Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Calica Book 1 Auf
Calica Book 1 Auf
Examples: Examples:
1. Classical theory v. Positivist theory
i. In classical theory, i. So minors who are
the State would want to 15 years of age and
Classical Theory Positivist lower the age of under are absolutely
Theory criminal responsibility. exempt. For over 15
The basis of criminal In this theory, the basic Right now, the and under 18, there is
liability is that a person, premise is that all of us exemption is 15 years privilege mitigating
being a rational being, are good persons. of age, and under. circumstance, but
has his own free will. However, sometimes, Before, 9 and under, even before they are
Accordingly, he is a person is swayed by and over 9 to 15 may punish, under RA
given always the some mental or morbid already act with 9344, they is either an
opportunity to predisposition to do discernment. Right initial diversion
overcome evil. So if he wrong. now, 15 y.o. and under, proceeding, wherein
chose the right path Notwithstanding the absolutely exempt. there will be no format
our society would be fact that he has free Over 15 and under 18, court proceeding
better of. But if he will or choice, there are they may, or may not because the state
chose the wrong path, certain circumstances act with discernment. wants the matter to be
his act should be wherein that person So the incumbent gov’t resolved without
punished because he may be led astray. But wants to lower again bringing the minor to
knew what he was again, he may return to the age of criminal court, punishing him,
doing. He is a rational the proper route. liability, not over 15, and ultimately putting
being, he knows what because they are him in prison.
is right and wrong. If he saying that those of ii. The Indeterminate
chose to do wrong, over 15 years old are Sentence law
then he should be already old enough to (ISLaw). Under the
accountable for his now the consequences ISLaw, there is a
acts. Hence, in the of their actions setting of minimum
classical theory, we sentence and a
don’t take a look at the maximum sentence.
person but we take a The judge always sets
look at his actions and a minimum sentence
the products of his so that the convict may
actions. That is why be allowed apply and
there is 1:1 go out of prison by
correspondence parole after serving the
between the crime and minimum sentence,
punishment. We don’t and be allowed to
take a look at the serve the remaining
person. A person has sentence outside the
free will, so if he chose prison facility. The
to commit a crime, he rationale behind it is
should be held that a person will be
accountable. So what able to better reform
does society primarily outside the prison
focuses on is the crime facility.
committed by the
person. If he iii. Probation Law.
committed a crime, it The essence of the
should be punished. said law is that for
The primary import of Accordingly, the certain crimes (not
the positivist theory is primary import of the exceeding 6 years),
retributive positivist theory is the convict will be
punishment. A person reformation and allowed to serve the
should be punished for rehabilitation. A sentence outside the
his criminal actions. person, who is prison facility. The
naturally good, is just notion is that if he gets
led astray. Hence, inside, there will be a
society can come up greater tendency for
with activity/program him be influenced by
which will bring him
and exposed to the just one act of imprisonment, the objectives of punishment and
other criminals prevention are achieved.
1 Art. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes; penalty. — The For the purposes of this article, women who, for money
following are vagrants: or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes.
1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence,
who has the physical ability to work and who neglects to Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by
apply himself or herself to some lawful calling; this articles shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
buildings or places or trampling or wandering about the correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from
country or the streets without visible means of support; 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges in houses of ill 2 Section 1. Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code is
fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually
hereby, amended to read as follows:
associate with prostitutes;
"Article 202. Prostitutes; Penalty. – For the purposes of
4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually
of other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another
deemed to be prostitutes.
without any lawful or justifiable purpose;
"Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered
5. Prostitutes. by this article shall be punished by arresto menor or a
fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism,
by arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correctional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from
200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
vi. Falsification,
But it is true that the vagrancy provision is a he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
manifestation of the preventive or restrictive theory time or oftener.
of criminal law because, supposedly, these persons
who are loitering around have the propensity to
commit crimes. In such cases, aside from the penalty for the last
crime, there would be an additional penalty imposed
on top of the penalty for the last crime he committed.
That means that the additional penalty is not a
b. The provision on Habitual Delinquency under Art. punishment for a particular crime, but a mechanism
62(5)3 of the RPC. to hold the habitual delinquent inside the prison
facility to prevent him from committing another
A Habitual Delinquent is a person who, within a crime.
period of ten years from the date of his release or
last conviction of the crimes of NOTE: Other than those two, there are no mechanisms which
may be utilized in predicting who will commit a crime.
i. Serious physical injuries, (Answer of Ms. Palad is the provision on possession of picklocks
in the RPC4). Nonetheless it may be stated that it is neither
ii. Less serious physical injuries,
scientifically nor psychologically possible to determine with
iii. Robbery, certainty who will commit a crime. Ultimately, the restrictive
purpose of criminal law is difficult to implement.
iv. Theft,
iii. Rehabilitative or Reformation Theory
v. Estafa,
3 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of
the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in
conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced
to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which
he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years
from the date of his release or last conviction of the
crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of said crimes a third time or oftener.
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of 4 Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools. -
prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and Any person who shall without lawful cause have in his
possession picklocks or similar tools especially adopted to
the commission of the crime of robbery, shall be
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of prision correccional in its minimum period.
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its minimum period. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who
shall make such tools. If the offender be a locksmith, he
shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
iv. Deterrence Theory- this theory suggests the prevention what is right and wrong, he also knows the
of crimes through fear of punishment. The factors which consequences of his actions.
affect the efficacy of the law as a deterrent are:
ii. That the person is aware of the criminal
i. Celerity or Swift action in imposing the sanctions.
punishment
iii. That the persons fear the sanctions.
-in the Philippines, our justice system
is a snail-paced justice system (10 yrs Comment: The rebels, they don’t fear the
to complete the case). That is why threats of the president, but for ordinary
some people are saying that a justice Filipinos, you might fear the threats (e.g.
delayed is justice denied. If the speed voluntary surrender of drug users- tokhang
in which the person who committed a operation).
crime is very slow, the criminals would
be boosted to commit crimes since
they would not punished in a swift Q: What is the ultimate aim of criminal law?
manner. A: To prevent and control crimes is the ultimate aim of criminal
law. But that is not all, otherwise, such objective would be a short-
ii. Severity of the punishment sighted objective. The State wants to prevent and control crimes
so that people will be able to live freely and for the enjoyment of
-the issue of reimposing death our capacities for happiness. Basically, the purpose is so that
penalty. each person will be able to enjoy life.
iii. Certainty of punishment that if a person Law is a guide to conduct, and there are also factors affecting
commits a crime, he would be punished. the efficacy of law as guide to conduct, namely:
i. A law must be applied prospectively
-mayaman ka man or mahirap, you
would be punished if you commit a -since the law guides future conduct, it cannot be a
crime. proper legal guide if it governs past conduct.
-in the present administration, the Q: if a penal law is made to apply retroactive law, it
retribution may be considered swift becomes what?
and severe since persons who are
suspected to be engaged in drug A: An ex post facto law.
crmes are killed even without proper
trial (NOTE: the sale of drugs is not Q: Is an ex post facto law prohibited by the
even punishable by death penalty, the Constitution?
gravest punishment for such crime is
reclusion perpetua). Nonetheless, with A: Yes, Section 22. of the Bill of rights provides that
regard the certainty, there is where the no ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
present administration has a failing enacted.
mark (e.g. the lack of interest of the
Q: Why is it prohibited?
government regarding the issue of the
drugs smuggled the commission of A: This prohibition proceeds for the rule in the civil
customs)-Selective justice. code5 that all laws should have prospective
application.
Note: There are certain assumptions for the deterrent
theory to take effect, namely: NOTE: Under Art. 226 of the RPC, there is an
i. Free will- as a basic foundation of classical instance when a penal law may be given retroactive
theory, it is also one of the assumptions of effect, and that is when the penal law is favourable
the deterrent theory. A persons knows to the accused who is not a habitual criminal
In sum,
5 Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code,
the contrary is provided. although at the time of the publication of such laws a
final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is
6 Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws serving the same.
shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal,
General rule: Penal laws must have crimes which have been committed are
prospective application. robbery, theft, and estafa, then he would be
Exception: When the penal law is favourable considered a recidivist. Also, if he has
to the accused. committed either less serious and serious
Exception to the Exception: When the physical injuries at least three times, he would
accused is a habitual delinquent. (NOTE: Habitual also be considered a recidivist. So the correct
Delinquent NOT merely recidivist) answer is it depends on what crimes he has
Q: Who is a habitual delinquent? been convicted of.
A: a person shall be deemed to be habitual
delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the ii. It must be widely disseminated
date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, - This requirement is elementary. In fact, the civil
estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said code9 provides that ignorance of the law
crimes a third time or oftener.7 So six crimes, excuses no one from compliance therewith.
namely: Hence, the law is required to be widely
a. Serious physical injuries; disseminated so that the right to due process is
complied with. How can the said civil code
b. Less serious physical injuries; provision be imposed if the law is not widely
disseminated?
c. Robbery;
Q: How is the law disseminated?
d. Theft; A: Through Publication
Q: Must all the laws enacted by Congress be
e. Estafa; disseminated? Even laws which rename a public
school?
f. Falsification.
A: Yes, since even laws of local application must be
Only these six crimes may be considered for published
a person to be considered as habitual Q: How must laws be published? (Two modes of
delinquent. If he is found guilty of any of said dissemination)
crimes a third time or oftener within a period of A: i. By publication in the Official Gazette10; ii. or in
a newspaper of general circulation.
ten years from the date of his release or last
conviction. Q: So, is it mandatory that all laws must be
Q: How about a recidivist, who is he? published for them to take effect?
A: A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial A: Yes.
NOTE: But it a different matter as to WHEN a
for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime law takes effect. The law takes, unless
embraced in the same title of this Code.8 otherwise provided by the statute, after 15 days
Q: Is a habitual delinquent necessarily a following the completion of their publication.
Hence, the proviso in Art. 211 of the Civil
recidivist also?
A: It depends (this is the correct answer) on Code “unless it is otherwise provided”
what crimes have been committed since if what refers to the effectivity date and not to the
have been committed are robbery, theft, and requirement of publication since publication
estafa, said crimes are embraced under the is mandatory, it is a condition sine qua non.
same title, viz. crimes against property. On the Meaning to say it is an indispensable
requirement that all laws must be published,
other hand, serious and less serious physical
and not just laws of public nature. In fact, all
injuries are also embraced in the same title
(crimes against person). Only falsification is the laws enacted by congress are of public nature,
crime against public interest. The three others even those of local application. Hence, they
are crimes against property. So if the three should all be published.
12 EO 292 Section 24. Contents. - There shall be any order, regulation, rule, certificate, license, notice, or
published in the Official Gazette all legislative acts and similar instrument issued, prescribed, or promulgated by
resolutions of a public nature; all executive and any executive department, bureau, office, commission,
administrative issuances of general application; decisions independent board, agency, or instrumentality of the
or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the administrative branch of the Government, but not the
Court of Appeals, or other courts of similar rank, as may legislative or judicial branch of the Government.
be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be
so published; such documents or classes of documents as SEC. 2. The Director of Printing is authorized to publish
may be required so to be published by law; and such the Official Gazette as frequently as the public interest of
documents or classes of documents as the President shall the Government may require; to appoint, with the
determine from time to time to have general application approval of the proper department head, such personnel
as may be necessary, in addition to that at present
or which he may authorize so to be published.
employed in the Bureau of Printing, for carrying out the
The publication of any law, resolution or other official provisions hereof; and to make and collect charges for
documents in the Official Gazette shall be prima facie subscriptions to the Official Gazette and for publications
evidence of its authority. lawphi1.net published therein which shall by law be payable by the
person interested. The Official Gazette shall be edited in
13 COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 638 the Executive Office and shall be published in the English
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE UNIFORM PUBLICATION language, but edition in Spanish may also be issued if the
AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. interest of the service to be determined by the President
of the Philippines so requires it. The sale and distribution
Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines: of the Official Gazette shall also be effected by the
Bureau of Printing which shall promptly mail copies
SECTION 1. There shall be published in the Official
thereof to subscribers free of postage. At the end of each
Gazette (1) all important legislative acts and resolutions
quarter, an index shall be supplied as a part of the Official
of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines; (2)
Gazette. The index published at the end of the last
all executive and administrative orders and
quarter shall be complete for the entire year.
proclamations, except such as have no general
applicability; (3) decisions or abstracts of decisions of the SEC. 3. Each department, bureau, office, and agency or
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be instrumentality of the National Government, as well as
deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be so each provincial, city, and municipal government, shall
published; (4) such documents or classes of documents as subscribe to the Official Gazette and pay for the same out
may be required so to be published by law; and (5) such of their respective funds. The Official Gazette shall be
documents or classes of documents as the President of filed and properly kept with the public records of the
the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have department, bureau, office, agency or instrumentality,
general applicability and legal effect, or which he may province, city, or municipality concerned for references.
authorize so to be published: Provided, That for the
purpose of this section every order or document which SEC. 4. Such funds as may have been appropriated for the
shall prescribe a penalty shall be deemed to have general publication of the Official Gazette are continued to be
applicability and legal effect: And provided, further, That available to carry out the provisions of this Act.
the term “document” as used in this section shall include
have before, for the decisions of SC, the Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 290
Philippine Reports. (EXTRA: SCRA is not (2001)
official but a private publication) FACTS: In this case, the former president
questioned the constitutionality of plunder
law15. He contended the law was vague
iii. It must be clear and unambiguous allegedly because the words “combination” or
“series are ambiguous since he the plunder law
- The law must not be vague for it to be an did not define these terms.
effective guide to conduct and so as for persons ISSUE: Does the lack of definition make the law
to effectively follow the law. vague?
HELD: No, the lack of definition per se does not
Example: make the law vague. The plunder law is not
unconstitutional. Contrary to the contention of
Anti-distracted driving Act,14
the former president, the law is not vague since
supposedly this law was passed to prevent
it provides “comprehensible standards”
drivers from texting while driving because such
which men of common intelligence may
will distract them, but then the regulatory
understand. The Court defined the word
agencies of the country came up with IRR which
“vague” and stated that for a law to be
prevents people from putting rosaries near the
considered as such it must lack
windshield or dashboard. The law was
comprehensible standards. (note: this is the
interpreted vaguely by the LFTRB and such
test in determining whether the law is vague or
caused confusion. Hence, the IRR was
not). The plunder law has comprehensible
suspended.
standards and the Court went on to discuss the
elements of plunder.
RATIONALE WHY THE LAW MUST BE
CLEAR: (two reasons) ELEMENTS OF PLUNDER LAW:16
i. Since the law will guide ordinary i. That the act be committed by a public
persons who will comply with the officer by himself or in connivance
law. If the law is very clear, the with members of his family, relatives
people will be able to follow it. by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other
ii. It is also for the benefit of the persons;
police officers who are in charge
of arresting violators. Basically, to ii. That he amassed the aggregate
enable them to determine when to amount or total value of at least Fifty
enforce the law or not. million pesos (P50,000,000.00);
SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. death. Any person who participated with the said public
officer in the commission of an offense contributing to
14 RA 10913 the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such
15 RA 7080 offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and
16 "Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised
Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court
connivance with members of his family, relatives by shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their
affinity or consanguinity, business associates, interests and other incomes and assets including the
subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit
acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State."
of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof Section 2 of RA 7080 As amended by Section 12 of RA
in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty No.7659
million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime
of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to
combination or series of overt criminal Based on the foregoing, it was stated that when
acts. the law states “combination”, it refers to the
presence of at least two predicate crimes. While
“Overt criminal acts” (six predicate the word “series” means the repetition of a
crimes)17 single predicate crime. Accordingly, the words
“combination” and “series” need not be defined
a. Misappropriation by the law for a person of common intelligence
to understand the said words.
b. Getting interest in commissions;
THE CONCEPT OF FACIAL CHALLENGE v. AS APPLIED
Bribery
CHALLENGE
c. By the illegal or fraudulent -This challenges pertain to a statute being vague. There
conveyance or disposition of assets is a provision in the law which is vague.
belonging to the National Q: You’re a law student. After reading the statute, you discovered
Government. that there are very vague provisions. Can you now file a case in
court questioning the constitutionality of the provision on the basis
d. By obtaining, receiving or accepting of it being vague?
directly or indirectly any shares of A: NO, I cannot file a case even if the statute is undeniably vague.
stock, equity or any other form of If the statute is a penal statute, the mere fact that a statute is
interest or participation including vague is not enough for a person to have a standing to file an
promise of future employment in any action questioning the constitutional of a law on the ground of the
business enterprise or undertaking void for vagueness doctrine. For me to have a locus standi, I must
be an injured party or that the law must be directly applied to me.
e. By establishing agricultural, industrial In other words, if I’m arrested on the basis of the vague law and
or commercial monopolies or other now being prosecuted, I would now be able to question the
combinations and/or implementation constitutionality of the law on the basis of the as applied
of decrees and orders intended to challenge.
benefit particular persons or special On the other hand, I cannot facially challenge even if
interests there be vague provisions in the law just like what happened in
the case of Southern Hempishere. The only time when a facial
f. Unjustly enriching himself in office. challenge may be allowed is in free speech cases. But in
declaring a criminal law as void for being vague, facial
18 GR 178552 reasons which induce the court to believe that said act
should be made the subject of legislation.
19 RA 9372
consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused 23 G.R. 138962
by the offense.
24
22 G.R. No. L-30026, January 30, 1971
under RA 7055, if a member of the armed forces commits any of national security and the law of nations, but a crime against public
the crime under the RPC, it should be the civilian court which order. So I can never be committed outside Philippine territory.
should have the jurisdiction. Only in service connected crimes can
the court martial have jurisdiction. Q21: What court has jurisdiction when an Indonesian crew
Q: What are these service connected crimes? murders the Filipino captain on board a vessel of Russian registry
A: These are the crimes or the offenses punished under while the vessel is anchored outside the breakwaters of the Manila
the Articles of War (Common Wealth Act. 408). Anyway, it is bay?
mentioned in RA 7055 that only service connected crimes cases A: C. The Philippine court. In this case, it is evident that the vessel
can be charged under the court martial. In this case, what has was in the Philippine territorial sea. The first rule is the territorial
been committed was homicide, and not a service connected characteristic of criminal law, so it happens in the Philippine
offense, i.e. desertion, insubordination, fraudulent inducement, territory, so this should be your first answer. The second is the
and all those related to military operations. So if he commits any Philippines has adopted the English rule. What was involved in
of the crimes penalized under the RPC, the action is always within this case was a foreign merchant vessel (Russian registry). Being
the jurisdiction of the civilian courts. of Russian registry and anchored within Phil. Territorial sea, then
there is a fine-tuning of your answer because there might be an
Q: Philippine penal laws are enforced even outside the Philippine application of the English rule. But it is not really difficult because
territory in these instances, except: a. Offenses committed on the English rule follows the territoriality principle. Hence, even
board a Philippine ship which is on the high seas; b. Offense though this is of foreign registry since it is in the Philippine territory,
committed by public officers or employees while abroad in the both the territoriality principle and on the basis of the English rule
exercise of their functions; c. Terrorism or conspiracy to commit which follows the territoriality principle, the Philippine courts have
terrorism committed by individual persons who, although jurisdiction.
physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit Q: Is there an exception to the English rule?
said crimes directly against the Philippine government; d. In cases A: Yes, if it affects only the internal management of the
of rebellion against the Philippine Government, a crime against ship. But in this case, a person was killed. Definitely, it
public order, committed by individuals located outside the affects the peace and order situation in the Philippines.
Philippine territory. In the cases on territoriality in connection with foreign
A: D. In cases of rebellion against the Philippine Government, a merchant vessels, you remember if the opium or the
crime against public order, committed by individuals located foreign merchant vessel is just in transit and the opium is
outside the Philippine territory. not landed in the Philippines. The SC said that the
- a. Offenses committed on board a Philippine ship which person will not be liable for possession of opium. But it is
is on the high seas- this is one of the exceptions under different if the opium is landed in the Philippines, the
Art. 2 of the RPC wherein extraterritorial application is English rule does not apply in such case because the
allowed; b. Offense committed by public officers or opium is landed in the Philippine territory. It is also
employees while abroad in the exercise of their different when the drug is smoked on board the foreign
functions- exempt also under the 5 enumerated vessel while it the vessel is within 2 mile from manila bay
instances under art. 2 of the RPC; c. Terrorism or (I believe). In such case, the pernicious effects of the
conspiracy to commit terrorism committed by individual drug are produced. If it is just possession, the person will
persons who, although physically outside the territorial not be liable especially if the vessel is just in transit. In
limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly transit, meaning, the Philippines is not its final
against the Philippine government- also exempt under destination; it is just passing in the Philippines. But if the
the human security act. Extraterritorial application is drug is smoked, it produces the pernicious effect in the
allowed. Philippine territory. It affects the peace and order, so the
Remember the 5 exceptions under Art. 2 of the RPC, Philippines has jurisdiction.
there are now many other special penal laws which allow But in US v. Ah Sing,25 what is involved is the
extraterritorial application. That includes the human importation of drugs. Importation is different from
security (terrorism committed outside the Philippines so possession. In Ah Sing, the opium has not yet landed
long as directed against the Philippine government or and still on board, but the Philippines is its final
any in the citizens will be under the jurisdiction of the destination. Hence, even to though the drugs had not yet
Philippine courts.). landed but the final destination was the Philippines, the
accused was convicted for importation. In importation,
So the answer here is D. “In cases of rebellion against the there is no requirement that the drug must have landed,
Philippine Government, a crime against public order, committed that requirement is that it should be brought in the
by individuals located outside the Philippine territory.” Rebellion is Philippine territory.
a crime against public order. Under Art. 2 of the RPC, only crimes Ex post facto law and Bill of Attainder (Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11)
against national security and the law of nations will be allowed Q: What is an ex post facto law?
extraterritorial application. Rebellion is not a crime against
Section 5. The provisions of section four hereof shall not Section 8. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
apply to any case where the person against whom the
process is issued is a citizen or inhabitant of the Republic
of the Philippines, in the service of an ambassador or a Approved: October 21, 1946
public minister, and the process is founded upon a debt
30 Article V
contracted before he entered upon such service; nor shall
the said section apply to any case where the person Criminal Jurisdiction
against whom the process is issued is a domestic servant
of an ambassador or a public minister, unless the name of
the servant has, before the issuing thereof, been
1. Subject to the provisions of this article:
registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and
transmitted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the
Chief of Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon
receipt thereof post the same in some public place in his (a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over
office. All persons shall have resort to the list of names so United States personnel with respect to offenses
posted in the office of the Chief of Police, and take copies committed within the Philippines and punishable under
without fee. the law of the Philippines.
(b) United States military authorities shall have the right personnel subject to the military law of the United States
to exercise within the Philippines all criminal and in relation to:
disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military
law of the United States over United States personnel in
the Philippines. (1) offenses solely against the property or security of the
United States or offenses solely against the property or
person of United States personnel; and
2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction
over United States personnel with respect to offenses,
including offenses relating to the security of the (2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in
Philippines, punishable under the laws of the Philippines, performance of official duty.
but not under the laws of the United States.
Exceptions to the territoriality principle (2 kinds) o SC: The law is considered to be unclear or ambiguous
i. Even if the act is committed within Philippine if it lacks comprehensible standards → that is the test.
territory, they are exempt on the basis of treaty, laws o If a person wants a law declared as null and void for
of preferential application or general principles of being vague, that is the void for vagueness doctrine.
o The law may also be questioned for being
international law.
overbreadth.
o But our concern for penal laws is that it is VAGUE.
ii. Even if committed outside of the Philippine territory
o If you still remember in your Constitutional Law, Rubi
as listed in art. 2 of the RPC33 and other special vs. Provincial Board, the law there was declared null
penal laws which penalize acts committed even and void for being vague.
outside Philippine territory (e.g. terrorism, violation o Here in this case, the former President wants it
of data privacy act, cyber crime- facebook post in las declared unconstitutional for being vague.
vegas but it affects Filipino, we have jurisdiction over o FIRST ISSUE: Can that be done?
o SC: As we learned in this case and in the subsequent
such libellous statement).
case Southern Hemisphere, the facial challenge of a
(2) TERRORISM: this is a fairly recent law and no decided case yet, where to file the criminal complaint because in criminal law, venue
so we CANNOT say for now that it is a continuing crime or not. is jurisdictional. Unlike murder, which is NOT a transitory crime.
(3) VIOLATION OF B.P. Blg. 22: transitory crime, and NOT a (4) ADULTERY: the fact that there can be as many counts as there
continuing crime. A transitory crime is not a continuing crime, but are sexual intercourse show that it is not a continuing crime.
it is when any of the essential elements of the crime are committed
in two or more venues. It may filed in either of these venues. Just (5) CONCUBINAGE: three modes: (a) cohabitation in the conjugal
like KIDNAPPING, which can be filed in the place where the house; (b) sex in scandalous circumstances; (c) keeps the
essential elements of the crime were committed → where the mistress in a house other than the conjugal home. What if he keeps
victim is taken, where detained, where killed subsequently. The the mistress in the conjugal house for one year, does that make
concept of a transitory crime is a remedial law concept: it tells us concubinage a continuing crime? There is NO decided case
regarding this.
That is why in:
IN RE: KAY VILEGAS KAMI, INC. (1970): An ex post facto
law is one which:
BUSTOS VS. LUCERO (1948): the SC distinguished (1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the
between SUBSTANTIVE LAW and PROCEDURAL LAW. law and which was innocent when done, and punishes
such an act;
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,
SUBSTANTIVE LAW PROCEDURAL LAW when committed;
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
Creates and regulates Method in enforcing our punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
crimes, which is the domain rights or seeking redress committed;
of the legislature. for its violation (RULE- (4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
MAKING), which is the conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
domain of the Supreme required at the time of the commission of the offense;
Court. For example, in treason, it requires two (2)
witnesses to the same overt act to convict the
person. But in the subsequent law, only one (1)
o So with regard to punishing acts, categorizing them as
witness is required → that is prejudicial to the
crimes, this is part of substantive law.
accused and cannot be done.
o Thus, criminal law is part of substantive law, because
(5) Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
criminal law as it has been defined as that branch or
effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
division of law which defines crimes, treats of their
something which when done was lawful; and
nature, and provides for their punishment.
For example, the right to peaceably assemble
o Q: What is procedural law with regard to crimes?
→ the state imposes certain regulations, and a
A: It would be criminal procedure.
person is penalized for exercising his civil right.
o So police power is the basis for defining and punishing
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
crimes.
protection to which he has become entitled, such as
the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS TO THE EXERCISE OF
POLICE POWER:
THREE (3) CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:
(1) SEC. 1, ART. III: No one can be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law. (1) GENERALITY:
(4) Right against cruel and unusual punishment. A: FELONIES are acts and omissions punishable under
the Revised Penal Code only.
(5) SEC. 22, ART. III: Congress cannot pass an ex post facto
law or a bill of attainder. The more precise answer is this.
There is a decided case by the SC, where the The mental attitude or Intent to kill in homicide,
Mayor advanced the defense of good faith in purpose to cause damage or murder, and parricide; intent
transferring the public funds for a particular injury to another. to gain in theft and robbery;
intent to deprive a person of
purpose to another.
his liberty in kidnapping.
The SC ruled that good faith cannot be a A person who commits a crime has the general
defense in technical malversation, because intent of causing damage or injury to another
although it is punished under the RPC, it is a person, and NOT to do wrong.
mala prohibita crime.
