Crim Law 1 Review 1

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEW
1
Based on the Lectures of Atty. Buena
PRELIMINARY TITLE
Define Criminal Law
- It is that branch of law which defines crimes, treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.
Defines crimes...what is the basic maxim here?
- Nullumcrimennullapoena sine lege which means that there is no crime when there is no law punishing the same.
- A person can only be punished for something if there is a law that says that it is punishable. We cannot be
penalized or we cannot be made to suffer for the consequence of something that is not provided in a basic law
or ordinance.
- The basis for every penalty should be the law. If there is no law, there should be no punishment for such act or
omission as a crime.
- No matter how bad or immoral a crime may be, it can never be considered a crime without a law punishing it.
- Unlike in England, where there is common law (which is based on customs), whenever there is a complaint, the
reckoning is their customs. The decision of the case will be patterned over that case that has already been
decided.
It has been asked whether the constitution can be or is a source of criminal law. But if you look at this definition and if
you look at the constitution, there is nothing there that defines crimes, treats of their nature or provides for their
punishment.
Criminalization of an act is legislative in character but this is subject to LIMITATIONS:
1. Art. III, Sec. 22 of the Constitution which provides that No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted.
- Ex post facto law a law which punishes an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed.
- Bill of attainder a legislative act that inflicts punishment without judicial trial.
2. Article III, Sec. 19 which provides that No law that provides for cruel or unusual punishment shall be
passed.
- Its usually cruel or inhuman when it involves torture. An example would be that burning at the stake.
3. Art. III, Sec. 14(1): Due process of law No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law.
- Due process means not really being heard but the opportunity only.
- Just like in a criminal case. A complaint affidavit is filed and you were given time to file your counter-
affidavit. But the period lapsed and you have not filed your counter affidavit yet, then, it will now be
considered submitted for decision.
Can you claim denial of due process? No, because you were given the opportunity to file your counter-
affidavit but you did not. There is still due process there even if your side was not considered in coming
up with the decision.
- It simply means basic fairness and adequate justice; a law that hears before it condemns, proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after that.
ARTICLE 1. Time When Act Takes Effect. This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen
hundred and thirty-two.
- The date of effectivity is different from the date of approval.

- What this article is saying is the date of effectivity and not the date of approval.
Since 1932, there were various attempts to revise the code and even until now. If you have been reading the papers,
there is this proposed bill in Congress and its going to be called the code of crimes. One proposal is that they are going
to do away with the accomplice. So either you are a principal or you are an accessory. There will no longer be a quasi-
collective responsibility which is the accomplice. And as to the stages of execution, they are going to delete from the law
books the frustrated stage.
Theories underlying the RPC:
1. Classical/Traditional
- Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolute free will to choose between good and evil and
therefore more stress is placed upon the result of the felonious act than upon the criminal himself.
- Presupposes that man knows how to distinguish right from wrong.
- Emphasis is on the act committed and not on the doer.
- Man is a being of volitional consciousness which means he has free will to choose.
- So the focus is on the act. It does not care about your upbringing. Ginawamobaito? Then this is your
penalty.
- The RPC adheres to this theory.
2. Positivist
- Man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong
in spite of or contrary to his volition.
- Man is inherently good but socially sick. He is a product of societal and environmental factors.
2
- Classical is more on retribution; an eye for an eye. Whereas, the purpose of positivist, the penalty is
supposed to reform or correct you.
- The determination of penalty for the classical is proportional whereas for the positivist, it is arrived at
after an individual examination of the offender.
3. Eclectic or mixed
- Combination of the positivist and classical theories wherein crimes that have an economic and social
cause should be dealt with compassion.
4. Utilitarian
- Also known as the protective theory where the primary purpose of punishment is the protection of
society from actual and potential wrongdoers.
How Penal Laws are construed:
1. Equipose Rule when the evidence for both sides is equal, then the scale should be tilted or the case should
be decided in favor of the accused. This is because it is the prosecution which has the burden of proof to prove
the guilt of the accused. This is also based on the principle that the accused in presumed innocent until proven
guilty.
2. Finality of acquittal rule There should be an end to a particular litigation so that the accused will have peace
of mind. Remember that in criminal cases, it is the State against the accused. With all the resources, the State
cannot produce evidence against you?! If walang evidence eh di acquit ka. Thats the end of it. You cannot open
it again. Double jeopardy.
3. Void-for-vagueness A statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient
definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute.
4. Pro Reo when a circumstance is susceptible to 2 interpretations one favorable to the accused and the other
agaisnt him, that interpretation favorable to him shall prevail.
Now, as far as our penal laws are concerned, when a crime is committed, what happens?
So when a crime is committed, if there is an offended party, the aggrieved party is going to file a case, that is assuming
that he will file a case, because the offended party especially in private crimes can choose not to. Now suppose that the
aggrieved party files a complaint, well as a matter of course it goes to the proper body for Preliminary investigation. That
can be conducted not only by the fiscal not only by the DOJ. During the PI, the first thing that the fiscal would do is to
require the respondent to submit a counter affidavit, yan kasi ang due process. Then usually may reply affidavit, it ends
there usually. After these basic pleadings are filed then he can already determine probable cause.
Lets backtrack, before PI, a crime is committed sometimes there is not enough evidence to, well you can always file a
case but the probability of it being dismissed outright also for lack of evidence is high so what do you do? Some people
go to the NBI for example, police CIDG, they investigate first.Some offices conduct Fact Finding Investigation, they call
that Case Build-Up. When they gather enough evidence thats the time a case is file for Preliminary investigation.
The person being investigated here is called what?
Those people that you believe that have committed a crime, ang tawag dyan sa kanila by all these law enforcement
agencies, at this point they are called subjects. Pagdating dito sa PI the subjects become what? Respondent. Once
there is probable cause, you go to court diba, the respondent becomes? The Accused.
Ito yung sinasabi ko kagabi na iba iba ang quantum of evidence required dito. Pagdating sa court, diba dito complaint,
pagdating sa court, you call that what? The information. And in the information, it gives you the parties, and in criminal
cases because if you are the accused, the one pursuing you is The People of the Philippines.
Now what happens to the aggrieved party? If the complainant is the people of the Philippines, asa naman ang victim?
He becomes a mere witness for the Republic of the Philippines. He is also called a private complainant diba.
Now in the information of course, you put there all the elements of the crime. And take note in your crimpro, youre
suppose to place there all the circumstances, otherwise you cannot use them to increase the penalty for example, If you
fail to include that in the information.
Discuss the general characteristic of criminal law.
a.) Generality
GR:Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory whether citizens or not.
XPN:
1.) Diplomats and Heads of States.
What is the basis for that, why are the diplomats and heads of states exempted? In consonance with public international
law they are immune.
Why should we care about international law?Because it is provided in the Constitution.
Unsa man ang labot nato sa international law?

3
- Doctrine of Incorporation under the Constitution. (Sec 2 Art. 2) Parang customary yan for states to respect each
other. Par in parem non habet imperium meaning all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert
jurisdiction over each other.
So if you are suing a representative of the state like an ambassador, its like you are suing the state. They being equal,
they cannot assert jurisdiction over the other.
Generality actually is taken from the Civil Code, Article 14 our penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
obligatory on all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory subject to principles of international law and treaty stipulations.
So those who live here, and those who do not live here but are here in the Philippines. The focus is on the tao, the
person.
Schneckenburger vs. Moran (GR No. 44896, July 31, 1936) a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities
of an ambassador or minister but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. A consul
is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violation of the law of the country where he resides. Ngano man na? Kay
Ambassadors they represent the political interest of a country while consuls they represent the economic interests of a
country.
However, there is UN CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS wherein a consul and other consular officials are
likewise exempt. Consular officials and employees enjoy immunity in the exercise of consular functions.
Pero kahit dati na hindi exempt ang consuls, a country may still exempt consuls if they enter a treaty with the other
country, but not under the principles of international law but under treaty stipulation.
Exempt by virtue of the principles of PIL
a) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state

b) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary ministers resident and charges d affaires
The test is whether or not the officer performs a task that is diplomatic in nature. If it is, then the immunity extends. This
is not immunity from the observance of the law rather immunity from exercise of jurisdiction.
2.) Treaty Stipulation
Pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be performed in good faith. Promises should be kept.
Example: Visiting Forces Agreement implement of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty allowing US military to
visit the Philippines. US military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and
disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the Military laws of the US over US personnel in the Philippines.
3.) Laws of Preferential Application
a) RA No. 75 prohibits the arrest and imprisonment of foreign ambassador or public minister or his domestic or
domestic servant;
Proviso: Principle of Reciprocity the other state must give us the same immunity.
b) Articles of War (CA No. 408) members of the AFP are under the jurisdiction of courts-martial for service
connected offenses defined only in Art. 54 to 70, 72 to 92, 95 to 97;
c) Constitution parliamentary immunity form libel suit for Senators and Members of the House of Representative;
d) Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines bigamy shall not apply to a person married under the Muslim
Law;
e) Immunity from suit The president is immune from suit during his incumbency.
b. TERRITORIALITY
GR:Criminal laws shall be enforced within the territory of the Philippines. As to disputed territory, problema na na sa
Political Law. Its like Generality but here the focus is on the place, in generality, the focus is on the actor.
How about the Seas? UNCLOS granting a country jurisdiction over natural resources within 12 nautical miles.
How about the Atmosphere? There are 3 views on the atmosphere
1) Undiluted sovereignty on the atmosphere;
2) The air is open to free navigation subject to the right of the state to provide security of their territory;
3) While sovereignty within the airspace remains to the state, yet it is subject to the right of way or easement in favor of
foreign aircrafts.
4
Extent of Philippine Territory
ARTICLE I NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein,
and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial,
fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of
their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
XPN: ART2, RPC
ARTICLE 2. Application of Its Provisions. Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code.
Article 2 gives us the exceptions to the territorial characteristic. I'm assuming you remember this by heart.
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
Unsa man ng airship? Lahi man ng airplane, ship man ni. Airship kana tong sa mga football games karon, naa diha sa
taas, blimp. If you're fond of history, meron yang nasunog na airship. Ang pangalan ng airship na yun ay Graf Zeppelin.
Here in our Revised Penal Code, it is a very old law and they have not thought of amending this. So airship pa rin.
So if a crime is committed on board a Philippine ship or airship, even if that ship or airship is not within Philippine
territory, our penal laws will govern. The requirement is that this ship must be of Philippine registry or registered
in the Philippines. Take note that registration is not synonymous with ownership. In most cases, iba ang owner, iba
ang registration. Kunwari registered in Panama, tapos ang owner niyan mga Hapon. Maraming ganyan. You follow not
the citizenship of the owner, but the registration, where it is registered.
Suppose that this ship is stationed or docked sa Sta. Ana pier. A crime is committed inside the ship by the first mate
against the captain. Will Philippine laws apply? Yes, of course, but we do not use this. Philippine laws apply because of
the general rule of territoriality. We have jurisdiction because the crime was committed in Philippine territory. This
Article 2 applies when the ship is no longer within Philippine territory.
Suppose the ship is on the high seas. Diyan na papasok yan. The ship is of Philippine registry. The crime committed is
cognizable by the Philippines. Ang problema diyan kasi, will arise when the ship is not within Philippine territory, not on
the high seas, but is on the territory of another State. Dinha ang problema. Why? Because we can say that we have
jurisdiction because it is of Philippine registry. Suppose where the country where the ship is docked follows the
territoriality principle also. "Anong exterritoriality kayo dyan? The ship is anchored here in our country. We exercise
territorial jurisdiction." Unsaon man na karon? Who shall exercise jurisdiction? That's where the FRENCH RULE and the
ENGLISH RULE come in.
The English rule centers on, or focuses on territoriality. If you follow the English rule, it means you follow territoriality.
Such that, if a crime is committed on board a ship in your territory, then your country can exercise jurisdiction over
crimes committed on board that ship.
Ang FRENCH RULE naman is the opposite. If a crime is committed on board a ship in their territory, they will not
exercise jurisdiction. Who then will exercise jurisdiction? The home state of the vessel.
However, military ships are not subject to these rules because they are always refuted to be the territory of the
country to which they belong.
Also, take note of the exceptions in both the English and French rule. Under the English rule, if the crime is minor,
meaning it affects only the internal management of the vessel, the home state of the vessel will have jurisdiction. Sa
French naman ang exception nyan is when the crime affects the peace, security, and safety of the territory where the
crime was committed, then the territory where it was committed will have jurisdiction.
People vs Wong Cheng 46 Phil 729. Wherein it was held by the SC that of these two rules, it is the English Rule that
obtains in this jurisdiction:
5
To smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the
public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory.
US vs Ah Sing 36 Phil 978. Wherein a Chinese national bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon and brought them on board
a foreign vessel which anchored in a Cebu port. The SC said that the accused can be charged and convicted of illegal
importation of opium.
Take note that if the vessel is in transit, possession of opium does not have a pernicious effect in our contry; hence
Philippines has no jurisdiction. If the vessel is anchored in any port of the Philippines, possession of opium is
equivalent to importation, which produces pernicious effects in our country; hence, the Philippines has jurisdiction.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines islands or obligations and
securities issued by the government of the Philippines.
This is tantamount to attacking our economy. This is economic sabotage. This is also connected to the third exception
because if you forged or counterfeited outside, you will surely introduce it into the Philippines.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.
So public officers who commit an offense in the exercise of their functions even outside the country, they can still be
charged here. But please take note that if you say in the exercise of their functions that means that the act or
omission must have something to do with their job. Suppose a Filipino working abroad in the embassy raped
somebody there, wala may labot na sa iyang function. Dili man na niya trabaho mang rape!
So what are these crimes?
1. title 7 of book 2: crimes committed by public officers

2. Various special laws affecting the public officer like the anti graft and corruption act, plunder, etc.
These are the laws that if are violated by public officials even if outside the territorial jurisdiction of the country, he can
still be charged here.
Take note ha, the crimes that can be charged even though outside the Philippine territory will be those that have a
relation to the work of the public officer.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in title one of
book two of this code.
The crimes cited here in book two are treason, conspiracy to commit treason and others. Now, the book of Reyes
also cited the HUMAN SECURITY ACT because section 58 of this law also contains extraterritorial provisions. This is
the anti terrorism law.
SEC. 58. Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. - Subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the
Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act
shall apply: (1) to individual persons who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act within the terrestrial
domain, interior waters, maritime zone, and airspace of the Philippines; (2) to individual persons who, although
physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes defined
and punished in this Act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines; (3) to individual persons who, although physically
outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine ship or Philippine
airship; (4) to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises
belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; (5) to individual persons who, although
physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of
Philippines descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and (6) to individual
persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the
Philippine government.
This law which is relatively new has extraterritorial provisions. Yung mga terrorist acts even if committed outside, they
can still be charges here in our jurisdiction.
Of course, you also have the exception of the crime of piracy. It is provided that they can be charged, prosecuted
wherever they are found. Piracy, unlike other crimes, has no territorial limits.
c.) PROSPECTIVITY
GR: Crimes are punished under the law in force at the time of their commission. This is in consonance with the
maxim that there is no crime when there is no law punishing it.
XPN:When a law is favorable to the accused. If it is such, then the law may be given retroactive effect.
XPN XPN:The offender is a habitual delinquent.
Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
6
persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this
Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the
convict is serving the same.
Article 62. xxx For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a
period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
oftener.
Let's take the example of this bad boy Robin Padilla. Diba nahuli yan siya na maraming baril sa sasakyan? At that time,
there was a special law that punished illegal possession of firearms, so napreso siya. Unya sa Senate, iyang mga
friends, nagpropose ng amendment doon sa law lowering the penalty. In effect, I think what happened was when the law
was amended, the penalty was lowered, naging probationable yung offense. So diba, the crime was committed under
the old law. Here comes a new law, it affects him because it is favorable.
Construction of Penal Laws
Always remember this. This is a famous rule on construction that in case of doubt, rule in favor of the accused. It has
been used so many times that people forget the first line. Kasi masyadong fixated yung mga tao dun sa rule in favor of
the accused. They forget that the rule applies only when there is doubt. When there is no doubt, you apply the law. Dura
lex sed lex.
People v. Mangulabnan. The rule here is if there is conflict between the English text and the original text, which is in
Spanish, the Spanish prevails.
In this case, the head of the family was hiding in the ceiling while a robbery was in progress. Iyang pamilya naa didto,
siya tago siya didto sa taas. One of the robbers, in an effort to restore order, fired his gun in the direction of the ceiling.
Unfortunately for him, he was there hiding. Later on, the robbers were charged with robbery with homicide. The
contention of the robbers was this: "How can we be liable for robbery with homicide? Under 294, we did not even know
this guy was up in the ceiling." Kasi the phrase there is "shall have been committed". Sabi nila hindi pwede yung
committed sa kanila kasi there was no intent. Hindi intentional. So they argued that they could not be held liable for the
homicide because they did not know that somebody was hiding there. According to them, because there was no intent,
they should not be held liable for robbery with homicide as provided in the law.
The phrase at issue is "shall have been committed". When they checked the original text, Spanish, ano man nakalagay?
Resultare. Ano man yan? Resulted. So therefore, it does not matter that there was no intent as long as the
homicide results during or in the course of a robbery. The crime is robbery with homicide. Intent is not material.
If somebody dies during a robbery, intentional or not, the crime is robbery with homicide. They found that out
because they read the Spanish text. Because in the English text, hindi ganun ang interpretation niyan.
Felonies and Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability
When we say felony that is the technical term. It is supposed to be crime which is generic. Article 3 gives us the
definition of felony and by article 3, I mean the whole article.
Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Act or omission.
Act is the physical movement or bodily movement. When a person burns a house down, there is a movement.
Even in slander, there is movement. Your vocal cords treble.
Omission is the opposite of act. Failing to do what you are supposed to do. The RPC gives us the acts or
omissions that is punished by law. We go back again to nullum crimen. These are acts prohibited by law and
whenwe say punished by law, we refer to the RPC.
When you say felony that is specific to the RPC. Usually, acts punishable by special laws are called Offenses. Those
punished by ordinances.
Classification:
1. Intentional Felonies felonies committed with malice or deliberate intent.
Requisites:
a. Freedom
b. Intelligence
c. Intent
7
2. Culpable Felonies felonies committed as a result of imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.
Requisites:
a. Freedom
b. Intelligence
c. Imprudent, Negligent, Lack of Foresight or Lack of Skill
What are the two components of felonies by dolo?
1. Act and omission punishable by law (physical act)
2. Mens rea (intent)
The act itself does not make a person guilty unless he intends to so. What are the instances when a person may be held
liable despite lack of intent? One instance is that when the act falls under those culpable felonies. The other one if it is
mala probihita, those punished under the special laws where intent need not be proven. In special laws, intent is not
necessary. What we mean by that is, intent to cause damage, the malice is not necessary because there is still intent in
these crimes which are mala prohibita, the intent there is not to commit a crime but intent to perpetrate the act. There is
still intent. Its not the malice that we are talk about. You have to distinguish between malum in se and malum prohibita.
Malum in se - It is essentially evil. You do not need a law to remind you of that, its very nature is evil, bad, wrong. You
just know in your heart that it is wrong.
Malum Prohibitum- Act which is not inherently moral. It is only punishable because there is a law that says so. It is not
necessarily bad. For example, what is inherently bad in drinking beer? Wala. Thats why you distinguish between the
intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetuate the act. Here, your lack of criminal intent is not a defense.
In special law, you are only punished if the crime is committed, there is no accessory. You are punished as a principal,
no accomplice or no accessory unless the special itself provides otherwise. Walang frustrated, or attempted.
Padilla v. Dizon 158 SCRA. A judge was dismissed from service because of gross ignorance of the law because
he acquitted the accused Lo Chi Fai, but directed in his decision the release to the accused of at least the amount of
US$3,000.00, allowed, according to respondent, under Central Bank Circular No. 960. The respondent ought to know
that proof of malice or deliberate intent (mens rea) is not essential in offenses punished by special laws, which are mala
prohibita. In requiring proof of malice, the respondent has by his gross ignorance allowed the accused to go scot free.
Zunio v. Dizon.As it turns out, it involves the same judge. He was already dismissed in the service. This time it involves
illegal possession of firearms ug iya napod gidismiss kay walay malice or intent, mens rea. He dismissed the four cases
of illegal firearms on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove criminal intent and sabi ng supreme court, dismiss
again. Sa special law, walang intent, liable ka pa rin.
Where does motive come in? Does it matter at all?
Motive impells a person to attack. For purposes of criminal law it does not matter, as long as there is intent to commit
the act or perpertuate the act, then you are liable.
When is motive material or important?
1. The act brings about variant crimes;

2. When the perpetrator has not been positively identified as when nobody witness the commission of the offense;
3. To determine whether a shooting was intentional or accidental;
4. To determine the specific nature of the crime; and
5. Where the accused claims self-defense.
What is Honest Mistake of Fact?
It is an act or omission which is the result of a misapprehension of facts that is voluntary but not intentional. The actor
performs an act which would be lawful had the facts been as he believed them to be.
Requisites:
1. the act would be have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be;
2. in performing the act, the intent of the accusedwas lawful; and
3. the mistake was without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
US vs Ah Chong. Nerbyosong Chinese, there is ground because several months, may nakawan, may namamatay that
is why this guy had a knife hidden under the bed.That is why when somebody is knocking, whos there, whos there then
nobody answered. There was no fault or carelessness because he asked, sino yan? Whos there? Unya dli man
mutingog.
A careful examination of the facts as disclosed in the case at bar convinces us that the defendant Chinaman struck the
fatal blow alleged in the information in the firm belief that the intruder who forced open the door of his sleeping room was
a thief, from whose assault he was in imminent peril, both of his life and of his property and of the property committed to
8
his charge; that in view of all the circumstances, as they must have presented themselves to the defendant at the time,
he acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his
legitimate right of self-defense; that had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt
from criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness
or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from
the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge.
The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court should be reversed, and the defendant acquitted
of the crime with which he is charged and his bail bond exonerated, with the costs of both instance de oficio.
Guanis. He stated that there was a mistake of fact because yung pinagabaril namin na notorious criminal. The act
would have been lawful. The judge says no because you still could ascertain the identity, your job is to pursue. There
was also negligence there. Ignorantia facti applies only if the act committed is without fault or negligence.
As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder with the qualifying circumstance ofalevosia.
There is, however, a mitigating circumstance of weight consisting in the incomplete justifying circumstance defined in
article 11, No. 5, of the Revised Penal Code. According to such legal provision, a person incurs no criminal liability when
he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. There are two requisites in order that the
circumstance may be taken as a justifying one: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right; and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance
of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. In the instance case, only the first requisite is present
appellants have acted in the performance of a duty. The second requisite is wanting for the crime by them committed is
not the necessary consequence of a due performance of their duty. Their duty was to arrest Balagtas or to get him dead
or alive if resistance is offered by him and they are overpowered. But through impatience or over-anxiety or in their
desire to take no chances, they have exceeded in the fulfillment of such duty by killing the person whom they believed to
be Balagtas without any resistance from him and without making any previous inquiry as to his identity. According to
article 69 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall, in such
case, be imposed.
ARTICLE 4. Criminal Liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
Art.4 talks about the extraordinary manner of incurring criminal liability.
Usual manner: you do something, you have a certain intent, and the result is exactly what you intended.
Art 4 comes in saying that even if the result is different, you are still liable. Thats why its extraordinary manner of
incuring criminal liability. When the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
There is the word intended. The premise here is that you must be committing an intentional felony. It must be
committed through fault or culpa. It must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of your actions. Even if different
from what you intended.
What are the situations which cover this particular phrase?
1. Error in personae or Mistake in the identity
For example you want to kill A, you wait for him at a place where he passes through each night in order to go home, you
ambush him then you kill him and it turns out that you killed another person. You cannot raise a defense that my
intention was to kill A, not B therefore I should not be liable. The basis of the liability is even if there is a mistake, even if
you did not intend to kill that person, you are still liable.
The penalty imposable in error in personae is the penalty prescribed for the offense which has a lesser penalty in
its maximum period.
This is for the application of the transfer intent rule where the actual victim is different from the intended victim.
One case that illustrates this is the case of People vs Bona 54 Phil 615, naay nagaway didto. To make the long story
short. Jose mistook somebody else. So killing one man while intending to kill another does not relieve a person of his
criminal liability.
Mistake in identity is different from mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is an absolutory cause. This is not.
2. Aberratio Ictus or Mistake in the Blow
Here you have 3 persons. Your imprecise aim. You intended to kill A, your victim is there, there's no mistake about the
identity of the victim. Ang problema banga siya, hindi niya tinamaan, ang tinamaan iba. Again, the offender may post as
a defense that my intention was to kill A instead of B. Again, you are liable.
9
What happens here is in mistake in the blow is because a single act results in two or more grave or less grave offenses.
If you wanted to kill A, that's attempted. Tapos you killed B instead, merong consummated murder or homicide dun. A
single act. This is actually what we talked about last time.
The act may result in 2 or more felonies, but considering that a single act was performed, the accused is liable for a
complex crime.The penalty for the graver offense shall be imposed in its maximum period pursuant to Art 48 of the
RPC.
Distinguish this from error in identity. Here you have the right identity, but wrong blow.
3.PraeterIntentionem
The injurious result is greater than the intent. When the results exceeded the intention. Case of Cagoco. Anong nangyari
kay Cagoco. Diba the offender punched the victim. Natumba siya, cracked his skull, and died. He cannot say he is only
liable for physical injuries. It was directly the direct consequence of the defendant's act. The fact that the defendant did
not intend to cause the resulting injuries does not excuse him from the consequence of his felonious act.
This is a mitigating circumstance.The offender is liable for the felony actually committed but the penalty shall be
imposed in its minimum period.
Proximate Cause: that cause which in the natural course of events, unbroken by any efficient supervening cause,
results in the resulting crime.
El que es causa es causa de la cause del mal causado. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil cause.
If unbroken by any efficient supervening cause, it is just cause and effect. As long as the line is not broken, liability must
still be attributed to the cause. But the cause is gisumbag siya, natumba, nabuak ang ulo, namatay. The defendant
cannot distance himself from the result because there is no efficient supervening cause. Of course, if there is an
intervening cause. If there is an intervening cause between the cause and the effect of the act.
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony.
Any person committing a felony is liable for all direct consequences of the act, the premise there is that the person is
committing a felony. The presumption will arise if the person is committing a felony. That he is responsible. The
presumption will not arise if the person is not committing a felony. Even if injury results.
Pp vs Codoy. Nag-inum ug tuba. Gipashot. Ningshot. Unya gipashot pa, di na siya. Away. Iyang bana nakigaway, nag-
inilugay ug sundang. Pag wrench ng bolo, may natamaan sa likod na tao nung sharp point. Ngayon, kaninong
kasalanan yan? Is there criminal liability by the owner of the sundang? No. He was just trying to retain possession of his
bolo. Diba? Akoa man ni, ginailog niya. Therefore, the ruling is, hindi siya liable. Why? Because he was not committing a
felony. Yes, it was the natural result of the act. Natural, logical, and direct consequence. But then he was not
committing a felony.
Similar case: he saw a knife, kinuha niya. Instinctively, the owner took hold of the sharp point of the knife. Again no
felony being committed. The accused there was acquitted. Injury was due to an incident arising from his own fault.
If there is an active intervening cause- where the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim. Remember the
case of Delos Santos? The victim was wounded but he wanted the offender to pay for a more serious crime. Naa siyay
samad, iyang gi-immerse iyang samad sa cesspool. Basta hugaw na siya. And so of course it resulted in infection. But
then because it was due to his own intentional and malicious act, yan ang exception.
Usually when infection sets in the offfender is still liable even if the wound is aggravated later. The general rule is liable
because it is the natural, logical consequence etc. etong kay Delos Santos exception to siya because may malice by the
victim.
Remember also another case where the offender slapped a boy, gisagpa. Then ang bata developed fever. Gi-malaria.
Unsay labot anang malaria? Malaria is now the immediate intervening cause. It broke the relation of cause and effect.
Ang rule niyan: basta walang intervening cause, siya ang liable.
Kung person hinabol niya, tas niambak sa dagat, nalumos, ikaw gihapon ang sala ana.
Magdeclare kag holdup sa jeep, ang naa sa pinakatumoy niambak sa jeep while gadagan. Ikaw gihapoy sala ana. Di ka
pwede musulti na wala man nako siya giunsa, ingon lang gani kog hold-up. Ikaw gihapon na because that is the logical
effect or consequence of your action. Again, may I remind you that that will apply if the person is committing a felony.
For example nagbrownout kalit tas bigla mong tinakot ang classmate mo who turns out to have a heart ailment,
namatay. Sala nimo na. Do you incur criminal liability? Is that a felony? There is no law that punishes you from
surprising someone or committing a joke. Of course, it's a different story if there is intent. That is already an
intentional act.
Bayutas case, kasi the offended party was addicted to tuba. Di magtalab ang gamot ay palahubog kaayo. The liability is
still attributable to the offender. Mapuputol lang yan when there is intention on the part of the victim.
People vs __ Jan 17, 1995- if a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such
person to _ and in so doing injures himself, the person who creates __ is responsible for the injuries which result.
10
Marasigan: The offended party is not obliged to submit to a surgical operation to relieve the accused from the natural
and logical consequence of his act. You attack somebody. He needed an operation. That guy is scared of operations.
Dili jud siya. Unya karon, namatay. Sabi niya, siya may sala ato. He did not submit himself to the operation. Can he
waive liability? No.
Abarca. As we were saying, the premise is the offender is committing a felony. Si Abarca, may binaril siya, but he was
not the offender.. the ruling in abarca is that he is still liable but not on intentional felony.
Another thing, where the victim already has a condition. The victim has a heart ailment, tapos the husband choked her.
The wife died but she died not because of the choking but because she had a heart attack. Even if the victim is suffering
from an internal ailment, if the blow of the accused is the efficient cause of death, accelerated his death, or is the
proximate cause of death then there is criminal liability.
The second half of Art. 4 is famously known as Impossible Crimes.
By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
When you say impossible crime, it cannot be committed because it is impossible to commit, but then there is
liability.
Requisites:
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.

2. That the act was done with evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or
ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code.
In impossible crime, the act performed should not constitute another offense specifically punished by law
particularly a felony against persons or property. The moment another crime is committed there can be no
impossible crime. The offender is liable for that crime which was committed in the process.
If it's not a crime, why is there a penalty provided for it?
The commission of an impossible crime is indicative of the criminal propensity or criminal tendency on the part of the
actor. Such person is a potential criminal. The society must be protected from the morbid type of man called socially
dangerous person. Society is not safe as long as a man of his kind roams its streets and be a constant danger to its
inhabitants.
Ex: Double dead- patay na imo pang gipatay. Unsaon nimo pagpatay na patay na? Inherently impossible na. Did you
commit a crime? No.
But take note that you are punishing the state of mind. That you came up sa imong mind, criminal ka. Although what you
did was not criminal. Precisely, when you stab a person who turns out to be dead, you will be punished even though you
say, no he is dead already, I cannot be liable. Because your mind is criminal. You thought you were committing a felony.
It's different if, for example, you go to the home of your enemy, hinay-hinay kag kamang didto, and patyun nimo siya.
Gusto mong malaman niya na ikaw ang last person he will ever see. Unya pagabot nimo, wala na man diay pulse. Patay
na man diay ni. Pero imo gihapon gipadayun.
Is that an impossible crime? No! Because you knew that you were not committing a crime. Subjectively, you are
not a criminal. Patay na. You will be a criminal in that example kung hindi mo alam na patay na. If hindi mo alam,
even subjectively you are not a criminal. As far as intention.
This concept punishes a person for his criminal intention- the mes rea of the offender. You are a dangerous person. Its
purpose is to oppress criminal tendencies because the offender, according to the positivist theory, is a potential criminal.
Objectively, there is no felony. But subjectively, the offender is a criminal.
What is the illustrative case here?
Yung pinagbabaril nila yung bahay. Kasi nandun parati yung tao sa room. That night, that was the only night wala pud
siya natulog didto.
How do you distinguish this from frustrated?
Ang impossible crime, it really cannot be committed. It is impossible to commit. A frustrated felony, it can be
consummated, here hindi.
There are these two concepts of impossibility:
1. Legal Impossibility it ccours when an essential element of a crime is not present during its commission
making it impossible of accomplishment.
11
Ex. When you steal an item, and it turned out na sayo yun. Nangawat kag cellphone, akoa man diay ni, ang messages
naa dito. That is legal impossibility because you cannot commit theft in this example. Theft is taking personal property
belonging to another. This is personal property belonging to YOU.
2. Physical Impossibilityit occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to the perpetrator prevent the
commission of the intended crime.
Ex: di mo alam na patay, pinatay mo ulit.
Another principle: the impossible crime should be resorted to last. If a situation which seems to be an impossible crime
can fall under another article in the RPC, then ipasok mo na dun.
You know that this guy carries a lot of money always. Gi hold-up nimo. As it turned out, wala diay kwarta ang tao.
Impossible man kay walay dalang kwarta. But that is already an attempted robbery.
If it can be considered as another offense, consider it first before considering Article 4 (2).
There is no such thing as attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
Penalty: Arresto mayor or a Fine of 200-500 pesos
ARTICLE 5. Duty of the Court in Connection with Acts Which Should Be Repressed but which are Not Covered
by the Law, and in Cases of Excessive Penalties. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may
deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report
to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that
said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
In the same way the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such
statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking
into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
Article 5 (1)- a judge is duty-bound to render a decision. Even if kasama ng tingin niya sa ginawa ng taong ito, if it is not
proven, the only decision can only be that provided by law. He can report it to the Chief Executive through the DOJ that
this act should be sanctioned. Why is this so? Again, we go back to the maxim, nullum crimen nullum sine poena lege.
There is no crime if there is no law punishing it.
(2)- the penalty is excessive. The crime is proven to have been committed but under the circumstances, the judge feels
that the penalty is excessive. His duty is impose the imposable penalty and again make a recommendation. What is his
recommendation? Commutation, reduction, mga ganyan. There is an example of this.
Judge Veneracion of Cebu: Sabi niya, Guilty, pero kasi I don't believe in the death penalty so I will not give him death
penalty. Supreme Court: Hindi pwede yan. The provision has no room for the discretion of the judge for the imposable
penalty given. The courts are not concerned with the wisdom, efficacy, and morality of the laws.
PP vs Espino: father and son were convicted of qualified theft. Why? Kasi nangawat ug butong sa plantation. Kung
mangawat kag butong sa plantation, 2 degrees higher because it is qualified. Imo jud I 2 degrees higher kay mao man
na ang penalty sa qualified theft kung mangawat kag butong. But the judge here made a recommendation of pardon.
PP vs Tanza: husband kept a mistress, on the day he was killed, he beat his wife. Katong gipakaon, gilabay ang
pagkaon. Isipin mo yan, pinakain mo tas ilabay ang pagkaon. Nilakaw, pagbalik, gikulata napud. Mao to gipatay siya sa
wife. the violence with which the appellant killed her husband demonstrated the righteous anger through the series of
abuse. Clearly, she is deserving of executive leniency...not to full pardon but reduction.
PP vs Villarente: yung mama naawa sa anak niya hindi magkauyab. What they did was they abducted someone,
gitabangan niya ang anak niya. Unya gi-rape sa iyang anak. Gi-apil siya sa kaso, co-principal. Pero naluoy ra man jud
siya sa iyang anak. Penalty is excessive as far as the mother is concerned. Okay lang yung sa anak, pero yung sa
mama excessive.
Before we even go to the stages of execution. We find out how the crime develops and we know that as a general rule
you first think about it. That is why in most books its called internal act or internal process. I remember Inigo would say
Unsay may pagka internal act ana, kung internal dili jud na xa act. That is why we should use the term loosely. That is
something inside, it is mental, at that point there is no criminal liability. You can think what you want, you rape every day,
walay mahitabo sa imoha ke naa ra man na sa kuan. Somethings wrong with you, psychological. Internal acts, mental
processes not punishable.
From there, you go to preparatory acts, tapos, what is the rule with respect to preparatory acts. In the same manner
hindi yan xa punishable yung preparatory acts. A good example is when you want to poison somebody, you buy poison,
buying poison is a preparatory act, but it is not punishable, why? Because in your mind, you might think of using it
against a person but as far as the act itself is concerned, then it is still, here and there, it can be used to kill rats. There is
no relation yet at that point, from the act itself and the intended crime to be committed. At that point then, the preparatory
act is not yet punishable. Of course the exception is when the law itself provides for the penalty for preparatory acts. And
that is best exemplified by what? Proposal to commit rebellion. The Proposal to commit rebellion. Is a preparatory act
which is punished by law. At that point it is still a proposal but then the law provides that it is punishable. Another
12
example is possession of picklocks that is an example of a preparatory act that is punished by law. Possession of
picklock, mere possession is punished by law. You dont have to do anything.
Next to preparatory acts, ito na, Article 6. The acts of execution. This time any of the stages, when you enter to the
stages of acts of execution they are already punishable.
Art. 6.Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies.Consummated felonies, as well as those which are
frustrated and attmepted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present;
and it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of sime cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Stages of Execution
1. Attempted Stage
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance. The law says the offender commences the commission of a felony directly , siya mismo
the offender. He is the one who is commencing or beginning to commit a crime.
For example, if A proposes to B the killing of somebody, that is a proposal and then B says NO, at that point there is a
proposal. There are two reasons why that is not punishable. Proposal there is no article that punishes that. Kahit
nagpropose xa, hindi man xa nagperform or nagstart to perform, now my point is really the offender himself must commit
the act of execution, must begin to commit the act of execution.
And when you say ACT we are talking about an overt act. When you talk about overt act in the criminal law sense, it
means an act that has a relation to the crime to be committed, as opposed to an indeterminate act, an undeterminate
offense, as exemplified by the case of Lamahang, in this case the offender already with an iron bar, removed the panel
in the side of the store, he was about to remove another one when he was apprehended, he was charged with what?
Attempted robbery. The overt act must have a relation to the crime charged. Unsa may relation sa removal of the
board, to the charge of attempted robbery, there is no connection.
An interminate offense is one where the purpose of the offender in his act is not certain, his objective in ambiguous. That
is why in the case of Lamahang, ambiguous yun. Kasi pwede na mang, pagpasok mo, pagpasok ng offender pwede
man xa, he could kill somebody not just rob. Or he can go to the videoke machine and start singing. SO it is ambiguous,
the overt act in relation to the crime charged. So in that case, it is not attempted robbery, it is attempted trespass to
dwelling. Cause here now, there is a relation to the overt act and the crime charged. Attempted trespass, gitanggal na
nya, papasok na xa, klaro yun, diba? The connection is clear.
In attempted stage, there are 2 phases:
a. Subjective; and
b. Objective phase.
In attempted the offender never passes the subjective phase. What is the subjective phase? That portion of the acts
constituting a crime, starting from the point where the offender begins the commission of the crime to that point where
he has still control of his action. That is the subjective phase. In the attempted phase, hanggang doon lang xa. He does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance.
Going back to the definition of the overt act. Overt actis some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention
to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
Acts so external act yan, the external act must have a direct connection with the cime that is committed. Now, if you
notice, the preparatory act, no connection pa yan sa crime to be committed, when you buy a poison, no direct
connection yan, because it could be used for other things.
People v Pancho November 27, 2003. Anong nangyari dito? The offender dragged the feet of the victim and held her
feet unya parang nakawala yun victim. Anyway, the offender was charged with what? Attempted rape. Dba, unsa man
ni, gigunitan ang tiil, attempted rape. Well, anyway, walang direct connection.
13
Well in attempted, well, yun nga it does not perform all the acts of execution. Why? Because of a cause or accident.
When a pickpocket starts to get the wallet in the pocket. And the supposed victim is able to notice, so yun ang cause, he
was not able to perform all the acts of execution because of a cause. Or accident, when you want to shoot somebody
but the gun jams, wala niboto, so you have not yet performed all the acts of execution necessary to commit a crime.
But take note that the law also says that the reason you were not able to perform all acts of execution, it should
not be because of your own volition. Remember if you were the one who desisted, you are still in the subjective
phase, if during the subjective phase you desist, there is no criminal liability. Ang sabi ni Viada jan: the law does
not punish the one who desist It is a sort of reward granted by law to those who, having one foot on the verge of a
crime, heed the call of their conscience and return to the path of righteousness. Take note ha, that your motive does not
have to be noble. If you desisted because takot ka lang, ganun parin yun, it does not matter whether it be noble or
otherwise, as long as you desisted. As long as you have not yet passed the subjective phase and you desisted yourself.
Youdid not push through, yan there is no criminal liability.
And ofcourse one other principle in attempted is that you cannot desist when you already performed all the acts of
execution. Imo na syang natigbas, ingon ka, Sorry sorry I desist. Hindi pwedeng ganun kasi, because, you already
performed all the acts of execution. Once you have done that, there could be no desistance. It just like sa malversation,
ninakaw mo, tapos Ako ang iyong konsensya kaya binalik mo, e ninakaw mo na! Kaya nga some people ask, yung
common people, kung same lang pala ang liability kahit bialik mo na.
Why would I return? Iuli,liable. Dili iuli, liable, dili nalang nako ni iuli. Because you know its better to return, why? For
one, you can erase the civil aspect. And another, that is considered as a mitigating circumstance. Well the point is
you cannot desist when you already performed all the acts of execution. Because at that time when already performed
all the acts of execution, you have already passed the subjective phase. That is the point where you cannot do anything
anymore, nagawa mo na,that is as to frustrated, yan ang objective (phase) you have done everyhting, the felony should
result. Ito ang peculiar or unique sa frustrated kasi dapat, yan ang maganda sa frustrated eh, halimbawa, killing,
homicide, you have already performed all the acts of execution, binaril mo xa ng 100 times, unya buhi pa gihapon xa.
That is frustrated. Maka.frustrate man talaga.
2. Frustrated Stage
It is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence
but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
This time the reason is it should not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. So in order
words if the reason why the crime was not consummated was because of the will of the perpetrator then there is no
frustration and the best example there is, i think its in Reyes, when a doctor poisoned his wife.
Problem from the book of Reyes: A doctor cnceived the idea of killing his wife, and to carry out his plan, he mixed
arsenic with the soup of the victim. Immediately after the victim took the poisonous food, the offender sudddenly felt
such twinge of conscience that he himslef washed out the stomach of the victim and administered to her the adequate
antidote. Would this be frustrated parricide? Certainly not, for even though the subjective phase of the crime had been
passed, the most important requisite of frustrated crime, that the casue which prevented the consummation of the
offense be independent of the will of the perpetrator, is lacking. At most, the crime committed would be physical injuries,
as the poison thus administered, being an injurious substance could cause the same.
Here, the reason the wife did not die was because of his will and therefore it could fall under the frustrated stage. It can
also not be an attempt, why? Because he has done everyhting, all the acts of execution. Sabi ni Inigo ang crime daw
dyan is administering injurious substances as a form of physical injuries. So as far as frustrated stage is concerned hindi
xa mapasok doon because of the essential requisites is lacking. It should not be because of the will of the perpetrator.
So frustrated is the objective phase. The subjective phase ends where the objective phase begins. One instructive case
here is the case of Borinaga. Although the ruling, well, if you follow the borinaga ruling, it would be mali now. It would be
wrong. What happened here? Somebody was attacked, he was sitting on a wooden chair, he was attacked from behind
with a knife, instead of hitting the neck, the knife hit the wood of the back of the chair. So he was not wounded even by
the knife, well actually the ruling in borinaga was, it was frustrated. Majority of the justices said na frustrated ito, the
crime was not consummated becuase of a cause independent of the will of the perpetrator, what was the cause, the
knife hit the back of the chair. Yun ang ruling although there were dissenting opinions. Well it turns out that the
dissenting opinions were right because in the case of people vs Kalalo it was held: In crimes against persons,
such as murder, which requires that the victim should die to consummate the felony, it is necessary for the
frustration of the same that a mortal would is inflicted.
In crimes against persons such as Murder which requires that the victim should die to consummate it, it is necessary for
the frustration of the same that a mortal would is inflicted. If you have not inflicted a mortal would, you would not have
performed all the acts of execution which produces the felony as a consequence. If nag jam ang baril attempted, if
nibuto pero wala ka kaigo or naigo sa shoulder attempted lang gihapon.
In Criminal Procedure a felony may necessarily be included in the crime charged. For example: In robbery, if the
element of intimidation etc is not established it is not robbery, but may be theft. In murder, if no treachery hindi siya
murder but homicide. Forcible abduction, if lewd intent is not established, it can still fall under illegal detention.
Frustrated Felony vs Attempted Felony

