ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
suppression of crimes, such power is delegated to
CRIMINAL LAW I
I. DEFINITION AND SOURCES
A. DEFINITION
Criminal law is that branch or division of law
which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment.
B. STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH CRIMES
1. SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW
(REYES)
1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) and its
amendments
2. Special penal laws passed by the Philippine
Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine
Legislature, National Assembly, the Congress
of the Philippines, and the Batasang
Pambansa.
3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during
Martial Law.
¤ 1987 Constitution Article II, Section 5
Declaration of Principles and State Policies. The
maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life,
liberty and property, and the promotion of the general
welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people
of the blessings of democracy.
¤ 1987 Constitution Article VI, Section 1
The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the
extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.
People v. Santiago (1922)
Facts: Santiago was driving an automobile at a
high speed notwithstanding the fact that he had to pass
a narrow space between a wagon standing on one side
of the road and a heap of stones on the other side where
there were two boys standing. He ran over Parondo who
was instantly killed as a result of the accident. Santiago
was convicted by the lower court of the crime of
homicide by reckless imprudence. The accused appealed
challenging the validity of Act No. 2886 which amended
General Order no. 58 (which provides that all
prosecutions for public offenses shall be in the name of
the United States against the persons charged with the
offenses), claiming that the legislature is not authorized
to amend the latter because its provisions have the
character of Constitutional Law. Sec. 2 of Act No. 2866
contains that “all prosecutions for public offenses shall
be in the name of the People of the Philippine Islands
against the person charged with the offense.”
Held: The procedure in criminal matters is not
incorporated in the Constitution of the States, but is left
in the hands of the legislature, so it that it falls within
the realm of public statutory law.
The states, as part of its police power, have a
large measure of discretion in creating and defining
criminal offenses. It is urged that the right to prosecute
and punish crimes is an attribute of sovereignty, but by
reason of the principle of territoriality as applied in the
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
1
subordinate government subdivisions such as territories.
The Philippine Legislature by virtue of the Jones Law,
like other territories of the US, has the power to define
and punish crimes. The present government of the
Philippines created by the US Congress is autonomous.
It is within the power of the legislature to prescribe the
form of the criminal complaint as long as the
constitutional provision of the accused to be informed of
the nature of the accusation is not violated.
US v. Pablo (1916)
Facts: Pablo, a policeman, arrested Dato who
was found in a vacant lot where a jueteng game was
conducted. He presented a memorandum to his chief
claiming that he saw Malicsi and Rodrigo leaving the
area. However, during the trial, he changed his
statement and claimed that he did not see Malicsi nor
Rodrigo leaving the area. As a result, the two accused
were acquitted. Pablo was charged with the crime of
perjury and was convicted under Act. No. 1697. It was
claimed that the Act repealed the provisions of the Penal
Code relative to perjury, and the last provision of the
Administrative Code repealed the Act, thus, there is no
penal sanction for the crime of false testimony or
perjury.
Held: Notwithstanding that the Act no. 1697
has been interpreted by this court in its decisions to
have repealed provisions of the Penal Code relating to
false testimony, it did not expressly repeal the pertinent
provisions of the RPC. Also, the Administrative Code, in
totally repealing Act no. 1697, did not expressly repeal
the said articles of the Penal Code. Hence, the provisions
of the Penal Code relative to perjury remain in force.
The reason behind such interpretation is that crimes
should not go unpunished or be freely committed
without punishment of any kind.
2. LIMITATIONS TO STATE AUTHORITY TO PUNISH
CRIMES
1987 Constitution, Art. III
Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 14. No person shall be held to answer for
a criminal offense without due process of law.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to gave
compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear
is unjustifiable.
Sec. 18. No person shall be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
Sec. 19. Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
nor cruel degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 2

The employment of physical, psychological, or its confiscation and forfeiture provision) and was
degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee published only in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982.
or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities Justice and fairness dictate that the public must be
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. informed of that provision by means of publication in the
Sec. 20. No person shall be imprisoned for Gazette before violators of the executive order can be
debt or non-payment of a poll tax. bound thereby. The summary confiscation was not in
Sec. 22. No ex post facto law or bill of order. The carabaos must be returned. However, the
attainder shall be enacted. Pesigans cannot transport the carabaos to Batangas
because they are now bound by the said E.O.
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115
Tañada v. Tuvera (1985)
Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all
Facts: The petitioners seek a writ of
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to
mandamus to compel respondent public officials to
the following rights:
publish or cause the publication of various PD’s, EO’s,
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary
LOI’s etc. invoking the Constitutional right of the people
is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
to information on matters of public concern.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of
Held: The publication of all presidential
the accusation against him.
issuances of a public nature or of general applicability is
(c) To be present and defend in person and by
mandated by law. It is a requirement of due process. It
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The
law, he must first be officially and specifically informed
accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial
of its contents. The Court therefore declares that
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless
presidential issuances of general application which have
his presence is specifically ordered by the court for
not been published shall have no force and effect.
purposes of identification. The absence of the accused
However, the implementation of the PDs prior to its
without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had
publication is an operative fact which may have
notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
consequences which cannot be justly ignored. The past
present thereat. When an accused under custody
cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to
From the report submitted by the clerk of court, it is
be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody
undisputed that none of these unpublished PDs has ever
over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be
been implemented by the government.
allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly protect his
PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES
rights without the assistance of counsel.
a. Prevention – This assumes that man has a
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but
tendency to commit crime and punishing offenders will
subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
prevent them from doing so again. Suppression can only
direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner
be made possible through penal jurisprudence.
prejudice him.
b. Deterrence/Exemplarity – This assumes
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a
that man is endowed with free will and of his awareness
witness against himself.
of the sanctions against crimes and his fear of such.
(f) To confront and cross-examine the
Especially if there is:
witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may
1. Certainty
utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness
- that all crimes will be punished.
who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be
2. Celerity
found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise
– that punishment will come swiftly
unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding,
3. Severity
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and
– that punishment is proportionate
subject matter, the adverse party having the
to his crime.
opportunity to cross-examine him.
It is also assumed that punishing the offender
(g) To have compulsory process issued to
with cruel and conspicuous penalties will make an
secure the attendance of witnesses and production of
example of him to deter others from doing the same in
other evidence in his behalf.
the future.
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
c. Self-Defense – This is probably a
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the
conclusion reached by the social contract theorists who
manner prescribed by law.
hold that there is an unwritten contract between men
and their society where individuals agree to give up
Civil Code, Article 2 certain rights in exchange for the protection and benefits
Penal laws and those of public security and offered by a community. If individuals violate this
safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in contract, then the society, through the State, has the
the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public right to enforce its laws and protect its own existence.
international law and to treaty stipulations. d. Reformation – This assumes that
punishment is capable of changing/rehabilitating
Pesigan v. Angeles (1984) individuals.
Facts: Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan were e. Retribution – This rests on the basic
transporting carabaos in the evening of April 2, 1982 premise that justice must be done: the offender shall
from Camarines Sur to Batangas when the carabaos not go unpunished. This belongs to that which maintains
were confiscated purportedly in accordance with E.O. that punishment is inherent in the very nature of a crime
No. 626-A which prohibits transportation of carabao and and is thus its necessary consequence.
carabeef from one province to another.
Held: The E.O. should not be enforced against C. BASIC PRINCIPLES
the Pesigans because it is a penal regulation (because of

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal law has three main characteristics:
1) general, 2) territorial, and 3) prospective.
1. GENERALITY of Criminal Law
¤ 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 11
A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not
more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from
arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall
be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for
any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof.
¤ Civil Code, Article 14
Penal laws and those of public security and
safety shall be obligatory upon all those who live or
sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.
General Rule: The jurisdiction of the civil courts is not
affected by the military character of the accused.
a Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general
court-martial over soldiers of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines even in times of war, provided that in the
place of the commission of the crime no hostilities are in
progress and civil courts are functioning.
a When the military court takes cognizance of the case
involving a person subject to military law, the Articles of
War apply, not the RPC or other penal laws.
a The prosecution of an accused before a court-martial
is a bar to another prosecution of the accused for the
same offense.
a Offenders accused of war crimes are triable by military
commission. A military commission has jurisdiction even
if actual hostilities have ceased as long as a technical
state of war continues.
Exceptions to the general application of criminal
law
Art. 2, RPC, “Except as provided in the treatise
or laws of preferential application…”
Art. 14, Civil Code, “…subject to the principles
of public international law and to treaty stipulations.”
a An example of a treaty or treat stipulation is the
Bases Agreement entered into by the Philippines and
the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
a Another example would be the VFA signed on Feb. 10,
1998 where the Philippines agreed that:
a. US military authorities shall have the
right to exercise within the Philippines all
criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred
on them by the military law of the US over US
personnel in RP;
b. US authorities exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over US personnel with respect to
offenses, including offenses relating to the
security of the us punishable under the law of
the US, but not under the laws of RP;
c. US military authorities shall have the
primary right to exercise jurisdiction over US
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
3
personnel subject to the military law of the US
in relation to: (1) offenses solely against the
property or security of the US or offenses
solely against the property or person of US
personnel; and (2) offenses arising out of any
act or omission done in performance of official
duty.
a An example of a law of preferential application would
be R.A. No. 75 which penalizes acts which would impair
the proper observance by the Republic and inhabitants
of the Philippines of the immunities, rights, and
privileges of duly accredited foreign diplomatic
representatives in the Philippines.
a Persons exempt from the operation of our criminal
laws by virtue of the principles of public international law
(1) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.
(2) Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
ministers resident, and charges d’affaires.
* a consul is not entitled to the privileges and
immunities of an ambassador or minister.
* under the Constitution, members of Congress are
not liable for libel or slander in connection with any
speech delivered on the floor of an house during
regular or special session.
US v. Sweet (1901)
Facts: Sweet was an employee of the US army
in the Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for
which he was charged with the crime of physical
injuries. Sweet interposed the defense that the fact that
he was an employee of the US military authorities
deprived the court of the jurisdiction to try and punish
him.
Held: The case is open to the application of the
general principle that the jurisdiction of the civil
tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special
character of the person brought before them for trial,
unless controlled by express legislation to the contrary.
2. TERRITORIALITY of Criminal Law
¤ 1987 Constitution, Article I
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 domain including the
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.
a The provisions of the RPC are enforceable to all crimes
committed within the limits of Philippine territory but it
may also apply outside of the Philippine jurisdiction
against who:
1. should commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship;
2. should forge or counterfeit an coin or currency
note of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Philippine government;
3. should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into the country of the obligations
and securities aforestated;
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
4. while being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; and
5. should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations defined
in Title I, Book II of the Code.
a The RPC has therefore territorial and extraterritorial
application. The maritime zone extends to three miles
from the outermost coastline. Beyond that is the “high
seas” which is outside the territorial waters of the
Philippines.
a There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes
committed aboard merchant vessels while in the
territorial waters of another country.
French rule – Such crimes are not triable in the
courts of that country unless their commission affects
the peace and security of the territory or the safety of
the state is endangered.
English rule – Such crimes are triable in that
country unless they merely affect things within the
vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.
• We observe the English Rule.
a Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or
those on board are to be dealt with exclusively by the
sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which
disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and, if
need be, the offenders punished by the proper
authorities of the local jurisdiction.
a Smoking opium aboard a foreign vessel in Philippine
waters constitutes a breach of public order because it
causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within
our territory.
a Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses
committed on board foreign warships in territorial
waters. Warships are always reputed to be the territory
of the country to which they belong and cannot be
subjected to the laws of another state.
US v. Ah Sing (1917)
Facts: Defendant is a subject of China who
bought eight cans of opium in Saigon and brought them
on board the steamship Shun Chang during the trip to
Cebu. When the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu,
the authorities in making the search found the 8 cans of
opium. Defendant admitted being the owner but did not
confess as to his purpose in buying the opium.
Held: Bringing opium in local territory even if it
is merely for personal use and does not leave the
foreign merchant vessel anchored in Philippine waters is
subject to local laws particularly under Sec. 4 Act. No.
2381 a.k.a. Opium Law. Under the said law, importation
includes merely bringing the drug from a foreign country
to Philippine port even if not landed.
Miquiabas v. Philippines-Ryukus command (1948)
Facts: Petitioner is a Filipino citizen and a
civilian employee of the US army. He has been charged
with disposing in the Port of Manila area things
belonging to the US army. He is under the custody of
Commanding General, Philippines-Ryukus command and
an appointed General Court Martial found him guilty and
sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment.
Held: Gen. Court-Martial has no jurisdiction
because the Port of Manila is not a base under the Bases
Agreement entered into by the Philippines and the US.
The Port area is merely a temporary quarters. Also, a
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
4
civilian employee cannot be considered a member of the
US Army as stated in the agreement. Lastly, no waiver
of jurisdiction can be made either b the prosecuting
attorney or by the Secretary of Justice.
3. PROSPECTIVITY of Criminal Law
¤ RPC, Art.21. Penalties that may be imposed.-
No felony shall be punishable by any penalty
not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
¤ RPC, Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. –
Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so
far as they favor the person 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.
¤ Civil Code, Art. 4
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless
the contrary is provided.
General Rule: Ex post facto law is prohibited. Ex post
facto law is one that is specifically made to retroact to
cover acts before it became effective to the prejudice of
the accused; or to make a certain crime graver or
prescribe a heavier penalty for it.
a The law does not have any retroactive effect EXCEPT
if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual
delinquent or the law otherwise provides.
a This is consistent with the general principle that
criminal laws, being a limitation on the rights of the
people, should be construed strictly against the State
and liberally in favor of the accused.
Different effects of repeal of penal law.
1. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the
new law, the new law shall be applied, except
when the offender is a habitual delinquent or
when the new law is made not applicable to
pending action or existing causes of action.
2. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the
law in force at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be applied.
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law
so that the act which was penalized under the
old law is no longer punishable, the crime is
obliterated.
a When the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to be
criminal.
a When the new law and the old law penalize the same
offense, the offender can be tried under the old law.
a When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense
under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted
under the new law.
a A person erroneously accused and convicted under a
repealed statute may be punished under the repealing
statute.
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons (1971)
Facts: Petitioners who were serving their
sentence of life imprisonment for the complex crime of
rebellion with murder and other crimes seek the
retroactive application of the Hernandez doctrine which
was promulgated after their conviction. The Hernandez
ruling negated the existence of the crime charged
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
stating that rebellion cannot be complexed with other
crimes. Thus, the accused in the Hernandez case was
sentenced only to 10 years of imprisonment.
Held: Both RPC and the Civil Code allow for the
retroactive application of judicial decisions. While
reference in Art. 22 of the Civil Code is made to
legislative acts, it would be merely an exaltation of the
literal to deny its application to a case like the present.
The Civil Code provides that judicial decisions applying
or interpreting the constitution, as well as legislation
form part of our legal system.
4. Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege
Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. —
No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.
a There is no crime when where is no law punishing it.
a The phrase “punished by law” should be understood to
mean “punished by the Revised Penal Code”, and not by
special law.
Bernardo v. People (1983)
Facts: The accused were charged and
convicted for violating PD No. 772 for possessing and
squatting on a parcel of land owned by Cruz.
Held: Conviction is null and void. PD No. 772
does not apply to pasture lands because its preamble
shows that it was intended to apply to squatting in
urban communities. It is a basic principle of criminal law
that no person should be brought within the terms of a
penal statute who is not clearly within them nor should
any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly
made so by the statute.
People v. Pimentel (1998)
Facts: Respondent Tujan was charged with
subversion under RA 1700. When he was arrested 7
years after he was charged, an unlicensed revolver and
ammunition was found in his possession. As such, he
was also charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms
under PD 1866.
Held: Tujan was not placed in double jeopardy
because the issue had not yet arisen for he had not yet
been actually convicted.
RA 7636 totally repealed RA 1700 making
subversion no longer a crime. Based on Art. 22 of RPC,
this law should be given retroactive effect since the law
is favorable to the accused and since he is not a habitual
delinquent. The Court convicted Tujan with simple illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition but since Tujan’s
length of detention is greater than the penalty
prescribed, the court ordered immediate release.
5. STRICT CONSTRUCTION of penal laws against
the State
¤ 1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 14(2)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved….
Rules of Construction of Penal Laws
1. Criminal statutes are liberally construed in favor
of the offender. This means that no person shall
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
5
be brought within their terms of the law who is
not clearly within them, nor should any act be
pronounced criminal which is not clearly made so
by statute.
2. The original text in which a penal law is approved
will govern in case of a conflict with an official
translation. Hence, the RPC, which was approved
in Spanish text, is controlling over its English
translation.
3. Interpretation by analogy has no place in criminal
matters.
- reasoning by analogy is applied only when
similarities are limited and it is admitted that
significant differences also exist.
Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners (1969)
Facts: Pascual was charged in an
administrative case for immorality and was announced
by counsel of complainants to be their first witness.
Held: The Board of Medical examiners cannot,
consistently with the self-incriminating clause, compel
the person proceeded against to take the witness stand
without his consent. A proceeding for malpractice
possesses a criminal or penal aspect in the sense that
the respondent would suffer the revocation of his license
as a medical practitioner which is even a greater form of
deprivation than forfeiture of property.
While crime should not go unpunished and that
the truth must be revealed, such desirable objective
should not be accomplished according to means
offensive to high sense of respect accorded to human
personality. More and more in line with the democratic
creed, the deference accorded to an individual even
those suspected of the most heinous crimes is given due
weight.
D. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Art. 1 Time when Act takes effect. This code shall
take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred
and thirty.
♣ The RPC consists of two books: Book One consists of
1) basic principles affecting criminal liability and 2) the
provisions on penalties including criminal and civil
liability; Book Two defines felonies with the
corresponding penalties.
♣ Two theories in criminal law
a. CLASSICAL
b. POSITIVIST
a The RPC is based mainly on principles of old or
classical school.
♣ Characteristics of the classical theory
1. The basis of criminal liability is human free will
and the purpose of the penalty is retribution.
2. That man is essentially a moral creature with
an absolutely free will to choose between good
and evil thereby placing more stress upon the
effect or result of the felonious act than upon
the man, the criminal himself.
3. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical
and direct proportion between crime and
penalty.
4. There is a scant regard to the human element.
♣ Characteristics of the positivist theory
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 6

1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange of nations while treason and espionage are crimes
and morbid phenomenon which constrains him against national security.
to do wrong, inspite of or contrary to his
volition.
II. FELONIES
2. That crime is essentially a social and natural
phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated
and checked by the application of abstract Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions
principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
imposition of a punishment which is fixed and Felonies are committed not only be means of
determined a priori; but rather through the deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
enforcement of individual measures in each There is deceit when the act is performed with
particular case after a thorough, personal and deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful
individual investigation conducted by a act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
competent body of psychiatrists and social foresight, or lack of skill.
scientists.
♣ Felonies are acts and omissions punishable by the
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as Revised Penal Code.
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced ♣ Elements of Felonies
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
1. There must be an act or omission
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
2. That the act or omission must be
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: punishable by the RPC
1. Should commit an offense while on a
3. That the act is performed or the omission
Philippine ship or airship incurred by means of dolo or culpa.
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and ♣ Definition of terms
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine
ACT – must be overt or external (mere
Islands;
criminal thought or intent is not punishable)
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
OMISSION – failure to perform a duty
introduction into these islands of the obligations and
required by law ex. Failure to render assistance, failure
securities mentioned in the presiding number;
to issue receipt, non-disclosure of knowledge of
4. While being public officers or employees,
conspiracy against the government.
should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
A. HOW COMMITTED
5. Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations, defined in Title
♣ Classification of felonies according to the means by
One of Book Two of this Code.
which they are committed (IN GENERAL ONLY)

♣ This has been discussed in the Territoriality 1. INTENTIONAL / DOLO

principle of criminal law. (by means of deceit, malice)

♣ Explanation of the exceptions - the offender in performing the act or incurring the
1. The Philippine ship or airship must be duly omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
registered under the Philippine laws with the Philippine another
Bureau of Customs. Such vessel when beyond the 3- - the word “deceit” in par. 2 of Art. 3 is not the
mile limit is considered and extension of Philippine proper translation of the word “dolo”. Dolus is
national territory. BUT if said Philippine vessel or aircraft actually equivalent to malice which is the intent
is within the territory of a foreign country when the to do an injury to another.
crime is committed, the laws of that country will apply
as a rule. 2. CULPABLE
The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over (by means of fault or culpa)
the crime of theft committed on the high seas on board
a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. - an act performed without malice but at the same
2. Any person who makes false or counterfeit time punishable though in a lesser degree and with
coins or forges treasury or bank notes or other an equal result
obligations and securities in a foreign country may be
prosecuted before our civil courts for violation of Art. imprudence - lack of precaution to avoid injury,
163 or Art. 166 of the RPC. usually involves lack of skill
3. The reason for the exceptions in paragraph negligence - failure to foresee impending
(b) and (c) is to maintain and preserve the financial danger, usually involves lack of foresight
credit and stability of the state.
4. The offense committed by a public officer
1. DOLO
abroad, like a consular official, must refer to the
discharge of his functions i.e. bribery, malversation or
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE
falsification.
1. freedom – that the act or omission was
5. The reason for the exception regarding
voluntary and without external
crimes against national security and the law of nations is
compulsion.
to safeguard the existence of the state. Piracy is triable
2. intelligence – knowledge needed to
anywhere. Piracy and mutiny are crimes against the law
determine the morality and consequences

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
of an act. The imbecile, insane and minors
have no criminal liability.
3. intent – intent to commit the act with
malice, being purely a mental process, is
presumed and the presumption arises
from the proof of the commission of the
unlawful act.
♣ Intent presupposes the exercise of freedom and the
use of intelligence
♣ The existence of intent is shown by the overt acts of
a person
♣ Criminal intent is presumed from the commission of
an unlawful act BUT the presumption of criminal intent
does not arise from the proof of the commission of an
act which is not unlawful.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
“the act itself does not make a man guilty
unless his intention were so”
A crime is not committed if the mind of
the person performing to act complained be
innocent.
It must be borne in mind that the act from
which the presumption of existence of criminal
intent springs must be a criminal act.
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus
“an act done by me against my will is not my
act”
INTENT V. MOTIVE
MOTIVE is the moving power which impels
one to action for a define result.
INTENT is the purpose to use a particular
means to effect such result.
♣ Motive is not an essential element of a
crime, and, hence need not be proved for purposes of
conviction.
♣ Motive is essential only when there is doubt
as to the identity of the assailant. It is immaterial when
the accused has been positively identified.
♣ Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to
support a conviction but lack of motive may be an aid in
showing the innocence of the accused.
♣ There is no felony by dolo if there is no
intent
People v. Temblor (1988)
Facts: Cagampang and his wife were
conversing in the store adjacent to their house when
Temblor arrived and asked to buy cigarettes. Temblor,
then, shot Cagampang and demanded the wife to bring
out her husband’s firearm. Months after, the wife was
summoned to the police station and there she identified
the accused. The accused’s defense was alibi and lack of
motive.
Held: The knowledge of the accused that
Cagampang possessed a firearm was enough motive to
kill him as killings were perpetrated by members of the
NPA for the sole purpose of acquiring more arms and
ammunition. Their group is prevalent not only in Agusan
del Norte but elsewhere in the country. It is known as
the NPA’s “agaw armas” campaign. Moreover, proof of
motive is not essential when the culprit has been
positively identified.
People v. Hassan (1988)
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
7
Facts: The accused, an illiterate, 15-year-old
pushcart cargador, was convicted of the crime of murder
for the death of Ramon. The lone eyewitness claimed he
saw the accused stab Ramon only once at the back. He
identified the accused alone at the funeral parlor without
being placed in a police line-up.
Held: The testimony of witness was weak. It
conflicted with the findings of the Medico-legal officer
who identified 2 stab wounds which were inflicted while
assailant was in front of the victim. The manner by
which the witness was made to identify the accused was
pointedly suggestive and activated visual imagination
when there was none. The method of identification
became just a confrontation and was made in violation
of the constitutional right of the accused.
The court noted the total absence of motive
ascribed to the accused for stabbing Ramon who is a
complete stranger to him. While as a general rule,
motive is not essential for purposes of complying with
the requirement that a judgment of guilty must stem
from proof beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of motive
on the part of the accused plays a pivotal role towards
his acquittal. This is especially true where there is doubt
as to the identity of the culprit as when the identification
is extremely tenuous as in this case.
People v. Delos Santos (2003)
Facts: Delos Santos stab Flores with a kitchen
knife hitting him on the different parts of his body,
inflicting upon him mortal wounds which directly caused
his death. Delos Santos then argues that since the
prosecution witnesses testified that there was no
altercation between him and Flores, it follows that no
motive to kill can be attributed to him.
Held: The court held that the argument of
Delos Santos is inconsequential. Proof of motive is not
indispensable for a conviction, particularly where the
accused is positively identified by an eyewitness and his
participation is adequately established. In People vs.
Galano, the court ruled that in the crime of murder,
motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes
material only when the evidence is circumstantial or
inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the
accused had committed it. In this case, the court finds
that no such doubt exits as witnesses, De Leon and
Tablate positively identified Delos Santos.
MISTAKE OF FACT
It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of
the person who caused injury to another. He is not,
however, criminally liable, because he did not act with
criminal intent.
♣ Requisites:
1. That the act done would have been lawful
had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be.
2. That the intention of the accused in
performing the act should be lawful
3. That the mistake must be without fault or
carelessness on the part of the accused.
People v. Ah Chong (1910)
A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the
dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a robber
responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and
after crying out sufficient warnings and believing himself
to be under attack, cannot be held criminally liable for
homicide. Stabbing the victim whom the accused
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
believed to be an intruder showed a mistake of fact on
his part which led him to take the facts as they appear
to him and was pressed to take immediate action.
People v. Oanis (1988)
Police officers who shot a sleeping man in the
back mistaking him for a notorious escaped convict
wanted dead or alive, could still be held liable for the
killing since they did not take reasonable precautionary
measures. Police officers are still liable because they are
not justified in killing a man whose identity they did not
ascertain. The third requisite of mistake of fact is
lacking. In this case, self-defense is not tenable as a
defense as there was no unlawful aggression but they
may avail of the defense of fulfillment of duty as a
mitigating circumstance.
♣ Criminal intent is replaced by negligence and
imprudence in felonies committed by means of culpa.
2. CULPA
RPC, Art. 365 par 7
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily,
but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from
which material damage results by reason of inexcusable
lack of precaution on the part of the person performing
or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration
his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence
physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of
precaution displayed in those cases in which the damage
impending to be cause is not immediate nor the danger
clearly manifest.
Requisites of culpa:
1. freedom
2. intelligence
3. imprudence, negligence or lack of
foresight and skill
♣ in culpable felonies, the injury caused to another
should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of
another act performed without malice.
People v. Buan (1968)
Facts: The accused was driving a passenger
bus. Allegedly because of his recklessness, the bus
collided with a jeep injuring the passengers of the latter.
A case was filed against the accused for slight physical
injuries through reckless imprudence for which he was
tried and acquitted. Prior to his acquittal, a case for
serious physical injuries and damage to property
through reckless imprudence was filed. Accused claimed
that he was placed in twice in jeopardy.
Held: The second case must be dismissed.
Once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless
imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again
for the same act. For the essence of the quasi-offense
under Art. 365 of the RPC lies in the execution of an
imprudent act which would be punishable as a felony.
The law penalizes the negligent act and not the result.
The gravity of the consequences is only taken into
account to determine the penalty. It does not qualify the
substance of the offense.
A. CRIMES DEFINED AND PENALIZED BY
SPECIAL LAWS
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
8
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.
There are 3 classes of crimes. The RPC defines
and penalizes the first two classes: 1) intentional and 2)
culpable felonies.
The third class of crimes is those defined and
penalized by special laws which include crimes punished
by municipal or city ordinances.
♣ The provisions of this Code are not applicable to
offenses punished by special laws especially those
relating to the requisite of criminal intent; the stages of
commission; and the application of penalties.
♣ However, when the special law is silent, the Code can
give suppletory effect.
♣ Dolo is not required in crimes punished by special laws
because these crimes are mala prohibita.
♣ In those crimes punished by special laws, the act
alone irrespective of its motives, constitutes the offense.
♣ Good faith and absence of criminal intent are not valid
defenses in crimes punished by special laws
MALA IN SE and MALA PROHIBITA
Mala in se - an act, by its very nature, is
inherently and morally wrong; it should be done with
criminal intent
Malum prohibitum – an act is wrong only
because there is a law punishing it. It is enough that the
prohibited act was voluntarily committed and need not
be committed with malice or criminal intent to be
punishable.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (2001)
Facts: Estrada is challenging the plunder law.
One of the issues he raised is whether plunder is a
malum prohibitum or malum in se.
Held: Plunder is a malum in se which requires
proof of criminal of criminal intent. Precisely because the
constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens
rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is
noteworthy that the amended information alleges that
the crime of plunder was committed “willfully, unlawfully
and criminally.” It thus alleges guilt knowledge on the
part of the petitioner.
RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS
RPC, 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.
Padilla v. Dizon (1988)
Facts: Padilla filed an administrative complaint
against RTC Judge Dizon for rendering a manifestly
erroneous decision acquitting Lo Chi Fai of the offense
charged for smuggling foreign currency out of the
country in violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960.
The Circular prohibits transmission of foreign currency
out of the Philippines without authorization from the
Central Bank. Penal sanction for such violation is
provided in PD No. 1883. Judge Dizon acquitted accused
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
because of lack of intent to violate and benefit from the
act alone.
Held: Judge showed gross ignorance of the
law. He ought to know that proof of malice or mens rea
is not essential in offense punished by special laws
which are mala prohibita. The judge did not take into
consideration the admission of the accused that he was
a “carrier” of foreign currency for other people but chose
to give credence to the fantastic tale of the accused that
he and his alleged business associate were using the
money for a particular investment.
Padilla v. CA (1997)
Facts: Padilla, driving his Pajero at high speed
despite the bad weather, hit a balot vendor. A chase
took place and eventually, Padilla’s vehicle was stopped.
He was arrested and several firearms were found inside
his vehicle. He admitted possession claiming he used
them for shooting but was not able to produce any
permit to carry.
Held: Pd 1886 provides only 2 requisites to
establish crimes involving illegal possession of firearm:
(1) existence of subject firearm and (2) the fact that the
accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not
have the corresponding permit to possess.
Either the testimony of a representative of or a
certification from the PNP Firearms and explosives office
would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
second element of illegal possession.
PD 1866 is constitutional. To justify
nullification, there must be a clear breach of the
constitution. The contention that the penalty of simple
illegal possession is cruel and excessive in contravention
of the constitution does not merit serious consideration.
The severity of a penalty does not ipso facto make the
same cruel and excessive.
The court cited People v. Simon doctrine as to
the penalties to be imposed although PD 1866 is a
special law, the penalties therein were taken from the
RPC, hence the rules in the said code for graduating by
degrees or determining the proper period should be
applied.
People v. Saley (1998)
Facts: Saley was convicted of 16 cases of
illegal recruitment, one of which was on the large scale.
She was also convicted of 11 counts of estafa. She
claims that she was not engaged in recruitment but is
merely acting as an agent. She also claimed that she
was merely aiding the processing of the complainant’s
visas.
Held: Saley is guilty of illegal recruitment and
estafa. She has no valid license or authority to engage in
placement of workers. There is no double jeopardy in
this case. Conviction under the Labor Code for illegal
recruitment is malum prohibita while estafa under the
RPC is malum in se.
People v. Simon (1994)
Facts: The accused was arrested after a buy-
bust operation conducted by the police wherein the
accused sold 2 tea-bags of marijuana to a poseur buyer
for P40.
Held: To sustain a conviction for selling
prohibited drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, the sale must be clearly established. The
commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited
drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling
transaction.
The court held that in the instant case the
imposable penalty under RA 6425 as amended by RA
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
9
7659 is prison correccional to be taken from the medium
period thereof pursuant to Art. 64 of the RPC, there
being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance.
Dissent: It is thus clear that an offense is
punished by the RPC if both its definition and the
penalty therefore are found in the special law. That the
latter imports or borrows from the RPC its nomenclature
of penalties. In short, the mere use by a special law of a
penalty found in the RPC can by no means make an
offense thereunder an offense “punished or punishable”
by the RPC.
Ladonga v People (2005)
Facts: Spouses Ladonga were convicted by the
RTC for violation of BP. Blg. 22 (3 counts). The husband
applied for probation while the wife appealed arguing
that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for
conspiring with her husband as the principle of
conspiracy is inapplicable to BP Blg. 22 which is a special
law.
Held: B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly prescribe
the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC.
Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg.
22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their
nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily. The court cited the case of Yu vs. People,
where the provisions on subsidiary imprisonment under
Article 39 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 was applied
suppletorily.
The suppletory application of the principle of
conspiracy in this case is analogous to the application of
the provision on principals under Article 17 in U.S. vs.
Ponte. For once conspiracy or action in concert to
achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the
act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or
modality of participation of each of them becomes
secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.
The Court in this case however ruled in favor of
Ladonga(wife) as the prosecution failed to prove that
she performed any overt act in furtherance of the
alleged conspiracy.
People v. Bustinera (2004)
Facts: Bustinera was convicted by the trial
Court for qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised
Penal Code for the unlawful taking of the taxi cab driven
by him which is owned and operated by Cipriano and
was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Held: The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is
now covered by the anti-carnapping law (RA No. 6539)
and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery.
The trial court having convicted Bustinera of qualified
theft instead of carnapping, erred in the imposition of
the penalty. While the information alleges that the crime
was attended with grave abuse of confidence, the same
cannot be appreciated as the suppletory effect of the
Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in
Article 10 of said Code, cannot be invoked when there is
a legal impossibility of application, either by express
provision or by necessary implication.
Moreover, when the penalties under the special
law are different from and are without reference or
relation to those under the Revised Penal Code, there
can be no suppletory effect of the rules, for the
application of penalties under the said Code or by other
relevant statutory provisions are based on or applicable
only to said rules for felonies under the Code.
The court cited the case of People v. Panida
which involved the crime of carnapping and the penalty
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
imposed was the indeterminate sentence of 14 years
and 8 months, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months,
as maximum, this Court did not apply the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code suppletorily as the anti-
carnapping law provides for its own penalties which are
distinct and without reference to the said Code.
Bustinera was sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of 14 years and 8 months as minimum, to 17
years and 4 months, as maximum for the crime of
carnapping under RA 6539, as amended.
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.
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 an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
B. PUNISHABLE CONDUCT
1. WRONGFUL ACT DIFFERENT FROM THAT
INTENDED
♠ One who commits an intentional felony is
responsible for all the consequences which may naturally
and logically result therefrom, whether foreseen or
intended or not.
♠ Rationale: el que es causa de la causa es
causa del mal causado
“He who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused”
♠ When a person has not committed a felony,
he is not criminally liable for the result which is not
intended.
♠ The causes which may produce a result
different from that which the offender intended are:
a. ERROR IN PERSONAE – mistake in the
identity of the victim; injuring one person
mistaken for another (this is a complex crime
under Art. 49)
b. ABERRATIO ICTUS – mistake in the blow,
that is, when the offender intending to do an
injury to one person actually inflicts it on
another; and
c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM – the act exceeds
the intent, that is, the injurious result is
greater than that intended.
♠ The felony committed must be the proximate cause of
the resulting injury.
PROXIMATE CAUSE – the cause, which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred.
♠ When death is presumed to be the natural
consequence of physical injuries inflicted:
1. That the victim at the time the physical injuries
were inflicted was in normal health.
2. That the death may be expected from the
physical injuries inflicted.
3. That death ensued within a reasonable time.
♠ The felony committed is not the proximate cause of
the resulting injury when:
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
10
a. There is an active force that intervened
between the felony committed and the resulting injury,
and the active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious act of the accused; or
b. The resulting injury is due to the intentional
act of the victim.
People v. Sabalones (1988)
Facts: Two vehicles proceeded to the house of
Stephen Lim when Sabalones et. al. fired towards the
vehicles killing 2 of the passengers and seriously injuring
3 others. The lower court convicted the accused.
Appellants accuse the trial court of engaging in
conjecture in ruling that there was aberratio ictus in this
case.
Held: The allegation does not advance the
cause of the appellants. It must be stressed that the
trial court relied on the concept of aberratio ictus to
explain why the appellants staged the ambush, not to
prove that appellants did in fact commit the crimes. In
any event, the lower court was not engaging in
conjecture because the conclusion that the appellants
killed the wrong persons was based on the extrajudicial
statement of appellant Beronga and the testimony of
one witness. Nonetheless, the fact that they were
mistaken does not diminish their culpability. Mistake in
the identity of the victim carries the same gravity as
when the accused zeroes in on his intended victim.
2. OMISSION
Art. 116. Misprision of treason. — Every person
owing allegiance to (the United States) the Government
of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and
having knowledge of any conspiracy against them,
conceals or does not disclose and make known the
same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of
the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which
he resides, as the case may be, shall be punished as an
accessory to the crime of treason.
Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or
employees. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon public officers or
employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the
means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the
duties of their offices under the control of the rebels or
shall accept appointment to office under them.
Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and
tolerance. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period and suspension shall be imposed upon
any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in
dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously
refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment
of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission
of offenses.
Art. 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion.
— Any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a
prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and temporary special disqualification
in its maximum period to perpetual special
disqualification, if the fugitive shall have been sentenced
by final judgment to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum
period and temporary special disqualification, in case the
fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
held as a detention prisoner for any crime or violation of
law or municipal ordinance.
Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office. —
The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person
who, having been elected by popular election to a public
office, shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in or
to discharge the duties of said office.
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and
abandonment of one’s own victim. — The penalty of
arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any
person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render
such assistance without detriment to himself, unless
such omission shall constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance
to another whom he has accidentally wounded or
injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child
under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child
to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take
him to a safe place.
3. PROPOSAL AND CONSPIRACY
Art. 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 therefore.
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.
Art. 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason; Penalty. — The conspiracy or proposal to
commit the crime of treason shall be punished
respectively, by prision mayor and a fine not exceeding
P10,000 pesos, and prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding P5,000 pesos.
Art. 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup
d’etat, rebellion or insurrection. — The conspiracy
and proposal to commit coup d’etat shall be punished by
prision mayor in minimum period and a fine which shall
not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).
Art. 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition. — Persons
conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be
punished by prision correccional in its medium period
and a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos
Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint
of trade. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract
or agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in
restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial
means free competition in the market;
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
11
Art. 306. Who are brigands; Penalty. — When more
than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the
purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or
kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to
obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be attained
by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed
highway robbers or brigands.
Persons found guilty of this offense shall be
punished by prision mayor in its medium period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or
acts committed by them are not punishable by higher
penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high
penalties.
If any of the arms carried by any of said
persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed
that said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and
in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in
the maximum period.
Art. 340. Corruption of minors. — Any person who
shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption
of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall
be punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a
pubic officer or employee, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall
also suffer the penalty of temporary absolute
disqualification.
♠ Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are two
different acts or felonies: (1) conspiracy to commit a
felony, and (2) proposal to commit a felony.
GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
felony are not punishable
EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.
RATIONALE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
crime are only preparatory acts and the law regards
them as innocent or at least permissible except in rare
and exceptional cases.
CONSPIRACY
- exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felon and
decide to commit it.
♠ The RPC specially provides a penalty for mere
conspiracy in treason, coup d’etat, rebellion or sedition.
Treason, coup d’etat, rebellion or sedition must not
actually be committed or else conspiracy shall no longer
be punishable because it is not a separate offense from
the felony itself.
♠INDICATIONS OF CONSPIRACY
- for a collective responsibility among the
accused to be established, it is sufficient that at the time
of the aggression, all of them acted in concert, each
doing his part to fulfill their common design to commit
the felony.
♠ REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY
a. That two or more persons came to an
agreement:
- agreement presupposes meeting of the minds
of two or more persons
b. That the agreement concerned the
commission of a felony; and
- the agreement must refer to the commission
of a crime. It must be an agreement to act, to
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
effect, to bring about what has already been
conceived and determined
c. That the execution of the felony be
decided upon.
- the conspirators have made up their minds
to commit the crime. There must be a
determination to commit the crime of
treason, rebellion or sedition.
People v. Fabro (2000)
Facts: Petitioner Fabro together with her
common-law husband Pilay and Irene Martin was
charged with the crime of "violation of Section 21 (b)
Art. IV, in relation to Section 4, Art. II of Republic Act
No. 6425 as amended, for selling to PO2 Apduhan, who
acted as poseur buyer, one kilo of dried marijuana
leaves. Fabro contends that her guilt was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt as based on the testimony of
the NBI, the real possessor of the confiscated properties
was her co-accused Martin.
Held: Fabro’s contention that Martin was the
real curlprit being the source of the contraband does not
in any way absolve her of the crime of selling marijuana.
While it is true that it was Martin who took the money, it
was Fabro who negotiated with the poseur buyers,
fetched her co-accused; and carried and handed over
the marijuana to Apduhan. The acts of Martin and Fabro
clearly show a unity of purpose in the consummation of
the sale of marijuana.
It is clear that Section 21 (b) of R.A. 6425
punishes the mere conspiracy to commit the offense of
selling, delivering, distributing and transporting of
dangerous drugs. Conspiracy herein refers to the mere
agreement to commit the said acts and not the actual
execution thereof. While the rule is that a mere
conspiracy to commit a crime without doing any overt
act is not punishable, the exception is when such is
specifically penalized by law, as in the case of Section 21
of Republic Act 6425. Conspiracy as crime should be
distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring
criminal liability the latter being applicable to the case.
People v. Bello (2004)
Facts: Accused Bello et. al. mapped out a plan
to rob a moneychanger. Calling the moneychanger from
a motel room, Bello misrepresented that she came from
Japan and would like to convert her 40 pieces of yen to
pesos. She requested that the currency conversion be
made in her room as she did not want to carry around a
huge sum of money. During the occasion of the robbery,
Andasan, the messenger who brought the money to
Bello was killed. The trial court ruled that Bello conspired
with the other accused and was found guilty as principal
for the crime of robbery with homicide.
Bello, argued that her alleged conspiracy with
the other accused was not sufficiently established by
circumstantial evidence as there was no showing that
she had the same purpose and united with the other
accused in the execution of the crime. She alleged that
her mere presence in the crime scene is not per se a
sufficient indiqium of conspiracy. She insists that she
acted against her will due to the irresistible force
employed by her co-accused.
Held: The Court held that Bello conspired with
her co-accused to commit the crime. Records clearly
reveal that Bello was part of the plan to rob the
moneychanger. The chain of events and the conduct of
Bello lead to no other conclusion than that she conspired
with her co-accused to commit the crime.
Conspiracy exists where the plotters agree,
expressly or impliedly, to commit the crime and decide
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
12
to pursue it. Conspiracy is predominantly a state of mind
as it involves the meeting of the minds and intent of the
malefactors. Consequently, direct proof is not essential
to establish it. The existence of the assent of minds of
the co-conspirators may be inferred from proof of facts
and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that
they are parts of the complete plan to commit the crime.
Li v. People (2001)
Facts: Because of an altercation between
Arugay and Li, the latter armed himself with a baseball
bat and used the same to hit Arugay on the arm. Arugay
armed with a bolo, retaliated by hacking Li on the head
causing the bat to fall from his hand and leaving him
unconscious or semi-unconsious. At this point in time,
Sangalang, who was also present stabbed Arugay
several times which resulted to the latter’s death. The
lower court held that there was conspiracy in the
present case
Held: The existence of conspiracy should be
ruled out. Sangalang was the main actor in stabbing
Arugay to death. As Li was incapacitated or probably
unconscious at the time Sangalang stabbed Arugay, it
cannot be assumed that Sangalang did what he has
done with the knowledge or assent of Li, much more in
coordination with each other. Based on the
circumstances, the Court is hard put to conclude that
Sangalang and Li had acted in concert to commit the
offense. In fact, the stabbing of Arugay could very well
be construed as a spur-of-the-moment reaction by
Sangalang upon seeing that his friend Li was struck on
the head by Arugay. From such a spontaneous reaction,
a finding of conspiracy cannot arise.
Proving conspiracy is a dicey matter, especially
difficult in cases such as the present wherein the
criminal acts arose spontaneously, as opposed to
instances wherein the participants would have the
opportunity to orchestrate a more deliberate plan.
Spontaneity alone does not preclude the establishment
of conspiracy, which after all, can be consummated in a
moment’s notice — through a single word of assent to a
proposal or an unambiguous handshake. Yet it is more
difficult to presume conspiracy in extemporaneous
outbursts of violence; hence, the demand that it be
established by positive evidence. A conviction premised
on a finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts, not
on mere inferences and presumption.
People v. Bagano (2002)
Facts: Jeremias and his wife Merlinda were
sleeping in their home when they were awakened by
someone repeatedly calling Jeremias' name. Jeremias
went to the window to see who it was and thereafter left
their room to go outside. Merlinda remained in their
room, but peering through the window, she saw Cañete
suddenly embrace Jeremias as the latter was opening
the gate. Thereupon, Bagano with ice pick in hand
stabbed Jeremias on the chest. Jeremias struggled to
free himself from Cañete's clasp and ran, but Bagano
gave chase. Jeremias died upon arrival at the hospital.
Held: Conspiracy is attendant in the
commission of the crime. For conspiracy to exist, it is
sufficient that at the time of the commission of the
offense the accused had the same purpose and were
united in its execution. Proof of an actual planning of
the perpetuation of the crime is not a condition
precedent. From the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated, and as can be inferred from
their acts, it is evident that Bagano and Cañete were
one in their intention to kill Jeremias. Hence, in
accordance with the principle that in conspiracy the act
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 13

of one is the act of all, the fact that it was Bagano who
delivered the fatal blow on Jeremias and Cañete's
participation was limited to a mere embrace is
immaterial. Conspiracy bestows upon them equal
liability; hence, they shall suffer the same fate for their
acts.
burned. And after attaining their purpose, she fled with
the other accused.
The above circumstances clearly show the
common purpose and concerted efforts on the part of
appellant and her co-accused.

People v. Bangcado (2000) PROPOSAL

Facts: SPO1 Bangcado together with SPO1
Banisa frisked and searched Cogasi, Clemente, Adawan Requisites:
and Lino to see if they were concealing any weapons. a. That a person has decided to commit a
After making sure that the victims were unarmed, felony; and
Bangcado directed the victims to form a line against a b. That he proposes its execution to some
Ford Fierra. Because Bangcado and Banisa were holding other person or persons.
handguns, Cogasi and his friends did as they were told
and were caught unaware when they were shot by ♠ There is no criminal proposal when:
Bangcado. Adawan and Lino died of gunshot wounds in
a. The person who proposes is not determined to
the head, while Cogasi and Clemente sustained head commit the felony.
wounds. The lower court convicted both Bangcado and
b. There is no decided, concrete and formal
Banisa for 2 counts of murder and 2 counts of frustrated proposal.
murder.
c. It is not the execution of a felony that is
Held: There being no finding of Conspiracy proposed.
with Bangcado, the Court acquitted Banisa of all the
charges against him. In the absence of any previous
♠ It is not necessary that the person to whom the
plan or agreement to commit a crime, the criminal
proposal is made agrees to commit treason or rebellion.
responsibility arising from different acts directed against
one and the same person is individual and not collective,
US v. Bautista (1906)
and that each of the participants is liable only for his
Facts: During the latter part of 1903, a junta
own acts. Consequently, Banisa must be absolved from
was organized and a conspiracy entered into by a
criminal responsibility for the assault on the victims. It is
number of Filipino residents in HK for the purpose of
clear that neither the victims nor Banisa could have
overthrowing the government of the US in the
anticipated Bangcado's act of shooting the victims since
Philippines and replacing it with Republica Universal
the attack was sudden and without any reason or
Democratica Filipinas. Defendant Ricarte was recognized
purpose. Thus, the criminal design of Bangcado had not
as chief of military forces to be organized in the
yet been revealed prior to the killings.
Philippines. Defendant Bautista was an intimate friend of
Ricarte and was present in several meetings. Defendant
People v. Ramos (2004)
Puzon admitted that he accepted employment as chief of
Facts: The trial court found appellant Eulalia
signal corps of such junta.
San Roque guilty for conspiring and confederating with
Held: The fact that one accused of conspiracy
her co-accused for the murder of her live-in-partner
to overthrow the government has actually and
Lomida. Lomida was stabbed, shot and burned resulting
voluntarily accepted appointment by the conspirators as
to his death. Appellant argues that the fact of such
an officer of armed forces raised or to be raised in
conspiracy has not been satisfactorily proven during the
furtherance of the designs of the conspirators may be
trial of the case. She vigorously contends that she did
taken into consideration as evidence of the criminal
not participate in the killing of the victim.
connection of the accused with the conspiracy.
Held: In determining the existence of
conspiracy, it is not necessary to show that all the
People v. Vengco (1984)
conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. The
The conspiracy between Constantino Leneses
presence of conspiracy among the accused can be
and Leon David is discernible from the way in which the
proven by their conduct before, during or after the
assaulted Celaderna and their conduct sometime before
commission of the crime showing that they acted in
and immediately after the stabbing that clearly show
unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or
that they had agreed to kill him. The rule is that “if it is
design. There must be a showing that appellant
proven that two or more persons aimed by their acts
cooperated in the commission of the offense, either
towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful
morally, through advice, encouragement or agreement
object, each doing a part that their acts, although
or materially through external acts indicating a manifest
apparently independent, were in fact connected and
intent of supplying aid in the perpetration of the crime in
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal
an efficacious way. In such case, the act of one becomes
association and concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy
the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be
may be inferred though no actual meeting among them
deemed equally guilty of the crime committed.
is proven.
The series of events in this case convincingly
show that appellant and her co-accused acted in unison
People v. Valdez (1988)
and cooperated with each other in killing Lomida.
Facts: Eleno was about to stand up to
Appellant was the one who opened the door and allowed
accompany a relative to a prayer meeting when he was
the other accused to enter the house. She joined them
shot at the back. The mother looked at the direction
in bringing the victim to the residence of Ramos, her
from where the gunshot came from and was able to
brother-in-law. While her co-accused dragged the
identify the 2 defendants as they turned and ran down
helpless victim, tied him to a santol tree, stabbed him
the hill from the bamboo grove from which the two hid
twice by a bladed knife, and shot him 5 to 7 times,
behind. The brother of the victim also testified that he
appellant merely watched intensely. She even “turned
her back” as the lifeless body of the victim was being