“To do wrong” is quite a broad concept.
So in the case of UNITED STATES VS. GO CHICO
(1909), the SC said that what is required there is the
Like, to do wrong by saying bad things about drop her at her gas station in Kamagong St., Makati where
another person, the purpose of which is to damage the money is. The car sped off north towards the North
the reputation of that person → libel. superhighway. There Isabelo, Beloy as he is called, asked
Ma. Socorro to issue a check for P100,000.00. Ma. Socorro
So the purpose of the action is to cause damage to complied. The accused were arrested while they were
another person → that is general intent, or simply encasing the checks. They were charged with kidnapping for
ransom (ART. 267), but were convicted by the lower court of
intent. P.D. No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law).
Q: Do all crimes have specific intent? Are all crimes o PROF.: if you are criminals, do not ask for checks,
specific intent crimes? because they were caught while they were encasing
the checks. And even when you get to be a lawyer, do
A: NO. There are only specific intent crimes. not ask for checks when you are coercing someone to
give money.
So not all crimes are specific intent crimes, o SC: convicted them of SIMPLE ROBBERY (ART. 294).
but in scenarios where there are VARIANT o We have here a case where there are three possible
crimes committed by the accused → they are what we
CRIMES, intent will help a lot in determining
call VARIANT CRIMES.
what crime was actually committed, as well o Q: So how do we determine what crime was really
as motive. committed because there seems to be a confusion as
to what kind of crime was committed? What was the
guidepost of the SC in resolving what crime was
actually committed?
A: They determined their specific intent.
UNITED STATES VS. CATOLICO (1911): the presumption Q: Are their motive important also?
(of criminal intent) was NOT applied in the case, right. A: YES, because this case involved
variant crimes.
o REASON: the act of the judge was NOT unlawful. o So in case of variant crimes, it would be helpful for the
o The presumption only arises if the act performed is court in determining what crime was committed to
unlawful. consider the specific intent and the motive.
o So the judge here was performing his judicial functions o Therefore, there are two possible guidepost for the SC
→ he was in fact hearing the case and he just decided in what crime was committed: intent and motive.
to award the bonds posted to the winning party, as part o Q: What is MOTIVE?
of the execution of judgment. A: Motive is the reason which prompts the
So he was just performing his judicial function accused to engage in a particular criminal
as a judge → he is performing a perfectly legal activity.
act. EXAMPLE: jealousy, hatred.
He was not performing an unlawful act like Those examples are NOT intent.
stabbing a person or burning a house. GENERAL RULE: intent is required in
o It is clear in this case that the presumption does not intentional felonies, while motive is NOT.
arise if the person is committing an unlawful act. EXCEPTIONS: Instances when motive is
o Q: So if there is no such presumption, how do we now looked into:
prove that he acted with deliberate intent? (a) When there are variant crimes;
A: Present evidence, like he gave the money, (b) When the identity of the accused is of
not in the performance of his duty, but to favor doubt;
the other party, or that he appropriated the (c) When the evidence is inconclusive;
money for himself. (d) When there is no positive identification of
But here, the money was actually given to the the accused.
prevailing party, and did not appropriate for o So here in variant crimes, we take a look at specific
himself the money. intent and motive.
o Here, according to the SC, he just committed a (1) Kidnapping: to deprive a person of his liberty.
MISTAKE / ERROR in the performance of his lawful (2) Highway robbery: special penal law, which is
duties → so the presumption that he committed the act indiscriminate robbery in the highway.
with criminal intent does NOT arise. (3) Robbery: intent to gain, through violence or
intimidation, or force upon things.
o Going back to the actions of the accused, they
specifically targeted the victim, and took money from
PEOPLE VS. PUNO (1993): The accused Isabelo Puno, who the accused using violence and intimidation on the
is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband, told Mrs. person of the victim, with intent to gain because the
Socorro that her own driver Fred had to go to Pampanga on accused told the victim that he needed money.
an emergency. She got into the Mercedes Benz of her Q: Was there intent to deprive her of her liberty?
husband with Isabelo. After the car turned right in a corner of Didn’t they actually deprive her of her liberty in
Araneta Avenue, a young man, accused Enrique Amurao, this case?
boarded the car beside the driver. Once inside, Enrique A: YES, from Araneta Avenue to NLEX.
poked a gun at her. Isabelo, who earlier told her that Enrique During that time, she was deprived of her
is his nephew announced, "ma’am, you know, I want to get liberty. She cannot do anything at gun
money from you." The bag contained P7,000.00 and was point.
taken. Ma. Socorro agreed to give them more but they had to If kidnapping is deprivation of one’s
liberty, then the accused did commit that
crime when the victim was deprived of
her liberty for that period. o SC: the lack of motive is not a ground for the acquittal
But they did NOT commit kidnapping, as of the accused, especially if he was positively
the deprivation of her liberty was merely identified.
incidental to their actual purpose, which o The reverse is true then: if the accused is not positively
is to gain. identified, there was doubt as to his identification, then
o The same principle in the next case was used in this motive will play an important role.
case, as well, because the accused immediately o NOTE: important, but NOT essential.
released the victim after they have already her money. What is essential is intent.
Thus, her deprivation of liberty was merely incidental Motive will just assist the judge in determining whether
to gain. he actually committed the crime, but it is NOT
o So if their real purpose is either to kill or to gain money, essential.
then the temporary deprivation of liberty will not lead to
the fact of kidnapping, because it is just incidental to
the real purpose. So in two instances: (1) if the identification of the accused
o The specific intent really of the offenders was to gain is not positive, and there is (2) doubt as to the identity, then
money from the victim. motive becomes an aid in determining in what crime was
In fact, they did not ask for ransom.
committed, and whether the accused is criminally liable.
For kidnapping, they would necessarily
ask for ransom.
o In this case, there is a discussion of motive, and here, Motive is also important as an aid in variant crimes, in
the motive of the accused is that he needed the money determining what crime was actually committed.
because he was sick, hence, the intent to gain was
present. Q: For instance, in rebellion, the rebel killed a person. Will
he be charged with rebellion, right?
A: YES.
PEOPLE VS. DELIM (2003): the same thing happened in this
case, as they took the victim from his house, then after Q: What if he killed that person due to a personal
several days, the victim was found dead. grudge? What will you charge that person? Will we
look at his intent or his motive?
o ISSUE: W the accused committed kidnapping or
murder? A: We take a look at the accused’s motive,
o SC: The accused committed HOMICIDE.
o It is evident on the face of the Information that the because if he killed the victim for personal
specific intent of the malefactors in barging into the reasons, he will be charged with
house of Modesto was to kill him and that he was murder/homicide. But if his motive is in
seized precisely to kill him with the attendant modifying pursuance of his rebel activity, he will be
circumstances. charged with rebellion.
The act of the malefactors of abducting Modesto
was merely incidental to their primary purpose So we take a look motive, NOT intent.
of killing him.
o Although the accused here actually deprived the victim In that case, motive will be an important guide what
of his liberty by taking him forcibly, hogtying him – but
crime was committed, but not the intent.
that is NOT their real purpose. Eventually, the victim
was found dead.
o Therefore, according the SC, the intent of the accused
was to kill the victim.
o But take note that there was no evidence that they PEOPLE VS. HASSAN (1988): the happened also in this
actually killed the victim, that is why there was a debate case: there was no proper police line-up. The identification of
among the SC justices whether they should convict the the accused was stated by the SC as highly suggestive. Only
accused of kidnapping or homicide – homicide, one person was shown to the alleged eye witness, and there
because there are not qualifying circumstances. was a confrontation rather than a police line-up. The
No one testified on how the victim was killed, so identification was highly suggestive, and it was established
it can never be murder. that Hassan had no motive in killing the victim.
o So it was homicide, according to the SC.
REASON: the deprivation of liberty was merely o So the SC ruled that he will be acquitted.
incidental to their real purpose of killing the
victim.
That is specific intent.
UNITED STATES VS. AH CHONG (1910): the accused and
a victim shared a room in their workplace at a time there were
prevalent robberies in that area. The door only has a latch
PEOPLE VS. TEMBLOR (1988): the accused is admittedly a and the room only has one window. While Ah Chong was
member of the NPA. He shot the accused. His defense was sleeping he heard someone trying to break open his door.
that he has no motive in killing the victim, and he interposed The intruder did not identify himself, and when he opened the
the defense of alibi. At the trial, he was positively identified by door successfully, Ah Chong stabbed him using the knife he
the wife of the victim as the person who shot her wife.
kept under his pillow. He was charged for the killing of his
roommate.
PEOPLE VS. OANIS (1943): In this case, the police officers
o SC: Mistake of fact is attendant in this case. also invoked mistake of fact, but the SC did not allow such
o What was the defense of Ah Chong? If the person is invocation.
an intruder, under our criminal justice system, what is
his defense? Self-defense, which is a justifying o REASON: there was fault and carelessness on his
circumstance. part.
o In establishing the justifying circumstance of self- o In this case, the accused are performing their duties:
defense, he committed a mistake in fact, and that is the they are in the lawful performance of their duties.
fact that the person who was trying to come in was not o There was allegedly fault or negligence or
really a robber, but his roommate. carelessness on their part, so they CANNOT invoke
o What are the requirements of self-defense? mistake of fact.
a. Unlawful aggression; o Q: Did they commit a culpable felony? NO, because if
b. Reasonable means to prevent or repel it; they acted with imprudence, negligence, it will be a
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the culpable felony.
person defending himself. o The conviction was for murder, which is an intentional
o In ignorance of the law, or mistake in law, that is NOT crime.
a justifying or exempting circumstance. o So they were actually in the process of performing their
But here, we are talking about a mistake of fact. duty when they are arresting the escaped convict.
o Apparently, it was appreciated by the SC as an o But in this case, they did NOT follow the procedure:
extenuating circumstance, or a circumstance that will instead of asking the sleeping person, and just
lead to a valid defense of self-defense on the part of arresting him, they immediately fired at the person.
Ah Chong. o There was also a mistake in the identity of the victim
o There are certain REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE TO because they were in violation of the operational
INVOKE THIS MISTAKE OF FACT according to this standards of the police officers in effecting the arrest.
case: o So it is an INTENTIONAL crime of murder, and NOT a
a. The act done would have been lawful had the culpable crime, because if they committed it with fault
facts turn out to be true; and carelessness, precisely they are committing a
b. He had no evil intent; and culpable felony.
c. There was no fault or carelessness on his part. o But if the facts are what the accused believed them to
o Ah Chong believed the victim was a robber, and if his be would constitute a lawful act, then the mistake of
belief was true, then he would have been justified to fact, as what happened in the first case, is a possible
kill that person, using the theory of self-defense. defense.
o He was also not at fault or negligent. But in this case, mistake of fact was not
o There was unlawful aggression because he was hit by appreciated.
the chair.
o His means employed were reasonable.
o There was also no provocation as he was sleeping, so
how can he provoke the entry of that person? QUIZON VS. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE (1955): the
respondents were charged with damage to property through
reckless imprudence before the Justice of the Peace, with the
So the mistake of fact in: alleged damage amounting to P125.00. (If the amount is less
than P200.00, the jurisdiction is vested with the Justice of the
Peace, the penalty thereof being from P125.00 to P375.00.
So if the crime charged is reckless imprudence resulting to
INTENTIONAL FELONIES CULPABLE FELONIES damage to property, the amount of damage is P125.00, the
amount will be thrice, to P375.00). The accused filed a Motion
ELEMENTS: ELEMENTS: to Quash, because according to him, pursuant to the
Judiciary Act of 1948, malicious mischief is within the
(1) Freedom; (1) Freedom; jurisdiction of the CFI, and that the Justice of the Peace is
(2) Intelligence; (2) Intelligence; bereft of jurisdiction. The complainant opposed the motion on
(3) Intent. (3) Imprudence, the ground that the Justice of the Peace jurisdiction has
negligence, lack of jurisdiction over malicious mischief, and although the crime
foresight, or lack of skill. charged is reckless imprudence, it should also be with the
Justice of the Peace because malicious mischief is within the
On the part of Ah Chong, he had freedom → he freely jurisdiction of the said court. This arose from the definition of
felony under ART. 3, as there are two modes of committing a
committed the act.
felony. The argument raised is the culpable felony is a variant
of committing an intentional felony, in this case of malicious
He also had intelligence. mischief.
Q: Did he have intent? NO, because this intent is o SC: the contention is without merit because it implies
negative by the mistake of fact. that reckless imprudence is a variant of malicious
mischief.
So what is missing in the case of US VS. AH Under ART. 365, reckless imprudence is a
CHONG (1910), intent was missing. crime itself, and we cannot give support to the
position that culpa is just a means of committing In fact, there are CRIMES COMMITTED THROUGH
a felony. NEGLIGENCE IN THE RPC: (other than those enumerated
It is posited that culpa is just a means of in ART. 365)
committing a crime; that culpable felonies are
just means of committing a felony, as in fact (1) ART. 205: Judgment Rendered Through
ART. 3, felonies may be committed by means
Negligence.
of dolo or culpa.
The above is NOT correct.
(2) ART. 217: Malversation of Public Funds or Property:
In fact, under the RPC, a quasi-offense, or
reckless imprudence is also considered as a can be committed deliberately or by negligence.
SEPARATE AND DISTINCT crime.
So we consider imprudence and negligence in (3) ART. 224: Evasion Through Negligence.
two (2) senses:
(a) As a means of committing a crime; (4) ART. 218: Failure of Accountable Officer to Render
(b) As a separate felony by itself under ART. Accounts: can be intentional or culpable.
365.
For every culpable crime, there is an intentional Looking at the RPC, it will be difficult in finding there
felony (i.e. reckless imprudence resulting to committed by means of negligence → not probably
homicide, to homicide).
exceeding ten.
But if you follow ART. 3, a felony is committed
by means of dolo or culpa: homicide, then
homicide by negligence; treason, then treason Q: Can there be murder committed by means of negligence
to negligence. or imprudence?
o Here, the SC acknowledged that a felony may be
committed by means of negligence, but there is NO
ONE TO ONE CORRESPONDENCE.
o It is NOT the same as a crime of omission, as that can SEVILLA VS. PEOPLE (2014): the charge here was
still be either deliberate or by negligence. falsification. He is a councilor. He signed a Personal Data
o Thus, malicious mischief cannot be committed by Sheet. In one question there, a box was not checked, but he
means of negligence, as deliberate intent in the former was in fact already charged before. So he committed
to damage property. falsification in his PDS. His defense was that his staff who
o Although the SC acknowledged that indeed, ART. prepared the sheet, and that he merely signed it without
3 says that felony may be committed by dolo or reading it. That is a classic admission of negligence on the
culpa, they CANNOT give its unqualified assent to part of the accused.
the proposition that there is one to one
correspondence between intentional crimes and o Q: Is that an INTENTIONAL felony? It can be, as held
culpable crimes. by the SC.
o In fact, there is a separate crime for itself, which is o He may not have deliberately falsified the PDS, but he
ART. 365 → this is the catch basin of all crimes committed reckless imprudence resulting to
committed that way. falsification of a public document.
What is punished there is the MENTAL So falsification may also result from reckless
CONDITION, because imprudence may also imprudence, despite it being an intentional
lead to the death of a person (RIRT homicide), felony, but NOT falsification by means of
but definitely NOT MURDER. negligence.
The condition here is that he is reckless or It is violation of ART. 365.
imprudent. o According to the SC here, the proper crime is NOT
REASON: if we go about negligent people falsification resulting from reckless imprudence, but
recklessly go about their business, then it will reckless imprudence, because it is the mental
lead to dangerous consequences. condition of being reckless that is punished under
That is why our RPC punishes imprudence or ART. 365.
negligence, so that is a mental condition so he o So from here on, if we talk of ART. 365, you
puts regard to his standard of care. property term it as reckless imprudence resulting
Even if leads to death of the victim, the to homicide; never homicide resulting from
imposable penalty is NOT afflictive → that is reckless imprudence.
how lightly this crime is punished, as compared o Here, the first thing that the SC noticed was the way
to intentional felonies. the crime here was called, because the
If it is an intentional felony of homicide, the Sandiganbayan convicted the accused of falsification
penalty is 12 years, and 1 day to 20 years by means of reckless imprudence.
(reclusion temporal); but if it is caused by o The property name should be reckless imprudence
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, it is resulting to falsification of public documents.
just from 6 month and 1 day to around 2 years. o From now on, let us follow that, although if you look at
So if you can prove that the crime committed is some cases by the SC, they do not follow their own
reckless imprudence, your client can go out ruling.
because your client can apply probation, o
because it is less than six years. He cannot
apply for probation for homicide.
Q: A vehicular (jeepney) accident causes the death of ten
persons because of the reckless driving of the driver of a
truck. Will the truck driver be liable to ten counts of In culpa, there is no intent.
homicide? Because at the very least, he will then be
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 120 years (12 x 10).
Q: Is negligence a crime by itself?
A: He will be charged with only reckless imprudence
resulting to multiple homicide, with the penalty of A: In Art 365, imprudence or negligence is a crime itself.
arresto menor, but not 120 years.
Q: Can imprudence be a modality also?
REASON: what is being punished in ART. 365 is the
A: Yes.
mental condition; the result does NOT matter.
Q: In what instances may it be considered as a mode?
It only matters in the penalty that will be imposed,
because if it is a grave felony, then arresto mayor to Q: When you look at the title of Art 365, it says, quasi-
prision correccional; if it is less grave and light, much
offenses. What is a crime again?
lower.
A: An act or omission punishable by law.
Take note of the discussions because this shall have
significant ramifications to the penalty imposable on Q: Is imprudence an act or an offense punishable by law?
the accused.
A: Yes. It’s punished under Art 365. Does that make it a crime?
Yes.
PEOPLE VS. CARMEN (2001): the faith healer who allegedly Q: Is Impossible Crime a crime? Is it an act or omission
performed medical treatment to a boy who was possessed punishable by law?
with an evil spirit. By doing so, they tied the boy, dunked him
inside a drum full of water and stabbed him.
A: Yes. Under Art 59. Art 4(2) states only that a person commits
o SC: Mother Perpetuala and her cohorts were guilty of an impossible crime. It is under Art 59 wherein Impossible crime
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide because is being punished, the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine ranging
they did not have the expertise to cure the child, and from 200-500 pesos.
yet they proceeded to conduct measures to do so.
o So they are negligent or imprudent. Article 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the
o NOT an intentional felony → they did not intend to kill crime because the means employed or the aims sought are
the child; their intention was to cure the child.
impossible. - When the person intending to commit an offense has
already performed the acts for the execution of the same but
nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact
PEOPLE VS. PUGAY (1988): The accused here were that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible
making fun of the victim. Pugay poured gasoline on the accomplishment or because the means employed by such person
victim. Then the other lighted him on fire using match. are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him,
the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of
o SC: Pugay was recklessly imprudent in pouring criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the
gasoline, because by doing so, it could lead to penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
dangerous consequences, like in this case: someone
lighting the person of the victim.
o Pugay was convicted of reckless imprudence, but the TWO WAYS OF LOOKING AT NEGLIGENCE:
guy who lighted the person was convicted of an
intentional felony of homicide. There are two ways of looking at negligence, as discussed in
o REASON FOR THE CONVICTION OF HOMICIDE: Quizon vs Justice of the Peace:
because he knew that gasoline was poured already on
the body of the victim, so when he lighted him, that lead 1) as a mode of committing a felony or modality
to the burning and the killing of the victim. How should we take a look at it? What do you mean
He did not intent to kill: probably the purpose by modality?
was to make fun of the victim. It is a means of committing a crime.
But according to ART. 4, even if the result is Does the RPC tell us how a crime is committed?
different from what he intended, he will be liable A: Art 3 provides that felonies may be committed by
for the result: the killing. means of dolo and by means of culpa. It doesn’t say
Of course, he will be given the mitigating that culpa is a separate crime but as a mode of
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave
committing a felony. It is a different perspective. If
a wrong (PAR. 3, ART. 13).
the act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill, we call that culpable
felony. If it is with deliberate intent, we call it
CULPABLE FELONIES intentional felony.
Felony may be committed by means of intent or culpa. 2) As a separate crime under Art 365
What is punished under this provision is the state of should be a law which requires that. Yes, there is omission but
mind of the person. The mental condition of the such must also be punished by law.
person.
We don’t want our fellow human being to be always The omission to report a conspiracy is punishable by Art 116. That
careless. Would you like our drivers to drive is an omission.
carelessly in our streets? Is that a good society?
Definitely not. Hence, we punish these persons for
There is confusion with omission and negligence because they
having this mental condition. For being careless in
his actions. Punishing him not only civilly. So that he are somehow cousins.
cannot injure his fellow human beings, so his
mental condition is being punished under Art 365. Reason: There is some sort of similarities.
Misprision of Treason is not included. How is it committed? A: They are similar because both are culpa. But then they are
differentiated from each other by their degrees. Both of them do
A: When a person who owes an allegiance to the Philippines, not take the necessary precautions. Imprudence is graver in a
having knowledge of any conspiracy against the government sense that :
conceals or does not disclose and make known the same. (Art
116)
This is not negligence. When one fails to report, there is only IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE
omission – the failure to do positive an act, mandated by law.
Again, we go back to the definition of a crime. lack of skill; lack of foresight;
higher degree of lesser degree of
An act or omission punishable by law. culpa; culpa;
To illustrate:
* Omission requires a positive duty, required by law and the
person fails to perform the act. Such failure is punishable by law. This person driving a vehicle, when is he imprudent? Even though
In Pp vs Silvestre, the paramour was charged for her omission of he knows the traffic rules, he did not stop during the red light. If he
not shouting fire. Was there duty for her to shout? No. There injures another person he commits a culpa. If you look at Art
36536, imprudence and negligence are actually defined. If he see
36 Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those
doing or falling to do an act from which material damage results by cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate
reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person nor the danger clearly manifest.
performing of failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition
and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
a red light and he proceeds, you see danger, that there might be morning the next day, it is true that they get tired, especially our
an accident. teachers.
H: MALA IN SE. Clearly, the acts prohibited in Section 27(b)
If there’s an intersection and no traffic light he proceeds, does he are mala in se. For otherwise, even errors and mistakes
see a danger? A: If you fail to check all sides, it is lack of foresight. committed due to overwork and fatigue would be punishable.
There’s no danger but you have to look at all sides because you Given the volume of votes to be counted and canvassed within a
have foresight. But danger is not imminent. That is negligence. limited amount of time, errors and miscalculations are bound to
happen. And it could not be the intent of the law to punish
But then, if there’s red light already, that’s lack of skill. In Pp vs unintentional election canvass errors. However, intentionally
Carmen, she is not a doctor and does not have a capacity to cure, increasing or decreasing the number of votes received by a
is that lack of foresight or lack of skill? A: Lack of skill. Because candidate is inherently immoral, since it is done with malice
she does not have education to cure. He is imprudent. and intent to injure another.
Negligence then is the lesser degree of culpa. Imprudence is the Criminal intent is presumed to exist on the part of the person who
higher degree of culpa. They are siblings, imprudence is the older. executes an act which the law punishes, unless the contrary shall
Because there is imminent danger and still he does not act with appear.Thus, whoever invokes good faith as a defense has the
the requisite skill. burden of proving its existence.
CRIMES MALA IN SE vs CRIMES MALA PROHIBITA Generally, mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in the
Revised Penal Code. When the acts complained of are inherently
immoral, they are deemed mala in se, even if they are punished
Crimes Mala In Crimes Mala by a special law.8Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly
Se Prohibita established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no
As to the moral trait Inherently evil or Prohibited by law crime is committed. On the other hand, in crimes that are mala
of the offender immoral prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become
As to intent Intent is essential Intent is not punishable only because the law says they are forbidden. With
essential; these crimes, the sole issue is whether the law has been
performance of the violated.9Criminal intent is not necessary where the acts are
act is required prohibited for reasons of public policy.
As to the defense of Good faith37 is a Good faith is not a
good faith defense defense Q: What are crimes considered as mala prohibita under RPC?
As to source of law Generally Generally
punishable by punishable by A; Technical Malversation
RPC Special Laws
As to mitigating and Taken account of Not taken account NOTE: Violation election laws are usually mala in se
even though punished by special law.
aggravating of
Q: But what should be our guideline if it is a special
circumstances penal law and in determining whether it is mala in se
or mala prohibita? A: The words used in the law (or
triggered words as Atty. Calica would like to classify) are
GARCIA vs COURT OF APPEALS (2006) “intentionally, maliciously, deliberately, willfully”
E.g maliciously performs an act.. this connotes intent.
F: Accused was charged within the canvassing period during the
Q: Crimes committed by culpa, are they mala in se or mala
May 8, 1995 elections for the violation of Sec 27(b) of RA 6646 by
prohibita?38
unlawfully decreasing the votes received by senatorial candidate
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. from 6,998 to 1,921 votes. Accused A: (not settled)
contend that there was no intent to decrease the votes because
of overwork. For instance, the crimes committed by means of culpa
enumerated above, are they mala in se or mala prohibita?
ISSUE: Is a violation of Section 27(b) of Rep. Act No. 6646,
classified under mala in se or mala prohibita? Could good faith A: (not settled)
and lack of criminal intent be valid defenses?
37 Because in intentional felonies, good faith can be raised if the act 38TRANSCRIBER’S GENTLE REMINDER: When there is no
committed is not intentional. corresponding answer to the question, it means that the question is not
settled in the class. So kindly research research ihihih :D
In Dungo vs People, what is being punished is the crime of hazing present, Mr. President. Whereas, in these specific crimes, Mr.
which is a crime mala prohibita. By itself, the crime of hazing is President, let us say there is death or there is homicide,
not inherently immoral but we’re looking at Hazing as a procedure mutilation, if one files a case, then the intention to commit a
before an entry into an organization/fraternities. Hazing per se or wrong has to be proven. But if the crime of hazing is the basis,
the requirement of certain qualifications is not mala in se per se. what is important is the result from the act of hazing.
DUNGO vs PEOPLE (2015) Q: In the case of the UST student who died in Hazing, is it
murder or homicide if there’s no violation of Anti Hazing
F: Accused were charge for the death of Marlon Villanueva during Law?
an initiation rite and being then members of Alpha Phi Omega
fraternity. RTC convicted them for violating Section 4 of the Anti- A: Since an applicant is blindfolded, there will be treachery that
Hazing Law and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of would qualify the crime to murder.
RECLUSION PERPETUA. They argue that said law was violative
of the Constitution “which stated that mere presence in the hazing But note: The act of inflicting violence to a neophyte– is that a
was prima facie evidence of participation therein”, because it felony? No, because the act of inflicting of injuries is to instill a
violates the constitutional presumption of innocence of the doctrine to a member in an organization. There’s no intention of
accused. killing the neophyte. Without the Hazing Law, the fraternity
members would be penalized only for reckless imprudence. Just
ISSUE: WON SAID LAW IS MALUM PROHIBITUM like in Pp vs Carmen – there’s no intent to kill the child, the intent
was to cure.
H: YES. R.A. No. 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995, has been
enacted to regulate hazing and other forms of initiation rites in Without the Hazing Law, there are several possibilities. If it is an
fraternities, sororities, and other organizations. It was in response intentional felony, and the applicant dies. What crime would it be?
to the rising incidents of death of hazing victims. A: Homicide or Murder, as the case may be.
Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in Three Possible Scenarios in a Hazing Incident:
themselves called acts mala in se; and acts which would not be
wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called (1) punished under Anti Hazing Law
acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to (2) reckless imprudence
(3) death
the intent with which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the
subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in
acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been In the UST case, they were suggesting that the members should
violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is only be liable for physical injuries, because the victim is already
immaterial.64 When the doing of an act is prohibited by law, it is suffering from heart ailment and that the physical injuries are
considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing of the merely contributory. Because the student, initially lost his
prohibited act is the crime itself.65redarclaw consciousness (because of his heart condition) and when he
regained his composure, the members started inflicting injuries
A common misconception is that all mala in se crimes are found again. So, there’s negligence on the part of the members or if they
in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes inflicted the injuries they said that they are only liable up to
are provided by special penal laws. In reality, however, there may physical injuries.
be mala in se crimes under special laws, such as plunder under
R.A. No. 7080, as amended. Similarly, there may be mala What if for instance, after the act of inflicting injuries, the student
prohibita crimes defined in the RPC, such as technical took his own life (suicide), is suicide considered as an efficient
malversation. intervening cause?
The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala A: NO. There is no more imminent danger when he is in the
prohibita crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or hospital. In US vs Valdez, although he did not inflict an injury
vileness of the penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is because he created fear in the mind of the victim , the accused is
immoral in itself, then it is a crime mala in se; on the contrary, if it criminally held liable. This is also the same ruling in PP vs William
is not immoral in itself, but there is a statute prohibiting its Page, wherein the victim jumped out of the jeepney on the
commission by reasons of public policy, then it is mala prohibita. occasion of robbery, and since he instilled the fear to the mind of
In the final analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral the passenger that he will kill her, he was held liable for her death.
turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends In those instances, the accused were committing felonies and
on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute. the proximate cause of the jumping was the fear that they created.
The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum In the cited cases (Us vs Valdez and PP vs Page), are they the
prohibitum. The Senate deliberations would show that the same with the scenario in the applicant subject of hazing, and then
lawmakers intended the antihazing statute to be malum he was brought to hospital but the applicant because of the fear
prohibitum xxx When a person or group of persons resort to that was instilled in his mind took his own life?
hazing as a requirement for gaining entry into an
organization, the intent to commit a wrong is not visible or is not
A: NONE. The fraternity members are not anymore present to hit PLUNDER LAW, EVEN THOUGH A SPECIAL LAW IT IS A
him, there’s no more imminent danger. Because in US vs Valdez, CRIME MALUM IN SE
what is involved is when the crime committed is different from what Plunder is a malum in se which requires criminal
he intended. The accused was not trying to kill the victim. intent. Constitutive crimes are mala in se the element of mens
rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. It is noteworthy
that the amended information alleges that the crime of plunder
was committed "willfully, unlawfully and criminally." It thus alleges
guilty knowledge on the part of petitioner.
NOTE: Hazing is a mala prohibita crime. In Pp vs Lozano, the NOTE: The predicate crimes of Plunder are all punished under the
bouncing checks law is mala prohbita. In Us vs Go Chico, the Revised Penal Code. Plunder is one of those considered as
display of flags or symbols of Philippine insurrection, is also mala heinous crime, it is provided under RA 7659 as one of heinous
prhobita. crime. If a crime is considered as heinous, it is inherently evil. That
is the most important reason by SC in the Estrada vs
The important lessons in these case are (1) good faith is not a
Sandiganbayan, why it ruled that plunder is ma la in se.
defense (2) intent to commit a felony is immaterial.
REVISED PENAL CODE RELATIONSHIP TO SPECIAL
Go Chico in displaying the emblems did not have the purpose to
PENAL LAWS
display the flags or emblems in furtherance of insurrection. What
will consummate the offense in mala prohibita is by the doing of
Article 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. -
the act that is prohibited by law. The mere commission to
Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable under
perpetrate the act prohibited consummates already the offense.
special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This
Whether or not he had the purpose of arousing the insurrection
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter
objectives does not matter.
should specially provide the contrary.
In Estrada vs Sandiganbyan, Plunder is a crime mala in se. Why?
What are the predicate crimes in the crime of plunder? Offenses not subject to this code is the title of this provision.
Offenses are those punishable by special penal laws. We have
ESTRADA vs SANDIGANBAYAN (2001) the general term Crime.
Conspiracy is applicable in violations of BP 22 in accordance with Q: How about graduation of penalties, does it apply in Special
Art. 10 of RPC; B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly proscribe the Penal Laws?
suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC. Thus, in the
absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg. 22, the general A: No, because stages of commission does not apply in special
provisions of the RPC which, by their nature, are necessarily penal laws.
applicable, may be applied suppletorily.
Q: How about the exempting circumstance of Minority?
Q: What happened under the first clause of Art 10, is it applied
in this case? A: (not settled)
The article is composed of two clauses. The first provides Q: How about the exempting circumstance of Insanity?
that offenses which in the future are made punishable under
A: (not settled)
special laws are not subject to the provisions of the RPC, while
the second makes the RPC supplementary to such laws. While it
Q: If a law was passed by Congress and it amends the RPC,
seems that the two clauses are contradictory, a sensible
do we consider it a Special Penal Law or not?
interpretation will show that they can perfectly be reconciled.
The first clause should be understood to mean only that the A: NO, it forms part of the RPC because it amends the RPC. It
special penal laws are controlling with regard to offenses therein becomes an integral component of RPC. When we talk of
specifically punished. Said clause only restates the elemental rule Special Penal Laws, these are laws passed by Congress which
of statutory construction that special legal provisions prevail over punishes distinct acts from RPC.
general ones. Lex specialis derogant generali. In fact, the clause
In Ladonga vs People, the SC is trying to tell us that the first
can be considered as a superfluity, and could have been
sentence of Art 10, that a crime punished by special penal laws
eliminated altogether. The second clause contains the soul of
is governed by that law. do you agree what the SC is telling us?
the article. The main idea and purpose of the article is embodied
in the provision that the "code shall be supplementary" to special What we are trying to establish here, when you are reading Art 10
laws, unless the latter should specifically provide the contrary. of RPC, you forget about the first sentence of Art 10. Because the
Q: Is there a contradiction between the two clauses? heart and soul of Art 10 is second sentence.40. xxx “ This Code
shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should
RESEARCH ON THE PRINCICPLES OF RPC WHICH APPLY In crimes punished under Special Penal Laws, the crime is
IN SUPPLETORY CAPACITY. consummated when the act prohibited is performed. Hence there
can be no frustrated and attempted stage. Because if you attempt,
SETTLED ARE: the Stages of Commission and Circumstances is there attempt to display medallion in the case of Go Chico? Is
Affecting Criminal Liability DON’T apply in Special Penal Laws, there attempt to issue a bouncing check? In special penal laws,
even if in supplementary capacity. the act prohibited shall always be consummated? Later on, we will
be discussing in Financing Terrorism, mere attempt is being
punished. And that is a special penal law.
PP vs ENRIQUEZ (1997)
REMEMBER: Otherwise, People vs Enriquez tells us that Stages intentional felony – not a culpable felony nor offense punishable
of Commission do not apply to special penal laws. That’s why by special penal law.
these special penal laws must specifically state whether or not
mere attempt is punishable already just like in RA 9165. Q: Can Art 4 be applied in Special Penal Laws? NO. Because
the obvious reason is that one should commit an intentional
HOW CRIMINAL LIABILITY SHALL BE INCURRED felony.
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the What triggers par 1 of Art 4 is INTENTIONAL FELONY. It can
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. never be offenses or culpable felony. So this intentional felony
results to a different result from what he intended. There are hree
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense possible situations41:
against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the THREE POSSIBLE SITUATIONS under Par 1 of Art 4:
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
(1) Error in personae – refers to mistake in the identity of the
Par 1 by a person committing a felony although the victim
wrongful act done be different from that which he Effect: Art 4942 – penalty for lesser crime in its maximum
intended period
Par 1 refers to a person who is committing a felony, he Art 49 should only apply in mistake of identity. If the felony he
is made liable although the wrongful acts done be intended has a penalty lower than the resulting felony, the
different from that he intended; penalty intended shall be imposed because it is lower. If the
Par 1 is wrongfully titled. It says “Criminal Liability”, and resulting felony is lower than that he intended, the penalty for
we know that Criminal Liability is incurred. What if the resulting felony shall be applied. REMEMBER: ALWAYS
person commits the intended felony? Can he be made THE LOWER PENALTY whether it be intended or the
liable? Yes, but it is not stated in Art 4. Apparently, it tells
resulting felony.
us in Art 4 that Criminal Liability is incurred only in these
two instances. That is not so. If he commits the crime he To illustrate: if he intended to kill a third person but killed his
intended, he is LIABLE. If he commits the violation of wife because of mistake of the blow, then that is Parricide.
special penal laws, he is criminally LIABLE.
Between Homicide as against Parricide, Parricide has higher
Par 1 refers only to intentional felony.
penalty. The penalty for Homicide shall be imposed. Now we
reverse, he intended to kill his wife but in the course of killing,
Elements: he killed a third person. The penalty for Homicide shall be
applied.
i. that an intentional felony has been committed;
ii. the wrongful act done to the aggrieved party be (2) Aberratio ictus –mistake in the blow which may result into:
direct, natural and logical consequence of the EFFECT:
felony committed;
ATTY. CALICA: Element number 2 refers to an intentional felony i. when the act constitutes two or more grave or less
and not only just an act. That’s why I was telling you a while ago grave felonies, there is COMPLEX CRIME under Art 48
in Hazing, if one inflicts Physical injuries, that is an intentional “When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
felony of Physical injuries whether Serious or Less Serious grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
Physical Injuries. Even though they did not intend to kill, when the committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime
infliction of physical injuries result to the death. Are the fraternity shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum
members responsible for the death of a neophyte? Basing on Art period.”
4, because the requirement is that they are committing an
Illustration: A shot B but because of lack of
precision it was C who was hit, which killed him.
41 In all of these situations the results are different from what the 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that
offender intended to commit. corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the
penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
42 Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime 3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be
committed is different from that intended. - In cases in which the felony applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also
committed is different from that which the offender intended to constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law
commit, the following rules shall be observed: prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, shall be imposed in its maximum period.
the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
There is a complex crime of The accused hacked the head of the victim. Weakened by the
Attempted/Frustrated Homicide (MHIP, as the hacking blow, the victim was sent to the highway where he was
case may be) and Homicide (MHIP, as the case run over by a car, which caused his death. The accused was
may be) charged with murder. His contends that the victim’s death is
caused by an accident.
RE PENALTY: subject to penalty under Art 48
which have two effects (1) Impose the penalty for ISSUE: WON the hacking of the head’s victim was the proximate
cause of his death.
the grave felony and (2) shall be applied in the
maximum period HELD: Yes.
ii. when the act constitutes two felonies, one grave
Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability
felony and the other is LIGHT felony, TWO SEPARATE
shall be incurred "by any person committing a felony (delito)
DISTINCT CRIMES– in such case separate felonies although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
(Illustration: If C in the above example did not die but intended."
sustained injuries, there’s still a crime of homicide AND slight
physical injuries (which is punished by arresto menor, this is Based on the doctrine that "el que es causa de la causa es
a light penalty) Here, there is no complex crime. causa del mal causado" (he who is the cause of the cause is the
cause of the evil caused), the essential requisites of Article 4 are:
RE PENALTY: subject to separate penalties (a) that an intentional felony has been committed, and (b) that the
wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and
logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender.
NOTE: In aberratio ictus, the offender delivers the blow upon
the intended victim, but because of poor aim the blow landed The intentional felony committed was the hacking of the head
on somebody else. You have a complex crime, unless the of Quiñones, Jr. by Iligan. That it was considered as superficial by
resulting consequence is not a grave or less grave felony. the physician who autopsied Quiñones is beside the point. What
You have a single act as against the intended victim and also is material is that by the instrument used in hacking Quiñones, Jr.
giving rise to another felony as against the actual victim. and the location of the wound, the assault was meant not only to
immobilize the victim but to do away with him as it was directed at
(3) Praeter Intentionem – injurious result is greater than that he a vital and delicate part of the body: the head.
intended.
The hacking incident happened on the national highway
Effect: mitigating circumstance under Art 13 par 3 where vehicles are expected to pass any moment. One such
(Illustration: A intended only to box B but due to lost of vehicle passed seconds later when Lukban and Zaldy Asis,
balance B fell causing his instantaneous death, A is liable for running scared and having barely negotiated the distance of
Homicide with a mitigating circumstance of praeter around 200 meters, heard shouts of people. Quiñones, Jr.,
weakened by the hacking blow which sent him to the cemented
intentionem – because he merely intends to inflict physical
highway, was run over by a vehicle. Under these circumstances,
injuries to B and not kill him) we hold that while Iligan’s hacking of Quiñones, Jr.’s head might
Q: In Hazing, when the neophyte dies from the physical not have been the direct cause, it was the proximate cause of the
latter’s death. Proximate legal cause is defined as "that acting first
injuries inflicted, what is the result? and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other
A: Liable for Homicide. How about the intent to kill? It matters. events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of
events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate
It will become a mitigating circumstance. They are liable for
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the
Homicide but their criminal liability will be mitigated by Par 3 injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first
of Art 13, they did not intend to commit so grave wrong. Liable acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for
for resulting death but mitigated. the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent
person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his
Par 2 Impossible Crime act or default that an injury to some person might probably result
therefrom.
-- END of 02/03/18--
In other words, the sequence of events from Iligan’s assault
February 10, 2018 on him to the time Quiñones, Jr. was run over by a vehicle is,
considering the very short span of time between them, one
CRIMINAL LIABILITY unbroken chain of events. Having triggered such events, Iligan
cannot escape liability.
1. How Incurred
a. Wrongful act done be different from what Q: How is criminal liability incurred?
was intended A: Criminal liability is incurred:
i. Rev. Penal Code, Art. 4(1), 13(3), 48, 1) By any person committing a felony although the wrongful
49 act done be different from that which he intended;
43 Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal 4. By absolute pardon;
liability is totally extinguished:
5. By prescription of the crime;
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death 6. By prescription of the penalty;
of the offender occurs before final judgment.
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of
2. By service of the sentence; this Code.
Q: Who should argue that there is an efficient intervening “That acting first”
cause? So, there should be an action first.
A: It is the accused. So, we are still at the stage of determining
criminal liability. Let us leave that to the accused to argue that Before there should be a sequence, there should first be
there was an efficient intervening cause. an initial action.
[To Bantay]
Q: As the prosecutor, how would you lay the blame on Asis
“Producing the injury”
the death of the victim when in fact, Asis’ act stopped only
Q: Let us say, if you make an act, and the wound caused was
there at the hacking and the injury caused only superficial
fatal, would that immediately produce the desired purpose of
wound?
killing?
A: Under Art. 4, paragraph 1, criminal liability is incurred by a
A: Yes.
person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
But, in this case (Iligan), it did not produce
different from that which he intended. The act of hacking and
hitting the head of the victim with a bolo constitutes a felony. And immediately.
although the result thereof was not what the accused intended, he
will still be liable to such act.
Q: If the hack produced a fatal wound, and victim was killed,
The accused really intended to kill, right? Only that he was not the will that be the direct cause? Will that also be the proximate
one who caused the wound that killed him. Is that an application cause?
of Art. 4, because he really intended to kill. In fact, the result is the A: Yes.
same as his intention. He hacked. I’m not confusing everyone of
you, because we discussed earlier, there are three possible Q: So, a direct cause may also be a proximate cause?
reasons or different result. A: Yes, because a proximate cause may immediately produce
the injury.
Q: Was there mistake in blow here?
A: None. Q: What is the direct cause of the death here?
A: The running over by the vehicle.
Q: Was there mistake in identity?
A: None. Q: In People v. Mananquil, what was the direct cause?
A: The direct cause was pneumonia, but the proximate cause was
Q: Praeter Intentionem? the burning.
A: None.
Q: Here in, Iligan, what is the proximate cause?
Q: So, none of the three circumstances is present in this A: The hacking.
case?
A: Yes. Q: The direct cause?
A: The running over.
Q: Because, he intended to kill, and in fact, the victim died.
But, his act was short of killing the victim. But we are now “Either immediately or by setting other events in motion”
still attributing to him the death of the victim. Why is that so? In Iligan, it is not immediate.
A: Because of PROXIMATE CAUSE.
Q: What is proximate cause? “All constituting a natural and continuous chain of events”
A: That which causes the injury which is the natural, logical
consequence of the act, without which the injury or result “Each having a close causal connection with its immediate
would not have occurred. predecessor”
We will have a problem in this case because the injury So, it triggers a chain of events, natural and continuous
caused by Mr. Iligan was just the acting, that superficial sequence. There should be no break because here is
wound. where the efficient intervening cause will come in.
So, we go to Iligan, also cited in Bataclan v. Medina, If this natural and continuous sequence is broken by an
Court came up with a longer definition. efficient intervening cause, the act will not anymore be
the efficient intervening cause. So, it should be natural
and continuous sequence or chain of events.
Q: What is proximate legal cause?
A: PROXIMATE LEGAL CAUSE is defined as "that acting first
and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other “The final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury
events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of as a natural and probable result of the cause which first
events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate acted”
predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the This is a surplusage already, because it is a natural and
injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first
continuous sequence, so naturally, it was the first act
acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for
the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent
which caused the injury. But they want to give us a clear So, the proximate cause may directly cause the death or injury,
definition. then it becomes also the direct cause. But if the proximate cause
just triggers a chain of events, the direct cause is the final event
The natural and probable result of the cause which first which causes the injury. The direct cause will be different from the
proximate cause.
acted is the proximate cause.
You always take a look at this efficient intervening cause. There
are always foreign or remote causes from the natural and
“Under such circumstances that the person responsible for continuous chain. Or, it may also arise from the active act of the
the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent victim himself.
person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
his act or default that an injury to some person might
probably result therefrom.”
TALAMPAS v. PEOPLE
He expected that this result would be produced from his
November 23, 2011
action. FACTS:
On July 5, 1995 at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, he
As an ordinary and prudent reasonable person, we would together with Eduardo Matic (Eduardo) and Ernesto Matic
expect that the result would happen because of his (Ernesto) were infront of his house, along the road in Zona Siete
action. (7), Wawa, Malaban, Bian, Laguna, repairing his tricycle when he
noticed the appellant who was riding on a bicycle passed by and
stopped. The latter alighted at about three (3) meters away from
Q: Did Iligan expect that to happen? Or should he have him, walked a few steps and brought out a short gun, a revolver,
expected it? He may not know it, but should an ordinary and poked the same to Eduardo and fired it hitting Eduardo who
prudent person expect that? took refuge behind Ernesto. The appellant again fired his gun
A: Yes. Because the hacking was done in a highway. If the three (3) times, one shot hitting Ernesto at the right portion of his
hacking happened inside the classroom, he would not have back causing him (Ernesto) to fall on the ground with his face
expected the victim to be run over by a vehicle. But it happened down. Another shot hit Eduardo on his nape and fell down on his
on a highway, so he would expect that vehicles would be passing back (patihaya). Thereafter, the appellant ran away, while he
through the highway. So, Iligan was held liable although the direct (Jose) and his neighbors brought the victims to the hospital. On
cause was the vehicle running over the victim. As a prudent June 6, 1995, Jose executed a Sworn Statement at the Bian
person, he should have expected that vehicles would be running Police Station.
or passing through and he would be killed.
Talampas was convicted with Homicide by the RTC.
Q: Suppose the incidence happened in this classroom. He Talampas interposed self-defense and accident as defenses.
stopped after inflicting the superficial wound. And then the
victim went outside and was run over, will Iligan be still held ISSUE: WON Talampas should be held liable even if the one who
criminally liable? died was not his intended target.
A: Yes, but not anymore for consummated homicide, only for the
hacking. He could not have expected that that person would go HELD: YES.
out this building and have himself run over by a vehicle. He could
have used the overpass. The petition for review is denied for lack of merit.
Q: So, in the case of Iligan, what would be an efficient Firstly, the elements of the plea of self-defense are: (a)
intervening cause, if you would add additional facts, which unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable
will stop the natural and continuous chain of events? necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful
A: The ISIS bombed the hospital where the victim was confined. aggression; and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
That is not part of the natural and continuous sequence. accused in defending himself.
The records eliminate the intervention of accident. Talampas If we talk of complex crime, this is just one crime.
brandished and poked his revolver at Eduardo and fired it, hitting
Eduardo, who quickly rushed to seek refuge behind Ernesto. At SECOND: If one of the two offenses produced is a light felony,
that point, Talampas fired his revolver thrice. One shot hit Ernesto then there would be two distinct, separate offenses.
at the right portion of his back and caused Ernesto to fall face
down to the ground. Another shot hit Eduardo on the nape, Q: What happens in Talampas, how many crimes was he
causing Eduardo to fall on his back. Certainly, Talampas acts convicted of?
were by no means lawful, being a criminal assault with his revolver A: Only one – homicide.
against both Eduardo and Ernesto. There is something problematic here, because the SC convicted
Talampas only of homicide and they forgot about Eduardo.
And, thirdly, the fact that the target of Talampas assault was
Eduardo, not Ernesto, did not excuse his hitting and killing of Q: What happened to Eduardo?
Ernesto. The fatal hitting of Ernesto was the natural and direct A: We don’t know what injury was caused to him, but he was hit.
consequence of Talampas felonious deadly assault against The first shot hit Eduardo. So, if the injury was not fatal, it should
Eduardo. Talampas poor aim amounted to aberratio ictus, or be attempted homicide already. And then, he killed Ernesto in the
mistake in the blow, a circumstance that neither exempted him subsequent shots – homicide.
from criminal responsibility nor mitigated his criminal liability. Lo
que es causa de la causa, es causa del mal causado (what is the Q: Is homicide a grave felony?
cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused). [13] Under A: Yes. (See Art. 24945)
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code,[14] criminal liability is incurred
by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done Q: Is attempted homicide a grave or less grave felony?
be different from that which he intended A: Two degrees lower than homicide. (See Art. 5146)
We’re discussing mistake in the blow. Q: What is the penalty for homicide?
A: Under Art. 249, it is reclusion temporal.
Q: Was someone killed here?
A: Yes, but not the target of accused. Eduardo was the target but Q: What is two degrees lower than reclusion temporal?
Ernesto was the one killed.
Q: Against who?
A: Ernesto.
44 Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be
two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. 46 Article 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted
crimes. - A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for
45 Article 249. Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of attempt to commit a felony.
A: Prision correcional (See Art. 7147 in relation to Arts. 948 and just closed his speech, was being congratulated by Ambassador
2549) Romulo and was about to leave the platform.
Q: Is that grave or less grave? The RTC found Guillen guilty of murder for the death of
A: Less grave. Simeon Varela and of the complex crime of murder and multiple
So, there is one one grave and one less grave felony. That is a frustrated murder. The RTC also applied sub-section 1 of article
complex crime, right? But in Talampas, he was convicted only of 49 of the Revised Penal Code in determining the penalty to be
homicide. But that is mistake in the blow. The facts will show that imposed upon the accused.
he actually shot and injured Eduardo. As we have learned here, if
there is a mistake in the blow, it will lead to either two options: Guillen argued that he should be guilty only of homicide
1) Complex crime; or through reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon
Varela and of less serious physical injuries in regard to Alfredo
2) Two distinct and separate offenses Eva, Jose Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang, and that he
should be sentenced to the corresponding penalties for the
Unless, of course, he was convicted separately against Eduardo different felonies committed, the sum total of which shall not
because the felony committed against Eduardo is a light felony. exceed three times the penalty to be imposed for the most serious
But we have no idea whether he was also charged and convicted crime in accordance with article 70 in relation to article 74 of the
for the injury caused to Eduardo. Revised Penal Code.
PEOPLE vs. GUILLEN ISSUE: WON Guillen should be liable for homicide through
G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950 reckless imprudence
FACTS: HELD: NO
Disappointed in President Roxas for his alleged failure to In throwing hand grenade at the President with the intention
redeem the pledges and fulfill the promises made by him during of killing him, the appellant acted with malice. He is therefore liable
the presidential election campaign, Guillen conceived the idea of for all the consequences of his wrongful act; for in accordance with
killing President Roxas. In one of the latter’s speeches, Guillen article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by
decided to carry out his evil purpose. He stood on the chair on any person committing felony (delito) although the wrongful act
which he had been sitting and, from a distance of about seven done be different from that which he intended. In criminal
meters, he hurled the grenade at the President when the latter had negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional,
47 Article 71. Graduated scales. - In the case in which the law 2. Temporal absolute disqualification
prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees than
another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be 3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the
observed in graduating such penalty. right to follow a profession or calling,
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in 4. Public censure,
which is comprised the given penalty.
5. Fine.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the
following graduated scales: 48 Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies.
1. Death, Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which
in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with the above-
2. Reclusion perpetua, mentioned article.
4. Prision mayor, 49 Article 25. Penalties which may be imposed. - The penalties which
may be imposed according to this Code, and their different classes, are
5. Prision correccional, those included in the following:
7. Destierro, xxx
50 Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime 2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that
committed is different from that intended. - In cases in which the felony corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit, the
committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
following rules shall be observed:
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also constitute
corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to commit, the an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher
penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided
period. for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
A: Both are favorable to the accused. Were it not for Art. 48, there 1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than
would have been two offenses, then two penalties. that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to
Let us count: homicide and attempted homicide. The penalties commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed
are reclusion temporal and prision correcional, respectively. in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than
If two distinct and separate crimes: that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to
Reclusion temporal: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its
Prision correcional: 6 months and 1 day to 6 years maximum period.
Total : 18 years, 6 months, and 1 day to 20 years 3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not
be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also
If complex crime: constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law
Reclusion temporal in its maximum: 17 years, 4 months and 1 day prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in
to 20 years which case the penalty provided for the attempt or the frustrated
crime shall be imposed in the maximum period.
So, the penalty for complex crime is less than the penalty for two
distinct crimes. Jurisprudence instructs that such provision should only apply
where the crime committed is different from that intended and
So, Art. 48 is always favorable to the accused. With more reasons where the felony committed befalls a different person (error in
is praeter intentionem more favorable to the accused. personae); and not to cases where more serious consequences
not intended by the offender result from his felonious act (praeter
Q: Why is praeter intentionem also favorable? intentionem), as in this case.
A: Because it will be considered as a mitigating circumstance
under Art. 13 par. 3.51 He will be liable for the crime committed It is well-settled that if the victim dies because of a deliberate
but it will be mitigated. This is what happened in People v. act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed. 30 In
Albuquerque and U.S. v. Brobst. such case, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is Homicide
because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law
In People v. Albuquerque, the accused just wanted to convince looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act
the lover of his daughter to support his daughter. Because of his and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences
paralysis, he hit the victim in the neck, causing the latter’s death thereof.31
albeit not intending to kill him. The accused was held liable for
homicide but the liability was mitigated. Be that as it may, the penalty for the crime of Homicide must
be imposed in its minimum period due to the presence of the
WACOY v. PEOPLE mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a
G.R. No. 213792, June 22, 2015 wrong under Article 13 (3) of the RPC in favor of Wacoy and
Quibac, as correctly appreciated by the CA. In determining the
DOCTRINE: Art. 49 applies only to mistake in identity. presence of this circumstance, it must be considered that since
intention is a mental process and is an internal state of mind, the
FACTS: accused's intention must be judged by his conduct and external
Accused killed the victim by kicking the latter in the stomach overt acts.32 In this case, the aforesaid mitigating circumstance is
twice. When the victim got up, he was punched further. Wacoy available to Wacoy and Quibac, given the absence of evidence
and Quibac were charged with the crime of Homicide, defined and showing that, apart from kicking and punching Aro on the
penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). In stomach, something else had been done; thus, evincing the
their defense, they contended that the victim was drunk and purpose of merely maltreating or inflicting physical harm, and not
became unruly, for which reason, the accused pacified him. to end the life of Aro.