14
In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony while in
attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not
perform all the acts of execution.
Another possibility is that there is no crime at all, but what may exist is purely civil obligation. For example: if abuse of
confidence or deceit is not established in a crime of Estafa, you have a simple case for collection of sum of money.
Distinction between Attempted felony and Impossible crime
1. Impossible crime - is not capable of being accomplished

2. Attempted felony - is possible to be accomplished
INOD VS CA - The factual situation in the case at bar present a physical impossibility which rendered the
intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code,
such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. To uphold the contention of respondent that the offense
was Attempted Murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a supervening cause independent of the
actor's will, will render useless the provision in Article 4, which makes a person criminally liable for an act "which
would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
. . ." In that case all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an
accident independent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies. Sabi ng SC,
gamitin natin ang Article 4, otherwise this provision will be rendered useless. In the Philippines we have the
concept of impossible crime, sa US wala, so puro attempted lang ang andun sa kanila.
15
3. Consummated Stage
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. Every
crime has its own elements which must all be present to constitute a violation of the law.
If the subjective and objective phases of execution are both present, the crime is consummated. The offender has
performed all the acts of execution and the crime is committed.
Some Examples:
Act Attempted Frustrated Consummated
Theft X forced opened the NONE There was taking of

padlock which was placed Hospital linens were non
to prevent the car from bulky goods offender
being stolen, while had the possession and
opening, the police arrived Lack of ability of the control (Pp vs Espiritu)
(now liable for kidnapping) offender to dispose freely
(Pp vs. dela Cruz) the articles stole because
rifles were bulky no
crime of frustrated theft Unlawful taking, which is
the deprivation of ones
(Pp vs. Dino) personal property is the
element which produces
the felony in its
consummated stage.
Unlawful taking of Under Art 308 of the RPC,
apoderrami ento is theft cannot have a
deemed complete from frustrated stage , theft can
the moment the offender only be attempted or
gains possession of the consummated
things, even if he has no (Valenzuela vs PP)
opportunity to dispose of
the same (Valenzuela vs
PP.)
Arson X was still placing NONE (Accd to Buado) X placed flammable

flammable materials in materials, lit a match and
certain places burned a part of the house
X placed flammable
materials and lit a match,
police arrived
Rape X tried to commence NONE Slight penetration is

sexual intercourse but sufficient to consummate
because of Ys resistance, rape; entrance of the labia
was distracted and ran majora Actus rea, sexual
away, there was merely Because of the tender age intercourse without the
stroking by the external of the child being only consent of the victim
surface of the vagina 5yrs old and 6 months at Mens rea Intent to have
the time, penetration was carnal knowledge of the
impossible due to the victim (Pp. vs Orita)
infantile character of the
Touching of the labia vagina. Accused was
majora or minora of the found guilty of frustrated
pudendum by the penis of rape. Please See: new Law on
stroking of the mons pubis Rape
(may be also liable for (Pp vs Erinia)
acts of lasciviousness)
In Pp. vs Orita the SC

If there is nothing in the abandoned the Erinia
victims testimony that principle and declared it
proved that the penis of as a stray decision
the accused reached the
labia of the pudendum of
her vagina
16
(Dela Pena Case) The

ruling that the slightest
penetration consummates
the crime of rape is true
only in the presence of an
erect penis. Therefore no
consummation, only
attempted.
Homicide/Murder X shot Y and the latter X shot Y and was hit with X shot Y and was hit on
was hit only on the thighs, a mortal wound on the his heart and he
without intent to with intent to kill but Y ran head but survived due to subsequently died
kill, away medical intervention
liable only for
physical injuries
Bribery NONE NONE Acceptance of the bribe

by a public officer
Corruption of If the public officer rejects NONE If the public officer

public official or returns the bribe accepts the bribe given by
the briber
Adultery/ NONE NONE Upon carnal knowledge

Concubinage
17
Graduation of penalty
Stage Consummated Frustrated Attempted
Principal 0 1 2
Accomplices 1 2 3
Accessories 2 3 4
SPECIAL CRIMES There is no distinction between attempted
Example: Article 131 fleeing to an enemy country (attempting to fly to an enemy country is likewise punished)
FORMAL CRIMES - consummated in one instant, or by performance of a single act of execution. All or nothing.
Examples:
1. Felony by omission
2. Slander
3. False testimony in court
4. Possession of picklocks
MATERIAL CRIMES not consummated at one instant or by a single act of execution.
Example: Homicide/ Parricide/ Murder/ Rape
Before we go to Article 7, let's go to Article 9.
ARTICLE 9. Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies and Light Felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with article
25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are
correctional, in accordance with the abovementioned article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.
ARTICLE 7. When Light Felonies are Punishable. Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.
ARTICLE 25. Penalties Which May Be Imposed. The penalties which may be imposed, according to this Code,
and their different classes, are those included in the following:
ScalePrincipal Penalties
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusin perpetua,
Reclusin temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prisin mayor.
Correctional penalties:
Prisin correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspensin,
Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.
Accessory Penalties
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
Payment of costs.
GR: light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated. In other words, if the light felony is frustrated
18
or attempted, there is no punishment.
Example: Betting in sport contest, illegal cock-fighting, intriguing against honor
XPN: those committed against persons or property.
Crimes against persons:
a. Parricide
b. Murder
c. Homicide
d. Infanticide
e. Abortion
f. Duel
g. Physical Injuries
h. Rape
Crimes against property:
a. Robbery
b. Brigandage
c. Theft
d. Usurpation
e. Culpable insolvency
f. Swindling (estafa) and other deceits
g. Chattel Mortgage
h. Arson and other crimes involving destruction
i. Malicious Mischief
Bakit hindi na punishable yung attempted at frustrated? Kasi kahit nag consummated, the penalty is light already. So, how
much more the penalty for the attempted or frustrated, one or two degrees lower. Sabi ni Reyes dito, "light felonies
produce such insignificant moral and material injuries that public conscience is satisfied with a light penalty for their
consummation. If they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that there is no need of providing a penalty.
What is the reason for the exception? Ang usual reason in crimes against persons or property is that there is a showing of
moral perversity of the offender. These offenders are considered more morally depraved and for that reason, even
attempted or frustrated, although light, are punishable.
ARTICLE 8. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Felony. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
Requisites of Conspiracy:
1. That 2 or more persons come to an agreement;

2. That the agreement concerns the commission of a felony; and
3. That the execution of a felony is decided upon.
GR: Proposal and conspiracy are not punishable.
XPN: When the law itself says that they are punishable.
Proposal as a Felony: CT-TRIM
1. Proposal to commit treason

2. Proposal to commit rebellion
3. Proposal to commit insurrection
4. Proposal to commit coup detat
5. Proposal to commit terrorism under RA 9372
6. Proposal to commit monopoly or combination in restraint of trade
Firstly, you must have at least two parties here. You cannot propose to yourself. Para kang schizo niyan.
So, there is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person
or persons. Remember this, when you say proposal, in the sense of Article 8, the person who is proposing is really
serious. It's not something na yaga-yaga lang ba. "Gwapa lagi na siya, irape nato siya." A person who is proposing must
really be serious. He has decided to commit the crime and proposed its execution to some person or persons.
If the proposal is rejected, is there a proposal? Of course yes. It remains to be a proposal. And as a rule is not
punishable. In fact, if it is accepted, there is no longer proposal. It becomes a conspiracy. Graduated na siya from
proposal to conspiracy. And again, as a rule, not punishable.
19
A proposes to B let's commit rebellion. B accepts. There is a proposal to commit rebellion, then there is conspiracy to
commit rebellion. And both of them actually committed acts of rebellion. Now if you are the prosecutor, are you going to
charge them with proposal to commit rebellion? Conspiracy to commit rebellion? Rebellion? Tulo kabuok. You know very
well that when the crime that was proposed and accepted, so conspiracy, is actually committed, then the proposal
and the conspiracy become the manner of incurring criminal liability. In other words, they are absorbed by the
crime of rebellion itself. They lose their distinction of being separate crimes. They become the manner of
incurring criminal liability.
Conspiracy as a Felony: CT-TRIASM
1. Conspiracy to commit treason

2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion
3. Conspiracy to commit insurrection
4. Conspiracy to commit arson
5. Conspiracy to commit coup detat
6. Conspiracy to commit sedition
7. Conspiracy to commit terrorism under RA 9372
8. Conspiracy to commit monopoly or combination in restraint of trade
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. So if A proposes to B, "let's kill C". And B says "okay, let's kill C". Unya naay pulls dinha naminaw, "hoy dali mo
diri". Preso sila. Tama ba yan? Is that punishable already? Hindi. Because you do not have a crime of proposal or
conspiracy to commit murder or homicide. We said that it is only a preparatory act. Preparatory to the crime itself.
The exception is when the law itself expressly provides for a penalty.
Effect of Conspiracy:
1. The act of one is the act of all.
Remember that no matter how minor the role is, in the commission of the offense, if you have established conspiracy,
wala ng problem because all of them are already principals.
For example, bank robbers. Lima sila. The first one restrained the security guard, two of the robbers went to the teller to
get money. Another one controlled the customers, and another one was outside smoking. You have here different,
separate acts. But if you have established conspiracy, all of them are liable as principals, even the one who is just outside.
Robbery is the act of taking personal property etc. with violence or intimidation. When conspiracy is established, you
cannot raise the defense that you weren't part of the robbery because you were just outside. So the act of the person who
took the money is also your act.
The act of the one who actually committed the crime is also your act. That is why it is important to establish the
conspiracy. Conspiracies may be express or implied. Express conspiracy is easy to determine because here you have
an agreement. Pwede ninyo isulat na A and B agree to kill C. You have an agreement. The problem is with the implied
conspiracy. You really have to establish the conspiracy. Mahirap ito kasi you dont have any evidence of express
agreement na nag conspire sila to commit the crime. Here, you look at their actions. By their actions you shall know
them.
PP vs GERONIMO 53 scra 246 It has been laid down as a rule that when the defendants by their acts aimed at the same
object, one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of
the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating
closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be justified in
concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy.
A good example of this is a concert where one plays the piano, the other plays the violin, another plays the guitar. If they
play their instruments separately, pangit pakinggan kasi hindi complete pero pag sabay sabay sila then wonderful music
comes out of it. That is the same as conspiracy. Every one has a role to play. You need everybody to complete the act.
There is this principle where a single agreement to commit several crimes constitutes one conspiracy. So if you have
multiple agreements, you have multiple conspiracies.
2. A conspirator is liable for the acts included in the conspiracy as well as other crimes which
logically will result to the criminal act.
You are responsible for all the effects of your act. Example, if you conspire to rob a bank. Then when youre inside the
bank one of your partners killed someone because that someone tried to resist. Can you say na you should not be liable
for the homicide kasi robbery lang naman ang plano ninyo? NO! Kasi if it is reasonable and logical na magkakaroon
talaga ng mga ganyan, then liable ka parin.
There was this one case where naay mag barkada na gibinuangan nila ang isa ka barkada nila. Ang isa, gibuhusan nila
ug gasolina tong isa nila ka kauban. Tapos katong isa pud, gisindihan tong isa mao nasunog ug namatay tong ilang
kauban. What did the court say in this case? The court said that this is individual liability and not collective. There was
nothing in the record that shows na merong conspiracy. So each is liable only for the act he has performed. So katong
isa, liable lang sa pagbuhos ug gas, katong isa kay liable for homicide kay mao man cya nagsindi. But ofcourse konteng
evidence lang yan, pwede na mahulog as conspiracy.
20
What is the difference between conspiracy and syndicated crime group under RA 7659?
- The syndicated crime group is one for the purpose of gain. FOR PURPOSES OF GAIN ang syndicated crime
group. When you say conspiracy, walang gain gain jan.
Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. Offenses which are or in the future may be
punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary
to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the contrary.
What is a special penal law?
- A special penal law is a law which punishes acts or omissions not defined and penalized by the RPC.
- It is a statute enacted by the legislative branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment to the RPC.
When the special law adopts the nomenclature of penalties in the RPC such as reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision correccional, arresto mayor and arresto manor, the provisions of the RPC on the stages of
execution and the rules and effects of the attendance of mitigating and aggravating circumstances may be
applied.
Justifying Circumstances and Circumstances which Exempt from Criminal Liability
We are now on the circumstances that affect criminal liability. So what are these circumstances?
1. Justifying six
2. Mitigating -10
3. Aggravating- 21
4. Alternative - 3
5. Exempting 7
These numbers however are not accurate because in one number there can be 2 or more such as in aggravating, one
number has 2 or more aggravating circumstances. Anyway these are factors that affect criminal liability, there are others
like absolutory circumstances Relatives who act as accessories under Article 20, they are exempting but they are not
exempted because of Article 12 they are exempting because of another Article or like that under Article 332.
Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The penalties prescribed for accessories shall
not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. - No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same
shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the commission of
the crime.
Also extenuating circumstances, ano yang extenuating? Again mitigating but not under Article 14 but they have the effect
of mitigating penalty. Example of this is Article 333 yung the abandoned spouse commits adultery. Diba abandoned siya
so kawawa naman, mitigated penalty.
Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery. - Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be
married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.
Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while being abandoned without justification by the
offended spouse, the penalty next lower in degree than that provided in the next preceding paragraph shall be
imposed.
Also under Article 255, the mother commits infanticide.

21
Article 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be
imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said
crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be
prision mayor.
So the said Articles are not under Article 13 but they have the effect of mitigating the penalty. Also if you remember
another absolutory cause, instigation. There is a distinction between instigation and entrapment.
Instigation is a trap for the innocent whereas entrapment is a trap for the criminal. Both are traps. However in instigation
the person instigated does not have criminal intent, the criminal intent comes from the person who instigates that is why it
is an absolutory case because he does not have mens rea or criminal intent. In entrapment on the otherhand, the person
really has the criminal intent while the law enforcement officers only resorted to ways and means to capture him in the act.
Instigation is another absolutory cause where the person instigated does not incur any criminal liability.
Justifying Circumstances
ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next
preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person
attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are present and that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that
the following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
So what are these justifying circumstances?
Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability, except
of course under par. 4 of Art. 11, where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited from the act.
The following does not incur criminal liability xxx, because precisely the act is justified, there is no crime committed
and so there is no criminal liability and there should be no civil liability. So here you do not have a crime you also do not
have a criminal.
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;
SELF-DEFENSE: URL
a. Unlawful aggression (from the victim)
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (from the person defending himself)
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
Take note: You cannot have self-defense whether complete or incomplete without unlawful aggression. It has to be there,
kung wala ang unlawful aggression you cannot even claim an incomplete self-defense. For the claim of self-defense to be
valid there must be unlawful aggression.
22
Unlawful aggression (from the victim)
Aggression is a physical act, thats first. Physical assault yan, dili lang yawyaw! Now in aggression there is a requirement
that it must be unlawful and well from the term itself there must be an aggression that is lawful. So you must distinguish
the lawful from unlawful. For example lawful, aggression from law enforcement agencies are authorized to use such force
as reasonably necessary to apprehend criminals and when they attack and use physical force that is not UA, that is
lawful! So you have to distinguish Lawful from UA.
PP vs. Gayrama:So ang pulis threw a stone to the accused when the latter was running away from him to avoid arrest.
So wala na siya mahimo, gilabayan nalang niya ug bato. File-an siya karon ug kaso, anyway, it is UA, he is only fulfilling
his duty.
By the way, why is self-defense allowed? Ang first nyan is that the State should be able to protect us, it is the duty of the
State to protect its citizens, however the State cannot be there 24/7 and so the State gives you that right.
Another is the instinct for self-preservation, it is natural to defend ones self from an attack. For normal people, when you
are attacked, you defend yourself.
U.S. v. Merced. The husband was killed by the paramour and the latter claimed self-defense. In this case the husband
caught the paramour and the wife in their house and assaulted the paramour with a bolo. In this case, there cannot be
self-defense because if it had been that the offended husband killed the wife and the paramour, he would have exercised
a lawful right, thus it cannot be said that there is UA.
There are two kinds of aggression: (1) there is actual or (2) imminent.
So in actual, you are being act. The problem is in imminent. Paano yan? Someone shouts at you from a distance I WILL
KILL YOU! ikaw pod, practiced shooter ka? Ikaw pod, I will kill you gud, so unahan mo na! Is that excused? Kaya yan
ang problema minsan, ano yang imminent? Imminent must be at the point of happening. It is almost there but not there.
Parang paradox na so near yet so far, pero parang ganon.
Anyway let us go to some examples, so actual.
U.S. vs. Laurel, he was under attack when he made his move. That is actual. It was a sudden and unexpected attack.
Take note that when you say actual it is not merely a threatening stance or pose.
There is one example by Reyes yung playful kick, example barkada, ui bay kamusta? sabay sipa, that is not UA. Also a
mere push in a heated exchange of words, again which is not an UA.
Sampal is that UA? Yes! Because the face represents the person and his dignity etc. especially sa Chinese, so when
you attack the face hindi lang face ang gina-attack mo so that is UA.
Imminent, this can be best illustrated by the case of Cabungcal.
Pp. vs. Cabungcal, may fiesta, so niadto sila. Pagpa-uli, diba sa fiesta kain at inom yan, may mga lasing na nakasakay
sa Bangka. Anyway this guy was rocking the boat. He was already told to stop but he didnt, eh di gibigyan sa paddle
unya nahulog sa tubig. Tapos nisaka na pod siya, nigunit sa kilid sa boat unya iyaha jod gi uyog. In that boat there are
women, children and may infant pa nga, so the boatman gibigyan na pod, naigo sa agtang ug nalumos. Sabi ng SC, why
would the boatman wait na ma upturn ang Bangka. There was already an imminent danger and he needed not wait for the
danger to actually happen. So imminent, at the point of happening.
Principles with respect to UA:
1. The aggression must be continuous. In other words, if there is no more danger to life and limb, there is no basis for
the self-defense. When the aggressor flees, UA does not anymore exist and that is exactly what happened in the case of
Pp vs. Alconga.
Pp vs. Alconga, the deceased was the one who first attacked the accused. However, having sustained several wounds
the deceased ran away, but he was followed by the accused and another fight took place, during which a mortal blow was
delivered by the accused, so patay! Alconga claimed Self-defense (SD), but the SC held that there is no SD here. During
the first part of the fight, there could be SD. Kung doon niya napatay, then there can be a valid claim for SD because there
is UA in the first part, kasi wala siyang ginagawa, nakaupo lang siya dun then he was attacked. Unya nidagan man ang
aggressor, so there is no longer UA if the aggressor flees, wala nang actual or even imminent UA kay nidagan na gani.
Pag ganyan kasi parang retaliation na and retaliation is not SD, balos is not SD. When you have already disarmed the
aggressor, you need not kill him kasi nga wala nang danger. The danger to life and limb has already ceased,
there is no more danger or aggression to be repelled.
2. There is no unlawful aggression when there is agreement to fight. For there to be SD, there must be no agreement
to fight. Pero kung nagsabot mo square tah, nagsabot namo, wala nay UA (SQUARE kay you must not get out of the
square. Hehe) because when you agree to fight what happens is that you are both Unlawful aggressors, so they are liable
for the injury he causes to the other. Unless, e.g. nagsabot mo na magsumbaganay sa **** didto mo magsinumbaganay.
Now before niabot sa **** gibigyan na. Here they agreed to a place but wala pa sa place agreed namigay na, then this
time there is UA, because it happened not within the agreed time and place.
Now burden proof. Who bears burden of proof in SD? Now in evidence diba PP vs. the accused. The prosecution submits
first their evidence to overturn the presumption of innocence of the accused. Now when your line of defense is SD, konti
lang ang evidence na kailangan ipresent ng prosecution niyan because precisely the accused is not denying that he killed
23
the victim, gipatay lagi nako ang victim BUT I killed because he is attacking me unlawfully. So there is that admission.
Now it is his (accused) burden to prove that there is really SD because it is undisputed that he killed the person, So there
is shift of the burden of evidence. Burden of proof and burden of evidence are different. So burden of proof is always the
same because it rests in the prosecution to prove the crime. Anyway, when there is already admission, it is not the burden
of proof that shifts but the burden of evidence. So if there is a claim of SD, the burden of evidence shifts to the accused
but when you say burden of proof that stays with the prosecution. In SD the accused must be able to justify the act by
clear and convincing evidence.
Well of course any person can claim self-defense, but that has to be proven. Kasi madali lang mag-claim ng SD so dito
papasok ang rules on evidence. E.g. he was attacking me so I shot him pero ang entry wound nasa likod ang exit wound
sa harap, how can you say that he was attacking me so I shot him? Hindi pwede yan! So it wound really depend on the
nature of the wound or the number e.g. daghan kaayo ug gunshot wound or tigbas. So thats unlawful aggression.
Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it (from the person defending himself)
Ano itong it? that is the UA! So Unlawful Aggression is either actual or imminent, and from here dalawa rin, one is to
prevent, so what do you prevent? You prevent an imminent UA. Second is to repel, when you say repel, there is a
presumption that there is an ongoing attack, an actual attack that you are repelling. Ang prevent naman is padulong pa.
May maxim necessitas non habet legem which means necessity knows no law. If you are under attack, you do not think
of Art. 6 and Art. 11, you just defend yourself! Necessity knows no law. In time of danger or emergency, a human nature
does not act upon the processes of normal reason but in obedience of the instinct of self-preservation.
Reasonable necessity, there are two kinds:
a. Necessity of the course of action itself
As to the necessity of course of action as in the case of PP vs. Alconga, ang course of action niya mali kasi wala nang
necessity sa course of action niya because the Unlawful aggressor already ceased.
b. Necessity of the means used
In U.S. vs. Apego, a sleeping woman, who was awakened by her brother-in-law grasping her arm, nakamata siya tapos
naa siyay gigunitan nga knife, gidunggab. So there was no necessity to employ the means used. Also in PP v. Jaurigue,
nasa church, ang babae hinawakan sa upper thigh, so ginawa ng babae, may balisong siguro siya or ano, so he stabbed
the guy inside the church. Here the SC considered the placing of the hand on the upper thigh as UA, however the means
used was not reasonable.
When you say reasonable (mahirap yan to determine?) kasi nga first necessity knows no reason and second, the
person defending is not expected to control his blow. If you control your blow, you are endangering yourself actually eh
kasi yung kalaban mo hindi din naga control. Just like in shooting, when you draw your gun be sure to fire. Kasi kung hindi
ka ready magpatay wag mo nalang ilabas ang baril mo. So ganyan hindi ka expected to control your blow kasi there is
danger to your life and limb. Kung hindi na-control that is not the fault of the person defending. That is human nature and
the law recognizes that.
Just take note of the rule that perfect equality is not required. If you were attacked using a pencil, you should also
attack using a pencil also, so hindi required yan! Again necessity knows no law. What the law requires is only rational
equivalence, hindi perfect equality. e.g. si pacquiao ang kasuntukan mo, dili jod pwede na sumbag ra pod ka. Rational
equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the emergency, the imminent danger to which the
person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than reason, that moves or impels the defense and the
proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the imminent danger of such inquiry (PP
v. Encomienda). It is the instinct more than reason.
Okay na if you were attacked what will you do? Naay mga tao nga isog, so stand your ground, but there are others also
na modagan ug una, tapos when you are cornered then that is when you act. There can be a claim of SD on both
instances. In the past the rule is that you avoid or retreat to the wall and only when you were cornered that you are
allowed to claim SD. But in recent cases hindi man kailangan tumakbo, kung sinugod ka then you defend yourself right
there and then, no need to run.
Take note also that Reasonable necessity as a requirement is liberally construed in favor of the person defending, in favor
of a law-abiding citizen. Kasi nga in this day as ruled by the SC These are dangerous times. There are many lawless
elements who kill for the thrill of killing. There is no adequate protection for the law-abiding citizens. When a lawless
person attacks on the streets or particularly in the victims home, he should assume the risk of losing his life from the act
of self-defense by firearm of his victim; otherwise, the law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of the lawless elements.
Hence, the requisite of reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression should in
these times of danger be interpreted liberally in favor of the law-abiding citizens (PP vs. So).
Do you remember this guy Aguilis, I read this in the papers. So macho na siya nga actor, tapos ang bahay niya gi-rob.
Pag-abot niya pahawa na ang robbers and actor lagi, naa jod siyay baril and nakipagbarilan siya sa streets, tapos may
napatay siya na robber. Anyway can he claim SD even if it seems that there was no more UA. Kasi diba first requirement
is there must be UA, human naman ang UA ato kay paalis na nga ang robbers, so walang actual UA, but is there
imminent danger? In Alconga, the unlawful aggressor already fled, pwede pa ba yun na imminent? Diba lisod? Although
can you say na continuous man yun na threat or aggression,but then if you really think about it, actual vs. imminent, kung
yan lang ang requirement ng law paano siya magpasok diyan? Kung imminent, at the point of happening, paano man
maging point of happening yun eh ikaw man ang humabol. Again another *** in favor of *** is that the rule that it should be
liberally construed in favor of the law-abiding citizen, but then when you go back to the requisites of SD, UA is the first
24
requirement, which is either actual or imminent. Parang mahirap na ipasok under imminent even if mga robbers talaga
yun. But do you have the right to kill them and claim SD when there is no UA whether actual or imminent? NO.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
1. The person defending himself must not give any provocation.
2. If it is given, it must not be sufficient.
3. Even if there was provocation and it was sufficient, this provocation was not given by the person defending himself.
4. Even if the provocation is present, it is not the proximate or immediate cause of the unlawful aggression or the attack.
Kagayanung case ni _____. There was provocation but the provocation happened 2 days prior to the attack. The
provocation was not immediate or proximate to the aggression.
Example of sufficient provocation: Challenge (sumbagay ta to prove who is the better man )
If all the elements are present, there is complete self-defense. Now, if kulang (not all the elements are present),
dependeyunngayon. It may be incomplete self-defense. But always remember the first rule that there must be unlawful
aggression. Because without unlawful aggression, there can neither be complete or incomplete self-defense.
If incomplete self-defense, that there are two elements present and one of them is unlawful aggression. What is the
effect? It is a mitigating circumstance. What kind of mitigating? It is privileged mitigating under Article 69penalty when
the crime committed is not wholly excusable.
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. A penalty lower by one or
two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the
lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several
cases mentioned in Articles 11, and 12 provided that majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall
impose the penalty in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the
conditions of exempting present or lacking.
There is incomplete self-defense when not all the 3 elements are present. To be specific, there is incomplete self-defense
when only the first element of unlawful aggression is present, in which case, the accused is entitled to one degree lower.
If unlawful aggression and any of the 2 remaining elements are present, the accused is entitled to 2 degrees lower.
Defense of person defense against unlawful aggression on which is constitutive of a crime against person.
DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE - URI
Requisites:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
c. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making the defense had no part therein.
Relatives who can be defended:
a. Spouse
b. Ascendants
c. Descendants
d. Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity in the same degrees. Death of a spouse
terminates the relationship by affinity.
e. Relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree.
The fact that the relative defended gave provocation is immaterial.
DEFENSE OF STRANGER
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger provided that the following requisites concur:
a. Unlawful aggression
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
c. The person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Defense of rights defense against unlawful aggression on which is constitutive of a crime involving the right of the
defender such as in theft, acts of lasciviousness and libel.
Lets go to right to property.
If your property is being attacked like there is fencing and your property and affected. Like in the case of Narvaez (Pp vs.
Narvaez April 20, 1983). Narzaez was taking a rest byt when he woke up, he heard the walls of his house were being
chiseled. He arose and found that one of the laborers were indeed chiseling the wall of his house with a crowbar. While
deceased Rubia was nailing the barbed wire and Davis was commanding his laborers, accused pleaded to stop the
fencing. However they continued. Accused got his gun and shot Davis and Rubia. There was an unlawful aggression
despite the fact that the invasion of his property right was not coupled with an attack against the accused.
25
In this case, can he claim defense of his right under this paragraph? The SC said yes. That was actually ruled as acting in
defense of his property. But take note, there was no attack on the person. According to Dean Iigo, if you claim right to
property under this paragraph the attack on property must be coupled with an attack on the person. That is the case of
Apolinar. According to Dean Iigo, the Narvaez case is a stray decision because if you are going to talk about your right to
property or you would like to defend your property, it is not under this paragraph but a different paragraph.
Take note of the interesting rule on libel. Ang libel kasi there is the so-called self-defense in libel. If you are libeled you
may hit back with another libel. But there is a caveat: that the resbak or the libel that you hit back with should be related
to the initial libel.
What is the principle behind that case of Narvaez? The principle is under the Civil Code: Article 429principle of self-
help. A defender may employ reasonable and necessary means to prevent or repel unlawful aggression against his
property right pursuant to the rule on self-defense in relation to the principle of self-help.
What was the basis of the ruling in Apolinarthat there must be an attack on the person? The basis is that defense of
property is not of such important as right to life and defense of property can be invoked as justifying
circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the person of the one entrusted with said property.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that
the following requisites are present:
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
This is the so called state of necessity: the avoidance of greater evil or injury.
There is no civil liability except when another person benefited from the act in which case, he is liable.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
Requisites:
a. That the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful excersise of a right or office.
b. That the injury caused by the offense committed be the necessary consequence or the due perfiormance of duty
or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
People vs Delima.Lorenzo Napilon had escaped from the jail where he was serving sentence.
Some days afterwards the policeman Felipe Delima, who was looking for him, found him in the house of Jorge Alegria,
armed with a pointed piece of bamboo in the shape of a lance, and demanded his surrender. The fugitive answered with a
stroke of his lance. The policeman dodged, it, and to impose his authority fired his revolver, but the bullet did not hit him.
The criminal ran away, without parting with his weapon. These peace officer went after him and fired again his revolver,
this time hitting and killing him.
The policeman was tried and convicted for homicide and sentenced to reclusion temporal and the accessory penalties. He
appeals from that judgment which must be reversed.
That killing was done in the performance of a duty. The deceased was under the obligation to surrender, and had no right,
after evading service of his sentence, to commit assault and disobedience with a weapon in the hand, which compelled
the policeman to resort to such an extreme means, which, although it proved to be fatal, was justified by the
circumstances.
Article 8, No. 11, of the Penal Code being considered, Felipe Delima committed no crime, and he is hereby acquitted with
the costs de oficio. So ordered.
The other one, Lawful exercise of a right. Ito, dito na yung defense of property right. So we said in paragraph one, it is
defense of persons or defense of rights, however, sabi ni Dean Inigo yung correct na defense of property right should be
under here not under Par.1 because in self-defense it must be coupled with an attacked on the person. Here when you
talk about when you act in the exercise of a right, you can claim justifying in this paragraph. Under article 439, the owner
or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
Exercise of an office. Usual example here kanag kadto pang naay death penalty. Where you are a government employee
and ang trabaho mo para sa gobyerno ang pumatay ng those sentenced to death, that is your job. And then when you put
to death the convict you are charged by the family for the death of theor family member, ofcourse you defense is, you are
justified because you are only performing your office. Again, this should be in the lawful performance of the office, like
when you are suppose to execute a certain convict at a specific date and time, pero excited ka lang kasi first time mo ito,
wala pa gani tong adlaw, imo nalang gi-execute, that is not a lawful exercise and you can be charged for that.
26
Or another example yung mga surgeon and doctors. Merong dumating na pasyente, he had to amputate the leg, na-filan
xa sa asawa ngayon ng mutilation. That is in the exercise of an office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Requisites:
a. That an order has been issued by a superior

b. That such order must be for some lawful purpose
c. That the means used by the subordiante to carry out such order is lawful.
Again please take note, the qualifier there is the lawful. Not all orders issued by a superior are considered lawful
although merongmay iba na parang may color of legitimacy and in some case the Supreme Court said parang mistake of
fact. So if there was a mistake the case can fall under the doctrine of ignorantia factii.
The illegality of the order is not patent and the accused honestly believed that the order was issued for a lawful purpose.
In this case the subordinate is not liable for what turned out to be an illegal order of his superior. But ofcourse of the
subordinate knew of the illegality, hindi xa maka.claim nito. Or if on its face the order is illegal, you are not supposed to
that. For example torture, you someone in custody, cge daw beh torturin mo yan, ikaw yes sir. On its face its an illegal
order, you cannot claim later that I was only following an order which I thought to be lawful. Mistake of fact. Hindi pwede.
TheBattered Woman Syndrome (BWS)
It refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and physical symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
A battered woman is one who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in
order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rigths. In order to be classified as a
battered woman, the couple must go through the acute battering cycle at least twice.
Elements of BWS:
1. The battered woman and the batterer must have a relationship sexual relationship or dating relationship;
The sexual or dating relationship must be continuous. So dili pwdang one night stand. You dont have to
be married.
2. The battered woman must be suffering from physical, psychological or emotional distress;
3. The physical, psychological or emotional distress resulted from cumulative abuse by batterer; (single act of
battery exercise right of self-defense)
4. The battered woman must have actually feared imminent harm from the batterer and honestly believed in the
need to kill him in order to save his life.
3 Phases of the Cycle of Violence
1. Tension-building phase during this phase, minor battering occurs. It could be verbal or slight physical abuse
or another form hostile behavior.
2. Acute battering incident is characterized by brutality, destructiveness and sometimes death.
3. Tranquil period the final phase of the cycle of violence begins when acute battering ends. The couple
experience profound relief. The batterer may show tender nurturing behavior towards his partner.
People vs Genosa. The SC appreciated the BWS only as a mitigating circumstance under analogous circumstances
that diminish will power under par10, Art13. At that time RA 9262 had not yet took effect.
However, RA 9262 known as Anti-Violence against Women and Children Act of 2004(March 8, 2004)
provides:
Section 26 of RA 9262: Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.
Thus, BWS is now a new justifying circumstance pursuant to RA 9262.
Exempting Circumstance
ARTICLE 12. Circumstances Which Exempt from Criminal Liability. The following are exempt from criminal
liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court
shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he
shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80 of this Code.
27
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformity with the provisions of this
and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with
his surveillance and education; otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person
mentioned in said article 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault
or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
Exempting circumstance(non-imputability) are those grounds for exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent.
So remember the elements of voluntariness, freedom, intelligence and intent/negligence. So these elements of
voluntariness under exempting wala ito sila. Therefore the actor of the crime does not incur any criminal liabilitybut the
law recognizes that a crime has been committed. And therefore since a crime has been committed, but there is no
criminal, there is civil liability because a crime has been committed. As a rule in exempting may civil liability you
compare that to justifying kasi walang crime, walang criminal liability, wala ring civil liablity. But here there is a crime that
is why as a rule there is civil liability.
Anong exception? Paragraph 4 and paragraph 7, under these paragraph walang civil liability. Ano yung paragraph 4?
Accident. Ang paragraph 7, insuperable cause.
Les go to the first exempting circumstance.
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the court
shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which he
shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence or freedom of the will. Mere abnormality is not enough.
Imbecility is feeblemindedness. It exists when a person while of advanced age, has a mental development of a child
between 2 and 7 years of age.
So dito may dalawa na ka.circumstance, kay lahi man nang buang ug ang imbecile. (Unsa ang bisaya sa imbecile?) Basta
kanang imbecile bata ug isip. Iba yung childish and child-like. So dalawa, insane or imbicile. So ang imbicile, once you are
an imbecile then you are an imbecile. Pero yang insane, depende pa yan. Because insane persons usually daw naay
lucid interval. So imbecile, exempt all the time. Insane, you still have to determine whether the insane acted during a lucid
interval. Kung hindi lucid interval, insane xa, edi exempt, kung lucid interval, hindi exempt.
Now, what is the presumption? Buang na xa at that time? There is evidence na buang na xa at that time, naa pud
evidence sa pikas nga dili xa buang. Asa man ka ana ron? Kung pareho ang unsa, ang equipoise, anong kuan nyan?
Where does the law lean? The presumption is in favor of sanity. Penal laws are always construed in favor of the accused
and against the State. Kung in ana imong tubag, sa ato pa imong presumption ana, insanity. BUT actually the law
presumes SANITY. That is taken from the Civil Code. That is Article 800: presumes that every person is of sound mind, in
the absence of proof to the contrary.
So we determine whether he was insane or lucid interval at the time of the commission of the crime. If buang xa at that
time, therefore he is exempt. Pero if hindi xa buang at that time, he is not exempt. Now pagkahuman niyag commit ug
crime , didto pa xa nabuang. Of course hindi man xa buang, hindi talaga xa exempted kaya lang you cannot try a person
who is a buang, because he is not in the position to defend himself. So anyway alam niyo na ang effect nyan.Ang
importante dito, you reckon the criminal liability at the time of the commission of the crime.
Effects of Insanity of the Accused:
a. At the time of the commission of the crime exempting