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
positively identified Valdez as the one carrying the gun
and that it was Orodio who was running with him.
Held: If conspiracy is proved to exist in the
commission of the felony, it is not necessary to prove
that participation of each conspirator of all are liable as
any act of a co-conspirator becomes the act of the other
regardless of the precise degree of participation in the
act. The evidence is more than adequate to show
conspiracy between two accused even if prosecution
failed to show who actually pulled the trigger of the
shotgun; the act of one is the act of all.
People v. Escober (1988)
Facts: Alorte, Escober and Punzalan were
convicted of having killed the children of spouses Chua
while robbing Bee Seng Electrical Supply owned by the
spouses. Abuyen was the former security guard of the
store while Escober was the present one. Punzalan is a
friend of Abuyen. Escober and Punzalan were charged as
principals by indispensable cooperation.
Held: Escober was acquitted. Escober being on
duty that fateful night and opening the gate to persons
who turned out to be robbers and killers make him an
easy suspect. However, the fact that accused was at the
scene of the crime is not by itself sufficient to establish
his criminal liability. To hold the accused as co-principal
in the crime charged, the existence of conspiracy
between the accused and the actual killers must be
shown and the same degree of proof required for
establishing the crime is required to support a finding of
the presence of the conspiracy.
Punzalan, on the other hand, is guilty as
principal. His participation is to act as a look-out and
even if he did not participate in the actual killing, he
cannot evade responsibility for the crime.
People v. Elijorde (2003)
Facts: Hierro and Visbal went to the sari-sari
store where they encountered Elijorde, Punzalan and
Menes. Menes reacted to a comment made by Hierro by
punching him in the face followed by Elijorde who also
boxed him, and Punzalan who kicked him in the back.
The two victims ran away. Another confrontation
ensued. Punzalan kicked Hierro at the back and the
latter ran away but pursued by Elijorde. Elijorde, then.
Stabbed Hierro at the back with a knife resulting to his
death. Elijorde and Punzalan were charged with murder.
Held: No conspiracy between the 2 because
there is no evidence to show unity of purpose and
design in the execution of the killing. Punzalan only
kicked Hierro twice after which he did not cooperate with
Elijorde in pursuing and killing the victim. Mere kicking
does not necessarily prove intent to kill. Thus, each of
the accused is liable only for his own acts. Punzalan is
acquitted.
STAGES OF COMMISSION OF A CRIME
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted
felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those
which are frustrated and attempted, 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 or over
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
14
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than this own spontaneous
desistance.
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
a. internal acts – such as mere ideas in the
mind of a person, are not punishable even if,
had they been carried out, they would
constitute a crime
b. external acts – cover a) preparatory and b)
acts of execution
c. preparatory – acts tending toward the crime;
ordinarily not punishable unless specifically
provided for; these acts do not yet constitute
even the first stage of the acts of execution;
intent not yet disclosed
d. acts of execution – acts directly connected to
the intended crime; varies with the crime and
is punishable under the code; usually overt
acts with a logical relation to a particular
concrete offense
STAGES OF COMMISSION
1. Attempted – there is an attempt 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.
2. Frustrated – 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
some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
3. Consummated – a felony is consummated
when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present.
ATTEMPTED FELONY
Elements:
1. The offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony;
3. The offender’s act is not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was
due to cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
♠ The commission of the felony is deemed commenced
directly by overt acts when 1) there be external acts; 2)
such external acts have direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed.
OVERT ACT – 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 curse, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
♠ Drawing or trying to draw a pistol or raising a bolo as
if to strike the offended party with it is not an overt act
of homicide.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
INDETERMINATE OFFENSE – It is one where the
purpose of the offender in performing an act is not
certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous.
♠ The intention of the accused must be viewed from the
nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his
admission.
SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PHASES OF A
FELONY
1. SUBJECTIVE PHASE
- That portion of the execution of the
crime starting from the point where the offender
still has control over his acts.
- If the offender reaches the point
where he has no more control over is acts, the
subjective phase is passed.
- If it is already passed but the felony is
not produced, it is frustrated.
2. OBJECTIVE PHASE
- the result of the acts of execution,
that is, the accomplishment of the crime.
- If the subjective and objective phases
are present, there is consummated felony.
People v. Lamahang (1935)
Facts: The accused was caught in the act of
making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a
store where the owner was sleeping. The accused had
only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening
another from the wall, when the policeman showed up,
who instantly arrested him. The trial court convicted him
of attempted robbery.
Held: The conviction is erroneous. It is the
opinion of the SC that the attempt to commit an offense
which the Penal code punishes is that which has a logical
relation to a particular, concrete offense; that, which is
the beginning of the execution of the offense by overt
acts of the perpetrator, leading directly to its realization
and consummation. What we have here is an attempt to
commit an indeterminate offense.
There is no doubt that it was the intention of
the accused to enter the store by means of violence,
passing through the opening which he had started to
make on the wall, but it is not sufficient, for the purpose
of imposing penal sanction to make an assumption that
the act was in preparation for the commission of
robbery. There is no logical and natural relation between
the act of entering and robbery. Thus, he should be
guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling.
People v. Dio (1984)
Facts: The appellant and his companion tried
to divest Crispulo of his Seiko wrist watch but Crispulo
resisted their attempt and fought the robbers. The
victim was stabbed and later died. The Seiko watch was
still strapped to his wrist. The lower court convicted the
appellant of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
Held: The decision of the lower court was
erroneous. The accused were unsuccessful in their
criminal venture since the watch was still securely
strapped to the victim’s wrist. The crime of robbery was
therefore not consummated. The killing may be
considered as merely incidental to the plan to carry out
the robbery. The accused must be convicted of
attempted robbery with homicide.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
15
People v. Trinidad (1989)
Facts: Deceased Soriano and Laroa together
with Tan were inside a Ford Fierra Trinidad asked for a
ride. The accused shot the two deceased. Tan got off the
Fierra and rode a jeepney which just passed by. When
he saw the accused riding at the back of the jeep, he
tried to run but when the jeep started driving away, he
clung to its side. The accused fired two shots at Tan, one
hitting him on his thigh. The lower court convicted him
of frustrated murder.
Held: The accused can only be convicted of
Attempted Murder because the accused was unable to
perform all acts of execution which would have produced
the murder. The victim’s wound in the right thigh was
not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound
is inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his
death, the crime is only attempted murder.
People v. Campuhan (2000)
Facts: The mother of the 4-year-old victim
caught the houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost
raping her daughter. The hymen of the victim was still
intact but since in previous Orita ruling, entry into labia
is considered rape even without rupture of hymen and
full penetration is not necessary, question arises
whether what transpired was attempted or
consummated rape.
Held: Attempted rape only. Mere touching of
external genitalia by penis is already rape. However,
touching should be understood as inherently part of
entry of penis into labia and not mere touching of the
pudendum. There must be clear and convincing proof
that the penis indeed touched the labia and slid into the
female organ and NOT MERELY STROKED THE
EXTERNAL SURFACE. Some degree of penetration
beneath the surface must be achieved and the labia
major must be entered. Prosecution did not prove that
the Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate victim’s
vagina because the kneeling position of the accused
obstructed the mother’s view of the alleged sexual
contact. The testimony of the victim herself claimed that
penis grazed but did not penetrate her organ.
There was only a shelling of the castle but no
bombardment of the drawbridge yet.
People v. Listerio (2000)
Facts: Brothers Jeonito and Marlon were
passing by Tramo, Muntinlupa when a group composed
of Agapito Listerio, Samson, George, and Marlon, all
surnamed Dela Torre and Bonifacio Bancaya blocked
their path and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed
weapons. Listerio, Marlon and George, who were armed
with bladed weapons, stabbed Jeonito from behind.
Jeonito’s brother, Marlon, was hit on the head by
Samson and Bancaya with lead pipes and momentarily
lost consciousness. When he regained his senses, he
saw that Jeonito was already dead. Their assailants then
fled after the incident. Marlon who sustained injuries in
the arm and back, was thereafter brought to a hospital
for treatment. The lower court found Listerio guilty for
the “attempt” to kill Marlon.
Held: The SC held that the crime is a
frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering
that after being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head
as a result of which he lost consciousness and fell,
Marlon's attackers apparently thought he was already
dead and fled.
A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless
the offender, after beginning the commission of the
crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by
some outside cause from performing all of the acts
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
which should produce the crime. In other words, to be
an attempted crime the purpose of the offender must be
thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes
and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he
has performed all of the acts which should produce the
crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to
perform. If he has performed all the acts which should
result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily
desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an
attempt. ]
Valenzuela v. People (2007)
Facts: A grocery boy was caught trying to
abscond a box of Tide Ultrabar laundry soap from the
Super Sale Club. The guards apprehended him at the
store parking lot while trying to board a taxi. He claimed
the theft was merely frustrated for he was not able to
dispose of the goods.
Held: The Revised Penal Code provisions on
theft have not been designed in such fashion as to
accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings.
Again, there is no language in Article 308 that expressly
or impliedly allows that the “free disposition of the items
stolen” is in any way determinative of whether the crime
of theft has been produced. We thus conclude that
under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of
frustrated theft.
FRUSTRATED FELONY
Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of
execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the
felony as a consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.
♠ In frustrated felony, the offender must perform all the
acts of execution. Nothing more is left to be done by the
offender, because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime.
FRUSTRATED FELONY VS. ATTEMPTED FELONY
1. In both, the offender has not accomplished his
criminal purpose.
2. While in frustrated felony, the offender has
performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence, 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.
ATTEMPTED OR IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
FRUSTRATED
The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished
The evil intent of the The evil intent of the
offender is possible of offender cannot be
accomplishment accomplished
The evil intent cannot be The evil intent of the
accomplished because of offender cannot be
the intervention of certain accomplished because it is
cause or accident in which inherently impossible of
the offender had no part accomplishment or
because the means
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
16
employed by the offender
is inadequate or
ineffectual
People v. Eriña (1927)
Facts: The victim of the crime was a child of 3
years and 11 months. There are doubts whether the
accused succeeded in penetrating the vagina before
being disturbed in the timely intervention of the mother
and sister. The physician found a slight inflammation of
the exterior parts of the organ, indicating an effort had
been made to enter the vagina but it is doubtful whether
the entry had been effected.
Held: Though complete penetration is not
necessary, penetration of the labia is sufficient.
However, since there is no sufficient evidence of such
penetration, the act is merely frustrated.
Dissent: It is consummated rape.
People v. Orita (1990)
Facts: The victim was a 19-year old college
student. She arrived at her boarding house early
morning coming from a late-night party. The accused
suddenly held her and poked a knife to her neck. They
entered a room and the victim was ordered to lie down.
The accused made the victim hold his penis and insert it
in her vagina. Because of their position, the accused
cannot fully penetrate her. Only a small part of his penis
inserted her vagina. The victim was able to escape and
report to the police what happened. The lower court
convicted the accused of frustrated rape.
Held: Perfect penetration is not essential for
the consummation of rape. Entry of the labia or lips of
the female organ without rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant
conviction. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the
moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim,
he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment
also all the essential elements of the offense have been
accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the
offender, because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is
consummated rape.
Taking into account the nature, elements and
manner of execution of the crime of rape and
jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how
the frustrated stage in rape can ever be consummated.
People v. Caballero (2003)
Facts: As Eugene walked by the gate of the
Mondragon Compound, Armando Caballero suddenly
grabbed Eugene towards the compound. Eugene
resisted. Spontaneously, Armando’s brothers Ricardo,
Marciano, Jr., and Robito joined Armando and assaulted
Eugene. Armando took the wooden pole supporting the
clothesline and hit Eugene with it. Eugene’s sister,
Myrna, saw the Caballero brothers assaulting Eugene
and shouted for help. Arnold saw the commotion and
rushed to the scene to pacify the protagonists. However,
Ricardo accosted Arnold and stabbed the latter on the
left side of his body. Forthwith, Robito, Marciano, Jr. and
Armando ganged up on Arnold. Two of them stabbed
Arnold on his forearm. Arnold fled for his life and hid
under the house of a neighbor. Leonilo, who likewise
rushed to the scene was stabbed by Robito. Eugene and
Leonilo eventually died from the stab wounds they
sustained. Dr. Quisumbing, who attended to and
operated on Arnold, testified that the stab wound
sustained by Arnold on the left side of his body was
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
mortal and could have caused his death were it not for
the timely and effective medical intervention:
Held: A crime is frustrated when the offender
has performed all the acts of execution which should
result in the consummation of the crime. The offender
has passed the subjective phase in the commission of
the crime. Subjectively, the crime is complete. Nothing
interrupted the offender while passing through the
subjective phase. He did all that is necessary to
consummate the crime. However, the crime is not
consummated by reason of the intervention of causes
independent of the will of the offender. In homicide
cases, the offender is said to have performed all the acts
of execution if the wound inflicted on the victim is mortal
and could cause the death of the victim barring medical
intervention or attendance.
CONSUMMATED FELONY
Requisites:
1. All the acts of execution are present
2. The result is achieved.
♠ Every crime has its own elements which must all be
present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of
law.
How to determine whether the felony is
attempted, frustrated or consummated?
1. the nature of the offense
ex. In arson, it is not necessary that the property is
totally destroyed by fire. The crime of arson is
therefore consummated even if only a portion of the
wall or any other part of the house is burned.
2. the elements constituting the felony
ex. In theft, the mere removal of the personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain is
sufficient to consummate the offense. In estafa, the
offended party must actually be prejudiced or
damaged. (Adiao case vs. Domiguez case)
3. the manner of committing the crime
a. formal crimes – those which are consummated
by a single act (ex. Slander, adultery)
• There can be no ATTEMPT in a formal crime.
b. crimes consummated by mere attempt (ex.
Attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason)
• There is not ATTEMPTED crime because the
overt act in itself consummates the crime.
c. felonies by omission
• There can be no attempted stage because the
offender does not execute acts. He omits to
perform an act which the law requires him to do.
d. crimes committed by mere agreement
- The offer made by one of the parties to the other
constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is
rejected.
- In view of this rule, it would seem that there is
no frustrated bribery but in People v. Diego Quin,
SC ruled that if the public officer returned the
money given by the defendant, there is
frustrated bribery.
e. material crimes
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
17
- There are three stages of consummation:
attempted, frustrated and consummated.
US v. Adiao (1955)
Facts: Adiao is a customs inspector. He
abstracted a leather belt from the luggage of a Japanese
and secreted the belt under his desk in the Customs
House where it was found by other customs employees.
Adiao was convicted of frustrated theft.
Held: Since the defendant performed all the
acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment of
the felony, he is guilty of consummated crime of theft.
The fact that he was under observation during the entire
transaction and was unable to get the merchandise out
of the Customs House is not decisive; all the elements of
the completed crime of theft are present.
People v. Hernandez (1925)
Facts: The accused, a 70-year-old man was
convicted by the trial court of frustrated rape for having
intercourse with his granddaughter who was at that time
only 9 years of age. The lower court claimed that there
can be no consummated rape without a complete
penetration of the hymen.
Held: Finding the hymen intact is not always
proof that no rape has been committed. The law may
now indeed be considered as settled that while the
rupturing of the hymen is not indispensable to a
conviction, there must be proof of some degree of
entrance of the male organ within the labia of
pudendum. In the present case, the physician found the
labia and the opening of the vagina inflamed together
with an abundance of semen. Child even testified that
defendant succeeded partial penetration. The accused is
guilty of consummated rape.
D. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Art. 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 Art.
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 above-
mentioned Art.
♠ Art. 9 classifies felonies according to their gravity.
a. GRAVE FELONIES – those in which the law
attaches a capital punishment or afflictive
penalty.
♠ Capital punishment is death penalty
♠ The afflictive penalties in accordance with Art.
25 of this code are:
reclusion perpetua
reclusion temporal
perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification
perpetual or temporary special
disqualification
prision mayor
b. LESS GRAVE FELONIES – those in which
their maximum period are correctional
♠ When the penalty prescribed for the offense is
composed of two or more distinct penalties, the
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
higher or highest of the penalties must be a
correctional penalty.
♠ The following are correctional penalties
prision correccional
arresto mayor
suspension
destierro
c. LIGHT FELONIES – those infractions of law in
which the penalty is arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding P200 or both.
♠ A felony punishable by a fine not exceeding
P200 and censure is a light felony, because public
censure, like arresto menor, is a light felony.
Art. 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.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
commission of which a penalty of arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both; is provided.
♠ This should be seen in the light of articles prescribing
penalties for crimes in their different stages of
commission. This means that light felonies which are
only attempted or frustrated are not punishable by law.
♠ However, in the commission of crimes against persons
and property, every stage of execution is punishable but
only the principals and accomplices are liable in light
felonies, the accessories are not.
♠ Rationale: Light felonies produce such slight or
insignificant moral and material injuries that public
conscience is assuaged b not providing for penalty for
light felonies which are not consummated and to mere
accomplices.
III. CRIMINAL LIABILITY
A. HOW INCURRED
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.
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 an account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
♣ This article has no reference to the manner criminal
liability is incurred. The manner incurring criminal
liability under the RPC is stated under Art. 3, that is,
performing or failing to do an act, when either is
punished b law, by means of deceit or fault.
♣ Art. 4 merely states that criminal liability is incurred
by those mentioned by the said article.
1. By any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
18
REQUISITES:
a. That an intentional felony has been
committed; and
b. That the wrong done to the aggrieved
party be the direct and natural and logical
consequence of the felony.
♣ Any person who creates in another’s mind an
immediate sense of danger, which causes the latter to
do something resulting in the latter’s injuries, is liable
for the resulting injuries.
♣ Wrong done must be the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed.
- where it clearly appears that the injury would
not have cased death, in the ordinary course of events,
but would have healed in so many days and where it is
shown beyond all doubt that the death was due to the
malicious or careless acts of the injured person or a
third person, the accused is not liable for homicide.
♣ The offended party is not obliged to submit to a
surgical operation to relieve the accused from the
natural and ordinary results of his crime.
♣ The felony committed must be the proximate cause of
the resulting injury.
♠ The causes which may produce a result different from
that which the offender intended are:
a. ERROR IN PERSONAE - mistake in the
identity of the victim; injuring one person
mistaken for another (this is a complex
crime under Art. 49)
b. ABERRATIO ICTUS - mistake in the
blow, that is, when the offender intending
to do an injury to one person actually
inflicts it on another; and
c. PRAETER INTENTIONEM – the act
exceeds the intent, that is, the injurious
result is greater than that intended.
* RPC, Art. 13 Mitigating circumstance –
3) That the offender had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
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 an account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means.
Quinto v. Andres (2005)
Facts: Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school
pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was about
11 yrs old saw Andres and Pacheco who invited them to
go fishing inside a drainage culvert. Wilson assented but
Garcia seeing that it was dark inside opted to remain
seated in a grassy area about 2meters from the
entrance of the drainage system. Pacheco, Andres and
Quinto, entered the drainage system which was covered
by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter
wide, with water about a foot deep. After a while,
respondent Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out
of the drainage system and left without saying a word.
Andres also came out, went back inside, and emerged
again, this time, carrying Wilson who was already dead.
Andres laid the boy's lifeless body down in the grassy
area. Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled
from the scene. For his part, Andres went to the house
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
of petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson's mother, and
informed her that her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed
to the drainage culvert while respondent Andres followed
her.
Held: The court ruled that respondents cannot
be held criminally nor civilly liable for the death of
Wilson. In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof
of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill
the deceased before or after the latter was invited to
join them in fishing. Indeed, the petitioner testified that
respondent Andres used to go to their house and play
with her son before the latter's death. When the
petitioner's son died inside the drainage culvert, it was
respondent Andres who brought out the deceased. He
then informed the petitioner of her son's death. Even
after informing the petitioner of the death of her son,
respondent Andres followed the petitioner on her way to
the grassy area where the deceased was.
People v. Valledor (2002)
Facts: Roger was in his house working on a
lettering job inside his bedroom together with his first
cousin, Elsa and his friends, Simplicio and Antonio. All
of a sudden, Valledor entered the room, uttered Roger's
nickname ("Jer") and immediately attacked him with a
knife. Valledor then stabbed Elsa on the chest and said,
"Ako akabales den, Elsa." (I had my revenge, Elsa).
Thereafter, Valledor fled, leaving Simplicio and Antonio
unharmed. Roger and Elsa were immediately brought to
the hospital. On their way out, Antonio noticed a
commotion and saw that Ricardo, a neighbor of the
victim, who was likewise stabbed by Valledor was
wounded. Elsa was declared dead on arrival. Roger on
the other hand was treated for the 5-centimeter wound
sustained by him on his right forearm. Valledor invoked
the defense of insanity.
Held: Valledor failed to discharge the burden of
overcoming the presumption of sanity at the time of the
commission of the crime.
Judging from his acts, Valledor was clearly
aware and in control of what he was doing as he in fact
purposely chose to stab only the two victims. Two other
people were also inside the room, but Valledor went for
the victims. His obvious motive of revenge against the
victims was accentuated by calling out their names and
uttering the words, "I had my revenge" after stabbing
them. Finally, his act of immediately fleeing from the
scene after the incident indicates that he was aware of
the wrong he has done and the consequence thereof.
As consistently held by this Court, "A man may
act crazy but it does not necessarily and conclusively
prove that he is legally so. Then, too, the medical
findings showing that Valledor was suffering from a
mental disorder after the commission of the crime, has
no bearing on his liability. What is decisive is his mental
condition at the time of the perpetration of the offense.
Failing to discharge the burden of proving that he was
legally insane when he stabbed the victims, he should
be held liable for his felonious acts.
Intent
Recuerdo v. People (2006)
Held: General criminal intent is an element of
all crimes but malice is properly applied only to
deliberate acts done on purpose and with design. Evil
intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a
felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a
presumption of malice by intent. On the other hand,
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
19
specific intent is a definite and actual purpose to
accomplish some particular thing.
The general criminal intent is presumed from
the criminal act and in the absence of any general intent
is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be
proved by the accused. Generally, a specific intent is
not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact, must
be proved by the State just as any other essential
element. This may be shown, however, by the nature of
the act, the circumstances under which it was
committed, the means employed and the motive of the
accused
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
REQUISITES:
1. That the act performed would be an offense
against persons or property.
FELONIES AGAINST PERSONS ARE:
a. Parricide
b. Murder
c. Homicide
d. Infanticide
e. Abortion
f. Duel
g. Physical Injuries
h. Rape
FELONIES AGAINST PROPERTY ARE:
a. Robbery
b. Brigandage
c. Theft
d. Usurpation
e. Culpable Insolvency
f. Swindling and other deceits
g. Chattel Mortgage
h. Arson and other crimes involving
destruction
i. Malicious Mischief
2. That the act was done with evil intent.
The offender must have intent to do injury to
another.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently
impossible, or that the means employed is
either inadequate or ineffectual.
In impossible crime, the act performed by the
offender cannot produce an offense against persons
or property because:
a. the commission of the offense is
inherently impossible of accomplishment
- The act intended by the offender is by its
nature one of impossible accomplishment.
- There must either 1) LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY,
or 2) PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY
- examples: 1) when one tries to kill another
by putting in his substance which he believes to be
arsenic when in fact it is common salt; 2) when one
tries to murder a corpse.
b. the means employed is either inadequate
or ineffectual
- example: when one tries to poison another but
the quantity of arsenic added in his substance was
not sufficient to kill a person
- but where the means employed is adequate
and the result expected is not produced, it is not an
impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 20

4. That the act performed should not • The law recognizes the non-existence of a
constitute a violation of another provision of crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of
the RPC Art. 11 that the person therein mentioned “DO NOT
- example: A pointed a gun at B to rob the latter INCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITY.”
of a watch but B was not wearing a watch. It is
not an impossible crime because A’s pointing his
gun at B already constituted at least the crime of Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do
grave threats. not incur any criminal liability:

Why is an impossible crime punishable? 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or
rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;
It is punishable in order to suppress criminal
First. Unlawful aggression
tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the
Urbano v. IAC (1988)
part of the person defending himself.
Facts: Urbano went to his rice field and found
his palay flooded with water. Urbano found out that it
2. Any one who acts in defense of the person
was Javier who was responsible for the opening of the
or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
irrigation canal. He got angry and tried to hack Javier
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his
but the latter tried to parry the attack and in the
relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those
process, a two-inch incised wound was inflicted on the
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided
right palm of Javier’s hand. The wound was treated and
that the first and second requisites prescribed in the
incapacitation was diagnosed to be from 7-9 days. 22
next preceding circumstance are present, and the
days after, Javier was rushed to the hospital in a very
further requisite, in case the revocation was given by
serious condition caused by tetanus toxin. Javier died
the person attacked, that the one making defense had
the next day. Urbano was convicted of homicide.
not part therein.
Held: Urbano is acquitted because the infection
was distinct and foreign to the crime. The proximate
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person
cause of Javier’s death was due to his own negligence as
or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
he went back to work even if his wound had not yet
second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of
healed properly. The evidence on record also shows that
this Article are present and that the person defending be
the wound inflicted by Urbano did not exhibit any signs
not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil
of being infected with tetanus; at most, it was only
motive.
infected with a mild form of tetanus and not the severe
form that killed him.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does not act which causes damage, provided that
Intod v. CA (1992)
the following requisites are present:
Facts: Intod et al. went to Palangpangan’s
house, all armed with firearms. They went the bedroom
First. That the evil sought t be avoided
and began firing their weapons. However, Palangpangan
actually exists.
was in another city and her home was occupied by her
Second. That the injury feared be greater
son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when
than that done to avoid it;
the accused fired their weapons. RTC convicted the
Third. That there be no other practical and
accused of attempted murder.
less harmful means of preventing it.
Held: The accused is guilty of an impossible
crime. The factual situation in the case presents a
5. Any person who acts in fulfillment of a duty
physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime
or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
impossible of performance.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an
B. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL
order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
LIABILITY

IMPUTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY • Article 11 recognizes the acts of such persons as

justified. Such persons are not criminals, as there is no
Quality by which an act Obligation of suffering the
crime committed
may be ascribed to a consequences of the
person as its author or crime.
owner.
Par. 1 – SELF-DEFENSE
Implies that a deed may Implies that the person
be imputed to a person. must take the
consequence of such deed. • Self-defense includes not only the defense of
the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of
his rights, that is, those rights the enjoyment of which is
1. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES protected by law.

• Those where the act of a person is said to be REQUISITES:

in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed
not to have transgressed the law and is free from both a. There must be unlawful aggression
criminal and civil liability.
• This is an indispensable requisite.

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
• If there is no unlawful aggression, there is
nothing to prevent or repel.
• Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at
least threatened assault of an immediate and
imminent kind.
• There must be an ACTUAL PHYSICAL assault upon
a person, or at least a THREAT to inflict real injury.
• When there is no peril to one’s life, limb or right,
there is no unlawful aggression.
PERIL TO ONE’S LIFE
1. ACTUAL – that the danger must be present, that
is, actually in existence.
2. IMMINENT- that the danger is on the point of
happening. It is not required that the attack already
begins, for it may be too late.
• A slap on the face constitutes unlawful aggression
since the face represents a person and his dignity.
Slapping it is a serious personal attack.
• Retaliation is different from an act of self-defense.
In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the
injured party already ceased to exist when the
accused attacked him. In self-defense, the
aggression was still existing when the aggressor was
injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
• In self-defense, the person must have no time nor
occasion for deliberation and cool thinking.
• The unlawful aggression must come from the
person who was attacked by the accused.
• There is no unlawful aggression when there is
agreement to fight because where the fight has been
agreed upon, each of the protagonists is at once
assailant and assaulted. But when the aggression is
ahead of the stipulated time and place, it is unlawful.
• The rule now is STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE
RIGHT. So, where the accused is where he has the
right to be, the law does not require him to retreat
when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with
a deadly weapon.
• The belief of the person may be considered in
determining the existence of unlawful aggression.
Ex. If the aggressor used a toy pistol but the
accused believed it was a real gun, he may claim self-
defense.
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it
• The second requisite presupposes the existence of
unlawful aggression.
• The law protects not only the person who repels
an aggression (meaning actual), but even the person
who tries to prevent an aggression that is expected
(meaning imminent).
• The reasonableness of the necessity depends
upon the circumstances particularly the time and
location where the aggression took place.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
21
• The means employed by the person making a
defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or
repel an unlawful aggression.
• The reasonableness of the means used will depend
upon the NATURE and QUALITY of the weapon used
by the aggressor, his PHYSICAL CONDITION, SIZE
and other circumstances, and those of the person
defending himself, and also the place and occasion of
the assault.
*** THE FIRST TWO REQUISITES ARE COMMON TO
THREE KINDS OF LEGITIMATE DEFENSE: 1) SELF-
DEFENSE, 2) DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE AND 3)
DEFENSE OF A STRANGER.
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself
• The third requisite of self-defense is present:
1. When no provocation at all was given to the
aggressor by the person defending himself; or
2. When, even if a provocation was giver, it
was not sufficient; or
3. When, even if the provocation was
sufficient, it was not given by the person defending
himself; or
4. When, even if a provocation was given by
the person defending himself, it was not proximate and
immediate to the act of aggression.
BATTERED WOMAN DEFENSE (RA 9262)
People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 (2004)
Facts: Ben was found dead in a rented
apartment he shared with his pregnant wife Marivic and
their two children. Marivic admitted in court having
killed her husband. She confessed hitting Ben’s nape
with a metal pipe and of shooting him at the back of his
head when the latter went to bed after attacking her.
The trial court found Marivic guilty of parricide. She now
invokes, self defense and/or defense of her unborn child.
In claiming self defense, Marivic raised the theory of the
“battered woman syndrome (BWS).”
Held: Battered woman has been defined as a
woman "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 rights. Battered women include wives or
women in any form of intimate relationship with men.
Furthermore, in order to be classified as a battered
woman, the couple must go through the battering cycle
at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an
abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a
second time, and she remains in the situation, she is
defined as a battered woman."
In any event, the existence of BWS in a
relationship does not in itself establish the legal right of
the woman to kill her abusive partner. Evidence must
still be considered in the context of self-defense. Crucial
to the BWS defense is the state of mind of the battered
woman at the time of the offense — she must have
actually feared imminent harm from her batterer and
honestly believed in the need to kill him in order to save
her life. The one who resorts to self-defense must face a
real threat on one's life; and the peril sought to be
avoided must be imminent and actual, not merely
imaginary.
Unlawful aggression is the most essential
element of self-defense. It presupposes actual, sudden
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
and unexpected attack — or an imminent danger thereof
— on the life or safety of a person. In the present case,
however, according to the testimony of Marivic herself,
there was a sufficient time interval between the unlawful
aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him. She
had already been able to withdraw from his violent
behavior and escape to their children's bedroom. During
that time, he apparently ceased his attack and went to
bed. The reality or even the imminence of the danger he
posed had ended altogether. He was no longer in a
position that presented an actual threat on her life or
safety.
Had Ben still been awaiting Marivic when she
came out of their children's bedroom — and based on
past violent incidents, there was a great probability that
he would still have pursued her and inflicted graver
harm — then, the imminence of the real threat upon her
life would not have ceased yet. Where the brutalized
person is already suffering from BWS, further evidence
of actual physical assault at the time of the killing is not
required. Incidents of domestic battery usually have a
predictable pattern. To require the battered person to
await an obvious, deadly attack before she can defend
her life "would amount to sentencing her to 'murder by
installment.'" Still, impending danger (based on the
conduct of the victim in previous battering episodes)
prior to the defendant's use of deadly force must be
shown. Threatening behavior or communication can
satisfy the required imminence of danger. Considering
such circumstances and the existence of BWS, self-
defense may be appreciated.
The Court reiterated the principle that
aggression, if not continuous, does not warrant self-
defense. In the absence of such aggression, there can
be no self-defense — complete or incomplete — on the
part of the victim. Thus, Marivic's killing of Ben was not
completely justified under the circumstances.
The Court futher however held that the severe
beatings repeatedly inflicted on Marivic constituted a
form of cumulative provocation that broke down her
psychological resistance and self-control. This
"psychological paralysis" she suffered diminished her will
power, thereby entitling her to the mitigating factor
under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the RPC In
addition, Marivic was also credited with the extenuating
circumstance of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as to have naturally produced passion and
obfuscation. The acute battering she suffered that fatal
night in the hands of her batterer-spouse, in spite of the
fact that she was eight months pregnant with their child,
overwhelmed her and put her in the aforesaid emotional
and mental state, which overcame her reason and
impelled her to vindicate her life and her unborn child's.
Toledo v. People (2004)
Facts: Toledo saw his nephew, Ricky, and the
latter's friends about 5 m away from his house, having a
drinking spree. He ordered them not to make loud
noises, and they obliged. He then went to his house and
went to sleep. After some time, Ricky and his friends
also went to sleep. They had not laid down for long
when he heard stones being hurled at the roof of the
house. Ricky saw Toledo stoning their house and asked
him why he was doing the same. Toledo did not answer
but met Ricky at the doorstep of his house and without
warning stabbed Ricky on the abdomen with a bolo
which resulted to his death. In the lower courts, Toledo
defended himself by alleging that his bolo accidentaly hit
the stomach of the victim and that he was able to prove
all the essential elements of self defense.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
22
Held: The Court ruled that it is an aberration
for Toledo to invoke the two defenses at the same time
because the said defenses are intrinsically antithetical.
There is no such defense as accidental self-defense in
the realm of criminal law.
The court further ruled that Toledo was not
justified in stabbing Ricky. There was no imminent
threat in his life necessitating his assault. Records reveal
that there is no unlawful agression, a condition sine qua
non for the justifying circumstance of self defense, on
the part of Ricky. Ricky arrived at Toledo’s house
unarmed. With no weapon to attack Toledo or defend
himself, no sign of hostility may be deduced from him.
People v. Enfectana(2002)
Facts: While Adelaida and her husband Leo
were on their way home, they were sideswiped by a
tricycle driven by appellant Erwin with Efren both
surnamed Enfectana as passenger. As a result, her
husband fell in a crouching position. When he was about
to get up, Eusebio also surnamed Enfectana came from
behind to stab him. Then Erwin and Efren took turns in
stabbing Leo. He died as a result. In court, Eusebio
Enfectana admitted that he killed Leo. He, however,
alleged that he acted in self-defense
Held: It is an established principle that once
this justifying circumstance is raised, the burden of
proving the elements of the claim shifts to him who
invokes it. The elements of self-defense are: (1) that the
victim has committed unlawful aggression amounting to
actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the
person claiming self-defense; (2) that there be
reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent
or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that there be
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
claiming self-defense or, at least, that any provocation
executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the
proximate and immediate cause of the victim's
aggression. The condition of unlawful aggression is a
sine qua non; otherwise stated, there can be no self-
defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has
committed unlawful aggression against the person
defending himself.
Given the fact that the relationship between
the parties had been marred by ill will and animosities,
and pursuant to the rule on the burden of evidence
imposed by law on the party invoking self-defense, the
admission of Eusebio that he killed Leo made it
incumbent upon appellant to convincingly prove that
there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim
which necessitated the use of deadly force by Eusebio.
Unfortunately, Eusebio miserably failed to prove the
existence of unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim. Eusebio is guilty of murder.
Cano v. People (2003)
Facts: Conrado and his deceased brother were
rivals in the Rush ID Photo business and had booths
along the sidewalk of Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila.
Condrado borrowed the permit of the deceased and had
it photocopied without the latter’s permission. The
deceased confonted Conrado and tried to stab him with
a fan knife. The latter locked himself in the dark room of
his booth to protect himself but was followed by the
deceased and they ended up attacking each other.
During the scuffle, the scissors which Orlando was able
to grab fell from his hands. He then grabbed the knife
of the deceased who in turn picked the scissors. They
again attacked each other which resulted to the death of
the other.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Held: Conrado’s act of killilng his brother was
attended by a justifying circumstance of self-defense. It
was the deceased who purposely sought and initially
attacked Orlando with a knife. The act of a person
armed with a bladed weapon pursuing another
constitutes unlawful agression because it signifies the
pursuers intent to commit an assault with his weapon.
There was also lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of Condrado. His act of photocopying the permit of his
brother without the latters permission can hardly be
conidered as provocation to merit so deadly an assault
with a bladed weapon.
Balunueco v. CA (2003)
Facts: Amelia was coddling her youngest child
in front of her house when she saw accused Reynaldo,
his father Juanito, brothers Ricardo and Ramon, all
surnamed Balunueco, and one Flores chasing her
brother-in-law Servando. With the 5 individuals in hot
pursuit, Servando scampered into the safety of Amelia's
house. Meanwhile, Senando, who was then cooking
supper, went out of the house unaware of the
commotion going on outside. Upon seeing Senando,
Reynaldo turned his attention on him and gave chase.
Senando instinctively fled towards the fields but he was
met by Armando who hit him with a stone, causing
Senando to feel dizzy. Reynaldo, Ricardo, and Armando
cornered their quarry near a canal and ganged up on
him. Armando placed a can on top of Senando's head
and Ricardo repeatedly struck Senando with an ax on
the head, shoulder, and hand. At one point, Ricardo lost
his hold on the ax, but somebody tossed him a bolo and
then he continued hacking the victim who fell on his
knees. To shield him from further violence, Amelia put
her arms around her husband but it was not enough to
detract Ricardo from his murderous frenzy. Amelia was
also hit on the leg. The RTC and CA convicted Ricardo of
Homicide. He now imputes errors to the CA in not taking
into consideration the fact that if indeed he participated,
he had acted in defense of his relatives.
Held: Of the three (3) requisites of defense of
relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua
non, for without it any defense is not possible or
justified. In order to consider that an unlawful
aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that
an attack or material aggression, an offensive act
positively determining the intent of the aggressor to
cause an injury shall have been made; a mere
threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to
justify the commission of an act which is punishable per
se, and allow a claim of exemption from liability on the
ground that it was committed in self-defense or defense
of a relative.
In the case at bar, petitioner Ricardo utterly
failed to adduce sufficient proof of the existence of a
positively strong act of real aggression on the part of the
deceased Senando.. It was he and his kin who had
inititated the unlawful agression and not Senando.
Further, the natural impulse of any person who has
killed someone in defense of his person or relative is to
bring himself to the authorities and try to dispel any
suspicion of guilt that the authorities might have against
him. Ricardo failed to do the same. With the exception
of his self-serving allegations, there is nothing on record
that would justify his killing of Senando.
People v. Dijan (2002)
Facts Silvestre and Hilario were at a store to
buy some cigarettes when they saw the group of Dijan,
Paglinawan and Lizardo, passing by the store.
Paglinawan suddenly confronted Hilario for purportedly
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
23
giving him a "bad stare." Silvestre apologized and
explained that it was the natural way Hilario gazed at
people. Dijan, Paglinawan and Lizardo then left the place
while Silvestre and Hilario proceeded home. While
Silvestre and Hilario were walking, the 3 accused,
ganged up on, and took turns in stabbing, Hilario. At
that point, Hilario, who was walking slightly ahead of
Silvestre, cried out and told the latter to flee. Silvestre
ran away until he was able to cling to a passing
passenger jeepney. Hilario was found to have sustained
several stab wounds, punctured and incised wounds,
and abrasion in various parts of the body which caused
his death. Appealing his conviction in court, Dijan
invoked the justifying circumstance of “defense of a
stranger.”
Held: In order to successfully put up this
defense an accused must show the existence of unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim. The unlawful
aggression must be a continuing circumstance or must
have been existing at the time the defense is made.
Once unlawful aggression is found to have ceased, the
one making the defense of a stranger would likewise
cease to have any justification for killing, or even just
wounding, the former aggressor. From the defense
account, it would appear that Hilario was already
disarmed and the unlawful aggression by Hilario (if
indeed he was the aggressor) to have by then been
abated, when Dijan still delivered the fatal thrusts on
the victim.
The number of wounds sustained by the victim
would itself likewise negate Dijan’s claim of defense of a
stranger. The autopsy conducted on the corpse would
show that the deceased sustained 14 injuries consisting
of 9 stab wounds, 3 punctured wounds, an incised
wound and an abrasion. Certainly, the nature and
number of wounds inflicted by an accused on the victim
should be significant indicia in determining the
plausibility of the defense plea.
Marzonia v. People (2006)
Held: As the Court previously held, mortally
wounding an assailant with a penknife is not a
reasonably necessary means to repel fist blows.
Par. 2 – DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity in the same degrees.
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree.
• Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-
in-law, son or daughter-in-law, and brothers or sisters-
in-law.
• Death of the spouse terminates the relationship by
affinity; unless the marriage has resulted in issue who is
still living, in which case the relationship of affinity
continues.
• Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers and
sisters are within the second civil degree; uncle and
niece or aunt and nephew are within the third civil
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
degree; and first cousins are within the fourth civil
degree.
REQUISITES OF DEFENSE OF RELATIVES:
1. Unlawful aggression;
• Unlawful aggression may not exist as a
matter of fact, it can be made to depend upon the
honest belief of the one making a defense. Ex. The
sons of A honestly believed that their father was the
victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it was
their father who attacked B. If they killed B under
such circumstance, they are justified.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it;
• The gauge of reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repel the aggression as against one’s
self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the
situation as IT APPEARS TO THE PERSON
REPELLING THE AGGRESSION (the defender).
3. In case the provocation was given by the
person attacked, the one making a defense
had no part therein.
• There is still legitimate defense of relative even if
the relative being defended has given provocation,
provided that the one defending such relative has
no part in the provocation.
• Reason for the rule: Although the provocation
prejudices the person who gave it, its effects do not
reach the defender who took no part therein,
because the latter was prompted by some noble or
generous sentiment in protecting and saving a
relative.
Par. 3 – DEFENSE OF STRANGER
REQUISITES:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
3. The person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Who are deemed strangers?
Any person not included in the enumeration of
relatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article, is
considered stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3.
BASIS: What one may do in his defense, another may
do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly by
and see his companion killed without attempting to save
his life.
People v. Narvaez (1983)
Facts: Narvaez was taking his rest inside his
house when he heard that the wall of his house was
being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer and Rubia,
together with their laborers, were fencing the land of the
father of the deceased Fleischer. If the fencing would go
on, Narvaez would be prevented from getting into his
house and the bodega of his ricemill so he asked the
group to stop but they refused. The accused got mad so
he got his shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards
the jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the
accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he acted
in defense of his person and rights.
Held: The court took into consideration the fact
that the 2 deceased were accompanied with three
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
24
laborers and that the were using tools which could be
lethal weapons such as nail and hammer, bolo, etc. and
that the jeep the deceased used contained a gun leaning
near the steering wheel. There was aggression on the
part of the victims not on the person of the accused but
on his property rights when Fleischer angrily ordered the
continuance of the fencing.
The third element of self-defense is also
present because there was no sufficient provocation on
the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when the
deceased where fencing.
However, the second element was lacking.
Shooting the victims from the window of his house is
disproportionate to the physical aggression by the
victims. Thus, there is incomplete self-defense and the
accused is entitled to a penalty lower by one or two
degrees.
Dissent: Defense of property is not of such
importance as the right to life and defense of property
can only be invoked when it is coupled with some form
of attack on the person of one entrusted with said
property. In this case before us, there is no evidence
that an attack was attempted. The utterance, “no,
gaddemit, proceed, go ahead” is not unlawful aggression
which entitles him neither to a plea of self-defense nor
to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.
People v. Boholst-Caballero (1974)
Facts: Boholst (wife) and Caballero (husband)
are married to each other. But since their marriage was
an unhappy one, they separated. One evening, the wife
went caroling with her friends and she was seen by her
husband standing in a corner of the yard of Barabad.
She accused her of prostituting and threatened to kill
her as he held her by the hair, slapped her face until her
nose bled. He, then, choked her and at the same time
continuously saying that he will kill her. The wife then
pulled out the knife of her husband tucked inside the
belt line and stabbed him. When she was released, she
ran home. The wife is claiming self-defense.
Held: The wife who being strangled and choked
by a furious aggressor had no other recourse but to get
hold of any weapon within her reach to save herself. The
claim that it was not proper for the wife to be standing
in the middle of the night outside a yard giving the
impression that she is prostituting herself, is not
sufficient provocation. All that the accused did was to
provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the
mind of her husband which is not a sufficient
provocation under the law of self-defense.
People v. Alconga (1947)
Facts: The deceased Barion was the banker in
the game of black jack. Raposo played the game while
the accused posted himself behind the Barion acting as a
spotter of the cards of the latter and communicating it
to his partner Raposo. When Barion learned about what
Raposo and Alconga, an exchange of words ensued. One
morning, when Alconga was in the guardhouse, Barion
arrived and swung his pingahan but the former the
accused was able to avoid the blow. In a crawling
position, Alconga avoided the following blows and was
able to draw his revolver and shoot Barion. He was able
to crawl out of the guardhouse and a hand-to-hand fight
ensued. Having sustained several wounds, Barion ran
away but was followed by the accused and another fight
took place. Alconga then slashed Barion’s head with a
bolo which caused the latter’s death. The accused
pleaded self-defense.
Held: An accused was no longer acting in self-
defense when he pursued and killed a fleeing adversary,
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
though originally the unlawful aggressor, there being no
more aggression to defend against, the same having
ceased from the moment the deceased took to his heels.
People v. Sumicad (1932)
Facts: Sumicad was hauling logs when Cubol
suddenly struck him with his fist. Sumicad tried to
escape but Cubol continued to strike him with his fists.
Sumicad receded until he found himself cornered by a
pile of logs which prevented him from further retreat. As
Cubol advanced towards him, Sumicad drew out his bolo
and struck him. Cubol tried to wrest the bolo from
Sumicad and to prevent this, the latter struck him again
twice which broke his Cubol’s cranium resulting to his
death.
Held: As a general rule, a man is not justified
in killing an assailant who is not armed with any
dangerous weapon. This rule applies only when the
contending parties are in the open and the person
assaulted can escape. However, where one has no
means of escaping, the one who is assaulted can use a
weapon in any way reasonably necessary to his
protection against the aggressor.
The deceased here is a bull of known violent
character and although unarmed, he attempted to take
from the accused a bolo which is the only means of
defense possessed by the latter. It would have been an
act of suicide on the part of the accused to allow the
bolo to pass into the hands of his antagonist.
People v. Luague (1935)
Facts: The deceased tried to rape the accused
while her husband was away. The deceased threatened
the accused with a knife to compel her to have sex with
him. As the deceased was preparing to lie down with
her, he placed the knife on the floor and so the accused
took advantage of the situation by getting the knife and
stabbing the deceased with it.
Held: An attempt to rape is a sufficient
aggression for a legitimate claim of self-defense. We
have the right to HONOR. Woman’s honor is a right as
precious as her very existence because chastity once
defiled cannot be restored.
People v. Dela Cruz (1935)
Facts: Accused was found guilty of homicide
for stabbing and killing Rivera. Prosecution claimed that
Dela Cruz and Rivera had a relationship and that the
accused was madly in love with the deceased and was
extremely jealous of another woman with whom Rivera
also had a relationship. Dela Cruz claimed, on the other
hand, that on her way home one evening, Rivera
followed her, embraced and kissed her and touched her
private parts. She didn’t know that it was Rivera and
that she was unable to resist the strength of Rivera so
she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him in
defense of her honor.
Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife
in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her
honor. It was a dark night and she could not have
identified Rivera. There being no other means of self-
defense.
People v. Juarigue (1946)
Facts: Amado (deceased) has been courting
the accused Avelina in vain. On the day of the crime,
Avelina and Amado were in Church. Amado sat beside
Avelina and placed his hand on her thigh. Thereafter,
Avelina took out her knife and stabbed Amado in the
neck, causing the death of Amado.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
25
Held: Although the defense of one’s honor
exempts one from criminal liability, it must be proved
that there is actual danger of being raped. In this case,
1) the church was well-lit, 2) there were several people
in the church, including the father of the accused and
other town officials. In light of these circumstances,
accused could not have possibly been raped. The means
employed in defense of her honor was evidently
excessive.
US v. Bumaglang (1909)
Facts: Bumanglang was missing 40 bundles of
palay. Later, accompanied by his co-defendants, he
awaited the culprit and caught Ribis so they confronted
him assaulted him with sticks and other cutting and
stabbing weapons. As a result, Ribis died. Defendants
declared that during the fight they only beat the
deceased with sticks and Ribis unsheathed his bolo.
Bumanglang et al were convicted of homicide.
Held: The bolo of the deceased was sheathed
when the body was discovered. There was no unlawful
aggression on the part of Ribis. Thus, there can be no
claim of self-defense.
Separate Opinion: A man who ambushed one
he suspects to be a thief can claim defense of property.
Not only was there unlawful aggression against
Bumanglag, there was also a wrongful invasion of his
habitat and attempt to commit a felony against his
property. With the imminence of danger to his life, he
realized that he had to ask assistance from his friends,
considering Ribis’ criminal record, character and unusual
strength.
Par. 4 – AVOIDANCE OF A GREATER EVIL
♣ Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes damage to another.
DAMAGE TO ANOTHER – the term covers
injury to persons and damage to property.
REQUISITES:
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
- The evil must actually exist and not
merely expected or anticipated or may happen
in the future.
2. That the injury feared be greater than
that done to avoid it;
Note: The instinct of self-preservation
will always make one feel that his own safety is
of greater importance than that of another.
- The greater evil should not be brought
about by the negligence or imprudence of the
actor.
- The evil which brought about the greater
evil must not result from a violation of law by
the actor.
3. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
General rule: No liability in justifying
circumstances because there is no crime.
Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under
this paragraph. It is borne by the persons benefited by
the act. They shall be liable in proportion to the benefit
which they may have been received.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 26

People v. Ricohermoso (1974)

Facts: The land Ricohermoso cultivated REQUISITES:
belonged to Geminiano. When the latter went to the 1. That the accused acted in the
house of the former, as if by prearrangement, performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of
Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and approached a right or office
Geminiano from the left while Severo (Rico’s father-in-
law) got an axe and approached from the right. Rico Art. 429. Civil Code. The owner or lawful
stabbed Geminiano first and while in a helpless position, possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person
the latter was hacked on the back by Severo. from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
At that same place and time while the killing of purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
Geminiano was taking place, Juan (son of Severo) necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened
suddenly embraced Marianito (son of Geminiano), who unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
had a gun slung on his shoulder, from behind. They (doctrine of self-help)
grappled and rolled downhill towards the camote patch.
Marianito passed out and when he regained ♣ If in protecting his possession of the
consciousness, his rifle was gone. He walked uphill and property he injured (not seriously) the one trying to get
saw his father. Geminiano died later. Juan invoked the
it from him, he is justified.
justifying circumstance of greater necessity in explaining
his act of preventing Marianito from shooting Rico and
♣ The actual invasion of property may consist
Severo.
of a mere disturbance of possession or of a real
Held: The act of Juan was designed to insure
dispossession.
the killing of Geminiano without any risk to his
assailants. Juan was not avoiding any evil but his
2. That the injury caused or the offense
malicious intention was to forestall any interference in
committed be the necessary consequence of the
the felonious assault. He acted in conspiracy with Rico
due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
and Severo.
such right or office.
Ty v. People (2004)
♣ Shooting an offender who refused to surrender is
Facts: Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was
justified but shooting a thief who refused to be arrested
confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital from October
is not justified.
1990 until June 1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty
signed the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for
People v. Delima (1922)
Payment" in the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, Judy
Facts: Napilon escaped from the jail where he
Chua, was also confined at the same hospital. The total
was serving sentence. Some days afterwards the
hospital bills of the two patients amounted to
policeman, Delima, who was looking for him found him
P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein
in the house of Alegria, armed with a pointed piece of
she assumed payment of the obligation in installments.
bamboo in the shape of a lance. Delima demanded the
To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7
surrender of the weapon but Napilon refused. Delima
postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the
fired his revolver to impose his authority but the bullet
hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank
did not hit him. The criminal ran away and Delima went
and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency
after him and fired again his revolver this time hitting
of funds. For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the
and killing him.
checks because of “an uncontrollable fear of a greater
Held: The killing was done in the performance
injury” She averred that she was forced to issue the
of a duty. The deceased was under the obligation to
checks to obtain release for her mother who was being
surrender and had no right, after evading service of his
inhumanely and harshly treated by the hospital. She
sentence, to commit assault and disobedience with a
alleged that her mother has comtemplated suicide if she
weapon in his hand, which compelled the policeman to
would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was found
resort to such extreme means, which, although it proved
guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of violation of
to be fatal, was justified by the circumstance.
BP22.
Held:The court sustained the findings of the
People v. Oanis (1943)
lower courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely
Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is
expected or anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided
justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary
is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the
to secure and detain the offender, overcome his
future, the defense of an uncontrollable fear of a greater
resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he
injury” is not applicable. Ty could have taken advantage
escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm, yet he is
of an available option to avoid committing a crime. By
never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating
her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or
him with wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous
other forms of security instead of postdated checks to
means when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
secure her obligation.
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity
Pomoy v. People (2004)
to be availing, the greater injury feared should not have
been brought about by the negligence or imprudence, :
Fats Police sergeant Pomoy, went near the
more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case, door of the jail where Balboa was detained for robbery
the issuance of the bounced checks was brought about and directed the latter to come out, purportedly for
by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's hospital bills. tactical interrogation at the investigation room. At that
time, petitioner had a gun, a .45 caliber pistol, tucked in
a holster which was hanging by the side of his belt. The
Par. 5 – FULFILLMENT OF A DUTY OR LAWFUL gun was fully embedded in its holster, with only the
EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE. handle of the gun protruding from the holster. Balboa