The RTC convicted them of death in tumultuous affray under Art. 49 applies only to mistake in identity. If you look at it, its title
Art. 251, which the CA affirmed. states, “Penalty to be imposed upon the principal when the crime
committed is different from that intended,” which is Art. 4,
The accused appealed and argued that they should be held paragraph 1, when the crime committed is different from that
liable for the lower penalty on the basis of Art. 49. intended.
If you relate that to another article, that would be Art. 4, par. 1. So,
HELD: you will get the impression that if it happened under Art. 4, par. 1,
it will be punishable under Art. 49. So, this case of Wacoy tells us
On this note, the Court does not find merit in Wacoy's expressly that Art. 4 applies only if there is mistake in identity. If it
contention that in view of their intent only to inflict slight physical is mistake in the blow, either Art. 48 or two distinct separate crimes
injuries on Aro, they should only be meted the corresponding will result. If it is praeter intentionem, it will be mitigated by Art. 13,
penalty therefore in its maximum period,28pursuant to Article 49 of par. 3. So, Art. 49 applies only in one instance – mistake in
the RPC. The said provision reads: identity. That much is made clear in Wacoy v. People.
Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime
committed is different from that intended. - In cases in which the U.S. vs. VALDEZ
felony committed is different from that which the offender intended G.R. No. L-16486, March 22, 1921
to commit, the following rules shall be observed.
51 Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating 3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
circumstances; committed.
xxx
DOCTRINE: If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate Imagine, they just declared a hold-up. The accused did
sense of dander which causes such person to try to escape, and not point a gun or brandish a knife against the victim. The
in so doing he injuries himself, the person who creates such a victim just jumped out of the vehicle.
state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result.
As we always say, the person should always be the
FACTS:
proximate cause. How can he be the proximate cause
The victim, who was then on a boat, jumped into the water
believing he was in great peril after the accused threatened to stab when he has not done anything yet? But he instilled fear
him, causing his death. upon the mind of another person, prompting the latter to
The accused was charged with homicide. do something to save himself, and in doing so, if that led
to his injury, then that person who instilled the fear will be
ISSUE: WON the accused should be held liable for the death of criminally liable.
the victim.
HELD: YES. Q: In People vs. Page, are not the accused already
As to the criminal responsibility of the accused for the death committing an intentional felony by virtue of robbery?
thus occasioned the likewise can be no doubt; for it is obvious that A (Sir): Remember, there were two of them, one was beside the
the deceased, in throwing himself in the river, acted solely in passenger who jumped out of the vehicle, while the other was
obedience to the instinct of self-preservation and was in no sense beside the driver. Supposedly, both of them are liable for robbery.
legally responsible for his own death. As to him it was but the But, they are held liable for robbery with homicide because this
exercise of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable passenger jumped out. That is why we are discussing if this
person under the same circumstances might have done the same. person beside the driver should also be held liable for homicide.
As was once said by a British court, "If a man creates in another His liability would only be limited to robbery. But, considering that
man's mind an immediate sense of dander which causes they created that fear, and they were in conspiracy, they were both
such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injuries held liable for robbery with homicide.
himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is
responsible for the injuries which result."
b. Impossible crimes
i. Arts. 4(2), 59
The accused did not cause any injury.
Q: What is an impossible crime?
Q: What rule do we learn here? A: It is an act which would be an offense against persons or
Remember, in Iligan and Mananquil, it is easy to apply proximate property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
cause because they caused injury; they were committing an accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate
intentional felony. to ineffectual means.
By its definition, it is just an act. it does not say that it is
Q: Was the accused in this case committing an intentional
felony? a crime.
A: The accused was brandishing a knife against the victim.
Q: Is there a crime already committed? Is the act of One common question in the bar: In impossible crime, is a crime
brandishing a bolo and going after a person considered a committed?
crime? A: A crime is an act or omission under the RPC. Since an
A: None. impossible crime is penalized under Art. 59 of the RPC, an
impossible crime is therefore, a crime. Objectively, there is no
Q: So, is the first element of Art. 4, i.e., that an intentional crime, but subjectively, there is an intention to commit a crime.
felony has been committed), is this satisfied? The person who committee it is a criminal. That act is punishable
A: You have quite a difficulty, right? Because in the earlier cases under Art. 59 of the RPC, so the person incurs criminal liability.
we discussed, they already inflicted an injury. In Iligan, if we
stopped there, that is attempted homicide already. But here, If we define a crime as an act or omission punished by law, then
probably grave threats if he shouted against the victim. So, we this act is punished under Art. 59.
have a problem. But the SC said that he is still liable.
So, you should remember that it is just an act, but it would be an
Q: Why? offense against persons or property. So, you should know what
A: The accused instilled fear upon the mind of the victim, on the the crimes against persons52 or property53 are. In one exam, it
basis of which the latter tried to save himself by leaping into the involved kidnapping.
water, but in so doing, he injured or killed himself. The person who
instilled the fear will be criminally liable. That is the ruling in U.S. Q: Is there an impossible crime involved in kidnapping?
vs. Valdez. This the same ruling in People vs. Page. A: No, because it is not a crime against person or property, it is a
crime against liberty.
In People vs. Page, the victim jumped out of a vehicle for fear of
being held-up. Q: So, there can be an impossible crime of rape?
A: Yes, when the victim is already dead.
52 Parricide, murder, homicide, infanticide, abortion, duel, physical 53 Robbery, brigandage, theft, usurpation, culpable insolvency, swindling
injuries, rape and other deceits, removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property,
destructive arson, malicious mischief,
A: Legal impossibility. That is why, I am bringing this to your attention: that if the
means used is inadequate, it may also be an attempted
Q: Why? stage already of a felony.
A: Because the intended acts, even if completed, would not
amount to a crime.
Because when one uses a poison but for an inadequate
The acts were all completed to commit rape, but despite
amount, does that injure the person?
the performance of all acts of execution, the crime cannot
still be committed the person is already dead. You cannot
rape a dead person. In Jacinto v. People, there are only three elements of impossible
crime. The accused stole the check which bounced when
Just like getting from a pocket of another person. You deposited. This is an impossible crime, it is an act which would
actually took a watch, but then you realized it was your have been an offense against persons or property (theft), but it is
watch. So, there was a consummation of theft, but since inherently impossible (factual) because there is no deposit.
it was your watch, the elements of theft cannot be Thus, the requisites of an impossible crime are:
completed, because one element is that it should be a
(1) that the act performed would be an offense
personal property of another person. How can you steal
against persons or property;
your own property?
(2) that the act was done with evil intent; and
That is what we call legal impossibility.
(3) that its accomplishment was inherently
Q: What is factual impossibility? impossible, or the means employed was either
A: Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances inadequate or ineffectual.
unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime. So, in this case, there are only three elements. But in
In Intod vs. CA, that is a factual impossibility. some annotations, there is a fourth element – that the act
is not penalized under the RPC.
Another factual impossibility is reaching in the pocket
when there is no money there.
Q: In Intod v. CA, what did they do again, if we consider this
So, the first kind impossible crime is that which is inherently fourth element (it is not punished by any other provision in
impossible of accomplishment. The second is, use of inadequate the RPC)?
or ineffectual means. A: The accused shot at the house but the intended victim was not
Ineffectual, we are quite sure about that. Instead of using there. The court ruled that it was an impossible crime.
poison, salt or another condiment is used, which will not
Q: But by shooting at the house, did the accused not also
lead to the death of the intended victim. That would be
commit malicious mischief or damage to property?
an ineffectual means. A: Yes.
So, the fourth element, that it does not constitute any
Q: What would be an inadequate means? other offense or crime under the RPC, would be missing,
because we can consider that as damage to property.
A: So, actual poison was used. But instead of the
required gram, so little was used. Does that mean that the SC erred in ruling Intod v.
CA?
Q: But is that not already an attempt?
In the book of Reyes, there is that fourth element.
A: In attempted crime, the means used will eventually
lead to the crime when all of the elements of the crime
had been completed. But in impossible crime, the means Q: If a poison was used, but little amount of which was used,
used are inadequate, meaning, even though you instead of killing, it led to the vomiting of the intended victim,
complete all the acts, it will not lead to the commission of causing physical injuries, will there still be an impossible
the crime. crime?
A: If we consider the fourth element, we will not consider that as
an impossible crime anymore, but for the resulting injury of
In People v. Balmores, the accused actually falsified the PCSO physical injuries.
ticket. So, it is not inherently impossible.
In Jacinto v. People, this is another case where the elements of
Q: Was the means used inadequate? Because he actually impossible crime are enumerated. This is the closest we have – it
falsified the ticket, but the person who examined it was just did not include the fourth element that the act should not be
diligent and he discovered the falsification. Does that mean punished by any provision under the RPC. But our scholars
that the means used was inadequate? Not ineffectual, right? included this fourth element. Apparently, in many annotations,
Not inherently impossible, but possibly inadequate. Was he they follow this fourth element.
convicted for an impossible crime?
A: No, he was convicted for attempted estafa. So, in answering, you state Jacinto v. People. Then, you also cite
that in many annotations, there is a fourth element.
2. Stages of Commission Two degrees
51 Attempted
a. Definitions lower58
i. Arts. 6 and 7 One degree
52 Consummated
lower59
Q: Why are we determining stages of commission of One degree
54 Accomplice Frustrated
felonies? What will be its effect on the criminal liability of a lower60
person? Two degrees
A: To determine the corresponding penalty to be imposed against 56 Attempted
lower61
a person. Two degrees
53 Consummated
lower62
For this part, refer to Arts. 46 to 57. Two degrees
55 Accessories Frustrated
lower63
Q: What does Art. 4654 state? Two degrees
A: That the penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a 57 Attempted
lower64
felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the commission of
such felony and that if the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in Q: What is Art. 58?
general terms, it is understood to be applicable to the A: Article 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain
consummated felony. accessories. - Those accessories falling within the terms of
paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse
Q: What, again, is the penalty for consummated homicide? of their public functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of
A: Reclusion temporal. absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be
guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute temporary
Q: To whom and at what stage shall this penalty be applied? disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony.
A: Against the principal at the consummated stage.
So, all the penalties stated in the RPC will be imposed Q: What is Art. 59?
upon a principal in a consummated felony. A: Article 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit
the crime because the means employed or the aims sought are
So, you remember Art. 46 because that will be your impossible. - When the person intending to commit an offense has
anchor for graduation of penalties, because it states that already performed the acts for the execution of the same but
if there is a penalty under the RPC, it should be imposed nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact
that the act intended was by its nature one of impossible
on the principal in a consummated felony.
accomplishment or because the means employed by such person
are essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him,
the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of
Q: What if it is a frustrated felony? criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the
A: Then the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed. See penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
Art. 50.55
Earlier, we discussed Arts. 48, 49, and 59. So we already have an
Q: Principal also? idea of Arts. 46 to 59.
A: Yes, principal in a frustrated felony.
Q: What is Art. 60?
Q: In attempted felony? A: Article 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to
A: Two degrees lower than that prescribed by law for the 57. - The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of
consummated felony. See Art. 51.56 this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law
expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or
Persons attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or
Stage of
Article criminally Penalty accessories.
Commission
liable The law itself provides for the penalty, so we will not
Prescribed by
46 Consummated apply the rules under Arts. 46 to 57.
the RPC
Principal
One degree
50 Frustrated
lower57
54 Article 46. Penalty to be imposed upon principals in general. - The 58 Reckoned from Art. 46.
penalty prescribed by law for the commission of a felony shall be imposed
upon the principals in the commission of such felony. 59 Reckoned from Art. 46.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony is general terms, it 60 Reckoned from Art. 50.
shall be understood as applicable to the consummated felony.
55 Article 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated
crime. - The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for 61 Reckoned from Art. 51.
the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a
frustrated felony. 62 Reckoned from Art. 46.
56 Article 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted
crimes. - A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for 63 Reckoned from Art. 50.
the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an
attempt to commit a felony. 64 Reckoned from Art. 51.
57 Reckoned from Art. 46.
Because, if it is frustrated or attempted, there is a execution, and the felony is produced, whereas, in frustrated, the
corresponding penalty already provided in the law. offender performs all acts of execution but the felony is not
produced.
Q: Going back to stages, what are these attempted, Q: For what reason?
frustrated, and consummated stages? A: For causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
A:
Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - So, it is easy to distinguish between consummated or frustrated.
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and So, the debate really lies upon whether an act is attempted or
attempted, are punishable. frustrated. But it is also very easy because the offender
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its commences the commission of the felony but does not perform all
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated acts of execution. This is the distinction between attempted and
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would frustrated.
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do In frustrated, the offender performs all acts of execution,
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the but in attempted, he does not.
perpetrator.
Q: For what reason?
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform A: For some cause or accident other than his own
all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by spontaneous desistance.
reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
The problem lies on what are acts of execution. That is
There are two ways of determining the stage of commission. why there is difficulty in determining whether it is
The first one is based on Art. 6. attempted or frustrated.
In attempted, not all acts of execution are performed. The
offender commences the commission of the crime
directly by overt acts. Q: Is “causes independent of the will of the perpetrator” the
same as “some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance”?
In frustrated, he already performs all acts of execution A: Yes. Accident is not within the will of the perpetrator. Causes
which would produce the felony. This is important, independent of the will of the perpetrator is likewise not within his
“produce the felony” as a consequence. will. Apparently, they are similar.
The only distinction is that in attempted, the offender
In consummated, offender performs all acts of execution does not perform all acts of execution. The reason for
and the crime is produced. him not performing is some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance.
The essential element which distinguishes attempted Q: In homicide or murder, when can we say that all acts of
from frustrated felony is that: execution have been performed?
FRUSTRATED: There is NO intervention of a foreign or A: When the wound inflicted upon the victim is fatal.
extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of
the commission of the crime and the moment when all of Q: In theft, when do we say that all acts of execution have
the acts have been performed which should result in the been performed?
consummated crime; A: If the offender was able to take away the personal property of
ATTEMPTED: There is such intervention and the the victim.
offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of
the acts which should produce the crime. He is stopped Q: In rape?
short of that point by some cause apart from his A: If there is entry, regardless of full or slight penetration. That is
voluntary desistance. the final act when we can say that all acts of execution have been
performed.
To put it in another way, in case of an attempt the
offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense. In U.S. v. Eduave, we are not given any information as to whether
He is interrupted and compelled to desist by the intervention the wound inflicted is fatal or not. So, we cannot, based on our
of outside causes before the subjective phase is passed. definition on the board (referring to what has been discussed so
far), we cannot say whether it is attempted or frustrated.
On the other hand, in case of frustrated crimes the The accused believed that he inflicted a terrible blow it
subjective phase is completely passed. Subjectively the may not have been a fatal wound.
crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while he
was passing through the subjective phase. The crime, But then, if the wound is fatal, then frustrated.
however, is not consummated by reason of the intervention
of causes independent of the will of the offender. He did all So, the SC discussed another basis for determining
that was necessary to commit the crime. If the crime did not
whether the crime is frustrated or attempted. There is
result as a consequence it was due to something beyond his
control. another criterion or standard.
SUBJECTIVE PHASE:
Q: What is that standard?
The subjective phase is that portion of the acts A: The objective and the subjective phase.
constituting the crime included between the act
which begins the commission of the crime and the last act Q: What is a subjective phase?
performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should A: The subjective phase is that portion of the acts constituting the
result in the consummated crime. From that time forward the crime included between the act which begins the commission of
phase is objective. the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with
the prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. From that
It may also be said to be that period occupied by the acts time forward the phase is objective.
of the offender over which he has control — that period
between the point where he begins and the points where If he did not pass through this stage, it is only attempted.
he voluntarily desists. If between these two points the
offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own But it would prove helpful in the case of Eduave because we don’t
voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been have any idea whether all acts of execution have been performed.
passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but
continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated. Q: But, in the mind of the perpetrator, what was in his mind?
A: That he had already performed all acts of execution.
That the case before us is frustrated is clear. While that may not be objectively true (that he has
performed all acts of execution), but in his mind, thought
CONCLUSION: FRUSTRATED MURDER. that he had already performed all acts of execution. In
that case, he has already passed the subjective phase,
Q: If we just go by this definition (as already discussed), we
because he already threw the victim in the bushes. So,
can already eliminate consummated. It can only be attempted
or frustrated. So, how do we determined whether it is he thought that he had performed all acts of execution.
attempted or frustrated? Why? Was there any indication in
the case as to the nature of the wound caused to the woman?
In the Iligan case, if we stop at the hacking, you have an idea In People v. Listerio, the accused, who were carrying steel pipes
as to what kind of wound. What kind? and bladed weapons, mauled the victims. One of the victims was
A: Superficial wound. given a blow to such extent that he lost consciousness. Since he
lost consciousness, the accused thought that they had already
Q: Was that attempted? killed him or that they had performed all acts of execution. So,
A: Attempted. again, they passed through the subjective phase. But, the
definition is the crime included between the act which begins the In objective phase, the person has no control anymore
commission of the crime and the last act performed by the over the result of his crime.
offender. Almost the same. That is in the mind of the perpetrator.
He started and he supposedly performed the last act in his mind.
[To Agapito]
In Eduvae and Listerio, they passed through the subjective Q: Suppose he has inflicted a fatal wound, he had a change
phase. But, we don’t have an idea on what kind of wound was of heart, brought the victim to the hospital, the victim
caused. survives. Will he be criminally liable?
A: Physical injuries.
Q: What was the wound inflicted in People v. Listerio?
A: Non-fatal. Q: Not for frustrated homicide?
A: No.
Q: So, if non-fatal, then, based on our definition, what stage
would that be? Q: He performed already all acts of execution and inflicted a
A: Attempted only. mortal or fatal wound. He had a change of heart. He brought
the victim to the hospital. The victim died. Will he be liable for
Q: But in that case, what was the ruling? consummated felony?
A: Frustrated, meaning, they have performed all acts of execution. A: Yes.
But in reality, based on your statement earlier that a fatal wound
should be caused, it will only be attempted. Q: Does his change of heart have an effect upon his liability?
A: No answer given.
Q: So, if we base it on our definition, what will be our
conclusion in People v. Listerio? [To Pangilinan]
A: Attempted only. Q: If the victim survives, what is his liability?
But the SC considered the other standard in determining A: Attempted felony, because independent of the will of the
whether the perpetrator has passed through the perpetrator.
subjective phase or not.
[To Mesina]
Q: The felony is not produced because of his will, what is his
Q: Regardless of the stage based on our definition, did the liability?
accused pass through the subjective phase? A: Frustrated felony.
A: Yes. Frustrated. In both cases of Eduave and Listerio.
Q: If the perpetrator commences, he does not perform all acts
In People v. Trinidad, the accused fired two shots, hitting the of execution, he desists spontaneously, will he be liable?
victim on his thighs. The SC ruled that it was only attempted A: No. [Agapito and Mesina]
murder because the accused has not performed all acts of
execution that would have brought his death. In here, the court [To Agapito]
laid down a doctrinal rule that if the wound is not fatal, then it is Q: He had a knife. He stabbed the victim. He did not hit. He
only attempted. hit superficial wound only. But then later, his wife called him,
RULE: If the wound is superficial, not fatal, it is only “Pedro let’s eat already,” and stopped. Is he criminally liable?
attempted. But if the wound is fatal, all acts of execution He was not able to inflict a mortal wound.
A: Only for physical injuries, because there was spontaneous
have been performed, then it would be a frustrated felony
desistance.
if the felony is not produced.
[To Mesina]
Q: Why would he be liable?
If we follow the rule in Trinidad and we determine in Listerio that A:
the wound was not fatal, so if we follow Trinidad, our ruling will just
be attempted murder. But pursuant to Eduave and Listerio, there His intended crime is to kill. So homicide. If he commenced directly
is another criteria for determining whether it is attempted or by overt acts but he spontaneously desisted, but caused
frustrated. BUT, we use this criteria only when we do not have an superficial wound only, he would not be liable for attempted
idea on whether or not the wound is fatal. In Listerio, the victim homicide, but only for physical injuries. Because his intent to kill
lost consciousness, and they thought they already killed the was diminished. So, he is liable not anymore for attempted
victim. Otherwise, the general rule will be applied. If no fatal homicide. His acts constitute another felony punishable under the
wound, attempted. RPC. That would be physical injuries. That is for attempted.
If there is a fatal wound, frustrated. But then, if there is
no clarity as to the wound inflicted, but then the But for frustrated, he already performed all acts of execution. Then
perpetrator already believed that he has performed all he did not desist because he has already performed all acts of
acts of execution, then frustrated. execution but he had a change of heart, so he brought the victim
to the hospital. The victim survived. So, what he prevented was
the production of the felony, not the performance of all the acts of
But in People v. Sy, the accused shot the victim, but the latter ran execution.
away. The perpetrator did not chase him. But in his mind, he
believed he has not yet inflicted a fatal wound. Attempted only. [To Mesina]
Q: Is he liable?
So, we use the objective and subjective phase as an exception. A:
We still use the definition based on Art. 6. Agapito: Physical injuries
Mesina: Frustrated homicide
Pangilinan: Frustrated homicide
NOTE: Sir did not say the correct answer. For corruption also, it is consummated by the mere offer of the
person corrupting the public officer.
***
Felony is an act or omission. In some instances, it needs the agreement of both parties.
We know what an act is punishable by the RPC.
But in usual crimes we know (material crimes), it is always
Q: What is an overt act? attempted, frustrated and consummated, these three stages. But
A: An overt act is any physical activity or deed that indicates the there are felonies that on the basis of their elements and manner
intention to commit a crime, which is more than a mere planning, of commission, there can be no three stages – only consummated.
without being frustrated or attempted, which if allowed to
continue to its complete termination will naturally and logically We discussed earlier that for homicide or murder, it is attempted
ripen into a crime. if there is no mortal wound, but if there is fatal wound, it will be
frustrated if the victim has not died.
In contrast to an act in the definition of a felony, an act here is a
neutral act. it does not indicate yet the intention to commit a crime. b. Specific felonies
It is just some physical activity or deed, tending to produce an i. Rape
effect in the external world. But this overt act, it is a physical
activity or deed which indicates the intention to commit a crime Q: How about in rape?
already. That is why it is called an overt act. It is different from the A: There is no frustrated stage (People vs. Orita).
act in defining a felony. So, by these overt acts, you know already
that he is trying to commit a felony. In People v. Erinia, the SC ruled that it was frustrated rape.
In the case of People v. Lamahang, the accused was trying to Q: Why did the SC rule frustrated rape in Erinia?
get the wooden blocks in the store. He was charged with robbery. A: There was no conclusive evidence of penetration.
Our thinking is that if a person is trying to gain entry into
a house, his purpose is to rob. But in People vs. Orita, the SC ruled that Erinia is a stray
decision. Based on the elements and the manner of commission,
But the SC gave us an idea in this case that his overt act there should be no frustrated rape. It is either attempted or
(that which indicates already a mentality to commit a consummated – it is either in or out.
particular crime).
In People v. Hernandez, it does not matter whether there is full
penetration or not. Any penetration, no matter how slight, already
consummates the offense.
Q: So, the act of breaking open a wooden block, does this
Previously, the rupture was required to consummate
indicate the intention to commit a crime already?
A: Yes. rape. If you want to be literary, you read People v.
Campuhan – stripping the “citadels of passion.”
Q: For what crime?
A: Not clear – not correct to say robbery. The act of entering may
result in different felonies. So, the crime is still indeterminate. The ii. Theft
purpose could have been to rob, to kill, or kidnap. But the overt
act of destroying the wooden blocks already indicates a particular Q: How about in theft? What happened in Adiao, Dino and,
crime and that would be trespass to dwelling. From that particular Valenzuela?
act, only one crime is possible. It is trespass to dwelling. You A:
cannot jump into conclusions that he is robbing or raping the
Chinaman. U.S. V. ADIAO
G.R. No. L-13785, October 8, 1918
Overt act will indicate an intention to commit a particular crime,
different from the act in defining a felony which is some physical FACTS:
activity or deed. Defendant, Tomas Adiao, a customs inspector, abstracted a
leather belt valued at P0.80, from the baggage of a Japanese
In stages of commission, it is important for us to know the manner named T. Murakami, and secreted the belt in his desk in the
of commission of the crime. Custom House, where it was found by other customs employees.
The defendant was charged with theft. He was found guilty of
Q: You know what slander by deed is? Example of slander by the lesser crime of frustrated theft. He appealed to the CFI and
deed? was found guilty, again, of frustrated theft.
A: Slapping.
ISSUE: WON the conviction for frustrated theft is proper.
Q: Is there an attempted slander?
A: None. It is always consummated because of the manner of HELD: No, he should be convicted for consummated theft.
commission of the crime. It is always consummated.
Based on these facts, the Court is of the opinion that the crime
In an attempt to flee to a hostile country, the mere attempt is cannot properly be classified as frustrated, as this word is defined
already consummated. There is no need for that person to arrive in Article 3 of the Penal Code, but that since the offender
at another country. So you should take a look at the manner of performed ALL of the acts of execution necessary for the
commission. accomplishment crime of theft.
Adiao was convicted of consummated theft because there was d. Republic Act No. 9165
already taking, although he was not able to get it out of his office.
That is not essential in committing the offense. You remember People v. Enriquez, the buy-bust case. Enriquez
was carrying the marijuana. They were in the waiting shed and it
In People v. Dino, the accused took rifles from a military base. was at that time that the police declared that he was a police
The articles were loaded in a truck. When they reached the officer. The accused said that he should be charged and convicted
checkpoint, the security guard apprehended them before they only of attempted delivery, because it is quite problematic for
could get out of the military base. The SC ruled that it was only crimes under special penal laws. The act prohibited should be
frustrated theft because they were not able to take the articles out consummated always. There is no frustrated or attempted in
of the checkpoint and that in order to be a consummated theft, it special penal laws.
should have passed the checkpoint.
The SC said in this case that there was delivery already. Although
Q: What additional element of the crime was stated by the CA the SC said that frustrated and attempted stages do not apply in
here? crimes punished under special penal laws.
A: Full control and enjoyment of the thing stolen.
Q: Then, we have this R.A. 9165, sec. 26. What does it punish?
Q: But then, in Valenzuela v. People, what did the SC rule? A: They are penalized as if they have been consummated already.
A: There was consummated theft because the detergents were So, there is a problem created by People v. Enriquez,
already taken out of the grocery premises. The court declared because in R.A. 9165, it only mentions that even an
further that there is no frustrated theft. attempt is punished as if it has been consummated
already.
Q: What is the final act in theft?
A: The unlawful taking of the property.
Take note that it punishes conspiracy already in any of
Q: What do we call this? these crimes.