b. During trial criminal proceedings will be exempted
c. After judgment or while serving sentence the execution of judgment of conviction shall be suspended and
the court shall order that the accused be committed to a hospital.
People v Domingo 580 SCRA 436 decided on March 2, 2009. Where the Supreme Court said that the burden of
proving insanity is on the accused. Because we said the presumption of the law is in favor of sanity. It is now incumbent
upon you to prove that you were insane at the time of the commission of the offense. Insanity exist when there is a
complete deprivation of intelligence while commiting the act, when the accused is deprived of reason, he acts without the
least discernment because there is a complete absence of power to discern, or there is total deprivation of freedom of the
will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties is not enough, especially if the offender has not lost consciousness of his
acts. Insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties and is manifested in language and
conduct. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequences of his or her acts.
28
In Pp vs Domingo, gisabihan siya ng wife nya na Please spare the lives of our daughters, tapos ang sabi nya Ngayon
pa, na nagawa ko na? In other words, at that time, he knew what he had done. Raquel Indons narration of the events
presents evidence that is more revealing of appellants mental state at the time the crime was committed. Appellants
reply to her pleas that her daughters lives be spared, Ngayon pa, nagawa ko na, was a positive sign that he was aware
of what he was doing, and that his reasoning faculties were unimpaired.
TESTS TO DETERMINE INSANITY
People v. Rafanan, Jr., we analyzed the Formigones standard into two distinguishable tests
(a) the test of cognition whether there was a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act
and
(b) the test of volition whether there was a total deprivation of freedom of the will.
We observed that our case law shows common reliance on the test of cognition, rather than on the test of volition, and
has failed to turn up any case where an accused is exempted on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of the
freedom of the will, i.e., without an accompanying complete deprivation of intelligence. This is expected, since a persons
volition naturally reaches out only towards that which is represented as desirable by his intelligence, whether that
intelligence be diseased or healthy. (Pp. vs Opuran)
If that is the test whether you know what youre doing, hindi necessarily na clinical condition yan, although of course
pwede. You go back to the presence or absence of the element voluntariness. If you dont know what youre doing, it
might fall under insanity.
CONDITIONS COVERED BY INSANITY
(a) Schizophrenia - is a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality,
and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. Formerly called dementia praecox, it is the most
common form of psychosis and usually develops between the ages of 15 and 30 (Encyclopedia and Dictionary of
Medicine and Nursing, MillerKeane p. 860).
In Pp vs Bonoan, "when a person becomes affected by this kind of disease, either dementia prcox or manic depresive
psychosis, during the period of excitement, he has no control whatever of his acts.". Here the SC used the test of volition,
not cognition. So actually, either tests will do.
Pp vs Arevalo and Organista In the present case, while Organista had indeed been confined at the National Center for
Mental Health for treatment, it does not necessarily follow that he still suffered from schizophrenia during the period of the
rapes. No convincing evidence was presented by the defense to show that he had not been in his right mind, or that he
had acted under the influence of a sudden attack of insanity, or that he had generally been regarded as insane around the
time of the commission of the acts attributed to him. Well-settled is the rule that an inquiry into the mental state of the
accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the very moment the act under prosecution was committed.
Mere prior confinement in a mental institution does not prove that the perpetrator was deprived of reason at the time the
crimes were committed.
Therefore, one who was previously treated for schizophrenia in a mental hospital is not exempt from criminal liability in the
absence of convincing evidence that he had not been in the right mind. So you really have to prove, its not enough na
nahospital ka lang for Schizophrenia.
(b) Kleptomania Usually, No. But if can establish that you had no control over your action, pwede pa rin making
insanity yan.
(c) Epilepsy pp vs ___ - where the offender committed an offense while in an epileptic fit.
(d) Committed the crime in a dream It was proven that he really did not know what he was doing.
NB: Pedophilia is not insanity.
(2) MINORITY RA 10630 which amended RA 9344
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child is deemed to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of his/her birthdate.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal
liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case,
such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which
shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
15 years of age or under ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY, conclusive presumption of lack of intelligence. You
cannot rebut this even if taas ug IQ ang bata or misking kasabot siya sa iyang ginabuhat.
29
15 and 1 day but below 18
Acted without discernment Still ABSOLUTELLY IRRESPONSIBLE, there is no criminal liability; entitled to
exempting circumstance.
Acted with discernment there is CRIMINAL LIABILITY but entitled to privileged mitigating circumstance
under (Article 58 (2) penalty reduced to one degree lower)
DEFINITIONS
(a) Age of criminal responsibility is the age when a child, fifteen (15) years and one (1) day old or above but below
eighteen (18) years of age, commits an offense with discernment. RULE ON JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH
THE LAW (A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, November 24, 2009)
(d) "Child at Risk" refers to a child who is vulnerable to and at the risk of committing criminal offenses because of
personal, family and social circumstances, such as, but not limited to, the following:
(1) being abused by any person through sexual, physical, psychological, mental, economic or any other means
and the parents or guardian refuse, are unwilling, or unable to provide protection for the child;
(2) being exploited including sexually or economically;
(3) being abandoned or neglected, and after diligent search and inquiry, the parent or guardian cannot be found;
(4) coming from a dysfunctional or broken family or without a parent or guardian;
(5) being out of school;
(6) being a streetchild;
(7) being a member of a gang;
(8) living in a community with a high level of criminality or drug abuse; and
(9) living in situations of armed conflict.
(e) "Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having
committed an offense under Philippine laws. A person who at the time of the commission of the offense is below
eighteen (18) years old but not less than (15) years and one (1) day old. (See section 1 of AM No. 02-1-18 SC,
Nov 24, 2009)
(j) Discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the
differences between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.
- The mental capacity of a minor to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful acts.
Guevarra vs Almodovar
FACTS: On October 29, 1984, the Petitioner who was then 11 years old was playing with best friend Teodoro Almine Jr.
and three other children in their backyard. The children were target-shooting bottle caps placed 15 to 20 meters away with
an air rifle borrowed from a neighbor. In the course of game, Teodoro was hit by a pellet on his left collar bone which
caused his unfortunate death. The theory of the defense is that the prosecution charged his client with reckless
imprudence meaning there is no criminal intent and therefore since there is no criminal intent, there is no discernment.
They want to say that intent and discernment are synonymous.
HELD: SC said they are not synonymous. The terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two distinct thoughts. While both
are products of the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the desired of one's act while the latter relates
to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act. Hence a person may not intend to shoot another but may be
aware of the consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air
rifle. It is not connect, therefore, to argue, as petitioner does, that since a minor above nine years of age but below fifteen
acted with discernment, then he intended such act to be done. He may negligently shoot his friend, thus did not intend to
shoot him, and at the same time recognize the undesirable result of his negligence.
Other Examples:
Naay bata na nagkuha ug mangga then gislingshot niya ang nibuyag sa iyaha, he said Putang ina! Buti yan
natikman mo! A child saying that you can prove that this minor knew what he was doing, there is
discernment.
People vs. Cortezano, September 23, 2003- FACTS: Leah, 8 years old, was raped of about thirty-six times
by her uncles, Joel, 13 years old, and Bernardo, 12 years old. The two wetted her vagina with saliva, acted in
conspiracy by acting as a lookout for each other, threatened to kill her and her family if such case be divulged,
forced Boyet to rape her, laughed at him while he was raping her, and ordered Leah Lou and Lionel, the
victims siblings to see her naked and did the same threat. HELD: All of these things show discernment.
PP vs Jacinto decided March 16, 2011. Where the SC agreed with the CA saying that choosing an
isolated and dark place to perpetrate the crime, to prevent detection[;] and (2) boxing the victim xxx, to
weaken her defense" are indicative of then seventeen (17) year-old appellants mental capacity to fully
understand the consequences of his unlawful action.
30
The whole point of RA 10630 which amended RA 9344 is for the minor to not be introduced to the judicial system. Kahit
na may criminal liability, dili jud xa mapriso. Marami pang mangyari, like diversion program.
Now some rules with respect to age. This is contained in section 5 of AM 02-1-18-SC dated November 24, 2009. It says
that:
Section 5. Determination of Age. - The child in conflict with the law shall enjoy the presumption of minority and
shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until proven to be eighteen years old or older at the
time of the commission of the offense. The age of the child shall be determined according to the following rules:
(1) The best evidence to prove the age of a child is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of
live birth;
(2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificates
and school records or any pertinent document that shows the date of birth of the child;
(3) In the absence of the documents under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section due to loss, destruction or
unavailability, the testimony of the child, the testimony of a member of the family related to the child by
affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age
or date of birth of the child pursuant to Sec.40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, the testimonies of the
other persons, the physical appearance of the child and other relevant evidence, shall suffice.
Also, who has the burden of proving the age?
Section 6. Burden of Proof of Age. - Any person alleging the age of the child in conflict with the law has the
burden of proving the age of such child.
If the age of the child is contested prior to the filing of the information in court, a case for determination of age under
summary proceeding may be filed before a court which shall render its decision within 24 hours from receipt of the
appropriate pleadings of all the parties. (n)
In all cases involving a child, the court shall make a categorical finding as to the age of the child.
SEC. 20. Children Below the Age of Criminal Responsibility. If it has been determined that the child taken into
custody is fifteen (15) years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child, in consultation with
the local social welfare and development officer, has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her
parents or guardian, or in the absence thereof, the childs nearest relative. The child shall be subjected to a community-
based intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and development officer, unless the best interest of the
child requires the referral of the child to a youth care facility or Bahay Pag-asa managed by LGUs or licensed and/or
accredited NGOs monitored by the DSWD.
The local social welfare and development officer shall determine the appropriate programs for the child who has been
released, in consultation with the child and the person having custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or nearest
relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to any of the following:
(a) A duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization;
(b) A barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC);
(c) A local social welfare and development officer; or, when and where appropriate, the DSWD.
If the child has been found by the local social welfare and development officer to be dependent, abandoned, neglected or
abused by his/her parents and the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a youth care facility or
Bahay Pag-asa, the childs parents or guardians shall execute a written authorization for the voluntary commitment of the
child: Provided, That if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the written authorization for
voluntary commitment, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the Local
Social Welfare and Development Office (LSWDO) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, otherwise
known as The Child and Youth Welfare Code and the Supreme Court rule on commitment of children: Provided, further,
That the minimum age for children committed to a youth care facility or Bahay Pag-asa shall be twelve (12) years old.
SEC. 20-A. Serious Crimes Committed by Children Who Are Exempt From Criminal Responsibility. A child who
is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits parricide, murder, infanticide,
kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped, robbery, with homicide or rape, destructive
arson, rape, or carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or raped or offenses under Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) years of imprisonment, shall be
deemed a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and shall be mandatorily placed in a special
facility within the youth care faculty or Bahay Pag-asa called the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center
(IJISC).
In accordance with existing laws, rules, procedures and guidelines, the proper petition for involuntary commitment and
placement under the IJISC shall be filed by the local social welfare and development officer of the LGU where the offense
was committed, or by the DSWD social worker in the local social welfare and development officers absence, within
twenty-four (24) hours from the time of the receipt of a report on the alleged commission of said child. The court, where
31
the petition for involuntary commitment has been filed shall decide on the petition within seventy-two (72) hours from the
time the said petition has been filed by the DSWD/LSWDO. The court will determine the initial period of placement of the
child within the IJISC which shall not be less than one (1) year. The multi-disciplinary team of the IJISC will submit to the
court a case study and progress report, to include a psychiatric evaluation report and recommend the reintegration of the
child to his/her family or the extension of the placement under the IJISC. The multi-disciplinary team will also submit a
report to the court on the services extended to the parents and family of the child and the compliance of the parents in the
intervention program. The court will decide whether the child has successfully completed the center-based intervention
program and is already prepared to be reintegrated with his/her family or if there is a need for the continuation of the
center-based rehabilitation of the child. The court will determine the next period of assessment or hearing on the
commitment of the child.
SEC. 20-B. Repetition of Offenses. A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and
who commits an offense for the second time or oftener: Provided, That the child was previously subjected to a community-
based intervention program, shall be deemed a neglected child under Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and
shall undergo an intensive intervention program supervised by the local social welfare and development officer: Provided,
further, That, if the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a youth care facility or Bahay Pag-asa, the
childs parents or guardians shall execute a written authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child: Provided,
finally, That if the child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the written authorization for
voluntary commitment, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed by the DSWD or the
LSWDO pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended.
SEC. 57. Status Offenses. Any conduct not considered an offense or not penalized if committed by an adult shall not
be considered an offense and shall not be punished if committed by a child.
SEC. 57-A. Violations of Local Ordinances. Ordinances enacted by local governments concerning juvenile status
offenses such as, but not limited to, curfew violations, truancy, parental disobedience, anti-smoking and anti-drinking laws,
as well as light offenses and misdemeanors against public order or safety such as, but not limited to, disorderly conduct,
public scandal, harassment, drunkenness, public intoxication, criminal nuisance, vandalism, gambling, mendicancy,
littering, public urination, and trespassing, shall be for the protection of children. No penalty shall be imposed on children
for said violations, and they shall instead be brought to their residence or to any barangay official at the barangay hall to
be released to the custody of their parents. Appropriate intervention programs shall be provided for in such ordinances.
The child shall also be recorded as a child at risk and not as a child in conflict with the law. The ordinance shall also
provide for intervention programs, such as counseling, attendance in group activities for children, and for the parents,
attendance in parenting education seminars.
SEC. 22. Duties During Initial Investigation. The law enforcement officer shall, in his/her investigation, determine
where the case involving the child in conflict with the law should be referred.
The taking of the statement of the child shall be conducted in the presence of the following: (1) childs counsel of choice
or in the absence thereof, a lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office; (2) the childs parents, guardian, or nearest relative,
as the case may be; and (3) the local social welfare and development officer. In the absence of the childs parents,
guardian, or nearest relative, and the local social welfare and development officer, the investigation shall be conducted in
the presence of a representative of an NGO, religious group, or member of the BCPC.
The social worker shall conduct an initial assessment to determine the appropriate interventions and whether the child
acted with discernment, using the discernment assessment tools developed by the DSWD. The initial assessment shall be
without prejudice to the preparation of a more comprehensive case study report. The local social worker shall do either of
the following:
(a) Proceed in accordance with Section 20 if the child is fifteen (15) years or below or above fifteen (15) but below
eighteen (18) years old, who acted without discernment; and
(b) If the child is above fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) and who acted with discernment, proceed to
diversion under the following chapter.
SEC. 23. System of Diversion. - Children in conflict with the law shall undergo diversion programs without undergoing
court proceedings subject to the conditions herein provided:
(a) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committee is not more than six (6) years imprisonment, the law
enforcement officer or Punong Barangay with the assistance of the local social welfare and development officer or other
members of the LCPC shall conduct mediation, family conferencing and conciliation and, where appropriate, adopt
indigenous modes of conflict resolution in accordance with the best interest of the child with a view to accomplishing the
objectives of restorative justice and the formulation of a diversion program. The child and his/her family shall be present in
these activities.
(b) In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is not more than six (6) years imprisonment, the local social welfare
and development officer shall meet with the child and his/her parents or guardians for the development of the appropriate
diversion and rehabilitation program, in coordination with the BCPC;
(c) Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed exceeds six (6) years imprisonment, diversion measures may be
resorted to only by the court.
32
SEC. 33. Preliminary Investigation and Filing of Information. The prosecutor shall conduct a preliminary
investigation in the following instances: (a) when the child in conflict with the law does not qualify for diversion; (b) when
the child, his/her parents or guardian does not agree to diversion as specified in Sections 27 and 28; and (c) when
considering the assessment and recommendation of the social worker, the prosecutor determines that diversion is not
appropriate for the child in conflict with the law.
Upon serving the subpoena and the affidavit of complaint, the prosecutor shall notify the Public Attorneys Office of such
service, as well as the personal information, and place of detention of the child in conflict with the law.
Upon determination of probable cause by the prosecutor, the information against the child shall be filed before the Family
Court within forty-five (45) days from the start of the preliminary investigation. The information must allege that the child
acted with discernment.
SEC. 38. Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of
the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain any civil
liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the judgment of
conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without need of
application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is already
eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various chcumstances of the child, the court shall impose the
appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
SEC. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. - A childin conflict
with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in
a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained,
supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
SEC. 67. Children Who Reach the Age of Eighteen (18) Years Pending Diversion and Court Proceedings. - If a
child reaches the age of eighteen (18) years pending diversion and court proceedings, the appropriate diversion authority
in consultation with the local social welfare and development officer or the Family Court in consultation with the Social
Services and Counseling Division (SSCD) of the Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall determine the appropriate
disposition. In case the appropriate court executes the judgment of conviction, and unless the child in conflict the law has
already availed of probation under Presidential Decree No. 603 or other similar laws, the child may apply for probation if
qualified under the provisions of the Probation Law.
SEC. 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving Sentence. - Persons who have been convicted and are
serving sentence at the time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18) years at the time
the commission of the offense for which they were convicted and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit
from the retroactive application of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this Act
and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately released if they are so qualified under this
Act or other applicable law.
Jomar Ortega vs People August 20, 2008.
Petitioner is 13 years old at the time of the commission of the rape. The victim was 8 years old. The office of the Solicitor
General said the petitioner is not entitled to RA 9344 because at the time the law was passed, he was already 25 years
old.
Ang sabi ng Supreme Court is that what is controlling is not the age at the time of the promulgation of the judgement but
the age at the time of the commission of the crime.No criminal liability, only civil liability.
4.) Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault
or intention of causing it.
When you say accident, diba it means na it is nobodys fault. Here you perform a lawful act, with due care pero may
damage parin nangyari without fault or intention of causing it.
Here, in this paragraph, there is no criminal liability and there is no civil liability.
So here it is nobodys fault because you could have not forseen the accident.
Anong basis nito? Complete absence of intent and complete absence of negligence then there is no criminal liability.
U.S. vs Tanedo (15 phil 196)Deceased went with the accused to hunt wild chickens at the forest. Pag baril nya ng
chicken, nag recoil ang bala, tinamaan ang kasama.
Held: Life was taken by misfortune or accident while in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and without
intention of doing harm.
PP vs fallorina ( March 4, 2004)Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory, one cannot exist with the other.
33
PP vs Ayaya (52 phil 354)In trusting her umbrella in the opening of the door in question, accused did so to free her son
from the imminent danger of having his head crushed or being strangled; and if she thus caused her husbands injury, it
was by mere accident, without fault or intention to cause it.
Kanang boxing, sumbagay, knock down, namatay. Naka balita ba mo na naay gi filan ug kaso ana?? Wala! Kay you are
performing a lawful act because that is authorized by law.
5.) One who acts under the compulsion of irresistible force
Basis: Complete absence of freedom of action
Elements:
a. That the compulsion is by means of physical force

b. That the physical force must be irresistible
c. That the physical force must come from a 3rd person
d. The irresistible force must be made to operate directly upon the person of the accused.
What is the basis? Actus invito factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is not my act. So if you're
under the compulsion of an irresistible force, you are reduced to a mere instrument. Wala kang will diyan. No freedom,
therefore, no criminal liability. Kasi you were literally forced to commit the crime.
Take note that force is physical, compelled by physical force.
US v. Caballeros:The accused was charged as an accessory. Why accessory? Kay siya any naglibing nung mga
American teachers. Sabi niya "I was forced", kay sige man siya bigyan ato nila. He was compelled to bury the bodies. He
was struck with guns. Therefore, he was held to be not liable as accessory.
Take not that the force must be irresistible. Because if you can resist, or you have opportunity to escape, you cannot claim
this. Because there is a presumption that criminal acts are voluntarily committed. In other words, the force used here must
be such that it reduces him to a mere instrument.
Impulse of an uncontrollable fear the fear must be insuperable and the person who acts under insuperable fear is
completely deprived of freedom.
Elements:
a. The threat which caused the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to that which the accused was required
to commit;
b. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary man would succumb to it;
c. The uncontrollable fear may be generated by a threatened act directed to a 3 rd person such as the wife of the
accused.
People v. Moreno: Dito, he was accused of killing Filipinos. He claimed that he was ordered by Major Sasaki of the
Japanese Imperial Army. Then this Captain Susuki told him "You have to comply with the order of Major Sasaki,
otherwise, you have to come along with us." Yan ang kanyang claim na he was under threat, that he was acting under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear. Sabi ng Supreme Court, unsa ang ang equal or greater injury dira? Giingnan lang ka na
if you do not do this, you will have to come with us. Asa may injury dira? Your fear is fanciful, it's speculative. Malay mo
ba, ang pasabot diay nila, mag come along ka, mag sing along sila, mag inom o magsayaw. Wa may gisulti diha.
So be able to distinguish between the two. Walang physical sa uncontrollable fear. It's more on the mind, intimidation,
threats.
7: Any person who fails to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
This applies exclusively to felonies by omission. The offender here is prosecuted not for doing an act, but for failing to do
an act.
Ano man yang insuperable cause? A cause which prevents a person to do what the law requires.
Elements:
a. That an act is required by law to de done.

b. That a person fails to perform such act.
c. That his failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.
Example is in Article 125 on officers who are supposed to deliver a detainee who has been arrested, to the authorities
within a certain number of hours. So 12, 18 or 36, depending on the classification of the felony. You have that time to
deliver these detainees to the authorities. And you are not able to do so, why? Because andun kayo sa isla. Unya bagyo,
way masakyan. Wala kang magawa diyan. So that's an insuperable cause.
People v. Bandian: The Supreme Court said that the "debility or dizziness, which causes may be considered lawful or
insuperable to constitute the seventh exempting circumstance"
34
And another example here is misprision of treason. So you learned about a conspiracy against the government, you're
supposed to report it to the authorities. If you do not do that, that is misprision of treason. The problem here is a priest was
the one who learned about the conspiracy through the confessional. Unya ang pari is a Philippine citizen, so he is
supposed to report. But hindi niya magawa. Why? Because that information relayed to him is what? That is privileged.
Priest-penitent privilege. You cannot be compelled to divulge that information.
Now all these paragraphs in Article 12, the offender is exempted from criminal liability. But there are other causes which
may exempt a person from criminal liability which are not found in Article 12. They are called absolutory causes.
Absolutory causes - Those where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is no
penalty imposed. Exempting not because of Article 12. Exempting because of public policy.
What are the cases covered?
1. One is Article 6 where the offender desisted. Kung nag desist ka, there is no criminal liability. As long as, of
course, you haven't reached the objective phase. Subjective phase pa lang. That is sort of a reward given to a person
who, on the verge of a crime, heeds the call of his conscience and turns to the path of righteousness.
2. Another is Article 7. Light felony which is not against person or property in attempted or frustrated stage. That
serves to exempt the offender from criminal liability.
3. Another is when the accessory is a relative of the principal under Article 20.
4. Also, when there are legal grounds for arbitrary detention under 124.
5. When there are legal grounds for trespass to dwelling under 280.
6. Where theft, swindling or malicious mischief if committed against a relative, Article 332. There is only civil liability.
7. Of course, the famous Article 247. Where spouse or minor daughter was surprised in the act of sexual
intercourse with another person.
8. Where the offender married the offended party in cases involving crime against chastity and rape.
9. Mistake of fact is absolutory.
10. And of course, instigation.
Instigation is absolutory. How do you distinguish it with entrapment? The best way to distinguish them is in the innocence
of the party. In entrapment, there is a criminal. Here, in instigation, the person instigated, his mind is not criminal. It is
innocent. He did not have criminal intent. He committed the crime because he was instigated by the police officer but
there was no criminal intent. Therefore, walang criminal liability.
On the other hand, entrapment, the person already has mens rea, the criminal intent, and the police officers resorted to
ways and means to catch him. Kumbaga gamay na tuklod lang, and this is exemplified by buy-bust operations. Thats
called entrapment.
Entrapment is commonly done by police officers.
What are the complete defenses in criminal cases?
1. Where any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not proved by the prosecution and the elements
proved do not constitute any crime.
2. When the act of the accused falls under the justifying circumstances.
3. When the act of the accused falls under any of the exempting circumstances.
4. Absolutory causes.
5. Where the guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Prescription of crimes
7. Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal action in crime against chastity.
Mitigating Circumstances
ARTICLE 13. Mitigating Circumstances. The following are mitigating circumstances:

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of article 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony
(delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
35
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however
depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Mitigating circumstance - Those, which, if present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely, free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
There is still liability but the penalty is reduced or mitigated. Why is that? Because, going back to the evidence of
voluntariness, the evidence is present but there is diminished capacity, diminished freedom, diminished intent. Nandiyan
pa rin, pero diminished, mas mababa na yung penalty.
There are two kinds of mitigating circumstances:
a. Ordinary mitigating
b. Privileged mitigating
Distinguish between the two.

1. Ordinary can be offset, but privileged mitigating cannot be offset by aggravating.
2. Ordinary, the penalty is reduced to the minimum. Same penalty but to the minimum period. When you talk about
privileged, you do not talk about periods. You go lower by an entire degree.
3. Par 1 and the par 2 are privilege mitigating circumstances, while the rest of those provided in Art13 are ordinary
mitigating circumstances.
Specific privileged mitigating circumstance where the law itself prescribes a lesser penalty.
1. Slight illegal detention under Article 268
2. Abandonment
3. Article 255, in Infanticide, intent to conceal of the mother of concealing her dishonor.
Special Privileged Mitigating Circumstance

1. Art 64 par 5 -When there are two mitigating and no aggravating, the effect is that the penalty is reduced to 1 degree.
2. Art 268, par 3 Release of a person illegally detained within 3 days without the offender attaining his purpose. The
accused is entitled to a penalty 1 degree lower.
3. Art 333 par 3 Abandonment without justification of the spouse who committed adultery. The accused is entitled to a
penalty 1 degree lower.
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
Number (1) mitigating is what you call incomplete. Incomplete justifying, and incomplete exempting because it refers to
the preceding chapter, where NOT all the requisites necessary to justify the act or exempt from criminal liability in
respective cases attendant such as self-defense, or defense of relatives, etc.
ARTICLE 69. Penalty to Be Imposed When the Crime Committed is Not Wholly Excusable. A penalty lower by
one or two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of
the lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several
cases mentioned in articles 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall
conditions of exemption present or lacking.
If all of them are present, then of course, there will be a justifying and exempting circumstance, but if there are
several requisites and not all of them are present, the effect is that it will be considered as a mitigating
circumstance. It cannot fully justify or exempt because of absent requisites but under Article 13, it may be treated
as a mitigating circumstance.
If only unlawful aggression is present, the accused is entitled to a penalty 1 degree lower. If unlawful aggression and any
one of the two remaining elements are present, the accused is entitled to a penalty 2 degrees lower.
(2) Minority
15 y.o and below exempting

15 y 1 day but below 18
w/o discernment exempting
w/ discernment 1 degree lower, apply diversion program
18 y.o at the time of promulgation (but below 18 at the time of commission) 1 degree lower, apply suspension of
sentence
18 y.o and over full criminal responsibility
70 y.o and over mitigating and no imposition of death penalty
Take note, the penalty is privileged mitigating, but in seniority, it does not apply. (Only a generic mitigating circumstance.)
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
This is an effect of praeter intentionem. The result of the wrongful act done is greater than what was intended.
36
Basis: Diminution of intent
The case of Cagoco is an example. Is Tagoco liable to the crime intended or that which resulted? The answer is of course
he is liable to the crime that resulted because of Article 4, paragraph 1. Is he entitled to any circumstance? Yes, this is the
circumstance available because he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that which he intended. The same
thing happened to Jaurige. She only had intention to punish the guy for placing his hand over her upper thigh.
(4) The sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
Provocation any act of the offended party that excites or stirs up emotions or actions
Threat indication that harm or injury will be inflicted
Immediate there is no interval of time between the provocation and the commission of the crime
Elements:
1. The provocation or threatmust be sufficient;
2. It must originate from the offended party; and
3. It must be immediate to the commission of the crime.
Basis: Diminution of intelligence or intent
When can you say that the provocation is sufficient? It must be something adequate to incite a person to commit a crime.
People vs. Marquez, the man came to his house, excited to see his wife. When he went inside the house, he saw a man
with his wife in their bed. The wife asked for forgiveness, begged for pardon on her knees. The action of the wife was
sufficient provocation which drove him to kill her.
Pp. vs. Alconga. It will be observed that there were two stages in the fight between appellant and the deceased. The
initial stage commenced when the deceased assaulted appellant without sufficient provocation on the part of the latter.
Resisting the aggression, appellant managed to have the upper hand in the fight, inflicting several wounds upon the
deceased, on account of which the latter fled in retreat. From that moment there was no longer any danger to the life of
appellant who, being virtually unscathed, could have chosen to remain where he was. Resolving all doubts in his flavor,
and considering that in the first stage the deceased was the unlawful aggressor and defendant had not given sufficient
provocation, and considering further that when the deceased was about to deliver the third blow, appellant was still in a
crawling position and, on that account, could not have effectively wielded his bolo and therefore had to use his "paltik"
revolver his only remaining weapon ; we hold that said appellant was then acting in self-defense.
But when he pursued the deceased, he was no longer acting in self-defense, there being then no more aggression to
defend against, the same having ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels. During the second stage of the
fight appellant inflicted many additional wounds upon the deceased. That the deceased was not fatally wounded in the
first encounter is amply shown by the fact that he was still able to run a distance of some 200 meters before being
overtaken by appellant. Under such circumstances, appellant's plea of self-defense in the second stage of the fight cannot
be sustained. There can be no defense where there is no aggression.
Upon the foregoing facts, we hold that appellant's guilt of the crime of homicide has been established beyond reasonable
doubt. The learned trial court appreciated in his favor of two mitigating circumstances: voluntary surrender and
provocation on the part of the deceased. The first was properly appreciated; the second was not, since it is very clear that
from the moment he fled after the first stage of the fight to the moment he died, the deceased did not give any provocation
for appellant to pursue much less further to attack him.
Vague threats will not suffice as provocation in mitigating circumstance.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony
(delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees.
Requisites:
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees;
2. That the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense.
Immediate allows a lapse of time as long as the offender is still suffering from the mental anguish and wounded feelings
brought about by the offense to him.
The grave offense mentioned in the paragraph need not be a crime or a felony.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
Requisites:
a. That there must be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a state of mind on the part of the accused;
b. That there was no appreciable lapse of time between the victims offending act and the commission of the crime
by the accused;
37
c. The act causing such obfuscation, was committed by the victim himself.
Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not from bestial instincts.
When not mitigating:
1. In the spirit of lawlessness, or

2. In a spirit of revenge.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution.
Voluntary Surrender
Requisites:
1. That the accused had not been actually arrested.

2. That the accused surrendered himself to a person in authority or to an agent of a person in authority.
3. That the surrender was voluntary.
To whom should the accused surrender?
Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as such. In applying
the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction,
whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall
be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in
authority.
A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged
with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio
councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority,
shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with
the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual
performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in
authority. (As amended by PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973 and Batas PambansaBlg. 873, June 12, 1985).
Persons in authority those persons tasked to execute the laws like Mayors, governors, etc. Whereas those who are
agents of persons in authority are those tasked to maintain peace and order, etc. and usually these refer to law
enforcement people.
Now also important is that when you surrender yourself you are surrendering your person, not the weapon. There are
cases there napumuntaxang police paraisurrenderlangyung weapon. And then later claim voluntary surrender. That is not
voluntary surrender because you did not surrender yourself, you did not surrender your person.
And very important is that the surrender is voluntary. And what do you mean by voluntary? Surrender to be voluntary must
be spontaneous, showing intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either (1) because he
acknowledges his guilt or (2) because he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expenses necessarily to be
incurred for his search and capture.
People vs Lee 204 SCRA 900 where the Supreme Court said that in order that voluntary surrender may be appreciated it
is necessary that it be spontaneous and made in such a manner showing intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities either (1) because he acknowledges his guilt or (2) because he wishes to save the
authorities the trouble and expenses necessarily to be incurred for his search and capture.
For example the person to be arrested is surrounded already and he comes out voluntarily and says voluntary ni ha,
voluntary ni, that is not already voluntary.
People vsYernes decided on December 13, 2001. The Supreme Court said that going to the police station to clear ones
name does not show any intent to surrender.
People vs Abolidor et al. (February 18, 2004) where the appellants surrendered to the authorities after more than one
year had lapsed since the incident. This neither shows repentance nor acknowledgement of the crime nor the intention to
save the government the trouble and expenses of search and capture. Because in the past there was an issue on whether
it is mitigating if there is already a warrant of arrest issued, well actually when confronted with a problem like that you go
back to the basic principle, if you can consider that as voluntary and spontaneous and made in such a manner showing
intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either (1) because he acknowledges his guilt or
(2) because he wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expenses necessarily to be incurred for his search and
capture. Then it is mitigating but the premise is he was not arrested.
Now in this case of abolidor the issue here is the time, because one year na, pwede pa bayan? And this is what the
Supreme Court said, that neither shows repentance nor acknowledgement of guilt, not the desire to save the government
the expenses etc, etc. So dapat hindi masyadong matagal din.
38
People vs Dawaton (Sept. 17, 2002) the argument of the accused was that he was merely fetched, gisundo lang siya ng
mga police, so niuban ko sa ilaha voluntarily. The attempt at semantics is futile and absurd.
Voluntary Confession
Requisites:
a. The offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;

b. That the confession of guilt was made before a competent court;
c. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
The other half is what voluntary confession. We know that the confession that you are talking about is not the confession
that I confess to Almighty We are talking about the plea of guilt during the arraignment. Once you do that you are
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession.
What happens if you voluntarily surrendered and during arraignment you pleaded guilty? Both of these are contained in
one paragraph diba? Are you entitled to one or two? This time separate, these are separate and independent mitigating
circumstances. So when you can show that you voluntarily surrendered thats one. And then later you pleaded guilty then
thats two. You are entitled to two mitigating circumstances.
Is the accused allowed to change his plea from guilty to not guilty in order to avail of this mitigating circustance?
Muingonxa sus sayang man gudning mitigating oh, kung muingonkog guilty, minimum period, so muingonnaxag he is
guilty, can he do that and be allowed to avail of this mitigating circumstance? The law says diba prior to the presentation
of evidence of the prosecution. So as long as the prosecution has not presented, then you can change your plea
and still avail of this mitigating circumstance.
But if the prosecution has already started, you cannot avail. Of course you can still change your plea but the question is
can you avail of the mitigating circumstance? If the prosecution has already started, you can change your plea but
you are not allowed to claim the mitigating. Why is that? Because paranganoyan eh, naniguroka. You have already
seen the evidence, and then you realized murag guilty man judkopaminawonani, so you decide to change your plea, you
will not be allowed to take advantage of that evidence.
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense, or communication with his fellow beings.
Bungolugamang.. So meaing kung ang akusado ay silent lang xaba, parang pantomime, kung dumb xa that is a limitation
to communication to his fellow being. He is entitled to a mitigating. Angtanongdito, panokung nag samaitolahat?
Bungolna, hindi pa makasalita, butapajud, 3 ka.mitigatingna? Anyway ang rule of thumb kasiniInigodito, if you can find a
common denomitor, that is arising from one source, do not treat them separately. These are characteristics of a person,
the source arise from the person, therefore you are entitled to only one. Because the whole point of this diba is that it
restricts his communication/his means of action or his means of defense.
People vsDeopanteOct. 30, 1996, the SC said that in order for these conditions to be appreciated it must be shown that
such physical defect limited his means to act, to defend himself and communicate with his fellow beings to such
extent that he did not have the complete freedom of action consequently resulting to the diminution of the element of
voluntariness.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however
depriving him of consciousness of his acts.
Basis: Diminution of voluntariness
Elements:
(1) He is suffering from illness
(2) The illness must diminish the exercise of will power
(3) It must not deprive the offender the consciousness of his acts.
If the illness here, deprives the offender totally, then it is not merely a mitigating but it shall be an exempting
circumstance.
10. And, finally, any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
1. Extreme poverty as similar to state of necessity.
2. Impulse of jealousy, similar to passion and obfuscation.
3. Voluntary return of funds in malversation as equivalent to voluntary surrender.
4. Over 60 y.o with failing sight as analogous to a person over 70 years of age and voluntary surrender.
39
Aggravating Circumstances
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his
rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given
provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall
be deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or
international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste
and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods,
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the
act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commissions.
Aggravating circumstances are those which serve to have the penalty imposed in its maximum period or change the
nature of the crime.
a) Ordinary Aggravating Circumstance increases the penalty by period of by component if found to be present in the
commission of the crime unless it is offset by mitigating circumstance (CAN BE OFFSET)
b) Special Aggravating Circumstance increases the penalty by period of by component if found to be present in the
commission of the crime regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstance. (CANNOT BE OFFSET)
Example: Taking advantage of public position (Art 14(1)), habitual delinquency and organized/ syndicated crime
group (Art 62),
c) Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
Example:
1) Qualified piracy attacking a vessel plus taking of property is piracy. The penalty for piracy is Reclusion
Perpetua. If piracy is accompanied by rape, the crime committed is qualified piracy. The commission of the rape
of in the occasion of piracy is a Qualifying AC. The penaly for qualified piracy is Reclusion Perpetua to death.
(Note: RA 9346 imposable penalty of death shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua)
d) Inherent circumstances those which must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime (Ex: inherent
premeditation)
e) Extraordinary Circumstance those which increase the penalty or that which impose additional penalties. (Ex:
habitual delinquency)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER SPECIAL LAWS
GR: AC under RPC does not apply to special laws.

40
XPN:
a) Ordinary AC - under RA8294, the use of unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder is ordinary AC. (subject to the
offset rule)
b) Special AC if the acts punishable under RA 9262 are committed while the woman or her child is pregnant or
committed in the presence of her child, the penalty shall be applied in its maximum period. (Offset rule not applicable)
c) The use of dangerous drugs (Sec 25 RA 9165) is a Qualifying AC.
Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender Under the Influence
of Dangerous Drugs. Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of
dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the
application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.
NOTE: AC must be expressly and specially alleged in the complaint or information, otherwise the same will not be
considered by the court even if proved during the trial (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure of 2000). So even if you were
able to introduce that during trial, its in the record, but it was not alleged in the information, the judge cannot use that to
increase the penalty. That has no effect to the criminal liability but it has effect on the civil liability.
Other AC that has NO effect on the penalty:
Those which in themselves constitute the crime (Ex: AC by means of fire in the crime of arson)
Those which are included in the definition of the crime (Ex: AC of dwelling or unlawful entry in Robbery in an
inhabited house)
Those which are inherent to the commission of the crime (Ex: AC of Evident premeditation in Robbery, AC of
taking advantage of public position in title 7(crimes committed by public officer))
AC which are personal to the offenders like moral attributes (Ex: Evident premeditation, relationship, recidivist)
Circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act or in the means employed to accomplish it - shall
serve to aggravate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of
the crime.
Ex: A tells B to kill C. B kills C with treachery without A knowing. Murder kay B, kayA homicide even if they are in
a conspiracy. Kasi usually when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, but here, the crime of one is
not the crime of all because A did not have knowledge of the treachery.
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
RA 7659 amended Article 62 of RPC and converted the taking advantage of public position into a special
aggravating circumstance.
The penalty to be imposed is in the maximum regardless of the presence of MC.
The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of official position requires that the accused as a public
officer used the influence or reputation of his position for the purpose of committing the crime.
ELEMENTS:
1) the offender is a public officer

2) offender took advantage of this position to facilitate the commission of the crime
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
Requisites:
a. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions.

b. That the public authority is not the person against whom the crime is committed.
c. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
d. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.
Who are these public authorities? Persons in authority including agents of persons of authority
A public authority sometimes also called a person in authority is a public officer who is directly vested with
jurisdiction who has the power to govern and execute the laws as provided for under Art 152 of the RPC.
Agent of a person in authority is a subordinate charged with the enforcement of the law and the protection of
life and property.
PpvsRodil SC said that public authorities are persons in authority including their agents. While it is true that in the
cases of U.S. vs. Rodriguez, et al. (19 Phil. 150, 157-158), People vs. Siojo (61 Phil. 307, 317), and People vs. Verzo (21
SCRA 1403), this Court ruled that the term public authority refers to a person in authority and that a PC lieutenant or town
chief of police is not a public authority but merely an agent of a person in authority; there is need of re-examining such a
ruling since it is not justified by the employment of the term public authority in aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article 14 instead
of the term person in authority which is specifically used in Articles 148 and 152 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no
extended reasoning of the doctrine enunciated in the aforesaid three (3) cases why the phrase public authority should
comprehend only persons in authority. The lawmaker could have easily utilized the term "persons in authority" in the
aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article 14 in much the same way that it employed the said phrase in Articles 148 and 1452. The
41
lawmaker must have intended a different meaning for the term public authority, which may however include, but not
limited to persons in authority.
Knowledge of the presence of a person in public authority is important. Lack of such knowledge does not result
to contempt or insult of authorities.
Paragraph 3: That the act be committed with insult or in disgrace of the respect due to the offended party on
account of his rank, age or sex or that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation.
4 Aggravating Circumstances:
a. Sex
b. Age
c. Rank
d. The crime be committed in the dwelling of the offended party who has not given provocation.
These 4 circumstances can be considered singly or as one aggravating circumstances only. If all 4 are
present, they are equivalent to 1 aggravating circumstance.
The AC of age, sex and rank canbe considered only in crimes against persons and honor.They cannot be
considered in Robbery with Homicide because basically it is a crime against property.
Pp vs. Hernandez (June 15, 2004). SC said that disregard of age and sex may be appreciated only in crimes against
persons or honor. It is incorrect to consider these circumstances in crimes against property.
Sex
1. The victim must be a female while the offender is male.

2. Offender must have deliberately intended to show manifest disrespect for the sex of the offended party.
This aggravating circumstance is not appreciable in rape, parricide, seduction or abduction because being a woman is an
element of the crime.
Age may refer to the tender age or old age of the victim.
There must be insult or disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his age. For instance, a 20 year old attacks a
60 year old. Is that aggravating on the part of the 20 year old? The point is, this is a cultural thing. The respect is due to
the elders. Most of the cases apply when the offender is younger and the victim is older. So usually the rule is when one is
older to become the father of the other.
Ang tanong is paano kung baliktad yan? Ang tigulang ang nangulata sa bata (40 years younger). Is this aggravating? The
rule there, according to Reyes, is that it is two-way.
Rank here refers to social standing; there must be a difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended
party.
Dwelling it is a house or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort. But this does not necessarily mean permanent
dwelling and not necessarily owned by the offended party. It includes every dependency of the house that forms an
integral part (ex. Garage, staircase).
If the offender and the offended live together, you cannot apply this because both have the right to be in that
house. But if it is a boarding house, for example, you have your separate rooms but you have also a common
area. If the crime is committed in your room, then, this is applicable because your room is your dwelling.
Elements:
1. Offender committed the crime in the dwelling of the offended party;

2. Offended party has not given sufficient provocation;
3. Offender committed the crime in disregard of the sanctity of privacy and respect which the dwelling is entitled (if
the offender and the victim were living in the same dwelling, the former could not have transgressed the sanctity
of the dwelling by committing a crime).
Dwelling is aggravating:
a) If the victim was taken from his house and killed just beside his abode.
Is this circumstance of dwelling aggravating if the crime was consummated outside or that the crime
began inside the dwelling? Yes. It is not necessary that the offense be consummated inside the dwelling.
b) Victim was attacked inside his house although the assailant may have devised means to perpetuate the assault
from without (Pp vs. Albar, 86 Phil 36).
What if, for instance, sniper and fired at the family from outside? The offender never entered the house.
Is this aggravating? Yes.
c) In robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.
d) Victim was raped in the boarding house where she was a bedspacer (Pp vs. Daniel 86 SCRA 511).
e) Crime committed in a temporary dwelling (ex: sleeping as guests).
42
Dwelling NOT considered (is not aggravating):
a) When both the offender and the offended are occupants of the same house (US vs. Rodriguez 9 Phil 136).
b) When the robbery is committed by the use of force upon things because dwelling is inherent.
c) In the crime of trespass to dwelling as dwelling is inherent in the crime.
d) When the owner or occupant of the dwelling gave immediate and sufficient provocation.
Pp vs. Parazo (272 SCRA 512). Its not necessary that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a
lessee, a bedspace or a boarder, the place is his home the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold.
Pp vs. Galaqiao (August 1, 1978). Parang away atang husband and wife. Separated. Dili man
pasudlonsaasawaangbanasabalay. Gigubasa husband angjelusy. Nag away. Nakadungogang mother-in-law, niapil,
nagdalaug bolo ugnisulodsa bedroom.Pagkuhasa bolo, gitigbasansila. SC said: aggravating circumstance is present since
the crime was committed in the house occupied by his estranged wife other than the conjugal home. So thatwas still
considered dwelling.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
Abuse of Confidence
Elements:
1. There is special, immediate and personal relation between the victim and the offender;
Precisely if there is no such relationship, there is no relationship to be broken. Confidence must be
invested in the accused in the first place.
2. Victim reposed confidence on the offender because of such relationship;

One illustrative case is a child was entrusted in the custody of somebody. The crime was committed
against the child. The SC said that the confidence was reposed by the parents of the child and not victim.
Therefore, there was no confidence reposed by the victim on the offender and, consequently, this
aggravating circumstance cannot be appreciated.
In another case, a similar case, but in this case much younger ang victim and in that case the SC said
namerongabuse of confidence because this was achild of tender years.
3. The accused deliberately abused such confidence as a means to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Betrayal of confidence reposed by the parents of the victim on the offender will not aggravate the crime.
There should exist a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and the one against whom the
crime was committed and the accused used such relation to commit the crime.
But if the child is of tender age, then it is presumed that there is abuse of confidence.
Obvious Ungratefulness
Walang utang na loob. Lacking gratitude. Pinakain ka, sheltered, minahal, then you commit crime. But there must be
evidence to the extent of the generosity received or given.
Elements:
a. The offended party had trusted the offender.

b. The offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
c. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.
d. The ungratefulness must be clear and manifest ingratitude on the part of the accused.
People vs Bautista 65 SCRA 460 Where the victim was attacked in the act of giving breakfast to the assailants.
Gipakaon ka unya you attack the person who was giving you food.
People vs Lupango 109 SCRA 109 The accused was living in the house of the victim as an overseer in charge of all the
work. He had access to the house of the victim who was very kind to him and his family and helped him solve his
problems. So obviously, that is obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
a. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence.
This takes place in the palace itself. It doesnt matter if the Chief Executive is there or not. Basta there in
Malacanang or anywhere where the President is kung magsuroy-suroy siya.
b. That the crime be committed in the place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties.
Where there are authority in the discharge of their duties. Kahit hindi president, but in the discharge of their duties
means they are working.
c. That the crime be committed in a place dedicated to religious worship.