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
tried to remove Pomoy’s gun and the two grappled for
possession of the gun. Thereafter, 2 gunshots were
heard. When the source of the shots was verified,
petitioner was seen still holding a .45 caliber pistol,
facing Balboa, who was lying in a pool of blood. Pomoy
invoked the defense of accident for his defense.
Held: Pomoy is acquitted. At the time of the
incident, petitioner was a member — specifically, one of
the investigators — of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) stationed at the Iloilo Provincial Mobile Force
Company. Thus, it was in the lawful performance of his
duties as investigating officer that, under the
instructions of his superior, he fetched the victim from
the latter's cell for a routine interrogation.
The participation of petitioner, if any, in the
victim's death was limited only to acts committed in the
course of the lawful performance of his duties as an
enforcer of the law. The removal of the gun from its
holster, the release of the safety lock, and the firing of
the two successive shots — all of which led to the death
of the victim — were sufficiently demonstrated to have
been consequences of circumstances beyond the control
of petitioner. At the very least, these factual
circumstances create serious doubt on the Pomoy’s
culpability.
People v. Ulep (2000)
Accused-appellant and the other police officers
involved originally set out to perform a legal duty: to
render police assistance, and restore peace and order at
Mundog Subdivision where the victim was then running
amuck. There were two (2) stages of the incident at
Mundog Subdivision. During the first stage, the victim
threatened the safety of the police officers by
menacingly advancing towards them, notwithstanding
accused-appellant's previous warning shot and verbal
admonition to the victim to lay down his weapon or he
would be shot. As a police officer, it is to be expected
that accused-appellant would stand his ground. Up to
that point, his decision to respond with a barrage of
gunfire to halt the victim's further advance was justified
under the circumstances. After all, a police officer is not
required to afford the victim the opportunity to fight
back. Neither is he expected – when hard pressed and in
the heat of such an encounter at close quarters – to
pause for a long moment and reflect coolly at his peril,
or to wait after each blow to determine the effects
thereof.
However, he cannot be exonerated from
overdoing his duty during the second stage of the
incident — when he fatally shot the victim in the head,
even after the latter slumped to the ground due to
multiple gunshot wounds sustained while charging at the
police officers. Sound discretion and restraint dictated
that accused-appellant, a veteran policeman, should
have ceased firing at the victim the moment he saw the
latter fall to the ground. The victim at that point no
longer posed a threat and was already incapable of
mounting an aggression against the police officers.
Shooting him in the head was obviously unnecessary.
The law does not clothe police officers with
authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to kill- it must
be stressed that their judgment and discretion as police
officers in the performance of their duties must be
excercised neither capriciously nor oppressively, but
within reasonable limits.
Mamagun v. People (2007)
Facts: A policeman in pursuit of a snatcher
accidentally shot one of the bystanders who was actually
helping him chase the robber.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
27
Held: To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a
duty, without more, do not completely justify the
petitioner’s firing the fatal gunshot at the victim. True,
petitioner, as one of the policemen responding to a
reported robbery then in progress, was performing his
duty as a police officer as well as when he was trying to
effect the arrest of the suspected robber and in the
process, fatally shoot said suspect, albeit the wrong
man. However, in the absence of the equally necessary
justifying circumstance that the injury or offense
committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of such duty, there can only be incomplete
justification, a privileged mitigating circumstance under
Articles 13 and 69 of the Revised Penal Code.
There can be no quibbling that there was no
rational necessity for the killing of Contreras. Petitioner
could have first fired a warning shot before pulling the
trigger against Contreras who was one of the residents
chasing the suspected robber.
Par. 6 – OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR
SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
REQUISITES:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior.
2. That such order must be for some lawful
purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to
carry out said order is lawful.
♣ When the order is not for a lawful purpose,
the subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable.
♣ The subordinate is not liable for carrying out
an illegal order of his superior, if he is not aware of the
illegality of the order and he is not negligent.
People v. Beronilla (1955)
Facts: Borjal was the elected mayor of La Paz,
Abra at the outbreak of war and continued to serve as
Mayor during Japanese occupation. Beronilla was
appointed later as Military Mayor. Later, while the
operations for the liberation of Abra was in progress,
Beronilla, pursuant to his instructions, placed Borjal in
his custody and asked the residents to file charges of
espionage, aiding the enemy, and abuse of authority
against him. After trial, Borjal’s execution took place.
Later, Beronilla, together with a priest, executioner,
graver digger, etc. were indicted for murder. The
prosecution claimed that Col. Volkmann transmitted a
radiogram message stating that the jury system
organized by the municipality is illegal and cannot order
execution of Borjal.
Held: There is no proof that Beronilla was able
to receive the radiogram message. The records are
ample to sustain the claim of the accused that the
arrest, prosecution and trial were done pursuant to
express orders of the 15th Infantry HQ. Where the
accused acted upon orders of superior officers that the,
as military subordinates, could not question, and obeyed
in good faith, without being aware of their illegality,
without any fault or negligence on their part, the act is
not accompanied by criminal intent. A crime is not
committed if the mind of the person performing the ac
be innocent.
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan (1997)
Facts: Pres. Marcos instructed Tabuena over
the phone to pay directly to the Office of the President in
cash what MIAA owes the Phil. National Construction
Corporation (PNCC) which later was reiterated in writing.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
The Marcos’ memo indicated the amount of P55m for
partial payment of the obligation to PNCC as mentioned
in Ongpin’s memo. In obedience to Marcos’ instruction,
the accused withdrew the amount by means of 3
separate issuances of manager’s check and encashment
in 3 separate dates as well. The money withdrawn were
placed in peerless boxes and duffle bags and delivered
to the private secretary of Marcos also in 3 separate
days. According to the accused, the disbursement was
not in the normal procedure since it is paid in cold case,
there were no vouchers supporting it and no receipt
from PNCC.
Tabuena and Peralta were convicted by the
Sandiganbayan of malversation as defined in Art. 217,
RPC for misappropriating funds of Manila International
Airport Authority (MIAA) worth P55M.
Held: The accused are acquitted. The accused
is entitled to the justifying circumstance of obedience to
an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Sandiganbayan claimed that Marcos’ memo was
unlawful because it orders disbursement of P55M when
the Ongpin memo reveals that the liability is only 34.5M.
Granting this to be true, it will not affect Tabuena’s good
faith as to make him criminally liable. Thus, even if the
order is illegal if it is patently legal and subordinate is
not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable,
for then there would only be a mistake of fact
committed in good faith.
2. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
♣ Exempting circumstances (non-imputability)
are those grounds for exemption from punishment
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any
of the condition which make the act voluntary or
negligent.
♣ The exemption from punishment is based on
the COMPLETE ABSENCE of intelligence, freedom of
action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the
part of the accused.
Art. 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 Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally
irresponsible, the court, in conformably 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 Art. 80.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
28
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 act under the compulsion of
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
insuperable cause.
• One who acts by virtue of any of the exempting
circumstances commits a crime, although by the
complete absence of any of the conditions which
constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no
criminal liability arise.
Par. 1 – AN IMBECILE OR INSANE PERSON,
UNLESS THE LATTER HAS ACTED DURING A LUCID
INTERVAL
IMBECILE
- one who, while advanced in age, has a
mental development comparable to that of children
between 2 and 7 years of age.
– one who is deprived completely of reason or
discernment and freedom of the will at the time of
committing the crime.
- exempt in all cases from criminal liability
INSANE
- there is a complete deprivation of intelligence
in committing the act but capable of having lucid
intervals. During a lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence and thus, not exempt from criminal liability.
PROCEDURE WHEN AN IMBECILE OR INSANE
COMMITTED A FELONY
- The court shall order his confinement in one
of the hospitals or asylums established for persons
afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave
without first obtaining the permission of the court. The
court must obtain the opinion of the Director of Health
before permitting his release.
• When the person is sane at the time of the commission
of the crime but he becomes insane at the time of the
trial, he is liable criminally. The trial, however, shall be
suspended until mental capacity of the accused be
restored to afford him a fair trial.
• Evidence of insanity must refer to the time preceding
the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its
execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent
to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be
acquitted.
• Feeblemindedness is not imbecility because a feeble-
minded person can distinguish right from wrong.
• Cases covered under this article:
a. Dementia praecox
b. Kleptomania – if found by a competent
psychiatrist as irresistible
c. Epilepsy
d. Somnambulism – sleep-walking
e. Malignant malaria – which affects the
nervous system
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
In Re M’Naghten (1843)
Guidelines
A man who shot someone claimed insanity.
Held: Every man is presumed to be sane. It
must be clearly proved that at the time of committing
the act, A was under a defect of reason that he did not
know the nature of act or if he did know what he was
doing, he did not know he was wrong.
The question to be asked is whether the
accused at the time of doing the act knew the
differences between right and wrong? The emphasis is
on reason or cognition.
People v. Tubogoca (1998)
Facts: Jacqueline, together with her sisters,
lived with their father after their mother died. One night,
she was roused by her father who asked her to scratch
his back but later she was forced to have intercourse
with him. Her sister Jinky also experienced the same
with his father 2 years after. When their grandmother
found out about the incident, they filed charges against
the accused. The accused claim that he cannot
remember anything because he often drinks liquor at
home.
Held: The law presumes every man to be sane.
The accused failed to overthrow the presumption of
sanity. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the
mental condition of the accused when the crime was
performed. His charade of amnesia is a desperate
gambit for exculpation.
People v. Madarang (2000)
Facts: Fernando and his wife quarreled. In the
heat of the fight, the accused stabbed his wife causing
her death. The accused declared that he had no
recollection of the stabbing incident. Further, he alleges
that he did not know where he was that day. Court
ordered the accused’s confinement in a mental
institution where it was found that he was inflicted with
schizophrenia. He was submitted to treatment for 2
years, after which, he faced the charges against him.
Held: The accused failed to prove that he was
completely deprived of intelligence in committing the
act. He did not show any signs of insanity prior to and
immediately after the act. He was only diagnosed of
schizophrenia months after the incident. Also, schizos
have lucid intervals.
People v. Bonoan (1937)
A person suffering from dementia praecox
pleaded insanity as a defense for committing murder. In
dementia praecox, the crime is usually preceded by
much complaining and planning. in these people,
homicide attacks are common because of delusions that
they are being interfered with sexually or that their
property is being taken. During period of excitement,
such person has no control whatever of his acts. An
irresistible homicide impulse was considered embraced
in the terms of “insanity”.
People v. Taneo (1933)
Facts: A fiesta was being celebrated in the
barrio and visitors were being entertained at the house
of Taneo and his wife. That afternoon, Taneo went to
sleep and while sleeping, he suddenly got up, left the
room with a bolo in his hand. He wounded his wife who
was pregnant at that time in the abdomen when she
tried to stop him. He attacked two of his visitors and his
father, after which, he wounded himself. 5 days later,
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
29
his wife died because of the wound. He was charged of
parricide.
Held: The accused acted while in a dream and
his acts, with which he is charged, were not voluntary in
the sense of entailing criminal liability.
People v. Formigones (1950)
Held: One day, the accused stabbed his wife
from the back who was sitting at the top of the stairs in
their house. Accused admitted the killing and that he
was jealous and had suspicions that his wife and his
brother were having a relationship. Counsel for accused
interposed the defense of insanity stating that in prison,
the accused behaved like an insane person, would go
stark naked in the presence of his inmates, remain
indifferent to his surroundings and sang chorus with
inmates or by himself.
Held: At most, the accused is found to be
feeble-minded but this does not exempt him from
liability but may serve as a mitigating circumstance. The
accused admitted to his motive for the killing which is
jealousy so he must know what he was doing at that
time. His actions immediately after he struck his wife
and his behavior in prison may only be due to remorse
at having killed his wife or his feeblemindedness.
People v. Madarang (2000)
Facts: Fernando and his wife quarreled. In the
heat of the fight, the accused stabbed his wife causing
her death. The accused declared that he had no
recollection of the stabbing incident. Further, he alleges
that he did not know where he was that day. Court
ordered the accused’s confinement in a mental
institution where it was found that he was inflicted with
schizophrenia. He was submitted to treatment for 2
years, after which, he faced the charges against him.
Held: The accused failed to prove that he was
completely deprived of intelligence in committing the
act. He did not show any signs of insanity prior to and
immediately after the act. He was only diagnosed of
schizophrenia months after the incident. Also, schizos
have lucid intervals.
People v. Valledor (supra)
Facts: Roger was in his house working on a
lettering job inside his bedroom together with his first
cousin, Elsa and his friends, Simplicio and Antonio. All
of a sudden, Valledor entered the room; uttered Roger's
nickname ("Jer") and immediately attacked him with a
knife. Valledor then stabbed Elsa on the chest and said,
"Ako akabales den, Elsa." (I had my revenge, Elsa).
Thereafter, Valledor fled, leaving Simplicio and Antonio
unharmed. Roger and Elsa were immediately brought to
the hospital. On their way out, Antonio noticed a
commotion and saw that Ricardo, a neighbor of the
victim, who was likewise stabbed by Valledor was
wounded. Elsa was declared dead on arrival. Roger on
the other hand was treated for the 5-centimeter wound
sustained by him on his right forearm. Valledor invoked
the defense of insanity.
Held: Valledor failed to discharge the burden of
overcoming the presumption of sanity at the time of the
commission of the crime.
Judging from his acts, Valledor was clearly
aware and in control of what he was doing as he in fact
purposely chose to stab only the two victims. Two other
people were also inside the room, but Valledor went for
the victims. His obvious motive of revenge against the
victims was accentuated by calling out their names and
uttering the words, "I had my revenge" after stabbing
them. Finally, his act of immediately fleeing from the
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
scene after the incident indicates that he was aware of
the wrong he has done and the consequence thereof.
As consistently held by this Court, "A man may
act crazy but it does not necessarily and conclusively
prove that he is legally so. Then, too, the medical
findings showing that Valledor was suffering from a
mental disorder after the commission of the crime, has
no bearing on his liability. What is decisive is his mental
condition at the time of the perpetration of the offense.
Failing to discharge the burden of proving that he was
legally insane when he stabbed the victims, he should
be held liable for his felonious acts.
Par. 2. – A PERSON UNDER NINE YEARS OF AGE
• FIFTEEN YEARS OR LESS – presumed to be incapable
of committing a crime, and this presumption is an
absolute one which cannot be overcome by any
evidence. (R.A. NO. 9334)
• Senility, although said to be the second childhood, is
only mitigating.
4 PERIODS OF THE LIFE OF A HUMAN BEING
a. 15 years and below –
AGE OF ABSOLUTE IRRESPONSIBILITY
b. between 15 and 18 years -
AGE OF CONDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
c. 18 or over to 70 years -
AGE OF FULL RESPONSIBILITY
d. over 70 years of age – AGE OF MITIGATED
RESPONSIBILITY.
Par. 3. – A PERSON OVER 9 YEARS OF AGE AND
UNDER 15 UNLESS HE HAS ACTED WITH
DISCERNMENT, IN WHICH CASE, SUCH MINOR
SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN COORDANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 80 OF THIS
CODE.
• A minor over 15 and under 18 years of age must have
acted without discernment to be exempted from criminal
liability.
DISCERNMENT – means the mental capacity of a minor
between 15 and 18 years of age to fully appreciate the
consequences of his lawful act.
DISCERNMENT INTENT
Moral significance that a Desired act of the person
person ascribes to the said
act
• Discernment may be shown by 1) the manner the
crime was committed or 2) the conduct of the offender
after its commission.
People v. Doquena (1939)
A 13-year old student stabs the school bully,
and is convicted for having shown discernment through
his responsible demeanor and school performance.
Doquena’s discernment is gleaned from his academic
records, leadership qualities and demeanor while
testifying in court.
The discernment that constitutes an exception
to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under
fifteen years of age but over nine, is his mental capacity
to understand the difference between right and wrong,
and such capacity may be known by taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
30
the records in each case, the very appearance, the very
attitude of said minor not only before and during the
commission of the act but also after and even during
trial.
Jose v. People (2005)
Facts: Jose, 13 yrs old was in a car with his
cousin Zarraga, when the latter inquired from the poseur
buyer SPO1 Guevarra if he could afford to buy shabu.
Guevarra replied in the affirmative afterwhich Zarraga
called the petitioner to bring out and hand over the
shabu wrapped in plastic and white soft paper. Jose
handed over the plastic containing the shabu to Zarraga
who handed the same to Guevarra. The trial court
rendered judgment convicting both Jose and Zarraga.
Held: Jose is acquitted. The prosecution failed
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he acted with
discernment relative to the sale of shabu. Aside from
bringing out and handing over the plastic bag to
Zarraga, Jose merely sat in the car and had no other
participation in the transaction between his cousin and
the poseur buyer. There is no evidence that Jose knew
what was inside the plastic and soft white paper before
and at the time he handed the same to Zarraga.
Llave v. People (2006)
Facts: A 12 year old honor student was
charged with raping his seven year old neighbor. When
caught, the accused ran away and hid for a few days at
his grandparent’s house. He claimed that he acted
without discernment.
Held: Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that a person over nine years of
age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability,
unless he acted with discernment. The basic reason
behind the exempting circumstance is complete absence
of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is
an essential element of a felony either by dolus or by
culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary to determine
the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an
illicit act. On the other hand, discernment is the mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and
wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the
accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical
appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and
during the commission of the act, but also after and
during the trial. The surrounding circumstances must
demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing
and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the
gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning
and shrewdness.
In the present case, the petitioner, with
methodical fashion, dragged the resisting victim behind
the pile of hollow blocks near the vacant house to insure
that passersby would not be able to discover his
dastardly acts. When he was discovered by Teofisto
Bucud who shouted at him, the petitioner hastily fled
from the scene to escape arrest. Upon the prodding of
his father and her mother, he hid in his grandmother’s
house to avoid being arrested by policemen and
remained thereat until barangay tanods arrived and took
him into custody.
Art. 80. Suspension of sentence of minor delinquents.
— Whenever a minor of either sex, under sixteen years
of age at the date of the commission of a grave or less
grave felony, is accused thereof, the court, after hearing
the evidence in the proper proceedings, instead of
pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall suspend all
further proceedings and shall commit such minor to the
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
custody or care of a public or private, benevolent or
charitable institution, established under the law of the
care, correction or education of orphaned, homeless,
defective, and delinquent children, or to the custody or
care of any other responsible person in any other place
subject to visitation and supervision by the Director of
Public Welfare or any of his agents or representatives, if
there be any, or otherwise by the superintendent of
public schools or his representatives, subject to such
conditions as are prescribed herein below until such
minor shall have reached his majority age or for such
less period as the court may deem proper.
The court, in committing said minor as
provided above, shall take into consideration the religion
of such minor, his parents or next of kin, in order to
avoid his commitment to any private institution not
under the control and supervision of the religious sect or
denomination to which they belong.
The Director of Public Welfare or his duly
authorized representatives or agents, the
superintendent of public schools or his representatives,
or the person to whose custody or care the minor has
been committed, shall submit to the court every four
months and as often as required in special cases, a
written report on the good or bad conduct of said minor
and the moral and intellectual progress made by him.
The suspension of the proceedings against a
minor may be extended or shortened by the court on
the recommendation of the Director of Public Welfare or
his authorized representative or agents, or the
superintendent of public schools or his representatives,
according as to whether the conduct of such minor has
been good or not and whether he has complied with the
conditions imposed upon him, or not. The provisions of
the first paragraph of this article shall not, however, be
affected by those contained herein.
If the minor has been committed to the
custody or care of any of the institutions mentioned in
the first paragraph of this article, with the approval of
the Director of Public Welfare and subject to such
conditions as this official in accordance with law may
deem proper to impose, such minor may be allowed to
stay elsewhere under the care of a responsible person.
If the minor has behaved properly and has
complied with the conditions imposed upon him during
his confinement, in accordance with the provisions of
this article, he shall be returned to the court in order
that the same may order his final release.
In case the minor fails to behave properly or to
comply with the regulations of the institution to which
he has been committed or with the conditions imposed
upon him when he was committed to the care of a
responsible person, or in case he should be found
incorrigible or his continued stay in such institution
should be inadvisable, he shall be returned to the court
in order that the same may render the judgment
corresponding to the crime committed by him.
The expenses for the maintenance of a minor
delinquent confined in the institution to which he has
been committed, shall be borne totally or partially by his
parents or relatives or those persons liable to support
him, if they are able to do so, in the discretion of the
court; Provided, That in case his parents or relatives or
those persons liable to support him have not been
ordered to pay said expenses or are found indigent and
cannot pay said expenses, the municipality in which the
offense was committed shall pay one-third of said
expenses; the province to which the municipality
belongs shall pay one-third; and the remaining one-third
shall be borne by the National Government: Provided,
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
31
however, That whenever the Secretary of Finance
certifies that a municipality is not able to pay its share in
the expenses above mentioned, such share which is not
paid by said municipality shall be borne by the National
Government. Chartered cities shall pay two-thirds of
said expenses; and in case a chartered city cannot pay
said expenses, the internal revenue allotments which
may be due to said city shall be withheld and applied in
settlement of said indebtedness in accordance with
section five hundred and eighty-eight of the
Administrative Code.
• When the minor is adjudged criminally irresponsible –
duty of court is to commit him to custody of his family or
some institution.
• The allegation of “with intent to kill” in the information
is sufficient allegation of discernment.
PD 603
THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE
Article 189. Youthful Offender Defined. - A youthful
offender is one who is over nine years but under twenty-one
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
A child nine years of age or under at the time of
the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability and shall
be committed to the care of his or her father or mother, or
nearest relative or family friend in the discretion of the court
and subject to its supervision. The same shall be done for a
child over nine years and under fifteen years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense, unless he acted with
discernment, in which case he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Article 192.
The provisions of Article 80 of the Revised Penal
Code shall be deemed modified by the provisions of this
Chapter.
Article 190. Physical and Mental
Examination. - It shall be the duty of the law-enforcement
agency concerned to take the youthful offender, immediately
after his apprehension, to the proper medical or health
officer for a thorough physical and mental examination.
Whenever treatment for any physical or mental defect is
indicated, steps shall be immediately undertaken to provide
the same.
The examination and treatment papers shall form
part of the record of the case of the youthful offender.
Article 191. Care of Youthful Offender Held
for Examination or Trial. - A youthful offender held for
physical and mental examination or trial or pending appeal,
if unable to furnish bail, shall from the time of his arrest be
committed to the care of the Department of Social Welfare
or the local rehabilitation center or a detention home in the
province or city which shall be responsible for his
appearance in court whenever required: Provided, That in
the absence of any such center or agency within a
reasonable distance from the venue of the trial, the
provincial, city and municipal jail shall provide quarters for
youthful offenders separate from other detainees. The court
may, in its discretion, upon recommendation of the
Department of Social Welfare or other agency or agencies
authorized by the Court, release a youthful offender on
recognizance, to the custody of his parents or other suitable
person who shall be responsible for his appearance
whenever required.
Article 192. Suspension of Sentence and
Commitment of Youthful Offender. - If after hearing the
evidence in the proper proceedings, the court should find
that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged
against him the court shall determine the imposable penalty,
including any civil liability chargeable against him. However,
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the court
shall suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such
minor to the custody or care of the Department of Social
Welfare, or to any training institution operated by the
government, or duly licensed agencies or any other
responsible person, until he shall have reached twenty-one
years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem
proper, after considering the reports and recommendations
of the Department of Social Welfare or the agency or
responsible individual under whose care he has been
committed.
The youthful offender shall be subject to visitation
and supervision by a representative of the Department of
Social Welfare or any duly licensed agency or such other
officer as the Court may designate subject to such conditions
as it may prescribe.
Article 193. Appeal. - The youthful offender
whose sentence is suspended can appeal from the order of
the court in the same manner as appeals in criminal cases.
Article 194. Care and Maintenance of
Youthful Offender. - The expenses for the care and
maintenance of the youthful offender whose sentence has
been suspended shall be borne by his parents or those
persons liable to support him: Provided, That in case his
parents or those persons liable to support him can not pay
all or part of said expenses, the municipality in which the
offense was committed shall pay one-third of said expenses
or part thereof; the province to which the municipality
belongs shall pay one-third; and the remaining one-third
shall be borne by the National Government. Chartered cities
shall pay two-thirds of said expenses; and in case a
chartered city cannot pay said expenses, part of the internal
revenue allotments applicable to the unpaid portion shall be
withheld and applied to the settlement of said indebtedness.
All city and provincial governments must exert
efforts for the immediate establishment of local detention
homes for youthful offenders.
Article 195. Report on Conduct of Child. - The
Department of Social Welfare or its representative or duly
licensed agency or individual under whose care the youthful
offender has been committed shall submit to the court every
four months or oftener as may be required in special cases,
a written report on the conduct of said youthful offender as
well as the intellectual, physical, moral, social and emotional
progress made by him.
Article 196. Dismissal of the Case. - If it is
shown to the satisfaction of the court that the youthful
offender whose sentence has been suspended, has behaved
properly and has shown his capability to be a useful member
of the community, even before reaching the age of majority,
upon recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare,
it shall dismiss the case and order his final discharge.
Article 197. Return of the Youth Offender to
Court. - Whenever the youthful offender has been found
incorrigible or has wilfully failed to comply with the
conditions of his rehabilitation programs, or should his
continued stay in the training institution be inadvisable, he
shall be returned to the committing court for the
pronouncement of judgment.
When the youthful offender has reached the age
of twenty-one while in commitment, the court shall
determine whether to dismiss the case in accordance with
the next preceding article or to pronounce the judgment of
conviction.
In any case covered by this article, the youthful
offender shall be credited in the service of his sentence with
the full time spent in actual commitment and detention
effected under the provisions of this Chapter.
Article 198. Effect of Release of Child Based
on Good Conduct. - The final release of a child pursuant to
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
32
the provisions of this Chapter shall not obliterate his civil
liability for damages. Such release shall be without prejudice
to the right for a writ of execution for the recovery of civil
damages.
Article 199. Living Quarters for Youthful
Offenders Sentence. - When a judgment of conviction is
pronounced in accordance with the provisions of Article 197,
and at the time of said pronouncement the youthful offender
is still under twenty-one, he shall be committed to the
proper penal institution to serve the remaining period of his
sentence: Provided, That penal institutions shall provide
youthful offenders with separate quarters and, as far as
practicable, group them according to appropriate age levels
or other criteria as will insure their speedy rehabilitation:
Provided, further, That the Bureau of Prisons shall maintain
agricultural and forestry camps where youthful offenders
may serve their sentence in lieu of confinement in regular
penitentiaries.
Article 200. Records of Proceedings. - Where
a youthful offender has been charged before any city or
provincial fiscal or before any municipal judge and the
charges have been ordered dropped, all the records of the
case shall be destroyed immediately thereafter.
Where a youthful offender has been charged and
the court acquits him, or dismisses the case or commits him
to an institution and subsequently releases him pursuant to
this Chapter, all the records of his case shall be destroyed
immediately after such acquittal, dismissal or release, unless
civil liability has also been imposed in the criminal action, in
which case such records shall be destroyed after satisfaction
of such civil liability. The youthful offender concerned shall
not be held under any provision of law, to be guilty of
perjury or of concealment or misrepresentation by reason of
his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related
thereto in response to any inquiry made of him for any
purpose.
"Records" within the meaning of this article shall
include those which may be in the files of the National
Bureau of Investigation and with any police department, or
any other government agency which may have been
involved in the case.
Article 201. Civil Liability of Youthful
Offenders. - The civil liability for acts committed by a
youthful offender shall devolve upon the offender's father
and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother, or
in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian. Civil
liability may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or
family friend of the youthful offender.
Article 202. Rehabilitation Centers. - The
Department of Social Welfare shall establish regional
rehabilitation centers for youthful offenders. The local
government and other non-governmental entities shall
collaborate and contribute their support for the
establishment and maintenance of these facilities.
Article 203. Detention Homes. - The
Department of Local Government and Community
Development shall establish detention homes in cities and
provinces distinct and separate from jails pending the
disposition of cases of juvenile offenders.
Article 204. Liability of Parents or Guardian
or Any Person in the Commission of Delinquent Acts
by Their Children or Wards. - A person whether the
parent or guardian of the child or not, who knowingly or
wilfully,
1. Aids, causes, abets or connives with the
commission by a child of a delinquency, or
2. Does any act producing, promoting, or
contributing to a child's being or becoming a juvenile
delinquent, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five
hundred pesos or to imprisonment for a period not
exceeding two years, or both such fine and imprisonment, at
the discretion of the court.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
EN BANC
[A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC. February 28, 2002.]
RE: PROPOSED RULE ON COMMITMENT OF
CHILDREN
RESOLUTION
Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the
Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court
submitting for this Court's consideration and
approval the Proposed Rule on Commitment Of
Children, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.
The Rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002 following
its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
not later than March 15, 2002.
February 28, 2002.
RULE ON COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN
SECTION 1. Objective. — The
objective of this Rule is to ensure that every effort is
exerted to promote the child's welfare and enhance
his opportunities for a useful and happy life. Toward
this end, this Rule seeks to protect the child from all
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and
other conditions prejudicial to his development .
SECTION 2. Interpretation. — The
best interests of the child shall be the paramount
consideration in all actions concerning him, whether
undertaken by public or private social welfare
institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities
and legislative bodies consistent with the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. —
(a) "Child" is a person below eighteen years of
age.
(b) "Department" refers to the Department of
Social Welfare and Development.
(c) "Dependent child" is one who is without a
parent, guardian or custodian, or one whose parents,
guardian or other custodian for good cause desires to
be relieved of his care and custody, and is dependent
upon the public for support.
(d) "Abandoned child" is one who has no proper
parental care or guardianship, or whose parents or
guardian has deserted him for a period of at least six
(6) continuous months.
(e) "Neglected child" is one whose basic needs
have been deliberately unattended to or
inadequately attended to, physically or emotionally,
by his parents or guardian.
(f) "Physical neglect" occurs when the child is
malnourished, ill-clad and without proper shelter.
(g) "Emotional neglect" occurs when a child is
raped, seduced, maltreated, exploited, overworked
or made to work under conditions not conducive to
good health; made to beg in the streets or public
places, or when placed in moral danger, or exposed
to drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution and other
vices.
(h) "Disabled child" includes mentally retarded,
physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed and
mentally ill children, children with cerebral palsy and
those with similar afflictions.
(i) "Mentally retarded child" is one who is (1)
socially incompetent, that is, socially inadequate,
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
33
occupationally incompetent and unable to manage
his own affairs; (2) mentally subnormal; (3)
intellectually retarded from birth or early age; (4)
retarded at maturity; (5) mentally deficient as a
result of constitutional origin through heredity or
diseases or (6) essentially incurable.
(j) "Physically handicapped child" is one who is
crippled, deaf-mute, blind, or otherwise suffers from
a defect which restricts his means of action or
communication with others.
(k) "Emotionally disturbed child" is one who,
although not afflicted with insanity or mental defect,
is unable to maintain normal social relations with
others and the community in general due to
emotional problems or complexes,
(l) "Mentally ill child" is one with any
behavioral disorder, whether functional or organic,
which is of such a degree of severity as to require
professional help or hospitalization.
(m) "Commitment" or "surrender of a child" is
the legal act of entrusting a child to the care of the
Department or any duly licensed child-placement or
child-caring agency or individual by the court, parent
or guardian or any interested party.
(n) "Involuntarily committed child" is one
whose parents have been permanently and judicially
deprived of parental authority due to abandonment;
substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect; abuse;
or incompetence to discharge parental
responsibilities in accordance with Section 4 herein.
(o) "Voluntarily committed child" is one whose
parents knowingly and willingly relinquished parental
authority to the Department or any duly licensed
child-placement or child-caring agency or individual
in accordance with Section 3 herein.
(p) "Child-placing or child-placement agency"
refers to a private non-profit or charitable institution
or government agency duly licensed, and accredited
by the Department to provide comprehensive child
welfare services, including but not limited to,
receiving applications for adoption or foster care,
evaluating the prospective adoptive or foster parents
and preparing the home study report.
(q) "Child-caring agency" refers to a private
non-profit or charitable institution or government
agency duly licensed and accredited by the
Department that provides twenty-four hour
residential care services for abandoned, orphaned,
neglected, involuntarily or voluntarily committed
children.
(r) "Guardian ad litem" is a person appointed
by the court where the case is pending for a child
sought to be committed to protect his best interests.
(s) "Case Study Report" is a written report of
the result of an investigation conducted by a social
worker as to the socio-cultural, economic and legal
status or condition of the child sought to be
committed. It shall include among others his
developmental age, educational attainment, family
and social relationships, the quality of his peer
group, his family's strengths and weaknesses and
parental control over him. The report is submitted to
the Family Court to aid it in its. evaluation of
whether the child ought to be committed to the care
of the Department or any duly licensed child-
placement or child-caring agency or individual.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
SECTION 4. Petition for Involuntary
Commitment of a Child. —
(a) Who may file. — The Secretary of the
Department or his authorized representative or any
duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency
having knowledge of a child who appears to be
dependent, abandoned or neglected, may file a
verified petition for involuntary commitment of said
child to the care of any duly licensed child-placement
or child-caring agency or individual.
(b) Venue. — The petition shall be filed with the
Family Court of the province or city in which the
parent or guardian resides or where the child is
found.
(c) Contents of Verified Petition. — The petition
must state:
(1) The names of the parents or
guardian and their place of residence. If the
child's parents are unknown, petitioner must
allege that diligent efforts have been exerted to
locate them. If said parents are deceased,
petitioner shall attach a certified true copy of
their death certificate;
(2) The facts showing that the child is
dependent, abandoned, or neglected;
(3) The facts showing who has custody
of the child at the time of the filing of the
petition; and
(4) The name, address and written
consent of the Department or duly licensed
child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual to whose care the commitment of the
child is sought to be entrusted.
(d) Summons; Court to Set Time for Hearing. —
If the court is satisfied that the petition is sufficient
in form and substance, it shall direct the clerk of
court to immediately issue summons which shall be
served together with a copy of the petition and a
notice of hearing, upon the parents or guardian of
the child and the office of the public prosecutor not
less than five (5) days before the date of the
hearing. The office of the public prosecutor shall be
directed to immediately transmit the summons to
the prosecutor assigned to the Family Court
concerned.
If it appears from the petition that both parents
of the child are dead or that neither parent can be
found in the province or city where the court is
located and the child has no guardian residing
therein, summons may not be issued and the court
shall thereupon appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant
to Sub-section (f) below and proceed with the
hearing of the case with due notice to the provincial
or city prosecutor,
(e) Social Worker. — After the court sets the
petition for hearing in accordance with Sub-section
(d) above, it shall direct the social worker to submit,
before the hearing, a case study report of the child
to aid it in evaluating whether said child should be
committed to the care of the Department or any duly
licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual. The report shall bear the signature of the
social worker on every page.
(f) Guardian Ad Litem of Child. — If neither of
the parents nor the guardian of the child can be
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
34
located or does not appear in court despite due
notice, or if the court finds them incompetent to
protect the best interests of the child, it shall be the
duty of the court to appoint a suitable person as
guardian ad litem to represent the child. In making
the appointment, the court shall consider the
background of the guardian ad litem and his
familiarity with the judicial process, social service
programs and child development. A member of the
Philippine Bar may be appointed guardian ad litem.
(g) Child's Right to Counsel. — The court, upon
request of the child capable of forming his own views
or upon request of his guardian ad litem, shall
appoint a lawyer to represent him in the
proceedings.
(h) Duty of Public Prosecutor. — The provincial
or city prosecutor shall appear for the State and
ascertain if there has been due notice to all parties
concerned and that there is justification for the
declaration of dependency, abandonment or neglect.
(i) Hearing. — The court shall direct the person
or agency which has custody of the child to bring the
latter to the court on the date of the hearing of the
petition and shall ascertain the facts and determine
whether the child is dependent, abandoned, or
neglected, and if so, the cause and circumstances of
such condition.
(j) Judgment. — If, after the hearing, the court
shall find the child to be dependent, abandoned, or
neglected, it shall render judgment committing him
to the care and custody of the Department or any
duly licensed child-placement or child-caring agency
or individual until he reaches the age of eighteen
(18). The judgment shall likewise make proper
provisions for the custody of the property or money
belonging to the committed. child.
If the child is committed to the Department, it
shall notify the court within thirty (30) days from the
order of commitment, the name and address of the
duly licensed and accredited child-placement or
child-caring agency or individual where the child
shall be placed.
However, if the court finds that the
abandonment or neglect of the child may be
remedied, the child may be allowed to stay in his
own home under the care and control of his parents
or guardian, subject to supervision and direction of
the Department.
(k) Visitation or Inspection. — Any duly licensed
child-placement or child-caring agency or individual
to whom a child has been committed by the court
shall be subject to visitation or inspection by a
representative of the court or of the Department, as
the case may be or of both, to determine whether
the welfare and interests of the child are being
served.
(l) Report of Person or Institution. — Any duly
licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual to whom a child has been committed by
judicial order may at any time be required by the
court to submit a report, containing all necessary
information for determining whether the welfare of
the child is being served.
(m) Temporary Custody of Child. — The duly
licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual to whom a child has been committed may
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
file a verified motion with the court which granted
the petition for involuntary commitment of a child to
place him in the care of any suitable person, upon
the latter's request, for a period not exceeding one
month at a time. The court may order the social
worker to submit a case study report to aid it in
evaluating whether such temporary custody shall be
for the best interests of the child. The period of
temporary custody of the child may be extended by
the court for a period not exceeding one month at a
time upon motion of the duly licensed child-
placement or child-caring agency or individual to
which the child has been committed.
The court, motu proprio, or upon request of the
child assisted by his guardian ad litem, or at the
instance of the agency or person to whom the child
was committed, after due notice and hearing, shall
discontinue the temporary custody of the child if it
appears that he is not being given proper care.
After one month from the date temporary
custody of the child was given to another suitable
person, the agency or individual shall submit to the
court a verified report on whether the temporary
custody of the child has promoted his best interests.
(n) Change of Custody. — If the child is
committed to the Department, it shall have the
authority to change the custody of a child it had
placed with any duly licensed child-placement or
child-caring agency or individual if it appears that
such change is for the best interests of the child. The
Department shall notify the court of any change in
custody of the child.
When conflicting interests arise among child-
placement or child-caring agencies, the court which
granted the involuntary commitment of the child,
upon motion of the Department or any of the
agencies concerned, shall order the change of
commitment of the child.
(o) Removal of Custody. — A motion to remove
custody of a child may be filed by an authorized
representative of the Department with knowledge of
the facts against a child-placement or child-caring
agency or individual to whose custody a child has
been committed by the court on the ground of
neglect of such child as defined in Section 3 (e) of
this Rule. The court shall set the motion for hearing
with notice to the public prosecutor and the court-
designated social worker. If the court finds after
hearing that the allegations of the motion have been
established and that it is for the best interests and
welfare of the child, the court shall issue an order
removing him from the custody of the person or
agency, as the case may be, and committing him to
the custody of another duly licensed child-placement
or child-caring agency or individual.
In the same proceeding, the court may suspend
or revoke the license of the agency or individual
found guilty of such neglect depending upon the
gravity or frequency of the offense.
(p) Restoration of Parental Authority After
Involuntary Commitment. —
(i) Who may file; Ground. — The
parents or guardian of a child committed to
the care of a person, agency or institution by
judicial order may file a verified motion for the
restoration of his rights over the child with the
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
35
court which granted the involuntary
commitment on the ground that he is now
able to take proper care and custody of said
child, provided, however, that the child has
not yet been adopted. HDATSI
(ii) Notice of Hearing. — The court
shall fix the time and date for the hearing of
the motion, which shall not be earlier than
thirty (30) days nor later than sixty (60) days
from the date of the filing of said motion and
cause notice of the hearing to be sent to the
person, agency or institution to which the
child has been committed, the public
prosecutor and the court-designated social
worker, at least five (5) days before the date
of hearing.
(iii) Hearing. — At the hearing, any
person may be allowed to intervene at the
discretion of the court to contest the right to
the relief demanded. Witnesses may be called
and examined by the parties or by the court
motu proprio.
(iv) Resolution. — If it is found that the
cause for the commitment of the child no
longer exists and that the movant is already
able to take proper care and custody of the
child, the court, after taking into consideration
the best interests and the welfare of the child,
shall issue a resolution terminating the
parental authority of the person, agency or
institution to whom the child was committed
by judicial order and restoring parental
authority to the movant.
q) Jurisdiction for Prosecution of Punishable
Acts. — The Family Court which granted the
involuntary commitment shall have jurisdiction over
the prosecution of a child who left without prior
permission from the person or institution to which he
has been judicially committed or the person under
whose custody he has been judicially committed in
accordance with Subsection (m) of Section 4 of this
Rule. It shall likewise have jurisdiction over the
person who induced the child to leave such person or
institution, except in case of actual or imminent
grave physical or moral danger to the child. The
Family Court which granted the involuntary
commitment shall also have jurisdiction over the
prosecution of parents or guardians of the child who
may be held liable under Articles 59 and 60 of P.D.
No. 603 and Sections 9, 10 and 31 of R.A. No. 7610.
SECTION 5. Voluntary Commitment of a
Child to an Institution or Individual. — The
parent or guardian of a dependent, abandoned or
neglected child may voluntarily commit him to the
Department or any duly licensed child-placement or
child-caring agency or individual subject to the rules
of the Department. However, no child shall be
committed unless he is surrendered in writing by his
parents or guardian stating such voluntary
commitment and specifically naming the office,
agency, or individual to whose custody the child is to
be committed. Such written instrument should be
notarized and signed in the presence of an
authorized representative of the Department after
counseling and other services have been made
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
available to encourage the child's parents to keep
the child.
(a) Petition for removal of Custody. —
(i) Who may file; Ground. — The
parents or guardian who voluntarily committed
the child, or in their absence or failure, any
person with knowledge of the facts, may file a
verified petition to remove custody of the child
against the child-placement or child-caring
agency or individual to whose custody the child
has been voluntarily committed on the ground of
neglect of such child as defined in Section 3 (e)
of this Rule. A child may also be removed from
the custody of the child-placement or child-
caring agency or individual on the ground that
the voluntary commitment of the child was
unjustified.
(ii) Venue. — The petition shall be filed
with the Family Court of the province or city
where the child-placement or child-caring
agency to which the child has been voluntarily
committed is located or where the child may be
found.
(iii) Contents of Verified Petition — The
petition must state:
(1) The name and address of the child-
placement or child-caring agency or
individual to whose custody the child has
been voluntarily committed; SEIDAC
(2) The facts showing that the child
has been neglected by the agency or in
cases where the voluntary commitment was
unjustified, that the parents of the child are
actually capable of taking care and custody
of the child;
(3) The name, address and written
consent of the duly licensed child-placement
or child-caring agency or individual to
whose care the child may be transferred.
(4) The facts showing that petitioner
has exhausted the administrative remedies
available to him.
(iv) Notice of Hearing. — If the petition
is sufficient in form and substance, the court
shall set the same for hearing with notice to the
Department, the public prosecutor, the court-
designated social worker, the agency or
individual to whom the child has been
committed and in appropriate cases, the parents
of the child.
(v) Judgment. — If after hearing the
court finds that the allegations of the petition
have been established and that it is for the best
interests and welfare of the child, it shall issue
an order removing the child from the custody of
the person or agency concerned, and
committing him to the custody of another duly
licensed child-placement or child-caring agency
or individual.
The court, in the same proceeding may, after
hearing the comment or recommendation of the
Department, suspend or revoke the license of the
agency or individual found guilty of such neglect
depending upon the gravity or frequency of the
offense.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
36
(b) Restoration of Parental Authority After
Voluntary Commitment. — The restoration of rights
of the parent or guardian over the child who has
been voluntarily committed shall be governed by the
rules of the Department, provided, however, that the
petition for restoration is filed within six (6) months
from the date of voluntary commitment. In case the
Department refuses to grant legal custody and
parental authority to the parent or guardian over the
child who has been voluntarily committed to an
agency or individual, the parent or guardian may file
a petition in court for restoration of parental
authority in accordance with Section 4 (p) of this
Rule.
(c) Jurisdiction for Prosecution of Punishable
Acts. — The Family Court of the place where the
child may be found or where the duly licensed child-
placement or child-caring agency or individual is
located shall have jurisdiction over the prosecution of
a child who left without prior permission from the
person or institution to which he has been voluntarily
committed. It shall likewise have jurisdiction over
the person who induced the child to leave such
person or institution, except in case of grave actual
or imminent physical or moral danger, to the child.
The same Family Court shall also have jurisdiction
over the prosecution of parents or guardians of the
child who may be held liable under Articles 59 and
60 of P.D. No. 603 and Sections 9, 10 and 31 of R.A.
No. 7610.
SECTION 6. Petition for Commitment of a
Disabled Child. —
(a) Who may file. — Where a child appears to
be mentally retarded, physically handicapped,
emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, with cerebral
palsy or with similar afflictions and needs
institutional care but his parents or guardians are
opposed thereto, the Department, or any duly
licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual may file a verified petition for commitment
of the said child to any reputable institution
providing care, training and rehabilitation for
disabled children.
The parents or guardian of the child may file a
similar petition in case no immediate placement can
be arranged for the disabled child when his welfare
and interests are at stake. AEHTIC
(b) Venue. — The petition for commitment of a
disabled child shall be filed with the Family Court of
the place where the parent or guardian resides or
where the child is found.
(c) Contents of Verified Petition. — The petition
for commitment must state the following:
(1) The facts showing that the child
appears to be mentally retarded, physically
handicapped, emotionally disturbed, mentally ill,
with cerebral palsy or with similar afflictions and
needs institutional care; IADCES
(2) The name of the parents and their
residence, if known, or if the child has no living
parent, the name and residence of the guardian,
if any; and
(3) The fact that the parents or
guardian or any duly licensed disabled child-
placement or child-caring agency, as the case
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
may be, has opposed the commitment of such
child;
(4) The name and written conformity
of the institution where the child is to be
committed.
(5) An estimate of the costs and other
expenses of maintaining the child in the
institution.
The verified petition shall be sufficient if
based upon the personal knowledge of the
petitioner.
(d) Order of Hearing; Notice. — If the petition
filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by
an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix
the date of the hearing thereof, and a copy of such
order shall be served on the child alleged to be
mentally retarded, physically handicapped,
emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, with cerebral
palsy or with similar afflictions and on the person
having charge of him or any of his relatives residing
in the province or city as the court may deem
proper.
The order shall also direct the sheriff or any
other officer of the court to produce, if necessary,
the alleged disabled child on the date of the hearing.
(e) Hearing and Judgment. — If the court finds
that the allegations of the petition have been
established and that institutional care of the child is
for his best interests or the public welfare and that
his parents, or guardian or relatives are unable for
any reason whatsoever to take proper care of him,
the court shall order his commitment to the proper
institution for disabled children. The court shall
likewise make proper provisions for the custody of
the property or money belonging to the committed
child.
The expense of maintaining a disabled child in
the institution to which he has been committed shall
be borne primarily by the parents or guardian and
secondarily, by such disabled child, if he has
property of his own.
In all cases where the expenses for the
maintenance of the disabled child cannot be paid in
accordance with the immediately preceding
paragraph, the Department shall bear the expenses,
or such part thereof as may remain unpaid.
The court shall furnish the institution to which
the child has been committed with a copy of its
judgment, together with all the reports and other
data pertinent to the case.
(f) Discharge of Judicially Committed Disabled
Child. — Upon motion of the parent, guardian or
institution to which the child has been judicially
committed under this rule, the court, after hearing,
shall order the discharge of such child if it is
established and certified by the Department that:
(1) He is no longer a danger to himself
and the community;
(2) He has been sufficiently
rehabilitated, from his physical handicap or if of
working age, is already fit to engage in gainful
occupation; or
(3) He has been sufficiently relieved of
his psychological, mental and emotional
problems and is ready to assume normal social
relations.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
37
SECTION 7. Effectivity. — This rule shall take
effect on April 15, 2002 after its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation not later than March
15, 2002.
[A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. February 28, 2002.]
RE: PROPOSED RULE ON JUVENILES IN
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
RESOLUTION
Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the
Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court
submitting for this Court's consideration and
approval the Proposed Rule on Juveniles In Conflict
With The Law, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the
same.
The Rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002
following its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation not later than March 15, 2002.
February 28, 2002.
SECTION 1. Applicability of the
Rule. — This Rule shall apply to all criminal cases
involving juveniles in conflict with the law.
A juvenile in conflict with the law is a person who at
the time of the commission of the offense is below
eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9)
years of age.
This Rule shall not apply to an accused who
at the time of initial contact as defined in Section
4(p) of this Rule, or at any time thereafter, shall
have reached the age of eighteen (18), in which case
the regular rules on criminal procedure shall apply
without prejudice to the rights granted under
Sections 36, 37, 38 and 39 of this Rule. (n)
SECTION 2. Objective. — The
objective of this Rule is to ensure that the justice
system treats every juvenile in conflict with the law
in a manner that recognizes and upholds his human
dignity and worth, and instills in him respect for the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Rule
considers his developmental age and the desirability
of his reintegration into and assumption of a
constructive role in society in accordance with the
principle of restorative justice.
To attain this objective, the Rule seeks:
a) To provide a procedure in the adjudication
of juveniles in conflict with the law that takes into
account their distinct circumstances and assures the
parties of a fair hearing with their constitutional and
statutory rights recognized and respected;
b) To divert from the justice system juveniles
who can be cared for or placed under community-
based alternative programs of treatment, training
and rehabilitation in conformity with the principle of
restorative justice;
c) To deal with the juvenile in a family
environment whenever possible, separate him from
his parents only when necessary for his welfare or in
the interest of public safety;
d) To remove from juveniles in conflict with
the law the stigma of criminality and the
consequences of criminal behavior; and
e) To provide for the care, protection and
wholesome moral, mental, and physical development
of juveniles in conflict with the law.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
SECTION 3. Interpretation. — This Rule shall
be interpreted liberally to promote the best interests
of the child in conformity with Philippine laws and the
United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the
Child.
SECTION 4. Definitions. — As used in this
Rule,
(a) To be in conflict with the law means being
charged with the commission of an act defined and
punished as a crime or offense under the law,
including violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations, and ordinances of local government
units.
(b) Serious offense refers to any offense not
covered by Section 1, par. B, Criminal Cases, of the
Rule on Summary Procedure, to wit: (1) violations of
traffic laws, rules and regulations; (2) violations of
the rental law; (3) violations of municipal or city
ordinances; (4) all other offenses punished with
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine
not exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or
both, irrespective of other imposable penalties,
accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising
therefrom; provided, however, that in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal
negligence, the imposable fine is not in excess of ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00).
(c) Youth detention center refers to a
government-owned or operated agency providing
habilitating and rehabilitative facilities where a
juvenile in conflict with the law may be physically
restricted pending court disposition of the charge
against him.
(d) Intake report is a preliminary written report
containing the personal and other circumstances of
the juvenile in conflict with the law and prepared by
the social worker assigned by the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or local
government unit to assist him as soon as he enters
the justice system.
(e) Case study report is a written report of the
result of an investigation conducted by the social
worker designated by the Family Court on the social,
cultural, economic and legal status or condition of
the juvenile in conflict with the law. It includes,
among others, his developmental age; educational
attainment; family and social relationships; the
quality of his peer group; the strengths and
weaknesses of his family; parental control over him;
his attitude toward the offense; the harm or damage
done to others resulting from the offense; his record
of prior offenses, if any; and the attitude of his
parents towards his responsibility for the offense.
(f) Diversion refers to an alternative child-
appropriate process of determining the responsibility
and treatment of a juvenile in conflict with the law
on the basis of his social, cultural, economic,
psychological or educational background without
resorting to formal court adjudication.
(g) Diversion programs refer to programs that
the juvenile in conflict with the law is required to
undergo in lieu of formal court proceedings,
(h) Disposition conference is a meeting held by
the court with the social worker who prepared the
case study report together with the juvenile in
conflict with the law and his parents or guardian ad
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
38
litem, for the purpose of determining the disposition
measures appropriate to the personal and peculiar
circumstances of the juvenile.
(i) Recognizance is an undertaking in lieu of a
bond assumed by a parent or custodian who shall be
responsible for the appearance in court by the
juvenile in conflict with the law when required.
(j) Probation is a disposition alternative under
which a juvenile in conflict with the law is released
and permitted to remain in his home after conviction
and sentence. The juvenile is subject to conditions
imposed in the sentence and to supervision by the
court and a probation officer who has the duty to
return the juvenile to the court in case of violation of
a condition of his probation.
(k) Suspended sentence is the holding in
abeyance of the service of the sentence imposed by
the court upon a finding of guilt of the juvenile in
conflict with the law who will undergo rehabilitation.
(l) Community continuum is a community-
based group therapy process that provides
continuous guidance and support to the juvenile in
conflict with the law upon his release from
rehabilitation and his reintegration into society.
(m) Age of criminal responsibility is the age
when a juvenile who is nine (9) years or over but
under fifteen (15) years commits an offense with
discernment.
(n) Discernment means the mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and wrong
and its consequences.
(o) Restorative Justice is a principle which
requires a process of resolving conflicts with the
maximum involvement of the victim, the offender,
and the community. It seeks to obtain reparation for
the victim, reconciliation of the offender, the
offended and the community and reassurance to the
offender that he can be reintegrated into society. It.
also enhances public safety by activating the
offender, the victim and the community in
prevention strategies.
(p) Initial contact is the apprehension or taking
into custody of a juvenile in conflict with the law by
law enforcement officers or private citizens. It
includes the time when the juvenile receives a
subpoena under Section 3 (b) of Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or summons
under Section 6 (a) or Sec. 9 (b) of the same Rule in
cases that do not require preliminary investigation or
where there is no necessity to place the juvenile
under immediate custody.
(q) Corporal punishment is any kind of physical
punishment inflicted on the body as distinguished
from pecuniary punishment or fine.
SECTION 5. Exemption from Criminal
Liability. — A minor under nine (9) years of age at
the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability.
A minor nine (9) years and above but under
fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense shall be committed to the
care of his father or mother, or nearest relative or
family friend; in the sound discretion of the court
and subject to its supervision. However, if the
prosecution proves that he has acted with
discernment; he shall be proceeded against in
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
accordance with Sections 24 to 28, or 36 to 40 of
this Rule, as the case may be, and subjected to a
delinquency prevention program as determined by
the court.
Exemption from criminal liability does not
include exemption from civil liability which shall be
enforced in accordance with the provisions of Article
221 of the Family Code in relation to Article 101 of
the Revised Penal Code and Rule 111 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In case the act or omission of the juvenile
involves a quasi-delict, Article 2180 of the Civil Code
shall apply.
SECTION 6. Procedure in Taking a Juvenile
into Custody. — Any person taking into custody a
juvenile in conflict with the law shall:
(a) Identify himself and present proper
identification to the juvenile;
(b) Inform the juvenile of the reason for such
custody and advise him of his constitutional rights in
a language or dialect understood by him;
(c) Refrain from using vulgar or profane words
and from sexually harassing or abusing, or making
sexual advances on the juvenile;
(d) Avoid displaying or using any firearm,
weapon, handcuffs or other instruments of force or
restraint, unless absolutely necessary and only after
all other methods of control have been exhausted
and have failed;
(e) Refrain from subjecting the juvenile to
greater restraint than is necessary for his
apprehension;
(f) Avoid violence or unnecessary force;
(g) Notify the parents of the juvenile or his
nearest relative or guardian, if any, and the local
social welfare officer as soon as the apprehension is
made;
(h) Take the juvenile immediately to an
available government medical or health officer for a
physical and mental examination. The examination
results shall be kept confidential unless otherwise
ordered by the Family Court. Whenever treatment
for any physical or mental defect is necessary, steps
shall be immediately taken by the said officer to
provide the juvenile with the necessary and proper
treatment; and
(i) Hold the juvenile in secure quarters
separate from that of the opposite sex and adult
offenders.
SECTION 7. Taking Custody of a Juvenile
Without a Warrant. — A peace officer or a private
person taking into custody a juvenile in conflict with
the law without a warrant shall likewise follow the
provisions of Sections 5, 8 and 9 of Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and shall
forthwith deliver him to the nearest police station.
The juvenile shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
SECTION 8. Conduct of Initial
Investigation by the Police. — The police officer
conducting the initial investigation of a juvenile in
conflict with the law shall do so in the presence of
either of the parents of the juvenile; in the absence
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
39
of both parents, the guardian or the nearest relative,
or a social welfare officer, and the counsel of his own
choice. In their presence, the juvenile shall be
informed of his constitutional rights during custodial
investigation.
The right of the juvenile to privacy shall be
protected at all times. All measures necessary to
promote this right shall be taken, including the
exclusion of the media.
SECTION 9. Fingerprinting and
Photographing of the Juvenile. — While under
investigation, no juvenile in conflict with the law shall
be fingerprinted or photographed in a humiliating
and degrading manner. The following guidelines shall
be observed when fingerprinting or photographing
the juvenile:
(a) His fingerprint and photograph files shall be
kept separate from those of adults and shall be kept
confidential. They may be inspected by law
enforcement officers only when necessary for the
discharge of their duties and upon prior authority of
the Family Court; TADCSE
(b) His fingerprints and photographs shall be
removed from the files and destroyed: (1) if the case
against him is not filed, or is dismissed; or (2) when
the juvenile reaches twenty one (21) years of age
and there is no record that he committed an offense
after reaching eighteen (18) years of age.
SECTION 10. Intake Report by the
Social Welfare Officer. — Upon the taking into
custody of a juvenile in conflict with the law, the
social welfare officer assigned to him by the DSWD
shall immediately under take a preliminary
background investigation of the juvenile and submit,
prior to arraignment of the juvenile, a report on his
findings to the Family Court in which the case may
be filed.
SECTION 11. Filing of Criminal
Action. — A criminal action may be instituted
against a juvenile in conflict with the law by filing a
complaint with the prosecutor or the municipal trial
court in cases where a preliminary investigation is
required. In Manila and other chartered cities, if their
charters so provide, the complaint shall be filed with
the Office of the Prosecutor. It may also be filed
directly with the Family Court if no preliminary
investigation is required under Section 1 of Rule 112
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
All criminal actions commenced by complaint or
information shall be prosecuted under the direction
and control of the public prosecutor assigned to the
Family Court.
SECTION 12. Prosecution of Civil
Action. — When a criminal action is instituted
against a juvenile in conflict with the law, the action
for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be governed by Rule 111 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
SECTION 13. Preliminary
Investigation. — As far as consistent with this
Rule, the preliminary investigation of a juvenile in
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
conflict with the law shall be governed by Section 3
of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. If clarificatory questions become
necessary, the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness shall apply.
If a preliminary investigation is required before
the filing of a complaint or information, the same
shall be conducted by the judge of the Municipal Trial
Court or the public prosecutor in accordance with the
pertinent provisions of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure.
If the investigating prosecutor finds probable
cause to hold the juvenile for trial, he shall prepare
the corresponding resolution and information for
approval by the provincial or city prosecutor, as the
case may be. The juvenile, his parents/nearest
relative/guardian and his counsel shall be furnished
forthwith a copy of the approved resolution.
SECTION 14. Venue. — Subject to the
provisions of Section 15, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, any criminal or civil
action involving a juvenile in conflict with the law
shall be instituted and tried in the Family Court of or
nearest the place where the offense was committed
or where any of its essential elements occurred.
SECTION 15. Recognizance. — Before
final conviction, all juveniles charged with offenses
falling under the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure shall be released on recognizance to the
custody of their parents or other suitable person who
shall be responsible for the juveniles' appearance in
court whenever required.
SECTION 16. When Bail a Matter of
Right. — All juveniles in conflict with the law shall be
admitted to bail as a matter of right before final
conviction of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
In the event the juvenile cannot post bail for
lack of financial resources, the Family Court shall
commit the juvenile pursuant to Section 18 of this
Rule.
However, where the juvenile does not pose a
threat to public safety, the Family Court may, motu
proprio or upon motion and recommendation of the
DSWD, release the juvenile on recognizance to the
custody of his parents or other responsible person.
SECTION 17. When Bail Not A Matter
of Right. — No juvenile charged with an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment shall be admitted to bail when
evidence of guilt is strong.
SECTION 18. Care of Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law. — The juvenile charged with
having committed a delinquent act, held for trial or
while the case is pending appeal, if unable to furnish
bail or is denied bail, shall, from the time of his being
taken into custody, be committed by the Family
Court to the care of the DSWD, a youth detention
center, or a local rehabilitation center recognized by
the government in the province, city or municipality
within the jurisdiction of the said court. The center or
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
40
agency concerned shall be responsible for the
juvenile's appearance in court whenever required. In
the absence of any such center or agency within a
reasonable distance from the venue of the trial, the
juvenile shall be detained in the provincial, city or
municipal jail which shall provide adequate quarters
for the juvenile separate from adult detainees and
detainees of the opposite sex.
SECTION 19. Case Study Report. —
After the institution of the criminal action, the social
worker of the Family Court shall immediately
undertake a case study of the juvenile and his
family, his environment and such other matters
relevant to the proper disposition of the case. His
report shall be submitted within the period fixed by
the Family Court, preferably before arraignment, to
aid it in the proper disposition of the case.
SECTION 20. Diversion Proceedings
Before Arraignment. — Where the maximum
penalty imposed by law for the offense with which
the juvenile in conflict with the law is charged is
imprisonment of not more than six (6) months,
regardless of fine or fine alone regardless of amount,
and the corresponding complaint or information is
filed with the Family Court, the case shall not be set
for arraignment; instead, it shall forthwith be
referred to the Diversion Committee which shall
determine whether the juvenile can be diverted and
referred to alternative measures or services offered
by non-court institutions. Pending determination by
the Committee, the court shall deliver the juvenile on
recognizance to the custody of his parents or legal
guardian who shall be responsible for the presence of
the juvenile during the diversion proceedings.
SECTION 21. Diversion Committee. —
In each Family Court, there shall be a Diversion
Committee to be composed of its branch clerk of
court as chairperson, and the prosecutor, a lawyer of
the Public Attorney's Office and the social worker
assigned to the said Family Court as members.
The chairperson of the Committee shall call for a
conference with notice to the juvenile, his
parents/legal guardian and his counsel, and the
private complainant and his counsel, and recommend
to the Family Court whether the juvenile should be
diverted to a diversion program or undergo formal
court proceedings. In making its recommendation,
the Committee shall consider the following factors:
a) The record of the juvenile on his conflict
with the law;
b) Whether the imposable maximum penalty of
the offense is more than six (6) months, regardless
of fine; or only a fine, regardless of amount;
c) Whether the juvenile is an obvious threat to
himself and/or the community;
d) Whether the juvenile is unrepentant;
e) Whether the juvenile or his parents are
indifferent or hostile; and
Whether the juvenile's relationships with his
peers increase the possibility of delinquent behavior.
If the Committee recommends diversion, it shall
submit the diversion program for the juvenile for the
consideration and approval of the court.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
The Committee cannot recommend diversion
should the juvenile or the private complainant object
thereto. If no diversion program is recommended,
the court shall include the case in its calendar for
formal proceedings.
Consent to diversion by the juvenile or payment
by him of civil indemnity shall not in any way be
construed as admission of guilt and used as evidence
against him in the event that his case is included in
the court calendar for formal proceedings.
SECTION 22. Diversion Programs. —
The diversion program designed by the Committee
shall be distinct to each juvenile in conflict with the
law limited for a specific period. It may include any
or a combination of the following:
a) Written or oral reprimand or citation;
b) Return of property;
c) Payment of the damage caused;
d) Written or oral apology;
e) Guidance and supervision orders;
f) Counseling for the juvenile and his family;
g) Training, seminars and lectures on (i) anger
management skills; (ii) problem-solving and/or
conflict resolution skills; (iii) values formation; and
(iv) other skills that will aid the juvenile to properly
deal with situations that can lead to a repetition of
the offense;
h) Participation in available community-based
programs;
i) Institutional care and custody; or j)
Work-detail program in the community.
SECTION 23. Hearing of Diversion
Program. — The Family Court shall set the
recommendation and diversion program for hearing
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
SECTION 24. Undertaking. — In all
cases where a juvenile in conflict with the law is
given the benefit of a diversion program, an
undertaking describing the program shall be signed
by him, his parents or legal guardian and the
complainant, and approved by the Family Court. The
program, which shall be enforced under the
supervision and control of the Family Court, shall
contain the following terms and conditions:
a) The juvenile shall present himself to the
social worker of the Family Court that approved the
diversion program at least once a month for
evaluation of its effectiveness. Whenever the juvenile
is permitted to reside in a place under the
jurisdiction of another Family Court, control and
supervision over him shall be transferred to the
Family Court of that place, and in such case, a copy
of the undertaking, the intake and case study reports
and other pertinent records shall be furnished the
said court. Thereafter, the Family Court to which
jurisdiction over the juvenile is transferred shall have
the power with respect to the latter that was
previously possessed by the Family Court that
approved the diversion and such other conditions as
the Committee may deem just and proper under the
circumstances.
b) The juvenile shall faithfully comply with the
terms and conditions in the undertaking. His non-
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
41
compliance shall be referred by the Committee to the
Family Court where the case has been transferred for
a show-cause hearing with notice to the juvenile and
private complainant. The court shall determine
whether the juvenile should continue with the
diversion program or his case returned to the
original court for formal proceedings.
The Family Court shall exert its best efforts to
secure satisfaction of the civil liability of the juvenile
and his parents or guardian. However, inability to
pay the said liability shall not by itself be a ground to
discontinue the diversion program of the juvenile.
SECTION 25. Closure Order. — The
juvenile subject of diversion proceedings shall be
visited periodically by the Family Court social worker
who shall submit to the Committee his reports
thereon. At any time before or at the end of the
diversion period, a report recommending closure or
extension of diversion, as the case may be, shall be
filed by the Committee with the Family Court. The
report and recommendation shall be heard by the
Family Court within fifteen (15) days from its receipt
thereof, with notice to the members of the
Committee, the juvenile and his parents or legal
guardian and counsel and the complainant to
determine whether the undertaking has been fully
and satisfactorily complied with. If the juvenile has
complied with his undertaking, the Family Court shall
issue the corresponding closure order terminating
the diversion program. It may, however, extend the
period of diversion to give the juvenile a further
chance to be rehabilitated. In the event the court
finds that the diversion program will no longer serve
its. purpose, it shall include the case of the juvenile
in its calendar for formal proceedings.
SECTION 26. Duty of the Family Court to
Protect the Rights of the Juvenile. — In all
criminal proceedings in the Family Court, the judge
shall ensure the protection of the following rights of
the juvenile in conflict with the law:
a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary
is proved beyond reasonable doubt;
b) To be informed promptly and directly of the
nature and cause of the charge against him, and if
appropriate, through his parents or legal guardian;
c) To be present at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of
judgment. The juvenile may, however, waive his
presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set
forth in his bail, unless his presence at the trial is
specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
identification. The absence of the juvenile without
justifiable cause at the trial of which he had notice
shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
present thereat. When the juvenile under custody
escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right
to be present in all subsequent hearings until
custody over him is regained;
d) To have legal and other appropriate
assistance in the preparation and presentation of his
defense;
e) To testify as a witness in his own behalf and
subject to cross-examination only on matters
covered by direct examination, provided that the
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness shall be
observed whenever convenient and practicable.
The juvenile shall not be compelled to be a
witness against himself and his silence shall not in
any manner prejudice him;
f) To confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against him;
g) To have compulsory process issued to
secure the attendance of witnesses and production of
other evidence in his behalf;
h) To have speedy and impartial trial, with
legal or other appropriate assistance and preferably
in the presence of his parents or legal guardian,
unless such presence is considered not to be in the
best interests of the juvenile taking into account his
age or other peculiar circumstances;
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the
manner prescribed by law;
j) To be accorded all the rights under the Rule
on Examination of a Child Witness; and
k) To have his privacy fully respected in all
stages of the proceedings.
SECTION 27. Arraignment and Plea.
— The provisions of Rules 116 and 117 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure shall apply to
the arraignment of the juvenile in conflict with the
law. The arraignment shall be scheduled within
seven (7) days from the date of the filing of the
complaint or information with the Family Court,
unless a shorter period is provided for by law.
Arraignment shall be held in chambers and
conducted by the judge by furnishing the juvenile a
copy of the complaint or information, reading the
same in a language or dialect known to and
understood by him, explaining the nature and
consequences of a plea of guilty or not guilty and
asking him what his plea is.
SECTION 28. Pre-trial. — The
provisions of Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure shall govern the pre-trial of the
juvenile in conflict with the law. Agreements or
admissions made during the pre trial conference
shall be in writing and signed by the juvenile, his
parents or guardian and his counsel; otherwise, they
cannot be used against him.
Whenever possible and practicable, the
Family Court shall explore all possibilities of
settlement of the case, except its criminal aspect.
Plea bargaining shall be resorted to only as a last
measure when it will serve the best interests of the
juvenile and the demands of restorative justice.
SECTION 29. Trial. — All hearings shall
be conducted in a manner conducive to the best
interests of the juvenile and in an environment that
will allow him to participate fully and freely in
accordance with the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness.
SECTION 30. Guiding Principles in
Judging the Juvenile. — Subject to the provisions
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other
special laws, the judgment against a juvenile in
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
42
conflict with the law shall be guided by the following
principles:
1. It shall be in proportion to the gravity of the
offense, and shall consider the circumstances and
the best interests of the juvenile, the rights of the
victim, the needs of society in line with the demands
of restorative justice.
2. Restrictions on the personal liberty of the
juvenile shall be limited to the minimum. Where
discretion is given by law to the judge to determine
whether the penalty to be imposed is fine or
imprisonment, the imposition of the latter should be
preferred as the more appropriate penalty.
3. No corporal punishment shall be imposed.
SECTION 31. Promulgation of
Sentence. — If after trial the Family Court should
find the juvenile in conflict with the law guilty, it
shall impose the proper penalty, including any civil
liability which the juvenile may have incurred, and
promulgate the sentence in accordance with Section
6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
SECTION 32. Automatic Suspension
of Sentence and Disposition Orders. — The
sentence shall be suspended without need of
application by the juvenile in conflict with the law.
The court shall set the case for disposition
conference within fifteen (15) days from the
promulgation of sentence which shall be attended by
the social worker of the Family Court, the juvenile,
and his parents or guardian ad litem. It shall proceed
to issue any or a combination of the following
disposition measures best suited to the rehabilitation
and welfare of the juvenile:
1. Care, guidance, and supervision orders;
2. Community service orders;
3. Drug and alcohol treatment;
4. Participation in group counseling and similar
activities;
5. Commitment to the Youth Rehabilitation
Center of the DSWD or other centers for juveniles in
conflict with the law authorized by the Secretary of
the DSWD.
The Social Services and Counseling Division
(SSCD) of the DSWD shall monitor the compliance
by the juvenile in conflict with the law with the
disposition measure and shall submit regularly to the
Family Court a status and progress report on the
matter. The Family Court may set a conference for
the evaluation of such report in the presence, if
practicable, of the juvenile, his parents or guardian,
and other persons whose presence may be deemed
necessary.
The benefits of suspended sentence shall not
apply to a juvenile in conflict with the law who has
once enjoyed suspension of sentence, or to one who
is convicted of an offense punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or when at
the time of promulgation of judgment the juvenile is
already eighteen (18) years of age or over.
SECTION 33. Discharge of Juvenile
Subject of Disposition Measure. — Upon the
recommendation of the SSCD and a duly authorized
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
officer of the DSWD, the head of an appropriate
center or the duly accredited child-caring agency
which has custody over the juvenile, the Family
Court shall, after due notice to all parties and
hearing, dismiss the case against the juvenile who
has been issued disposition measures, even before
he has reached eighteen (18) years of age, and
order a final discharge if it finds that the juvenile has
behaved properly and has shown the capability to be
a useful member of the community.
If the Family Court, however, finds that the
juvenile has not behaved properly, has been
incorrigible, has not shown the capability of
becoming a useful member of society, has willfully
failed to comply with the conditions of his disposition
or rehabilitation program, or should his continued
stay in the training institution where he has been
assigned be not in his best interests, he shall be
brought before the court for execution of his
judgment.
If the juvenile in conflict with the law has
reached the age of eighteen (18) years while in
commitment, the Family Court shall determine
whether to dismiss the case in accordance with the
first paragraph of this Section or to execute the
judgment of conviction. In the latter case, unless the
juvenile has already availed of probation under
Presidential Decree No. 603 or other similar laws, he
may apply for probation if qualified under the
provisions of the Probation Law.
The final release of the juvenile shall not
extinguish his civil liability. The parents and other
persons exercising parental authority over the
juvenile shall be civilly liable for the injuries and
damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
juvenile living in their company and under their
parental authority subject to the appropriate
defenses provided by law.
SECTION 34. Probation as an
Alternative to Imprisonment. — After
promulgation of sentence and upon application at
any time by the juvenile in conflict with the law
within the period to appeal, the Family Court may
place the juvenile on probation, if he is qualified
under the Probation Law.
SECTION 35. Credit in Service of
Sentence. — The juvenile in conflict with the law
who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall
be credited in the service of his sentence consisting
of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during
which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, if
he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
or similar disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, except in any of the following cases:
1. When the juvenile is a recidivist or has been
convicted previously twice or more times of any
crime; or
2. When upon being summoned for execution
of sentence, he failed to surrender voluntarily.
If the juvenile does not agree to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
43
Whenever the juvenile has undergone
preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or
more than 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. In case the
maximum penalty to which the juvenile may be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after
thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.
Any form of physical restraint imposed on the
juvenile in conflict with the law, including community
service and commitment to a rehabilitation center,
shall be considered preventive imprisonment.
SECTION 36. Confidentiality of
Proceedings and Records. — All proceedings and
records involving juveniles in conflict with the law
from initial contact until final disposition of the case
by the Family Court shall be considered privileged
and confidential. The public may be excluded from
the proceedings and, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 31 of the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, the records shall not be disclosed directly or
indirectly to anyone by any of the parties or the
participants in the proceedings for any purpose
whatsoever, except to determine if the juvenile may
have his sentence suspended under Section 25 of
this Rule or if he may be granted probation under
the Probation Law, or to enforce the civil liability
imposed in the criminal action.
The Family Court shall take other measures to
protect this confidentiality of proceedings including
non-disclosure of records to the media, the
maintenance of a separate police blotter for cases
involving juveniles in conflict with the law and the
adoption of a system of coding to conceal material
information, which will lead to the juvenile's identity.
Records of juveniles in conflict with the law shall not
be used in subsequent proceedings or cases
involving the same offender as an adult.
SECTION 37. Non-liability for perjury
or concealment or misrepresentation. — Any
person who has been in conflict with the law as a
juvenile shall not be held guilty of perjury or of
concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his
failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact
related thereto in response to any inquiry made to
him for any purpose.
SECTION 38. Sealing of Records. —
The Family Court motu proprio, or on application of a
person who has been adjudged a juvenile in conflict
with the law, or if still a minor, on motion of his
parents or legal guardian, shall, upon notice to the
prosecution and after hearing, order the sealing of
the records of the case if it finds that two (2) years
have elapsed since the final discharge of the juvenile
after suspension of sentence or probation, or from
the date of the closure order and he has no pending
case of an offense or a crime involving moral
turpitude.
Upon entry of the order, the case shall be
treated as if it never occurred. All index references
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
shall be deleted and in case of inquiry, the Family
Court, prosecution, law enforcement officers and all
other offices and agencies that dealt with the case
shall reply that no record exists with respect to the
juvenile concerned. Copies of the order shall be sent
to these officials and agencies named in the order.
Inspection of the sealed records thereafter may be
permitted only by order of the Family Court upon
petition. of the juvenile who is the subject of the
records or of other proper parties.
This procedure shall be without prejudice to the
rule on destruction of video or audio tapes under
Section 31 of the Rule on the Examination of a Child
Witness.
SECTION 39. Prohibition Against
Labeling. — In the conduct of proceedings from
initial contact with the juvenile in conflict with the
law to the final disposition of the case, there shall be
no branding or labeling of the latter as a young
criminal, juvenile delinquent, prostitute, vagrant, or
attaching to him in any manner any derogatory
name. Likewise, no discriminatory remarks and
practices shall be allowed, particularly with respect
to the juvenile's social or economic status, physical
disability or ethnic origin.
SECTION 40. Contempt Powers. — A
person who directly or indirectly disobeys any order
of the Family Court or obstructs or interferes with its
proceedings or the enforcement of its orders issued
under this Rule shall be liable for contempt of court.
SECTION 41. Effectivity. — This rule
shall take effect on April 15, 2002 after its
publication in a newspaper of general circulation not
later than March 15, 2002.
Par. 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.
ELEMENTS:
1. A person performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere
accident;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
• Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it
fired and seriously injured the assailant is a lawful act.
ACCIDENT – something that happen outside the sway
of our will and although it comes about through some
act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.
- If the consequences are plainly foreseeable,
it will be a case of negligence.
People v. Agliday (2001)
Facts: The wife of the accused was washing
dishes in the kitchen when her son was shot with a
shotgun by her husband. Conchita claimed that she and
her husband quarreled before the incident and then her
husband left the kitchen got his shotgun and went back
to the kitchen to shoot his son.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
44
Accused claimed that it was only an accident.
He was merely cleaning his gun and the gun accidentally
went off and his son’s buttock was hit.
Held: The exemption from criminal liability
under the circumstance showing accident is based on
the lack of criminal intent. In the case at bar, accused
got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his
son who had intervened in the quarrel between the
former and his wife. There was clear intent to fire and
not mere accident.
US v. Tanedo (1910)
Facts: The accused, while hunting, saw wild
chickens and fired a shot. The slug, after hitting a wild
chicken, recoiled and struck the tenant who was a
relative of the accused. The man who was injured died.
Held: If life is taken by misfortune or accident
while the actor is in the performance of a lawful act
executed with due care and without intention of doing
harm, there is no criminal liability.
People v. Bindoy (1931)
Facts: The accused, while in a drinking session,
offered some tuba to Pacas’ wife but she refused so the
accused threatened to injure her if she didn’t accept.
Pacas stepped into defend his wife, attempting to take
away from the accused the bolo he carried. In the
course of the struggle, accused succeeded in
disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo
from the latter’s hand towards the left behind the
accused, with such violence that the point of the bolo
reached Emigdio’s chest who was then behind the
accused.
Held: The accused, in his effort to free himself
hit Emigdio in the chest. There is no evidence that this
was done deliberately. It is merely accidental.
People v. Agliday (2001)
Facts: The wife of the accused was washing
dishes in the kitchen when her son was shot with a
shotgun by her husband. Conchita claimed that she and
her husband quarreled before the incident and then her
husband left the kitchen got his shotgun and went back
to the kitchen to shoot his son.
Accused claimed that it was only an accident.
He was merely cleaning his gun and the gun accidentally
went off and his son’s buttock was hit.
Held: The exemption from criminal liability
under the circumstance showing accident is based on
the lack of criminal intent. In the case at bar, accused
got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his
son who had intervened in the quarrel between the
former and his wife. There was clear intent to fire and
not mere accident.
People v. Concepcion (2002)
Facts: Galang got involved in a quarrel at the
town plaza. He was brought to the barangay hall for
questioning by Brgy Captain Capitli. Shortly after,
Concepcion arrived and fired his rifle twice or thrice past
the ears of Galang, who was then sitting, but without
injuring him. After that, however, Concepcion thrust the
barrel of the gun against the abdomen of Galang. Then
there was an explosion. Galang was shot in the thigh. At
least 3 more shots were fired, hitting him in the chest.
Lorenzo died instantly. In his defense Concepcion
claimed that the shooting was only accidental.
Held: There was no accident. By Concepcion’s
own testimony, the victim was unarmed. In contrast, he
had an armalite and a handgun. It is highly
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
inconceivable that an unarmed man could pose bodily
harm to another who is heavily armed. Concepcion’s gun
discharged several shots that hit vital parts of the
victim's body. As observed by the trial court, recklessly
appellant had put his finger on the trigger of his cocked
and loaded rifle. In that state, with the slightest
movement of his finger, the rifle would fire readily. And
it did not just once but several fires. Concepcion is
guilty of homicide.
Par 5. – ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE
COMPULSION OF AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the compulsion is by means of
physical force.
2. That the physical force must be
irresistible.
3. That the physical force must come from a
third person
• Before force can be considered to be an irresistible
one, it must produce such an effect upon the individual
that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a
crime.
• The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or
passion or obfuscation. It must consist of an extraneous
force coming from a third person.
• A person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt
from criminal liability because he does not act with
freedom.
People v. Lising (1998)
Facts: Manalili asked Garcia if he could find
someone who could effect the arrest of Robert Herrera,
the suspect of the killing of his brother. Garcia
introduced Lising and they came up with an agreement.
Lising’s surveillance group was at the Castanos’
residence in the hope of spotting Herrera. The group
saw a man and a woman (the victims) leave the
residence and followed them. Alighting from the car, the
two were accosted. The abduction of the 2 hit the front
pages and two guards told the police that their friends
who were employees of Lising informed them that Lising
killed the 2 victims. Later, the bodies of the 2 were
found. Lower court found that since there was an
agreement among Manalili, Garcia and Lising, they were
all co-conspirators of the crime and therefore liable
principally. Garcia claimed that he acted under
compulsion of irresistible force.
Held: To be exempt from criminal liability, a
person invoking irresistible force must show that the
force exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere
instrument who acted not only without will but against
his will. Garcia’s participation and presence from the
time the abduction was hatched upto the killing of the
victims is undisputed. Conspiracy has been established.
US v. Elicanal (1916)
Facts: The accused was a member of the crew
of a lorcha and Guiloresa was the chief mate. The latter
mentioned that he was going to kill the captain because
he was very angry with him and asked him to assist
him. The accused took this statement as a joke and he
was smiling only when he made the statement. The
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
45
following morning, Guillermo assaulted the captain and
with the help of the crew (except the accused) seized
the captain and tied him with a rope. Guillermo then
struck the captain at the back of the neck with an iron
bar and then, delivering the weapon to the accused
ordered him to come forward and assist. The accused
struck the captain on the head which caused the latter’s
death.
Held: Before one uses the defense of acting
under uncontrollable fear, it must appear that the threat
which caused the fear was an evil greater than or at
least equal to that which he required to commit and that
it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that it
might be said that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it. Evidence fails to establish that the
threat directed to the accused by the chiefmate, if any,
was of such character as to deprive him of all volition
and to make him a mere instrument without will. The
fear was not insuperable.
US v. Caballeros (1905)
Facts: The defendants have been sentenced as
accessories in the crime of assassination of 4 American
school teachers. The defendants took part in the burial
of the corpses of the victims.
Held: The defendant Baculi is exempt from
criminal liability because he only assisted in the burial
because he was compelled to do so by the murderers.
As to defendant Caballeros, there is no proof that he
took part in any way in the execution of the crime. His
confession cannot be accepted as proof on a trial
because it was not done voluntarily.
US v. Exaltation (1905)
Facts: Exaltation and Tanchico were convicted
with rebellion based on documents found in the house of
a certain Contreras, a so-called general of bandits,
which contained the signatures of defendants swearing
allegiance to the Katipunan.
Defendants aver that these documents were
signed under duress and fear of death. They allege
further that they were abducted by thieves and that
these men forced the defendants to sign the documents
Held: The duress under which the defendants
acted relieved them from criminal liability. Prosecution
was unable to prove the guilt of the accused and
testimonies of witnesses for the accused further
corroborated their defense.
People v. Fronda (1993)
Facts: Balaan brothers were taken by 7 armed
NPA members accompanied by accused Fronda and
Padua. The accused are both residents of the same
place. The two were convicted of murder. Fronda
appealed claiming he was merely taken by the armed
men as a “pointer”.
Held: Records show that appellant’s
participation in the commission of the crime consisted
of: 1) leading the members of the armed group to the
house where the victims were found, 2) tying the
victims’ hands and 3) digging the grave where the
victims were buried. He is not a principal by
indispensable cooperation but only an accomplice. The
defense of uncontrollable fear cannot be accepted
because the fact that the accused was seen being
handed by and receiving a hunting knife from one of the
armed men, as well as, his inexplicable failure to report
the incident to the authorities for more than 3 years
negates the existence of uncontrollable fear, such acts
being indicative of his conscious concurrence with the
acts of the assailants.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 46

• The case of US v. Exaltation is also an example were

Ty v. People (supra) there is real, imminent or reasonable fear.
Facts: Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was
confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital from October IRRESISTIBLE FORCE UNCONTROLLABLE
1990 until June 1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty FEAR
signed the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for The offender uses violence The offender employs
Payment" in the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, Judy or physical force to compel intimidation or threat in
Chua, was also confined at the same hospital. The total another person to commit compelling another to
hospital bills of the two patients amounted to the crime. commit a crime.
P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein
she assumed payment of the obligation in installments. JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING
To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7 There is neither a crime There is a crime but no
postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the nor a criminal. criminal. The act is not
hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank justified but the actor is
and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency not criminally liable.
of funds. For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the No civil liability except in There is civil liability
checks because of “an uncontrollable fear of a greater no. 4 except no. 4 and 7.
injury” She averred that she was forced to issue the
checks to obtain release for her mother who was being
Par. 7 – ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO PERFORM AN
inhumanely and harshly treated by the hospital. She
ACT REQUIRED BY LAW, WHEN PREVENTED BY
alleged that her mother has comtemplated suicide if she
SOME LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE.
would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was found
guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of violation of
BP22. ELEMENTS:
Held:The court sustained the findings of the 1. That an act is required by law to be done;
lower courts. The evil sought to be avoided is merely 2. That a person fails to perform such act;
expected or anticipated. If the evil sought to be avoided 3. That his failure to perform such act was due to
is merely expected or anticipated or may happen in the some lawful or insuperable cause.
future, the defense of an uncontrollable fear of a greater
injury” is not applicable. Ty could have taken advantage US v. Vicentillo (1911)
of an available option to avoid committing a crime. By A policeman charged cannot be held liable for
her own admission, she had the choice to give jewelry or illegal detention when after arresting his victims, it took
other forms of security instead of postdated checks to him three days to reach the nearest judge. The distance
secure her obligation. which required a journey for three days was considered
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity to be an insuperable cause.
to be availing, the greater injury feared should not have
been brought about by the negligence or imprudence, People v. Bandian (1936)
more so, the willful inaction of the actor. In this case, A woman cannot be held liable for infanticide
the issuance of the bounced checks was brought about when she left her newborn child in the bushes without
by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's hospital bills. being aware that she had given birth at all. Severe
dizziness and extreme debility made it physically
impossible for Bandian to take home the child plus the
Par 6. – ANY PERSON WHO ACTS UNDER THE assertion that she didn’t know that she had given birth.
IMPULSE OF AN UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF AN
EQUAL OR GREATER INJURY.
3. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
ELEMENTS:
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of Mitigating circumstances are those which, if
an evil greater than or at least equal to, present in the commission of the crime, do not entirely
that which he is required to commit; free the actor from criminal liability, but serve only to
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity reduce the penalty.
and imminence that the ordinary man They are based on the diminution of either
would have succumbed to it. freedom of action, intelligence or intent or on the lesser
perversity of the offender.
• REQUISITES: a. existence of an uncontrollable fear; b.
the fear must be real and imminent; and c. the fear of CLASSES OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
an injury is greater than or at least equal to that
committed. 1. ORDINARY MITIGATING
- Those mentioned in subsections 1 to 10 of Art.
• Duress as a valid defense should be based on real, 13.
imminent or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb and
should not be speculative, fanciful or remote fear. 2. PRIVILEGED MITIGATING

• A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion

Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person
must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity
under eighteen years of age. — When the offender is
to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal
a minor under eighteen years and his case is one
combat. coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to
the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules
• Speculative, fanciful and remote fear is not
shall be observed:
uncontrollable fear.