A: Asportation.
iii. Robbery
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or
The gravamen of the offense of theft is unlawful taking of personal conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be
property of another – asportation. This is also true in robbery. penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission
of the same as provided under this Act:
In Lamahang, there is no unlawful taking yet. They were trying to
enter the store of the Chinaman. But in Salvilla, there was taking (a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
already; they demanded money and watch, placed in a paper bag. precursor and essential chemical;
There was unlawful taking already. (b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation of any dangerous
So, there are no frustrated rape and theft. drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical;
Q: How about in arson? Is there a frustrated stage? (c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any
A: No answer given. Look at decided cases of the SC. dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
iv. Murder (e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of
dangerous drugs.
We discussed murder already. Although the SC said in Borinaga
it is frustrated murder, but he just hit the back of the chair so how
can that be frustrated?
February 17, 2018
There is a dissent. What was prevented was not the killing of the
person, but the fact that the knife hit the back of the chair instead.
The SC has not come up a decision overturning Borinaga. 3. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony
a. Arts. 8, 115, 136, 141, 186, 306
But in People v. Sy, artificial wound. The victim was able to
escape. The perpetrator did not chase him. He knew subjectively Q: What is conspiracy?
and objectively that it was only in the attempted stage.
65 Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. - Conspiracy There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony
and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in the cases in which proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
Q: What does “collectivizing criminal liability” mean? 3) Conspiracy to commit rebellion (Art. 136);
A: That all of the conspirators who acted in the furtherance of one
criminal design will be collectively, criminally liable. That is the 4) Conspiracy in monopolies and combinations in restraint
relevance. of trade (Art. 186); and
If the conspiracy or planned crime is executed, the conspirators 5) Conspiracy to commit insurrection (Art. 136)
will not be liable anymore for conspiracy but for the crime
committed.
This is a very special case. Conspiracy, according to Art. 6, should
Based on our discussion of persons criminally liable in criminal not be punished. Only attempted, frustrated, and consummated.
law 1, a person may only be criminally liable for his own acts. He But the law provides for certain conspiracies which are
cannot be liable for acts of another person. punishable.
Q: In evidence, can the acts of a third person prejudice us? Q: What is the common thread on these conspiracies?
A: No, res inter alios acta. A: Treason is a threat against external security of the state,
rebellion against internal security, same with coup d’etat and
In conspiracy, since it is a rule for collectivizing criminal liability, monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. So, it tackles
even if a third person commits the act, the co-conspirators will be the security and safety of the state.
liable. So, it is a rule for collectivizing criminal liability.
That is why, by the mere conspiracy, they are punished already.
Conspiracy as a separate, indictable offense: They are threat to our existence as a state.
Generally, conspiracy is not punishable, unless there is a law
punishing it. Q: Are there any other conspiracies punished, aside from
those punished in the RPC?
Q: Why is it not punishable, generally? A: Yes, under special laws.
A: 1) Selected acts committed under the Dangerous Drugs
Act;
Q: In last meeting, we discussed stages of commission. 2) Espionage
Which stages are punishable? 3) Illegal Association;
A: Attempted, frustrated, and consummated. See Art. 6 and 7.66 4) Highway Robbery;
Light felonies are punishable only when they have been 5) Arson; and
consummated. Not all attempted and frustrated light felonies are
66 Article 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. - which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and other than this own spontaneous desistance.
attempted, are punishable.
Article 7. When light felonies are punishable. - Light felonies are
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its punishable only when they have been consummated, with the exception
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the of those committed against person or property.
offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
The first argument he said, there was no combingation or series Q: What did the SC say regarding that? He’s saying that he
as against him. It was cited only in one of the predicate crimes – cannot be in conspiracy with President Estrada and the
in illegal jueteng. So, he said, there is no combination or series as others, because he is cited only in one of the predicate crimes
against him. – illegal gambling.
Q: What did the SC say to that? Q: There are four, right? In the three, was he mentioned?
A: In the Information, it was alleged that they committed it in A: No.
several instances. According to the SC, several instances must be
understood as series of predicate acts. Q: So, how can he be in conspiracy with all of these
So, not combination or series. personalities when he was mentioned only in one?
A: The SC said that Jinggoy can only be held liable for the
The information did not state the actual word, “combination or predicate act where his name was alleged as a co-conspirator of
series.” What was used was “several instances.” President Estrada. Therefore, he cannot be tried and convicted
with the other three predicate acts.
Another issue is that the act of conspiracy was not specifically
alleged in the Information. The SC looked into two kinds of Q: Can he be convicted of plunder?
A: conspiracy – to amass, accumulate ill-gotten wealth. And
Jinggoy is part of that, so he cannot argue that he is not
Q: We can settle this by discussing wheel and chain part of the conspiracy, even though he figured only in one
conspiracies. What are these?
predicate crime.
A: In the American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused
in multiple conspiracies commonly involves two structures:
1) the so-called wheel or circle conspiracy, in which there That is why, the SC discussed these two conspiracies.
is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually
This was already asked in the Bar exams.
with two or more other persons or groups (the spokes);
In the case, the example given is a In multiple offenders, we are talking of persons:
manufacturer, wholesaler/distributor, retailer, 1) Recidivist
then to the sari-sari store. It is consequential.
This is the chain conspiracy. 2) Reiteracion
3) Quasi-recidivist
Q: In this case, what is the conspiracy used?
A: From a reading of the Amended Information, the case at bar 4) Habitual delinquent
appears similar to a wheel conspiracy. The hub is former
President Estrada while the spokes are all the accused, and the
rim that encloses the spokes is the common goal in the overall Q: Who is a recidivist?
conspiracy, i.e., the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-
gotten wealth.
Jinggoy is deemed part of this conspiracy, but he is just
one of the spokes. So, he cannot argue that he is not part
of the conspiracy. There are two kinds of conspiracies. If
he is talking about the chain, it is not existing in this case.
What was used by the former President is the wheel
conspiracy, with regard to the GSIS, SSS, he talked to
some different persons. But they still belong to one grave
A: A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, Criminal Case No. 1566. The former counsel de oficio of herein
shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another accused alleged that the judgment in Criminal Case No. 1473 was
crime embraced in the same title of this Code. See Art. 14(9)67 rendered on September 15, 1983, hence when the accused was
The only thing that you remember in recidivism is, “Are arraigned on October 11, 1983 for Criminal Case No. 1566 he was
the two crimes embraced in the same title?” not a recidivist.
The former counsel de oficio is of the opinion that "the time of
If you are faced with a question about multiple offenders, trial" is to be reckoned with the date of the arraignment. The
phrase "at the time of his trial" should not be restrictively construed
take a look at whether the crime is embraced in the same
as to mean the date of arraignment.
title. If they are, then probably, he will be a recidivist.
We declared in People vs. Enriquez, 90 Phil. 428, that the
But for recidivism to exist, he should have been phrase "at the time of his trial for an offense" is employed in its
previously convicted. general sense, including the rendering of the judgment. In US vs.
Karelsen, 3 Phil. 23, We held that the phrase "at the trial" is meant
It is not required that he has served already. If he is to include everything that is done in the course of the trial, from
convicted, he serves it, then, reiteracion will come into arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in
open court. In the case at bar, the accused was convicted of
play. He has served it already.
homicide in Criminal Case No. 1473 on September 15, 1983.
There being no appeal, the judgment therein became final on
Suppose he is previously convicted 20 years ago, time October 11, 1983. The second conviction was rendered on
does not matter for recidivism. He may have been October 26, 1983 for Murder. Hence, it is crystal clear that the
convicted 30 years ago, 100 years ago. This is not time- accused is a recidivist: the accused had been convicted by final
bound. The only requirement is that he is convicted for judgment at the time of the rendition of the judgment for the
the second time for an offense embraced in the same title second offense.
as the first offense. Necessarily, the first and the second
are both felonies, because they cannot be in a special Q: In this case, what was the stage of the second offense?
A: Arraignment.
penal law. If it is a special penal law, then they are not
embraced anymore in the same title. Q: In the rules of remedial law, is arraignment part of the trial?
A: When we talk of trial, strictly, it is the presentation of evidence
Our concern here is that there is a statement here “at the or the reception of evidence for both the prosecution and the
time of his trial.” Otherwise, our only concern is that he is defense. So, arraignment is not yet part of the trial.
convicted twice, two offenses embraced in the same title.
Q: Reiteracion is provided in what article?
A: Art. 14(10). Both recidivism and reiteracion are aggravating
PEOPLE v. LAGARTO circumstances (AC).
G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991
Q: Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance. What kind?
A: Generic aggravating circumstance.
FACTS:
Lagarto fatally stabbed the deceased in the market. The
Q: As a generic aggravating circumstance, what is its effect
accused was charged with murder under Art. 248 against him,
on the criminal liability of the person?
with treachery and evident premeditation. The information alleged
A:
that he was a recidivist, having been previously convicted of the
crime of homicide and was rendered September 15, 1983 and the
Q: If there are three aggravating circumstances, no
decision for which became final on October 11, 1983.
mitigating, can it be increased by one degree?
The date of the commission of the offense for which the
A:
accused is being charged is October 26, 1983, which was
subsequent to the date of his conviction for homicide.
Q: 10 aggravating circumstances, no mitigating, can the
penalty be increased to one degree or two degrees higher? Is
ISSUE: WON the court correctly appreciated the existence of
there such an instance?
recidivism.
A:
HELD: Yes.
Q: At no time can the penalty be increased to degree higher,
even if there are 100 aggravating circumstances?
We find, as the trial court found, that the accused is a
A:
recidivist. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one
Q: But for mitigating, 100 mitigating circumstances, no
crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of
aggravating, is it possible to reduce by one degree lower?
another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal
A:
Code. Herein accused had been convicted of the crime of
homicide in Criminal Case No. 1473 before the trial of the present
Q: What is the worst kind of multiple offender?
67Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have
aggravating circumstances: been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced
in the same title of this Code.
xxx
68 Article 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual
criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have
imposed for another offense; Penalty. - Besides the provisions of Rule 5
already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it
of Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been
after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or
circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.
while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
It is also considered a generic aggravating circumstance; the
Q: What happens if the prescribed penalty is already in the effect of the penalty is to increase it.
minimum, medium or maximum, and there is one generic
aggravating circumstance? Q: Who is a habitual delinquent?
A: The variance would be into the number of years, containing the A: A habitual delinquent is a person who, within a period of 10
minimum period of prision mayor [Fogata] years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes
of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa,
Q: If there is a generic AC, definitely, the penalty will be or falsification, is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third time
increased. There is no question there. But the problem is, or oftener.
how many degrees higher or periods higher?
A: Q: What is the effect on the penalty?
A: Additional penalty. See Art. 62(5).69
Q: If there are 10 AC, no MC, can you increase by one degree?
A: Q: Is this special also?
A: No, extraordinary.
Q: If there is 1 generic AC and the prescribed penalty is
prision mayor minimum, what penalty will you impose? Q: What is the effect on the criminal liability?
A: A: An additional penalty is imposed, depending on whether it is
the third, fourth, or fifth conviction.
In quasi-recidivism, we are quite sure that we shall apply the He will be punished for the last offense, plus another
maximum period. In Art. 48, the penalty for the most serious crime penalty.
will be applied in its maximum period.
There is no effect anymore for the penalty for the last
Q: Does it say for generic AC, you should impose the penalty
crime. There is no increase.
in its maximum period?
A: No, it just increases.
But we have a problem on how many periods (or Because in quasi-recidivism, it should be imposed in the
degrees) to increase. maximum period. In generic AC, the penalty will be
increased for the last crime. in here, an additional penalty
So far, what has been settled is that a generic AC will is imposed, no effect on the penalty imposed for the
increase the penalty. second offense.
This is not a perfect definition because it states, “to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty” in relation to the latest crime.
69 5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects: additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods;
and
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
provided by law for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to
additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
periods;
temporal in its minimum period.
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty
provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and to the
But with MC, then it will be offset. It does not necessarily delinquency. That, we think, would be unwarranted interpretation
lead to an increase in the penalty. of the Habitual Delinquency Law.
Article 101 is also your legal basis for determining WON there is
criminal liability or civil liability in Art 11 and 12.
Q. Why is self-defense considered a justifying circumstance?
A.
Q. What is the other term for par. 4 of Art. 11 “Avoidance of
greater evil or injury”? 1. When a man is exposed to peril against his life or limb, it is
natural thing to protect himself
A. Doctrine of State of Necessity
It is a basic human instinct to protect ourselves when we are
being attack.
(No one got it correct) 2. The impossibility on the part of the State to avoid a present
unjust aggression and protect a person unlawfully attacked, and
70Art.11 (4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, insolvent, said insane, imbecile or minor shall
does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the
respond with their own property, excepting property
ffg requisites are present:
exempt from execution, in accordance with civil law.
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second: In cases falling within the subdivision 4 of
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
Art. 11, the persons whose benefit the harm has
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to
preventing it. the benefit that may received.
(Atty Dan: ”If you understand the reason behind the rule, then
that’s the best kind of knowledge, right?”) In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed but no
criminal liability arises.
(4) Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
care, causes an injury by mere ACCIDENT without fault or
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES: intention of causing it.
3. Defense of Strangers
72Art. 249 of the Civil Code: the owner of lawful reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For usurpation of his property
this purpose, he may use such force as may be
The distance which required a journey for 3 days was Q. What is the rule when it comes to defense involving right to
considered an insuperable cause. Hence, it was held that the property?
accused was exempt from criminal liability.
A.Defense of property can be invoked as a justifying
circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the
PEOPLE vs BANDIAN(the pregnant woman) person of one entrusted with said property.
A mother who at the time of childbirth was overcome by severe
dizziness and extreme debility and left the child in a thicket Atty. Dan: “This is a useless self-defense”
where said child died, is not liable for infanticide73, because it
was physically impossible for her to take home the child.
The severe dizziness and extreme debility of the woman
constitute an insuperable cause. (It was beyond her control)
The act performed by the appellant in the morning by going RE: DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
into the thicket, according to her, to respond to call of nature,
notwithstanding the fact that she had fever for a long time, was
perfectly lawful.
PEOPLE vs APOLINAR
Q. Why infanticide? Or is it parricide74? Facts: The accused, armed with a shotgun, was looking over
A. Infanticide, the child is less than 3 days of age his land. He noticed a ma carrying a bundle on his shoulder.
Believing that the man had stolen his palay, the accused
Take note: In infanticide, it can be any child (less than 3 days shouted for him to stop, and as he did not, the accused fired in
of age) of any person, while in parricide, it is necessary that the air and then at him, causing his death.
the killer is the father or mother of the child. Held: Defense of property is not of such importance as right to
life, and defense of property can be invoked as a justifying
circumstance only when it is coupled with an attack on the
***Back to SELF-DEFENSE person of one entrusted with said property.
Missing element: Unlawful aggression
Elements of Self-Defense:
*prevent - the unlawful aggression is “not yet happening RE: DEFENSE OF HONOR
but about to be committed” (imminent danger)
73 Art 155. Infanticide. The penalty provided for parricide 74 Art. 246. Parricide. Any person who shall kill his father,
in Art. 246 and for murder in Art. 248 shall be imposed mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any
upon any person who shall kill any child less than three of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse, shall be
days of age (xxx) guilty of parricide and shall be punished by penalty of
reclusion perpetua
The means employed by the accused was evidently excessive. because then he was the aggressor and the 3rd element for
The chapel was lighted with electric lights, and there were self-defense is limited only to the person defending himself.
several people, including her father and the barrio lieutenant,
inside the chapel. Under the circumstances, there was and
there could be no possibility of her being raped. Q. So in self-defense, unlawful aggression is an indispensable
requirement?
1. there was unlawful aggression A. No, the police officer is fulfilling his duty. In fact, its a justifying
circumstance. .
2. Reasonable necessity of the use of the knife
Q. What if the husband saw the wife kissing other man? Will he
be justified in boxing the wife?
Favorite in the bar exam - people vs alconga.
(justified? Mitigating? Art. 247?)
PROVOCATION
Atty Dan: In this case, there was no actual attack yet. The Provocation may have been given by the person defending but it
policeman was just approaching the black soldier, from 12 ft away is not sufficient
to 3-6 ft away when the soldier shot him.Valid self-defense?
Lack of Sufficient provocation.
So there are three instances here:
1. If the person defending gave no provocation at all
2. If the person defending gave provocation but is not sufficient
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION 3. He gave provocation but on a previous date, not immediately
preceding the aggression.
Q. Was there unlawful aggression?
PEOPLE vs SUMICAD
A. YES, the soldier was in imminent danger. (IMMINENT The aggressor was a bully, a man larger and stronger, of
ATTACK) known violent character, with previous criminal records for
assault. He attacked with fist blows a smaller man who was
then armed with a bolo. In spite of having received, as a
warning, a cut with a bolo on the left shoulder, the aggressor
When we talk of unlawful aggression - (1) actual attack; (2) continued to attempt to possess himself of the bolo. Killing him
imminent attack (not threat) with a bolo was justified in this case.
Q. Was there other options for the black soldier? ----------- B R E A K -------------------------
A: yes, he could have run away, or he could have shot the feet of
the policeman to prevent him for further advancing
Atty Dan: For defense of relative, just remember who are the
persons and that the third requisite is different in self-defense. Just
remember the first 2 in self-defense. The third one, even if there
REASONABLE NECESSITY OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED was a provocation given on the party defending (inaudible) did not
participate (inaudible).
There are two things that you should take a look--
In the third, there is also a change in the requisite in defense of a
1. Necessity of the course of action taken by the person making stranger, not compelled by any given motive or defense.
a defense
Of course, “stranger” pertains to any person. So, he can defend
2. Necessity of the means used.
himself, he can defend a relative, or a stranger.
COURSE OF ACTION. So the soldier could have just run away. The fourth justifying circumstance is avoidance of greater injury.75
That is one option of the black soldier. The SC said it was just right The requisites are also provided in the RPC.
him to stood his ground. In Boholst-Caballero, the wife was
75 Art 11 (4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or 1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
injury, does an act which causes damage to another,
2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
provided that the following requisites are present:
avoid it.
The first requisite: “must actually exist”- It’s not something which 3. The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that
is a product of the imagination. Must actually be proven to be committed.
existing.
TY VS PEOPLE
The second requisite: In cause of uncontrollable fear, it is upon
equal or greater injury. But for avoidance of greater injury in The mother of the accused incurred a hospital bill amounting to
justifying circumstance, it should be greater. Take note of par 6 of more than 1M. She issued several checks which bounced.
your Art 12.76 Defense: The issuance of those checks were to avoid greater
injury and that she acted out of uncontrollable fear. Otherwise
Third requisite: That’s why it’s a state of necessity. Because he her mother would be maltreated in the hospital.
has no other option That is his first and only option. There is no
other practicable and less harmful means. SC: The evil sought to be avoided did not exist. On
uncontrollable fear, the requisites are not present.
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR VS AVOIDANCE OF GREATER
INJURY
Q: How about an insane person? Does he have intelligence? Third, there was no other means. Either you marry or not.
Intent? None.
All the requisites are present.
Q: How about an imbecile? Intelligence, none.
March 10, 2018 - Criminal Law Review
Q: In an Accident: What is missing? Negligence and intent.
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful 76 Art 12 (6) Any person who acts under the impulse of
means of preventing it. an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
or another form of hostile behavior RULING: Genosa is not entitled to BWS as justifying
circumstance.
2. The acute battering incident -no unlawful aggression, the wife killed the husband while
sleeping
-characterized by brutality, destructiveness and sometimes, -no two cycles proved in this case, only one incident of acute
death; the battered woman has no control battering was established
-it was appreciated only as a mitigating circumstance
3. The tranquil, loving phase
Note: this case was decided on Jan 2004 before the
enactment of RA 9262 on March 2004
-the couple experience profound relief. The batterer may show a
tender and nurturing behavior towards his partner, and the The rule now is that even without unlawful aggression, the
battered woman also tries to convince herself that the battery will battered woman can still invoked RA 9262 as a justifying
never happen again circumstance --> Section 26 of RA9262 “notwithstanding the
absence of any elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the RPC”
Q. In order to constitute BWS, how many cycle there should be? RA 9262 supersedes Ppl vs Genosa
A. At least two
There are now 7 justifying circumstances, including BWS.
Q. What about puppy love? Highschool sweethearts? 3. Minority - above 15 y/o but below 18 y/o, unless acted with
discernment
Atty. Dan: better invoke minority
4. Causing an injury by mere accident while performing a lawful
act with due care
Q. How about man-to-man or woman-to-woman relationship? 5. Under the compulsion of an Irresistible force
A. Not covered, should be between a man and a woman 6. Under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury
I. Imbecility or Insanity
Sec. 26 of RA 9262
“Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering PEOPLE v. NUNEZ (1997)
from battered women syndrome do not incur criminal and civil -the accused was charged with kidnapping with murder
liability, notwithstanding the absence of any elements for -he, with the other accused, persuaded two kids to come with
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.” them
-one of the kids was immediately killed because he was poor
(his father was a jeepney driver) while the other was a son of a
businessman, and their purpose of kidnapping the two is to
extort money/ransom
PEOPLE vs GENOSA (2004) -one of the accused invoked imbecility, he was cutting the
In this case, the wife who killed her husband invoked BWS to grass instead of guarding their kidnapped victim (thus the latter
exempt from liability. was able to escape)
-the defense was found to be untenable; said incident was
Q. Were there expert witnesses? more of a negligence on his part or feeble mindedness which
A. There were experts witness establishing that the wife is cannot be equated to imbecility
suffering from symptoms of a battered woman. -to be an imbecile, he must not be able to distinguish right from
wrong
Imbecile - one who, while advanced in age, has a mental -he was sent to the psychopatic hospital on the same day of
development comparable to that of children between two and crime and arrest, indicating the police’s doubt of his mental
seven years of age normalcy
What about a joker? He is NOT. There is no complete Atty Dan: it is the burden of the defense to prove insanity; that is
deprivation of reason and intelligence why insanity as a defense is some sort of by way of confession
and avoidance;
-Use the irresistible impulse test The moral and legal presumption is that one acts with free
will and intelligence, and that a felonious or criminal act
has been done with deliberate intent, that is, with freedom
-EXEMPTING - it is covered in the term “insanity” if the unlawful
and intelligence. Whoever, therefore, invokes insanity as a
act of the accused is due to his mental disease or defect defense has the burden of proving its existence.
producing an irresistible impulse as when the accused has been
deprived or has lost the power of his will which would enable him Insanity is a defense in the nature of confession and
to prevent himself from doing the act avoidance, and as such must be adequately proved. The
law presumes that all persons are of sound mind, and that
-MITIGATING - if the mental disease/defect of the accused only acts are done consciously
diminishes the exercise of his will-power and did not deprive him
- the defense utterly failed to discharge its burden of proving
of the consciousness of his acts
that appellant was insane. The testimony or proof of appellants
insanity must relate to the time preceding or the very moment
of the commission of the offense charged
Q. What test do we follow in the Philippines? -The main circumstances presented by the defense that
remotely evinces that appellant was insane at that time was
A. Both his act of bumping the victim, without any apparent reason,
giving him a long hard look, and then eventually stabbing
him. However, this sequence of events cannot overcome the
legal presumption of sanity, let alone prove appellants insanity.
PEOPLE v. ROBIOS (2002)
-the accused was charged with complex crime of parricide with
unintentional abortion SOMNABULISM (sleepwalking) - where the acts of the person
-he did not present any evidence to contravene the allegation afflicted are automatic, is embraced in the plea of insanity and
that he killed his wife but interposed insanity as a defense must be clearly proven
RULING: the defense failed to meet the quantum of proof - considered an EXEMPTING circumstance
required to overthrow the presumption of sanity
- the court held that the claim of insanity was unsubstantiated
and wanting in material proof
- evidence points to his allegedly unsound mental
condition after the commission of the crime PEOPLE vs TANEO (1933)
-the accused who, while sleeping, suddenly got up, got a bolo
and upon meeting his wife who tried to stop him, wounded her
and also attacked other persons, is NOT criminally liable II. MINORITY
-it appearing that the act was committed while in a dream and
his acts were not voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal 1. 15 y/o and below (absolutely exempt)
liability.
-The expert doctor stated that considering the 2. above 15 y/o but below 18 y/o, without discernment
circumstances of the case, the defendant acted while in a
dream, under the influence of an hallucination and not in
his right mind.
-the act was done without criminal intent, taking into
Periods of criminal responsibility:
consideration the apparent lack of motive
1. Absolute Irresponsibility - 15 years and below
Sleepwalking is an exempting circumstance, covered in the term
2. Conditional Irresponsibility - 15 years and 1 day to 18 years
insanity. However, unlike in mitigating circumstances in Art 13,
there is no provision of “similar and analogous circumstances” in 3. Full Responsibility - 18 years or over to 70 years old
exempting circumstances.
4. Mitigated Responsibility - over 70 years of age.
TWO TEST OF DISCERNMENT: Section 6. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of
the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
1. Right or Wrong Test - capacity to understand between right
liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention
and wrong (Ppl vs Doquena)
program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
2. If fully understand the consequences of his/her actions (Ppl vs
Navarro)
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of
age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be
subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted
JOSE v PEOPLE (2005)
-police officers planned a buy bust operation in which they with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to
arrested Zarraga and Jose (13y/o) the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
-Jose was in a car with his cousin, Zarraga, when the
latter inquired from the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Guevarra, if
he could afford to buy shabu. SPO1 Guevarra replied in
the affirmative, after which the accused Zarraga called The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not
JOSE to bring out and hand over the shabu wrapped in include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in
plastic and white soft paper. JOSE handed over the accordance with existing laws.
plastic containing the shabu to accused Zarraga, who
handed the same to the poseur-buyer
-Aside from bringing out and handing over the plastic bag
to accused Zarraga, JOSE merely sat inside the car and
had no other participation whatsoever in the transaction INTERVENTION PROGRAM under Section 20
between the accused Zarraga and the poseur-buyer.
There is no evidence that JOSE knew what was inside The authority which will have an initial contact with the child
the plastic and soft white paper before and at the time he has the duty to immediately release the child to the
handed over the same to his cousin custody of his/her parents/guardian, or in the absence
- The claim of the OSG that the prosecution was able to prove thereof, the child’s nearest relative
that the petitioner conspired with his co-accused to
sell shabu to the poseur-buyer, and thereby proved the If the parents, guardians or nearest relatives cannot
capacity of the petitioner to discern right from wrong, is
be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child
untenable. Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between
two or more persons to commit a crime and decide to commit may be released to any of the following:
it. Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the parties to such
conspiracy to discern what is right from what is wrong. A duly registered nongovernmental or
religious organization;
A barangay official or a member of the Q. How about a minor over 15 but below 18 years old?
Barangay Council for the Protection of
Children (BCPC); A. Same procedure above, if said minor acted without
discernment.
A local social welfare and development
officer;
Q. Who determines whether the child acted with or without
The DSWD, when and where appropriate discernment?
Said authority shall also give notice to the local social A. Local social welfare and development officer who will make an
welfare and development officer who will determine the initial assessment (not case study because it will take long
appropriate programs in consultation with the child and to period of time)
the person having custody over the child
If the child has been found to be abandoned, Q. Where should the child be confined?
neglected or abused by his parents, or in the event
that the parents will not comply with the prevention A. Bahay Pag-asa, if ever he will be confined.
program, the proper petition for involuntary
commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or the Local
Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to
Bahay Pag-asa – refers to a 24-hour child-caring institution
the Child and Youth Welfare Code established, funded and managed by local government units
(LGUs) and licensed and/or accredited nongovernment
organizations (NGOs) providing short-term residential care for
children in conflict with the law who are above fifteen (15) but
15 and below Over 15 but Over 15 but below eighteen (18) years of age who are awaiting court
below 18 (without below 18 (WITH disposition of their cases or transfer to other agencies or
discernment) discernment) jurisdiction.
