victims hands and arms were tied
together before he was beaten up by
It must be shown that the the accused.
offender deliberately sought the cover of darkness and t
he offender purposely took advantage of nighttime to
facilitate the commission of the offense.
2) UNINHABITED PLACE
It is determined
not by the distance of the nearest house to the scene of the
crime
but whether or not in the place of the commission of the
offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the victim A is on board a banca, not so far away. B
receiving some help. and C also are on board on their
respective bancas. Suddenly, D showed
3) BAND up from underwater and stabbed B. Is
there an aggravating circumstance of
There should uninhabited place here? Yes, considering
the fact that A and C before being able
at least be four persons. to give assistance still have to jump into
the water and swim towards B and the
All of them should be armed time it would take them to do that, the
chances of B receiving some help was
and principals by direct participation. very little, despite the fact that there
were other persons not so far from the
This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance of scene.
93
abuse of superior strength.
This is inherent in brigandage.
7) On Occasion Of A The reason for the existence of this AC is found in the debased
Calamity form of criminality met in one who, in the midst of a great
calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to
their suffering by taking advantage of their misfortune to
despoil them.
The offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune.
OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE refers to other

conditions of distress similar to conflagration, shipwreck,
earthquake or epidemic.
8) Aid Of Armed Men ELEMENTS: People v. Licop
Or Means To Ensure
Impunity 1. That the armed men or persons took part in the Aid of armed men includes armed
commission of the crime, directly or indirectly. women.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied

upon them when the crime was committed.
Exceptions:
1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were
equally armed.
2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with

him in the commission of the crime acted under the same
plan and for the same purpose.
3. Casual presence, or when the offender did not avail himself of

any of their aid nor did not knowingly count upon their
assistance in the commission of the crime.
If there are more than 3 armed men, aid of armed men is

absorbed in the employment of a band.
Par. 6 Par. 8
By a band With aid of armed men
Requires more than three At least two armed men
armed malefactors
94
Requires that more than This circumstance is present even

three armed malefactors if one of the offenders merely
shall have acted together in relied on their aid, for actual aid is
the commission of an not necessary
offense
Band members are all Armed men are mere accomplices
principals
9) Recidivism; In 1980, A committed robbery. People vs. Molina
Elements:
While the case was being tried, he To prove recidivism, it is necessary
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense; committed theft in 1983. to allege the same in the
information and to attach thereto
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of He was also found guilty and was certified copies of the sentences
another crime; convicted of theft also in 1983. rendered against the accused.
Nonetheless, the trial court may still
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced The conviction became final because he give such AC credence if the accused
in the same title of the Code; did not appeal anymore and the trial for does not object to the presentation
the earlier crime which was robbery
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense. ended in 1984 where he was also
convicted. He also did not appeal this
Different forms of repetition or habituality of offender decision.
1. Recidivism under Article 14 (9)The offender at the time of Is the accused a recidivist? NO.
his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by
final judgment of another embraced in the same title of the The subsequent conviction must
Revised Penal Code. refer to a felony committed later in
2. Repetition or reiteracion under Article 14 (9)The offender order to constitute recidivism. The
has been previously punished for an offense to which the law reason for this is as the time the first
attaches an equal or even greater penalty or for two or more crime was committed, there was no
crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. other crime of which he was convicted so
3. Habitual delinquency under Article 62 (5)The offender he cannot be regarded as a repeater.
within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
R Commission/Conviction R No RECIDIVISM
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any O O
1983
of the said crimes a third time or another. B B A cannot be deemed a
4. Quasi-recidivism under Article 160Any person who shall B T T B repeater because when
E H H E he was convicted for
commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment R R the second crime, he
E E
before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving such Y F F Y was still considered
sentence shall be punished by the maximum period prescribed by T T innocent as to the first.
Commission Conviction
law for the new felony 1980 1984
In recidivism, the crimes committed should be felonies.