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine
years of age, who is not exempted from liability by
reason of the court having declared that he acted with
discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed,
but always lower by two degrees at least than that
prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under
eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the
proper period.
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 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 exemption present or lacking.
• Privileged mitigating circumstances which are
applicable only to particular crimes:
1. Art. 268, par. 3. Voluntary release of the
person illegally detained within 3 days without the
offender attaining his purpose and before the institution
of criminal action. The penalty is one degree lower.
2. Art. 333, par. 3. Abandonment without
justification of the spouse who committed adultery. The
penalty is one degree lower.
ORDINARY MC PRIVILEDGED MC
Susceptible of being offset Cannot be offset by
by any aggravating aggravating circumstance
circumstance
If not offset by The effect of imposing
aggravating circumstance, upon the offender the
produces the effect of penalty lower by one or
applying the penalty two degrees than that
provided by law for the provided by law for the
crime in its min period in crime.
case of divisible penalty
•• NOTE: Mitigating circumstances only reduce the
penalty but do not change the nature of the crime.
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following
are mitigating circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter,
when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not
attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of
age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 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,
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.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
47
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
comm4unications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would
diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of the consciousness of
his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a
similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
Par. 1- THOSE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING
CHAPTER, WHEN ALL THE REQUISITES NECESSARY
TO JUSTIFY OR TO EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES ARE NOT
ATTENDANT.
The circumstances of justification or exemption
which may give place to mitigation, because not all the
requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are attendant,
are the ff:
1. Self-defense
2. Defense of Relatives
3. Defense of Strangers
4. State of necessity
5. Performance of duty
6. Obedience to order of superior
7. Minority over 9 and under 15 years of
age
8. Causing injury by mere accident
9. Uncontrollable fear
INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. Incomplete self-defense, defense of
relatives, defense of stranger
♣ In these 3 classes of defense, UNLAWFUL
AGGRESSION must always be present. It is an
indispensable requisite.
♣ Par. 1 of Art. 13 is applicable only when unlawful
aggression is present but the other 2 requisites are not
present in any of the cases referred to in circumstances
number 1, 2 and 3 or Art. 11.
♣ Ex. When the one making defense against unlawful
aggression used unreasonable means to prevent or repel
it, he is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance.
2. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
avoidance of greater evil or injury.
REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 11:
a. That the evil sought to be avoided
actually exists;
b. That the injury feared be greater
than that done to avoid it;
c. That there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it.
♣ Avoidance of greater evil or injury is a justifying
circumstance if all the three requisites mentioned in par.
4 of Art. 11 are present. But if any of the last two
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
requisites is lacking, there is only a mitigating
circumstance.
3. Incomplete justifying circumstance of
performance of duty.
REQUISITES under par. 5 of Art. 11:
a. That the accused acted in the
performance of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office; and
b. That the injury caused or offense
committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of such duty or
the lawful exercise of such right or office.
In People v. Oanis, the SC considered one of
the 2 requisites as constituting the majority. It seems
that there is no ordinary mitigating circumstance under
Art. 13 par. 1 when the justifying or exempting
circumstance has 2 requisites only.
INCOMPLETE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
1. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
minority over 9 and under 15 years of age.
REQUISITES under par. 3 of Art. 12:
a. That the offender is over 9 and under 15
years old; and
b. That he does not act with discernment.
If the minor over 9 and under 15 years of age acted
with discernment, he is entitled only to a mitigating
circumstance, because not all the requisites to exempt
from criminal liability are present.
2. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
accident.
REQUISITES under par. 4 of Art. 12 :
a. A person is performing a lawful act;
b. With due care;
c. He causes an injury to another by mere
accident; and
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
If the 2nd requisite and 1st part of the 4th
requisite are absent, the case will fall under Art. 365
which punishes reckless imprudence.
If the 1st requisite and 2nd part of the 4th
requisite are absent, it will be an intentional felony.
3. Incomplete exempting circumstance of
uncontrollable fear.
REQUISITES under par. 6 of Art. 12:
a. That the threat which caused the fear was
of an evil greater than, or at least equal to,
that which he was required to commit;
b. That it promised an evil of such gravity
and imminence that an ordinary person
would have succumbed to it.
If only one of these requisites is present,
there is only a mitigating circumstance.
Par. 2 – THAT THE OFFENDER IS UNDER 18 YEARS
OF AGE OR OVER 70 YEARS. IN THE CASE OF THE
MINOR, HE SHALL BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 80.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
48
Par. 2 contemplates the ff:
1. An offender over 9 but under 15 of age who
acted with discernment.
2. An offender fifteen or over but under 18 years
of age.
3. An offender over 70 years old.
Art. 80. Suspension of sentence of minor
delinquents. — Whenever a minor of either sex, under
sixteen years of age at the date of the commission of a
grave or less grave felony, is accused thereof, the court,
after hearing the evidence in the proper proceedings,
instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall
suspend all further proceedings and shall commit such
minor to the custody or care of a public or private,
benevolent or charitable institution, established under
the law of the care, correction or education of orphaned,
homeless, defective, and delinquent children, or to the
custody or care of any other responsible person in any
other place subject to visitation and supervision by the
Director of Public Welfare or any of his agents or
representatives, if there be any, or otherwise by the
superintendent of public schools or his representatives,
subject to such conditions as are prescribed herein
below until such minor shall have reached his majority
age or for such less period as the court may deem
proper.
The court, in committing said minor as
provided above, shall take into consideration the religion
of such minor, his parents or next of kin, in order to
avoid his commitment to any private institution not
under the control and supervision of the religious sect or
denomination to which they belong.
The Director of Public Welfare or his duly
authorized representatives or agents, the
superintendent of public schools or his representatives,
or the person to whose custody or care the minor has
been committed, shall submit to the court every four
months and as often as required in special cases, a
written report on the good or bad conduct of said minor
and the moral and intellectual progress made by him.
The suspension of the proceedings against a
minor may be extended or shortened by the court on
the recommendation of the Director of Public Welfare or
his authorized representative or agents, or the
superintendent of public schools or his representatives,
according as to whether the conduct of such minor has
been good or not and whether he has complied with the
conditions imposed upon him, or not. The provisions of
the first paragraph of this article shall not, however, be
affected by those contained herein.
If the minor has been committed to the
custody or care of any of the institutions mentioned in
the first paragraph of this article, with the approval of
the Director of Public Welfare and subject to such
conditions as this official in accordance with law may
deem proper to impose, such minor may be allowed to
stay elsewhere under the care of a responsible person.
If the minor has behaved properly and has
complied with the conditions imposed upon him during
his confinement, in accordance with the provisions of
this article, he shall be returned to the court in order
that the same may order his final release.
In case the minor fails to behave properly or to
comply with the regulations of the institution to which
he has been committed or with the conditions imposed
upon him when he was committed to the care of a
responsible person, or in case he should be found
incorrigible or his continued stay in such institution
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
should be inadvisable, he shall be returned to the court
in order that the same may render the judgment
corresponding to the crime committed by him.
The expenses for the maintenance of a minor
delinquent confined in the institution to which he has
been committed, shall be borne totally or partially by his
parents or relatives or those persons liable to support
him, if they are able to do so, in the discretion of the
court; Provided, That in case his parents or relatives or
those persons liable to support him have not been
ordered to pay said expenses or are found indigent and
cannot pay said expenses, the municipality in which the
offense was committed shall pay one-third of said
expenses; the province to which the municipality
belongs shall pay one-third; and the remaining one-third
shall be borne by the National Government: Provided,
however, That whenever the Secretary of Finance
certifies that a municipality is not able to pay its share in
the expenses above mentioned, such share which is not
paid by said municipality shall be borne by the National
Government. Chartered cities shall pay two-thirds of
said expenses; and in case a chartered city cannot pay
said expenses, the internal revenue allotments which
may be due to said city shall be withheld and applied in
settlement of said indebtedness in accordance with
section five hundred and eighty-eight of the
Administrative Code.
LEGAL EFFECTS OF VARIOUS AGES OF OFFENDER:
1. Under 9 years of age, an exempting circumstance.
(Art. 12, par. 2)
2. Over 9 and under 15 years of age, also an
exempting circumstance, unless he acted with
discernment (Art. 12, par. 3)
3. Minor delinquent under 18 years of age, the
sentence may be suspended. (Art. 192, PD No.
603 as amended by PD 1179)
4. Under 18 years of age, privileged mitigating
circumstance (Art. 68)
5. 18 years or over, full criminal responsibility.
Par. 3 – THAT THE OFFENDER HAD NO INTENTION
TO COMMIT SO GR A WRONG AS THAT
COMMITTED.
♠ This circumstance can be taken into account
only when the facts proven show that there is a notable
and evident disproportion between the means employed
to execute the criminal act and its consequences.
♠ The intention, as an internal act, is judged
not only by the proportion of the means employed by
him to the evil produced by his act, but also by the fact
that the blow was or was not aimed at a vital part of
the body.
♠ Intention must be judged by considering the
weapon used, the injury inflicted and his attitude of the
mind when the accused attacked the deceased.
♠ This mitigating circumstance is not
applicable when the offender employed brute force.
♠ Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is
not appreciated where the offense committed is
characterized by treachery.
♠ In crimes against persons who do not die as
a result of the assault, the absence of the intent to kill
reduces the felony to mere physical injuries, but it does
not constitute a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13
par 3.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
49
♠ It is not applicable to felonies by negligence
because in these kinds of felonies, there is no intent on
the part of the offender which may be considered
diminished.
♣ Par. 3 is only applicable to offense resulting
in physical injuries or material harm. It is not applicable
to defamation or slander.
People v. Ural (1974)
Facts: Witness Alberto saw policeman Ural
inside the jail boxing detention prisoner Napola. As
Napola collapsed on the floor, Ural went out to get a
bottle. He poured the contents to the dress of Napola
and set it on fire. Napola got burned and he asked
mercy from Ural. Instead, Ural locked him up and
threatened the witness not to tell anyone or else he will
burn also. When Napola was already suffering much
from the burns, Ural became frightened and he and
Siton helped put out the fire. Napola died later because
of the burns.
Held: Offender is criminally liable although
consequence of his felonious act was not intended by
him. This is covered by Art. 4 of the RPC. The TC failed
to appreciate the mitigating circumstance that the
offender has no intention to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed. It is manifest from the facts that the
accused had no intent to kill the victim. His only design
was only to maltreat him maybe because of his drunken
condition. When the accused realized the fearful
consequences of his act, he allowed the victim to secure
medical treatment.
People v. Amit (1970)
Facts: Amit pleads guilty to rape with homicide
and sentenced to death. Amit appeals claiming that
there are 3 mitigating circumstances including lack of
intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Held: A great disproportion between means
employed to accomplish the criminal act on the one
hand, and its consequences on the other, must first be
shown. Otherwise, the mitigating circumstance could
not be considered.
Based on the narration given by the accused
where he said that he held victim’s neck down as he
boxed her in the face, and considering moreover that
the victim was 57 years old while the accused was only
32, the court held that the means employed by the
accused was sufficient to have caused the death of the
victim.
Death penalty should be imposed. It is a single
indivisible penalty applied regardless of mitigating
circumstance, especially when records of the present
case evince the aggravating circumstances of nighttime
and abuse of superior strength.
People v. Regato (1984)
Facts: Regato, Ramirez and Salceda robbed
the store of Victor Flores. Victor was maltreated to force
him to reveal where their money was. The robbers
found the money in a place different from where Victor
revealed to them. Ramirez got mad and called Victor a
liar. Victor retorted, “you robbers!”. With this remark,
Ramirez shot Victor and the three rushed out of the
house.
Held: The SC did not find merit in the
contention that there was lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed. Intention is a mental
process and is an internal state of mind. The intention
must be judged by the ACTION, CONDUCT and
EXTERNAL ACTS of the accused. What men do is the
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
best index of their intention. In the case at bar, the
aforesaid mitigating circumstance cannot be
appreciated considering that the acts employed by the
accused were reasonably sufficient to produce the
result that they actually made – the death of the victim.
People v. Callet (2002)
Facts: Alfredo, Lecpoy and Eduardo were
beside each other as they watched a cara y cruz game.
Alfredo sat close to the ground, with his buttocks
resting on his right foot. Lecpoy and Eduardo sat on a
piece of wood and on a stone, respectively. Out of
nowhere, the accused, Callet, appeared behind Alfredo
and stabbed the latter on the left shoulder near the
base of the neck with a 9-inch hunting knife.
Instinctively, Alfredo stood up and managed to walk a
few meters. When he fell on the ground, Lecpoy and
Eduardo rushed to help him but to no avail. Alfredo died
shortly thereafter. Calleto voluntary surrendered. He
claims that his liabiity should be mitigated by the fact
that he had no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Held: The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong
so grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the
weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury
inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. The fact that the
accused used a 9-inch hunting knife in attacking the
victim from behind, without giving him an opportunity
to defend himself, clearly shows that he intended to do
what he actually did, and he must be held responsible
therefor, without the benefit of this mitigating
circumstance.
Par. 4. – THAT SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR
THREAT ON THE PART OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE ACT
PROVOCATION
- Any unjust or improper conduct or act of the
offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating
anyone.
REQUISITES:
a. That the provocation must be sufficient
b. That it must originate from the offended party
c. That the provocation must be immediate to the
act, i.e., to the commission of the crime by the
person who is provoked.
People v. Pagal (1977)
Facts: Pagal and Torcelino, employees of Gau
Guan, conspired together to take away from their
employer P1,281. When Gau Guan refused to open the
kaha de yero, they stabbed him with an icepick and
clubbed him with an iron pipe which resulted to his
death. The two accused were charged with the crime of
robbery with homicide. On appeal, they claimed that
they are entitled to 2 mitigating circumstances:
sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party and having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as to produce passion and obfuscation.
Held: The 2 mitigating circumstances cannot
be considered as 2 distinct and separate circumstances
but should only be treated as one because they both
arose from the same incident – the alleged
maltreatment of Pagal and Torcelino by Gau Guan. The
circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be
mitigating in a crime which is planned and calmly
meditated before its execution. Also, provocation in
order to be mitigating must be sufficient and
immediately preceding the act. In this case, it was
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
50
months ago when the incident of alleged maltreatment
took place.
Romera v. People (2004)
Facts: While lying in bed, Romera heard the
victim Roy call him and his wife, asking if they had beer
and a fighter for sale. He did not answer Roy because
he knew that Roy was already drunk. Roy asked for
Romera but when the latter's wife told him that he was
already asleep, Roy told her to wake her husband up.
Romera went down the house and asked who was at
the door. Just as he opened the door for Roy, Roy
thrust his bolo at him. He successfully parried the bolo
and asked Roy what it was all about. Roy answered he
would kill Romera. Romera tried to prevent Roy from
entering, so he pushed the door shut. As Roy was
hacking at the wall, Romera’s wife held the door to
allow Romera to exit in another door to face Roy. He
hurled a stone at Roy, who dodged it. Roy rushed to
him and hacked him, but he parried the blow. Petitioner
grappled for the bolo and stabbed Roy in the stomach.
Wounded, Roy begged petitioner for forgiveness.
Romera ceased harming Roy for fear he might kill him.
Held: There was sufficient provocation and the
circumstance of passion or obfuscation attended the
commission of the offense. Thrusting his bolo at
Romera, threatening to kill him, and hacking the
bamboo walls of his house are sufficient provocation to
enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his
thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and
children are in danger. Romera stabbed the victim as a
result of those provocations, and while Romera was still
in a fit of rage.
The court however stressed that provocation
and passion or obfuscation are not 2 separate
mitigating circumstances. Well-settled is the rule that if
these 2 circumstances are based on the same facts,
they should be treated together as one mitigating
circumstance. From the facts established in this case, it
is clear that both circumstances arose from the same
set of facts aforementioned. Hence, they should not be
treated as two separate mitigating circumstances.
Par. 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 DEGREE.
REQUISITES:
a. 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 degree.
b. That the felony is committed in vindication of
such grave offense. A lapse of time is allowed
between the vindication and the doing of the
grave offense.
PROVOCATION VINDICATION
It is made directly only to The grave offense may be
the person committing the committed also against
offense the offender’s relatives
mentioned in the law.
The cause that brought The offended party must
about the provocation have done a grave offense
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
need not be a grave to the offender or his
offense. relatives mentioned in the
law.
It is necessary that the The vindication of the
provocation or threat grave offense may be
immediately preceded the proximate, which admits
act. of an interval of time
between the grace offense
done by the offended
party and the commission
of the crime.
Basis to determine the gravity of offense in
vindication
The question whether or not a certain personal
offense is grave must be decided by the court, having in
mind the social standing of the person, the place and
the time when the insult was made.
♠ Vindication of a grave offense and passion or
obfuscation cannot be counted separately and
independently.
People v. Ampar (1917)
Facts: A fiesta was in progress and the accused
Ampar went to the kitchen and asked from Patobo some
of the roast pig. Patobo replied, “There is no more.
Come here and I will make roast pig of you.” Later,
while Patobo was squatting down, Ampar struck him on
the head with an ax, causing his death the following
day. The TC appreciated the mitigating circumstance of
immediate vindication of a grave offense.
Held: The offense which the defendant was
endeavoring to vindicate would be to the average person
considered as a mere trifle. But to this defendant, an old
man, it evidently was a serious matter to be made the
butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. The TC
was correct.
Peope v. Parana (1937)
Facts: The preceding night, Parana and Lamay
were at the house of the deceased’s brother playing
cards when the two had an exchange of words so the
deceased asked them to leave. The accused refused so
the deceased slapped him and ordered him to leave.
The morning after, Parana was about to surprise the
deceased and stab him from behind when the chauffeur
shouted to warn the deceased. The deceased,
defending himself retreated until he fell into a ditch.
The appellant mounted astride of the deceased and
continued to stab him with the dagger. The deceased
was first brought to the hospital but expired 6 days
after.
Held: The mitigating circumstance that he had
acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
committed against him a few hours before, when he
was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many
persons, must likewise be taken into consideration.
Although this offense (slapping) was not so immediate,
the court believes that the influence thereof, by reason
of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was
inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was
committed.
People v. Diokno (1936)
Facts: The deceased and the daughter of
accused Epifanio eloped. Epifanio and his son, Roman
went to look for them. When they were able to find the
deceased, they stabbed him several times until he died.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
51
Held: The presence of the 5th mitigating
circumstance must be taken into consideration. There
was no interruption from the time the offense was
committed to the vindication thereof. The herein
accused belong to a family of old customs to whom the
elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a grave
offense to their honor and causes disturbance of the
peace of the home. The fact that the accused saw the
deceased run upstairs when he became aware of their
presence, as if he refused to deal with them after
having gravely offended them, was certainly a stimulus
strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion
which blinded them and led them to commit that crime.
People v. Torpio (2004)
Facts: While having a drinking spree in a
cottage, Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin
and as the latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with
gin and mauled him several times. Dennis crawled
beneath the table and Anthony tried to stab him with a
22 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran
towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a
knife. He went back to the cottage by another route
and upon arrival Anthony was still there. Upon seeing
Dennis, Anthony avoided Dennis and ran by passing the
shore towards the creek but Dennis met him, blocked
him and stabbed him. When he was hit, Anthony ran
but got entangled with a fishing net beside the creek
and fell on his back. Dennis then mounted on him and
continued stabbing him resulting to the latters death.
Thereafter, Dennis left and slept at a grassy meadow
near a Camp. In the morning, he went to Estrera, a
police officer to whom he voluntarily surrendered.
Held: The mitigating circumstance of having
acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense is
properly appreciated. Dennis was humiliated, mauled
and almost stabbed by the Anthony. Although the
unlawful aggression had ceased when Dennis stabbed
Anthony, it was nonetheless a grave offense for which
the Dennis may be given the benefit of a mitigating
circumstance. However, the mitigating circumstance of
sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart from
the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense.
These two circumstances arose from one and the same
incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by Anthony,
so that they should be considered as only one
mitigating circumstance.
Pelonia v. People (2006)
Held: The mitigating circumstance of having
acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
was, likewise, properly appreciated. Petitioner was
humiliated in front of his guests and kin in his own
house. It is settled, however, that the mitigating
circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be
considered apart from the circumstance of
vindication of a grave offense. These two
circumstances arose from one and the same incident so
that they should be considered as only one mitigating
circumstance.
Par. 6. – THAT OF HAVING ACTED UPON AN
IMPULSE SO POWERFUL AS NATURALLY TO HAVE
PRODUCED PASSION OR OBFUSCATION.
REQUISITES:
a. The accused acted upon an impulse.
b. The impulse must be so powerful that it
naturally produce passion or obfuscation
in him.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 52

another negro named Wallace. Hicks went to Wallace’s

♠ Passion or obfuscation may constitute as a mitigating house and asked the latter to go out. They talked for
circumstance only when the same arose from LAWFUL awhile and then Hicks shot Wallace
SENTIMENTS. It is not applicable when: Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted
a. The act committed in a spirit of LAWLESSNESS. with obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating
b. the act is committed in a spirit of REVENGE. circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because
the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the
♠ The crime committed must be the result of a sudden loss of self-control are such which originate from
impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury. legitimate feelings and not those which arise from
vicious, unworthy and immoral passions. The cause of
♠ The accused who raped a woman is not entitled to the the passion of the accused was his vexation
mitigating circumstance of “having acted upon an engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to
impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced live in illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect
passion” just because he finds himself in a secluded right to do.
place with that young ravishing woman, almost naked
and therefore, “liable to succumb to the uncontrollable US v. DE LA CRUZ (1912)
passion of his bestial instinct.” Facts: The evidence clearly discloses that the
convict, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased, who
♠ The mitigating circumstance of obfuscation arising had theretofore been his lover upon discovering her in
from jealousy cannot be invoked in favor of the accused flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual
whose relationship with the woman was illegitimate. acquaintance.
Held: The accused was entitled to the
♠ Passion and obfuscation may lawfully arise from mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation
causes existing only in the honest belief of the offender. because the impulse was caused by the sudden
revelation that she was untrue to him, and his
discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another.
PASSION OR IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
• note: when the court used the word “illicit”,
OBFUSCATION
it doesn’t mean that it is an illegitimate or
Mitigating circumstance Exempting circumstance
bigamous relationship. It means that it is
Cannot give rise to an
cohabitation without a valid marriage.
irresistible force because
the latter requires physical
People v. Germina (1998)
force
Facts: One night, the accused went to the
Passion or obfuscation is in Irresistible force must Angeles residence to look for Raymund. He went to
the offender himself come from a third person
verifiy the news that the latter mauled and stabbed the
Must arise from lawful The irresistible force is accused’s mentally retarded brother, Rafael. Raymund
sentiments unlawful was not yet at home and the moment he arrived, the
accused spotted him and shot him.
PASSION PROVOCATION Held: There is no treachery. Passion cannot co-
Produced by an impulse Comes form the injured exist with treachery because in passion, the offender
which may be caused by party loses his control and reason while in treachery the
provocation means employed are consciously adopted. One who
Need not be immediate. It Must immediately precede loses his reason and self-control could not deliberately
is only required that the the commission of the employ a particular method or form of attack in the
influence thereof lasts crime execution of the crime. Passion existed in this case
until the moment the because it clearly arose from lawful sentiments or
crime is committed legitimate feelings. The accused committed the crime
The effect is the loss of reason and self-control on the due to the maltreatment inflicted by the victim on his
part of the offender. mentally retarded brother.

Romera v. People (2004)

People v. Muit (1982)
Facts: Rosario Muit was the Brgy. Zone
President and Torrero was the zone auditor. They used
to meet frequently because they were having an affair
which eventually reached the husband of Rosario,
Delfin. Delfin shot Torrero 3 times at the front yard of
the Muits. Delfin surrendered himself and turned in the
pistol he had used.
Held: Muit is guilty of murder with mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion and
obsfuscation. The accused was driven strongly by
jealousy. The feeling of resentment resulting from the
rivalry in amorous relations with a woman is a powerful
stimulant to jealousy and prone to produce anger and
obfuscation.
US v. HICKS (1909)
Facts: For about 5 years, Hicks and Sola lived
together as husband and wife when they separated. A
few days later, Sola contracted new relations with
Facts: While lying in bed, Romera heard the
victim Roy call him and his wife, asking if they had beer
and a fighter for sale. He did not answer Roy because
he knew that Roy was already drunk. Roy asked for
Romera but when the latter's wife told him that he was
already asleep, Roy told her to wake her husband up.
Romera went down the house and asked who was at
the door. Just as he opened the door for Roy, Roy
thrust his bolo at him. He successfully parried the bolo
and asked Roy what it was all about. Roy answered he
would kill Romera. Romera tried to prevent Roy from
entering, so he pushed the door shut. As Roy was
hacking at the wall, Romera’s wife held the door to
allow Romera to exit in another door to face Roy. He
hurled a stone at Roy, who dodged it. Roy rushed to
him and hacked him, but he parried the blow. Petitioner
grappled for the bolo and stabbed Roy in the stomach.
Wounded, Roy begged petitioner for forgiveness.
Romera ceased harming Roy for fear he might kill him.

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Held: There was sufficient provocation and the
circumstance of passion or obfuscation attended the
commission of the offense. Thrusting his bolo at
Romera, threatening to kill him, and hacking the
bamboo walls of his house are sufficient provocation to
enrage any man, or stir his rage and obfuscate his
thinking, more so when the lives of his wife and
children are in danger. Romera stabbed the victim as a
result of those provocations, and while Romera was still
in a fit of rage.
The court however stressed that provocation
and passion or obfuscation are not 2 separate
mitigating circumstances. Well-settled is the rule that if
these 2 circumstances are based on the same facts,
they should be treated together as one mitigating
circumstance. From the facts established in this case, it
is clear that both circumstances arose from the same
set of facts aforementioned. Hence, they should not be
treated as two separate mitigating circumstances.
People v. Gonzalez (2001)
Facts: Both of the families of Andres and that
of Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of the Loyola
Memorial Park. Gonzales was with his grandson and 3
housemaids, while Andres was driving with his pregnant
wife, Feliber, his 2yr old son, Kenneth, his nephew Kevin
and his sister-in-law. At an intersection, their two
vehicles almost collided. Gonzales continued driving
while Andres tailed Gonzales’ vehicle and cut him off
when he found the opportunity to do so, then got out of
his vehicle and knocked on the appellant's car window.
Heated exchange of remarks followed. On his way back
to his vehicle, he met Gonzales son, Dino. Andres had a
shouting match this time with Dino. Gonzales then
alighted from his car and fired a single shot at the last
window on the left side of Andres' vehicle at an angle
away from Andres. The single bullet fired hit Kenneth,
Kevin and Feliber which caused the latters death.
Held: The mitigating circumstance of passion
and obfuscation is not obtaining. Andres' act of shouting
at Gonzales’ son, who was then a nurse and of legal
age, is not sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation.
Dino was shouting back at Andres. It was not a case
wherein Gonzales son appeared helpless and oppressed
that Gonzales lost his reason and shot at the vehicle of
Andres. The same holds true for Gonzales’ claim of
provocation on the part of Andres. Provocation must be
sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong
committed and that the provocation must be
commensurate to the crime committed. The sufficiency
of provocation varies according to the circumstances of
the case. The aggressive behavior of Andres towards
Gonzales and his son may be demeaning or humiliating
but it is not sufficient provocation to shoot at Gonzales’
vehicle.
People v. Lab-eo (2002)
Facts: After being told to go away by the
victim. Lab-eo left and returned to where the victim
was selling clothes and then and there stabbed her at
the back with a knife. Thereafter, he surrendered to the
Chief of Police. Lab-eo argues for the appreciation of the
mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, as
well as of sufficient provocation, in his favor.
Held: For a person to be motivated by passion
and obfuscation, there must first exist an unlawful act
that would naturally produce an impulse sufficient to
overcome reason and self-control. There is passional
obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust
or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
53
powerful as to overcome reason. In asking Lab—eo to
leave, the victim did not do anything unlawful. There is
an absolute lack of proof that the Lab-eo was utterly
humiliated by the victim's utterance. Nor was it shown
that the victim made that remark in an insulting and
repugnant manner. The victim's utterance was not the
stimulus required by jurisprudence to be so
overwhelming as to overcome reason and self-restraint.
People v. Bates (2003)
Facts: While Edgar, Simon, and Jose are along
a trail leading to the house of Carlito Bates, the latter
suddenly emerged from the thick banana plantation
surrounding the trail, aiming his firearm at Jose who was
then walking ahead of his companions. Jose grabbed
Carlito's right hand and elbow and tried to wrest
possession of the firearm. While the 2 were grappling for
possession, the gun fired, hitting Carlito who
immediately fell to the ground. At that instant, Marcelo
Bates and his son Marcelo Bates, Jr., brother and
nephew of Carlito, respectively, emerged from the
banana plantation, each brandishing a bolo. They
immediately attacked Jose hacking him several times.
Jose fell to the ground and rolled but Marcelo and his
son kept on hacking him.
Held: Passion and obfuscation may not be
properly appreciated in favor of the appellant. To be
considered as a mitigating circumstance, passion or
obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments and not
from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge or from anger
and resentment. In the present case, clearly, Marcelo
was infuriated upon seeing his brother, Carlito, shot by
Jose. However, a distinction must be made between the
first time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the second time
that the former hacked the latter. When Marcelo hacked
Jose right after seeing the latter shoot at Carlito, and if
appellant refrained from doing anything else fter that,
he could have validly invoked the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation. But when,
upon seeing his brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back
to Jose, who by then was already prostrate on the
ground and hardly moving, hacking Jose again was a
clear case of someone acting out of anger in the spirit of
revenge.
Par. 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.
2 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THIS
PARAGRAPH:
1. Voluntary surrender to a person in authority or
his agents;
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court
prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
REQUISITES OF VOLUNTARY SURRENDER:
a. That the offender had not been actually arrested.
b. That the offender surrendered himself to a
person in authority or to the latter’s agent.
c. That the surrender was voluntary.
♠ Merely requesting a policeman to accompany the
accused to the police HQ is not equivalent to voluntary
surrender.
♠ Other examples:
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
a. The warrant of arrest showed that the
accused was in fact arrested.
b. The accused surrendered only after the
warrant of arrest was served.
c. The accused went into hiding and
surrendered only when they realized that the forces of
the law were closing in on them.
♠ Surrender must be SPONTANEOUS. He surrendered 1)
because he acknowledges his guilty or 2) because he
wishes to save them the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
♠ The surrender must be by reason of the commission of
the crime for which he is prosecuted.
People v. Pinca (1999)
Facts: Pinca and Abenir, after drinking at a
bakeshop, hitched a ride with a tricycle driver on their
way home. After passing a man who was apparently
drunk because he was swaying while he walked, the
accused asked the driver to drop them off already. Pinca
told Abenir that that was the guy who spilled a drink on
him earlier that day. The accused picked up a long piece
of wood and waited for the man to pass by. When the
latter did, the accused hit him at the back of his head
which led to his death.
When the police came, the accused readily
went with them and proceeded to tell his story that he
was innocent and that it was Abenir who killed the man.
The accused was convicted of the crime of murder.
Held: For voluntary surrender to be
appreciated, 3 requisites should be present: 1) the
offender has not been actually arrested; 2) the offender
surrendered to a person of authority and 3) the
surrender was voluntary. The actions of the accused
belied this claim. He actually DENIED having committed
the crimes. He went on to try and “clear his name.”
There is no voluntary surrender.
People v. Amaguin (1994)
Facts: Celso and Gildo, together with others,
attacked the Oros. During the fray, Gildo was armed
with a knife and an “Indian target.” And just as they
were about to finish off the Oro brothers, Willie, the
eldest of the Amaguins, appeared with a revolver and
delivered the coup de grace.
Held: SC agrees with the accused-appellants’
view that voluntary surrender should be appreciated in
their favor. While it may have taken both Willie and
Gildo a week before turning themselves in, the fact is,
they voluntarily surrendered to the police before arrest
could be effected.
People v. Dulos (1994)
Facts: The accused hired two professional
entertainers to entertain his guests. One of the
entertainers, Susan, accepted an offer to check in with
the accused guests but later on changed her mind and
rejected the offer. When she went home with her
boyfriend, the accused chased them and asked for the
amount paid to Susan by one of his guests. Susan
denied this. Susan’s boyfriend was shot by the accused
which resulted to his death.
Held: VS cannot be appreciated where there
was no conscious effort on the part of the accused to
voluntarily surrender. Here, there was no conscious
effort on the part of the accused to VS to the military
authorities when he went to Camp Siongco after the
fateful incidents. As he himself admitted, he was not
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
54
placed under custody by the military authorities as he
was free to roam around as he pleased.
There is no VS also where an accused merely
surrendered the gun he used in the killing, without
surrendering his person to the authorities.
REQUISITES OF PLEA OF GUILTY
a. That the offender spontaneously confessed his
guilt;
♠Plea of guilty on appeal is not mitigating.
b. That the confession of guilty was made in open
court, that is, before the competent court that is to
try the case; and
♠ The extrajudicial confession made by the
accused is not voluntary confession. Such
confession was made outside the court. The
confession must be made in open court.
c. That the confession of guilt was made prior to
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
♠ The change of plea should be made at the
first opportunity when his arraignment was
first set.
♠ A conditional plea of guilty is not mitigating
* Plea of guilty is mitigating because it indicates a moral
disposition in the accused, favorable to his reform. It is
an act of repentance and respect for the law.
People v. Crisostomo (1988)
Facts: On Christmas day, while the accused
was passing near the house of Romeo, he met the latter
and invited him to go drinking. Romeo declined and
suddenly, the accused rushed towards Romeo from
behind and shot him with a revolver.
After the arraignment wherein accused entered
a plea of not guilty and again during the trial, the
accused signified his intention to withdraw his plea of
not guilty to a lesser charge of homicide and prayed that
he be allowed to prove the mitigating circumstances.
Held: The appellant offered to enter a plea of
guilty to the lesser offense of homicide only after some
evidence of the prosecution had been presented. He
reiterated his offer after the prosecution rested its case.
This is certainly not mitigating.
People v. Jose et al (1971)
Facts: The Maggie De la Riva story. Maggie
was driving her car with her maid inside when they were
stopped by another car. The appellant, Pineda, together
with his 3 companions took Maggie with them leaving
the maid behind. Maggie who was blindfolded was
brought to a hotel. Inside the room, her blindfold was
removed and she was asked to strip for them. Then, the
appellants raped her.
Held: Pineda contends that because the charge
against him and his co-appellants is a capital offense
and the amended complaints cited aggravating
circumstances, which, if proved, would raise the penalty
to death, it was the duty of the court to insist on his
presence during all stages of the trial. The contention is
untenable. While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the
same time it constitutes an admission of all the material
facts alleged in the information, including the
aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
offense is capital, for the admission covers both the
crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying and/or
aggravating the crime. Because of the aforesaid legal
effect of Pineda’s plea of guilty, it was not incumbent
upon the trial court to receive his evidence, much less to
require his presence in court.
Andrada v. People (2005)
Facts: Inside a restaurant, Andrada
approached and scolded Cpl. Ugerio while the latter was
talking to a woman who passed by their table. Sgt.
Sumabong, identifying himself as a PC non-
commissioned officer, advised Andrada to pay his bill
and go home as he was apparently drunk. Andrada paid
his bill and left the restaurant with his companions.
While Sgt. Sumabong was paying his bill, he heard Cpl.
Ugerio, seated about a meter away, moaning in pain.
When Sgt. Sumabong turned around, he saw Cpl. Ugerio
sprawled on the floor. Andrada was hacking him on the
head with a bolo. Sgt. Sumabong approached them but
Andrada ran away, followed by a companion. He was
eventually arrested at a waiting shed and was brought
back to the restaurant where they recovered the bolo
used in hacking the victim. Andrada invoked the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Held: Andrada, after attacking the victim, ran
away. He was apprehended by responding officers at a
waiting shed. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated,
the surrender must be spontaneous, made in such a
manner that it shows the interest of the accused to
surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either
because he acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save
them the trouble and expenses that would be
necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Here, the
surrender was not spontaneous.
Par. 8. – THAT THE OFFENDER IS DEAF AND DUMB,
BLIND OR OTHERWISE SUFFERING FROM SOME
PHYSICAL DEFECT WHICH THUS RESTRICTS HIS
MEANS OF ACTION, DEFENSE, OR
COMMUNICATION WITH HIS FELLOW BEINGS.
♣ This paragraph does not distinguish between educated
and uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons.
♣ Physical defect referred to in this paragraph is such as
being armless, cripple, or a stutterer, whereby his
means to act, defend himself or communicate with his
fellow beings are limited.
Par. 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.
REQUISITES:
a. That the illness of the offender must
diminish the exercise of his will-power.
b. That such illness should not deprive the
offender of consciousness of his acts.
♣ When the offender completely lost the exercise of will-
power, it may be an exempting circumstance.
♣ It is said that this paragraph refers only to diseases
of pathological state that trouble the conscience or will.
♣ Ex. A mother who, under the influence of a puerperal
fever, killed her child the day following her delivery.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
55
Par. 10. – AND FINALLY, ANY OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCE OF A SIMILAR NATURE AND
ANALOGOUS OF THOSE ABOVEMENTIONED.
♣ Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar to over 70
years of age mentioned in paragraph 2.
♣ Voluntary restitution of the property stolen by the
accused or immediately reimbursing the amount
malversed is a mitigating circumstance as analogous to
voluntary surrender.
♣ Not resisting arrest is not analogous to voluntary
surrender.
♣ Testifying for the prosecution is analogous to plea of
guilty.
Davalos vs. People (2006)
Facts: The accused was charged with
misappropriation of public funds. During trial, he offered
to return the amount and pleaded that the same is
analogous to voluntary surrender.
Held: The return of the said amount cannot be
considered a mitigating circumstance analogous to
voluntary surrender considering that it took petitioner
almost seven (7) years to return the amount. Petitioner
has not advanced a plausible reason why he could not
liquidate his cash advance which was in his possession
for several years.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE NEITHER
EXEMPTING NOR MITIGATING
1. Mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus, for
under Art. 48, there is a complex crime
committed. The penalty is even higher.
2. Mistake in the identity of the victim, for under
Art. 4, par. 1, the accused is criminally liable
even if the wrong done is different from that
which is intended.
3. Entrapment of the accused.
4. The accused is over 18 years of age. If the
offender is over 18 years old, his age is neither
exempting nor mitigating.
5. Performance of righteous action.
4. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
¤ Aggravating circumstances are those which, if
attendant in the commission of the crime, serve to
increase the penalty without, however, exceeding the
maximum of the penalty provided by law for the offense.
¤ They are based on the greater perversity of the
offender manifested in the commission of the felony as
shown by:
a. motivating power itself;
b. the place of commission;
c. the means and ways employed;
d. the time; or
e. the personal circumstances of the
offender, or of the offended party.
FOUR KINDS OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. GENERIC – Those that can generally apply
to all crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14,
18, 19, and 20 except “by means of motor vehicles”.
2. SPECIFIC – Those that apply only to
particular crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17
and 21.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 56

3. QUALIFYING –Those that change the A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial
nature of the crime. Art. 248 enumerates the qualifying for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by
AC which qualify the killing of person to murder. final judgment of another crime embraced in the same
4. INHERENT – Those that must accompany title of this Code.
the commission of the crime. 10. That the offender has been previously
punished by an offense to which the law attaches an
GENERIC AC QUALIFYING AC equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
The effect of a generic AC, The effect of a qualifying which it attaches a lighter penalty.
not offset by any AC is not only to give the 11. That the crime be committed in
mitigating circumstance, is crime its proper and consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
to increase the penalty exclusive name but also to 12. That the crime be committed by means of
which should be imposed place the author thereof in inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel
upon the accused to the such a situation as to or international damage thereto, derailment of a
MAXIMUM PERIOD. deserve no other penalty locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving
than that specially great waste and ruin.
prescribed by law for said 13. That the act be committed with evidence
crime. premeditation.
A generic aggravating A qualifying AC cannot be 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be
circumstance may be offset by a mitigating employed.
compensated by a circumstance. 15. That advantage be taken of superior
mitigating circumstance. strength, or means be employed to weaken the defense.
According to the new rules, generic and qualifying 16. That the act be committed with treachery
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in order to (alevosia).
be appreciated. There is treachery when the offender commits
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
HAVE THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE PENALTY methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend
AC 1) which in themselves constitute a crime directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk
specially punishable by law, or b) which are included by to himself arising from the defense which the offended
the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty party might make.
therefore shall not be taken into account for the purpose 17. That means be employed or circumstances
of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 1) brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects
of the act.
¤ AC which arise: a) from the moral attributes of the 18. That the crime be committed after an
offender or b) from his private relations with the unlawful entry.
offended party, or c) from any other personal cause, 19. There is an unlawful entry when an
shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window
principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom be broken.
such circumstances are attendant. 20. That the crime be committed with the aid
of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other
are aggravating circumstances: similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of 21. That the wrong done in the commission of
his public position. the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or wrong not necessary for its commissions.
with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in People v. Antonio (2002)
disregard of the respect due the offended party on Facts: Kevin Paul, 7 yr old son of the victim
account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed Sergio was lying on the bed beside his father Sergio in
in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not the bedroom when he heard a window being opened and
given provocation. the sound of feet stepping on the floor. Then someone
4. That the act be committed with abuse of kicked open the door to the bedroom. Kevin saw Wilson
confidence or obvious ungratefulness. Antonio carrying a shotgun. Wilson aimed his gun at
5. That the crime be committed in the palace Sergio who was asleep on the bed and fired hitting
of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public Sergio on the chest, shoulder and back. He was also hit
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, on his left thigh. Immediately after firing his gun, Wilson
or in a place dedicated to religious worship. hurriedly left the room. When the police arrived, Sergio
6. That the crime be committed in the night was already dead. Wilson surrendered to the police
time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever after eluding arrest for more than 1 yr. The trial court
such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the convicted him of murder qualified by treachery and
offense. aggravated by the circumstance of evident
Whenever more than three armed malefactors premeditation, dwelling and unlawful entry. The above
shall have acted together in the commission of an agrravating circumstances were not alleged in the
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a Information.
band. Held: Pursuant to the 2000 Revised Rules of
7. That the crime be committed on the Criminal Procedure, every Complaint or Information
occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, must state not only the qualifying but also the
epidemic or other calamity or misfortune. aggravating circumstances. This rule may be given
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of retroactive effect in the light of the well-established rule
armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity. that statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will
9. That the accused is a recidivist. be construed as applicable to actions pending and