Released to Released to Penaty is not more
parents parents than 6 yrs
/guardians /guardians imprisonment:
----> intervention ---> intervention diversion Procedure: for child over 15 but below 18 y/o
program (Sec. 20) program (Sec. 20) programs
(alternative child 1. The police officer has the custody of the child (Initial Contact
appropriate with the Child)
proceedings)
Penalty exceeds 6 2. He will turn over the custody of the child to the local social
yrs imprisonment: welfare and development who will make an initial assessment
Court proceedings whether or not said child acted with discernment
--> TRIAL -->
automatic a) If the assessment is that there is NO discernment,
suspension of then the child should be immediately released to the
sentence parents/ guardian/ nearest relatives;
A. Automatic suspension of sentence, if found guilty Q. So if the child was 16y/o at the time of the crime, when trial
was completed and the court is about to render judgment, he is
19 years old already. Would there still be an automatic
suspension of sentence?
Section 38. Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years
of age at the time of the commission of the offense is found A: Yes, even if he is over 18 already, as long as during the
guilty of the offense charged, the court shall determine and commission of the offense, he is below 18 years old.
ascertain any civil liability which may have resulted from the
offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in
3 scenarios when the child in conflict with the law has
conflict with the law under suspended sentence, without reached 18 years old: (Section 40)
need of application: Provided, however, That suspension
of sentence shall still be applied even if the juvenile is 1. The court shall determine whether the child should be
already eighteen years (18) of age or more at the time of the discharged
pronouncement of his/her guilt.
2. The court shall promulgate the judgement
The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of
the promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not
Q. If the child reaches 21 years old, so there is only two option - material. What matters is that the offender committed the
discharge or promulgation of judgement? offense when he/she was still of tender age.
A. Yes, it can no longer be extended since the extension is only Thus, appellant may be confined in an agricultural camp
up to 21 years old. or any other training facility in accordance with Sec. 51
of Republic Act No. 9344.
-amends R.A. 9344 A child who is above twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15)
years of age and who commits an offense for the second time
or oftener: Provided, That the child was previously subjected to
Q. What is relevant here in RA 10630? a community-based intervention program, shall be deemed a
NEGLECTED CHILD under Presidential Decree No. 603, as
(since children are being used by syndicates) amended, and shall undergo an intensive intervention program
supervised by the local social welfare and development
officer: Provided, further, That, if the best interest of the child point of the bolo reached Omamdam's chest who was then
requires that he/she be placed in a youth care facility or ‘Bahay behind Bindoy.
Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or guardians shall execute a
written authorization for the voluntary commitment of the RULING: the Court acquitted Bindoy
Pacas and Bindoy were actually for the possession of the bolo.
child: Provided, finally, That if the child has no parents or
When Pacas let go of the bolo, Bindoy had pulled so violently
guardians or if they refuse or fail to execute the written that it flew towards his left side, at the very moment when
authorization for voluntary commitment, the proper petition for Emigdio Omamdam came up and who was therefore hit in the
involuntary commitment shall be immediately filed by the chest without Bindoy seeing him. Bindoy alleges that it was
DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 603, caused accidentally and without malicious intent because
as amended." he was only defending his possession of the bolo which
Pacas was trying to wrench away from him and his conduct
was perfectly lawful.
US v. TANEDO (1910)
-the accused, while hunting, saw wild chickens and fired a
SEC. 20-D. Joint Parental Responsibility. – Based on the shot. The slug, after hitting a wild chicken, recoiled ad struck
recommendation of the multi-disciplinary team of the IJISC, the the tenant who was a relative of the accused. The man who
was injured died
LSWDO or the DSWD, the court may require the parents of a
Held: If life is taken by misfortune or accident while the actor is
child in conflict with the law to undergo counseling or any other in the performance of a lawful act executed with due care and
intervention that, in the opinion of the court, would advance the without intention of doing harm, there is no criminal liability
welfare and best interest of the child
B. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
If he is negligent, he cannot avail “accident”, and will be liable for
reckless imprudence. In accident, there is no civil liability.
Elements:
Any person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible
force 1. the threat which causes fear is of an evil greater than or at
least equal to that which he is required to commit;
Illustration:
Preliminaries
A points a gun at B and ordered him to kill C. B killed C. B is not
liable because he was compelled by A using irresistible force. On
the other hand, A is criminally liable as a principal by
inducement.
77 Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11,
cases -The exemption from criminal liability established in the persons for whose benefit the harm has been
subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the
subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include benefit which they may have received.
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the
subject to the following rules:
proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the
civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane When the respective shares cannot be equitably
person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by determined, even approximately, or when the liability
one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of
acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever
having such person under their legal authority or control, the damages have been caused with the consent of the
unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made
their part. in the manner prescribed by special laws or regulations.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of
or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears
control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no
imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving
excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance always to the latter that part of their property exempt
with the civil law. from execution
EXTRA: In answering a question, do not start with the statement NOTE: In Art. 6 provides that all stages are punishable. But Art. 7
that there is no penalty. State first that there is no criminal liability, provides that light felonies are punishable generally only when
hence there is also no penalty. There is no imposable penalty consummated.
simply because there is no criminal liability. Penalty is just a
Q: What is the penalty for light felonies?
consequence of a person being held criminally liable. So don’t start
with penalty. It follows that there is no penalty when there is no
A: Light felonies are those infractions of law for
criminal liability. So you even need not state that there is no
the commission of which a penalty of arrest
penalty, it is understood already.
menor (1 day to 30 days) or a fine not
exceeding 40000 (as amended) pesos or both;
Hence, in one case, where a judge imposed the penalty of censure
is provided.
(or reprimanded) even if he acquitted the accused, it was held
that the judgment was improper since the person did not commit
NOTE: The penalty provided herein
a crime, and consequently, did not incur any criminal liability.
are those for consummated felonies.
EXTRA: The Absolutory cause is the brother of exempting
Q: How many degrees lower is the penalty for
circumstances, and not of justifying circumstances
a frustrated felony than that for a consummated
felony.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
A: one degree lower.
TIP: If you know the reason for the rule, you are very much ready b) ascendants,
for the Bar exam.
c) descendants,
3) Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from
criminal liability. - The penalties prescribed for d) legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters,
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are
Q: Who are those natural brothers and sisters?
such with respect to their: five relationships
A: At present, there are only two children in the
a) spouses,
family code, namely, legitimate and illegitimate
b) ascendants, children. The Natural child is a concept in the
old civil code but not in the family code.
c) descendants, Unfortunately for us, this concept has not been
amended.
d) legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and
sisters, Q: An adopted child, is he legitimate or
illegitimate?
e) or relatives by affinity within the same degrees,
A: Legitimate.
With the single exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article. Q: How about a natural child?
1. Death, 7. Destierro,
5. Prision correccional,
A: Illegitimate whose parents do not suffer from age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their
any legal impediment from marrying.82 parents.
NOTE: The RPC refers always to the Q: If the injury caused is Less Serious or Slight Physical injuries,
“legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and is there a penalty?
sisters”.
A: There is no penalty, hence an absolutory cause.
e) or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, Q: What if the person kills or inflicts physical injuries, is
there a penalty?
Q: Who are these persons? A: Yes. He shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
Q: Is this circumstance an absolutory cause
A: i) Ascendants-in-law e.g. grand father in
even if the law imposes destierro, which is a penalty?
law; ii) Descendants-in-law; iii) legitimate,
NOTE: when you say it is an absolutory cause,
natural, and adopted brothers-in-law and
there should be no criminal liability, hence, no penalty.
sisters-in-law.
But in Art. 247, you would wonder that there is no
penalty only when the injury caused is less serious or
NOTE: Only these accessories are exempt from criminal liability.
slight physical injuries. But if the innocent spouse kills or
RATIONALE: The public policy or sentiment behind the
inflicts serious physical injuries, he will suffer the penalty
absolutory cause is that, since the principal is their close relatives,
of destierro. In art. 25, destierro is one of the penalties.
the law recognizes that it may be natural for the accessories to
Accordingly, he is not totally absolved from criminal
protect their close relatives. Blood relation and to preserve honor
liability. Nonetheless, the annotations always say that
of the family.
Art. 247 is an absolutory cause.
Q: If you will be asked in the bar if Art. 247 is an
XPN; WHEN NOT EXEMPT: Those who, although related,
absolutory cause, what would be your answer?
profited themselves or assisted the offender to profit by the
A: You distinguish. There are 2 scenarios in art. 247,
effects of the crime.
namely, first, if the resulting injury is merely slight or less
RATIONALE: In this case, the accessory is not impelled
serious physical injuries, then it is an absolutory cause
to protect the principal but to profit or for their own financial gain.
since the person does not incur criminal liability. On the
other hand, if we strictly interpret art. 247 with regard to
4) Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
that circumstance resulting to death or serious physical
exceptional circumstances. - Any legally married person
injuries, it cannot be considered as an absolutory cause
who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing
because the penalty of destierro is imposed; however for
sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them
some
or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall
Commentators, they believe this provision still
inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the
constitutes as an absolutory cause because despite the
penalty of destierro.
gravity of the crime committed, only
the very slight penalty of destierro is imposed and such
penalty is imposed more for the benefit of the accused;
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he and in that sense it may be considered as an absolutory
shall be exempt from punishment. cause.
TIP: If you understand the rule, then you can know how
to explain and provide an answer. You actually don’t
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to
have the option to choose which the correct
parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of
82 Article 269. Only natural children can be legitimated. disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, are
Children born outside wedlock of parents who, at the natural.
time of the conception of the former, were not
interpretation is. You just place your initial position, and crime committed and it is for the benefit of the accused,
then explain that you know that there is another then you can mention that it is also an absolutory cause?
interpretation and place it in your answer. The examiner
will know that you know the rule and the reasons behind NOTE: ART. 247 Applies not only to married spouses but also to
the rule, but you made a judgement that since destierro parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years
is a penalty, it is not totally an absolutory cause, but if of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with
you give the additional reasoning that it is more for the their parents.
benefit of the accused, then it might be beneficial to the
accused
-Art. 247 can also be invoked by the parents with
regard to their daughter, but not with regard to
REQUISITES: As to husband with respect to his their son.
spouse i) person who can be invoked are the parents;
1) Any legally married person ii) with regard to their daughter under 18 years of age,
and her seducer,
2) having surprised his spouse in the act of committing iii) and the daughter should be living with her parents;
sexual intercourse with another person, iv) surprise the daughter and seducer while having
sexual intercourse;
3) kills or injures any of them or both of them in the v) kills or injures any of them or both of them in the act
act or immediately thereafter, or immediately thereafter.
2. For the purpose of rendering some service to Condition: before the same shall have passed into
humanity or justice: the possession of another
e.g. Good Samaritan rule: to assist a woman who is about to -either widow or widower
give birth.
e.g. if you steal the car of your brother or sister. But only if you
are living together (so you stick with your brother or sister
Problem: For example there is a conspiracy, 4 persons who
who is rich :D)
commit the crimes of theft, swindling or malicious mischief against
2. Swindling86- generally any person who shall defraud the brother or sister, or against any of those persons identified,
another. but only one is among those relatives identified, the 3 others are
not related to the victim. What are their criminal liabilities?
84 Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. - 3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-
No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the law, if living together.
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by the following The exemption established by this article shall not be
persons: applicable to strangers participating in the commission of
the crime.
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by
85 Article 308. Who are liable for theft. -
affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property 86 Article 315. Swindling (estafa).
which belonged to the deceased spouse before the same 87 Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief
shall have passed into the possession of another; and
A: “As regards to the other 3 who are strangers, they are 2. Abduction
criminally liable for theft, swindling or malicious mischief but the
other one who falls within the 3 enumerations is exempted from 3. Acts of lasciviousness
criminal liability.” (Bantay)
A: Yes. They will also be exempt from criminal liability. That’s the
As to what are the Crimes involved: (only 3 crimes) effect of marriage, just like pardon.
88 Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, offender has been expressly pardoned by the above
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of named persons, as the case may be.
lasciviousness. - The crimes of adultery and concubinage
shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended
the offended spouse.
party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this
without including both the guilty parties, if they are both paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals,
alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-
pardoned the offenders. mentioned crimes.
90 EXTRA: Test buy - used in trademark infringement whom. Was the sale transaction actually consummated?
cases. After the test buy then you can apply for a search Did they get the merchandise? Did they pay for it? Then if
warrant and then conduct the raid. it is so, then they should prove in court that the item
itself, the dangerous drug, and they should also prove in
court the marked money, and prove that a contract of
Buy-bust - before the buy-bust, they arrange the marked sale actually occurred. Take a look at the police officers
money, if it is a sales transaction, they must prove that who served the items, and physical inventory, and ensure
there was an exchange of item and the money. Take a that the chain of custody was established. (Atty. Calica)
look at the conduct, and not anymore who induced
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT (1) Any of the essential elements of the crime charged is not
The instigator practically Ways and means are proved by the prosecution and the elements proved do not
induces the would-be resorted to for the constitute any crime.
accused into the purpose of trapping and (2) The act of the accused falls under any of the justifying
commission of the offense capturing the lawbreaker circumstances. (Art. 11)
and himself becomes a in the execution of his
(3) The case of the accused falls under any of the exempting
co-principal. criminal plan.
circumstances. (Art. 12)
(4) The case is covered by any of the absolutory causes:
(a) Spontaneous desistance during attempted stage
(Art. 6), and no crime under another provision of the RPC or
The law enforcer The means originates other penal law is committed.
conceives the commission from the mind of the (b) Light felony is only attempted or frustrated,
of the crime and suggests criminal. The idea and the and is not against persons or property. (Art. 7)
to the accused who resolve to commit the (c) The accessory is a relative of the principal.
adopts the idea and crime come from him. (Art. 20)
carries it into execution.
(d) Legal grounds for arbitrary detention.
(Art. 124)
(e) Legal grounds for trespass. (Art. 280)
(f) The crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief is
committed against a relative. (Art. 332)
A public officer or a The practice of
private detective induces entrapping persons into (g) When only slight or less serious physical injuries
an innocent person to crime for the purpose of are inflicted by the person who surprised his spouse or
commit a crime and would instituting criminal daughter in the act of sexual intercourse with another
arrest him upon or after prosecutions. It is a person. (Art. 247)
the commission of the scheme or technique (h) Marriage of the offender with the offended
crime by the latter. ensuring the party when the crime committed is rape, abduction,
apprehension of the
seduction, or acts of lasciviousness. (Art. 344)
criminals by being in the
actual crime scene. (i) Instigation.
(5) Guilt of the accused not established beyond reasonable doubt.
(6) Prescription of crimes. (Art. 89)
(7) Pardon by the offended party before the institution of criminal
action in crime against chastity. (Art. 344)
Must be made by public
officers or private
detectives.91
I. PRELIMINARIES: RULES IN APPRECIATING
The accused must be Is not a bar to the
MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
acquitted. prosecution and
conviction of the CIRCUMSTANCES:
lawbreaker.
It is an absolutory cause. It is not an absolutory 1. Determine first the imposable penalties for the crime
cause. to determine whether to apply either Art. 63 or Art. 64
A. Art. 6392;
Complete defenses in criminal cases: (Reyes)
91 Note: If the one who made the instigation is a private In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of
individual, not performing public function, both he and the two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed
in the application thereof:
one induced are criminally liable for the crime committed: 1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only
the former, as principal by induction; and the latter, as one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be
principal by direct participation. applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating
92
Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible 3. When the commission of the act is attended by some
penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
attended the commission of the deed. 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably
allow them to offset one another in consideration of their
1) when the law prescribes a single indivisible
penalty; NOTE; Qualifying aggravating: Art. 62(1) provides that
- it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any aggravating circumstances which:
mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may i. In themselves constitute a crime specially
have attended the commission of the deed. punishable by law.
-presence of any mitigating or aggravating - If it is a crime by itself. e.g. arson (use of
circumstances is immaterial. fire).
2) when it prescribes two indivisible penalties.
- This can happen only once, when the penalty a. When in the commission of the crime,
imposed is reclusion perpetua to death. advantage was taken by the offender of
a. When there are some mitigating circumstances, his public position, the penalty to be
and no aggravating circumstance imposed shall be in its maximum
-the lesser penalty shall be applied (reclusion regardless of mitigating circumstances.
perpetua)
b. When there is one aggravating and no The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the
mitigating offense was committed by any group who
-the higher penalty shall be applied (death) belongs to an organized/syndicated crime
c. No mitigating, no aggravating group.
-lesser penalty(reclusion perpetua)
d. Some mitigating, some aggravating. An organized/syndicated crime group means a
-offset, then apply preceding rules. group of two or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another
COMMENT: The provision favors the accused, since for purposes of gain in the commission of any
there is only one instance when the higher indivisible crime. (Art. 62(1)(a) as amended by RA 7659)
penalty (death) is applied, that is, when there is one
aggravating and no mitigating. In the two other ii. Are included by the law in defining a crime and
instances, the lesser penalty is to be applied. prescribing the penalty therefor.
- If it is an element of the crime.
NOTE: There are only 4 indivisible penalties, namely: - e.g. murder (use of fire or poision in killing the
i. Death person)
ii. Reclusion Perpetua - falsification by public officer (That advantage be
iii. Perpetual Absolute or Special Disqualification taken by the offender of his public position)94
iv. Public Censure shall not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty.
B. Art. 6493
1) NOTE: The classification of the circumstances is important in
determining which circumstance offsets which.
number and importance, for the purpose of applying the 4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are
penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class
the result of such compensation. against the other according to their relative weight.
93
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which 5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and
contain three periods. - In cases in which the penalties no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the
divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each period that it may deem applicable, according to the number
one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions and nature of such circumstances.
of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application 6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating
of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty
are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances: than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating 7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law the extent of the penalty according to the number and nature
in its medium period. of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the crime.
94
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary
minimum period. or ecclesiastic minister. – xxx any public officer, employee, or
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall
commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its falsify a document
maximum period.
since even if
Mitigating circumstances the penalty is
Ordinary Privileged lowered by
one or two
-one which lowers the -one which lowers the
degrees, the
penalty only by a period penalty by one or two
privileged
degrees
mitigating
-can be offset by generic Cannot be offset
does not
aggravating
qualify or
circumstance
affect the
nature of the
Aggravating circumstances crime.
Generic Specific Qualifying Inherent
NOTE: Only ordinary mitigating and generic aggravating can be
-those -those when it is an -those
offset by each other.
which are which are element of the that it
applicable applicable crime. (Art. must of
to all only to 62(1)) necessity II. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
crimes particular accompa NOTE: Art. 13 is not an exclusive list
crimes ny the
commissi EFFECTS IN GENERAL: Lessens or diminishes penalty either by
on period or degree.
thereof.
(Art.
62(2)) TWO KINDS; Ordinary, and Privileged
A. Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances95
-if the -can be offset by generic aggravating circumstance.
circumst -there are ten ordinary mitigating circumstances as
ance is enumerated by art. 13
either -but, not only ten since the list is not exclusive since par
the crime
10. provides for “similar or analogous circumstances”
itself Art.
62(1)
1. Incomplete Justifying and Exempting Circumstances
-one which -increases -not -not (ordinary mitigating) when not the majority of such
increases the penalty appreciated appreciat conditions be present;
the penalty by a period separately ed - If majority of the conditions provided for a justifying or
by a period separatel exempting circumstance are present, the same would be
y
considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance as
-can be -can be -cannot be -cannot
offset by offset offset be offset provided for in Art. 69.
ordinary NOTE: it
mitigating cannot be 2. Under 18 (privileged) or over 70 (ordinary);
circumstan offset even by - Since the circumstance of “over 15 but under 18 who
ce a privileged acted with discretion” is a privileged mitigating
mitigating circumstance as it lowers the penalty by a degree, not all
95
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same
mitigating circumstances; degrees.
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the 6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from criminal naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
liability in the respective cases are not attendant. 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over person in authority or his agents, or that he had voluntarily
seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be proceeded confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of
against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80. the evidence for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his means of
wrong as that committed. action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the 9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of
offended party immediately preceded the act. the will-power of the offender without however depriving him
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of of the consciousness of his acts.
a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his 10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and
analogous to those above mentioned.
circumstances enumerated under art. 13 are ordinary Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center
mitigating. (IJISC).97
- The said circumstance is always a privileged mitigating 2) For repeat offenders committed by above 12 up to 15
as provided by art. 68.96 years of age: A child who is above twelve (12) years of
age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who commits
NOTE: Art. 68(1) is not a good law anymore, because a an offense for the second time or oftener: Provided,
person who is under is already absolutely exempt from That the child was previously subjected to a community-
criminal liability as provided by RA 9344. based intervention program, shall be deemed a
neglected child.98
RA 9344, as amended by RA 10630
1) For serious crimes committed by above 12 up to 15
years of age: A child who is above twelve (12) years 3. Did not intend to commit so grave a wrong (praetor
of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who intentionem);
commits: Requisites
i. parricide, i. There must be a notable and evident
ii. murder, disproportion between the means employed to
iii. infanticide, execute the criminal act and its
iv. kidnapping and serious illegal detention where consequences.(Reyes citing US v. Reyes, 36 Phil
the victim is killed or raped, 904)
v. robbery, with homicide or rape, Illustrative case
vi. destructive arson, People v. Ural, 56 SCRA 138 (1974)
vii. rape, or FACTS: Policeman Ural maltreated Napola and set him
viii. carnapping where the driver or occupant is on fire inside the detention cell. When Ural started to
killed or raped, or notice the serious consequence of his act, he tried to
ix. offenses under Republic Act No. 9165 remove Napola’s burning shirt and put the fire out.
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of Napola sustained second-degree burns. Despite of the
2002) punishable by more than twelve (12) medical attention given, Napola died almost a month
years of imprisonment, after the incident. CFI convicted Ural of murder
shall be deemed a neglected child, and shall be (qualified by use of fire)99.
mandatorily placed in ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ called the ISSUE: WON the conviction is proper
HELD: Yes.
96
Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under voluntary commitment of the child: Provided, finally, That if the
eighteen years of age. - When the offender is a minor under child has no parents or guardians or if they refuse or fail to
eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions execute the written authorization for voluntary commitment,
of the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be
following rules shall be observed: immediately filed by the DSWD or the LSWDO pursuant to
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended."
99
is not exempted from liability by reason of the court having Article 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the
declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death, if
least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:
committed. 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
imposed, but always in the proper period. 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
97
SEC. 20-A 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
98
"SEC. 20-B. Repetition of Offenses. – A child who is above stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or
twelve (12) years of age up to fifteen (15) years of age and who locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or
commits an offense for the second time or oftener: Provided, with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.
That the child was previously subjected to a community-based 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
intervention program, shall be deemed a neglected child under preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, and shall undergo an volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
intensive intervention program supervised by the local social 5. With evident premeditation.
welfare and development officer: Provided, further, That, if the 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or
youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’, the child’s parents or corpse.
guardians shall execute a written authorization for the
DISCUSSION: The circumstances present in this case sufficient provocation on the part of the person
are: defending himself.
i. That the crime be committed by means of -the accused invokes the lack of sufficient provocation
fire.100 on his part
NOTE: this aggravating circumstance cannot
be appreciated separately since it qualifies the Illustrative case
killing to murder; hence, a qualifying People v. Leonor
aggravating circumstance.101 FACTS: The victim (dentist) in this case initially agreed
ii. That advantage be taken by the offender of his to give accused leonor a discount but later changed her
public position.102 mind. When the accused refused to avail the service, the
- Since the accused in this case is a police victim cursed the accused and pushed him. As a
officer, and the crime was committed while consequence of which, Leonor stabbed the victim. An
the victim was inside the detention cell. information for robbery with homicide was filed against
- The accused would not have been able to Leonor.
commit the crime were it not for his public
position. ISSUE: WON there is sufficient provocation
- Appreciated separately against the accused HELD: No, the cursing and pushing were not
in this case. commensurate to the stabbing.
iii. Praeter intentionem.103
- The accused merely intended to maltreat What ifs:
the victim and not to kill him Q: What if the dentist, while already performing the
- “He tried to remove Napola’s burning shirt service, used her tools to threaten Leonor. Would that
and put the fire out.” constitute unlawful aggression?
A: Yes, since the unlawful aggression contemplated by
Hence, in this case there were one generic aggravating, law includes immediate and imminent threats.
and one ordinary mitigating circumstance. Thus, the two
circumstances offset each other. NOTE: It is important to determine whether the act of
the offended constitutes unlawful aggression or
Since murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
sufficient provocation, because if it is the former, the
death,104 based on Art. 63(4) in connection with Art.
accused may already invoke self-defense
63(2), the lesser penalty between the indivisible
Q: What would constitute sufficient provocation which
penalties shall be applied. Thus, penalty of reclusion
do not constitute unlawful aggression
perpetua was imposed.
A: If the dentist threaten the accused that she would
slash him by pointing the tool from afar. In this case,
4. Sufficient provocation on the part of the offended
such act would still not constitute unlawful aggression.
party immediately preceded the act;
- This circumstance presupposes that the crime
should have been committed as soon as possible
5. Immediate vindication of a grave offense;
after the provocation was given
Requisites
- Time element is material, not mere proximate
i. That there be a grave offense done to the:
cause.
a. One committing the felony
- On the part of the offended party
b. His spouse
- The accused invokes sufficient provocation on the
c. Ascendants
part of the offended party.
d. Descendants
Requisites
e. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters
i. The provocation must be sufficient;
f. Or relatives by affinity within the same degrees
ii. It must originate from the offended party;
ii. The felony is commited in vindication of such grave
and
offense.
iii. The provocation must be immediate to the act
- As opposed to sufficient provocation, the circumstance
of immediate vindication admits of an interval of time
RELATE TO: Self-defense has three requisites: 1. - But there must be no sufficient time to enable the
Unlawful aggression; 2. Reasonable necessity of the accused to recover his serenity.
means employed to prevent or repel it; 3. Lack of
100 103
Art. 14(12) Art. 13(3)
101 104
Art. 62(1) Art. 248
102
Art. 14(1)
- It is different from sufficient provocation. In this case, offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
there might be an interval of time. ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
- What is essential is that the proximate cause of the brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
attack is the grave offense earlier committed degrees." The established rule is that there can be no
- The grave offense must be against immediate vindication of a grave offense when the
accused had sufficient time to recover his equanimity.
Illustrative case In the case at bar, the accused-appellant points to the alleged
US v. Ampar, 37 Phil 201 (1917) attempt of Felipe and Timboy Lagera on the virtue of his wife
FACTS: There was a fiesta, the roast pig was being served. as the grave offense for which he sought immediate
The accused, who was 70 years old, asked from the victim vindication. To our mind, a period of four days was
some roast pig, to which the victim replied “come here and sufficient enough a time within which the accused-
I’ll make roast pig out of you”. As a consequence, a little appellant could have regained his composure and
later while the said Modesto Patobo was squatting down, the self-control. Thus, the said mitigating circumstance cannot
accused came up behind him and struck him on the head with be credited in favor of the accused-appellant.
an ax, causing death the following day. The defendant was
charged with murder. 6. Passion or obfuscation;
ISSUE: WON the immediate vindication of a grave offense Requisites
may be appreciated i. The accused acted upon an impulse
HELD: Yes. The court noted that the defendant, being a very ii. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally
old man, the reply of the victim to him, while may be
produced passion or obfuscation in him
considered as a joke for an ordinary man, to an old man, such
iii. The passion must arise from legitimate sentiments
statement may be considered so insulting and offending.