Recidivism cannot be had if the crime committed is a violation of
95
a special law.
What is controlling
is the time of the trial, not the time of the commission of
the offense.
i.e. there was already a conviction even during the
trial for the second crime
At the time of the trial means from the arraignment until
after sentence is announced by the judge in open court.
Recidivism does not prescribe. No matter how long ago the

offender was convicted, if he is subsequently convicted of a
crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal
Code, it is taken into account as aggravating in imposing
the penalty.
Pardon does not erase recidivism, even if it is absolute

because it only excuses the service of the penalty, not the
conviction.
If the offender has

already served his sentence and
he was extended an absolute pardon,
the pardon shall erase the conviction including recidivism
because there is no more penalty
so the pardon shall be understood as referring to the
conviction or the effects of the crime.
10)Reiteracion/ ELEMENTS:
Habituality
Reiteracion can be
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
appreciated in the
E SERVICE OF R trial for robbery.
S SENTENCE O
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to
T B 1) Robbery carries
which the law attaches: A B a graver
F E penalty
a. an equal or A R 2) Sentence was
Y already served
b. greater penalty, or
for Estafa when
c. for 2 or more crimes to which it attaches the robbery
Conviction Commission
lighter penalty than that for the new offense; was committed
and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense.
96
Reiteracion or Habituality
it is essential that the offender be previously punished;
that is, he has served sentence.
Par. 10 speaks of
penalty attached to the offense,
not the penalty actually imposed
Par. 9 Par. 10 Reiteracion

Recidivism
It is enough that a final It is necessary that the
judgment has been rendered in offender shall have served out
the first offense. his sentence for the first
offense.
Requires that the offenses be The previous and subsequent
included in the same title of the offenses must not be
Code embraced in the same title of
the Code
Always to be taken into Not always an aggravating
consideration in fixing the circumstance
penalty to be imposed upon the
accused
Art. 14, Par. 9 Recidivism Art. 62 par. 5 Habitual

Delinquency
Two convictions are enough At least three convictions are
required
The crimes are not specified; it The crimes are limited and
is enough that they may be specified to: a. serious
embraced under the same title physical injuries, b. Less
of the Revised Penal Code serious physical injuries, c.
robbery, d. theft, e. estafa or
swindling and f. falsification
There is no time limit between There is a time limit of not
the first conviction and the more than 10 years between
subsequent conviction. every conviction computed
Recidivism is imprescriptible. from the first conviction or
release from punishment
thereof to conviction computed
from the second conviction or
release therefrom to the third
97
conviction and so on
It is a generic aggravating Habitual delinquency is a
circumstance which can be special aggravating
offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance, hence it cannot
circumstance. If not offset, it be offset by any mitigating
would only increase the penalty circumstance. Aside from the
prescribed by law for the crime penalty prescribed by law for
committed to its maximum the crime committed, an
period additional penalty shall be
imposed depending upon
whether it is already the third
conviction, the fourth, the fifth
and so on
Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly served

the sentence for previous conviction/s, or is legally
considered to have done so,
quasi-recidivism cannot at the same time constitute
reiteracion, hence the latter cannot apply to a quasi-
recidivist.
If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and

reiteracion,
the liability of the accused should be aggravated by
recidivism which can be easily proven.
11)Price, Reward Or When this AC is present,

Promise there must be 2 or more principals,
the one who gives or offers the price or promise
and the one who accepts it,
both of whom are principals
to the former, because he directly induces the latter to
commit the crime,
and the latter because he commits it.
When this AC is present, it affects not only the person who
received the price or reward, but also the person who
gave it.
If without previous promise it was

given voluntarily after a crime was committed
as an expression of his appreciation for the sympathy and
aid shown by the other accused,
it should not be taken into consideration for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
98
The price, reward or promise

need not consist of or refer to material things or
that the same were actually delivered,
it being sufficient that the offer made by the principal
by inducement was accepted by the principal by direct
participation before the commission of the offense.
12)Inundation, Fire, Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish a A and B were arguing about something.
Poison criminal purpose, One argument led to another until A
any of the circumstances in paragraph 12 struck B to death with a bolo. A did not
cannot be considered to increase the penalty or to change know that C, the son of B was also in
the nature of the offense. their house and who was peeping
through the door and saw what A did.
When another AC already qualifies the crime, Afraid that A might kill him too, he hid
any of these ACs shall be considered as generic aggravating somewhere in the house. A then dragged
circumstance only. Bs body and poured gasoline on it and
burned the house altogether. As a
Fire is not aggravating in the crime of arson. consequence, C was burned and
eventually died too.
Whenever a killing is done with the use of fire, as when you
kill someone, you burn down his house while the latter is inside, As far as the killing of B is
this is murder. concerned, it is homicide since it is
noted that they were arguing. It could
There is no such crime as murder with arson or arson with not be murder. As far as the killing of
homicide. The crime is only murder. C is concerned, it is arson since he
intended to burn the house only.
If the intent is to destroy property,
the crime is arson even if someone dies as a consequence.
If the intent is to kill,
there is murder even if the house is burned in the process.
13)Evident Elements: A and B fought. A told B that someday People v. Salpigao