What are religious places? Simbahan, mosque, even if there is no ceremony going on, its essence as a religious
place is not removed when there is no religious ceremony going on. It is the place itself. You commit a crime
there, gikawat nimong mga collection.
43
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense it shall
be deemed to have been committed by a band.
Nighttime is from dusk til dawn. From sunset to sunrise. If the crime is committed at night, is it aggravating? Not
necessarily. Per se, hindi. There are tests.
1. Objective test. Whenever the circumstance at night may facilitate the commission of the offense.
2. Subjective test. It is when nighttime is especially sought by the offender.
People vs Boquila March 8, 2002 Nighttime would be a modifying element only when (1) it was specially sought by the
offender; or (2) the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it facilitated the commission of the crime by ensuring the offender's
immunity from identification or capture. The mere fact that the killing was committed at night would not suffice to sustain
nocturnity for, by and itself. The facts do not show that accused-appellant purposely sought or took advantage of the
darkness to perpetrate the crime or to conceal his identity. Witness Sechem Dagangan testified that the area where the
crime was committed was illuminated by lights coming from the surrounding residence. Under these circumstances,
nighttime cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
People vs Demante January 20, 2004 The court ruled that subjective test was passed despite the fact that one of the
rooms was brightly lit.Kasi what happened in Demante was that the crime was committed at 3am. So gituyo gyud niya na
kabuntagon alas tres. Bahalag nay suga pero nangatulog na man ang mga tao ana.
People vs Ventura and Ventura July 5, 2004 While the bedroom where the crime occurred, the offenders deliberately
took advantage of nighttime as well as the fact that the household members were asleep in order to gain entry to the
victims residence. So especially sought for. Tulog na ang mga tao
Nighttime was rejected in the following cases:
People vs La Guardia Feb 27, 1987 It was rejected because it was not especially sought. Ang victim dito naga sigarilyo
ang time niyan kay gabi. So giabangan nila gabi talaga. It was not especially sought. Nagdepende sa schedule ng victim
nila.
Nighttime was not especially sought nor was it taken advantage of by him.
Pag inintay mo ang gabi ibig sabihin you especially sought it. Basta magpasok sa objective, subjective test. The
probability that you will be recognized is less.
What if pumasok ka sa sinehan and someone takes advantage of it and stabs you. But you can enter the movie house at
3pm. Is that aggravating? Hindi! It is not nighttime, kasi ang nighttime is only from dusk til dawn or from sunset to sunrise.
You have to find another aggravating circumstance.
Uninhabited place is determined by whether or not in the place of the commission of the crime there was a reasonable
possibility of the victim to receive some help. Also known as DESPOBLADO.
The test is the very nature of the place, not the accidental fact that nobody went to his rescue.
For example, a person was attacked at night in the middle of the subdivision. He was shouting for help, but nobody came
out to help him. Does the aggravating circumstance apply? No, because he was attacked in the middle of the subdivision.
A subdivision is inhabited and just because nobody came to his aid does not make the place uninhabited.
Band - also known as en cuadrilla;at least four malefactors organized with the intention of carrying out an unlawful
design. Band is inherent in brigandage but not in robbery.
The requisite 4 armed persons must all be principals by direct participation who acted together in the execution of
the acts constituting the crime. If one of them was a principal by inducement, there would be no cuadrilla, but the
aggravating circumstance of having acted with the aid of armed men.
This AC is not applicable in crimes against chastity.
There is no such crime as robbery in band with homicide. The felony is properly called robbery with homicide, the
circumstance that it was committed by a band would be appreciated as ordinary aggravating circumstance.
Another important thing is that they are armed. Kasi even if you have 100 men pero they are armed with their fists only so
that will not qualify them into a band.
PEOPLE vs. MANLOLO169 SCRA 394
Facts: Somebody, when he was going home, was attacked by a group of istambays. They hit him and then they get
stones and threw stones and rocks at him. They were about 4 or 5. This happened in Pasay City.
Issue: Whether or not a crime was committed by a band.
Held: Exactly, the offenders, who were many, attacked the man by throwing stones at him. There was an intention to
cause death when the accused threw stones at the victim - thus, including stones under the term " armed", under the
phrase " more than 3 armed malefactors acted together'> So, there is an aggravating circumstance of band.
44
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.
US vs Rodriguez, the reason if found on the debased form of criminality in one who in the midst of a great calamity
instead of lending aid to the afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage to their misfortune.
Lets go back to Yolanda. Yung aftermath na diba, madaming looting na nangyari. Does that affect the criminal liability?
Kasi ang sabi nga DURING calamities diba. Dito aftermath na man so may effect parin ba yan sa liability? Take note of
article 310 of the RPC.
Article 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees
than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave
abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980).
So most likely, dito na papasok yan. If qualified, thats two degrees higher.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
Elements:
a. The armed persons took part of the commission of the crime directly or indirectly by giving material aid to the
principle by direct participation.
So here, as distinguished from band, diba ang band shall have acted together and so they are principals by
direct participation, ito iba ito kasi here there is a principal by direct participation tapos ang armed men dito are
only supporting characters lang ito sila. They give aid directly or indirectly to the principal by direct participation.
b. The offender must have availed of the aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed.
So, anong participation ng mga armed men dito? They cannot be principals kasi nga sabi natin na supporting case lang
sila.
There are two views on this matter:
Reyes, Padillas, and Gregorios armed men must directly or indirectly participate in the commission of the crime.
Regalados with the aid of armed men means that armed men are accomplices who take part directly or indirectly in the
commission of the crime in a minor capacity. This is the view adopted in the case of PP vs Lozano. That armed men are
mere accomplices. In another case, the case of PP vs Abaigar august 17, 1903, the SC said that the mere casual
presence of armed men more or less numerous does not constitute an aggravating circumstance when it appears that the
defendant did not in anyway avail of their aid and did not rely on their assistance on the commission of the crime.
Ano na man tong That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
What is an example of this? A asked the help of ten person in killing B. A instructed the group to dance around B so that
A can stab B.
To distinguish this from the other is that as we said earlier ang band requires principals but ito, in the aid of armed men,
accomplices lang ito. But please take note ha, if you can establish conspiracy, kahit na ano pa ang participation nyan,
malaki man o maliit, direct or indirect, the act of one is the act of all so pareho sila lahat ng liability if may conspiracy.
They are all principals if may conspiracy.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
So remember, on final judgement ha. So its still on appeal then there is no recidivism. Dapat may final judgement.
Tapos, embrace on the same title. So, even if may final judgement na pero ang crime is not covered by the same
title so hindi parin cya ma fall under recidivism. So alam nyo na man anong meaning ng titles diba? For example,
you commit murder, then you commit homicide, that is embraced in one title. Parehong crimes against persons
yan. Same title. Please remember that because if it is not embraced in the same title then there can be no
recidivism.
This is a generic aggravating circumstance, if present, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
Now what is the effect of pardon, executive clemency? Suppose you are found guilty, there is a final conviction
but then the President issued a pardon. So pardon diba you will not spend a time in jail. Hindi ka papasok sa
kulungan. Is the fellow a recidivist despite the pardon? The answer to that is YES he is still a recidivist because
pardon does not erase the fact of conviction! It only erases the penalty and not the fact of conviction. So in effect,
you still have a final conviction against you.
45
PP vs LACAO sept 4, 1991. HELD: recidivism was properly considered since a pardon for a preceding offense does not
obliterate the fact that the accused is a recidivist upon his conviction of a second offense embraced in the same title of the
code.
And you know that the rule is different when you talk about amnesty. Kasi amnesty erases all the effects including the
previous conviction.
Amnesty completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects. Thus, previous conviction for a crime covered
by amnesty could not be a source of recidivism.
10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
REITERACION or habituallity.
a. That the accused is on trial for an offense.

b. That the accused previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an:
i. Equal, or
ii. Greater penalty, or
iii. For 2 or more crimes to which the law attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense.
Now, suppose the offender is pardoned. Previous crime is homicide, reclusion temporal is the penalty. Again he does not
serve a day in jail. Tapos he is found guilty of robbery that is in another title. So reclusion temporal sa homicide, tapos
present crime is punished by prision correcional robbery. They are not in the same Title, so it must be reiteracion. But for
the previous crime of homicide, he was pardoned. Is there habituality?
No. Precisely, the requirement here in habituality is that he must have been previously punished. Punished
meaning sulod kag presohan for the penalty. So the rule is different. The requirement of the law in habituality is that
the offender must have been previously punished. So kahit in the middle of his service of his sentence, he was pardoned,
covered na siya. He does not have to serve the whole sentence. Basta he was punished. That is habituality. Please take
note of that.
What is common here in recidivism and quasi-recidivism is that there must be a final judgment of conviction of another
crime.
Two or more crimes, example. Accused was previously convicted of grave slander and trespassing. Tapos, ngayon, he
committed murder. Although lighter ang penalty for slander and trespassing, dalawa na yun. Pwede pa rin maging
habituality yung two previous crimes.
What about quasi-recidivism?
Article 160. Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
So padulong pa siyag presohan, he committed another crime. Or naa siya sa presohan, he commits another crime. Kana
tong sa mga presohan, magpinatyanay sila didto, that is a crime. You kill your fellow inmate, that's a crime. If you do that,
that is quasi-recidivism because you committed another felony while you are serving a penalty for a previous conviction.
Take note that this is punished with more severity than recidivism.
What is one quality of quasi-recidivism? Quasi-recidivism kasi is a special aggravating. Meaning it cannot be offset.
The penalty will be increased despite of the presence of mitigating circumstances. Unlike recidivism.
Question: The crimes involved here, do they need to be embraced in the same title? Kasi recidivism, dapat embraced in
the same title. Ang habituality na man, dapat hindi embraced within the same title. What about quasi-recidivism? The rule
is, the crime must not be embraced in the same Title of the RPC.
Habitual Deliquency
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa, or
falsificacion, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
- Habitual delinquency is also called multi-recidivism

- It will give rise to the imposition of an additional penalty
- It cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
People v. Alincastre: The Supreme Court said this affects both offeror and offeree. Not just the one who committed the
crime in consideration of the price, reward or promise. If you are guilty of killing somebody for a price, then equally guilty is
the one who offered the price for the life of another.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or
intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great waste
46
and ruin.
How do you distinguish this from paragraph 7? Kanina kasi, on the occasion. Dito, by means of.
This is aggravating because of the manner of the ways and means of committing the crime. Anong example nito? You kill
somebody by poisoning that person. That is Murder.
Suppose husband poisons the wife. Is the use of poison aggravating? Remember, husband poisons wife. That is
parricide. It's qualified because of relationship. Therefore, yung source mo, yung by means of poison, is still there. It still
exists. You did not use that to aggravate the crime. Because it was already qualified by the relationship. Therefore, by
means of poison can increase the penalty even more.
Diba may arson. Arson is destruction of property by means of fire. You do not use this as aggravating because that is
already the crime itself. Or you kill somebody, alam mo na diyan siya natutulog sa bahay na yan. Sinunog mo. By means
of. That is also Murder, not Murder with Arson.
13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
This is deliberate planning. This is the direct opposite of passion or obfuscation. Please take note of the elements. Kay
lisod ni siya iprove.
1. The time when the accused was determined to commit the crime. You have to prove that at this time, he
decided to commit the crime.
2. There is an act manifestly indicating that the accused clung to that determination. So you must show that
talaga, from the time that he decided to commit the crime, he prepared himself. Nagpractice siya shooting, ganyan.
Merong mga acts.
3. There must be a lapse of time between the determination and the execution sufficient to allow the accused to
reflect upon the consequences of the act.
So ganito. At this time, I will commit a crime. You show that. Tapos during determination, there are acts that show na
decided siya. And then, execution. But the time gap must be sufficient for him to realize what he is doing. Sabi nila
revenge is best served cold. So let's say mga two months ka nag-isip before mo ginawa yung crime. Premeditated yan.
Essence: the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry
out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
Take note that this can be committed only in crimes against persons.
Suppose nagplan ka to kill A. You prepared yourself. Tapos you executed, you implemented your plan. Ang problema
lang, yung pinatay mo turned out to be another person. Question: Is the crime aggravated by evident premeditation?
None. Because if the person killed turned out to be a different person, evident premeditation should not aggravate the
crime. Kasi ang kanyang heart, ang kanyang head doon talaga sa isa. Tapos mali. Wala na yung evident premeditation
kay dili man diay mao.
When the victim is different from that intended, premeditation is not aggravating. Take note that it is not necessarily
to plan to kill a particular person.
Example: On a certain day, M accepted the proposition that he would kill the first two persons he would meet. So punta
siya sa lugar na yun. Then he undertook the journey and readied himself with a weapon. Determination of the time when
he decided to commit the offense, so nagjourney pa siya to that place. Parang day hanggang night yata. So there, the
time between determination and execution was sufficient lapse of time to realize the consequences of his contemplated
act. This is aggravating notwithstanding the fact that the victim is yet to be identified. Pero this is sufficiently identifiable in
the sense na the first two. So coupled with determination, etc., sufficient to establish evident premeditation, even if the
victim is not an identified victim.
So pag error in personam, this is not aggravating. But, if the accused premeditated on the killing of any person, it
satisfies the requirement of evident premeditation.
Another point is, we know that evident premeditation is inherent in robbery.
Question: Suppose during a robbery, somebody is killed. In other words, the crime is robbery with homicide. Is evident
premeditation aggravating? NO.
For example, they conspire to rob, and then kill anyone who resists. That's a different story. Because evident
premeditation is not inherent in the killing. It's inherent in robbery, yes. But this time, when they premeditate in the
killing of anyone who resists, then it can be considered as aggravating. Evident premeditation na. Yun yung plano,
kung sino ang magpalag palag diyan, patya. As long as there is still time, determination to commit the crime. Preparation
then sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution.
14. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed.
Fraude, Astucis, and Disfraz, as separate aggravating circumstances.

47
Fraud is more on direct inducement by deceit or use of insidious words or machinations to act in a manner which would
enable the offender to carry out his design.
Craft involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the accused.
Disguise is an attempt to hide ones true identity. Superficial but somewhat dissembling to avoid identification like the use
of masks.
People vs. Reyes, 1998, the accused assumed a mask. But despite the mask, he was still identified. Does disguise
aggravate the crime? The Court did not appreciate the disguise because it could not have helped him because he was still
recognized perhaps because of the distinguishing features of his face.
People vs. Cabatothe Court considers disguise as another aggravating circumstance. The accused, together with two
others, wore masks to cover their faces. There could have been no other purpose for this but to conceal their Identities
particularly for Cabato who was very much known to the offended parties. The fact that the mask subsequently fell down
thus paving the way for Cabato's Identification will not render this aggravating circumstance inapplicable.
15. That (1) Advantage be taken of superior strength, or (2) means be employed to weaken the defense.
Advantage be taken of superior strength
Here, there is imbalance of strength. The one possessing superior strength and there is inferior strength and the one
possessing superior strength took advantage of the superior strength and that is why there is an aggravating
circumstance. Obviously, this applies to crimes against persons.
To purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person. The advantage would
be obvious.
Size inferiority. It could be that the opponent is small but he does karate. It is also taking advantage of superior strength. It
could also be numerical, many against one.
Means be employed to weaken the defense
The other one is means be employed to weaken the defense. This time, there is no obvious imbalance. Strength may be
the same but means are employed to weaken the defense. Example is when two people fight on the beach, then one took
a handful of sand and threw it against the eye of the other. The other was practically blind to see that he would be
punched so that he was bound to lose. That is the means to weaken the defense of the opponent.
Another example is when your enemy gets you drunk, because your defense would be weakened by it.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.
This is one of the most famous aggravating circumstance.
This is an ordinary aggravating which is also qualifying applicable to against persons. First, look at what the paragraph
says: which tend directly or specially to insure its execution. Meaning, the means of treacherous acts need not actually be
consummated, otherwise there would be no frustrated or attempted murder qualified by treachery. As long as it tends to
directly or specially insure its execution, there can be frustrated or attempted stage. So, it could be frustrated, murder pa
rin, because of the treacherous act.
Requisites:
1. At the time of the attack, the victim was not in the position to defend himself.
Usually, an attack from behind is considered treacherous because one cannot defend himself when attacked from
behind.
2. The offender consciously adopted the manner of the attack.
People vs. Canete 44 Phil 478
Facts: The accused assaulted the deceased with a knife and, in the course of the fight which ensued, inflicted a serious
cut on his thigh. Upon receiving the wound, the deceased turned and fled, and was immediately pursued by the accused.
After going a short distance, the deceased fell to the ground face downwards; and before he could recover his equipoise
and resume his flight, the accused ran up and delivered a fatal thrust with his knife in the back of the deceased.
Held: That as the assault was not characterized by alevosia in its inception and the aggression was continuous until the
consummation of the deed, the offense constituted simple homicide and not murder.
In the case of Baluyot, the prior action up to the commencement of the attack must be continuous. However, in the closet,
with the door shit, it was impossible for the governor to see what his assailant was doing or to make any defense
whatever against the shot directed through the panel of the door. It was as if the victim had been bound or blind-folded, or
had been treacherously attacked from behind in a path obscured by the darkness of the night.
48
In the beginning of the fight, they were face to face. There was no sudden attack, then nidagan, thats still continuous.
Nadapa, continuous pa rin. At the beginning, there was no treachery, especially since there is no sufficient intervening
cause. Start ng attack, theres no treachery because because the mode of attack was not consciously adopted
eventhough at that time, the victim was not in the position to defend himself. For it to fall under treachery, the two
requisites must be present.
US vs. Baluyot 40 Phil 385. The accused entered the office of the governor of Bataan when the latter was sitting on a
chair behind his desk. He shot the governor on the right shoulder blade. The governor escaped on the left corner, leading
to a corridor. Then the accused shot again, hitting the governor on the right shoulder blade then passing through the body.
The governor continued his flight along the corridor, and took refuge in a closet at the end of the corridor. Once within, he
shut the door and placed himself in a position to obstruct the entrance of his pursuer, who vainly attempted to open the
door. The governor screamed for help. The accused stopped for a moment, andjudging the position of the governors
head from the direction of the sound emitted, fired his revolver in the direction indicated.
The court held that, during the commencement of the attack until the second shot was fired, there was continuity. Even
supposing that treachery was present, it would be necessary to find this element present from the manner in which the
crime was consummated. It was the third wound in the head which caused the death of the victim. The crime of murder
was consummated with the infliction of the third wound.
Summary of the rules:
1. When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present in the beginning of the assault (Pp vs. Canete)
When the attack is from behind even if mag dinaganay, simula pa lang, may treachery na.
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. (US vs. Baluyot)
This cannot exist with passion and obfuscation, where in passion offender loses his control. The test is of course, whether
the offender consciously adopted the means of attack. Ambush, there is treachery, where the offended is not in the
position to defend himself. Pinag-isipan ang means.
Also, killing an unarmed victim whose hands are upraised, and killing a woman asking for money, or the victim is bound
and tied.
Please take note of a sudden attack. The attack may be from behind or facing the victim, but as long as the two requisites
are present, it is covered.
Also, there must be evidence to prove that there is treachery in the manner committed. But if the victim is a child of tender
years, you need not show the manner of attack. Treachery is appreciated even without evidence of how the child was
killed. Killing a child is qualified by murder by treachery. The aggravating circumstances are absorbed by treachery.
Superior strength is one, employing means to commit the offense, the other.
People vs. Sanggalang, the victim was at the top of the coconut tree while gathering tuba. He was unarmed and
defenseless. He was not in the position to defend himself.
People vs. Manangan, the man was peeing on the porch at night, he did not expect that his enemy, only four
meters away from him, was aiming a carbine at him.
Lets go back to evident premeditation. A wants to kill B. He prepares, turns out that the one killed was C. Court held that
there was no evident premeditation, because A did not intend to kill C, but B. Suppose there is treachery in killing C, but
he only made a mistake, because it was B he intended to kill. Should treachery be taken against A, considering that the
actual victim turned out to be not the intended victim? YES. Remember that treachery refers to the MANNER or MEANS
EMPLOYED.
Evident premeditation, this is different because it is referring to a specific person. Here, you are consciously adopting a
mode of attack. It does not matter who the victim is because the mode of attack is the same. No matter who the victim is,
he is not in the position to defend himself, and number two, there was a conscious adoption of the mode of attack. So,
treachery pa rin even if the victim is a different person.
17. Ignominy. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
It is adding insult to injury. But please take note that in ignominy, it is not physical but more of psychological. Its a
circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.
These are shame, embarrassment, insult. The ignominy must be applied when the victim is still alive because if the
victim is dead, there is no moral disgrace already.
Ignominy is applicable to:
1. Crimes against chastity

2. Less serious physical injuries
3. Slight or grave coercion
4. Murder
49
US vs. de Leon, 1 Phil 163There is ignominy to be considered in determining the proper penalty for murder, when before
he was killed, the deceased, a landowner, was forced to kneel in front of his house servants drawn up in line before him. It
is adding insult to injury.
Pp. vs. Torrefiel Rape. There is a cogon grass, he wrapped his penis with it before he raped his victim. The court held
that it is ignominy, but if he enjoys pain, it should have been under cruelty.
Cortesano vs. Cortesano Another case, Ignominy was appreciated in rape when the accused forced another to rape the
victim. The sisters of the victim was even ordered to look at her.
Pp vs. Jose Maggie dela Riva case. Movie star, at the prime of her life, she was abducted and she was made to dance
first, strip, before she was raped.
Pp vs. NierraThis is another weird case. The victim went to the beach, between seven and eight oclock in the evening.
From behind, she was grabbed, held her hair, tilting her face, and while in that posture, he inserted into her mouth the
muzzle of his pistol and fired.
Pp. vs. Bumidang, Dec. 4, 2000 The accused used a flashlight to examine that genital of the victim before he ravished
her, and committed the bestial deed in the presence of the victims old father.
Pp. vs. Saylan The accused used not only the missionary position but also the dog style of sexual intercourse, was
ignominy.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
This means that you enter first before committing the crime. When you say unlawful entry, it is gaining entrance through
an entrance not for the purpose.
Like the window. Now, when you enter through the window, and committed the crime inside, then thats unlawful entry.
If you go through the door, raped somebody inside and jumped out of the window after, there is no aggravating
circumstance of unlawful entry because this paragraph concerns the entrance and not the exit of the offender. For as long
as the entrance is effected though an entrance not intended for such, and the crime has been committed after, then, it is
aggravating. Please remember, in this particular specific paragraph, nothing should be broken.
What is the rationale behind this? One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men to guard their property and
provide for their personal safety, shows a greater perversity, a greater audacity; hence, the law punishes him with more
severity.
Nothing should be broken. If you break a window or door, there is no aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry, but a
different one under the next paragraph.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
This time, there is breaking to gain entrance. The same principle. The law is concerned with the entrance and not with
the exit. To gain entry, you break down a door or wall, destroy or window. Thats why this is sometimes known as the
aggravating circumstance of forcible entry. Here, there is really force to enter.
If the accused broke a window to enable himself to reach a cellphone, which he took while his body was outside, the
crime oft heft was attended by this aggravating circumstance. It is not necessary that the offender should have entered
the building.
20. That the crime be committed (1) with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age, or (2) by means of
motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
1. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age
This one is a liability is on the part of the person who used the minor.
Refer to RA 10630 >>>
SEC. 20-C. Exploitation of Children for Commission of Crimes. Any person who, in the commission of a crime,
makes use, takes advantage of, or profits from the use of children, including any person who abuses his/her authority over
the child or who, with abuse of confidence, takes advantage of the vulnerabilities of the child and shall induce, threaten or
instigate the commission of the crime, shall be imposed the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed in its
maximum period.
2. That the crime be committed by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
The crime be committed by means of, the vehicle/airship should be means of committing the vehicle. That
the crime was facilitated, intended, ginamit pang surveillance, pang abduct. Therefore, this may be
appreciated.
The use of a motor vehicle in killing a person is murder. It is a qualifying aggravating circumstance.
It is not aggravating when the motor vehicle was used to facilitate the escape of the accused.
People vs. Espejo, where the accused used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying the effects
thereof and in facilitating the escape.
50
People vs. Cuadra, the accused realized his plan of liquidating the victim, drove his pickup with his companions,
conducted a surveillance of the victims whereabouts while driving his pickup, killed the victim upon meeting him, and
made good escape by speeding away in his vehicle.
The vehicle, even if it is not mainly used in the crime, but used to facilitate the commission of the crime, then it
may be used as an aggravating circumstance.
In one case, the SC absolved the defendant. The case of Estafa, there is no connection between the use of the motor
vehicle. Although it facilitated the attendance of fraud because of the accused driving fast.
Motor vehicle, motorized motorcraft or other similar means. Motor, dili trisikad.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commission.
Cruelty There is Cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.The act of prolonging the agony or suffering of the
victim for the sake of increasing unnecessary moral and physical pain.
Distinguish this from ignominy: Ignominy is psychological, while cruelty is physical suffering.
Example:
1. Torture; electrocuting the victim.
2. The accused gagged the mouth of a 3-year old child with her stockings and placed it downwards into a box
and covered the box with sand, causing asphyxiation.
3. Burning the mouth and other parts of an infant, 11 months old.
4. After hog-tying the victim, the accused extracted the victims left eye from its socket with the pointed end of
his cane and also stuffed the victims mouth with mud.
Scoffing or outraging his corpse is not aggravating, its only qualifying the case to murder.
Anal intercourse with a dead woman is outraging the corpse of the dead. The crime committed is Murder.
Parading the head of the victim after the accused beheaded him is scoffing at the corpse of the dead. It qualifies
the crime to murder.
If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed on him, this would also qualify
the killing to murder due to scoffing or outraging his corpse.
When they killed the priest and used his intestines as necklace, touching his kidneys and liver. That is scoffing on
the corpse.
Another one is use of an unlicensed firearms and explosives under PD No. 1866, as amended by RA 8294. That is an
ordinary aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm or exclusive. The offender cannot be charged
independently of illegal possession. It is absorbed as ordinary aggravating. Unlicensed may be those with license, but
expired.
Additional Agravating Circumstance
1. When the crime is committed by a syndicate.
Syndicate refers to a group of 2 or more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually aiding one another for the
purpose of gain in the commission of any crime. This is an AC in crimes of estafa, theft, robbery or illegal recruitment.
2. When the offender commits the crime under the influence of drug.
3. Use of an unlicensed firearm in Homicide or Murder.
4. When the owner, driver or passenger of a carnapped vehicle is killed or raped.
Alternative Circumstances
ARTICLE 15. Their Concept. Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its
commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party is the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the
same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender
has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit
said felony; but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional it shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
Alternative Circumstances those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission.
51
It can be applied as aggravating; it can also be applied as mitigating. So depende. It does not tell us when it is mitigating
or when it is aggravating..Well..It tells us with respect to intoxication only. But for education or relationship, it does not tell
us.
Paano yan? How will you determine whether it is aggravating or mitigating? The rule iswe go to jurisprudence or how
the SC applied these circumstance and when they applied it as aggravating or when they deemed it as mitigating.
A. RELATIONSHIP
- Alternative circumstance in general;
- qualifying circumstance in parricide and rape;
- exempting circumstance in theft, malicious mischief and swindling.
Relative offenders:
a) Spouse
b) Ascendants
c) Descendants
d) Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters
e) Relative by affinity within the same degrees
Other relatives included:
1. Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter;

2. Adopted parent and adopted child
The killing by a step-daughter by a step-mother is aggravating. This is not pariccide. Why? Because it is not by
blood; it is not in the direct line.
People vs. Fernandez (October 5, 2007).Relationship cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common law
relations or first cousins. Also uncles and nieces are not covered.
When relationship is mitigating and when aggravating:
1. In crimes against property.
GR: relationship is mitigating
2.In crimes against persons.
a.It is aggravating when the offended party is a relative of a higher degree; or
b. When the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level.
3. When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a
relative of a lower degree.
4. In rape, relationship is aggravatingwhere a stepfather raped his stepdaughter or in case where a father
raped his daughter.
5. In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravatingregardless of

whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended party.
6. In physical injuries:
a. It is aggravating in serious physical injuries even if the offended party is a descendant of the offender.
b. It is mitigating in less serious physical injuries or slight physical injuries, if the offended party is a relative
of a lower degree, and mitigating if the offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender.
B. INTOXICATION
When mitigating
1. The consumption of alcoholic drinks was in such quantity as to blur the offenders reason and deprive him of a
certain degree of control; and
2. Intoxication must be non-habitual and unintentional.
It must not be habitual. But the problem here is when is drinking habitual? There is no hard and fast rule.
The cases would say that habitual need not be on a daily basis. Basta hindi lang makaestablish ng pattern. In the first
place, why is this taken as aggravating? Im presuming that you have been drunk one day or another.
If it is habitual, then it will be considered as aggravating. Why? Because kasalanan na yan. Because of your
habituality, you are placing yourself in a situation where your senses are diminished. You are prone to commit a crime
because of intoxication. Totoo naman talaga na kapag hubog eh marami kang lapses of judgment nyan. Usually, you are
prone to doing crimes and if you put yourself into that situation as a matter of habit, then, it will be taken against you.
52
But, if it is not habitual (nagkataon lang), then, that will not be taken against you. It will benefit you because of the
diminution of voluntariness. You are not in total control of your freedom or intelligence.
BUT section 27 of RA 9262 (VAWC Law): Being under the influence of alcohol or any illicit drug or any other mind
altering substance shall not be a defense against this act (RA 9262). Meaning, it will not affect the criminal
liability.
Take note also of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) Section 25: whether the use of drugs is
intentional or unintentional, habitual or non-habitual, the circumstance of under the influence of dangerous
drugs attending the commission of the crime is aggravating.
If intoxication is subsequent to the crime or the offense, it is aggravating. This means that you intentionally or
deliberately get drunk in order to commit the crime. Thats what it means when subsequent to commit the crime or felony.
And really, nakakapagbuo ng loobang lasing. There are people really who intoxicate themselves deliberately prior to the
commission of a crime para buo ang loob. If it is intentional, it will be taken against you and it will be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. But, if it is not intentional (nagkataon lang), then, it will be a mitigating circumstance.
Presumption: not habitual and not unintentional.
There is really no fixed rule regarding the degree of intoxication in order to be mitigating. Basta, it should be shown that it
was sufficient to deprive the person of self-control or to blur reason.
C. INSTRUCTION AND DEGREE OF EDUCATION
When mitigating Elements:
1. The offender, because of lack or low degree of instruction and education, could not have fully realized the
consequences of the criminal act;
2. The crime must not be inherently wrong that every man, schooled or ignorant, must have known its immoral
character.
When you say education..Nakaabot ka ug grade school or high school. But in some cases, the SC said nga kapag
makaabot gani ug grade something..so dili daw na sya lack of instruction kay nakaabot sya ug grade level. So meron
syang education. In some other cases, even if the accused has not gone to school or did not come to school at all, but it
seems that intelligent talaga sya..asa ba jud? What will prevail? Literacy or intelligence? A line of cases would seem to be
leaning towards intelligence instead of illiteracy.
The offender, because of lack of degree of education or instruction, could not have fully realized the consequences of his
action. Yan ang mitigating. But take note that even if low degree of education, there are some crimes where the SC said
that you dont have to have education or that high degree of intelligence to know that this crime is badthose crimes
which are mala in se. For example: killing, murder. No need of any degree of education to know that killing is inherently
wrong. So you must take that into consideration that the crime must not be inherently wrong that every man, schooled or
ignorant, must have known its immoral character.
Tests:
1. Schooling test and literacy test old test

2. Intelligence and knowledge test not literacy alone but also lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge to fully
realize the consequence of his criminal act are necessary. controlling test in recent jurisprudence.
Inherently immoral nature of the crime: (not mitigating)
1. Crimes against property robbery and theft

2. Crimes against person homicide and murder, rape (except those crimes committed under tribal law. For
example: patyon ta ni sya kay wakwak ni sya. It is considered mitigating.)
3. Crimes against chastity adultery
4. Treason - love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen
When aggravating Elements:
1. The offender possessed the high degree of instruction and education; and
2. Offender took advantage of such high degree of education in committing the crime.
When he possesses a high degree of instruction. But thats not it. He must take advantage of the high degree of education
in committing the crime. Suppose abugado ang akusado, naa siyay gikulata. Gamit ba diay ang high degree of instruction
ana? Example siguro, yung Chemist. Yung si Walter White. Breaking Bad. Chemist siya unya nagdiagnose siya ug lung
cancer. He cooked methamphetamine hydrochloride. Yun ginamit niya kanyang pagka-genius.
We go to Title II. Persons Criminally Liable For Felonies
ARTICLE 16. Who are Criminally Liable. The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
53
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
Relate this to:
ARTICLE 7. When Light Felonies are Punishable. Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against person or property.
Art 9 par 3 Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or
a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.
So lets go to principal.
ARTICLE 17. Principals. The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.
3 kinds of Principal:
1. Principal by Direct Participation

2. Principal by Inducement
3. Principal by Indispensable Cooperation
Actually, mas madali kung may conspiracy because all of them are principals. You dont have to determine na anong
klaseng principal ka. They are all liable.
PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
Person who takes a direct part in the execution of the act; he is the executor; the one who committed the crime. Or when
there is a conspiracy, he is the direct actor.
Meaning of: who take a direct part in the execution of the act
That the principal by direct participation must be at the scene of the commission of the crime personally taking part
in its execution.
Requisites:
1. The person participated in the criminal resolution, this means that there is a conspiracy because there is an
agreement in the criminal resolution.
2. The principal by direct participation carried out the plan and personally took part in the execution by acts directly
tended to the same end.
So it is not enough to have participated in the conspiracy kasi nga we said that conspiracy per se is not punishable. So
you cannot be a principal in the case. What is aside from being in conspiracy you actually take part in the execution of the
crime that you agreed upon, that means that you are a principal by direct participation. Remember that you actually take
part, to distinguish that from principal by inducement. Because a principal by inducement, storya lang xa. Inducement
lang, he does not take part in the commission of the offense. Kasi nga in direct participation there are two requisites: (1)
that he participated in the criminal resolution and (2) that he took a direct part in the execution of the crime. Now that is
important because no matter how small you role is you actually a principal that is why when you actually, personally carry
out the agreement, you personally take part in the commission of the crime, no matter how small your participation is,
principal ka. So yan that is one important effect of the conspiracy. There being a conspiracy and he takes part in the
actual commission of the crime, he becomes a principal by direct participation, no matter how small his part is.
Timbol Brothers, andyan sila apat. Where they planned, they prepared, etc. etc. they agreed to the plan, and on the day
of the commission of the crime, hindi xa sumali. So the others were prosecuted, what about this guy, who participated in
the criminal resolution but did not actually take part in the commission of the offense. Here, he is guilty only of a
conspiracy to commit a felony, is that a crime? No that is not a crime. Therefore, hindi xaits like desistance diba? You
are still in the subjective phase and once you desist, you are not criminally liable at that point. Once you do not take part,
then you do not incur criminal liability.
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
It is defined as one who directly induces or forces another to commit a crime.
So in effect you have two ways of becoming a principal by induction:
1. Forcing another to commit a crime
Yung sa directly forces, of course the one who is forced is exempt from criminal liability. So how are you forced to
commit a crime? By irresistible force or by uncontrollable fear. When that happens we know that the person
compelled is not liable because that is an exempting circumstance.
54
2. Inducing another to commit a crime
So principal by inducement,giving price, reward, promise or by using words of command.
Please take note that when a person induces it is in the nature of a proposal. In effect you are proposing the commission
of a crime. And like in proposal, the person proposing must have decided. He is serious. Hindi pwede yung yaga yaga
lang. So in effect the same principle in proposal and conspiracy kasi kung magpropose ka, I accept conspiracy xa. Ito
naman, the principal induces, he is serious, and somebody else, that is, the person induced agree.
Now, please take note ha, there can be no principal by inducement kung walang principal by direct participation,
kailangan may principal by direct participation. Hindi pwedeng principal by inducement lang, because that will be in the
nature of a proposal only, a proposal as a general rule, that is not punishable. The person proposing or inducing is not
criminally liable. unless of course when the law says it is punishable.
Like I said, the inducement must be serious. Nay naga share nga samok kaau iyang bana, ingnan ug patya na imong
bana! Unya gipatay. Is the person who gave the advice liable? Hindi, as long as he is not serious, then there can be no
criminal liability. Another usual example is yung wala akong pera, unya giingnan nga dali rana daghan kwarta ang banko
oh! Adto didto holdapa nang banko. So that is not the inducement that we are talking about.
Now requisites: In order that a person may be convicted as a principal by inducement, the following requisites must be
present:
That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime;
That such inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor.
Requisites for words of command:
(1) That the one who made the command must have an ascendancy or influence over the person who acted.
Usually ang example dito ay yung mga subordinate-superior relationship, where the words of command are taken to
inducement sufficient to commit the crime. And this usually points to the military.
(2) That the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, and so powerful as to amount to physical or moral
coercion. Yung like father to son, when somebody who is a father tells you to do something that amounts to an
inducement.
(3) The words of command must be uttered prior to the commission of the crime. Alangan naman nahuman,
muingon pakag patyan na nga patay naman.
(4) The material executor of the crime has no personal reason to commit the crime.
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
The key word there is of course indispensable. That which cannot be dispensed. In other words without the participation
of this guy, the crime would not have been committed. And ang example there usually is that when somebody wants to kill
someone in an island, so hiram xa ng Banca, the only Banca in that area to go to that place in that island. So ano yung
participation nung nagpahiram ng only boat? His participation is that of principal by indispensable cooperation. Because
the crime would not have been committed without his participation. It would have been a different story of course if there
had been several bancas there. Because the cooperation now is not indispensable, only necessary. So there is a
distinction, because if the cooperation was merely necessary, he cannot he a principal by indispensable cooperation, he
becomes now an accomplice.
Now the usual conflict here iswhen you say by another act.Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been accomplished. So for example rape, how do you commit rape? Thru
sexual assault or sexual intercourse. Marami kayo pero yung iba hindi talaga nag sexual intercourse with the victim.
Hinawakan yung kamay, hinawakan yung paa, etc. unya, is that sufficient to consider him..because it is another act diba?
Hindi man yan xa indispensable, if you are able to prove that then magiging accomplice yan. But again take note, when
you establish a conspiracy, wala na lahat yan, because the act of one is the act of all.
What are the requisites to be considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation?
Requisites:
Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal
purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and
Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without which it would not have
been accomplished.
ACCOMPLICES
Article 18. Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
Requisites:
1. The cooperator did not participate in the commission of the crime as a principal;
55
2. The cooperator knew and concurred in the criminal design of the chief actor;
3. The cooperator, concurred in the criminal design by performing previous or simultaneous acts;
4. Cooperators acts supplied material and moral aid in an efficacious way to the chief actor; and
5. There must be a relation between the acts of the chief actor and those of the cooperator.
Note: There can only be an accomplice if there is a principal by direct participation. The cooperation is not indispensible
but only necessary. His cooperation must be without being in conspiracy.
KNEW AND CONCURRED IN THE CRIMINAL DESIGN
How does an accomplice acquire knowledge of the criminal design of the principal:
a) When the principal informs or tells the accomplice of his criminal purpose
b) When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal and concurs with it
Conspiracy vs. Concurrence to Criminal Design

Conspiracy is the participation in the criminal resolution while Concurrence is only concurrence to the community of
design, not necessarily conspiracy, you just agree and cooperate. Participation in the criminal resolution is that you
are in active participation na kasama ka sa nagdecide to commit the crime. Concurrence to the criminal design, on the
other hand, is what is called Quasi-Collective Liability, hes not in a conspiracy but he cooperates, he merely concurs
to the criminal intent/design.
Example:
a) A and B has a common enemy C. A wants to physically injure C, B wants to kill C. A, inflicted physical injuries to
C then paglakaw niya, niabot si B na gisaksak si C. >>> CRIMINAL LIABILITY: No conspiracy liable individually
for their own actions. A: Physical injury, B: Homicide.
b) B stabbed C first. Then A arrived and saw B stabbing C, niapil pud si A na gisipasipa ug gisumbagsumbag si C.
nag pulihanay sila. Both of them dont know each other >>> CRIMINAL LIABILITY: No conspiracy. Quasi-
Collective Liability B Principal in Homicide. A -Accomplice.
c) A and B are in a conspiracy to kill C, A inflicts physical injuries, B stabs C. >>> CRIMINAL LIABILITY: Conspiracy
- Collective liability
Another Example:
Naay nipara sa taxi driver, 4 kabuok lalake. On the way to ladislawa, nadungog niya ang mga plano sa mga lalake
and he realizes that it was going to be a robbery. Then giingnan nila ang driver na maghintay ka lang dito ha!
Ipadayon lang nang imong metro
a) If the taxi driver stays accomplice. Because he knew the criminal design and he concurred to it by staying. He
was merely told to stay.
b) If the taxi driver is asked unsa man ok ka?? then he agrees and he stays principal. Because there is already
conspiracy, hes a participant to the criminal resolution.
Distinctions between conspirator and accomplices
Conspirators Accomplices
Conspirators know the Accomplices come to know about the criminal intent after the principals have made the
criminal intent because decision and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution.
they themselves have
decided upon such
course of action.
Conspirator decide that Accomplices merely concur in the criminal decision; do not decide whether the crime
the crime should be should be committed
committed.
Authors of the crime Merely their instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense
Common characteristic:
They know and agree with the criminal design
Distinction between principal by indispensible cooperation and accomplice
Principal by Accomplice
Indispensable
Cooperation
One must participate in Requisites:
the criminal resolution, a) A community of design knowing the criminal design of the principal by DP, he
ac conspiracy or unity in concurs with the latter in his purpose
criminal purpose and b) He cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts
cooperation in the c) There must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to
commission of the
56
offense by performing the person charged as accomplice
another act without
which it would not have
been accomplished
If doubt exists as to the nature of liability courts should resolve to favor the milder form of responsibility, that of
an accomplice
Quasi-Collective Responsibility some offenders in a crime are principals and others are accomplices.
Distinction between Community of design and participation in the criminal resolution
Community of design participation in the criminal resolution
Does not necessarily Implies conspiracy.

