The confession must be made prior to the presentation of the evidence in the case.

Pleading guilty to an offense necessary guilty to the crime in the information

If he did not plead guilty to the same crime in the information, he cannot be made
liable for the same offense

Imp, confession must be made prior to the presentation of investigation prior to

arraignment

People vs Tamayo

That the offender or accused must have surrendered before the filing
of a case in court or before a warrant of arrest is issued

De vera vs De vera

The surrender of accused De vera was made before the information

was filed, basta nag voluntary surrender and voluntary confession of
guilt, reduced the penalty into two levels, the accused was able to seek
probation. This case reached to the SC bec the wife was questioning
the propriety of appreciation of

Canta vs CA/SC

Returning the thing stolen, is not a justifying or exempting, but only as

a mitigating circumstance as analogous #10 Article 13

Legrama case
Return of the malversation of public funds can only be treated as a
mitigating circumstances, restitution can be treated as two generic
mitigating circumstances

Aggravating Circumstances

Specific Aggravating circumstances,

Can be appreciated only in specific or particular crimes
Only in crimes against persons and crimes against honor
Ignominy – persons chastity
Cruelty – aggravating only in crimes against persons
Age and minority – disrespect to oldies or youngies

Inherent in public officers

By means of fire inherent in arson, breaking a wall and forcible entry
inherent in trespass to dwelling
Generic, are generally appreciable in all crimes, recidivism and but qualifying
changes the nature of the crime. *killing, from physical injuries to homicide or
murder.

As regard imposition of penalties, for generic, it can warrant application of the

highest penalty

Generic susceptible by being offset

Qualifying cannot be offset by any generic mitigating circumstances

Special aggravating circumstances

Those that cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstances
Taking advantage of public position

Offender committed a crime under the influence of a drug

PPL vs PLAGANAS, those that arise under special conditions,

Example, quasi recidivism and complex crimes.

Sir: does not agree with special aggravating circumstances

Article 14 #2, contempt or insult to public authorities

Takan a 19 year old who shot his seatmate in the presence of the teacher, evident
premeditation and in contempt of a public officer (the teacher who was in front of
class) that under article 152, a teacher was defined as a public authority or person
in authority,

SC disregarded this aggravating circumstances in this case, teachers are only

considered as persons in authority for crimes in direct assault.

Differentiate paragraph 2 from 5 of aggravating circumstances.

# 2 can be committed in any place, but in #5 can only be in the place where the
persons are engaged of their duties, or in a place dictated to religios worship, and
may or maynotbe? A victim.

Par 3, specific aggravating circumstance, cannot be in robbery theft and

swindling. “rank” “age” “sex” is not aggravating unless the offender specifically
chose to insult this person on account of his age, rank or sex.
Dwelling
Cannot be appreciated when the person who was attacked gave provocation.

Par 6, offender must have taken advantage of any of these circumstances to afford or
ensure impunity, (would not be caught, or any of these circumstances facilitated the
crime,

Nighttime – crime committed between 6pm and 6am, under the cover of darkness

v
Reiteration, for a equal or greater to the new felony, or for two or more offenses to
which the law attaches a lighter penalty

In recidivism, it is enough that the offender was convicted of final judgment, but for
reiteration, offender must have been previously punished in other words, has
served sentence term, and the crime does not need to be embraced under the same
title.

Recidivism, is always an aggravating circumstance, but reiteration, its appreciation

must be appreciated by the trial judge.

26 March 2018

Coverage: Book 1, Anti Fencing Law, ISLAW, and Probationary Laws

Treachery is committed generally in crimes against persons only, exceptions: crimes

embraced in crimes under property particularly in robbery with homicide. (People
vs. Escoto, treachery maybe appreciated in robbery with homicide.) although not as
a qualifying circumstance but should be treated as a generic aggravating
circumstance.

Rape with homicide and kidnapping with homicide; by analogy, the ruling in People
vs Escoto, the treachery appreciated should be for aggravating circumstances only,
and to an extent to rape with homicide.

Note: rape is now a crime against persons and no longer against chastity.

Treachery (in tagalog, traydor) the victim at the time of the killing was in a position
that he was unable to defend himself form the assault, the attack or the assault
should be sudden, or swift, or unexpected. Treachery may not be appreciated if it
preceded a heated argument, between the offender and the victim. For the nature of
the argument, they are heated up.
BAR TIP: “that the offender must have deliberately and consciously adapted the
means of attack to ensure the commission of the crime”

It cannot be appreciated again in casual, accidental or fortuitous circumstances.