Premeditation he will kill B. On Friday, A killed B. Evident premeditation is presumed to
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the exist when conspiracy is directly
crime; C and D fought on Monday but since C established. When conspiracy is
already suffered so many blows, he told merely implied, evident premeditation
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to D, This week shall not pass, I will kill cannot be presumed, the latter must
his determination; and you. On Friday, C killed D. be proved just like any other fact.
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and Is there evident premeditation in both US v. Manalinde
execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences cases? None in both cases. If the offender premeditated on the
of his act and to allow is conscience to overcome the killing of any person, it is proper to
What condition is missing to bring about consider against the offender the
evident premeditation? Evidence to aggravating circumstance of evident
99
resolution of his will. show that between Monday and premeditation, because whoever is
Friday, the offender clung to his killed by him is contemplated in the
Evident premeditation implies determination to kill the victim, acts premeditation.
a deliberate planning of the act indicative of his having clung to his
before executing it. determination to kill B.
The essence of premeditation A and B had a quarrel. A boxed B. A told

an opportunity to coolly and serenely think and deliberate B, I will kill you this week. A bought
on the meaning and firearms. On Friday, he waited for B
consequences of what he planned to do, but killed C instead.
an interval long enough for his conscience and better
judgment Was there evident premeditation?
to overcome his evil desire and scheme.
There is aberratio ictus. So, qualify.
The premeditation must be based upon external facts, and Insofar as B is concerned, the crime
must be evident, not merely suspected indicating deliberate is attempted murder because there
planning is evident premeditation. However,
that murder cannot be considered for C.
Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery, adultery, theft, Insofar as C is concerned, the crime
estafa, and falsification. is homicide because there was no
evident premeditation.
14)Craft, Fraud Or Involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the People v. San Pedro
Disguise accused.
Where the accused pretended to hire
It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime. the driver in order to get his vehicle, it
was held that there was craft directed
Fraud to the theft of the vehicle, separate
Insidious words or machinations used from the means subsequently used to
to induce the victim treacherously kill the defenseless
to act in a manner driver.
which would enable the offender to carry out his design.
People v. Masilang
Fraud Craft
When there is a DIRECT The act of the accused done in There was also craft where after
INDUCEMENT by insidious order NOT TO AROUSE THE hitching a ride, the accused requested
words or machinations SUSPICION the driver to take them to a place to
visit somebody, when in fact they had
Craft and fraud may be already planned to kill the driver.
absorbed in treachery if they have been deliberately
adopted as the means, methods or forms for the
treacherous strategy, or
they may co-exist independently where they are adopted
for a different purpose in the commission of the crime.
100
Disguise
Resorting to any device to conceal identity.
The test of disguise is

whether the device or contrivance resorted to by the
offender
was intended to or did make identification more difficult,
such as the use of a mask, false hair or beard.
But if in spite of the use of handkerchief to cover their

faces, the culprits were recognized by the victim, disguised
is not considered aggravating.
15)Superior Strength Superior Strength People v. Carpio

Or Means To
Weaken Defense To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior strength means There must be evidence of
to use purposely excessive force notorious inequality of forces
out of proportion to the means of defense available to the between the offender and the offended
person attacked. party in their age, size and strength,
and that the offender took advantage
Superiority may arise from of such superior strength in the
aggressors sex, weapon or number commission of the crime. The mere
as compared to that of the victim (e.g. accused attacked an fact that there were two persons
unarmed girl with a knife; 3 men stabbed to death the who attacked the victim does not
female victim). per se constitute abuse of superior
strength.
No advantage of superior strength when
one who attacks is overcome with passion and obfuscation or
when quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was
struck while victim and accused were struggling.
Vs. by a band :
In the circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what is
taken into account is
not the number of aggressors nor the fact that
they are armed
but their relative physical might vis--vis the
offended party
Means Employed to Weaken Defense