mean that there is
conspiracy, although it
may develop into a
conspiracy
If there was no such If a malefactor entered with others into an agreement concerning the commission of a
agreement and decision felony and a decision to commit it, the malefactor and the others participated in the
but knowing the criminal criminal resolution.
design of the others, the
malefactor concurred in
the criminal purpose,
there is only a
community of design. A
malefactor whose role is
reasonably minor in
character is liable as an
accomplice
PREVIOUS OR SIMULTANEOUS ACTS
- He acted before the crime or while the crime is being committed

- Ex: if you want to kill A but you dont have a gun, so you borrow from a friend B, and you tell B you are intending to
use it to kill somebody. B is an accomplice. He cooperated previous to the crime by a previous act which is not
indispensible but only necessary, because you can still kill A some other way.
Distinction as to time of cooperation
Accomplice Accessory
By a previous or simultaneous act before the crime or during Subsequent act after the crime
the crime.
ACCESSORY
ARTICLE 19. Accessories. Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission
in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts
with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or
an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
REQUISITES OF ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT
1. Crime was committed by principal
2. the participator must have knowledge of the commission of the crime by the principal
3. the participator did not participate in the commission of the crime as principal or accomplice
4. the participator took part in the commission of the crime by performing subsequent acts.
57
Take note also of the additional requisites of accessories. Relate this to article 16 and article 20.
Article 16 crime committed by the principal must be a grave or less grave felony
Article 20 in case of accessory of the 2nd or 3rd kind, the principal must not be spouse, ascendant, descendant,
brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees of the accessory.
xxx
discovery.
Now, one principle in criminal is that the accessory follows the principal. There must be a principal in order for the
accessory to exist. The usual issues here are what if the principal is acquitted or exempt or has absconded from criminal
liability. The question is can the accessory be prosecuted alone? Can you say na because there is no principal to be
prosecuted then there should be no accessory to be prosecuted also in line with principle that the accessory follows the
principal? Anyway, there are doctrines here that are applicable.
Billon Doctrine (pp vs billon) - even if the principal was not tried and convicted, offender may be held liable as
accessory as long as there is evidence that the crime was committed by the principal.
VINO vs People, the SC made 3 pronouncements:
1. Acquittal of the prinicipal must likewise result in the acquittal of the accessory since it was shown that no crime was
committed;
2. If the principal died or escaped before he could be tried and sentenced, accessory may be held criminally liable;
3. If the principal was not identified but the accessory was identified, the latter can be prosecuted and held liable
independently of the assailant.
The basic requirement of all these is that the crime was proven to have been committed by the principal.
3 modes of becoming an accessory:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
The usual example here is kung may kidnapping. Nakuha nila ang ransom money tapos binigyan ka ng share as balato.
Take note na dapat you know of the existence of the crime. Your participation comes after that because you profited by
receiving part of the ransom. Or when you receive stolen property from your friend whom you know is a magnanakaw.
Kunwari binigyan ka nya ng cellphone saying na imuha na ni pre oh, malinis pagkatrabaho ko nyan kagabi tapos
gidawat nimo. Or if you help the offender to profit, you are also considered as accessory.
Now, you have to relate this to PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law of 1979)
What is fencing? the act of any person, who with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him to have been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
Please take note of the phrase or should be known to him kasi if accessory ka you need to know that the crime has been
committed. But here in the anti fencing law, it is already enough that YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. There are
circumstances that should raise a red flag. Like for example, why is this ipad being sold to me for only 500 pesos when
the original price of this is about 15 thousand? So something is wrong with this transaction. That should put you on alert.
Therefore, if it falls under that phrase or should be known to you then you qualify as a fence already.
Take note that the crime committed must have been a crime of robbery or theft and that he deals in any manner of the
proceeds of this crime. And he knows, or should have known that these are proceeds of the said crimes.
What is important to remember in fencing is the presumption. The presumption under section 5 where it says:
Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which
has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Mere possession lang, the presumption agad nyan is that you are a fence. The burden of evidence will be shifted to you.
Now, isnt that unconstitutional? Diba may constitutional provision man na presumption of innocence? Eh bakit dito may
presumption of guilt as a fence? That was answered in the case of:
DIZON-PAMINTUAN vs. PEOPLE 234 SCRA 63
Since Section 5 of P.D. No. 1612 expressly provides that "[m]ere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything
of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing," it follows that the
58
petitioner is presumed to have knowledge of the fact that the items found in her possession were the proceeds of robbery
or theft. The presumption is reasonable for no other natural or logical inference can arise from the established fact
of her possession of the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. This presumption does not offend the
presumption of innocence enshrined in the fundamental law.
Nevertheless, the constitutional presumption of innocence may be overcome by contrary presumptions based on the
experience of human conduct [People vs. Labara, April 20, 1954]. Unexplained flight, for example, may lead to an
inference of guilt, as 'the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous is as bold as a lion. Failure on the part of
the accused to explain his possession of stolen property may give rise to the reasonable presumption that it was he
himself who had stolen it [U.S. vs. Espia, 16 Phil. 506]. Under our Revised Penal Code, the inability of an accountable
officer to produce funds or property entrusted to him will be considered prima facieevidence that he has appropriated
them to his personal use [Art. 217]. According to Cooley, the constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is
"some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from
proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary mandate" [1 Cooley, 639].
Take note ha, there robbery or theft, you take note in the commission thereafter, you liability may be DUAL.
1. Under the revised penal code you are an accessory and your penalty is 2 degrees lower than the principal.
2. BUT at the same time you are a principal for the violation of the anti-fencing law. And this carries higher penalty.
You have to remember also na if special law, that is malum prohibitum and so criminal intent is not essential. All you have
to determine is whether may violation ba. In robbery and theft, that is malum inse and so you need to prove criminal
intent.
Also, relate this to brigandage and privacy.
1. The rule is you are liable as accessory in the RPC
2. But you are liable as ACCOMPLICE for the same act in PD 532. What are the acts punished under this special law?
The offender protects or aids pirates, or brigands or highway robbers
Directly or indirectly abetting the commission of piracy or highway robbery or brigandage
abets to encourage, incite or set another to commit a crime.
discovery.
You dont have to bring the body of the dead person literally. You only have to prove the fact that the crime has been
committed.
Body of the crime (corpus delicti) as the body or substance of the crime and in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a
crime has actually been committed.
Therefore, where you conceal the literal body, the physical body mismo, in effect you are concealing the fact that the
crime is committed. Concealing the body of the crime is in effect concealing the crime itself.
PP vs Ortega.There was this case where the accused intented to conceal the body, the physical body of the victim. Gi
bury nya. Later it was found out that katong pag lubong nya, buhi pa diay tong victim. What is liability now? Of course,
kasi buhay pa yun pag libing niya, eh di cya na ang principal ngayon for the death of the victim. He cannot be held simply
as an accessory where it was proven that the victim was actually alive but subsequently died as a result of the
concealment and burial, applying article 4: you are responsible for the natural and direct consequences of you action.
Remember, here you can be held liable as accessory under the RPC for concealing the body of the crime and as
principal for obstruction of justice PD 1829.
What is punished under PD 1829?
Offender knowingly or wilfully obstructs, impedes, or frustrates the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases
or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.
The offender alters, destroys, suppresses or conceals any paper, record document nor object
The offender intended to impair the veracity, authenticity, legibility, availability or admissibility of the said paper,
record, document, or object as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in criminal cases, or to be
used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in criminal cases.
So what are the differences?
a. The accessory under RPC destroys or conceals the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof.
While in PD 1829, destroys or conceals the document or object to be used as evidence in a case, may include the
body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof.
b. In the RPC, the body of the crimes is destroyed to prevent its discovery. While in PD 1829, the destruction or
concealment is to prevent its availability as evidence in a criminal case.
59
Suppose that A and B killed X. After the killing, A and B burned the dead body of X to prevent its discovery. Can A and B
be charged as accessories of the crime of murder or with the crime of obstruction of justice?
Answer: Sila man ang pumatay kay X, so hindi sila accessory. Rather, principal sila ng murder under the RPC. But
because they concealed the body to prevent the discovery, principal din sila ng obstruction of justice, PD1829.
They can no longer be charged as accessories because they have already participated as principals in the commission of
murder. Out na ang accessory. But for the same act, the concealment, they can be liable under special law, PD 1829 - to
impair its availability in a criminal case.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory
acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide,
murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime.
2 kinds:
1. Public officer who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal of any crime (except for light
felony) with abuse of his public functions.
Requisites:
a. The accessory is a public officer;

b. He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal;
c. The public officers acts with abuse of his public functions;
d. The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony.
2. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime or the principal:
a. Who is guilty of treason, parricide, murder or an attempt gainst the life of the Chief Executive;
b. Who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crimes.
Note: If the one who assisted is merely an accomplice, there is no accessory.
Now this time, the one who is harbored is the principal of the crime, not the body of the crime. Take note that the act of
concealment must be an active act. Because if you witness a commission of a crime and you do not do anything about it,
you close your eyes, wala kang ginawa. Tapos nalaman mo may CCTV pala doon. Kita ng police. Can they file a case
against you? They cannot. There is no law na kailangan magreport ka if not ikaw ang file-an ng kaso. Being passive is not
a crime. That is not tantamount to concealing or harboring the principal. Hindi pwede passive act, dapat active act.
It would be different, however, if you witnessed a crime, then went to the authorities and you provided them with
information that is wrong. Misinformation, misdirection, parang ganun. Ibang usapan na yan. That is an active act on your
part.
Take note that PD 1829 may again come into play here.
Under section 1: any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the
apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases.
So frustrates, you are in effect concealing the principal, assisting in the escape of the principal. So basically the same act.
So, under the RPC, you are an accessory, and under PD 1829, ibang usapan yan because you are a principal for
obstruction of justice.
Under section 1 also: harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to
prevent his arrest prosecution and conviction.
What if the crime committed by the principal is not among those listed? Like rape. He cannot be an accessory under the
RPC. But in PD 1829, wala naka-enumerate doon what crimes. Therefore, that guy, who is not an accessory under the
RPC may be held liable as principal under PD 1829.
Another question. So, public officer, let's say a policeman, conceals a principal who is a friend. But the principal friend
committed a light felony. Accessories are not liable for a light felony. So, is he liable under PD 1829? Ang nakalagay sa
1829: the offender knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, or suspects that the person he assisted has committed
any offense under existing penal laws. So according to Inigo, pwede siya maging liable as principal of obstruction of
justice. PD 1829 does not distinguish, does not list the offenses covered.
ARTICLE 20. Accessories Who are Exempt from Criminal Liability. The penalties prescribed for accessories
shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the
single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
xxx
discovery.
60
Again, will this apply under PD 1829? Wala man nakalagay diyan na PD1829. You may be exempt under Article 20,
pero igo na pud ka didto sa PD 1829. Wala man gisabi doon na relationship is exempting. So, be careful with
respect to the act of the accessory.
Penalties in General
Penalty - suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of the law. It signifies pain, it is suffering undergone
because the action of human society by one who commits a crime.
Penalty is necessarybecause useless man magsige tag define ug crime unya walay mahitabo.The penalty should make
you suffer. Dili dapat ka malipay sa penalty.
Different juridical conditions of penalty:
1. Must be productive of suffering, without however affecting the integrity of the human personality.
Testingi daw didto sa presohan kung di maaffect imong integrity. Labi na karon, ang atong presohan na good for 50
and sulod kay 250.
2. Must be commensurate with the offense.Diba, classical theory.
Proportional - there is a direct proportion between the crime and the punishment.
3. Must be personal.
It is to be imposed upon you personally. You cannot give it away. Generous kasi ako. Parang Bruno Mars, I will
catch a grenade for you. Hindi pwede yan. It cannot be passed through succession also.
4. Must be legal. It must be the consequence of a judgment.Again, nullum crimen.
5. Must be certain. No one may escape its effects.
6. Must be equal for all.
7. Must be correctional. The purpose is to reform. To correct. Kaya nga ang tawag Department of Corrections.
Purpose of penalty - to secure justice. The State has an existence of its own to maintain, a conscience of its own to
assert, and moral principles to be vindicated.
Relate this also to the Constitution. "Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted." As to cruel, degrading or inhuman, sa unang panahon, lahi ang definition sa ila. Karon, lahi pud.
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice.Sabi "death penalty per se is not cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death; but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the
meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It implies something barbarous, something more than the mere
extinguishment of life."
Of course, we know that RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. Take note that law merely prohibited the
implementation, but it did not abolish the death penalty. Sabi lang it is prohibited from being implemented. It did not say
that the death penalty is abolished. Nandiyan pa siya, hindi lang pwede i-implement. So in lieu of the death penalty,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment shall be imposed.
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.
Again, go back to the basic - nullum crimen. There is no crime when there is no law.
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this
Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict
is serving the same.
We already talked about this in retroactivity, yung characteristic of criminal law.
What is the reason for retroactivity? Because when you amend the law, yung dating law, mali yun. This one is the good
law. Kaya nga we came up with this new law. If you insist on using the old law, then hindi tayo consistent. If this is now
good law, then ito na dapat. And those affected should benefit if hindi ka kasali doon sa exceptions.
Pp. v. Moran: The sovereign, in enacting a subsequent penal law more favorable to the accused, has recognized that the
greater severity of the former law is unjust. The sovereign would be inconsistent if it would still enforce its right under
conditions of the former law, which has already been regarded by conscientious public opinion as juridically burdensome.
61
Please take note that this retroactivity does not apply to civil liability. Why? Because the rights of offended persons or
innocent third parties are not within the gift of arbitrary disposal of the State.
Kaninong interest pala yan? Sa offended party yang civil liability. The State has no interest in that. Precisely, the offended
party can waive the civil. The State can waive the criminal, through the President.
Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal
action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured
party is extinguished by his express waiver.
ARTICLE 344. Prosecution of the Crimes of Adultery, Concubinage, Seduction, Abduction, Rape and Acts of
Lasciviousness.
xxx In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The
provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the
fact of the abovementioned crimes.
GR: A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action. It is not one of those listed as a ground for
extinction under Art89 of the RPC. But civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is extinguished by the
express waiver of the offended party.
Read this together with Article 36 to compare the effects of these two kinds of Pardon.
Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right
of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the
sentence.
The President can pardon and that takes care of the criminal penalty. The offended party can pardon and that rids of the
civil aspect of the penalty imposed.
XPN:Express pardon by the offended party will bar criminal prosecution in the following crimes:
a. Concubinage
b. Adultery
c. Seduction
d. Abduction
e. Acts of lasciviousness
Art. 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are not considered penalties. The following shall not be
considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of insanity or
imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes specified
therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers,
superior officials may impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form.
Reason they are not penalties: They are not imposed as a result of conviction in judicial proceedings.
Preventive and corrective measures are not penalties. Penalty is always imposed upon conviction in a criminal
case. Preventive measures take place before conviction while corrective measures are imposed not in a criminal case.
Thus, a fine imposed by a superior officer to a subordinate in the exercise of administrative power is a corrective measure.
But a sine imposed upon the accused convicted in a criminal case constitutes a penalty.
Classification of Penalties
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and
their different classes, are those included in the following:
Scale
Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
62
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.
Accessory Penalties

Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
Payment of costs.
Aprincipal penalty is imposed by the court expressly in a judgment of conviction.
An accessory penalty is a penalty which is deemed imposed in the principal if not mentioned in the decision. The
accessory penalty need not be expressly mentioned in the judgment of conviction.
Example:
Reclusion temporal, but there is no mention of accessory. It still applies, because accessory penalties are deemed
imposed together with the principal even if it is not written there.
There is a decision finding the accused guilty and meted out a penalty of suspension for one year. That is all that is written
there. However, there is none written there without pay. It does not say Suspended without pay. Can it be claimed that
there should be no payment? No, it is inherent in the penalty. Otherwise, it would be vacation and not suspension.
ARTICLE 26. Fine When Afflictive, Correctional or Light Penalty. A fine, whether imposed as a single or as
an alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty,
if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty, if it be less than 200 pesos.
The issue here is: What if it is exactly 200?
If a felony, it is a light felony pursuant to Art9, RPC.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos or both, is provided.
If a penalty, then it is correctional penalty pursuant to Art26, RPC. Since it is a correctional penalty, it prescribed in 10
years.
A correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos
Also, penalties cannot be imposed in the ALTERNATIVE. Although it is written in the law punishable by arresto mayor or
fine or both at the jurisdiction of the Court. Is it allowed? No. It cannot be imposed in the Alternative. It may be Arresto
Mayor and Fine but not Arresto Mayor or fine.
63
Duration and Effect of Penalties
Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after
undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other serious
cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon.
Reclusion temporal. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary
disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification
is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. The duration of the penalties of prision correccional,
suspension and destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is
imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six
months.
Arresto menor. The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days.
Bond to keep the peace. The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the
court may determine.
People vs. Lucas, although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20)
years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an
indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty.
Art. 28. Computation of penalties. If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the temporary
penalties shall be computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final.
If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be
computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement
of the penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant
commences to serve his sentence.
The period of detention will be credited to the service of the sentence of the accused. Usually, one puts up bail to remain
free even during trial. But sometimes, the person cannot pay the bail so that he is detained that is why he is called a
detention prisoner. If the offense is non-bailable, he will be detained.
Suppose, that he was convicted. What happens to the temporary detention? The rule is that it will be credited but it
depends on certain rules.
ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. Offenders or accused who
have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the
detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance
of counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following
cases:
1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.
Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30)
years.
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall
be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if
the same is under review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this
paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance: Provided, however, That if
the accused is absent without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court maymotu proprio order the
rearrest of the accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged
with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.
As amended by RA 10592, July 23, 2012.
Relate this to:
ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution,
64
rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the
period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of
good behavior during detention;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-
three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction
of twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during detention;
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days
for each month of good behavior during detention; and
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in
addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered.
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct.As
amended by RA 10592, July 23, 2012.
Also, refer to RA 7309 AN ACT CREATING A BOARD OF CLAIMS
Section 3. Who may File Claims. The following may file claims for compensation before the Board:
(a) any person who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but subsequently released by virtue of a
judgment of acquittal;
(b) any person who was unjustly detained and released without being charged;
(c) any victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by the authorities as defined in the Revised Penal Code under a final
judgment of the court; andlawphi1
(d) any person who is a victim of violent crimes. For purposes of this Act, violent crimes shall include rape and
shall likewise refer to offenses committed with malice which resulted in death or serious physical and/or
psychological injuries, permanent incapacity or disability, insanity, abortion, serious trauma, or committed with
torture, cruelly or barbarity.
Section 4. Award Ceiling. For victims of unjust imprisonment or detention, the compensation shall be based on
the number of months of imprisonment or detention and every fraction thereof shall be considered one month;
Provided, however, That in no case shall such compensation exceed One Thousand pesos (P1,000.00) per
month.
In all other cases, the maximum amount for which the Board may approve a claim shall not exceed Ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00) or the amount necessary to reimburse the claimant the expenses incurred for hospitalization,
medical treatment, loss of wage, loss of support or other expenses directly related to injury, whichever is lower.
This is without prejudice to the right of the claimant to seek other remedies under existing laws.
Effects of the Penalties According to Their Respective Nature
ARTICLE 30. Effects of the Penalties of Perpetual or Temporary Absolute Disqualification. The penalties of
perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held, even if conferred by
popular election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular elective office or to be elected to such
office.
3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article
shall last during the term of the sentence.
4. The loss of all right to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held.
ARTICLE 31. Effects of the Penalties of Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification. The penalties of
perpetual or temporary special disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce the following
effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected;
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either perpetually or during the term of the
sentence, according to the extent of such disqualification.
65
ARTICLE 32. Effects of the Penalties of Perpetual or Temporary Special Disqualification for the Exercise of the
Right of Suffrage. The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage
shall deprive the offender perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty,
of the right to vote in any popular election for any public office or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the
offender shall not be permitted to hold any public office during the period of his disqualification.
Article 30 effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification.
Article 31 effects of penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification.
Article 32 effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of
suffrage.
Ano ang difference ng perpetual disqualification at nung disqualification at yung temporary?
Perpetual disqualifies the convict from the exercise of his rights during his lifetime. That penalty is indivisible.
Temporary considered a divisible penalty and deprives the convict from the exercise of his rights during his
sentence.
Now, remember that these disqualifications have their own respective durations. So you follow the durations. If they are
an accessory penalty, then, they follow the duration of the principal penalty.
ARTICLE 33. Effects of the Penalties of Suspension from Any Public Office, Profession or Calling, or the Right of
Suffrage. The suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage
shall disqualify the offender from holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having similar functions during the
period of his suspension.
Article 33 effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, profession or calling or the right of suffrage.
ARTICLE 34. Civil Interdiction. Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of
the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, of marital
authority, of the right to manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos.
Civil interdiction is the accessory penalty for the penalties of death RP and RT. When you commit a crime punished with
these penalties, then, you cannot dispose of your property during your lifetime. But, if you intend to make a will, to take
effect upon your deaththat is allowed because you are not prohibited from disposing of your properties mortis causa.
ARTICLE 35. Effects of Bond to Keep the Peace. It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to
keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit the
offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined
by the court in its judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the court to
guarantee said undertaking.
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be detained for a period which shall in no
case exceed six months, if he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed
thirty days, if for a light felony.
ARTICLE 36. Pardon; Its Effects. A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or
the right of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the
sentence.
Executive clemency pardoning power of the president. It is an act of forgiveness which thus relieves the person
pardoned from the penal consequences of the crime but does not obliterate the crime itself.
So, even if you are pardoned you are still a recidivist. The crime is still there. Unlike in amnesty, it erases all vestiges of
the crime. Also, remember that the pardon can only come after conviction because there is nothing to pardon if you have
not been found guilty in the first place. This is discretionary on the part of the president.
The reason for this is that pardon..ano ba yung sources of obligation? The source of obligation in criminal law is ex
delictothat which arises from the crime or the act or omission punished by the RPC.
According to the first part of the provision, unless expressly restored or expressly stated in the terms of the pardon, the
right to vote, etc are not restored. This is an exception to the principle that the accessory follows the principal. Kasi diba,
in the natural course of things, if the accessory follows the principalif there is a pardon, then, necessarily, the accessory
should also be pardoned. Pero, ditto sa provision, hindi, unless nakalagay sa pardon na kasama ang accessory penalties.
66
Usually, if the pardon, if it is meant to include the accessory penalties, it would be worded this way: you are hereby
pardoned and restored to your full civil and political rights. It would be like that. Pero, kapag you are hereby pardoned,
apil ba ang accessory penalty diri? No. So this is an exception to the principle that the accessory follows the principal.
Distinction between pardon granted by the offended party and pardon granted by the President
1. Pardon by the offended party applies only to crimes against chastity under the RPC and rape, while pardon by the
Chief Executive applies to any crime.
2. Pardon by the offended party in seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness benefits the co-principals, accomplices
and accessories. In adultery and concubinage, the pardon must include both offenders. Pardon by the Chief
Executive can be granted to any or all of the accused.
3. Pardon by the offended party cannot be made subject to a condition while pardon by the Chief Executive may be
absolute or conditional.
ARTICLE 37. Costs What are Included. Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial
proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force,
or amounts not subject to schedule.
ARTICLE 38. Pecuniary Liabilities Order of Payment. In case the property of the offender should not be
sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused.
2. Indemnification of consequential damages.
3. The fine.
4. The costs of the proceedings.
Art. 39. Subsidiary Penalty. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph
3 of the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each
amount equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of
judgment of conviction by the trial court, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correctional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement
until his fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed
one-third of the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or
part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months,
if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for
a fight felony.
3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correctional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty
is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to
suffer the same deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not
relieve him from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve.As amended by RA 10159, July 25,
2011.
Subsidiary penalty
An auxiliary personal liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property with which to pay the fine.
Proper only if the accused has no property with which to pay the fine and not as a matter of choice on his aprt by
opting to go to jail instead of paying.
It must be expressly imposed by the Court in order that the convict may be required to serve it.
Take note of the instances when there is no subsidiary liability:
1. Reparation
2. Indemnification
3. Costs
4. When the penalty is higher than prision correctional
5. When the penalty, which has a fine, is not to be executed through confinement in a penal institution and this has no
fixed duration
6. When the subsidiary penalty is not expressly mentioned in the judgment of conviction
Remember that this is not an accessory penalty because they are those which may be imposed even
67
without it being mentioned in the judgment.
Since this is not an accessory penalty, if the convict has to serve this, it has to be expressly stated in the
judgment of conviction.
If it is not expressly stated in the judgment, then, the convict cannot be compelled to undergo the
subsidiary liability.
Usually, sa judgment nilalagay dyan with subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency.
Let me ask you a question: suppose the penalty imposed is not higher than prision correctional but the accused is a
habitual delinquent. Remember that the when the accused is a habitual delinquent there is an additional penalty that is
why it is called an extraordinary aggravating circumstance. Meaning that your principal penalty is not more than prision
correctional but since you are a habitual delinquent ang mangyayari eh lalampas ka talaga sa prision correctional
because of the additional penalty.
Can you be compelled to undergo subsidiary liability or imprisonment? The answer is no. You consider the total penalty
including the penalty for habitual delinquency. So, pag-idagdag mo na ang penalty for the habitual delinquency eh
lalampas ka na sa PC and the rule says that there shall be no subsidiary liability in case the penalty is higher than PC. So,
it is the penalty actually imposed by the court that is considered and not the penalty provided by the RPC. So, it is the
penalty actually imposed by the court. Meaning, kasama na dun ang penalty ng habitual delinquent. The additional
penalty should be included in determining whether subsidiary imprisonment should be imposed.
Another question: suppose that the penalty is higher than PC but there is a privilege mitigating circumstance, meaning the
penalty will be lowered by 1 degree. Mahimo na sya PC. So, is there now subsidiary liability? The answer is yes. Kasi sabi
ko kanina na it is the penalty actually imposed and not the penalty prescribed by the RPC.
Penalties in Which Other Accessory Penalties are Inherent
Art. 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation or
pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty
years following the date sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Kung death ang penalty mo, meron paring accessory penalty if it is not executed because your sentence was commuted
or you were given a pardon. So, if wala na-commute iyong penalty or wala ka na-pardon eh di wala kang accessory
penalty.
Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal; Their accessory penalties. The penalties of reclusion
perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the
sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even
though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Distinction between Life Imprisonment from Reclusion Perpetua
a. Life Imprisonment is a penalty imposable for violation of special law. Reclusion perpetua is imposable for violation
of the RPC.
b. Life imprisonment has no fixed duration. Reclusion Perpetua has a fixed duration 20yrs 1 day to 40 yrs.
c. Life imprisonment has no accessory penalties. Reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties.
Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties. The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it that of
temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffrage which
the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory penalties. The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it that
of suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months.
The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in the article although pardoned as to the principal penalty,
unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the
right too hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. Every penalty imposed for the
commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools
with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless
they be property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful
commerce shall be destroyed.
Take note that this article (confiscation and forfeiture) is one which may be applied under special laws.Mao na sya nga
ginadauban ang mga marijuana nga maconfiscate sa public plaza.
68
Remember that confiscation and forfeiture they are in the nature of additional penalties. Hence, they should be included in
the decision. They are not accessory penalties. They are additional penalties, thus, they have to be provided for in the
decision.
For example, hindi nalagay sa decision ang confiscation and forfeiture. So hindi na maconfiscate. But, the accused
appeals. The question is, can it be imposed by the appellate court? The rule is yes. When the accused appeals, they may
be imposed by the appellate court. The appeal of the accused removes all bars for the correction of the imposition of the
penalty by the court below even if an increase therein shall result. Kasi nga diba additional penalty ito, so there will be an
increase in penalty if the appellate court will impose confiscation and forfeiture which was not provided by the lower court.
Rules for the Application of Penalties to the Persons Criminally Liable and for the Graduation of the Same
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. The penalty prescribed by law for the commission
of a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the
consummated felony.
Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. The penalty next lower in degree than
that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. A penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a
felony.
Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. The penalty next lower in degree
than that prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of
a consummated felony.
Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. The penalty
lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
accessories to the commission of a consummated felony.
Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. The penalty next lower in degree than
prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a
frustrated felony.
Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. The penalty lower by two degrees
than that prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission
of a frustrated felony.
Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. The penalty next lower in degree
than that prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an
attempt to commit the felony.
Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. The penalty lower by two degrees
than that prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to
commit a felony.
Diagram of the application of Articles 50 to 57
Stages Consummated Frustrated Attempted

Stage Stage Stage
Princip 0 (article 46) 1 2

al
Accom 1 2 3
plice
Access 2 3 4
ories
So here, you have to know what a degree is and what a period is. Ang degree is the whole penalty. Like, Reclusion
temporal, is a degree. What is a period then? A period is 1/3 of a degree/penalty. Kasi ang penalty is classified into
divisible and indivisible, ngayon yang periods na yan, applicable only to divisible penalties. This is the minimum, medium
and the maximum.
69
But sometimes, a period may be considered a degree. When it is the penalty provided for by the revised penal code.
EXAMPLE: prision correctional minimum period. That is the penalty provided by law, even if it is a period, its nature is not
that of a period, it is a degree by itself because it is the penalty provided for by law. Such that, what is the penalty next
lower? Sabuhin natin, and penalty provided by law is prision correctional medium. And then you need to know the penalty
for the accomplice, the penalty for the accomplice is one degree lower than the penalty for the principal in a consummated
offense. Ano ngayon ang one degree lower?
Illustration.
RP
RT
PM
PC Max
Med Max
Med
Min
Min
AMa
AMe
X X X All of these, these are by themselves, degrees. That is why when you need to know the penalty, pagsinabing one
degree lower, ito ang ifollow mo. What is one degree lower than RT? It is PM. What is 2 degrees lower? PC. Now, a
period is different, because a period is one third of a degree. Each one, they are divisible penalties (divisible into 3) which
we call periods, which we call the minimum, the medium and the maximum. This is good only for purposes of determining
the penalty when there is a mitigating circumstance. So what happens if there is a mitigating circumstance? A mitigating
circumstance serves to lower the penalty to the minimum period. Aggravating, what is the effect? Maximum ngayon. What
if there are 3 aggravating and 2 mitigating, what do you do? You off set. Anong natira nyan, syempre, one aggravating.
And if there is one aggravating, maximum ang period. Ngayon pano pag walang circumstance present in the commission
of the offense? Medium.
Now, sabi ko, sometimes a period is considered as a penalty. In that case it is not regarded as a period. It is considered a
degree. When the revised penal code provides for the penalty of prision correctional medium as a penalty for a felony, this
is not a period, it is a degree which you can further divide into 3. For purposes of getting the penalty when there is a
mitigating, aggravating.
Suppose there are two mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance. One degree lower because
two mitigating without aggravating serves to operate as a privilege mitigating thus lower the penalty by a degree. But
remember there should be at the first instance no aggravating.
Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed. The death penalty shall be imposed in all
cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases:
1. When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age.
2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme court, all the members thereof are not unanimous
in their voting as to the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. For the imposition of said penalty or
for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court imposing the death sentence, the Supreme Court shall
render its decision per curiam, which shall be signed by all justices of said court, unless some member or
members thereof shall have been disqualified from taking part in the consideration of the case, in which even
the unanimous vote and signature of only the remaining justices shall be required.
Just know that these are the cases where death penalty should not be imposed. When the guilty is below 18 at the time of
the commission of the crime. You always reckon at the time of the commission of the crime. Same lang na kung tigulang
naka. Kung si Manong Johnny ma found guilty and kung naa pa tay death penalty, dili jud na xa mapatay sa gobyerno kay
more than 70 years old na xa.
The other one is when on appeal or automatic review, the majority vote is not reached.
Skip muna natin ang complex crimes.
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended.
In cases in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the
following rules shall be observed:
70
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the
accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the
accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the
guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher
penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated
crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
What does this remind you of? When the crime committed is different from the crime intended. Doon ka sa Article 4
paragraph 1.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
X X X
And what are the 3 instances there? (1) Aberratio Ictus (2) Error in personae (3) Praeter intentionem. It seems that this
article is referring to that.
But if you look at Article 49, you will discover that something is wrong. Why is something wrong?
FIRST RULE: If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which
the accused intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Praeter intentionem:
Your intention is physical injuries, now the felony committed is homicide. Now, under this rule, since the penalty for the
felony intended is lower, ito dapat ang penalty but in its maximum period.
Sugot ka ana? X X X in other words, Article 49 is not applicable to cases of praeter intentionem. What matters most
is what? What matters is ARTICLE 4. You are liable to all direct, logical and natural consequences. Doctrine of proximate
cause.
Now we go to aberration ictus:
You want to kill A pero banga ka, you killed B instead. Is this applicable to Article 49? Ito kasi, you have here a single act,
binaril nya si A ang naigo si B. what is that? This is where a single act gives rise to two grave or less grave felonies. And
what is that? Look at Article 48. It is a complex crime. As to A that is attempted homicide, as to B that is consummated
homicide. SO ano ngayon ang penalty, according to 48, the penalty to be imposed is the penalty for the most serious
crime to be imposed in its maximum period. So here Homicide is the most serious crime to be imposed in its maximum.
Human asa naman ang rule sa 49 nga naga ingon nga ang i-apply kay kung asa ang gamay. Again, 49 is not applicable
to cases of aberration ictus.
Error in personae:
You want to kill A, A turned out to be B. Human karon ang intention, homicide, ang actual crime homicide. Pareho lang
man ang penalty. Unsaon nimo pag apply ana?
The only way this Article 49 can apply is in this example. Error in personae again but this time put in a
circumstance like a relationship. You want to kill your father, human imong napatay kay a total stranger. Parricide is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. This time Artcle 49 ka. Ano ang
intention? Parricide. The felony committed is lower. Dito ka. So temporal but its maximum period.
Or baliktarin, you wanted to kill A you killed B instead who is your father. Again go back to Article 49. The intention is
homicide, which is lower than the felony actually committed which is parricide. So what penalty are you going to impose?
The penalty should be this one, the penalty of the felony intended but in its maximum period.
Ano yan number 3 rule dyan? According to Inigo, forget that. According to Reyes it is not necessary.
Art. 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories. Those accessories falling within the
terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public functions, shall
suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a
grave felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony.
Please take note that being an accessory penalty it should be expressly mentioned in the decision, the judgment of
conviction. Always remember that.
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims
sought are impossible. When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for
71
the execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act
intended was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person
are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger
and the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a
fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
Now, 59 is the penalty where the crime is impossible. So impossible crime is really a crime because it has a penalty. Diba,
nullum crimen so crime talaga yan xa.
Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57,
inclusive, of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty
provided for a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
Now, 60 only tell us na yung pinag usapan natin kanina na rules (46 and 50-57) all of those shall not apply if the revised
penal code itself provides for a specific penalty when a crime is frustrated or attempted or where the law prescribes a
specific penalty for the accomplice or accessory.
Example: yung si accomplice who furnished the place for the perpetration of the slight illegal detention (Article 268) that
act is an act of an accomplice but since the law says that he shall be punished as a principal then you do not determine
the penalty one degree lower. Because he will be punished as principal not as an accomplice.
Look at 297, special complex crime of robbery with attempted or frustrated homicide. When the law expressly provides for
the penalty. Do not look for the penalty in a one degree or two degrees lower.
Also 346, ascendants, teachers and etc., who by abuse of authority or confidential relationship shall cooperate as
accomplices in the crimes of acts of lasciviousness, seduction, abduction, white slave trade, corruption of minor. These
people, their acts are properly the acts of an accomplice but the law punishes them as principals. Parang yung kanina.
To give an additional exampleyung flight to enemy country diba, Article 121. Flight to enemy country during war time.
Now under Article 121, the mere attempt to go is punished in the same way as going to the enemy country. So there is no
more distinction in the attempt and the consummated because both are punished the same way. So hindi mo na
kailangan hanapin ngayon ang two degrees lower.
Also take note of Human security act RA 9372 where the accomplice and the accessory are punished the same way. The
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Before we go to Article 61 we go to 76.
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall
be considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum
in the manner shown in the following table:
TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR
PERIODS
Penalties Time included in Time included in Time included in Time included in

the penalty in its its minimum its medium its maximum
entirety period period
Reclusion temporal From 12 years and From 12 years and From 14 years, 8 From 17 years, 4
1 day to 20 years. 1 day to 14 years months and 1 day months and 1 day
and 8 months. to 17 years and 4 to 20 years.
months.
Prision mayor,absolute From 6 years and From 6 years and From 8 years and From 10 years and
disqualification and 1 day to 12 years. 1 day to 8 years. 1 day to 10 years. 1 day to 12 years.
special temporary
disqualification
Prision From 6 months From 6 months From 2 years, 4 From 4 years, 2

correccional,suspension and 1 day to 6 and 1 day to 2 months and 1 day months and 1 day
and destierro years. years and 4 to 4 years and 2 to 6 years.
months. months.
Arresto mayor From 1 month and From 1 to 2 From 2 months From 4 months
1 day to months. months. and 1 day to 4 and 1 day to 6
months. months.
72
Arresto menor From 1 to 30 days. From 1 to 10 days. From 11 to 20 From 21 to 30