Rolito Go Case, had he appealed the decision in the lower court, his conviction
would have been lowered from murder to homicide only because when he killed the
other person, it was in a heated argument, therefore treachery should not have been
killed, coupled by sufficient provocation, it could have been a mitigating
circumstanes.

People vs Teehankee; the accused is Claudio T. Hankee Jr.

Someone surnamed Hawkman, Justo, Champan, Julio and the accused were Filams
who lived in exclusive villages, they came from a bar hopping or party drinking
spree, Hawkman was accompanied by her friends,

Teehankee shot the 4 persons, 2 died right away, an information was filed for
murder and frustrated murder, then 90 days after the 2 other died, therefore the
information was amended due to the supervening event, the lower court found Him

An altercation ensued between Teehankee and the drinkers, the first two were shot
immediately, the other two, there was struggling and running after.

guilty of Murder qualified with treachery, initially the meeting was casual and by
chance but due to considerable time from the shooting to the casual meeting, it was
deemed that Teehankee had enough time to consciously adapt the killing qualifying
treachery, by the act of making the victims sitdown on the gutter and shot them
(deliberate and conscious attack)

Alternative circumstances:

Can either be as either mitigating or aggravating circumstances, either one can be

offset by eachother as generic mitigating or generic aggravating.

Relationship, intoxication, degree of instruction or education,

(focus on first two, because flip flopping decisions come with degree of education)

relationship: may be considered as inherent in the crime of parricide

in crimes against persons, relationship is not aggravating if relationship is
not inherent, then it is always aggravating.
Collateral relatives, relationship is always aggravating.
Crimes in chastity, relationship is always aggravating. From seduction to
abduction
 Crimes against property: relationship is always mitigating.

If the son, steals money against or form his father, it is theft, therefore
exempt under article 332

If a son robs and kills his father of money, the relationship is mitigating
because robbery with homicide and is a crime against property and not
persons, therefore it is mitigating because relationship is mitigating in
property.

RA 9165 special aggravating circumstance, under the influence of a

dangerous drug, habitual and non habitual is immaterial

Intoxication is mitigating if it is not habitual and not intentional

Intoxication is aggravating if it is intentional if not subsequent to the plan to

commit the crime, it is if habitual and intentional and this intoxication is
subsequent to the commission of the crime. habitual drinker dapat, bec
redundant yung habitual drunkard.

Intentional drinking. Teetotaler.

If the person drinks, and commits a crime, mitigating, but even though if he is
a teetotaler, if he drinks to give him courage to commit a crime, then
aggravating.

Intoxication bolsters the courage to committing the crime.

Degree of intelligence.
Intelligence Test:
Knowledge vs Intelligence, 1962, knowledge: meaning what he finished, but
intelligence is IQ.

Pardon:
Given by the offended party given to the offender, extinguishes the criminal
action/liability
Depends on the crime though: public crime, pardon given by the offended
party does not extinguish the criminal action but not the civil liability (?)

Private crimes, qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of

the guilty party, pardon does not stop the filing of a criminal case.

RAPE: public crime, pardon will not extinguish

MARITAL RAPE; pardon extinguishes criminal action and civil liability.
Preventive Detention:

4/5th credit and Full Credit, and or, 4/5ths credit.

4/5ths of his credit or full credit.

Penalties
imprisonment
Fine, in case of nonpayment and if there is no money to pay, there can be
subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay,

At the rate equivalent to the highest minimum wage in the Philippines

ARTICLE 45 read ( confiscation ) fruits and proceeds of a crime maybe

confiscated,
This is not a penalty,

Article 48, Complex crimes

Compound Crimes; single act results into numerous crimes, an act is a

necessary mean of committing another crime
Because of the singularity of the act/

Complex crimes; proper; there are 2 or more crimes actually committed, but
under the eyes of the law, there is only 1 crime

You can complex grave or less grave or light felonies, as long as one is
necessary to commit other crimes.

The penalty under the most serious offense should be applied on its
maximum penalty.

Article 49

Mistake in the blow , aberatio ictus, complex crime, article 48,

Praeter intentionem, *article 4 paragraph 1, and article 13 paragraph 3.

Error in personae, article 49, MR A, thought of killing his father B, MR A wants to kill
his father B, and thought he saw a person who matches the appearance of his father
B, (similar physical appearances) the person shot was MR C,

Homicide, but should be on the maximum penalty.

Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated if the person killed is not the intended
victim.

But if he intended to kill, Mr C a stranger, but killed B his father, he should not be
imprisoned for parricide but for homicide, the crime he intended to commit.

24 questions to be finished in 4 hours