This circumstance is applicable only
to crimes against persons and
sometimes against person and property, such as
101
robbery with physical injuries or homicide.
The means used must not totally eliminate possible

defense of the victim,
otherwise it will fall under treachery
16)Treachery Treachery A and B have been quarreling for some People vs. Ilagan
(aleviosa) time. One day, A approached B and
Employment of means, methods and form in the commission of befriended him. B accepted. A proposed Suddenness of the attack does not by
the crime that to celebrate their renewed itself constitute treachery in the
which tend directly and specially to friendship, they were going to drink. B absence of evidence that the manner
ensure its execution was having too much to drink. A was just of attack was consciously adopted by
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the waiting for him to get intoxicated and the offender to render the victim
offended party might make. after which, he stabbed B. defenseless.
The essence of treachery is that A pretended to befriend B, just to People vs. Gupo
by virtue of the means, method or form employed by the intoxicate the latter. Intoxication is the
offender, means deliberately employed by the Treachery is not appreciated where
the offended party was not able to put up any defense. offender to weaken the defense of quarrel and heated discussion
If the offended party was able to put up a defense, even the other party. preceded a killing, because the victim
only a token one, there is no treachery. If this was the very means would be put on guard.
Instead, some other aggravating circumstance may be employed, the circumstance may be
present but it is no longer treachery. treachery and not abuse of superior People vs. Toribio
strength or means to weaken the But although a quarrel preceded a
defense killing where the victim was atop a
Rules Regarding Treachery coconut tree, treachery was
considered as the victim was not in a
1. Applicable only to crimes against persons. position to defend himself.
2. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment People v. Malejana

of crime. Treachery may still be appreciated
even when the victim was forewarned
3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted. of danger to his person. What is
decisive is that the execution of the
Attacks shown intention to eliminate risk: attack made it impossible for the
1. Victim asleep victim to defend himself or to retaliate.
2. Victim half-awake or just awakened Thus, even a frontal attack could be
3. Victim grappling or being held. treacherous when unexpected and on
4. Attacked from behind an unarmed victim who would be in no
position to repel the attack or avoid it.
Additional rules:
Treachery cannot co-exist with passion
1. When the aggression is CONTINUOUS, treachery must be and obfuscation.
102
present in the BEGINNING of the assault.

2. When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS, in that there
was an interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was
present AT THE MOMENT THE FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.
17)Ignominy Ignominy
It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,
which adds disgrace to the material injury caused by the
crime.
The means employed or the circumstances brought about must

tend to make the effects of the crime
MORE HUMILIATING or
TO PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO SHAME.
Applicable to crimes against chastity, rape, less serious physical

injuries, light or grave coercion and murder.
Raping a woman from behind is ignominous because that is not

the normal form of intercourse, it is something which offends the
morals of the offended woman. This is how animals do it.
18)Unlawful Entry, There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a

way not intended for the purpose.
Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not

for escape.
There is no unlawful entry when

the door is broken and t
hereafter the accused made an entry thru the broken door.
The breaking of the door is covered by paragraph 19.
Unlawful entry is
inherent in the crime of trespass to dwelling and robbery
with force upon things
but aggravating in the crime of robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons.
19)Breaking Wall, To be considered as an AC,
Floor, Roof breaking the door must be utilized
as a means to the commission of the crime.
It is only aggravating in cases where

the offender resorted to any of said means TO ENTER the
house.
103
If the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of the place, it

is not aggravating
20) With Aid Of Persons With the aid of persons under 15 years of age
Under 15; By Motor To repress, so far as possible,
Vehicle the frequent practice resorted to by professional criminals
to avail themselves of minors
taking advantage of their responsibility
(remember that minors are given leniency when they
commit a crime)
By means of a motor vehicle