-not due to unworthy reasons.
Hence it was considered as a grave offense. Instead of being
COMMENT: if you are the one on the wrong, you
respected, he was made as a butt of a joke.
cannot invoke this circumstance.
Illustrative case
NOTE: The grave offense in this case need not constitute a
U.S. v. Hicks, 14 Phil 217 (1909)
crime, it does not contemplate a crime.
FACTS: For about five years, Augustus Hicks and Agustina
Sola illicitly lived together. Subsequently, due to a trouble
People v. Pajares, 210 SCRA 237 (1992)
arising between them, Agustina quitted Hick's house,
FACTS: Earlier that day (about 10 hrs ago), one of the
separated from him, and went to live with her
defendants found out that there was an altercation between
brother-in-law. A few days later she contracted new
his brother and the victim. As a consequence, the defendants
relations with another negro named Wallace Current who
mauled and stabbed the victims to retaliate in favour of his
then went to live in the said house. Ultimately, the accused
brother.
went to the house and shot Agustina Sola. As a consequence,
ISSUE: WON vindication of a grave offense is attendant.
she died. Augustus Hicks was charged with murder.
HELD: No.it must be emphasized that there is a lapse of
ISSUE: whether or not the mitigating circumstance of
about ten (10) hours between said incident and the killing
passion and obfuscation should be appreciated
of Diosdado Viojan. Such interval of time was more than
HELD: NO.
sufficient to enable appellant to recover his serenity.
Hence, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication
US v. De la Cruz, 22 Phil 426
of a grave offense cannot be appreciated in his favor.
FACTS: The evidence clearly discloses that the accused, in
the heat of passion, killed the deceased, who had theretofore
NOTE: A grave offense may either be a verbal act or a
been his querida (concubine or lover) upon discovering her in
physical act. In Q: What if the proximate cause of the killing
flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual
was the grave offense earlier committed, would that
acquaintance.
necessarily constitute the vindication of a grave offense?
ISSUE: whether or not the mitigating circumstance of
A: NO, although the mitigating circumstance admits an
passion and obfuscation should be appreciated
interval of time, the vindication must also be done
HELD: YES
immediately, that is, there must be no sufficient time to
enable the accused to recover his serenity.
NOTE: If the accused and the deceased where legally
married, and the accused killed the spouse upon surprising
People v. Rebucan, infra.
her in flagrante in carnal communication with another person,
RULING: As regards the mitigating circumstance of
such would fall under art. 247, namely, Death or physical
immediate vindication of a grave offense, the same cannot
injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances, an
likewise be appreciated in the instant case. Article 13,
absolutory cause. The accused shall suffer the penalty of
paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the act
destierro
be "committed in the immediate vindication of a grave
COMPARISON: The difference between the two cases is the - there must be an intent to submit oneself
presence of a lawful sentiment in the latter case. In the Hicks, unconditionally to the authorities, showing an intention
the accused and the woman were already separated. In De to save the authorities the trouble and expense that his
la Cruz, the accused and the deceased were still in a search and capture would require (Canta v. People).
relationship. Hence, in hicks, the accused was moved not
because of passion, but because of jealousy, an unlawful Q: What if there is already a police warrant?
sentiment. In De la Cruz, the caused was the betrayal by the A: This would not necessarily preclude the application of
woman with whom he was in a relationship. this circumstance since the non-issuance of an arrest
Furthermore, in De la Cruz, the accused caught her in warrant is not an element.
flagrante, such would certainly produce passion and Q: What if the arrest warrant was issued, after which the
obfuscation. police officers held a press conference precisely to inform
the public that the police officers will arrest the accused.
NOTE: Even if Hicks caught the woman and the other person Thereafter, the accused surrendered to the nbi. can he
in flagrante having sexual intercourse, passion would still be avail of this circumstance?
unavailing since Hicks and the woman were already A: Yes, all of the requisites are present. The law does not
separated. Hence, there would be no basis for passion and require that the surrender be prior to the order of arrest
obfuscation. Neither the absence of a press conference is an element.
In this case the accused wilfully surrendered to the nbi.
7. Voluntary surrender & voluntary plea of guilt; The surrender is voluntary when there is an intent to
-Two circumstances are provided for in this paragraph, submit oneself unconditionally to the authorities,
namely, voluntary surrender, and voluntary plea of guilt showing an intention to save the authorities the
in an open court. trouble and expense that his search and capture
1) Voluntary surrender would require. In this case, the search has not yet
Requisites started.
i. The accused was not yet lawfully arrested
2) Plea of guilt in an open court
CAVEAT: the law does not require that the surrender be prior to Requisite:
the order of arrest; it only requires that the accused was not yet i. That the offender spontaneously confessed
lawfully arrested his guilt
ii. That the confession of guilt was made in open
ii. The accused surrendered to a person in court, that, before the competent court that
authority or his agent is to try the case.
iii. The plea must be done prior the
Who are person in authority: Art. 152. Any person directly
presentation of the evidence for the
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member
prosecution.
of some court or government corporation, board, commission,
Q: What if the accused plead guilty after the
shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a
presentation of evidence by prosecution but
barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.
before the completion, would this circumstance
be appreciated?
Who are agents of persons in authority: A person who by
A: NO, since the prosecution has already
direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by
started the presentation of evidence.
competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public
NOTE: Even if only one witness was presented,
order and the protection and security of life and property, such as
this case will no longer be available. It must be
a barrio captain, barrio councilman, barrio policeman and
done during arraignment or at least prior the
barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons
presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
in authority, shall be deemed an agent of person in authority
NOTE: In this paragraph, two separate mitigating
NOTE: In applying the provisions of articles 148105 and 151106 circumstances are provided. Both may be appreciated
of this code, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the separately.
supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges
RATIONALE: By voluntary surrendering, 1) they are submitting
and universities, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As
themselves to the court process, and 2) they prevent the
amended by PD 299 and BP 873)
unnecessary wastage of resources, not only financial, but also
iii. The surrender must be voluntary and man-power wise in seeking and arresting the accused.
spontaneous
Illustrative case
105 106
Direct Assaults ‘Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the
agents of such person
People v. Leonor defense will not merely be illness, but an exempting circumstance
-voluntary surrender was not appreciated in this case of insanity or imbecility.
since the accused tried to evade the police officers after
the report by mixing himself with the crowd. NOTE: Insomnia is also not considered as an illness. Lack of sleep
is not equivalent to illness
8. Physical defect (restricts his means of action,
10. Similar or analogous circumstances.
communication and defense);
- All of the above circumstances are ordinary mitigating
- This circumstance connotes not merely physical
except under 18 years of age.
defect person. The defect must restrict action,
-Hence, art. 13 is not an exclusive list.
communication and defense.
- Not all kinds of physical defect.
Illustrative case
Illustrative case:
Canta v. People, 353 SCRA 250 (2001)
People v. Albuquergue, 59 Phil. 150 (1933)
FACTS: Narciso Gabriel acquired from his half-sister a cow.
FACTS: The accused in this case was suffering from
Subsequently, Narciso gave the custody of the animal, to
partial paralysis. He merely intended to injure the
Agapay, when it was lost. He was told that petitioner
victim, however, he unfortunately stabbed the
Exuperancio Canta had taken the animal. Thereafter, they
victim in his neck.
found the cow in the possession of Canta’s father. Ultimately,
COMMENT: The mitigating appreciated in this case
Narciso Gabriel reported the matter to the police. As a result,
was praeter intentionem. However, if the paralysis
Narciso and petitioner Exuperancio were called to an
restricted the action communication and defense,
investigation. Petitioner admitted taking the cow but claimed
then it may also be separately appreciated.
that it was his, since the cow suck the breast of the mother’s
9. Illness (diminishes his exercise of willpower);
cow, and that it was lost. As Narciso did not come the
Requisites:
following day, although Maria did, Florentino said he told his
i. That the illness must diminish the exercise of his
son to take the cow to the Municipal Hall of Padre Burgos.
will-power
Petitioner did as he was told. Petitioner Exuperancio Canta
ii. The illness should not deprive the offender of
was charged of violation of P.D. No. 533, otherwise known as
consciousness of his acts.
the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974.
-if he lost his consciousness, he cannot invoke this.
ISSUE: WON the mitigating of analogous circumstance is
present
Illustrative case
HELD: YES. The circumstance of voluntary surrender has the
People v. Javier, 311 SCRA 576 (1999)
following elements: (1) the offender has not actually been
FACTS: Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier admitted
arrested; (2) the offender surrenders to a person in authority
killing his wife in their bedroom with the use of a sharp
or to the latters agent; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. In
bolo. He identified the bolo as the same one presented
the present case, petitioner had not actually been arrested.
by the prosecution and which he used in wounding
In fact, no complaint had yet been filed against him when he
himself. Accused-appellant told the court that he killed
surrendered the cow to the authorities. It has been
his wife because he could not sleep for almost a month.
repeatedly held that for surrender to be voluntary, there must
He claimed that when the killing took place, his mind
be an intent to submit oneself unconditionally to the
went totally blank and he did not know what he was
authorities, showing an intention to save the authorities the
doing.
trouble and expense that his search and capture would
ISSUE: WON illness should be appreciated as a
require.
mitigating circumstance.
In petitioner’s case, he voluntarily took the cow to the
HELD: No. The mitigating circumstance of illness cannot
municipal hall of Padre Burgos to place it unconditionally in
be appreciated. Since he remembered the vital
the custody of the authorities and thus saved them the
circumstances107 surrounding the ghastly incident, from
trouble of having to recover the cow from him. This
the time of the killing up to the time he was brought to
circumstance can be considered analogous to voluntary
the hospital, it shows that he was in full control of his
surrender and should be considered in favor of petitioner.
mental faculties. This negates his claim that he was
suffering from an illness that diminished the exercise of
B. Privileged
his will-power.
-cannot be offset by generic aggravating circumstance
NOTE: If the accused was suffering from insanity or imbecility, -There are five privileged mitigating:
he would no longer have the consciousness of his acts. Hence, the
107
“On the other hand, it is clear that accused-appellant was suicide, by wounding himself with the same bolo he used in
aware of the acts he committed. First, he remembered killing killing his wife; and he remembered being brought to the
his wife in their bedroom with the use of a bolo, where he hospital”
mangled her neck twice; he remembered trying to commit
1. Over 15, under 18-with discretion108 without any resistance from him and without ascertaining his
- one degree; identity. Also note the JS Prom case.
2. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstances109- when
majority of such conditions be present. 3. two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
- one or two degrees based on the discretion of the judge; circumstances110
- one degree lower.
Illustration
In case of self-defense, the requisites are: NOTE: At all times, there should be no aggravating
1) unlawful aggression; circumstances. Even if there are 5 mitigating, and only 1
2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to aggravating, such would not constitute privileged
prevent or repel it; and circumstance. The law requires total absence of
3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person aggravating circumstances
defending himself.
4. Art. 67111; when all the requisites of the exempting
If 1 and 2, or 1 and 3 are present, then it is considered as a
circumstance of accident are not present.
privileged mitigating circumstance. But if only unlawful
- two degrees lower from the lowest afflictive penalty.
aggression is present, then it is merely an ordinary mitigating
- Under Art. 9(1), Grave felonies are those to which the
circumstance which is art. 13(1). (NOTE: Unlawful
law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which
aggression is always essential in self-defense cases)
in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with
Art. 25112 of this Code.
NOTE: In the justifying circumstance of performance of a
- Hence, the minimum penalty imposable in grave felonies
duty, there are only two requisites, namely:
is generally prision mayor, in this case, the minimum
1) That the accused acted in the performance of a duty
penalty imposable is arresto mayor in its maximum.
or lawful exercise of a right or office; and
2) That the injury caused or offense committed by the
5. Art. 47; death penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua for
necessary consequence of the due performance of such
under 18 or over 70.
duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
- under 18 (privileged); over 70 (ordinary)
In Pp v. Oanis, where only one of the requisites was present,
- but also talks of privileged mitigating since instead of
art. 69 was applied. In the said case, what was present was
imposing death penalty, reclusion perpetua is the
that the accused acted in the performance their duty. 2nd
imposable penalty. But note, death penalty has been
requisite is wantingfor the crime commited by them is not the
suspended
necessary consequence of a due performance of their
duty.(they have exceeded their duty by killing a person
III. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES113
108 Article 68(2). Penalty to be imposed upon a person under shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty of
eighteen years of age. Upon a person over fifteen and under a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that periods, if of a less grave felony.
112
prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper Afflictive penalties:
period. (first par. no longer applicable) Reclusion perpetua,
109 Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed Reclusion temporal,
is not wholly excusable. - A penalty lower by one or two Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of Prision mayor.
113
the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are
criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article 11 aggravating circumstances:
and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
present. position.
110 Art. 64(5). When there are two or more mitigating 2. That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult to
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the public authorities.
the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that 3. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the
prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or
according to the number and nature of such circumstances. sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended
111 Article 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites party, if the latter has not given provocation.
of exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are 4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or
present. - When all the conditions required in circumstances obvious ungratefulness.
Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief
liability are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities are
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period
2.Cruelty-
FOUR KINDS; Generic, Specific, Inherent, Qualifying applicable on to
crimes against
persons
Generi Specific Qualifyin Inherent
3. Ignominy-
c g
crimes against
-applies -available only to -Those that --those that it
chastity
to all particular crimes change the must of necessity
4. Disregard of
crimes (art 14 nature of accompany the
the respect due
(3;15;16;17;21) the crime commission
the offended
) thereof.
party on account
(Art. 62(2))
of his rank age
e.g.
or sex(not
i. fire-arson114;
dwelling)- only
ii. Unlawful entry-
to crimes against
Trespass to
persons or honor
dwelling115
iii. derailment of
a locomotive-
damage and NOTE: Special Aggravating Circumstance is different from
obstruction to Extraordinary Aggravating Circumstance
means of
communication Special Aggravating Extraordinary
116
Aggravating
Immediately imposes the Imposes an additional
-Those that must maximum of the penalty penalty
of necessity e.g. Quasi-recividism- Habitual Delinquency-
accompany the Where the person Where a person within a
commission of commits a felony before period of ten years from
the crime (Art. beginning to serve or the date of his release or
62(2)) while serving a sentence last conviction of the
e.g. crimes of less or serious
1.Treachery- physical injuries, estafa,
applicable only falsification or theft, is
to crime against found guilty is found
persons
engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated 13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
to religious worship. 14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be
uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such circumstances employed to weaken the defense.
may facilitate the commission of the offense. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed to crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
have been committed by a band. forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other defense which the offended party might make.
calamity or misfortune. 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
persons who insure or afford impunity. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
9. That the accused is a recidivist. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall,
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of 20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under
another crime embraced in the same title of this Code. fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA
offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty 5438).
or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary
reward, or promise. for its commissions.
114
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, Art. 320
115
poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage Art. 280
116
thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other Art. 330
artifice involving great waste and ruin.
on a previous conviction guilty of the same crimes Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the presence of an
or felony.117 for three times or aggravating circumstance warrants the imposition of the higher
more.118 penalty of death. The Solicitor General points out that relationship
NOTE: Delete the impression that once there’s an aggravating in this case is an aggravating circumstance based on Article 15 of
circumstance, the penalty in its maximum period shall be imposed. the Revised Penal Code as applied in People v. Baldino.
This is not entirely correct because the effect of a mitigating is to
diminish the penalty or lower. We don’t know how many periods ISSUE: WON relationship should be appreciated as an
or degree. In aggravating, it only increases the penalty by a aggravating circumstance for the purpose of imposing the death
period. penalty
NOTE: Although a complex crime under art. 48 imposes the HELD: NO. People v. Baldino, the case invoked by the Solicitor
maximum penalty for the more serious offense, the same cannot General, appreciated relationship as an aggravating circumstance
be considered as a special aggravating circumstance because the but only for the purpose of assessing exemplary damages against
provision is ultimately favourable to the accused as opposed to the accused and not for the purpose of imposing the death
finding him guilty for two separate offenses. penalty.
People v. Orilla- ART. 14, an exclusive list. Section 11 of Republic Act 7659, imposes the penalty of reclusion
FACTS: Fifteen-year old and accused’ sister, Remilyn Orilla was perpetua when the rape was committed with force and
sound asleep when she was suddenly awakened by a heavy intimidation. But the imposable penalty becomes reclusion
weight pressing on her body and found accused Joseph Orilla on perpetua to death whenever the rape is committed with the use
top of her. Accused then forced Remilyn Orillas legs apart and of a deadly weapon.
inserted his penis into her vagina. She felt some warm matter
enter her vagina. Appellant remained on top of Remilyn Orilla and, On the other hand, the circumstances pertinent to the relationship
after a few minutes, she again felt the same substance enter her (disregard of the filial respect due the victim by reason of her age,
vagina. The trial court held accused guilty of qualified rape and sex and rank) must be alleged in the information and duly proven
imposed Death. The trial court ruled that since Remilyn was only in the trial. In the present case, the Amended Information failed
15 years old at the time appellant raped her, the death penalty to allege the same and the prosecution did not prove these
must be imposed on appellant, the victim’s brother. The Solicitor circumstances during the trial.
General concedes that the trial court erred in imposing the death
penalty based on the twin circumstances of relationship and The circumstances pertinent to the relationship
minority considering that the Amended Information failed to (disregard of the filial respect due the victim by reason of her
allege specifically Remilyns age. What justifies the imposition of age, sex and rank) are aggravating circumstances listed in
the death penalty, the Solicitor General argues, is the fact that paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 14 of
appellant used a knife in committing the rape and appellant the Revised Penal Code enumerates the aggravating
perpetrated the rape against his own sister. According to the circumstances. Unlike mitigating circumstances under
Solicitor General, Article 335 as amended by RA 7659 provides Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, Article 14 does not
that the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of rape results include circumstances similar in nature or analogous to
in the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
117
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its
penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. — Besides the medium and maximum periods;
provisions of Rule 5 of Article 62, any person who shall commit (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to
a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found
beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty minimum and medium periods; and
prescribed by law for the new felony. chan robles virtual law (c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be
library sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
if he shall have already served out his original sentence, or minimum period.
when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the
reason of his conduct or other circumstances he shall not be two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity
worthy of such clemency.chanrobles virtual herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
118
Art 62(5). Habitual delinquency shall have the following For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be
effects: habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from the
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or
penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification,
he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
those mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 21 of Article 14. The NOTE: If the circumstances under art. 14 are used to define a
term aggravating circumstances is strictly construed, not crime (e.g. Murder), the same would be considered as qualifying
only because what is involved is a criminal statute, but aggravating.
also because its application could result in the imposition
of the death penalty. The list of aggravating DISCUSSION3: WHETHER THE RAPE QUALIFIED IN THIS
circumstances in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is CASE
thus exclusive[51] for the purpose of raising a crime to its Q: When is rape qualified?
qualified form. A: Rape is considered qualified if its commission is attendant by
the circumstances provided for in Art. 266, e.g., that the offended
party is a minor (minority), AND a relative of the accused
BUT NOTE: ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY ALSO BE (relationship)120.
CONSIDERED AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES or FACTS: The Amended Informations for Criminal Case Nos. 3219-
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. A and 3220-A are identical. The allegations read: “That on or
about the dawn of September 12, 1996 at Brgy. Masidem,
NOTE: Aside from the 21 circumstances listed under art. 14, the municipality of Bani, province of Pangasinan, Philippines and
three circumstances (i.e. relationship, intoxication, degree of within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-accused,
instruction or education) may also be considered as aggravating. by means of force or intimidation, armed with a knife, did then
CAVEAT: ARTICLE 14 IS AN EXCLUSIVE LIST and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
Article 14 does not include relationship as an aggravating intercourse with REMILYN R. ORILLA, younger sister of accused
circumstance. Relationship is an alternative circumstance under against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code: CONTRARY to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.”
The trial court convicted appellant of qualified rape in Criminal
Discussion2: AS TO THE QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Case No. 3219-A because appellant is Remilyns brother and she
FACTS: The trial court in this case convicted the accused of was a minor being only 15 years old at the time that appellant
qualifying rape using the second ejaculation as basis for qualifying raped her.
ISSUE2: WON the ruling of the trial court is correct.
HELD: No, there is no basis in law. The trial court cannot consider ISSUE: WON the trial court is correct in convicting the accused
the second ejaculation by the accused as a qualifying of qualified rape
circumstance to raise the penalty to death it being not the
circumstance provided for in law which would qualify rape. HELD: A reading of the Amended Information, however,
Q: What are qualifying aggravating circumstances? does not justify the elevation of the crime of simple rape
A: Those which change the nature of the crime to qualified rape. The prosecution went through the trouble of
Q: Can we find them art. 14? amending the Information to allege that Remilyn is the younger
A: No, they are scattered in the provisions of the revised penal sister of appellant to emphasize the qualified nature of the rape.
code. However, the Amended Information did not allege
Q: What kind of aggravating circumstances are listed in art. 14? Remilyns minor age. The prosecutions failure to allege
A: Generic and Specific aggravating circumstances specifically Remilyns minor age prevents the
Q: In discussing qualifying circumstances, would the court make transformation of the crime to its qualified form. The facts
use of art. 14? stated in the body of the information determine the crime of which
A: No, the Court would not make use of art. 14. E.g. in qualifying the accused stands charged and for which he must be tried. The
the killing to murder, the court would cite Art. 248. 119 The six information must allege every element of the offense to enable
circumstances enumerated in art. 248 are qualifying aggravating the accused to prepare properly for his defense. The law assumes
circumstances. that the accused has no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense. Since the Amended Information failed to
119
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or
defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. corpse.
120
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise. Art 266-B- "The death penalty shall also be imposed if the
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, crime of rape is committed with any of the following
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or "l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
inform appellant that the prosecution was accusing him of valid. The rule now is that all the aggravating and
qualified rape, the court can convict appellant only for simple rape qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the
and the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua and not death. information to be appreciated even if proven in the
information. This rule is favorable to the accused and can be
NOTE: The fact that the offended party is a minor is not an applied retroactively.
aggravating circumstance under art. 14. But in rape, the minority
(if concurred by relationship) is considered qualifying People v. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011
circumstance. RULING AS TO APPRECIATION OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORAMTION:
COMMENT BY CALICA: The import of People v. Orilla is that Dwelling, minority and intoxication cannot be appreciated as
art. 14 is an exclusive list of aggravating circumstances, but then, aggravating circumstances in the instant case considering that the
the specific crimes would also state, as in the case of art. 248, same were not alleged and/or specified in the information that
what would be the qualifying circumstances for murder which was filed on January 23, 2003. Under the Revised Rules of
applies only to murder. In rape, there are also qualifying Criminal Procedure, a generic aggravating circumstance will not
circumstances. The aggravating circumstance in art. 14 are be appreciated by the Court unless alleged in the information. This
generic. They would not qualify the crime unless they are requirement is laid down in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110
enumerated in the provision defining the crime itself as in the case
of murder in art. 248. TIP: memorize them according from the most easier to remember
or most common.
Simbilon v. People, G.R. No. 175528, September 30, 2009
FACTS: The accused is a police officer who, while investigating 1. Taking advantage of public position. (i)
the offended party, committed acts of lasciviousness against the TWO TESTS in determining WON the accused has taken
latter. The information provides: That on or about August 14, advantage of his public position:
1998, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction i. When the office is an essential element of the
of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, motivated crime- but in this case, the circumstance is not
by lewd design, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously upon the appreciated separately as provided for in Art 62(1).
person of AAA, by then and there embracing, mashing the breast, e.g. falsification by public officer (That
and touching the private part, against her will. CONTRARY TO advantage be taken by the offender of his
LAW.” The RTC rendered a decision finding accused guilty of acts public position)122
of lasciviousness with the aggravating circumstance of petitioners
taking advantage of his public position ii. Intimate connection or relation test-when the
ISSUE: Won the RTC is correct in appreciating the circumstance crime would not have been committed were it not
of taking advantage of public position. for his public position. In this case the aggravating
HELD: NO. the said circumstance not having been alleged in the circumstance is appreciated separately
information.
The requirement121 now is that the aggravating as well as the Illustrative case
qualifying circumstances be expressly and specifically alleged in Pp v. Ural, supra.
the complaint or information. Otherwise, they cannot be The accused is a police officer and has access to the
considered by the trial court in its judgment, even, if they prison facility that is why he was able to maltreat
are subsequently proved during trial. A reading of the the prisoner.
Information shows that there was no allegation of any aggravating
circumstance. CAVEAT: Amendment provided for in RA 7659- Art. 62
(1(a))- When in the commission of the crime, advantage was
NOTE: Before, aggravating circumstances not alleged in the taken by the offender of his public position, the penalty to
information are appreciated; nonetheless, this rule is no longer
121
Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal concise language and not necessarily in the language used in
Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, provide: the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of
Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. The complaint or common understanding to know what offense is being charged
information shall state the designation of the offense given by as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for
the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the court to pronounce judgment.
and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If
122
there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or
to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. notary or ecclesiastic minister. – xxx any public officer,
Sec. 9. Cause of the accusations. The acts or omissions employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying position, shall falsify a document
and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
be imposed shall be in its maximum regardless of that a PC lieutenant or town chief of police is not a public
mitigating circumstances. authority but merely an agent of a person in authority; there
is need of re-examining such ruling since it is not justified
2. With contempt/ insult to public authority. by the employment of the term public authority in aforesaid
-not agents paragraph 2 of Article 14 instead of the term person in
Requisites (Reyes) authority which is specifically used in Articles 148 and 152
i. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of the Revised Penal Code. There is no extended reasoning
of his functions of the doctrine enunciated in the aforesaid three (3) cases
ii. The crime should not be committed against the why the phrase public authority should comprehend only
public authority persons in authority. The lawmaker could have easily
iii. The offender knows him to be a public authority utilized the term "persons in authority" in the
iv. His presence has not prevented the offender from aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article 14 in much the same
committing the criminal act way that it employed the said phrase in Articles 148
and 152. The lawmaker must have intended a
MEANING OF “PUBLIC AUTHORITY”: as distinguished from different meaning for the term public authority,
1) public officers, 2) persons in authority, 3) agents of persons in which may however include, but not limited to
authority. persons in authority.
