Ortega Notes Crim1
Ortega Notes Crim1
2. Territoriality
The Archipelagic Rule
3. Prospectivity.
All bodies of water comprising the maritime
zone and interior waters abounding different
Generality islands comprising the Philippine
Archipelago are part of the Philippine
Generality of criminal law means that the territory regardless of their breadth, depth,
criminal law of the country governs all width or dimension.
persons within the country regardless of
their race, belief, sex, or creed. However, it On the fluvial jurisdiction there is presently
is subject to certain exceptions brought a departure from the accepted International
about by international agreement. Law Rule, because the Philippines adopted
Ambassadors, chiefs of states and other the Archipelagic Rule. In the International
diplomatic officials are immune from the Law Rule, when a strait within a country has
application of penal laws when they are in a width of more than 6 miles, the center
the country where they are assigned. lane in excess of the 3 miles on both sides is
considered international waters.
Note that consuls are not diplomatic
officers. This includes consul-general, vice- Question & Answer
If a foreign merchant vessel is in the center (3) Absolute Theory – The subjacent
lane and a crime was committed there, state has complete jurisdiction over the
under the International Law Rule, what law atmosphere above it subject only to
will apply? innocent passage by aircraft of foreign
country.
The law of the country where that vessel is
registered will apply, because the crime is Under this theory, if the crime is committed
deemed to have been committed in the high in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long
seas. as it can establish that it is within the
Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal
law will govern. This is the theory adopted
Under the Archipelagic Rule as declared in by the Philippines.
Article 1, of the Constitution, all waters in PROSPECTIVITY
the archipelago regardless of breadth width,
or dimension are part of our national This is also called irretrospectivity.
territory. Under this Rule, there is no more
center lane, all these waters, regardless of Acts or omissions will only be subject to a
their dimension or width are part of penal law if they are committed after a
Philippine territory. penal law had already taken effect. Vice-
versa, this act or omission which has been
So if a foreign merchant vessel is in the committed before the effectivity of a penal
center lane and a crime was committed, the law could not be penalized by such penal
crime will be prosecuted before Philippine law because penal laws operate only
courts. prospectively.
A repeal is absolute or total when the crime If they are not discharged from
punished under the repealed law has been confinement, a petition for habeas corpus
decriminalized by the repeal. Because of should be filed to test the legality of their
the repeal, the act or omission which used continued confinement in jail.
to be a crime is no longer a crime. An
example is Republic Act No. 7363, which If the convict, on the other hand, is a
decriminalized subversion. habitual delinquent, he will continue serving
the sentence in spite of the fact that the law
A repeal is partial or relative when the crime under which he was convicted has already
punished under the repealed law continues been absolutely repealed. This is so
because penal laws should be given clause that provides that it should not be
retroactive application to favor only those given retroactive effect.
who are not habitual delinquents.
Under Article 22, even if the offender is
already convicted and serving sentence, a
law which is beneficial shall be applied to
Question & Answer him unless he is a habitual delinquent in
accordance with Rule 5 of Article 62.
A, a prisoner, learns that he is already
overstaying in jail because his jail guard, B,
who happens to be a law student advised Express or implied repeal. – Express or
him that there is no more legal ground for implied repeal refers to the manner the
his continued imprisonment, and B told him repeal is done.
that he can go. A got out of jail and went
home. Was there any crime committed? Express repeal takes place when a
subsequent law contains a provision that
As far as A, the prisoner who is serving such law repeals an earlier enactment. For
sentence, is concerned, the crime example, in Republic Act No. 6425 (The
committed is evasion of sentence. Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), there is an
express provision of repeal of Title V of the
As far as B, the jail guard who allowed A to Revised Penal Code.
go, is concerned, the crime committed is
infidelity in the custody of prisoners. Implied repeals are not favored. It requires
a competent court to declare an implied
repeal. An implied repeal will take place
Consequences if repeal of penal law is when there is a law on a particular subject
partial or relative matter and a subsequent law is passed also
on the same subject matter but is
(1) If a case is pending in court involving inconsistent with the first law, such that the
the violation of the repealed law, and the two laws cannot stand together, one of the
repealing law is more favorable to the two laws must give way. It is the earlier
accused, it shall be the one applied to him. that will give way to the later law because
So whether he is a habitual delinquent or the later law expresses the recent
not, if the case is still pending in court, the legislative sentiment. So you can have an
repealing law will be the one to apply unless implied repeal when there are two
there is a saving clause in the repealing law inconsistent laws. When the earlier law
that it shall not apply to pending causes of does not expressly provide that it is
action. repealing an earlier law, what has taken
place here is implied repeal. If the two laws
(2) If a case is already decided and the can be reconciled, the court shall always try
accused is already serving sentence by final to avoid an implied repeal. For example,
judgment, even if the repealing law is under Article 9, light felonies are those
partial or relative, the crime still remains to infractions of the law for the commission of
be a crime. Those who are not habitual which a penalty of arresto mayor or a fine
delinquents will benefit on the effect of that not exceeding P200.00 or both is provided.
repeal, so that if the repeal is more lenient On the other hand, under Article 26, a fine
to them, it will be the repealing law that will whether imposed as a single or an
henceforth apply to them. alternative penalty, if it exceeds P6,000.00
but is not less than P 200.00, is considered
For example, under the original law, the a correctional penalty. These two articles
penalty is six years. Under the repealing appear to be inconsistent. So to harmonize
law, it is four years. Those convicted under them, the Supreme Court ruled that if the
the original law will be subjected to the four- issue involves the prescription of the crime,
year penalty. This retroactive application that felony will be considered a light felony
will not be possible if there is a saving and, therefore, prescribes within two
months. But if the issue involves presumption of innocence of the accused.
prescription of the penalty, the fine of This is peculiar only to criminal law.
P200.00 will be considered correctional and
it will prescribe within 10 years. Clearly, the
court avoided the collision between the two Question & Answer
articles.
One boy was accused of parricide and was
found guilty. This is punished by reclusion
Consequences if repeal of penal law is perpetua to death. Assuming you were the
express or implied judge, would you give the accused the
benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
(1) If a penal law is impliedly repealed, (ISLAW)? The ISLAW does not apply when
the subsequent repeal of the repealing law the penalty imposed is life imprisonment of
will revive the original law. So the act or death. Would you consider the penalty
omission which was punished as a crime imposable or the penalty imposed, taking
under the original law will be revived and into consideration the mitigating
the same shall again be crimes although circumstance of minority?
during the implied repeal they may not be
punishable. If you will answer "no", then you go against
the Doctrine of Pro Reo because you can
(2) If the repeal is express, the repeal of interpret the ISLAW in a more lenient
the repealing law will not revive the first manner. Taking into account the doctrine,
law, so the act or omission will no longer be we interpret the ISLAW to mean that the
penalized. penalty imposable and not the penalty
prescribed by law, since it is more favorable
These effects of repeal do not apply to self- for the accused to interpret the law.
repealing laws or those which have
automatic termination. An example is the
Rent Control Law which is revived by Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
Congress every two years.
There is no crime when there is no law
When there is a repeal, the repealing law punishing the same. This is true to civil law
expresses the legislative intention to do countries, but not to common law countries.
away with such law, and, therefore, implies
a condonation of the punishment. Such Because of this maxim, there is no common
legislative intention does not exist in a self- law crime in the Philippines. No matter how
terminating law because there was no wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if there is no
repeal at all. law defining the act, the same is not
considered a crime.
BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW Common law crimes are wrongful acts which
the community/society condemns as
Doctrine of Pro Reo contemptible, even though there is no law
declaring the act criminal.
Whenever a penal law is to be construed or
applied and the law admits of two Not any law punishing an act or omission
interpretations – one lenient to the offender may be valid as a criminal law. If the law
and one strict to the offender – that punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and
interpretation which is lenient or favorable void.
to the offender will be adopted.
This is in consonance with the fundamental Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
rule that all doubts shall be construed in
favor of the accused and consistent with The act cannot be criminal where the mind
is not criminal. This is true to a felony
characterized by dolo, but not a felony
resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an
absolute one because it is not applied to Spanish Codigo Penal
culpable felonies, or those that result from
negligence. When the Spanish Colonizers came, the
Spanish Codigo Penal was made applicable
and extended to the Philippines by Royal
Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory Decree of 1870. This was made effective in
the Philippines in July 14, 1876.
The primary purpose of the punishment Who is Rafael Del Pan?
under criminal law is the protection of
society from actual and potential He drafted a correctional code which was
wrongdoers. The courts, therefore, in after the Spanish Codigo Penal was
exacting retribution for the wronged society, extended to the Philippines. But that
should direct the punishment to potential or correctional code was never enacted into
actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is law. Instead, a committee was organized
directed against acts and omissions which headed by then Anacleto Diaz. This
the society does not approve. Consistent committee was the one who drafted the
with this theory, the mala prohibita principle present Revised Penal Code.
which punishes an offense regardless of
malice or criminal intent, should not be
utilized to apply the full harshness of the The present Revised Penal Code
special law.
When a committee to draft the Revised
In Magno v CA, decided on June 26, 1992, Penal Code was formed, one of the
the Supreme Court acquitted Magno of reference that they took hold of was the
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 when correctional code of Del Pan. In fact, many
he acted without malice. The wrongdoer is provisions of the Revised Penal Code were
not Magno but the lessor who deposited the no longer from the Spanish Penal Code; they
checks. He should have returned the checks were lifted from the correctional code of Del
to Magno when he pulled out the Pan. So it was him who formulated or
equipment. To convict the accused would paraphrased this provision making it simpler
defeat the noble objective of the law and and more understandable to Filipinos
the law would be tainted with materialism because at that time, there were only a
and opportunism. handful who understood Spanish.
Different philosophies underlying the This combines both positivist and classical
criminal law system thinking. Crimes that are economic and
social and nature should be dealt with in a
1. Classical or Juristic Philosophy positivist manner; thus, the law is more
compassionate. Heinous crimes should be
Best remembered by the maxim “An dealt with in a classical manner; thus,
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” [Note: capital punishment.