To counteract the great facilities found by modern
criminals in said means to commit crime and flee and
abscond once the same is committed.
This circumstance is aggravating only when used in the

commission of the offense.
If motor vehicles are used only in the escape of the
offender, it is not aggravating. It must have been used to
facilitate the commission of the crime to be aggravating.
or other similar means the expression should be

understood as referring to
MOTORIZED vehicles or
other efficient means of transportation similar to automobile
or airplane.
21) Cruelty Elements:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by

causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of

the purpose of the offender.
Cruelty
For it to exist, it must be shown that the accused enjoyed and

delighted in making his victim suffer.
If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation

were being performed,
this would also qualify the killing to murder due to
outraging of his corpse.
104
Ignominy Cruelty
shocks the moral conscience of physical
man
refers to the moral effect of a refers to the physical
crime and it pertains to the suffering of the victim so he
moral order, whether or not the has to be alive
victim is dead or alive
Other Aggravating
Circumstances
1) Organized Or (Art. 62, RPC)
Syndicated Crime
Group Special aggravating circumstance
The maximum penalty shall be imposed

if the offense was committed by any person
who belongs to an organized or syndicated crime
group.
Organized or syndicated crime group:
A group of two or more persons

collaborating, confederating or mutually helping one
another
for the purpose of gain in the commission of a crime.
2) Use Of Drugs Under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Section 25),
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.
105
ALTERNATIVE IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW

CIRCUMSTANCE
CIRCUMSTANCE
1) Relationship Circumstances which must be taken in
consideration as aggravating or mitigating
2) Intoxication according to the nature and effects of the
crime
3) Degree of
education/instruction Except for the circumstance of intoxication,
the other circumstances in Article 15
may not be taken into account at all when
the circumstance has no bearing on the
crime committed
1) Relationship WHERE RELATIONSHIP IS EXEMPTING: People v. Atop (1998)
Relationship considered: In the case of an accessory who is related to the 1. 11-year-old Regina lives with her grandmother.
principal within the relationship prescribed in 2. Atop is the common-law husband of her
a. Spouse Article 20; grandmother.
b. Ascendant 3. Atop was found guilty of 4 counts of rape which
c. Descendant Also in Article 247, a spouse does not incur criminal was committed in 1993 (2x), 1994 and 1995. The
d. Brother liability for a crime of less serious physical lower court took into account the Aggravating
e. Sister injuries or serious physical injuries if this was Circumstance of relationship.
f. Relative by Affinity inflicted after having surprised the offended Held: The law cannot be stretched to include
spouse or paramour or mistress committing persons attached by common-law relations. In this
(SADBSA) actual sexual intercourse. case, there is no blood relationship or legal bond that
links Atop to his victim.
Those commonly given in Article 332 when the
crime of theft, malicious mischief and swindling
or estafa.
WHERE RELATIONSHIP IS AGGRAVATING:
in CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in cases where

o the offended party is a relative of a higher degree
than the offender (grandson kills grandfather), or
o when the offender and the offended party are
relatives of the same level, as killing a brother, a
brother-in-law, a half-brother or adopted brother.
When CRIME AGAINST PERSONS is any of the

SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (Art. 263), even if
the offended party is a descendant of the offender,
relationship is AGGRAVATING.
106
o But the serious physical injuries must not be

inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive
chastisement.
When the crime is LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL

INJURIES OR SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
o if the offended party is a relative of a higher
degree than the offender
When crime against persons is HOMICIDE OR

MURDER,
o relationship is aggravating even if the victim of
the crime is a relative of lower degree.
In CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY,

o relationship is always aggravating
In the CRIME OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION,

o the offended woman must be a virgin and less
than 18 years old.
o But if the offender is a brother of the offended
woman or an ascendant of the offended woman,
regardless of whether the woman is of bad
reputation,
even if the woman is 60 years old or more,
o crime is qualified seduction. In such a case,
relationship is qualifying.
WHERE RELATIONSHIP IS MITIGATING:
When the CRIME IS LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL

INJURIES OR SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
o if the offended party is a relative of lower
degree
Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating,

when relationship is an element of the offense
2) Intoxication; It is only the circumstance of intoxication which People v. Camano (1982)
if not mitigating, 1. After the accused had been drinking liquor, he
is automatically aggravating. stabbed twice the victim Pascua with a bolo while the
latter was walking along the barrio street.
WHEN MITIGATING: 2. After hacking and stabbing to death the victim, the
accused proceeded to the seashore and on finding
1. There must be an indication that Buenaflor hacked the latter with the same bolo.
107
a. because of the alcoholic intake of the offender, Held: Intoxication is mitigating if accidental,
b. he is suffering from diminished self-control. not habitual nor intentional, that is, no subsequent to
c. It is not the quantity of alcoholic drink. the plan to commit the crime. It is aggravating if
d. Rather it is the effect of the alcohol upon the habitual or intentional. To be mitigating, it must be
offender which shall be the basis of the indubitably proved. A habitual drunkard is one given
mitigating circumstance. to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks.
The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is
2. That offender is unnecessary that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It
a. not a habitual drinker and lessens individual resistance to evil thought and
b. did not take alcoholic drink with the intention to undermines will-power making its victim a potential
reinforce his resolve to commit crime evil doer.
The intoxication of the appellant not being
WHEN AGGRAVATING: habitual and considering that the said appellant was
in a state of intoxication at the time of the
1. If intoxication is habitual commission of the felony, the alternative
circumstance of intoxication should be considered
2. If it is intentional to embolden offender to mitigating.
commit crime
3) Degree of Instruction/ Refers to the
Education lack of sufficient intelligence of and knowledge of
the full significance of ones act
Being illiterate does not mitigate liability