days. days.
We have to know first the legal periods or duration of divisible penalties. So each of these merong duration that you have
to memorize.
Madali lang yan, ang problema nyan kay kung tanungin ka kung ano ang duration ng prision correctional maximum?
Nabuang na! medyo samok. Thats why there is a formula. Magaling ako dito wag kayong mag.alala
Ang formula is, since you want to get 1/3 of the penalty. What you need to know is the duration of a period only.
According to the formula, you get the duration of the penalty itself. EXAMPLE: prision mayor. You get the whole duration
of prision mayor. How do you do that? You subtract the maximum 1 years from the minimum of 6. And you will have 6. So
the duration of the prision mayor is actually 6 years. So the 6 years you divide that by 3. And what do you have? 2. So
now, each 1/3 is dapat 2 years diba.
Now we determine the penalty for the prision mayor minimum: PM min starts from 6y and 1d. now you add 2 years to that
to get the minimum. So ang PMmin is 6y1d to 8y.
Ano na ang medium? Dagdagan mo ito ng 1day. 8y1d to 10 y.
Maximum: again, add one day. 10y1d to 12.
Actually the same can be applied to all of these. Except Arresto Mayor.
Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. In cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of them
shall be the minimum the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this Code, the
periods shall be distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
When you are asked what is a complex penalty. Do not say that it is the penalty for a complex crime. Because you will be
absolutely wrong there. A complex penalty is mainly a penalty which is composed of 3 penalties. 3 degrees. Like
from arresto mayor to prison mayor. So if that is the penalty then it is a complex penalty. Complex. Hindi xa maxadong
complex no.
COMPLEX CRIMES
We will now be talking about plurality of crimes. Marami kasi nga plural but in the eyes of the law there is only one crime.
Therefore, because there is only one crime, there should also be one penalty. There is only one crime for various
reasons. Like there is only one criminal resolution, public policy, absorbing principle. Anyway, we will talk about this more
later.
Article 48 is divided into two parts.
1. Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)
- two or more grave or less grave felonies resulting from a single act
2. Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)
- two or more offenses one of which is the principal crime while the rest are committed as necessary
means to commit the former.
Sir here diba two or more grave or less grave felonies or its a necessary means, there should only be one penalty parin.
What is that penalty? Since you have atleast two crimes, you impose whatever penalty is higher sa dalawang crimes na
yan. And you impose the penalty for the more serious crime in the maximum period. So for example, a single act
results in marami like homicide, serious physical injuries. So ano ang mas mataas na penalty jan? diba homicide. So
kunin mo ang penalty ng homicide tapos imaximum mo siya. That will be the penalty imposed.
Now, dito naman sa second part. Delito complejo. Where one offense is necessary to commit the other. So you have
again two crimes. By and in themselves they are two independent crimes. But because in this case your intention was
only to commit the other one, yung isa was only a necessary means to commit the other, then you get again the penalty
for the crime which is higher of the two. For example, you falsify para makamalverse. So san mas mataas na penalty?
Falsification or malversation? Malversation man mas mataas so kunin mo un tapos impose the maximum period.
Now, what is material or real plurality of crimes?
- Its where different material offense result in two or more crimes which the accused incurs criminal
liability. So this time, when you say material or real plurality, there are really various or several crimes.
They are independent and separate crimes.
73
- For example, if A will stab B. And then after stabbing B, he shoots C. so yan, lahi lahi. Pag human stab,
gibaril na pud nya ang lain. So iba iba tlaga. And the accused there should be liable for each and every
one of these crimes. That is material or real plurality.
The other one naman, the one we are talking about sa complex crimes, is the formal or ideal plurality. Where one
criminal intent results in two or more component crimes constituting a complex crime which results to only one criminal
liability. That what you did results in two or more crimes. You call them component crimes which constitutes as complex
crime. And this time, there is only one penalty and this is covered by article 48.
Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto)
Now balik tayo sa first part ng article 48 which is compound crime (delito compuesto) where a single act results in
two or more or less grave felonies resulting from a single act. What is an example of this? May case yun na may tao
nagtapon ng isang Granada resulting in the death of one and serious physical injuries to 5 others. So, here you have a
single act of throwing a grenade. Ano ang resulta? May death and may physical injuries. Here you have grave or less
grave offense resulting from one single act. That is a very clear example. Take note that it must be grave or less grave
felonies.
Another example, A shot B. pero the same bullet also hit C. nilapus ang bala. A single act but dalawa namatay. That is a
compound crime.
This is also what happens in mistake in blow (aberration ictus) where you want to kill B but because of your poor
aim, you hit C instead. With respect to B, that is attempted homicide. With respect to C that is homicide. There you have
a single act resulting to two or more grave or less grave felony. That is a complex crime. You get the penalty of the more
serious crime and apply it in its maximum period.
One thing you really have to remember is that the law says it results in two or more grave or less grave felonies. NOW,
what happens if a single act results in a grave felony and a light felony for example? Will article 48 apply? NO! Excluded
yan kasi hindi yan kasali. Ang nakalagay sa law is grave or less grave lang man. Hindi kasali ang light! So in other
words, you cannot complex if may light felony.
Ano mangyari ngayon if may light felony? One of the possibility is ma absorb yung light. The light will be
absorb by the grave or less grave. For example, a policeman is attacked, direct assault yan. A public officer in the
discharge of his duties tapos you cause slight physical injuries. Now, diba thats a single act pero that constitutes into two
crimes. Direct assault and slight physical injuries. But because hindi mo pwede icomplex ang light, hindi siya ma cover
ng article 48. What happens if thats the case? The light will be absorb by the grave felony!
Pwede rin na you will have as many light felonies as you have victims. For example, nitira ko ug sling shot (pintik)
tapos yung bala tinamaan si A tapos nag bounce, tinamaan din si B at C. So you will have as many light felonies as you
have victims.
Now, another example is collision of cars. There are as many crimes as there are many people injured. Even if nag arise
siya from a single act. Why? Because nga light felonies cannot be complexed.
Ang problema jan is if sa collision may namatay. So may death, tapos may serious physical injuries din, tapos may slights
physical injuries din. So pano yan? May grave, may less grave, at may light. May case dito eh yung case ni PEOPLE vs
BUAN
PEOPLE V. BUAN 22 SCRA 183
Reason and precedent both coincide in that once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the
accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of criminal negligence
under article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally
done, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The
gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the
offense. And, as the careless act is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the
offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into different crimes and prosecutions. This
has been the constant ruling of the Spanish Supreme Court, and is also that of this Court in its most recent decisions on
the matter.
Thus, in People vs. Silva, L-15974, January 30, 1962, where as the result of the same vehicular accident one man died,
two persons were seriously injured while another three suffered only slight physical injuries, we ruled that the acquittal on
a charge of slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence, was a bar to another prosecution for homicide through
reckless imprudence. In People vs. Diaz, L-6518, March 30, 1954, the ruling was that the dismissal by the Municipal Court
of a charge of reckless driving barred a second information of damage to property through reckless imprudence based on
the same negligent act of the accused. In People vs, Belga, 100 Phil. 996, dismissal of an information for physical injuries
through needless imprudence as a result of a collision between two automobiles was declared, to block two other
prosecutions, one for damage to property through reckless imprudence and another for multiple physical injuries arising
from the same collision. The same doctrine was reasserted in Yap vs. Lutero, et al., L-12669, April 30, 1959. In none of
the cases cited did the Supreme Court regard as material that the various offenses charged for the same occurrence were
triable in Courts of differing category, or that the complainants were not the individuals.
xxx
The prosecution's contention might be true. But neither was the prosecution obliged to first prosecute the accused for
slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence before pressing the more serious charge of homicide with serious
74
physical injuries through reckless imprudence. Having first prosecuted the defendant for the lesser offense in the Justice
of the Peace Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, which acquitted the defendant, the prosecuting attorney is not now in a
position to press in this case the more serious charge of homicide with serious physical injuries through reckless
imprudence which arose out of the same alleged reckless imprudence of which the defendant has been previously
cleared by the inferior court.
Now, lets go to the second part of article 48.
Complex Crime Proper (Delito Complejo)
There are two acts. It is not a single act. You commit the felonies one after the other. But the first felony is not the
ultimate object. It is only the stepping stone to commit another offense. You commit this not because that is your
intention. It is only the first step to commit another. One is the means to commit the other.
Now, plurality parin diba. If one offense is necessary for the commission of the other. Again, one penalty parin. One
crime is merely a stepping stone for the commission of the other crime. Take note, ang key word jan is NECESSARY.
Dapat necessary yung isang crime for the commission of the other act.
An example of this is Malversation through Falsification of Public Document. Take note of this ha. Malversation
is simple pag pangawat sa gobyernyo. It becomes malversation only because ang nangawat is an accountable
public officer. He is accountable for the funds in his custody. If the same money, gikawat pero hindi accountable
public officer ang nagkuha, then dili na na siya malversation. It can be theft or estafa. Basta dili na malvesation
kay dili man accountable officer.
What sets it apart is that katong nangawat, may custody dun sa kwarta because of the public position.
Now, suppose one person who has custody of public funds because of his position. Tulad nyang ginawa nila napoles.
Gawa sila project tapos puro dummy beneficiaries lang pala. Kung kelangan nila ng pera gawa lang sila project proposal,
kuha beneficiary, gawa ng mga ID etc. Tapos forward nila yung proposal dun sa whoever is incharge of the money,
gawas ang kwarta. Actually yang gimik ni napoles matagal ng nangyayari yan. Example sa bukidnon, kuha lang silag
fake beneficiaries dun sa mga sulok2x na lugar na talaga para mahirap i-verify.
The falsication here is necessary in order for them to get the money. There real intent is to get the money, to malverse it.
The falsification is merely used to get the money. A mere stepping stone. Falsification is not the crime they want to
commit, it is the malversation. Kuha ug kwarta for their benefit. That is a complex crime.
I-disguish nyo yan sa isang officer, ginasto nya ang pera for his own benefit. Tapos nag falsify siya ng document to make
it appear na nanjan pa ang pera. Pero wala na gud kay na gasto na niya. In other words, the falsification this time was
used to conceal to the malversation. TAKE NOTE HA. Iba na dito, the falsification was used to HIDE or CONCEAL the
fact of malversation. So this time, dili na siya necessary diba. This is a different case na. So in this situation you have
TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES. SEPARATE crimes na ang dalawa dito.
Another thing you have to remember is that the crimes should not be the direct means to commit the other. What does
this mean? For example, you want to kill somebody. You entered the house to kill him. Thats aggravating diba? But the
trespass to dwelling is a crime by and against itself. So anong mangyari ngayon? Homicide through trespass to dwelling?
NO! because the trespass to dwelling was the direct means to commit the homicide. It is not the necessary
means. Ang mangyayari jan is that the trespass to dwelling will be considered as as aggravating circumstance. It cannot
be a complex crime because the trespass was not necessary. It was instead a direct means to commit the other crime
which was homicide.
One other thing is that, it is necessary not indispensable. Hindi indispensable. Why? Because when the crime is
indispensable to commit the other crime, it now becomes an element of the other crime. Nawala na ang nature nya as a
separate crime because indispensable na man siya to the commission of the other crime.
Parang plunder. Hindi ka magfile ng malversation kasi that is indispensable in the commission of plunder. You have to
have predicate crimes. In the same manner yung treason, for example, giving aid or comfort to the enemy. Tapos you kill
people because you are aiding the enemy. That is indispensable.
The most famous indispensable, yung absorption doctrine, is yung Hernandez. Rebellion. Common crimes - murder,
arson, rape etc., if it is committed in the course of rebellion, they are absorbed by the crime of rebellion. They become
components, ingredients of the crime of rebellion. They lose their character as separate crimes. Those common crimes
are indispensable to rebellion. That is why when you are charged with rebellion, when you kill so many people, one
hundred, tapos you do that in the course of a rebellion, what do you have? You only have one crime. Kaya nga bad trip
ang prosecutor niyan. Di sila musugot na rebellion ang i-file. Magfile sila ug murder o homicide. Kasi, one hundred kabuok
tao imo gipatay, mafile-an ka ug one hundred pud ka murder or homicide, instead of a single case of rebellion. Kasi sa
rebellion, absorbed lahat yan.
Let's go to some other examples. Estafa through falsification of commercial documents. What's an example of a
commercial document? A check. So you falsify a check by counterfeiting the signature, then you have it encashed.
Someone suffers damage or injury as a result. So imong gifalsify ug imong gipa-encash. The necessary means was the
falsification of the check. The intended crime was the estafa.
Forcible abduction with rape. You abduct somebody that is the necessary means. The intended crime is rape.
Also, another familiar case, the case of US v. Hernandez. Do you remember those guys? May gusto yung isa sa isang
babae, bata pa yung babae. Tapos para musugot, kunwari yung isa minister. So gikasal sila. The intended crime is
75
seduction. He just wanted to lie with the girl. What was the necessary means? Usurpation. One pretended to be a
minister.
Balik tayo sa principal. Anong klaseng principal yun siya? Indispensable cooperation. Kasi hindi man yun mangyari yung
seduction kung hindi nagpretend yung isa na minister siya.
So other cases. Yung kanina sa rebellion, yun yung Hernandez doctrine. After niyan, humirit ang State. So gifile-an si
Manong Johnny with rebellion with murder, physical injuries, ganyan. Apparently, they tried to test kung pwede ba na
hindi i-absorb and rebellion. They tried to distinguish between crimes committed for the purpose of rebellion or in the
course of the rebellion, or something like that. Anyway, to make the long story short, SC said the Hernandez ruling is still
good law. Those common crimes are deemed absorbed in rebellion.
Enrile v. Salazar. In conclusion, we hold that, under the allegations of the amended information against defendant-
appellant Amado V. Hernandez, the murders, arsons and robberies described therein are mere ingredients of the crime of
rebellion allegedly committed by said defendants, as means "necessary" for the perpetration of said offense of rebellion;
that the crime charged in the aforementioned amended information is, therefore, simple rebellion, not the complex crime
of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies
Manong Johnny was charged with rebellion with obstruction of justice. Bakit obstruction? Kasi gi-harbor niya daw sila
Gringo. Again they tried na complex.
Enrile v. Amin Sept. 13 1990. SC said rebellion absorbs obstruction of justice. All crimes, whether punishable under a
special law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become
absorbed in the crime of rebellion and can not be isolated and charged as separate crimes in themselves.
So kita niyo, pati special law, absorbed ng rebellion.
More examples. Yung about concealment. Suppose you kill somebody inside the house. Tapos, in order to conceal the
homicide, you burned the house down. Sino makasabi niyan na one crime is necessary to commit the other? One crime
was used to conceal the other crime. Here, that is not a complex crime.
Let's go back to the penalty. Kasi Article 48 is intended to favor the offender. Kung isa-isahin yan, you will be facing as
many penalties as there are crimes committed. But since in the eyes of the law there is only one crime, isa lang penalty
mo instead of having several penalties. This is really for the benefit of the accused.
Why is that? Because of a single criminal intent. You're supposedly less perverse. So this is 48.
Take note that there is another plurality of crimes na there are several crimes, and there is also one penalty imposed, but
it is not covered by 48. Saan yan? You call them SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES or COMPOSITE CRIMES.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES or COMPOSITE CRIMES.
There is a plurality of crimes, but then the law provides a single penalty when they are committed. Without applying 48,
but still the effect is the same.
Example. Article 294. Robbery with homicide. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason of or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
So here you have a situation where the law itself provides a single penalty and there are two crimes committed, robbery
and homicide. Take note, by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. It doesn't matter whether the homicide committed
was intentional or not. Remember the Mangulabnan case. Katong sa Mangulabnan, wala man sila kabalo naay tao sa
taas. Nagpabuto, unya ang master kay naa didto sa kisame. Yun ang defense nila, how can we be liable for robbery with
homicide na ang nakalagay sa law "the crime of homicide shall have been committed". Committed implies consent, ana
sila wala sila kabalo na naay tao didto.
So sa statutory construction, the Spanish prevails over the English. Kasi, sa Spanish, resultare. The proper translation
should have been "the crime of homicide shall have resulted", not committed.
So, you have two crimes but you have a single penalty covered by 294. This is not covered by 48. 48 only applies
if there is no specific article governing the complexing of the crime.
Remember robbery, taking of personal property with intimidation or violence against persons. Taking and killing are two
different acts. So you cannot apply 48 because 48 talks of a single act. Here you have two separate acts. The taking and
the killing. Hindi na man necessary yung isa din. You can always kill without robbing, or rob without killing. So it is not a
necessary means.
Pero basta sinabi ng Revised Penal Code na mao ni, duha ka crimes o tulo, unya isa lang ang penalty, that is Special
Complex. You do not use Article 48. It is a Special Complex Crime because the Revised Penal Code says so.
Other examples. Take note of this case, People v. Ramos 297 SCRA 618. Kasi prior to 7659, heinous crimes, when the
kidnapped victim is killed, the crime would have been either complex or independent, two separate crimes. If the purpose
was to kill, and the necessary means was to kidnap, 48.
But sometimes, wala silang intent to kill. Ransom talaga, pagkakitaan nila. Suppose the victim dies during detention.
Before 7659, separate crime yun.
76
People v. RamosBecause of 7659, ito na ang rule: When the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention,
regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder can no
longer be complexed, nor treated as separate crimes. It is now a special complex crime under 267.
7659 amended 267. 48 is no longer applicable simply because the law says so, na ito na. Whenever the victim is killed or
dies. 267 imposes one penalty only, and you have a plurality of crime. Homicide and serious illegal detention, then you
have a special complex crime. That's People v. Ramos.
You must be able to distinguish composite from complex crime.
In composite crime, the combination of the offenses are fixed by law. Robbery with rape, robbery with homicide etc.
Complex crime na man, the combination is not specified. It is generalized. Grave or less grave.
In composite, the penalty is also specific. Ang complex crime is not. Kasi the penalty is the one for the most serious crime
in its maximum period.
Ang composite, if a light felony, is absorbed. Sa complex, it may be separate or absorbed din
Article 61. Rules for graduating penalties.
ARTICLE 61. Rules for Graduating Penalties. For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to
the provisions of articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of
any frustrated or attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the scale prescribed in article 70 of this Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible
penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following
the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the above mentioned scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum
period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and
minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said
scale.
4. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible
penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum
prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise,
from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not specially provided for in the four preceding
rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of
the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.
Thats why we talked about Articles 50-57 first to know what the penalties are for accomplices, principals, for
consummated or frustrated. In 61, you have to know/determine the penalties of the accessories, sabi kasi sa 50-57
one/two degrees lower. 61 gives us the rules. Lets go to Number 1.
1. 1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees
shall be that immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in
Article 71 of this Code.
The penalties, which of them are divisible and indivisible. Thats one reason why the ruling of the Supreme Court in the
case of Lucas, the rules are affected when the penalty is already indivisible, isa na lang. in other words, single penalty vis-
-vis a compound penalty. A single penalty is that which is composed of a single unit. Like reclusion temporal, it is a
single penalty. If compound, it has two or more components like reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
Indivisible penalties, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional, arresto mayor, arresto menor. We have five
because reclusion perpetua is indivisible.
Complex penalty, on the other hand, we already talked about it, has three distinct penalty components, like when you
have prision correccional to reclusion temporal. You have there the three distinct penalties (prision mayor in the middle).
In the RPC, that is called COMPLEX PENALTY.
PERIOD OR COMPONENTS. Give an example. Penalty for Serious Physical Injuries, Art 260. Xxx In any other case,
the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, although no physical injuries have been inflicted.
You have there the penalty composed of period or periods. Prision correccional minimum and medium, or penalty for
Illegal Assembly, prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. So that is period or components.
PENALTY IN PERIOD. Where the penalty is only a portion of a divisible penalty. Isa lang, Arresto Mayor in its minimum
period. Thats the penalty provided by law and in effect it becomes a DEGREE.
Also, you have to determine the meaning of terms.
PRESCRIBED PENALTY. In Book 2, all laws have prescribed penalties, but that is not actually the imposed penalty
77
because we have modifying circumstances. After determining that, then you apply the rules on aggravating and mitigating,
and you come up with an IMPOSABLE PENALTY.
The term IMPOSABLE PENALTY still has its own duration from which the judge is mandated by law to take a specific
sentence, a specific penalty. So the imposable penalty after determining the circumstances is different from the penalty
actually imposed by the court.
The penalty decided by the court is actually meted out or upon him, thats the prison term the convict has to serve. The
imposable penalty is after the considering the circumstances.
What does INDIVISIBLE Penalty mean? That means a Single penalty is indivisible. When there is a penalty imposed by
law, what is two degrees lower, for purposes of determining the liability of the accomplice? Or when frustrated or
attempted? Refer to Number 1. The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the indivisible
penalty.
What follows Perpetua, for example? Temporal. Two degrees lower is Prision Mayor. That is Single and Indivisible.
Second Rule.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible
penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following
the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
Example, Reclusion Perpetua should still be indivisible. Two indivisibles can only be reclusion perpetua to death. What is
the penalty next lower that immediately followed it? One degree is reclusion temporal.
One or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent. Example, reclusion temporal, the full extent of it, whole
duration, which is 12yrs and 1 day to 20yrs. What is the penalty next lower is prision mayor.
If it is compound, the penalty isthe next penalty lower in degree. (The answer is not clear here, please refer to rule 2.)
Third Rule.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the
maximum period of another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of
the medium and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the
proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective
graduated scale.
It used to be a penalty for murder but the Death penalty does not apply anymore. Dean Iigo said here that it should be
dismissed? na. The penalty here can only be Reclusion Temporal Maximum to Death because 1 or 2 indivisible penalties
and the maximum period of another divisible penalty. Reclusion Temporal Max to Perpetua, or to Death. This is
necessarily, the minimum period is necessarily RT Max and RP is the Med and the Max is Death.
One degree lower is PM Maximum to RT Medium. That is penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium
and minimum periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following in said
respective graduated scale. In other words, binaba ko lang.
Fourth Rule:
4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different
divisible penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the
minimum prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible;
otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale.
Example, Compound Penalty. Three periods or components. Prision Correccional Maximum to Prision Mayor Medium.
This is the penalty provided by law, but if you need to know the periods, then your Maximum is Prision Mayor Medium,
and the Minimum is Prision Correccional Maximum. If this is the penalty prescribed by law, what is the penalty next lower
in degree? One degree lower is the next three periods lower which will be Prision Mayor Maximum to Prision Correccional
Medium. That is ONE DEGREE LOWER.
Fifth Rule:
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four
preceding rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those
guilty as principals of the frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and
accessories.
You could see by analogy. Example, the penalty is prision mayor minimum to medium and you have an accomplice, the
penalty is one degree lower. You need to know the penalty for the accessories, baba ka lang. if this is the penalty
prescribed by law, it becomes a degree, a single penalty by itself. So, therefore, if you go lower and look for the penalty
next lower in degree, you cannot go to prision correccional medium. Your penalty next lower in degree, the next preceding
penalty would be by analogy. (same degree as that imposed)
Example: (Lifted from Iigo notes)

78
Suppose the penalty prescribed of a crime is reclusion temporal maximum and there are many crimes in the Penal Code
with that kind of penalty. You apply only one, reclusion temporal maximum. So, the penalty is presently ranging from 17
years and 4 months, and 1 day to 20 years.
What is the degree lower? By analogy, reclusion temporal medium is already 1 degree lower. Not only 1 period, it is 1
degree lower by itself. Reclusion temporal minimum is considered one degree lower, so two degrees already, by analogy.
And of course, what do you call that penalty? Reclusion temporal maximum. That is divisible penalty because it has a
fixed duration. And being divisible, it has its own minimum, medium, and maximum for the purpose of mitigating
circumstances.
NB: Mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances should not be considered in the application of the rules for graduation of
penalties. It is only the after the penalty next lower in degree is determined that the mitigating and/or aggravating
circumstances should be considered. In other words, use the rules first, afterwards, apply the circumstances, mitigating
for example.
Rules for the Application of Penalties with Regard to

the Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances, and Habitual Delinquency
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency.
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of
diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which
are included by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
Example:
Arson
-By means of fire is an aggravating circumstance. But when you burn a building down by means of fire that is already
arson. Under this rule, you no longer take that into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty because it is already
a crime itself.
Included in the definition of the crime.
Abuse of confidence is not aggravating in qualified theft.
-Precisely, it is qualified because of the abuse of confidence. Therefore, you will not take into account abuse of confidence
as an aggravating circumstance for purposes of increasing the penalty of the crime.
Robbery in an inhabited house. Obviously, uninhabited house.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree
that it must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
We are supposed to know that evident premeditation is considered as inherent in the crime of robbery so therefore, you
will not consider that as aggravating in the crime of robbery.
It would be different if for example, the crime is robbery with homicide. Evident premeditation may be inherent in robbery
but if the crime is robbery with homicide, there cant be evident premeditation with homicide.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his
private relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant.
These causes serve to affect only those offenders who have private relations.
Example:
A assisted the wife of B in killing the latter. Only the wife is guilty of parricide, and A for homicide or murder, as the case
may be.
Only the wife is liable for parricide. It does not apply to A because he has no relationship with B. Thats why in conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of all. Yes, it is true, but then the aggravating circumstance of the wife is not the aggravating
circumstance of the assassin. Therefore, the crime is not the same. Relationship qualifies, the crime of parricide on the
part of the wife, and murder for the other.
There is a conspiracy, but the crime is not the same.
NB: This ruling holds true even if there was conspiracy between V and B. The rule that in conspiracy the act of one is the
act of all, does not mean that the crime of one is the crime of all.
79
As for personal cause, deaf and dumb, bulag-pipi-bingi. Ang isa deaf and dumb, ang isa dili. They conspired, but to the
other it is mitigating. The other it does not apply, because it is personal to the deaf and dumb. Take note of that.
Rescidivism is also personal. You do not have to share that because its personal.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
1. Material execution of the act.
The rule is it will affect the liability of those persons only who had knowledge at the time of the execution. Example, is
treachery.
A instructs B to kill C. B with treachery killed C. Did treachery apply to A? No, he did not know it.
But If A told B to kill C when he comes home. C was already sleeping, then he killed C. A is also liable because he had
knowledge of the treachery.
Material execution of the act. A knows that C was sleeping. It applies to A because he had knowledge of the material
execution of the act.
2. Means to accomplish the crime.
Example: A ordered B to kill C. B invited C to eat with him. A did not know that the means would be by poison. Here, the
aggravating circumstance that the crime be committed by means of poison is not applicable to A.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he
be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime
of which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in
conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years
from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
Extraordinary circumstance, why? Because it will call for the imposition of an additional penalty which is separate and
distinct of the principal penalty for the present crime committed. Unlike special aggravating, always maximum even if there
are two mitigating circumstances. It cannot be offset.
Example:
Taking advantage of a public position. It is special.
When in the commission of the crime, the defendant has taken advantage of his public position, the penalty to be imposed
shall be its maximum, regardless of any mitigating circumstances.
If you remember under Article 14, taking advantage of a public position is an aggravating circumstance. What is it, really?
It is a special aggravating circumstance, it cannot be offset.
So special, if the offense committed if a crime is committed by a syndicated crime group. At least two or more. Two of you
agree, you are considered an organized crime group.
Why is it different from a syndicated crime group with a robbery crime group when in fact there is a conspiracy? It is the
same, but there is an element of profit, for the purpose of gain. That is not necessary in the crime of conspiracy.
Habitual Delinquent. A habitual delinquent is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is
found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. Memorize this.
Is this a crime? It is not a crime, simply an extraordinary aggravating circumstance. It is a factor in the determination of the
total penalty. What is the effect?
1. The habitual delinquent is not entitled to RETROACTIVITY. Exception to the exception under Article 22.
2. Preventive Imprisonment. If you are a detention prisoner, the period for detention should be credited to your
80
sentence. If you are a habitual delinquent, it does not apply. (Article 29)
A rescidivist is already not entitled. How much more if you are a habitual delinquent?
Take note of the additional penalties kasi iba-iba, depending on how many times you have committed the penalty:
1. Prision Correccional medium and maximum for third conviction.
2. Prision correccional minimum and medium for the fourth conviction.
3. Fifth or additional conviction, prision mayor in its minimum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
If you can see, Habitual Delinquency is matindi. Additional na. Third crime, and the penalty for theft is just small but if
youre a habitual delinquent, you can reach Reclusion Temporal. So you see, when you are a principal and was convicted,
the penalty may be arresto mayor and when you become a habitual delinquent, reclusion temporal is added to it.
Remember, if you are a habitual delinquent, it is specific to some crimes only.
What are these crimes?
1. Serious or less serious physical injuries;
2. Robo or robbery;
3. Hurto or theft;
4. Estafa or Swindling;
5. Falsification.
You rape, say a hundred women. No matter how many you have raped, if it is not included here, you cannot be a habitual
delinquent. It is limited to these 5 crimes.
Principles. You can mix them up. First conviction, falsification; Second, theft; Third, robbery. For as long as there is a
conviction. Supposing at the first conviction of robbery, second falsification and on the third is robbery again, but this time,
it is frustrated or attempted. Can you be a habitual delinquent? Not consummated, only the first two. The third one is not.
In the same manner, if the first offense is consummated, the second is frustrated, the first estafa, second a different one,
and third, was consummated, what should it be?
Pp vs. Abuyen, 52 Phil 732, Court held that habitual delinquency are applicable to the crime therein enumerated, which
are defined and penalized in the Penal Code, not only when consummated, but also when only attempted or frustrated.
It is also applicable when the offender is convicted as a principal, accomplice, or accessory. It does not matter, as long as
all those offenses mentioned in Article 62 are the only ones committed.
Take note of the period to be reckoned. Ten-year period reckoned from what time. Those are two:
1. From the last conviction;
2. Could also be reckoned from the last release.
This is because you were already convicted in the past so you could only be convicted from release. The reckoning point
in determining the ten-year period is the last day of conviction or the last day of release.
If you are found guilty of the third offense, then in the past you were convicted of robbery. Rule, ten-year period computed
either from last conviction or last release. The law on habitual delinquency does not contemplate the exclusion from the
computation of prior convictions those falling outside the ten-year period immediately preceding the crime for which the
defendant is being tried, provided each conviction is followed by another transgression within ten years from one
conviction to another.
It could be reckoned from the date or last release. Either from date of last conviction or last release. The same thing,
between conviction or release, within and should not exceed ten years.
It is not reckoned from commission of the crime, but computed from the last conviction or last release. Also, very
important, it must be alleged in the information.
Also take note that the total of the two penalties shall not exceed 30 years. The additional penalty for the habitual
delinquency plus the penalty for the offense from the last conviction.
Habitual Delinquency distinguished from Rescidivism. (Read Reyes)
1. As to the crimes commited.
2. As to the period of the time the crimes are committed.
3. As to the number of crimes committed.
4. As to their effects.
81
Question: from the crime to which you were last convicted, if you have modifying circumstances, there is an additional
penalty for being a habitual delinquent. What if the accused says that his additional penalty for habitual delinquency
should also be lowered because of the modifying circumstances on the principal penalty? Will it affect the additional
penalty?
People vs. De Jesus, 63 Phil 762, Court held that modifying circumstances are applicable to the additional penalty. You
still apply the effects of the circumstances.
Can a person be a habitual delinquent and at the same time a rescidivist? Yes. For two crimes there is rescidivism, add
one to make it three, there is habitual delinquency.
Now what is the effect in the penalty? You are a rescidivist, and then a habitual delinquent. Rescidivism is an aggravating
circumstance in the principal penalty. Habitual Delinquency is an additional. Maximum because of rescidivism,
additional because of Habitual Delinquency.
Lastly, he must be found guilty for the previous offense.
ARTICLE 63. Rules for the Application of Indivisible Penalties. In all cases in which the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances
that may have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall
be observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty
shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the courts shall
reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of
applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.
Take note also that when there are 2 or more mitigating and no aggravating the effect is privileged mitigating yan sya
tapos dba the penalty is lowered by 1 degree or the penalty next lower in degree. Now, if that happens and the penalty is
under 63, meaning 2 indivisibles, will that apply na dapat 1 lower din ang penalty? This time, hindi yan sya mag-apply kasi
63 talks about 2 indivisibles talaga. Kunwari may 2 mitigating tapos walang aggravating, mitigating ka parinthe lower
penalty which is RP if the penalty is composed of 2 indivisibles of RP to death.
ARTICLE 64. Rules for the Application of Penalties Which Contain Three Periods. In cases in which the
penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three
different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of articles 76 and 77, the
courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are
not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by
law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in
its minimum period.
3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty
in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of
one class against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court
shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable,
according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a
greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number
and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater or lesser extent of the evil produced
by the crime.
Problem: if the circumstance of minority, voluntary confession and surrender are present. The penalty for the felony
committed is RP. Is article 64, par 5 applicable? The penalty prescribed by law is indivisible kay RP man. Tapos merong
circumstances. You have circumstances, more than 2 at that na mitigating at walang aggravating. Pwede mo ba i-apply
ang 64 par 5 such that the penalty should be 1 degree lower?
82
Remember that minority is privilege mitigating such that it has the effect of lowering the penalty by 1 degree. So i-apply
mo yan sya. What is the penalty next lower in degree sa RP? Its RT now which is a divisible penalty. Then, you now have
2 mitigating with no aggravating. So, this time you lower it again because of 64 par 5. PM.
The rules here will not apply if merong privilege. Also, remember that there is also a special. If special aggravating, it
will always be max even if there are mitigating. So hindi mag-apply yunf offset2x. You have a special aggravating,
abuse of function for example, kahit na meron kang maraming mitigating tapos ang special anjan eh max parin.
Also if the accused is a habitual delinquent. Kasi additional penalty yan. Also qualifying circumstance because qualifying
circumstance changes the nature of the case.
PP vs. MalyoroJanuary 26, 1989. The penalty for homicide is RT. The lower court imposed upon the accused RP. Ang
penalty prescribed in RT pero ang sabi ng court merong 2 aggravating kaya daw dapat RP. Eh di na-awardan ang judge
kasi whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater
penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period. So dapat ang gi-impose alng is RT max.
Question: Is this applicable to special laws? Kasi diba ang sabi natin na ang rule under special laws..Kasi diba sabi natin
na ang principles under the RPC cannot be applied because of the nature of the penalties. You cannot determine the min
or max period kasi iba ang penalties ng special laws. But if the special law borrows the penalty from the RPC, then, you
are able to do that. Therefore, these rules (referring to Article 63) can apply.
PP vs. Simon (July 29, 1994).The SC held in that case: The situation, however, is different where although the offense
is defined in and ostensibly punished under a special law, the penalty therefor is actually taken from the Revised Penal
Code in its technical nomenclature and, necessarily, with its duration, correlation and legal effects under the system of
penalties native to said Code. When, as in this case, the law involved speaks of prision correccional, in its technical sense
under the Code, it would consequently be both illogical and absurd to posit otherwise.
ARTICLE 65. Rule in Cases in Which the Penalty is Not Composed of Three Periods. In cases in which the
penalty prescribed by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the
foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one
period of each of the three portions.
So what if the penalty is not composed of 3 periods?Kasi diba ang sabi natin is if it is divisible, it can be divided into 3. So
the problem is it seems that it is not composed of 3 periods.
For example eh kung hindi sya composed of 3 eh pilitin mo syang gawing 3. Yang penalty na yan, which is not composed
of 3, merong parin yan syang duration tapos idivide mo into 3. You get the whole duration and divide it by 3, then now you
have 3 periods.
Example: if the penalty is AMayor in its minimum and medium period. You get the duration of the min and med of A
mayor. The min 31 days to 2 month tapos and med is 2 months and 1 day to 4 months. So kung icompute mo yan eh 1
month and 1 day to 4 months. Tapos idivde mo yan sya into 3 to get the 3 periods. .
Paano kung ang penalty is complex like RT to death. Take note that if there is a divisible component, even if there is a
indivisible component, it becomes a divisible penalty. Like here RT to death, it becomes divisible. So pwded ma-aaply ang
article 64.
So paano yun? RT is divisible. RP and death are indivisible. Paano ang min, med at max? Well, RT will be your min, RP
your med and death your max.
Another example: RT med to RT. Paano na ngayong ang min, med at max? Remember that RT is divisible. Ang next ng
RP is indivisible, so hindi mo sya pwd ihalo (meaning hindi pwede i-add ang periods ng RT at RP). So therefore,
necessarily, this (referring to RT med) will be your min. Tapos RT max and iyong med and ang RP is the max. Idivide mo
yung period na binigay sa divisible penalty para makuha mo ang dalawang periods. So it will now be:
RP max
RT max med
RT med min
Kapag nasagulan ug indivisible, ang divisible ang iyong i-divide.
Pp vs. Misal (244 SCRA 166). The penalty for illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866 is RT max to RP. Asa ang
min, med at max? You should not make hilabot this (referring to RP) because this is indivisible, ypou cannot divide it. So
ang pwede mo lang talaga madivide is ang RT max kasi divisible man yan and even if it is the max of RT eh meron parin
duration so that duration (this being a divisible penalty and having its own duration) can still be divided into 3. But this
time, since may max na (ang RP, which is indivisible), idivide mo lang sya (referring to RT max) into 2 to get the min and
med. You get the duration of RT max: the lower half will be your min and the greater half will be your med. So it will be:
RP max
RT max med
min
83
Art. 66. Imposition of fines. In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by
law; in fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, but more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.
You relate this immediately to Article 75. This is the rule when you have to increase the fine by degrees.
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. Whenever it may be necessary to
increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for
each degree, by one fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the
minimum.
Take note that kapag sa fine ang division is 4 and dili 3.
Example: Fine not less than 200 and not more than 2000.
Under article 66, bahala na ang court ana basta within the limit established by law.
Suppose that you have to now lower the fine by degree. Ano ngayon ang penalty next lower in degree pag fine?
Diba sa Article 75 eh increase or reduce by ng max. So ano ngayon ang ng max? 2000/4=500. Either you add or
subtract. So it will be like this:
If lower
Penalty next lower in degree not less than 200 and not more than 1500.
Penalty lower by 2 degrees not less than 200 and not more than 1000.
Penalty lower by 3 degrees notless than 200 and not more than 500.
If higher
Penalty next higher in degree not less than 200 but not more than 2500.
Penalty 2 degrees higher not less than 200 but not more than 3000.
Penalty 3 degrees higher not less than 200 but not more than 3500.
So dito wala syang min, med or max kasi discretion parin ng judge kung ano ang i-impose nya.
Last paragraph of Article 75: The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount,
but are made proportional.
Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12
are present. When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt
from criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.
This is the penalty to be imposed in the exempting circumstance of accident under article 12 (4) when it is not wholly
excusable.
Article 68 penalty to be imposed upon a person under 18 years old.
Lets talk about this when we get to article 80 and when we talk about RA 9344. But take not that RA 9344 has been
repealed already by RA 10630.
Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. A penalty lower by one or
two degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the
lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several
cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions bepresent. The courts shall
conditions of exemption present or lacking
NOTE: The explanation of Sir is inconsistent to the discussion of Estrada and Reyes.
Ito yung penalty para dun sa mga incomplete justifying or incomplete exempting. Kasi diba dun sa mga mitigating and
exempting may requisites. When majority of the requisites are present, for the mitigating it will operate as a privilege
mitigating. But if hindi eh ordinary mitigating lang. For example, may unlawful aggression pero wala yung reasonable
means at sufficient provocation, so merong 1 out of 3 that will operate as an ordinary mitigating lowering it to the
minimum. Kapag 2 out of 3, it will become privileged circumstance because of this article so magiging 1 degree lower.
Ang problema nito is paano kung 4 requisites? Dalawa meron, dalawa wala. Meaning walang majority. Paano yan
ngayon? Sabi ng SC, pag ganyan eh gi-aaply nila yung 1 degree lower (nakalimot si sir sa case).
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve
84
them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be
executed successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or
penalties first imposed, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the
penalties shall be determined in accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prisioncorreccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arrestomenor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
and
12. Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall
not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon
him. No other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the
same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (penaperpetua) shall be computed at
thirty years. (As amended)
If you look at article 70 and 71, the penalties in the RPC are both enumerated. What is the difference between the 2?
Article 70 successive service of sentences. Article 71 graduated scales.
Then you have the enumeration there. If you look at the enumeration, halos pareho ang pagkasunod2x except jan sa
merong nabali. In 71, destierro comes first before arresto menor. In 70, destierro comes after arresto menor. Yan ang
hindi kapareho ng 70 at 71. Why is that? Tingnan nyo sa title. Sa 71, graduated scale; sa 70 talks about service of
sentence.
If the question has something has to do with which penalty is lower or higher than a given penalty, you go to 71 for the
answer because that is the graduated scale of penalties. But, if the question is which of these penalties to be served first
in cases of multiple sentences, you go to 70 because it talks of which penalty to serve first in case of multiple penalties.
For example, pumutok yung 4 cases nya; nagkasunod2x yan and puro conviction. Asa man ang unahon niya ug serve?
Naa syay prision correccional, arresto mayor, destierro at arresto menor. Asa man ang unahon niya? Kung sa 70 is the
most severe PC then mayor then menor then destierro. Kasi kung sundin mo ang 71 correccional ka muna then mayor
tapos lakaw sa ka kay destierro man ang next and then pag human na ang destierro eh mubalik nasad ka for the menor.
Hndi pwd! So when the question goes for that, successive service of sentences, you go to 70. Under 70, mapreso saka
then last na tong destierro.
But kung ang tanong jan is pag merong accomplice, ano ang penalty for an accomplice? Wag ka dun sa 70 because that
is for the service of sentences. You go to 71. What is the penalty for the accomplice? 1 degree lower than the principal.
Kunwari the penalty is arresto mayor for the principal. Now you are looking for the penalty of the accomplice, ano ngayon
ang penalty for the accomplice? This time, the penalty for the accomplice should be destierro because that is the penalty
next lower in degree from arresto mayor in the graduated scale of penalties.
Ganun din kapag stages ng felony. Consummated is arresto mayor. But if the case is frustrated eh destierro ka. Kung
attempted eh arresto menor ka. Because the question is which penalty is higher or lower than a given penalty.
Article 70 answers the question which of the penalties is to be served first in case of multiple sentences. So it depends on
whether the sentences may be served simultaneously or successively. So tanawonnimoang nature sa penalty: asa man
diraangpwedeidungan?
Anoangpwedemasabay? Yung mga disqualification, suspension, censure, as well as accessory penalties.
Unsaangdilipwedeisabay? You cannot simultaneously serve imprisonment sentences, when you serve them, you
serve them separately and one after the other. Dilikamakaingonna oh kaniparanisa both RT and PM. If
dilipwedesabay, isunodsunodmo based on the order of its severity. You cant saynaunahonsanimoang lesser
sentence then next na tong longer sentence.
Thats why you have a different list/succession under Article 70 than 71.
Article 70 - which is more severe in terms of which penalty to serve first.