If you want to impress the examiner, use
the latin version – Oculo pro oculo, dente Since the Revised Penal Code was adopted
pro dente.] from the Spanish Codigo Penal, which in
turn was copied from the French Code of
The purpose of penalty is retribution. 1810 which is classical in character, it is
The offender is made to suffer for the wrong said that our Code is also classical. This is
he has done. There is scant regard for the no longer true because with the American
human element of the crime. The law does occupation of the Philippines, many
not look into why the offender committed provisions of common law have been
the crime. Capital punishment is a product engrafted into our penal laws. The Revised
Penal Code today follows the mixed or
eclectic philosophy. For example, 1. As to moral trait of the offender
intoxication of the offender is considered to
mitigate his criminal liability, unless it is In crimes punished under the
intentional or habitual; the age of the Revised Penal Code, the moral trait of the
offender is considered; and the woman who offender is considered. This is why liability
killed her child to conceal her dishonor has would only arise when there is dolo or culpa
in her favor a mitigating circumstance. in the commission of the punishable act.
Yes. Under the old Rules of Criminal The most common subject of bar problems
Procedure, for our courts to take cognizance in Article 2 is paragraph 4: “While being
of any crime committed on board a vessel public officers or employees, [they] should
during its voyage, the vessel must be commit an offense in the exercise of their
registered in the Philippines in accordance functions:”
with Philippine laws.
As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code
Under the Revised Rules of Criminal governs only when the crime committed
Procedure, however, the requirement that pertains to the exercise of the public
the vessel must be licensed and registered official’s functions, those having to do with
in accordance with Philippine laws has been the discharge of their duties in a foreign
deleted from Section 25, paragraph c of country. The functions contemplated are
Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. The those, which are, under the law, to be
intention is to do away with that performed by the public officer in the
requirement so that as long as the vessel is Foreign Service of the Philippine
not registered under the laws of any government in a foreign country.
country, our courts can take cognizance of
the crime committed in such vessel. Exception: The Revised Penal Code
governs if the crime was committed within
the Philippine Embassy or within the
embassy grounds in a foreign country. This
is because embassy grounds are considered Illustration:
an extension of sovereignty. When a Filipino who is already
married in the Philippines, contracts another
Illustration: marriage abroad, the crime committed is
A Philippine consulate official who is validly bigamy. But the Filipino can not be
married here in the Philippines and who prosecuted when he comes back to the
marries again in a foreign country cannot be Philippines, because the bigamy was
prosecuted here for bigamy because this is committed in a foreign country and the
a crime not connected with his official crime is not covered by paragraph 5 of
duties. However, if the second marriage Article 2. However, if the Filipino, after the
was celebrated within the Philippine second marriage, returns to the Philippines
embassy, he may be prosecuted here, since and cohabits here with his second wife, he
it is as if he contracted the marriage here in commits the crime of concubinage for which
the Philippines. he can be prosecuted.
Question & Answer
The Revised Penal Code shall not apply to
A consul was to take a deposition in any other crime committed in a foreign
a hotel in Singapore. After the deposition, country which does not come under any of
the deponent approached the consul’s the exceptions and which is not a crime
daughter and requested that certain parts of against national security.
the deposition be changed in consideration
for $10,000.00. The daughter persuaded
the consul and the latter agreed. Will the HOW A FELONY MAY ARISE
crime be subject to the Revised Penal Code?
If so, what crime or crimes have been
committed? Punishable by the Revised Penal Code
However, It does not mean that if an act or (2) freedom of action on the part of the
omission is punished under the Revised offender, that is, he was not acting under
Penal Code, a felony is already committed. duress; and
To be considered a felony, it must also be
done with dolo or culpa. (3) Intelligence on the part of the
offender in performing the negligent act.
Under Article 3, there is dolo when there is
deceit. This is no longer true. At the time Between dolo and culpa, the distinction lies
the Revised Penal Code was codified, the on the criminal intent and criminal
term nearest to dolo was deceit. However, negligence. If any of these requisites is
deceit means fraud, and this is not the absent, there can be no dolo nor culpa.
meaning of dolo. When there is no dolo or culpa, a felony
cannot arise.
Dolo is deliberate intent otherwise referred
to as criminal intent, and must be coupled
with freedom of action and intelligence on Question & Answer
What do you understand by (1) When the crime is the product of
“voluntariness” in criminal law? culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence,
lack of foresight or lack of skill;
The word voluntariness in criminal law does
not mean acting in one’s own volition. In (2) When the crime is a prohibited act
criminal law, voluntariness comprehends under a special law or what is called malum
the concurrence of freedom of action, prohibitum.
intelligence and the fact that the act was
intentional. In culpable felonies, there is no
voluntariness if either freedom, intelligence Criminal Intent
or imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight
or lack of skill is lacking. Without Criminal Intent is not deceit. Do not use
voluntariness, there can be no dolo or culpa, deceit in translating dolo, because the
hence, there is no felony. nearest translation is deliberate intent.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court, In criminal law, intent is categorized into
two persons went wild boar hunting. On two:
their way, they met Pedro standing by the
door of his house and they asked him where (1) General criminal intent; and
they could find wild boars. Pedro pointed to
a place where wild boars were supposed to (2) Specific criminal intent.
be found, and the two proceeded thereto.
Upon getting to the place, they saw General criminal intent is presumed from
something moving, they shot, unfortunately the mere doing of a wrong act. This does
the bullet ricocheted killing Pedro. It was not require proof. The burden is upon the
held that since there was neither dolo nor wrong doer to prove that he acted without
culpa, there is no criminal liability. such criminal intent.
On the other hand, motive implies motion. (1) In negligence, there is deficiency of
It is the moving power which impels one to action;
do an act. When there is motive in the
commission of a crime, it always comes (2) in imprudence, there is deficiency
before the intent. But a crime may be of perception.
committed without motive.
Mens rea
If the crime is intentional, it cannot be
committed without intent. Intent is The technical term mens rea is sometimes
manifested by the instrument used by the referred to in common parlance as the
offender. The specific criminal intent gravamen of the offense. To a layman, that
becomes material if the crime is to be is what you call the “bullseye” of the crime.
distinguished from the attempted or This term is used synonymously with
frustrated stage. For example, a husband criminal or deliberate intent, but that is not
came home and found his wife in a pleasant exactly correct.
conversation with a former suitor.
Thereupon, he got a knife. The moving Mens rea of the crime depends upon the
force is jealousy. The intent is the resort to elements of the crime. You can only detect
the knife, so that means he is desirous to kill the mens rea of a crime by knowing the
the former suitor. Even if the offender particular crime committed. Without
states that he had no reason to kill the reference to a particular crime, this term is
victim, this is not criminal intent. Criminal meaningless. For example, in theft, the
intent is the means resorted to by him that mens rea is the taking of the property of
brought about the killing. If we equate another with intent to gain. In falsification,
intent as a state of mind, many would the mens rea is the effecting of the forgery
escape criminal liability. with intent to pervert the truth. It is not
merely writing something that is not true;
In a case where mother and son were living the intent to pervert the truth must follow
in the same house, and the son got angry the performance of the act.
and strangled his mother, the son, when
prosecuted for parricide, raised the defense In criminal law, we sometimes have to
that he had no intent to kill his mother. It consider the crime on the basis of intent.
was held that criminal intent applies on the For example, attempted or frustrated
strangulation of the vital part of the body. homicide is distinguished from physical
Criminal intent is on the basis of the act, not injuries only by the intent to kill. Attempted
on the basis if what the offender says. rape is distinguished from acts of
lasciviousness by the intent to have sexual
Look into motive to determine the proper intercourse. In robbery, the mens rea is the
crime which can be imputed to the accused. taking of the property of another coupled
If a judge was killed, determine if the killing with the employment of intimidation or
has any relation to the official functions of violence upon persons or things; remove the
the judge in which case the crime would be employment of force or intimidation and it is
direct assault complexed with not robbery anymore.
murder/homicide, not the other way around.
If it has no relation, the crime is simply
homicide or murder. Mistake of fact
In so ruling that there is no double jeopardy, Yes. A felony may result not only from dolo
the Supreme Court did not look into the but also from culpa. If that fellow who was
criminal negligence. The Supreme Court committing suicide acted negligently, he will
looked into the physical injuries and the be liable for criminal negligence resulting in
damage to property as the felonies and not the death of another.
criminal negligence.
2. A had been courting X for the last
In several cases that followed, the Supreme five years. X told A, “Let us just be friends.
Court ruled that where several I want a lawyer for a husband and I have
consequences result from reckless already found somebody whom I agreed to
imprudence or criminal negligence, the marry. Anyway there are still a lot of ladies
accused should be charged only in the around; you will still have your chance with
Regional Trial Court although the reckless another lady." A, trying to show that he is a
imprudence may result in slight physical sport, went down from the house of X, went
injuries. The Supreme Court argued that inside his car, and stepped on the
since there was only one criminal accelerator to the limit, closed his eyes,
negligence, it would be an error to split the started the vehicle. The vehicle zoomed,
same by prosecuting the accused in one running over all the pedestrians on the
street. At the end, the car stopped at the natural, and logical consequence of the
fence. He was taken to the hospital, and he felonious act.
survived. Can he be held criminally liable
for all those innocent people that he ran Proximate cause is that cause which sets
over, claiming that he was committing into motion other causes and which
suicide? unbroken by any efficient supervening
cause produces a felony without which such
He will be criminally liable, not for an felony could not have resulted. He who is
intentional felony, but for culpable felony. the cause of the cause is the evil of the
This is so because, in paragraph 1 of Article cause. As a general rule, the offender is
4, the term used is “felony”, and that term criminally liable for all the consequences of
covers both dolo and culpa. his felonious act, although not intended, if
the felonious act is the proximate cause of
3. A pregnant woman thought of killing the felony or resulting felony. A proximate
herself by climbing up a tall building and cause is not necessarily the immediate
jumped down below. Instead of falling in cause. This may be a cause which is far and
the pavement, she fell on the owner of the remote from the consequence which sets
building. An abortion resulted. Is she liable into motion other causes which resulted in
for an unintentional abortion? If not, what the felony.
possible crime may be committed?