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
undetermined at the time of their passage. The
aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation,
dwelling and unlawful entry, not having been alleged in
the Information, may not now be appreciated to
enhance the liability of Wilson.
People v. Suela (2002)
Facts: Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, and
Edgardo Batocan sporting ski masks, bonnets and
gloves, brandishing handguns and knife barged into the
room of Director Rosas who was watching television
together with his adopted son, Norman and his friend
Gabilo. They threatened Rosas, Norman and Gabilo to
give the location of their money and valuables, which
they eventually took. They dragged Gabilo downstairs
with them. Upon Nerio’s instructions, Batocan stabbed
Gabilo 5 times which caused the latter’s death . The trial
court sentenced Edgar, Nerio and Batocan to suffer the
penalty of death appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of disguise which was not alleged in the
Information against the three.
Held: Following current Rules on Criminal
Procedure particularly Section 9 of the new Rule 110,
and current jurisprudence, the aggravating circumstance
of disguise cannot be appreciated against appellants.
Inasmuch as the same was not alleged in the
Information, the aggravating circumstance of disguise
cannot now be appreciated to increase the penalty to
death notwithstanding the fact that the new rule
requiring such allegation was promulgated only after the
crime was committed and after the trial court has
already rendered its Decision. It is a cardinal rule that
rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive
application insofar as they benefit the accused.
People v. Mendoza (2000)
Facts: Anchito and Marianito passed by
appellant's house and asked for a drink from appellant's
wife, Emily. Anchito began talking with Emily and they
were about 4 rms-length from Marianito when appellant
suddenly appeared. Appellant hacked Anchito on the
nape, which prompted Marianito to flee out of fear for
his life. Anchito died in a kneeling position with hack
wounds at the back of the neck and body. Appellant
voluntary surrendere. The trial court ruled that voluntary
surrender was "offset by the aggravating circumstance
of treachery.
Held: The trial court erred in ruling that
voluntary surrender was "offset by the aggravating
circumstance of treachery. Treachery in the present case
is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating circumstance.
Its presence served to characterize the killing as
murder; it cannot at the same time be considered as a
generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the
imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, it cannot
offset voluntary surrender.
Par. 1. - THAT –ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE
OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.
¤ The public officer must use the influence, prestige or
ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by
which he realizes his purpose. The essence of the matter
is presented in the inquiry, “did the accused abuse his
office in order to commit the crime?”
¤ When a public officer commits a common crime
independent of his official functions and does acts that
are not connected with the duties of his office, he should
be punished as a private individual without this AC.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
57
¤ The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had
army rifle at the time is not sufficient to established that
he misused his public position in the commission of the
crimes (People v. Pantoja)
¤ Even if defendant did not abuse his office, if it is
proven that he has failed in his duties as such public
officer, this circumstance would warrant the aggravation
of his penalty.
¤ Taking advantage of public position, cannot be taken
into consideration in offenses where it is made by law an
integral element of the crime such as in malversation or
in falsification of documents committed by public
officers.
People v. Capalac (1982)
Facts: Magaso stabbed Moises in a cockpit. The
aggressor attempting to escape was confronted by 2
brothers of Moises, Jesus (deceased) and appellant
Mario Capalac. Magaso, seeing that he was cornered,
raised his hands as a sign of surrender. The brothers
were not appeased. Mario proceeded to pistol-whip
Magaso and after he had fallen, Jesus stabs him. The LC
convicted the accused of murder and took into
consideration the AC of taking advantage of public office
because the accused is a police officer.
Held: On the AC that the accused used his
public position as a policeman, it was held that the mere
fact that he was a member of the police force was
insignificant to the attack. He acted like a brother,
instinctively. He pistol-whipped the deceased because he
had a pistol with him. It came in handy and so he acted
accordingly. That he was a policeman is of no relevance.
People v. Gapasin (1994)
Facts: Gapasin was a member of the Phil.
Constabulary. He was issued a mission order to
investigate a report regarding the presence of
unidentified armed men in one barrio. He was informed
that a certain Calpito had an unlicensed firearm. He shot
Calpito with the use of an armalite after seeing the latter
walking along the road. Gapasin was convicted of
murder.
Held: The accused took advantage of his public
position because as a member of the PC, he committed
the crime with an armalite which was issued to him
when he received his order.
People v. Villamor (2002)
Facts: Brothers Jerry and Jelord Velez were on
their way home on board a motorcycle. Jerry was
driving. As they neared a junction, they heard a
speeding motorcycle fast approaching from behind. The
brothers ignored the other motorcycle, which caught up
with them. As they were about to cross the bridge
leading to their home, gunshots rang out from behind
them. They abruptly turned the motorcycle around
towards the direction of the gunfire. The light of their
motorcycle's headlamp fell on their attackers aboard the
second motorcycle. The assailants fired at them a
second time and fled. Jerry saw PO3 Villamor and
Maghilom on board the motorcycle behind them.
Maghilom was driving the motorcycle while Villamor was
holding a short gun pointed at them. Jerry sustained
gunshot wounds but survived. Jelord, however, died on
the spot during the first gunburst.
Held: There was no showing that Villamor took
advantage of his being a policeman to shoot Jelord Velez
or that he used his "influence, prestige or ascendancy"
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
in killing the victim. Villamor could have shot Velez even
without being a policeman. In other words, if the
accused could have perpetrated the crime even without
occupying his position, there is no abuse of public
position. The Court cited the case of People v. Herrera,
where the Court emphatically said that the mere fact
that accused-appellant is a policeman and used his
government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill is not
sufficient to establish that he misused his public position
in the commission of the crime.
Par. 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 he who is thus engaged in the exercise of
his functions 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.
PUBLIC AUTHORITY / PERSON IN AUTHORITY
A public officer who is directly vested with
jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the power to
govern and execute the laws. The councilor, mayor,
governor, barangay captain etc. are persons in
authority. A school teacher, town municipal health
officer, agent of the BIR, chief of police, etc. are now
considered a person in authority.
¤ Par. 2 is not applicable if committee din the presence
of an agent only such as a police officer.
AGENT
A subordinate public officer charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and
security of life and property, such as barrio policemen,
councilmen, and any person who comes to the aid of
persons in authority.
¤ The crime should not be committed against the public
authority or else it becomes direct assault.
¤ Lack of knowledge on the part of the offender that a
public authority is present indicates lack of intention to
insult the public authority.
Par. 3. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED (1) WITH
INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE
THE OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS (a)
RANK, (b) AGE, OR (c) SEX, OR (2) THAT IS BE
COMMITTED IN THE DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED
PARTY, IF THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN
PROVOCATION.
¤ Four circumstances are enumerated in this paragraph,
which can be considered single or together. If all the 4
circumstances are present, they have the weight of one
aggravating circumstance only.
¤ This circumstance (rank, age or sex) may be taken
into account only in crimes against person or honor.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
58
¤ There must be evidence that in the commission of the
crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or
insult the sex or age of the offended party.
(1) WITH INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF
THE REPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON
ACCOUNT:
(a) OF THE RANK OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
ex. An attempt upon the life of a general of the
Philippine Army is committed in disregard of his rank.
(b) OF THE AGE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
ex. When the aggressor is 45 years old and the
victim was an octogenarian.
¤ It is not proper to consider disregard of old
age in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is
primarily a crime against property.
(c) OF THE SEX OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
¤ This refers to the female sex, not to the male
sex (Reyes)
¤ Killing a woman is not attended by this AC if
the offender did not manifest any specific insult or
disrespect towards her sex.
¤ THIS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE IS
NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. When the offender acted with passion and
obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the
offended party and the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is
indispensable in the commission of the crime
i.e. parricide, rape, etc.
¤ Disregard of sex absorbed in treachery.
(2) THAT BE COMMITTED IN THE
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
DWELLING – BUILDING OR STRUCTURE,
EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR REST AND COMFORT.
¤ a “combination house and store” or a market
stall where the victim slept is not a dwelling.
¤ This is considered an AC primarily because of
the sanctity of privacy, the law accords to human abode.
Also, in certain cases, there is an abuse of confidence
which the offended party reposed in the offender by
opening the door to him.
¤ The evidence must show clearly that the
defendant entered the house of the deceased to attack
him.
¤ The offended party must not give
provocation. If the provocation did not take place in the
house, dwelling may be considered as an AC.
¤ Dwelling is aggravating, even if the offender
did not enter the upper part of the house where the
victim was, but shot from under the house.
¤ Even if the killing took place outside the
dwelling, it is aggravating provided that the commission
of the crime was begun in the dwelling.
¤ Dwelling is aggravating in abduction or illegal
detention.
¤ It is not aggravating where the deceased was
called down from his house and he was murdered in the
vicinity of his house.
¤ Dwelling includes dependencies, the foot of
the staircase and the enclosure under the house. If the
deceased was only about to step on the first rung of the
ladder when he was assaulted, the AC of dwelling will
not be applicable.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
DWELLING NOT APPLICABLE:
1. When both offender and offended party are
occupants of the same house.
2. When the robbery is committed by the use of
force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because
it is inherent to the crime.
3. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is also
inherent or included by law in defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient
and immediate provocation.
5. When the dwelling where the crime was
committed did not belong to the offended party.
6. When the rape was committed in the ground
floor of the 2-storey structure, the lower floor being
used as a video rental store and not as a private place
of abode or residence.
¤ A victim raped in the boarding house where she was a
bedspacer. Her room constituted a “dwelling”.
¤ Dwelling may be temporary dwelling.
¤ Note: The Code speaks of dwelling, not domicile.
¤ Dwelling is not aggravating in adultery when paramour
also lives in the conjugal home.
¤ Dwelling is not included in treachery.
People v. Rodil (1981)
Facts: Lt. Mesana approached Rodil and
identifies himself as a PC officer. He asked Rodil whether
or not the gun which the latter possessed had a license.
Rodil attempted to draw his gun but was prevented by
Mesana’s companions. Rodil was asked to sign a
document attesting to the confiscation of the gun but he
refused. Instead, he drew a dagger and managed to
stab Mesana in the chest repeatedly.
Held: The AC of disregard of rank should be
appreciated because it is obvious that Mesana identified
himself as a PC officer to the accused who is merely a
member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore
inferior both in rank and social status to the victim.
People v. Daniel (1978)
Facts: 13-year-old Margarita was at the bus
station when the accused, Daniel, started molesting her,
asking her name and trying to get her bag to carry it for
her. She refused and asked the help of the conductor
and driver but they did not help her. She ran to the
jeepney stop and rode the jeep. Daniel followed her to
the boarding house and he raped her.
Held: Although Margarita was merely renting a
bedspace in a boarding house, her room constituted for
all intents and purposes a “dwelling” as the term is used
in Art. 14(3) of the RPC. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a
bedspacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which
the law seeks to protect and uphold.
People v. Banez (1999)
Facts: The accused was living with his parents.
His sisters complained to their father that the accused
made trouble whenever he was drunk. They wanted to
put up the accuse in another house. That night while
they were discussing the plans for the accused, while
their father went to his room, the accused, who looked
drunk, ran to the kitchen and got 2 knives and then
stabbed the father. The father died.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
59
Held: The AC of dwelling cannot be considered
aggravating where the accused and the victim were
living in the same house where the crime was
committed. The rationale for considering dwelling an AC
is the violation by the offender of the sanctity of the
home of the victim by trespassing therein to commit the
crime. This reason is entirely absent in this case.
People v. Lapaz (1989)
Facts: Eulalia Cabunag, a 70-year-old woman
who was living alone, was beaten to death by 3 men.
Appellant Barleso, Lapaz and Cristoto agreed to kill
Eulalia because there was one incident when the victim
called Barleso a thief in front of many people.
Held: The presence of treachery is clear as
Barleso invited two companions to help him execute his
plan to beat the victim to death with pieces of wood in
the middle of the night insuring the killing of the victim
without risk to himself arising from the defense with the
offended party might make.
While it may be true that nighttime is absorbed
in the AC of treachery, the AC of disregard of sex and
age cannot be similarly absorbed. Treachery refers to
the manner of the commission of the crime. Disregard of
sex and age pertains to the relationship of the victim,
who is a 70-year old woman, and the appellant who is a
young man, 27 years old, at the time of the commission
of the offense.
People v. Taboga (2002)
Facts: Taboga entered the house of Tubon, a
widowed septuagenarian, robbed, stabbed and burned
beyond recognition the latter’s house.
Held: Anent the circumstance of age, there
must be a showing that the malefactor deliberately
intended to offend or insult the age of the victim.
Neither could disregard of respect due to sex be
appreciated if the offender did not manifest any
intention to offend or disregard the sex of the victim. In
other words, killing a woman is not attended by the
aggravating circumstance if the offender did not
manifest any specific insult or disrespect towards the
offended party's sex. In the case at bar, there is
absolutely no showing that Taboga deliberately intended
to offend or insult the victim. However, even if
disrespect or disregard of age or sex were not
appreciated, the four circumstances enumerated in
Article 14, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, can be considered singly or together.
People v. De Mesa (2001)
Facts: Motas, Barangay Chairman of Barangay
Sta. Cruz Putol, San Pablo City, was shot by De Mesa
while playing a card game with some townmates at a
neighborhood store resulting to his death. The trial
court, in convicting De Mesa for murder, appreciated the
aggravating circumstance of commission of the crime in
contempt of or with assault to public authorities.
Held: The trial court also erred in appreciating
the aggravating circumstance that the commission of
the crime was in contempt of or with assault to public
authorities. The requisites of this circumstance are: (1)
the public authority is engaged in the discharge of his
duties and (2) he is not the person against whom the
crime is committed. None of these circumstances are
present in this case. In the first place, the crime was
committed against the barangay chairman himself. At
the time that he was killed, he was not engaged in the
discharge of his duties as he was in fact playing a card
game with his neighbors.
People v. Montinola (Supra)
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Facts: Montinola boarded a passenger jeepney
driven by Hibinioda. Among the passengers was
Reteracion. All of a sudden, appellant drew his gun, an
unlicensed firearm, .380 cal pistol and directed
Reteracion to hand over his money or else he would be
killed. Montinola aimed the firearm at the neck of
Reteracion and fired successive shots at the latter. As a
result Reteracion slumped dead. Montinola was charged
with robbery with homicide and illegal possession of
firearm.
Held: DIsregard of age, sex or rank is not
aggravating in robbery with homicide, which is primarily
a crime against property, as the homicide is regarded as
merely incidental to the robbery.
People v. Taño (2000)
Facts: Amy was tending a video rental shop
owned by Marina. Taño kept going in and out of the
shop and on the last time he went inside said shop, he
suddenly jumped over the counter, strangled Amy,
poked a knife at the left side of her neck, pulled her
towards the kitchen where he forced her to undress, and
gained carnal knowledge of her against her will and
consent. Before they could reach the upper floor, he
suddenly pulled Amy down and started mauling her until
she lost consciousness; then he freely ransacked the
place. Leaving Amy for dead after repeatedly banging
her head, first on the wall, then on the toilet bowl, he
took her bracelet, ring and wristwatch. He then
proceeded upstairs where he took as well the jewelry
box containing other valuables belonging to his victim's
employer. The trial court appreciated dwelling as an
aggravating circumstance because the incident took
place supposedly at the residence of private
complainant's employer, "which doubles as a video
rental shop.
Held: Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance in this case because the rape
was committed in the ground floor of a two-story
structure, the lower floor being used as a video rental
store and not as a private place of abode or residence.
People v. Rios (2000)
Facts: Rios hurled stones at the house of
Ambrocio and Anacita Benedicto. A few minutes later,
and while the Benedicto spouses were tending their
store, Rios bought cigarettes. Ambrocio confronted Rios
about the stoning incident and an altercation ensued
between them. Having heard the appellant shout at
Ambrocio, Mesa intervened and requested the 2 to part
ways and escorted them to their respective residences.
A few minutes later, appellant went back to the store.
Ambrocio went to the terrace of their house. Appellant
suddenly approached Ambrocio and stabbed his right
stomach. Mesa and his group saw Anacita weeping while
Ambrocio was lying lifeless in the terrace of their house.
Ambrocio died before he was brought to the hospital.
The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstance
of dwelling.
Held: The trial court correctly appreciated the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling or morada in this
case. The word dwelling includes every dependency of
the house that forms an integral part thereof and
therefore it includes the staircase of the house and much
more, its terrace. When a crime is committed in the
dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not
given provocation, dwelling may be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance. 32 Provocation in the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be: (a) given
by the offended party, (b) sufficient, and (c) immediate
to the commission of the crime.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
60
People v. Arizobal (2000)
Facts: Arizobal and two others entered the
house of spouses Clementina and Laurencio Gimenez.
They then ransacked the house and ordered Laurencio
to go with them to his son Jimmy’s house. Upon
reaching the house of Jimmy, they tied the latter and
one Francisco also surnamed Gimenez. They consumed
the food and cigarettes Jimmy’s wife Erlinda, was
selling. They proceeded to ransacked the household in
search of valuables. Thereafter, Erlinda was ordered to
produce P100,00 in exchange for Jimmy’s life. Erlinda
offered to give a certificate of large cattle but the
document was thrown back at her. The 3 then dragged
Jimmy outside the house together with Laurencio. One
of the culprits returned and told Erlinda that Jimmy and
Laurencio had been killed for trying to escape. The trial
court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling.
Held: The trial court is correct in appreciating
dwelling as an aggravating circumstance. Generally,
dwelling is considered inherent in the crimes which can
only be committed in the abode of the victim, such as
trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited place.
However, in robbery with homicide the authors thereof
can commit the heinous crime without transgressing the
sanctity of the victim's domicile. In the case at bar, the
robbers demonstrated an impudent disregard of the
inviolability of the victims' abode when they forced their
way in, looted their houses, intimidated and coerced
their inhabitants into submission, disabled Laurencio and
Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging them out of
the house to be killed.
Par. 4. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH (1)
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR (2) OBVIOUS
UNGRATEFULNESS.
(1) ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
REQUISITES:
a. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
b. That the offender abused such trust by
committing a crime against the offended party.
c. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the
commission of the crime.
¤ The confidence between the offender and the offended
party must be immediate and personal.
¤ It is inherent in malversation, qualified theft, estafa by
conversion or misappropriation and qualified seduction.
(2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
¤ The ungratefulness must be obvious –
manifest and clear.
People v. Mandolado (1983)
Facts: Mandolado and Ortillano, with Erinada
and Simon are trainees/draftees of the AFP. They got to
know each other and had a drinking session at the bus
terminal. The accused was drunk. He got his gun and
started firing. Erinada and Simon rode a jeep and tried
to escape from Mandolado and Ortillano but the two
eventually caught up with them. The two accused shot
the victims to death.
Held: There is no AC of abuse of confidence. In
order that abuse of confidence be deemed as
aggravating, it is necessary that “there exists a relation
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
of trust and confidence between the accused and one
against whom the crime was committed and that the
accused made use of such a relationship to commit the
crime. It is also essential that the confidence between
the parties must be immediate and personal such as
would give the accused some advantage to commit the
crime. It is obvious that the accused and the victims
only met for the first time so there is no personal or
immediate relationship upon which confidence might
rest between them.
People v. Arrojado (2001)
Facts: Arrojado is the first cousin of the victim,
Mary Ann and lived with her and her father. Arrojado
helped care for the victim’s father for which he was paid
a P1,000 monthly salary. Arrojado killed Mary Ann by
stabbing her with a knife. Thereafter he claimed that the
latter committed suicide.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of abuse
of confidence is present in this case. For this
aggravating circumstance to exist, it is essential to show
that the confidence between the parties must be
immediate and personal such as would give the accused
some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
criminal act. The confidence must be a means of
facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit
taking advantage of the offended party's belief that the
former would not abuse said confidence.
Par. 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.
PLACE WHER PUBLIC CONTEMPT OR INSULT
AUTHORITIES ARE TO PUBLIC
ENGAGED IN THE AUTHORITIES
DISCHARGE OF THEIR (par. 2)
DUTIES (par. 5)
The public authorities are in the performance of their
duties.
The public authorities who The public authorities are
are in the performance of performing their duties
their duties must be in outside of their offices.
their office.
The public authority may The public authority
be the offended party. should not be the offended
party.
¤ If it is the Malacañang palace or a church, it is
aggravating, regardless of whether State or official or
religious functions are being held.
¤ The President need not be in the palace. His presence
alone in any place where the crime is committed is
enough to constitute the AC. It also applies even if he is
not engaged in the discharge of his duties in the place
where the crime was committed.
¤ But as regards the place where the public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must
be some performance of public functions.
¤ Cemeteries are not places dedicated for religious
worship.
¤ Offender must have the intention to commit a crime
when he entered the place.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
61
Par. 6. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) IN
THE NIGHT TIME, OR (2) IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE, OR (3) 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.
¤ These 3 circumstances may be considered separately
when their elements are distinctly perceived and can
subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of
perversity.
Nighttime, uninhabited place or band is
aggravating:
1. When it facilitated the commission of the
crime; or
2. When especially sought for by the offender to
insure the commission of the crime or for the
purpose of impunity; or
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for
the purpose of impunity.
(1) NIGHTTIME
- The commission of the crime must begin and
be accomplished in the nighttime.
- The offense must be actually committed in
the darkness of the night. When the place is illuminated
by light, nighttime is not aggravating.
(2) UNINHABITED PLACE
- One where there are no houses at all, a place
at a considerable distance from town, or where the
houses are scattered at a great distance from each
other.
- TEST: WON in the place of the commission of
the offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the
victim receiving some help.
- The fact that persons occasionally passed in
the uninhabited place and that on the night of the
murder another hunting party was not a great distance
away, does not matter. It is the nature of the place
which is decisive.
- It must appear that the accused SOUGHT
THE SOLITUDE of the place where the crime was
committed, in order to better attain his purpose.
- The offenders must choose the place as an
aid either (1) to an easy and uninterrupted
accomplishment of their criminal designs or (2) to insure
concealment of the offense.
(3) BAND
- Whenever more than 3 armed malefactors
shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a
band.
- The armed men must act together in the
commission of the crime.
- If one of the four armed persons is a principal
by inducement, they do not form a band.
- All the armed men, at least four in number,
must take direct part in the execution of the act
constituting the crime.
- Considered in crimes against property and
persons and not to crimes against chastity.
- It is inherent in brigandage.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
People v. Jose (supra)
Facts: The Maggie Dela Riva story. Maggie was
on her was home, driving her car accompanied by her
maid, when she was stopped by another car boarded by
4 men. Accused Pineda pulled her out of the car and
forced her inside the assailants’ car. She was brought to
a hotel and there, the 4 raped her.
Held: SC found that there was committed
forcible abduction with rape. With rape as the more
serious crime, the penalty to be imposed is the
maximum in accordance with Art. 48 of the RPC. With
this finding, the extreme penalty of death was imposed.
While the SC found no necessity of considering the AC’s,
the Court still considered the AC’s for the purpose of
determining the proper penalty to be imposed in each of
the other 3 crimes of simple rape. The court claimed
that there was an AC of nighttime because of appellants
have purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate
the commission of these crimes.
People v. Desalisa (1994)
Facts: Moved by hatred and jealousy, the
accused, armed with a sharp pointed instrument,
attacked and inflicted physical injuries on the vagina of
his wife who was about 5 months pregnant. Thereafter,
the accused hanged his wife to a jackfruit tree, causing
her death and that of her fetus.
He was found guilty of the complex crime of
parricide with unintentional abortion and was sentenced
to life imprisonment by the LC.
Held: The AC of uninhabited place is present.
The uninhabitedness of a place is determined not by the
distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime
but whether or not in the place of the commission, there
was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some
help. Considering that the killing was done during
nighttime and many fruit trees obstruct the view of
neighbors and passersby, there was no reasonable
possibility for the victim to receive any assistance. The
couple lived on a small nipa house on a hill. There are 2
other houses in the neighborhood which are 150 meters
away; the house of Norma’s parents and house of
Carlito. These cannot, however, be seen from the
couple’s house because of the many fruit trees and
shrubs prevalent in the area.
Gamara v. Valero (1973)
Facts: Petition for certiorari and prohibition
was filed impugning the order of the judge of the lower
court to forward the records of the case to the Military
Tribunal. This is claimed to be in accordance with
General Orders No. 12 that those involving crimes
against persons and property when committed by a
syndicate or a band falls under the jurisdiction of the
Military Tribunal.
Held: While the information charges four
persons, it was not, however, shown that all of them
were armed when they allegedly acted in concert in the
commission of the crime. What is more, the supposed
participation of petitioner Gamara was that of principal
by inducement, which undoubtedly connotes that he had
no direct participation in the perpetration thereof.
People v. Silva (2002)
Facts: Accused armed with a gun, a bolo, a
rope and a flashlight abducted brothers Edmund and
Manuel Ceriales while the two were playing a game of
cards inside their house in the middle of the night. They
tied both their hands and feet with a rope and they
brought the brothers at an isolated place. Edmund was
stabbed and beheaded causing his instantaneous death.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
62
Edmund Ceriales was able to escape while the accused
were about to kill his brother. The trial court appreciated
nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
Held: By and of itself, nighttime is not an
aggravating circumstance, however, it becomes
aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the
offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it
facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the
offender's immunity from capture. In this case, the trial
court correctly appreciated nighttime as aggravating
considering that nighttime facilitated the abduction of
the Ceriales brothers, the killing of Manuel and the
attempt to kill Edmund. Evidence shows that accused-
appellants took advantage of the darkness to
successfully consummate their plans. The fact that they
brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they
intended to commit the crime in darkness.
People v. Ancheta (2004)
Facts: Appellant Ulep and his group, robbed
Alfredo Roca of 35 sacks of Palay after killing his son, his
wife and his mother with their guns. Thereafter, they
boarded their jeep and left.
Held: The offense was proven to have been
executed by a band. A crime is committed by a band
when at least four armed malefactors act together in the
commission thereof. In this case, all six accused were
armed with guns which they used on their victims.
Clearly, all the armed assailants took direct part in the
execution of the robbery with homicide.
People v. Librando (2000)
Facts: Edwin and his daughter Aileen, and a
relative, Fernando, were traversing a hilly portion of a
trail on their way home when they met Raelito Librando,
Larry and Eddie. Edwin was carrying a torch at that time
as it was already dark. Raelito inquired from Edwin the
whereabouts of Fernando and without any warning hit
Edwin with a piece of wood. Eddie followed suit and
delivered another blow to Edwin. Edwin ran but he was
chased by Raelito. Thereafter, the three men took turns
hitting Edwin with pieces of wood until the latter fell and
died. The trial court considered nighttime and
uninhabited place as just one aggravating circumstance.
Held: The court did not err in considering
nighttime and uninhabited place as just one aggravating
circumstance. The court cited the case of People vs.
Santos where it has been held that if the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or band
concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute
one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule
although they can be considered separately if their
elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist
independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity.
Par. 7. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE
OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK,
EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE.
¤ The reason for the existence of this AC is found in the
debased form of criminality met in one who, in the midst
of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the
afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of
their misfortune to despoil them.
¤ The offender must take advantage of the calamity or
misfortune.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
¤ “OR OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE” – refers to
other conditions of distress similar to “conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake or epidemic.”
Par. 8. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH
THE AID OF ARMED MEN OR PERSONS WHO
INSURE OR AFFORD IMPUNITY.
REQUISITES:
1. That the armed men or persons took part in the
commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or
relied upon them when the crime was committed.
¤ The armed men must take part directly or indirectly in
the offense.
¤ This AC shall not be considered when both the
attacking party and the party attacked were equally
armed.
¤ This AC is not present when the accused as well as
those who cooperated with him in the commission of the
crime, acted under the same plan and for the same
purpose.
WITH AID OF ARMED BY A BAND
MEN (par. 8) (par. 6)
Aid of armed men is More than 3 armed
present even if one of the malefactors that have
offenders merely relied on acted together in the
their aid, for actual aid is commission of an offense.
not necessary.
¤ If there are 4 armed men, “aid of armed men” is
absorbed by “employment of a band”
¤ “Aid of armed men” includes “armed women”
Par. 9. - THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST.
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service
of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. —
Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, 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.
Any convict of the class referred to in this
article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned
at the age of seventy years if he shall have already
served out his original sentence, or when he shall
complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason
of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be
worthy of such clemency.
¤ 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
the RPC.
REQUISITES:
a. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
b. That he was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime;
c. That both the first and the second offenses are
embraced in the same title of the Code;
d. That the offender is convicted of the new
offense.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
63
¤ What is controlling is the time of trial, not the time of
the commission of the crime.
¤ There is no recidivism if the subsequent conviction is
for an offense committed before the offense involved in
the prior conviction.
¤ Sec. 7 of Rule 120 , Rules of Court, provides that a
judgment in a criminal case becomes final
(1) after the lapse of the [period for perfecting
an appeal, or
(2) when the sentence has been partially or
totally satisfied or served, or
(3) the defendant has expressly waived in
writing his right to appeal, or
(4) the accused has applied for probation.
¤ There is recidivism even if the lapse of time between
two felonies is more than 10 years. Recidivism must be
taken into account no mater how many years have
intervened between the 1st and 2nd felonies.
¤ Pardon does not obliterate the fact that the accused
was a recidivist; but amnesty extinguishes the penalty
and its effects.
People v. Molina (2000)
Facts: Brothers Joseph and Angelito, along
with their cousin, Danny were on their way home when
they heard somebody shout “kuba”, referring to Joseph,
a hunchback. They asked who said that but no one
admitted. As the 3 were about to go, Molina delivered a
strong stabbing blow at the back of Joseph. Angelito
came to aid his brother but Molina also stabbed him at
the back. Joseph was dead on arrival at the clinic.
Held: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to
allege the same in the information and to attach thereto
certified copies of the sentences rendered against the
accused. Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such
AC credence if the accused does not object to the
presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism.
In the case at bar, the accused never voiced
out any objection when confronted with the fact of his
previous conviction for attempted homicide.
Par. 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.
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:
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
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
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.
REQUISITES:
a. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
b. That he previously served sentence for another
offense to which the law attaches an equal or
greater penalty, or for 2 or more crimes to which
it attaches lighter penalty han that for the new
offense; and
c. That he is convicted of the new offense.
REITERACION/ RECIDIVISM
HABITUALITY
It is necessary that the It is enough that a final
offender shall have served judgment has been
out his sentence for the rendered in the first
first offense. offense.
The previous and It is the requirement that
subsequent offenses must the offenses be included in
not be embraced in the the same title of the Code.
same title of the Code.
Reiteracion is not always Recidivism is not always to
an aggravating be taken into
circumstance. consideration in fixing the
penalty to be imposed
upon the accused.
FOUR FORMS OR REPETITION:
1. RECIDIVISM
2. REITERACTION OR HABITUALITY
3. MULTI-RECIDIVISM OR HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY
- when a person, within a period of 10 years
from the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of
any of said crimes a third time or oftener. In habitual
delinquency, the offender is either a recidivist or one
who has been previously punished for two or more
offenses (habituality). He shall suffer an additional
penalty for being a habitual delinquent.
4. QUASI-RECIDIVISM
- 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.
People v. Gaorana (1998)
Facts: Marivel, upon instruction of Rowena
(common-law wife of the accused) went to the house of
Gaorana and saw the couple lying down. Marivel was
asked to come it and Rowena stood up to urinate.
Gaorana covered her mouth and pointed a hunting knife
to her neck and raped her. The second incident of rape
occurred while Marivel was sleeping in the sala with her
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
64
brother and sister. Marivel did not shout because she
was afraid of the accused who was a prisoner and had
already killed somebody.
Held: The 2 Information alleged that both
instances of rape were attended by the aggravating
circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The TC made no
express ruling that the appellant was a quasi-recidivist,
and rightly so. During the trial, the prosecution
manifested that appellant had been convicted by the
RTC and was serving sentence for the crime of homicide.
However, the prosecution failed or neglected to present
in evidence the record of appellant’s previous conviction.
Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and reiteracion,
necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the
sentence convicting an accused. The fact that appellant
was an inmate of DAPECOL does not prove that final
judgment had been rendered against him.
People v. Villapando (1989)
Facts: The accused was charged before the
RTC with the crimes of murder and of attempted
homicide.
Held: The court does not agree that reiteracion
or habituality should be appreciated in this case. The
appellant was found by the trial court to have committed
offenses prior to and after the incident of Jan. 14, 1979.
In habituality, it is essential that the offender be
previously punished, that is, he has served the
sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, or
provides for an equal or greater penalty than that
attached by law to the second offense, or for two or ore
offenses, in which the law attaches a lighter penalty.
Here, the records do not disclose that the appellant has
been previously punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater or penalty or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
People v. Molina (2000)
Facts: Brothers Joseph and Angelito, along
with their cousin, Danny were on their way home when
they heard somebody shout “kuba”, referring to Joseph,
a hunchback. They asked who said that but no one
admitted. As the 3 were about to go, Molina delivered a
strong stabbing blow at the back of Joseph. Angelito
came to aid his brother but Molina also stabbed him at
the back. Joseph was dead on arrival at the clinic.
Held: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to
allege the same in the information and to attach thereto
certified copies of the sentences rendered against the
accused. Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such
AC credence if the accused does not object to the
presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism.
In the case at bar, the accused never voiced
out any objection when confronted with the fact of his
previous conviction for attempted homicide.
People v. Dacillo (2004)
Facts: Pacot stabbed and strangled Rosemarie
leading to the latters death. Dacillo for his part, hold
down Rosemarie’s legs to prevent her from struggling.
The two men stopped only when they were sure that the
victim was already dead. Dacillo then encase her corpse
in a cement. The trial court imposed the death penalty
on the ground that Dacillo admitted during re-cross
examination that he had a prior conviction for the death
of his former live-in partner. The fact that Dacillo was a
recidivist was appreciated by the trial court as a generic
aggravating circumstance which increased the imposable
penalty from reclusion perpetua to death
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Held: The aggravating circumstance of
recidivism was not alleged in the information and
therefore cannot be appreciated against appellant.
In order to appreciate recidivism as an
aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in
the information and to attach certified true copies of the
sentences previously meted out to the accused. 26 This
is in accord with Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure which states: SEC. 8.
Designation of the offense. — The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense
given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of
the offense, reference shall be made to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing it.
People v. Cajara (2000)
Facts: Accused Cajara raped 16-year old Marita
in front of his common-law wife who is the half-sister of
the victim and his two small children. The trial court
convicted him as charged and sentenced him to death.
Held: The records show that the crime was
aggravated by reiteracion under Art. 14, par. 10, of The
Revised Penal Code, the accused having been convicted
of frustrated murder in 1975 and of homicide, frustrated
homicide, trespass to dwelling, illegal possession of
firearms and murder sometime in 1989 where his
sentences were later commuted to imprisonment for 23
years and a fine of P200,000.00. He was granted
conditional pardon by the President of the Philippines on
8 November 1991. Reiteracion or habituality under Art.
14, par. 10, herein cited, is present when the accused
has been previously punished for an offense to which
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that
attached by law to the second offense or for two or more
offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty. As
already discussed, herein accused can be convicted only
of simple rape and the imposable penalty therefor is
reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of the
mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to
the crime, such as in the instant case.
Par. 11. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR
PROMISE.
• When this AC is present, there must be 2 or more
principals, the one who gives or offers the price or
promise and the one who accepts it, both of whom are
principals – to the former, because he directly induces
the latter to commit the crime, and the latter because
he commits it.
• When this AC is present, it affects not only the person
who received the price or reward, but also the person
who gave it.
• The evidence must show that one of the accused used
money or other valuable consideration for the purpose
of inducing another to perform the deed.
Par. 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.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
65
• Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish
a criminal purpose, any of the circumstances in
paragraph 12 cannot be considered to increase the
penalty or to change the nature of the offense.
• When another AC already qualifies the crime, any of
these AC’s shall be considered as generic aggravating
circumstance only.
• When the crime intended to be committed is arson and
somebody dies as a result thereof, the crime is simply
arson and the act resulting in the death of that person is
not even an independent crime of homicide, it being
absorbed.
• The killing of the victim by means of such
circumstances as inundation, fire, poison or explosion
qualifies the offense to murder.
• It will be noted that each of the circumstances of
“fire”, “explosion,” and “derailment of a locomotive” may
be a part of the definition of particular crime, such as,
arson, crime involving destruction, and damages and
obstruction to means of communication.
In these cases, they do not serve to increase
the penalty, because they are already included by the
law in defining the crimes.
Par. 13. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH
EVIDENCE PREMEDITATION.
• Evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of
the act before executing it.
• The essence of premeditation is that 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.
• Evident premeditation may not be appreciated absent
any proof as to how and when the plan was hatched or
what time elapsed before it was carried out.
REQUISITIES:
1. The time when the offender determined to
commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
clung to his determination; and
- When the crime was carefully planned by the
offenders;
- When the offenders previously prepared the
means which they considered adequate to
carry it out.
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and execution, to allow him to
reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
allow is conscience to overcome the resolution of
his will.
- The offender must have an opportunity to
coolly and serenely think and deliberate on the
meaning and the consequences of what he
planned to do, an interval long enough for his
conscience and better judgment to overcome
his evil desire and scheme.
• Conspiracy generally presupposes premeditation.
• Evident premeditation, while inherent in robbery, may
be aggravating in robbery with homicide if the
premeditation included the killing of the victim.
People v. Bibat (1998)
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Facts: At around 1:30 pm, Bibat stabbed to
death one Lloyd del Rosario as the latter was on his way
to school waiting for a ride. The suspect fled while the
victim was brought to the hospital where he was
pronounced dead on arrival. A witness testified that the
accused and several others often met in Robles’ house.
In one of their meetings, the accused and his
companions hid some guns and “tusok” in the house.
Also, other witnesses saw the accused at around 11:30
am with some companions and heard the plan to kill
someone.
Held: There is evident premeditation
determination because the 3 requisites are present.
There was evident premeditation where 2 hours had
elapsed from the time the accused clung to his
determination to kill the victim up to the actual
perpetration of the crime.
People v. Lug-aw (1994)
Facts: Pal-loy was fencing the boundary limits
of the land he was faming when his daughter, Sonia,
heard a shot. Immediately, she went uphill and just as a
second gun shot resounded, she saw Bannay and Lug-
aw from a distance and that her father was bout to draw
his bolo when Lug-aw shot him.
Held: The SC ruled that there was no evident
premeditation because no one witnessed the initial
attack. As Sonia herself testified, she heard the first
whot, went up a hill, climbed a tree and from ther, saw
Lug-aw shooting her father with the shot reverberating
as the second gun report. What she did see was her
father trying to repel the assault with a bolo but he
failed because a second shot hit him. The records are
bereft of evidence that the crime was committed with
evident premeditation.
People v. Camilet (1986)
Facts: After a prayer meeting was held at the
place of the victim, a deaf-mute boy arrived crying and
while making signals, was able to convey that he was
strangled and spanked. Accompanied by some of his
guests, the victim proceeded to go to the place where
the boy said he was accosted. Nearing the place, the
victim was suddenly stabbed by the accused in the
stomach with a long knife.
Held: Evident premeditation was not
established by the prosecution. Although the facts tend
to show that Camilet might have harbored ill-feelings
towards the Camanchos after they took a portion of the
land he was farming and, as he himself stated to the
police, they also took the produce from his cornfield,
there is no proof that Camilet conceived of killing the
victim. Indeed, there is no evidence of 1) the time when
he determined to commit the crime, 2) an act manifestly
indicating that he has clung to his determination and
execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will had he desired to hearken to its
warnings.
People v. Ilaoa (1994)
Facts: The 5 accused were charged for the
gruesome murder of Nestor de Loyola. The conviction
was based on the following circumstances: a) The
deceased was seen on the night before the killing in a
drinking session with some of the accused; 2) The
drunken voices accused Ruben and Nestor were later
heard and Nestor was then seen being kicked and
mauled by the 5 accused; 3) some of the accused
borrowed the tricycle of Alex at about 2 a.m.; 4) blood
was found in Ruben’s shirt.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
66
Held: Evident premeditation cannot be
considered. There is nothing in the records to show that
appellant, prior to the night in question, resolved to kill
Nestor, nor is there proof to show that such killing was
the result of meditation, calculation or resolution on his
part. On the contrary, the evidence tends to show that
the series of circumstances which culminated in the
killing constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no
interval of time separating them for calculation and
meditation.
People v. Mondijar (2002)
Facts:. In a previous incident, Aplacador had
stabbed Mondijar, his father in law on the knee. A
month after, Mondiijar stabbed and hacked his son-in-
law with the use of a sharp and pointed bolo which
resulted to his death.
Held: There was no evident premeditation. For
the circumstance of evident premeditation to be
appreciated, the prosecution must present clear and
positive evidence of the planning and preparation
undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of
the crime. Settled is the rule that evident premeditation,
like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing to
murder, must be established beyond reasonable doubt
as conclusively and indubitably as the killing itself. In
the present case, no evidence was presented by the
prosecution as to when and how appellant planned and
prepared for the killing of the victim. There is no
showing of any notorious act evidencing a determination
to commit the crime which could prove appellant's
criminal intent.
People v. Torpio (supra)
Facts: While having a drinking spree in a
cottage, Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin
and as the latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with
gin and mauled him several times. Dennis crawled
beneath the table and Anthony tried to stab him with a
22 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran
towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a
knife. He went back to the cottage by another route
and upon arrival Anthony was still there. Upon seeing
Dennis, Anthony avoided Dennis and ran by passing the
shore towards the creek but Dennis met him, blocked
him and stabbed him. When he was hit, Anthony ran
but got entangled with a fishing net beside the creek
and fell on his back. Dennis then mounted on him and
continued stabbing him resulting to the latters death.
Thereafter, Dennis left and slept at a grassy meadow
near a Camp. In the morning, he went to Estrera, a
police officer to whom he voluntarily surrendered.
Held: No evident premeditation exist in this
case. There was no sufficient interregnum from the
time Dennis was stabbed by the victim, when Dennis
fled to their house and his arming himself with a knife,
and when he stabbed the victim. In a case of fairly
recent vintage, it was ruled that there is no evident
premeditation when the fracas was the result, not of a
deliberate plan but of rising tempers, or when the
attack was made in the heat of anger.
People v. Bernal (2002)
Facts: Appellant, Fernando, Felix, Rey all
surnamed Bernal and the victim Pedrito went to a
pubhouse. Pedrito, Rey and appellant went inside while
Fernando and Felix waited outside. Fernando later went
inside and saw the three in a sleeping position. Fernando
then asked Felix to start the tricycle as they would bring
home the three. He first brought Pedrito out of the pub
and had him seated at the passengers seat inside the
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
tricycle. Fernado then got appellant who was roused
when they reached the tricycle. While Fernado was
fetching Rey, accused positioned himself at the back of
Pedrito who was still asleep and discharged his firearm
twice hitting the latter on the head.
Held: The Court ruled that there was no
evidence directly showing any pre-conceived plan or
devise employed by accused-appellant to kill the victim.
Accused-appellant did not go to Barangay Dangdangla,
Bangued to kill the victim but to attend to some
important matters. Accused-appellant was just invited
by his relatives, whom he had not seen for a while after
he changed residence, to have a drinking spree. The
probability is that the decision to shoot the victim was
made only right there and then. This should at least cast
reasonable doubt on the existence of a premeditated
plan to kill the victim. Further, the mere existence of ill-
feeling or grudge between the parties is not sufficient to
establish premeditated killing. Hence, it would be
erroneous to declare that the killing of the victim was
premeditated.
People v. Biso (2003)
Facts: Dario, a black belt in karate, entered an
eatery, seated himself beside Teresita and made sexual
advances to her in the presence of her brother, Eduardo.
Eduardo contacted his cousin, Biso, an ex-convict and a
known toughie in the area, and related to him what
Dario had done to Teresita. Eduardo and Pio, and 2
others decided to confront Dario. They positioned
themselves in the alley near the house of Dario. When
Dario arrived on board a taxicab, the four assaulted
Dario. Eduardo held, with his right hand, the wrist of
Dario and covered the mouth of Dario with his left hand.
The 2 others held Dario's right hand and hair. Pio then
stabbed Dario near the breast with a fan knife. Eduardo
stabbed Dario and fled with his three companions from
the scene.
Held: There was no evident premeditation. The
prosecution failed to prove that the four intended to kill
Dario and if they did intend to kill him, the prosecution
failed to prove how the malefactors intended to
consummate the crime. Except for the fact that the
appellant and his three companions waited in an alley
for Dario to return to his house, the prosecution failed to
prove any overt acts on the part of the appellant and his
cohorts showing that that they had clung to any plan to
kill the victim.
Par. 14. - THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE
BE EMPLOYED.
CRAFT – involves intellectual trickery and cunning on
the part of the accused. It is employed as a scheme in
the execution of the crime.
e.x. Where the defendants pretended to be
constabulary soldiers to gain entry into the place of the
victims.
The act of the accused in pretending to be
bona fide passengers of the taxicab driven by the
deceased, when they were not so in fact, in order not to
arouse his suspicion, and then killing him, constituted
craft.
• Where craft partakes of an element of the offense, the
same may not be appreciated independently for the
purpose of aggravation.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
67
FRAUD – insidious words or machinations used to
induce the victim to act in a manner which would enable
the offender to carry out his design.
e.x. To enter the house, one of the accused
shouted from the outside that they wanted to buy
cigarettes.
• There is a hairline distinction between craft and fraud.
• DISTINCTION: When there is a DIRECT INDUCEMENT
by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present;
otherwise, the act of the accused done in order NOT TO
AROUSE THE SUSPICION of the victim constitutes craft.
DISGUISE – resorting to any device to conceal identity.
ex. Wearing of masks
• The purpose of the offender in using any device must
be to conceal his identity.
People v. Marquez (1982)
Facts: Francisca was in their house together
with her children and main when somebody called in
front of their window who identified themselves as PC
soldiers looking for contraband. The men ordered her to
open up otherwise they will shoot up their house. Then
accused Marquez went inside together with other armed
companions. They took some of their belongings and
one of them even raped Francisca, Leticia (daughter of
Francisca) and Rufina (maid).
Held: The following AC’s were proved a)
nighttime; 2) unlawful entry; 3) dwelling of the offended
parties; 4) disguise, that is by pretending to be PC
officers; and 5) by utter disregard due to victims’ age
and sex.
People v. Empacis (1993)
Facts: Empacis et al. held-up the store of Fidel
and his wife. As Fidel was about to give the money, he
decided to fight. He was stabbed several times which
resulted to his death. Empacis was stabbed by the son
of Fidel. When he went to a clinic for treatment, he was
arrested.
Held: Langomes and Empacis pretended to be
bona fide customers of the victim’s store and on this
pretext gained entry into the latter’s store and into
another part of his dwelling. Thus, there AC of craft was
taken into consideration.
People v. Labuguen (2000)
Facts: Under the pretext of selling 3 cows to
the victim, Labuguen convinced the victim to see the
cows and bring P40,000 with him. The two rode on the
victiim’s motorcycle and Labuguen lured him to where
he could divest the victim of his money with the least
danger of being caught. He then boarded a bus leaving
the motorcycle of the victim on the side of the road. The
victim’s dead body was found on the middle of a rice
field, 50 meters from the service drop of an irrigation
canal.
Held: The generic aggravating circumstances
of fraud and craft is present in this case. Craft involves
intellectual trickery and cunning on the part of the
offender. When there is a direct inducement by insidious
words or machinations, fraud is present. By saying that
he would accompany the victim to see the cows which
the latter intended to buy, appellant was able to lure the
victim to go with him.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Par. 15. - THAT (1) ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF
SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR (2) MEANS BE
EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE.
(1) SUPERIOR STRENGTH
• To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior strength
means to use purposely excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available to the
person attacked.
• One who attacks another with passion and
obfuscation dos not take advantage of his superior
strength.
• An attack made by a man with a deadly
weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman
constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority
which his SEX and the WEAPON used in the act afforded
him, and from which the woman was unable to defend
herself.
• No abuse of superior strength in parricide
against the wife because it is inherent in the crime. It is
generally accepted that the husband is physically
stronger than the wife.
• There must be evidence that the accused was
physically stronger and that they abused such
superiority. The mere fact of there being a superiority in
numbers is not sufficient to bring the case within the
aggravating circumstance.
• There is abuse of superior strength when
weapon used is out of proportion to the defense
available to the offended party.
• Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in
treachery.
• Abuse of superior strength is aggravating in
coercion and forcible abduction, when greatly in excess
of that required to commit the offense.
BY A BAND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
When the offense is The gravamen of abuse of
committed by more than 3 superiority is the taking
armed malefactors advantage by the culprits
regardless of the of their collective strength
comparative strength of to overpower their weaker
the victim. victims.
(2) MEANS EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN DEFENSE
• This circumstance is applicable only to
crimes against persons and sometimes against person
and property, such as robbery with physical injuries or
homicide.
• This AC is absorbed in treachery.
• Ex. One who, while fighting with another,
suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the latter’s eyes and
then wound or kills him, evidently employs means which
weaken the defense of his opponent.
People v. Cabato (1988)
Facts: The accused with 2 other men who are
still at large, armed with firearms and stones and using
face masks, entered the dwelling of the victim. They
held the victim tight as well as the wife, who was able to
scratch the face of the masked man, as a result was
able to identify the accused. Not satisfied with the
money given by the couple, the two unknown robbers
hit the victim with stone at the back of his head and the
accused did the same to the wife which caused her
death. The prosecution argued that since the attack was
by a robust man of 29 years with a huge stone against
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
68
an ageing defenseless human, abuse of superior
strength should aggravate the crime.
Held: The prosecution failed to prove that
there was indeed a notorious inequality between the
ages, sizes and strength of the antagonists and that
these notorious advantages were purposely sought for
or used by the accused to achieve his ends.
People v. Ruelan (1994)
Facts: Ruelan (20 yrs old) was hired by the
spouses Ricardo and Rosa (76 yrs old) to help them sell
and deliver rice to their customers. One day, Rosa asked
Ruelan to accompany her, in opening their store in the
public market; she also ordered him to bring a sack and
an axe. When they were about to leave the premises,
the house dog got loose and went towards the street.
Rosa got angry and scolded Ruelan. Ruelan pleaded her
to stop but Rosa did not so Ruelan struck her behind her
right ear, causing her to fall face down. He left her to a
grassy portion beside the street and fled. He
surrendered to the police after 2 days.
Held: Although abuse of superior strength was
proven since Ruelan was only 20 years old whereas his
victim was 76 years old already, this was not pleaded in
the information, hence, it shall only be considered as a
generic circumstance in the imposition of the correct
penalty.
People v. Padilla (1994)
Facts: Pat. Omega was on duty when Ontuca
approached him asking for help claiming he was being
maltreated by strangers. They proceeded to the place
where they saw 3 men and a woman. An argument
ensued between Ontuca and the 3 men, one of which
was Sgt. Padilla. Omega left but returned when he saw
that the 3 men were ganging up on Ontuca. The latter
was stripped of his service revolver. Ontuca was pursued
by Padilla. The former, with only a piece of plywood as a
defense, was shot by the latter in the head.
Held: The killing was qualified by the AC of
abuse of superior strength which was alleged in the
information and proved during trial. The abuse of
superior strength is present not only when the offenders
enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful
weapon which is out of proportion to the defense
available to the victim as in this case.
People v. Lobrigas (2002)
Facts: Frank, Marlito, both surnamed Lobrigas
and Mante mauled and box Taylaran who was already 76
years old. The victim died caused by severe beating and
mauling on the chest portion on the victim’s body.
Held: The crime committed was murder
qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength. To appreciate abuse of superior
strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part
of the malefactors to take advantage of their greater
number. They must have notoriously selected and made
use of superior strength in the commission of the crime.
To take advantage of superior strength is to use
excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for
self-defense available to the person attacked; thus, the
prosecution must clearly show the offenders' deliberate
intent to do so.
People v. Barcelon (2002)
Facts: Barcelon went inside the house of
Amador. Thereafter, accused strangled and stabbed the
victim with a knife. Amador died as a result. At the time
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
the crime was committed, Amador was a 69 year-old
woman and Barcelon was only 29 years old.
Held: Abuse of superior strength was present
in the commission of the crime. The court cited the case
of People vs. Ocumen, where an attack by a man with a
deadly weapon upon an unarmed woman constitutes the
circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex
and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from
which the woman was unable to defend herself.
The disparity in age between the assailant and
the victim, aged 29 and 69, respectively, indicates
physical superiority on appellant's part over the
deceased. It did not matter that appellant was "dark"
with a "slim body build" or "medyo mataba." What
mattered was that the malefactor was male and armed
with a lethal weapon that he used to slay the victim.
People v. Sansaet (2002)
Facts Uldarico was drinking with 15 other men
that include the Sansaet brothers, Rogelio, Leopoldo and
Silverio. Because of a bad joke that cropped up, verbal
exchanges ensued. Thereafter, Rogelio and Uldarico
started hacking each other with bolos. Silverio and
Leopolo positioned themselves behind the victim and
also hacked him. Uldarico retaliated wounding Silverio.
Rogelio then hacked Uldarico a 2nd time. Leopoldo and
Rogelio continued hacking Uldarico when the latter fell.
They then dragged Uldarico towards the river and there
they each twice hacked Uldarico resulting to his death.
Held: "Mere superiority in number, even
assuming it to be a fact, would not necessarily indicate
the attendance of abuse of superior strength. The
prosecution should still prove that the assailants
purposely used excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the persons attacked."
"Finally, to appreciate the qualifying
circumstance of abuse of superior strength, what should
be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage
of their combined strength in order to consummate the
offense. To take advantage of superior strength means
to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the
means available to the person attacked to defend
himself." In the case at bar, the victim Uldarico de
Castro was the one who picked a fight with the accused-
appellants because he did not like the joke by one of the
accused-appellants. There was no evidence to show that
the accused-appellants purposely sought and took
advantage of their number to subdue the victim.
People v. Ventura (2004)
Facts: Ventura armed with a .38 Caliber Home-
made Revolver and Flores armed with a bladed weapon,
entered the house of the Bocatejas by cutting a hole in
the kitchen door. Ventura announced a hold-up and hit
Jaime on the head and asked for the keys. Jaime called
out for help and tried to wrestle the gun away from
Ventura. Flores then stabbed Jaime 3 times. Flores also
stabbed Jaime’s wife Aileen who had been awakened.
Aileen tried to defend herself with an elecrtric cord to
no avail. Aileen died on the hospital on the same day.
Held: By deliberately employing a deadly
weapon against Aileen, Flores took advantage of the
superiority which his strength, sex and weapon gave
him over his unarmed victim. The fact that Aileen
attempted to fend off the attack on her and her husband
by throwing nearby objects, such as an electric cord, at
appellant Flores does not automatically negate the
possibility that the latter was able to take advantage of
his superior strength
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
69
Par. 16. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH
TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA).
• TREACHERY means that the offended party
was not given opportunity to make a defense.
• 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.
REQUISITES:
a. That at the time of the attack, the victim was
not in a position to defend himself; and
b. That the offender consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack
employed by him.
• Treachery does not connote the element of surprise
alone.
• There is no treachery when the attack is preceded by a
warning or the accused gave the deceased a chance to
prepare.
• The qualifying circumstance of treachery may not be
simply deduced from presumption as it is necessary that
the existence of this qualifying or aggravating
circumstance should be proven as fully as the crime
itself in order to aggravate the liability or penalty
incurred by the culprit.
RULES REGARDING TREACHERY
a. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
b. Means, methods or forms need not insure
accomplishment of crime.
c. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
• Mere suddenness of the attack is not enough to
constitute treachery. Such method or form of attack
must be deliberately chosen by the accused.
ATTACKS SHOWN INTENTION TO ELIMITNATE
RISK:
a. Victim asleep
b. Victim half-awake or just awakened
c. Victim grappling or being held.
d. Attacked from behind
• There is treachery in killing a child because the
weakness of the victim due to his tender age results in
the absence of any danger to the accused.
ADDITIONAL RULES:
1. When the aggression is CONTINUOUS,
treachery must be present in the BEGINNING
of the assault.
2. When the assault WAS NOT CONTINUOUS, in
that there was an interruption, it is sufficient
that treachery was present AT THE MOMENT
THE FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.
• In treachery, it makes no difference whether or not
the victim was the same person whom the accused
intended to kill.
• When it is NOT SHOWN that the principal by induction
directed the killer of the deceased to adopt the means or
methods actually used by the latter in accomplishing the
murder, because the former left to the latter the details
as to how it was to be accomplished, treachery cannot
be taken into consideration as to the principal by
induction.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 70

unarmed and defenseless. He was not expecting to be

TREACHERY ABUSE OF MEANS assaulted. He did not give immediate provocation. The
SUPERIOR EMPLOYED TO deliberate, surprise attack shows that Sangalang and his
STRENGTH WEAKEN companions employed a mode of execution which
DEFENSE insured the killing without any risk to them arising from
The means, The offender The offender, any defense which the victim could have made. The
methods or does not employ like in treachery, killing can be categorized as murder because of the
forms of attack means, methods employs means qualifying circumstance of treachery.
are employed to or forms of but the means
make it attack; he only employed only People v. Gutierrez (1988)
impossible or takes advantage materially Facts: While drunk, the accused started
hard for the of his superior weakens the cursing Matuano and challenged him 2 or 3 times while
offended party strength. resisting power at the office where the two worked. The accused was
to defend of the offended holding a balisong. Matuano’s son intervened asking the
himself. party. accused to calm down and the latter seemingly acceded.
As soon as the son resumed work, the accused lunged
• When there is conspiracy, treachery is considered towards Matuano whose back was turned and stabbed
against all the offenders. him.
• Treachery, evident premeditation and use of superior Held: The claim that the challenging words of
strength are, by their nature, inherent in the offense of the victim precluded the circumstance of treachery
treason. because it put him on his guard is untenable. The fact
that the accused seemed to be pacified by the son of the
• Treachery absorbs abuse of superior strength, aid of victim made it clear that the victim had no reason to
armed men, by a band and means to weaken the expect an attack. As such the attack was sudden and
defense. unexpected, from behind and with the victim unarmed
without any chance to defend himself against the initial
• Nighttime and craft are absorbed in treachery except if assault, clearly show that treachery was present.
treachery rests upon an independent factual basis.
People v. Verchez (1994)
• Treachery is inherent in murder by poisoning. Facts: A team of government agents of the PC
conducted a surveillance on a house reported to be the
• Treachery cannot co-exist with passion and hideout of a gang of suspected robbers. The agents
obfuscation. stopped a car coming out of the house. It was driven by
Balane. Balane was prevailed upon into accompanying
People v. Castillo (1998) the agents into the house. They proceeded to the house
Facts: Velasco was sitting outside the in 4 cars and when the 1st car approached, they were
pubhouse talking with his co-worker, Dorie, when one of met with heavy gunfire. A firefight ensued. 3 of the
the customers named Tony went out of the pubhouse. agents were hit; one died and two were injured. The
Then, Castillo suddenly appeared and, without warning, men inside the house later surrendered. Among them
stabbed Tony with a fan knife on his left chest. Tony was Verchez.
pleaded for help but accused stabbed him once more. Held: The two requisites of treachery were not
Velasco placed a chair between Tony and the accused to proven. The lawmen, knowing that they were dealing
stop the latter. Tony ran away but was pursued by the with a gang of bank robbers, were prepared to deal with
accused. Tony died and his body was found outside the any resistance that may possibly be put up. Also, Sgt.
fence of Iglesia ni Cristo Compound. Norcio was killed during the gun battle and not during
Held: The killing was qualified by treachery. the first volley of shots fired by the robbers. Thus, there
Treachery is committed when two conditions concur, is no showing that appellants deliberately and
namely, that the person attacked had no opportunity to consciously adopted their mode of attack. Neither is
defend himself and that such means, method, and forms there any showing that they intended to ambush the
of execution were deliberately and consciously adopted lawmen.
by the accused without danger to his person. These
requisites were evidently present in this case when the People v. Rendaje (2000)
accused appeared from nowhere and swiftly stabbed the Facts: Lennie was a 15-year old deaf-mute.
victim just as he was bidding goodbye to his friend, Rendaje, on the other hand, was 23 years old and in the
Velasco. Said action rendered it difficult for the victim to prime of his strength. Rendaje followed Lennie when the
defend himself. The presence of “defense wounds” does latter was on her way home alone. With the use of a
not negate treachery because, as testified to by Velasco, knife, he then inflicted 8 stab wounds, 5 of which were
the first stab, fatal as it was, was inflicted on the chest. fatal on the victim’s back. Lennie died as a result. Her
The incised wounds in the arms were inflicted when the body was found in a sugar cane plantation.
victim was already rendered defenseless. Held: Treachery qualified the killing to murder.
To constitute treachery, two conditions must concur: (1)
People v. Sangalang (1974) the employment of means, methods or manner of
Facts: Cortez left his nipa hut to gather tuba execution that would ensure the offender's safety from
from a coconut tree nearby. While he was on top of the any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the
tree, he was struck by a volley of shots and he fell to the offended party; and (2) the offender's deliberate or
ground at the base of the coconut tree. The accused and conscious choice of the means, method or manner of
his companions shot Cortez several times which resulted execution.
to his death. No one has positively testified on how Lennie
Held: The victim was shot while he was was killed but the victim’s body shows the manner in
gathering tuba on top of a coconut tree. He was which she was attacked by her assailant. It eloquently
speaks for itself. The injuries established the manner in

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
which the killing was cruelly carried out with little or no
risk to the assailant. The number of stab wounds, most
of which were inflicted at the back of the child —
unarmed and alone — shows the deliberateness, the
suddenness and the unexpectedness of the attack,
which thus deprived her of the opportunity to run or
fight back.
People v. Umayam (2002)
Facts: Umayam and the victim, Mendoza were
living as husband and wife in a shanty erected inside a
compound owned by Velasquez. During the couple’s stay
in the compound, Velasquez would notice them
frequently quarelling and Mendoza on occasions would
run to Velasquez for help for the beatings inflicted on
her by her husband. Velasquez then noticed a foul odor
emanating from the couple’s shanty which he at first
thought to be that of a poultry feed or kaning baboy.
With the assistance of the police who broke the shanty’s
walls, the decomposing body of Mendoza was found
inside. The trial court found Umayam guilty of murder.
Held: The qualifying circumstance of treachery
was not established with concrete evidence. The
circumstantial evidence on record does not clearly show
that there was any conscious and deliberate effort on
the part of the accused to adopt any particular means,
method or form of attack to ensure the commission of
the crime without affording the victim any means to
defend herself. The conclusion that there was treachery
can hardly be gleaned because the victim and Umayam
were inside their shanty and no one witnessed how the
killing took place. Notably, the medical findings of the
victim's cadaver show, contusions on her arms and legs,
indicating that there may have been a quarrel prior to
the stabbing. This reasonably negates treachery.
People v. Piedad (2002)
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and
sudden attack, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape.
While it is true that the victim herein may have been
warned of a possible danger to his person, since the
victim and his companion headed towards their
residence when they saw the group of accused-
appellants coming back for them after an earlier quarrel
just minutes before, in treachery, what is decisive is that
the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it
impossible for the victim to retaliate.
In the case at bar, Mateo did not have any chance of
defending himself from the accused-appellant's
concerted assault, even if he was forewarned of the
attack. Mateo was obviously overpowered and helpless
when accused-appellants' group numbering around
eight, ganged up and mauled him. Luz came to Mateo's
succor by embracing him and pacifying his aggressors,
but accused-appellants were unrelenting. More
importantly, Mateo could not have actually anticipated
the sudden landing of a large concrete stone on his
head. The stone was thus treacherously struck. Neither
could the victim have been aware that Lito came up
beside him to stab his back as persons were beating him
from every direction. Lito's act of stabbing the victim
with a knife, inflicting a 15-cm deep wound shows
deliberate intent of using a particular means of attack.
Considering the location of the injuries sustained by the
victim and the absence of defense wounds, Mateo
clearly had no chance to defend himself.
People v. Dumadag (2004)
Facts: Prudente with his friends including
Meliston agreed to meet at a swimming pool to celebrate
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
71
the feast of St. John. On their way home, there was
heavy downpour so they decided to take a shelter at a
store where 2 men, 1 of whom is Dumadag are having
some drinks. Dumadag offered Prudente a drink of
Tanduay but the latter refused then left. Dumadag
followed Prudente and stabbed the victim on his breast
with a knife which resulted to his death.
Held: As a general rule, a sudden attack by the
assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery
if such mode of attack was deliberately adopted by him
with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to
either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply if the
attack was not preconceived but merely triggered by
infuriation of the appellant on an act made by the
victim. In the present case, it is apparent that the attack
was not preconceived. It was triggered by the
appellant's anger because of the victim's refusal to have
a drink with the appellant and his companions.
People v. De Guzman (2007)
Held: d It should be made clear that the
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest
provocation on his part. This is even more true if the
assailant is an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor
children, who by reason of their tender years,
cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus,
when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery
exists.
Par. 17. - THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR
CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD
IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT.
IGNOMINY – it is a circumstance pertaining to the
moral order, which adds disgrace ad obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime.
• This AC is applicable to crimes against chastity and
persons.
• When the accused raped a woman after winding cogon
grass around his genital organ, he thereby augmented
the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding
ignominy there to (People v. Torrefiel).
* NOTE: According to Professor Ambion, this is
not ignominy but cruelty.
• The means employed or the circumstances brought
about must tend to make the effects of the crime MORE
HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO
SHAME.
ex. When the accused raped a married woman
in the presence of her husband.
People v. Siao (2000)
Facts: Estrella worked as a housemaid of Rene
Siao’s family. One day, Rene ordered Reylan, their
houseboy, to bring Estrella to a room. While holding a
gun, Rene forced Reylan to have sex with Estrella (oral
sex, missionary position, and in the manner dogs
perform sexual intercourse).
Held: The accused was held guilty of rape with
the use of a deadly weapon, which is punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. But the trial court
overlooked and did not take into account the
aggravating circumstance of ignominy and sentenced
accused to the single indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua. It has been held that where the accused in
committing the rape used not only the missionary
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
position, the AC of ignominy attended the commission
thereof.
People v. Cachola (2004)
Facts: Jessie was about to leave their house to
watch cartoons in his uncle's house next door when
accused suddenly entered the front door of their house.
They ordered Jessie to drop to the floor, and then hit
him in the back with the butt of a long gun. Without
much ado, the intruders shot to death Jessie's uncle,
Victorino who was then in the living room. Jessie
forthwith crawled and hid under a bed, from where he
saw the feet of a third man who had also entered the
house. The men entered the kitchen and continued
shooting. When the rampage was over and after the
malefactors had already departed, Jessie came out of his
hiding place and proceeded to the kitchen. There he saw
his mother, Carmelita; his brother Felix.; and his cousin
Rubenson — all slaughtered. The death certificate of
Victorino reveals that his penis was excised.
Held: Ignominy cannot be appreciated in this
case. For ignominy to be appreciated, it is required that
the offense be committed in a manner that tends to
make its effect more humiliating, thus adding to the
victim's moral suffering. Where the victim was already
dead when his body or a part thereof was dismembered,
ignominy cannot be taken against the accused. In this
case, the information states that Victorino's sexual
organ was severed after he was shot and there is no
allegation that it was done to add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act. We cannot, therefore, consider
ignominy as an aggravating circumstance.
People v. Bumidang (2000)
Facts: Baliwang Bumidang raped Gloria in front
of her 80 year old father, Melecio. Melecio helplessly saw
the accused rape her daughter but did not move
because he was too afraid and weak. Before raping the
victim, Baliwang examined the genitals of Gloria with a
flashlight.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of
ignominy shall be taken into account if means are
employed or circumstances brought about which add
ignominy to the natural effects of the offense; or if the
crime was committed in a manner that tends to make its
effects more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her
moral suffering. It was established that Baliwang used
the flashlight and examined the genital of Gloria before
he ravished her. He committed his bestial deed in the
presence of Gloria's old father. These facts clearly show
that Baliwang deliberately wanted to further humiliate
Gloria, thereby aggravating and compounding her moral
sufferings. Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a
woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed, or
of her husband, or was made to exhibit to the rapists
her complete nakedness before they raped her.
Par. 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.
• There is unlawful entry when an entrance is effected
by a way not intended for the purpose.
• Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and
not for escape.
• There is no unlawful entry when the door is broken
and thereafter the accused made an entry thru the
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
72
broken door. The breaking of the door is covered by
paragraph 19.
RATIONALE FOR PAR. 18: 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.
• This AC is inherent in robbery with force upon things.
• Dwelling and unlawful entry is taken separately in
murders committed in a dwelling.
• Unlawful entry is not aggravating in trespass to
dwelling.
People v. Baello (1993)
Facts: Brgy. Captain Borja awoke one night to
find out that their front door was open and that their TV
set was missing. He and his wife saw their dead
daughter lying in bed. The TV set was recovered by the
police at the house of Tadifo, Baello’s brother-in-law.
Tadifo claimed that Baello and Jerry had an agreement
to rob the house of Borja. It was Jerry who killed Borja’s
daughter because it was he who was left inside the
house.
Held: the AC of unlawful entry was properly
appreciated against the accused as he and his
companion, Jerry, had entered the Borja residence
through the second floor window, a way not intended for
ingress.
Par. 19 - THERE IS AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY WHEN
AN ENTRANCE OF A CRIME A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR,
DOOR, OR WINDOW BE BROKEN.
• To be considered as an AC, breaking the door must be
utilized as a means to the commission of the crime.
• It is only aggravating in cases where the offender
resorted to any of said means TO ENTER the house. If
the wall, etc. is broken in order to get out of the place, it
is not aggravating.
Par. 20. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1)
WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN
YEARS OF AGE OR (2) BY MEANS OF MOTOR
VEHICLES, MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT, AIRSHIPS,
OR OTHER SIMILAR MEANS. (AS AMENDED BY RA
5438).
(1) WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER 15 YEARS
OF AGE
(2) BY MEANS OF A MOTOR VEHICLE
• It is aggravating where the accused used the
motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in
carrying away the effects thereof, and if facilitating their
escape.
• If the motor vehicle was used only in
facilitating the escape, it should not be an aggravating
circumstance.
• Estafa, which is committed by means of
deceit or abuse of confidence, cannot be committed by
means of motor vehicle.
• Theft, which is committed by merely taking
personal property which need not be carried away,
cannot be committed by means of motor vehicles.
“or other similar means” – the expression
should be understood as referring to MOTORIZED
vehicles or other efficient means of transportation
similar to automobile or airplane.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Par. 21. - THAT THE WRONG DONE IN THE
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BE DELIBERATELY
AUGMENTED BY CAUSING OTHER WRONG NOT
NECESSARY FOR ITS COMMISSIONS.
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.
• For cruelty to exist, it must be shown that the accused
enjoyed and delighted in making his victim suffer.
REQUISITES:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately
increased by causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for
the execution of the purpose of the
offender.
• Cruelty refers to physical suffering of victim purposely
intended by offender.
• Plurality of wounds alone does not show cruelty.
• There is no cruelty when other wrong was done after
the victim was dead.
IGNOMINY CRUELTY
Involves moral suffering. Refers to physical
suffering.
People v. Lacao (1974)
Facts: Gallardo, coming from a gathering,
decided to go home. As he was descending the stairs
Balatazar followed him and stabbed him with a knife at
the right side of his body. Baltazar tried to pull out the
knife. Gallrado ran. When the latter reached the bamboo
grove, he was assaulted by David and his son, Salvador,
Jose and Federico. Gallardo sustained 14 wounds by
different bladed instruments. His assailants dragged him
to the field. He died later. It was found that each of the
9 wounds could have caused his death if there were no
timely medical assistance.
Held: The numerousness of wound is not the
criterion for appreciating cruelty. The test is whether the
accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the
wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its
commission or inhumanly increased the victim’s
suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.
People v. Ilaoa (supra)
The fact that Nestor’s decapitated body bearing
43 stab wounds, 24 of which were fatal, was found
dumped in the street is not sufficient for a finding of
cruelty where there is no showing that appellant Ilaoa,
for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused Nestor to suffer
slowly and painfully and inflicted on him unnecessary
physical and moral pain. Number of wounds alone is not
the criterion for the appreciation of cruelty as an
aggravating circumstance. Neither can it be inferred
from the mere fact that the victim’s dead body was
dismembered.
People v. Catian (2002)
Facts: Catian repeatedly strike Willy with a
"chako" on the head, causing Willy to fall on his knees.
Calunod seconded by striking the victim with a piece of
wood on the face. When Willy finally collapsed,
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
73
Sumalpong picked him up, carried him over his
shoulder, and carried Willy to a place where they burned
Willy. The latter’s skeletal remains were discovered by a
child who was pasturing his cow near a peanut
plantation.
Held: The circumstance of cruelty may not be
considered as there is no showing that the victim was
burned while he was still alive. For cruelty to exist, there
must be proof showing that the accused delighted in
making their victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
him unnecessary physical and moral pain in the
consummation of the criminal act. No proof was
presented that would show that accused-appellants
deliberately and wantonly augmented the suffering of
their victim.
People v. Guerrero (2002)
Appellant first severed the victim's head
before his penis was cut-off. This being the sequence of
events, cruelty has to be ruled out for it connotes an act
of deliberately and sadistically augmenting the wrong by
causing another wrong not necessary for its commission,
or inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering. As
testified to by Dr. Sanglay, and reflected in her medical
certificate, Ernesto in fact died as a result of his head
being severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the
act constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was
perpetrated when the victim was already dead.
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
Republic Act 8353
An act expanding the definition of the crime of
rape, reclassifying the same as a crime against persons,
amending for the purpose act no. 3815, as amended,
otherwise known as the revised penal code, and for other
purposes
SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be
known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997".
SECTION 2. Rape as a Crime Against Persons.
- The crime of rape shall hereafter be classified as a Crime
Against Persons under Title Eight of Act 3815, as amended,
otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. Accordingly,
there shall be incorporated into Title Eight of the same Code
a new chapter to be known as Chapter Three on Rape, to
read as follows:
"Chapter Three Rape"
Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is
Committed-
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present;
2) By any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into
other person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Article 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the
next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a
deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the
crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of
age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim.
2) When the victim is under the custody of the
police or military authorities or any law enforcement of penal
institution.
3) When the rape is committed in full view of the
spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within
the third civil degree of consanguinity.
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in
legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally
known to be such by the offender before or at the time of
the commission of the crime.
(5) When the victim is a child below seven (7)
years old.
(6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted
with Human Immune-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually
transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted
to the victim.
(7) When committed by any member of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines or paramilitary units thereof or the
Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or
penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his
position to facilitate the commission of the crime.
(8) When by reason or on the occasion of the
rape, the victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or
disability.
(9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of
the offended party at the time of the commission of the
crime.
(10) When the offender knew of the mental
disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding
article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua.
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the
rape is committed by any of the ten aggravating/qualifying
circumstances mentioned in this article.
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The subsequent
valid marriage between the offender and the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
74
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty. Provided,
That the crime shall be extinguish or the penalty shall not be
abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical
overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in
any degree from the offended party, or where the offended
party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving
valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the
prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A."
SECTION 3. Separability Clause.- If any part, section, or
provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional,
the other parts thereof not affected thereby shall remain
valid.
SECTION 4. Repealing Clause.- Article 335 of Act No.
3815, as amended, and all laws, acts presidential decrees,
executive orders, administrative orders, rules and
regulations, inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of
this Act are deemed amended, modified or repealed
accordingly.
SECTION 5. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen
(15) days after completion of its publication in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
People v. Balgos (2000)
Facts: Balgos was accused of raping a 6-year
old child named Criselle. While the victim was playing,
the accused asked his nieces to go outside and buy
cheese curls. When they left, the accused opened his
zipper and made Criselle hold his penis. The 2 girls came
back and he asked them to go out and buy more cheese
curls. When they left, he locked the door and had carnal
knowledge with Criselle. The accused cannot penetrate
the victim’s organ. The lower court convicted the
accused of qualified rape.
Held: The trial court was correct. Under Art.
335 of the RPC as amended by RA 7659 and further
amended by RA 8353, the penalty of death shall be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a child
below 7 years of age. There is no dispute that the victim
was 6 years of age when the accused had carnal
knowledge with her.
People v. Ladjaalam (2000)
Facts: Accused who is maintaining a drug den
fired an unlicensed M-14 rifle at the policemen who were
about to enter his house to serve a search warrant.
Held: If an unlicensed firearm is used in the
commission of any crime, there can be no separate
offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if
the "other crime" is murder or homicide, illegal
possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating
circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct
assault with multiple attempted homicide was
committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held
liable for illegal possession of firearms.
Moreover, penal laws are construed liberally in
favor of the accused. In this case, the plain meaning of
RA 8294's simple language is most favorable to herein
appellant. Verily, no other interpretation is justified, for
the language of the new law demonstrates the
legislative intent to favor the accused. Accordingly,
appellant cannot be convicted of 2 separate offenses of
illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with
attempted homicide. Since the crime committed was
direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal
possession of firearms cannot be deemed an
aggravating circumstance.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
5. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
• 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.
Art. 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 in 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 circumstances 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.
The alternative circumstances are:
a. RELATIONSHIP
b. INTOXICATION
c. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND
EDUCATION OF THE OFFENDER
a. RELATIONSHIP
This is taken into consideration when the
offended party is the:
a. spouse
b. ascendant
c. descendant
d. legitimate, natural or adopted brother or
sister
e. relative by affinity in the same degree of
the offender
• As a rule, relationship is MITIGATING in crimes against
property by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332.
- Under Art. 332 of the RPC, no criminal, but
only civil, liability shall result from commission of the
crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants,
and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same
line; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
- Relationship becomes actually an exempting
circumstance since there is no occasion to consider a
mitigating or an aggravating circumstance because there
is no criminal liability.
♣ It is aggravating in CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in
cases where the offended party is a relative of a higher
degree than the offender, or when the offender and the
offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing
a brother, a brother-in-law, a half-brother or adopted
brother.
♣ When the CRIME AGAINST PERSONS is any of the
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES (Art. 263), even if the
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
75
offended party is a descendant of the offender,
relationship is an AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
- But the serious physical injuries must not be
inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive
chastisement.
♣ When the crime is less serious physical injuries or
slight physical injuries, ordinary rule applies;
relationship is MITIGATING if the offended party is a
relative of lower degree and AGGRAVATING if the
offended party is a relative of a higher degree than the
offender.
♣ When the crime against persons is homicide or
murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim of
the crime is a relative of lower degree.
• Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling.
• Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating,
when relationship is an element of the offense.
• In crimes against chastity, relationship is always
aggravating.
- Because of the nature and effect of the crime
committed, it is considered AGGRAVATING although the
offended party is a relative of lower degree.
People v. Atop (1998)
Facts: 11-year-old Regina lives with her
grandmother. Atop is the common-law husband of her
grandmother. Atop was found guilty of 4 counts of rape
which was committed in 1993 (2x), 1994 and 1995. The
lower court took into account the AC of relationship.
Held: The law cannot be stretched to include
persons attached by common-law relations. In this case,
there is no blood relationship or legal bond that links
Atop to his victim.
People v. Marcos (2001)
Facts: Virgilio arrived at the house of the
Marcoses and proceeded to the artesian well (jetmatic)
located just at the back of the house. Virgilio bent down
to put on the ground the tools he was carrying. Cesar
then came out of the kitchen door with a bolo in hand
and suddenly hacked Virgilio from behind. Virgilio was
hit on the nape of the neck which caused him to fall to
the ground. Then Cesar hacked him again and this time
Virgilio was hit on the right side of the head. Virgilio is
the elder brother of Cesar.
Held: In order that the alternative
circumstance of relationship may be taken into
consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty,
the offended party must either be the (a) spouse, (b)
ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or
adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in
the same degree, of the offender. In the case at bar,
Cesar and Virgilio Marcos are brothers. Accused likewise
declared that Virgilio is his brother. That the victim is
the elder brother of Cesar is likewise alleged in the
Information. The rule is that relationship is aggravating
in crimes against persons as when the offender and the
offended party are relatives of the same level such as
killing a brother. Thus, relationship was correctly
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
b. INTOXICATION
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 76

MITIGATING c. DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION OF

a. if intoxication is not habitual, or
b. if intoxication is not subsequent to the
plan to commit a felony.
AGGRAVATING
a. if intoxication is habitual; or
b. if it is intentional (subsequent to the plan
to commit a felony)
- It is intentional when the offender
drinks liquor fully knowing its effects, to find in
the liquor a stimulant to commit a crime or a
means to suffocate any remorse.
THE OFFENDER
Low degree of instruction and education or lack
of it is generally mitigating. High degree of instruction
and education is aggravating, when the offender avails
himself of his learning in committing the crime.
LACK OF INSTRUCTION, AS MITIGATING
- Lack of instruction cannot be taken into
account where the defendant admitted that he studied in
the first grade in a public elementary school. Art. 15
applies only to him who really has not received any
instruction.

• When the offender has committed a felony in a state
of intoxication.
- This clause means that the offender’s mental
faculties must be affected by drunkenness.
- The accused’s state of intoxication must be
proved.
WHEN THE INTOXICATION IS HABITUAL
- A habitual drunkard is one given to
intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The
habit should be actual and confirmed, but it is not
necessary that it be continuous or by daily occurrence.
• Not illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient
intelligence are necessary to invoke the benefit of the
alternative circumstance of lack of instruction, the
determination of which is left to the trial court.
• Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating when the
offender is a city resident who knows how to sign his
name.
• Lack of instruction must be proved positively and
directly and cannot be based on mere deduction or
inference.

People v. Renejane (1988) • The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for
Facts: The accused was convicted for the crime the first time in appellate court.
of murder of 1 policeman and his companion. It was
found that Renejane was with these 2 persons and some • Ordinarily, LOW DEGREE OR LACK OF INSTRUCTION
other people and they were having a drinking session IS MITIGATING IN ALL CRIMES.
when the incident took place. It was also found that the Exceptions:
policeman apprehended Renejane a month before the (1) crimes against property such as estafa, theft,
incident of illegal possession of marijuana. robbery arson except theft of large cattle and robbery
Held: Drunkenness is not necessarily an with homicide.
aggravating circumstance. The fact that the accused (2) crimes against chastity
drank liquor prior to the commission of the crime did not (3) treason – because love of country should be a
necessarily qualify such action as an aggravating natural feeling of every citizen, however unlettered or
circumstance. Intoxication is aggravating if it is habitual uncultured he may be
or intentional. There is no finding of either by the lower (4) murder – because to kill is forbidden by
court. The affair was an ordinary drinking party. Neither natural law which every rational being is endowed to
can this be considered as a mitigating circumstance in know and feel.
the absence of proof that the intake of alcoholic drinks
was of such quantity as to blur the appellant’s reason HIGH DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION, AS AGGRAVATING
and deprive him of a certain degree of control.
Degree of instruction is aggravating when the
People v. Camano (1982) offender availed himself or took advantage of it in
Facts: After the accused had been drinking committing the crime.
liquor, he stabbed twice the victim Pascua with a bolo
while the latter was walking along the barrio street. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES AND OTHER SPECIAL
After hacking and stabbing to death the victim, the
SITUATIONS
accused proceeded to the seashore and on finding
Buenaflor hacked the latter with the same bolo.
Held: Intoxication is mitigating if accidental, Absolutory causes are those where the act
not habitual nor intentional, that is, no subsequent to committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
the plan to commit the crime. It is aggravating if sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
habitual or intentional. To be mitigating, it must be
indubitably proved. A habitual drunkard is one given to a. ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION
intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The
habit should be actual and confirmed. It is unnecessary ENTRAPMENT INSTIGATION
that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It lessens Ways and means are The instigator practically
individual resistance to evil thought and undermines resorted to for the purpose induces the would-be
will-power making its victim a potential evil doer. of trapping and capturing accused into the
The intoxication of the appellant not being the lawbreaker in the commission of the offense
habitual and considering that the said appellant was in a execution of his criminal and himself becomes a co-
state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the plan principal.
felony, the alternative circumstance of intoxication The means originate from The law enforcer conceives
should be considered mitigating. the mind of the criminal. the commission of the
crime and suggests to the
accused who adopts the

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
idea and carries it into
execution.
A person has planned or is A public officer or a private
about to commit a crime detective induces an
and ways and means are innocent person to commit
resorted to by a public a crime and would arrest
officer to trap and catch him upon or after the
the criminal. commission of the crime
by the latter.
Not a bar to the The accused must be
prosecution and conviction acquitted.
of the lawbreaker.
People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Ting (1931)
Facts: Samson was the chief of customs secret
service in Cebu and Natividad was the former collector
of customs. He was instructed to make sure that the
shipment containing opium shall be unloaded in the
country. He went along the plan and then he informed
the Philippine Constabulary of all that had taken place
and they discussed a plan to capture the opium owners.
Held: The mere fact that the chief of customs
secret service pretended to agree to a plan for
smuggling illegally imported opium through the
customhouse, in order the better to assure the seizure
of said opium and the arrest of its importers, is no bar to
the prosecution and conviction of the accused.
Samson did not induce nor instigate the
accused to import the opium but merely pretended to
have an understanding with the collector of customs.
There is nothing immoral in this or against the public
good which should prevent the government from
prosecuting and punishing the culprits, for this is not a
case where an innocent person is induced to commit a
crime merely to prosecute him, but it is simply a trap
set to catch a criminal.
Araneta v. CA (1986)
Facts: Atty. Araneta was the hearing officer of
the Dept. of Labor in Cabanatuan while Mrs. Yoyongco is
the widow of a government employee. The latter went to
see Araneta regarding her claim for death compensation
and Araneta asked for P100 for her claim to be
processed. The widow reported this to the PC and the PC
decided to entrap Araneta. The entrapment was
successful and Atty. Araneta was charged for violating
the anti-graft law.
Held: Entrapment is not a defense in a criminal
case. It is different from instigation. There is instigation
when the accused was induced to commit the crime. In
entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of
the criminal. Entrapment does not exempt the criminal
from liability.
People v. Pacis (2002)
Facts: Atty. Yap, supervising agent of the
Dangerous Drugs Division-NBI, received information that
Pacis was offering to sell ½ kg of "shabu." A buy-bust
operation was approved. Yap and Senior Agent Congzon,
Jr., were assigned to handle the case. Yap, Congzon
and the informant then went to the house of Pacis. The
informant introduced Yap to Pacis as interested buyer.
They negotiated the sale of ½ kg of shabu. It was
agreed that payment and delivery of shabu would be
made on the following day. The next day, the NBI
agents and the informant went to Pacis's house as
agreed. Pacis handed to Yap a paper bag with markings
"yellow cab". When he opened the bag, Yap found a
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
77
transparent plastic bag with white crystalline substance
inside. While examining it, Pacis asked for the payment.
Yap instructed Congzon to get the money from the car.
Congzon returned and gave the "boodle money" to Atty.
Yap who handed the money to Pacis. Upon Pacis' receipt
of the payment, the officers identified themselves as NBI
agents and arrested him.
Held: The operation that led to the arrest of
appellant was an entrapment, not an instigation. In
entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the
purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in the
execution of their criminal plan. In instigation on the
other hand, instigators practically induce the would-be
defendant into the commission of the offense and
become co-principals themselves. It has been held in
numerous cases by this Court that entrapment is
sanctioned by law as a legitimate method of
apprehending criminal elements engaged in the sale and
distribution of illegal drugs.
b. EFFECT OF PARDON
RPC, 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.
R.A. No. 8353. Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The
subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty.
Provided, That the crime shall be extinguish or the
penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab
initio.
♣ A pardon by the offended party does not
extinguish criminal action because a crime is an offense
against the State. In criminal cases, the intervention of
the aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses for
the prosecution.
♣ Compromise does not extinguish criminal liability.
♣ The offended party in crimes of adultery and
concubinage cannot institute criminal prosecution, if he
shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
- the pardon here may be implied, as
continued inaction of the offended party after learning
the offense.
- both offenders must be pardoned by the
offended party.
c. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Art. 6(3). - There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly or over
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than this own spontaneous
desistance.
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. —
Light felonies are punishable only when they have been
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
consummated, with the exception of those committed
against person or property.
Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The
following are criminally liable for grave and less grave
felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
Art. 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.
Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted
under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally
married person who having surprised his spouse in the
act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act
or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any
serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of
destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of
any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same
circumstances, to parents with respect to their
daughters under eighteen years of age, and their
seducer, while the daughters are living with their
parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise
have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall
not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. —
Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of
another against the latter's will shall be punished by
arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or
intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be
applicable to any person who shall enter another's
dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious
harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third
person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall
enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall
enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while
the same are open.
Art. 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
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
78
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.
Art. 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.
d. ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASE OF
EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT
Art. 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 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.
People v. Veneracion (1995)
Facts: The accused was found guilty of the
crime of Rape with Homicide. The instant petition raised
the issue whether or not the respondent judge acted
with grave abuse of discretion when he failed or refused
to impose the mandatory penalty of death under RA
7659
Held: The law plainly and unequivocably
provides that “when by reason or on the occasion of
rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
death. Courts are not concerned with wisdom, efficacy
or morality of law. The discomfort faced by those forced
by law to impose death penalty is an ancient one, but it
is a matter upon which judges have no choice. The Rules
of Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the
judges should impose the proper penalty and civil
liability provided for by the law on the accused.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
V. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
Art. 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:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
♣ The treble division of persons criminally
responsible for an offense rests upon the very nature of
their participation in the commission of the crime.
♣ The ACCESSORIES are not liable for light felonies
because in the commission of light felonies, the social
wrong as well as the individual prejudice is so small that
penal sanction is deemed not necessary for accessories
RULES RELATIVE TO LIGHT FELONIES:
a. Light felonies are punishable only when they
have been consummated.
b. But when light felonies are committed
against persons or property, the are punishable even if
they are only in the attempted or frustrated stage of the
execution.
c. Only principals and accomplices are liable for
light felonies.
d. Accessories are not liable for light felonies,
even if they are committed against persons or property.
♣ Only natural persons can be the active
subject of crime because of the highly personal nature of
the criminal responsibility.
♣ Only a natural person can be the
offender because:
a. The RPC requires that the culprit should
have acted with personal malice or negligence. An
artificial or juridical person cannot act with malice or
negligence.
b. A juridical person, like a corporation, cannot
commit a crime in which a willful purpose or a malicious
intent is required.
c. There is substitution of deprivation of liberty
(subsidiary imprisonment) for pecuniary penalties in
case of in case of insolvency of the accused.
d. Other penalties consisting in imprisonment
and other deprivation of liberty like destierro, can be
executed only against individuals.
♣ Officers, not the corporation, are criminally
liable.
♣ Juridical persons are criminally liable under
certain special laws.
♣ In all crimes there are always 2 parties:
ACTIVE (the criminal) and PASSIVE (the injured party).
A. PRINCIPALS
Art. 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;
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
79
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of
the offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.
• When a single individual commits a crime, there is
no difficulty in determining his participation in the
commission thereof.
• But when 2 or more persons are involved, it is
necessary to determine the participation of each.
PAR. 1. – PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION
The principal by direct participation
PERSONALLY TAKES PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE
ACT constituting the crime.
• Two or more persons who took part in the commission
of the crime are principals by direct participation, when
the following requisites are present:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution
2. That they carried out their plan and personally
took part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end.
First requisite – Participation in the criminal
resolution
• Two or more persons are said to have
participated in the criminal resolution when they were in
conspiracy at the time of the commission of the crime.
• It is well settled that a person may be
convicted for the criminal act of another where, between
them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and
intention in the commission of the crime charged.
CONSPIRACY
• A conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it.
• The conspiracy contemplated in the first
requisite is not a felony, but only a manner of incurring
criminal liability.
• In order to hold an accused guilty as co-
principal by reason of conspiracy, it must be established
that he performed an over act in furtherance of the
conspiracy, either by actively participating in the actual
commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistance
to his co-conspirators by being present at the scene of
the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the
rest of the conspirators as to move them to executing
the conspiracy.
• Mere knowledge without cooperation or
agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute
conspiracy.
• Silence does not make one a conspirator
• The existence of conspiracy does not require
necessarily an agreement for an appreciable length of
time prior to the execution of its purpose, since from the
legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had the same
purpose and were united in its execution.
• Conspiracy arises on the very instant the
plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
felony and forthwith decide to pursue it.
• Formal agreement or previous acquaintance
among several persons not necessary in conspiracy.
• Must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence.
• When there is no conspiracy, each of the
offenders is liable only for the act performed by him.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
∞ It is not enough that a person participated in
the assault made by another in order to consider him a
co-principal in the crime committed. He must also
participate in the criminal resolution of the other.
∞ When there is conspiracy, the act of one is
the act of all. There is collective criminal responsibility.
∞ Conspiracy may cover persons previously
undetermined.
∞ A person in conspiracy with others, who had
desisted before the crime was committed by the other,
is not criminally liable.
∞ When there is conspiracy, it is not necessary
to ascertain the specific act of each conspirator.
∞ There could be no conspiracy to commit an
offense through negligence.
∞ In cases of criminal negligence or crimes
punishable by special law, allowing or failing to prevent
an act to be performed by another, makes one a co-
principal.
Second requisite – that the culprits “carried out
their plan and personally took part in its
execution, by acts which directly tended to the
same end.”
∞ The principals by direct participation must be
at the scene of the crime, personally taking part in its
execution.
∞ The acts of each offender must directly tend
to the same end.
∞ One serving as guard pursuant to the
conspiracy is a principal by direct participation.
∞ When the second requisite is lacking, there is
only conspiracy.
People v. Nunag (1989)
Facts: The victim claimed that while she was
standing outside the house of her neighbor peeping
through an open window to watch a TV program, Nunag
came towards her appearing to be drunk. Nunag,
threatening to kill her, led her to a nearby ricefield.
Later, they were joined by the other 4 accused. Nunag
then undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her.
Mandap followed and she lost consciousness after. She
regained consciousness only when Manalili was abusing
her.
Held: Accused Nunag, Mandap and Manalili are
found guilty of 3 distinct and separate crimes of rape.
They being principals by direct participation while the
other 2 accused as principals by indispensable
cooperation since there is no sufficient evidence that the
latter also had sexual intercourse with the victim. The
victim lost consciousness and only assumed that the two
also raped her.
People v. Dela Cerna (1967)
Facts: Rafael filed an ejectment suit against
dela Cerna’s father wherein the court ruled in his favor.
Later he was shot by the accused while the former and
his family were bringing sacks of corn. He was taken
away by his family to tend his wounds but Dela Cerna
and company followed them and Rafael was shot again
resulting to his death. Maquiling, one companion of Dela
Cerna, shot Casiano, a relative of Rafael.
Held: Dela Cerna cannot be held liable for the
death of Casiano because the conspiracy was to kill
Rafael only. The rule has always been: co-conspirators
are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy;
for other acts done outside the contemplation of the co-
conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical
consequence of the intended crime, only the actual
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
80
perpetrators are liable. Although Maquiling got the gun
from Dela Cerna, the latter only gave it to the former as
per their agreement to shoot Rafael
As to the other companions, facts prove their
active participation in the killing. They are all principals.
People v. Dacillo (supra)
Facts: Pacot stabbed and strangled Rosemarie
leading to the latters death. Dacillo for his part, hold
down Rosemarie’s legs to prevent her from struggling.
The two men stopped only when they were sure that the
victim was already dead. Dacillo then encase her corpse
in a cement.
Held:. Two or more persons taking part in the
commission of a crime are considered principals by
direct participation if the following requisites are
present: 1. they participated in the criminal resolution
and 2. they carried out their plan and personally took
part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the
same end. Both requisites were met in this case. Further
Dacillo’s admission that he participated in the
commission of the crime by holding Rosemarie’s legs
made him a principal by direct participation.
PAR. 2. – PRINCIPALS BY INDUCTION
“Those who directly force or induce others to
commit it.”
∞ The principal by induction becomes liable
only when the principal by direct participation committed
the act induced.
2 WAYS OF BECOMING PRINCIPAL BY INDUCTION
1) BY DIRECTLY FORCING ANOTHER TO
COMMIT A CRIME
a. By using IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
b. By causing UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
2) BY DIRECTLY INDUCING ANOTHER TO
COMMIT A CRIME.
a. By giving price, or offering reward or
promise.
b. By using words of command.
REQUISITES:
1. That the inducement be made directly with the
intention of procuring the commission of the crime;
and
a. A thoughtless expression without intention to
produce the result is not an inducement to
commit a crime.
b. The inducement may be by acts of command,
advice, or through influence, or agreement
for consideration.
2. That such inducement be the determining cause
of the commission of the crime by the material
executor.
- The words of advice of the influence must
have actually moved the hands of the principal by
direct participation.
PRINCIPAL BY PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
INDUCEMENT THE FELONY
There is an inducement to commit a crime.
The principal by The mere proposal to
inducement becomes liable commit a felony is
only when the crime is punishable in treason and
committed by the principal rebellion. The person to
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
by direct participation. whom the proposal is
made should not commit
the crime; otherwise, the
proponent becomes
principal by inducement.
The inducement involves The proposal to be
any crime punishable must involve
only treason or rebellion.
EFFECTS OF ACQUITTAL OF PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
PARTICIPATION UPON THE LIABILITY OF
PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT
1) Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co-
defendant.
2) One cannot be held guilty of having instigated
the commission of a crime without first being
shown that the crime has been actually
committed by another.
People v. Dela Cruz (1980)
Facts: Dela Cruz met with Salip and a
couple of other men when he proposed to them the
killing of Antonio Yu and the kidnapping of the latter’s
brother for a ransom. A group of men sailed for Basilan
where they met with Salip. They proceeded to the
accused’s house where the accused informed the group
of the whereabouts of the Chinese brothers and other
details of the plan. The group was able to kidnap and
detain the brother for a short while before he attempted
to escape and was shot by one of the men.
Held: The contention of the accused that
since he did not take part in the commission of the
crime, conspiracy does not exist, is untenable. The
requisites necessary in order that a person may be
convicted as principal by inducement are present.
Without Dela Cruz, the crime would not have been
conceived, much less committed. Clearly, he was the
principal by induction.
US v. Indianan (1913)
Facts: Indianan was the HEADMAN of the
district of Parang. He ordered his subordinates to seize
Sariol (victim) and bring the latter to Indianan. The
victim was detained by Indianan until nightfall, then
Indianan ordered his subordinates to take Sariol to an
isolated place and kill him. Indianan bolstered his
command by claiming that he had an order from the
governor that Sariol be executed. Indianan’s
subordinates took Sariol to a cemetery and killed him.
Held: Indianan had a very powerful
influence over his subordinates based on TRADITION
AND CUSTOM as well as his representation that he had
an order from the governor. Hence, his power over them
was such that any order issued by him had the force and
efficacy of physical coercion. The domination of Indianan
was such as to make him responsible for whatever they
did in obedience to such orders. He is a principal by
inducement.
PAR. 3. – PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE
COOPERATION
“Those who cooperate in the commission
of the offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.”
REQUISITES:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is,
there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of
criminal purpose and intention immediately
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
81
before the commission of the crime charged;
and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense
a by performing another act, without which it
would not have been accomplished.
v To be liable as principals, the offender must fall
under any of the three concepts defined in Article 17.
v There is collective criminal responsibility when the
offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and
to the same extent. The penalty to be imposed must be
the same for all.
v Principals by direct participation have collective
criminal responsibility. Principal by induction, except
that who directly forced another to commit a crime, and
principal by direct participation have collective criminal
responsibility. Principal by indispensable cooperation has
collective criminal responsibility with the principal by
direct participation.
People v. Montealegre (1988)
Facts: Abadilla was eating at a restaurant
when he detected the smell of marijuana smoke coming
from a nearby table. Intending to call a policeman, he
went outside and saw a police and reported the matter.
The police approached the table and held Montealgre
and Capalad. Capalad suddenly pulled out his knife and
started stabbing the police at the back. The police
released the 2 in order to draw his gun but Montealegre
restrained the police so that Capalad may continue
stabbing. The 3 grappled and the police was able to
draw his gun and fired at the 2 assailants. A chase
ensued. Capalad was shot which resulted to his death.
The police also died because of the wounds inflicted by
Capalad.
Held: The accused was correctly considered a
co-principal for having collaborated with Capalad in the
killing of the police officer. The 2 acted in concert. Even
if the accused did not himself commit the act of stabbing,
he is nonetheless equally guilty thereof for having
prevented the police from resisting the attack against
him. The accused was a principal by indispensable
cooperation.
B. ACCOMPLICES
Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons
who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts.
♣ In quasi-collective criminal responsibility,
some of the offenders in the crime are principals and the
others are accomplices.
♣ The participation of an accomplice
presupposes the commission of the crime b the principal
by direct participation.
♣ When there is no conspiracy between or
among the defendants but they were animated by one
and the same purpose to accomplish the criminal
objective, those who cooperated by previous or
simultaneous act but cannot be held liable as principals
are accomplices.
♣ An accomplice does not have a previous
agreement or understanding or is not in conspiracy with
the principal by direct participation.
CONSPIRATOR ACCOMPLICE
They know and agree with the criminal design.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 82

Conspirators know the Accomplices come to know indispensable in the indispensable in the
criminal intention because about it after the commission of the act. commission of the act.
they themselves have principals have reached
decided upon such course the decision and only then People v. Mandolado (supra)
of action. do they agree to cooperate Held: An accomplice cooperates in the
in its execution. execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
Conspirators decide that a Accomplices merely assent acts, provided he has no direct participation in its
crime should be to the plan and cooperate execution or does not force or induce others to commit it,
committed. in it accomplishment or his cooperation is not indispensable to its
accomplishment.
Conspirators are the Accomplices are merely In the case at bar, Ortillano, by his acts
authors of a crime instruments who perform showed knowledge of the criminal design of Mandolado.
acts not essential to the He was present when the latter tried to attack the driver
perpetration of the of the Ford Fiera with a knife and fired at the vehicle
offense. hitting a female passenger. When Mandolado cocked his
gun and ordered Tenorio to stop the jeep, their 2 other
REQUISITES: companion, Simon and Erinada, immediately jumped off
1. That there be community of design; that is, the jeep and ran away but Ortillano stayed. In a display
knowing the criminal design of the principal by of unity with Mandolado, Ortillano fired his armalite
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in while they were riding in the jeep of the victim. And
his purpose; Ortillano’s act of firing his gun towards the ground
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the manifested his concurrence with the criminal intent. In
offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with other words, his simultaneous acts supplied moral aid in
the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way. His
the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; presence served to encourage Mandolado, the principal,
and or to increase the odds against the victims.
3. That there be a relation between the acts done
by the principal and those attributed to the People v. Doctolero (1991)
person charged as accomplice. Facts: The 3 accused, Ludovico, Conrado
and Virgilio (all surnamed Doctolero) threw stones at
♣ The community of design need not be to Sagun’s house and called to all the men in the house to
commit the crime actually committed. It is sufficient if come out. Epifiana and Lolita and Jonathan (1 ½ year
there was a common purpose to commit a particular old child of Lolita) were struck and stabled by the
crime and that the crime actually committed was a accused inside the house of Sagun. Epifiana and Lolita
natural or probable consequence of the intended crime. died while Jonathan was slightly injured. The same
♣ The cooperation of an accomplice is not due accused while already on the road, hacked and stabbed
to a conspiracy. Marcelo which caused his death.
♣ When the acts of the accused are not Held: There is no question that while the
indispensable in the killing, they are merely accomplices. 3 accused were still stoning at the house, they heard the
♣ The accomplice merely supplies the principal 2 women protesting and Ludovico went inside and
with material or moral aid without conspiracy with the brutally killed the 2 women inside the room of the said
latter. house. It is impossible to claim that Virgilio and Conrado
♣ The wounds inflicted by an accomplice in did not know what their brother was doing. They knew
and they just stood by and did nothing to stop their
crimes against persons should mot have caused the
brother. Their presence gave Ludovico encouragement in
death of the victim.
the commission of the crime. Thus, the 2 are
accomplices. Once can be an accomplice even if he did
RULES:
not know of the actual crime intended b the principal
1. The one who had the original criminal
provided he was aware that it was an illicit act.
design is the person who committed the
resulting crime.
People v. Roche (2000)
2. The accomplice, after concurring in the
Facts: Roderick and Rodel Ferol were having
criminal purpose of the principal, cooperates
drinks with a friend named Bobot inside the Ferol
by previous or simultaneous acts.
compound. Without any warning, Roche and Gregorio
When the cooperation is by simultaneous act,
barged into the compound. Gregorio tried to hit Rodel
the accomplice takes part while the crime is
with an empty beer bottle but failed because his
being committed by the principal by direct
common-law wife, Helen, pulled him away on time.
participation or immediately thereafter.
Roderick however was stabbed on the back with an ice
3. The accomplice in crimes against persons
pick by Roche. Roderick ran towards the house of his
does not inflict the more or most serious
friend Bobot but outside the compound, Caballes caught
wounds.
up with him. Roderick fell to the ground and was
repeatedly stabbed with a knife by Caballes. One Rossel
♣ The moral aid may be through advice,
tried to stop Caballes but he was chased by the latter. A
encouragement or agreement.
brother of the victim, Jon-Jon, threw bottles at Caballes,
♣ There must be a relation between the criminal act
forcing the latter to run away, and leave his victim
of the principal and the act of the one charged as behind. Roderick was then taken to his house by Rogelio
accomplice. and Jon-Jon. But at the time, Roderick was already
dead.
PRINCIPAL by ACCOMPLICE Held: Roche can not be held liable as an
COOPERATION accomplice for the crime charged. There is no evidence
Cooperation is Cooperation is not

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
to show that he performed any previous or simultaneous
act to assist Caballes in killing Roderick. It has not been
proven that he was aware of Caballes’ plan to attack
and kill Roderick. Absent any evidence to create the
moral certainty required to convict Roche, the court
cannot uphold the trial court’s finding of guilt.
People v. Pilola (2003)
Facs: Joselito, Julian, Edmar and Odilon were
having a drinking spree. In the course of their drinking,
an altercation between Edmar and Julian ensued. Edmar
and Odilon then left the store. Joselito and Julian were
also about to leave when Edmar and Odilon returned,
blocking their way. Edmar punched Julian in the face.
The two then traded fist blows. For his part, Odilon
positioned himself on top of a pile of hollow blocks and
watched as Edmar and Julian swapped punches. Joselito
tried to placate the protagonists but his intervention
apparently did not sit well with Odilon. He pulled out his
knife with his right hand and stepped down from his
perch. He placed his left arm around Joselito's neck, and
stabbed the latter. Ronnie and the appellant Pilola, who
were across the street, saw their gangmate Odilon
stabbing the victim and decided to join the fray. They
pulled out their knives, rushed to the scene and stabbed
Joselito. The victim fell in the canal. Odilon and the
appellant fled. Before running away from the scene,
Ronnie picked up a piece of hollow block and with it
bashed Joselito's head. Not content, Ronnie got a piece
of broken bottle and struck Joselito once more. Joselito
died on the spot.
Held: To hold a person liable as an accomplice,
two elements must concur: (a) the community of
criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal design of
the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the
latter in his purpose; (b) the performance of previous or
simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the
commission of the crime. Accomplices come to know
about the criminal resolution of the principal by direct
participation after the principal has reached the decision
to commit the felony and only then does the accomplice
agree to cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not
decide whether the crime should be committed; they
merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct
participation and cooperate in its accomplishment.
However, where one cooperates in the commission of
the crime by performing overt acts which by themselves
are acts of execution, he is a principal by direct
participation, and not merely an accomplice
All things considered, it was ruled that Ronnie
and the appellant conspired with Odilon to kill the
victim; hence, all of them are criminally liable for the
latter's death. The appellant is not merely an accomplice
but is a principal by direct participation.
Even assuming that the appellant did not
conspire with Ronnie and Odilon to kill the victim, the
appellant is nevertheless criminally liable as a principal
by direct participation. The stab wounds inflicted by him
cooperated in bringing about and accelerated the death
of the victim or contributed materially thereto.
People v. Garcia (2002)
Facts: Valler and Garcia kidnapped Atty.
Tioleco for the purpose of extorting ransom. Lariba and
Rogel were caught by police officers inside the house
where a handcuffed and blinfolded Atty. Tioleco was
detained. Both were unarmed although guns inside the
house are available for their possession.
Held: Lariba and Rogel, were merely guarding
the house for the purpose of either helping the other
accused-appellants in facilitating the successful
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
83
denouement to the crime or repelling any attempt to
rescue the victim, as shown by the availability of arms
and ammunition to them. They thus cooperated in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts by means of which they aided or facilitated the
execution of the crime but without any indispensable act
for its accomplishment. Under Art. 18 of The Revised
Penal Code, they are mere accomplices.
C. ACCESSORIES
Art. 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 principals of the crime, provided the
accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the
Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime.
An accessory does not participate in the
criminal design, nor cooperate in the commission of the
felony, but, with knowledge of the commission of the
crime, he subsequently takes part in 3 ways:
a) by profiting from the effects of the crime;
b) by concealing the body, effects or instruments
of the crime in order to prevent its discovery;
and
c) by assisting in the escape or concealment of
the principal of the crime, provided he acts
with abuse of his public functions or the
principal is guilty of treason, parricide, murder,
or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilt of
some other crime.
“knowledge of the commission of the crime”
♣ Mere possession of stolen property does not
make the accused an accessory where the thief was
already convicted.
♣ Entertaining suspicion that a crime has been
committed is not enough.
♣ Knowledge of the commission of the crime may
be established by circumstantial evidence
“commission of the crime”
♣ the crime committed by the principal must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“without having participated therein either as
principals or accomplices”
“take part subsequent to its commission”
♣ The accessory takes part AFTER the crime has
been committed.
SPECIFIC ACTS OF THE ACCESSORIES
1. BY PROFITING THEMSELVES OR
ASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO PROFIT BY
THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
- The accessory must receive the property
from the principal. He should not take it without the
consent of the principal, or else, he is not an
accessory but a principal in the crime of theft.
- When is profiting by the effect of the
crime punished as the act of principal, and not the
act of accessory?
When a person knowingly acquired or
received property taken by the brigands.
2. BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE
BODY OF THE CRIME TO PREVENT ITS
DISCOVERY.
BODY OF THE CRIME –“corpus delicti” which means
that a specific offense was in fact committed by
someone
3. BY HARBORING, CONCEALING OR
ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE OF THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME
2 CLASSES:
a. Public officers who harbor conceal or assist in the
escape of the principal of any crime (not light
felony) with abuse of his public functions
REQUISITES:
(1) The accessory is a public officer;
(2) He harbors, conceals, or assists in
the escape of the principal;
(3) The public officer acts with abuse
of his public functions.
(4) The crime committed by the
principal is any crime, provided it is not a
light felony.
b. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in
the escape of the author of the crime – guilty of
treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt against
the life of the President, or who is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
REQUISITES:
(1) The accessory is a private person.
(2) He harbors, conceals or assists in
the escape of the author of the crime.
(3) The crime committed by the
principal is either: (a) treason, (b)
parricide, (c) murder, (d) attempt against
the life of the president, or (e) that the
principal is known to be habitually guilty
of some other crime.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies
reveal that there is rampant robbery and thievery of
government and private properties;
WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have
become profitable on the part of the lawless elements
because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known
as fence, of stolen properties;
WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be
prosecuted only as an accessory after the fact and punished
lightly;
WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy
penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the crimes
of robbery and theft.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested in
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
84
me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree as part
of the law of the land the following:
Section 1. Title. This decree shall be known as
the Anti-Fencing Law.
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following
terms shall mean as follows:
(a) "Fencing" is 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 other 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.
(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm, association
corporation or partnership or other organization who/which
commits the act of fencing.
Section 3. Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing
shall be punished as hereunder indicated:
(a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of
the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not
exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property
exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding
one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty
years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion
temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto
provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods, if the value of the property
robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding
12,000 pesos.
(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property
involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000
pesos.
(d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the
value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not
exceeding 200 pesos.
(e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
period if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding
50 pesos.
(f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
Section 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical
Persons. If the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or
association, the president or the manager or any officer
thereof who knows or should have known the commission of
the offense shall be liable.
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.
Section 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second
Hand Articles. For purposes of this Act, all stores,
establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any
good, article item, object of anything of value obtained from
an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering
the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary
clearance or permit from the station commander of the
Integrated National Police in the town or city where such
store, establishment or entity is located. The Chief of
Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police
shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry out the
provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the
clearance or permit required by this section or who violates
any of the provisions of the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be punished
as a fence.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Section 7. Repealing Clause. All laws or parts
thereof, which are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 8. Effectivity. This Decree shall take
effect upon approval.
Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March,
in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-nine.
ACCESSORY DISTINGUISHED FROM PRINCIPAL
AND FROM ACCOMPLICE
1. The accessory does not take direct part or
cooperate in, or induce, the commission of the crime.
2. The accessory does not cooperate in the
commission of the offense by acts either prior thereto or
simultaneous therewith.
3. That the participation of the accessory in all
cases always takes place after the commission of the
crime.
Art. 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.
♣ The exemption is based on the ties of blood
and the preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name,
which compels one to conceal crimes committed by
relatives.
♣ An ACESSORY is exempt from criminal
liability, when the principal is his:
1. spouse,
2. ascendant,
3. descendant,
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother,
sister or relative by affinity within the
same degree.
- even if only two of the principals guilty of
murder are the brothers of the accessory and the others
are not related to him, such accessory is exempt from
criminal liability.
- a nephew or niece is not included
♣ An accessory is NOT EXEMPT from criminal
liability even if the principal is related to him, if such
accessory (1) PROFITED by the effects of the crime, or
(2) assisted the offender to profit by the effects of
the crime
People v. Talingdan (1978)
Facts: Bernardo and Teresa lived together
but for quite some time their relationship has gotten
bitter. Bernardo knew that Teresa had an illicit
relationship with Talingdan. Their child testified that on
the day the killing occurred, there were 4 men inside
their house and Bernardo knew about it but continued
plowing his field. Later, when Bernardo came inside the
kitchen, Talingdan and Tobias fired at Bernardo and the
4 climbed the stairs of the Batalan. Seeing that the
victim was alive they fired at him again. Teresa came
out after from her room and pulled her child to question
her. Teresa threatened to kill her if she would reveal the
incident.
Held: One who conceals or assists in the
escape of the principal in the crime can be held guilty as
accessory. There is morally convincing proof that Teresa
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
85
is an accessory to the offense. She was inside the room
when her husband was shot. As she came out after the
shooting, she inquired from the child if she was able to
recognize the assailants and when the latter identified
the 4 accused as the culprits, Teresa did not only enjoin
her daughter not to reveal what she knew to anyone but
she went to the extent of warning her not to tell anyone
or else she would kill her. Later when the police came,
she claimed she had no suspects in mind. She, thus,
became active in her cooperation with the 4 accused.
People v. Tolentino (2002)
Facts: Wilfredo Tolentino hit Herman Sagario
with a piece of wood and later stabbed him with a bolo.
Wilfedo then instructed appellant Jonathan Fabros and
Merwin Ledesma to help him bring Hernan out of the
house. Wilfredo held him by the neck while both
appellant and Merwin grasped his feet. They then
carried Hernan towards a creek. Appellant assisted
Wilfredo out of fear and when he noticed that Sagario
regained conciousness, he ran away towards a banana
plantation. Wilfredo then stab Sagario on the different
parts of his body causing his death. Thereafter, Wilfredo
pushed and waded Sagario on the water.
Held: Appellant Jonathan Fabros cannot be
convicted as an accessory. Under paragraph 2 of Article
19 of the Revised Penal Code, the concealment or the
destruction of the body of the crime or of the effects or
the instruments thereof must have been done in order
to prevent the discovery of the crime. That, precisely, is
wanting in the present case. Appellant was afraid that
his co-accused would hurt him if he refused so he
agreed to assist the latter in carrying the victim towards
the river. The fact that appellant left thereafter likewise
indicated his innocence of the charge. Verily, he
adequately explained his conduct prior to the stabbing
incident as one born of fear for his own life. It is not
incredible for an eyewitness to a crime, especially if
unarmed, to desist from assisting the victim if to do so
would put the former's life in peril.
People v. Mariano (2000)
Facts: Ruth and their maid Michelle often
engaged in a physical fight. The fight usually ends with
Ruth pouring boiling water on Michelle. During their
fights which number to at least 6 times a month, Ruth
would bang Michelle’s head and pull on her hair. Michelle
subsequently died as a result. Ruth placed the body of
Michelle in a box which she then loaded inside the
luggage compartment of her sister Ruby’s car. Ruth and
Ruby were both convicted of murder by the trial court.
Held: Ruby is the sister of Ruth. As such, their
relationship exempts Ruby from criminal liability under
Art. 20 of the Revised Penal Code —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 preceding article (emphasis supplied). The reason
for exemption is obvious; it is based on ties of blood and
the preservation of the cleanliness of one's name, which
compels one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so
near as those mentioned in the above-quoted article.
Ruby Mariano is acquitted.
V. PENALTIES
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for
the transgression of a law.
Different Juridical Conditions of Penalty:
1. Must be PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING, without
however affecting the integrity of the human
personality.
2. Must be COMMENSURATE with the offense –
different crimes must be punished with
different penalties.
3. Must be PERSONAL – no one should be
punished for the crime of another.
4. Must be LEGAL – it is the consequence of a
judgment according to law.
5. Must be CERTAIN – no one may escape its
effects.
6. Must be EQUAL for all.
7. Must be CORRECTIONAL.
∗ The purpose of the State in punishing crimes is TO
SECURE JUSTICE. Penal justice must therefore be
exercised by the State in the service and satisfaction of
a duty and rests primarily on the moral rightfulness of
the punishment inflicted.
Theories justifying penalty:
a. PREVENTION – to suppress danger to the State
b. SELF-DEFENSE – to protect the society from
the threat and wrong inflicted by the criminal.
c. REFORMATION – to correct and reform the
offender.
d. EXEMPLARITY – to serve as an example to
deter others from committing crimes.
e. JUSTICE – for retributive justice, a vindication
of absolute right and moral law violated by the
criminal.
Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
a. RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION – the penalty is
commensurate with the gravity of the offense.
b. CORRECTION OR REFORMATION – as shown
by the rules which regulate the execution of
the penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty.
c. SOCIAL DEFENSE – shown by its inflexible
severity to recidivist and habitual delinquents.
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
NO ex post facto laws
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony
shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.
∗ This article prohibits the Government from
punishing any person for any felony with any penalty
which has not been prescribed by the law.
∗ It has no application to any of the provisions
of the RPC for the reason that for every felony defined in
the Code, a penalty has been prescribed.
∗ REASON: An act or omission cannot be
punished by the State if at the time it was committed
there was no law prohibiting it, because a law cannot be
rationally obeyed unless it is first shown, and a man
cannot be expected to obey an order that has not been
given.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
86
1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained
solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be
imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless,
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for
debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted.
In Re: Kay Villegas Kami (1970)
Facts: Petition for declaratory relief
challenging the validity of Sec. 8 of RA 6132 on the
ground that it violates due process, right of association,
freedom of expression and that it is an ex post facto law.
Held: An ex post facto law is one which:
1. makes criminal an act done before the passage of
the law and which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act.
2. aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
was when committed;
3. changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed;
4. alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than
the law required at the time of the commission of
the offense;
5. assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies
only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a
right for something which when done was lawful;
and
6. deprives a person accused of a crime of some
lawful protection to which he has become entitled,
such as the protection of a former conviction or
acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
The constitutional inhibition refers only to criminal
laws which are given retroactive effect. While it is true
that Sec. 18 penalizes a violation of any provision of RA
6132 including Sec. 8 thereof, the penalty is imposed
only for acts committed after the approval of the law
and not those perpetrated prior thereto.
People v. Ferrer (1972)
WON the Anti-subversion Act is a bill of
attainder? The trial court ruled that the Act is a bill of
attainder because it “tars and feathers” the communist
party as a “continuing menace to the freedom and
security of the country.”
Held: A bill of attainder is a legislative act
which inflicts punishment without a trial. The Act simply
declares the Communist Party to be an organized
conspiracy for the overthrow of the government. Its
focus is not on the individuals but on the conduct. It is
not enough that the statute specify persons or groups in
order that it may be called a bill of attainder. It is
necessary that it must apply retroactively and reach
past conduct. This requirement follows from the nature
of a bill of attainder as a legislative adjudication of guilt.
People v. Bracamonte (1996)
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Facts: Violeta and her common law husband,
Clark Din, arrived home and 3 men rushing out of the
house. Inside the house, they found their maid hands
tied with her mouth gagged and bathed in her own blood.
Thereafter, they saw their son in the kitchen his head
and body immersed in a pail of water, dead.
Held: To impose upon the accused the death
penalty reimposed by RA 7659 which took effect on Dec.
31, 1993 for a crime committed back on Sep. 23, 1987
would violate the basic rule in criminal law that, if the
new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at
the time of the commission of the offense shall be
applied.
People v. Valdez (1999)
Facts: Accused was convicted by the RTC and
sentenced him to death for the complex crime of
Multiple Murder with Double Frustrated Murder, and
likewise separately sentenced him to suffer the prison
term of reclusion perpetua for the crime of Illegal
Possession of Firearms (PD 1866)
Held: There can be no separate conviction of
the crime of illegal possession under PD 1866 in view of
the amendments introduced by RA 8294 wherein illegal
possession being merely taken as an aggravating
circumstance to other crimes committed. Insofar as RA
8294 will spare the accused from a separate conviction
for the crime of illegal possession, it may be given
retroactive effect.
PROSPECTIVITY; EXCEPTION
RPC, Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No
felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed
by law prior to its commission.
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.
CIVIL CODE, Art. 14. Penal laws and those of public
security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live
or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.
GENERAL RULE: TO GIVE CRIMINAL LAWS
PROSPECTIVE EFFECT
Exception: to give them retroactive effect when
favorable to the accused.
Reason for the exception: 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 juridical
burdensome.
∗ The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find
the defendant in one of these 3 situations:
a. The crime has been committed and prosecution
begins;
b. Sentence has been passed but service has not
begun;
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
87
c. The sentence is being carried out.
∗ When the culprit is HABITUAL DELINQUENT, he is not
entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the new
favorable statute.
∗ A person shall be deemed to be a HABITUAL
DELINQUENT if within a period of 10 years from the date
of his release of last conviction of the crimes of serious
or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilt of an said crimes a third
time or oftener.
∗ The principle against retroactivity does not apply to
civil liability.
- but a new law increasing the civil liability
cannot be given retroactive effect.
∗ The provisions of this article are applicable even to
special laws which provide more favorable conditions to
the accused.
∗ Criminal liability under the former law is obliterated
when the repeal is absolute.
∗ Criminal liability under the repealed law subsists:
a. When the provisions of the former law are
REENACTED; or
b. When the repeal is by IMPLICATION;
c. When there is a SAVING CLAUSE
∗ What penalty may be imposed for the commission of a
felony?
- Only the penalty prescribed by law prior tot the
commission of the felony may be imposed.
- Felonies are punishable under the laws in force
at the time of their commission.
- But the penalty prescribed by law enacted after
the commission of the felony may be imposed, if
it is favorable to the offender.
People v. Gallo (1999)
Facts: The accused seeks a modification of his
death sentence to reclusion perpetua in line with the
new Court rulings which annunciate that the 7 attendant
circumstances introduced in Sec. 11 of RA 7659 partake
of the nature of qualifying circumstances that must be
pleaded in the indictment in order to warrant the
imposition of the penalty (Garcia doctrine reiterated in
Medina).
Held: By operation of law, the appellant is
rightfully entitled to the beneficial application of the
Garcia or Medina doctrine. Sentence modified.
People v. Patalin (1999)
Facts: The accused were convicted of
Robbery with Physical Injuries and Robbery with Multiple
Rape and were sentenced to imprisonment and death
penalty respectively for the two convictions.
Held: There is no question that the
abolition of the death penalty benefits herein accused.
The subsequent reimposition of the death penalty will
not affect them. The framers of the Constitution
themselves state that the law to be passed by Congress
reimposing the death penalty (RA 7659) can only have
prospective application. A subsequent statute cannot be
so applied retroactively as to impair a right that accrued
under the old law.
DIFFERENT EFFECTS OF REPEAL OF PENAL LAW.
a. If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new
law, the new law shall be applied, except when the
offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new
law is made not applicable to pending action or
existing causes of action.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 88

b. If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
force at the time of the commission of the offense Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
shall be applied. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
c. If the new law totally repeals the existing law so voted for, the profession or calling.
that the act which was penalized under the old law Civil interdiction,
is no longer punishable, the crime is obliterated. Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of
a When the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to be the offense,
criminal. Payment of costs.
a When the new law and the old law penalize the same
offense, the offender can be tried under the old law. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES – those expressly imposed by
a When the repealing law fails to penalize the offense the court in the judgment of conviction.
under the old law, the accused cannot be convicted ACCESSORY PENALTIES – those that are deemed
under the new law. included in the imposition of the principal penalties.
a A person erroneously accused and convicted under a
repealed statute may be punished under the repealing Other classifications of penalties:
statute. According to their divisibility:
a A new law which omits anything contained in the old 1. Divisible
law dealing on the same subject, operates as are penal - those that have fixed duration and are divisible
of anything not so included in the amendatory act. into three periods.
2. Indivisible
People v. Pimentel (supra) - those which have no fixed duration.
Held: Where the repeal of a penal law is total a. Death
and absolute and the act which was penalized by a prior b. Reclusion perpetua
law ceases to be criminal under the new law, the c. Perpetual absolute or special
previous offense is obliterated. disqualification
With the enactment of RA 7636, the charge of d. Public censure
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition qualified by
subversion should be amended to simple illegal According to subject-matter
possession of firearm and ammunition, since subversion 1. Corporal (death)
is no longer a crime. 2. Deprivation of freedom
(reclusion, prision, arresto)
B. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED 3. Restriction of freedom (destierro)
4. Deprivation of rights
Art. 25. Penalties which may be imposed. — The (disqualification and suspension)
penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, 5. Pecuniary (fine)
and their different classes, are those included in the
following: According to their gravity
1. Capital
Scale 2. Afflictive
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES 3. Correctional
4. Light

Capital punishment: NOTE: Public censure is a penalty, thus, it is not proper

Death. in acquittal. However, the Court in acquitting the
accused may criticize his acts or conduct.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua, • Penalties that are either principal or accessory.
Reclusion temporal, Perpetual or temporary absolute
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, disqualification, perpetual or temporary special
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, disqualification, and suspension may be principal or
Prision mayor. accessory penalties, because they formed in the 2
general classes.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor, DURATION OF EACH OF DIFFERENT PENALTIES
Suspension,
Destierro. 1. Reclusion perpetua – 20 years and 1 day
to 40 years
2. Reclusion temporal – 12 years and 1 day
Light penalties: to 20 years
Arresto menor, 3. Prision mayor and temporary
Public censure. disqualification - 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
except when disqualification is accessory penalty; in
Penalties common to the three preceding which case its duration is that of the principal penalty
classes: 4. Prision correccional, suspension and
Fine, and destierro - 6 months and 1 day to 6 years except
Bond to keep the peace. when suspension is an accessory penalty, in which case
its duration is that of the principal penalty.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
5. Arresto Mayor - 1 month and 1 day to 6
months
6. Arresto Menor – 1 day to 30 days.
C. SPECIFIC PRINCIPAL AND
ACCESSORY PENALTIES
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659
AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN
HEINOUS CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE
THE REVISED PENAL LAWS, AS AMENDED, OTHER
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared
the policy of the State to foster and ensure not only
obedience to its authority, but also to adopt such measures
as would effectively promote the maintenance of peace and
order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare which are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy in
a just and humane society;
Section 2. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war
against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies giving
them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere,
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death and shall
pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or
on confession of the accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who
commits acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this
Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal to death and
shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."
Section 3. Section Three, Chapter One, Title One of
Book Two of the same Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section Three. - Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or
in the Philippine waters
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas
or in Philippine waters. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, or
in Philippine waters, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not
being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall
seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its
equipment or passengers.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of
mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters."
Art. 123. Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall be imposed upon those who commit
any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under
any of the following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims
without means of saving themselves or;
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or rape."
Section 4. There shall be incorporated after Article 211
of the same Code a new article to read as follows:
"Art. 211-A. Qualified Bribery. - If any public officer is
entrusted with law enforcement and he refrains from
arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a
crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, he shall
suffer the penalty for the offense which was not prosecuted.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
89
If it is the public officer who asks or demands such gift
or present, he shall suffer the penalty of death."
Section 5. The penalty of death for parricide under
Article 246 of the same Code is hereby restored, so that it
shall read as follows:
"Art. 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate of illegitimate,
or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse,
shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death."
Section 6. Article 248 of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within
the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty
of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to
death if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon
a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles,
or with the use of any other means involving great waste
and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in
the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public
calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse."
Section 7. Article 255 of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Art. 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 any 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 mayor 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
reclusion temporal."
Section 8. Article 267 of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. -
Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or
in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted
more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating
public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if
threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a
public officer.
The penalty shall be death penalty where the
kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present
in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence
of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed."
Section 9. Article 294 of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with
the use of violence against or intimidation of any person
shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide
shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have
been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or
arson.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period to reclusion perpetua, when or if by reason or on
occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision I of Article 263 shall have been
inflicted.
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason
or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries
penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the
next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or
intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery
shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for
the commission of the crime, or when in the course of its
execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person
not responsible for its commission any of the physical
injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases."
Section 10. Article 320 of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any person who
shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to
one single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous
burnings, committed on several or different occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted
to the public in general or where people usually gather or
congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not limited to,
official governmental function or business, private
transaction, commerce, trade, workshop, meetings and
conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose such
as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings,
public conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless of
whether the offender had knowledge that there are persons
in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and
regardless also of whether the building is actually inhabited
or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or
airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for
public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any
appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service of
public utilities.
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose
of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of
law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or
defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated
qualifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death shall likewise be imposed when the arson is
perpetrated or committed by two (2) or more persons or by
a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is
merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
90
constitutes an overt act in the commission or another
violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall
also be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military
powder or fireworks factory, ordnance, storehouse, archives
or general museum of the Government.
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory
of inflammable or explosive materials.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of
the acts penalized under this Article, death results, the
mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed."
Section 11. Article 335 of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. -
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age
or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the
use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a
homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a
homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the
crime of rape is committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of
age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent
of the victim.
2. when the victim is under the custody of the
police or military authorities.
3. when the rape is committed in full view of the
husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within
the third degree of consanguinity.
4. when the victim is a religious or a child below
seven (7) years old.
5. when the offender knows that he is afflicted
with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
6. when committed by any member of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or
any law enforcement agency.
7. when by reason or on the occasion of the rape,
the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation."
Section 12. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080
(An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder) is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder;
Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity
or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other
persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth
through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as
described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or
total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00)
shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated
with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be
punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the
degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal
Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall
declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and
other incomes and assets including the properties and
shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment
thereof forfeited in favor of the State."
Section 13. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, of Article II of
Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act 1972, are hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 3. Importation of Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law,
shall import or bring into the Philippines any prohibited drug.
"Sec. 4. Sale, Administration, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine from five
hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another,
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited
drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to
the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or
should a prohibited drug involved in any offense under
this Section be the proximate cause of the death of a
victim thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided
shall be imposed.
"Sec. 5. Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort for
Prohibited Drug Users. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand
pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive
or resort where any prohibited drug is used in any form or
where such prohibited drugs in quantities specified in
Section 20, Paragraph 1 of this Act are found.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of
this Act to the contrary, the maximum of the penalty shall
be imposed in every case where a prohibited drug is
administered, delivered or sold to a minor who is allowed
to use the same in such place.
Should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the
death of a person using the same in such den, dive or
resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary.
"Sec. 7. Manufacture of Prohibited Drug. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and fine ranging
from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized
by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any prohibited
drug.
"Sec. 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs. -
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless
authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited
drug subject to the provisions of Section 20 hereof.
"Sec. 9. Cultivation of Plants which are Sources of
Prohibited Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand
pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who shall plant, cultivate or culture any medium
Indian hemp, opium poppy (papaver somniferum), or any
other plant which is or may hereafter be classified as
dangerous drug or from which any dangerous drug may
be manufactured or derived.
The land or portions hereof, and/or greenhouses
on which any of said plants is cultivated or cultured shall
be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless the
owner thereof can prove that he did not know such
cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due diligence
on his part.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
91
If the land involved in is part of the public domain,
the maximum of the penalties herein provided shall be
imposed upon the offender."
Section 14. Sections 14, 14-A, and 15 of Article
III of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, are hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Importation of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law,
shall import or bring any regulated drug in the Philippines.
"Sec. 14-A. Manufacture of Regulated Drugs. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized
by law, shall engage in the manufacture of any regulated
drug.
"Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized
by law, shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute
any regulated drug.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of this Act to
the contrary, if the victim of the offense is a minor, or
should a regulated drug involved in any offense under this
Section be the proximate cause of the death of a victim
thereof, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed."
Section 15. There shall be incorporated after
Section 15 of Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drug Act of 1972, a
new section to read as follows:
"Sec. 15-a. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for
regulated drug users. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand
pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any
person or group of persons who shall maintain a den, dive
or resort where any regulated drugs is used in any form,
or where such regulated drugs in quantities specified in
Section 20, paragraph 1 of this Act are found.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20 of
this Act to the contrary, the maximum penalty herein
provided shall be imposed in every case where a
regulated drug is administered, delivered or sold to a
minor who is allowed to use the same in such place.
Should a regulated drug be the proximate cause of
the death of a person using the same in such den, dive or
resort, the maximum penalty herein provided shall be
imposed on the maintainer notwithstanding the provisions
of Section 20 of this Act to the contrary."
Section 16. Section 16 of Article III of Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, is amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. -
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall
possess or use any regulated drug without the
corresponding license or prescription, subject to the
provisions of Section 20 hereof."
Section 17. Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 20. Application of Penalties, Confiscation and
Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime. -
The penalties for offenses under Section 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9
of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
of this Act shall be applied if the dangerous drugs involved
is in any of the following quantities :
1. 40 grams or more of opium;
2. 40 grams or more of morphine;
3. 200 grams or more of shabu or
methylamphetamine hydrochloride;
4. 40 grams or more of heroin;
5. 750 grams or more of indian hemp or
marijuana;
6. 50 grams or more of marijuana resin or
marijuana resin oil;
7. 40 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine
hydrochloride; or
8. In the case of other dangerous drugs, the
quantity of which is far beyond therapeutic requirements,
as determined and promulgated by the Dangerous Drugs
Board, after public consultations/hearings conducted for
the purpose.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the
foregoing quantities, the penalty shall range from prision
correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the
quantity.
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful
importation, sale, administration, delivery, transportation
or manufacture of dangerous drugs, the cultivation of
plants which are sources of dangerous drugs and the
possession of any opium pipe and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs shall carry with it the confiscation and
forfeiture, in favor of the Government, of all the proceeds
of the crime including but not limited to money and other
obtained thereby and the instruments or tools with which
it was committed, unless they are the property of a third
person not liable for the offense, but those which are not
of lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed without
delay. Dangerous drugs and plant sources of such drugs
as well as the proceeds or instruments of the crime so
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government shall
be turned over to the Board for proper disposal without
delay.
Any apprehending or arresting officer who
misappropriates or misapplies or fails to account for
seized or confiscated dangerous drugs or plant-sources of
dangerous drugs or proceeds or instruments of the crime
as are herein defined shall after conviction be punished by
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million
pesos."
Section 18. There shall be incorporated after
Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known
as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, a new section to
read as follows:
"Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. - Any
person charged under any provision of this Act where the
imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death shall not
be allowed to avail of the provision on plea bargaining."
Section 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
is hereby amended to read as follows :
"Sec. 24. Penalties for Government Official and
Employees and Officers and Members of Police Agencies
and the Armed Forces, 'Planting' of Evidence. - The
maximum penalties provided for Section 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6,
7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A,
15(1), 16 and 19 of Article III shall be imposed, if those
found guilty of any of the said offenses are government
officials, employees or officers, including members of
police agencies and the armed forces.
Any such above government official, employee or
officer who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous
drugs punished in Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article
II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15 and 16 of Article III of this
Act in the person or in the immediate vicinity of another
as evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer the same
penalty as therein provided."
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
92
Section 20. Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 6539, as
amended, known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. - Any person
who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined
in Section Two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value
of motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for
not less than fourteen years and eight months and not
more than seventeen years and four months, when the
carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation
of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for
not less than seventeen years and four months and not
more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed
by means of violence against or intimidation of any
person, or force upon things; and the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall be imposed when the owner,
driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed
or raped in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof."
Section 21. Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. - The penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall be from twenty years and one
day to forty years.
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, it 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 the 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."
Section 22. Article 47 of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Art. 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not
be imposed; Automatic review of the Death Penalty
Cases. - The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in
which it must be imposed under existing laws, except
when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of
age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more
than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or
automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the
required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition
of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua.
In all cases where the death penalty is imposed by
the trial court, the records shall be forwarded to the
Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment by the
Court en banc, within twenty (20) days but not earlier
than fifteen (15) days after promulgation of the judgment
or notice of denial of any motion for new trial or
reconsideration. The transcript shall also be forwarded
within ten (10) days from the filing thereof by the
stenographic reporter."
Section 23. Article 62 of the same Code, as
amended, is hereby amended to read as follows :
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
"Art. 62. Effects 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.
1(a). When in the commission of the crime,
advantage was taken by the offender of his public
position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its
maximum regardless of mitigating circumstances.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the
offense was committed by any group who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means a
group of two or more persons collaborating, confederating
or mutually helping one another for purposes of gain in
the commission of any crime.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such a
degree that it must of necessity accompany the
commission thereof.
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.
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.
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 purposes of this article, a person shall be
deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if 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.
Section 24. Article 81 of the same Code, as
amended, is hereby amended to read as follows :
"Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be
executed. - The death sentence shall be executed with
preference to any other and shall consist in putting the
person under sentence to death by electrocution. The
death sentence shall be executed under the authority of
the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as possible to
mitigate the sufferings of the person under the sentence
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
93
during electrocution as well as during the proceedings
prior to the execution.
If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be
anaesthetized at the moment of the execution.
As soon as facilities are provided by the Bureau of
Prisons, the method of carrying out the sentence shall be
changed to gas poisoning.
The death sentence shall be carried out not later
than one (1) year after the judgment has become final.
Section 25. Article 83 of the same Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of the death
sentence. - The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon
a woman while she is pregnant or within one (1) year
after delivery, nor upon any person over seventy years of
age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be
commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the
accessory penalties provided in Article 40.
In all cases where the death sentence has become final,
the records of the case shall be forwarded immediately by
the Supreme Court to the Office of the President for
possible exercise of the pardoning power."
Section 26. < modified or repealed hereby are
Act this of provisions the with inconsistent thereof parts
regulations and rules orders, executive issuances, decrees
presidential laws,>
Section 27. If, for any reason or reasons, any
part of the provision of this Act shall be held to be
unconstitutional or invalid, other parts or provisions
hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be
in full force and effect.
Section 28. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after its publication in two (2) national newspapers
of general circulation. The publication shall not be later
than seven (7) days after the approval hereof.
Approved: December 13, 1993
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8177
AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL INJECTION
AS THE METHOD OF CARRYING OUT CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE
81 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED BY
SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7659.
SECTION 1. Article 81 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by Section 24 of Republic Act No. 7659 is
hereby further amended to read as follows:
"Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to
be executed. — The death sentence shall be executed with
preference to any other penalty and shall consist in putting
the person under the sentence to death by lethal injection.
The death sentence shall be executed under the authority of
the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, endeavoring so far
as possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under
the sentence during the lethal injection as well as during the
proceedings prior to the execution.
"The Director of the Bureau of Corrections shall take
steps to ensure that the lethal injection to be administered is
sufficient to cause the instantaneous death of the convict.
"Pursuant to this, all personnel involved in the
administration of lethal injection shall be trained prior to the
performance of such task.
"The authorized physician of the Bureau of
Corrections, after thorough examination, shall officially make
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
a pronouncement of the convict's death and shall certify
thereto in the records of the Bureau of Corrections.
The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier
than one (1) year nor later than eighteen (18) months after
the judgment has become final and executory without
prejudice to the exercise by the President of his executive
clemency powers at all times."
Sec. 2. Persons already sentenced by judgment,
which has become final and executory, who are waiting to
undergo the death penalty by electrocution or gas poisoning
shall be under the coverage of the provisions of this Act
upon its effectivity. Their sentences shall be automatically
modified for this purpose.
Sec. 3. Implementing Rules. — The Secretary of
Justice in coordination with the Secretary of Health and the
Bureau of Corrections shall, within thirty (30) days from the
effectivity of this Act, promulgate the rules to implement its
provisions.
Sec. 4. Repealing Clause. — All laws,
presidential decrees and issuances, executive orders, rules
and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
Sec. 5. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect
fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette
or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation, whichever comes earlier. Publication shall not be
later than ten (10) days after the approval thereof.
Approved: March 20, 1996
RULES AND REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8177
Pursuant to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8177
entitled "AN ACT DESIGNATING DEATH BY LETHAL
INJECTION AS THE METHOD OF CARRYING OUT
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
ARTICLE 81 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS
AMENDED BY SECTION 24 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO.
7659", the undersigned, in coordination with the
Secretary of Health and the Director of Corrections,
hereby issues the following Rules to govern the
implementation of said Act:
SECTION 1. Objectives. — These Rules
seek to ensure the orderly and humane execution of the
death penalty by lethal injection.
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — As
used in these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires —
a. "Death Convict" or "Convict" shall refer to a prisoner
whose death penalty imposed by a Regional Trial Court is
affirmed by the Supreme Court en banc;
b. "Lethal Injection" refers to sodium thiopenthotal,
pancuronium bromide, potassium chloride and such other
lethal substances as may be specified by the Director of
Corrections that will be administered intravenously into the
body of a convict until said convict is pronounced dead;
c. "Bureau" refers to the Bureau of Corrections;
d. "Director" refers to the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections;
e. "Secretary" refers to the Secretary of the
Department of Justice;
SECTION 3. Principles. — The following
principles shall be observed in the implementation of these
Rules:
a. There shall be no discrimination in the treatment of a
death convict on account of race, color, religion, language,
politics, nationality, social origin, property, birth or other
status.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
94
b. In the execution of a death penalty, the death
convict shall be spared from unnecessary anxiety or distress.
c. The religious beliefs of the death convict shall be
respected.
SECTION 4. Prison Services. — Subject to
the availability of resources, a death convict shall enjoy the
following services and privileges to encourage and enhance
his self-respect and dignity:
a. Medical and Dental;
b. Religious, Guidance and Counseling;
c. Exercise;
d. Visitation; and
e. Mail.
SECTION 5. Confinement. — Whenever
practicable, the death convict shall be confined in an
individual cell in a building that is exclusively assigned for
the use of death convicts. The convict shall be provided with
a bunk, a steel/wooden bed or mat, a pillow or blanket and
mosquito net.
SECTION 6. Religious Services. — Subject to
security conditions, a death convict may be visited by the
priest or minister of his faith and given such available
religious materials which he may require.
SECTION 7. Exercise. — A death convict shall be
allowed to enjoy regular exercise periods under the
supervision of a guard.
SECTION 8. Meal Services. — Meals shall, whenever
practicable, be served individually to a death convict inside
his cell. Mess utensils shall be made of plastic. After each
meal, said utensils shall be collected and accounted.
SECTION 9. Visitation. — A death convict shall be
allowed to be visited by his immediate family and reputable
friends at regular intervals and during designated hours
subject to security procedures.
SECTION 10. List of Visitors. — A list of persons who
may visit a death convict shall be compiled and maintained
by the prison authorities. The list may include the members
of the convict's immediate family such as his parents, step
parents, foster parents, brothers and sisters, wife or
husband and children. The list may, upon the request of the
convict, include his grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and
cousins. Other visitors may, after investigation, be included
in the list if it will assist in raising the morale of the convict.
SECTION 11. Interviews of Convicts. — Television,
radio and other interviews by media of a death convict shall
not be allowed.
SECTION 12. Handling of Inmate Mail. — The sending
and receiving of mail by a death convict shall be controlled
to prevent illicit communication. Mail shall be censored in
accordance with existing prison rules.
SECTION 13. Outside Movement. — A death convict
may be allowed to leave his place of confinement only for
diagnosis of a life-threatening situation or treatment of a
serious ailment, if the diagnosis cannot be done or the
treatment provided in the prison hospital.
SECTION 14. Court Appearance. — A death convict
shall not be brought outside the penal institution where he is
confined for appearance or attendance in any court except
when the Supreme Court authorizes, upon proper
application, said outside movement. A judge who requires
the appearance or attendance of a death convict in any
judicial proceeding shall conduct such proceeding within the
premises of the penal institution where the convict is
confined.
SECTION 15. How Lethal Injection is to be
Administered. — The execution of the death sentence by
lethal injection shall be done under the authority of the
Director who shall endeavor to mitigate the sufferings of the
convict prior to and during the execution.
SECTION 16. Notification and Execution of the
Sentence and Assistance to the Convict. — The court shall
designate a working day for the execution of the death
penalty but not the hour thereof. Such designation shall only
be communicated to the convict after sunrise of the day of
the execution, and the execution shall not take place until
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
after the expiration of at least eight (8) hours following the
notification, but before sunset. During the interval between
the notification and execution, the convict shall, as far as
possible, be furnished such assistance as he may request in
order to be attended in his last moments by a priest or
minister of the religion he professes and to consult his
lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and confer with
members of his family or of persons in charge of the
management of his business, of the administration of his
property, or of the care of his descendants.
SECTION 17. Suspension of the Execution of the
Death Sentence. — Execution by lethal injection shall not be
inflicted upon a woman within the three years next following
the date of the sentence or while she is pregnant, nor upon
any person over seventy (70) years of age. In this latter
case, the death sentence shall be commuted to the penalty
of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided
in Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code.
SECTION 18. Place of Execution. — The execution by
lethal injection shall take place in the prison establishment
and space thereat as may be designated by the Director.
Said place shall be closed to public view.
SECTION 19. Execution Procedure. — Details of the
procedure prior to, during and after administering the lethal
injection shall be set forth in a manual to be prepared by the
Director. The manual shall contain details of, among others,
the sequence of events before and after the execution;
procedures in setting up the intravenous line; the
administration of the lethal drugs; the pronouncement of
death; and the removal of the intravenous system.
Said manual shall be confidential and its distribution
shall be limited to authorized prison personnel.
SECTION 20. Quantity and Safekeeping of Drugs
Purchased. — The exact quantities of the drugs needed for
an execution of a death penalty shall be purchased by the
Director pursuant to existing rules and regulations not
earlier than ten (10) days before the scheduled date of
execution. The drugs shall be kept securely at the office of
the superintendent of the prison where the death sentence is
to be executed. All unused drugs shall be inventoried and
disposed of properly under the direct supervision of the
Director.
SECTION 21. Administering Lethal Drugs. — The
injection of the lethal drugs to a death convict shall be made
by a person designated by the Director.
SECTION 22. Identity of Person Administering
Lethal Injection. — The identity of the person who is
designated to administer the lethal injection shall be kept
secret.
SECTION 23. Persons Who May Witness
Execution. — The execution of a death convict shall be
witnessed only by the priest or minister assisting the
offender and by his lawyers, and by his relatives, not
exceeding six, if the convict so desires, by the physician and
the necessary personnel of the penal establishment, and by
such persons as the Director may authorize.
A person below eighteen (18) years of age shall
not be allowed to witness an execution.
SECTION 24. Expulsion of Witness. — Any
person who makes unnecessary noise or displays rude or
improper behavior during an execution shall be expelled
from the lethal injection chamber.
SECTION 25. Non-Recording of Execution.
— The Director shall not allow the visual, sound or other
recording of the actual execution by media or by any private
person or group.
SECTION 26. Disposition of Corpse of
Convict. — Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of a
death convict shall, upon the completion of the legal
proceedings subsequent to the execution, be turned over to
an institution of learning or scientific research first applying
for it, for the purpose of study and investigation, provided
that such institution shall take charge of the decent burial of
the remains. Otherwise, the Director shall order the burial of
the body of the convict at government expense, granting
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
95
permission to be present thereat to the members of the
family of the convict and the friends of the latter. In no case
shall the burial of a death convict be held with pomp.
SECTION 27. Effectivity. — These Rules
shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in a
newspaper of general circulation.
APPROVED.
Adopted: April 28, 1997
1987 CONSTITUTION. Section 19.
1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall
death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
2. The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
RPC, 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.
RPC, 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.
∗ Majority vote of the SC is required for the
imposition of the death penalty.
∗ The 1987 Constitution suspended the
imposition of the death penalty but RA 7659 restored it.
∗ Death penalty is not imposed in the following
cases:
a. When the guilty person is below 18 years of
age at the time of the commission of the
crime.
b. When the guilty person is more than 70 years
of age.
c. When upon appeal or automatic review of the
case by the SC, the vote of 8 members is not
obtained for the imposition of the death
penalty.
∗ The death penalty is not excessive, unjust or cruel
within the meaning of that word in the Constitution.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or
lingering death.
∗ RA 296 providing that eight justices must concur
in the imposition of death penalty is retroactive.
∗ Review by the SC of the death sentence is
absolutely necessary.
∗ In what crimes is death penalty imposed:
1. Treason
2. Piracy
3. Qualified Piracy
4. Qualified bribery
5. Parricide
6. Murder
7. Infanticide
8. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
9. Robbery with homicide
10. Destructive arson
11. Rape with homicide
12. Plunder
13. Certain violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act
14. Carnapping
RPC, Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is
to be executed. — The death sentence shall be
executed with reference to any other and shall consist in
putting the person under sentence to death by
electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed
under the authority of the Director of Prisons,
endeavoring so far as possible to mitigate the sufferings
of the person under sentence during electrocution as
well as during the proceedings prior to the execution.
If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be
anaesthetized at the moment of the electrocution.
∗ Death sentence shall be executed with preference to
any other penalty.
∗ Death sentence is executed by lethal injection.
∗ The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier
than 1 year nor later than 18 months after the judgment
becomes final and executory, without prejudice to the
exercise by the President of his executive clemency
powers.
Art. 82. Notification and execution of the
sentence and assistance to the culprit. — The court
shall designate a working day for the execution but not
the hour thereof; and such designation shall not be
communicated to the offender before sunrise of said
day, and the execution shall not take place until after
the expiration of at least eight hours following the
notification, but before sunset. During the interval
between the notification and the execution, the culprit
shall, in so far as possible, be furnished such assistance
as he may request in order to be attended in his last
moments by priests or ministers of the religion he
professes and to consult lawyers, as well as in order to
make a will and confer with members of his family or
persons in charge of the management of his business, of
the administration of his property, or of the care of his
descendants.
∗ A convict sentenced to death may make a will.
Art. 83. Suspension of the execution of
the death sentence. — The death sentence shall not
be inflicted upon a woman within the three years next
following the date of the sentence or while she is
pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy years of
age. In this last case, the death sentence shall be
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
96
commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the
accessory penalties provided in Article 40.
∗ Death sentence shall be suspended when the accused
is a:
a. Woman, while pregnant;
b. Woman, within one year after delivery;
c. Person over 70 years of age;
d. Convict who becomes insane after final
sentence of death has been pronounced.
∗ Art. 47 provides for cases in which death penalty is
not to be imposed. On the other hand, Art. 83 provides
for suspension only of the execution of death sentence.
∗ RTC can suspend execution of death sentence.
∗ The records of the case shall be forwarded to the
Office of the President, when the death sentence has
become final, for possible exercise of the pardoning
power.
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons
who may witness the same. — The execution shall
take place in the penitentiary of Bilibid in a space closed
to the public view and shall be witnessed only by the
priests assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by
his relatives, not exceeding six, if he so request, by the
physician and the necessary personnel of the penal
establishment, and by such persons as the Director of
Prisons may authorize.
∗ The execution shall take place in the penitentiary or
Bilibid in a space closed to the public view.
PERSONS WHO MAY WITNESS EXECUTION:
a. priests assisting the offender;
b. offender’s lawyers;
c. offender’s relatives, not exceeding six, if so
requested;
d. physician, and
e. necessary personnel of penal establishment
∗ a person below 18 years of age may not be allowed
to witness an execution.
RPC, Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of
the person executed and its burial. — Unless claimed
by his family, the corpse of the culprit shall, upon the
completion of the legal proceedings subsequent to the
execution, be turned over to the institute of learning or
scientific research first applying for it, for the purpose of
study and investigation, provided that such institute
shall take charge of the decent burial of the remains.
Otherwise, the Director of Prisons shall order the burial
of the body of the culprit at government expense,
granting permission to be present thereat to the
members of the family of the culprit and the friends of
the latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a
person sentenced to death be held with pomp.
∗ The burial of the body of a person sentenced to death
should not be held with pomp.
- The purpose of the law is to prevent anyone
from making a hero out of a criminal.
People v. Echegaray (1996)
Facts: Echegaray was sentenced to death
penalty for raping his 10-year–old daughter. On appeal,
the accused claimed that the penalty imposed by the
court is erroneous under RA 7659 because he is neither
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
a father, stepfather nor grandfather of Rodessa although
he was a confirmed lover of the Rodessa’s mother.
Held: Where the accused is a confirmed lover
of the victim’s mother, he falls squarely within Sec. 11
of RA 7659 under the term “common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim.” Also, the fact that the victim
referred to the accused as “Papa” is reason enough to
conclude that the accused is either the farther or
stepfather of the victim.
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice (1999)
Facts: Upon conviction of Echegaray in People
v. Echegaray, the SC temporarily restrained the
execution of its own decision. The respondents claim
that SC has no more jurisdiction over the case because
judgment has become final and it cannot restrain the
execution of its decision.
Held: The rule on finality of judgment cannot
divest the SC of its jurisdiction to execute and enforce
the same judgment. Notwithstanding the order of
execution and the executory nature thereof on the date
set, the date can be postponed. The power to control the
execution of its decision is an essential aspect of
jurisdiction – supervening events may change the
circumstance of the parties and compel the courts to
intervene and adjust the rights of the litigants to
prevent unfairness. The SC did not restrain the
effectivity of the law enacted by the Congress. It merely
restrained the execution of its judgment to give
reasonable time to check its fairness in light of
supervening events in Congress.
People v. Esparas (1996)
Facts: Esparas was charged with violation of
RA 6425 as amended by RA 759 for importing into the
country 20kg of shabu. As the accused remains at large
up to the present time, the issue that confronts the
Court is whether or not it will proceed to automatically
review her death sentence.
Held: The reimposition of the death penalty
revived the procedure by which the Supreme Court
reviews death penalty cases pursuant to the Rules of
Court – it remains automatic and continues to be
mandatory and does not depend on the whims of the
death convict and leaves the SC without any option. Any
court decision authorizing the State to take life must be
as error-free as possible. It is not only within the power
of the SC but also it is its duty to review all death
penalty cases.
Sec. 8 of Rule 124 of the Rules of Court which
authorizes the dismissal of an appeal when the appellant
jumps bail has no application to cases where the death
penalty has been imposed.
People v. Munoz (1989)
Facts: Of the 11 persons who were charged
with murder, only 4 were identified and convicted. They
were held guilty for killing 3 persons.
Held: The advocates of the Masangkay ruling
argue that the Constitution abolished the death penalty
and thereby limited the penalty for murder to the
remaining periods, to wit, the minimum and the
medium. However, a reading of the Constitution will
readily show that there is really nothing therein which
expressly declares the abolition of death penalty. It
merely states that the death penalty shall not be
imposed unless for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes the Congress hereafter provides for it and, if
already imposed, shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
The Constitution does not change the periods
of the penalty prescribed by Art. 248 of the RPC, except
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
97
only in so far as it prohibits the imposition of the death
penalty and reduces it to reclusion perpetua. The range
of the medium and minimum penalties remains
unchanged. The problem in an event is addressed not to
this Court but to the Congress.
Abolition of the Death Penalty
Republic Act No. 9346
People v. Bon (2006)
Held: Yet in truth, there is no material
difference between “imposition” and “application,” for
both terms embody the operation in law of the death
penalty. Since Article 71 denominates “death” as an
element in the graduated scale of penalties, there is no
question that the operation of Article 71 involves the
actual application of the death penalty as a means of
determining the extent which a person’s liberty is to be
deprived. Since Rep. Act No. 9346 unequivocally bars
the application of the death penalty, as well as expressly
repeals all such statutory provisions requiring the
application of the death penalty, such effect necessarily
extends to its relevance to the graduated scale of
penalties under Article 71.
The court cannot find basis to conclude that
Rep. Act No. 9346 intended to retain the operative
effects of the death penalty in the graduation of the
other penalties in our penal laws. Munoz cannot enjoin
us to adopt such conclusion. Rep. Act No. 9346 is not
swaddled in the same restraints appreciated by Muñoz
on Section 19(1), Article III. The very Congress
empowered by the Constitution to reinstate the
imposition of the death penalty once thought it best to
do so, through Rep. Act No. 7650. Within the same
realm of constitutional discretion, Congress has reversed
itself. It must be asserted that today, the legal status of
the suppression of the death penalty in the Philippines
has never been more secure than at any time in our
political history as a nation.
AFFLICTIVE 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.
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.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 98

Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory an indivisible penalty. The significance of this
penalties. — The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry fundamental principle was laid down by the Court in
with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and People v. Diquit. "Since reclusion perpetua is an
that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of indivisible penalty, it has no minimum, medium or
suffrage which the offender shall suffer although maximum periods. It is imposed in its entirety
pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. circumstances that may have attended the commission
of the crime. (Art. 63, Revised Penal Code) Reclusion
RECLUSION PERPETUA Perpetua is imprisonment for life but the person
sentenced to suffer it shall be pardoned after undergoing
Duration: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years the penalty for thirty (30) years, unless by reason of his
Accessory Penalties: conduct or some other serious cause, he shall be
a. Civil interdiction for life or during the period of considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon
the sentence as the case may be. (Art. 27, Revised Penal Code)."
b. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the
offender shall suffer even though pardoned as LIFE IMPRISONMENT RECLUSION PERPETUA
to the principal penalty, unless the same shall Imposed for serious Prescribed under the RPC
have been expressly remitted in the pardon. offenses penalized by
special laws
People v. Gatward (1997) Does not carry with it Carries with it accessory
Facts: The accused was convicted of violating accessory penalties penalties
the Dangerous Drugs Act for unlawfully importing into Does not appear to have Entails imprisonment for
the Philippines heroin. The trial court sentenced the any definite extent or at least 30 years after
accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 35 duration which the convict becomes
years of reclusion perpetua there being no aggravating eligible for pardon
or mitigating circumstance shown to have attended in although the maximum
the commission of the crime. period shall in no case
Held: As amended by RA 7659, the penalty of exceed 40 years
reclusion perpetua is now accorded a defined duration
ranging from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. The Court RECLUSION TEMPORAL
held that in spite of the amendment putting the duration
of RP, it should remain as an indivisible penalty since Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
there was never an intent on the part of Congress to Accessory Penalties:
reclassify it into a divisible penalty. The maximum a. Civil interdiction for life or during the period of
duration of reclusion perpetua is not and has never been the sentence as the case may be.
30 years which is merely the number of ears which the b. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the
convict must serve in order to be eligible for pardon or offender shall suffer even though pardoned as
for the application of the 3-fold rule. to the principal penalty, unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
People v. Ballabare (1996)
Held: The trial court erred in imposing PRISION MAYOR
the penalty of life imprisonment for violation of PD 1866.
The crime of illegal possession of firearm in its Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
aggravated form is punished by the penalty of death. Accessory Penalties:
Since the offense was committed on Sep. 16, 1990, at a a. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
time when the imposition of the death penalty was b. Perpetual Special Disqualification from the
prohibited, the penalty next lower in degree which is right to suffrage which the offender shall suffer
reclusion perpetua should be imposed. This is not although pardoned as to the principal penalty
equivalent to life imprisonment. While life imprisonment unless the same shall have been expressly
may appear to be the English translation of reclusion remitted in the pardon.
perpetua, in reality, it goes deeper than that.
CORRECCIONAL PENALTIES
Reclusion Perpetua as indivisible
penalty Art. 27 (4). Prision correccional, suspension, and
destierro. — The duration of the penalties of prision
correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six
People v. Ramirez (2001) months and one day to six years, except when
Facts: Bañez invited Jojo to a drinking spree in suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which
a nearby store. They sat side by side a bench outside case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
the store while exchanging pleasantries and drinking. Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty
Ramirez suddenly came in front of them. Ramirez of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day
ordered beer then he calmly approached and stabbed to six months.
Jojo which caused the latters death. The trial court
sentenced appellant "to suffer imprisonment of 40 years
reclusion perpetua." Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no
Held: The SC disagrees with the trial court in property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the
sentencing appellant "to suffer imprisonment of forty paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be
(40) years reclusion perpetua." There was no subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of
justification or need for the trial court to specify the one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following
length of imprisonment, because reclusion perpetua is rules:

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correccional 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.
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 light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than
prision correccional, 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
5465, April 21, 1969).
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.
PRISION CORRECCIONAL
Duration: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension from public office
b. Suspension from the right to follow a
profession or calling
c. Perpetual Special Disqualification fro the right
of suffrage, if the duration of the imprisonment
shall exceed 18 months
ARRESTO MAYOR
Duration: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during the
term of the sentence.
LIGHT PENALTIES
Art. 27 (6). Arresto menor. — The duration
of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to
thirty days.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
99
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 prision
correccional 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.
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 light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than
prision correccional, 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
5465, April 21, 1969).
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.
ARRESTO MENOR
Duration: 1 day to 30 days
Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during the
term of the sentence.
PUBLIC CENSURE
∗ Censure, being a penalty is not proper in acquittal.
PENALTIES COMMON TO AFFLICTIVE,
CORRECCIONAL AND LIGHT PENALTIES
FINE
Art. 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.
∗ This article merely classifies fine and has nothing to do
with the definition of light felony.
Fine is:
1. Afflictive – over P6,000
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
2. Correctional – P200 to P6,000
3. Light Penalty – less than P200
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.
∗ The court can fix any amount of the fine within the
limits established by law.
∗ The court must consider:
a. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances; and
b. More particularly, the wealth or means of the
culprit.
∗ When the law does not fix the minimum of the fine,
the determination of the amount of the fine to be
imposed upon the culprit is left to the sound discretion
of the court, provided it shall not exceed the maximum
authorized by law.
∗ Fines are not divided into 3 equal portions.
BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
Art. 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 the 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, is he shall have been
prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall
not exceed thirty days, if for a light felony.
∗ The offender must present 2 sufficient
sureties who shall undertake that the offender 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; or
∗ The offender must deposit such amount with
the clerk of court to guarantee said undertaking; or
∗ The offender may be detained, if he cannot
give the bond, for a period not to exceed 6 months if
prosecuted for grave or less grave felony, or for a period
not to exceed 30 days, if for a light felony.
∗ Bond to keep the peace is different from bail bon which
is posted for the provisional release of a person arrested
for or accused of a crime.
D. ACCESSORY PENALTIES
Art. 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.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
100
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any
election for any popular 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 rights to retirement pay or
other pension for any office formerly held.
Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or
temporary special disqualification. — The penalties
of perpetual or temporal 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.
Art. 32. Effect 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.
Art. 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.
Art. 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.
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.
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
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
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 to 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.
PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE
DISQUALIFICATION
Effects:
a. Deprivation of any public office or employment
f offender
b. Deprivation of the right to vote in any election
or to be voted upon
c. Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension
∗ All these effects last during the lifetime of the convict
and even after the service of the sentence except as
regards paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above in connection
with temporary absolute disqualification.
PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL
DISQUALIFICATION
Effects:
For public office, profession or calling:
a. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession
or calling affected;
b. Disqualification for holding similar offices or
employments during the period of disqualification;
For the exercise of right to suffrage:
c. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected in
an office;
d. Cannot hold any public office during the period of
disqualification
∗ The penalty for disqualification if imposed as an
accessory penalty is imposed for PROTECTION and NOT
for the withholding of a privilege.
∗ Temporary disqualification or suspension if imposed as
an accessory penalty, the duration is the same as that of
the principal penalty.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
101
SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE RIGHT
TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, THE RIGHT TO
PRACTICE A PROFESSION OR CALLING
Effects:
a. Disqualification from holding such office or the
exercise of such profession or right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence;
b. Cannot hold another office having similar
functions during the period of suspension.
CIVIL INTERDICTION
Effects:
Deprivation of the following rights:
1) Parental authority
2) Guardianship over the ward
3) Marital authority
4) Right to manage property and to dispose of the
same by acts inter vivos
∗ Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty to the
following principal penalties:
a) Death if commuted to life imprisonment;
b) Reclusion perpetua
c) Reclusion temporal
INDEMNIFICATION OR CONFISCATION OF
INSTRUMENTS ORPROCEES OF THEOFFENSE
∗ This is included in every penalty for the commission of
the crime.
∗ The confiscation is in favor of the government.
∗ Property of a third person not liable for the offense is
not subject to confiscation.
∗ If the trial court did not order any confiscation of the
procees of the crime, the government cannot appeal
from the confiscation as that would increase the penalty
already imposed.
PAYMENT OF COSTS
Includes:
a. Fees, and
b. Indemnities, in the course of judicial proceedings.
∗ Costs may be fixed amounts already determined by
law or regulations or amounts subject to a schedule.
∗ If the accused is convicted; costs may be charged
against him. If he is acquitted, costs are de officio,
meaning each party bears his own expense.
E. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTY
RPC, Art. 24. Measures of prevention or
safety which are nor 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.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations
which the civil laws may establish in penal form.
♠ They are not penalties because they are not imposed
as a result of judicial proceedings. Those mentioned in
par. 3 and 4 are merely preventive measures before
conviction of offenders.
♠ The commitment of a minor mentioned in par. 2 is not
a penalty because it is not imposed by the court in a
judgment of conviction. The imposition of the sentence
in such case is suspended.
♠ The succeeding provisions are some examples of
deprivation of rights established in penal form:
Family Code, Art. 228. Parental authority
terminates permanently:
(1) Upon the death of the parents;
(2) Upon the death of the child; or
(3) Upon emancipation of the child. (327a)
Family Code, Art. 229. Unless subsequently
revived by a final judgment, parental authority also
terminates:
(1) Upon adoption of the child;
(2) Upon appointment of a general guardian;
(3) Upon judicial declaration of abandonment
of the child in a case filed for the purpose;
(4) Upon final judgment of a competent court
divesting the party concerned of parental authority; or
(5) Upon judicial declaration of absence or
incapacity of the person exercising parental authority.
(327a)
F. APPLICATION AND COMPUTATION OF
PENALTIES
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.
Rules for the computation of penalties:
1. WHEN THE OFFENDER IS IN PRISON – the duration
of temporary penalties is from the day on which the
judgment of conviction becomes final.
2. WHEN THE OFFENDER IS NOT IN PRISON – the
duration of penalty consisting in deprivation of
liberty, is from the day that the offender is placed
at the disposal of judicial authorities for the
enforcement of the penalty.
3. THE DURATION OF OTHER PENALTIES – the
duration is from the day on which the offender
commences to serve his sentence
Examples of temporary penalties:
1. Temporary absolute disqualification
2. Temporary special disqualification
3. Suspension
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
102
♠ If offender is under detention, as when he is
undergoing preventive imprisonment, Rule No. 1
applies.
♠ If not under detention, because the offender has been
released on bail, Rule No. 3 applies.
Examples of penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty:
1. Imprisonment
2. Destierro
♠ When the offender is not in prison, Rule No. 2 applies.
♠ If the offender is undergoing preventive
imprisonment, Rule No. 3 applies but the offender is
entitled to a deduction of full time or 4/5 of the time of
his detention.
Art. 29. Period of preventive
imprisonment deducted from term of
imprisonment. — Offenders 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 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 be credited in the service of
his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As amended
by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone
preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more
than 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. 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 E.O. No. 214, July 10,
1988).
♠ The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment
when the offense charged is nonbailable, or even if
bailable, he cannot furnish the required bail.
♠ The convict is to be released immediately if the
penalty imposed after trial is less than the full time or
four-fifths of the time of the preventive imprisonment.
♠ The accused shall be released immediately whenever
he has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period
equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment for the offense charged.
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.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a
felony is general terms, it shall be understood as
applicable to the consummated felony.
GENERAL RULE:
The penalty prescribed by law in general terms shall be
imposed:
a. Upon the principals
b. For consummated felony
EXCEPTION:
The exception is when the penalty to be
imposed upon the principal in frustrated or attempted
felony is fixed by law.
♠ Whenever it is believed that the penalty lower by one
or two degrees corresponding to said acts of execution is
not in proportion to the wrong done, the law fixes a
distinct penalty for the principal in frustrated or
attempted felony.
♠ The graduation of penalties by degrees refers to
STAGES OF EXECUTION (consummated, frustrated or
attempted) and to the DEGREE OF THE CRIMINAL
PARTICIPATION OF THE OFFENDER (whether as
principal, accomplice or accessory)
♠ The division of a divisible penalty into three periods,
as maximum, medium and minimum, refers to the
proper period of the penalty which should be imposed
when aggravating or mitigating circumstances attend
the commission of the crime.
People v. Formigones (1950)
Facts: The accused without a previous quarrel
or provocation took his bolo and stabbed his wife in the
back resulting to the latter’s death. The accused was
sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Held: The penalty applicable for parricide
under Art. 246 of the RPC is composed only of 2
indivisible penalties, reclusion perpetua to death.
Although the commission of the act is attended by some
mitigating circumstance without any aggravating
circumstance to offset them, Art. 63 of the RPC should
be applied. The said article provides that when the
commission of the act is attended by some mitigating
circumstance and there is no aggravating circumstance,
the lesser penalty shall be applied.
PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES IN
CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED AND ATTEMPTED
FELONIES.
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.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
103
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 ARTS. 50-57:
CONSUMMATED FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED
PRINCIPALS 0 1 2
ACCOMPLICES 1 2 3
ACCESSORIES 2 3 4
“0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in defining
a crime, which is to be imposed n the PRINCIPAL in a
CONSUMMATED OFFENSE, in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 46. The other figures represent the
degrees to which the penalty must be lowered, to meet
the different situation anticipated by law.
EXCEPTIONS: Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to cases
where the law expressly prescribes the penalty for
frustrated or attempted felony, or to be imposed upon
accomplices or accessories.
BASES FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT
OF PENALTY:
1. The stage reached by the crime in its
development (either attempted, frustrated or
consummated)
2. The participation therein of the person liable.
3. The aggravating or mitigating circumstances
which attended the commission of the crime.
♠ A DEGREE is one entire penalty, one whole
penalty or one unit of the penalties enumerated in the
graduated scales provided for in Art. 71. Each of the
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
prision mayor, etc., enumerated in the graduated scales
of Art. 71 is a degree.
♠ When there is a mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, the penalty is lowered or increased by
PERIOD only, except when the penalty is divisible and
there are two or more mitigating and without
aggravating circumstances, in which case the penalty is
lowered by degree.
♠ A PERIOD is one of the three equal portions
called the minimum, medium and maximum of a
divisible penalty.
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.
♠ Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to cases where the law
expressly prescribes the penalty for frustrated or
attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or
accessories.
GENERAL RULE: An accomplice is punished by a
penalty one degree lower than the penalty imposed
upon the principal.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. The ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers
and any person who by abuse of authority or
confidential relationship, shall cooperate as
accomplices in the crimes of rape, acts of
lasciviousness, seduction, corruption of minors,
white slate trade or abduction. (Art. 346)
b. One who furnished the place for the perpetration
of the crime of slight illegal detention. (Art. 268)
GENERAL RULE: An accessory is punished by a penalty
two degrees lower than the penalty imposed upon the
principal.
EXCEPTION: When accessory is punished as principal –
knowingly concealing certain evil practices is ordinarily
an act of the accessory, but in Art. 142, such act is
punished as the act of the principal.
When accessories are punished with a penalty
one degree lower:
a. Knowingly using counterfeited seal or forged
signature or stamp of the President (Art. 162).
b. Illegal possession and use of a false treasury
or bank note (Art. 168).
c. Using falsified document (Art. 173 par.3 )
d. Using falsified dispatch (Art. 173 par. 2)
Art. 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
degrees shall be that immediately following that
indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale
prescribed in Article 71 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 impose to their full extent, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
104
following the lesser of the penalties prescribed in the
respective graduated 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 periods of the proper divisible
penalty and the maximum period of that immediately
following in said respective graduated 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 respective graduated
scale.
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.
♠ This article provides for the rules to be observed in
lowering the penalty by one or two degrees.
a. For the principal in frustrated felony – one degree
lower;
b. For the principal in attempted felony – two
degrees lower;
c. For the accomplice in consummated felony – one
degree lower; and
d. For the accessory in consummated felony – two
degrees lower.
♠ The rules provided for in Art. 61 should also apply
in determining the MINIMUM of the indeterminate
penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The
MINIMUM of the indeterminate penalty is within the
range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by
the RPC for the offense.
♠ Those rules also apply in lowering the penalty by
one or two degrees by reason of the presence of
privileged mitigating circumstance (Arts. 68 and 69), or
when the penalty is divisible and there are two or more
mitigating circumstances (generic) and no aggravating
circumstance (Art. 64).
♠ The lower penalty shall be taken from the
graduated scale in Art. 71.
The INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
a. death
b. reclusion perpetua
c. public censure
The DIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
a. reclusion temporal
b. prision mayor
c. prision correccional
d. arresto mayor
e. destierro
f. arresto menor
* the divisible penalties are divided into three periods:
MINIMUM, MEDIUM AND THE MAXIMUM
RULES:
FIRST RULE:
When the penalty is single and indivisible.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 105

Ex. reclusion perpetua Minimum

♠ The penalty immediately following it is
reclusion temporal. Thus, reclusion temporal is the When the penalty has one period
penalty next lower in degree. - If the penalty is any one of the three periods
of a divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree
SECOND RULE: shall be that period next following the given penalty.
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible Ex. Prision Mayor in its MAXIMUM period
penalties ♠ The penalty immediately inferior is prision
Ex. reclusion perpetua to death mayor in its MEDIUM period.
♠ The penalty immediately following
the lesser of the penalties, which is reclusion SIMPLIFIED RULES:
perpetua, is reclusion temporal. The rules prescribed in pars. 4 and 5 of Art. 61
When the penalty is composed of one or more divisible may be simplified as follows:
penalties to be imposed to their full extent 1. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in 3
Ex. prision correccional to prision mayor periods, corresponding to different divisible
♠ The penalty immediately following penalties, the penalty next lower in degree is the
the lesser of the penalties of prision penalty consisting in the 3 periods down in the
correccional to prision mayor is arresto mayor. scale.
2. If the penalty prescribed b the Code consists in 2
THIRD RULE: periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the
When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalty consisting in 2 periods down in the scale.
penalties and the maximum period of a divisible penalty 3. If the penalty prescribed by the Code consists in
Ex. reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM period only 1 period, the penalty next lower in degree is
to death the next period down in the scale.
Death
Reclusion Penalty for the principal in EFFECTS OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
Perpetua consummated murder CIRCUMSTANCES
Maximum
Reclusion Medium Penalty for accomplice; or Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating
Temporal Minimum for principal in frustrated or aggravating circumstances and of habitual
Maximum murder delinquency. — Mitigating or aggravating
Prision Medium circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken
Mayor Minimum into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing
the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
When the penalty is composed of one indivisible penalty 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
and the maximum period of a divisible penalty constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which
Ex. Reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM period are included by the law in defining a crime and
to Reclusion perpetua prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into
♠ The same rule shall be observed in lowering account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
the penalty by one or two degrees. 2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such
FOURTH RULE: a degree that it must of necessity accompany the
When the penalty is composed of several periods commission thereof.
- This rule contemplates a penalty composed of 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
at least 3 periods. The several periods must correspond arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from
to different divisible penalties. his private relations with the offended party, or from any
Ex. Prision Mayor in its MEDIUM period to other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or
Reclusion temporal in its MINIMUM period. mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and
accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant.
Reclusion Maximum
4. The circumstances which consist in the material
temporal Medium
execution of the act, or in the means employed to
Minimum Penalty for the principal in
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the
Prision Maximum the consummated felony
liability of those persons only who had knowledge of
Mayor Medium them at the time of the execution of the act or their
Minimum Penalty for the cooperation therein.
Prision Maximum accomplice; or principal in 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following
Correccional Medium frustrated felony effects:
Minimum (a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last
FIFTH RULE: crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional
When the penalty has two periods penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
Ex. Prision correccional in its MINIMUM and maximum periods;
MEDIUM periods (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
Prision Maximum which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
correccional Medium The penalty prescribed for prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
Minimum the felony (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit
Maximum shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last
Arresto Mayor Medium The penalty next lower crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
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.
What are the effects of the attendance of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances?
a. Aggravating circumstances which are not
considered for the purpose of increasing the
penalty:
1. Those which in themselves constitute a
crime especially punishable by law.
2. Those included by law in defining the
crime.
3. Those inherent in the crime but of
necessity they accompany the commission
thereof.
b. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances that
serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
offender to whom such are attendant. Those
arising from:
1. Moral attributes of the offender
2. His private relations with the offended
party
3. Any other personal cause
c. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances that
affect the offenders only who had knowledge of
them at the time of the execution of the act or
their cooperation therein. Those which consist:
1. In the material execution of the act
- will not affect all the offenders but only
those to whom such act are attendant
2. Means to accomplish the crime
- will affect only those offenders who have
knowledge of the same at the time of the
act of execution or their cooperation
therein
What are the legal effects of habitual delinquency?
1) Third conviction
- the culprit is sentenced to the penalty for the
crime committed and to the additional penalty
of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum period.
2) Fourth conviction
- the penalty is that provided by law for the
last crime and the additional penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
3) Fifth or additional conviction
- the penalty is that provided by law for the
last crime and the additional penalty of prision
mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its minimum period.
Note:
• In no case shall the total of the 2 penalties
imposed upon the offender exceed 30 years.
• The law does not apply to crimes described in
Art. 155
• The imposition of the additional penalty on
habitual delinquents are CONSTITUTIONAL
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
106
because such law is neither an EX POST FACTO
LAW nor an additional punishment for future
crimes. It is simply a punishment on future
crimes on account of the criminal propensities of
the accused.
• The imposition of such additional penalties is
mandatory and is not discretionary.
• Habitual delinquency applies at any stage of the
execution because subjectively, the offender
reveals the same degree of depravity or
perversity as the one who commits a
consummated crime.
• It applies to all participants because it reveals
persistence in them of the inclination to
wrongdoing and of the perversity of character
that led them to commit the previous crime.
Cases where attending aggravating or mitigating
circumstances are not considered in the imposition
of penalties
- Penalty that is single and indivisible
- Felonies through negligence
- When the penalty is a fine
- When the penalty is prescribed by a special law.
Art. 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 and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by
some mitigating circumstances 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
court 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.
Rules for the application of indivisible penalties:
1. Penalty is single and indivisible
- The penalty shall be applied regardless of the
presence of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. Ex. reclusion perpetua or death
2. Penalty is composed of 2 indivisible
penalties:
a. One aggravating circumstance present
- HIGHER penalty
b. No mitigating circumstances present
- LESSER penalty
c. Some mitigating circumstances present and
no aggravating
- LESSER penalty
d. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
offset each other
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
- Basis of penalty: number and
importance.
Art. 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 court 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 circumstances is present
in the commission of the act, they shall impose the
penalty in its minimum period.
3. When 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 th7e 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 court shall
determine the extent of the penalty according to the
number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the
evil produced by the crime.
Rules for the application of DIVISIBLE PENALTIES
a. No aggravating and No mitigating
- MEDIUM PERIOD
b. One mitigating
- MINIMUM PERIOD
c. One aggravating (any number cannot exceed the
penalty provided by law in its maximum period)
- MAXIMUM PERIOD
d. Mitigating and aggravating circumstances
present
- to offset each other according to relative
weight
e. 2 or more mitigating and no aggravating
- one degree lower (has the effect of a
privileged mitigating circumstance)
NOTE: Art. 64 does not apply to:
- indivisible penalties
- penalties prescribed by special laws
- fines
- crimes committed by negligence
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
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
107
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.
Penalty to be imposed if the requisites of accident
(Art. 12 par 4) are not all present:
a. GRAVE FELONY
- arresto mayor maximum period to
prision correccional minimum period
b. LESS GRAVE FELONY
- arresto mayor minimum period and
medium period
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 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 exemption present or lacking.
Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed
is not wholly excusable
- One or two degrees lower if the majority of the
conditions for justification or exemption in the cases
provided in Arts. 11 and 12 are present.
People v. Lacanilao (1988)
Facts: The CFI found the accused, a policeman,
guilty of homicide. On appeal before the CA, the CA
found that the accused acted in the performance of a
duty but that the shooting of the victim was not the
necessary consequence of the due performance thereof,
therefore crediting to him the mitigating circumstance
consisting of the incomplete justifying circumstance of
fulfillment of duty. The CA lowered the penalty merely
by one period applying Art. 64 (2) appreciating
incomplete fulfillment of duty as a mere generic
mitigating circumstance lowering the penalty to
minimum period.
Held: CA erred because incomplete fulfillment
of duty is a privileged mitigating circumstance which not
only cannot be offset by aggravating circumstances but
also reduces the penalty by one or two degrees than
that prescribed b law. The governing provision is Art. 69
of the RPC.
People v. Campuhan (supra)
The penalty for attempted rape is two (2)
degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death for
the offense charged, which is statutory rape of a minor
below seven (7) years. Two (2) degrees lower is
reclusion temporal, the range of which is twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of
any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the
maximum of the penalty to be imposed upon the
accused shall be taken from the medium period of
reclusion temporal, the range of which is fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and (1) day to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months, while the minimum shall be
taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is
prision mayor, the range of which is from six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its
periods.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
G. SPECIAL RULES
COMPLEX CRIMES
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. —
When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means
for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied
in its maximum period.
♣ Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2
crimes. But the two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE
felonies must be the result of a SINGLE ACT, or an
offense must be a NECESSARY MEANS FOR
COMMITTING the other.
♣ In complex crimes, although two or more
crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one
crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience
of the offender. The offender has only one criminal
intent. Even in the case where an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the evil intent of the
offender is only one.
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES
1. COMPOUND CRIME - When a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies
2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER - When an offense
is a necessary means for committing the other.
COMPOUND CRIME
REQUISITES:
1. That only a SINGLE ACT is performed by
the offender
2. That the single acts produces (a) 2 or
more grave felonies, or (b) one or more
grave and one or more less grave felonies,
or (c) two or more less grave felonies
♣ Light felonies produced by the same act should be
treated and punished as separate offenses or may be
absorbed by the grave felony.
Ex. When the crime is committed by force or
violence, slight physical injuries are absorbed.
♣ Example of compound crime:
- Where the victim was killed while discharging
his duty as barangay captain to protect life and property
and enforce law and order in his barrio, the crime is a
complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in
authority.
♣ When in obedience to an order several accused
simultaneously shot many persons, without evidence
how many each killed, there is only a single offense,
there being a single criminal impulse.
COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
REQUISITES:
1. That at least two offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other
3. That both or all the offenses must be
punished under the same statute.
♣ The phrase “necessary means” does not mean
“indispensable means”
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
108
♣ In complex crime, when the offender executes various
acts, he must have a single purpose.
♣ Subsequent acts of intercourse, after forcible
abduction with rape, are separate acts of rape.
♣ Not complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a
direct means to commit a grave offense.
♣ No complex crime, when one offense is committed to
conceal the other.
♣ When the offender had in his possession the funds
which he misappropriated, the falsification of a public or
official document involving said offense is a separate
offense.
♣ No complex crime where one of the offense is
penalized by a special law.
♣ There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder,
arson, robbery, or other common crimes.
♣ When two crimes produced by a single act are
respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction of two
courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher
jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
♣ The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the
most serious crime, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.
♣ When two felonies constituting a complex crime are
punishable by imprisonment and fine, respectively, only
the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed.
♣ Art. 48 applies only to cases where the Code does not
provide a definite specific penalty for a complex crime.
♣ One information should be filed when a complex crime
is committed.
♣ When a complex crime is charged and one offense is
not proven, the accused can be convicted of the other.
♣ Art. 48 does not apply when the law provides one
single penalty for special complex crimes.
PLURALITY OF CRIMES
- consists in the successive execution by the
same individual of different criminal acts upon any of
which no conviction has yet been declared.
KINDS OF PLURALITY OF CRIMES
1. FORMAL OR IDEAL PLURALITY
- There is but one criminal liability in this kind
of plurality.
- divided into 3 groups:
a. When the offender commits an of the
complex crimes defined in Art. 48 of the Code.
b. When the law specifically fixes a single
penalty for 2 or more offenses committed.
c. When the offender commits continued
crimes.
2. REAL OR MATERIAL PLURALITY
- There are different crimes in law as well as in
the conscience of the offender. In such cases, the
offender shall be punished for each and ever offense
that he committed.
- Ex. A stabbed B. Then, A also stabbed C.
There are two crimes committed.
PLURALITY OF CRIMES RECIDIVISM
There is no conviction of There must be conviction
any of the crimes by final judgment of the
committed. first or prior offense.
CONTINUED CRIME
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
1. A single crime consisting of a series of acts but all
arising from one criminal resolution.
2. A continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on
foot by a single impulse and operated by an
unintermittent force, however long a time it may
occupy.
Ex. a collector of a commercial firm
misappropriates for his personal use several
amounts collected by him from different persons.
One crime only because the different appropriations
are but the different moments during which once
criminal resolution arises and a single defraudation
develops.
♣ A continued crime is not a complex crime.
♣ A continued crime is different from a TRANSITORY
CRIME which is also called a MOVING CRIME.
REAL OR MATERIAL CONTINUED CRIME
PLURALITY
There is a series of acts performed by the offender.
Each act performed b the The different acts
offender constitutes a constitute only one crime
separate crime because because all of the acts
each act is generated by a performed arise from one
criminal impulse. criminal resolution.
People v. Escober (supra)
Special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. Rule is established that whenever a homicide
has been committed as a consequence of or on the
occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did no actually take part in the
homicide unless endeavored to prevent homicide. While
it has been established that Punzalan’s participation in
the crime was to act as a look-out, and as such he did
not participate in the killing of the two helpless victims,
he cannot evade responsibility.
People v. Hernandez (1956)
Facts: Hernandez and others were charged
with the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons
and robberies. He was found guilty and sentenced to
suffer life imprisonment.
Held: Murder, arson and robbery are mere
ingredients of the crime of rebellion, as a means
“necessary” for the perpetration of the offense. Such
common offenses are absorbed or inherent in the crime
of rebellion. Inasmuch as the acts specified in Art. 135
constitute one single crime, it follows that said acts offer
no occasion for the application of Art. 48 which requires
therefore the commission of atleast 2 crimes.
Principle of pro reo. Art. 48 is intended to favor
the culprit: when two or more crimes are the result of a
single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than
when he commits said crimes through separate and
distinct acts.
People v. Geronimo (1956)
As in treason, where both intent and overt act
are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the
coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes
expressed in Art. 134 of the RPC, and the overt acts of
violence described in the first paragraph of Art. 135.
That both purpose and overt acts are essential
components of one crime and that without either of
them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist, is
shown by the absence of any penalty attached to Art.
134. It follows, therefore, that any or all of the acts
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
109
described in Art. 135, when committed as a means to or
in furtherance of the subversive ends described in Art.
134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and
cannot be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in
themselves.
Not every act of violence is to be deemed
absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it
happens to be committed simultaneously. If the killing,
robbing, etc were done for private purposes, the crime
would be separately punishable and would not be
absorbed by the rebellion.
Enrile v. Salazar (1990)
The appellants proposed 3 options to the
court:
(b) abandon Hernandez and adopt the minority view
in said case that rebellion cannot absorb more
serious crimes, and that under Art. 48 rebellion
may be properly complexed with common
offenses,
(c) hold Hernandez applicable only to offense
committed in furtherance, or as a necessary
means for the commission, of rebellion, but not
to acts committed in the course of a rebellion
which also constitute “common” crimes of grave
or less grave character,
(d) maintain Hernandez as applying to make
rebellion absorb all other offenses committed in
its course, whether or not necessary to its
commission or in furtherance thereof.
Held: Hernandez doctrine remains binding and
operates to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with
another offense committed on the occasion thereof,
either as a means necessary to its commission or as an
unintended effect of an activity that constitutes
rebellion.
People v. Toling (1975)
The eight killings and the attempted killing
should be treated as separate crimes of murder and
attempted murder qualified by treachery. The
unexpected surprise assaults perpetrated by the twins
upon their co-passengers, who did not anticipate that
the twins would act like juramentados and who were
unable to defend themselves was a mode of execution
that insured the consummation of the twins’ diabolical
objective to butcher their co-passengers. The conduct of
the twins evinced conspiracy and community of design.
The eight killings and the attempted murder were
perpetrated by means of different acts. Hence, they
cannot be regarded as constituting a complex crime
under art. 48 of the RPC which refers to cases where “a
single act constitutes two or more grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing
the other.”
Monteverde v. People (2002)
Facts: Monteverde was purportedly charged
with the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
a commercial document for allegedly falsifying the
document she had submitted to show that the money
donated by PAGCOR was used and spent for lighting
materials for her barangay.
Held: Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code, a complex crime refers to (1) the commission of
at least two grave or less grave felonies that must both
(or all) be the result of a single act, or (2) one offense
must be a necessary means for committing the other (or
others). Negatively put, there is no complex crime when
(1) two or more crimes are committed, but not by a
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
single act; or (2) committing one crime is not a
necessary means for committing the other (or others).
Using the above guidelines, the acts attributed
to petitioner in the present case cannot constitute a
complex crime. Specifically, her alleged actions showing
falsification of a public and/or a commercial document
were not necessary to commit estafa. Neither were the
two crimes the result of a single act.
People v. Gonzalez (Supra)
Facts: Both of the families of Andres and that
of Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of the Loyola
Memorial Park. Gonzales was driving with his grandson
and 3 housemaids, while Andres was driving with his
pregnant wife, Feliber, his 2yr old son, Kenneth, his
nephew Kevin and his sister-in-law. At an intersection,
their two vehicles almost collided. Gonzales continued
driving while Andres tailed Gonzales’ vehicle and cut him
off when he found the opportunity to do so, then got out
of his vehicle and knocked on the appellant's car
window. Heated exchange of remarks followed. On his
way back to his vehicle, he met Gonzales son, Dino.
Andres had a shouting match this time with Dino.
Gonzales then alighted from his car and fired a single
shot at the last window on the left side of Andres'
vehicle at an angle away from Andres. The single bullet
fired hit Kenneth, Kevin and Feliber which caused the
latter’s death.
Held: The rules on the imposition of penalties
for complex crimes under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal
Code are not applicable in this case. Art. 48 applies if a
single act constitutes two or more grave and less grave
felonies or when an offense is a necessary means of
committing another; in such a case, the penalty for the
most serious offense shall be imposed in its maximum
period. Art. 9 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to
Art. 25 defines grave felonies as those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or afflictive penalties
from reclusion perpetua to prision mayor; less grave
felonies are those to which the law attaches a penalty
which in its maximum period falls under correctional
penalties; and light felonies are those punishable by
arresto menor or fine not exceeding two hundred pesos.
Considering that the offenses committed by the act of
the appellant of firing a single shot are one count of
homicide, a grave felony, and two counts of slight
physical injuries, a light felony, the rules on the
imposition of penalties for complex crimes, which
requires two or more grave and/or less grave felonies,
will not apply.
People v. Comadre (2004)
Facts: Robert Agbanlog, Wabe, Bullanday,
Camat and Eugenio were having a drinking spree on the
terrace of the house of Robert’s father, Jaime Agbanlog,
Jaime was seated on the banister of the terrace listening
to the conversation of the companions of his son. As the
drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed
appellants George and Antonio Comadre and Lozano
walking. The 3 stopped in front of the house. While his
companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed a hand
grenade which fell on the roof of the terrace. Appellants
immediately fled. The hand grenade exploded ripping a
hole in the roof of the house. Robert died while his
father, Jaime, Wabe, Camat, and Bullanday sustained
shrapnel injuries..
Held: Antonio is guilty of the complex crime of
murder with multiple attempted murder under Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code. The underlying philosophy of
complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code, which follows
the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
110
imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes
committed. The rationale being, that the accused who
commits two crimes with single criminal impulse
demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes
are committed by different acts and several criminal
resolutions.
The single act by appellant of detonating a
hand grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of
several separate and distinct offenses, yet these
component criminal offenses should be considered only
as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is
imposed because the offender was impelled by a “single
criminal impulse” which shows his lesser degree of
perversity.
People v. Delos Santos (2001)
Facts: Glenn Delos Santos and his 3 friends
went to Bukidnon on his Isuzu Elf truck. On their way,
they decided to pass by a restaurant where Glenn had 3
bottles of beer. From Bukidnon to Cagayan de Oro City,
Glenn’s truck hit, bumped, seriously wounded and
claimed the lives of several members of the PNP who
were undergoing an endurance run on a highway
wearing black shirts and shorts and green combat
shoes. Twelve trainees were killed on the spot, 12 were
seriously wounded, 1 of whom eventually died and 10
sustained minor injuries. At the time of the occurrence,
the place of the incident was very dark as there was no
moon. Neither were there lamposts that illuminated the
highway. The trial court convicted Glenn of the complex
crime of multiple murder, multiple frustrated murder
and multiple attempted murder, with the use of motor
vehicle as the qualifying circumstance.
Held: Considering that the incident was not a
product of a malicious intent but rather the result of a
single act of reckless driving, Glenn should be held guilty
of the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in
multiple homicide with serious physical injuries and less
serious physical injuries.
The slight physical injuries caused by Glenn to
the ten other victims through reckless imprudence,
would, had they been intentional, have constituted light
felonies. Being light felonies, which are not covered by
Article 48, they should be treated and punished as
separate offenses. Separate informations should have,
therefore, been filed
People v. Velasquez (2000)
Facts: Velasquez, poked a toy gun and forced
Karen to go with her at his grandmother’s house. Out of
fear and not knowing that the gun that Velasquez was
holding is a mere toy, Karen went with Velasquez.
Velasquez then raped Karen twice. The trial court
convicted Velasquez of two counts of rape.
Held: Considering that Velasquez forcibly
abducted Karen and then raped her twice, he should be
convicted of the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape and simple rape. The penalty for complex crimes is
the penalty for the most serious crime which shall be
imposed in its maximum period. Rape is the more
serious of the two crimes and is punishable with
reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code and since reclusion perpetua is a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed as it is. The
subsequent rape committed by Velasquez can no longer
be considered as a separate complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape but only as a separate act of rape
punishable by reclusion perpetua.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
♣ Art. 48 does not apply when the law provides one
single penalty for special complex crimes:
1. Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
2. Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
3. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries (Art.
267 (3))
4. Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
People v. Fabon (2000)
The trial court inaccurately designated the
crime committed as “robbery with homicide and rape.”
When the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide is accompanied b another offense like rape or
intentional mutilation, such additional offense is treated
as an aggravating circumstance which would result in
the imposition of the maximum of the penalty of death.
The proper designation is robbery with homicide
aggravated by rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in
the commission of robbery, it is the first paragraph of
Art. 294 of the RPC which applies, the rape is considered
as an aggravating circumstance.
People v. Empante (1999)
Facts: The accused was found guilty of three
counts of rape against his daughter who was then below
18 years old and sentenced him to death and to
indemnify his daughter in the amount of P50k with
moral damages amounting to another P5ok for each
count of rape. On appeal, he claims that the trial court
should have appreciated two mitigating circumstances in
his favor namely voluntary confession of guilt and
intoxication and sentenced him to a lesser penalty.
Held: Qualified rape is punishable by the single
indivisible penalty of death, which must be applied
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance which may have attended the commission
of the deed.
CRIME DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED
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:
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.
♣ Art. 49 has reference to Art. 4 (1). It applies only
when there is ERROR IN PERSONAE.
♣ In Art. 49 pars. 1 and 2, the LOWER PENALTY in its
MAXIMUM PERIOD is always imposed.
♣ In Par. 3, the penalty for the attempted or frustrated
crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. This rule
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
111
is not necessary and may well be covered by Art. 48, in
view of the fact that the same act also constitutes an
attempt or a frustration of another crime.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
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 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.
♣ Art. 59 is limited to cases where the act performed
would be grave or less grave felonies.
♣ Basis of penalty:
1. social danger
2. degree of criminality shown by the
offender
ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR CERTAIN
ACCESSORIES
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.
♣ Absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal
offender is guilty of a grave felony.
♣ Absolute temporary disqualification if the principal
offender is guilt of less grave felony.
WHERE THE OFFENDER IS BELOW 18 YEARS
Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a
person under eighteen years of age. — When the
offender is a minor under eighteen years and his case is
one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next
to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules
shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine
years of age, who is not exempted from liability by
reason of the court having declared that he acted with
discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed,
but always lower by two degrees at least than that
prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under
eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the
proper period.
PD No. 603. ART. 192. Suspension of
Sentence and Commitment of Youthful Offender.
If after hearing the evidence in the proper
proceedings, the court should find that the youthful
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
offender has committed the acts charged against him
the court shall determine the imposable penalty,
including any civil liability chargeable against him.
However, instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction, the court shall suspend all further
proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody
or care of the Department of Social Welfare, or to any
training institution operated by the government, or duly
licensed agencies or any other responsible person, until
he shall have reached twenty-one years of age or, for a
shorter period as the court may deem proper, after
considering the reports and recommendations of the
Department of Social Welfare or the agency or
responsible individual under whose care he has been
committed.
The youthful offender shall be subject to
visitation and supervision by a representative of the
Department of Social Welfare or any duly licensed
agency or such other officer as the court may designate
subject to such conditions as it may prescribe.
♣ Art. 68 applies to such minor if his application for
suspension of sentence is disapproved or if while in the
reformatory institution he becomes incorrigible in which
case he shall be returned to the court for the imposition
of the proper penalty.
♣ 9 to 15 years only with discernment: at least 2
degrees lower.
♣ 15 to 18 years old: penalty next lower
♣ Art. 68 provides for two of the PRIVILEGED
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
♣ If the act is attended by two or more mitigating and
no aggravating circumstance, the penalty being
divisible, a minor over 15 but under 18 years old may
still get a penalty two degrees lower.
THE THREE-FOLD RULE
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. —
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he
shall serve 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. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
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
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
112
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 (pena perpetua) shall be
computed at thirty years. (As amended).
Outline of the provisions of this Article:
1. When the culprit has to serve 2 or more
penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if
the nature of the penalties will so permit.
2. Otherwise, the order of their respective
severity shall be followed.
3. The respective severity of the penalties is as
follows:
a. Death
b. Reclusion perpetua
c. Reclusion temporal
d. Prision mayor
e. Prision correccional
f. Arresto mayor
g. Arresto menor
h. Destierro
i. Perpetual absolute disqualification
j. Temporary absolute disqualification
k. Suspension from public office, the right to
vote, and be voted for, the right to follow
profession or calling, and
l. Public censure
The penalties which can be simultaneously served
are:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Perpetual special disqualification
3. Temporary absolute disqualification
4. Temporary special disqualification
5. Suspension
6. Destierro
7. Public Censure
8. Fine and Bond to keep the peace
9. Civil interdiction
10. Confiscation and payment of costs
• The above penalties, except destierro, can be
served simultaneously with imprisonment.
• Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty
cannot be served simultaneously by reason of
the nature of such penalties.
Three-fold Rule
The maximum duration of the convict’s
sentence shall not be more than three times the length
of time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him.
♣ The phrase “the most severe of the penalties” includes
equal penalties.
♣ The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has
to serve at least four sentences.
♣ All the penalties, even if by different courts at
different times, cannot exceed three-fold the most
severe.
- The Rules of Court specifically provide that
any information must not charge more than one offense.
Necessarily, the various offense punished with different
penalties must be charged under different informations
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
which may be filed in the same court or in different
courts, at the same time or at different times.
♣ Subsidiary imprisonment forms part of the penalty.
♣ Indemnity is a penalty.
♣ Court must impose all the penalties for all the crimes
of which the accused is found guilty, but in the service
of the same, they shall not exceed three times the most
severe and shall not exceed 40 years.
Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan (1987)
Facts: The petitioner was convicted of violating
Section 3(E) of RA No. 3019 aka the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. One of the issues raised by the
petitioner concerns the penalty imposed by the
Sandiganbayan which totals 56 years and 8 days of
imprisonment. He impugns this as contrary to the three-
fold rule and insists that the duration of the aggregate
penalties should not exceed 40 years.
Held: Petitioner is mistaken in his application
of the 3-fold rule as set forth in Art. 70 of the RPC. 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. Art. 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 merely provides
that the prisoner cannot be made to serve more than
three times the most severe of these penalties the
maximum which is 40 years.
WHERE THE PENALTY IS NOT
COMPOSED OF 3 PERIODS
Art. 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 of time included in the penalty prescribed, and
forming one period of each of the three portions.
MEANING OF THE RULE
1. Compute and determine first the 3 periods of
the entire penalty.
2. The time included in the penalty prescribed
should be divided into 3 equal portions, after subtracting
the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) from the maximum
of the penalty.
3. The minimum of the minimum period should
be the minimum of the given penalty (including the 1
day)
4. The quotient should be added to the minimum
prescribed (eliminate the 1 day) and the total will
represent the maximum of the minimum period. Take
the maximum of the minimum period, add 1 day and
make it the minimum of the medium period; then add
the quotient to the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of
the medium period and the total will represent the
maximum of the medium period. Take the maximum of
the medium period, add 1 day and make it the minimum
of the maximum period; then add the quotient to the
minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of the maximum period
and the total will represent the maximum of the
maximum period.
In the Matter of the petition for Habeas Corpus of
Pete Lagran (2001)
Facts: The accused was convicted of 3 counts
of violating BP22 and was sentenced to imprisonment of
1 year for each count. He was detained on Feb. 24,
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
113
1999. On Mar. 19, 2001, he filed a petition for habeas
corpus claiming he completed the service of his
sentence. Citing Art. 70, RPC, he claimed that he shall
serve the penalties simultaneously. Thus, there is no
more legal basis for his detention.
Held: Art. 70 allows simultaneous service of
two or more penalties only if the nature of the penalties
so permit. In the case at bar, the petitioner was
sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment for every
count of the offense committed. The nature of the
sentence does not allow petitioner to serve all the terms
simultaneously. The rule of successive service of
sentence must be applied.
H. THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
ACT NO. 4103
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS
CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS
THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
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. (As amended by Act
No. 4225.)
SECTION 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. (As amended by Act No.
4225.)
SECTION 3. There is hereby created a Board of
Pardons and Parole to be composed of the Secretary of
Justice who shall be its Chairman, and four members to be
appointed by the President, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments who shall hold office for a
term of six years: Provided, That one member of the board
shall be a trained sociologist, one a clergyman or educator,
one psychiatrist unless a trained psychiatrist be employed by
the board, and the other members shall be persons qualified
for such work by training and experience. At least one
member of the board shall be a woman. Of the members of
the present board, two shall be designated by the President
to continue until December thirty, nineteen hundred and
sixty-six and the other two shall continue until December
thirty, nineteen hundred and sixty-nine. In case of any
vacancy in the membership of the Board, a successor may
be appointed to serve only for the unexpired portion of the
term of the respective members. (As amended by Republic
Act No. 4203, June 19, 1965.)
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
SECTION 4. The Board of Pardons and Parole is
authorized to adopt such rules and regulations as may be
necessary for carrying out its functions and duties. The
Board is empowered to call upon any bureau, office, branch,
subdivision, agency or instrumentality of the Government for
such assistance as it may need in connection with the
performance of its functions. A majority of all the members
shall constitute a quorum and a majority vote shall be
necessary to arrive at a decision. Any dissent from the
majority opinion shall be reduced to writing and filed with
the records of the proceedings. Each member of the Board,
including the Chairman and the Executive Officer, shall be
entitled to receive as compensation fifty pesos for each
meeting actually attended by him, notwithstanding the
provisions of Section two hundred and fifty-nine of the
Revised Administrative Code, and in addition thereto,
reimbursement of actual and necessary travelling expenses
incurred in the performance of duties: Provided, however,
That the Board meetings will not be more than three times a
week. (As amended by Republic Act No. 4203, June 19,
1965.)
SECTION 5. It shall be the duty of the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence to look into the physical, mental
and moral record of the prisoners who shall be eligible to
parole and to determine the proper time of release of such
prisoners. Whenever any prisoner shall have served the
minimum penalty imposed on him, and it shall appear to the
Board of Indeterminate Sentence, from the reports of the
prisoner's work and conduct which may be received in
accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed, and
from the study and investigation made by the Board itself,
that such prisoner is fitted by his training for release, that
there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live
and remain at liberty without violating the law, and that
such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of
society, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its
discretion, and in accordance with the rules and regulations
adopted hereunder, authorize the release of such prisoner
on parole, upon such terms and conditions as are herein
prescribed and as may be prescribed by the Board. The said
Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall also examine the
records and status of prisoners who shall have been
convicted of any offense other than those named in Section
2 hereof, and have been sentenced for more than one year
by final judgment prior to the date on which this Act shall
take effect, and shall make recommendation in all such
cases to the Governor-General with regard to the parole of
such prisoners as they shall deem qualified for parole as
herein provided, after they shall have served a period of
imprisonment not less than the minimum period for which
they might have been sentenced under this Act for the same
offense.
SECTION 6. Every prisoner released from
confinement on parole by virtue of this Act shall, at such
times and in such manner as may be required by the
conditions of his parole, as may be designated by the said
Board for such purpose, report personally to such
government officials or other parole officers hereafter
appointed by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence for a
period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining portion of
the maximum sentence imposed upon him or until final
release and discharge by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence as herein provided. The officials so designated
shall keep such records and make such reports and perform
such other duties hereunder as may be required by said
Board. The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner
during his parole may be fixed and from time to time
changed by the said Board in its discretion. If during the
period of surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show
himself to be a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any
of the laws of the Philippine Islands, the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
114
release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release
and discharge.
SECTION 7. The Board shall file with the court which
passed judgment on the case, and with the Chief of
Constabulary, a certified copy of each order of conditional or
final release and discharge issued in accordance with the
provisions of the next preceding two sections.
SECTION 8. Whenever any prisoner released on
parole by virtue of this Act shall, during the period of
surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his parole, the
Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue an order for his
re-arrest which may be served in any part of the Philippine
Islands by any police officer. In such case the prisoner so re-
arrested shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the
maximum sentence for which he was originally committed to
prison, unless the Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall, in
its discretion, grant a new parole to the said prisoner. (As
amended by Act No. 4225.)
SECTION 9. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
impair or interfere with the powers of the Governor-General
as set forth in Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative
Code or the Act of Congress approved August 29, 1916
entitled "An Act to declare the purpose of the people of the
United States as to the future political status of the people of
the Philippine Islands, and to provide a more autonomous
government for those Islands."
SECTION 10. Whenever any prisoner shall be released
on parole hereunder he shall be entitled to receive the
benefits provided in Section 1751 of the Revised
Administrative Code.
Approved and effective on December 5, 1993.
♣ The indeterminate sentence is composed of:
1. a MAXIMUM taken from the penalty
imposable under the penal code
2. a MINIMUM taken from the penalty next
lower to that fixed in the code.
♣ The law does not apply to certain offenders:
1. Persons convicted of offense punished with
death penalty or life imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason.
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage.
4. Those convicted of piracy.
5. Those who are habitual delinquents.
6. Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence.
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional
pardon granted to them by the Chief
Executive.
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment
does not exceed one year.
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law, had
been sentenced by final judgment.
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or
suspension.
♣ Purpose of the law: to uplift and redeem valuable
human material and prevent unnecessary and excessive
deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness
- It is necessary to consider the criminal first
as an individual, and second as a member of the society.
- The law is intended to favor the defendant,
particularly to shorten his term of imprisonment,
depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
and moral record as a prisoner, to be determined by the
Board of Indeterminate Sentence.
♣ The settled practice is to give the accused the benefit
of the law even in crimes punishable with death or life
imprisonment provided the resulting penalty, after
considering the attending circumstances, is reclusion
temporal or less.
♣ ISL does not apply to destierro. ISL is expressly
granted to those who are sentenced to imprisonment
exceeding 1 year.
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMING THE MAXIMUM AND
MINIMUM SENTENCE
♣ Is consists of a maximum and a minimum instead of a
single fixed penalty.
♣ Prisoner must serve the minimum before he is eligible
for parole.
♣ The period between the minimum and maximum is
indeterminate in the sense that the prisoner may be
exempted from serving said indeterminate period in
whole or in part.
♣ The maximum is determined in any case punishable
under the RPC in accordance with the rules and
provisions of said code exactly as if the ISL had never
been enacted.
♣ Apply first the effect of privileged mitigating
circumstances then consider the effects of aggravating
and ordinary mitigating circumstances.
♣ The minimum depends upon the court’s discretion
with the limitation that it must be within the range of
the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed by
the Code for the offense committed.
NOTE: A minor who escaped from confinement in the
reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the ISL because
his confinement is not considered imprisonment.
Art. 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 court 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 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.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
115
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 court
shall determine the extent of the penalty according to
the number and nature of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser
extent of the evil produced by the crime.
De la Cruz v. CA (1996)
In as much as the amount of P715k is P693k
more than the abovementioned benchmark of P22k,
then adding one year for each additional P10k, the
maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8
years of prision mayor minimum would be increased by
69 years, as computed by the trial court. But the law
categorically declares that the maximum penalty then
shall not exceed 20 years of reclusion temporal. Under
the ISL, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalt
should be within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed b the Code for the offense
committed, which is prision correccional.
People v. Campuhan (supra)
The penalty for attempted rape is two (2)
degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death for
the offense charged, which is statutory rape of a minor
below seven (7) years. Two (2) degrees lower is
reclusion temporal, the range of which is twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the absence of
any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the
maximum of the penalty to be imposed upon the
accused shall be taken from the medium period of
reclusion temporal, the range of which is fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and (1) day to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months, while the minimum shall be
taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is
prision mayor, the range of which is from six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its
periods.
People v. Saley (supra)
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum term of the penalty shall be "that which, in
view of the attending circumstances, could be properly
imposed" under the Revised Penal Code, and the
minimum shall be "within the range of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed" for the offense. The penalty
next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed by
the Code for the offense, without first considering any
modifying circumstance attendant to the commission of
the crime. The determination of the minimum penalty is
left by law to the sound discretion of the court and it can
be anywhere within the range of the penalty next lower
without any reference to the periods into which it might
be subdivided. The modifying circumstances are
considered only in the imposition of the maximum term
of the indeterminate sentence.
The fact that the amounts involved in the instant
case exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the
initial determination of the indeterminate penalty;
instead, the matter should be so taken as analogous to
modifying circumstances in the imposition of the
maximum term of the full indeterminate sentence. This
interpretation of the law accords with the rule that penal
laws should be construed in favor of the accused. Since
the penalty prescribed by law for the estafa charge
against accused-appellant is prision correccional
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
maximum to prision mayor minimum, the penalty next
lower would then be prision correccional minimum to
medium. Thus, the minimum term of the indeterminate
sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months .
I. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES
Execution of Penalties
Art. 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.
♠ The judgment must be final before it can be executed,
because the accused may still appeal within 15 days
from its promulgation. But if the defendant has
expressly waived in writing his right to appeal, the
judgment becomes final and executory.
♠ See Rules and regulations to implement RA No. 8177
under Capital Punishment.
Art. 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.
Art. 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 be not more than 250 and
not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
♠ Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place
designated in the sentence nor within the radius
specified, which shall not more than 250 and not less
than 25 km from the place designated.
♠ If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits
evasion of sentence.
♠ Destierro is imposed:
a. When the death or serious physical injuries is
caused or are inflicted under exceptional
circumstances (art. 247)
b. When a person fails to give bond for good
behavior (art. 284)
c. As a penalty for the concubine in the crime of
concubinage (Art. 334)
d. When after lowering the penalty by degrees,
destierro is the proper penalty.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
116
Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of
arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in
the house of the defendant himself under the
surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so
provides in its decision, taking into consideration the
health of the offender and other reasons which may
seem satisfactory to it.
Service of the penalty of arresto menor:
a. In the municipal jail
b. In the house of the offender, but under
the surveillance of an officer of the law,
whenever the court so provides in the
decision due to the health of the offender.
In the Matter of the petition for Habeas Corpus of
Pete Lagran (2001)
Facts: The accused was convicted of 3 counts
of violating BP22 and was sentenced to imprisonment of
1 year for each count. He was detained on Feb. 24,
1999. On Mar. 19, 2001, he filed a petition for habeas
corpus claiming he completed the service of his
sentence. Citing Art. 70, RPC, he claimed that he shall
serve the penalties simultaneously. Thus, there is no
more legal basis for his detention.
Held: Art. 70 allows simultaneous service of
two or more penalties only if the nature of the penalties
so permit. In the case at bar, the petitioner was
sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment for every
count of the offense committed. The nature of the
sentence does not allow petitioner to serve all the terms
simultaneously. The rule of successive service of
sentence must be applied.
Effects of the Probation Law
THE PROBATION LAW
Taken from the DOJ website
Section 3(a) of Presidential Decrees 968, as amended,
defines probation as a disposition under which an accused,
after conviction and sentence, is released subject to
conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a
probation officer. It is a privilege granted by the court; it
cannot be availed of as a matter of right by a person
convicted of a crime. To be able to enjoy the benefits of
probation, it must first be shown that an applicant has none
of the disqualifications imposed by law.
Disqualified Offenders
Probation under PD No. 968, as amended, is intended for
offenders who are 18 years of age and above, and who are
not otherwise disqualified by law. Offenders who are
disqualified are those: (1) sentenced to serve a maximum
term of imprisonment of more than six years; (2) convicted
of subversion or any offense against the security of the
State, or the Public Order; (3) 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 more than Two Hundred Pesos; (4) who
have been once on probation under the provisions of this
Decree;
Post-Sentence Investigation
The Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) and the submission of
the Post-Sentence Investigation Report (PSIR) are pre-
requisites to the court disposition on the application for
probation.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Period of Probation
The period of probation is in essence a time-bound
condition. It is a condition in point of time which may be
shortened and lengthened within the statutory limits and the
achievements by the probationer of the reasonable degrees
of social stability and responsibility from the measured
observation of the supervising officer and the exercise
discretion by the court in decisive order.
Probation Conditions
The grant of probation is accompanied by conditions
imposed by the court:
• The mandatory conditions require that the
probationer shall (a) present himself to the
probation officer designated to undertake his
supervision at each 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 imposed on the probationer
which are geared towards his correction and
rehabilitation outside of prison and right in the
community to which he belongs.
A violation of any of the conditions may lead either to a
more restrictive modification of the same or the revocation
of the grant of probation. Consequent to the revocation, the
probationer will have to serve the sentence originally
imposed.
Modification of Conditions of Probation
During the period of probation, the court may, upon
application of either the probationers or the probation
officer, revise or modify the conditions or period of
probation. The court shall notify either the probationer or
the probation officer of the filing of such an application so as
to give both parties an opportunity to be heard thereon.
Transfer of Residence
Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place
under the jurisdiction of another court, control over him
shall be transferred to the executive judge of the "Court of
First Instance" of that place, and in such case, a copy of the
Probation Order, the investigation report and other pertinent
records shall be furnished to said executive judge.
Thereafter, the executive judge to whom jurisdiction over
the probationer is transferred shall have the power with
respect to him that was previously possessed by the court
which granted the probation.
Revocation of Probation
At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant
for the arrest of a probationer for any serious violation of the
conditions of probation. The probationer, once arrested and
detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for
a hearing of the violation charged. The defendant may be
admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such case, the
provisions regarding release on bail of persons charged with
crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this
provision. An order revoking the grant of probation or
modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall not be
appealable.
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.
Programs and Services
Post-Sentence Investigation. After conviction and
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
117
sentence, a convicted offender or his counsel files a petition
for probation with the trail court, who in turn orders the
Probation Officer to conduct a post-sentence investigation to
determine whether a convicted offender may be placed on
probation or not. The role of the probation officer in this
phase is to conduct the post-sentence investigation and to
submit his report to the court within the period not later
than 60 days from receipt of the order of the Court to
conduct the said investigation.
Pre-Parole Investigation. The PAROLE AND PROBATION
ADMINISTRATION - (PPA) conducts pre-parole investigation
of all sentenced prisoners confined in prisons and jails within
their jurisdiction. The purpose is to determine whether
offenders confined in prisons/jails are qualified for parole or
any form of executive clemency and to discuss with them
their plans after release. Probation officers submit their pre-
parole assessment reports to the Board of Pardons and
Parole.
Supervision of Offenders. The Agency supervises two
types of offenders under conditional release: (1)
probationers, or persons placed under probation by the
courts; (2) parolees and pardonees, or prisoners released on
parole or conditional pardon and referred by the Board of
Pardons and Parole (BPP) to PAROLE AND PROBATION
ADMINISTRATION - (PPA) (PPA). The objectives of
supervision are to carry out the conditions set forth in the
probation/parole order, to ascertain whether the
probationer/parolee/pardonee is complying with the said
conditions, and to bring about the rehabilitation of the client
and his re-integration into the community.
Rehabilitation Programs. The treatment process
employed by the field officers focused on particular needs of
probationers, parolees and pardonees. Assistance is
provided to the clientele in the form of job placement, skills
training, spiritual/moral upliftment, counseling, etc.
Community Linkages
Probation/Parole, as a community-based treatment program,
depends on available resources in the community for the
rehabilitation of offenders. Thus, the Agency, recognizing the
important role of the community as a rehabilitation agent,
involves the community in probation work through the use
of volunteer workers and welfare agencies.
Presidential Decree No. 968 permits the utilization of the
services of Volunteer Probation Aides to assist the Probation
and Parole Officers in the supervision of probationers,
parolees and pardonees particularly in the areas where the
caseload is heavy and the office is understaff or where the
residence of the clientele is very far from the Parole and
Probation Office. As defined, a Volunteer Probation Aide is a
volunteer who is a citizen of good moral character and good
standing in the community, who has been carefully selected
and trained to do volunteer probation work. He is appointed
by the Administrator after successful completion of the
Introductory Training Course for probation volunteers. His
term of office is one year but can be renewed thereafter or
terminated earlier depending upon his performance and
willingness to serve.
Further, the PAROLE AND PROBATION ADMINISTRATION -
(PPA), through its Community Services Division, Regional
and Field Offices nationwide, has been tapping
government/non-government organizations/individuals for
various rehabilitation programs and activities for
probationers, parolees and pardonees.
Llamado v. CA (1989)
In its present form, Section 4 of the Probation
Law establishes a much narrower period during which an
application for probation ma be filed with the trial curt:
“after the trial curt shall have convicted and sentenced a
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
defendant and – within the period for perfecting an
appeal”. The provision expressly prohibits the grant of
an application for probation if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Petitioner’s right to apply for probation was
lost when he perfected his appeal from the judgment of
the trial court. The trial court lost jurisdiction already
over the case.
Bala v. Martinez (1990)
PD 1990 which amends Sec. 4 of PD 968 is not
applicable to the case at bar. It went into effect on Jan.
15, 1985 and cannot be given retroactive effect because
it would be prejudicial to the accused. Bala was placed
on probation on Aug. 11, 1982.
Expiration of probation period alone does not
automatically terminate probation; a final order of
discharge from the court is required. Probation is
revocable before the final discharge by the court.
Probationer failed to reunite with responsible society. He
violated the conditions of his probation. Thus, the
revocation of his probation is compelling.
Salgado v. CA (1990)
There is no question that the decision
convicting Salgado of the crime of serious physical
injuries had become final and executory because the
filing by respondent of an application for probation is
deemed a waiver of his right to appeal.
The grant of probation does not extinguish the
civil liability of the offender. The order of probation with
one of the conditions providing for the manner of
payment of the civil liability during the period of
probation, did not increase or decrease the civil liability
adjudged.
The conditions listed under Sec. 10 of the
Probation law are not exclusive. Courts are allowed to
impose practically any term it chooses, the only
limitation being that it does not jeopardize the
constitutional rights of the accused.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado (1996)
Facts: The respondent is a deputy sheriff who
was charged of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act and is
now claiming he is in probation. The OCA filed an
administrative case against him and he was suspended
from office.
Held: While indeed the purpose of the
Probation Law is to save valuable human material, it
must not be forgotten that unlike pardon probation does
not obliterate the crime of which the person under
probation has been convicted. The image of the judiciary
is tarnished by conduct involving moral turpitude. The
reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannot
justify his retention in the government service.
Suspension in case of Insanity or Minority
Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and
service of the penalties in case of insanity. — When
a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final
sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said
sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the
personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph
of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being observed
in the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his
reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the
penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
118
The respective provisions of this section shall
also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while
the convict is serving his sentence.
♠ Only execution of personal penalty is suspended: civil
liability may be executed even in case of insanity of
convict.
♠ An accused may become insane:
a. at the time of commission of the crime
– exempt from criminal liability
b. at the time of the trial
- court shall suspend hearings and order
his confinement in a hospital until he
recovers his reason
c. at the time of final judgment or while
serving sentence
– execution suspended with regard to the
personal penalty only
♠ see Exempting Circumstance of Minority for PD No.
603 and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law.
VI. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
A. TOTAL EXTINCTION
Art. 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.
How is criminal liability extinguished?
1. TOTAL
2. PARTIAL
♠ Extinction of criminal liability does not automatically
extinguish the civil liability.
Causes of extinction of criminal liability:
1. BY DEATH OF THE CONVICT
- the death of the convict whether before or
after final judgment extinguished criminal liability.
- civil liability is extinguished only when death
occurs before final judgment.
- death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguished his criminal liability as well as
the civil liability based solely on the offense committed;
except, the claim for civil liability survives if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
quasi-delicts.
- death of the offended party does not
extinguish the criminal liability of the offender.
2. BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE
- crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a
consequence of his wrongful act and the penalty is but
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
the amount of his debt. When payment is made, the
debt is extinguished. Service of sentence does not
extinguish civil liability.
3. BY AMNESTY
- amnesty 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.
4. BY ABSOLUTE PARDON
- It is an act of grace proceeding from the
power entrusted with the execution of the laws which
exempts the individual on whom is bestowed from the
punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has
committed.
Pardon Amnesty
Includes any crime Generally political offenses
Given after conviction Given before conviction or
institution of the action
Looks forward and forgives Looks backwards and
the punishment abolished the offense itself
Must be proved as a Being a result of a
defense proclamation, the court
may take judicial notice of
the same
Do not extinguish civil liability
5. BY PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
- the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to
prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain
time.
6. BY 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.
Requisites: a) that there be final judgment
b) that the period of time prescribed
by law for its enforcement has
elapsed.
7. BY THE MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED
WOMAN
- applicable in the crimes of rape, seduction,
abduction or acts of lasciviousness. Marriage must be
made in good faith.
Art. 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).
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
119
♠ In computing the period of prescription, the first day
is to be excluded and the last day included.
♠ Where the last day of the prescriptive period for filing
an information falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the
information can no longer be filed on the next day as the
crime has already prescribed.
PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES PUNISHED
BY:
1. death, reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal
- 20 years
2. other afflictive penalties
- 15 years
3. correctional penalties
- 10 years except arresto mayor which
prescribes in 5 years
4. libel or similar offense
- 1 year (as amended by RA 4661)
5. oral defamation and slander by deed
- 6 months
6. light offenses
- 2 months
PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES PUNISHED BY
SPECIAL LAWS:
a. punished by a fine or imprisonment not more
than 1 month or both – 1 year
b. punished by imprisonment of more than 1
month but less than 2 years – 4 years
c. punished by imprisonment for 2 years but less
than 6 years – 8 years
d. punished by imprisonment for 6 years or more
– 12 years
e. Internal Revenue offenses – 5 years
f. Municipal ordinances – 2 months (Act. No.
3763, as amended)
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.
♠ Period commences to run from the day the offense is
committed or discovered by the offended party, the
authorities or their agents. It does not run if the
offender is outside the Philippines.
♠ The fact that the offender is unknown will not
interrupt the period of prescription because what the
Code requires is the discovery of the crime and not of
the offender.
♠ The period is interrupted by the filing of the complaint
or information.
- The period is not interrupted b the mere act of
reporting the case to the fiscal.
- The preliminary investigation conducted by the
municipal mayor in the absence of the justice of peace
partakes of the nature of a judicial proceeding and it
does not interrupt the running of the period of
prescription.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
♠ The period commences to run again when the
proceeding is terminated:
- without the accused being convicted or
acquitted
- the proceeding is unjustifiably stopped for a
reason not imputable to the offender.
♠ In continuing crime, the prescription commences to
run after the termination of the continuity of the offense.
♠ Period of prescription of election offense begins to
run:
1) if discovery of the offense is incidental in a
judicial proceeding
- from the date of the termination of the
proceedings
2) otherwise
- from the date of the commission of the
offense
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.
PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES:
1. death and reclusion perpetua - 20 years
2. other afflictive penalties – 15 years
3. correctional penalties – 10 years except
arresto mayor which prescribes in 5 years
4. light penalties - year
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.
♠ Period commences to run from the date the culprit
evades the service of sentence.
♠ The period is interrupted:
a. if the defendant surrenders
b. if he is captured
c. if he should go to a foreign country with which
the Philippines has no extradition treaty
d. if he should commit another crime before the
expiration of the period of prescription
♠ ELEMENTS:
a. penalty is imposed by final sentence
b. the convict evaded the service of sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence
c. escaped convict has not given himself up, or
has been captured
d. penalty has prescribed because of the lapse of
time
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
120
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.
Monsanto v. Factoran (1989)
Monsanto was convicted of the complex crime
of estafa thru falsification of public documents. She was
pardoned. She now seeks reinstatement to her former
position as Assistant treasurer, without need of a new
appointment.
Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted
felon to public office. A pardon although full and plenary,
cannot preclude the appointing power from refusing
appointment to anyone deemed of bad character, a poor
moral risk, or who is unsuitable by reason of the
pardoned conviction.
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee v.
Desierto (2001)
The applicable law in the computation of the
prescriptive period for RA 3019 is Section 2 of Act No.
3326 which provides that 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
proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
People v. Abungan (2000)
Facts: Abungan, together with 2 others were
charged with murder for the death of Dirilo, Sr. Abungan
pleaded not guilty upon his arraignment. After trial on
the merits, the trial court sentenced Pedro Abungan to
suffer the penalty of reclusion and such penalties
accessory thereto. Abungan appealed his case but died
during the pendency of his appeal.
Held: The death of appellant extinguished his
criminal liability. Moreover, because he died during the
pendency of the appeal and before the finality of the
judgment against him, his civil liability arising from the
crime or delict (civil liability ex delicto) was also
extinguished. It must be added, though, that his civil
liability may be based on sources of obligation other
than delict. For this reason, the victims may file a
separate civil action against his estate, as may be
warranted by law and procedural rules.
Recebido v. People (2000)
Facts: On September 9, 1990, Dorol went to
the house of her cousin, Recebido, to redeem her
property, an agricultural land with an area of 3,520 sq
meters, which Dorol mortgaged to Recebido sometime in
April of 1985. Recebido and Dorol did not execute a
document on the mortgage but Dorol instead gave
Recebido a copy of the Deed of Sale dated June 16,
1973 executed in her favor by her father. In said
confrontation, petitioner refused to allow Dorol to
redeem her property on his claim that she had sold her
property to him in 1979. Dorol maintained and insisted
that the transaction between them involving her
property was a mortgage. Dorol verified from the Office
of the Assessor in Sorsogon that there exists on its file a
Deed of Sale dated August 13, 1979, allegedly executed
by Dorol in favor of Recebido and that the property was
registered in the latter's name. Upon examination of the
said Deed of Sale, it was discovered that Dorol’s
signature on said document was falsified by Recebido.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
Recebido then alleged that Juan Dorol sold the said land
to him on August 13, 1983.
Held: Under Article 91 of the Revised Penal
Code, 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, . . .." In
People v. Reyes, The Court has declared that
registration in public registry is a notice to the whole
world. The record is constructive notice of its contents
as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included
therein. All persons are charged with knowledge of what
it contains.
The Court noted that Dorol had no actual
knowledge of the falsification prior to September 9,
1990. The alleged sale also could not have been
registered before 1983, the year the alleged deed of sale
was executed by Dorol. Considering the foregoing, it is
logical and in consonance with human experience to
infer that the crime committed was not discovered, nor
could have been discovered, by the offended party
before 1983. Neither could constructive notice by
registration of the forged deed of sale, which is
favorable to the petitioner since the running of the
prescriptive period of the crime shall have to be
reckoned earlier, have been done before 1983 as it is
impossible for the petitioner to have registered the deed
of sale prior thereto. Even granting arguendo that the
deed of sale was executed by the private complainant,
delivered to the petitioner-accused in August 13, 1983
and registered on the same day, the 10yr prescriptive
period of the crime had not yet elapsed at the time the
information was filed in 1991. The crime had not
prescribed at the time of the filing of the information.
Del Castillo v. Torrecampo (2002)
Facts: The trial court rendered judgment and
declared Torrecampo guilty of violating Section 178 (nn)
of PD 1296, otherwise known as the 1978 Election Code,
for striking the electric bulb and 2 kerosene petromax
lamps during the counting of the votes in a voting center
plunging the room in complete darkness, thereby
interrupting and disrupting the proceedings of the Board
of Election Tellers. Torrecampo appealed his conviction
to the CA which eventually affirmed the decision of the
trial court in toto. Said decision became final and
executory. Thus, the execution of judgment was
scheduled on October 14, 1987. 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. Ten years later, on October 24, 1997, Torrecampo
filed a motion to quash the warrant issued for his arrest
on the ground of prescription of the penalty imposed
upon him.
Held: Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code
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.
"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, Torrecampo was never
brought to prison. In fact, even before the execution of
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
121
the judgment for his conviction, he was already in
hiding. Now Torrecampo begs for the compassion of the
Court because he has ceased to live a life of peace and
tranquility after he failed to appear in court for the
execution of his sentence. But it was Torrecampo who
chose to become a fugitive. The Court accords
compassion only to those who are deserving.
Torrecampo guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt
but he refused to answer for the wrong he committed.
He is therefore not to be rewarded therefor.
People v. Patriarca (2000)
Facts: Patriarca with the alias of Ka Django, an
NPA, with ten (10) armed companions, requested
permission to rest in the house of Malto. They had with
them Arevalo who was hogtied. Patriarca asked that the
lights in Malto's house be extinguished. Patriarca then
ordered Arevalo to lie down then shot the latter two
times. The trial court convicted Patriarca of murder.
Patriarca then applied for amnesty under Proclamation
No. 724 amending Proclamation No. 347, dated March
25, 1994, entitled "Granting Amnesty to Rebels,
Insurgents, and All Other Persons Who Have or May
Have Committed Crimes Against Public Order, Other
Crimes Committed in Furtherance of Political Ends, and
Violations of the Article of War, and Creating a National
Amnesty Commission." His application was favorably
granted by the National Amnesty Board
Held: Paragraph 3 of Article 89 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally
extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes
the penalty and all its effects.
The Court takes judicial notice of the grant of
amnesty upon Patriarca. Once granted, it is binding and
effective. Hence, the grant of amnesty extinguishes the
liability of Patriarca in the present case.
B. PARTIAL 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 serving his sentence.
CAUSES OF PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY:
1. CONDITIONAL PARDON
a) when delivered and accepted is considered a
contract between the sovereign power and
the convict that the former will release the
latter upon compliance with the condition
b) usual condition “he shall not again violate any
of the penal laws of the Philippines
Violations of the conditions:
• offender is rearrested and re-incarcerated
• prosecution under Art. 159 of the RPC
2. COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
a) reduce degree of penalty
b) decrease the length of imprisonment
c) decrease the amount of fine
Specific cases where commutation is
provided for by the Code:
• convict sentenced to death over 70 years
old
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
• 10 justices of the SC fail to reach a
decision for the affirmance of the death
penalty
3. GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES DURING
CONFINEMENT
- deduction for the term of sentence for
good behavior
4. PAROLE
- consists in the suspension of the
sentence of a convict without granting
pardon, prescribing the terms upon which
the sentence shall be suspended.
- May be granted to a prisoner after
serving the minimum penalty under the
indeterminate sentence law
- Consists in the suspension of the
sentence of a convict after serving the
minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty, without granting a pardon
prescribing the terms upon which the
sentence shall be punished.
Conditional Pardon Parole
May be given an time May be given after the
before final judgment is prisoner has served the
granted by the Chief minimum penalty is
Executive under the granted by the Board of
Administrative Code Parole and Pardons under
the ISL
For violation, convict may For violation, convict can
be rearrested or be rearrested and re-
prosecuted under Art. 159 incarcerated to serve the
unexpired portion of his
original penalty
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.
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.
Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. —
The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution
shall entitle him to the following deductions from the
period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of five
days for each month of good behavior;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive,
of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
eight days for each month of good behavior;
3. During the following years until the tenth
year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed
a deduction of ten days for each month of good
behavior; and
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
122
4. During the eleventh and successive years of
his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
fifteen days for each month of good behavior.
GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES OF A PRISONER IN
A PENAL INSTITUTION:
1. First 2 years
a. 5 days per month of good behavior
2. 3rd – 5th year
b. 8 days
3. following years to 10th year
c. 10 days
4. 11th year and successive years
d. 15 days
♠ These allowances are granted by the Director of
Prisons and once given cannot be revoked.
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 the
service of his sentence under the circumstances
mentioned in Article 58 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 to in said article.
SPECIAL TIME ALLOWANCE FOR LOYALTY
- it is a deduction of 1/5 of the period of his sentence if
he, having evaded the service of his sentence under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 158, gives himself up
to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance
of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the
calamity.
♠ This article does not apply to prisoners who did not
escape.
♠ The deduction of 1/5 is based on the original
sentence.
♠ Under Art. 158, a convict who evaded service of his
sentence by leaving the penal institution on the occasion
of disorder resulting from a conflagration, earthquake,
explosion or similar catastrophe or during a mutiny in
which he did not participate, is liable to an increased
penalty (1/5 of the time still remaining to be served –
not to exceed 6 months) if he fails to give himself up
within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation
by the President announcing the passing away of the
calamity.
Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. —
Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall
grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances
once granted shall not be revoked.
VII. CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM FELONY
♣ As a general rule, an offense causes two classes of
injuries:
1. SOCIAL INJURY – produced by the
disturbance and alarm which are the outcome
of the offense
- this is sought to be repaired through the
imposition of the corresponding penalty.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
2. PERSONAL INJURY – caused to the victim of
the crime who may have suffered damage,
either to his person, to his property, to his
honor, or to her chastity.
- this is sought to be repaired through
indemnity which is civil in nature.
A. GENERAL RULE
RPC, Art. 100. Civil liability of a person
guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.
♣ BASIS: A crime has dual character: a) as an offense
against the state because of the disturbance of the
social order; and b) as an offense against the private
person injured by the crime unless it involves the crime
of treason, rebellion, espionage, contempt and others
wherein no civil liability arises on the part of the
offender either because there are no damages to be
compensated or there is no private person injured by
the crime.
♣ In crimes against persons, like the crime of physical
injuries, the injured party is entitled to be paid for
whatever he spent for the treatment of his wounds,
doctor’s fees etc. as well as for loss or impairment of
earning capacity.
♣ Moral damages may be recovered as well.
♣ Exemplary damages as part of the civil liability ma be
imposed when the crime was committed with one or
more aggravating circumstances.
♣ But if there is no damage caused by the commission
of the crime, the offender is not civilly liable.
♣ Civil liability arises from the commission of the felony.
It is determined in the criminal action except:
a. the offended party waives his right to file a
civil action
b. the offended party reserves his right to
institute it separately, or
c. the offended party institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action.
♣ A reservation of the right to file a separate civil action
only gives the party aggrieved the right to choose under
which body of laws he must bring the civil action, either
under the:
1. RPC – where the recovery may be defeated
by proof that the acts on which the action is based do
not exist, or
2. Civil Code – where the same proof is
required to preclude recovery, or proof of diligence in
the selection and employment of the employee
♣ Effect of ACQUITTAL:
As a rule, if the offender is acquitted, the civil
liability is extinguished, except:
a) if the acquittal is on the ground that the guilt
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt
b) the acquittal was due to an exempting
circumstance like insanity and
c) when the court finds and states in its judgment
that there is only civil responsibility.
♣ SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
123
The rule is that when the criminal action is
instituted, a separate civil action cannot be instituted or
if already instituted, it is to be suspended. Said rule
applies only when the plaintiff in the civil action is the
offended party in the criminal action and both cases
arise from the same offense.
Exceptions:
Independent civil actions may be filed for:
a. violations of fundamental rights (Art. 32)
b. defamation, fraud and physical injuries (Art.
33)
c. failure or refusal of a member of the police
force to render aid or protection to any person
in case of danger to life or property (Art. 34)
PERTINENT PROVISIONS
Civil Code, Art. 20. Every person who,
contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from
criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal laws,
subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the
pertinent provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on
Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book,
regulating damages. (1092a)
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or
negligence under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant. (n)
RULE 111
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
1985 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with
the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the
civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately,
or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity
under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the
accused.
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the
others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the
others.
The reservation of the right to institute the
separate civil actions shall be made before the
prosecution starts to present its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunity to make such reservation.
In no case may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the
accused.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil
liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages, the filing fees for
such civil action as provided in these Rules shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an
award for actual damages.
In cases wherein the amount of damages,
other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or
information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid
by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for
trial.
Sec. 2. Institution of separate civil action.
Except in the cases provided for in Section 3 hereof,
after the criminal action has been commenced, the civil
action which has been reserved cannot be instituted
until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal
action.
(a) Whenever the offended party shall have
instituted the civil action as provided for in the first
paragraph of Section 1 hereof before the filing of the
criminal action and the criminal action is subsequently
commenced, the pending civil action shall be suspended,
in whatever stage before final judgment it may be
found, until final judgment in the criminal action has
been rendered. However, if no final judgment has been
rendered by the trial court in the civil action, the same
may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the criminal action. If
the application is granted, the evidence presented and
admitted in the civil action shall be deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal action, without
prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that
any party may wish to present. In case of consolidation,
both the criminal and the civil actions shall be tried and
decided jointly.
(b) Extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed
independently. In the cases provided for in Articles 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
independent civil action which has been reserved may
be brought by the offended party, shall proceed
independently of the criminal action, and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence.
Sec. 4. Judgment in civil action not a bar.
A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the
defendant from civil liability is no bar to a criminal
action.
Sec. 5. Elements of prejudicial question.
The two (2) essential elements of a prejudicial question
are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
124
Sec. 6. Suspension by reason of
prejudicial question. A petition for suspension of the
criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial
question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the
fiscal or the court conducting the preliminary
investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in
court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in
the same criminal action at any time before the
prosecution rests.
Quinto v. Andres (2005)
Facts: Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school
pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was about
11 yrs old saw Andres and Pacheco who invited them to
go fishing inside a drainage culvert. Wilson assented
but Garcia seeing that it was dark inside opted to remain
seated in a grassy area about 2meters from the
entrance of the drainage system. Pacheco, Andres and
Quinto, entered the drainage system which was covered
by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter
wide, with water about a foot deep. After a while,
respondent Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out
of the drainage system and left without saying a word.
Andres also came out, went back inside, and emerged
again, this time, carrying Wilson who was already dead.
Andres laid the boy's lifeless body down in the grassy
area. Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled
from the scene. For his part, Andres went to the house
of petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson's mother, and
informed her that her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed
to the drainage culvert while respondent Andres followed
her. The respondents aver that since the prosecution
failed to adduce any evidence to prove that they
committed the crime of homicide and caused the death
of Wilson, they are not criminally and civilly liable for the
latter’s death.
Held: The extinction of the penal action does
not carry with it the extinction of the civil action.
However, the civil action based on delict shall be
deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final
judgment in the civil action that the act or omission from
where the civil liability may arise does not exist. In the
present case, the court ruled that respondents cannot be
held criminally nor civilly liable for the death of Wilson.
In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce proof of any
ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill the
deceased before or after the latter was invited to join
them in fishing. Indeed, the petitioner testified that
respondent Andres used to go to their house and play
with her son before the latter's death. When the
petitioner's son died inside the drainage culvert, it was
respondent Andres who brought out the deceased. He
then informed the petitioner of her son's death. Even
after informing the petitioner of the death of her son,
respondent Andres followed the petitioner on her way to
the grassy area where the deceased was.
Chua v. CA (2004)
Facts: Hao, treasurer of Siena Realty
Corporation, filed a complaint-affidavit with the City
Prosecutor of Manila charging Spouses Francis and Elsa
Chua, of 4 counts of falsification of public documents
pursuant to Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the
RPC. Accused allegedly prepared, certified, and falsified
the Minutes of the Annual Stockholders meeting of the
BOD of the Siena Realty Corporation by causing it to
appear in said Minutes that Hao was present and has
participated in said proceedings. During the trial in the
MeTC, Atty. Sua-Kho and Atty. Rivera appeared as
private prosecutors. Chua moved to exclude
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 125

complainant's counsels as private prosecutors in the discharge of his duties (not necessarily any offense he
case on the ground that Hao failed to allege and prove commits "while" in the discharge of such duties; and 4)
any civil liability in the case. Petitioner cites the case of that said employee is insolvent.
Tan, Jr. v. Gallardo, holding that where from the nature Basilio knew of the criminal case that was filed
of the offense or where the law defining and punishing against his driver because it was his truck that was
the offense charged does not provide for an indemnity, involved in the incident. Further, it was the insurance
the offended party may not intervene in the prosecution company, with which his truck was insured, that
of the offense. provided the counsel for Pronebo, pursuant to the
Held: Petitioner's contention lacks merit. stipulations in their contract. Basilio did not intervene in
Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the criminal proceedings, despite knowledge, through
the fundamental postulate that every man criminally counsel, that the prosecution adduced evidence to show
liable is also civilly liable. When a person commits a employer-employee relationship. With the convict's
crime he offends two entities namely (1) the society in application for probation, the trial court's judgment
which he lives in or the political entity called the State became final and executory. All told, it is our view that
whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual the lower court did not err when it found that Basilio was
member of the society whose person, right, honor, not denied due process. He had all his chances to
chastity or property has been actually or directly injured intervene in the criminal proceedings, and prove that he
or damaged by the same punishable act or omission. An was not the employer of the accused, but he chooses
act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by not to intervene at the appropriate time.
law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it
is a crime but because it caused damage to another.
Philippine Rabbit v. People (2004)
Additionally, what gives rise to the civil liability is really
Facts: Accused Roman, an employee of
the obligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair
Philippine Rabbit was found guilty and convicted of the
or make whole the damage caused to another by reason
crime of reckless imprudence resulting to triple
of his own act or omission, whether done intentionally or
homicide, multiple physical injuries and damage to
negligently. The indemnity which a person is sentenced
property. The court further ruled that Philippine Rabbit,
to pay forms an integral part of the penalty imposed by
in the event of the insolvency of accused, shall be liable
law for the commission of the crime. The civil action
for his civil liabilities. Accused then jumped bail and
involves the civil liability arising from the offense
remained at-large. Philippine Rabbit filed a notice of
charged which includes restitution, reparation of the
appeal. It argues that, as an employer, it is considered a
damage caused, and indemnification for consequential
party to the criminal case and is conclusively bound by
damages.
the outcome thereof. Consequently, petitioner must be
Under the Rules, where the civil action for
accorded the right to pursue the case to its logical
recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal
conclusion — including the appeal.
action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may
Held: The argument has no merit.
intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
Undisputedly, petitioner is not a direct party to the
31 Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
criminal case, which was filed solely against Roman, its
provides that, "[w]hen a criminal action is instituted, the
employee.
civil action arising from the offense charged shall be
The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability
deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
of employers uniformly declare that, strictly speaking,
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right
they are not parties to the criminal cases instituted
to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action
against their employees. Although in substance and in
prior to the criminal action."
effect, they have an interest therein, this fact should be
Hao did not waive the civil action, nor did she
viewed in the light of their subsidiary liability. While they
reserve the right to institute it separately, nor institute
may assist their employees to the extent of supplying
the civil action for damages arising from the offense
the latter's lawyers, as in the present case, the former
charged. Thus, we find that the private prosecutors can
cannot act independently on their own behalf, but can
intervene in the trial of the criminal action.
only defend the accused.
When the accused-employee absconds or
Basilio v. CA (2000)
jumps bail, the judgment meted out becomes final and
Facts: Pronebo was found guilty by the trial
executory. The employer cannot defeat the finality of
court of Reckless Imprudence resulting to the death of
the judgment by filing a notice of appeal on its own
one Advincula. Pronebo then filed an application for
behalf in the guise of asking for a review of its
probation. Subsequently, the trial court issued an Order
subsidiary civil liability. Both the primary civil liability of
granting the motion for execution of the subsidiary
the accused-employee and the subsidiary civil liability of
liability of his employer Basilio. Basilio now asserts that
the employer are carried in one single decision that has
he was not given the opportunity to be heard by the trial
become final and executory.
court to prove the absence of an employer-employee
relationship between him and accused. Nor that,
People v. Taan (2006)
alternatively, the accused was not lawfully discharging
Held: Regarding damages, when death occurs
duties as an employee at the time of the incident.
due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil
Held: The statutory basis for an employer's
indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2)
subsidiary liability is found in Article 103 of the RPC. This
actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages;
liability is enforceable in the same criminal proceeding
(4) exemplary damages; (5) attorney’s fees and
where the award is made. However, before execution
expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases.
against an employer ensues, there must be a
determination, in a hearing set for the purpose of 1) the
B. SPECIAL CASE
existence of an employer-employee relationship; 2) that
the employer is engaged in some kind of industry; 3)
that the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in
and found to have committed the offense in the certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
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, which shall be
enforced subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of
Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an
imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine
years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years
of age, who has acted without discernment, shall
devolve upon those having such person under their legal
authority or control, unless it appears that there was no
fault or negligence on their part.
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.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of
Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has
been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the
benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion,
the proportionate amount for which each one shall be
liable.
When the respective shares cannot be
equitably determined, even approximately, or when the
liability also attaches to the Government, or to the
majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all
events, whenever the damages have been caused with
the consent of the authorities or their agents,
indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed
by special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and
6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the
fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if
there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be
liable, saving always to the latter that part of their
property exempt from execution.
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Exemption from criminal liability does not
include exemption from civil liability.
Exceptions:
1. There is no civil liability in paragraph 4 of Art. 12
which provides for injury caused by mere
accident.
2. There is no civil liability in par. 7 of Art. 12 which
provides for failure to perform an act required by
law when prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause.
♣ The exemption from criminal liability does not include
exemption from civil liability in the cases provided for in
pars. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Art. 12. Pars. 4 and 7 are not
mentioned. Therefore, there is also exemption from civil
liability in the cases provided for in pars. 4 and 7 of Art.
12.
1. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED BY AN
INSANE OR IMBECILE OR MINOR UNDER 9 OR
OVER 9 AND LESS THAN 15 WHO ACTED WITH
DEISCERNMENT
♣ A minor over 15 years of age who acts with
discernment is not exempt from criminal liability that is
why the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of his
parents. The particular law that governs is Art. 2180 of
the Civil Code which provides, “the father and, in case of
his death or incapacity, the mother are responsible for
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
126
damages caused by the minor children who live in their
company.”
♣ The final release of a child based on good conduct
does not obliterate his civil liability for damages.
2. CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS COMMITTED BY
PERSONS ACTING UNDER IRRESISTIBLE FORCE OR
UNCONTROLLABE FEAR
- The persons using violence or causing the fear are
primarily liable. if there be no such persons, those doing
the act shall be liable secondarily.
3. CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS ACTING UNDER
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
- There is no civil liability in justifying circumstances
except in par. 4 of Art. 11 wherein the person who was
benefited by the act which causes damage to another is
the one civilly liable.
4. CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS AND SIMILAR
PERSONS
Art. 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 and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall
attach in case of robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeeper's employees.
SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY OF INNKEEPERS,
TAVERNKEEPERS OR PROPRIETORS OF
ESTABLISHMENTS – ELEMENTS OF PAR. 1:
1. That the INNKEEPER, TAVERNKEEPER OR
PROPRIETOR of establishment or his employee
committed a violation of municipal ordinance
or some general or special police regulation.
2. That a crime is committed in such inn, tavern
or establishment.
3. That the person criminally liable is insolvent.
♣ When all the above elements are present, the
innkeeper, tavernkeeper or any other person or
corporation is civilly liable for the crime committed in his
establishment.
ELEMENTS OF PAR 2.
1. The guests notified in advance the innkeeper
or the person representing him of the deposit
of their goods within the inn or house.
2. The guest followed the directions of the
innkeeper or his representative with respect to
the care of the vigilance over such goods.
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein were
taken by robbery with force upon things or
theft committed within the inn or house.
♣ When all the above elements are present, the
innkeeper is subsidiarily liable.
♣ No liability shall attach in case of robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons, unless
committed by the innkeeper’s employees.
♣ It is not necessary that the effects of the guest be
actually delivered to the innkeeper, it is enough that
they were within the inn.
5. SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF OTHER PERSONS
Art. 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.
ELEMENTS:
1. The employer, teacher, person or corporation
is engaged in any kind of industry.
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices or employees commits a felony
while in the discharge of his duties.
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not
satisfied his civil liability.
♣ Private persons without business or industry are not
subsidiarily liable.
♣ The felony must be committed by the servant or
employee of the defendant in the civil case.
♣ Employer has the right to take part in the defense of
his employee.
♣ No defense of diligence of a good father of a family.
Carpio v. Doroja (1989)
Ruling upon the enforcement of the subsidiary
liability of an employer in the same criminal proceeding
without the need of a separate action, the court held
that it should be shown that:
1) the employer, etc. is engaged in any kind of
industry
2) the employee committed the offense in the
discharge of his duties and
3) he is insolvent
The subsidiary liability of the employer,
however, arises only after conviction of the employee in
the criminal action. All these requisites present, the
employer, becomes ipso facto subsidiarily liable upon
the employee’s conviction and upon proof of the latter’s
insolvency.
C. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability.
— The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102,
and 103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential
damages.
♣ The first remedy granted by law is RESTITUTION of
the thing taken away by the offender; if restitution
cannot be made by the offender or by his heirs, the law
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
127
allows the offended party REPARATION. In either case,
indemnity for consequential damages may be required.
♣ When property taken away is not recovered, the court
must order the accused to restore it to its owner or, as
an alternative, to pay its just value.
Art. 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.
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.
♣ RESTITUTION of the thing itself must be made
whenever possible.
♣ The convict cannot, by way of restitution, give to the
offended part a similar thing of the same amount, kin or
species and quality.
♣ Where the crime committed is not against property,
no restitution nor reparation of the thing damaged can
be done, although the offended party is entitled to
indemnification under Art. 107.
♣ If the accused is acquitted, he cannot be ordered to
return the property or amount received EXCEPT if:
- it is proved that the property belonged to the
offended party was in his possession when
stolen from him
- and the identity of the offender is not proved,
in which case the acquitted person in whose
possession the property was found may be
ordered by the court to return it to the owner.
♣ HOW RESTITUTION IS MADE?
The thing itself is to be restored, whenever
possible, with allowance for deterioration, or diminution
of value, even if found in the possession of the 3rd
person who acquired it legally, although the latter can
file an action against the person who may be liable to
him except if the thing has been acquired by the 3rd
person in the manner provided by law which bars an
action for its recovery.
Art. 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.
HOW IS REPARATION MADE?
- The court determines the amount of damages
by considering: a) the price of the thing and b) its
special sentimental value to the offended party.
♣ If there is no evidence as to the value of the thing
unrecovered, there can be no reparation.
♣ The damages are limited to those caused by the
crime.
♣ The accused is liable for the damages caused as a
result of the destruction of the property after the crime
was committed either because it was lost or destroyed
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW
by the accused himself or that of any other person or as
a result of any other cause or causes.
♣ The accused is not relieved of his obligation to satisfy
his civil liability if the insurance company has already
paid the offended party as the payment of the insurance
company was not made on behalf of the accused but
because the contract with the insured-offended party.
However, the insurance company is subrogated to the
right of the offended party to collect damages.
Art. 107. Indemnification; What is
included. — Indemnification for consequential damages
shall include not only those caused the injured party,
but also those suffered by his family or by a third person
by reason of the crime.
♣ Indemnification for consequential damages includes:
a. those caused the injured party
b. those suffered by the family, or
c. those suffered by 3rd person by reason of the
crime
♣ Damages cover not only ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY
damages but also MORAL AND EXEMPLARY or
CORRECTIVE damages, especially when attended by 1
or more aggravating circumstances in the commission of
the crime and considering that proof of pecuniary loss is
not necessary in order that moral or exemplary damages
may be adjudicated as the assessment of such damages
is left to the discretion of the court.
♣ Contributory negligence of the offended party reduces
the liability of the accused.
♣ Where DEATH results:
1. INDEMNITY: P50,000
2. Lost of Earning Capacity
3. Support to a non-heir
4. Moral damages for mental anguish…
5. Exemplary damages if attended by 1 or more
aggravating circumstances
D. PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE
Art. 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.
♣ Upon whom does the obligation to make restoration,
reparation or indemnification for damages devolve?
- upon the HEIRS of the person liable
♣ The heirs of the person liable has no obligation if
restoration is not possible and the deceased left no
property.
♣ Civil liability is possible only when the offender dies
after final judgment.
♣ The action to demand restoration, reparation and
indemnification descends to the heirs of the person
injured.
LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.
128
Art. 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.
Art. 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.
LIABILITY OF PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES AND
ACCESSORIES
- Each within their respective class is liable in
solidum among themselves for their quotas and
subsidiarily for those of the other persons liable.
♣ Subsidiary liability is enforced:
first, against the property of the principals;
second, against that of the accomplices;
third, against that of the accessories
♣ The person who made the payment when liability is in
solidum or subsidiary liability has been enforced, will
have a right of action against the others for the amount
of their respective shares.
Art. 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 refers to a person who has participated
gratuitously in the commission of a felony and he is
bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to
the extent of such participation.
♣ The third person must be innocent of the commission
of the crime; otherwise, he would be liable as an
accessory and this article will apply.
E. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Art. 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.
♣ Extinguished in the same manner as other obligations
in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code.
CIVIL CODE, Art. 1231. Obligations are extinguished:
(1) By payment or performance:
(2) By the loss of the thing due:
(3) By the condonation or remission of the
ESGUERRA NOTES – CRIMINAL LAW 129

debt;
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights of
creditor and debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation.
Other causes of extinguishment of obligations,
such as annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory
condition, and prescription, are governed elsewhere in
this Code. (1156a)

♣ Loss of the thing due does not extinguish civil liability

because if the offender cannot make restitution, he is
obliged to make reparation.
♣ Indemnity for damages as a judgment in a criminal
case is purely civil in nature and is independent of the
penalty imposed.

Art. 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.

♣ Unless extinguished, civil liability subsists even if the

offender has served sentence consisting of deprivation
of liberty or other rights or has served the same, due to
amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other
reason.
♣ Under the law as amended, even if the subsidiary
imprisonment is served for non-payment of fine, this
pecuniary liability of the defendant is not extinguished.

LEX SOCIETAS
Veritas. Vnitas. Virtvs.