85
Under Article 71 naunaangdestierrokesasaArrestoMenor. So when you serve sentences, unahinmoyung Article 70
(ArrestoMenor then destierro) because ArrestoMenor is more severe than destierro, kayprisogudna compared to merely
banishment.
As to the Death penalty, walanaman ni. Pero how can you deal with multiple death penalties? Patyonnimoka-isa, pero
since 4 death penalties man, patyonnapudnimousab? You cannot do that. Legally, you should impose all 4 death
penalties because these are penalties for different offenses but you just serve it simultaneously.So simultaneous service
ang death sentence. You cannot just impose 1 death penalty, kasi for record purposes, it is to show that this guy is more
perverse than a guy who has just 1 death sentence. Especially for purposes of pardon, the president would have to
pardon the person 4 times if he has 4 death penalties, as compared to a person with just 1 death penalty
nakaisalangniyai-pardon. (Pp. vs Peralta) SC said that all the death sentences are deemed simultaneously served.
G.R. No. L-19069 October 29, 1968
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AMADEO PERALTA, ET AL
The imposition of a penalty and the service of sentence are two distinct, though related, concepts. The imposition of the
proper penalty or penalties is determined by the nature, gravity and number of offenses charged and, proved, whereas
service of sentence is determined by the severity and character of the penalty or penalties imposed. In the imposition of
the proper penalty or penalties, the court does not concern itself with the possibility or practicality of the service of the
sentence, since actual service is a contingency subject to varied factors like successful escape of the convict, grant of
executive clemency or natural death of the prisoner. All that go into the imposition of the proper penalty or penalties, to
reiterate, are the nature, gravity and number of the offenses charged and proved and the corresponding penalties
prescribed by law.
Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will have to be executed simultaneously. A cursory
reading of article 70 will show that there are only two modes of serving two or more (multiple) penalties: simultaneously or
successively. The first rule is that two or more penalties shall be served simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will
so permit. In the case of multiple capital penalties, the nature of said penal sanctions does not only permit but
actually necessitates simultaneous service.
The imposition of multiple death penalties, far from being a useless formality, has practical importance. The
sentencing of an accused to several capital penalties is an indelible badge of his extreme criminal perversity,
which may not be accurately projected by the imposition of only one death sentence irrespective of the number
of capital felonies for which he is liable. Showing thus the reprehensible character of the convict in its real
dimensions, the possibility of a grant of executive clemency is justifiably reduced in no small measure. Hence,
the imposition of multiple death penalties could effectively serve as a deterrent to an improvident grant of pardon
or commutation. Faced with the utter delinquency of such a convict, the proper penitentiary authorities would
exercise judicious restraint in recommending clemency or leniency in his behalf.
Granting, however, that the Chief Executive, in the exercise of his constitutional power to pardon (one of the
presidential prerogatives which is almost absolute) deems it proper to commute the multiple death penalties to
multiple life imprisonments, then the practical effect is that the convict has to serve the maximum of forty (40)
years of multiple life sentences. If only one death penalty is imposed, and then is commuted to life imprisonment,
the convict will have to serve a maximum of only thirty years corresponding to a single life sentence.
Article 70: Successive service of sentence is also called the MATERIAL ACCUMULATION THEORY. But please note that
that rule on successive service also has its limitations. LIMITATIONS:
1) Three- fold rule - the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
The sum of the penalties if servedsuccessively should not exceed three times the length of the most severe penalty.
Dont use the successive sentence if it is not favorable to the convict, if the 3foldrule is more favorable, then use
3foldrule, vise versa.
The 3 fold rule applies only if the convict were to suffer at least 4 penalties.
2) 40 year limitation rule - Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
40 years najudangpinakadugaynimona stay saprisohan. So the saying mabubulok kasabilangguan is actually not
really that true. Kung musulodkasaprisohannabata pa, paggawasnimobata pa gihaponka.
G.R. Nos. L-51065-72 June 30, 1987
ARTURO A. MEJORADA vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
III. The third issue raised by the petitioner concerns the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan which totals fifty-six (56)
years and eight (8) days of imprisonment. Petitioner impugns this as contrary to the three-fold rule and insists that the
duration of the aggregate penalties should not exceed forty (40) years.
Petitioner is mistaken in his application of the three-fold rule as set forth in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. This
article is to be taken into account not in the imposition of the penalty but in connection with the service of the
sentence imposed (People v. Escares, 102 Phil. 677 [1957]). Article 70 speaks of "service" of sentence, "duration" of
penalty and penalty "to be inflicted". Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about the "imposition of penalty". It
86
merely provides that the prisoner cannot be made to serve more than three times the most severe of these penalties the
maximum of which is forty years.
So it has nothing to do with the imposition of penalty. Kung anoyung penalty under the law kahit 100 years pa yan,
yanyungi-impose as sentence sa accused. Ang article 70 is only for the service of sentence of the accused.Kinsaangmag
followani? Ang Director of Prisons, siyaang mag computecomputeana.
The court does not concern itself with the possibility of the practicality of the service of the sentence but rather the
imposition of the penalty.
Is this applicable for different crimes at different times and under separate information?
G.R. No. 40373, Torres v. Superintendent of San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm, 58 Phil. 847 - Three-Fold rule
applies although the penalties were imposed for different crimes, at different times, and under separate informations.
Application to ISL:
Dibasa ISL merong maximum and minimum, will these rules apply?
Desierto- if the sentence is indeterminate the maximum is to be considered. So if i-computenimotanan, you have
the minimum and maximum, doonkasa maximum mag ano
Application to Subsidiary Imprisonment:
Diba under article 39 you have subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine, should it be considered?
For mag three-fold rule katapos may subsidiary imprisonment ka pa? because under Article 70: No other penalty
to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum
period.
Bagtasvs Director of Prisons, the SC said that the imposition of the three-fold rule does not preclude subsidiary
imprisonment for failure to pay fine. So saato pa, if you apply the 3 fold rule then naakay subsidiary imprisonment, i-
serve pa judnimoang subsidiary imprisonment in addition to the 3 fold rule as long as the principal penalty is not higher
than 6 years (kasidibaang subsidiary imprisonment is not applicable for penalties higher than prision correccional) and
because that is also a penalty.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of
the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos,
subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prisioncorreccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his
fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the
term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be
counted against the prisoner.
G.R. No.L-3215, Bagtas v. Director of Prisons, 84 Phil. 692, 47 Off. Gaz. 1743
The petitioner contends: (d) that the subsidiary imprisonment should be eliminated because article 70 provides that "no
other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the said maximum
period."
The important question to decide here is whether the subsidiary imprisonment should be eliminated from the penalty
imposed upon the petitioner as reduced to thrice the duration of the gravest penalty imposed on him in accordance with
article 70.
Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the penalty and its imposition is required by article 39 in case of insolvency of
the accused to meet the pecuniary liabilities mentioned in the first three paragraphs of article 38; it cannot be eliminated
under article 70 so long as the principal penalty is not higher than 6 years of imprisonment. The provision of article
70 that no other penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the said
maximum period, simply means that the convict shall not severe the excess over the maximum of threefold the most
severe penalty. For instance, if the aggregate of the principal penalties is six years and that is reduced to two years under
the threefold rule of article 70, he shall not be required to serve the remaining four years.
KINDS OF SYSTEMS:
MATERIAL ACCUMULATION SYSTEM where the prisoners will serve the total duration of multiple penalties even if
they reach beyond the natural span of a human life.
Kaya nga material accumulation kasiiservemoyanlahatkahitmaglampas pa sa life span mo. In some countries:
bahalakadira! etonayung mabubulokkasakulungan because its strictly material.
JURIDICAL ACCUMULATION SYSTEM etoyung 3 fold rule. The maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall
not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him.
Saatin halo, CHOPSUEY! meronsiyang Successive service but subject to juridical accumulation (not more
than 3times the most severe plus it cannot exceed 40 years).
87
ABSORPTION SYSTEM where the greater penalty absorbs the lesser penalty (e.g. the penalty for complex crimes-
where you get the penalty for the most serious crime to be imposed in its maximum period)
Art. 71. Graduated scales. In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more
degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such
penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prisioncorreccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arrestomenor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.
SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.
So as I said, if the question is which penalty is higher or lower in degree, the answer is Article 71.
So we have different scales of penalties:
1) Article 25 according to gravity
2) Article 70 according to severity
3) Article 71 graduated scale of penalties
Again, death is already prohibited (Art 9346). So the scale will be affected thereby.
GR: Do not consider death (Reckon it from RP)
XPN: Consider death - if Minor (Reckon from Death)
G.R. No. 166401 October 30, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO BON
Having pronounced the statutory disallowance of the death penalty through Rep. Act No. 9346 and the corresponding
modification of penalties other than death through that statute, we now proceed to discuss the effects of these rulings.
As to sentences not yet handed down, or affirmed with finality, the application is immediate. Henceforth, "death," as
utilized in Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, shall no longer form part of the equation in the graduation of
penalties. For example, in the case of appellant, the determination of his penalty for attempted rape shall be
reckoned not from two degrees lower than death, but two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua. Hence, the
maximum term of his penalty shall no longer be reclusion temporal, as ruled by the Court of Appeals, but
instead, prision mayor.
However, in case of MINORS:
G.R. No. 182239 March 16, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HERMIE M. JACINTO
Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. However, for purposes of determining the proper
penalty because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to
be reckoned with.
So kung Minor, you reckon it from Death kasimeron pa man silang Privilege mitigating na one degree lower, so ang effect
pa rin is the same parangsa RP parin nag reckon.
88
But again, kasi Minor, under RA 9344 the purpose is for the minor not to enter the judicial system so sa agricultural camp
parinsila.
RA 9344 SEC. 51.Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and other Training Facilities. - A child
in conflict with the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of
confinement in a regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established,
maintained, supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
Example: minor ka at the time of commission of crime but since nag trial nahimonakang major, automatic pa rinang
RA9344 suspension of service of sentence without need for application. Pero ang suspension nayan kutoblang 21 years
of age, kasipag dating ng 21 anjanang choices, ibalikkasa court and either i-dischargeka from criminal liability or pwedei-
convictka (prisojudkag RP) if salbahekanabata! Unsamahitabosunod? Section 51 didtokasa Agricultural camp. So
walajuymaprisosa style nani.
Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or
more offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the judgments rendered
against him, beginning with the first in order of time.
So this is successive service in payment of civil liabilities follow chronological order of dates of final judgment. So
kunganoangnaunayunang una among i-serve.
JUMP TO:
ARTICLE 78. When and How a Penalty is to Be Executed. No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a
final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances
or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of the institutions
in which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the character of the work to be
performed, the time of its performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts
among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at least into
different departments, and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.
(Article 78) You should know when a judgment becomes final and executory:
1) upon expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected
2) when the sentence has already been served partially or totally
3) when the accused waived in writing his right to appeal
4) when the accused applied for probation (appeal and probation is mutually exclusive/alternative remedies)
So you cannot force a person to serve sentence if there is still an appeal. Also in case of insanity after commission of
crime, insanity suspends service of sentence (Article 79).
Article 80 - this has been repealed by PD 603 then RA 9344.
To be politically correct, angtawagsa minor offender ngayon ay CICL child in conflict with the law.
(d) "Child at Risk" refers to a child who is vulnerable to and at the risk of committing criminal offenses because
of personal, family and social circumstances, such as, but not limited to, the following:
(1) being abused by any person through sexual, physical, psychological, mental, economic or any other means
and the parents or guardian refuse, are unwilling, or unable to provide protection for the child;
(2) being exploited including sexually or economically;
(3) being abandoned or neglected, and after diligent search and inquiry, the parent or guardian cannot be found;
(4) coming from a dysfunctional or broken family or without a parent or guardian;
(5) being out of school;
(6) being a streetchild;
(7) being a member of a gang;
(8) living in a community with a high level of criminality or drug abuse; and
(9) living in situations of armed conflict.
(e) "Child in Conflict with the Law" refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having
committed an offense under Philippine laws. Under PD 603angtawag pa sakanilakay Youthful offender.
SEC. 34.Bail. - For purposes of recommending the amount of bail, the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority shall be considered.
SEC. 35. Release on Recognizance. - Where a child is detained, the court shall order:
89
(a) the release of the minor on recognizance to his/her parents and other suitable person;
(b) the release of the child in conflict with the law on bail; or
(c) the transfer of the minor to a youth detention home/youth rehabilitation center.
The court shall not order the detention of a child in a jail pending trial or hearing of his/her case.
SEC. 36.Detention of the Child Pending Trial. - Children detained pending trial may be released on bail or
recognizance as provided for under Sections 34 and 35 under this Act. In all other cases and whenever possible,
detention pending trial may be replaced by alternative measures, such as close supervision, intensive care or
placement with a family or in an educational setting or home. Institutionalization or detention of the child pending
trial shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time.
Whenever detention is necessary, a child will always be detained in youth detention homes established by local
governments, pursuant to Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, in the city or municipality where the child resides.
In the absence of a youth detention home, the child in conflict with the law may be committed to the care of the
DSWD or a local rehabilitation center recognized by the government in the province, city or municipality within
the jurisdiction of the court. The center or agency concerned shall be responsible for the child's appearance in
court whenever required.
SEC. 37.Diversion Measures. - Where the maximum penalty imposed by law for the offense with which the child
in conflict with the law is charged is imprisonment of not more than twelve (12) years, regardless of the fine or
fine alone regardless of the amount, and before arraignment of the child in conflict with the law, the court shall
determine whether or not diversion is appropriate.
SEC. 38.Automatic Suspension of Sentence. - Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time
of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and ascertain
any civil liability which may have resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without
need of application: Provided, however, That suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is
already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.
Upon suspension of sentence and after considering the various circumstances of the child, the court shall
impose the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court Rule on Juveniles in Conflict
with the Law.
So here, AUTOMATIC suspension of sentence even if child is suspended. Under probation law, kailanganka mag apply if
adult offenders.
Kahit 18 years or more na, theres still suspension of sentence because always, the reckoning date is at the time of the
commission.
SEC. 39.Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law. - Upon the recommendation of the social worker who has
custody of the child, the court shall dismiss the case against the child whose sentence has been suspended and
against whom disposition measures have been issued, and shall order the final discharge of the child if it finds
that the objective of the disposition measures have been fulfilled.
The discharge of the child in conflict with the law shall not affect the civil liability resulting from the commission
of the offense, which shall be enforced in accordance with law.
The DSWD can only recommend, and disposition talagasa child depends on the court. It will be the court who orders the
final discharge if favorable ang recommendation sa DSWD.
SEC. 40.Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. - If the court finds that the objective of the
disposition measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
conflict with the law has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his/her disposition or rehabilitation
program, the child in conflict with the law shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the
court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence,
or to extend the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years.
SEC. 41. Credit in Service of Sentence. - The child in conflict with the law shall be credited in the services of
his/her sentence with the full time spent in actual commitment and detention under this Act.
SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of
service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly.
- So take note ha this is upon application. So this is another option. Dili na pud ka ma preso. Please take note ha
ang probation under 9344 is upon application while ang application of sentence is automatic.
When is a minor not qualified for diversion?

90
1. the penalty imposable exceeds 6 years imprisonment
2. The child, his parents or guardian do not consent to diversion, the records shall be forwarded to the prosecutor or
judge concerned for the conduct of inquest or preliminary investigation.
Lets take note of some of the differences of 603 and 9344.
1. Under PD 603 article 191, the court shall not order the detention of the child in a jail pending trial or hearing of his or
her case while in RA 9344 the child detained shall be: a.) release on recognizance parents of the minor and other
suitable person, b.) release on bail, c.) transfer of the minor to a youth detention home/youth rehab center.
2. Under 9344, automatic ang suspension of sentence.
3. if at the time the crime was committed he was still a minor but at the time of trial or conviction he is not a minor
anymore, he is no longer entitled to suspension of sentence while in 9344 suspension of sentence shall still be
applied even he is already 18 at the time of pronouncement of guilt.
Declarador vs Gubaton August 18, 2006
Facts: RTC suspended the sentence of accused-minor Frank Basalas and ordered his commitment to the regional rehab
center for youth. Frank was charged with murder for killing his teacher Yvonne declarador. Petitioner filed a petition for
certiorari seeking to nullify the aforestated portions of the decision of the court.
Held: Thus, it is clear that a person who is convicted of an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or reclusion
perpetua is disqualified from availing the benefits of a suspended sentence. "Punishable" is defined as "deserving of, or
capable, or liable to punishment; liable to be punished; may be punished; liable to punishment." The term refers to the
possible, not to the actual sentence. It is concerned with the penalty which may be, and not which is imposed. The law
merely amended Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the suspension of sentence
shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is already 18 years of age or more at the time of the pronouncement of his/her
guilt. The other disqualifications in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have
not been deleted from Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344. Evidently, the intention of Congress was to maintain the other
disqualifications as provided in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. Hence,
juveniles who have been convicted of a crime the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
reclusion perpetua to death or death, are disqualified from having their sentences suspended.
- Now, even if you are disqualified from having your sentence suspended, you still go back to section 51. You will
serve your sentence sa agricultural or training facility.
PP vs Sarcia September 10, 2009
The supreme court held that: Nonetheless, while Sec. 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that suspension of sentence can still
be applied even if the child in conflict with the law is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt, Sec. 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of sentence until the said child reaches
the maximum age of 21, thus:
Sec. 40. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court. If the court finds that the objective of the disposition
measures imposed upon the child in conflict with the law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in conflict with the law has
willfully failed to comply with the condition of his/her disposition or rehabilitation program, the child in conflict with the law
shall be brought before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the court
shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the
suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
(emphasis ours)
To date, accused-appellant is about 31 years of age, and the judgment of the RTC had been promulgated, even before
the effectivity of R.A. No. 9344. Thus, the application of Secs. 38 and 40 to the suspension of sentence is now moot and
academic.51 However, accused-appellant shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Sec. 51 of R.A. No. 9344,
which provides for the confinement of convicted children as follows:
Sec. 51. Confinement of Convicted Children in Agricultural Camps and Other Training Facilities. A child in conflict with
the law may, after conviction and upon order of the court, be made to serve his/her sentence, in lieu of confinement in a
regular penal institution, in an agricultural camp and other training facilities that may be established, maintained,
supervised and controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination with the DSWD.
- Ganon parin, if disqualified ka sa pag avail ng suspension of sentence, the you apply section 51.
Ok. Article 81 to 85, na repeal na yan ng RA 9346.
Article 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. - The
penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall
be executed and served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or
which may be provided by law in the future.
91
Article 87. Destierro. - Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places
designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall not more than 250 and be not less
than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
- Destierro.. Ang radius ng distierro is shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place
designated. If you enter the place, is that considered evasion of service of sentence?
PP vs Abilong. The abilong doctrine. Sa abilong kasi pumasok siya within the radius. So ang sinabi dito is destierro
is a depravation of liberty, because you are not allowed to enter the radius. Therefore, if you enter that radius,
THERE IS EVASION. Evasion of service of sentence does not only refer to imprisonment because it refers to
deprivation of LIBERTY.
Destierro is a penalty for:
1. for a concubine in concubinage
2. additional penalty for the crime of threat when the offender failed to give bond for good behaviour.
3. when the imposable graduated penalty is destierro
4. death under exceptional circumstances (article 247).
In the case of Abarca, it was held that destierro penalty is mere banishment and is intended more for the protection of the
accused that a punishment.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which
shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the
said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
- sa ato pa you need to get the maximum term and the minimum term. Now the problem is how to arrive at the
minimum and how to arrive at the maximum. So that is provided there in section 1. Hanapin mo muna ang
maximum. How do you find the maximum? All the things we have learned as to the determination of the proper
penalty, you will now apply. Stages of execution, lahat ng circumstances like mitigating, aggravating etc, lahat ng
rules na yan iconsider mo yan.
- Ang nakalagay sa section 1 is hanapin mo ang maximum and hanapin mo ang minimum. What happened to the
medium? The medium will still be applied but only as to getting the maximum term. Lahat ng rules apply mo to
get the maximum. Mas madali toh pag may example eh.
Example, the accused is found guilty of homicide. The penalty for homicide is Reclusion temporal. Now you need to get
the indeterminate sentence. Look for the maximum. Use the rules you already now under the RPC. Now, walang
aggravating and mitigating. So what is the penalty? The penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period kay wala may
aggravating or mitigating. That now is your maximum period under the ISL. Ngayon, you find the minimum. What does
section 1 say? Minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code. Ok so
what is the penalty next lower in degree sa RT? Prision mayor diba? So the minimum under the ISL will come from prision
mayor. The full range of prision mayor. In effect the maximum of the penalty will be taken from anywhere between
reclusion temporal medium, and the minimum will be taken anywhere between the range of prision mayor. The full range.
Kay ang sabi ng section 1 the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree man. The full range.
Kumbaga, in application, the judge can choose the minimum anywhere within the range of prision mayor, and the
maximum anywhere within the range of reclusion temporal medium.
Ating example dito, walang modifiying circumstances. Suppose there is a privileged mitigating. You have to look for the
penalty first kasi ibaba mo pa yan. If you have a privileged mitigating circumstance, RT, bababa na kaagad kasi the
maximum will just be prision mayor. Then look if there are modifying circumstances, kung wala, medium ka. What will now
be your minimum? Anywhere between the range of the penalty next lower which is prision correcional. Pili ka na naman
doon.
Paano kung complex crime? A participated as an accessory in the commission of the crime of direct assault with
homicide. The penalty for homicide is higher, RT, ang direct assault lower. Sabi natin ang penalty for a complex crime is
the penalty for the most serious crime to be imposed in its maximum period. So you have RT maximum. Because this is a
complex crime. The problem is, the person criminally liable is an accessory. So, two degrees lower dapat. A's penalty
should be reduced to PC. Then, it should be applied in its maximum because complex crime ito.
Now, the penalty is RT. The penalty for the accessory is two degrees lower, so PC. Since this is a complex crime, the
penalty should be in its maximum. Kung merong modifying, mitigating or aggravating, will that affect? Of course. Pag
divisible penalty, pwede madivide into three pa rin. So this time, the PC maximum should be imposed in its medium period
because there are modifying circumstances. So the maximum should be taken anywhere from PC maximum but within
the medium period of the maximum. That is the maximum term lang. Sa minimum, AM. Wala ng medium medium
because anywhere within the range.
92
Bakit ko sinabi kanina na way labot ang indeterminate? Kay klaro man. Magkuha siya ng penalty dito, magkuha din siya
ng penalty dito. What happens when the convict reaches the minimum term? Sabi ng convict, "Uy, ang sabi ng judge, 1
month and 1 day ang minimum ko. Uli na ko." Can he do that? Can he claim that he can go home? Remember, this is the
minimum of your sentence. That is not your sentence. You're supposed to be in prison until you reach the maximum.
So what is the purpose of the minimum? The purpose is Parole. Once you reach the minimum, you are now eligible for
parole. Yan yung pauwiin ka na lang. Instead of serving your sentence in prison, you serve it outside. You make use of
yourself. Society will make use of you. You are still serving your sentence. In effect, that is a partial extinction of liability.
Atubang ka didto sa board, ipakita mo na qualified ka na for parole.
People v. Ducosin: Keeping in mind the basic purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law "to uplift and redeem valuable
human material, and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic usefulness'
Question: Is this applicable to special laws?
Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which
shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the
said Code, and the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
Code for the offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.
If the offense shall be punished by another law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence. Sa
atin pa, that refers to special laws. Meron pa ring Indeterminate Sentence sa special law.
How do you get that? Ang sabi dito, the maximum shall not exceed the maximum and the minimum shall not be less than
the minimum. Kung ang special law, for example, provides for a penalty between one to five years. So, minimum
niya 1 year, maximum, pwede 5 years. Pwede din maximum 4 years, minimum 2 years.
Example, RA 3019. 5 years and 1 month to 15 years. So you can impose minimum 6 years, maximum mo is 15 years.
Take note of the inapplicability. When is the ISL not applicable?
Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-
imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of
misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual
delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been
granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose
maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at
the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof
So question, you are sentenced to RP, unya kay minor man ka. That is privileged mitigating. So RP, RT ka na dapat. Can
you now avail of the benefits of the ISL?
People v. Cempron July 6, 1990 In crimes punishable with death or life imprisonment provided the resulting penalty, after
considering the attending circumstances, is reclusion temporal or less, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies.
Sa atoa pa, pwede kung ang resulting penalty will not be those excluded. In other words, it is the penalty imposed that is
considered, not the penalty provided by the law.
People v. Garin June 17, 2004 The accused was found guilty of murder, punishable with RP to death. This penalty was
reduced to RT, so he was given the benefit of the ISL. It is the penalty imposed that is considered.
The ISL itself uses the word punished, not punishable.
Another disqualification, those convicted by treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason, misprision of
treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage.
Tapos, habitual delinquents. Suko kaayo ang balaud sa habitual delinquents. So pati sa ISL, kung habitual delinquent
ka, hindi ka maka-avail.
What about recidivist? Wala mang sinabi diyan. So kung recidivist ka, pwede ka pa rin dito sa ISL.
People v. Jaranilla February 22, 1974 It said that recidivists are entitled to an Indeterminate Sentence.
Although recidivists, appellants Suyo and Brillantes are not habitual delinquents. They are entitled to an indeterminate
sentence.
The matters to consider when imposing the penalty for the felony committed by the habitual delinquent.
Number 1: ISL is not applicable.
Number 2: Rules for the application of the penalties are applicable to the imposition of the principal and additional penalty.
Remember pwede ka both recidivist and habitual delinquent.
93
People v. Manalo May 25, 1956 The accused was found guilty of theft, punishable by arresto mayor. He had been
convicted thrice of theft, thus the penalty of arresto mayor was applied in its maximum period, because recidivist na siya.
The court sentenced him to a straight penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor. Since accused was a habitual delinquent, the
additional penalty presribed is prision mayor in its minimum and medium period. There being no qualifying circumstances,
the additional penalty was applied in its medium period.
Another disqualification: those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence. Referring to fugitives
from justice. Again, remember, destierro is a penalty.
Those who have violated their conditional pardon.
To those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year.
So ISL, dapat more than 1 year ang penalty mo. Kung 6 months ang penalty, hindi ka pwede. 1 year dapat. Those
sentenced by destierro. So walang ISL sa destierro.
And those already sentence by final judgment at the time of the approval of this Act. This only says that this shall
not apply retroactively.
What is not mentioned there is, because under section 3 of RA 9346:
SEC. 3. Person convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended
Tesoro v. Director of Prisons 68 Phil. 154 Dito, nagparole siya. One of the conditions was not to commit any other crime
and to conduct himself in an orderly manner. Two years after the grant of parole, a case of adultery was filed against him
but it was dismissed because of the non-appearance of the complainant. However, the board of Indeterminate Sentence,
after investigation, recommended to the President, the arrest and recommitment of Tesoro. Now he contended that
conviction was necessary before he could be adjudged as violating his conditional parole.
SC said: the determination of the violation of the conditional parole rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the Chief
Executive, the courts will not interfere, by way of review, with any of his findings.
So be able to distinguish parole from pardon.
1. Parole is a conditional release of a prisoner with an unexpired sentence, or suspension of his sentence, without
remitting the penalty imposed upon him; while pardon is a remission of the penalty imposed upon a defendant together
with all the accessories appurtenant thereto.
2. Under pardon, there is no service of sentence required. Whereas, under parole, you can only be eligible for parole after
serving the minimum.
3. The power of pardon is constitutional, while the parole is statutory.
Total Extinction of Criminal Liability
Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.
1ST MODE DEATH
Total extinction depends on whether the judgment has already become final. Death totally extinguishes [pecuniary]
criminal liability but as to pecuniary liability it depends on kelan namatay ang convict. By the death of the convict as to the
personal penalties, walang problema jan. Extinguished na. What are personal penalties? Yung personal to the convict for
example sentence to prison, personal penalty yan. Dili na pwede saluon sa uban, so when you die, thats the end of it.
However with regard sa ibang penalties such as fine, ibang usapan yan. Kaya nga may subsidiary imprisonment. In case
there is failure to pay the fine, may subsidiary imprisonment.
Now will death extinguish the fine which is a pecuniary penalty? Kung namatay ka, unsaon man pagsingil ana? This time
the law extinguishes as to the pecuniary penalties, it is extinguished only when the death occurs before the final judgment.
Why pecuniary penalties are only extinguished if the death occurs before final judgment? That is because obviously, dahil
wala pang final judgment, there can be no determination if whether guilty ka or not. Take note that it refers to a FINAL
JUDGMENT. So even if may judgment na ang lower court tapos nag appeal ka tapos didto ka namatay during appeal,
mao gihapon na. That judgment rendered by the lower court is not a final judgment. So when you die before final
judgment, personal and pecuniary penalties wala na yan. Now ang problema dito, iba pa yung civil liability because under
94
Art. 100, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. This spawned cases, tapos flip-flopping ang decisions. Now,
kung na extinguish na ang criminal liability mo, does it follow that the civil liability is also extinguished by your death? May
nagsasabi na extinguished na while yung iba hindi pa kasi there can be substitution.
The landmark case here is People vs. Bayotas- What is the effect of the death of accused pending appeal to the civil
liability?
READ CAREFULLY, VERY SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION:
1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability
based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense
committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."
2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated
on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation
from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
a) Law
b) Contracts
c) Quasi-contracts
d) . . .
e) Quasi-delicts
3. Where the civil liability survives, as explained in Number 2 above, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but
only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure as
amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the
accused, depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based as explained above.
4. Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil action by prescription, in
cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to its extinction, the private-offended party instituted
together therewith the civil action. In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during
the pendency of the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 115521 of the Civil Code, that should thereby
avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription.
When you die and the civil liability is ex delicto, then it is also extinguished. However if the civil liability is predicated on a
source other than the delict then that liability will survive the death of the convict. Because the principle is wala nang
criminal eh, sabay yan criminal and civil, so if the civil arises from the crime, so wala na din yan kung extinguished na ang
criminal liability. Example Estafa merong principal and agent in a contract of agency, principal to agent, o ibaligya ni
kung dili mahalin ibalik sa akoa, unya wala nimo gibalik. The civil liability is predicated on the crime of Estafa itself, then
namatay ang convict, so wala na din civil liability ex delicto. However, the civil liability can still be predicated on another
source of obligation and that is the contract of agency, so this time the civil liability will survive the death. Now, kanino mo
man habulin ang liability na yan? Kinsa man imohang apason na namatay naman. Well depende yan sa obligation.
Sometimes you may run against the estate of the accused, or you file a case against the administrator of the estate.
Another example, you run over a pedestrian. So pwede ka file-an ug criminal case pero pwede pod na quasi-delict. If
arising from a quasi-delict you can still go after the executor or administrator of the estate. If the obligation arises from a
contract you go against the estate of the accused. Of course this presupposes that there was no reservation as to the
filing of a separate civil action. This presupposes that the civil was instituted together with the criminal action, there was
no independent civil action filed.
2nd MODE SERVICE
Ito ang pinakamadali. You are sentenced to 5 years, then na serve mo na, tapos na. The penalty is like a debt, kung
nabayaran mo na eh di wala ka nang utang. Crime is a debt incurred by an offender as a consequence of his wrongful act
and penalty is but the amount of his debt, when payment is made the debt is extinguished.
3rd MODE - AMNESTY
Amnesty is defined as an act of grace of the legislature. This is usually extended to groups of persons who committed
political offenses. It is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a general pardon for a past offense, and is rarely,
if ever, exercised in favor of a single individual and is usually exerted in behalf of certain classes of persons, who are
subject to trial but have not yet been convicted. (Brown vs. Walker)
It looks backward and grants oblivion to a past offense. It is also a public act which the court should take judicial notice.
Again under this mode, civil liability is also not extinguished together with the criminal liability.
4th MODE ABSOLUTE PARDON
Pardon is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws which exempts the
individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has committed.
95
Now do not forget that there are two types of pardon, one that is extended by the Chief Executive and the other extended
by the offended party. Note the difference between the two. Also pls. take note the difference between amnesty and
absolute pardon.
Pardon implies guilt, thats why pardon is granted after conviction. Thats one of the distinctions. Amnesty on the
otherhand may come before or after conviction. Pardon involves forgiveness but not forgetfulness. Pardon looks to the
future. Also read this in relation to Article 113:
Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. - Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the
next preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the
crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of
sentence or any other reason.
Pardon in Adultery case A was charged with the crime of adultery with a married woman. The married woman, after
conviction of both accused, was pardoned by the Chief Executive. Does the pardon of the woman have the effect of
extinguishing the criminal liability of A? No, because pardon is in the discretion of the President. But if it is the private
offended party who pardoned, dapat yung dalawa.
Now diretso nalang muna tayo sa 7th Mode which is marriage.
7th MODE - BY THE MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED WOMAN, AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 344 OF THIS CODE.
Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. - The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed
by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both
alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender
has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this
paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-
mentioned crimes.
Rape is no longer covered by Article 344 because rape is a public crime and supposedly this article only covers private
crimes. Marriage of the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the criminal liability of the offender and his co-
principals, accomplices and accessories, but of course the marriage must be contracted in good faith. On this score, diba
the pardon will also benefit the co-principals, accomplices and accessories, but then for example rape (even if hindi na
included ang rape sa scope ng Art. 344), under the amended rule on rape Art. 266-c, the marriage between the offender
and the offended also extinguishes the criminal liability, but now, take note that this does not apply to multiple offenders,
because there are as many counts of rape as there are offenders. So thats why Article 344 cannot apply here because if
for example there are 4 offenders, there are also 4 counts of rape, this time the benefits of Art. 344 cannot apply to the
acts committed by the other offenders.
5th MODE PRESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME
Prescription of the crime refers to the waiver or forfeiture of the State to file a case against you, because nag-dugay2 ang
state ug file a case against you. There is only a certain period within which the State may file a criminal case, if the state
does not do that, it forfeits its right to file a criminal action. That is prescription for the crime. There are different periods for
prescription.
Under Article 90:
Article 90. Prescription of crime. - Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall
prescribe in twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable
by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application
of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved
June 19, 1966).
96
Again internalize this provision.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the
rules. For example arresto mayor to prision correccional, you base the prescription period on prision correccional because
it is the higher penalty.
Take note the extinction of the criminal liability through prescription does not carry with it the extinction of civil liability
arising from the offense.
Also remember that Art. 90 likewise apply to penalties which does not involve imprisonment. E.g. under the scale of
penalties, temporary/permanent absolute disqualification is Afflictive, and so under Art. 90, afflictive penalties prescribe in
15 years and so on. What about fine? Remember Article 26:
Article 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. - A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an alternative
penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not
exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
Now since we are talking about a period year, how do you compute the prescriptive period? The rule is, exclude the first
day and include the last day, thats how you compute prescription. And under the civil code, dusk until dawn and month is
30 days, but you also factor in that there are months na 31 days. So you consider that. 1 day lang ang ligas mamali na.
What if the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or a Holiday, can the State file the criminal action on the
next working day? No! The interpretation is against the state. The State should file the day before the Holiday, otherwise
the crime will prescribe already. That is the ruling of the court in the case of Yapdiangco vs. Buencamino.
Earlier I said that if the penalty is a compound one, the highest penalty is the basis. Now take note of this, when fine is an
alternative penalty higher than the penalty which involves imprisonment, then the basis of the prescription period is the
fine. Case in point is the case of People vs. Yu Hai (August 15, 1956)
Under Article 90, supra, "light offenses prescribe in two months". The definition of "light offenses" is in turn to be found in
Article 9, which classifies felonies into grave, less grave, and light, and defines "light felonies" as "those infraction of law
for the commission of which the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both is provided ". The
offense charged in punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos (Article 195). Hence, it is a "light
offense" under Article 9 and prescribes in two months under Article 90.
Now it has been asked on whether novation is a means of extinguishing criminal liability. The list under Article 89 is
exclusive. Novation is not included under Article 89, hence it is not a means of extinguishing criminal liability. Although it
may prevent the rise of a criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the filing of a criminal action in Court. If there is
novation prior to the filing of a case to the Court, then it can prevent the case from being prosecuted. Like in Estafa,
nangutang sa imo tapos nag promise2 pero wala nagbayad, unya karon niingon tong nangutang sa imoha nga pasayloa
lang ko, kini mag execute nalang ko ug promissory note I promise to pay you 2 weeks from now Now 2 weeks after
naningil ka unya dili gihapon siya kabayad, so file-an nimo ug Estafa. But now you cannot anymore file a case for Estafa
because there is already a novation, it has been converted into a simple loan. So novation can only prevent but it is not a
mode of extinguishing criminal liability. That is the ruling in the case of Diongson vs. CA (1999).
You should also remember this next issue.
For example A is accused of less serious physical injuries punishable by arresto mayor which prescribes in 5 years, and
so a case was filed a year after. So diba pasok siya sa prescriptive period? However, the court did not convict A of less
serious physical injuries but of only slight physical injuries, which is a light felony and which prescribes in 2 months. So the
offender says, prescribed na! 2 months is the prescriptive period for the crime to which I was convicted but you filed the
case a year after, so prescribed! Is the contention of the offender correct?
The question is can an accused be convicted of an offense lesser than that charged if the lesser offense has prescribed at
the time the information was filed? No!
The accused cannot be convicted of the offense lesser than that charged if the lesser offense has already prescribed
because to do so would circumvent the rule on prescription. Kanang naay gikulata, so slight physical injuries pero nag-
langan ang state ug file ug kaso, nalagpas na ug 2 months. What would the prosecutor do? File nalang ko ug frustrated
murder diba? So mag lahi ang prescriptive period, so that would be a circumvention of the law on prescriptive period.
Hence the rule, you cannot be convicted of the crime lesser than that charged if the lesser crime has already prescribed.
5th MODE PRESCRIPTION OF THE PENALTY
Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. The period of prescription shall commence to run from the
day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be
interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any
reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.
We are talking here of the lapse of time. After the lapse of such period, the state loses its right to file the case. Now,
where do you start counting? According to 91, you start counting from the day the crime is discovered. But then, these
raise questions. Bakit discovered and gamit na term? For example, you are ___ physical injuries. When are you going to
discover that you were nasumbagan? 1 month or 1 year pa after?!
97
But that is the usual rule. You start counting from the day that the crime is committed, if it is known. Yung discovered jan,
because there are crimes that not discovered immediately when it is committed. Like for example, slander. Somebody bad
mouths you to other people but you do not know that you were already being slandered. So when does the period for
prescription start? According to 91, it will start from the day you discovered that you were slandered. But usually, you
discover the crime at the time it is committed.
First, the rule is you get the date of the commission of the crime, if it is known. If it is not known, then, the date of
discovery.
91 also says discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In other words, the crime must be
discovered by the right persons. It must be the offended party, the authorities or their agents. When you say authorities or
their agents you go to Article 152. They must be the person who has discovered the crime.
For example, A kills B and it is witnessed by C but C does not do anything. After 31 years, he decided to go to the police.
So ngayon, hinuli ng police si A for killing B. Sabihin ni A na dugaya na ato uy. Has the crime prescribed? Here, the period
for prescription did not begin to run because it was not discovered by the right person. Patay naman ang offended party,
so sino dapat? It should be the authorities or their agents. And the crime came to the attention of the authorities or their
agent after 31 years. So dun pa magsimula ang countingfrom the time that they discovered the crime.
There is such a thing as constructive discovery.
Pp vs. Reyes (July 27, 1989): deed of sale was falsified and the sale was registered and annotated at the back of the
title. Falsified ito at dun sa ROD. So na defraud sya and several years passed. Let us say the period for prescription
falsification is 10 years and more than 10 years ang nag pass before the offended party discovered the falsification. In a
certain period naman after 1 year nag file sya ng case.Sabi nung accused uy prescribe na, hastang dugaya na ato. Sabi
ng offended party anong matagal eh I just learned of the commission of the crime bago lang, last year. Who is correct?
From the time of discovery or from the time of the commission of the falsification? Where do you reckon the running of the
prescriptive period?
Sabi ng SC that the period of prescription for falsification of a public document shall have to be reckoned from the
time the notarized deed was registered or recorded in the ROD. Why is that? Because registration there is
constructive notice, it is in rem; publication in rem. It is notice to the whole world. And you are therefore to have deemed to
have notice, you are deemed to have knowledge or have discovered at the time of registration since it is notice to the
whole world.
Several years after, meron na naman humirit, pero this time in another section. This time it is marriage. Nag minyo daw
sya without annulling the first marriage. Diba ang marriage ginaregister man yan sa LCR. Gifilan sya ug bigamy kron.Sabi
nya na na-lapse na kasi matagal na masyado alluding to the case of Reyes. Dapat daw kasi it is registration equals notice
to the offended party, it should have been constructive notice to you also.
Sermonia vs. CA (June 14, 1994). Accused contracted a bigamous marriage which was duly registered in the Office of
the Civil Registrar in 1975. His first wife discovered the crime in 1991. Information was filed in 1992. Bigamy is punishable
by prision mayor which prescribes in 15 years.
The SC held that constructive notice rule is not applicable to registration of bigamous marriages in the office of
the civil registrar. Hence, the period of prescription commences to run on the date of actual discovery of the
bigamous marriage.
Another case: when do you reckon the prescriptive period when the crime is a continuing crime?
The term of prescription commences to run from the date the crime ended or from the latest act. But if it is really in
the nature of continuing offence, hindi mag run ang prescriptive period nyan.
Also take note the prescription of false testimony. Kasi diba you go to court and testify falsely. So when does the
prescriptive period for false testimony run?
Pp vs. Maneja (June 10, 1941)]. The period of prescription for false testimony commences to run from the date of the
finality of the judgment of the case in which the offender testified falsely. You reckon the prescriptive period from
the finality of judgment and not from the time na natapos ang testimony mo.
Is there a prescriptive period for or under special laws? One rule is when the special law provides for a prescriptive period,
then, you follow that. Kung wala. Actually there is. Prescription of offenses punished by special laws is governed by Act
No. 3326.
ACT NO. 3326 - AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS PENALIZED BY
SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO
RUN
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in
accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for
not more than one month, or both; (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one
month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or more,
but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six years
or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
98
Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the
same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceeding for its
investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin
to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
Also take note, we are talking about discovery2x. We are talking about discovery of the crime, we are not talking
about the discovery or identification of the offender. Even if the offender is not known, magsimula parin ug takbo
ang prescriptive period. What is important is that the crime is known or that it is discovered. It doesnt matter if the
perpetrator is not yet identified.
x xxshall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when
such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for
any reason not imputable to him.x x x
Meaning..diba the prescriptive period runs from the day it is committed or from the time it is discovered. Now, 91 says that
it can be stoppedthat the running of the period can or may stop. When is it tolled or interrupted. According to 91, it is
interrupted upon the filing of the complaint or information.
Diha karon ang problema, complaint or information. Are they the same? Complaint, unsa man na? Affidavit. Ang
information, unsa man na? That is the charge sheet accusing you in court. The premise there is tapos na ang preliminary
investigation because you have an information already. So either or, kasi complaint or information? So if you file a case,
an affidavit complaint before the DOJ, will it stop the running of the prescriptive period? If you file a case before the
ombudsman, will it stop the running of the prescriptive period? Ang question is, ano itong complaint na sinasabi? Is this
the complaint you file in court or for trial or is this the complaint ordenuncia filed before the DOJ for purposes of
preliminary investigation or with the ombudsman for purposes of preliminary investigation? Will it interrupt the running of
the period?
Reodica vs. CA: prescriptive period provided ___ in 1988 was not interrupted by the filing of the complaint in the fiscals
office or MTC for preliminary investigation as such did not constitute a judicial proceeding. Take note that you can file a
complaint before the MTC diba for pruposes of PI and not for purposes of trial. Angsabi ng court dito is
hindisyamagstopkasihindisya judicial proceeding.
Zaldivia vs. Reyes, Jr. (July 3, 1992): the prescriptive priod for violation of municipal ordinance commenced from the
alleged commission and will end 2 months thereafter. It is not interrupted by the filing of the complaint with the office of the
prosecutor as this is not a judicial proceeding. The judicial proceeding that would interrupt the period is the filing of the
information with the court.
PCGG vs. Desierto (July 9, 2007): Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the
law, and if the same not be known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment.Ayan judicial proceeding, which was defined earlier as the filing of the information in court.
That is the judicial proceeding we are talking about.
But, please take note of this case of Pp vs. Pangilinan (672 SCRA 105): In the old but oft-cited case of People v. Olarte,
this Court ruled that the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary
examination or investigation, should, and thus, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the
court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try the case on the merits. This ruling was broadened by the Court
in the case of Francisco, et.al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. when it held that the filing of the complaint with the Fiscals
Office also suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a criminal offense.
In other words, this case is saying that you go back to the old rule. The old rule,in fact, was that it will interrupt when you
file the complaint in the fiscals office, doj. So, by analogy, when you file a complaint with the ombudsman eh mag-
interrupt din yan because the rationale there is yung pagfile ng complaint is actually the start of the judicial proceeding.
Kanus-a diay na mag sugod? When you file the complaint. The start is not when you reach the court kasi after pa ng PI
yan. Ang PI is part of the judicial proceding. Dyan nag sisimula.That is the rule now. So now, the filing of the complaint
for PI will interrupt the running of the prescriptive period.
But take NOTE again, will this apply if the case is under summary rules? It will not apply.
If you file a complaint before the barangay, will it stop the running of the prescriptive period? The answer is found in the
LGC. It says there that it will interrupt but only for a period of 60 days. Wala pa nahuman ang proceedings didto sa
barangay kay musugod nsad sya ug dagan.
Section 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. -
x xx
(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses - While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or
arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action under existing laws shall be interrupted
upon filing the complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the
complainant of the complainant or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the
lupon or pangkat secretary: Provided, however, That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the
filing of the complaint with the punong barangay. x xx
99
Pangilinan case said also that: There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special
laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr. is not controlling in
special laws. In Llenes v. Dicdican, Ingco, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, Brillante v. CA, and Sanrio Company Limited v.
Lim,cases involving special laws, this Court held that the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation
against the accused interrupts the period of prescription.
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation, et. al., the Court even ruled that
investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for violations of the Revised Securities
Act and the Securities Regulations Code effectively interrupts the prescription period because it is equivalent to
the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases.
In fact, in the case of Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, this Court categorically ruled that commencement of the
proceedings for the prosecution of the accused before the Office of the City Prosecutor effectively interrupted the
prescriptive period for the offenses they had been charged under BP Blg. 22. Aggrieved parties, especially those who do
not sleep on their rights and actively pursue their causes, should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily further simply
because of circumstances beyond their control, like the accuseds delaying tactics or the delay and inefficiency of the
investigating agencies.
Lets go back to and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted
or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
If the case is dismissed upon petition of the accused, unsa man? If the proceedings terminate before conviction or
acquittal, the period of prescription shall begin to run again. If the proceedings terminate upon petition of the accused, the
proceedings terminate without conviction or acquittal, the period of prescription commences to run again.
If the case is terminated without the consent of or over the objection of the accused who had already been arraigned. This
time, the dismissal becomes final. The accused cannot be prosecuted any more for the same offense even within the
prescriptive period, on the ground of double jeopardy.
If the accused evades arrest. Hindi magrun ang prescriptive period nyan. Ang sabi natin from the time the offense is
committed, if known. But if hindi mo mahuli ang accused so hindi sya magrun kay sala man sa accused na.
Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows:
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;