Illustrations:
The relevant matter is whether the pregnant
woman could commit unintentional abortion A, B, C, D and E were driving their vehicles
upon herself. The answer is no because the along Ortigas Aveue. A's car was ahead,
way the law defines unintentional abortion, followed by those of B, C, D, and E. When
it requires physical violence coming from a A's car reached the intersection of EDSA and
third party. When a pregnant woman does Ortigas Avenue, the traffic light turned red
an act that would bring about abortion, it is so A immediately stepped on his break,
always intentional. Unintentional abortion followed by B, C, D. However, E was not
can only result when a third person employs aware that the traffic light had turned to
physical violence upon a pregnant woman red, so he bumped the car of D, then D hit
resulting to an unintended abortion. the car of C, then C hit the car of B, then,
finally, B hit the car of A. In this case, the
immediate cause to the damage of the car
In one case, a pregnant woman and man of A is the car of B, but that is not the
quarreled. The man could no longer bear proximate cause. The proximate cause is
the shouting of the woman, so he got his the car of E because it was the car of E
firearm and poked it into the mouth of the which sets into motion the cars to bump into
woman. The woman became hysterical, so each other.
she ran as fast as she could, which resulted
in an abortion. The man was prosecuted for In one case, A and B, who are brothers-in-
unintentional abortion. It was held that an law, had a quarrel. At the height of their
unintentional abortion was not committed. quarrel, A shot B with an airgun. B was hit
However, drawing a weapon in the height of at the stomach, which bled profusely. When
a quarrel is a crime of other light threats A saw this, he put B on the bed and told him
under Article 285. An unintentional abortion not to leave the bed because he will call a
can only be committed out of physical doctor. While A was away, B rose from the
violence, not from mere threat. bed, went into the kitchen and got a kitchen
knife and cut his throat. The doctor arrived
and said that the wound in the stomach is
Proximate cause only superficial; only that it is a bleeder, but
the doctor could no longer save him
Article 4, paragraph 1 presupposes that because B’s throat was already cut.
the act done is the proximate cause of the Eventually, B died. A was prosecuted for
resulting felony. It must be the direct, manslaughter. The Supreme Court
rationalized that what made B cut his throat, same. The accused must, therefore, be
in the absence of evidence that he wanted considered as the author of the death of the
to commit suicide, is the belief that sooner victim.
or later, he would die out of the wound
inflicted by A. Because of that belief, he This case illustrates that proximate cause
decided to shorten the agony by cutting his does not require that the offender needs to
throat. That belief would not be engendered actually touch the body of the offended
in his mind were it not because of the party. It is enough that the offender
profuse bleeding from his wound. Now, that generated in the mind of the offended party
profusely bleeding would not have been the belief that made him risk himself.
there, were it not for the wound inflicted by
A. As a result, A was convicted for If a person shouted fire, and because of that
manslaughter. a moviegoer jumped into the fire escape
and died, the person who shouted fire when
In criminal law, as long as the act of the there is no fire is criminally liable for the
accused contributed to the death of the death of that person.
victim, even if the victim is about to die, he
will still be liable for the felonious act of In a case where a wife had to go out to the
putting to death that victim. In one cold to escape a brutal husband and
decision, the Supreme Court held that the because of that she was exposed to the
most precious moment in a man’s life is that element and caught pneumonia, the
of losing seconds when he is about to die. husband was made criminally liable for the
So when you robbed him of that, you should death of the wife.
be liable for his death. Even if a person is
already dying, if one suffocates him to end Even though the attending physician may
up his agony, one will be liable for murder, have been negligent and the negligence
when you put him to death, in a situation brought about the death of the offending
where he is utterly defenseless. party – in other words, if the treatment was
not negligent, the offended party would
In US v. Valdez, the deceased is a member have survived – is no defense at all, because
of the crew of a vessel. Accused is in without the wound inflicted by the offender,
charge of the crewmembers engaged in the there would have been no occasion for a
loading of cargo in the vessel. Because the medical treatment.
offended party was slow in his work, the
accused shouted at him. The offended party Even if the wound was called slight but
replied that they would be better if he would because of the careless treatment, it was
not insult them. The accused resented this, aggravated, the offender is liable for the
and rising in rage, he moved towards the death of the victim not only of the slight
victim, with a big knife in hand threatening physical injuries. Reason – without the injury
to kill him. The victim believing himself to being inflicted, there would have been no
be in immediate peril, threw himself into the need for any medical treatment. That the
water. The victim died of drowning. The medical treatment proved to be careless or
accused was prosecuted for homicide. His negligent, is not enough to relieve the
contention that his liability should be only offender of the liability for the inflicting
for grave threats since he did not even stab injuries.
the victim, that the victim died of drowning,
and this can be considered as a supervening When a person inflicted wound upon
cause. It was held that the deceased, in another, and his victim upon coming home
throwing himself into the river, acted solely got some leaves, pounded them and put
in obedience to the instinct of self- lime there, and applying this to the wound,
preservation, and was in no sense legally developed locked jaw and eventually he
responsible for his own death. As to him, it died, it was held that the one who inflicted
was but the exercise of a choice between the wound is liable for his death.
two evils, and any reasonable person under
the same circumstance might have done the
In another instance, during a quarrel, the A, if at all, is only liable for physical injuries
victim was wounded. The wound was inflicted upon B.
superficial, but just the same the doctor put
inside some packing. When the victim went If you are confronted with this facts of the
home, he could not stand the pain, so he Urbano case, where the offended party died
pulled out the packing. That resulted into because of tetanus poisoning, reason out
profuse bleeding and he died because of according to that reasoning laid down by the
loss of blood. The offender who caused the Supreme Court, meaning to say, the
wound, although the wound caused was incubation period of the tetanus poisoning
only slight, was held answerable for the was considered. Since tetanus toxic would
death of the victim, even if the victim would affect the victim for no longer than two
not have died were it not for the fact that he weeks,, the fact that the victim died two
pulled out that packing. The principle is months later shows that it is no longer
that without the wound, the act of the tetanus brought about by the act of the
physician or the act of the offended party accused. The tetanus was gathered by his
would not have anything to do with the working in the farm and that is already an
wound, and since the wound was inflicted efficient intervening cause.
by the offender, whatever happens on that
wound, he should be made punishable for The one who caused the proximate cause is
that. the one liable. The one who caused the
immediate cause is also liable, but merely
In Urbano v. IAC, A and B had a quarrel and contributory or sometimes totally not liable.
started hacking each other. B was wounded
at the back. Cooler heads intervened and
they were separated. Somehow, their Wrongful act done be different from
differences were patched up. A agreed to what was intended
shoulder all the expenses for the treatment
of the wound of B, and to pay him also What makes the first paragraph of Article 4
whatever lost of income B may have failed confusing is the qualification “although the
to receive. B, on the other hand, signed a wrongful act done be different from what
forgiveness in favor of A and on that was intended”. There are three situations
condition, he withdrew the complaint that contemplated under paragraph 1 of Article
he filed against A. After so many weeks of 4:
treatment in a clinic, the doctor pronounced
the wound already healed. Thereafter, B (1) Aberratio ictus or mistake in the
went back to his farm. Two months later, B blow;
came home and he was chilling. Before
midnight, he died out of tetanus poisoning. (2) Error in personae or mistake in
The heirs of B filed a case of homicide identity; and
against A. The Supreme Court held that A is
not liable. It took into account the (3) Praeter intentionem or where the
incubation period of tetanus toxic. Medical consequence exceeded the intention.
evidence were presented that tetanus toxic
is good only for two weeks. That if, indeed,
the victim had incurred tetanus poisoning Aberration ictus
out of the wound inflicted by A, he would
not have lasted two months. What brought In aberratio ictus, a person directed the
about tetanus to infect the body of B was blow at an intended victim, but because of
his working in his farm using his bare hands. poor aim, that blow landed on somebody
Because of this, the Supreme Court said else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim
that the act of B of working in his farm as well as the actual victim are both at the
where the soil is filthy, using his own hands, scene of the crime.
is an efficient supervening cause which Distinguish this from error in personae,
relieves A of any liability for the death of B. where the victim actually received the blow,
but he was mistaken for another who was
not at the scene of the crime. The
distinction is important because the legal The facts were one of aberratio ictus, but
effects are not the same. the facts stated that the offender aimed
carelessly in firing the shot. Is the felony
In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the the result of dolo or culpa? What crime was
blow upon the intended victim, but because committed?
of poor aim the blow landed on somebody
else. You have a complex crime, unless the All three instances under paragraph 1,
resulting consequence is not a grave or less Article 4 are the product of dolo. In
grave felony. You have a single act as aberratio ictus, error in personae and
against the intended victim and also giving praeter intentionem, never think of these as
rise to another felony as against the actual the product of culpa. They are always the
victim. To be more specific, let us take for result of an intended felony, and, henc,e
example A and B. A and B are enemies. As dolo. You cannot have these situations out
soon as A saw B at a distance, A shot at B. of criminal negligence. The crime
However, because of poor aim, it was not B committed is attempted homicide or
who was hit but C. You can readily see that attempted murder, not homicide through
there is only one single act – the act of firing reckless imprudence.
at B. In so far as B is concerned, the crime
at least is attempted homicide or attempted
murder, as the case may be, if there is any Error in personae
qualifying circumstance. As far as the third
party C is concerned, if C were killed, crime In error in personae, the intended victim
is homicide. If C was only wounded, the was not at the scene of the crime. It was
crime is only physical injuries. You cannot the actual victim upon whom the blow was
have attempted or frustrated homicide or directed, but he was not really the intended
murder as far as C is concerned, because as victim. There was really a mistake in
far as C is concern, there is no intent to kill. identity.
As far as that other victim is concerned, only
physical injuries – serious or less serious or This is very important because Article 49
slight. applies only in a case of error in personae
and not in a case of abberatio ictus.