if crime committed is one which one inherently
understands as wrong (eg. parricide)
To be considered,
degree if instruction must have some
reasonable relation to the offense
108
ABSOLUTORY IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW

CIRCUMSTANCE
1) Entrapment and Absolutory causes are those where

Instigation the act committed is a crime
but for reasons of public policy and
2) Pardon sentiment
there is no penalty imposed.
3) Absolutory Causes
4) Acts not covered

by law and in case
of excessive
punishment (art.
5)
1) Entrapment and Entrapment Instigation Example of entrapment People v. Pacis (2002)

Instigation Ways and means are The instigator practically A, a government anti-narcotics agent,
resorted to for the induces the would-be acted as a poseur buyer of shabu and 1. Yap, NBI agent received information that a Pacis was
purpose of trapping and accused into the negotiated with B, a suspected drug offering to sell kg of "shabu."
capturing the lawbreaker commission of the pusher who is unaware that A is a police
in the execution of his offense and himself officer. A then paid B in marked money 2. A buy-bust operation was approved.
criminal plan becomes a co-principal. and the latter handed over a sachet of
The means originate from The law enforcer shabu. Upon signal, the cops closed in 3. The informant introduced Yap to Pacis as interested
the mind of the criminal. conceives the on B buyer. They negotiated the sale of kg of shabu.
commission of the crime
and suggests to the Example of instigation 4. Pacis handed to Yap a paper bag with markings
accused who carries it A, leader of an anti-narcotics team, "yellow cab". While examining it, Pacis asked for the
into execution. approached and persuaded B to act as a payment. Yap gave the "boodle money" to Pacis.
A person has planned or A public officer or a buyer of shabu and transact with C, a
is about to commit a private detective suspected pusher. B was given marked 5. Upon Pacis's receipt of the payment, the officers
crime and ways and induces an innocent money to pay C for a sachet of shabu. identified themselves as NBI agents and arrested him.
means are resorted to by person to commit a After the sale was consummated, the Held: The operation that led to the arrest of
a public officer to trap crime and would arrest cops closed in and arrested both B and appellant was an entrapment, not an instigation.
and catch the criminal. him upon or after the C. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
commission of the crime purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the
by the latter. execution of their criminal plan. In instigation on the
other hand, instigators practically induce the would-be
109
Not a bar to the The accused must be defendant into the commission of the offense and
prosecution and acquitted because the become co-principals themselves. It has been held in
conviction of the offender simply acts as numerous cases by this Court that entrapment is
lawbreaker. a tool of the law sanctioned by law as a legitimate method of
enforcers apprehending criminal elements engaged in the sale and
distribution of illegal drugs.
2) Pardon General Rule:
Pardon does not extinguish criminal action (Art

23).
Except:
Pardon by marriage between the accused and

the offended party in cases of SEDUCTION,
ABDUCTION, RAPE AND ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS (Art 344)
3) Absolutory Causes a. Spontaneous desistance
b. Light felonies not consummated
c. Accessories in light felonies
d. Accessories exempt under Article 20
e. Trespass to dwelling to prevent serious

harm to self
f. exemption from criminal liability in crimes

against property
g. Under Article 332, exemptions from

criminal liability for cases of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief. There
would only be civil liability.
h. Death under exceptional circumstances