2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes in five
years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.
This time, we are talking about penalties. Kanina prescription of crime eto ngayon is prescription of penalties.
Prescription of penalty the loss or forfeiture of the right of the government to execute the final sentence after the lapse of
a certain time.
In prescription of crimes refer to the waiver or forfeiture of the state to file an action, prescription of penalty refers to the
waiver or forfeiture of the right of the state to impose the penalty.
For a certain number of years dili ma-impose ang penalty because you escaped or wala pa ka na-priso or nawala na ka
so the penalty has not been imposed upon you. The state has a certain period within which to catch you, arrest you again
and put you in jail. If the state cannot find you for that number of years eh happy kana kasi naglampas na. 20 years ago
tapos 21 nakaron eh lampas na. You cannot be forced to serve your sentence becausde the state already forfeited its
right to impose a penalty upon you.
Is that not tantamount to encouraging prisoners or convicts to escape? But during this period na hinahanap sya, the
fugitive lives the life of a hunted animal. You keep looking over your shoulders.
Infante vs Warden (December 12, 1952): If a convict under confinement, at the risk of being killed succeeds in breaking
jail and also succeeds in evading rearrest for a certain period of time which by no means is short, despite the efforts of all
the instrumentalities of the Government including sometimes the setting of a prize or reward on his head, which thereby
enlists the aid of the citizenry, the law calls off the search for him, and condones the penalty. But during that period of
prescription the escaped convict lives a life of a hunted animal, hiding mostly in the mountains and forests in constant
mortal fear of being caught. His life far from being happy, comfortable and peaceful, is reduced to a mere existence filled
with fear, discomfort, loneliness and misery.The convict who evades sentence is sometimes sufficiently punished by his
voluntary and self-imposed banishment, and at times that voluntary exile is more grievous than the sentence he was
trying to avoid. And all the time he has to utilize every ingenuity and means to outwit the Government agencies bent on
recapturing him. For all this, the Government extends to him a sort of condonation or amnesty.
You can disappear for purposes of prescription but you cannot go back to your previous life.
Take note than in prescription of crimes, it is the penalty prescribed by law that should be considered. In
prescription of penalties, it is the penalty imposed that should be considered.
For example: falsification is punished by PM. 12 years had lapsed before the fiscal filed the information. PM is afflictive so
15 years yan. 12 years before the fiscal filed the information, so pasok sya. During the trial, A proved 2 mitigating without
100
any aggravating which in effect is a privileged mitigating circumstance lowering the penalty from PM to PC. Now,
correctional penalties prescribe in 10 years. Unya gi-file man after 12 years.Unsaon man ni karon? Has the penalty
prescribed? When you talk about prescription of penalties, it is the penalty imposed that is considered. So therefore, in
this case, the penalty has already prescribed. If we are talking about prescription of the crime, then, hindi pa ito sya nag
prescribe because the crime punishable by PM prescribes in 15 years.
Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. The period of prescription of penalties shall commence
to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the
defendant should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government
has no extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.
So from the time that the convict evades the prescriptive period will run. Habang hindi sya nahuli, cge yan takbo. Kung
mahuli sya eh ma-interrupt na naman yan if the defendant should give himself up or be captured, etc. so those are the
instances when the period of prescription will be interrupted.
Commencement run from the date when the culprit should evadethe service of his sentence.
Sentence final sentence
Escape culprit should have been committed to prison.
Interruption if the defendant:
1. Should give himself up;
2. Be captured;
3. Should go to some foreign country with which the government has no extradition treaty; or
4. Should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.
This means that when you escape, for purposes of prescription, you have to behave yourself. Because if you commit
another crime, the period of prescription will not run.
Question: you are captured, so nainterrupt. But, from the time of your escape to your capture 5 years. After you were
captured and detained, you escaped again. Sos nawala na pud ka ang gipangita na pud ka sa government, another 5
years. Nahuli ka na naman, so 10 na.Tapos, let us say 15 years ang prescriptive period, nag-escape na sad ka and then
you were caught after 7 years. So 17 years lahat kay 5+5+7=17 and sabi mo uy lampas na ako sa prescriptive period of
penalties at hindi nyo na dapat ako ibalik sa prisohan. Is the convict correct? The period of prescription that ran during
the evasion is not forfeited, so that if the culprit is captured and evades again the service of his sentence, the period of
prescription that has run in his favor should be taken into account. So, the answer is yes!
Jovendo del Castillo vs. Rosario Torrecampo (December 18, 2002)
Facts: Petitioner was charged on March 8, 1983 with violation of Section 178 of the 1978 Elelction Code. On January 14,
1985, the trial court rendered judgment and declared petitioner guilty. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed his conviction to the
CA which eventually affirmed the decision of the trial court in toto. Said decision became final and executory. During the
execution of judgment, petitioner failed to appear which prompted the presiding judge to issue an order of arrest of
petitioner and the confiscation of his bond. However, petitioner was never apprehended. He remained at large. 10 years
later, on October 24, 1997, petitioner filed before the trial court a motion to quash the warrant issued for his arrest on the
ground of prescription of the penalty imposed upon him. However, it was denied. His MR was likewise denied.
Held: Article 93 of the RPC provides when the prescription of penalties shall commence to run. Under said provision, it
shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same
Code, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been convicted by final judgment by
escaping during the term of his sentence.
As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, escape in legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93 and 157 of the
RPC means unlawful departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody. Clearly, one who has not been committed to
prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom. In the instant case, petitioner was never brought to prison. In
fact, even before the execution of the judgment for his conviction, he was already in hiding.
Pangan vs. Gatbalte (January 21, 2007)
Facts: The petitioner was indicted for simple seduction. On September 16, 1978, the petitioner was convicted of the
offense charged and was sentenced to serve a penalty of 2 months and one day of arresto mayor. The court of origin
issued an order directing the recording of the decision in the criminal docket of the court and an order of arrest against the
petitioner. Pursuant to the order of arrest. On January 20, 2000, the petitioner was apprehended and detained at the
Mabalacat Detention Cell. On January 24, 2000, petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus at the RTC of Angeles City
contending that his arrest was illegal and his confinement was unlawful.
Held: In this case, the essential element of prescription which is the evasion of the service of sentence is absent.
Admittedly, the petitioner herein has not served the penalty imposed on him in prison and that during the service of the
sentence, he escaped therefrom. Notably, at the trial of Crim. Case No. 85-816 in the Municipal Trial Court, Branch III,
Angeles City and on the date set for the promulgation of the affirmed decision, the petitioner failed to appear and
remained at large.
101
There was no evasion of the service of the sentence in this case, because such evasion presupposes escaping
during the service of the sentence consisting in deprivation of liberty. (Infante vs. Warden, 48 O.G. No. 122) (92
Phil. 310).
So were done with total extinction, meron ding partial. What are the partial modes of extinction?
ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment
or serving his sentence.
Pardon, sige na tag balik balik aning pardon. It is the pardon extended by the president because we said we are taking
about criminal liability only the pardon by the president can do that because he is representing the state. Now please take
note that under 95. There are conditions for the pardon. The convict who is pardoned is supposed to comply with them
otherwise if he violates them, what will happen? Pwede xa ibalik to serve his sentence.
Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. Any person who has been granted
conditional pardon shall incur the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein
otherwise, his non-compliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation of the pardon
and the provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him.
In otherwords the pardon will be revoked meron pa xang kaso. Now take note that the grant of pardon and the
determination of the term and conditions are purely executive acts not subject to judicial scrutiny.
People vs Fontillas The nature of a conditional pardon, is that, we said, a pardon is not effective until and unless it is
accepted. Mura na xag donation. It is a contract between the Chief executive who grants the pardon and the convict who
accepts, since it is a contract the pardoned convict is bound to fulfill its conditions and accept all its consequences not as
it chooses but according to its specific terms.
Infante vs Provincial warden, the court said that it is limited to the period of the prisoners sentence unless there is a
contrary intention. Meaning it is in the obligations of the pardon. They are limited to the period of the sentence unless the
intention to extend it beyond that time was manifest from the nature of the condition or the language in which it was
imposed.
Now when you talk about the obligations, how long should you comply with these obligations?
The usual condition actually when you talk about conditional pardon is that the convict shall no longer violate any of the
laws of the country.
Lets go to breach of condition. The article tells us that the pardon will be revoked. Tapos meron pa xang prosecution
under 159. So that is one effect of the breach of condition. The person who breached the condition shall face criminal
prosecution under 159. This time take note, there is a case, the convict will be charged, therefore yang 159 na remedy is
judicial in character.
Revocation of the pardon (under Sec. 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code President is authorized to order
arrest and re-incarceration of the conditions of his pardon, parole or suspension of sentence.)
- Determination of whether the accused violated the condition is executive in character. So dito dili na kailangan
ug kaso kaso kung muingon ang president nga revoke, revoke na na.
Now under 159, what is the penalty if found guilty?
Violation of Article 159 of the RPC, 2 penalties provided:
1. Prision correccional in its minimum period If the penalty remitted does not exceed 6 years:
2. The unexpired portion of his original sentence If the penalty remitted is higher than 6 years.
Torres v. Gonzales (152 SCRA 272)
Held: A convict granted conditional pardon, like the petitioner herein who is recommitted, must of course be convicted by
final judgment of a court of the subsequent crimes with which he was charged before the criminal penalty for such
subsequent offense(s) can be imposed upon him.
Tesoro v. Director of Prisons (May 23, 1939)
Facts: Appellant was convicted for the crime of falsification of a public document. In 1935, he was granted parole but
subject to certain conditions, among which, That he will not commit any other crime and will conduct himself in an orderly
manner. In 1937, he was charged with adultery. In 1938, a complaint was lodged with the Board of Indeterminate
102
Sentence. His parole was later revoked. Appellant contended that judicial pronouncement to the effect that he has
committed a crime in necessary before he can be properly adjudged as having violated his conditional parole.
Held: It was, therefore, the mere commission, not his conviction by court, of any other crime, that was necessary
in order that the petitioner may be deemed to have violated his parole. And under section 64 (i) of the Administrative
Code, the Chief Executive is authorized to order the arrest and re-incarceration of any such person who is his judgment,
shall fail to comply with the condition, or conditions, of his pardon, parole or suspension of sentence.
Lets read Section 64 of Revised Admin Code:
Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code: To grant to convicted prisoners reprieves or pardons, either
plenary or partial, conditional, or unconditional, to suspend sentences without pardon, fines and order the
discharge of any convicted person upon parole, subject to such conditions as he may impose, and to authorize
the arrest and reincarceration of any such person who, in his judgment, shall fail to comply with the condition,
conditions, of his pardon, parole or suspension of sentence.
Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. The commutation of the original sentence for another of a
different length and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former.
Take note that the fine can also be commuted. So in effect it is a substitution.
There are specific commutations under the RPC, yung isa dinaanan lang natin, yung the convict is over 70, dili naka
patyon sa state. Or another specific commutation referring still to the death penalty is when the majority vote needed by
the Supreme Court Justices is not reached for the affirmation of the death penalty.
Pardon Commutation
To be effective, must be accepted Need not be accepted by the convict to be operative
Avoids or terminates punishment for crime Remission of a part of the punishment, a substitution of a less
penalty for the one originally imposed
Commutation Reprieve
Reduction of the penalty Temporary suspension of the execution of a sentence, especially of a sentence of death
imposed
Object is the Appears to apply only to capital sentences

rehabilitation of the
criminal offender
ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution,
rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the
period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of
good behavior during detention;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-
three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction
of twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during detention;
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days
for each month of good behavior during detention; and
5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in
addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered.
An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct.

103
Period Deduction each month of good behavior
1st 2 years 20 days
3rd to 5th year 23 days
Following years until the 25 days

10th year
11th and successive 30 days

years
Plus 15 days deduction for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service
These are called good conduct allowances. You differentiate this from the special time allowance. Yung next article. But
before we go there, this is also different from article 29 which is about preventive suspension which can be credited
fulltime if you comply with the rules of convicted prisoners and 4/5 if you dont.
ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. A deduction of one fifth of the period of his sentence shall be
granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence under
the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours
following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred
to in said article. A deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner
chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe
enumerated in Article 158 of this Code.
As amended by RA 10592, July 23, 2012
Good conduct is different from special time allowance because special time this is the most substantive deduction
because the deduction is what? 1/5 of the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded the
service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities
within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe.
Art. 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of disorder, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other
calamities. A convict who shall evade the service of his sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he
shall have been confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or
similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not participated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of
the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no case shall exceed six months, if he
shall fail to give himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation by
the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity.
Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall give themselves up to the
authorities within the above mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be entitled to the deduction provided in Article
98.
Now, if during the occasion or during these calamities, diba nagkagubot, you escape from prison. What will happened?
Depende yan, kung mubalik ka or kung dili na ka mubalik.
Kung mubalik ka, ito yung sinasabi ng 98, if you give yourself up within 48 hours, you will be rewarded. What is your
reward? The deduction of 1/5 of the period of your sentence.
Ngayon kung hindi ka magbalik human nadakpan ka, what will happen? Ngayon baliktad naman dagdagan ang sentence
mo ng 1/5 din. But this time, take note of the distinction, this time the increase in 1/5 will be based on the remainder of the
sentence.
Who grants time allowances?
ART. 99. Who grants time allowances. Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or
city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.
Take note, once granted this shall not be revoked.
Actually, there are other modes of partial extinction. We have already talked about one of them, what is that? Parole.
Parole is partial extinction kasi parang na.reduce kasi nag.alis ka man you serve your sentence outside you do not stay in
prison. So in effect that is a partial extinction of criminal liability. Another cause or another mode is under probation. What
is probation? It is a disposition under which the defendant after conviction and sentence is release subject to conditions
imposed by the court and the supervision of the probation officer.
So its similar to parole in that you do not serve your sentence in prison you serve it outside. Take note ha, after conviction
of sentence subject to conditons. Ang parole, remember, you must serve the minimum first before you can be eligible for
104
parole.
Sec. 4. Grant of Probation. Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant, suspend the execution
of said sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it
may deem best.
XXX
SO really, probation is a partial extinction of the sentence, because there is suspension of the sentence. Instead of being
imprisoned the sentence will be suspended, labas ka. Behave ka, then kung nagbehave ka, balik ka for final discharge.
So when do you file for probation? Upon application for the period of perfecting an appeal. So you have how many days?
So within that period you have to file an application for probation.
Unlike dun sa suspension of sentence for minors under 9344, diba we said that it is automatic. Ang probation there is no
such thing as automatic sa probation.
Your recourse after conviction is either you appeal or you apply for probation. When you choose one, which will exclude
the other. Dapat isa lang, hindi pwede sabay
Now, problem, suppose nag appeal, and while on appeal, he changes his mind, so he opted to apply instead for
probation. Can he do that?
Take note ha, once you have decided. Wala na yang probation. Section 4 of the probation law expressly prohibits the
grant for probation of the defendant has filed an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
In one case, the convict made an appeal within the 15 day period and within the same 15 day period he changed his mind
and he wanted to apply for probation. SC in such a case pwede basta within the period of perfecting an appeal.
You can change your mind provided it is still within the 15 days within which to perfect an appeal.
Mandatory
Sec. 10. Conditions of Probation. Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring
that the probationer shall:
(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may be
specified in the order within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer.
You cant go on a vacation without the approval of the probation officer because you are not supposed to leave. If taga
davao ka, davao ka lang. if muadto kag manila, you have to get his approval.
G.R. No. 76100 April 18, 1990
SALEM ALEX PALO y TOYUR vs. HON. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE
It is clear that what the law requires is that the application for probation must be filed within the period for perfecting an
appeal. The need to file it within such period was intended to encourage offenders, who are willing to be reformed
and rehabilitated, to avail of probation at the first opportunity. 15 Such provision was never intended to suspend
the period for the perfection of an appeal.
As earlier noted, the filing of the application for probation operates as a waiver of the right to appeal. Thus, there
is no more opportunity for the accused to exercise his right to appeal, much less to withdraw a supposed improvident plea
of guilty, the judgment having become final by the filing of the application for probation.
Sec. 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequent Disposition. At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant for
the arrest of a probationer for violation of any of the conditions of probation. The probationer, once arrested and detained,
shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing, which may be informal and summary, of the violation charged.
The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding release on bail of
persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. If the violation is
established, the court may revoke or continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall
order the probationer to serve the sentence originally imposed. An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying
the terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.
Take note also, that the order granting or denying the probation is NOT APPEALABLE. This is NOT a final judgment but
an INTERLOCUTORY ORDER.
What happens to the accessory penalties if you are granted the probation? Will you still have to serve them?
Answer: Accessory penalties are also deemed suspended. The accessory follows the principal.
105
Sec. 16. Termination of Probation. After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that he
has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a result of
his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was
granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.
Compare this to Subsidiary imprisonment, kung saan even if after serving subsidiary imprisonment but after service and
you now have money, you are still compelled to pay the fine. Here, in probation, if you are discharged, wala na. Wala na
pati ang fine.
However in the case of CIVIL LIABILITY: The grant of probation does not extinguish the civil liability of the offender
Budlong v. Apalisok, GR No. 60151, June 24, 1983, 122 SCRA 935.
If under Article 113 of the Revised Penal Code, the obligation to satisfy civil liability continues notwithstanding service of
sentence or non-service due to amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence, or any other reason we fail to see what led
the respondent judge to rule that an application for probation should have an opposite effect insofar as determination of
civil liability is concerned.
The above provision (Sec 4) of the Probation Law clearly provides only for the suspension of the sentence imposed on the
accused by virtue of his application for probation. It has absolutely no bearing on civil liability. There is no legal basis for
the respondent court's conclusion that a hearing to prove the civil liability of the accused under the circumstances of the
case, "... would in effect nullify the order of suspension of the sentence and would defeat the very purpose of the
Probation Law." The civil action for the civil liability is separate and distinct from the criminal action. (People and Manuel
vs. Coloma, 105 Phil. 1287; Roa vs. De la Cruz, 107 Phil. 8; People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120).
GROUNDS FOR DENIAL OF PROBATION
Sec. 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. In determining whether an offender may be placed on
probation, the court shall consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents, environment, mental
and physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources. Probation shall be
denied if the court finds that:
(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to
an institution; or
(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or .
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed
Take note na medyo SUBJECTIVE xa and based on the discretion of the court.
G.R. No. 127899 December 2, 1999 MARILYN C. SANTOS vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS - Her issuing
subject fifty-four (54) bouncing checks is a serious offense. To allow petitioner to be placed on probation would be to
depreciate the seriousness of her malefactions.
"Sec. 9. Disqualified Offenders. The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;
(b) convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security or the public order;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less
than one month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos.
(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable
pursuant to Section 33 hereof."
Take note that if you are not disqualified under section 9, you may still be disqualified under section 8. So you cant say na
pag wala kang disqualification under section 9, sure na pasok ka sa probation because you still have to contend with
section 8. Even if you dont have the disqualifications, you may still be denied probation under section 8.
What is the probationable penalty? Meaning what are the penalties na pwede kang mag apply for probation?
If the Penalty IMPOSED (not prescribed) is not exceeding 6 years (At most Prision Correctional) if prision
mayor no probation na.
Letter D: it means that you can avail of probation only ONCE. Dili na ka kausab.
Letter E: this provides NON RETROACTIVITY.
Additional Grounds (provided by sir)
(f) those entitled to the benefits under the provisions of PD 603, known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, and
similar laws;
106
(g) those who have perfected an appeal; (because its mutually exclusive)
(h) Sec 24 of RA 9164 (Dangerous Drugs Act)
Section 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. Any person convicted for
drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege
granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.
PABLO BERNARDO vs. THE HONORABLE BALAGOT G.R. No. 86561 November 10, 1992
Probation is a mere privilege and its grant rests upon the discretion of the court. Even if a convicted person is
not included in the list of offenders disqualified from the benefits of the decree, the grant of probation is
nevertheless not automatic or ministerial. The court should, before granting probation, consider the potentiality of the
offender to reform, together with the demands of justice and public interest, along with other relevant circumstances. In
the case at bar, as the municipal judge noted, the petitioner represented that he had earlier filed his application for
probation when he had not done so in fact.
Sec. 10 The court may also require the probationer to:
(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;

(b) meet his family responsibilities;
(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior written
approval of the probation officer;
(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and enter and remain in a specified
institution, when required for that purpose;
(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;
(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on probation;
(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;
(i) permit the probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place of work;
(j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written approval; or
(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his
liberty or incompatible with his freedom of conscience.
Section 10 the conditions provided under section 10 are NOT EXCLUSIVE.
FLORENTINA L. BACLAYON vs. HON. PACITO G. MUTIA G.R. No. L-59298 April 30, 1984
The conditions which trial courts may impose on a probationer may be classified into general or mandatory and special or
discretionary.
The mandatory conditions, enumerated in Section 10 of the Probation Law, require that the probationer should (a) present
himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified in the order
within 72 hours from receipt of said order, and (b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and
place as specified by said officer.
Special or discretionary conditions are those additional conditions, listed in the same Section 10 of the Probation Law,
which the courts may additionally impose on the probationer towards his correction and rehabilitation outside of prison.
The enumeration, however, is not inclusive.
Probation statutes are liberal in character and enable courts to designate practically any term it chooses as long
as the probationer's constitutional rights are not jeopardized. There are innumerable conditions which may be
relevant to the rehabilitation of the probationer when viewed in their specific individual context. It should, however, be
borne in mind that the special or discretionary conditions of probation should be realistic, purposive and geared to help the
probationer develop into a law-abiding and self-respecting individual Conditions should be interpreted with flexibility in
their application and each case should be judged on its own merits on the basis of the problems, needs and capacity of
the probationer. The very liberality of the probation should not be made a tool by trial courts to stipulate instead unrealistic
terms.
Other examples:
In Soriano vs CA- the court may require the offender as a condition for probation to submit a program of payment
of his civil liability to the heirs of the deceased victim.
Section 14. Period of Probation.
(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall
not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said period shall not exceed six years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, the period of probation shall not be less than nor to be more than twice the total number of days of
subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate established, in Article thirty-nine of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
Duration of probation- paano kung fine? Edi subsidiary imprisonment? Diba we said na probation also applies to fines.
107
Distinction between Probation and Parole
PROBATION PAROLE
Sentence is not more Sentence must be more than 1 year

than 6 years
applies to penalty of applies to penalty of imprisonment only

imprisonment or fine
Sentence is suspended Imprisonment only
Violation of condition: Violation of condition: unexpired portion shall be served

entire sentence shall be
served
Appeal forecloses right Appeal has no effect on operation

thereto
Can be availed only Can be availed every time as long as offender is not disqualified
once
Grant of privilege must Mandatory; application is not necessary

be applied for
Can the offender apply for probation and at the same time appeal the civil liability? YES. the offender may still
appeal a civil liability despite the filing of the application for probation.
Example: What if on appeal the imposed penalty was reduced to a probationable penalty? We said the penalty imposed
should not exceed 6 yr. Suppose that you are sentenced to prision mayor but on appeal your penalty was lowered to
prision correctional but you are still found guilty. Can you apply for probation?
Francisco vs Ca SC: While the proposition that an appeal should not bar the accused from applying for probation if the
appeal is solely to reduce the penalty to within the probationable limit may be equitable, we are not yet prepared to accept
this interpretation under existing law and jurisprudence. So the answer is NO, you cannot because you actually already
perfected the appeal. Even if it is equitable for the accused, the court is not yet prepared to accept such interpretation.
In Relation to RA 9344 sabi natin maraming options available for Minors, merong automatic suspension of sentence,
and even if that is no longer available, there is still probation. Another remedy for the minor is probation of CICL.
SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application AT ANY TIME, place the child on probation in lieu
of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby amended accordingly.
Under Sec. 42, the CICL must apply for probation. That is the distinction between suspension and probation under RA
9344. Suspension is automatic, probation is applied for.
IMPORTANT!>> The CICL may file an application for probation:
even beyond the period of perfecting an appeal
even if the child has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction or
is already serving his sentence.
Provided the sentence is not more than 6 years of imprisonment.
So you can see the bias of the law is in favor of CICL.
IMPORTANT!!>> Another thing, under RA 9165 Dangerous Drugs Act: first time minor offenders may be placed
under probation even if the sentence provided is HIGHER THAN 6 YEARS. So dito even if Prision mayor na, basta
minor offender in drugs cases, pwede parin mag probation.
RA 9165 Section 70. Probation or Community Service for a First-Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment.
Upon promulgation of the sentence, the court may, in its discretion, place the accused under probation, even if the
sentence provided under this Act is higher than that provided under existing law on probation, or impose
community service in lieu of imprisonment. In case of probation, the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance shall be
undertaken by the Board through the DOH in coordination with the Board of Pardons and Parole and the Probation
Administration. Upon compliance with the conditions of the probation, the Board shall submit a written report to the court
recommending termination of probation and a final discharge of the probationer, whereupon the court shall issue such an
order.
The community service shall be complied with under conditions, time and place as may be determined by the court in its
108
discretion and upon the recommendation of the Board and shall apply only to violators of Section 15 of this Act. The
completion of the community service shall be under the supervision and rehabilitative surveillance of the Board during the
period required by the court. Thereafter, the Board shall render a report on the manner of compliance of said community
service. The court in its discretion may require extension of the community service or order a final discharge.
In both cases, the judicial records shall be covered by the provisions of Sections 60 and 64 of this Act.
If the sentence promulgated by the court requires imprisonment, the period spent in the Center by the accused during the
suspended sentence period shall be deducted from the sentence to be served.
Sec. 16. Termination of Probation. After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding
that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a result of
his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was
granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.
As I said before, termination of probation is NOT AUTOMATIC. The court shall have to first issue an order of final
discharge based on the report and recommendation of the probation officer.
Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable.
That is why I keep saying na for every criminal liability meron din civil liability yan. But then ang interest ng state is on the
criminal aspect while ang interest ng independent party is ang civil aspect. That is why whenever a criminal case is filed
and a civil case is also filed along with it, the private complainant may play a part, he can also play a role. Pwede siya
magpadala ng lawyer niya but under the control of the prosecutor. Hindi siya dapat kasama sa criminal aspect, pero dahil
may civil aspect na involved, kaya siya may abugado dun to take care of his interest sa civil aspect.
As far as the criminal aspect is concerned, the complainant is merely a witness. Take note, even if the criminal liability is
extinguished, the civil liability is not extinguished. The extinction of the criminal liability does not extinguish the crim inal
liability. However, in the case of Bayotas, it was stated there that if the civil liability is based on the delict only, civil liability
ex delicto, it will also be extinguished if na extinguish na yung criminal liability. But if the civil liability may be predicated
on other sources, then it may survive.
Also relate to section 2 rule 3 of the revised rules of criminal procedure where it says that if the civil action based on the
delict shall be extinguish if there is a finding that the act or omission in which the civil liability may arise, did not exist.
Now, what is the effect of acquittal?
Manantan vs CA 350 scra 387 it was stated that:
1. The acquittal on the ground that the accused in not the author of the act or omission complained of then there
is no civil liability.
2. Acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused then the offender is not exempt from civil
liability, which liability may be proved by preponderance of evidence.
Salazar vs People, 411 scra 598:
The acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required:
1. the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required
2. where the court declared that the liability of the accused is only civil
3. Where the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was
acquitted.
Maximo vs Geroche The court said that the court may acquit the accused upon reasonable doubt and still order payment
of civil damages already proved in the same case without need of a separated civil action. The reason is that the accused
has already been accorded due process. To require a separate proceeding would only result to clogging of the dockets
and unnecessary litigation.
Like I said, sa Crim Pro, Rule 111: When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability
arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the
civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
So number 1, the offended party waives. Number 2, there is a reservation to file or institute the civil action separately.
Number 3, baliktad, mauna yung civil kaysa sa criminal.
Usually, ang masuspend diyan yung civil. Kasi sabay dapat unless may reservation to file a separate civil action. So
mauna ang criminal. Pero there are cases also na mauna ang civil. Ano yun? When there is a prejudicial question. Unahin
109
muna yung civil kasi the criminal cannot proceed kung hindi pa tapos yung civil. Take note that the civil must be a
prejudicial question.
LG Food Corporation v. Pagapong-Agravadior Septemeber 26, 2006
So naay naligsan na bata. Unya, namatay ang bata. So reckless imprudence resulting to homicide ang information.
Before the trial could be concluded, the defendant driver committed suicide. So nagfile against sa employer that it failed to
exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of their employees.
According to petitioner, hindi daw pwede. There must first be a judgment of conviction of the driver.
SC said: Corollarily, an act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities on the part
of the offender, i.e., 1) civil liability ex delicto;and 2) independent civil liabilities, such as those (a) not arising from an act or
omission complained of as felony (e.g., culpa contractual orobligations arising from law;the intentional torts;and culpa
aquiliana); or (b) where the injured party is granted a right to file an action independent and distinct from the criminal
action. Either of these two possibleliabilities may be enforced against the offender.
Pag nagreserve ka na ng separate civil action, you lose your right to intervene in the proseccution. Kasi sa state na yang
criminal case.
With respect to the prejudicial question, dapat alam niyo na yan. (1) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases - The exemption from criminal liability established in
subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include
exemption from civil liability
Now you remember Articles 11 and 12:
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:
xxx 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it. Xxx
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
Article 12(1, 2 & 3)
Offender: imbecile or insane person, and by a person under 15 years of age, or by one over 15 but under 18 years of age,
who has acted without discernment,
Civil liability shall devolve upon:
1. Those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or
negligence on their part.
2. Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or
control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property,
excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.
Take note however that Article 12(2 & 3) is affected by R.A. 9344, specifically Section 6 which provides:
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention
program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be
subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from civil liability, which
shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
110
Article 11(4)
Offender: the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented.
Civil liability shall devolve upon: the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in
proportion to the benefit which they may have received. So just read that.
Article 12 (5&6)
Civil liability shall devolve upon:
1. Primarily, the persons using violence or causing the fears.
2. Secondarily, or if there be no such persons(person using violence or causing the fears), those doing the act shall be
liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property exempt from execution.
ARTICLE 102. Subsidiary Civil Liability of Innkeepers, Tavernkeepers and Proprietors of Establishments. In
default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall
be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal
ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses
from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have
notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within
the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have
given them with respect to the care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeepers employees.
Article 102 talks about the subsidiary liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments (INP). The
keyword there is subsidiary. May civil liability ang innkeeper or tavernkeeper pero it is only subsidiary. Meaning may
liability sila when the person principally liable cannot pay. Their liability will only come in after there has been a
determination of the person principally liable.
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding
article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for
felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their
duties.
Ang importante sa article 103 is i-establish mo na nasa industry. Ang 102 klaro that it applies to
tavernkeepers/innkeepers, while sa 103 employer, teacher etc., so you have to establish that.
What is industry? It is where one where labor and capital are habitually employed for the purpose of gain. Example is a
workman of a construction company who stole something while working on minor repairs on a house; after being
prosecuted and found guilty but he cannot satisfy the civil liability, hence the employer is subsidiarily liable for the
restitution of the thing or the payment of the value thereof.
Suppose a family driver nakabangga so may civil liability, yung family are they liable? Take note that Article 103 requires
an industry. Ang family driver, hindi yan employee of an employer engaged in an industry. Personal yan, and so there is
no subsidiary civil liability under Article 103.
Pangonorom vs. Pp (GR No. 11443, April 11, 2005)
Held: The provisions of the RPC (under Art. 102 and 103) are deemed written into the judgments in case to which they
are applicable. Thus, in the disposition potions of its decision, the trial court needs expressly pronounce the subsidiary
liability of the employer. Only after proof of accused-employees insolvency may subsidiary liability of this employer is
enforced.
Yonaha vs. CA (March 1996)
Facts: Elmer Ouano was charged with Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide. He was convicted after he entered a
plea of guilt. A writ of execution was issued by the court but was returned as the accused manifested his inability to pay
the civil liability. A motion for subsidiary execution was filed against petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion to stay and recall
the subsidiary writ of execution principally anchored on the lack of prior notice to her and on the fact that the employers
liability had yet to be established. The court denied his motion.
Issue: Is the employer subsidiarily liable?
Held: But execution against the employer must no issue as just a matter of course. It behooves the court, as measure of
due process to the employer, to determine and process to the employer, to determine and resolve a priori, in a hearing set
for the purpose, the legal applicability and propriety of the employers liability. The requirement is mandatory even when it
appears prima facie that execution against the employee cannot be satisfied.
Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines vs. Heirs of Mangawaf, et al. (May 16, 2005)
111
Facts: Ernesto Ancheta, an employee of Phil Rabbit was charged with Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide.
Ancheta was convicted. He appealed the judgment but his appeal was dismissed when he failed to file his brief. The
judgment became final. Phil. Rabbit filed a notice of appeal but the court denied it on the ground that the judgment had
long become final and executory. Phil. Rabbit contended that it could not have filed the notice earlier as it was not served
a copy of the judgment. The court eventually granted his motion.
1st Issue: Should the appeal of Phil. Rabbit be entertained?
Held: No. The petitioner, as the employer of the said accused had no right to appeal from the said decision, because, in
the first place, it was not a party in the said case. While the subsidiary liability provided for by Art. 102 and 103 of the RPC
may render the petitioner a party in substance and, in effect, it is not, for this reason, entitled to be furnished a copy of the
decision of the RTC, as well as the resolution and decision of the CA.
2nd Issue: Was petitioner denied of due process when it was not allowed to question the civil liability of the accused?
Held: No. The right of the petitioner as the employer of the accused to due process occurs during the hearing of the
motion for the issues of an alias writ of execution issued by the court for the enforcement of its decision on the civil liability
of the accused was not satisfied because of the latters insolvency, the sheriff being unable to locate any property in the
name of the accused. Such return is prima facie evidence of the insolvency of the accused.
Take note of this however:
It is the concern of the employer, as well as of his employee to see to it that his interest be protected in a criminal case by
taking virtual participation in the defense of his employee. He cannot leave him to his own fate because of his indifference
or inaction the employee is convicted and damages are awarded against him, he cannot later on be heard to complain, it
brought to court for the enforcement of his subsidiary liability that he was not given his day in court.
Article 104. What is included in civil liability. The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of
this Code includes:
Restitution;
Reparation of the damage caused;
Indemnification for consequential damages.
How to restore? That is under Article 105:
Article 105. Restitution; How made. The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with
allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
So the first rule is TO RESTORE, IBALIK NA with allowance for deterioration.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it
by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner
and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
The last paragraph of Article 104 provides that there are cases when there can be no restitution::
1. where the property was purchase in good faith at the public sale Art. 559 of the Civil Code
2. where a land covered by Torrens title purchased in good faith (PD 1529)
3. property purchased in stores or public markets - Art. 1502 of the Civil Code
Next Reparation, how do you do that?
Article 106. Reparation; How made. The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into consideration
the price of the thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation
shall be made accordingly.
Amount of damage It is not only the price of the thing that should be repaired. Mas masakit sa heart yung sentimental
value. Yan ang problema, How can you put a price on something that affects the heart?
Note however that REPARATION only applies in case of inability to return the property.
U.S. vs. Yambao in a rape case, the accused was ordered to pay the value of the womans torn garments.
That is reparation which is distinct from the indemnity.
Now what is indemnification?
INDEMNIFICATION is generally awarded in crimes against persons and honor. While restitution and reparation generally
are awarded in crimes against property.
Article 107. Indemnification; What is included. Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not
112
only those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the
crime.
a. Civil indemnity ex delicto - award without need of further proof than the fact of commission of the felony itself
- Death of victim: award of P50,000

- Death which justify the imposition of death penalty: award P75,000
- Rape: award of P50,000
- Rape with homicide/qualified rape: award of P125,000 (Pp vs. Felixminia GR No. 125333, March 20, 2002)
b. Actual damages
- Include funeral, burial and medical expenses

- Includes loss of income
Loss of income is computed as follows (formally adopted in the American Combined Experience Table of Mortality):
Life expectancy = 2/3 x (80 + age at death)
Rate of loss = Life expectancy x Net earnings of the deceased
In the absence of proof, living expenses is estimated to be 50% of the gross annual income.
Note that the compensation is for loss of earning capacity, so it is not required that the victim should have been employed
at the time of death. The viewpoint is He could have earned. So even if the one who died is still a student, there can still
be an award for loss of earning capacity. In Cariaga vs. Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, the SC awarded to the heirs of
the victim a sum representing loss of his earning capacity although he was still a medical student at the time of the injury.
However, the award was not without basis for the victim was then a fourth year medical student at a reputable school; his
scholastic record, which was presented at the trial, justified an assumption that he would have been able to finish his
course and pass the board in due time.
c. Moral damages for physical sufferings, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury
What are the damages recoverable if the victim died? That is provided in the case of Heirs of Castro vs. Bustos, February
28, 1969:
1. Civil indemnity ex delicto;

2. Indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased;
3. Actual damages must be proved;
4. Moral damages for mental anguish;
5. Exemplary damages when the crime is attended by 1 or more aggravating circumstances;
6. Attorneys fees and expenses of litigation;
7. Interests in the proper cases.
Copiaco vs. Luzon Brokerage -

The chauffeur of the defendant through reckless imprudence bumped a carretela resulting to the death of 4. Now the
defendant contends that, at the most, it should have been sentenced to pay the total sum of P1,500, at the rate of P500
for each family of the deceased. The argument is based upon the language of the judgment rendered in the criminal case
wherein the court sentenced the accused to pay, by way of indemnity, P500 to each family of victims. It is true that there
are only three families, because the deceased Delfin Copiaco and Fidel Copiaco are both children of the spouses Alfredo
Copiaco and Nieves Alarcon. However, we do not believe that the court committed the error assigned. Article 107 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that the indemnization for damages includes not only those caused the injured party but
also those suffered by his family or by a third person. In the present case it is undoubted that the family or the heirs of the
deceased Delfin Copiaco and Fidel Copiaco have suffered double damage by reason of the death of their two children,
with the consequence that it is just to indemnity them in the same measure for the death of each of the two members of
the family.
Also take note that contributory negligence by the offended party (victim) reduces the civil liability of the offender.
Article 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential
damages and actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. - The obligation to make restoration or
reparation for damages and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person
liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person
injured.
Kung pamilya ka sa offender, pwede ka makabayad. But take note that the person liable cannot satisfy the civil liability, so
Article 108 provides that the obligation devolves upon the heirs of the person liable. But remember that the payment for
such damages cannot be charged upon the personal property of the heirs. Kung meron lang binigay ang person criminally
liable, if restoration is not possible and the deceased left no property, the heirs cannot be held to answer for that.
Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. - If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the
courts shall determine the amount for which each must respond.
113
Article 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference in
payment. - Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and
accessories, each within their respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their
quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against that of the
accomplices, and, lastly, against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment has
been made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares.
A. Severally liable the principals, accomplice and accessories each within their respective class, shall be liable
severally for their quotas, depende sa judgment;
B. Subsidiarily liable the principal, accomplices and accessories each of their respective class, shall be subsidiarily
liable for quotas of the other person liable.
Article 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. - Any person who has participated gratuitously in the
proceeds of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such
participation.
This article has reference to a case of an innocent person (not an accessory and hence not criminally liable) who has
participated in the proceeds of a felony through the liberality of the offender. In other words, he should not have paid for
the stolen property which he received from the offender (gratuitous).
Example imohang uyab kawatan diay pero wala ka kabalo. Gihatagan ka niya ug ring nga naay diamond, tapos after a
few months, dili na ka gusto sa iyaha and so gibaligya nimo ang ring, now can you be held liable for damages? Yes, to the
extent of your participation. What is the extent of participation? To the amount to which you sold the ring. In the amount
equivalent to the extent of such participation.
Now what if what was stolen was a cake? Unsa ipaluwa na nimo sa imoha? According to Viada - The fortune of the
innocent person must be augmented by his participation in the proceeds of the crime. Kung nabusog ka lang, hindi kasali
yan.
Article 112. Extinction of civil liability. - Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code
shall be extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.
So Article 112, kung may extinction ang criminal liability, meron din extinction ng civil liability. How extinguished? It is in
the same manner as obligations are extinguished (PALOCOCOCONO)
1. Payment
2. Loss of the thing due to a fortuitous event
3. Compensation
4. Condonation
5. Confusion/Merger of Rights
6. Novation
Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. - Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the
next preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the
crime committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty or other rights, or has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of
sentence or any other reason.
-So we are done with CRIMINAL LAW 1-

Crim Law 1 Review 1

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

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

Crim Law 1 Review 1

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEW

Define Criminal Law

Defines crimes...what is the basic maxim here?

Criminalization of an act is legislative in character but this is subject to LIMITATIONS:

- The date of effectivity is different from the date of approval.

Theories underlying the RPC:

How Penal Laws are construed:

The person being investigated here is called what?

Discuss the general characteristic of criminal law.

1.) Diplomats and Heads of States.

Why should we care about international law?Because it is provided in the Constitution.

Unsa man ang labot nato sa international law?

Exempt by virtue of the principles of PIL

a) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state

2.) Treaty Stipulation

3.) Laws of Preferential Application

How about the Atmosphere? There are 3 views on the atmosphere

1) Undiluted sovereignty on the atmosphere;

Extent of Philippine Territory

ARTICLE I NATIONAL TERRITORY

XPN: ART2, RPC

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

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

So what are these crimes?

1. title 7 of book 2: crimes committed by public officers

XPN XPN:The offender is a habitual delinquent.

Construction of Penal Laws

Felonies and Circumstances Which Affect Criminal Liability

1. Intentional Felonies felonies committed with malice or deliberate intent.

What are the two components of felonies by dolo?

1. Act and omission punishable by law (physical act)

2. Mens rea (intent)

Where does motive come in? Does it matter at all?

When is motive material or important?

1. The act brings about variant crimes;

What is Honest Mistake of Fact?

ARTICLE 4. Criminal Liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:

Art.4 talks about the extraordinary manner of incurring criminal liability.

What are the situations which cover this particular phrase?

1. Error in personae or Mistake in the identity

2. Aberratio Ictus or Mistake in the Blow

Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony.

The second half of Art. 4 is famously known as Impossible Crimes.

1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property.

If it's not a crime, why is there a penalty provided for it?

What is the illustrative case here?

How do you distinguish this from frustrated?

There are these two concepts of impossibility:

Ex: di mo alam na patay, pinatay mo ulit.

There is no such thing as attempted or frustrated impossible crime.

Penalty: Arresto mayor or a Fine of 200-500 pesos

In attempted stage, there are 2 phases:

Frustrated Felony vs Attempted Felony

Distinction between Attempted felony and Impossible crime

1. Impossible crime - is not capable of being accomplished

Act Attempted Frustrated Consummated

Theft X forced opened the NONE There was taking of

Arson X was still placing NONE (Accd to Buado) X placed flammable

Rape X tried to commence NONE Slight penetration is

In Pp. vs Orita the SC

(Dela Pena Case) The

Bribery NONE NONE Acceptance of the bribe

Corruption of If the public officer rejects NONE If the public officer