If the resulting physical injuries were only
slight, then you cannot complex; you will In Article 49, when the crime intended is
have one prosecution for the attempted more serious than the crime actually
homicide or murder, and another committed or vice-versa, whichever crime
prosecution for slight physical injuries for carries the lesser penalty, that penalty will
the innocent party. But if the innocent party be the one imposed. But it will be imposed
was seriously injured or less seriously in the maximum period. For instance, the
injured, then you have another grave or less offender intended to commit homicide, but
grave felony resulting from the same act what was actually committed with parricide
which gave rise to attempted homicide or because the person he killed by mistake
murder against B; hence, a complex crime. was somebody related to him within the
degree of relationship in parricide. In such a
In other words, aberratio ictus, generally case, the offender will be charged with
gives rise to a complex crime. This being parricide, but the penalty that would be
so, the penalty for the more serious crime is imposed will be that of homicide. This is
imposed in the maximum period. This is the because under Article 49, the penalty for
legal effect. The only time when a complex the lesser crime will be the one imposed,
crime may not result in aberratio ictus is whatever crime the offender is prosecuted
when one of the resulting felonies is a light under. In any event, the offender is
felony. prosecuted for the crime committed not for
the crime intended.
A man raped a young girl. The young girl 1. Accused was a houseboy in a house
was shouting so the man placed his hand on where only a spinster resides. It is
the mouth and nose of the victim. He found customary for the spinster to sleep nude
out later that the victim was dead already; because her room was warm. It was also
she died of suffocation. The offender the habit of the houseboy that whenever
begged that he had no intention of killing she enters her room, the houseboy would
the girl and that his only intention was to follow and peek into the keyhole. Finally,
prevent her from shouting. The Supreme when the houseboy could no longer resist
Court rejected the plea saying that one can the urge, he climbed into the ceiling, went
always expect that a person who is inside the room of his master, placed
suffocated may eventually die. So the himself on top of her and abused her, not
knowing that she was already dead five the inherent impossibility of the means
minutes earlier. Is an impossible crime employed to bring about the crime. When
committed? we say inherent impossibility, this means
that under any and all circumstances, the
Yes. Before, the act performed by the crime could not have materialized. If the
offender could not have been a crime crime could have materialized under a
against person or property. The act different set of facts, employing the same
performed would have been constituted a mean or the same act, it is not an
crime against chastity. An impossible crime impossible crime; it would be an attempted
is true only if the act done by the offender felony.
constitutes a crime against person or
property. However, with the new rape law Under Article 4, paragraph 2, impossible
amending the Revised Penal Code and crime is true only when the crime
classifying rape as a crime against persons, committed would have been against person
it is now possible that an impossible crime or against property. It is, therefore,
was committed. Note, however, that the important to know what are the crimes
crime might also fall under the Revised under Title VIII, against persons and those
Administrative Code – desecrating the dead. against property under Title X. An
impossible crime is true only to any of those
2. A was driving his car around Roxas crimes.
Boulevard when a person hitched a ride.
Because this person was exquisitely 3. A entered a department store at
dressed, A readily welcomed the fellow about midnight, when it was already closed.
inside his car and he continued driving. He went directly to the room where the safe
When he reached a motel, A suddenly or vault was being kept. He succeeded in
swerved his car inside. A started kissing his opening the safe, but the safe was empty.
passenger, but he found out that his Is an impossible crime committed? If not,
passenger was not a woman but a man, and what crime is possibly committed?
so he pushed him out of the car, and gave
him fist blows. Is an impossible crime This is not an impossible crime. That is only
committed? If not, is there any crime true if there is nothing more to steal. But in
committed at all? a department store, where there is plenty to
steal, not only the money inside the vault or
It cannot be an impossible crime, because safe. The fact that the vault had turned out
the act would have been a crime against to be empty is not really inherently
chastity. The crime is physical injuries or impossible to commit the crime of robbery.
acts of lasciviousness, if this was done There are other things that he could take.
against the will of the passenger. There are The crime committed therefore is attempted
two ways of committing acts of robbery, assuming that he did not lay his
lasciviousness. Under Article 336, where hands on any other article. This could not
the acts of lasciviousness were committed be trespass to dwelling because there are
under circumstances of rape, meaning to other things that can be stolen.
say, there is employment of violence or
intimidation or the victim is deprived of 4. A and B were lovers. B was willing to
reason. Even if the victim is a man, the marry A except that A is already married. A
crime of acts of lasciviousness is committed. thought of killing his wife. He prepared her
This is a crime that is not limited to a victim breakfast every morning, and every
who is a woman. Acts of lasciviousness morning, he placed a little dose of arsenic
require a victim to be a woman only when it poison into the breakfast of the wife. The
is committed under circumstances of wife consumed all the food prepared by her
seduction. If it is committed under the husband including the poison but nothing
circumstances of rape, the victim may be a happened to the wife. Because of the
man or a woman. The essence of an volume of the household chores that the
impossible crime is the inherent wife had to attend to daily, she developed a
impossibility of accomplishing the crime or physical condition that rendered her so
strong and resistance to any kind of felonious act. What prevented the
poisoning, so the amount of poison applied consummation of the crime was because of
to her breakfast has no effect to her. Is some cause independent of the will of the
there an impossible crime? perpetrator.
You will notice that the felony begins when When a person starts entering the dwelling
the offender performs an overt act. Not any of another, that act is already trespassing.
act will mark the beginning of a felony, and But the act of entering is an ingredient of
therefore, if the act so far being done does robbery with force upon things. You could
not begin a felony, criminal liability only hold him liable for attempted robbery
correspondingly does not begin. In criminal when he has already completed all acts
law, there is such a thing as preparatory performed by him directly leading to
act. These acts do not give rise to criminal robbery. The act of entering alone is not yet
liability. indicative of robbery although that may be
what he may have planned to commit. In
law, the attempted stage is only that overt
Question & Answer act which is directly linked to the felony
intended to be committed.
A and B are husband and wife. A met C who
was willing to marry him, but he is already In US v. Namaja, the accused was arrested
married. A thought of eliminating B and to while he was detaching some of the wood
poison her. So, he went to the drugstore and panels of a store. He was already able to
bought arsenic poison. On the way out, he detach two wood panels. To a layman, the
met D. D asked him who was sick in the only conclusion that will come to your mind
family, A confided to D that he bought the is that this fellow started to enter the store
poison to poison his wife in order to marry to steal something. He would not be there
C. After that, they parted ways. D went just to sleep there. But in criminal law, since
directly to the police and reported that A is the act of removing the panel indicates only
going to kill his wife. So the policemen went at most the intention to enter. He can only
to A’s house and found A still unwrapping be prosecuted for trespass. The removal of
the arsenic poison. The policemen asked A if the panelling is just an attempt to trespass,
he was planning to poison B and A said yes. not an attempt to rob. Although, Namaja
Police arrested him and charged him with was prosecuted for attempted robbery, the
attempted parricide. Is the charge correct? Supreme Court held it is only attempted
trespass because that is the crime that can
be directly linked to his act of removing the though there was desistance on the part of
wood panel. the offender, if the desistance was made
There are some acts which are ingredients when acts done by him already resulted to a
of a certain crime, but which are, by felony, that offender will still be criminally
themselves, already criminal offenses. liable for the felony brought about his act.
What is negated is only the attempted
In abduction, your desire may lead to acts of stage, but there may be other felony
lasciviousness. In so far the woman being constituting his act.
carried is concerned, she may already be
the victim of lascivious acts. The crime is
not attempted abduction but acts of
lasciviousness. You only hold him liable for
an attempt, so far as could be reasonably
linked to the overt act done by him. Do not Illustrations:
go far and imagine what you should do.
A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder.
But B's wound was not mortal. What A then
Question & Answer did was to approach B, and told B, “Now you
are dead, I will kill you.” But A took pity and
A awakened one morning with a man kept the revolver and left. The crime
sleeping in his sofa. Beside the man was a committed is attempted homicide and not
bag containing picklocks and similar tools. physical injuries, because there was an
He found out that the man entered his sala intention to kill. The desistance was with
by cutting the screen on his window. If you the second shot and would not affect the
were to prosecute this fellow, for what crime first shot because the first shot had already
are you going to prosecute him? hit B. The second attempt has nothing to do
with the first.
The act done by him of entering through an
opening not intended for the purpose is only In another instance, A has a very seductive
qualified trespass. Qualified trespass neighbor in the person of B. A had always
because he did so by cutting through the been looking at B and had wanted to
screen. There was force applied in order to possess her but their status were not the
enter. Other than that, under Article 304 of same. One evening, after A saw B at her
the Revised Penal Code, illegal possession house and thought that B was already
of picklocks and similar tools is a crime. asleep, he entered the house of B through
Thus, he can be prosecuted for two crimes: the window to abuse her. He, however,
(1) qualified trespass to dwelling, and (2) found out that B was nude, so he lost
illegal possession of picklocks and similar interest and left. Can a be accused of
tools; not complex because one is not attempted rape? No, because there was
necessary means to commit the other. desistance, which prevented the crime from
being consummated. The attempted stage
was erased because the offender desisted
Desistance after having commenced the commission of
the felony.
Desistance on the part of the offender
negates criminal liability in the attempted The attempted felony is erased by
stage. Desistance is true only in the desistance because the offender
attempted stage of the felony. If under the spontaneously desisted from pursuing the
definition of the felony, the act done is acts of execution. It does not mean,
already in the frustrated stage, no amount however, that there is no more felony
of desistance will negate criminal liability. committed. He may be liable for a
consummated felony constituted by his act
The spontaneous desistance of the offender of trespassing. When A entered the house
negates only the attempted stage but not through the window, which is not intended
necessarily all criminal liability. Even for entrance, it is always presumed to be
against the will of the owner. If the offender attempted stage. A corruptor gives money
proceeded to abuse the woman, but the to a public officer for the latter not to
latter screamed, and A went out of the prosecute him. The public officer received
window again, he could not be prosecuted the money but just the same, arrested him.
for qualified trespass. Dwelling is taken as He received the money to have evidence of
an aggravating circumstance so he will be corruption. Do not think that because the
prosecuted for attempted rape aggravated corruptor has already delivered the money,
by dwelling. he has already performed all the acts of
execution, and, therefore, the corruption is
In deciding whether a felony is already beyond the attempted stage. That
attempted or frustrated or thinking does away with the concept of the
consummated, there are three criteria crime that it requires two to commit. The
involved: manner of committing the crime requires
the meeting of the minds between the giver
(1) The manner of committing the and the receiver.
crime;
When the giver delivers the money to the
(2) The elements of the crime; and supposed receiver, but there is no meeting
of the minds, the only act done by the giver
(3) The nature of the crime itself. is an attempt. It is not possible for him to
perform all the acts of execution because in
the first place, the receiver has no intention
of being corrupted.
Manner of committing a crime Similarly, when a public officer demands a
consideration by official duty, the corruptor
For example, let us take the crime of turns down the demand, there is no bribery.
bribery. Can the crime of frustrated bribery
be committed? No. (Incidentally, the If the one to whom the demand was made
common concept of bribery is that it is the pretended to give, but he had reported the
act of one who corrupts a public officer. matter to higher authorities, the money was
Actually, bribery is the crime of the receiver marked and this was delivered to the public
not the giver. The crime of the giver is officer. If the public officer was arrested, do
corruption of public official. Bribery is the not think that because the public officer
crime of the public officer who in already had the money in his possession,
consideration of an act having to do with his the crime is already frustrated bribery, it is
official duties would receive something, or only attempted bribery. This is because the
accept any promise or present in supposed corruptor has no intention to
consideration thereof.) corrupt. In short, there is no meeting of the
minds. On the other hand, if there is a
The confusion arises from the fact that this meeting of the minds, there is
crime requires two to commit -- the giver consummated bribery or consummated
and the receiver. The law called the crime of corruption. This leaves out the frustrated
the giver as corruption of public official and stage because of the manner of committing
the receiver as bribery. Giving the idea that the crime.
these are independent crimes, but actually,
they cannot arise without the other. Hence, But indirect bribery is always consummated.
if only one side of the crime is present, only This is because the manner of
corruption, you cannot have a consummating the crime does not admit of
consummated corruption without the attempt or frustration.
corresponding consummated bribery. There
cannot be a consummated bribery without You will notice that under the Revised Penal
the corresponding consummated corruption. Code, when it takes two to commit the
If you have bribery only, it is only possible in crime, there could hardly be a frustrated
the attempted stage. If you have a stage. For instance, the crime of adultery.
corruption only, it is possible only in the There is no frustrated adultery. Only
attempted or consummated. This is because that, the frustrated stage of arson has been
it requires the link of two participants. If that eased out. The reasoning is that one cannot
link is there, the crime is consummated; if say that the offender, in the crime of arson,
such link is absent, there is only an has already performed all the acts of
attempted adultery. There is no middle execution which could produce the
ground when the link is there and when the destruction of the premises through the use
link is absent. of fire, unless a part of the premises has
begun to burn. If it has not begun to burn,
There are instances where an intended that means that the offender has not yet
felony could already result from the acts of performed all the acts of execution. On the
execution already done. Because of this, other hand, the moment it begins to burn,
there are felonies where the offender can the crime is consummated. Actually, the
only be determined to have performed all frustrated stage is already standing on the
the acts of execution when the resulting consummated stage except that the
felony is already accomplished. Without the outcome did not result. As far as the stage
resulting felony, there is no way of is concerned, the frustrated stage overlaps
determining whether the offender has the consummated stage.
already performed all the acts or not. It is in
such felonies that the frustrated stage does Because of this reasoning by the Court of
not exist because without the felony being Appeals in People v. Garcia, the Supreme
accomplished, there is no way of stating Court followed the analysis that one cannot
that the offender has already performed all say that the offender in the crime of arson
the acts of execution. An example of this is has already performed all the acts of
the crime of rape. The essence of the crime execution which would produce the arson as
is carnal knowledge. No matter what the a consequence, unless and until a part of
offender may do to accomplish a the premises had begun to burn.
penetration, if there was no penetration yet,
it cannot be said that the offender has In US v. Valdez, the offender had tried to
performed all the acts of execution. We can burn the premises by gathering jute sacks
only say that the offender in rape has laying these inside the room. He lighted
performed all the acts of execution when he these, and as soon as the jute sacks began
has effected a penetration. Once there is to burn, he ran away. The occupants of the
penetration already, no matter how slight, room put out the fire. The court held that
the offense is consummated. For this what was committed was frustrated arson.
reason, rape admits only of the attempted
and consummated stages, no frustrated This case was much the way before the
stage. This was the ruling in the case of decision in the case of People v. Garcia was
People v. Orita. handed down and the Court of Appeals ruled
that there is no frustrated arson. But even
In rape, it requires the connection of the then, the analysis in the case of US v.
offender and the offended party. No Valdez is correct. This is because, in
penetration at all, there is only an determining whether the felony is
attempted stage. Slightest penetration or attempted, frustrated or consummated, the
slightest connection, consummated. You will court does not only consider the definition
notice this from the nature of the crime under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code,
requiring two participants. or the stages of execution of the felony.
When the offender has already passed the
This is also true in the crime of arson. It subjective stage of the felony, it is beyond
does not admit of the frustrated stage. In the attempted stage. It is already on the
arson, the moment any particle of the consummated or frustrated stage
premises intended to be burned is depending on whether a felony resulted. If
blackened, that is already an indication that the felony did not result, frustrated.
the premises have begun to burn. It does
not require that the entire premises be The attempted stage is said to be within the
burned to consummate arson. Because of subjective phase of execution of a felony.
On the subjective phase, it is that point in single burn of any instrument or agency of
time when the offender begins the the crime.
commission of an overt act until that point
where he loses control of the commission of The analysis made by the Court of Appeals
the crime already. If he has reached that is still correct: that they could not
point where he can no longer control the demonstrate a situation where the offender
ensuing consequence, the crime has already has performed all the acts of execution to
passed the subjective phase and, therefore, bring about the crime of arson and the
it is no longer attempted. The moment the situation where he has not yet performed all
execution of the crime has already gone to the acts of execution. The weight of the
that point where the felony should follow as authority is that the crime of arson cannot
a consequence, it is either already be committed in the frustrated stage. The
frustrated or consummated. If the felony reason is because we can hardly determine
does not follow as a consequence, it is whether the offender has performed all the
already frustrated. If the felony follows as a acts of execution that would result in arson,
consequence, it is consummated. as a consequence, unless a part of the
premises has started to burn. On the other
The trouble is that, in the jurisprudence hand, the moment a particle or a molecule
recognizing the objective phase and the of the premises has blackened, in law, arson
subjective phase, the Supreme Court is consummated. This is because
considered not only the acts of the offender, consummated arson does not require that
but also his belief. That although the the whole of the premises be burned. It is
offender may not have done the act to bring enough that any part of the premises, no
about the felony as a consequence, if he matter how small, has begun to burn.
could have continued committing those acts
but he himself did not proceed because he There are also certain crimes that do not
believed that he had done enough to admit of the attempted or frustrated stage,
consummate the crime, Supreme Court said like physical injuries. One of the known
the subjective phase has passed. This was commentators in criminal law has advanced
applied in the case of US v. Valdez, where the view that the crime of physical injuries
the offender, having already put kerosene can be committed in the attempted as well
on the jute sacks, lighted the same, he had as the frustrated stage. He explained that
no reason not to believe that the fire would by going through the definition of an
spread, so he ran away. That act attempted and a frustrated felony under
demonstrated that in his mind, he believed Article 6, if a person who was about to give
that he has performed all the acts of a fist blow to another raises his arms, but
execution and that it is only a matter of before he could throw the blow, somebody
time that the premises will burn. The fact holds that arm, there would be attempted
that the occupant of the other room came physical injuries. The reason for this is
out and put out the fire is a cause because the offender was not able to
independent of the will of the perpetrator. perform all the acts of execution to bring
about physical injuries.
The ruling in the case of US v. Valdez is still
correct. But in the case of People v. Garcia, On the other hand, he also stated that the
the situation is different. Here, the offender crime of physical injuries may be committed
who put the torch over the house of the in the frustrated stage when the offender
offended party, the house being a nipa hut, was able to throw the blow but somehow,
the torch which was lighted could easily the offended party was able to sidestep
burn the roof of the nipa hut. But the torch away from the blow. He reasoned out that
burned out. the crime would be frustrated because the
offender was able to perform all the acts of
In that case, you cannot say that the execution which would bring about the
offender believed that he had performed all felony were it not for a cause independent
the acts of execution. There was not even a of the will of the perpetrator.
The explanation is academic. You will Along this concept of deformity in law, the
notice that under the Revised Penal Code, plastic surgery applied to B is beside the
the crime of physical injuries is penalized on point. In law, what is considered is not the
the basis of the gravity of the injuries. artificial or the scientific treatment but the
Actually, there is no simple crime of physical natural healing of the injury. So the fact
injuries. You have to categorize because that there was plastic surgery applied to B
there are specific articles that apply does not relieve the offender from the
whether the physical injuries are serious, liability for the physical injuries inflicted.
less serious or slight. If you say physical The crime committed is serious physical
injuries, you do not know which article to injuries. It is consummated. In determining
apply. This being so, you could not punish whether a felony is attempted, frustrated or
the attempted or frustrated stage because consummated, you have to consider the
you do not know what crime of physical manner of committing the felony, the
injuries was committed. element of the felony and the nature of the
felony itself. There is no real hard and fast
rule.
Questions & Answers
When the conspiracy is just a basis of A thought of having her husband killed
incurring criminal liability, however, the because the latter was maltreating her. She
same may be deduced or inferred from the hired some persons to kill him and pointed
acts of several offenders in carrying out the at her husband. The goons got hold of her
commission of the crime. The existence of a husband and started mauling him. The wife
conspiracy may be reasonably inferred from took pity and shouted for them to stop but
the acts of the offenders when such acts the goons continued. The wife ran away.
disclose or show a common pursuit of the The wife was prosecuted for parricide. But
criminal objective. This was the ruling in the Supreme Court said that there was
People v. Pinto, 204 SCRA 9. desistance so she is not criminally liable.