(Art. 247)
i. Under Article 219, discovering secrets

through seizure of correspondence of the
110
ward by their guardian is not penalized.
j. Ways on how criminal liability is

extinguished under Art 89.
4) Acts Not Covered By Article 5 covers two situations: People v. Veneracion (1995)
Law And In Case Of
Excessive 1. The court cannot convict 1. The accused was found guilty of the crime of Rape
Punishment the accused because the acts do not constitute with Homicide.
a crime. The proper judgment is acquittal, but the
court is mandated to report to the Chief 2. The instant petition raised the issue whether or not
Executive that said act be made subject of the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of
penal legislation and why. discretion when he failed or refused to impose the
mandatory penalty of death under RA 7659
2. Where the court finds
the penalty prescribed for the crime too harsh Held: The law plainly and unequivocally provides that
considering the conditions surrounding the when by reason or on the occasion of rape, a homicide
commission of the crime, the judge should impose is committed, the penalty shall be death. Courts are not
the law the judge should impose the law. The most concerned with wisdom, efficacy or morality of law. The
that he could do is recommend to the Chief discomfort faced by those forced by law to impose
Executive to grant executive clemency. death penalty is an ancient one, but it is a matter
upon which judges have no choice. The Rules of
Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the
judges should impose the proper penalty and civil
liability provided for by the law on the accused.
EXTENUATING IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW

CIRCUMSTANCE
Circumstances which mitigate the criminal liability Illustrations:

of the offender but not found in Article 13 An unwed mother killed her child in
order to conceal a dishonor. The
A kleptomaniac is criminally liable. But he would be concealment of dishonor is an
given the benefit of a mitigating circumstance extenuating circumstance insofar as the
analogous to paragraph 9 of Article 13, that of unwed mother or the maternal
suffering from an illness which diminishes the grandparents are concerned, but not
exercise of his will poser without, however, depriving insofar as the father of the child is
him of the consciousness of his act. concerned. Mother killing her new born
child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is
lowered by two degrees. Since there is
a material lowering of the penalty or
mitigating the penalty, this is an
extenuating circumstance.
111
112

UP08 Crim Circumstance

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

UP08 Crim Circumstance

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

IV. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY

THERE ARE FIVE CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY:

1. Justifying circumstances; Art. 11 (6)

1. Absolutory cause; and

JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE AGGRAVATING ALTERNATIVE

NO CRIME THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS A CRIME THERE IS A CRIME

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW

7. Obedience to a superior order

1) First Phase: THE TENSION- Unlawful aggression must also be a continuing

weapon to attack Toledo or defend himself, no sign of

2. Defense Of Relatives Elements:

2. Reasonable necessity of means

3. in case person attacked

Relatives entitled to defense:

the 4th civil degree

3. Defense Of Strangers Elements:

Reasonable necessity of the

The person defending be not

If the person being defended is a

Fulfillment Of Duty Or Lawful Elements: People v. Ulep (2000)

4. But he cannot be exonerated from overdoing his duty

The law does not clothe police officers with authority to

Pomoy v. People (2004)

2. Balboa tried to remove Pomoys gun and the two

Held: Pomoy is acquitted. At the time of the incident,

circumstances beyond the control of petitioner. At the

Obedience Of Superior Order Elements: Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan (1997)

5. Tabuena and Peralta were convicted by the

Held: The accused were acquitted. Theyre entitled to the

EXEMPTING IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW

1. Insanity And IMBECILE People vs. Dungo

Insanity subsequent to commission of

Feeblemindedness is not imbecility

d) Snuffing of Rugby (PD 1619)

3. Lower court found that since there was an agreement

Held: To be exempt from criminal liability, a person

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IMPORTANT POINTS ILLUSTRATION CASE LAW

1) Incomplete Justification And Mitigating circumstances are those which, if

3) No Intention To Commit So They are based on the diminution of either

when the crime committed is

12)Analogous circumstances TIP: In bar problems, when you are given

the effect of applying two degrees than that

1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of

In these 3 classes of defense, UNLAWFUL

When the one making defense against unlawful

2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of

REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 11:

a. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying

there is only a mitigating circumstance. People v. Oanis

The SC considered one of the 2 requisites as

INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE

1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of

REQUISITES under par. 3 of Art. 12:

a. That the offender is over 9 and under 15 years

If the minor over 9 and under 15 years of age

2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of

REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 12 :

a. A person is performing a lawful act;

If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th requisite

If the 1st requisite and 2nd part of the 4th requisite

3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of

REQUISITES under par. 6 of Art. 12: