CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
TITLE II: PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
FELONIES
Article 16. — Who are criminally liable.
The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
POINTS
I. Treble Of Division Of Persons Criminally Liable
— The treble division of persons criminally liable for an offense
rests upon the very nature of their participation in the
commission of the crime.
— When a crime is committed by many, without being equally
shared by all, a different degree of responsibility is imposed
upon each and every one of them. In that case, they are
criminally liable either as principals, accomplices or accessories.
II. Accessories Are Not Liable For Light Felonies
— Reason: 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.
III. Rules Relative To Light Felonies:
1. Light felonies are punishable only hen they have been
consummated (Article 7).
2. But when the light felonies are committed against persons or
property, they are punishable even if they are only in the
attempted or frustrated stage of execution. Only principals and
accomplices are liable for light felonies (Article 7).
3. Only principals and accomplices are liable for light felonies
(Article 16).
4. Accessories are not liable for light felonies even if they are
committed against persons or property (Article 16).
IV. Active Subject And Passive Subject Of Crime
A. Active Subject (Criminal)
— Only natural persons can be the active subject of crime because
of the highly personal nature of the criminal responsibility.
o Only natural persons because he along by his act can
set in motion a cause of by his inaction make possible
the completion of a modification of the external world.
o Only natural persons can act with malice.
o Juridical persons cannot commit crimes with willful
purpose or malicious intent.
o Penalties consisting in imprisonment or deprivation of
liberty can only be executed on natural persons
— Juridical persons, however, are criminally liable under certain
special laws.
o Officers, not the corporation, are criminally liable.
 General Rule: a director or other officer of a
corporation is criminally liable for his acts
though in his official capacity, if he participated
in the unlawful act either directly or as an
aider, abettor or accessory, but is not liable
criminally for the corporate acts performed by
other officers or agents thereof.
 It is a settled rule that since a corporation can
only act through its officers and agents, the
president or manager can be held criminally
liable for the violation of a law by the entity.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
o However, if the law provides a penalty for the
corporation, it may be punished even though the crime
was perpetrated through its agents.
B. Passive Subject (Injured Party)
— The passive subject of a crime is the holder of the injured right:
the man, the juristic person, and the state.
— General Rule: Corpse or animal cannot be passive subject. As
such, the dead and animals have no rights that may be injured.
o Exception: Article 353, the crime of defamation may be
committed if the imputation tends to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.
V. Anti-Hazing Law (Republic Act No. 8094)
A. Principals
— Those who actually participated in the hazing.
— Parent of a frat/sorority member who owned the place where
the hazing occurred, knew of it but still did not do anything to
stop it.
— Officers, former officers, alumni who planned it, even if they
weren’t there.
— Fraternity or sorority advisor who was present but didn’t stop
it.
— Anyone present who did not prevent it.
B. Accomplices
— Owner of the place where the hazing occurred and who knew
of the hazing and did not stop it.
— School authorities who actually knew and consented to it.
VI. Command Responsibility
A. Philippine Context
— General Rule: There is not command responsibility in Philippine
law.
o Exception: Under Republic Act No. 9851 (Genocide
Law), the superiors are liable for the acts of their
subordinates.
o Exception: The Anti-Torture Act contains a similar
provision. Under it, senior officers who give order to
their minions to torture people are liable as principals.
Article 17. — Principals.
The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by
another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.
POINTS
I. Two Or More Persons Participating In The Crime
— Single individual committing a crime is always a principal by
direct participation (take direct part in the execution of the
act).
— (Par 1.) Principal by direct participation
(Par 2.) Principal by induction
(Par 3.) Principal by indispensible cooperation
II. Difference Between A Principal Under Any Of The Three Categories
Enumerated In Article 17 And A Co-Conspirator
— Principal in Article 17: criminal liability is limited to his own acts
— Co-conspirator: (His) responsibility includes the acts of his
fellow conspirators (People v. Peralta)
PAR 1: THOSE WHO TAKE A DIRECT PART IN THE EXECUTION OF THE
ACT.” (PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION.)
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
I. “Take A Direct Part In The Execution Of The Act.”
— Principal by direct participation personally takes part in the
execution of the act constituting the crime.
o Example: One who shoots at and kills another
(homicide) or one who burns the house of another
(arson) personally executes the act of killing another or
the act of burning the house of another.
— The one who orders or induces another to commit a crime is a
principal by induction while the other who follows the order
and executes the act constituting the crime is a principal by
direct participation. (People v. Lao)
— Two or more offenders as principals by direct participation.
Two or more persons may take direct part in the execution of
the acts constituting crime – principals by direct participation.
II. Elements For Two Or More Persons To Be Considered As Principals
By Direct Participation: (“co-principals”)
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.
III. FIRST ELEMENT: Participation In The Criminal Resolution.
— Usually, this points to a conspiracy. BUT it is also possible that
there is no conspiracy between the actors.
o They will only be liable for their own/individual actions.
— Two ore 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.
o When there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose
and intention in the commission of the crime – a
person may be convicted for the criminal act of
another.
A. Conspiracy.
— A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it (Article 8, Paragraph 2).
— The conspiracy in this first requisite is not a felony but only a
manner of incurring criminal liability.
— To be a party to a conspiracy, one must have the intention to
participate in the transaction with a view to the furtherance
of the common design and purpose.
o To hold an accused guilty as co-principal by reason of
conspiracy: it must be established that he performed
an overt 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 his presence at the scene of the crime
or by exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of the
conspirators to move them into executing the
conspiracy. (People v. Cortez)
o Mere knowledge, acquiescence or approval of the act
without cooperation or agreement to cooperate – not
enough to constitute one party to a conspiracy – there
must be intentional participation in the transaction
with a view to the furtherance of the common design
and purpose. (People v. Izon)
— Silence does not make one a conspirator.
o Silence is not a circumstance indicating participation in
the same criminal design. (People v. Gensola)
— Conspiracy transcends companionship.
o The fact that the two accused may have happened to
leave together, and one of them left a closing warning
to the victim, cannot instantly prove a finding of
conspiracy. (People v. Padrones)
— Participation in the criminal resolution essential.
o It is not enough that a person participated in the
assault made by another in order to consider him a co-
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
principal in the crime committed. He must also
participate in the criminal resolution of the other.
o Cooperation which the law punishes: assistance which
is knowingly or intentionally given and which is not
possible without previous knowledge of the criminal
purpose (People v. Cruz)
 People v. Ortiz and Zausa
 Facts: Bancoyo (deceased) and Ortiz
have known each other for a long time
because their wives were sisters. After
gathering corn from the fields, Bancoyo
asked Ortiz from outside his house for
some water but Ortiz said that they
couldn’t give him water because they
had none. Bancoyo asked again to
which Ortiz replied that they had no
water so he cannot compel them to
give him some water and immediately
descended from his house carrying a
shotgun and pointed it at Bancoyo.
Bancoyo, seeing the aggressive attitude
of Ortiz, flung himself over Ortiz and
they struggled for the weapon. Zausa,
when she saw this, was inside the
house and grabbed her spear and
rushed outside and attacked Bancoyo
by stabbing him on the left side of his
abdomen and his intestines protruded.
Bancoyo died of peritonitis that night.
 Held: Ortiz should be acquitted
because he did not take part in the
attack of Zausa because it appears that
there was no plan or agreement
between them to carry out the attach
that caused Bancoyo’s death. Also,
barely a few seconds elapsed which
interval in insufficient to give rise to
the criminal agreement.
— In the absence of a previous plan or agreement to commit a
crime, the criminal responsibility arising from different acts
directed against the same person is individual and not
collective – each of the participants is liable only for the acts he
committed.
o United States v. Reyes and Javier  There was no
concerted action between Javier and Reyes even
though Javier was holding the offended party and
Reyes suddenly and unexpectedly inflicted mortal
wounds on said offended party. It was held that Javier
was neither a principal nor an accomplice of the crime
of homicide convicted of Reyes because he had no
reason to believe that Reyes would do a homicidal
attack and that in holding the off. Party he was
voluntarily cooperating therein
o In cases above: no anterior conspiracy = no unity of
purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime; their criminal responsibility is
individual
— In the absence of concerted action pursuant to a common
criminal design, each of the accused – responsible only for the
consequences of his own acts.
o Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals  The accused who
inflicted the mortal wound was held guilty of murder
while the other assailants are only guilty of slight
physical injuries/less serious physical injuries.
B. Existence Of Conspiracy
— Existence of conspiracy does not require an agreement for an
appreciable length of time prior to the execution of its purpose.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
o From the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if at the
time of the commission of tzhe offense the accused
had the same purpose and were united in its execution
(People v. Binasing).
— Conspiracy arises on the very instant that the plotters agree
expressly or impliedly to commit the felony and forthwith
decide to pursue it. – each and everyone of the conspirators is
made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by
anyone of them (People v. Monroy).
C. Proof Of Conspiracy
— Direct evidence of conspiracy: interlocking judicial confessions
of several accused and the testimony of one accused who is
discharged and made a witness against his co-accused who did
not make any confession.
o In the absence of any collusion among the declarants,
their confessions may form a complete picture of the
whole situation and may be considered collectively as
corroborative and/or confirmatory of the evidence
independent therefrom (People v. Castelo)
o Two or more extrajudicial confessions given separately,
untainted by collusion, and which tally with one
another in all material respects, are admissible as
evidence of the conspiracy of the declarants. (People v.
bernardo)
o To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be
proofs to the previous agreement and decision to
commit the crime – it is sufficient that the malefactors
shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same
objective. (People v. San Luis)
— Formal agreement or previous acquaintance among several
persons not necessary in conspiracy.
o In conspiracy, no formal agreement among the
conspirators is necessary, not even previous
acquaintance among themselves – sufficient that their
minds meet understandingly to bring about an
intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the
offense charged.
o Sufficient that at the time of the aggression all accused
manifested in their acts a common intent or desire to
attack to so that the act of one becomes the act of all
(People v. Gupo).
o Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence
(need not be shown that the parties actually came
together and agreed in express terms to enter into and
pursue a common design) – can be inferred from proof
of facts and circumstances when taken together
indicate they are parts of a complete whole
o Examples:
 Two or more persons aimed at the
accomplishment of the same unlawful object,
each doing a part so that their acts even
though apparently independent were
connected and cooperative, showing a
closeness of personal assoc. and concurrence
of sentiment – a conspiracy may be inferred
though no actual meeting among them is
proved (People v. Mateo)
 People v. Garduque  All the accused were
already armed when they met, they went
together in a jeep to the house where they
robbed the offended party and raped his maids
– their conspiracy is implied even though some
of the accused were only there to show the
location of the house
 People v. Catubig  Offenders were all present
at the scene of the crime, acted in concert in
attacking, assaulting, beating, chasing, and
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
stabbing the victims and robbing them then
fleeing going to their separate ways – they
showed through their concerted actions that
they acted in unison and cooperated with each
other to accomplish a common felonious
purpose (to rob victims)
— Conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence.
o While conspiracy may be implied from circumstances
attending the commission of the crime, it is
nevertheless a rule that conspiracy must be established
by positive and conclusive evidence (People v. Ancheta)
o Proof beyond reasonable doubt = degree of proof to
prove conspiracy (same as degree of proof to establish
the crime); it must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence; conspiracy cannot be appreciated
when facts are consistent with the non-participation of
the accused in the fancied cabal (People v. Furugganan)
o Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of
its commission is not by itself sufficient to establish
conspiracy (People v. Tacca)
— No conspiracy, as shown by the acts of the defendant.
o People v. Quiosay  Appellant stabbed the deceased
once on the arm and ran away and his brother was the
one who cut off the deceased’s head. Appellant is
answerable only for his individual act – there was no
conspiracy because he didn’t stay to liquidate the
deceased with his brother.
o People v. Lacao  Spontaneity of respective reactions
of several accused, resulting in an attack where they all
participated, rules out the existence of conspiracy.
Respective liabilities shall be determined by the nature
of their individual participations in the felonious act.
(Two of which are only liable as accomplices.)
o People v. Madera  Two appellants not co-principals
nor accomplices – they were not armed, did nothing to
help co-appellant, mere passive presence at scene of
the crime (they were just standing behind co-appellant
when he shot victim)
— Conspiracy shown by circumstances.
o People v. Vinas  Brothers Nelson and Norman Vinas
conspired to carry out the killing even though it was
only Norman who had a grudge against the deceased
because Nelson assaulted the deceased and they both
told Sumpay their plan to kill Varela.
o People v. Manzano  A community of design to kill:
three brothers and nephew avenged their father (or
grandfather) showing concerted actions in committing
the crime
o People v. Saliling  The four appellants were linked to
each other by friendship or some sort of relationship =
conspiracy (They all had a specific role in the
commission of the crime)
o People v. Umbrero  Conspiracy may be shown by the
appellants’ actuations immediately prior to, during, and
right after the shooting of the victim
o People v. Timbol  Three accused arrived together at
the Pasudeco offices. They menacingly demanded
approval of their 60-40 share of the mill denied by the
Board of Directors of Pasudeco. They shot Pres. De Leo,
Gonzales (of Pasudeco) and Capt. Olivas (peace officer)
and fled the scene together. The Supreme Court held
that circumstances demonstrate conspiracy when the
accused have all met together days before the crime.
— Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common
purpose and were united in its execution.
o People v. Damaso  Facts: The deceased slapped the
face of one of the three appellants in front of a
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
carinderia. The appellants boarded a taxi and borrowed
a gun of a security guard at Greenhills and came back
to the carinderia where the deceased was shot by one
of the appellants from inside the taxi. Afterwards, the
three returned the weapon and proceeded to the
headquarters of the Rizal Security and Protective
Agency. Held: There is unity of purpose and unity of
execution establishing conspiracy.
o People v. Delgado  Community of purpose on part of
three accused inferable from the circumstances: they
came together to the scene of the occurrence and they
each acted against the victim then left together to the
house of another person, leaving the victim
unconscious on the ground.
D. Unity Of Purpose And Intention In The Commission Of The Crime Is
Shown In The Following Cases: (Evidences Of Joint Responsibility)
1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of
the crime sufficient to create joint responsibility.
o Example: Acceptance of two accused of the challenge
posted by the deceased and their concert attack on the
same clearly showed a community of purpose and
design. (People v. Ibanez)
2. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of
the crime.
o Example: A struck deceased, B whipped lips of
deceased, C seized deceased’s left hand while D held
the right, E stabbed deceased with knife.
Held: No proof of anterior conspiracy but the manner
in which accused cooperated in the perpetration of the
homicide shows they were moved by a common motive
and their intention was to kill deceased
Dissenting: Only individual responsibility in this case for
only E gave the fatal blow
o No participation in the criminal design when the act of
one came so close upon the heels of that of the other.
 Reason: He had no time to see that the other
intended to case the deceased the wound he
did (People v. Manalo)
 Simultaneity per se is not a badge of conspiracy
if the requisite concurrence of wills is absent. It
is not sufficient that the attack is joint and
simultaneous; it is necessary that the assailants
are animated by one and the same purpose. –
in situations where assaults are not
simultaneous but instead successive, greater
proof is needed to establish concert of criminal
design (People v. Tividad)
o Examples:
 People v. Macabuhay  Facts: A, B, C, D, and E
were in F’s house. Someone threw a stone at
that house. All 5 went to G’s house 40 yards
away to avenge the stone-throwing. They
suspected the deceased who was in G’s house
to be the stone-thrower and they seized him
and E stabbed him. Held: A, B, C, D, E – all liable
as principals by direct participation for death of
deceased – same motive: avenge stone-
throwing.
 People v. Cruz, Jr.  Conspiracy was well-
established: one of the appellant’s companions
announced the holdup while the appellant and
his other companions proceeded to rob the
victims.
 People v. Carpio  Conspiracy manifested in
the coordinated acts of the assailants: one held
hand of victim, another stabbed him, third gave
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
fist blows and the first one finally shoots
deceased
3. Contributing by positive acts to the realization of a common
criminal intent.
o People v. Agbuya  Facts: Family feud between Palisoc
(family of C = deceased) and Agbuya (family of A and D
= accused)
Held: Homicide was committed by the act of the one of
the two accused in shooting the deceased with a gun
which was given by the co-accused, his father, and
where it also appeared that the latter contributed to
the commission of the homicide by various other
significant acts – both father and son were properly
convicted as principals in the crime. There was
common criminal intent in the case because father and
son took common cause (family feud)
o People v. Mancao  Wounds which caused deceased’s
death were not inflicted by Mancao himself but by co-
accused Aguilar but Mancao having been the instigator
and aggressor by calling his harvesters to his aid (one of
which was Aguilar) – and wanting them to carry out the
criminal act started by him – Mancao is not only liable
for his own acts but also for the acts of those who
aided him. Mancao contributed the following positive
acts: Being the instigator, the aggressor and calling his
harvesters.
4. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and
lending moral support thereto, also create joint responsibility
with the material executors.
o U.S. v. Ancheta  There were 7 defendants in this
case. Held: All of them previously concerted action,
met together and witnessed the capture and later, the
violent killing of the deceased. Some took a direct part
in the actual commission of the crime, others were
determined instigators who induced the former to
commit it, while the remainder cooperated in the same
by their presence and lending their moral support. – all
are thus directly responsible for the consequences and
incidents of the same
o U.S. v. Santos  Facts: A band of 25 men captured
American soldiers and detained them somewhere. The
soldiers were killed by some of the members of the
band in front of the accused.
Held: It is if no importance that the accused did not
himself strike the blow or blows by which the prisoners
were killed. It is sufficient that he was present at the
place of the commission of the act, augmenting with his
arms and presence the power of the band, thus aiding
the common act of all – he was considered as a
principal by direct participation in the crime
prosecuted.
o Conspiracy is presumed when the crime is committed
by a band. A band raises the presumption of a previous
understanding between one offender and the others
who formed the band; accused lent his thought and
action for the realization of the criminal object
increasing the offensive strength of said band.
 U.S. v. Asilo  Accused was a member of a
band that went to the house of the deceased to
kill him. Even if there was no evidence that the
accused fired a shot at the deceased, he is still
liable for homicide.
 People v. Bazar  Robbery was committed by
a band: all the members of the band are
presumed to be conspirators or co-principals
also in the assaults committed by the band in
the absence of a showing that appellants
attempted to prevent the killing of the victim
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
they are equally guilty of his death at the hands
of their companions.
o Exception: U.S. v. Fresnido  When at the start of the
encounter the accused fled from the scene of the fight
between the constabulary and the insurgent band – he
is not criminally liable
5. Where one of the accused knew of the plan of the others to
kill the two victims and he accepted the role assigned to him,
which was to shoot one of the victims, and he actually
performed that role, he is a co-principal by direct participation
in the double murder (People v. De La Cruz).
E. There May Be Conspiracy Even If There Is No Evident Premeditation
On The Part Of The Accused
— Even if appellants were unarmed, which may indicate lack of
evident premeditation, this does not necessarily negate the
existence of conspiracy because conspiracy does not
necessarily require an agreement for an appreciable time prior
to the occurrence.
o See People v. Binasing.
F. When There Is No Conspiracy, Each Of The Offenders Is Liable Only
For The Act Performed By Him
— People v. Castillo
o Facts: Guarino was quarreling with Terencia and
policeman Machica tried to stop them. Guarino
stabbed Machica instead. Then Policeman Campos was
able to bring Guarino to the municipal building where
another Policeman Boco hit Guarino. Chief of Police
Castillo came and shot to death Guarino in front of the
three policemen Machica, Campos, and Boco (who all
had inflicted serious physical injuries to Guarino)
o Held: Only Chief Castillo was guilty of murder qualified
by treachery. Machica, Campos, and Boco were liable
for serious physical injuries only because there was no
competent proof that the three policemen intended to
kill Guarino – no conspiracy or unity of purpose and
intention among them plus Chief Castillo. The three did
not participate in the shooting by Castillo and could not
have stopped it even if they wanted to because Chief
Castillo just drew out his gun and fired.
— In homicide, immediate participation in the criminal design
entertained by the slayer, is essential to the responsibility of
one who is alleged to have taken a direct part in the killing even
if he has not himself inflicted an injury materially contributing
to the death (People v. Tamayo)
G. Liability Of Participants Where There Is Conspiracy
— When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. 
Collective criminal responsibility
— U.S. v. Bundal  Defendants after conspiring together to kill
deceased, went to his house for purposes of carrying out their
intent and prepared to cooperate to that end (even though
having different roles in the commission) all will be held equally
guilty as principals irrespective of the individual participation of
each in the material act of the murder
— Conspiracy adequately proven = all conspirators – liable as co-
principals. The degree of actual participation by each of the
conspirators is immaterial. As conspirators, each is equally
responsible for the acts of their co-conspirators. (People v. De
la Cruz)
— Where there is conspiracy to commit a felony, all the
conspirators are liable for its consequences.
o People v. Villamora  There was no conspiracy to kill
deceased and Barauel only hit him with an iron bar.
Held: Since there was conspiracy to punish Acuna, with
resulted to his death, ALL the conspirators are
responsible for the consequences that arose from the
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
punishment. Note: The ruling is in accordance with the
provision of Article 4, paragraph 1, of the RPC.
— Conspiracy may cover persons previously undetermined.
o If it appears that there was a general plan to kill anyone
who might put up violent resistance, then the accused
are liable for all the natural and inherent consequences
of such plan (People v. Timbol)
H. Liability Of A Conspirator For Another Conspirator’s Acts Which
Differ Radically And Substantially From That Which They Intended To
Commit.
— Conspirator should necessarily be liable for the acts of another
conspirator even though such acts differ radically or
substantially from that which they intended to commit. (People
v. Enriquez)
— Boyd v. U.S.  Wound made with the knife on leg of person
assaulted was the primary cause of death and the author of this
injury has not been identified (the attorneys of the accused
defended that the infliction of injury by means of a cutting
instrument was not within the scope of the agreement and that
the one who should be held liable is the one who inflicted the
wound). Held: The Court did not agree. Accused had
undoubtedly conspired to do so grave personal injury to the
deceased which have resulted in death, the accused cannot
escape from the legal effects of their acts that a wound was
inflicted in a different way from that which they intended.
— As has been said by the U.S. Supreme Court: “If a number of
persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of a
crime which will probably endanger human life such as robbery,
all of them are responsible for the death of a person that
ensues as a consequence”
o U.S. v. Patten  Conspirators who join in a criminal
attack on a defenseless man with dangerous weapons –
victim knocked down – tries to escape – pursues him
with increased numbers – continue the assault – are
liable for manslaughter when the victim is killed by a
knife wound inflicted by one of them during the
beating, although in the beginning they did not
contemplate the use of a knife
o People v. Espiritu  Four assailants acted in
conspiracy, pretended to look for a lost carabao in
Bernardo’s house and then killed him. As conspirators,
they are each liable for the attack on Bernardo,
regardless of who actually pulled the trigger or wielded
the club that killed him
— Liability of offenders in robbery if committed by a band: any
member of a band (at least four armed men) is liable for any
assault committed by the other member of the band, unless it
be shown that he attempted to prevent the same. (Article 296
of Revised Penal Code)
A conspirator is not liable for another’s crime which is not an object of
the conspiracy or which is not a necessary and logical consequence
thereof.
— People v. Umali  Only the Huks (allies of defendant Umali)
committed robbery which was NOT an object of the conspiracy.
Held: Defendant Umali not liable for robbery BUT liable for
sedition, arson, and murder – the objects of the conspiracy
Other defendants not held liable for the killings of persons not covered
by the conspiracy.
— People v. De la Cerna  Appellant cannot be held liable for the
killing od the deceased (Cabizares) even though there was a
conspiracy between him and his co-conspirator because the
conspiracy was to kill Rafael only and no one else.
The rule has always been that 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 necessary and logical
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
consequences of the intended crime, only the actual
perpetrators are liable.
When the conspirators selected a particular victim and another
person was killed by one of them, only that conspirator who
killed another person is liable.
— Versus People v. Enriquez & People v. Rosario  Conspirators
are liable for the acts of another conspirator even though such
acts differ radically and substantially from that which they
intend to commit (in accordance to provision of Article 4
paragraph 1 of RPC)
A person in conspiracy with others, who had desisted before the crime
was committed by the others, is not criminally liable.
— People v. Timbol  Appellant was a member of the conspiracy
but desisted before the crimes were committed (left the
Pasudeco offices long before killings took place)
Held: Appellant Dalmacio Timbol is not criminally liable.
“Conspiracy alone without the execution of its purpose is not a
crime punishable by law except in special instances” (Article 8)
— People v. Mappala  An act of a conspirator who ran away as
soon as the aggression was started by his co-conspirators, and
called for help of other people who responded is an act of
desistance which removes the case from the established rule
that the act of one is the act of all.
When there is conspiracy, it is not necessary to ascertain the specific
act of each conspirator.
— It is not necessary to ascertain the specific acts of aggression
committed by each of the culprits since having participated in
the criminal resolution the act of one is the act of all. (People v.
Mendoza)
— Conspiracy having been established: it is immaterial who of the
conspirators fired the fatal shot (People v. Canoy)
— All persons taking part in the crime shall be held guilty as
principals. (Even though not all accused took part in actual
commission of every act constituting the crime – each is
responsible for all the acts of others done in furtherance of the
conspiracy) The degree of actual participation is immaterial.
(People v. Maranion)
When there is conspiracy, the fact that an element of the offense is
not present as regards one of the conspirators is immaterial.
— U.S v. Hernandez  Complex crime of seduction by means of
usurpation of official functions; One of the accused pretended
to be a minister and fake-married the other accused with a girl
in order for the girl to have marital relations with the other
accused
Held: Element of performance of official functions was present
with accused only. But the other accused was sentenced to the
penalty for and the same crime complexed with seduction
which he actually committed.
All are liable for the crime of abduction, even if only one acted with
lewd designs.
— Essential element of the crime of abduction: lewd designs on
the part of the offender (Article 342 – forcible abduction;
Article 343 – consented abduction)
— People v. Loyola  Canaria conspired with Loyola to forcibly
abduct Caridad and Canaria made positive over acts necessary
to the realization of the abduction
Held: Even though Loyola alone acted with lewd designs,
Canaria was still liable for abduction because in a conspiracy
the act of one is the act of all
In multiple rape, each rapist is equally liable for the other rapes.
— Each defendant is responsible not only for rape personally
committed by him but also for the rape committed by the
others because they cooperated in the commission of rape
perpetration by the others, by acts without which would not
have been accomplished
I. Exceptions: (from equal liability)
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
1. Crime of parricide – element of relationship must be present as
regards all the offenders
 Ex. Wife and son of deceased conspired and did kill latter –
both are guilty of parricide BUT if wife and a stranger conspired
and killed deceased, only the wife is guilty of parricide and the
stranger will be guilty of homicide or murder
 Reason for exception: Article 62 paragraph 3 provides that
aggravating circumstances which arise from private relations of
offender with offended party shall serve to aggravate only
liability of principals, accomplices, and accessories to whom
such circumstances are attendant. Provision applies when
element of felony arises from private relation of offender with
offended party.
2. Crime of murder where treachery is an element of the crime –
all offenders must at least have knowledge of the employment
of treachery at time of execution of act or their cooperation
therein
o Ex. A and B conspired to kill C but carried out their plan
without previously considering the means, methods, or
forms, in killing C; only A employed treachery but since
B was present when A employed treachery – both are
liable for murder BUT if B remained outside so that he
did not know that A employed treachery – only A is
liable for murder and B is liable for homicide
o Reason for exception: Article 62 par 4. Provides that
circumstances which consist in the material execution
of the ac, or in the means employed to accomplish it,
shall serve to aggravate the liability of only those
persons who had knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation therein
I. Participation in another’s criminal resolution must either precede or
be coetaneous with the criminal act. (Coetaneous: of the same age or
duration)  People v. Tan Diong
— Facts: Diong in order to avoid an execution of judgment against
him in a civil case transferred his properties by conveyance to
Baranda who only participated by falsely testifying in court that
he acquired said properties with sufficient consideration
— Held: Baranda’s alleged participation in the fraud only consists
of his assertion of ownership in the properties conveyed which
does not justify his conviction as a participant in the fraud. His
resolution to accept the benefit of the fraudulent conveyances
may have been formed only after the act of Diong. His guilt as
co-conspirator in the fraud is, therefore not proved.
— Note: Baranda would be liable as co-principal if he concurred
with Diong at the time or before the execution of the deeds of
conveyance.
There could be no conspiracy to commit an offense through
negligence.
— Conspiracy presupposes an agreement and a decision to
commit a felony, when it appears that the injuries inflicted on
the offended party were due to the reckless imprudence of two
or more persons, it is not proper to consider conspiracy
between or among them.
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.
— People v. Santos  professional driver of passenger truck let
his conductor drive the truck and they had an accident with a
jeepney which resulted to the death of one its passengers
Held: Both the driver and the conductor were held liable as co-
principals of homicide and damage to property through
reckless imprudence under Act. No 3992 and Article 365 of
RPC.
— U.S. v. Siy Cong Bieng and Co Kong  a storeowner’s employee
sold adulterated coffee and the storeowner did not know that
the coffee was sold by his employee
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
Held: Both the storeowner and the employee were held liable
as principals (criminally liable under the Pure Food and Drugs
Act)
IV. SECOND ELEMENT: That The Culprits “Carried Out Their Plan And
Personally Took Part In Its Execution By Acts Which Directly Tended
To The Same End.”
A. The Principals By Direct Participation Must Be At The Scene Of The
Crime, Personally Taking Part In Its Execution.
— General Rule: Principal by direct participation must personally
take part in executing the criminal plan to be carried out. This
means that he must be at the scene of the commission of the
crime, personally taking part in its execution.
o People v. Ong Chiat Lay  Held that one of the accused
not a principal by direct participation because he was
absent from the scene of the fire when the crime of
arson was committed by other accused
— Exception: For as long as the conspirators perform specific acts
that were coordinated pursuant to the conspiracy, they are all
principals. Even if their acts are performed in different places.
o People v. Santos  There was conspiracy to kidnap
and kill the victim and only one of the conspirators
kidnapped the victim and after turning him over to his
co-conspirators for execution, left the spot where the
victim was killed. Held: The one who kidnapped the
victim was liable for murder committed by the others
because he already performed his part and the killing
was done by his co-conspirators in pursuance of the
conspiracy.
B. The Acts Of Each Offender Must Directly Tend To The Same End.
— While principals by direct participation personally take part in
the execution of their common purpose, it is not necessary that
each of them should perform a positive act directly
contributing to the accomplishment of their common purpose.
o People v. Mandagay  Murder case where offenders
previously agreed to commit said crime, not only the
one who inflicts the fatal wound is considered a
principal but also the others to held the victim or stood
guard outside. The acts of each and every one of the
offenders are all directed to the same end, which is the
killing of the victim. Criminal responsibility in such a
case is collective.
— Only serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal
by direct participation.
o People v. Canumay  Appellants were part of plan to
rob victim. At time of robbery they stood guard outside
the house. Held: They are equally liable as the others.
o U.S. v. Reogilon  One who stands guard outside the
house to keep others away or warning fellow
conspirators while the latter are murdering the
occupant – takes direct part in commission of crime of
murder and is guilty as a principal by direct
participation. He is in fact present, aiding, and abetting
in the commission of the crime.
— Exception: People v. Samano
o Facts: Accused jointly tried for murder of three
persons. They were members of a guerilla unit and
were being charged of taking the deceased to their
headquarters and beating him to death while
investigating him on charges of espionage. Accused
Samano and Alcantara acted as guards at place of crime
but did so in obedience to superior orders and without
knowledge that the deceased under investigation
would be killed. There was no evidence that there was
conspiracy between those who pleaded guilty and the
present appellants.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
oHeld: When there is no conspiracy or unity of criminal
purpose and intention indicating participation in the
criminal resolution, mere passive presence at the scene
of another’s crime does not constitute complicity.
— BUT SEE People v. Masagnay  The Supreme Court held that a
person could be held liable as a conspirator even though he
does not know every single detail of the crime, for as long as he
knows his role.
C. When The Second Requisite Is Lacking, There Is Only Conspiracy To
Commit A Crime
— IF this 2nd requisite is lacking: there is, at most, only conspiracy
among several defendants who participated in criminal
resolution; if the crime they agreed and decided to commit is
not treason, rebellion or sedition, they are not criminally liable.
— Example:
o People v. Asaad  Four accused merely attended
conferences and assented out of respect and fear and
after commission of murders they joined other accused
in celebrating with a fiesta, by way of custom, they
were neither co-principals nor accomplices
o People v. Timbol  Dalmacio Timbol was acquitted of
the charge of murder because he merely conspired
with his co-accused to kill deceased but left the place
before they began shooting him.
o People v. Pelagio  G’s participation in the first
meeting involved him in the conspiracy because he told
the other the location of the house to be robbed, this
however is inadequate to make him criminally liable as
a conspirator. This because conspiracy alone without
execution of its purpose is not a crime punishable by
law except in special instances which does not include
robbery. (Article 8)
PAR 2: “THOSE WHO DIRECTLY FORCE OR INDUCE OTHERS TO
COMMIT IT.” (Principals By Induction)
I. “Those Who Directly Force Or Induce Others To Commit [The Act].”
— Those who directly induce others to commit the act are called
“principals by inducement” or “principals by induction” from
the Spanish “autores por induccion”.
— “Inducement” comprises price, promise of reward, command
and pacto (opinion of Viada and SC of Spain).
II. The Principal By Induction Becomes Liable Only When The Principal
By Direct Participation Committed The Act Induced.
— People v. Ong Chiat Lay  One cannot be held guilty of having
instigated the commission of the crime without first being
shown that the crime was actually committed by another.
— The qualifying circumstance of price, reward or promise in
Article 14 is considered for both the principal by inducement
and principal by direct participation.
III. Two Ways Of Becoming Principal By Induction
Under Article 17, paragraph 2:
1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime, and
2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime.
A. By Directly Forcing Another To Commit A Crime
Two ways of directly forcing another to commit a crime:
1. By using irresistible force.
2. By causing uncontrollable fear.
— In these cases (using force or causing fear), there is no
conspiracy, not even a unity of criminal purpose and intention.
Only the one using force or causing fear is criminally liable. The
material executor is not criminally liable because of Article 12,
paragraph 5 and 6.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
B. By Directly Inducing Another To Commit A Crime
Two ways of directly inducing another to commit a crime:
1. By giving price, or offering reward or promise.
o Both the one giving the price or offering reward or
promise and the one committing the crime in
consideration thereof are principals (former by
inducement and latter by direct participation). There is
collective criminal responsibility.
o This applies even if the inducer does not pay the
principal by direct participation after the commission of
the crime.
2. By using words of command.
o Both the person who used the words of command and
the persons who commits the crime (because of the
words of command) are equally liable. There is also
collective responsibility.
C. The Inducement May Be By Acts Of Command, Advice, Or Through
Influence, Or Agreement For Consideration
— Inducement and the commission of the crime wherein the
inducer becomes the principal (with same extent and effect as
if he had physically committed the crime) may exist in acts of
command, of advice, agreement for a consideration, or through
an influence so effective that it alone determines the
commission of the crime
1. The promise of love can be sufficient inducement.
o Example: A has a paramour B, who loved C. A told D to
kill B with the promise that he does, he will possess her
entirely. D killed B. A is a principal by inducement
(People v. Ramos).
2. The words of advice or the influence must have actually
moved the hands of the principal by direct participation.
o An inexperienced boy of tender age was persuaded by
a person to steal the jewels of his grandmother; the
person was found guilty of theft by inducement
o Minors under 15 are easily susceptible to suggestions
of inducer because they have no discernment or
judgment of their own so when they are induced to
commit a crime, the influence of the inducer is the
determining cause of the commission of the crime
o Words of command of a father may induce his son to
commit a crime. Moral influence of the words of a
father (his words of command) may determine the
course of conduct of a son (because of the obedience
due to him). Compare With: same words coming from
a stranger which would make no impression
 People v. Bautista  The accused (exercising
dominance and ascendancy) compelled his 3-
year old son to throw a stone at another boy
which caused injury to the latter’s eye was a
principal by inducement.
3. By using words of command.
o People v. Gensola  The command given must be the
moving cause of the offense. The evidence showed that
the accused would have acted on his own volition even
without the words of command (“Rufino, strike him!”)
o People v. Agapinay  An utterer will not be liable as
principal by inducement if the imprudent utterance
was said in the excitement of the hour or in heat of
anger (and not in a nature of a command that had to be
obeyed)
o It must appear that the inducement was of such nature
and was made in such a way as to become the
determining cause of the crime and that such
inducement was uttered with the intention of
producing the result. (People v. Castillo)
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
o The inciting words must have great dominance and
influence over the person who act; they ought to be
direct and as efficacious or powerful as physical or
moral coercion or violence itself. (People v. Canial)
D. Elements To Hold Person Liable As Principal By Inducement
Through The Use Of Commands
— All five requisites must be present in order that a person using
words of command be held liable as principal by inducement:
1. That the one uttering the words of command must have the
intention of procuring the commission of the crime.
2. That the one who made the command must have an
ascendancy or influence over the person who acted.
o U.S. v. Ganao  When B (a very influential figure in
their community) selected A (his nephew who was poor
and depended on him) to commit the crime – the
influence exercised by B over A was so great and
powerful that the latter could not resist it.
3. That the words used must be so direct, so efficacious, so
powerful as to amount to physical or moral coercion.
o Efficacious – a person who makes accused believe that
the person to be killed was the one who stole the
accused’s property = guilty as principal by inducement;
even though the accused seem to have a personal
reason, it was the inductor who made him believe so.
o Powerful – U.S. v. Ganao.
4. The words of command must be uttered prior to the
commission of the crime.
o This requisite is lacking when the commission of the
crime has already been commenced when the words of
inducement are uttered.
o A son who was already in combat with another was
told by the father “Hit him” – the father was not
responsible for the injuries inflicted after advice given
5. The material executor of the crime has no personal reason to
commit the crime.
o If the principal by direct participation has a personal
reason to commit the crime, the supposed words of
inducement cannot be the determining cause.
o People v. Kiichi Omine  Facts: Omine shouted
“pegale y matale” to Autor and he struck the deceased
on the breast but before the utterance he had already
struck the deceased with a fist blow on the right eye
Held: Omine was not a principal by induction because
Autor had already struck beforehand and the utterance
was not sufficient because it doesn’t show that Omine
has any particular influence over Autor. Autor = guilty
of serious physical injuries and Omine was acwuitted.
IV. Elements To Be Considered A Principal By Inducement
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of
procuring the commission of the crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the
commission of the crime by the material executor.
— U.S. v. Idanan  To constitute inducement, there must be on
the part of the inducer the most positive resolution and the
most persistent effort to secure the commission of the crime
together with the presentation to the person induced of the
very strongest kind of temptation to commit the crime.
A. Examples
— People v. Otadora
o (First requisite) It was clear that she had the intention
of procuring the commission of the crime when she
furnished her co-accused the gun to kill the deceased
o (Second requisite) The accused promised her co-
accused pecuniary gain which was the determining
cause of the commission of the crime
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
— People v. Alcontin
o (First requisite) A married woman suggested to her
paramour that he kill her husband; Held: the
proposition of the woman constituted something more
than mere counsel or advice that her co-defendant was
entirely free to accept or not.
o (Second requisite) The married woman’s promise of
being able to freely live together with the paramour
was the determining cause of the commission of the
crime
— People v. Caimbre
o Facts: Appellant was being prosecuted for uttering “you
had better kill him” when his co-accused was attacking
the victim.
o Held: Appellant was acquitted because he lacked the
first requisite because there was nothing to show that
appellant had any reason to have Olipmo killed; lacked
second requisite because he had no sufficient moral
influence over co-accused to make him obey blindly;
and fourth requisite was lacking because his co-accused
had already boloed the victim before he uttered the
words
VI. FIRST ELEMENT: That The Inducement Be Made Directly With The
Intention Of Procuring The Commission Of The Crime
— The principal by inducement should be obeyed.
A. A Thoughtless Expression Without Intention To Produce The Result
Is Not An Inducement To Commit A Crime
— A chance word spoken without reflection/ a wrong
appreciation of a situation/ an ironical phrase/ a thoughtless
act may give birth to a thought or resolution to commit a crime
in the mind of one – without the one who spoke the word or
performed the act having any expectation that his suggestion
would be followed or any real intention that it produce the
result. In such a case, the one who spoke the word or
performed the act would not be guilty of the crime committed
by the other. (U.S. v. Idanan)
— Example:
o A decision of the Supreme Court of Spain (cited in U.S.
v. Idanan) held that a woman who robbed her husband
because a person told her that that’s the only thing to
do to him because he was stingy and treated her badly
– the person was not guilty of the crime committed of
the crime of robbery by inducement because an
imprudent and ill-conceived advice is not sufficient; the
person did not have the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime.
VIII. SECOND ELEMENT: That Such Inducement Be The Determining
Cause Of The Commission Of The Crime By The Material Executor
— The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so
influential in producing the criminal act that without it, the
act would not have been performed.
o It is necessary that the inducement be the determining
cause of the commission of the crime by the principal
by direct participation – that, without such inducement
the crime would not have been committed (Decision of
SC of Spain).
o Inducement exists if the nature of the command or
advice is that without its concurrence – the crime
would not have materialized (People v. Cruz).
— Price given to the principal by direct participation after the
commission of the crime, without prior promise to give a price
or reward, could not be an inducement.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
A. The one charged of inducing the commission of the crime is not
liable if the person who actually committed a crime had a reason of
his own to commit the crime.
— People v. Castillo
o Facts: Marincho Castillo (son) was slapped on the face
by the deceased Vargas. After 2 months, appellant
Castillo (father) was talking to Vargas while holding a
revolver (but not pointed to him). Suddenly, Marincho
came from behind and hacked the head of Vargas.
When he was about to hack him the second time, his
father told him “You kill him” and then they
surrendered to the authorities.
o Held: Castillo is not guilty of being a co-principal by
inducement because Marincho has already given
Vargas a fatal blow on the head before Castillo
allegedly said “You kill him” because the utterances
must be sufficient enough to be the determining cause
of committing the crime
— Can a person who is present during a homicide but has no
direct part in the act can be held criminally liable for inciting
and encouraging another with expressions like “go ahead”, “hit
him”, “there you have him”, “now is the time”?
o It depends upon whether these words were spoken
under conditions that give them a direct and
determinative influence upon the mind of the principal
actor. (People v. Tamayo)
B. Ascendancy Or Influence As To Amount To Moral Coercion Is Not
Necessary When There Is Conspiracy
— To consider as principal by induction one who advises or incites
another to perpetrate an offense, it is essential to show that
the advisor had so great an ascendancy or influence that his
words were so efficacious and powerful as to amount to moral
coercion.
— Proof of such extremes is usually required to justify such
conclusion.
— Proof in unnecessary where the principal actor admits being
impelled and that he acted pursuant to a previous plan or
conspiracy to kill and promise to condone his indebtedness
(People v. Ulip)
— There is collective criminal responsibility when words of
inducement were used.
C. One Who Planned The Crime Committed By Another Is A Principal
By Inducement
— Persons who planned the crime committed by other persons
are guilty as authors by inducement.
— If The Crime Committed Is Not Contemplated In The Order
Given, The Inducement Is Not Material And Not The
Determining Cause Thereof.  People v. Lawas
o Facts: Accused Lawas was head of the home guards in a
barrio in Lanao and he orderd his men to shoot at
Moros suspected of having killed 11 Christian residents.
Some of the home guards fired at women and children
at the second floor of the house.
o Held: Lawas is not guilty of murder for the killing of the
women and children as principal by induction because
his order was to fire at Moros on the ground and
clearly did not intend for women and children to be
fired at.
IX. Principal By Induction In Falsification
— People v. Po Giok To  The employee did the overt act of
entering false facts on the residence certificate of the accused
because the accused induced him to do so by supplying him
those facts. Held: Accused was a principal by inducement. The
employee was a mere innocent agent of performing the act
constituting the crime hence employee was not criminally liable
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
because he had no knowledge of the falsity of the facts
supplied by the accused.
X. Principal By Inducement v. Offender Who Made Proposal To
Commit A Felony
Principal By Inducement Offender Who Proposed To
Commit A Felony
There is inducement to commit a There is inducement to commit a
crime crime
Liable only when crime is Mere proposal to commit a felony
committed by principal by direct is punishable in treason or
participation rebellion; person to whom
proposal is made should NOT
commit the crime
Inducement involves ANY crime Must involve ONLY treason and
rebellion to be punishable
XI. Effects Of Acquittal Of Principal By Direct Participation Upon The
Liability Of Principal By Inducement
1. Conspiracy is negative by acquittal of co-defendant.
2. It must be shown that another has actually committed the
crime; otherwise one cannot be guilty of instigating the crime.
o If the one charged as principal by direct participation
was acquitted because he acted without criminal intent
or malice – his acquittal is not ground for acquitting the
principal by inducement.
o Reason for rule: In exempting circumstances, when the
act is not voluntary because of lack of intent – there is a
crime committed but no criminal; in intentional
felonies, act of a person does not make him criminal
unless his mind be criminal.
— Mistake of identity of the victim committed by the principal by
direct participation. The principal by inducement is not liable.
o The crime committed by the principal by direct
participation must be that commanded by the principal
by inducement.
— A principal by inducement may still be held liable even if the
principal by direct participation is exempt (Article 332).
o Example: falsification of documents, when the criminal
induces an 8-year-old to commit the crime.
— Where the principal by inducement instructs the principal by
direct participation to do something – without necessarily
thinking of the possible consequences – both will be liable for
the proximate result. In short, Article 4 applies.
o Example: A told B to punch C in the back. C dies. Both
are liable for the resulting death of C.
XII. Possessor Of Recently Stolen Property Is A Principal
— Possessor of a recently stolen article is considered a principal,
not an accessory or accomplice, unless he proves otherwise
satisfactorily and that another person who gave him the article
was the one who stole it (Section 5(j), Rule 131, Rules of Court)
PAR. 3: “THOSE WHO COOPERATE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE BY ANOTHER ACT WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD NOT HAVE
BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.” (Principals By Indispensible Cooperation)
I. Meaning Of The Term “Cooperate”
— To cooperate means to desire or wish in common a thing. The
common will or purpose does not necessarily mean pervious
understanding because it can be explained or inferred from the
circumstances of each case (People v. Apelgido).
II. Elements To Be Liable As Principal By Indispensable Cooperation:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing
another act, without which it would not have been
accomplished.
III. FIRST ELEMENT: Participation In The Criminal Resolution
— The participation of a principal by indispensable cooperation is
different from the overt act committed by a principal by direct
participation.
A. Being A Co-Conspirator Is Not Necessary
— A principal by indispensable cooperation need not be a party in
the planning stage of the conspiracy for he may become a
principal at the moment of the execution of the crime with the
other principals, if his act was indispensable to the crime.
o Hence, even if he was absent at the meeting where the
planning occurred, if his act showed that it was
indispensable to the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he will be liable as a principal by
indispensable cooperation.
B. May There Be Cooperation By Acts Of Negligence?
— A person becomes a co-principal through acts of negligence
cooperates in the commission of estafa through falsification or
malversation through falsification (without which the
commission of the crime could not have been accomplished).
— The one who cooperated in the commission of the crime was
held guilty of the same crime through reckless imprudence
(Samson v. Court of Appeals).
C. The Principal By Indispensable Cooperation Need Not Be In The
Scene Of The Crime
— Example: A, who lives in the U.S., gives B poison to kill C. B used
the poison to kill C here in the Philippines. A is Principal by
Indispensable Cooperation. B is Principal by Direct
Participation.
IV. SECOND REQUISITE: Cooperation must be indispensible without
which the commission of the crime would not have been
accomplished.
— If the cooperation is not indispensible, the offender is only an
accomplice.
A. “Cooperate X X X By Another Act”
— Act of the principal by indispensible cooperation should be
different from the act of the principal by direct participation.
— Law says “by another act” which means it should not be the act
of one who would be classified as principal by direct
participation.
— Examples:
o U.S. v. Javier  Facts: C was the one who forced and
dragged the girl to the back of the house where J was
waiting to perpetrate the crime. C had a previous
agreement with J. After delivering the girl, C left so that
J can consummate the prearranged rape. Held: C
cooperated in the perpetration of the crime by acts
without which its commission would not have been
accomplished.
 Act of cooperation: forcible taking of the girl to
the place of commission of rape by other
accused.
 Act of execution: sexual intercourse with the
woman against her will.
o U.S. v. Lim Buanco  Facts: R, employee of a bank,
indorsed upon a check drawn by B so that B, even
without sufficient funds in the bank, may still draw the
amount of the check when he presents it to the cashier
of the bank. The endorsement of R was in connivance
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
with B knowing he didn’t have funds but indorsed it
still. Held: R was a principal by indispensible
cooperation.
 Act of cooperation: Certification that the check
was entitled to payment
 Act of execution: Crime of estafa by B
committed as principal by direct participation –
the fraudulent cashing of the cash that
damaged the bank
o In the 2 cases, the cooperation of the other accused
was the performance of an act different from the act of
execution of the crime committed by the other
accused.
— If cooperation of one accused consists in doing an act necessary
in the execution of the crime, he is a principal by direct
participation.
o Example: In a homicide case one of the offenders held
the victim while the other was stabbing him. The one
who held victim was principal by direct participation,
BUT there are cases where the Supreme Court
considered such accused as a principal by indispensible
cooperation
B. Liability Of Conspirators Who Took Turns In Raping A Girl.
— People v. Villa  Four persons took turns in raping a girl; others
held her while one had intercourse with her.
Held: Each of them is responsible for his own act of rape and
also for the acts of the others. Four sentences were imposed on
each accused.
V. A Principal By Indispensable Cooperation May Commit A Crime
Different From A Principal By Direct Participation
— Example:
o Malversation through falsification of public documents
committed by a public officer in conspiracy with a
private individual. Private individual may be liable for
malversation (People v. Sandaydiego).
o Husband gives poison to friend to kill wife. Friend is
liable for homicide, and husband for parricide.
OTHER MATTERS
To be liable as principals, the offender must fall under any of the
three concepts defined in Article 17.
— A person who assists one who commits the crime of arson and
who knows the latter’s purpose (but whose participation in the
arson is not known) may not be considered as a principal
because his acts were neither direct nor absolutely necessary
for the commission of the offense nor did it induce the said
commission (SC of Spain decision)
Collective criminal responsibility.
— Present when offenders are criminally liable in the same
manner and to same extent; penalty imposed must be same for
all.
— Who has collective criminal responsibility?
o Principals by direct participation.
o Principal by induction with the principal by direct
participation (EXCEPT the principal by induction who
directly forced another to commit a crime).
o Principal by indispensible cooperation with the
principal by direct participation.
Individual Criminal responsibility.
— If there is no previous conspiracy/ unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately before commission of crime/ community
of criminal design = criminal responsibility arising from different
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
acts directed against one and the same person is individual and
not collective.
— Each of the participants is liable only for the act committed by
him.
Example of individual responsibility.  cited in People v. Martinez
— Facts: Deceased assaulted a group of three individuals, in their
(incomplete) self-defense, two of them caused less serious
physical injuries on the assailant deceased while one inflicted a
fatal wound.
— Held: Only the one who gave the fatal wound would be
principally liable for homicide and the others liable only for less
serious physical injuries.
Article 18. — Accomplices.
Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts.
POINTS
I. Quasi-Collective Criminal Responsibility
— Between collective and individual criminal responsibility 
quasi-collective criminal responsibility.
— In quasi-collective responsibility, some are principals and others
are accomplices.
A. Liability Of Accomplice Based On Principal
— May one be charged and convicted as accomplice/accessory
even before the principal is charged or convicted? Should the
PDP first be convicted before the accomplice/accessory be
charged or convicted?
o As long as the commission of the crime is proven
beyond reasonable doubt, determination of criminal
responsibility of accessory/accomplice may be
determined independently of and separately from
liability of principal by direct participation (People v.
Rafael).
— Dismissal of case against principal: If the case is dismissed
against the principal by direct participation, the case against
the accessory/accomplice must also be dismissed because the
liability of the accomplice/accessory is subordinate to that of
the principal by direct participation. The accomplice/accessory
is like a shadow that follows the principal by direct participation
and not the other way around (PCGG v. Desierto).
o Principal by direct participation acquitted because
crime was not committed at all. What happens to
accomplice/accessory? They can’t be charged. Crime
was not committed.
o Dismissal of the case against the accomplice/accessory
does not result to the dismissal of the case against the
principal by direct participation.
— Exemption of principal from criminal liability: BUT if the
principal by direct participation is exempted from the crime, it
does not follow that the accomplice/accessory is exempted, or
that the case against the accomplice/accessory should be
dismissed as well.
— Principal by direct participation is dead. Can accomplice/
accessory still be charged? Yes, they can still be prosecuted.
II. The Participation Of An Accomplice Presupposes The Commission
Of The Crime By The Principal By Direct Participation
— Principal element of complicity: concurrence of will of
accomplice with the will of the author of the crime (principal).
o He is not a principal (so he must not be part of the
conspiracy), but he supplies material or moral aid to
the principal in an efficacious way.
— The accomplice cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts in
the execution of the offense by the principal.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
o He intends to, and does, take part in the crime.
o BUT, his cooperation is not indispensable to the crime.
III. “Not being included in Article 17.”
— An accomplice does not fall under any of the three concepts
defined in Article 17.
— Those who cooperated by previous or simultaneous acts cannot
be held liable as principals but as accomplices.
A. In Case Of Doubt As To Whether Principal Or Accomplice
— In case of DOUBT – participation of offender is considered as
accomplice rather than principal.
o Quantum of proof lacking = milder form of criminal
liability: as accomplice.
o People v. Celemente  eyewitness unable to assert if
appellants hit the fallen man (uncertain participation in
homicide) and there was no conspiracy shown. Held:
appellants declared accomplices only.
— Mere presence at scene, knowledge of plan, and acquiescence
is insufficient ground to hold a person as conspirator therefore
will be held liable only as accomplice.
B. When The Participation Of An Accused Is Not Disclosed, He Is Only
As Accomplice
— In criminal cases, the participation of accused must be proved
by positive and competent evidence (beyond reasonable
doubt) BY the prosecution. It can't be presumed.
— People v. Ubina: If a person assists in arson because he knows
the purpose of the principal, but his participation is
undisclosed. Held: His actions are neither direct nor absolutely
necessary for the commission of the offense nor induce the
crime.
IV. An Accomplice Does Not Have Previous Agreement Of
Understanding Or Is Not In Conspiracy With The Principal By Direct
Participation.
— Accomplice does not enter into conspiracy with principal by
direct participation nor does he have a previous agreement or
understanding with him to commit a crime BUT he participates
to a certain point in the common criminal design.
— Accomplices come to know of the criminal resolution of the
principals after the latter have reached a decision to commit a
crime. The accomplice does not decide the commission of a
crime. The accomplice just agrees after the criminal resolution
is accomplished, he does not conspire. But if the accomplice
commits an act of execution, he becomes a PDP.
— NOTE: An accomplice gets a penalty one degree lower than that
provided for the principal in a consummated felony (Article 52).
A. Accomplice v Conspirator
Conspirator Accomplice
Knowing and agreeing with criminal design
Knowledge of the criminal Gets knowledge of the criminal intent
intention is because they after principals have reached the
decided the specific course of decision – and then they agree to
action cooperate in its execution
Decide that a crime should be Merely concurs to do the crime;
committed merely assent to the plan and
cooperate in its accomplishment
Authors of a crime Instruments who perform acts not
essential to perpetration of offense
B. May A Co-Conspirator Be Held Liable As An Accomplice Only?
— If technically the accused are co-conspirators BUT their
participation was not absolutely indispensible to the
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
consummation of the murder  court should favor milder form
of liability = accomplice.
— Example:
o People v. Anin  Even with knowledge of criminal
intent but the overt acts of co-accused was still not
indispensible to the crime of homicide = accomplice.
o People v. Nierra  Even with community of design but
role in homicide or murder was of a minor character =
accomplice.
o BUT SEE People v. Manzano and People v. Mendoza
Once proved that accused had conspired with others
accused, liability only as accomplice is untenable; the
act of one is the act of all
Community of Design Participation in the Criminal
Resolution
Does not necessarily mean that Implies conspiracy
there is conspiracy but it may
develop into one
Mere concurrence with criminal Entering into an agreement and
purpose deciding to commit a felony
V. Elements To Be Liable As Accomplices:
1. There be community of design: knowing the criminal design of
the principal by direct participation and concurs with him/her in
that purpose.
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous
or simultaneous acts by supplying material or moral aid in the
execution of the crime in an efficacious way.
3. There be a relation between the acts by the principal and the
accomplice.
VI. FIRST ELEMENT: Community Of Design
— There must be a principal by direct participation before there
could be an accomplice.
o The principal originates the design and the accomplice
merely concurs with it.
— Cooperation which the law punishes: assistance knowingly or
intentionally given and which is not possible without previous
knowledge of the criminal purpose.
o People v. Lingad  Taxi driver knowing that co-accused
were going to make a hold-up let’s them use his cab to
where the crime will be staged and waited for them
after. Held: taxi driver is an accomplice
o U.S. v. Bello  Sentry permitted some convicts to go
out of jail accompanies by guard then the convicts
committed robbery. Held: Sentry not liable as
accomplice because he had no knowledge of their
intention to commit robbery when he let them out
A. Community of design.
— The accomplice intends by his acts, to commit or take part in
the execution of the crime  Carino v. People
o Facts: Appellant was the close friend of Dr. Lava (the
accused in crime of rebellion). Lava has been helping
appellant’s family in terms of health services and in
return when accused Dr. Lava asked for shelter and
food from appellant, he provided the same for Lava not
knowing that he was helping a “rebel”. Lava was part of
the Huks and appellant helped Lava open bank
accounts and assisted them with money matters.
Held: Appellant was not considered an accomplice to
rebellion because his acts of helping did not fall under
the definition of rebellion in RPC nor does he fall under
Art 18’s definition of accomplice because his intent to
rebel against the government was not proven and his
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
assistance was not efficacious enough to make
insurrection or rebellion successful.
o People v. Maliao  Accused facilitated commission of
crime by providing his house as the venue of the crime.
Even though he had no direct participation in the
crime’s execution, he was present throughout it, and
he did not do anything to stop the malefactors nor help
the victim therefore he is guilty as accomplice in crime
of rape with homicide
— The community of design need not be to commit the crime
actually committed. It is sufficient if there was a common
purpose to commit a particular crime and that the crime
actually committed was a natural or probable consequences
of the intended crime.
o People v. Largo  Verzo caused Salazar and Largo to
load a time bomb in a plane which killed the deceased
and others. Held: Salazar and Largo were accomplices
in the crime of Verzo who was the principal
o U.S. v. De Jesus  Three men entered Osete’s house to
abduct his daughter but instead they ended up killing
Osete. Two other men were stationed outside by the
carriage, which brought them there to be lookouts.
Held: The two are accomplices because even if the
homicide was not part of the original plan, it was a
possibility to carry out the abduction.
B. How An Accomplice Acquires Knowledge Of The Criminal Design Of
The Principal.
1. Principal informs or tells the accomplice of the former’s
criminal purpose.
o U.S. v. Sotto  Master told his servant that he would
abduct the a girl under 18 years and he prompted said
servant to induce the girl to leave her home and the
servant did.
Held: Servant was an accomplice and master was a
principal by direct participation.
2. When the accomplice saw the criminal acts of the principal.
o People v. Tamayo  Ramon was choking the deceased
then Jose delivered a blow on the head of the deceased
which Ramon saw but he still continued with choking
the deceased.
Held: Ramon is an accomplice; showed that Ramon
approved/participated with the criminal design of Jose
because he continued choking deceased after the blow.
o People v. Cagalingan  A. Cagalingan stabbed the
deceased first then J. Cagalingan and Romina Jr.
stabbed the deceased after.
Held: Even if there shows a community of design with
the principal, the stabbing of J Cagalingan and Romina
Jr. were not indispensible to the commission of the
crime because A Cagalingan’s stabbing was fatal
already, therefore the two are only accomplices.
o People v. Manansala:  Even after the first knife thrust
delivered to the deceased, the accused did not try to
stop the other accused either by word or overt act
Held: Accused is an accomplice because even if his
initial intent was free from guilt, it became tainted after
he saw the first knife thrust delivered.
— In case there is no conspiracy or unity of criminal
purpose/intention among accused, what should be considered
is the criminal design/intent entertained by the accused that
inflicted the more or most serious wound on the victim. This
can be inferred from the nature of the weapon or the body part
injured.
— No knowledge of the criminal design of the principal – not an
accomplice.
o People v. Ibanez  Even if the act of the accused
(holding deceased’s neck from behind) coincided with
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
the other accused’s act of stabbing, simultaneousness
does not itself demonstrate the concurrence of will nor
the unity of action and purpose which are the bases of
the responsibility of two or more individuals
o U.S. v. Flores  Limbo was employee of the Bureau of
Printing and stole bank certificates for cattle
registration and sold to co-defendant Flores. Flores
used these to sell horses, which they got through theft.
Limbo had no part nor knowledge nor share in the sale
of the stolen horses.
Held: Limbo liable only for theft of bank certificates but
was neither a principal nor an accomplice nor an
accessory of the theft committed by the other
defendants
C. Concurrence With The Criminal Purpose Of Another May Make One
A Co-Principal
— Even if only one of the accused originated the criminal design
and the other merely concurred BUT BEFORE the actual
commission of the crime BOTH of them agreed and decided to
commit it, then the other will now be held a principal and not
an accomplice because he has become a co-conspirator.
o BASICALLY, you are an accomplice if the original person
will commit the crime with or without your help. You
are dispensable! Replaceable!
VII. SECOND ELEMENT: Cooperates In The Execution Of The Offense
— The accomplice cooperates with the principal by direct
participation BUT his cooperation is only necessary and not
indispensable.
— However if there is conspiracy: the nature of the cooperation
becomes immaterial.
A. Examples Of Cooperation By Accomplice
1. By previous acts.
o Lending of a dagger or pistol to murderer knowing his
criminal purpose.
o U.S. v. Flores  Pharmacist (knowing the criminal
purpose) furnishes the accused with the drug which he
used in order to help him rape the victim.
o When the owner of the gun knew that it would be
used to kill a particular person, and the principal used
it to kill another person, the owner of the gun is not
an accomplice as to the killing of the victim.
 People v. De la Cerna  Serapio borrowed the
rifle of Sulpicio in order to kill Rafael (as per
their agreement) but then Serapio used it to kill
Casiano. There was no evidence that Sulipicio
was aware that Serapio would do so. Held:
Sulpicio acquitted for the killing of Casiano
2. By simultaneous acts.
o People v. Escarro  No previous agreement or
understanding with co-defendant but defendant held
hand of victim and tried to take away his revolver while
co-defendant attacked victim.
o People v. Crisostomo  No conspiracy among the 6
persons – three detained offended woman were
principals in crime of illegal detention and three others
held victim’s companion to prevent latter from helping
victim were accomplices.
A. The Cooperation Of An Accomplice Is Not Due To A Conspiracy
— People v. Francisco  Facts: Francisco (then Mayor in Isabela)
was accompanied by Berganio, Badua, Dasalla, and Tagasa
when he brought Corpus from the municipal building to the
constabulary and wanted the Corporal to detain him there. But
Corporal refused because they didn’t have a detention cell and
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
so they brought Corpus to another Barrio and Corpus
disappeared and was not seen anymore.
Held: Companions of Francisco were held as accomplices
because even if there was no conspiracy, they helped Francisco
being Corpus around in a jeep. Their acts constitute
cooperation by simultaneous or previous acts.
B. When The Acts Of The Accused Are Not Indispensable In The Killing,
They Are Merely Accomplices
— People v. Villegas  Nature of the killing was an offshoot of a
spontaneous turn of events – not a previously conceived
ambush as seen by the use of stones of the accused. Held as
accomplices because they cooperated by simultaneous acts
which were not indispensable.
— People v. Resayaga  Acts of blocking the people who tried to
help victim is one of help and cooperation to assailants but not
indispensable to stabbing of victim. Held as accomplice
— People v. Parcon  No conspiracy but one acted as look-out or
guard in crime of robbery with homicide held as accomplice
C. The Accomplice Merely Supplies The Principal With Material Or
Moral Aid Without Conspiracy With The Latter
— Being present and giving moral support when a crime is being
committed will make a person responsible only as accomplice
in the crime committed.
o If knowledge of criminal purpose of principal is absent =
giving aid or encouragement either morally or
materially in commission of crime or mere presence at
scene of crime does not make one an accomplice
(People v. Toling).
— The moral aid may be through advice, encouragement, or
agreement.
o Material aid: external acts.
Moral aid: through advice, encouragement, or
o
agreement.
 But the advice, encouragement, or agreement
should not be the determining cause of the
commission of the crime by the principal by
direct participation or else the one who gave it
would be a principal by inducement.
— Example:
o People v. Ubina  Ubina conspired with five persons to
kill Carag because he lost in an election to him and he
was also insulted by Carag. The five persons brought 3
others where Carag was killed but they did not
participate in the act of killing itself. Held: The 3 others’
presence and company was not indispensable and
essential to the perpetration of the murder but they
were present and they gave moral support =
accomplices.
o People v. Balili  No proof appellant conspired with
malefactors but he went with them, knew of criminal
intent, and stayed outside of house while other robbed
and killed victim. Held: Appellant is an accomplice
because he supplied material and moral aid
o People v. Vicente  Inflicting stab wounds to victim
only after victim fell on ground and only because he
wanted to show a feeling of camaraderie with other
accused or a “show-off” or an expression of sympathy –
guilty only as accomplice because his act was not
necessary and indispensable for the criminal assault
D. Wounds Inflicted By An Accomplice In Crimes Against Persons
Should Not Have Caused The Death Of The Victim
— Accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound (or else
liable as principal).
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
— U.S. v. Zalsos  Both were liable as co-principals because both
inflicted a mortal wound on the neck of the victim even if R
originated the intention to assault deceased and Z just assisted
action of initiator of the crime
— Following cases – other accused were held as accomplices
only – wound inflicted by them were not the cause of death:
o People v. Azcona  wounds inflicted did not materially
contribute to death of deceased.
o People v. Tamayo  wound inflicted not of a character
that would result to death of deceased.
o People v. Cortes  accused armed with clubs struck
victim, AS he fell by fatal blow made by principal, and
he did not cause serious injuries on deceased.
o People v. Antonio  stoning victim already mortally
wounded by other accused.
— In These Cases, The Following Rules Are Indicated:
1. One who had the original criminal design is the person who
committed resulting crime.
2. The accomplice, after concurring in criminal purpose of
principal, cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts.
If by simultaneous act – accomplice acts while crime is being
committed by principal by direct participation or immediately
thereafter (ex. Principal already attacked the victim).
3. Accomplice in crimes against persons does not inflict the more
or most serious wounds.
o Example: C stabbed B first, and as B was in dying
condition, A gave a fist blow on B’s face – A is an
accomplice.
o Reason: When A gave a fist blow after C gave a mortal
wound, it shows that A concurred in the criminal
purpose of C.
VIII. THIRD ELEMENT: Relation Between The Acts
— There must be a relation between the criminal act of the
principal and the act of the one charged as accomplice.
o Not enough that a person entertains an identical
criminal design as that of the principal – there must be
a relation between the criminal act of principal by
direct participation and of person charged as
accomplice.
o People v. De la Cruz  Reyes attacked and passed his
hand over his girlfriend’s body and their families
decided that the father of Reyes would punish him.
Brother of the girl planned to avenge the honor of his
sister armed himself with a pistol. When he was about
to attack Reyes, Reyes was stabbed by his sister and
died. Brother was accused as accomplice. Held: No
liability by reason of participation if there is no relation
between criminal act of principal by direct participation
(girl) and of the person charged as accomplice
(brother).
A. An Accomplice May Be Liable For A Crime Different From That
Which The Principal Committed
— People v. Babiera  It was not shown that C and D knew of the
manner A attacked B but they knew that A had unlawfully
attacked B. Held: C and D were guilty as accomplices in crime of
homicide (A was guilty of murder qualified by treachery)
— People v. Valdellon  NARIC guard A asked C to help him (A)
get some sacks of rice from the NARIC warehouse then A sold
them to D. Held: C is only guilty as accomplice in commission of
simple theft. A guilty of qualified theft because of the qualifying
circumstance of grave abuse of confidence (this did not apply
to C because he wasn’t affiliated with NARIC).
— People v. Doble  Appellants joined in plan to rob by providing
banca for the robbery but there was killing committed in the
course of the robbery by the principals (others). Held:
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

Appellants only accomplices because they couldn’t have and their acts collectively demonstrate the existence of
prevented the killing because they were left at the banca a common design, conspiracy becomes evident and all
will be liable as principals.
IX. Accomplice v. Principal — Principals and accomplices both know and agree with the
A. In General, An Accomplice: criminal design. They have that in common. Difference lies in
— Does not take direct part in commission of act. the fact that conspirators know the criminal intention because
— Does not force nor induce others to commit it. they themselves have decided to commit the crime;
— Does not cooperate in the commission of the crime by another accomplices just come to know about it after.
act without which it would not have been accomplished.
— Cooperates in the execution of the act by previous or B. Accomplice v. Principal by Indispensable Cooperation
simultaneous actions.
Accomplice Principal by Indispensable Cooperation
As to… Principals Accomplices Participation of offender in a Case of a co-principal by cooperation –
Inducement Without such Inducement or utterance is case of complicity – indispensible.
inducement, crime not indispensable with or necessary only.
would not be without such, the crime would
committed still be committed (since — Examples: One lends dagger or pistol knowing borrower is
principal already determined going to commit murder – cooperation with a previous act but
to commit the crime) not indispensable cause offender could have borrowed or
Cooperation Indispensable Minor gotten weapon from someone/somewhere else
When acts are Act before or during the commission of the crime — People v. Templonuevo  Accused (with knowledge of
committed intention of other accused to kill the deceased) struck deceased
Conspiracy Decide the crime’s Merely concurs with the plan on forehead with piece of wood facilitating subsequent slaying
commission already decided of deceased because it made him unconscious. Held: Accused is
Authors of the crime Mere instruments who guilty as accomplice
perform acts not essential to — People v. Geronimo  Romeo held the victim while the others
the perpetration boloed him (without conspiracy among them) Held: Romeo is
only an accomplice because others could have hacked
— Mere knowledge and participation therefore do not suffice to deceased even without him holding
make one a conspirator, for such are elements also of an
accomplice, especially if even without his participation (like a C. Accomplice v. Principal By Direct Participation
look-out), the crime could have been accomplished.
o However, where the acts of the accused show that he Accomplice Principal By Direct Participation
shared in the community of purpose with the principals Person entertained owner of a If the person was in the same
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

house (some distance away from place talking to the owner of the any of the following manners:
the said place) while robbers were house (distracting him and serving 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by
assaulting it – so that owner will as guard to warn companions the effects of the crime.
not return until after robbery has robbing the place) – he is a 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the
been consummated – an principal by direct participation. effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
accomplice in the crime because discovery.
he cooperated by a simultaneous 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the
act but not indispensable (U.S. v. principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with
Diris). abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the
No conspiracy with principals In conspiracy with other principals crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to
take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
X. Liability Of Accomplices Under Special Laws habitually guilty of some other crime.
— Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law (Presidential
Decree 532)  anyone who aids or abets piracy or robbery in POINTS
the highway is considered an accomplice, not an accessory.
— Human Securities Act (Republic Act No. 9372)  an I. Definition
accomplice basically follows the same definition of the Revised — An accessory does not participate in the criminal design, nor
Penal Code. cooperate in the commission of the felony, but with knowledge
— Genocide Law (Republic Act No. 9851)  an accomplice is one of the commission of the crime he subsequently takes part in
who facilitates the commission of the crime. three ways mentioned in the article.
— Anti-Torture Act (Republic Act No. 9745)  there is no
definition of an accomplice. (So I guess follow the Revised Penal II. Important Words And Phrases In Article 19
Code for having suppletory effect?) A. “Having Knowledge”
— Are there accomplices in bigamy? A, a married man, marries B — An accessory must have knowledge of the crime, and with that
who knew of A’s subsisting marriage. knowledge took part in subsequent to its commission.
o One case (Can’t find the citation which J-Call o In the absence of the purchaser’s knowledge at the
mentioned") said A is a PDP, while B is an accomplice. time of transaction that such goods were of illegal
o Another case (People v. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. L- origin, the customer who purchases such goods cannot
40624, June 27, 1975) said A is a PDP, while B is a PIC. be held criminally responsible as accessory (People v.
Labrador).
Article 19. — Accessories. — Mere possession of stolen property does not make the accused
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of an accessory where the thief was already convicted.
the crime, and without having participated therein, either as o Rational: It is within the real of possibilities that the
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in individual received the stolen property honestly, in the
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
legal course of transaction without knowing that it was
stolen (People v. Racimo).
— Entertaining suspicion that a crime has been committed is not
enough.
o Knowledge and suspicion are not synonymous terms:
 Suspicion  being the imagination of the
existence of something without proof, or upon
very slight evidence or upon no evidence at all.
 Knowledge  known actual facts.
— Knowledge of the commission of a crime may be acquired
subsequence to the acquisition of stolen property.
o U.S. v. Montano
 Facts: Robbers took and carried away a
carabao. These were found in the possession of
A who acquired them without knowing they
had been illegally taken. Owners informed A
that they were stolen and agreed to pay half of
what A had paid for them. When the owners
returned with the payment, A said the
carabaos were returned to the seller.
 Issue: Is A liable as an accessory?
 Held: Yes. To declare the accused guilty as
accessory, it is not necessary that he should
have acquired the property knowing at that
time that it had been stolen. It is sufficient that
after acquiring that knowledge, he concealed
or disposed of the property, thereby depriving
the owner thereof.
— Knowledge of the commission of the crime may be established
by circumstantial evidence.
o People v. Dalena  When a person knew his co-
accused had no legitimate business and there was no
rational reason for the accused to believe that his co-
accused’s possession of said goods were legitimate, the
conclusion is that he had knowledge of their illegal
source.
B. “Commission Of The Crime”
— The crime committed by the principal must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
— People v. Pardito  where there is doubt as to whether the
woman committed the crime of parricide or not (i.e. not
conclusively proven), the fact that the servant helped bury the
body does not make him an accessory in parricide.
C. “Without Having Participated Therein Either As Principals Or
Accomplices”
— Facts: A attacked B, and B fell. C and D then each hit B with a
piece of wood. B died and was buried by all three.
Issue: Can anyone be held as an accessory?
Held: No. A is principal by direct participation. C and D are
accomplices.
D. “Take part subsequent to its commission”
— The accessory takes part after the crime has been committed.
PAR 1: BY PROFITING THEMSELVES OR ASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO
PROFIT BY THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME.
I. Note:
— The crime committed by the principal in this paragraph may be
any crime, but it must not be a light felony.
II. Important Words And Phrases
A. “By Profiting Themselves By The Effects Of The Crime”
— Intent to gain is not enough, there must have been actual gain
or material benefit.
— Examples:
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
o One who received a property knowing it was stolen,
and used it (People v. Tanchoco).
o One who shared the reward for the commission of the
crime profited through it (U.S. v. Empainado).
— The accessory should not take the property without the
consent of the principal otherwise it would be theft.
— When is profiting by the effects of the crime punished as the
act of principal and not the act of accessory?
o When a person knowingly acquired or received
property taken by the brigands (Article 307).
o Anti-Fencing Law (Presidential Decree No. 1612)  a
person is liable as principal if he buys, sells, possesses
or profits from the commission of robbery or theft.
 BUT they may also be charted as accessories to
the crime of robbery or theft. It’s up to the
prosecution what the charge will be.
B. “Assisting The Offender To Profit By The Effects Of The Crime”
— Examples:
o A person knowing the item was stolen, sells it for the
thief (U.S. v. Galanco).
o Those who acted as runner or couriers in kidnapping
for ransom (People v. Magsino).
— An accessory should not be in conspiracy with the principal
(otherwise he would also be punished as principal).
o U.S. v. Tan Tiap Co
o Facts: A conspired with others to steal goods, and
agreed to pay upon delivery of goods.
o Held: A is guilty of the crime of theft as principal, not
just accessory.
PAR. 2: BY CONCEALING OR DESTROYING THE BODY OF THE CRIME TO
PREVENT ITS DISCOVERY
I. Note:
— The crime committed by the principal in this paragraph may be
any crime, but it must not be a light felony.
II. Important Words And Phrases
A. “Body Of The Crime”
— Corpus Delicti  the body/substance of the offense or crime.
o This is proof that a specific offense was in fact
committed by someone.
o Made up of 2 things: (1) Existence of a certain act or
result forming the basis of the criminal charge (criminal
event), and (2) Existence of a criminal agency as the
cause of this actor result (criminal responsibility).
— There must be an attempt to hide the body of the crime.
o People v. De la Cruz  Facts: Accused was ordered to
board the jeep not knowing or even suspecting the
reason for it. He did not take part in the killing, nor
profit, nor try to help conceal it as the bodies were
merely thrown in the ditch. Held: Accused must be
acquitted.
— Concealing or destroying the effects or instruments of the
crime to prevent its discovery.
o Accused is an accessory has he helped hide the weapon
used to kill. The pistol or knife is the instrument of the
crime.
— Examples:
o Assisting in the burial of the victim (U.S. v. Leal).
o Making it appear that the victim had to be killed
because he resisted by placing a gun in his hand when
already dead (U.S. v. Cuison).
o The mere act of carrying the cadaver of one unlawfully
killed when it was buried to prevent the discovery of
the crime, is sufficient to make him responsible as an
accessory (People v. Galleto)
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
B. “To Prevent Its Discovery”
— Its  refers to the crime.
— What is being concealed is the body of the crime, the effects or
instruments NOT the principal who committed the crime. There
must be an effort to prevent the discovery of the crime.
PAR. 3: BY HARBORING, CONCEALING OR ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE
OF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME
I. Two Classes Of Accessories Contemplated In Paragraph 3
A. Public Officers
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
1. That the accessory is a private person
2. That he harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the author
of the crime.
3. That the crime committed by the principal is either:
a. Treason
b. Parricide
c. Murder
d. Attempt on the life of the President
e. That the principal is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime.
II. “Habitually guilty of some other crime”
— Example: A person who previously punished for less physical
injuries three times, and then commits estafa is a “habitually
guilty”, and whoever helps in his escape becomes an accessory.
o REQUISITE: The accessory must have knowledge of the
principal being habitually guilty of some other crime.
— A mayor who refused to prosecute the offender is an accessory.
U.S. v. Yacat  Mayor of the town of Cabiao refused to
prosecute the crime of homicide thus making it possible for the
offender to escape.
— Accused policemen witnessed the killing of the victim by co-
accused. Policeman failed to arrest culprit and even told co-
accused not to tell the other policeman. Was policeman an
accessory? Damn right he was, under 3rd paragraph. It was his
duty to arrest culprit and not to conceal commission of crime
by silence or misleading authorities that accused was really
culprit. By his acts, he abused his public position (People v.
Antonio).
— One who kept silent with regard to the crime he witnessed is
not an accessory.
o U.S. v. Caballeros  Person who saw the commission
of murder and kept silent and does not report to
authorities, is not liable for anything.
o U.S. v. Romulo  Person who volunteers false
information tended to deceive the prosecution and
assist in concealing the guilty party is liable.
— A policeman who aids a murderer escape prison is liable for
infidelity, while the latter is liable for evasion of sentence.
o May the policeman be held liable as accessory for
evasion of sentence of the murderer?
 Justice Callejo: YES.
 But isn’t the policeman a PDP or PIC?
Leviste couldn’t have escaped were it
not for the actions of the policeman.
(ewan.)
 Boado: Those who assist the principal to escape
maybe prosecuted under Presidential Decree
No. 1829 for obstruction of justice not as
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

accessory but as a principal, provided that a Principal Accomplice Accessory

separate information shall be prepared for the Takes direct part or cooperate or Does not take direct part or
crime of obstruction. induce in the commission of the cooperate in or induce the
crime commission of the crime
III. Accessories Liability Is Subordinate And Subsequent Cooperates in the commission of Does not cooperate in the
— Reason: The accessory’s participation therein is subsequent to the offense prior, during or after. commission of the offense by
the crime’s commission, and his guilt is directly related to that acts either prior thereto or
of the principal. simultaneous therewith.
o If the facts alleged are not proven in the prosecution Participation takes place prior, Participation always takes place
instituted or do not constitute a crime, no legal during and after AFTER the commission of the
grounds exist for convicting a defendant as an crime.
accessory since no crime has been perpetrated (U.S. v. Knows the criminal design of the Knows the commission of the
Mendoza). principal offense
— Is conviction of accessory possible even if principal is acquitted? No exemption Exempted under Article 20 and
o YES, if the crime was in fact committed, but the for light felonies under Article 16
principal was acquitted because of Article 12.
Provides direct or Provides Acts in the 3 ways enumerated
o See p. 590 – 591 for examples. indispensable material or under Article 19
— Apprehension and conviction of the principal is not necessary
participation, or moral aid in an
for the accessory to be held criminally liable.
was liable for efficacious way
o So long as the requisites for the existence of the crime
inducement. but not in a
are present and that someone committed them, the
manner
accessory may be held criminally liable.
indispensable
o In the same way, the trial of the accessory may be
to the offense
resolved prior to that of the principal so long as the
above is satisfied. Full penalty 1 degree lower 2 degrees lower than principal
o The accessory may be prosecuted and convicted even if Article 20. — Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability.
the principal is not yet apprehended, so long as the
The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon
crime has been proved to exist.
those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
— The accused cannot be held liable as accessory if the principal
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or
charged with murder died before trial because had he been
relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single
alive, he might have been found guilty of only homicide.
exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of
the next preceding article.
IV. Accessory Distinguished From Principal And From Accomplice.
POINTS
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
I. Basis For Exemption
— Based on ties of blood, and preservation of the cleanliness of
one’s name, which compels one to conceal crimes committed
by relatives so near as those mentioned in this article.
II. Principals Related To Accessories Exempt From Criminal Liability
— When principal is his:
o Spouse
o Descendant
o Ascendant
o Legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or
relative by affinity within the same degree.
III. Extent Of Coverage
— Exemption applies even if the accessory is related to only two
of found principals guilty of murder (U.S. v. Abanzado).
— Relationship by affinity between surviving spouse and blood
relatives of the deceased spouse survives even after the death
of the deceased spouse.
— Nephew or niece is not included among such relatives.
IV. 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
— If the accessory performs the two acts mentioned, he is liable
even if the principal falls within the listed relatives because
such acts are prompted not by affection but be detestable
greed.
o Does concealing of the effects of the crime, not to
prevent its discovery, but to obtain gain, fall under
Article 19(2)?
 Facts: Husband conceals the property stolen by
his wife to profit from it later.
 Held: Husband is liable as an accessory since he
is driven not by affection for his wife, but
profit.
— Only accessories under paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 19 are
exempt from criminal liability if they are related to the
principals.
o Examples of exemptions:
 A son who helps his father bury the body of the
murdered victim.
 Grandson who having knowledge of the
robbery by his grandfather destroys the body
of the crime.
 Person who helps his brother escape after the
latter committed treason.
— Liability of a public officer when related to the principal
o Facts: Public officer abused his office in order to assist
the escape of his brother who had committed murder.
o Issue: Is he liable as an accessory?
o Held: He is an accessory BUT does not have criminal
liability. Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more
powerful incentive than the call of duty.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

TITLE III: PENALTIES 2. Self-defense  measure of such to protect society from the
threat and wrong inflicted by the criminal.
3. Reformation  object of punishment is to correct offender.
CHAPTER 1: PENALTIES IN GENERAL
4. Exemplarity  to deter others from committing crimes.
5. Justice  retributive justice, a vindication of absolute right and
POINTS
moral law violated by the criminal.
— Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of death.
I. Definitions
When a person has proved to be a dangerous enemy of society,
— Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the
it must protect itself by taking the life in retribution for the
transgression of a law.
offense, and to serve as an example and warning to others.
o Signifies pain i.e. suffering undergone because of the
action of human society, by one who commits a crime.
V. Three-fold purpose of penalties under RPC
1. Retribution or expiation  commensurate with the gravity of
II. Different Juridical Conditions Of Penalty (acc. to classical school)
the offense.
1. Must be productive suffering – without affecting the integrity
2. Correction or reformation  shown by the rules that regulate
of the human personality.
the execution of penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty.
2. Must be commensurate with the offense – different crimes
3. Social defense  shown by inflexible severity to recidivists and
must be punished with different penalties.
habitual delinquents.
3. Must be personal – no one should be punished for the crime of
another.
VI. Constitutional restriction on penalties
4. Must be legal – it is the consequence of a judgment according
— “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel punishment
to law.
inflicted”
5. Must be certain.
o Cruel and unusual  punishment that is so
6. Must be equal for all.
disproportionate to the offense so as to shock the
7. Must be correctional.
moral sense of all reasonable men.
o Constitutional stricture refers to penalties which are
III. State’s Purpose For Punishing Crime inhuman and barbarous, or shocking to the conscience
— To secure justice  The state has… (Weems v. U.S.), and fines and imprisonment are not in
o An existence of its own to maintain. this category (People v. Dionisio).
o A conscience of its own to assert.
o Moral principles to be vindicated.
Article 21. – Penalties that may be imposed.
No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
IV. Theories Justifying Penalty
prior to its commission.
1. Prevention  and suppress the danger to the State arising
from the criminal acts of the offender.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
POINTS
I. State Policy About Punishing Crimes
— This article prohibits the government from punishing any
person for any felony with any penalty, which has not been
prescribed by the law.
o Has no application to the Revised Penal Code, because
all felonies defined in the Revised Penal Code has a
prescribed penalty.
o May only be invoked when a person is being tried for
an act or omission for which no penalty has been
prescribed by law.
— This is a guarantee to the citizen of this country that no act of
his will be considered criminal until the government has made
it so by law and has provided a penalty.
o No imprisonment at the discretion of the court. There
must be limits imposed by the law.
o In Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and libel, the Supreme Court
issued admin orders giving preference to fine over
imprisonment. This doesn’t mean that the SC abolished
imprisonment.
— The favorable judgment by the appellate court on an accused
will be applied to his co-accused if it is favorable and applicable
to the latter.
— Court can impose either fine or imprisonment. But it can never
imposed “fine and/or imprisonment.” Accused can’t choose
how he wants to serve his sentence.
II. Reason For The Provision
— A law cannot be rationally obeyed unless it is first shown.
— Man cannot be expected to obey an order that has not been
given.
III. Examples
No Penalty Prescribed By Law Prior To Its Commission
— U.S. v. Yam Tung Way
o Facts: A allegedly reproduced and sold fraudulent
copies of another’s literary work. No copyright law.
o Held: A cannot be punished because at that time no
law defined and penalized such act.
Subsidiary penalty for a crime can’t be imposed if “not prescribed by
law prior to its commission”
— U.S. v. Macasaet
o Facts: Macasaet was charted and convicted for
violating Act No. 1189 punishable by a fine. At that
time, no law provided for imprisonment for failure to
pay fine by reason of insolvency. Act No. 1732 which
provides such penalty, and took effect during trial. The
court imposed subsidiary imprisonment.
o Held: Subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed
because it took effect AFTER the commission of the
crime.
Article 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.
POINTS
I. Article 22 Not Applicable To Provisions Of Revised Penal Code
— Application to Revised Penal Code may only be invoked where
some former or subsequent law is under consideration.
— Article 10 doesn’t bar application of Article 22 to special laws.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
o If by amendment to the Revised Penal Code or special
law, the punishment is made less severe than provided
for in this Code, the accused may invoke Article 22.
A. Must Necessarily Relate:
1. To penal laws existing prior to the Revised Penal Code, in which
the penalty was less severe than those of the code OR
2. To laws enacted subsequent to the Revised Penal Code, in
which the penalty is more favorable to the accused.
B. Courts Can Apply This Provision, Even If Not Invoked By The
Accused
II. Rule
— General Rule: Give criminal laws prospective effect.
o People v. Changco  Facts: Before Article 365 (RPC)
was amended, slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence was not punishable. On September 21,
1954, accused committed such act. On June 21, 1957,
RA 1790 was approved thus making the amendments.
Issue: Can accused be punished?
Held: The amended Article 365 punishing the act
cannot be given retroactive effect such as to punish the
accused.
o Giving a law retroactive effect, if unfavorable to the
accused will violate the constitutional inhibition as to
ex post facto law. (See “Criminal Law in General”)
— Exception: To give criminal laws retroactive effect when
favorable to the accused.
o Lapuz v. Court of Appeals  Facts: Bus driver convicted
separately of (1) homicide with serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence and (2) damage to
property through reckless imprudence for the
destruction caused to the other bus. RA 587 amending
the Motor Vehicle law took effect after the incident,
which made the driver liable for only one complex
crime under the RPC instead of two separate crimes.
Issue: Can RA 587 be used?
Held: Even though RA 587 took effect after the
incident, it can be given retroactive effect.
o Exception applies to a law dealing with prescription of
crime.
III. 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.
— However, the new law may provide otherwise
o Republic Act No. 4661 decreasing the prescription of
libel from 2 years to 1 year provides that it shall not
apply to cases of libel already filed in court at the time
of its approval.
o Republic Act No. 9346 prevents the imposition of the
death penalty, and could be apply retroactively
because it favors the accused.
 Even if no more death penalty, the
classification of heinous crimes still remains
because of the possibility that it will once again
be revived. Moreover, civil liability is still
dependent on the nature of heinous crimes
(People v Bon).
 Even if the offender is a habitual delinquent,
this law will still benefit him. Congress intended
it to benefit even the habitual delinquent.
IV. Revised Penal Code Was Not Given Retroactive Effect
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
— Thus, acts committed in violation of a conditional pardon (a
violation of RPC) prior to the effectivity of the RPC cannot be
punished (Peope v. Carballo).
V. Important Words And Phrases
A. “Although At The Time Of The Publication Of Such Laws A Final
Sentence Has Been Pronounced And The Convict Is Serving The Same”
— Provision of Article 22 that penal laws shall have retroactive
effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony is
applicable even if the accused has already started or is serving
his sentence.
— The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find the
defendant in one of these three situations:
o The crime has been committed and prosecution begins.
o Sentence has been passed but service has not begun.
o The sentence is being carried out.
— In any case, the favorable new statute benefits him and should
apply to him.
— Example: case of Robin Padilla where his sentence was
shortened after the passing of a new law that decreased the
penalty of illegal possession of firearms.
B. “Who Is Not A Habitual Criminal?”
— Habitual criminals are not entitled to benefit of the provisions
of the new favorable statute.
— 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, robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty
of any said crimes a third time or oftener (Rule 5, Article 62)
VI. In Connection To Civil Liability
A. Retroactive Effect Not Applicable To Civil Liability
— The principle that criminal statutes are retroactive so far as
they favor the culprit does not apply to the latter’s civil liability
because the rights of the offended party or innocent third
parties are not within the gift of arbitrary disposal of the State.
B. A New Law Increasing Civil Liability Cannot Be Retroactive
— Thus, Commonwealth Act No. 284 which increased the
minimum indemnity for the death of a person by reason of the
commission of a crime from P1,000 to P2,000 was not given
retroactive effect (People v. Panaligan).
VII. Article 22 v. Article 3661
— The two articles mean that while felonies and
misdemeanors committed prior to the date of effectiveness
of the Revised Penal Code shall be punished in accordance
with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their
commission, the same should not be the case IF such Code
or Acts are unfavorable to the guilty party for the general
principle on the retroactivity of favorable penal laws,
recognized in Article 22, should then apply.
VIII. Repeal Of Laws
A. Lagrimas Case v. Tamayo Case
Lagrimas Tamayo
Facts  Petitioner convicted for  Accused was convicted for
assault upon a public official violating a municipal
and penalized under Article ordinance.
251 of the old penal code.  Pending his appeal, the
1
Article 366. Application of laws enacted prior to this Code. — Without
prejudice to the provisions contained in Article 22 of this Code, felonies and
misdemeanors, committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code shall
be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force at the time of their
commission.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

 Article 149 of the RPC
does not prescribe a penalty
for the same crime.
Held Petition denied. The intent
of the RPC was to insure
elimination of crimes
penalized by former acts
before its enforcement. It
should not have the effect of
pardoning the guilty.
Ratio Legislature re-enacted the
provision of Article 251 of
the old Penal Code in the
Revised Penal Code, but
does not punish an assault
upon a public school teacher
anymore. Article 149 of the
Revised Penal Code did not
absolutely repeal.
Where the repeal is by
reenactment, the court has
jurisdiction to try and punish
an accused person under the
old law.
ordinance was repealed and
the act complained of was no
longer a crime.
Case dismissed. A person
cannot be prosecuted,
convicted and punished for
acts no longer criminal.
The repeal (completely
eliminating the section of the
ordinance under which the
accused was being prosecuted)
was absolute.
The repeal in this case is
absolute, not a reenactment or
repeal by implication. No
saving clause too.
C. Repeal Of Penal Law Which Impliedly Repealed An Old Penal Law
Revives The Old Law
— Thus, when Act 1697, which repealed provisions of the old
Penal Code, was itself repealed by old Administrative Code, the
penalty of the Old Penal Code which was lighter than Act 1697
was imposed (U.S. v. Soliman).
D. No Retroactive Effect Of Penal Laws As Regards Jurisdiction Of
Court
— The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be
determined by the law in force at the time of instituting the
action, not at the time of the commission of the crime.
— Jurisdiction of courts in criminal cases is determined by the
allegations of the complaint or information, not by the findings
the court may make after trial.
IX. What Penalty May Be Imposed For The Commission Of A Felony?
— Only the penalty prescribed by law prior to the commission of
the felony may be imposed (Article 21).
— Felonies are punishable under the laws in force at the time of
their commission (Article 366).
— But the penalty prescribed by a law enacted after the
commission of the felony may be imposed, if it is favorable to
the offender (Article 22).

B. Criminal Liability Under Repealed Law Subsists:
1. When the provisions of the former law are reenacted; or
2. When the repeal is by implication; or
3. When there is a saving clause
— Right to punish offenses committed under an old penal law is
not extinguished if the offenses are still punished in the
repealing law.
Article 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.
INGLES SAYS THIS IS AMENDED BY RA 8353
POINTS

I. Important Words And Phrases

 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
A. “A Pardon By The Offended Party Does Not Extinguish Criminal
Action”
— Crime committed is an offense against the state. In criminal
cases, the intervention of the aggrieved parties is limited to
being witnesses for the prosecution.
— Only the Chief Executive can pardon offenders (Article 36).
Compromise does not extinguish criminal liability
— There may be a compromise upon the civil liability arising from
an offense, but such compromise shall not extinguish the public
action for the imposition of the legal penalty (Article 2034, Civil
Code).
— A contract stipulating for the renunciation of the right to
prosecute an offense or waiving the criminal liability is void.
The consideration or subject-matter is illegal.
B. “Except As Provided In Article 344 Of This Code”
— The offended party in the crimes of adultery and concubinage
CANNOT institute criminal prosecution IF he shall have
consented or pardoned the offenders.
o In case of pardon, BOTH offenders must be pardoned.
o The pardon may be IMPLIED through continued
inaction of the offended party after learning the
offense.
— In the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, there shall be no criminal prosecution if the
offender has been EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended party
or her parents, grandparents, or guardian.
Pardon under Article 344 must be made before start of prosecution
— When complaint for the above crimes have been filed in court,
a motion to dismiss based solely on pardon by the offended
party given after the filing of the complaint will be denied by
court.
— The ONLY act that can extinguish the penal action after
institution of criminal action is marriage between offender and
offended party.
Pardon under Article 344 is only a bar to criminal prosecution
— Article 89 providing for the total extinction of criminal liability
does not mention pardon by the offended party as one of the
causes of totally extinguishing criminal liability.
C. “But Civil Liability With Regard To The Interest Of The Injured Party
Is Extinguished By His Express Waiver”
— Two classes of injury:
o Social injury  disturbance and alarm resulting from
the offense.
o Personal injury  caused to the victim who suffered
damage either to his person, property, honor or her
chastity.
— Social injury is sought to be repaired by imposition of penalty.
The state has an interest and therefore cannot be extinguished
by pardon of offended party.
— Personal injury is repaired through indemnity, which is civil in
nature, and can thus be EXPRESSLY waived. The State has not
reason to insist on its payment.
Article 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.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of
their administrative disciplinary powers, superior officials may
impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws
may establish in penal form.
— Plunder Act (Republic Act No. 7080) - suspension of public
official after filing of a valid information.
— VAWC (Republic Act No. 9262) – offended party entitled to
protection orders, or accused must file a bond to.

POINTS

I. “As Well As Their Detention By Reason Of Insanity Or Imbecility”

— Refers to “accused persons” who are detained “by reason of
insanity or imbecility”.
— “THEIR” in the second clause of paragraph 1 refers to “accused
persons”.

II. They are not considered penalties

— Because they are not imposed as a result of judicial
proceedings
— Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are preventive measures.
— Paragraph 2 is not a penalty because it is not imposed by the
court. The imposition of the sentence in such case is
suspended.
o Note: This has been repealed by the Juvenile Justice
Act.
— Fines mentioned in Paragraph 4 should not be imposed by the
court, or else they will constitute a penalty.
— Paragraph 5 is illustrate in the case of parents who are stripped
of their parental authority if found guilty of the crime of
corruption of their minor children.

III. Relevant Special Penal Laws

— PNP Act (Republic Act No. 6975) – preventive suspension of
policemen during criminal trials (Sections 41 and 47).
— Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) –
suspension of public official after filing of a valid information.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

CHAPTER 2: CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,

Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
Article 25. – Penalties which may be imposed. for, the profession or calling.
The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their Civil interdiction,
different classes, are those included in the following: Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the
SCALE offense,
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES Payment of costs.
Capital punishment:
Death. POINTS

Afflictive penalties: I. “The Penalties Which May Be Imposed According To This Code x x x
Reclusion perpetua, Are Those Included” in Article 25 only
Reclusion temporal, — The Revised Penal Code does not prescribe the penalty of life
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, imprisonment for any of the felonies therein defined, that
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, penalty being invariably imposed for serious offenses penalized
Prision mayor. not by the Revised Penal Code but by special law.
— Examples:
Correctional penalties: o Sentence of “five years in Bilibid” is defective because it
Prision correccional, does not specify the exact penalty prescribed in the
Arresto mayor, RPC (US v. Avillar)
Suspension, o Penalty of life imprisonment or cadena perpetua is
Destierro. erroneous as it has been abolished. The correct term is
reclusion perpetua. (People v. Abletes).
Light penalties: — Reclusion perpetua is not the same as life imprisonment as the
Arresto menor, Code does not prescribe life imprisonment as a penalty. It is a
Public censure. penalty used by special laws. Reclusion perpetua entailed
imprisonment for at least 30 years after which the convict
Penalties common to the three preceding classes: becomes eligible for parole. It also carried with accessory
Fine, and penalties such as perpetual special disqualification.
Bond to keep the peace.
II. R.A. 9346 Prohibited The Imposition Of The Death Penalty
ACCESSORY PENALTIES — Signed into law on June 24, 2006 and provided for the
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, imposition of penalty of reclusion perpetua in lieu of death
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the RPC.
III. Classifications Of Penalties
A. Principal v. Accessory Penalties
— Two classifications
o Principal Penalties  those expressly imposed by the
court in the judgment of conviction.
o Accessory Penalties  those that are deemed included
in the imposition of the principal penalties.
— Principal Penalties according to their divisibility
o Divisible Penalties  are those that have fixed
duration and are divisible into three periods
o Indivisible Penalties  those which have no fixed
duration.
 Death
 Reclusion Perpetua
 Perpetual absolute or special disqualification
 Public censure
— Penalties are either principal or accessory
o Perpetual or temporary absolute/special
disqualification and suspensions may be principal or
accessory penalties, because they are formed in two
general classes.
o Article 236  punishes the crime of anticipation of
duties of public office through suspension as principal
penalty.
o Article 226, 227 and 228  punishing infidelity of
public officers in the custody of documents, provide for
temporary special disqualification as a principal
penalty.
B. Classification Of Penalties According To Subject-Matter
1. Corporal (death)
2. Deprivation of freedom (reclusion, prision, arresto)
3. Restriction of freedom (destierro)
4. Deprivation of rights (disqualification and suspension)
5. Pecuniary (fine)
C. Classification Of Penalties According To Their Gravity
1. Capital
2. Afflictive
3. Correctional
4. Light
— Corresponds to Article 9: Grave, less grave, light felony
D. Public Censure Is A Penalty
— Being a penalty, not properly imposed in acquittal.
— The court may only impose a penalty if the accused is found
guilty. The power to mete out punishments; a finding of guilt
must precede the punishment.
IV. Court Acquitting The Accused May Criticize His Acts Or Conduct
— The court, while acquitting an accused, may permit itself
nevertheless to criticize or reprehend his acts or conduct in
connection with the transaction out of which the accusation
arose.
V. Reclusion Perpetua
— Court should use proper Revised Penal Code nomenclature
— Indivisible penalty (Reclusion Perpetua, Perpetual absolute or
special disqualification, public censure)
o Not affected by mitigating or aggravating
circumstances. The penalty is imposed in its entirety,
even if there is special aggravating or two mitigating, it
will not be affected.
o But if PRIVILEGED mitigating, it may be reduced by 1 or
2 degrees.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
— After imprisonment of 30 years, eligible for pardon.
o Court may not impose “30 years of reclusion perpetua,”
they should just impose reclusion perpetua.
o The 30 years does not refer to the duration of reclusion
perpetua, but to the eligibility of parole and for
purposes of computing the three-fold rule.
— Different from life imprisonment
o Exception: In Presidential Decree No. 818 (Syndicated
Estafa), imprisonment is a maximum of 30 years with
accessory penalties provided by Revised Penal Code for
30 years.
VI. Disqualification And Suspension
A. Dual Personality Of Disqualification And Suspension
— It can be a principal penalty
o Temporary disqualification – 6years, 1 day to 12 years.
o Suspension – 6 months, 1 day to 6 years.
— It can also be an accessory penalty
o Follow the period of the principal penalty.
o Court cannot extend the disqualification or suspension
if it merely follows the principal penalty, can’t extend
beyond principal penalty.
B. Suspension
— All prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving
final sentence, cannot practice their profession or engage in
any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or
appointive, while in detention.
VII. Bond To Keep The Peace
— Bond to keep the peace is a principal penalty yet there is no
crime in Book II that imposes it. No occasion to mete this
penalty on a convict.
— Compare with bond for good behavior (Article 248 for grave
and light threats only). Failure to post bond for good behavior
means destierro for accused. Failure to post bond to keep the
peace.
VIII. Instances When Lesser Offense Absorbs Graver Offense
— Rebellion (RT) absorbs murder (RP)
— Forcible abduction (RT) absorbs illegal detention of a woman
(RP)
— Slavery involving kidnapping of a person (PM) absorbs
kidnapping (RP)
Article 26. – When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty.
A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an alternative penalty, shall
be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a
correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less
than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.
POINTS
I. “Whether Imposed As A Single Or As An Alternative Penalty”
— Example: Article 144 punishing disturbance of proceedings, the
penalty is arresto mayor or a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000.
A. Penalties Cannot Be Imposed In The Alternative
— The law does not permit any court to impose a sentence in the
alternative, its duty being to indicate the penalty imposed
definitely and positively.
— Fine is not a substitute for imprisonment. It’s completely
independent.
II. Article 26 Merely Classifies Fines And Has Nothing To Do With The
Definition Of Light Felony
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

— If the fine prescribed by the law for a felony is exactly P200, it is

a light felony because Article 9, Paragraph 3 which defines light
felonies should prevail.
— What if exactly P200, how do you reconcile Article 9 and Article
26?
o Article 9 should prevail when the issue is prescription of
crime. It’s considered a light felony and prescribes in 2
months.
o Article 26 should prevail when the issue is prescription
of penalty. It’s considered correctional, and prescribes
in 10 years.

A. Fine Is:
1. Afflictive – over P6,000
2. Correction – P200 to P6,000
3. Light penalty – less than P200

B. Bond To Keep The Peace Is By Analogy:

1. Afflictive – over P6,000
2. Correctional – P200 to P6,000
3. Light penalty – less than P200

III. Who Receives The Fines

— Fine is not given to the complainant; it is given to the State.
Fine is for vindication!
— Accused can use his cash bail bond to pay his fine, if he is
convicted. Law does not prohibit him from using his cash bail
bond to pay his fine. It is only meant to ensure his attendance
during the process.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

CHAPTER 3: DURATION AND EFFECT OF PENALTIES

POINTS
SECTION 1 – DURATION OF PENALTIES
I. Duration Of Each Different Penalties
1. Reclusion perpetua – 20 yrs. and 1 day to 40 yrs.
Article 27.
2. Reclusion temporal – 12 yrs. and 1 day to 20 yrs.
Reclusion perpetua. — Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual
penalties shall be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty 3. Prision mayor and temporary disqualification – 6 years. and 1
day to 12 yrs, except when disqualification is accessory penalty,
years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other
in which case its duration is that of the principal penalty.
serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy
4. Prision correctional, suspension, and destierro – 6 months and
of pardon.
1 day to 6 yrs, except when suspension is an accessory penalty
in which case its duration is that of the principal penalty.
Reclusion temporal. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall
5. Arresto mayor – 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.
be from twelve years and one day to twenty years.
6. Arresto menor – 1 day to 30 days
7. Bond to keep the peace – the period during which the bond
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. — The duration of the
shall be effective is discretionary on the court.
penalties of prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be
from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty
II. Temporary Disqualification And Suspension When Imposed As
of disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case
Accessory Penalties, Have Different Durations – They Follow The
its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Duration Of The Principal Penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. — The duration of the
III. In What Cases Is Destierro Imposed?
penalties of prision correccional, suspension and destierro shall be
from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is 1. Serious physical injuries or death under exceptional
circumstances (Article 247).
imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall be
that of the principal penalty. 2. In case of failure to give bond for good behavior (Article 284).
3. As a penalty for the concubine in concubinage (Article 334).
Arresto mayor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall 4. In cases where after reducing the penalty by one or more
degrees, destierro is the proper penalty.
be from one month and one day to six months.

IV. Bond To Keep The Peace Is Not Specifically Provided So As A

Arresto menor. — The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall
Penalty For Any Felony And Therefore Cannot Be Imposed By The
be from one day to thirty days.
Court.
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.
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
— Bond for good behavior under Article 284 of the Code is only
required of a person making a grave or light threat, and not in
other cases or crimes.
Article 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.
POINTS
I. Rules In 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.
o Reason for Rule 1  Computation begins from the date
conviction becomes final and not from the day of his
detention, because under Article 24 the arrest and
temporary detention is not considered a penalty.
o An accused who appealed will commence serving his
sentence from the date the appellate court
promulgated its decision, NOT when the trial court
promulgated it (Ocampo v. Court of Appeals).
2. When the offender is not in prison: the duration of penalties
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.
II. Rules In Cases Of Temporary Penalties:
— If under detention  Rule 1 applies
— If not detained  Rule 3 applies
Examples of temporary penalties:
1. Temporary absolute disqualification
2. Temporary special disqualification
3. Suspension
III. Rules In Cases Of Penalties Consisting Of Deprivation Of Liberty
— Not in prison  Rule 2 applies.
— In prison (e.g. preventive imprisonment)  Rule 3 applies
— Exemption: offender is entitled to deduction of full time or 4/5
of the time of his detention (See Article 29).
Examples of penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty:
1. Imprisonment
2. Destierro
Article 29. – Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term
of imprisonment.
Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment
shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have
undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees
voluntarily in writing 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
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER
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 No. 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 Republic
Act No. 6127, and further amended by E.O. No. 214, prom. July 10,
1987.)
When is there preventive imprisonment?
POINTS
I. When Is There Preventive Imprisonment?
— The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment when the
offense charged is non-bailable, or even if bailable, he cannot
furnish the required bail.
— Preventive penalties are considered even in the case of
perpetual punishments. This article does not make any
distinction between temporal and perpetual penalties.
II. The Full Time Or Four-Fifths Of The Time During Which The
Offenders Have Undergone Preventive Imprisonment Shall Be
Deducted From The Penalty Imposed
— Full Time  if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners.
o Exception: Youthful offenders shall be credited in the
service of his sentence with the full time he spent in
actual confinement and detention. The written consent
to abide by the disciplinary rules is not necessary.
(Article 197, Presidential Decree No. 603).
o Exception: Section 41, Juvenile Justice Act states that
any form of physical restraint imposed on a child in
conflict with the law including his community service or
commitment to a rehab center shall be considered as
preventive imprisonment. Thus:
 If the minor juvy is imprisoned pending trial, he
shall be credited with the service of the
sentence with the full time in which the child
was preventively imprisoned.
 If the child has served the full time, director can
determine if child still has to stay in rehab.
— 4/5 Time  if the detention prisoner does not agree to abide
by said disciplinary rules.
III. The Credit Is Given In The Service Of Sentences “Consisting Of
Deprivation Of Liberty”
— Destierro constitutes “deprivation of liberty.”
o Although destierro is not imprisonment, a person
penalized with such may still be credited with the time
he underwent preventive imprisonment.
o If destierro is the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced, he must still be released
after serving whatever prison sentence (for example
arresto menor) is required, since destierro is not served
in prison (See p.634).
A. Credit When Punished Only With A Fine
— If the offense for which the offender is undergoing preventive
imprisonment is punishable by imprisonment or a fine, and
 CRIM LAW FINALS REVIEWER

upon conviction the court imposed on him only a fine, there is

no credit to be given.
— The fine imposed cannot be lessened in light of one’s
preventive imprisonment.

B. Credit When Punished With Imprisonment

1. 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.
o The accused is to be released immediately whenever
he has undergone preventive imprisonment for a
period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment for the offenses charged.
o In such case, file a petition for habeas corpus to secure
your release – if you’re not released.
2. Offenders not entitled to the full time or four-fifths of the time
of preventive imprisonment:
a. Recidivists or those previously convicted twice or more
of any crime (Habitual delinquent is included).
b. Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of
their sentence, failed voluntarily to surrender.

C. Credit When Punished With Imprisonment And Fine

— What if the accused is detained, then sentenced to
imprisonment and fine, and he has already served his sentence
but has not yet paid the fine, may he be released? No. He has
to pay the fine first.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
SECTION 2 – EFFECTS OF PENALTIES ACCORDING TO THEIR
RESPECTIVE NATURE
Article 30. – Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary
absolute disqualification.
The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification for
public office shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which
the offender may have held even if conferred by popular
election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any
popular elective office or to be elected to such office.
3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and
for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is
comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article shall last during
the term of the sentence.
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any
office formerly held.
Article 31. – Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special
disqualification.
The penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for
public office, profession or calling shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or
calling affected;
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments
either perpetually or during the term of the sentence,
according to the extent of such disqualification.
Article 32. – Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special
disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage.
The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of
the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender perpetually or during
the term of the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of
the right to vote in any popular election for any public office or to be
elected to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted
to hold any public office during the period of his disqualification.
Article 33. – Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public
office, profession or calling, or the right of suffrage.
The suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the
exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender from
holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or right of
suffrage during the term of the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold
another having similar functions during the period of his suspension.
Article 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.
Article 35. – Effects of bond to keep the peace.
It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the
peace, to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such
person will not commit the offense sought to be prevented, and that
in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount
determined by the court in its judgment, or otherwise to deposit such
amount in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said
undertaking.
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of
duration of the bond. (Read also Art. 284)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall
be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed six months, if he
shall have prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not
exceed thirty days, if for a light felony.
POINTS
I. Perpetual v. Temporary
— Perpetual  effective during the lifetime of the convict even
after serving his sentence.
— Temporary  lasts during the term of the sentence and
removed after service of the same
o Exception: (1) Deprivation of public office or
employment, and (2) loss of all rights to retirement pay
or other pension for any office formerly held.
II. Outline Of The Effects Of Penalties Under Articles 30-35
1. The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification for public office produce the following effects:
a. Deprivation of public offices and employments,
even if by election.
b. Deprivation of right to vote or to be elected.
c. Disqualification for the offices or public
employments and for the exercise of any of the
rights mentioned.
d. Loss of right to retirement pay or pension for any
office formerly held.
2. The penalties of perpetual or temporary special Disqualification
for public office, profession or calling produce the following
effects:
a. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession or
calling affected.
b. Disqualification for holding similar offices or
employments perpetually or during the term of the
sentence.
3. The penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification
for the exercise of the right to suffrage produce the following
effects:
a. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected to any
public office.
b. Cannot hold any public office during the period of
disqualification.
4. The penalties of suspension from public office, profession or
calling or the right to suffrage produce the following effects:
a. Disqualification from holding such office or exercising
such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the
term of the sentence.
b. If suspended from public office, the offender cannot
hold another office having similar functions during the
period of suspension.
5. Civil interdiction shall produce the following effects:
a. Deprivation of the rights of parental authority or
guardianship of any ward.
b. Deprivation of marital authority.
c. Deprivation of the right to manage his property and of
the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos.
Note: A convict can prepare a will because it’s not a
donation inter vivos.
6. Bonds to keep the peace:
a. The offender must present two sureties who shall
undertake that the offender will not commit the offense
sought to be prevented, and in that case that such
offense be committed they will pay the amount
determined by the court.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
b. The offender must deposit such amount with the clerk
of court to guarantee said undertaking.
c. The offender may be detained, if he cannot give the
bond, for a perios not less than 6 months if prosecuted
for grave or less grave felony, or for a period not to
exceed 30 days, if for a light felony.
II. Disqualification Is WITHHOLDING Of A Privilege, NOT Denial Of A
Right
— Manifest purpose of the restrictions is to preserve the purity of
elections. One rendered infamous by conviction of a felony, or
other base offense indicative of moral turpitude, is unfit to
exercise the privilege of suffrage or to hold office.
III. What Suspension From Exercise Of Profession Covers
— Suspension, which deprives the offender of the right of
exercising any kind of profession or calling covers such calling or
trade as for instance that of broker, master plumber, etc.
IV. Bond To Keep Peace Is Not Bail Bond
— Bond to keep the peace or for good behavior is imposed as a
penalty in threats (Article 284).
— This differs from bail bond which aims to secure provisional
release pending final judgment.
Article 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.
POINTS
I. Effects Of Pardon By The President
1. A pardon shall not restore the right to hold public office or the
right of suffrage.
2. It shall not exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil
indemnity. The pardon cannot make an exception to this rule.
II. Limitation Upon The Exercise Of The Pardoning Power:
1. That the power can be exercised only after conviction.
o Any application of pardon should not be accepted until
the appeal is withdrawn.
o Agencies and instrumentalities of the govt. must require
proof (e.g. certification of the court regarding
withdrawal of such appeal).
2. That such power does not extend to cases of impeachment
III. Pardon Granted In General Terms Does Not Include Accessory
Penalties
— Only the effect of the principal penalty is extinguished.
— Exception: Where facts show that the purpose of the Chief
Executive is precisely to restore lost rights.
o When an absolute pardon is granted AFTER the term of
imprisonment has expired it removes all that is left of
the consequences of conviction.
— Suppose a pardon is granted after the convict served 30 years of
imprisonment. Does it also pardon the perpetual absolute
disqualification?
o No, because Article 30 is silent about the length and
Article 36 requires that such restoration be EXPRESS.
IV. Pardon Of Chief Executive v. Pardon Of Offended Party
Chief Executive Offended Party
Extinguishes criminal liability Doesn’t extinguish criminal liability
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
Doesn’t include civil liability Civil liability can be waived
Pardon should be AFTER Pardon should be BEFORE
conviction and to any of the institution of criminal prosecution
offenders. and to both offenders.
Article 37. – Cost. – What are included.
Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial
proceedings, whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously
determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not subject to
schedule.
POINTS
I. The Following Are Included In Costs:
1. Fees
2. Indemnities in the course of judicial proceedings
II. Rules:
1. Costs are chargeable to the accused in case of conviction.
o Thus in case of acquittal, the costs are de oficio, each
party bearing his own expenses.
1. No costs against the Republic, unless the law provides the
contrary (Sec. 1, Rule 142, Rules of Court)
2. Payment of costs is discretionary (of the courts)
o Whether the costs should be assessed against the
accused lie within the discretion of the court. The
government may request the court to assess costs
against the accused, but not as a right. No attorney’s
fees shall be taxed as a cost against the adverse party.
Article 38. – Pecuniary liabilities. – Order of payment.
In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the
payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the
following order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused.
2. Indemnification of consequential damages.
3. The fine.
4. The costs of the proceedings.
POINTS
I. Order For Pecuniary Liability
1. The reparation of the damage caused
2. Indemnification of the consequential damages
3. Fine (a pecuniary penalty under Article 25)
4. Cost of proceedings
Note: 1 and 2 pertain to the offended party. 3 and 4 pertain to the
government.
A. What If Guilty Of Several Offenses?
— Follow the chronological order of the dates of final judgment
rendered against the convict, beginning with the first final
judgment.
II. When Is Article 38 Applicable?
— It is applicable in case the property of the offender should not
be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities. The
order of payment is provided in this article, and must be
observed.
— There is reparation in the crime of rape when the dress of the
woman was torn. This is distinct from indemnity (U.S. v.
Yambao).
Article 39. – Subsidiary penalty.
If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned
in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a
subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos,
subject to the following rules:
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or
arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his
fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the
term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more
than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be
counted against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the
culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave
felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal penalty 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
deprivation 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 Republic Act No. 5465, April 21, 1969.)
POINTS
I. What Is Subsidiary Penalty?
— It is a subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by the convict
who has NO property with which to meet the fine he is
penalized with, at the rate of one day for each eight pesos.
o Retroactive application of Republic Act No. 5465: An act
amending Article 29 of Revised Penal Code increasing
the rate per day of subsidiary penalty from two pesos
and fifty centavos to eight pesos.
— There is no subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of (1) reparation
of the damage caused, (2) indemnity, and (3) costs of
proceedings.
o He can’t be ordered to serve subsidiary imprisonment
for failure to pay pecuniary liability (reparations), but he
can serve for pecuniary penalty (fine).
— It is the penalty prescribed or imposed by the court, not the
penalty provided for the Code which should be considered in
determining whether or not subsidiary penalty should be
imposed.
— Subsidiary imprisonment is not imprisonment for debt since it
does not arise from an obligation to pay a sum of money arising
from a contract.
II. Judgment of conviction must impose subsidiary imprisonment
— That the accused will undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case
of insolvency can only be imposed if specifically imposed in the
judgment of conviction.
— Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty.
— The decision need not state that there should not be any
subsidiary imprisonment when the law forbids it.
III. “If Accused Has No Property With Which To Meet The Fine”
— Article 39 applies only when the accused has no property with
which to meet the fine. If the accused has enough property, he
cannot choose subsidiary imprisonment instead of paying.
IV. The Word “Principal” Should Be Omitted
— Spanish: cuando la pena impuesta  when the penalty imposed
— Spanish text should be controlling.
V. Rules:
1. Prision Correcional or arresto and fine  Subsidiary
imprisonment not to exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
and in no case to continue for more than one year. Fraction or
part of a day not counted.
2. Fine only  Subsidiary imprisonment not to exceed 6 months, if
the culprit is prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and not
to exceed 15 days if for a light felony
3. Higher than Prision Correcional  NO subsidiary imprisonment
4. Penalty is not to be executed by confinement but of fixed
duration  Subsidiary penalty shall consist in the same
deprivations as those of the principal penalty, under the same
rules as in numbers 1, 2 and 3.
5. In case the financial circumstances improve  He shall pay the
fine notwithstanding the fact the convict suffered subsidiary
personal liability therefor.
VI. The Penalty Imposed Must Be (1) Prision Correccional, (2) Arresto
Mayor, (3) Arresto Menor, (4) Suspension, (5) Destierro Or (6) Fine
Only
— If the penalty imposed by the court is not one of them,
subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed. There is no subsidiary
penalty, if the penalty imposed by the court is prision mayor,
reclusion temporal, or reclusion perpetua.
o If imprisonment is 6 years and 1 day, it is prision mayor,
and therefore no subsidiary imprisonment can be
imposed.
— Penalty not to be executed by confinement, but has a fixed
duration (e.g. suspension, destierro)  can impose subsidiary.
— Penalty not to be executed by confinement, but has no fixed
duration (e.g. public censure)  cannot impose subsidiary.
VII. Additional Penalty For Habitual Delinquency Should Be Included In
Determining Whether Or No Subsidiary Penalty Should Be Imposed
— Even if the penalty imposed is not higher than prision
correctional, if the accused is a habitual delinquent who
deserves an additional penalty of 12 years and 1 day of
reclusion temporal, there is no subsidiary imprisonment.
VIII. The Subsidiary Penalty Is The “Same Deprivation As Those Of
Which The Principal Penalty Consists”
— If the principal penalty is imprisonment, the subsidiary penalty
must also be imprisonment.
— If the principal penalty is suspension, the subsidiary penalty
must also be suspension.
IX. The Convict Who Served Subsidiary Penalty May Still Be Required
To Pay The Fine
— See Article 39, paragraph 5.
X. No Subsidiary Penalty In The Following Cases:
1. When the penalty imposed is higher than Prision Correcional
2. For failure to pay the reparation of the damage caused,
indemnification and the costs of the proceedings
3. When the penalty imposed is fine and a penalty not to be
executed by confinement in a penal institution which has NO
fixed duration
XI. Subsidiary Imprisonment Under Special Laws
— Persons convicted of violation of special laws are liable to
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency in the payment of
indemnity, except where the indemnity consists in unpaid
internal revenue tax.
— Act No. 1732 (Rules in case the court shall impose a fine as a
whole or as part of the punishment for any criminal offense
made punishable by any special law.)
o These provisions are applicable to offense made
punishable by acts of the Philippine Legislature.
— Rules
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

a. When the court merely imposes a fine, the subsidiary

liability shall not exceed 6 months, at the ate of one day
of imprisonment for every P2.50
b. In case both fine and imprisonment are imposed, the
subsidiary liability shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of
the imprisonment, and in no case shall it exceed 1 year.
c. In case the imprisonment is for more than 6 years in
addition to a tine, there shall be no subsidiary
imprisonment.
d. When a fine is imposed for violation of any municipal
ordinance or ordinances of the City of Manila, the rate is
one day for ever P1.00, until the fine is satisfied,
Provided, that the total subsidiary imprisonment does
not exceed 6 months if the penalty imposed is fine
alone; and not more than 1/3 of the principal penalty, if
the it is imposed together with imprisonment.
— Since the Tax Code does not provide for the imposition of a
subsidiary penalty in case of insolvency, no subsidiary
imprisonment can be imposed.

XII. Subsidiary Imprisonment, Like Accessory Penalties, Not Essential In

Determining Jurisdiction
— What determines jurisdiction of the Court in criminal cases is
the extent of the penalty, which the law imposes for the crime
charged in the information or complaint.
— It is settled rule that subsidiary imprisonment, like accessory
penalties, is not essential in the determination of the criminal
jurisdiction of a court.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

SECTION 3 – PENALTIES IN WHICH OTHER ACCESSORY

PENALTIES ARE INHERENT Article 44. – Arresto. – Its accessory penalties.
The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the
Article 40. – Death – Its accessory penalties. right to hold office and the right of suffrage during the term of the
The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason of commutation sentence.
or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute
disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years POINTS
following the date of sentence, unless such accessory penalties have
been expressly remitted in the pardon. I. Outline Of Accessory Penalties INHERENT In Principal Penalties:
1. Death, when not executed by reason of commutation or
pardon  (a) Perpetual absolute disqualification, (b) Civil
Article 41. – Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal. – Their
accessory penalties. Interdiction for 30 years
The penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal shall carry 2. Reclusion Perpetua and Reclusion Temporal  (a) Civil
Interdiction for life or during the sentence, (b) Perpetual
with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the
absolute disqualification
sentence as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute
3. Prision Mayor  (a) Temporary absolute disqualification, (b)
disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned
perpetual special disqualification from suffrage
as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly
4. Prision Correcional  (a) Suspension fro Public office,
remitted in the pardon.
profession or calling, (b) perpetual disqualification from
suffrage if the duration of the imprisonment exceeds 18
Article 42. – Prision mayor. – Its accessory penalties.
months
The penalty of prision mayor shall carry with it that of temporary
5. Arresto  (a) suspension of the right to hold public office and
absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification
the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence
from the right of suffrage which the offender shall suffer although
6. Destierro has no accessory penalty
pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.
— When the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua as a penalty
next higher in degree, the accessory penalty shall be that under
Article 43. – Prision correccional. – Its accessory penalties.
Article 40 but the offender shall not be given the benefit of the
The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it that of
provision of Article 27 until 40 years have elapsed, otherwise,
suspension from public office, from the right to follow a profession or
there could be no difference at all between reclusion perpetua
calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of
when imposed as a penalty next higher in degree and when it is
suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen
imposed as a penalty fixed by law (People v. Bago).
months. The offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in this
article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same
II. “Unless Expressly Remitted In The Pardon”
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
— The accessory penalties in Article 40-43 must be suffered by
the offender, although pardoned as to the principal penalties.
To be relieved of them, it must be EXPRESSLY REMITTED in
pardon.
III. Persons Who Served Out The Penalty May Not Have The Right To
Exercise The Right To Suffrage:
— General Rule:
o Absolute pardon for any crime for which one-year
imprisonment or more was meted out restores the
prisoner his political rights.
o Where the penalty is less than one year, the
disqualification does not attach, except when the crime
committed is one against property.
 A was prosecuted for physical injuries and
condemned to 10 months imprisonment.
Though not pardoned, he is not disqualified.
 B was convicted of theft and served 10 months.
Unless given an absolute pardon, B can’t vote.
 C was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for
physical injuries or estafa. Unless pardoned, he
cannot exercise the right to suffrage.
— Nature of the crime is immaterial when the penalty imposed is
one-year imprisonment or more.
IV. Accessory Penalties Are Deemed Imposed
— Accessory penalties are understood to be ALWAYS imposed
upon the offender by the mere fact that the law fixes a certain
penalty for a given crime (See Article 73).
Article 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 the property of a
third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are
not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
POINTS
I. Outline Of The Provision Of This Article
1. Every penalty imposed carries with it the forfeiture of the
proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools used in the
commission of the crime
2. The proceeds and instruments or tools are confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the government.
3. Property of a third person not liable for the offense is not
subject to confiscation and forfeiture.
4. Property not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
II. No Forfeiture Where There Is No Criminal Case
— Although seizure may be made, the seized items cannot be
disposed or destroyed until after conviction (Philips v.
Municipal Mayor).
o The ruling is based on the phrase “every penalty
imposed.” A penalty cannot be imposed unless there is
a criminal case filed, tried and the accused convicted.
— Forfeiture cannot be ordered if the accused is acquitted,
because no penalty is imposed.
— Courts cannot order the confiscation of property belonging to a
third person if the latter is not indicted.
o Instruments of the crime belonging to innocent third
person may be recovered.
— Confiscation can be ordered only if the property is submitted in
evidence or placed at the disposal of the court.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

o US v. Filart V. Where The Accused Has Appealed, Confiscation And Forfeiture Not
 Facts: The accused planned to sell 450 tickets Ordered By The Trial Court May Be Imposed By The Appellate Court
for an automobile raffle. The court ordered the
confiscation of the automobile and the money VI. Summary of Rules:
obtained from selling the tickets. None of these 1. No forfeiture where there is no criminal case.
were in the possession of the parties or the 2. Courts cannot order the confiscation of property belonging to a
court that the time the order of confiscation third person is the latter is not indicted.
was made. 3. Confiscation can be ordered only if the property is submitted in
 Held: The court had not jurisdiction to order evidence or placed at the disposal of the court.
the confiscation of the property not in the 4. Articles which are forfeited, when the order of forfeiture is
possession of either the court itself or the already final, cannot be returned even in case of an acquittal.
parties involved. 5. Confiscation and forfeiture are additional penalties.
6. Applicable to Special Penal Laws as well.
III. Articles Which Are Forfeited When The Order Of Forfeiture Is
Already Final, Cannot Be Returned Even In Case Of An Acquittal
— Commissioner of Customs v. Encarnacion
o Facts: Article brought by a crew member of PAL were
confiscated by Customs for not having declared it. The
order of forfeiture became final while the crew
member was charged with violation of the RPC. The
crew member was later acquitted, and the court
ordered the return of the articles.
o Held: The court erred in ordering the release of the
articles because such articles already belong to the
government.

IV. Confiscation And Forfeiture Are Additional Penalties

— Where the penalty imposed did not include the confiscation of
the dollars involved, the confiscation and forfeiture sought
would be an additional penalty and would amount to an
increase of the penalty already imposed thereby placing the
accused in double jeopardy. Thus, it cannot be allowed (People
v. Alejandro Paet y Velasco).
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
CHAPTER 4: APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
SECTION 1 – RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES
TO THE PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE AND FOR THE
GRADUATION OF THE SAME.
Article 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 in general terms it
shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony.
POINTS
I. Rule
A. General Rule: Penalty Prescribed In General Terms
● The penalty prescribed by law in general terms shall be
imposed:
o Upon the principals
o For consummated felony
B. Exception: When The Law Fixes A Penalty For Frustrated Or
Attempted Felony
● The exception is when the penalty to be imposed upon the
principal in frustrated or attempted felony is fixed by law.
II. Graduation Of Penalties By Degrees Or By Periods
● The graduation of penalties by degrees refers to stages of
execution (consummated, frustrated, attempted) and to the
degree of the criminal participation of the offender (principal,
accomplice or accessory).
● The division of a divisible penalty refers to the proper period of
the penalty which should be imposed when aggravating or
mitigating circumstances attend the commission of the crime.
Article 47. – In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed;
Automatic review of 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
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 Court for
automatic review and judgment by the court en banc, within 20 days
but not earlier than 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 10 days after the filing therof
by the stenographic reporter (As amended by Republic Act No. 2659)
POINTS
I. Duty Of The Courts
A. Majority Vote Of The Supreme Court Is Required For The
Imposition Of Death
● The vote of 8 members is required (Article VIII, Section4(1),
1987 Constitution).
o Republic Act No. 296 can be given retroactive effect.
This provides that 8 justices must concur in the
imposition of death penalty. It is procedural and not
substantive and applicable to cases pending at the time
of its approval.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● The records of all cases imposing the penalty of death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment shall be forwarded by the Court
of Appeals to the Supreme Court for review
B. Court Of Appeals To Review Death Penalty Cases
● People v. Mateo  The Court now deems it wise a n
d III. Imposition Of Death Penalty
compelling to provide in death penalty cases a review by
the Court of Appeals before it is elevated to the Supreme
Court to minimize the possibility of error in judgment
(particularly of factual issues).
C. The Trial Court Must Require The Prosecution To Present Evidence,
Despite Plea Of Guilty, When The Crime Charged Is Punished With
Death
● The essence of judicial review is that while society allows
violent retribution for heinous crimes, it always must make
certain that the blood of the innocent is not spilled or the guilty
made to suffer more than their just measure of punishment.
● A sentence of death is valid only if it is susceptible of a fair and
reasonable examination by the court.
II. Suspension Of The Imposition Of The Death Penalty
A. The 1987 Constitution Merely Suspended The Imposition Of Death
Penalty
● Article III, Section 19, 1987 Constitution does not expressly
declare the abolition of the death penalty.
● It merely suspended the imposition of death penalty.
B. Republic Act No. 7659 v. Republic Act No. 9346
● December 31, 1993  Republic Act No. 7659 restored
thedeath penalty.
● June 24, 2006  Republic Act No. 9346 prohibited
the
imposition of death penalty, and in lieu of it, reclusion perpetua
was imposed.
● Where the penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed, in lieu of
the death penalty, there is a need to perfect an appeal.
o Perfecting an appeal means doing all the acts necessary
to place the case on the court's calendar.1
A. Death Penalty Is Not Imposed In The Following Cases:
1. When the guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of
the commission of the crime.
2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age.
o Death penalty shall not be imposed when guilty person
is over 70 years. This refers to the time when the final
decision is rendered.
o People v. Alcantara: Even if accused was 64 at the start
of trial, he was past 70 when the final decision was
rendered. Death cant be imposed.
3. When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the
Supreme Court, the vote of 8 members is not obtained for the
imposition of the death penalty.
B. Exceptional Cases In Which Death Penalty Was Not Imposed
● People v. Dela Cruz  Considering that the
circumstances under which the offense was perpetrated in
light of the deplorable conditions existing in the national
penitentiary.
● People v. Marcos  When the facts of the case tend to show
that the crime was NOT the result of any deliberate and well-
formed nefarious conspiracy of a criminal group. Appellant
obviously did not fully realize the gravity of the crime.
IV. Justification For Death Penalty
1. Social defense
2. Exemplarity
1 SupremeCourt of the State of New York,
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/faqs.shtml
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

V. Death Penalty Not Cruel And Unusual POINTS

● Death penalty is not excessive, unjust or cruel. Punishments are
cruel when they involve torture or lingering death. Cruelty I. At Least Two Crimes Must Be Committed
implies something inhuman and barbarous, that is more than ● The commission of at least two crimes. But two or more grave
the extinguishment of life. or less grave felonies must be the result of a single act, or an
offense must be a necessary means for committing the other.
VI. “Death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be ● In Complex Crime, When The Offender Executes Various Acts,
imposed under existing law.” He Must Have A Single Purpose
● As long as death penalty remains in the statute books, it is the o People v. Gallardo  to commit estafa, the
duty of the judicial officers to respect and apply the law accusedhad to commit 17 falsifications.
regardless of private opinion (People v. Limaco). o Gonzalez v. City Fiscal  27 vouchers were falsified
not for the single purpose of estafa. One or more
A. Crimes Where Death Penalty Is Imposed offenses not necessary means for committing others.
1. Treason
2. Piracy II. A Complex Crime Is Only One Crime
3. Qualified piracy ● Although two or more crimes are committed, they constitute
4. Qualified bribery only one crime in the eyes of the law  one criminal intent.
5. Parricide ● This is actually for the benefit of the offender since even if two
6. Murder crimes are committed, the law only punished the offender for
7. Infanticide one, although it is in the maximum. In the eyes of the law, the
8. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention two crimes stem from one criminal intent – this is less perverse
9. Robbery with homicide in the crimes of the law compared to punishing him for two
10. Destructive arson crimes. This applies to both compound crimes and complex
11. Rape with homicide crime proper.
12. Plunder o The reason for the single penalty is that the basis of the
13. Certain violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act felony is the singularity of the act.
14. Carnapping ● Only one information must be filed charging the complex
felony.
Article 48. – Penalty for complex crimes. o If you want to charge someone with forcible abduction
When a single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies, with rape, you have to allege the elements of both
or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, forcible abduction and rape.
the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to o If one is not proven, then the accused can be convicted
be applied in its maximum period. of the other (Boado).
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
III. Two Kinds of Complex Crime:
1. Compound Crime  When a single act constitutes two or
moregrave or less grave felonies.
2. Complex Crime Proper  When an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other.
IV. No Complex Crime:
● When two or more crimes are committed but (1) not by a single
act and (2) one is not a necessary means for committing the
other.
● When in the definition of a felony one offense is an
indispensable means to commit the other, there is no complex
crime.
o Example: No complex crime when trespass to dwelling
is a direct means to commit a grave offense like rape,
homicide or murder.
● When one offense is committed to conceal the other
o After committing homicide, the accused set the house
where it was perpetrated on fire.
o The amount appropriated to himself was in the
possession and at the disposal of the accused and he
could have appropriated it to himself without the
necessity of the falsified document. Two crimes were
committed. The falsification was a means to conceal,
not to commit malversation (US v. Geta).
● In the crime of rebellion with murder, arson, robbery or other
common crimes. Murder, arson and robbery are ingredients in
the crime of rebellion and are absorbed and inherent in it.
V. 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
● An accused should not be harassed with various prosecutions
based on the same act by splitting it into various charges.
VI. Article 48 Is Intended To Favor The Culprit
● It could have no better purpose than to prescribe a penalty
lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if
imposed separately.
● 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.
VII. The Penalty For Complex Crime Is The Penalty For The Most
Serious Crime, The Same Is To Be Applied In Its Maximum Period
● The same rule observed when an offense is a necessary means
for committing the other.
● But when one of the offenses, as a means to commit the other,
was committed by one of the accused by reckless imprudence,
that the accused who committed the offense by reckless
imprudence is liable for his act only.
● When the homicide, physical injuries, and the burning of the
house are the result of one single act of negligence, there is
only one penalty, but there are three civil liabilities.
When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punishable by
imprisonment and fine, respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment
should be imposed.
VIII. Article 48 Applies Only To Cases Where The Code Does Not
Provide A Definite Specific Penalty For A Complex Crime
COMPOUND CRIME
I. “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies”
II. Elements Of Compound Crime:
1. That only a single act is performed by the offender.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
2. That the single act produces
a. Two or more grave felonies or
b. One or more grave and one or more less grave
c. Two or more less grave felonies
d. If a light felony likewise resulted, the light felony shall
be treated as a separate offense. A separate
information must be filed for them.
III. Examples:
A. Single Act
● The single act of throwing a hand grenade producing murder
and multiple attempted murder (People v. Guillen).
● Placing a time bomb in a plane which caused it to explode mid-
air killing 13 persons is a complex crime of multiple murder and
destruction of property (People v. Largo).
● When in obedience to an order several accused simultaneously
shot many persons, without evidence how many each killed,
there is only one single offense, there being a single criminal
impulse (People v. Lawas)
o Note: This rule is applicable only when there is no
evidence at all to show the number of persons killed
by each of several defendants. The “single criminal
impulse” has no legal basis but is acceptable when it is
not certain who among the accused killed or injured
each of the several victims. The ruling in People v.
Lawas is not applicable when there was conspiracy to
perpetuate the killings.
● When it is within the scope of possibility that the two victims
were killed by one and the same missile. Absent showing that
the victims died from more than one bullet, the crime should
be classified as a complex crime (People v. Bersamin).
o Ruling in the Bersamin case is applicable only when
there is no evidence as to how many wounds the
victims received and there is a possibility that they
were killed by one and the same missile.
B. No Single Act
● Several shots from Thompson sub-machine gun causing several
deaths, although caused by a single act of pressing the trigger
are considered several acts (People v. Desierto)
o It is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be
considered as producing several felonies, but the
number of bullets which actually produced them.
● Act directed against two different persons even though
resulting from one criminal impulse are distinct crimes (People
v. Alfindo).
● Two victims each received more than one bullet wound. They
were standing far apart from each other. Accused liable for two
separate murders (People v. Basarain).
IV. Crimes Not Covered By Article 48
A. “Felonies”
● Take note of the word “felonies.” This precludes application to
ordinances and Special Penal Laws.
● The felonies resulting from the single act must be felonies in
the Revised Penal Code.
o If punishable under the Revised Penal Code and a
Special Penal Law (or an ordinance), Article 48 will not
apply. The offender may be charged and convicted for
both crimes, separately without double jeopardy.
B. Examples:
● Estafa and illegal recruitment
● Estafa and B.P. Blg. 22
● Rape and sexual assault (SPL)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● Accused inserted his fingers, and then his penis to victim’s
vagina. NOT complex crime. One count rape, one count sexual
assault. Not a complex crime. (People v Nequia).
● Rape with homicide is a special complex crime not covered by
Article 48. Article 266-B punishes rape with homicide
specifically.
● No complex crime of arson with homicide under Article 48.
Article 320 as amended by Republic Act No. No.7659 provides
a penalty.
● Theft of firearm and illegal possession of same firearm do not
form a complex crime – they are two distinct crimes. Illegal
possession requires intent to use not just own, which is not the
case in every theft (People v. Estoista).
● What if only one victim, will Article 48 apply? Yes. Governor
was performing duties and was killed by accused. Complex
crime of direct assault with homicide.
● Supposing one wants to kill another with treachery, but there
abberatio ictus or error in personae, can the crime committed
by the accused be a complex crime? Yes. Homicide with
attempted homicide.
● Dude stabbed victim with a bolo, the bolo hit both the victim
and the person behind him. Complex crime of murder and
serious physical injuries (People v. Patrolla).
● Accused forcibly inserted his penis into the vagina of the
woman. She sustained less serious physical injuries in her
vagina. Complex crime of rape with less serious physical
injuries. (Ingles: can’t find the citation by J-Call! Let’s trust his
lecture!)
● What if there was no intent to kill, but two people died because
of the acts of the accused, will Article 48 apply? Yes. Article 48
applies even to praeter intentionem.
o Example: dude stabbed wife who was 7 months
pregnant. Both wife and baby died. Complex crime of
parricide with unintentional abortion (People v.
Paycana).
V. Light Felonies Produced By The Same Act Should Be Treated And
Punished As Separate Offenses Or May Be Absorbed By The Grave
Felony
1. Several light felonies resulting from one single act – not
complex
o Collision between two automobiles resulting into
damage of property and slight physical injuries.
2. When the crime is committed by force or violence, slight
physical injuries are absorbed.
o Slight physical injuries absorbed in rape.
VI. Applicable To Crimes Through Negligence
● Article 48 speaks of felonies which make it applicable to Article
365 which defines and penalizes criminal negligence (fault).
● Municipal mayor who accidentally discharges a gun in a school
program killing a girl and injuring a boy is liable for a complex
crime of homicide with less serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence (People v. Castro).
COMPOUND COMPLEX CRIME PROPER
I. “When an offense is a necessary means for committing the other”
● Complex crimes do not exist when the two crimes are punished
under different statutes.
II. Elements Of Compound Complex Crime Proper
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.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
III. FIRST ELEMENT: That At Least Two Offenses Committed
● People v. Barbas  The falsification of the cedula
certificate which is a crime under Article 171 was necessary to
commit the crime of malversation under Article 217, because
the accused had to falsify the duplicate of the cedulas to
obtain from the taxpayers the money which he later
misappropriated.
● People v. Manguiat  The crime of forcible abduction w
a necessary means for committing the crime of rape.
IV. SECOND ELEMENT: Necessary To Commit The Other
● The first crime committed is to insure and facilitate the
commission of the next crime.
o The first is necessary but not indispensable – because if
it is indispensable, then it is an element of the crime.
● The phrase merely signified that, for instance, a crime such as
simple estafa can be and ordinarily is committed in the manner
defined in the Revised Penal Code, but if the estafador resorts
to or employs falsification, merely to facilitate and insure his
committing estafa, then he is guilty of the complex crime of
estafa through falsification.
V. THIRD ELEMENT: Punished Under The Same Statute
● Homicide and illegal possession of firearms are punished under
different statutes.
● Republic Act No. No. 8294 made the use of unlicensed firearm
in murder or homicide not as a separate crime but as a special
aggravating circumstance.
PLURALITY OF CRIMES
I. Definition
● Consists in the successive execution by the same individual of
different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet
been declared.
II. Kinds Of Plurality Of Crimes
1. Formal or Ideal  one criminal liability
o 3 Groups Of Formal Or Ideal Type
a. When the offender commits complex crimes (Article
48)
b. Composite Crimes, that is when the law specially fixes a
single penalty for two or more offenses committed.
a
s c. When the offender commits continued (delito
continuado) or continuing crime (transitory crime).
 Ingles: Justice Callejo did not distinguish
between continued crimes and continuing
crimes, he lumped them together as delito
continuado. Boado, however, distinguished
between the two. The distinction it seems is
academic, the effect being the same – that only
one crime is considered committed.
2. Real or material  there are different crimes in the law as
welas in the conscience of the offender. In such case, the
offender will be punished for each and ever offense he
committed.
o Example: A stabbed B with a knife. A also stabbed C.
There are two acts, two crimes.
III. Plurality Of Crimes v. Recidivism
Recidivism Plurality
There must be conviction by final No conviction of any of the crimes
judgment of the first or prior committed
offense
COMPOSITE CRIMES
I. Definition
● Those which in the eyes of the law are treated as single
indivisible offenses although in reality are made up of more
than one crime.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
II. Composite v. Complex Crime
Composite Crime Complex Crime
Combo of offenses is fixed Combo is not specified but generalized.
by law.
Penalty is specific. Not specific, but for the most serious
offense in the max period.
Even if there are more than If more than one count of the crime
one count of the forming part of the complex crime, the
component crime (like first shall be complexed, while the other
several rapes), still just one counts are treated as separate crimes
composite crime to be (forcible abduction with rape, with
charged. subsequent rapes charged separately).
If light felony accompanies Light felonies are not absorbed, they
the commission of the have to be filed separately.
composite offence, such is
absorbed.
CONTINUED CRIME
I. Definition
● A principle wherein a single crime consisting of series of acts
but all arising from one criminal resolution.
o Impelled by a single criminal impulse but committed by
a series of overt acts at about the same time in about
the same place and all the overt acts violate one and
the same provision of law.
o When two acts are deemed distinct from one another
although proceeding from the same criminal impulse.
● Although there are a series of acts, there is only one crime
committed. One penalty should be imposed.
o When the actor, there being unity of purpose and of
right violated, commits diverse acts, each of which,
although of a delictual character, merely constitutes a
partial execution of a single particular delict, such
concurrence or delictual acts is called a “delito
continuado.”
● The series of acts born of a single criminal impulse may be
perpetrated during a long period of time.
II. A Continued Crime Is Not A Complex Crime
● In continued crimes, one offense is not a necessary means for
committing another. As such, penalty imposed not in max.
● The principle is applied in connection with two or more crimes
committed with a single intent.
III. Continued Crime v. Transitory Crime
● Transitory crime  “moving crime” like kidnapping a person for
the purpose of ransom.
● When a transitory crime is committed, the criminal action may
be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality, city or
province wherein any of the essential ingredients thereof took
place. The singleness of the crime, committed by executing tow
or more acts is not considered.
IV. Continued Crime v. Real Or Material Plurality
Real or material Continued crime
Series of acts performed by the offender
Each act is a separate crime Different acts constitute only one
generated by different criminal crime because all the acts arise
impulses. from one criminal impulse.
V. Test: Single Criminal Impulse Test
A. Applies To:
● Theft of 13 cows at same place and time.
● Theft of 6 roosters belonging to 2 different owners from the
same coop and at the same time
● Also see Mallari v. People, wherein the accused falsified two
documents over two parcels of land as security for loans from
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
two people. He made it appear that the owners of the land
mortgaged the property to the two people from whence he got
the loan. The Supreme Court considered it as only one crime
because they were done in only one occasion (same date, place
and time). There was only one deceit practiced by petitioner on
the two victims.
B. Does Not Apply:
● To formal/instantaneous crimes. Adultery is not a delito
continuado. Each sexual act is an offense. It is consummated
and exhausted (like the accused) at the time of carnal union.
CONTINUING CRIME
I. Definition
● One where any of the elements of the offense was committed
in different localities such that the accused may be indicted in
any of those localities.
II. Only Considered As One Crime
● May also refer to any offense which is continuing in time
o Rebellion
o Squatting
o Violation of B.P. Blg. 22
o Abduction, kidnapping, illegal detention
● Applicable to Special Penal Laws? Yes. See Santiago v.
Garchitorena where Court said that Miriam’s signing the order
to allow 32 aliens to stay was a continuing crime. She was
charged only once.
Article 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 attempt
or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in the maximum
period.
POINTS
I. Article 14 Has Reference To The Provision Of The 1 st Paragraph Of
Article 4
● When the crime actually committed is different from that
intended, the penalty to be imposed must be governed by this
article.
II. Article 14 Applies Only When There Is Mistake In Identity Of The
Victim Of The Crime, And The Penalty For The Crime Committed Is
Different From That For The Crime Intended To Be Committed
● Paragraph 1 of Article 4 covers
1. Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow)  A fired his gun at
his father, with intent to kill him, but he missed) and hit C,
killing the latter.
2. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity)  A, thinking that
a person was B, fired at the person who turned out to be C,
the father of A.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
3. Praeter intentionem (More serious consequence not intended)
 A, without intent to kill, boxed B, who fell and hit
thepavement. B died due to the fracture of the skull.
● The rules stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 49 CANNOT
apply to cases involving (1) aberratio ictus (covered by Article
48) and (3) praeter intentionem (covered by Article 13).
● It is only applicable to (2) error in personae  since only
o
n
ecrime is produced by the act of the offender, there could be
no complex crime (Article 38) which presupposes the
commission of at least two crimes.
III. Article 49 Is Applicable Only When The Intended Crime And The
Crime Actually Committed Are Punished With Different Penalties
● If the intended crime and the crime actually committed are
punished with the same or equal penalties. Article 49 is NOT
applicable.
IV. Article 49 v. Article 48
Article 49 Article 48
The lesser penalty is to be The penalty for the more or most
imposed serious crime shall be imposed
To be applied in the maximum The same to be applied in its
period maximum period
V. Rule 3 In Article 49 Is Not Necessary
 Because the cases contemplated in that paragraph may well be
covered by Article 48, in view of the fact that the same act
committed by the guilty person, which gives rise to one crime,
also constitutes an attempt or a frustration of another crime.
Article 50. – Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated
crime.
The penalty lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in a
frustrated felony.
Article 51. – Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted
crime.
The 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.
Article 52. – Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a
consummated crime.
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the
commission of a consummated felony.
Article 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.
Article 54. – Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated
crime.
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a frustrated felony.
Article 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.
Article 56. – Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted
crime.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
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.
Article 57. – Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted
crime.
The penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
attempt shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to
commit a felony.
POINTS
I. Diagram Of The Application Of Articles 50 To 57
Consummated Frustrated Attempted
Principals 0 1 2
Accomplices 1 2 3 2. Facts: A (principal), B (accomplice), C (accessory) convicted of
Accessories 2 3 4 consummated homicide.
● “0”  penalty prescribed by law imposed on the principal
ina consummated offense (according to provisions of Article 46)
● Other figures  degrees to which penalty must be
lowered to meet different situations anticipated by law.
● For Articles 50, 51, 52, 53  Basis for reduction of
penalty by one or two degrees: the penalty prescribed
by law for consummated crime.
● For Articles 54-55  Basis for reduction: penalty prescribed
by law for frustrated felony.
● For Articles 56-57  basic penalty used for reduction by one
or two degrees: for attempted felony.
● In making any reduction by one or two degrees: basis used is
that already prescribed NOT as already reduced.
● Under Article 51: penalty for attempted crime is that for
consummated felony reduced by two degrees NOT penalty for
the frustrated felony reduced by one degree (De los Angeles v.
People)
A. Examples:
1. Facts: A convicted of attempted homicide – A shot B with intent
to kill but without inflicting a mortal wound.
o Penalty for consummated homicide: reclusion
temporal.
o To find the penalty that is lower by one or more
degrees: look in Scale No. 1 of Article 71.
● Held: Because A only committed attempted homicide: penalty
to be imposed is that which is lower by two degrees than
reclusion temporal  which is prision correccional.
o Penalty for frustrated homicide: one degree lower than
reclusion temporal  which is prision mayor in the
same Scale No. 1 of Article 71
● Held:
o A’s penalty – reclusion temporal (as principal)
o B’s penalty – prision mayor (as accomplice: penalty
next lower in degree than prescribed for consummated
homicide)
o C’s penalty – prision correccional (as accessory: two
degrees lower than that prescribed for consummated
homicide)
● In the examples, penalties shall be imposed in the proper
period and shall be subject to the provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law.
II. Exceptions To The Rules Established In Articles 50 To 57
● Article 60  Articles 50-57 shall not apply to cases where
thelaw expressly prescribes the penalty for a frustrated or
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or
accessories.
● The penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide, may
be two degrees lower; and the penalty for attempted parricide,
murder, or homicide may be three degrees lower.
o Article 250  The courts (in view of facts of case)
mayimpose upon person guilty of frustrated crime
of parricide, murder, or homicide – penalty lower by
one degree than that which should be imposed
under Article 50; Courts may reduce by one degree
penalty under Article 51 imposed for an attempt to
commit any of said crimes.
IV. What Are The Bases For The Determination Of The Extent Of
Penalty To Be Imposed Under The Revised Penal Code?
1. Stage reached by the crime in its development
(attempted/frustrated/consummated).
2. Participations therein of the persons liable.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which attended the
commission of the crime.
● For 1 (stages of execution) and 2 (participation of persons
liable)  penalty is graduated by degree.
V. What Is A Degree In Relation To Penalty?
● DEGREE: one entire/whole penalty; one unit of the penalties
enumerated in the graduates scales found in Article 71.
o Each of the penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion
remporal, prision mayor etc. IS a degree
● When there is mitigating or aggravating circumstance: penalty
is lowered or increased by period only EXCEPT when penalty is
divisible and there are two ore more mitigating without
aggravating circumstances – if this happens, penalty is lowered
by a degree.
VI. What Is A Period Of Penalty?
● PERIOD: one of the three equal portions (either minimum/
medium/ maximum) of a divisible penalty (Article 65).
● A period of a divisible penalty, when prescribed by the Code as
a penalty for a felony, is in itself a degree.
o Example: In Article 140, the penalty for leader of a
sedition is prision mayor in its minimum period and fine
o It (minimum period) being a degree – penalty lower
than that penalty is prision correcional in its maximum
period
Article 58. – Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain
accessories.
Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraph 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.
POINTS
I. Additional Penalties For Public Officers Who Are Guilty As
Accessories Under Paragraph 3 Of Article 19
● Public officers who help the author of a crime by misusing their
office and duties shall suffer the additional penalties of:
1. Absolute perpetual disqualification – if principal offended guilty
of grave felony.
2. Absolute temporary disqualification – if principal offender
guilty of less grave felony.
● Article 58 limits its provisions to grave or less grave felonies
because it is not possible to have accessories liable for light
felonies (Article 16).
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
II. This Article Applies Only To Public Officers Who Abused Their Public
Functions
● Accessories referred to in Article 58 – those falling within the
term of paragraph 3 of Article 19 (recall: harboring, concealing,
or assisting in the escape…).
● Additional penalty in Article 58 imposed only on accessories
that misused his public office or authority in participating in
crime (“who should act with abuse of their public functions”).
Article 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
imposed upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from
200-500 pesos.
POINTS
I. Penalty For Impossible Crime
● Penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or a fine ranging
from 200 to 500 pesos.
II. Basis For Imposition Of Proper Penalty: (1) Social Danger; And (2)
Degree Of Criminality Shown By The Offender
● Court must take into consideration the social danger and the
degree of criminality shown by the offender (Article 59).
o Example: Person fired revolver upon enemy 1 kilometer
away shows stupidity rather than dangerousness.
● According to Positivist theory: such person should not be
punished – there is neither “social danger” nor “degree of
criminality” shown by him; act is absolutely harmless; “no”
common sense.
● But one who discharged shotgun at another from 200 yards
away – guilty of discharge of firearm (Article 254) not of
impossible crime – no proof of intent to kill on part of offender
and it was possible of accomplishing the evil intent of offender
(to frighten offended party) (People v. Agbuya).
III. Is The Penalty For Impossible Crime Proper?
● Penalty of arresto mayor or fine of P200-500 – subject to
criticism because article uses words “offense” and “crime”
which include light felony.
● One who attempt to commit light felony of impossible
materialization may be punished by penalty of arresto mayor
(higher than the prescribed for consummated light felony or
arresto menor).
● Provision of Article 59 limited to cases where act performed
would be grave felonies or less grave felonies.
Article 60. – Exceptions 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.
POINTS
I. Articles 50 To 57 Do Not Apply When The Law Expressly Prescribes
The Penalty For A Frustrated Or Attempted Felony Or To Be Imposed
Upon Accomplices Or Accessories
● On the occasion or in consequence of an attempted or
frustrated robbery, the offender commits a homicide – law
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
provides in Article 297: the special penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the offender.
● If not for this provision in Article 60, the penalty to be imposed
is reclusion temporal: penalty next lower in degree than
reclusion perpetua to death – which is the penalty for
consummated offense of robbery with homicide.
● Reason: enormity of the offense of attempted or frustrated
robbery with homicide; law provides special penalty therefore.
II. Accomplice, Punished As Principal
● General Rule: Accomplice punished by penalty one degree
lower than penalty imposed upon principal.
● Exception: 2 CASES that the Code punishes accomplice with
same penalty upon principal are:
o Article 346  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 slave trade or abduction.
o Article 268  One who furnished the place for
theperpetration of the crime of slight illegal detention.
 Furnishing the place for the perpetration of the
crime is ordinarily the act of an accomplice.
III. Accessory Punished As Principal
● Article 142  knowingly concealing certain evil acts are usualy
acts of the accessory but under this article is punished as act of
the principal.
A. Certain Accessories Are Punished With A Penalty One Degree
Lower Instead Of Two Degrees
● Article 162  Knowingly using counterfeited seal or
forgedsignature or stamp of the President.
● Article 168  Illegal possession and use of a false treasury
noteor bank note.
● Article 173(3)  Using a falsified document.
● Article 173(2)  Using a falsified dispatch.
Article 61. – Rules for graduating penalties.
For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the
provisions of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be
imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following
rules shall be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and
indivisible, the penalty next lower in 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 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
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty
prescribed, if possible; otherwise from the penalty II. The Lower Penalty Shall Be Taken From The Graduated Scale In
immediately following in the above mentioned respective Article 71.
graduated scale. ● Scale No. 1 in Article 71 (penalties in order):
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some a. Death
manner not especially provided for in the four preceding b. Reclusion perpetua,
rules, the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose c. Reclusion temporal,
corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the d. Prision mayor,
frustrated felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and e. Prision correccional,
upon accomplices and accessories. f. Arresto mayor,
g. Destierro,
POINTS h. Arresto menor,
i. Public censure,
I. Article 61 provides for the rules to be observed in lowering the j. Fine.
penalty by one or two degrees ● Indivisible penalties: (1) death, (2) reclusion perpetua, (3) public
● Article 46 provides that penalty prescribed by law in general censure
terms shall be imposed upon principal in consummated felony ● Divisible penalties: reclusion temporal down to arresto menor
● Articles 50-57 provides that penalty prescribed by law for the ● Divisible penalties divided into 3 periods: (1) minimum, (2)
felony shall be lowered one or two degrees: medium, (3) maximum
a. Principal in frustrated felony – one degree lower;
b. Principal in attempted felony – two degrees lower; ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE RULES
c. Accomplice in consummated felony – one degree I. FIRST RULE: When the penalty is single and indivisible.
lower; and ● Ex. Reclusion perpetua – penalty for kidnapping and failing to
d. Accessory in consummated felony – two degrees lower. return a minor (Article 270)
● Rules in Article 61 also applies in determining minimum of the ● In Scale No. 1 of Article 71 – penalty immediately following
indeterminate penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law reclusion perpetua is reclusion temporal (therefore it is the
o Minimum of the indeterminate penalty is within the penalty next lower in degree).
range of penalty next lower than prescribed by Revised
Penal Code for the offense II. SECOND RULE:
● Rules also apply in lowering penalty by one or two degrees by A. Penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties.
reason of presence of privileged mitigating circumstance ● Indivisible penalties: reclusion perpetua to death
(Article 68 & 69), or when the penalty is divisible and there are ● They are the penalties for parricide (Article 246)
2 or more generic mitigating circumstances and NO ● Penalty immediately following lesser of the penalties (or
aggravating circumstance (Article 64). reclusion perpetua)  reclusion temporal
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

B. When the penalty is composed of one or more divisible penalties to 3. Minimum accomplice; or
be imposed to their full extent. Prision Mayor 1. Maximum penalty for the
● Divisible penalty imposed to full extent  reclusion temporal principal in frustrated
o Penalty immediately following divisible penalty of felony.
reclusion temporal  prision mayor 2. Medium
● Two divisible penalties imposed to full extent  3. Minimum
prisioncorreccional to prision mayor.
o Penalty immediately following the lesser penalty B. When the penalty is composed of one indivisible penalty and the
between prision correccional to prision mayor  maximum period of a divisible penalty.
arresto mayor (Scale No. 1 Article 71) ● Ex: Reclusion temporal in max period to reclusion perpetua
● Same rule observed in lowering penalty by 1-2 degrees
III. THIRD RULE:
A. When the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties and the IV. FOURTH RULE: When the penalty is composed of several periods.
maximum period of a divisible penalty. ● “Several” mean ‘consisting in more than 2 periods’
● Penalty for murder (Article 248)  reclusion ● Fourth rule: contemplates penalty composed of at least 3
temporal in maximum period to death. periods.
● Relcusion perpetua (= in between reclusion temporal & death) ● Several periods MUST correspond to different divisible
 included in penalty penalties
● Penalty for murder has: 2 indivisible penalties (reclusion ● Penalty composed of several periods corresponding to different
perpetua – death) and 1 divisible penalty (reclusion temporal in divisible penalties  prision mayor (medium period)
max period) T
Oreclusion temporal (minimum period)
● Proper divisible penalty: reclusion temporal – penalty ● Period immediately following minimum (= prision mayor in
immediately following it: prision mayor medium period)  is prision mayor in minimum period
● Under third rule: penalty next lower  composed of medium ● Two periods next following are: max and med periods of prision
& minimum periods of reclusion temporal and max period correccional (=penalty next following scale in Article 71 since it
of prision mayor cannot be taken from penalty prescribed)
● (This the same penalty computed in People v. Ong Ta)
Illustration:
Illustration: 1. Maximum
DEATH Reclusion temporal 2. Medium
Reclusion Perpetua (1) Penalty for the 3. Minimum (1) Penalty for the
1. Maximum principal in principal in
1. Maximum
Reclusion Temporal consummated felony. consummated felony.
Prision mayor 2. Medium
2. Medium (2) Penalty for
3. Minimum (2) Penalty for
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

1. Maximum accomplice; or Arresto mayor Medium

Prision correccional 2. Medium penalty for the Minimum
principal in frustrated
felony. B. When the penalty has one period.
3. Minimum ● If penalty is any one of the 3 periods of a divisible penalty –
penalty next lower in degree = is the period next following the
V. FIFTH RULE: By analogy, because “not specifically provided for in given penalty.
the four preceding rules” ● Ex. Penalty immediately inferior to prision mayor in maximum
A. When the penalty has two periods. period is prision mayor in medium period
● Certain offenses in Revised Penal Code: punished with penalty ● If penalty is reclusion temporal in medium period – penalty
composed of two periods: next lower in degree = reclusion temporal in minimum period
o Either of same penalty: For abduction (Article 343) – ● Penalty prescribed by Code for a felony is a degree
prision correccional in its minimum and medium ● If penalty prescribed for felony is 1 of 3 periods of divisible
periods. penalty  that period becomes a degree & the
o Or of different penalties: For physical injuries (Article periodimmediately below is the penalty next lower in degree
263, subsec. 4) – arresto mayor in max period to
prision correccional in minimum period VI. Simplified Rules: (for rules in Par. 4 and 5 of Article 61)
● In these cases: penalty lower by one degree  is formed by 1. If penalty prescribed by Code consists in 3 periods
2 periods taken from the same penalty prescribed (if possible) (corresponding to different divisible penalties)  penalty
OR from periods of penalty numerically following the lesser of nextlower in degree is penalty consisting in 3 periods down
the penalties prescribed the scale
● These cases – not covered by fourth rule (cause penalty 2. If penalty prescribed by Code consists in 2 periods 
contemplated in 4th rule must contain at least 3 periods) penaltynext lower in degree is the penalty consisting in 2 periods
● Penalty under fifth rule (by analogy) – contains 1 or 2 periods down the scale
only 3. If penalty prescribed by Code consists in only 1 period 
penalty next lower in degree is the next period down in the
scale
Example: ● If the given penalty is composed of 1/2/3 periods 
● Penalty next lower than prision correccional in its min and med penalty next lower in degree should begin where the given
periods  is arresto mayor in its med and max periods penalty ends (because otherwise if it were to skip over
Maximum intermediate ones it would be lower but not NEXT lower in
Prision correccional Medium Penalty prescribed for degree (People v. Haloot)
Minimum the felony
Maximum Penalty next lower

210
Original Material from TABLE TURNERS (2012-2013). Edited by Rachelle Anne Gutierrez (2015-2016)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

● U.S. v. Fuentes  Held: Penalty next lower in degree to

prisioncorreccional in medium period = is arresto mayor in
medium period.
Reason for ruling: a degree consists in 1 whole or 1 unit of the
penalties enumerated in the graduated scales in Article 71. To
lower a penalty by 1 degree – its necessary to keep a distance
of one whole penalty or one unit of penalties in Article 71
between one degree and another
● People v. Co Pao & People v. Gayrama  there is a
distance of only 1/3 of a degree (ruling in Fuentes case was
superseded by the rulings in these cases).

VII. Mitigating And Aggravating Circumstances Are Disregarded In The

Application Of The Rules For Graduating Penalties
● NOTE: Each paragraph of Article 61 begins with “When the
penalty prescribed for the felony” or “crime”.
● In lowering the penalty – penalty prescribed by the Revised
Penal Code for the crime is the basis (w/o regard to the
mitigating or aggravating circumstances w/c attended the
commission of the crime)
● It is only after the penalty next lower in degree is already
determined that the mitigating and/or aggravating
circumstances should be considered.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

SECTION 2 – RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES 4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution
WITH REGARD TO MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall
serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons
CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution
of the act or their cooperation therein.
Article 62. – Effects of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
circumstances and of habitual delinquency.
(a) Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency
the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he
shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or
be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
crime specially punishable by law or which are included by the
the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor
shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing
in its minimum and medium periods; and
the penalty.
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be
1(a). When in the commission of the crime, advantage was
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to be
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of mitigating
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal
circumstances.
in its minimum period.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the offense was
committed by any person who belongs to an
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two
organized/syndicated crime group.
penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith,
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or
shall in no case exceed 30 years.
more persons collaborating, confederating or mutually helping
one another for purposes of gain in the commission of the
For the purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be
crime.
habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
circumstances inherent in the crime to such a degree that it
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty
must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (As amended by Republic
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the
Act No. 7659.)
moral attributes of the offender, or from his private relations
with the offended party, or from any other personal cause,
POINTS
shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of the
principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
I. Effects Of The Attendance Of Aggravating Or Mitigating
Circumstances Or Of Habitual Delinquency
1. Aggravating circumstances (generic and specific) have effect of
 increasing penalty (w/o exceeding the max provided by law).
2. Mitigating circumstances have effect of  diminishing
thepenalty.
3. Habitual delinquency has effect  increasing penalty (cause
of recidivism that is implied in habitual delinquency)
PLUS imposing an additional penalty.
PARAGRAPH 1:
I. When Aggravating Circumstances Are Not To Be Taken Account In
Increasing The Penalty To Be Imposed
1. (Inherent in the crime) If the circumstance constitutes a crime
especially punished by law; or
2. (Element of the crime) If it is included by the law in defining a
crime and prescribing the penalty therefor.
II. Examples:
A. Which In Themselves Constitute A Crime:
● That crime be committed “by means of fire” (Article 14,
paragraph 2)  NOT considered as aggravating in arson.
● That crime be committed by means of “derailment of a
locomotive” (Article 14, paragraph 12)  NOT
considered as aggravating in crime known as “Damages and
obstruction to means of communication” (Article 330 – which
punishes the act of damaging any railway resulting in
derailment of cars).
B. Which Are Included By Law In Defining A Crime:
● That crime was committed in the dwelling of offended
party 
 are attendant.
NOT aggravating in robbery with force upon things (Article 299).
● Abuse of confidence is not aggravating in qualified theft
committed with grave abuse of confidence (Article 310).
● That crime was committed by means of poison (Article 14,
paragraph 12)  Not aggravating in crime of murder by means
of poison (since using poison to kill victim included by law in
defining the crime of murder Article 248, paragraph 3).
III. When Maximum Of The Penalty Shall Be Imposed (Special
Aggravating Circumstance That Can’t Be Offset By A Generic Mitigating
Circumstance)
1. When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by
the offender of his public position;
2. If the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group.
IV. What Is An Organized/Syndicated Crime Group?
● Means a group of 2 or more persons collaborating
confederating or mutually helping one another for purposes of
gain in the commission of any crime
PARAGRAPH 2:
● The same rule applies with respect to aggravating circumstances
which are inherent in the crime.
o Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery
and theft (U.S. Castroverde)
PARAGRAPH 3:
I. Aggravating Or Mitigating Which Arise From:
1. Moral attributes of offender
2. From his private relations with offended party
3. From any other personal cause
● These serve to aggravate or mitigate liability of: principals,
accomplices, accessories  as to whom such circumstances
II. Examples
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
A. Moral Attributes Of Offender:
● A + B killed C. A acted w/ evident premeditation; B w/ passion
and obfuscation.
● Circumstances of evident premeditation + passion &
obfuscation  arises from moral attributes of offenders.
● Evident premeditation should only affect and aggravate only
penalty for A & passion and obfuscation mitigates only B’s
liability.
B. From His Private Relations With The Offended Party:
● A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on B.
o A  son of B.
o C  father of B.
● Alternative circumstance of relationship as aggravating will only
be against A (lower degree relative of B).
● Alternative circumstance of relationship as mitigating will only
be for C (higher degree relative of B).
● This ruling holds true even if there was conspiracy.
o The rule that in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all
does not mean that the crime of one is the crime of all
C. From Any Other Personal Cause:
● A and B committed a crime.
o A was 16 i.e. minor
o B was a recidivist
● Each will carry the corresponding additional/mitigated penalty
PARAGRAPH 4:
● The circumstances which consist of (1) and (2) shall serve only
to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who
had KNOWLEDGE of them AT THE TIME of the execution.
I. Examples:
A. Material Execution Of The Crime
● A induced B and C to kill D. B and C killed D using treachery not
previously agreed with A.
● A’s liability is not aggravated by treachery.
● BUT if A was present or had knowledge of the treachery used,
then A is also liable for murder qualified by treachery.
B. Means To Accomplish The Crime
● A ordered B to kill C. B used poison without knowledge of A.
● Only B will suffer the aggravating circumstance.
II. There Is No Mitigating Circumstance Relating To The Means
Employed In The Execution Of The Crime
● It is impossible to conceive of any mitigating circumstance
which can properly be considered as to one of the defendants,
but is not equally applicable to the rest, EVEN to those who had
no knowledge of the same at the time of the commission of the
crime, or their cooperation therein.
III. Difference Between (1) Circumstances Relating To Persons
Participation In The Same And (2) Circumstances Consisting In The
Material Execution Of The Means Employed
Persons Participation Material Execution / Means Employed
Do not affect all the Have a direct bearing upon the criminal
participants in the crime but liability of all the defendants who had
only those to whom they knowledge thereof at the time of the
particularly apply. commission of the crime, or of their
cooperation therein.
Example: People v. Villanueva
● Defendants though forming of the conspiracy of kidnapping,
were not the ones who actually kidnapped the victim.
● Thus, they are not bound or affected by the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime UNLESS THEY KNEW about it prior.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
IV. Is It Necessary That There Be Proof Of Cooperation Or Participation
With Regard To The Act Of Cruelty?
● Two views:
o People v. Vocales  Although it may be
considered as aggravating against one accused, it
may not be so against another UNLESS there is
proof of conspiracy in the commission of the main
act, or there is proof of cooperation or participation
on the part of the latter.
o In accordance with Article 62(4)  if cruelty is a means
employed to accomplish the act, only knowledge is
required for one to be liable for it.
● Note: Article 14 states that cruelty is that which is not necessary
for the commission of the crime.
o If so, it cannot be part of the “material execution” nor
“means employed to accomplish it”.
o Therefore, People v. Vocales would be ruling.
PARAGRAPH 5:
I. Habitual Delinquent
● A person who within a period of 10 years from the date of his
(last) release or last conviction of the crimes of
1. Serious or less serious physical injuries (Article263 & 265)
2. Robbery (Article 193-303)
3. Theft (Article 308-311)
4. Estafa (Article 315-318)
5. Falsification (Article 170-174)
● He is found guilty of any of said crimes a 3rd time or oftener.
II. Elements
1. That the offender had been convicted of any of the above-
mentioned crimes.
2. That after the conviction or after serving his sentence, he
against committed, and within 10 years, from his release or
prior conviction, he was again convicted of any of the said
crimes for the second time.
3. That after his conviction or after serving sentence, for the
second offense, he again committed, and within 10 years from
his last release or last conviction, he was again convicted of said
offenses, the third time or oftener.
III. Computation Of The 10-Year Period
NOTE: Defendant’s last conviction OR last release should be the starting
point from which the 10-year period is to be counted.
● Rational: If the starting point is only the date of last conviction,
there will be a case where the offender cannot be considered a
habitual delinquent.
Crimes Committed Date of Conviction Date of Release
Theft June 1915 July 1916
Swindling May 1920 October 1922
Attempted Robbery July 1928 August 1930
Theft August 1937 September 1940
Crime charged October 1946
Explanation:
● The 10-year period should be counted from the date of LAST
conviction or release from the crime charged, which is August
1937 (conviction) or September 1940 (release).
o Note: Regardless of the gap between the first and
second crimes, the accused will be considered a
habitual delinquent if between the second and third
crimes, there is a gap or 10 years or below.
● In the accusation of theft, only attempted robbery (conviction:
July 1928, release: August 1930) can be taken into consideration
for the determination of habitual delinquency since it is the last
crime for which he was convicted for.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
o A would not be a habitual delinquent since swindling is
not one of the crimes listed.
IV. Subsequence Crime Must Be Committed AFTER CONVICTION Of
Former Crime
● If (1) the second crime was committed before his first conviction
and (2) the fourth before his third conviction, and (3) the fifth
and sixth were committed on the same day, the six convictions
(although different in dates) are equivalent to only three.
V. “The culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for
the last crime of which he be found guilty”
● If the accused is tried for robbery and previously convicted of
theft and estafa, robbery is the last crime and if found guilty the
penalty for robbery shall be imposed, while also be declared a
habitual delinquent.
A. Additional Penalty For Habitual Delinquency
1. Upon 3rd conviction  additional penalty of prision correctional
in its medium and maximum periods.
2. Upon 4th conviction  additional penalty of prision mayor in
its minimum and medium periods.
3. Upon 5th conviction  additional penalty of prision mayor in
is maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
B. Rational:
● If after undergoing punishment for his previous crimes, he
continuous to commit said crimes, he is deemed to have shown
a dangerous propensity to crimes. Hence, he is punished with a
severer penalty for committing any of those crimes the third
time or oftener.
● Purpose of the law: to render more effective social defense and
the reformation of multi-recidivists.
VI. Total Penalties Should Not Exceed 30 Years
● Total  (1) the penalty for the last crime which is found
guiltyand (2) the additional penalty for being a habitual
delinquent.
VII. What Must Be Alleged In The Information
1. The dates of the commission of the previous crimes.
2. The dates of the last conviction or release
3. The dates of the other previous conviction or releases.
A. Effect Of Plea Of Guilty When Allegations Are Insufficient
● A plea of guilty to an information which fails to allege the dates
of commission of previous offenses, of convictions and of
releases is not an admission that the offender is a habitual
delinquent but only a recidivist (People v. Masonson).
B. Date Of Release Not Absolutely Necessary
● If preceding conviction is less than 10 years from date of
conviction of the offense complained of (People v. Tolentino).
VIII. See “Rulings on Habitual Delinquency” (p.739-744, Reyes Book)
IX. Habitual Delinquency v. Recidivism
Habitual Delinquency Recidivism
As to crimes The crimes are Sufficient that on date of trial,
committed specified. accused shall have been
previously convicted of
another crime in the same
title.
As to period Conviction must be 10 No period of time necessary
of commission years from each other.
As to number Conviction must be 3 rd That subsequent crime is
of crimes time or oftener. embraced in the same title is
committed sufficient.
As to their Additional penalty If not offset by mitigating, will
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
effects prescribed by law is increase penalty to maximum
imposed. only.
● A convict can be a habitual delinquent without being a recidivist
if no two of the crimes committed are embraced in the same
title.
● The imposition of additional penalty is constitutional as it is
simply punishment for future crimes, the penalty enhanced on
account of criminal propensities of the accused.
Article 63. – Rules for the application of indivisible penalties.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it
shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of
the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties the following rules shall be observed in the
application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one
aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some
mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended
the commission of the act, the courts shall reasonably allow
them to offset one another in consideration of their number
and importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in
accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of
such compensation.
POINTS
I. Inoperative Because Of Republic Act No. 9346
 In light of this only reclusion perpetua is indivisible.
 Cannot be affected by generic mitigating circumstances BUT it
can be affected by privileged mitigating circumstances (like
Article 68 & 69).
o Privileged mitigating always considered whether
divisible or indivisible penalty.
II. Outline Of The Rules
1. When penalty consists of 1 indivisible: applied regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstances
2. When penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties:
a. Only 1 aggravating  greater penalty shall be imposed
b. No aggravating nor mitigating  lesser penalty imposed
c. A mitigating and no aggravating  lesser penalty
imposed.
d. Both mitigating and aggravating  court will
alowthem to offset one another.
III. Article 63 Applies Only When The Penalty Prescribed By The Code Is
Either One Indivisible Penalty Or Two Indivisible Penalties
● Article 63 does NOT apply if penalty prescribed: reclusion
temporal in max period to death (Because even if it includes 2
indivisible penalties = it has 3 periods of reclusion temporal
max-min, reclusion perpetua-med, Death-max)  Article
64 shall apply in this case)
A. Example Of Single And Indivisible Penalty
● Reclusion Perpetua for:
o Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Article 270)
o Rape (Article 266-B)
● Death for:
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
o Kidnapping and serious illegal detention when purpose
of offender is to extort ransom (Article 267 as amended
by Republic Act No. 7659).
o Rape with homicide (Article 266-B)
B. Example Of Two Indivisible Penalties
● Reclusion perpetua to Death for:
o Parricide (Article 246)
o Robbery with homicide (Article 294, paragraph 1)
o Kidnapping and serious illegal detention without
intention to extort ransom (Article 267)
o Rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by
two or more persons (Article 266-B)
IV. When The Penalty Is Composed Of Two Indivisible Penalties, The
Penalty Cannot Be Lowered By One Degree, No Matter How Many
Mitigating Circumstances Are Present
A. General Rule:
● When there are 2 or more mitigating and NO aggravating 
court cannot proceed by analogy to provisions of subsection 5
Article 64 (imposition of one degree lower penalty)
● US v. Relador: Commission of crime of parricide punishable of
RP to Death but attended by two mitigating (illiteracy and lack
of intention to commit so grave a wrong) and NO aggravating –
court imposed one degree lower penalty (Article 64 subsection
5)
HELD: Wrong penalty imposed – it should be Article 63 applied
B. Exception: When a privileged mitigating circumstance under Article
68 or Article 69 is present.
● If circumstance present is a privileged mitigating circumstance
under Article 68 or Article 69 – offender may get a penalty one
or two degrees lower
● Woman boxed by her husband stabbed him with knife in chest
 entitled to penalty one degree lower from RP to Death = RT
● People v. Galang: Imposable penalty for rape: RP. Accused had
privileged mitigating circumstance of minority – imposable
penalty = RT in medium period (absent other mitigating or
aggravating circumstance)
V. Moral value, not numerical weight of circumstances should prevail.
● This is as regards paragraph 4 of Article 63
VI. Mitigating Circumstance Is Not Necessary To Impose Reclusion
Perpetua When The Crime Is Punishable With Two Indivisible Penalties
Of Reclusion Perpetua To Death.
● Reason: under Article 63 when crime is penalized with 2
indivisible penalties (reclusion perpetua to death) – lesser
penalty should be imposed even when there is no mitigating
circumstance present.
Article 64. – Rules for the application of penalties which contain three
periods.
In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three
periods, whether it be a single divisible enalty or composed of three
different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance
with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for
the application of the penalty the following rules, according to
whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law
in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
minimum period.
3. When only an aggravating circumstance is present in the
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class
against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period
that it may deem applicable, according to the number and
nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating
circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty
than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the courts shall determine the
extent of the penalty according to the number and nature of
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater
or lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
POINTS
I. Article 64 applies only when the penalty has 3 periods.
● Article 64 applies when penalty prescribed by law for offense 
RT, PM, PC, AM, Am, PC to RT, etc. = because they’re divisible
into 3 periods (minimum, medium, maximum).
● When law prescribes single divisible penalty (ex. RT for
homicide) as in Article 76 – is distributed in 3 equal parts – each
part forms a period called min, med and max.
● If penalty made up of 3 diff penalties: PC to RT
Each forms a period according to Article 77
PC = min
PM = med
RT = max
PM is included bec. It’s between PC and RT in Scale No. 1 Article
71
II. Outline Of The Rules:
1. No aggravating and no mitigating – medium period
2. Only a mitigating – minimum period
3. Only an aggravating – maximum period
● People v. Toling: No generic aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances were proven = penalty for murder imposed in
medium period or RP. Death penalty imposed by trial court was
not warranted.
● Illustrations of Nos. 2 and 3: A is convicted of homicide
punishable by reclusion temporal (min, med, max).
o No mitigating nor aggravating  medium
o A pleaded guilty, no aggravating  minimum
o Committed the crime in the dwelling, no mitigating 
maximum
o 2 aggravating, no mitigating  still only maximum.
4. When there are aggravating and mitigating – offset those of
one class against the other according to relative weight.
● Note: The mitigating circumstances must be ordinary not
privileged. The aggravating circumstances must be generic or
specific and not qualifying or inherent.
● Illustration of No. 4: A committed homicide in nighttime on
purpose. He surrendered to the mayor of the town and pleaded
guilty.
o Held:
o One mitigating circumstance (surrender or guilty plead)
will offset aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
o Remaining mitigating will result in imposition of
minimum period.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
5. Two or more mitigating and no aggravating – penalty next
lower, in the period applicable, according to the number and
nature of such circumstances.
● Penalty by law: reclusion temporal max to reclusion perpetua
● Max of ISL: prision mayor max to reclusion tempora med.
● Min of ISL: prisio correctional max to prisio mayor med.
● In determining the proper “period applicable”, the mitigating
circumstance can no longer be considered since it already
lowered the degree of the penalty.
6. No penalty greater than the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed by law shall be imposed, no matter how many
aggravating circumstances are present.
● Thus, even if there are 4 generic aggravating circumstances, the
maximum penalty for homicide is still reclusion temporal.
7. The court can determine the extent of the penalty “within the
limits of each period, according to the number” and “nature”
of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the
greater or lesser “extent of the evil” produced by the crime.
● A committed a crime punished by arresto mayor with two
aggravating and one mitigating circumstance.
● Steps:
o Apply “Rule 4” and offset = 1 aggravating left
o Remaining aggravating will make the imposed penalty
arresto mayor in its maximum period (4 months and 1
day to 6 months).
● Rule 7: the court can impose any length from 4 months and 1
day, 5 months or 6 months.
● “Extent of the evil produced”
o Court has the discretion to impose the penalty within
the limits fixed by law.
o Taking into consideration the amount of damage caused
on the economic life of a banking institution, it is proper
for the court to impose the maximum of the medium
degree of the penalty (People v. Velazco).
III. Cases Where Mitigating And Aggravating Circumstances Are Not
Considered In The Imposition Of The Penalty
1. When the penalty is single and indivisible (Article 63)
2. In felonies through negligence such as reckless imprudence
(Article365).
3. Penalty to be imposed upon a Moro or other non-Christian
inhabitant (Section 6, Administrative Code of Mindanao and
Sulu)
4. When the penalty is only a fine impose by an ordinance.
5. When the penalties are prescribed by special laws.
● If there are a lot of aggravating but no mitigating, can the courts
increase the penalty to one greater than that prescribed by law?
NO.
● If after offsetting (meaning there was aggravating and
mitigating), there are 2 mitigating left, can the penalty be
lowered by one degree? NO. As long as there was aggravating,
can’t lower penalty by degree.
● If there are four mitigating circumstances, you use two to lower
the penalty by one degree. The remaining two are used to find
the period. You can’t use the remaining two to lower the
penalty by another degree.
● Imposed by law: RT. 4 mitigating.
● Lower to prision mayor. Then use the 2 remaining mitigating to
find the period. So prision mayor minimum.
● Article 64 is important in the ISL because the modifying
circumstances are first considered in the determination of the
maximum penalty in the ISL. (sir won’t ask to compute ISL)
● Article 64 is not considered in the determination of the
minimum penalty in the ISL. The minimum penalty in the ISL
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
must be within the whole range of the penalty next lower in
degree.
● If the accused is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and has two
generic mitigating circumstances (and no aggravating
circumstances), penalty CANNOT be lowered by one degree
since it’s an indivisible penalty. (Only a privileged mitigating can
give a penalty lower for an indivisible penalty)
● This article doesn’t apply to Article 365 because modifying
circumstances don’t apply to quasi-offenses.
Article 65. – Rules in cases in which the penalty is not composed of
three periods.
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed of
three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the
foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions the time included
in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three
portions.
POINTS
I. Purpose Of The Rule
● This is applied when the law prescribes a penalty not composed
of three periods (like robbery in an uninhabited place whose
penalty is PC in medium to maximum.)
● Just divide the period given by 3 to get the min, med and max.
II. Meaning Of The Rule
1. Compute and determine first the 3 periods of the entire
penalty.
2. Time included in penalty prescribed – divided into 3 equal
portions after subtracting minimum (eliminate 1 day) from
maximum of penalty
3. Min or minimum period should be the minimum of the given
penalty (including 1 day)
4. Quotient added to minimum prescribed (eliminate 1 day) = total
represents max of minimum period.
II. Illustration: (See p.756-757 Reyes Book For Detailed Computation)
(1) Duration is 6 months and 1 day to 6 years
(2) Subtract minimum (disregarding 1 day) from the maximum
6 years – 6 months = 5 years and 6 months
(3) Divide difference by 3
5 years and 6 months = 1 year and 10 months
3
(4) Minimum added with quotient = minimum period
6 months (+) 1 year and 10 months = 2 years and 4 months
(5) Maximum of minimum added with quotient = medium period
2 years and 4 months (+) 1 year and 10 months = 4 years and 2 months
(6) Maximum of medium added with quotient = maximum period
4 years and 2 months (+) 1 year and 10 months = 6 years
Final:
● Minimum: 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
● Medium: 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months
● Maximum: 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years.
Article 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.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
POINTS
I. Outline Of This Provision:
1. The court can fix any amount of the fine within the limits
established by law.
2. The court must consider –
a. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances; and
b. More particularly, the wealth or means of the culprit.
II. General Points
● Study with Article 75.
● The LAW can prescribe the following:
o Fine only
o Fine AND imprisonment o Fine OR imprisonment o
You’re so FINE
o The court can’t give the accused a penalty of fine OR
imprisonment. The court has to make a choice, it can’t
leave to the accused the choice on what penalty he
wants to serve.
● If the law states “fine of P50k to 150k”, the court can choose
between those bounds.
● If the law states “fine of P15k”, that’s it, court must impose the
definite fine.
● If the law states “fine not less than P15k”, court must be
judicious. They can’t just fine the accused for P1 million.
● Increase or reduction in the degree of the fine. (See Article 75)
● Fine cannot be used as substitute penalty to imprisonment.
Penalty of fine is independent from penalty of imprisonment.
● If the accused drew and issued a check but it bounced, and
during trial he pays the value of the check, should he still be
convicted for a fine? Yes. Penalty of the fine goes to the State,
not the offended party.
III. When The Minimum Of The Fine Is Not Fixed
● When the law does not fix minimum of the fine 
determination of amount of fine to be imposed: left to the
sound discretion of the court (provided it shall not exceed
maximum authorized by law) (People v. Quinto).
IV. Fines Are Not Divided Into Three Equal Portions
● The courts are not bound to divide the amount of fine
prescribed by law into 3 equal portions (as in case of
imprisonment imposed in relation to a divisible penalty).
V. Considerations In Imposing Fines
A. Wealth Or Means Of Culprit Is Main Consideration In Fine
● Wealth or means of culprit is emphasized because fixed amount
of fine for ALL offenders of particular crime  result to
inequality (ex. P100 for rich versus poor man)
o Example: Laborer earning P208/month who has to pay
P20 versus Office worker with P800/month who has to
pay P50 – fine for laborer more severe if ever.
● To impose same amount of fine for same offense upon persons
differently circumstances  penalty of unequal severity =
unjustly discriminatory (People v. Ching Kuan).
B. But Mitigating And Aggravating Circumstances Are Not Entirely
Disregarded. Factors Other Than Financial Condition Of Accused May
Be Considered By Court.
● Article 66 says mitigating and aggravating circumstances may
also be considered by court.
● Also other factors such as:
o Gravity or seriousness of crime committed
o Heinousness of its perpetration
o Magnitude of its effects on victim(s) (People v. Manuel)
o Position and standing of accused considered
aggravating in gambling.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
 U.S. v. Salaveria  Person found guilty
of violating Gambling Law with high
standing in community = maximum penalty
imposed
 U.S. v. Mercader  Accused in gambling case
was municipal treasurer = Court imposed fine of
P500 and 1 year imprisonment (max penalty
provided by law)
Article 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 the circumstance number 4 of
Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are not
present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit,
if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.
POINTS
I. Article 67 Applies Only When All The Requisites Of The Exempting
Circumstance Of Accident Are Not Present
● Article 12(4)  Exempting circumstance of accident.
● Four conditions necessary to exempt from liability under
Subsection 4 of Article 12:
a. Act causing the injury be lawful; permitted not only by
law but also by regulations.
b. Performed with due care.
c. Injury is caused by mere accident (example: by an
unforeseen event)
d. There be no fault or intention to cause the injury.
● Lack of requisites in performance of lawful act – AM max to PC
minimum (if grave), AM min to med (if less grave)
II. If All These Conditions Are Not Present:
● (Act considered as) reckless imprudence if act is executed
without taking precautions or measure that most common
prudence would requires
● (Act considered as) simple imprudence if it’s a mere lack of
precaution where either the threatened harm is not imminent
or danger is not openly visible  this case will fall under Article
365, paragraph 1.
● Penalty provided in Article 67, same as in Article 365.
Article 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 paragraph 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.
POINTS
I. Article 68 Has Been Partly Repealed By Juvenile Justice Act
● Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code (penalty for person under
18 years old) is partly repealed by Republic Act 9344, which
provides that:
a. Child 15 years and below  exempt from
criminalresponsibility (paragraph 1 repealed).
b. Child 15-18 years old  exempt from criminal
liabilityUNLESS acted with discernment (paragraph 2
modified).
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

c. A child above 12 up to 15 who commits a serious crime
(Parricide, Murder, Infanticide, Kidnapping, Serious
illegal detention where the victim is killed or raped,
robbery with homicide or rape, destructive arson, Rape,
carnapping where the driver or occupant is killed or
raped, or offenses under the DDA punishable by more
than 12 years), or an offense for the second time or
oftener:
i. Shall be deemed a neglected child under
Presidential Decree 603, and
ii. Shall be mandatorily placed in a special facility
for the youth (Republic Act No. 10630).
Under Article 68 Under Republic Act 9344
Offender over 9 yrs. but under 15 9-15 year olds = exempt from
yrs. acting with discernment = NOT criminal liability  No
exempt from criminal liability penalty imposed
(discretionary penalty shall be
imposed – 2 degrees lower than
prescribed by law for crime
committed)
Offender over 15 but under 18 – 15-18 year olds = exempt from
penalty next lower than prescribed criminal liability UNLESS acted
by law imposed with discernment  will
undergo diversion programs under
Chap 2
of Republic Act 9344
● If court sees that objective of disposition measures imposed
upon child in conflict with the law was NOT fulfilled or child in
conflict with the law willfully failed to comply with conditions of
his/her disposition or rehab program  child in conflict with
the law will be brought to court for execution of judgment.
The child shall enjoy the privileged mitigating circumstance
under
Article 68 but shall nevertheless be entitled to suspension of
sentence whether or not he is no longer a minor.
o Penalty imposed on child in conflict with the law is
provided in paragraph 2 of Article 68 (or penalty next
lower than prescribed by law)
II. Suspension Of Sentence
● As long as child was under 18 when he did the crime,
suspension of sentence will apply.
o Suspension can apply until he reaches 21, upon
discretion of court.
o Even if minor is charged with a heinous crime, he is still
entitled to suspension of conviction. Republic Act No.
9344 does not distinguish.
● What if Special Penal Law which does not follow nomenclature
of Revised Penal Code? Minor will not be entitled to privileged
mitigating circumstance.
o Example: Penalty of life imprisonment in illegal
recruitment cannot be lowered by 1 or 2 degrees.
● Recommendation of social worker not binding on the court.
(People v. Candelario).
III. Probation As An Alternative To Imprisonment
● The court may place a child in conflict with the law on probation
in lieu of service of a sentence taking into consideration the best
interest of the child.
● After the suspension, child may serve his sentence in
agricultural camps or other training facilities.
o After the suspension, he can also be granted probation.
● Remember: even if minor criminally exempt, he is still civilly
liable.
Article 69. – Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not
wholly excusable.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law
shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the
lack of some of the conditions required to justify the same or to
exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in
Articles 11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be
present. The courts shall 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.
POINTS
I. Unlawful Aggression Is Indispensable In Self-Defense, Defense Of
Relatives And Defense Of Stranger
● Unlawful aggression must be present (first circumstance in self-
defense under Subsections 1, 2, 3 of Article11)
● Example: B was challenged by A to a fight. B attacked first with a
knife and A retaliated by stabbing B. In the struggle, B killed A.
Can B be given one or two degrees lower penalty than
prescribed for homicide?
Even though conditions to justify the deed is present
(Reasonableness of means employed and Lack of sufficient
provocation), the essential element of unlawful aggression was
absent because there was agreement to fight. As such, NOT
entitled to reduction (U.S. v. Navarro).
II. Important Words And Phrases
A. “In the several cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12.”
● Privileged mitigating circumstances in Article 69 include:
incomplete justifying and incomplete exempting circumstances
BUT majority of the conditions must be present
B. “Provided the majority of such conditions be present.”
● People v. Alvarez: Court of Appeals refused to apply Article 69
because only unlawful aggression was present on the victim’s
part BUT means employed by accused was not reasonable and
accused provoked aggression.
● Homicide case where provocation and unlawful aggression
came from deceased + means employed by offender = not
reasonable:
o More than one of the requisites of self-defense are
present
o When 2 of the essential requisites for justification are
present  penalty lower by 2 degrees may be
imposed(People v. Dorado)
o Only unlawful aggression  1 penalty lower
imposed (People v. Cabellon) BUT this decision is
contrary to Article 69 that provides that majority of
conditions must be present.
● What if not majority of requisites, just one? Ordinary mitigating
only; lower to minimum period.
C. “A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by law
shall be imposed x x x in the period which may be deemed proper, in
view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present
or lacking.”
● Court has discretion to impose 1 or 2 degrees lower than
prescribed by law for offense.
o In determining proper period of penalty that is 1 or 2
degrees lower, the court must consider number and
nature of conditions of exemption or justification
present or lacking.
● Article 69 makes it privileged mitigating because the penalty is
lowered by one or two degrees.
o Hence, incomplete self-defense (for example) cannot be
offset by any aggravating circumstances.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
V. When The Majority Of The Requisites Of Self-Defense And Two
Mitigating Without Aggravating Circumstances Are Present, The
Penalty Is Three Degrees Lower.
● If accused charged with homicide (punishable by reclusion
temporal) proved unlawful aggression by the deceased and
another requisite of self-defense PLUS 2 mitigating
circumstances (surrender and obfuscation) with NO aggravating,
the proper penalty is arresto mayor medium (2 months, 1 day to
4 months).
Article 70. – Successive service of sentences.
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 of 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. Temporary absolute disqualification,
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the
maximum duration of the convict’s sentence shall not be more than
threefold 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 of those imposed equals the said
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 by Com. Act No. 217.)
POINTS
I. Outline Of The Provisions Of This Article:
1. When culprit has to serve 2 or more penalties  serve
themsimultaneously (if nature of penalties permit).
2. Otherwise, order of their respective severity shall be followed.
3. Respective severity of 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
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
k. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
l. Public censure.
A. The Penalties Which Can Be Simultaneously Served Are:
1. PAD
2. PSD
3. TAD
4. TSD
5. Suspension
6. Destierro
7. Public censure
8. Fine and bond to keep the peace
9. Civil Interdiction, and
10. Confiscation and payment of costs.
● 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.
II. The Order Of The Respective Severity Of The Penalties Shall Be
Followed So That They May Be Executed Successively
● Time of the second sentence does not commence to run until
the expiration of the first (Gordon v. Wolfe).
● Imprisonment must be served before destierro. Thus, arresto
menor must be served before destierro (People v. Misa).
III. Limitation On Service Of Sentence: 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.
o If the sum of the penalties does not exceed the most
severe multiplied by 3, three-fold rule doesn’t apply.
● The maximum penalty is three times the most severe or the
total of the penalties imposed, whichever is lower.
o Such max period shall not exceed 40 years. Whatever is
lower between the total penalties and 3x the most
sever, it shall not be more than 40 years.
● The three-fold rule applies even if different courts rendered the
penalties at different times.
o The Rules of Court provide that an information must not
charge more than one offense. Necessarily, the various
offenses punished with different penalties must be
charged under different information which may be filed
in the same court or in different courts at the same time
or at different times.
● The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has to serve at
least 4 sentences.
● If the penalty is complex, the three-fold penalty is three times
the indeterminate sentence also (see Boado for example).
o If an indeterminate sentence is imposed, use the
maximum period in computing because the max period
is the most severe.
o
A. Computation
● Step 1: get the most severe penalty meted out as listed in
Article 70
● Step 2: Multiply the duration of that by 3
● Step 3: Add the duration of all the different sentences
● Step 4: Compare the results of 2 and 3
● Step 5: Accused to serve the lesser period, unless it is in excess
of 40 years in which case the culprit shall serve only 40 years.
B. The Phrase “The Most Severe Of Penalties” Includes Equal Penalties
● Fact: Sentenced for 6 cases of estafa. Each of which is 3 months
and 11 days of arresto mayor.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● Held: Accused cannot be made to suffer more than 9 months
and 33 days.
IV. The judge should NOT refrain from imposing the correct penalties
even if these would exceed the limitation of penalties in this article.
● This article deals with SERVICE of sentence, not with imposition.
● The court should impose the correct penalties even if these will
amount to more than the lifetime of the prisoner.
● Why? Because when the convict is pardoned, he should still
serve the other sentences meted on him.
V. Duration Of The Convict’s Sentence Refers To Several Penalties For
Different Offenses, Not Yet Served Out.
● If the convict already served sentence for one offense prior to
the commission and/or conviction for another offense, the
former will not be considered in the three-fold rule.
● The second sentence should only commence after the 1st.
Successive nga eh.
● Accused is convicted for 10 counts of rape, all reclusion
perpetua. How long should he remain in jail? 40 years.
o What sentence should accuse serve first? Parepareho
lang naman eh. Justice Callejo: Follow order of docket
numbers. Article 70 doesn’t strictly apply (People v.
Conte).
VI. Subsidiary Imprisonment Forms Part Of The Penalty
● The result from the three-fold rule will be the aggregate
principal penalty which the principal has to serve. IN ADDITION,
he will have to pay all indemnities with or without subsidiary
imprisonment PROVIDED the principal penalty does not
exceed/is not higher than 6 years.
● Bagtas v. Director of Prisons
o Facts: A guilty of 17 crimes. Most severe is 6 months
and 1 day PLUS a fine of P1,000.
 Three-fold rule: 18 months and 3 days max.
o Held: If the petitioner would not be able to pay the
finem the maximum duration of his imprisonment shall
be 18 months and 3 days of the principal penalty PLUS 6
months and 1 day subsidiary imprisonment.
● Exception: Do not include subsidiary imprisonment penalty in
the computation of the 40 years because subsidiary liability is
uncertain if it will even happen (Bagtas v. Director of Prisons).
VII. Different Systems Of Penalty
● Material accumulation system  no limitation; all penalties
for all violations were imposed even if they reached beyond
the natural span of human life.
o Article 70, Par. 1,2,3 follow this.
● Juridical accumulation system  Service of several penalties
is limited to not more than three-fold the max and will not
exceed 40 years.
o Article 70, Par. 4,5,6 follow this.
● Absorption system  Observed in the imposition of the
penaltyin complex crimes (Article 48), continuing crimes, and
specific crimes like robbery with homicide, etc.
Article 71. – Graduated Scales.
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by one
or more degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in
Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in
which is comprised of the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty shall observe the
following graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1 (Scale for personal penalties)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

1. Death penalties attached to death by reason of graduated

2. Reclusion perpetua scale under Article 71.
3. Reclusion temporal
4. Prision mayor II. Position of Destierro in Article 70 v. Article 71
5. Prision correccional ● Note that in Art 71, the penalty next lower than arresto mayor is
6. Arresto mayor destierro, not arresto menor. But in Art 70, destierro follows
7. Destierro arresto menor in the degree of severity. Why?
8. Arresto menor o Arresto mayor is imprisonment or complete deprivation
9. Public censure of liberty. Destierro means banishment for a specified
10. Fine length of time. They must not be judged by the duration
of each of these penalties, but by degree of deprivation
SCALE NO. 2 (Scale for penalties depriving political rights) of liberty involved. Destierro is considered lighter than
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification arresto mayor.
2. Temporary absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted A. Destierro  Next Lower In Degree From Arresto Mayor
for, and the right to follow a profession or calling ● The scale, which places destierro below arresto mayor, cannot
4. Public censure be disregarded.
5. Fine ● Their respective severities is judged not by duration but by the
degree of deprivation of liberty
POINTS
B. Who May Impose Destierro?
I. Death Shall No Longer Form Part Of The Equation In Article 71  The metropolitan and municipal trial courts shall exercise
● Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with
o This has the effect of appropriately downgrading the imprisonment not exceeding 6 years.
proper penalties attaching to accomplices, accessories,
frustrated and attempted felonies to the level C. Must Destierro Be Applied Only When It Is Specifically Imposed By
consistent with the rest of the penal laws. Law?
● Since this law bars the application of the death penalty, such  No. It may be imposed when it is the penalty next lower.
effect necessarily extends to its relevance to the graduated
scale of penalties under Article 71. III. Articles 25, 70, 71 Compared:
o There can be no harmony between Republic Act No. Article 25 Article 70 Article 71
9346 and the Revised Penal Code unless the later Classification classifies classifies penalties provides for the
statute is construed as having downgraded those of penalties penalties into according to scales which
principal and severity. (For the should be
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

accessory purpose of the

observed in
successive service
graduating
of sentences)
penalties in Article
61
Location of Destierro is Destierro is below Destierro is above
Destierro above arresto arresto menor arresto menor
menor

Article 72. – Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities.

The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of 2 or more offenses shall
be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the
final judgments rendered against him, beginning with the first in order
of time.

POINTS

I. Applicability
● This article applies when the offender who is found guilty of 2 or
more offenses is required to pay civil liabilities resulting from
the same.

II. Order Of Payment Of Civil Liabilities

● The order is not based on the dates of the commission.
● It is based on the dates of the final judgment.

CLASS DISCUSSION
● Is it possible for the payment of civil liabilities to differ from how
the criminal liabilities are served?
● Is civil liability imposed/specified or considered as an attached
like accessory penalties? Or must it be expressly imposed?
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
SECTION 3 – PROVISION COMMON TO THE LAST TWO
PRECEDING SECTIONS
Article 73. – Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory
penalties.
Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which by provision of
law, carries with it other penalties, according to Article 40, 41, 42, 43,
44, and 45 of this Code, it must be understood that the accessory
penalties are also imposed upon the convict.
POINTS
I. Accessory Penalties Are Deemed Imposed
● Means that a judgment need not make an express
pronouncement of the imposition of accessory penalties.
II. Subsidiary Imprisonment, Not An Accessory Penalty
● Means that the judgment of conviction must expressly state
that subsidiary penalty would be imposed.
Article 74. – Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases.
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another
given penalty, without specifically designating the name of the
former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the same
penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be considered
as the next higher penalty.
POINTS
I. Death Cannot Be The Penalty Next Higher In Degree When Not
Provided By Law
● When a given penalty has to be raised and the resulting penalty
is death, it cannot be imposed.
● The given penalty and the accessory penalties of death (Article
40) shall be imposed.
● Death must be specifically imposed by law.
II. Application Of This Article
● What is meant to here is that the judgment should not provide
that the convict should not be given the benefit of Article 27
(that he should be pardoned after undergoing the penalty for
30 years) until 40 years have elapsed; otherwise there would be
no difference at all between reclusion perpetua when imposed
as a penalty next higher in degree and when it is imposed as
the penalty fixed by law.
Article 75. – Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more
degrees. Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the
penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or
reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum
amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum.
The same rules shall be observed with regard to fines that do not
consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional.
POINTS
I. Fines Are Graduated Into Degrees
● For the accomplices and accessories
● For principals in frustrated and attempted felonies
II. To Get The Lower Degree:
● MAXIMUM prescribed by law  reduce by 1/4 for each degree.
● MINIMUM  remains the same.
A. Illustration
● Fine is from P200 to P2,000
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

● To lower by one degree: o Facts: Bribe was P2,300.

o 2,000 / 4 = 500 o Maximum: 2,300 x 3 = P6,900
o 2,000 – 500 = 1,500 o P6,900 should be the basis for lowering the penalty by
two degrees (penalty for attempted bribery).
III. “Without Changing The Minimum”
● The fine must have a minimum and a maximum fixed by law Article 76. – Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. The legal
● This article does NOT apply when the law does not fix the period of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided
minimum of fine. into three parts, forming 3 periods, the minimum, the medium and
the maximum in the manner shown in the following table.
IV. When The Minimum Is Not Fixed By Law
● When only the maximum is fixed, the determination of the Table 1. Duration of divisible penalties and the time included in each
minimum is left to the sound discretion of the courts, without period.
exceeding the maximum authorized by law. Penalties Whole Min Med Max
Penalty
V. Distinctions Between Fine With A Minimum And Fine Without A Reclusion 12 years + 12 years + 1 14 years, 8 17 years
Minimum. Temporal 1 day to day to months and and 4
● In both, the law fixes the maximum. 20 years 14 years + 8 1 day to months and
● When the law fixes the minimum, the court cannot change that months 17 years 1 day to
minimum; when the law does not state the minimum, the court and 4 20 years
can impose any amount not exceeding the maximum. months
● When the law fixes both minimum and maximum, the court can (1) PM 6 years + 1 6 years + 1 8 years + 1 10 years + 1
impose an amount higher than the maximum; when only the (2)Ab. Disq. day to day to day to day to
maximum is fixed, it cannot impose an amount higher than the (3)S. Temp. 12 years 8 years 10 years 12 years
maximum. Disq.
(1) PC, 6 months + 6 months + 2 years + 4 4 years, 2
VI. As To “Fines That Do Not Consist Of A Fixed Amount, But Are (2)Suspension 1 day to 1 day to months + 1 months + 1
Made Proportional” (3) Destierro 6 years 2 years + 4 day to day to
● This clause speaks of fines which are not of fixed amount but months. 4 years + 6 years
are made proportional 2mos
o Example: (Article 365, negligence causing damage) Arresto Mayor 1 mo. + 1 1 to 2 2 months + 4 months +
Where the fine shall be from an amount equal to the day to months. 1 day to 1 day to
value of the damage up to 3 times such value, but shall 6 months 4 months. 6 months.
in no case be less than 25 pesos. Arresto Menor 1 to 1 to 11 to 21 to
● Article 210  Direct Bribery 30 days 10 days 20 days 30 days
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
POINTS
I. Article 76 Shows The Manner Divisible Penalties Are Divided Into 3
Periods
● Refer to Article 65 supra for the process
II. When The Penalty Is Composed Of 3 Periods Corresponding To
Different Divisible Penalties
● It is clear that the duration of each of the periods of the
divisible penalties as fixed in the table is NOT controlling when
the penalty prescribed is composed of 3 periods corresponding
to different divisible penalties.
● Article 76 provides that “divisible penalties shall be considered
as divided into three parts, forming three periods,” without
stating that the three parts must be three equal portions of
time included in the divisible penalties, but the time included in
each of the divisible penalties mentioned in the table in that
article, except that of arresto mayor, is divided into three equal
portions.
III. Distinction Between “Period” And “Degree”
● Period  3 equal parts of a divisible penalty.
If you forget the periods, just follow the steps:
o Step 1: get the duration of each period
o Step 2: divide that by 3
o Step 3: add the quotient to the beginning of each
period starting with the minimum
● Degree  diverse penalties mentioned by name in the
RevisedPenal Code.
Article 77. – When the penalty is a complex one composed of
three distinct penalties. In cases in which the law prescribes a
penalty composed of 3 distinct penalties, each one shall form a
period; the
lightest of them shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and the
most severe the maximum period.
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms
specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be distributed,
applying by analogy the prescribed rules
POINTS
I. Complex Penalty
● Penalty composed of 3 distinct penalties, each forming a
period.
● Example:
o Reclusion temporal to death (Article 114)
 Maximum - Death
 Medium - Reclusion Perpetua
 Minimum - Reclusion Temporal
II. Application By Analogy Of Rules
1. Article 114(3), provides a penalty of prision mayor to death.
a. Max  death (because it’s indivisible)
b. Medium  reclusion perpetua (because it’s indivisible)
c. Minimum  prision mayor to reclusion temporal
2. Article 294(2), provides penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua.
a. Max  reclusion perpetua (being indivisible)
b. Medium  reclusion temporal in its maximum period
c. Minimum  reclusion temporal in its medium period.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

CHAPTER 5: EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES ● If the person is acquitted, he can’t be subjected to public
censure (People v. Abellera).
● If the judge sentence accused to 25 years of reclusion perpetua,
SECTION 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
he cannot be compelled to serve sentence because there is no
such thing. Remedy is writ of habeas corpus.
Article 78. – When and how a penalty is to be executed.
No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment.
Article 79. – Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties
in case of insanity.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that
When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final
prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents than
sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall
those expressly authorized thereby.
be suspended only with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions
of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of article 12 being
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations
observed in the corresponding cases.
prescribed for the government of the institutions in which the
penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall
character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance,
be executed, unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance
and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts
with the provisions of this Code.
among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may
receive, and their diet.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the
insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in
different institutions, or at least into different departments, and also
POINTS
for the correction and reform of the convicts.
I. Rules Regarding The Execution Of Penalties In Case Of Insanity
POINTS
1. Convict becomes insane/imbecile after final judgment 
sentence is suspended only as regards the personal penalty.
I. Only Penalty By Final Judgment Can Be Executed
2. If he recovers his reason  sentence shall be executed unless
● The judgment must be final before it can be executed, because
it has prescribed.
the accused may still appeal within 15 days from its
3. Even while serving sentence, the convict becomes insane/an
promulgation, but if he waives by writing his right to appeal,
imbecile, Article 79 shall be observed.
the judgment becomes immediately final.
4. Civil or pecuniary liabilities shall not be suspended.
● If the judgment does not confer subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, the accused cannot be required to suffer the
same in case of inability to pay the fine imposed on him.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
II. Only Execution Of Personal Penalty Is Suspended In Case Of
Insanity; Civil Liability May Be Executed Even In Case Of Insanity Of
Convict.
● Guardian can be appointed to administer the property, so civil
liability can be imposed.
III. An Accused Person May Become Insane (With Effects):
1. At the time of the commission of the offense
o Exempted from criminal liability (Article 12.1)
2. At the time of trial
o Trial suspended until he recovers reason (Article 12.1)
3. At the time of final judgment
o Personal penalty is suspended.
4. While serving sentence
o Personal penalty is suspended.
Article 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 for 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
hereinbelow until such minor shall have reached his majority or for
such less period as the court may deem proper.(As amended by
Republic Act No. 47.)
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 representatives 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.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
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, 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. (As amended by Com. Act No. 99)
POINTS
I. The Provisions Of Article 80 Have Been Repealed By Chapter 3 Of
Presidential Decree No. 603, As Amended By The Provisions Of
Republic Act No. 9344
● Republic Act No. 9344:
o “Child”  below 18
o “Child in Conflict with the Law”  alleged/accused
of/adjudged as having committed an offense under
Philippine Laws.
● Presidential Decree No. 603
o “Youthful Offender”  child/minor/youth, above 9
butbelow 18, at the time of the commission of the
offense.
II. Minimum Age Of Criminal Responsibility
● 15 years old and below  exempt from criminal liability.
● Above 15, below 18  exempt from criminal liability but
withintervention program (but if acted with discernment, he will
be subjected to a diversion program).
III. Intervention Program (Presidential Decree No. 603)
● Custody  child must be released to parents, guardian
or nearest relative. Absence thereof, duly
registered nongovernmental or religious organizations,
barangay official or a member of the Barangay Council for
the Protection of Children, Department of Social Welfare and
Development.
● Appropriate programs  Created in cooperation with the
local social and welfare development officer.
● Involuntary commitment  if the child is
abandoned,neglected or abused.
IV. Diversion Programs For Children Above 15 And Below 18 Who
Acted With Discernment (Article 13.2)
 The child will undergo trial pursuant to the provisions of the
Rules of Court.
A. Automatic Suspension Of Sentence Under Republic Act No. 9344
● When a child under 18 at the time of the commission of the
crime is found guilty of the offense, the court will determine
any civil liability, which may have resulted from the offense.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● However, instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, the
court will place the child under a suspended sentence, without
need of application.
● Provided that suspension of sentence shall be applied even if
the juvenile is already 18 or more at the time of the
promulgation of the sentence.
● Even if minor is charged with a heinous crime, he is still entitled
to suspension of conviction. Republic Act No. 9344 does not
distinguish.
B. Suspension Of Sentence Lasts Only Until The Child In Conflict With
The Law Reaches 21 Years Old
● Max age  21 years old.
● Involves Restoration, Rehabilitation, Reintegration
● What matters is that the offender committed the offense when
he/she was still of tender age, not his/her age during
conviction. Thus, a 25-year-old man may still be sentenced to a
diversion program if he acted with discernment when he
committed the crime when he was 17 years old.
V. COURT PROCEEDINGS
1. Bail
o Consider the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority (Article 68).
2. Release on Recognizance
o Detained child:
 Released on recognizance to parents
 Release of Child in Conflict with Law with bail
 Transfer of youth to rehab center
3. Detention of the Child Pending Trial
o May be released on BAIL or RECOGNIZANCE
o Institutionalization/Detention  last resort and
withthe shortest possible time.
o Youth detention home if detention is necessary 
absent, Department of Social Welfare and
Development or local rehabilitation center within court
jurisdiction.
4. Diversion Measures
o If max is imprisonment of not more than 12 years
(regardless of fine if any)  court will determine
whether or not diversion is appropriate even before
arraignment. This usually applies when the child has
committed a heinous crime.
o If the parents cannot afford to pay for a diversion
program, the government will shoulder the expenses
(1/3 each for the local or municipal, provincial, and
national government).
5. Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law
o Upon recommendation of social worker, the court shall
dismiss the case against the child.
o Final discharge of the child ordered if the objective of
the disposition measures have been fulfilled.
o These will not affect the civil liability of the child.
6. Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to Court
o If disposition measures not fulfilled or child didn’t want
to comply, child  returned to Court for judgment.
o If child has reached 18, Court will determine
 Discharge
 Execute sentence
 Suspend sentence for a time or until child turns
21.
o In turn, the child can appeal the case to a higher court.
7. Credit in Service of Sentence
o Full time spent in actual commitment and detention.
8. Probation as an Alternative to Imprisonment
o After conviction and sentence a child in conflict with
the law, the court may place the child under probation
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
in lieu of service of the sentence taking into
consideration the best interests of the child.
o Probation Law of 1976 is amended accordingly.
VI. Rehabilitation & Reintegration
1. Objective of Rehabilitation & Reintegration
o Intervention, approaches, strategies to improve their
social functioning  Reintegration into
families,productive members of the community.
2. Court Order required before receiving a child in a
rehabilitation facility
o Details shall be entered into a register
o Must be complied with strictly
3. Separate facilities from adults
o Separated from adults unless from same family
o Home environment simulated for comfort
4. Female children
o Personal needs and problems attended to by female
doctors, officers, and social workers
5. Care and maintenance of the Child in Conflict with the Law
o See paragraph 8
o Flow of financial responsibility:
o Parents/people liable for support (whole or in part)
o If #1 cannot pay:
 Municipality (1/3)
 Province where municipality is located (1/3)
 National Government (1/3)
o Note:
 If Secretary of Finance says the municipality
can’t pay, the National Government shall pay
(2/3)
 Chartered cities shall pay (2/3) of the expenses.
If it cannot pay, then the internal revenue
allotments for that city shall be suspended and
the money to be paid to the city shall be used
for the city’s payments for the maintenance of
the confinement of the Child in Conflict with
the Law, pursuant to Section 588 of the AC.
6. Confinement of convicted children in agricultural camps and
other training facilities
o Confinement to such may be done by the court in lieu
of confinement in a regular penal institution
o Such to be maintained by the Bureau of Corrections in
coordination with the Department of Social Welfare
and Development.
7. Rehabilitation of Children in Conflict with the Law
o Children in conflict with the law whose sentences are
suspended, my undergo any or a combination of
disposition measures best suited to the rehab and
welfare of the child (SC Rule on Juveniles in Conflict
with the Law)
o Community-based rehab  child shall be
released to parents. Guardians, relatives, or any other
responsible person in the community. Under the
supervision and guidance of the local social welfare
and development officer (and in coordination with
the abovementioned people), the child in conflict
with the law shall participate in community-based
programs
o Based on progress, a final report shall be forwarded to
the local social welfare and development to be
assessed by the court for final disposition of the case
8. Youth Rehabilitation Center
o 24-hour group care with trained staff.
o Final report to be mdade, as well
9. Civil liability of Youthful Offenders
o Automatic:
 Father, if not
 Mother, if not
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

 Guardian response to any inquiry made to him/her for any

o Voluntary: purpose.
 Relative o Presidential Decree No. 1179 shall not apply to those
 Family friend convicted of an offense punishable by death or life
10. Liability of parents or guardian or any person in the imprisonment.
commission of delinquent acts by their children or wards
o A person whether the parent/guardian of the child or
not, knowingly or willfully,
 Aids, causes, abets, or connives with the
commission by a child of a delinquency
 Does any act producing, promoting, or
contributing to a child’s being or becoming a
juvenile delinquent  P 500 / imprisonment
< 2 years OR both at court’s discretion
11. Confidentiality of records and proceedings
o Privileged and confidential.
o Public shall be excluded during the proceedings.
o Records shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to
anyone by any of the parties/participants for any
purpose EXCEPT to determine the possible suspension
of the child in conflict with the law may have pursuant
to the Probation Law of 1976.
o Component authorities shall undertake all measures to
protect the confidentiality of proceedings.
o Separate police blotter for cases involving children in
conflict with the law.
o Adoption of a system of coding to conceal material info
leading to child’s identity.
o A person who has been in conflict with the law as a
child shall not be held under any provision of law, to be
guilty of perjury or of concealment or
misrepresentation by reason of his/her failure to
acknowledge the case or recite any fact related in
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
SECTION 2 – EXECUTION OF PRINCIPAL PENALTIES
Article 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 persons 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 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. (As amended by Sec. 24,
Republic Act No. 7659.)
POINTS
I. Republic Act No. 9346 Expressly Repealed Republic Act No. 8177,
Which Prescribed Death By Lethal Injection
● According to Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9346, the imposition
of the death penalty is prohibited.
II. Because The Death Penalty May Not Be Imposed Anymore, Articles
81-85 Have No Application
● Article 81 – When and how the death penalty is to be executed.
● Article 82 – Notification and execution of the sentence and
assistance to the culprit.
● Article 83 – Suspension of the execution of the death sentence.
● Article 84 – Place of execution and persons who may witness
the same.
● Article 85 – Provisions relative to the corpse of the person
executed and its burial.
III. Death Sentence Shall Be Executed With Preference To Any Other
Penalty
● In accordance with Article 70 providing for successive service of
sentences.
IV. Death Sentence By Lethal Injection
● This is in accordance with Republic Act No. 8177. Prior to the
enactment of said Republic Act No., the death penalty was
carried out by electrocution.
V. When 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 President’s exercise of pardon.
Article 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.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

o Before it was after 40 days.

POINTS 3. Person over 70 years of age
o Suspension is necessary to give the President time to
I. A convict sentenced to death may make a will. act, because only the President can commute the
● He has the right to consult a lawyer and make a will for the sentence.
disposition of his property. 4. Convict who becomes insane after final sentence of death has
● To know if the convict sentenced to death may dispose of his been pronounced (Article 79).
property inter vivos, it must first be ascertained if the death o But when he recovers his reason and before the
penalty was not executed by reason of commutation or pardon penalty has been prescribed, he may be put to death.
(Article 40).
o Thus, if the death penalty is not executed because of II. Article 83 v. Article 47
commutation or pardon, civil interdiction as an Article 83 Article 47
accessory penalty of Article 40 can be applied, and Purpose SUSPENSION of death When death penalty is NOT to be
according to Article 34, shall deprive the offender to penalty executed
dispose of his property by any act or conveyance inter Cases 1. Woman, while 1. Guilty person is more than
vivos. pregnant 70 y/o
2. Woman, within one 2. Upon appeal/automatic
Article 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. year after delivery review of the SC, the
The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a woman while she is 3. Person over 70 y/o majority vote is not obtained
pregnant or within one (1) year after delivery, nor upon any person 4. Convict who becomes to impose death penalty
over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall insane after final 3. Convict is a minor (below
be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory sentence of death has 18)*
penalty provided in article 40. been pronounced *This may be added in view of
(Article 79) Article 68
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 III. Regional Trial Court Can Suspend Execution Of Death Sentence.
Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power. ● Must be done:
(As amended by Sec. 25, Republic Act No. 7659.) o After the judgment has become final
o After the date has been fixed for execution
POINTS o Upon petition on behalf of the prisoner
o Based upon grounds which does not challenge the
I. Death Sentence Shall Be Suspended When The Accused Is: validity of the judgment or involve a
1. Woman, while pregnant review/reconsideration of the proceedings:
2. Woman, within one year after delivery (Republic Act No. 7659)  Insanity or pregnancy of convict
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
 Alleged non-identity of the prisoner with the
person actually convicted and sentenced
 Alleged lack of a suitable opportunity to be
heard on an application for executive clemency
o HOWEVER, the court cannot grant
(PICpermanent, indefinite, conditional) suspension
of the execution of sentences in criminal cases.
IV. Records To Be Forwarded To The Office Of The President, When
The Death Sentence Has Become Final
● For the possible exercise of the pardoning power.
Article 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.
Article 85. – Provision 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.
POINTS
I. The “Burial Of The Body Of A Person Sentenced To Death” Should
Not “Be Held With Pomp.”
● This is to prevent anyone from making a hero out of a criminal.
Article 86. – Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor,
prision correccional and arresto mayor.
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision
mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and
served in the places and penal establishments provided by the
Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in the
future.
Article 87. – Destierro.
Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the
place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius
therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than
25 kilometers from the place designated.
POINTS
● Memorize this.
● Destierro is a correctional penalty (6 months – 6 years)
● Violation of destierro will give rise to evasion of sentence
(Article 156-159).
Article 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.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

TABLE FOR ARTICLES 84, 86-88

ARTICLE PLACE/S OF EXECUTION WITNESSES OTHER DETAILS
OR SERVICE
84  Penintentiary  Priests
(Death Sentence)  Bilid Prison  Offender’s lawyers
 Offender’s relatives (not ------
exceeding 6, if so requested)
 Physician
 Necessary personnel of the
establishment
86  Places and penal
(Reclusión Perpetua, Reclusión establishments provided by ------ ------
Temporal, Prision Mayor, Prision the AC in force or those that
Correccional, Arresto Mayor) may be provided in the future
87  No place because said  Shall not be permitted to enter
(Destierro) convicted must leave the place ------ the place/s designated, nor
itself w/in a radius specified
 Banishment shall be < 250 km,
but > 25 km from place
designated
88  Municipal jail, or *** Under officer’s surveillance *** Only when the court so
(Arresto Menor) *** House of the defendant provides, subject to the offender’s
himself 1. Health
2. Other reasons satisfactory to it
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

TITLE IV: EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

PAR. 1: BY DEATH OF THE CONVICT
I. Reason:
CHAPTER 1: TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
● One of the juridical conditions of penalty is that it’s personal.
Article 89. – How criminal liability is totally extinguished.
II. Criminal And Civil Liability Is Extinguished When The Offender Dies
Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
Before Final Judgment
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and
● People v. Castillo  When the accused died while the
as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished
judgment of conviction against him was pending, his civil
only when the death of the offender occurs before final
and criminal liability was extinguished by his death.
judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
A. Criminal Liability Is Extinguished By Death At Any Stage Of The
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and
Proceeding
all its effects;
● Nobody will be there to serve the penalty.
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
B. Civil Liability Is Extinguished Only When Death Occurs Before Final
6. By prescription of the penalty; Judgment
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article
● Reason: civil liability exists only when the accused is convicted
344 of this Code. by final judgment
● The civil liability extinguished by death before final judgment
POINTS includes duty to restitute the proceeds of the crime (People v.
Bayotas).
I. Extinction Of Criminal Liability Does Not Automatically/Necessarily
Mean That Civil Liability Is Also Extinguished III. Definition Of “Final Judgment”
● Extinction of criminal liability is a ground for motion to quash. ● As employed in the Revised Penal Code, this means judgment
o The order sustaining such motion is a bar to another beyond recall.
prosecution for the same offense. ● As long as the judgment has not become executory, it cannot
be truthfully said that defendant is definitely guilty of the
II. Causes Of Extinction Of Criminal Liability Distinguished From Causes felony.
Of Justification Or Exemption ● Judgment also becomes final:
Causes of extinction of Causes of justification or exemptions o After the lapse of the 15-day period of perfecting
criminal liability from criminal liability appeal
Arise AFTER the commission Arise from circumstances existing either o When the sentence is partially or fully served.
of the offense BEFORE or AT THE MOMENT of its
commission
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
o When the defendant expressly waives, in writing, his
right to appeal.
IV. Effect Of The Death Of The Accused Pending Appeal On His
Criminal And Civil Liability
● General Rule: Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his the criminal liability and the civil
liability based solely on the offense committed.
● Exception: 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-delict.
● Examples:
o Civil liability for the offense of physical injuries is
entirely separate from the criminal action.
● Right of the offended party to file separate civil action not lost
by prescription when accused dies pending appeal.
o In such case, the statute of limitations on the civil
liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of
the criminal case, conformably with provisions of
Article 1155 of the Civil Code.
V. When Civil Liability Survives
● Action to recover damages from the same act or omission
complained of must be filed as a separate civil action.
● It must be predicated not on the criminal liability previously
charged, but on other sources of obligation.
● Other sources of obligation:
o If the same act or omission complained of also arises
from quasi-delict or may, by provision of law, result in
an injury to person or property  civil action must
be filed against the executor or administrator of the
estate of the accused. (Sec.1, Rule 87, Rules of Court).
o If the same act or omission complained of also arises
from contract  civil action must be filed against
theestate of the accused (Sec.5, Rule 86, Rules of Court).
VII. When Death Does Not Extinguish Criminal Liability
● The offense committed in a crime is against the state.
PAR. 2: BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE
I. Extinguishes Criminal Liability But NOT Civil Liability
● Crime is a debut incurred by the offender as a consequence of
his wrongful act and the penalty is but the amount of his debt,
which is extinguished once paid.
● Period during which convict was not inside prison walls cannot
be regarded as service of sentence. Service of sentence must
be in a penal institution.
PAR. 3: BY AMNESTY
I. Amnesty Defined
● An act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or general
pardon for a past offense.
o A public act that must be concurred to by the Congress.
● Rarely exercised in favor of a single individual, and usually in
behalf of certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but
have not been convicted (e.g. political offenders).
II. Amnesty Completely Extinguishes The Penalty And All Its Effects
● Act of grace, relieves the offender not only from suffering the
penalty but obliterates the effects of the conviction as if the act
were not criminal.
● But the amnesty does not include any crime not covered by the
proclamation itself. The latter must specify the crimes to which
amnesty is extended.
III. Amnesty May Be Granted After Conviction
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● The amnesty proclamation (e.g. Proclamation No. 51) in favor
of the Hukbalahaps is applicable to those already undergoing
sentence upon the date of its promulgation.
IV. Civil Liability Not Extinguished By Amnesty
● Amnesty wipes out all traces and vestiges of the crime, but
does not extinguish civil liability.
PAR. 4: BY ABSOLUTE PARDON
I. Pardon Defined
● It is an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with
the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on
whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for
the crime he has committed.
● Kinds: (1) absolute pardon and (2) conditional pardon.
● Delivery is an indispensable requisite. Until accepted, all that
may have been done is a matter of intended favor and may be
cancelled.
II. Who Gives Pardon
A. Pardon By The Offended Party Does Not Extinguish Criminal
Liability
● Article 266-C (valid marriage between offender and victim in
rape)
o Article 266-C: VALID marriage between offender and
offended party in rape or sexual assault will extinguish
criminal liability and even the penalty already imposed.
So even if the convict is already serving sentence,
marriage with the victim will extinguish his criminal
liability.
 Marriage must be valid. If it is void, there will
be no extinguishment of criminal liability.
(Upon declaration of the court that it was void,
does the accused go back to prison?)
 If there are 3 accused: Principal by Direct
Participation, Principal by Indispensable
Cooperation, and an accomplice, will the
marriage between the victim and the Principal
by Direct Participation extinguish the liability of
the other accused? YES. This was the intent of
the Senate when they removed the original
proviso stating that the co-principal, etc. are
not benefited, as manifested by Senator
Enrile’s statement in Senate Bill No. 950.
 In rape cases, is the pardon of the parents of
the victim without the concurrence of the
minor victim herself effective? Boado: NO.
Offended minor must also give her express
pardon.
● Article 344 (seduction, acts of lasciviousness, adultery,
concubinage, abduction).
o Offended party may pardon before institution of
criminal case (filing of complaint).
o Can the President pardon even if it’s a private crime?
Yes.
● What is the effect of an affidavit of desistance? Simply an
additional ground to buttress the accused’s defenses, not the
sole consideration that can result in acquittal.
B. Pardon By The President
● Private act of the President and must be proved by the
accused.
● Must be done after final judgment.
● Does not extend to cases of impeachment.
● Absolute pardon by the President restores all civil rights,
EXCEPT:
o Right to suffrage
o Right to hold public office
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

Note: These two rights must be specifically granted by ● Adultery case: US v. Guarin
the pardon of the President o Facts: A was charged for adultery with a married
woman. The married woman was pardoned.
C. A v. B o Issue: Is A also pardoned?
Pardon By Offended Party President o Held: No because it is within the discretion of the Chief
General Can’t pardon, except in Article Any crime, including Executive on who is pardoned.
Rule 266-C and Article 344. private crimes. ● Adultery case: People v. Infante
When Before institution of criminal After final judgment o Facts: The one giving the pardon is the offended
action spouse.
Civil Doesn’t extinguish but can be Doesn’t extinguish civil o Held: Both offenders must be pardoned by the
offended party for it to be effective.
Liability waived by offended party. liability.
● Murder after evasion of sentence: Alvarez v. Director of Prisons
o Facts: A was convicted of murder. A evaded, and was
III. Amnesty v. Pardon consequentially convicted of evasion of service. A was
Amnesty Pardon pardoned for murder.
Both do not extinguish civil liability o Held: Pardon refers only to murder. It does not pardon
Blanket pardon to classes or Includes any crime, and exercised or remit the evasion of service of the sentence.
persons guilty of political offenses. individually by the President
May be exercised even before trial Exercised after conviction. PAR. 5&6: BY PRESCRIPTION OF THE CRIME AND BY PRESCRIPTION OF
or investigation. THE PENALTY
Looks backward and abolishes the Looks forward and relives I. Definitions:
offense itself. It is as though the offender from the consequences ● Prescription of crime  forfeiture or loss of the right of
person did not commit any of the crime to which he is theState to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a
offense in the first place. convicted. It does not work to certain time.
restore rights. ● Prescription of penalty  loss or forfeiture of the right of
theGovernment to execute the final sentence after lapse of time.
Amnesty makes an ex-convict no Pardon does not alter the fact that
longer a recidivist as it obliterates the accused is a recidivist as it
II. Conditions necessary:
the crime only extinguishes the personal
effects. ● That there be final judgment
● That the period of time prescribed by law for its enforcement
Needs concurrence of Congress No concurrence of Congress
has elapsed.
Public act  the courts should Private Act  Must be proved
take judicial notice. by
PAR. 7: BY THE MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED WOMAN
the person pardoned.
I. Reason:
IV. Situations
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● Marriage of the offended woman with the offender after rape,
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness (Article 344) must
be contracted in good faith, and not as a means to avoid
criminal liability (devoid of legal effects).
Article 90. – Prescription of crime.
Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal
shall prescribe in twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in
fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten
years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto mayor,
which shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in
six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest
penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules
contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As
amended by Republic Act No. 4661, approved June 19, 1966).
POINTS
I. General Points
A. Implication Of Prescription Of Crime
● The state loses its right to prosecute.
II. In Computing The Period Of Prescription
A. The First Day Is To Be Excluded And The Last Day Included
● Example: Offense committed on May 28, 1953. Filing was on
July 27, 1953. The information is considered filed on 60th day.
o Prescription count: Day 1 begins on May 29, 2953.
● A month is computed as a regular 30-day month. The running
period of prescription will commence the day following the day
on which the crime was committed.
● But as regards to the month of February of a leap year, 28th and
29th are considered separate days in computing prescription.
B. Where The Last Day Of Prescription Falls On A Sunday Or Legal
Holiday
● The information can no longer be filed on the next day as the
crime has already prescribed.
C. When The Penalty Is A Compound One, The Highest Penalty Is The
Basis Of The Application Of The Rules In Article 90
● When the fine is an alternative penalty higher than the other
penalty which is by imprisonment – prescription of the crime is
based on the fine.
o People v. Crisostomo  penalty is arresto mayor
(correctional) and fine P15,000 (afflictive), the
prescription is 15 years.
III. Prescriptive Periods
A. Prescription Of Oral Defamation And Slander By Deed
● Simple slander  2 months
● Grave slander  6 months
B. Crimes Punishable By Arresto Menor Or A Fine Not Exceeding P200
Prescribe In 2 Months
● 2 months means 60 days.
● Fine of P200 exact is still a light felony.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
C. Prescription Of Crimes Punishable By Fines
● Fines are classified as affliction, correctional or light (Article
26).
● Subsidiary penalty should not be considered in determining the
prescriptive period of the crime.
D. Destierro Is Correctional, So It Prescribes In 10 Years.
E. Prescriptive Period Of Offense Punished Under Special Laws And
Municipal Ordinances (Act No. 3763 Amending Act No. 3326).
1. Only a fine or by imprisonment for not more than 1 month, or
both  1 year.
2. Imprisonment for more than 1 month, but less than 2 years 
after 4 years.
3. Imprisonment for 2 years or more, but less than 6 years 
after 8 years.
4. Imprisonment for 6 years or more  after 12 years.
5. Offense under internal Revenue Law  after 5 years.
6. Violations of municipal ordinances  after 2 months.
7. Violations of regulations or conditions of certificate of
convenience by the Public Service Commission  after
1 month.
● Act No 3326 is not applicable where the special law provides
for its own prescriptive period.
● Prescription for violations penalized by special laws and
ordinances shall begin to run for the day of the commission of
the violation of the law. If not known at that time, from the
discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for
its investigation and punishment.
F. Republic Act No. No. 4661 Not Applicable To Cases Already Filed In
Court Prior To June 18, 1966
● Amendatory act of reducing prescriptive period of libel from 2
years to 1 year.
IV. Defense Of Prescription May Be Raised During The Trial Or During
The Appeal
● If the accused failed to move to quash before pleading, he is
deemed to have waived all objections, and thus cannot apply
for the defense of prescription (which under Article 89
extinguishes criminal liability).
● Prescription although not invoked during trial may be invoked
during appeal.
V. The Accused Cannot Be Convicted Of An Offense Lesser Than That
 Charged If The Lesser Offense Had Already Prescribed At The Time The
Information Was Filed.

VI. Prescription Does Not Divest Court Of Jurisdiction; It Is A Ground
For Acquittal Of The Accused
● When there is a plea of prescription by the defense and the
same appears from the allegation of the information or is
established court must jurisdiction holding the action to
have prescribed and acquit the accused.
Article 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.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
POINTS
I. Outline Of Provisions
1. The period of prescription commences to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
authorities or their agents.
2. It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information.
3. It commences 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.
4. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is
absent from the Philippines.
II. When Prescription Begins To Run
A. Commences From Commission Or Discovery Of The Crime
● The contrary view would be dangerous as the successful
concealment of an offense during the period fixed for its
prescription would be the very means by which the offender
may escape punishment.
● It is discovery of crime, not discovery of the offender.
o The fact that culprit is unknown will not prevent he
period of prescription from commencing to run.
o It is not necessary that the accused be arrested.
B. The Crime Is Discovered By:
1. The offended party
2. The authorities
3. Their agents
● Example:
o Facts: A saw B kill C. The body of C was never found. A
was neither a relative of C, nor an authority or agent.
o Issue: If a revealed the information 25 years later, can B
be prosecuted?
o Held: Yes. The period of prescription did not commence
to run until A revealed it to the proper authorities.
C. Period Of Prescription Of Continuing Crime Never Runs
● General Rule: Prescription period for continuing crime cannot
begin to run because there could be no termination of
continuity and the crime does not end.
o Arches v. Bellasillo
 Facts: Accused was charged with violation of
municipal ordinance for having constructed
dikes without authorization. The dikes were
built in 1939, and the case filed in 1947.
 Held: There was nor prescription.
● Exception: If the information alleged that the continuing crime
only existed until a specific time (e.g. dikes were an obstruction
until a specific date only), then the crime ended on that
moment and prescription can be computed.
D. Term Of Prescription Does Not Run When The Offender Is Absent
From The Philippines
● Facts: A committed libel and immediately flew to Hong Kong
after, where he stayed for three years.
● Held: If A returns, he can still be prosecuted for libel as it
prescription period did not begin to run
IV. Interruption Of Running Of Prescriptive Period: Filing Of Complaint
● Period of prescription was interrupted when preliminary
examination was made by municipal mayor but the accused
could not be arrested because he was in hiding. The
proceedings in this case were stopped for reasons imputable to
the accused, that is, they fled to an unknown place making it
difficult to arrest them for further proceedings. Thus, the
prescriptive period does not resume to run.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● Filing Of Complaint With The Prosecutor’s Office Interrupts
Running Period Of The Prescription Of Offense Charged.
Institution of criminal action shall interrupt the period of
prescription of the offense charged unless otherwise provided
in special laws.
● The filing of the complaint in the municipal court even if it be
merely for the purposes of preliminary examination or
investigation, interrupts the period of prescription. The
complaint or information that will interrupt the period of
prescription must be the proper information or complain
corresponding to the offense.
o Thus the filing of information containing elements for
trespass to dwelling cannot be said to interrupt the
prescription of another case containing information
concerning unjust vexation (People v. Abuya).
● Effect of filing amended complain or information upon period
of prescription.
o If it is merely a correction of a defect, the date of the
original complaint or information should be considered.
V. When Of Running Of Prescriptive Period Resumes
A. “Proceedings Terminate Without The Accused Being Convicted Or
Acquitted”
● As such, the period of prescription commenced to run again.
● Termination of a criminal case contemplated in Article 91 on
prescription of crimes refers to a termination that is final as to
amount to jeopardy that would bar a subsequence prosecution.
B. “Or Are Unjustifiably Stopped For Any Reason Not Imputable To
Him”
● If the proceedings are stopped for a reason imputable to the
accused, the period of prescription does not commence to run
again.
● Example: When the accused evaded arrest and the case has to
be archived by the court, the proceedings are stopped because
of the fault of the accused.
VI. Special Penal Laws
A. Act No. 3326 Applies
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise
provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following
rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine or by
imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after four
years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month,
but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by
imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six years; and (d)
after twelve years for any other offense punished by imprisonment
for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall
prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal
ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known
at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
proceeding for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted
against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy.
B. Article 91 May Apply When A Special Law (While Providing A
Prescriptive Period) Does Not Prescribe Any Rule For The Application
Of That Period.
● In Act 3326, what does “proceedings” mean?
o It includes judicial proceedings, and
o It also includes executive proceedings. This means
investigation by the executive department.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● Hence, when a criminal complaint is filed in SEC for the
investigation of a crime, the period is interrupted. (SEC v.
Interport  wherein the Court said that the investigation
of the SEC for a crime under the Revised Securities Act
interrupted the period.)
● Hence, in a complaint under the Intellectual Property Law, the
prescription period is interrupted when the complaint is filed
with the Department Of Justice for preliminary investigation.
o See also Panaguiton v. DOJ which said the same thing.
● For cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure, the
prescriptive period is interrupted when the information is filed
in the Municipal Trial Court (no preliminary investigation eh).
B. Some Laws Provide Their Own Prescriptive Periods
● Omnibus Election Code - 5 years
● Genocide Law (Republic Act No. 9851) - never prescribes
● Human Security Act (Republic Act No. 9372) - Revised Penal
Code has suppletory application.
C. Article 91 May Apply When A Special Law (While Providing A
Prescriptive Period) Does Not Prescribe Any Rule For The Application
Of That Period.
● Facts: Accused was prosecuted for violation of Usury Law.
● Held: The rules of Article 91 regarding the commencement of
the prescriptive period either from the day the offense was
committed (if known) or the day it was discovered can apply.
● Exception: In cases of SPL and the accused is not in the
Philippines, the prescriptive period keeps running (Romualdez
v. Marcelo).
● Supposing a real estate document is executed (like a REM, deed
of sale) and it is falsified. When does the period run? For
documents required to be filed with the Register of Deeds, the
period begins to run upon filing with the Register of Deeds.
Why? Because Presidential Decree No. 1529 says that filing
with the Register of Deeds is constructive notice to all persons.
(People v. Reyes).
o Can the period start earlier? YES. If the falsification is
discovered before filing with the Register of Deeds.
(People v. Pacificador).
● Does this apply to marriages for bigamy (Since The marriage
certificate is registered with the civil registrar anyway)? NO.
The prescriptive period should begin to run from when the
offended party, State or its agents, acquired actual knowledge
of the second marriage.
o There is no counterpart provision in the Civil Register
Act which states that filing with the civ register is
constructive notice. Moreover, bigamous marriages are
usually done in a concealed manner. Hence, the period
will only begin to run upon discovery of the bigamous
marriage.
V. Prescription Of Certain Offenses
A. Prescription Of Election Offenses – (1) If Discovery Of Offense Is
Incidental To Judicial Proceedings, Prescription Beings When Such
Proceeding Terminates; Otherwise (2) From Date Of Commission.
● Thus, if falsification committed by inspectors in connection with
counting the votes was known to the protestants and their
election watchers BEFORE FILING of the election protests, the
period of prescription began from the DATE OF COMMISSION
of the offense (People v. Cariño).
B. Prescription Of The Offense Of False Testimony – From Time
Principal Case Is Finally Decided
● The act of testifying falsely against the defendant does not
constitute an actionable offense until the principal case is
finally decided. And before an act becomes a punishable
offense, it cannot possibly be discovered as such by the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
offended party, the authorities or their agents (People v.
Maneja).
Article 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.
POINTS
I. General Points
● Loss of the State of the right to make the convict serve his
sentence by the lapse of time.
II. In Prescription Of Crimes, It Is The Penalty Prescribed By Law That
Should Be Considered; In Prescription Of Penalties, It Is The Penalty
IMPOSED That Should Be Considered
● Examples:
o A committed a crime punishable by prision mayor. 12
years elapsed before it was discovered. Can A still be
prosecuted? YES. The prescriptive period of an afflictive
penalty is 15 years.
o After proving two mitigating circumstances without
aggravating, the imposed penalty was prision
correccional. A commenced to serve the sentence, but
escaped and remained at large for 12 years. If A is
caught, can he still be made to serve the remainder of
his sentence? NO. The prescriptive period of a
correctional penalty is 10 years.
III. Fine As A Light Penalty
● Where the issue is the prescription of a crime and not the
prescription of the penalty, Article 9 should prevail.
o Facts: A committed a crime to which the penalty was
P200.
o Held: the prescriptive period is 2 months. Anytime
within that, A can be charged and convicted.
● The subsidiary penalty for nonpayment of the fine is
immaterial
o If the fine is P525.00, the penalty prescribes in 10 years.
It being a correctional penalty.
Article 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.
POINTS
I. Outline Of The Provisions
1. The period of prescription of penalties commences to run from
the date when the culprit ended the service of his sentence.
2. It is interrupted if the convict:
a. Gives himself up
b. Be captured
c. Goes to a foreign country with which we have no
extradition treaty
d. Commits another crime before the expiration of the
period of prescription.
● Note: The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to
run again when the convict escapes again, after having been
captured and returned to prison.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
II. Elements
1. That the penalty is imposed by final sentence.
2. That the convict evaded the service of the sentence by escaping
during the term of his sentence.
3. That the convict who escaped from prison has not given himself
up or been capture, or gone to a foreign country with which we
have no extradition treaty, or committed another crime.
4. That the penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of time
from the date of the evasion of the service of the sentence by
the convict.
III. FIRST ELEMENT: The Penalties Must Be Imposed By Final Sentence
● If the convict appealed and thereafter fled to the mountains,
the penalty imposed upon him would never prescribe because
pending appeal the sentence is not final.
IV. SECOND ELEMENT: Convict Evades Service Of Sentece
● Evasion of the service of the sentence is an essential element of
prescription of penalties.
● The defense of prescription of penalties will not prosper if one
received a conditional pardon because there was no evasion of
the service of the sentence. Evasion presupposed escaping
during the service of the sentence consisting in the deprivation
of liberty.
o Acceptance of a conditional pardon interrupts the
prescription period (it will stop running).
● Period of prescription that ran during the time the convict
evaded service of sentence is not forfeited upon his capture.
o The prescription that ran in his favor should be taking
into account.
V. THIRD ELEMENT: Convict Has Not Given Himself Up Or Been
Capture, Or Gone To A Foreign Country With Which We Have No
Extradition Treaty, Or Committed Another Crime.
A. “Should go to some foreign country with which this Government
has no extradition treaty”
● If the convict escapes to a country where the government has
an extradition treaty, but that same treaty does not cover the
crime committed, the running of the prescriptive period will
still be considered interrupted.
B. “Should commit another crime before the expiration of the period
of prescription”
● This assumes that the convict will be arrested for having
committed such crime. He can thus be made to serve the
remainder of the sentence which he evaded.
● Evading the service of the sentence is not committing a crime
before the expiration of the period of prescription of penalties.
o This phrase “should commit xxx” refers to crime
committed when the prescription period has begun to
run.
● Period of prescription will commence to run from the date the
convict evades his sentence.
VI. Reason why evasion of service of sentence is taken in favor of the
convict in prescription of penalties
● During that period of prescription the escaped convict lives a
life of a hunted animal, hiding mostly in the mountains and
forests in constant mortal fear of being caught. His life far from
being happy, comfortable and peaceful is reduced to a mere
existence filled with fear, discomfort, loneliness and misery.
● The convict who evades sentence is sometimes sufficiently
punished by his voluntary and self-imposed banishment and at
time, that voluntary exile is more grievous than the sentence
he was trying to avoid.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

VII. Prescription of Crime v. Prescription of Penalty

Prescription of Crime Prescription of Penalty
Loss of right to prosecute Loss of right to enforce the
penalty
Prosecution has yet to begin Trial on the merits already
concluded
Convict may not have been under Convict already was in custody
custody
Begins when corpus delicti Begins when crime of evasion of
discovered service of sentence is done
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
CHAPTER 2: PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Article 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
POINTS
PARAGRAPH 1: CONDITIONAL PARDON
I. Nature Of Conditional Pardon.
● Conditional pardon delivered and accepted is considered a
contract between the sovereign power of the executive and the
convict that the executive will release the convict upon
compliance with the condition.
● Must be given after final judgment and must be accepted by
accused.
● Does not extinguish civil liability.
II. Usual Condition Imposed Upon The Convict In Conditional Pardon.
● In conditional pardon: the condition usually imposed upon the
convict  “he shall not again violate any of the penal laws
of the Philippines”
III. Effect Of Violation Of Condition
● If one violates his conditional pardon, two things can happen:
a. (Administrative Procedure) President orders his re-
arrest and incarceration (no need for judicial
determination of guilt), or
b. (Judicial Procedure) Prosecuted under 159 of the
Revised Penal Code.
● Where one is granted a conditional pardon on the condition
that he should not kill any more. What is his liability if he kills
again? (1) Article 159 AND (2) Homicide. Two distinct crimes;
no complex crime.
PARAGRAPH 2: COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
I. Commutation Of Sentence
● Change of the decision of the court made by the Chief
Executive by reducing the degree of the penalty inflicted upon
the convict OR by decreasing the length of the imprisonment or
the amount of the fine.
Ii. Specific Cases Where Commutation Is Provided For By The Code.
1. When the convict sentenced to death is over 70 years of age
(Article 83).
2. When eight justices of the Supreme Court fail to reach a
decision for the affirmation of the death penalty.
● In either case, the degree of the penalty is reduced from death
to RP.
● In commutation of sentence, consent of the offender is not
necessary. The public welfare, not his consent, determines
what shall be done. (Biddle v. Perovich)
PARAGRAPH 3: GOOD CONDUCT ALLOWANCES
I. For Good Conduct Allowances
● Allowances for good conduct are deductions from the term of
sentence for good behavior. (Article 97)
● Different from that provided in Article 29 which is an
extraordinary reduction of full time or four-fifths of the
preventive imprisonment from the term of the sentence.
● A prisoner is also entitled to a special time allowance for
loyalty. (Article 98) A deduction of 1/5 of the period of his
sentence is granted to a loyal prisoner. (See Article 158)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
OTHER GROUNDS FOR PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
I. Parole Under Indeterminate Sentence Law.
● The parole granted to a convict by the Parole Board should be
added. A parole may be granted to a prisoner after serving the
minimum penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
A. Definition Of Parole
● Parole 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 suspended.
● If convict fails to observe the conditions of the parole, the
Board of Pardons and Parole is authorized to direct his arrest
and return to custody and thereafter to carry out his sentence
without deduction of the time that has elapsed between the
date of the parole and the subsequent arrest.
B. Is Conviction Necessary To Revoke Parole? Yes.
● The mere commission, not conviction by the court, of any crime
is sufficient to warrant parolee’s arrest and re-incarceration
(Guevara).
● In a petition for habeas corpus, it was contended that the
recommitment order was premature, because it came down
before his convictions of the series of estafa committed by him
during the period of the parole. It was held that it was now
rather academic, even assuming that final conviction is
necessary in order to constitute a violation of the condition of I. Outline Of The Provisions:
the parole (Fortunato v. Director).
C. Conditional Pardon v. Parole
Conditional Pardon Parole
When Given any time after final Given after the prisoner has
Given judgment served the minimum penalty
imposed on him
By Who Granted by the Chief Granted by the Board of
Executive Pardons and Parole
Statute Administrative Code Indeterminate Sentence Law
Involved
Penalty for The convict may be The convict cannot be
violation ordered rearrested or prosecuted under Article 159.
reincarcerated by the He can be rearrested and
Chief Executive, or may reincarcerated to serve the
be prosecuted under unserved portion of his
Article 159 of the Revised original penalty
Penal Code
II. Probation
III. Partial Repeal Of A Penal Law
Article 95. – Obligation incurred by a 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 noncompliance 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.
POINTS
1. He must comply strictly with the conditions imposed in the
pardon.
2. Failure to comply with the conditions shall result in the
revocation of the pardon. Under Section 64(i), R.A.C., the Chief
Executive may order his arrest and reincarceration. (People v.
Aglahi)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
3. He becomes liable under Article 159. This is the judicial
remedy.
II. Condition Of Pardon Is Limited To The Unserved Portion Of The
Sentence, Unless An Intention To Extend It Beyond That Time Is
Manifest
● Duration of the conditions subsequent, annexed to a pardon 
limited to the period of the prisoner’s sentence, unless an
intention to extend it beyond the term of his sentence was
manifest from the nature of the condition or the language in
which it was imposed. (Infante v. Warden)
III. Illustration:
● If a convict was sentenced to 12 years and 1 day of relclusion
temporal (the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty),
and after serving 5 years he was granted a conditional pardon -
the condition being that he should not commit any crime in the
future - that condition must be complied with by him until the
end of the 7 years from the grant of the conditional pardon, it
being the unserved portion of his sentence.
● If he commits a crime after the expiration of the 7 years, he is
not liable for violation of the conditional pardon. The condition
of the pardon is no longer operative when he commits a new
offense.
● But if he commits a crime before the expiration of the 7 years,
he is liable for violation of the conditional pardon.
Article 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.
Article 97. – Allowance for good conduct.
The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle
him to the following deduction from the period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of 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
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.
POINTS
I. Application Of The Provisions Of Article 97
● People v. Tan: Release of appellee Tan by the provincial
warden, after an imprisonment of only 2 years, 8 months and
21 days, was premature.
● Under paragraph No. 1, Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code,
he may be allowed a deduction of 5 days for each month of
good behavior during his first 2 years of imprisonment, which
would be 24 months multiplied by 5, or 120 days;
● Under paragraph No. 2, he may be allowed a deduction of 8
days a month for the next 3 years.
● For the balance of 8 months, multiplied by 8, we have 64 days;
so that the total credit for good behavior would be 184 days,
equivalent to 6 months and 4 days. The prisoner’s actual
confinement of 2 years, 8 months and 21 days, plus his possible
total credit of 6 months and 4 days, would give the result of 3
years, 2 months and 25 days. Since the maximum term of his
sentence is 4 years and 2 months, appellee Tan has an
unserved portion of 11 months and 5 days.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
II. No Allowance For The Good Conduct While Prisoner Is Released
Under Conditional Pardon
● Reason  the good conduct time allowance is given in
consideration of the good conduct observed by the
prisoner while serving his sentence. In this case, the
accused was enjoying liberty under a conditional pardon. He
was not serving the remitted penalty in prison (People v.
Martin).
● By a consideration of the terms of Article 96 alone, and also in
conjunction with other parts of the Revised Penal Code, the
phrase “any prisoner” in Article 97 thereof is to be regarded as
referring only to a prisoner serving sentence (Baking v. Director
of Prisons).
Article 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 158 of this Code, gives himself
up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or
catastrophe referred to in said article.
POINTS
I. What Is Special Time Allowance For Loyalty Of Prisoner?
● It is a deduction of 1/5 of the period of the sentence of a
prisoner who, having evaded the service of his sentence during
the calamity or catastrophe mentioned in Article 158, gives
himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the
issuance of the proclamation by the President announcing the
passing away of the calamity or catastrophe.
● He must escape and then return. If he doesn’t escape, just stays
put in the prison, he doesn’t get any good conduct allowance.
o Lesson: escape, but return.
II. The Deduction Of 1/5 Is Based On The Original Sentence
● While this article mentions “the period of his sentence,” it
should be understood that the convict is to be credited for
loyalty with 1/5 of his original sentence -- not of the unexpired
portion of his sentence.
III. Article 158 Provides For Increased Penalty
● Article 158: a convict who evaded the service of his sentence
by leaving the penal institution where he had been confined,
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 to the authorities within
48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief
Executive announcing the passing away of the calamity.
Article 99. – Who grants time allowance.
Whenever lawfully justified, the director of Prisons shall grant
allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not
be revoked.
POINTS
I. The Authority To Grant Time Allowance Is Exclusively Vested In The
Director.
● Allowance for good conduct is not an automatic right, for the
Director or Prisons must grant it.
o Allowances for good conduct once granted by the
Director of Prisons cannot be revoked by him.
● There is no justification for the provincial warden’s usurping
the authority of the Director of Prisons in crediting the prisoner
with good conduct time allowance. Such authority is
exclusively vested in the Director. (People v. Tan)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
TITLE FIVE: CIVIL LIABILITY
CHAPTER 1: PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
I. Persons Civilly Liable For Felonies
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.
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.
● The social injury is sought to be repaired through the
imposition of the corresponding penalty while the personal
injury, through indemnity, which is civil in nature.
Article 100. – Civil liability of a person guilty of felony.
Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
POINTS
I. Civil Liability Arising From Offenses
● Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently
causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same. (Article 20, Civil Code)
● Civil obligations arising from the criminal offenses shall be
governed by the penal laws. (Article 1161, Civil Code)
● The civil liability arising from negligence under the Revised
Penal Code is entirely separate and distinct from the
responsibility for fault or negligence called a quasi-delict.
(Article 2176, Civil Code) But the party claiming payment for
the damage done cannot recover twice for the same act or
omission of the defendant. (Article 2177, Civil Code)
o Thus, if A was convicted of serious physical injuries
through negligence under the Revised Penal Code, and
B, the injured party, was indemnified in the criminal
case for the damages caused to him, the latter cannot
recover damages in a separate civil action for the same
act or omission of A.
● Civil liability under the Revised Penal Code includes:
a. Restitution
b. Reparation of the damage caused
c. Indemnification for consequential damages (Article
104)
II. Basis Of Civil Liability
● Underlying the legal principle that a person who is criminally
liable is also civilly liable is the view that from the standpoint of
its effects, a crime has dual characters:
a. As an offense against the state because of the
disturbance of the social order
b. As an offense against the private person injured by the
crime unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion,
espionage, contempt ad 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 the ultimate analysis, what gives rise to the civil liability is
really the obligation of everyone to repair or to make whole the
damage caused to another by reason of his act or omission,
whether done intentionally or negligently and whether or not
punishable by law (Occena v. Icamina).
III. Damages That May Be Recovered In Criminal Cases
● Crimes against property  damages based on the price of
thething and its special sentimental value to the injured party
may be recovered, if the thing itself cannot be restored
(Article 106 Revised Penal Code).
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● 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, and for
medicine, as well as the salary or wages unearned by him
because of his inability to work due to his injuries.
● Damages may also be recovered for loss or impairment of
earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal
injury (Article 2205, Civil Code).
● Moral damages may be recovered in a criminal offense
resulting in physical injuries, in the crimes of seduction,
abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts, adultery or
concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest, illegal
search, libel, slander or any other form of defamation, and in
malicious prosecution. (Article 2219, Civil Code)
● Exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be
imposed when the crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances. (Article 2230, Civil Code)
● Damages for death caused by a crime have been raised to Php
75,000.00 (People v. Lucero). In addition:
1. The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, unless the deceased, on
account of permanent physical disability not caused by
defendant, has no earning capacity;
2. He shall be liable to give support if the deceased was
obliged to give support under Article 291 of the Civil
Code to one not an heir of the deceased;
3. He shall pay moral damages for mental anguish to the
spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and
ascendants. (Article 2206, Civil Code)
IV. But If There Is No Damage Caused By The Commission Of The
Crime, The Offender Is Not Civilly Liable
● Thus, if felony committed could not or did not cause any
damage to another, offender is not civilly liable even if he is
criminally liable for the felony committed.
o Example: A slapped the face of the mayor who was
then in the performance of his duty. Under Article 148,
the crime committed is direct assault. As the slapping
did not cause any injury to the mayor, A is not civilly
liable.
● Possible that there’s a crime but no civil liability, like in
victimless crimes.
o But if the state is the one aggrieved, the state can
recover civil liability (e.g. Malversation).
● Possible that there’s no crime, but there’s still civil liability
(Article 332 – swindling relatives).
V. A Person Criminally Liable For A Felony Is Also Civilly Liable
 Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
 Civil liability arising from crimes (ex delicto) shall be governed
by the penal laws, subject to the provisions of Articles 29 to 35,
2176, 2177, and 2202, 2204, 2206, 2216, 2230, 2233, and 2234
(regulating damages) of the Civil Code and to the provisions of
Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
A. Since A Person Criminally Liable Is Also Civilly Liable, Does His
Acquittal In A Criminal Case Mean Extinction Of His Civil Liability?
● The Revised Penal Code is silent on this point. But the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
o “The extinction of the penal action does not carry with
it extinction of the civil. However, the civil action based
on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that
the act or omission from which the civil liability cay
arise did not exist.” (Section 2, paragraph 4, Rule III,
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● Thus, the dismissal of the information or the criminal action
does not affect the right of the offended party to institute or
continue the civil action already instituted arising from the
offense, because such dismissal or extinction of the penal
action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil one
(People v. Velez). In this case, there was a pending separate
civil action, arising out of the same offense, filed by the
offended party against the same defendant.
● Though the death of an accused-appellant during the pendency
of an appeal extinguished his criminal liability, his civil liability
survives. Extinction of criminal liability does not necessarily
mean that the civil liability is also extinguished. Only the
criminal liability, including the fine, which is pecuniary, but not
civil, of the accused is extinguished by his death, but the civil
liability remains (Petralba v. Sandiganbayan).
● An Acquittal In A Criminal Case Is Not Evidence Of Innocence
In Subsequent Civil Action Based Upon The Alleged Criminal
Act. In a civil case, the Solicitor General moved for the
cancellation of the certificate of naturalization issued in favor
of the petitioner, upon the ground that it was secured illegally
and fraudulently. Among the acts of misrepresentation and
misconduct imputed to the petitioner was the alleged
maltreatment by him of Mrs. Joist. It appeared that the
Municipal Court which tried the maltreatment case acquitted
the defendant (petitioner). The court trying the civil case did
not take into account the evidence introduced in that civil case
in support of the charge of maltreatment.
Held: The trial court erred in not taking into account the
evidence introduced in the civil case in support of the charges
of maltreatment. The Supreme Court stated that the great
weight of authority supports the rule that a judgment of
acquittal is not effective under the doctrine of res judicata in a
later civil action involving the same subject-matter. An acquittal
in a criminal prosecution does not constitute a bar to a
subsequent civil action based upon the alleged criminal act
(Republic v. Asaad).
● But where the state is party to the civil action, the issues
determined by the conviction of the defendant are concluded
in the civil action.
B. Civil Liability May Exist, Although The Accused Is Not Held
Criminally Liable, In The Following Cases:
1. Acquittal on reasonable doubt. – When the accused in a
criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be instituted
(Article 29, Civil Code).
Award in judgment of acquittal.
o The court may acquit an accused on reasonable doubt
and still order payment of civil damages already proved
in the same case without need for a separate civil
action. The reason is the accused has been accorded
due process. To require a separate civil action would
mean needless clogging of court dockets and
unnecessary duplication of litigation with all its
attendant loss of time, effort, and money on the part of
all concerned (Maximo v. Gerochi, Jr.).
2. Acquittal from a cause of non-imputability –The exemption
from criminal liability in favor of an imbecile or insane person,
and a person under 15 years of age, or one over 15 but under
18 years of age, who has acted without discernment, and those
acting under the compulsion of an irresistible force or under
the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury, does not include exemption from civil liability (Article
101, Revised Penal Code).
3. Acquittal in the criminal action for negligence does not
preclude the offended party from filing a civil action to recover
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
damages, based on the new theory that the act is a quasi-delict.
(Article 2177, Civil Code)
4. When there is only civil liability. –When the court finds and so
states in its judgment that there is only civil responsibility, and
not criminal responsibility, and that this finding is the cause of
acquittal. (De Guzman v. Alva)
VI. Prosecution Of Civil Action Arising From Crime
A. Provisions Of Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure (Rule 111) On
The Prosecution Of Civil Action Arising From Offenses:
● Institution of criminal and civil actions – When a criminal
action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil
liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.
o The criminal action for violation of B.P. Blg 22 shall be
deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No
reservation to file such civil action shall be allowed.
● 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 may be brought by
the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the
criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of
evidence. In no case, however, may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the
criminal action (Section 3, Rule 111, Revised Rules Of Criminal
Procedure).
● When separate civil action is suspended. –
a. After the criminal action has been commenced, the
separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be
instituted until final judgment has been rendered in the
criminal action;
b. If the criminal action is filed after said civil action has
already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
whatever stage it may be found before judgment on
the merits. The suspension shall last until final
judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is
rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon
motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the
criminal action in the court trying the criminal action. In
case of consolidation, the evidence already adduced in
the civil action shall be deemed automatically
reproduced in the criminal action without prejudice to
the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the
witnesses presented by the offended party in the
criminal case and of the parties to present additional
evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions
shall be tried and decided jointly (Section 2, Rule 111,
Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure).
● Judgment in civil action not a bar. –A final judgment rendered
in a civil action absolving the defendant from civil liability is not
bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act
or omission subject of the civil action (Section 5, Rule 111,
Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure).
● Suspension by reason or 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 prosecutor 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
(Section 6, Rule 111, Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure).
VII. Exception To The Rule That Extinction Of The Criminal Action Does
Not Extinguish Civil Action.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● The civil action reserved by the complainant during the
prosecution of the criminal action will be allowed after
termination of the criminal proceedings, only when he as the
right thereto, that is to say, when the judgment rendered is one
of conviction, or, in case the accused is acquitted, the
complainant is based on some other fact that was charged with
the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.
The court acquitted him from the charge on the ground that
money had been received or retained by him pursuant to an
arrangement between the latter and the offended party, and
that the liability of the defendant for the return of the amount
so received arises from a civil contract, not from a criminal act,
and may not be enforced in the criminal case (People v.
Miranda).
● Since the court acquitted the accused on the ground that the
money had been received or retained by appellant pursuant to
an arrangement between the latter and the offended party, in
order to conceal the transaction from the other offended party,
it was improper and unwarranted to impose a civil liability in
the same criminal action. The liability of the defendant for the
return of the amount so received arises from a civil contract,
not from a criminal act, and may not be enforced in the
criminal case but in a separate civil action (People v. Miranda).
● People v. Lagman: Complainant appealed, through her private
prosecutor, from the decision of the lower court, acquitting the
accused on the ground of reasonable doubt, the Court of
Appeals Held: "With respect to the award of damages in favor
of the complainant, the rule is that in a criminal case, the
accused is civilly liable only if he is found guilty. But not if he is
declared innocent. In the case before us, the accused was
acquitted of the crime charged. Therefore, the award of
damages in favor of the complainant should be set aside."
o Ruling is erroneous for two reasons:
a. Under Article 29 of the Civil Code, when the accused in
a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that
his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, a
civil action for damages for the same act or omission
may be instituted.
b. According to Section 2(b), Rule 111 of the Rules of
Court, extinction of the penal action does not carry
with it extinction of the Civil, and in that case the lower
court did not make any declaration that the fact from
which the civil may arise did not exist
A. When The Final Judgment In A Criminal Case Does Not State "That
The Fact From Which The Civil Might Arise Did Not Exist," Extinction
Of The Penal Action Does Not Carry With It Extinction Of The Civil
● The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it
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 criminal action that the act or omission
from which the civil liability may arise did not exist.
● When the accused in a criminal case for estafa (Revised Penal
Code Article315) was acquitted because there was no
conversion or misappropriation, an element of the crime, then
but the evidence shows that she really received the jewelry,
then the civil action is not extinguished (Laperal v. Alvia).
● But if in a criminal case for arson, the court states in its
judgment of acquittal that "the accused cannot in any manner
be held responsible for the fire," such declaration fits well into
the exception of the rule and actually exonerates the accused
from civil liability (Tan v. Standard Vacuum Oil Co.).
● The question is whether appellants may still recover damages
from Priela, considering that he has been explicitly acquitted by
the trial court, upon the ground that "he has not been remiss in
his caution nor in his presence of mind trying to avoid" said
"freak accident."
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
Held: Pursuant to the Rules of Court: "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." In the
case at bar, the decision appealed from has not only acquitted
Priela; but also, declared that the collision, which resulted in
the destruction of appellants' car, had not been due to any
negligence on his part. SInce appellants' civil action is
predicated upon Priela's alleged negligence, which does not
exist, according to said final judgment, it follows necessarily
that his acquittal in the criminal action carries with it the
extinction of the civil responsibility arising therefrom (Faraon v.
Priela).
VIII. Commencement Of Criminal Action Not A Condition Precedent To
The Filing And Prosecution Of Civil Action Arising From Crime
● The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure permit the institution
of a civil action to demand civil responsibility arising from crime
before the institution of the criminal prosecution.
● A contrary doctrine would render the right of the injured party
to indemnity a myth, and justice a farce, for the guilty party
would be able to dispose of his property (Alba v. Acuna).
A. But The Civil Action Arising From Crime Cannot Be Instituted Or
Prosecuted In The Following Cases:
1. After the criminal action has been commenced, the separate
civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted until final
judgment has been entered in the criminal action (Section 2,
Rule 111, Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure).
2. If the criminal action is filed after the said civil action has
already been instituted, the latter shall be suspended in
whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits.
The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the
criminal action (Section 2, Rule 111, Revised Rules Of Criminal
Procedure).
● The rule which requires the suspension of the civil case after
the criminal action has been commenced, refers to the
commencement of the criminal action in court and not to the
mere filing of a complaint with the prosecuting officer. (Coquia
et al v. Cheong)
B. Judgment In The Civil Case Already Promulgated Cannot Be
Suspended By The Filing Of Criminal Action
● The provisions of Section 2 of Rule 111, Rules of Court, that
"after a criminal action has been commenced, no civil action
arising from the same offense can be prosecuted, and the same
shall be suspended, in whatever stage it may be found, until
final judgment in the criminal proceeding has been rendered"
does not contemplate the suspension of a judgment already
promulgated in a civil action by the filing of a criminal
complaint with the prosecution attorney charging the winning
party with having introduced false documentary evidence.
(Tanda v. Aldaya)
IX. Section 2 of Rule 111 applies only (1) when the claimant in the civil
action is the offended party in the criminal action and (2) both cases
arise from the same offense.
● Section 2, Rule 111, Revised Rules Of Criminal Procedure,
requiring the suspension of the civil action in view of the
commencement of the criminal action applies only when the
claimant in the civil action is the same offended party in the
criminal action and both cases arise from the same offense or
transaction. (Belleza v. Huntington)
● Thus, if in the civil case, the plaintiff is the accused in the
criminal case and the defendant in that civil case is the
offended party in the criminal case, the counterclaim covering
not only the sum of P24,000.00 advanced to the plaintiff to
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
purchase jute bags but also the sum of P171,000.00 as damages
which the defendant claims to have sustained, and the
information in the criminal case being merely confined to the
former sum (P24k) the claimant (plaintiff) is not the offended
party in the criminal case and both cases do not arise from the
same transaction (Belleza v. Hintington).
● The rule that a civil action shall be suspended until final
judgment is rendered in criminal case, applies when the civil
action arises from the offense charged in the criminal case
(Alerta, et al. v. Medoza).
X. Section 2(A) Of Rule 111 Applies Only To Civil Liability Arising From
Crime
● Thus, when the cause of action in the civil case is based on
culpa contractual and not on the civil liability arising from the
offense involved in the criminal case, Section 2(a) of Rule 111
Rules of Court does not apply and the trial court erred in
suspending the hearing of the civil case until the final
determination of the criminal case. Section 2(a) of Rule 111
contemplates a case where the offended party desires to press
his right to demand indemnity from the accused in the criminal
case which he may assert either in the same criminal case or in
a separate civil action (Parker v. Panlilio).
● Culpa contractual is the basis of a civil action against a
transportation company, for instance, for its failure to carry
safely its passenger to his destination. The obligation to pay for
damages arises from contract, and not from crime.
A. Allegations Of Damages In Information Not Necessary.
● The court may sentence the accused to pay the offended party,
moral and material damages, even if there is no specific
allegation of such damages in the information, provided the
offended party has not expressly waived such liability or
reserved his right to have civil damages determined in a
separate civil action (People v. Vigo).
● Under Article 100 of this Code, when an information or
complaint is filed, even without any allegation of damages and
the intention to prove and claim them, it is to be understood
that the offender is liable for them (People v. Celorico).
XI. Civil Liability Of The Accused Extends In Favor Of Persons Not
Mentioned In The Information.
● In criminal cases where the intervention of the aggrieved
parties is limited to being witnesses for the prosecution, the
civil liability of the accused should not extend only in favor of
the person or persons mentioned in the information. Unless
the record shows that an omitted party has waived the civil
liability or has reserved the right to file a separate civil action to
recover the same, such party's right to the civil liability arising
from the offense is impliedly included in the criminal action.
(People v. Despavellador)
XII. Attachment in criminal cases.
● When the civil action is properly instituted in the criminal
action as provided in Rule 111 the offended party may have the
property of the accused attached as security for the satisfaction
of any judgment that may be recovered from the accused in the
following cases:
a. When the accused is about to abscond from the
Philippines;
b. When the criminal action is based on a claim for money
or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or
converted to the use of the accused who is a public
officer, officer of a corporation, attorney, factor,
broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment
as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity,
or for a willful violation of duty;
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
c. When the accused has concealed, removed, or
disposed of his personal property, or is about to do so;
d. When the accused resides outside the Philippines.
A. Writ Of Attachment, Etc. May Be Issued In Criminal Cases.
● Within the criminal action, with which the civil action is
impliedly instituted, the offended party may obtain the
preliminary writ of attachment. The court in which the civil
action is pending is, after the filing of the information in the
criminal case, not ipso facto deprived of the power to issue
preliminary and auxiliary writs, such as preliminary injunction,
attachment, appointment of receiver, fixing amounts of bonds,
and other processes, of similar nature, which do not go into the
merits of the case (Ramcar, Inc. v. De Leon).
● Availability of provisional remedies – The provisional remedies
in civil actions insofar as they are applicable may be availed of
in connection with civil action deemed instituted with the
criminal action.
XIII. Appeals
A. From The Judgment Of Conviction In Criminal Case, Two Appeals
May Be Taken
● Every criminal case involves two actions: one criminal and
another civil. From a judgment of conviction, two appeals may,
accordingly, be taken. The accused may seek a review of said
judgment as regards both actions. Similarly, the complainant
may appeal with respect only to the civil action. The right of
either to appeal or not to appeal is not dependent upon the
other (People v. Coloma).
B. Remedy Of Offended Party Where Fiscal Asks For Dismissal.
● If the criminal action is dismissed by the court on motion of the
fiscal upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence, the
offended party has no right to appeal, his remedy being a
separate civil action after proper reservation is made therefor
(People v. Lipana).
● The reason for the rule is that the continuation of the offended
party's intervention in a criminal action depends upon the
continuation of such action by the provincial fiscal. Once the
criminal action is dismissed by the trial court on petition of the
provincial fiscal, the offended party's right to intervene ceases,
and he cannot appeal from the order of dismissal, otherwise, it
"would be tantamount to giving said offended party the
direction and control of the criminal proceeding" (People v.
Lipana).
● But the offended party may rightly intervene by interposing an
appeal from the order dismissing the action upon a question of
law (People v. Maceda).
C. Right To Appeal As To Civil Liability.
● When the court found the accused guilty of criminal
negligence, but failed to enter judgment of civil liability, the
private prosecutor has a right to appeal for purposes of the civil
liability of the accused. The appellate court may remand the
case to the trial court for the latter to include in its judgment,
the civil liability of the accused. (People v. Ursua)
D. Offended Party Has Right To Be Heard During The Appeal.
● When a judgment convicting the accused is appealed, the
offended party has the right to be heard during appeal. If the
Solicitor General asks for the reversal of the appealed judgment
and the acquittal of the accused, the offended party has also
the right to be heard. (People v. Villegas)
E. Civil Liability May Be Added Within The 15-Day Period, Even If The
Convict Has Started Serving Sentence.
● Before the expiration of the 15-day period for appealing, the
trial court can amend the judgment of conviction by adding a
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
provision for the civil liability of the accused, and this
notwithstanding that the judgment became final because the
accused had commenced the service of his sentence (People v.
Rodriguez).
● This ruling applies even though an appeal from the judgment of
conviction has already been perfected (People v. Co Ko Tong).
● But after the 15-day period for appealing, the trial court cannot
amend its decision by adding thereto the civil liability (Sese v.
Montesa).
XIV. An Independent Civil Action May Be Brought By The Injured Party
During The Pendency Of The Criminal Case, Provided The Right Is
Reserved
● In cases provided in Articles 31-34 and 2176 of the Civil Code,
the independent civil action may be brought by the offended
party. It shall proceed independently of the criminal action, and
shall require only a preponderance of evidence. In no case,
however, may the offended party recover damages twice for
the same act or omission charged in the criminal action. (Sec. 3,
Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
A. Reservation Of The Right To Institute Separate Civil Action
Necessary In The Following Cases:
1. In any of the cases referred to in Article 32, Civil Code.
2. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries.
o The words "defamation", "fraud" and "physical injuries"
are used in their ordinary sense. The term "physical
injuries" means bodily injury, not the crime of physical
injuries. It includes attempted homicide, frustrated
homicide, or even death (Carandang v. Hon. Vicente
Santiago).
o Estafa is included in the term "fraud."
o Where fraud is the basis for both civil and the criminal
actions, they are according to law, to proceed
independently. IN the same way that the civil suit can
be tried, the criminal prosecution has to run its course
(Rojas v. People).
3. When the civil action is against a member of a city or municipal
police force for refusing or failing to render aid or protection to
any person in case of danger to life or property. Such peace
officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or
municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. (Article
34, Civil Code)
4. In an action for damages arising from fault or negligence, there
being no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties
(quasi-delict) (Article 2176, Civil Code).
o Responsibility for such fault or negligence is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from
negligence under the Revised Penal Code. But the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for same act or
omission of the defendant (Article 2177, Civil Code).
o The purpose of the reservation is to prevent the matter
from becoming res adjudicata. (Philippine Railway Co.
v. Jalandoni)
B. Effect Of Reservation Of Right To Intervene In Prosecution Of
Criminal Case.
● Once the offended party has reserved his right to institute a
separate civil action to recover indemnity, he thereby loses his
right to intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case.
Consequently, appellant no longer had any right to move for
the reconsideration of, much less to appeal from the decision in
the criminal case, insofar as it decided the question of civil
indemnity, for appellant no longer had any standing in the case
(Tactaquin v. Palileo).
● Article 33 of the Civil Code has modified the provisions of Rule
107, Rules of Court. Under said article, a civil action to recover
damages for physical injuries, distinct and separate from the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
criminal action and of which it shall proceed independently,
may be brought by the injured party; hence, the right to file
said complaint for damages need not even be reserved.
(Alvarez v. Manalaysay)
C. If The Offended Party In The Criminal Case Is Represented By A
Private Prosecutor, He Cannot File An Independent Civil Action.
 If the offended party elected to claim the civil liability in the
criminal case by intervening therein through a private
prosecutor and the court did not award any civil liability
because the offended party did not present evidence, he
cannot thereafter file an independent civil action for said civil
liability. The matter is already res judicata in the criminal case.
(Roa v. De la Cruz)
D. When The Accused Pleaded Guilty During The Arraignment, So That
The Offended Party Could Not Have Expressly Renounced His Right To
File The Civil Action Or Reserved The Same, Can The Latter
Subsequently File A Civil Action For Indemnity For Physical And Moral
Damages Caused By The Accused?
 The mere appearance of a private prosecutor in the criminal
case does not necessarily constitute such intervention on the
part of the aggrieved party as could only import an intention to
press claim for damages in said criminal case and a waiver of
the right to file a separate civil action for damages, where the
accused had pleaded guilty upon arraignment and was
immediately sentenced, there being no chance for the
aggrieved party to present evidence in support of the claim for
damages and to enter a reservation in the record to file a
separate civil action (Reyes v. Sempio-Diy).
XV. Prejudicial Question
● This is another exception to the rule that the criminal action
shall be decided first and that the civil action should be
suspended.
● Prejudicial questions must be decided before any criminal
prosecution may be instituted or may proceed (Article 36 new
Civil Code).
● Petition for the 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 prosecutor 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.
● For the principle on prejudicial question to apply, it is essential
that there be two cases involved, invariably a civil case and a
criminal case. If the two cases are both civil or if they are both
criminal, the principle finds no application (Malvar v. Cruz).
A. Prejudicial Question Defined
● A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case, the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal (Jimenez v. Averia).
● It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so
intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused.
B. Elements Of Prejudicial Question
● The two essential elements of a prejudicial question are:
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to
the issue raised in the criminal action; and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed. (Section 5, Rule 111, Rules of
Court)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
Otherwise stated:
1. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case
before the court;
2. Jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another
tribunal. (People v. Aragon)
C. Venue Of The Actions.
● Spanish jurisprudence, from which the principle of prejudicial
question has been taken, requires that the essential element
determinative of the criminal action must be cognizable by
another court. This requirement of a different court is
demanded in Spanish jurisprudence because Spanish courts are
divided according to their jurisdictions, some courts being
exclusively of civil jurisdiction, others of criminal jurisdiction. In
the Philippines where our courts are vested with both civil and
criminal jurisdiction, the principle of prejudicial question is to
be applied even if there is only one court before which the civil
action and the criminal action are to be litigated. But in this
case, the court, when exercising its jurisdiction over the civil
action for the annulment of marriage, for example, is
considered as a court distinct and different from itself when
trying the criminal action for bigamy (Merced v. Diez).
D. Examples
Prejudicial Question:
1. There was a pending appeal before the Supreme Court wherein
the principal question involved was the genuineness of a
certain document. After the presentation of the appellant's
brief, appellee presented a motion alleging that said document
was false. The Supreme Court resolved that when the appeal
was to be determined on the merits, the said motion would be
decided. At that stage of the case, appellee filed with the City
Fiscal a complaint for falsification based on the same
document. Was it proper for the fiscal to proceed with the
investigation of the criminal complaint for falsification?
Held: No. The Fiscal must wait until the case before the
Supreme Court is decided first, because if the Supreme Court
should decide that the document is genuine and has not been
substituted, such finding would be contrary to the stand taken
by the Fiscal (De Leon v. Mabanag)
2. The pendency of a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of
the first marriage is not a prejudicial question in an action for
bigamy. The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the
first marriage is immaterial because prior to the declaration of
nullity, the crime had already been consummated (Mercado v.
Tan).
3. A case for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question to a
bigamy case if it is proved that the accused's consent to such
marriage was obtained by means of duress, violence and
intimidation in order to establish that his act in the subsequent
marriage was an involuntary one and as such the same cannot
be the basis for conviction (Donato v. Luna).
4. A civil case was filed for unpaid wages claimed by a number of
laborers. In that case, the obligation of defendants to pay
wages was in issue. There was then a criminal action pending
against one of the defendants in the civil case for protracted
delay in the payment of wages as penalized by Com. Act. No.
303. The defendants asked for the suspension of the civil action
until the criminal case be finally disposed of. Must the court
order the suspension of the trial of the civil action? No. The
obligation to pay wages is a prejudicial question, for there can
be no extended delay in the payment of such obligations unless
the obligation be first proved (Aleria v. Mendoza).
Not A Prejudicial Question
1. If it is the second wife who filed the civil action against the
accused charged with bigamy, alleging that the accused by
means of force and threats forced her to marry him, the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
accused cannot properly claim that the civil action is a
prejudicial question, because even if the allegation in the civil
case is true, the fact remains that the accused contracted the
second marriage voluntarily. If the second wife were the one
accused of bigamy, she could perhaps raise force or
intimidation as a defense in the charge of bigamy, because on
her part there was no consent to the marriage; but not the
party, who used the force or intimidation. The latter may not
use his own malfeasance to defeat the action based on his
criminal act (People v. Aragon).
2. A and B were accused of violation for the Copyright Law. Later,
A and B brought an action for cancellation of the copyrights a
prejudicial question which must be decided first? No. Until
cancelled, the copyrights are presumed to have been duly
granted and issued (Ocampo v. Tancinco).
Compare Aleria v. Mendoza and Ocampo v. Tancinco
In the case of Aleria v. Mendoza, the ruling is consistent with the
presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. In the case of
Ocampo v. Tancinco, the ruling is based on the presumption of
regularity in the granting and issuance of the copyrights.
E. When The Question Is Not Determinative Of The Guilt Or Innocence
Of The Parties Charged With Estafa, It Is Not A Prejudicial Question.
● The alleged prejudicial question is not determinative of the
guilt or innocence of the parties charged with estafa. Even if
the execution of the receipt in the civil case was vitiated by
fraud, duress or intimidation, the guilt of the accused could still
be established by other evidence by showing that they actually
received from the complainant the sum of P20,000.00 with
which to buy a fishing boat and that instead of doing so, they
misappropriated the money and refused to return it to him
upon demand. A claim to this effect is a matter of defense to be
interposed by the party charged in the criminal proceeding.
(Jimenez v. Averia)
F. When To Plead 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 prosecutor 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. (Sec. 6 Rule 111 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
XVI. Civil Liability Under Special Penal Laws
● If SPL, is there civil liabilities? Yes. There must be evidence that
a party including the government sustained substantial injury
so that the accused may be civilly liable.
o Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
o Anti-Fencing (Presidential Decree No. 1612) – Sec 3(a)
includes accessory penalty of Revised Penal Code
(hence, civil liability under Art 104 [restitution]).
o VAWC (Republic Act No. 9262) – accused liable to
battered woman.
● Special Penal Law and Revised Penal Code is violated by the
same act, can you have more than one civil liability? NO. This is
the case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and estafa.
XVII. Civil Liability In Complex Crimes
● If crime is absorbed by another crime, can there be civil liability
in the absorbed crime? YES. For example, you murder someone
in furtherance of rebellion. You will still be civilly liable for the
murder, even if it lost its juridical existence. Liable for civil
indemnity and moral damages (People v. Hernandez).
● Also when homicide is absorbed by arson. Still liable for civil
indemnity and moral damages for the homicide (People v
Malngan).
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● If a check bounces, accused can be liable for B.P. Blg. 22 and
estafa. Will the accused pay the value of the check twice, or
just once? Although there are two crimes, there is only one
check. Thus, there should only be one payment of the payment
(Rodriguez v. Ponferrada).
● If there is a complex crime (2 crimes), can there be more than 1
civil liability? YES. Number of civil liabilities for as many victims
(e.g. a man kills two people with one bullet).
Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases.
The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2,
3, 4, 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 pArticle
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 damage has been caused with the consent of the
authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the
manner prescribed by special or regulations.
Third. In cases cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12,
the persons using violence or causing fear 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.
POINTS
I. Justifying Circumstances
● General Rule: No civil liability.
● Exception: Paragraph 4, Article 11 (person who avoided a
greater injury); primary liability is on the one who benefited
from such avoidance. If there were several benefited, they will
all bear the liability proportionately.
II. Exempting Circumstances
● General Rule: Exemption from criminal liability does not
include exemption from civil liability.
● Exceptions:
a. No civil liability in paragraph 4 of Article 12, which
provides for injury caused by mere accident.
b. There is no civil liability in paragraph 7 of Article 12,
which provides for failure to perform an act required by
law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable
cause.
II. Who Are Civilly Liable For The Acts Of An Insane Or Minor, Exempt
From Criminal Liability?
● The civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane or
minor exempt from criminal liability shall devolve upon the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
persons having legal authority or control over them, if the latter
are at fault or negligent (primarily liable).
● If there is no fault or negligence on their part, or even if at fault
or negligent but insolvent, or should there be no person having
such authority or control, the insane, imbecile, or such minor
shall respond with their own property not exempt from
execution.
III. Persons Civilly Liable For Acts Committed By Youthful Offenders
● Article 201 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code provides that
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.
● The final discharge of a child in conflict with the law does not
obliterate his civil liability.
IV. Duty Of The Court In Trying An Insane
● Even though the courts exempt the insane from criminal
liability, they must fix the civil liability to be paid to the victim.
V. Who Are Civilly Liable For Acts Committed By Persons Acting Under
Irresistible Force Or Uncontrollable Fear?
● The persons using violence or causing fear are primarily liable.
● If there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable
secondarily.
Article 102. – Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers
and proprietors of establishments.
In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers,
and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes
committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation
shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods
taken by robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging
therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such
guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the
person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn;
and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeeper or his representative may have given them with respect to
the care of and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in
case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
POINTS
I. Elements Of Paragraph 1: (Subsidiary Civil Liability)
1. That the innkeeper, tavern keeper or proprietor of
establishment or his employee committed a violation for
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.
● Presence of all the elements will render the innkeeper, tavern
keeper or proprietor of the establishment subsidiarily liable.
II. Elements Of Paragraph 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 guests followed the directions of the innkeeper or his
representative with respect to the care of and vigilance over
such goods.
3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein were taken by robbery
with force upon things or theft committed within the inn or
house.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● It is not necessary that the effects of the guest be actually
delivered to innkeeper. It is enough that they were within the
inn (De los Santos v. Tam Khey).
III. No Liability
● General Rule: No liability shall attach in case of robbery with
violence against or intimidation of persons.
● Exception: When committed by the innkeeper’s employees.
Article 103. – Subsidiary civil liability of other persons.
The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall
also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and cor[porations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their
servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge
of their duties.
POINTS
I. Elements
1. There is an employer-employee relationship.
2. The employer, teacher, person or corporation is engaged in any
kind of industry.
3. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or
employees commits a felony while in the discharge of their
duties.
4. The said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil
liability.
5. Conviction attained finality.
II. FIRST ELEMENT: Employee Must Be Engaged In Industry
● “Industry”  any department or branch of art, occupation
or business; especially, one which employs so much labor
and capital and is a distinct branch of trade. Hence, a person
who
owns a truck and uses it in the transportation of his own
products is engaged in industry.
o Hospital not engaged in industry; nurses not servants.
o Private persons without business or industry, not
subsidiarily liable.
● Subsidiary liability of employers, etc., “for felonies committed
by their employees”
o “Committed”  implies a conviction.
● No defense of diligence of a good father of the family.
III. SECOND ELEMENT: The Felony Must Be Committed By The Servant
Or Employee Of The Defendant In The Civil Case
● Decision convicting an employee is binding upon the employer
with respect to the civil liability and its amount.
o Provisions of Article 102 and 103 are deemed written
into the judgments to which they are applicable.
o No need for an express pronouncement.
● “While in the discharge of his duties”  The subsidiary liability
does not arise from any and all offenses that the employee may
commit, but limited to those, which he shall be found guilty of
in the discharge of his duties.
A. Enforcement Of Civil Liability Is Upon Motion For Subsidiary Writ Of
Execution
● The subsidiary liability may be enforced only upon motion for
subsidiary writ of execution against the employer and upon
proof that the employee is insolvent.
● No subsidiary liability of defendant-employer under Article 103
if his employee has not been previously criminally convicted.
● The subsidiary liability of the employer is not determined in the
criminal case against the employee.
o Reservation to bring action by the injured party against
the employer is not necessary.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
B. Employer Has The Right To Take Part In The Defense Of His
Employee.
● It is his concern that his interested is protected by taking virtual
participation in the defense of his employee. The failure of his
employee is also the employer’s failure.
● The employer can challenge the sheriff’s return which shows
non-satisfaction.
C. Certified Copy Of Decision Sufficient To Prove Offense Committed
By Servant Or Employee.
● Judgment of conviction of servant or employee in the absence
of any collusion between the defendant and the offended party
binds the persons subsidiary liable. The plaintiff can rely solely
on the judgment of the conviction.
IV. THIRD ELEMENT: Employer Is Subsidiarily Liable For The Full
Amount Against Employee
● But this is without prejudice to the right of action against the
employee for contribution.
V. Persons Civilly Liable In The Absence Of Those Criminally Liable,
The Civil Responsibility Being A Necessary Part Of The Criminal
Liability
● Innkeeper, tavernkeeper and any other person or corporation
who committed violation of municipal ordinance or some
general or special police regulation, and the person who
committed a crime in his establishment cannot be found or is
insolvent.
● Innkeeper, for robbery with force upon things or theft of goods
of guests lodging therein, provided the guests notified the
innkeeper in advance of the deposit of their goods within the
inn, and provided further that such guests followed the
directions of the innkeeper with respect to the care of and
vigilance over such goods.
● The employer who is engaged in any kind of industry, for the
crime committed by his employee while in the discharge of his
duties.
● Those having an imbecile or insane person or minor exempt
from criminal liability under their legal authority or control, if
they are at fault or negligent, for acts committed by the
imbecile, insane or minor.
● Persons who acted under the compulsion of irresistible force or
under the impulse of uncontrollable fear are civilly liable of the
person who used violence or who caused the fear is insolvent
or cannot be found.
● Is teacher liable for student’s acts? Only when engaged in
industry. (Compare with 2180 which talks of quasi-delicts)
● Visiting doctor left gauze in stomach of patient. Patient died.
Are hospitals liable for consulting/visiting doctors? (Ramos v.
CA and Professional Services v. Agana)
o Yes, because of (1) control in hiring and firing of these
consultants/doctors, (2) performance of duties within
hospital premises, (3) consultant’s acts subject to
review by the hospital, and (4) hospital controlled staff
of consultants.
o Moreover, private corporation who owned the hospital
was subsidiarily liable under corporate responsibility.
● Philippine Rabbit Bus case:
o Filing of criminal action necessarily includes subsidiary
liability of employer. He may not be a party but in
effect, he is bound by the judgment. Employer may
assist in the defense of his employee, but he may not
actually participate in the criminal case.
o The judgment binds the employer.
 Except if there’s collusion between the
offended and the erring employee.
o Extent of liability of employer: only in terms of civil
liability (he can’t be jailed) and the amount of the civil
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

liability. His civil liability can’t be separated from his

employee’s.
● If the employee is acquitted based on reasonable doubt, is
there civil liability for the employer? YES. Only time when no
civil liability is when the court says that he did not actually
commit the acts on which the charge is based on.
● Regardless as to who the actual owner of the car is, the
registered owner is the operator of the same with respect to
the public or third persons.
o Registered owner liable, but can recover from the
actual owner.

VIII. Other notes

● Articles 103 is applicable to violations of the Revised Motor
Vehicle Law
● Articles 102 and 103 of the Revised Penal Code not repealed
by Article 2177 of the New Civil Code (p.931).
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
CHAPTER 2: PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Article 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 damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
POINTS
I. Civil Liability In Criminal Cases
● There are crimes where there is no civil liability. There are
crimes where only one or none at all of these civil obligations is
possible.
● Example: Theft or robbery  when property is recovered,
onlyreparation, if it was damaged, will be allowed.
o Restitution  return of property
o Reparation  pay the value of property stolen (if
it cant be recovered); payment of hospital bills of
the offended
o Indemnification for consequential damages  loss
of salary or earning.
II. 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
III. Civil Liabilities Distinguished From Pecuniary Liabilities
● Article 104, providing for three forms of civil liabilities, and
Article 38, providing for the order of payment of pecuniary
liabilities, may be distinguished as follows:
o Both include (a) the reparation of the damage caused,
and (b) indemnification for consequential damages;
o While civil liabilities include restitution, pecuniary liabilities
do not include restitution, because the latter refer to
liabilities to be paid out of the property of the offender. In
restitution, there is nothing to pay in terms of money, as
the property unlawfully taken is returned, and;
o Pecuniary liabilities include (a) fine, and (b) the costs of the
proceedings. Civil liabilities do not include them.
Article 105. – Restitution – How made.
The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible,
with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as
determined by the court.
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.
POINTS
I. The Restitution Of The Thing Itself Must Be Made Whenever
Possible
● The convict cannot, by way of restitution, give to the offended
party a similar thing of the same amount, kind or species of
quality. The very thing taken must be returned.
II. With Allowance For Any Deterioration Or Diminution Of Value
● The Court will assess the amount of the deterioration and, in
addition to the return of the property, the culprit will be
ordered to pay such amount representing the deterioration.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
III. 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
● General Rule: The owner of the property illegally taken by the
offender can recover it from whomsoever is in possession
thereof.
● Under the Civil Code, the person who has lost any personal
property or has been unlawfully deprived thereof cannot
obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefore,
only when the possessor thereof acquired it in (1) good faith
and at a (2) public sale.
● Restitution cannot be ordered before final judgment.
A. When The Third Person Acquired The Thing “In The Manner And
Under The Requirements Which, By Law, Bar An Action For Its
Recovery”
● Restitution shall not be ordered by the court when the thing
has been acquired by the third person in the manner and under
the circumstances, which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.
IV. When The Liability To Return A Thing Arises From Contract, Not
From A Criminal Act, The Court Cannot Order Its Return In The
Criminal Case.
● This is applied in cases where the liability arose from a civil
contract such as loans.
V. Restitution May Be Ordered, Even If Accused Is Acquitted, Provided
The Offense Is Proved And It Is Shown That The Thing Belongs To
Somebody Else.
● As a rule, if the accused is acquitted, the court should not order
the return of the property to its alleged owner. But if it is
shown that the ring belonged to, and was in the possession of,
somebody else, and that it was stolen from him, but the
identity of the thief was not established by the prosecution,
and the accused pawned it in the pawnshop from which it was
recovered, the court should order its return to the owner. In
this case, the offense was proved but not the identity of the
offender (People v. Alejano).
● Restitution is limited to crimes against property
o When a crime is not against property, no restitution or
reparation can be done.
VI. Salary Of Acquitted Accused May Not Be Ordered Paid In Criminal
Cases
● It devolves upon the head of the department concerned, and is
discretionary with him.
VII. The Court Has Authority To Order The Reinstatement Of The
Accused Acquitted Of A Crime Punishable By The Penalty Of Perpetual
Or Temporary Disqualification
Article 106. – Reparation – How made.
The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into
consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible, and its
special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall be
made accordingly
POINTS
I. Reparation Will Be Ordered By The Court If Restitution Is Not
Possible
● When the stolen property cannot be returned because it was
sold by the thief to an unknown person, he will be required by
the court, if found guilty, to pay the actual price of the thing +
its sentimental value to its owner.
● If there is no evidence as to the value of the thing unrecovered,
reparation cannot be made (People v. Dalena, CA).
II. Reparation Includes
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● Repair of material damage caused by the robbers in breaking
doors, wardrobes, in addition to the value of the thing taken,
may be assessed and included as part of the reparation to be
paid by the robbers.
● In a rape case, reparation includes the value of the woman’s
torn garments.
III. Civil Damages Are Limited To Those Caused By And Flowing From
The Commission Of The Crime
● Thus, the unpaid hire of the bicycle arose under the contract of
hire and did not result from the commission of the crime. The
amount corresponding to the unpaid hire is recoverable in a
civil action (U.S. v. Dionisio).
IV. Payment By The Insurance Company Does Not Relieve The
Offender Of His Obligation To Repair The Damage Caused
● That payment by the insurance company was not made on
behalf of the accused, but was made pursuant to its contract
with the owner of the car, but the insurance company is
substituted to the right of the offended party as regards the
damages (People v. Reyes).
Article 107. – Indemnification – What is included.
Indemnification of consequential damages shall include (1) not only
those caused the injured party, but also (2) those suffered by his
family or by a third person by reason of the crime.
POINTS
I. Indemnity v. Reparation
● Indemnity  refers generally to crimes against
persons.
● Reparation  refers to crimes against property.
A. Examples Of Indemnity
● In physical injuries, the injured party is entitled to be paid for
whatever he spent for the
o Treatment of his wounds
o Doctor’s fees, and for medicine
o Salary or wages unearned by him because of his
inability to work due to the injuries
● Note: Indemnity for medical services still unpaid may be
recovered.
II. Contributory Negligence On The Part Of The Offended Party
Reduces The Civil Liability Of The Offender
III. When Civil Indemnity May Be Increased On Appeal
● It may be increased only if it will not require an aggravation of
the decision in the criminal case on which it is based.
IV. Damages Recoverable In Case Of Death
1. P75,000  in recent cases
2. Loss of the earning capacity of the deceased
3. Support in favor of a person to whom the deceased was obliged
to give
4. Moral damages for mental anguish in favor of spouse,
descendants and ascendants of the deceased
5. Exemplary damages in certain cases
V. Damages In Crimes And Quasi-Delicts
● Article 2202, Civil Code  In crimes and quasi-delicts,
thedefendant shall be liable for all damages, which are the
natural and probable consequences of the acts or
omissions complained of.
● Article 2204, Civil Code  damages may be respectively
increased or lessened according to the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● Article 2206, Civil Code  The amount of damages for
deathcaused by a crime or quasi delict shall be at least 50,000
pesos.
In addition
o Defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased and the indemnity shall be
paid to the heirs of the latter.
o If the deceased was obliged to give support according
to the provisions of Article 291, the recepient may
demand support from the person causing the death.
o The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants
and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral
damages.
VI. Effect Of Republic Act No. 9346 On Civil Indemnity Of Heinous
Crimes
● It should be understood that the debarring of the death penalty
by Republic Act No. 9346 did not correspondingly declassify
those crimes previously catalogued as “heinous”.
A. Civil Indemnity For Murder And Homicide
● Civil indemnity of P75,000 and P50,000 are awarded
automatically without need of allegation and proof.
B. Civil Indemnity For Crimes Qualified By Circumstances Where The
Death Penalty May Be Imposed
● Award of P75,000 civil indemnity is not dependent on actual
imposition on the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty
attended the commission of the offense.
C. Civil Indemnity For Rape
● Qualified Rape  shall not be less than P75,000
● Simple Rape Shall not be less than P50,000
D. Civil Indemnity For Rape With Homicide
● Set at P100,000
E. Damages Recoverable For Rape With Homicide
● P100,000 as civil indemnity
● P75,000 as moral damage
● P25,000 as temperate damages
● P100,000 as exemplary damages
F. Civil Liability For Rape By Sexual Assault
● Civil indemnity is separate and distinct from the award of moral
damages, which is automatically granted in rape cases.
● Moral damages are additionally awarded without need of
further pleading or proof.
G. The Amount Of Damages For Death Caused By A Crime Is Increased
From Time To Time By The Supreme Court
VII. Indemnity For Lost Earnings
● Computed as follows:
Net earning capacity =
Life expectancy x (Gross annual income – Living expenses)
● Life expectancy is computed as:
2/3 x (80 – age of the deceased at the time of death)
A. Documentary Evidence Should Be Presented To Substantiate A
Claim For Loss Of Earning Capacity
● Exception: Damages may be awarded despite the absence of
documentary evidence if there is testimony that the victim was
(1) self-employed earning less than the minimum wage or (2)
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
employed as a daily-wage worker earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws.
B. Computation Of Award For Loss Of Earning Capacity Is Based On
The Life Expectancy Of The Deceased
● Not the life expectancy of the heirs or beneficiaries.
C. Compensation For Loss Of Earning Capacity, Not Required That The
Victim Is Gainfully Employed
● Awarded not for loss of earnings but for loss of capacity to
earn.
VIII. Temperate Damages
● Article 2224 Civil Code – Temperate or moderate damages may
be recovered when the court fins that some pecuniary loss was
suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.
o More than nominal but less than compensatory.
● Temperate damages may be awarded in the following cases:
o If income is not sufficiently proved.
o If the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount cannot be proven with
certainty.
o In lieu of actual damages (where actual damanges
proved amount to be less than P25,000, temperate
damages in the amount of P25,000 shall be awarded)
 To rule otherwise would be anomalous and
unfair because the victim’s heirs who tried but
succeeded in proving actual damages below
P25,000 would be in a worse situation than
those who might have presented no receipts at
all but who would now be entitled to P25,000.
IX. Moral damages
● May be recovered in the following and analogous cases
o A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries
o Seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness
o Adultery or concubinage
o Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest
o Illegal search
o Libel, slander or any other form of defamation
o Malicious prosecution
● Note: parents of the seduced, abducted, raped or abused may
also recover moral damages.
● In crimes of rape, moral damages may additionally be awarded
to the victim, without need for pleading or proof of the basis
thereof.
● Claim for moral damages does not determine court jurisdiction.
X. Exemplary damages
● Are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public
good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
compensatory damages. (Article 2229, Civil Code)
● Also called corrective, punitive, or vindictive damages.
A. Exemplary Damages May Be Given When One Or More Aggravating
Circumstances Are Present
● Such damages are separate and distinct form fines and s shall
be paid to the offended party.
B. Exemplary Damages Cannot Be Recovered As A Matter Of Right
● The court will decide whether or not they should be
adjudicated
● While the amount of exemplary damages need not be proved,
the plaintiff must show that he is entitled to moral, temperate
or compensatory damages before the court may consider the
question of whether or not exemplary damages should be
awarded.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
● Exemplary damages may be awarded where the
circumstances of the case show the highly reprehensible or
outrageous conduct of the offender. This is because exemplary
damages are corrective in nature. This may be imposed even if
aggravating circumstances were not alleged, but proven during
the course of trial.
o Set-off does not apply. As long as there is an
aggravating circumstance – regardless of the number of
mitigating circumstances – exemplary damages may be
imposed.
C. Exemplary Damages Increased To P30,000
D. Distinction Between Civil Indemnity And Moral Damages
● Civil indemnity is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory
damages in civil law.
● The civil liability provided by the Revised Penal Code, that is
restitution, reparation and indemnification, all corresponds to
actual or compensatory damages in the Civil Code, since the
other damages provided therein are moral, nominal, temperate
or moderate, liquidated and exemplary or corrective damages,
which have altogether different concepts and fundamentals.
E. Moral And Exemplary Damages Do Not Require Proof Of Pecuniary
Loss
● The assessment of such damages is left to the court discretion.
XI. Actual Damages Must Be Proved
● Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to
an adequate compensation for such pecuniary loss suffered by
him as he has duly proved.
● Such compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory
damages.
● Indemnity cannot be assessed on speculation or guesswork.
● Recovery of attorney’s fees in the are recoverable in the
concept of actual or compensatory damage.
XII. Interest May Be Added To The Damages Awarded
● Interest at the rate of 6% may likewise be added
XII. Civil Liability Not Part Of The Punishment
 As the liability is not part of the punishment for the crime, the
action of the SC in affirming the judgment as tot eh guilt and
punishment of the accused and of reversing it as to the
question of damages, with instructions to try the civil branch of
the case does not constitute double jeopardy.
Article 108. – Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages,
or indemnification for consequential damages and actions to demand
the same; Upon whom it devolves.
The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages and
indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of
the person liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation and indemnification
likewise descends to the heirs of the person injured.
POINTS
I. The Heirs Of The Person Liable Has No Obligation If Restoration/
Indemnification Is Not Possible And The Deceased Left No Property
● Illustration:
o If A stole a ring which he later sold to a stranger and
after A’s conviction, A died but he left no property, A’s
heirs cannot be made to repair the damages. But if he
left property, the heirs may be required.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
II. Civil Liability Is Possible Only When The Offender Dies After Final
Judgment
● If the offender is death was condemned by final
judgment to pay civil liability, the offended party may make
effective his claim by filing a copy of the judgment of conviction
against the deceased with the court taking cognizance of the
testate or interstate proceedings.
● If death of the offender took place before any judgment, the
action for restitution must be dismissed.
III. Indemnity Not Possible In Acquittal
● The case having been dismissed by the court, no judgment for
indemnity was proper in the criminal proceeding
IV. Right Of Heirs Of The Deceased
● The heirs of the deceased have a right to enforce the civil
responsibility of the accused in their favor in a civil action
Article 109. – Share of each person civilly liable.
If there are 2 or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts
shall determine the amount for which each must respond.
POINTS
I. Apportionment Of Civil Liability
● Civil liability is apportioned according to the degree of the
offenders’ liability, respective responsibilities and actual
participation.
● The person with greater participation in the commission of the
crime should have a greater share in the civil liability than those
who played a minor role in the crime or those who had no
participation in the crime but merely profited from its effects.
Article 110. – Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices
and accessories of a felony; Preference in payment.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the
principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within their respective
class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their
quotas, and subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of
the principals; next, against that of the accomplices, and, lastly,
against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been
enforced, the person by whom payment has been made shall have a
right of action against the others for the amount of their respective
shares.
POINTS
I. Civil And Subsidiary Liabilities Of Principals
● When there are principals and accessories in the commission of
the crime, the principals are solidarily liable of their quota and
subsidiarily liable for representing the quota of their
accessories.
II. Civil And Subsidiary Liabilities Of Accomplices
● The accomplices are jointly and severally liable for the portion
adjudged against them and are subsidiarily liable for the
portion of their principal in case of the latter’s insolvency.
Article 111. – Obligation to make restitution in certain cases.
Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds of a
felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to
the extent of such participation.
POINTS
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER

I. Not Criminally Liable

● Person who participated gratuitously  no criminal liability.

II. Must Not Be An Accessory

● If the person knew that the property came from an illegal
source, he is an accessory and is his not only civilly liable but
also criminally liable.

III. “Participated Gratuitously”

● Refers to an innocent person who has participated in the
proceeds of a felony through the liberality of the offender.
o He should no have paid for the stolen property which
he received from the offender. Otherwise Article 105 is
applicable.
● If A without knowing it was stolen, received a ring from B, and
sold it for P500, then if B cannot pay for the original amount of
the ring, A is subsidiariliy liable but only for P500.

IV. The Fortune Of The Innocent Person Must Be Augmented By His

Participation
● It is necessary that his fortune has been augmented by his
participation in the proceeds of the crime.
● Merely participating in eating something stolen does not make
the participant obligated to make restitution.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
CHAPTER 3: EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Article 112. – Extinction of civil liability.
Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 012 and 103 of this Code
shall be extinguished in the same manner as other obligations
in accordance with the provisions of Civil Law
POINTS
I. Civil Liability Is, Therefore, Extinguished:
1. By payment or performance
2. By the loss of the thing due
3. By the condonation or remission of the debt
4. By the confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor
5. By compensation
6. By novation
7. Annulment, recission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition and
prescription (Article 1231, Civil Code).
8. Prescription (for filing cause of action – Tejuco v. E.R. Squib &
Son Phil. Corp.)
9. Subsequent agreement between the accused and the offended
party (People v. Tablante Vda. De Marte, C.A.).
II. Effect Of Condonation Of Civil Liability
● Express condonation by the offended party has the effect of
waiving civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured
party.
● Civil liability may arise from:
o Crime (Revised Penal Code)
o Breach of contract/culpa contractual (Civil Code)
o Tortious act/culpa aquiliana (Civil Code)
III. Offender Is Civilly Liable Even If Stolen Property Is Lost By Reason
Of Force Majeure
● Where it appears that a person has been deprived of the
possession of his property, the malefactor is responsible to the
owner either:
o For the return of the property
o For the payment of its value if it cannot be returned
Article 113. – Obligation to satisfy civil liability.
Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next
preceding article, the offender shall continue to be obliged to
satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by
him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not
been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty,
pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason
POINTS
I. Civil Liability Is Not Extinguished Notwithstanding The Following:
● Service of the sentence
● Amnesty
● Pardon
● Commutation
● Application for probation