Although conspiracy is defined as two or A law student resented the fact that his
more person coming to an agreement brother was killed by A. He hired B to kill A
regarding the commission of a felony and and offered him P50,000.00. He disclosed
deciding to commit it, the word “person” to B that A was being arraigned in the City
here should not be understood to require a Hall of Manila and told him to execute the
meeting of the co-conspirator regarding the plan on the following day. In the evening of
commission of the felony. A conspiracy of that same day, the law student changed his
the second kind can be inferred or deduced mind so he immediately went to the police
even though they have not met as long as and told them to dispatch police officers to
they acted in concert or simultaneously, prevent B from committing the crime.
indicative of a meeting of the minds toward Unfortunately, the police were caught in
a common goal or objective. traffic causing their delay, so that when
they reached the place, B had already killed
Conspiracy is a matter of substance which A. In this case, there was no proposal but a
must be alleged in the information, conspiracy. They have conspired to execute
otherwise, the court will not consider the a crime but the crime involved here is
same. murder and a conspiracy to commit murder
is not a crime in itself but merely a basis for
In People v. Laurio, 200 SCRA 489, it was incurring criminal liability. This is just a
held that it must be established by positive preparatory act, and his desistance negates
and conclusive evidence, not by conjectures criminal liability.
or speculations.
Proposal is true only up to the point where
In Taer v. CA, 186 SCRA 5980, it was held the party to whom the proposal was made
that mere knowledge, acquiescence to, or has not yet accepted the proposal. Once
approval of the act, without cooperation or the proposal was accepted, a conspiracy
at least, agreement to cooperate, is not arises. Proposal is unilateral, one party
enough to constitute a conspiracy. There makes a proposition to the other; conspiracy
must be an intentional participation in the is bilateral, it requires two parties.
crime with a view to further the common
felonious objective. As pointed out earlier, desistance is true
only in the attempted stage. Before this
When several persons who do not know stage, there is only a preparatory stage.
each other simultaneously attack the victim, Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage.
the act of one is the act of all, regardless of
The Supreme Court has ruled that one who and C learned about this, they all stood up
desisted is not criminally liable. “When a to leave the house of the young lady feeling
person has set foot to the path of disappointed. When A looked back at the
wickedness and brings back his foot to the young lady with D, he saw D laughing
path of righteousness, the law shall reward menacingly. At that instance, A stabbed D.
him for doing so.” C and B followed. In this case, it was held
that conspiracy was present.
Where there are several persons who
participated, like in a killing, and they The common notion is that when there is
attacked the victim simultaneously, so much conspiracy involved, the participants are
so that it cannot be known what punished as principals. This notion is no
participation each one had, all these longer absolute. In the case of People v.
participants shall be considered as having Nierra, the Supreme Court ruled that even
acted in conspiracy and they will be held though there was conspiracy, if a co-
collectively responsible. conspirator merely cooperated in the
Do not search for an agreement among the commission of the crime with insignificant
participants. If they acted simultaneously to or minimal acts, such that even without his
bring about their common intention, cooperation, the crime could be carried out
conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy as well, such co-conspirator should be
exists, do not consider the degree of punished as an accomplice only. The
participation of each conspirator because reason given is that penal laws always favor
the act of one is the act of all. As a general a milder form of responsibility upon an
rule, they have equal criminal responsibility. offender. So it is no longer accurate to think
that when there is a conspiracy, all are
principals.
Question & Answer
Notwithstanding that there is conspiracy, a
There are several offenders who acted co-conspirator may be held liable only as an
simultaneously. When they fled, a victim accomplice. That means the penalty which
was found dead. Who should be liable for shall be imposed upon him is one degree
the killing if who actually killed the victim is lower.
not known? For example, there was a planned robbery,
and the taxi driver was present during the
There is collective responsibility here. planning. There, the conspirators told the
Without the principle of conspiracy, nobody taxi driver that they are going to use his
would be prosecuted; hence, there is the taxicab in going to the place of robbery.
rule on collective responsibility since it The taxi driver agreed but said, “I will bring
cannot be ascertained who actually killed you there, and after committing the robbery
the victim. I will return later”. The taxi driver brought
the conspirators where the robbery would
There is conspiracy when the offenders be committed. After the robbery was
acted simultaneously pursuing a common finished, he took the conspirators back to
criminal design; thus, acting out a common his taxi and brought them away. It was held
criminal intent. that the taxi driver was liable only as an
accomplice. His cooperation was not really
Illustration: indispensable. The robbers could have
engaged another taxi. The taxi driver did
A, B and C have been courting the same not really stay during the commission of the
lady for several years. On several robbery. At most, what he only extended
occasions, they even visited the lady on was his cooperation. That is why he was
intervening hours. Because of this, A, B and given only that penalty for an accomplice.
C became hostile with one another. One
day, D invited the young lady and she A, B, and C, under the influence of
accepted the invitation. Eventually, the marijuana, broke into a house because they
young lady agreed to marry D. When A, B learned that the occupants have gone on an
excursion. They ransacked the house. A designated areas in pursuit of the plan.
got a colored TV, B saw a camera and took While A was ransacking the second floor,
that, and C found a can of salmon and took the owner was awakened. A killed him. A,
that. In the crime of robbery with force B and C will be liable for robbery with
upon things, the penalty is based on the homicide. This is because, it is well settled
totality of the value of the personal property that any killing taking place while robbery is
taken and not on the individual property being committed shall be treated as a single
taken by him. indivisible offense.
In Siton v. CA, it was held that the idea of a As a general rule, when there is conspiracy,
conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a the rule is that the act of one is the act of
free for all. There is no definite opponent or all. This principle applies only to the crime
definite intent as when a basketball crowd agreed upon.
beats a referee to death.
The exception is if any of the co-conspirator
would commit a crime not agreed upon.
Composite crimes This happens when the crime agreed upon
and the crime committed by one of the co-
Composite crimes are crimes which, in conspirators are distinct crimes.
substance, consist of more than one crime
but in the eyes of the law, there is only one Exception to the exception: In acts
crime. For example, the crimes of robbery constituting a single indivisible offense,
with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery even though the co-conspirator performed
with physical injuries. different acts bringing about the composite
crime, all will be liable for such crime. They
In case the crime committed is a composite can only evade responsibility for any other
crime, the conspirator will be liable for all crime outside of that agreed upon if it is
the acts committed during the commission proved that the particular conspirator had
of the crime agreed upon. This is because, tried to prevent the commission of such
in the eyes of the law, all those acts done in other act.
pursuance of the crime agreed upon are
acts which constitute a single crime. The rule would be different if the crime
committed was not a composite crime.
Illustrations:
In entrapment, the person entrapped should An unwed mother killed her child in order to
not know that the person trying to entrap conceal a dishonor. The concealment of
him was a law enforcer. The idea is dishonor is an extenuating circumstance
incompatible with each other because in insofar as the unwed mother or the
entrapment, the person entrapped is maternal grandparents is concerned, but
actually committing a crime. The officer not insofar as the father of the child is
who entrapped him only lays down ways concerned. Mother killing her new born
and means to have evidence of the child to conceal her dishonor, penalty is
commission of the crime, but even without lowered by two degrees. Since there is a
those ways and means, the person material lowering of the penalty or
entrapped is actually engaged in a violation mitigating the penalty, this is an
of the law. extenuating circumstance.
Instigation absolves the person instigated The concealment of honor by mother in the
from criminal liability. This is based on the crime of infanticide is an extenuating
rule that a person cannot be a criminal if his circumstance but not in the case of parricide
mind is not criminal. On the other hand, when the age of the victim is three days old
entrapment is not an absolutory cause. It is and above.
not even mitigating.
In the crime of adultery on the part of a
married woman abandoned by her husband, Since the act complained of is actually
at the time she was abandoned by her wrongful, there is a crime. But because the
husband, is it necessary for her to seek the actor acted without voluntariness, there is
company of another man. Abandonment by absence of dolo or culpa. There is no
the husband does not justify the act of the criminal;
woman. It only extenuates or reduces
criminal liability. When the effect of the Since there is a crime committed but there
circumstance is to lower the penalty there is is no criminal, there is civil liability for the
an extenuating circumstance. wrong done. But there is no criminal
liability. However, in paragraphs 4 and 7 of
A kleptomaniac is one who cannot resist the Article 12, there is neither criminal nor civil
temptation of stealing things which appeal liability.
to his desire. This is not exempting. One
who is a kleptomaniac and who would steal When you apply for justifying or exempting
objects of his desire is criminally liable. But circumstances, it is confession and
he would be given the benefit of a avoidance and burden of proof shifts to the
mitigating circumstance analogous to accused and he can no longer rely on
paragraph 9 of Article 13, that of suffering weakness of prosecution’s evidence
from an illness which diminishes the
exercise of his will power without, however,
depriving him of the consciousness of his Justifying circumstances
act. So this is an extenuating circumstance.
The effect is to mitigate the criminal Since the justifying circumstances are in the
liability. nature of defensive acts, there must be
always unlawful aggression. The
reasonableness of the means employed
Distinctions between justifying depends on the gravity of the aggression. If
circumstances and exempting the unlawful aggressor was killed, this can
circumstances only be justified if it was done to save the
life of the person defending or the person
In justifying circumstances – being defended. The equation is “life was
taken to save life.”
The circumstance affects the act, not the
actor;
Self Defense
The act complained of is considered to have
been done within the bounds of law; hence, In justifying circumstances, the most
it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the important is self-defense. When this is
law; given in the bar, it is the element of
unlawful aggression that is in issue. Never
Since the act is considered lawful, there is confuse unlawful aggression with
no crime, and because there is no crime, provocation. Mere provocation is not
there is no criminal; enough.
Civil liability is based on the benefit derived In People v. Oanis and Callanta, the
and not on the act, damage or injury accused Chief of Police and the
caused. It is wrong to treat this as an constabulary soldier were sent out to arrest
exception to the rule that in justifying a certain Balagtas, supposedly a notorious
circumstances, there is no criminal nor civil bandit. There was an order to kill Balagtas
if he would resist. The accused arrived at fired at the fleeing criminal, he cannot be
the house of a dancer who was supposedly made criminally liable. However, this is true
the girlfriend of Balagtas. When they were only if it was the person who stabbed was
there, they saw a certain person who the one killed. But if, let us say, the
resembled Balagtas in all his bodily policeman was stabbed and despite the fact
appearance sleeping on a bamboo bed but that the aggressor ran into a crowd of
facing the other direction. The accused, people, the policeman still fired
without going around the house, started indiscriminately. The policeman would be
firing at the man. They found out later on held criminally liable because he acted with
that the man was not really Balagtas. They imprudence in firing toward several people
tried to invoke the justifying circumstance of where the offender had run. But although
having acted in fulfillment of a duty. he will be criminally liable, he will be given
the benefit of an incomplete fulfillment of
The second requisite is absent because they duty.
acted with negligence. There was nothing
that prevented them from looking around
the house and looking at the face of the Exempting circumstances
fellow who was sleeping. There could not
be any danger on their life and limb. Hence, In exempting circumstances, the reason for
they were held guilty of the crime of murder the exemption lies on the involuntariness of
because the fellow was killed when he was the act – one or some of the ingredients of
sleeping and totally defenseless. However, voluntariness such as criminal intent,
the Supreme Court granted them the intelligence, or freedom of action on the
benefit of incomplete justification of part of the offender is missing. In case it is a
fulfillment of duty and the penalty was culpable felony, there is absence of freedom
reduced by one or two degrees. of action or intelligence, or absence of
negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or
Do not confuse fulfillment of a duty with lack of skill.
self-defense.
A, a policeman, while waiting for his wife to There is complete absence of intelligence.
go home, was suddenly stabbed at the back Imbecile has an IQ of 7. The intellectual
by B, a hoodlum, who mistook him for deficiency is permanent. There is no lucid
someone else. When A saw B, he drew his interval unlike in insanity.
revolver and went after B. After firing a
shot in the air, B did not stop so A shot B The insanity that is exempting is limited
who was hit at a vital part of the body. B only to mental aberration or disease of the
died. Is the act of A justified? mind and must completely impair the
intelligence of the accused. Under common
Yes. The justifying circumstance of self- law countries, emotional or spiritual insanity
defense cannot be invoked because the are exempting circumstances unlike in this
unlawful aggression had already ceased by jurisdiction because the Revised
the time A shot B. When the unlawful Administrative Code, as defined is limited to
aggressor started fleeing, the unlawful mental aberration of the mind. This was the
aggression ceased. If the person attacked ruling in People v. Dungo.
runs after him, in the eyes of the law, he
becomes the unlawful aggressor. Self- In People v. Rafanan, decided on November
defense cannot be invoked. You apply 21, 1991, the following are the two tests
paragraph 5 on fulfillment of duty. The for exemption on grounds of insanity:
offender was not only defending himself but
was acting in fulfillment of a duty, to bring (1) The test of cognition, or whether the
the criminal to the authorities. As long as accused acted with complete deprivation of
he was not acting out of malice when he intelligence in committing said crime; and
How does the minority of the offender
(2) The test of volition, or whether the affect his criminal liability?
accused acted in total deprivation of (1) If the offender is within the bracket
freedom of will. of nine years old exactly or less, he is
exempt from criminal liability but not from
Schizoprenia (dementia praecox) can civil liability. This type of offenders are
only be considered a mitigating absolutely exempt. Even if the offender
circumstance because it does not nine years or below acted with discernment,
completely deprive the offender of this should not be taken against him
consciousness of his acts. because in this age bracket, the exemption
is absolute.
The offender should not have been given Suspension of sentence is not automatic. If
the benefit of a suspended sentence before. the youthful offender has filed an
This means he is a first timer; application therefor.
He must be below 18 years old because a (3) If at the time the judgment is to be
youthful offender is one who is below 18. promulgated he is already above 18, he
cannot avail of a suspended sentence. The
Note that the age of majority has been reason is because if the sentence were to be
reduced to 18. There is no more bracket suspended, he would be committed in a
where the offender is a minor yet no longer reformatory. Since he cannot be committed
entitled to a mitigating circumstance. An to a reformatory anymore because he is not
offender below 18 is always entitled to a less than 18 years old, he would have to be
mitigating or exempting circumstance. committed to a penitentiary. That means
promulgation of the sentence shall not be
suspended. If the sentence should not be criminal liability. The driver is not under
suspended, although the minor may be obligation to defray the medical expenses.
qualified, the court will promulgate the
sentence but the minor shall be entitled to However, correlate paragraph 4 of Article 12
the reduction of the penalty by at least two with the second paragraph of Article 275.
degrees. Article 275 gives you the crime of
abandoning the victim of one’s own
When the offender is over nine but below accident. It is a crime. Here, the accident
15, the penalty to be imposed is referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 275 is in
discretionary on the court, but lowered by at the concept of paragraph 4 of Article 12.
least two degrees. It may be lowered by This means that the offender must be
three or four degrees, depending upon performing a lawful act, that he was doing it
whether the court deems best for the with due care but somehow, injury resulted
interest of the offender. The limitation that by mere accident without fault or intention
it should be lowered by at least two degrees of causing it.
is just a limitation on the power of the court
to reduce the penalty. It cannot be less If at the very beginning, the offender was
than two degrees. negligent, you do not apply Article 275,
paragraph 2. Instead, it will be Article 365
(4) If the offender is 15 years old and on criminal negligence. Notice that in the
above but below 18, there is no exemption last paragraph of Article 365, in the case of
anymore but he is also given the benefit of the so-called hit and run drivers who have
a suspended sentence under the conditions injured somebody and would abandon the
stated earlier and if at the time the victim of the accident, the penalty is
sentence is promulgated, he is not 18 years qualified to a higher degree. Here, under
old or over yet. If the sentence is paragraph 4 of Article 12, the infliction of
promulgated, the court will impose a the injury by mere accident does not give
penalty one degree lower. This time it is rise to a criminal or civil liability, but the
fixed. It is to be imposed one degree lower person who caused the injury is duty bound
and in the proper periods subject to the to attend to the person who was injured. If
rules in Article 64. he would abandon him, it is in that
abandonment that the crime arises which is
punished under the second paragraph of
Damnum absque injuria Article 275.
Aggravating only in crimes against persons Dwelling will only be aggravating if it is the
and honor, not against property like dwelling of the offended party. It should also
Robbery with homicide (People v. Ga, 156 not be the dwelling of the offender. If the
SCRA 790). dwelling is both that of the offended party
and the offender, dwelling is not A man was killed in the house of his
aggravating. common law wife. Dwelling is aggravating in
this case because the house was provided
Dwelling need not be owned by the by the man.
offended party. It is enough that he used
the place for his peace of mind, rest, Dwelling should not be understood in the
comfort and privacy. The rule that dwelling, concept of a domicile. A person has more
in order to be aggravating must be owned than one dwelling. So, if a man has so many
by the offended party is no longer absolute. wives and he gave them a places of their
Dwelling can be aggravating even if it is not own, each one is his own dwelling. If he is
owned by the offended party, provided that killed there, dwelling will be aggravating,
the offended party is considered a member provided that he also stays there once in a
of the family who owns the dwelling and while. When he is only a visitor there,
equally enjoys peace of mind, privacy and dwelling is not aggravating.
comfort.
The crime of adultery was committed.
Illustration: Dwelling was considered aggravating on the
part of the paramour. The paramour is not a
Husband and wife quarreled. Husband resident of the same dwelling. However, if
inflicted physical violence upon the wife. the paramour was also residing on the same
The wife left the conjugal home and went to dwelling, dwelling is not considered
the house of her sister bringing her personal aggravating.
belongings with her. The sister
accommodated the wife in the formers The term “dwelling” includes all the
home. The husband went to the house of dependencies necessary for a house or for
the sister-in-law and tried to persuade the rest or for comfort or a place of privacy. If
wife to come back to the conjugal home but the place used is on the second floor, the
the wife refused because she is more at stairs which are used to reach the second
peace in her sister's house than in the floor is considered a dwelling because the
conjugal abode. Due to the wife's refusal to second floor cannot be enjoyed without the
go back to the conjugal home and live with stairs. If the offended party was assaulted
the husband, the husband pulled out a knife while on the stairs, dwelling is already
and stabbed the wife which caused her aggravating. For this reason, considering
death. It was held that dwelling was that any dependency necessary for the
aggravating although it is not owned by the enjoyment of a place of abode is considered
offended party because the offended party a dwelling.
is considered as a member of the family
who owns the dwelling and that dwelling is Illustrations:
where she enjoyed privacy. Peace of mind
and comfort. A and B are living in one house. A occupies
the ground floor while B the upper floor. The
Even a room in a hotel if rented as a stairs here would form part only of B's
dwelling, like what the salesmen do when dwelling, the same being necessary and an
they are assigned in the provinces and they integral part of his house or dwelling.
rent rooms, is considered a dwelling. A Hence, when an attack is made while A is on
room in a hotel or motel will be considered the stairs, the aggravating circumstance of
dwelling if it is used with a certain degree of dwelling is not present. If the attack is made
permanence, where the offended party while B was on the stairs, then the
seeks privacy, rest, peace of mind and aggravating circumstance of dwelling is
comfort. present.
If a young man brought a woman in a motel Whenever one is in his dwelling, the law is
for a short time and there he was killed, presuming that he is not intending to
dwelling is not aggravating. commit a wrong so one who attacks him
while in the tranquility of his home shows a
degree of perversity in him. Hence, this separate entrance to the portion used for
aggravating circumstance. dwelling, the circumstance is aggravating.
However, in case the store is closed,
Dwelling is not limited to the house proper. dwelling is aggravating since here, the store
All the appurtenances necessary for the is not a public place as in the first case.
peace and comfort, rest and peace of mind
in the abode of the offended party is Balcony is part of the dwelling because it is
considered a dwelling. appurtenant to the house
In the provinces where the comfort rooms Dwelling is aggravating where the place is,
are usually far from the house proper, if the even for a brief moment, a “home”,
offended party while answering the call of although he is not the owner thereof as
nature is killed, then dwelling is aggravating when victim was shot in the house of his
because the comfort room is a necessary parents.
dependency of the house proper.
A is on board a banca, not so far away. B Nocturnity is the period of time after
and C also are on board on their respective sunset to sunrise, from dusk to dawn.
bancas. Suddenly, D showed up from
underwater and stabbed B. Is there an
aggravating circumstance of uninhabited Different forms of repetition or
place here? Yes, considering the fact that A habituality of the offender
and C before being able to give assistance
still have to jump into the water and swim Recidivism under Article 14 (9) – The
towards B and the time it would take them offender at the time of his trial for one crime
to do that, the chances of B receiving some shall have been previously convicted by
help was very little, despite the fact that final judgment of another embraced in the
there were other persons not so far from the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
scene.
Repetition or reiteracion under Article
Evidence tending to prove that the offender 14 (10) – The offender has been previously
took advantage of the place and purposely punished for an offense which the law
availed of it is to make it easier to commit attaches an equal or greater penalty or for
the crime, shall be necessary. two or more crimes to which it attaches a
lighter penalty.
Even if there was darkness but the There is no time limit between the first
nighttime was only an incident of a chance conviction and the subsequent conviction.
meeting, there is no aggravating Recidivism is imprescriptible.
circumstance here. It must be shown that
the offender deliberately sought the cover It is a generic aggravating circumstance
of darkness and the offender purposely took which can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance. If not offset, it circumstance is present. It is important that
would only increase the penalty prescribed the conviction which came earlier must refer
by law for the crime committed to its to the crime committed earlier than the
maximum period. subsequent conviction.
The emphasis is on the nature of the crime There is no such crime as murder with arson
committed while serving sentence or before or arson with homicide. The crime
serving sentence. It should not be a committed is only murder.
violation of a special law.
If the victim is already dead and the house
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating is burned, the crime is arson. It is either
circumstance. This cannot be offset by any arson or murder.
mitigating circumstance and the imposition
of the penalty in the maximum period If the intent is to destroy property, the crime
cannot be lowered by any ordinary is arson even if someone dies as a
consequence. If the intent is to kill, there is evident premeditation? None but there is
murder even if the house is burned in the treachery as the attack was sudden.
process.
Can there be evident premeditation when
Illustration: the killing is accidental? No. In evident
premeditation, there must be a clear
A and B were arguing about something. reflection on the part of the offender.
One argument led to another until A struck However, if the killing was accidental, there
B to death with a bolo. A did not know that was no evident premeditation. What is
C, the son of B was also in their house and necessary to show and to bring about
who was peeping through the door and saw evident premeditation aside from showing
what A did. Afraid that A might kill him, too, that as some prior time, the offender has
he hid somewhere in the house. A then manifested the intention to kill the victim,
dragged B's body and poured gasoline on it and subsequently killed the victim.
and burned the house altogether. As a
consequence, C was burned and eventually Illustrations:
died too.
A and B fought. A told B that someday he
As far as the killing of B is concerned, it is will kill B. On Friday, A killed B. A and B
homicide since it is noted that they were fought on Monday but since A already
arguing. It could not be murder. As far as suffered so many blows, he told B, "This
the killing of C is concerned, the crime is week shall not pass, I will kill you." On
arson since he intended to burn the house Friday, A killed B. Is there evident
only. premeditation in both cases? None in both
cases. What condition is missing to bring
No such crime as arson with homicide. Law about evident premeditation? Evidence to
enforcers only use this to indicate that a show that between Monday and Friday, the
killing occurred while arson was being offender clung to his determination to kill
committed. At the most, you could the victim, acts indicative of his having
designate it as “death as a consequence of clung to his determination to kill B.
arson.”
A and B had a quarrel. A boxed B. A told B,
"I will kill you this week." A bought firearms.
Evident premeditation On Friday, he waited for B but killed C
instead. Is there evident premeditation?
For evident premeditation to be There is aberratio ictus. So, qualify. Insofar
aggravating, the following conditions must as B is concerned, the crime is attempted
concur: murder because there is evident
premeditation. However, that murder
(1) The time when the accused cannot be considered for C. Insofar as C is
determined to commit the crime; concerned, the crime is homicide because
there was no evident premeditation.
(2) An act manifestly indicating that the
accused has clung to his determination; Evident premeditation shall not be
considered when the crime refers to a
(3) Sufficient lapse of time between such different person other than the person
determination and execution, to allow him premeditated against.
to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
Illustration: While it is true that evident premeditation
may be absorbed in treachery because the
A, on Monday, thought of killing B on Friday. means, method and form of attack may be
A knew that B is coming home only on premeditated and would be resorted to by
Friday so A decided to kill B on Friday the offender. Do not consider both
evening when he comes home. On aggravating circumstances of treachery and
Thursday, A met B and killed him. Is there evident premeditation against the offender.
It is only treachery because the evident then bought a knife, sharpened it and
premeditation is the very conscious act of stabbed the first man he met on the street.
the offender to ensure the execution. It was held that evident premeditation is not
present. It is essential for this aggravating
But there may be evident premeditation and circumstance for the victim to be identified
there is treachery also when the attack was from the beginning.
so sudden.
A premeditated to kill any member of
A and B are enemies. They fought on particular fraternity. He then killed one.
Monday and parted ways. A decided to seek This is murder – a homicide which has been
revenge. He bought a firearm and practiced qualified into murder by evident
shooting and then sought B. When A saw B premeditation which is a qualifying
in the restaurant with so many people, A did circumstance. Same where A planned to kill
not dare fire at B for fear that he might hit a any member of the Iglesio ni Kristo.
stranger but instead, A saw a knife and used
it to stab B with all suddenness. Evident There are some crimes which cannot be
premeditation was not absorbed in aggravated by evident premeditation
treachery because treachery refers to the because they require some planning before
manner of committing the crime. Evident they can be committed. Evident
premeditation is always absorbed in premeditation is part of the crime like
treachery. kidnapping for ransom, robbery with force
upon things where there is entry into the
This is one aggravating circumstance where premises of the offended party, and estafa
the offender who premeditated, the law through false pretenses where the offender
says evident. It is not enough that there is employs insidious means which cannot
some premeditation. Premeditation must be happen accidentally.
clear. It is required that there be evidence
showing meditation between the time when
the offender determined to commit the Craft
crime and the time when the offender
executed the act. It must appear that the Aggravating in a case where the offenders
offender clung to his determination to pretended to be bona fide passengers of a
commit the crime. The fact that the offender jeepney in order not to arouse suspicion, but
premeditated is not prima facie indicative of once inside the jeepney, robbed the
evident premeditation as the meeting or passengers and the driver (People v. Lee,
encounter between the offender and the decided on December 20, 1991).
offended party was only by chance or
accident.
Abuse of superior strength
In order for evident premeditation to be
considered, the very person/offended party There must be evidence of notorious
premeditated against must be the one who inequality of forces between the offender
is the victim of the crime. It is not necessary and the offended party in their age, size and
that the victim is identified. It is enough that strength, and that the offender took
the victim is determined so he or she advantage of such superior strength in
belongs to a group or class who may be committing the crime. The mere fact that
premeditated against. This is a there were two persons who attacked the
circumstance that will qualify a killing from victim does not per se constitute abuse of
homicide to murder. superior strength (People v. Carpio, 191
SCRA 12).
Illustration:
But where children of tender years were After having been killed, the body was
killed, being one year old and 12 years old, thrown into pile of garbage, ignominy is
the killing is murder even if the manner of aggravating. The Supreme Court held that it
attack was not shown (People v. Gahon, added shame to the natural effects of the
decided on April 30, 1991). crime.
In People v. Lapan, decided on July 6, 1992, Cruelty and ignominy are circumstances
the accused was prosecuted for robbery brought about which are not necessary in
with homicide. Robbery was not proven the commission of the crime.
beyond reasonable doubt. Accused held
liable only for the killings. Although one of Illustration:
the victims was barely six years old, the
accused was convicted only for homicide, A and B are enemies. A upon seeing B
aggravated by dwelling and in disregard of pulled out a knife and stabbed B 60 times.
age. Will that fact be considered as an
aggravating circumstance of cruelty? No,
Treachery not appreciated where quarrel there is cruelty only when there are
and heated discussion preceded a killing, evidence that the offender inflicted the stab
because the victim would be put on guard wounds while enjoying or delighted to see
(People v. Gupo). But although a quarrel the victim in pain. For cruelty to exist as an
preceded the killing where the victim was aggravating circumstance, there must be
atop a coconut tree, treachery was evidence showing that the accused inflicted
considered as the victim was not in a the alleged cruel wounds slowly and
position to defend himself (People v. gradually and that he is delighted seeing
Toribio). the victim suffer in pain. In the absence of
evidence to this effect, there is no cruelty.
Sixty stab wounds do not ipso facto make
Distinction between ignominy and them aggravating circumstances of cruelty.
cruelty The crime is murder if 60 wounds were
inflicted gradually; absence of this evidence
Ignominy shocks the moral conscience of means the crime committed is only
man while cruelty is physical. Ignominy homicide.
refers to the moral effect of a crime and it
Cruelty is aggravating in rape where the helping one another for purposes of gain in
offender tied the victim to a bed and burnt the commission of a crime.
her face with a lighted cigarette while
raping her laughing all the way (People v. With this provision, the circumstance of an
Lucas, 181 SCRA 315). organized or syndicated crime group having
committed the crime has been added in the
Code as a special aggravating circumstance.
Unlawful entry The circumstance being special or
qualifying, it must be alleged in the
Unlawful entry is inherent in the crime of information and proved during the trial.
robbery with force upon things but Otherwise, if not alleged in the information,
aggravating in the crime of robbery with even though proven during the trial, the
violence against or intimidation of persons. court cannot validly consider the
circumstances because it is not among
those enumerated under Article 14 of the
Motor vehicle Code as aggravating. It is noteworthy,
however, that there is an organized or
The Supreme Court considers strictly the syndicated group even when only two
use of the word “committed”, that the crime persons collaborated, confederated, or
is committed with the use of a motor mutually helped one another in the
vehicle, motorized means of transportation commission of a crime, which acts are
or motorized watercraft. There is a decision inherent in a conspiracy. Where therefore,
by the Court of Appeals that a motorized conspiracy in the commission of the crime is
bicycle is a motor vehicle even if the alleged in the information, the allegation
offender used only the foot pedal because may be considered as procedurally
he does not know how to operate the motor sufficient to warrant receiving evidence on
so if a bicycle is used in the commission of the matter during trial and consequently,
the crime, motor vehicle becomes the said special aggravating circumstance
aggravating if the bicycle is motorized. can be appreciated if proven.