Illustrative case: Under the decided cases, a municipal mayor, barrio captain,
People v. Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156. November 20, barrio lieutenant or barangay captain is a person in authority
1981 or a public authority. Even a public school teacher is now
FACTS: The accused stabbed the deceased, PC Lt. considered a person in authority under CA 578 amending
Guillermo Masana, who earlier introduced himself as a PC Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code (Sarcepudes v. People,
officer, while in the presence of PC soldier Virgilio Fidel, 90 Phil. 228). So is the town municipal health officer (People
Philippine Coast Guard serviceman Ricardo Ligsa and v. Quebral, Et Al., 73 Phil. 640), as well as a nurse, a
Patrolman Felix Mojica of Indang, Cavite. As a matter of fact, municipal councilor or an agent of the Bureau of Internal
the said chief of police was the one who embraced or Revenue (People v. Yosoya, CA-GR No. 8522-R, May 26,
grabbed the accused from behind, wrested the dagger from 1955; People v. Reyes, Et Al., O.G.S. 11 p. 24)
him and thereafter brought him to the municipal building of
Indang. While the stabbing incident was taking place, Chief The chief of police should therefore be considered a public
of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang, Cavite, who happened authority or a person in authority; for he is vested with
to be taking his lunch in the same restaurant, went near the jurisdiction or authority to maintain peace and order and is
combatants and embraced and/or grabbed the accused from specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend
behind, and thereafter wrested the dagger from the violators of the laws and municipal ordinances, more than
accused-appellant. It must be note that appellant knew the aforementioned officials who cannot prosecute and who
Primo Panaligan as the town chief of police. are not even enjoined to arrest malefactors although
ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance of with specifically mentioned as persons in authority by the decided
contempt or insult to public authority may be appreciated cases and by Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code as
HELD; Who are public authorities: Yes “The amended by R.A. 1978 of June 22, 1957. The town chief of
aggravating circumstance of contempt of, or insult to public police heads and supervises the entire police force in the
authority under paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised municipality as well as exercises his authority over the entire
Penal Code can likewise be appreciated in the case at bar. territory of the municipality, which is patently greater than
The evidence of the prosecution clearly established that and includes the school premises or the town clinic or barrio,
Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang was present as he to which small area the authority or jurisdiction of the
was taking his lunch in the same restaurant when the teacher, nurse, or barrio lieutenant, respectively, is limited.”
incident occurred. As a matter of fact, the said chief of police
was the one who embraced or grabbed the accused from Who are public officers: Art. 203 For the purpose of applying
behind, wrested the dagger from him and thereafter brought the provisions of this and the preceding titles of this book, any
him to the municipal building of Indang. And appellant person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
admittedly knew him even then as the town chief of police, appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the
although he now claims that he went to the municipal performance of public functions in the Government of the
building to surrender to the chief of police who was not Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or in any
allegedly in the restaurant during the incident. of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
While it is true that in the cases of U.S. v. Rodriguez, Et. Al. official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
(19 Phil. 150,157-158), People v. Siojo (61 Phil. 307, 317),
and People v. Verzo (21 SCRA 1403), this Court ruled that Who are person in authority: Art. 152. Any person directly
the term public authority refers to a person in authority and vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member
of some court or government corporation, board, commission, SEE ABOVE FACTS
shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance of disregard of
barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority. rank should be appreciated
HELD: Yes. The aggravating circumstance of disregard of
Who are agents of persons in authority: Art. 152. A person rank should be appreciated because it is obvious that the
who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment victim, PC. Lt. Masana Identified himself as a PC officer to the
by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public accused who is merely a member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit
order and the protection and security of life and property, such as and therefore inferior both in rank and social status to the
a barrio captain, barrio councilman, barrio policeman and victim.
barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons
in authority, shall be deemed an agent of person in authority The term "rank" should be given its plain, ordinary
meaning, and as such, refers to a high social position
NOTE: In applying the provisions of articles 148123 and 151124
or standing as a grade in the armed forces; or to a graded
of this code, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the
official standing or social position or station; or to the order
supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges
or place in which said officers are placed in the army and navy
and universities, shall be deemed persons in authority. (Art. 152
in relation to others; or to the designation or title of distinction
As amended by PD 299 and BP 873)
conferred upon an officer in order to fix his relative position
in reference to other officers in matters of privileges,
NOTE: In voluntary surrender, a person surrenders to a
precedence, and sometimes of command or by which to
person in authority, or his agents.
determine his pay and emoluments as in the case of army
staff officers; or to a grade or official standing, relative
3. Rank, age, or sex/ dwelling if no provocation
position in civil or social life, or in any scale of
NOTE: If all the four circumstances are present, they have weight
comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status
of only one aggravating circumstance only.
or scale of comparison within a position (Vol. 36, Words
and Phrases, Permanent Edition, p. 100). As explained by Mr.
-Specific aggravating (except dweilling)- applicable only to crimes
Justice Mariano Albert, then of the Court of Appeals, those
against persons or honor. Hence, not applicable in crimes against
"generally considered of high station in life, on account of
property (e.g. robbery)125
their rank (as well as age or sex), deserve to be respected.
Therefore, whenever there is a difference in social condition
Meaning of “with insult or in disregard of person”: It is
between the offender and the offended party, this
necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other
aggravating circumstance sometimes is present" (Albert M.A.
than that the victim is a woman (or an old man, or one of
— The Revised Penal Code Annotated, 1946 Ed., p. 109).
high rank) showing insult or disregard of sex, age, or rank in order
that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance. There
The difference in official or social status between a P.C.
must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused
lieutenant and a mere member of an anti-smuggling unit, is
deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of
patent.
the offended party. (People v. Mangsant 65 Phil. 548)
NOTE: If the accused herein were charged with the complex
i. Rank126
crime of murder with assault against an agent of a person in
-there must be difference in the social condition
authority, and not merely murder, then the aggravating
of the offender and the offended party.
circumstance of disregard of rank or contempt of or insult to
-this rank is not only limited to a rank of police or
public authority cannot be appreciated as aggravating
public officer
because either circumstance is inherent in the charge of
assault against a person in authority or an agent of a person
Illustrative case
in authority. But in the case at bar, the appellant is accused
People v. Rodil, supra.
123
Direct Assaults his teacher (U.S. vs. Cabling, 7 Phil. 469. 474; People vs. Aragon
124
‘Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the & Lopez, 107 Phil. 706, 709), the murder of a municipal mayor
agents of such person (People vs. Lopez de Leon, et al., 69 Phil. 298), the murder -of a
125
The mere fact that the thing belongs to the president does city chief of police by the chief of the secret service division
not make it more valuable than the things belonging to a (People vs. Hollero 88 Phil. 167), assault upon a 66-year old
private person. District Judge of the Court of First Instance by a justice of the
126
Thus, rank aggravated the killing of a staff sergeant by his peace (People vs. Torrecarreori CA 52 OG 7644), the killing of a
corporal (People vs. Mil 92 SCRA 89, 105-106, July 30, 1979), Spanish consul by his subordinate — a mere chancellor (People
the killing of the Assistant Chief of Personnel Transaction of the vs. Godinez, 106 Phil. 597, 606607), and the killing of an army
Civil Service Commission by a clerk therein (People vs. Benito, general (People vs. Torres, et al., L-4642, May 29, 1953).
62 SCRA 351, 357-358, Feb. 13, 1975), the murder by a pupil of
of murder only. Consequently, either aggravating - This refers to the female sex, not to the male
circumstance should be considered in the imposition of the sex. (not separately appreciated when the
penalty.127 condition of being a woman is indispensable in the
commission of the crime e.g. in rape, abduction,
CAVEAT: While the evidence definitely demonstrated that seduction- sit being inherent)
appellant knew because the victim, who was in civilian
clothing, told him that he was an agent of a person in iv. Dwelling
authority; he cannot be convicted of the complex crime - Requisite: The offended party must not give
of homicide with assault upon an agent of a person in sufficient and immediate provocation
authority, for the simple reason that the information - Dwelling must be a building or structure
does not allege the fact that the accused then knew exclusively used for rest and comfort. A
that, before or at the time of the assault, the victim combination house and store (Pp v. Magnaye, 89
was an agent of a person in authority. The information Phil 233), or a market stall where the victim slept
simply alleges that appellant did attack and stab PC Lt. is not a dwelling
Guillermo Masana while the latter was in the performance of - Note: Even if the offender did not enter the
his official duties, ..." Such an allegation cannot be an dwelling, this circumstance applies. It is enough
adequate substitute for the essential averment to justify a that the victim was attacked inside his own house,
conviction of the complex crime, which necessarily requires although the assailant may have devised means
the imposition of the maximum period of the penalty to perpetrate the assault from without (Pp v.
prescribed for the graver offense. Like a qualifying Ompaid, No. L-23513)
circumstance, such knowledge must be expressly and - CAVEAT: Dwelling is not aggravating when both
specifically averred in the information; otherwise, in the the offender and offended party are occupants of
absence of such allegation, the required knowledge, like a the same house. (U.S. v Rodriguez, 9 Phil. 136)
qualifying circumstance, although proven, would only be This is true even of offender is a servant in the
appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Applying house. (Pp v. Caliso, 58 Phil 283)
this principle, the attack on the victim, who was known to the CAVEAT: Dwelling may mean temporary dwelling. (Pp v. Bandilla,
appellant as a peace officer, could be considered only as G.R. 69317) The Code speaks of “dwelling,” not domicile.
aggravating, being "in contempt or with insult to the public (Pp v. Basa, 83 Phil 622)
authorities" (Par. 1, Art. XIV of the Revised Penal Code), or -hence, even if the house/room is not owned by the victim. So
as an "insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended long as it is a place for exclusively rest and habitation.
party on account of his rank, ..." (par. 3, Art. XIV, Revised -offended must not give provocation
Penal Code). CAVEAT2: At present, neither would the
circumstance of rank, if not alleged in the information, be Illustrative case
considered as a generic circumstance. People v. Daniel, 86 SCRA 511 (1978)
FACTS: This case originated from the Court of First Instance of
Q: What if the administrative staff of a school stabbed a professor. Baguio City by virtue of a complaint filed by 13-year old Margarita
Would that constitute a disregard of rank? Paleng accusing Amado Daniel alias "Amado Ato" of rape alleged
A: Yes, "rank" should be given its plain, ordinary meaning, and as to have been committed against her will, in her own room
such, refers to a high social position. It is sufficient that there is situated at No. 25 Interior, Pinsao, Guisad, Baguio City. Accused
difference in the social condition of the offender and the offended raped the victim in the latters boarding house where she is
party. temporarily staying as she was then a first year high school
student at the Baguio Eastern High School.
ii. Age ISSUE: WON dwelling should be appreciated as an aggravating
- Applies in cases where the victim is of tender age circumstance
as well as of old age (Reyes) HELD: YES, Although Margarita was merely renting a bedspace
in a boarding house, her room constituted for all intents and
iii. Sex purposes a "dwelling" as the term is used in Article 14(3),
127
Thus, in the following cases where the charge was merely Col. Valentin Salgado and attempted murder for the injuries
murder or frustrated murder, the aggravating circumstance of inflicted on Army Gen. Mariano Castaneda;
disregard of rank was appreciated: (3) People vs. Valeriano, et al. — appellants were accused and
(1) People vs. Benito, supra — the appellant, a clerk in the convicted of robbery with homicide for the killing of District
Civil Service Commission, was charged with and convicted of Judge Bautista of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga [90
the murder of the assistant chief of the personnel transaction Phil. 15, 34-35]; and
of the said Commission; (4) People vs. Hollero supra — where the accused chief of the
(2) People vs. Torres, et al., supra — the appellants were Secret Division of the Bacolod City Police Department was
charged with and convicted of murder for the death of Army convicted of murder for the killing of the chief of police.
Revised Penal Code. It is not necessary, under the law, that the the defendant had murder in her heart when she entered the
victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Be he a lessee, a chapel on the fatal night.
boarder, or a bed-spacer, the place is his home the sanctity of - NOTE: This ruling seems to be applicable also in case a
which the law seeks to protect and uphold. crime is committed in Malacanang palace or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties.
4. Abuse of confidence or Obvious ungratefulness (Reyes)
- The two aggravating circumstances in this paragraph
(Reyes) 6. Night time/ uninhabited place/ band
Abuse of Confidence band- more that three armed malefactors
Requisites
i. That the offended party had trusted the offender -Nights are from sunset to sunrise. (art. 13, civil code)
ii. That the offender abused such trust by committing -An Uninhabited place is one where there are no houses at all,
a crime against the offended party. a place at a considerable distance from town, or where the houses
iii. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the are scatter at a great distance from each other.(Reyes) This
commission of the crime should not be considered when the place where the crime was
NOTE: Not appreciated in Estafa with abuse of confidence. committed could be seen and the voice of the deceased could be
In such case, the circumstance is a qualifying circumstance. heard from a nearby house. (Pp v. Laoto, 52 Phil. 401)
- Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have
Obvious ungratefulness acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be deemed
- Ungratefulness must be obvious, i.e., manifest and clear to have been committed by a band.
- The armed men must act together in the
5. Malacanang Palace/ Presence of Chief Executive/ commission of the crime.
Public authorities in performance, or in a place NOTE: “By a band” is inherent in brigandage
dedicated to religious worship -Abuse of superior strength and use of firearms,
absorbed in aggravating circumstance of “by a band.”
Place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties (par. 5), distinguished from contempt or insult to When aggravating: Nighttime, uninhabited place, or band
public authorities (par. 2) is aggravating –
Par. 5 Par. 2 i. When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
Public authorities are in the performance of their ii. When especially sought for by the offender to insure
duties the commission of the crime or for the purpose of
The public authorities The public authorities impunity(Pp v. Pardo, 79 Phil 568); or
must be in their office are performing their
iii. When the offender took advantage thereof for the
duties outside of their
office purpose of impunity(US v. Billedo, 32 Phil. 574)
Public authority may be Public authority should
the offended party. not be the offended Illustrative case
party People v. Bermas, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312 July 5, 1999
FACTS: Around 8:30 p.m., at the sea, the offended parties were
-NOTE: The place of the commission of the felony, if it is on board a fishing boat (basnigan) named "Sagrada Familia". They
malacanang palace or a church, is aggravating, regardless of intended to catch fish that night and brought with them two (2)
whether State or official or religious functions are being held. pressure gas lamps, a fishing net, rope and a pole used for the
(Reyes) net. Subsequently, a small paddled boat (sibiran or sibid-sibid)
- Cemeteries is not a place dedicated to religious worship with two (2) men on board approached the fishing boat. The
- The Chief Executive need not be in Malacanang palace. His sibiran proceeded to the prow of the fishing boat and went around
presence alone in any place where the crime is committed is it four (4) times. Thereupon, one passenger of Sagrada Familia
enough to constitute the aggravating circumstance. ordered the offended party to remove the shade of the gas lamp
CAVEAT: The offender must have intention to commit a so that they could recognize accused’ campanion. Those
crime when he entered the place notwithstanding, appellant's (Bermas) companion could not be
Illustrative case recognized because his face was covered with a mask and only
People v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil 174 his eyes could be seen. Appellant's (Bermas) companion was then
FACTS: At the time of the commission of the crime, both the wearing a blue long-sleeved jacket and maong pants. Ultimately,
deceased and defendant were inside a chapel. The deceased bursts of gunfire from a high-powered automatic rifle shattered
placed his hand on the right thigh of defendant girl, who the air killing Catalino Bellen and Teodoro Cas while mortally
pulled out with her right hand a fan knife and stabbed him. wounding Arturo Abion.
HELD: The aggravating circumstance that the killing was ISSUE: WON nighttime should be appreciated as an aggravating
done in a place dedicated to religious worship cannot be circumstance
legally considered, where there is no evidence to show that
HELD: NO, it cannot be appreciated. It needs to be stressed 12. Conflagration, involving great waste
that the mere fact that the mere fact that the offense was -Derailment of locomotive-constitutes as a crime in itself
committed at night will not suffice to sustain a finding a in Art. 330.
noctrunity. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating -Arson- by means of fire, constitutes as a crime in itsely in
circumstances; it becomes so only when: 1.] it is specially Art. 320
sought by the offender; 2.] it was taken advantage of by him;
or 3.] it facilitates the commission of the crime by insuring the 13. Evident premeditation (vii)
offender's immunity from capture. In the case at bench, other NOTE: Inherent in the crimes of theft and robbery; cannot be
than the time of the occurrence of the felony, nothing else appreciated separately.
suggests that it was consciously resorted to by accused-appellants -before a person steals, he already decided and premeditated to
to facilitate the commission of the crime or that it was availed of steal and commit a crime.
for the purpose of impunity. Indeed, the records show that - Not inherent in murder; can be appreciated.
the scene of the crime was well illuminated by two (2) Requisites
pressure gas lamps which were on board the basnigan The prosecution must prove-
and that Expedito Bonaobra, in fact, even ordered Arturo i. The time when the offender determined to commit
Abion to remove the shade (pantalla) of the gas lamp so the crime
that they could recognize accused Bermas' companion. -the date, and if possible, the time when the
NOTE: Be that as it may, nocturnity is absorbed in treachery offender determined to commit the crime is
and cannot be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. essential, because the lapse of time for the
Likewise abuse of superior strength is absorbed in purpose of the third requisite is computed from
treachery, hence, it cannot be appreciated as an independent that date and time
aggravating circumstance when treachery is already present. ii. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
clung to his determination; and
7. On occasion of calamity -The premeditation must be based upon external acts
-The offender must take advantage of the calamity or and not presumed from mere lapse of time (U.S. v.
misfortune Ricafort, 1 Phil 173)
-The criminal intent evident from outward acts must be
8. Aid of armed men or persons who insure impunity. notorious and manifest, and the purpose and
Requisites determination must be plain.
i. That armed men or persons took part in the iii. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination
commission of the crime, directly or indirectly. and execution, to allow him to reflect upon the
ii. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied consequences of his act and to allow his
upon them when the crime was committed. consciousness to overcome the resolution of his will.
NOTE: If there are more than there armed men who shall (People v. Lagarto, Gr 65883, May 6, 1991)
have acted together, “aid of armed men” is absorbed by FACTS: The accused who pleaded guilty confessed tha that his
“employment of a band” wife died 100 days before and that Datu Rajamudah Mupuck
actually ordered him to go juramentado in Cotabato in order to
9. Recidivism (v) kill somebody because Mupuck had certain grievances to avenge
-among to two generic aggravating circumstance respecting against a lieutenant and a sergeant. Manalinde’s reward once he
multiple offenders accomplished the task was a pretty woman. In case he gets
caught, Manalinde was ordered by Mupuck to say that he
10. Habituality or Reiteracion (vi) performed the act in accordance to the orders of Maticayo, Datto
-among to two generic aggravating circumstance respecting Piang, Tambal and Inug. To carry out his plan, he provided
multiple offenders himself with a kris, which he concealed in banana leaves. He
travelled day and night before arriving at the town and going
11. In consideration of promise or reward juramentado. That upon reaching the town, he attacked from
-aggravating against both the inducer and the induced. behind a Spaniard, and immediately after, he attacked a chinaman
(U.S. v Parro, 36 Phil 932) who was close by; he further confessed that he had no quarrel
U.S. v. Manalinde, infra. with the assaulted persons.
FACTS: Promise of reward and premeditation are present, ISSUE: WON evident premeditation should be appreciated.
which in the present case are held to be generic, since the HELD: YES. Premeditation was present in the sense that upon
crime has already been qualified as committed with the accepting the order and undertaking the journey in order to
treachery, because the accused confessed that he voluntarily comply with the said order, the accused deliberately considered
obeyed the order given him by Datto Mupuck to go and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over the nature and
juramentado and kill some one in the town of Cotabato, with consequences of the acts which he was about to carry out. He
the promise that if he escaped punishment he would even provided himself with a weapon, to the extent of concealing
be rewarded with a pretty woman. the weapon, and travelling for a day and a night for the sole
purpose of taking the life of two unfortunate persons whom he disguise when some uses some device to prevent recognition.
did not know and with whom he had never any trouble. The crime Where a malefactor wore a mask to conceal his identity
was considered to be premeditated since it was evident that there during the commission of the crime, as is what happened in
was a firm and persistent intention of the accused from the this case where accused Arcilla wore a hood at that time he
moment when he first received the order until the crime was strafed the victims with his Armalite rifle, disguise is present
committed. and considered a generic aggravating circumstance.
NOTE: No mitigating circumstance can be afforded to the accused 15. Abuse of superior strength
because his act was not a matter of proper obedience. His -advantage be taken of superior strength.
allegation that he acted according to the Datu’s order cannot 16. Treachery (iii)
exculpate him because it is the barbarous and savage custom of -There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
a juramentado to kill anyone without any motive or reason crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in
whatever, and as such, it cannot be accepted or considered under the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure
the laws of civilized nations. Such exhibitions of ferocity and its execution without risk to himself arising from the
savagery must be restrained. defense which the offended party might make.
-a specific aggravating circumstance, applicable only to crimes
14. Craft, Fraud, disguise against persons
i. Craft- involves intellectual trickery and cunning on
the part of the accused People v. Sangalang, 58 SCRA 737 (1974)
ii. Fraud-direct inducement by insidious words. FACTS: deceased Ricardo Cortez left his nipa hut located at
How craft distinguish from fraud? Silang, Cavite to gather tuba from a coconut tree nearby.
- When there is a direct inducement by insidious words or Flora Sarno, his wife, was left inside the hut. While he was on
machinations, fraud is present; otherwise The act of the top of the tree gathering tuba, he was struck by a volley of
accused done in order not to arouse the suspicion of the shots. He fell to the ground at the base of the coconut tree.
victim constitutes craft. A complaint for murder was filed against the five aforenamed
persons including Sangalang
FRAUD CRAFT ISSUE: WON there was treachery in the killing of Ricardo
When there is a direct The act of the accused Cortez
inducement by insidious done in order not to HELD: Yes, the victim was shot while he was gathering tuba
words or machinations arouse the suspicion of on top of a coconut tree. He was unarmed and defenseless.
the victim constitutes
He was not expecting to be assaulted. He did not give any
craft
immediate provocation. The deliberate, surprise attack shows
iii. DISGUISE- There is disguise when some uses that Sangalang and his companions employed a mode of
some device to prevent recognition. execution which insured the killing without any risk to them
Illustrative case arising from any defense which the victim could have made.
People v. Bermas, supra.
FACTS: Around 8:30 p.m., at the sea, the offended parties People v. Rebucan, supra.
were on board a fishing boat (basnigan) named "Sagrada RULING AS TO EXISTENCE OF TREACHERY: In the
Familia". They intended to catch fish that night and brought instant case, the evidence of the prosecution established the
with them two (2) pressure gas lamps, a fishing net, rope and fact that the killings of Felipe and Ranil were attended by
a pole used for the net. Subsequently, a small paddled boat treachery, thus qualifying the same to murder.
(sibiran or sibid-sibid) with two (2) men on board approached TEST: There is treachery when the offender commits
the fishing boat. The sibiran proceeded to the prow of the any of the crimes against the person, employing
fishing boat and went around it four (4) times. Thereupon, means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
one passenger of Sagrada Familia ordered the offended party which tend directly and specially to insure its
to remove the shade of the gas lamp so that they could execution, without risk to himself arising from the
recognize accused’ campanion. Those notwithstanding, defense which the offended party might make.
appellant's (Bermas) companion could not be recognized Without any provocation, the accused-appellant suddenly
because his face was covered with a mask and only his eyes delivered fatal hacking blows to Felipe. The abruptness of
could be seen. Appellant's (Bermas) companion was then the unexpected assault rendered Felipe defenseless
wearing a blue long-sleeved jacket and maong pants. and deprived him of any opportunity to repel the attack and
Ultimately, bursts of gunfire from a high-powered automatic retaliate. As Felipe was carrying his grandson Ranil, the
rifle shattered the air killing Catalino Bellen and Teodoro Cas child unfortunately suffered the same fatal end as that of his
while mortally wounding Arturo Abion. grandfather. In the killing of Ranil, the trial court likewise
ISSUE: WON disguise should be appreciated correctly appreciated the existence of treachery. The said
HELD: Yes, the generic aggravating circumstance of disguise circumstance may be properly considered, even when
(disfraz) must be appreciated in case at bench. There is the victim of the attack was not the one whom the
defendant intended to kill, if it appears from the
evidence that neither of the two persons could in any 17. Ignominy (iv)
manner put up defense against the attack or become -a specific aggravating circumstance, applicable only to
aware of it. crimes against chastity
128
Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and
those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or the other conditions attending its commission. They are the
- There is no express guideline relationship as well as for (8) Arresto mayor
degree of instruction. But for intoxication, there is (9) Suspension
(10) Destierro
1. Relationship
Mitigating Aggravating Light penalties:
Mitigating in crimes Aggravating in crimes (11) Arrestor menor
against property against persons- if the (12) Public censure
-note in some instances, offended party is older or
absolutory cause. more senior. Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
(13) Fine
-crimes against chastity, (14) Bond to keep the peace
relationship aggravating
ACCESSORY PENALTIES (7)
2. Intoxication
Mitigating Aggravating (1) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
when the offender has When the intoxication is (2) Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
committed a felony in a either habitual or (3) Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
state of intoxication, if the intentional (when he
voted for, the profession or calling
same is not habitual or purposely intoxicated
(4) Civil interdiction
subsequent to the plan himself to increase his
to commit said felony confidence in commiting (5) Indemnification
the crime) (6) Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of
the offense
3. Degree of Instruction or Education (7) Payment of cost
Mitigating Aggravating
To be mitigating, there If the education and high Q: What is the difference between a principal and accessory
must be an absolute lack degree of instruction is penalty?
of education. If with used in the commission of A: The principal penalty is supposed to be included in the
elementary education, the crime. judgment of the trial court. The accessory penalties accompany
this can no longer be the principal penalty and that there is no need for the court to
invoked. Especially for include it in the judgment. Accessory penalties need not be
common crimes like expressly imposed; they are deemed imposed. (Art. 73)
murder, there is no need Outline of accessory penalties inherent in principal penalties:
for education to know
(Art. 40 to 44)
that murder or rape is
(1) Death, when not executed by reason of commutation
evil.
or pardon:
04/07/18 part 1 (a) perpetual absolute disqualification
Article 25. (b) civil interdiction for 30 years, if not expressly
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES (14) remitted in the pardon
(2) Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal:
Capital punishment: (a) civil interdiction for life or during the sentence
(1) Death (b)perpetual absolute disqualification, unless
expressly remitted in the pardon of the principal
Afflictive penalties: penalty
(2) Reclusion perpetua (3) Prision mayor:
(3) Reclusion temporal (a) temporary absolute disqualification
(4) Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification (b) perpetual special disqualification from suffrage,
(5) Perpetual or temporary special disqualification unless expressly remitted in the pardon of the principal
(6) Prision mayor penalty
(4) Prision correccional:
Correctional penalties: (a) suspension from public office, profession or calling
(7) Prision correccional
relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into
education of the offender. consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is
consideration when the offended party in the spouse, not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony
ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be
or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the considered as an aggravating circumstance.
offender.
(b) perpetual special disqualification from suffrage, if (1) A pardon shall not restore the right
the duration of imprisonment exceeds 18 months, unless to hold public office or the
expressly remitted in the pardon of the principal penalty right of suffrage.
Note: There is perpetual special disqualification from suffrage, Exception: When any or both such rights is or are expressly
only when the duration of the imprisonment exceeds 18 months. restored by the terms of the pardon.
(5) Arresto: (2) It shall not exempt the culprit from
(a) suspension of the right to hold office and the payment of the civil
the right of suffrage during indemnity. The pardon
the term of the sentence. cannot make an exception to
this rule.
Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments
of the crime. Limitations upon the exercise of the pardoning power:
(1) Every penalty imposed carries with it the (1) That the power can be exercised
forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime only after conviction.
and the instruments or tools used in (2) That such power does not extend
the commission of the crime. to cases of impeachment.
(2) The proceeds and instruments or tools of (Cristobal v. Labrador, 71
the crime are confiscated and forfeited Phil. 34, 38)
in favor of the Government. When you think of pardon, think of art. 23, 36, 89, 94, and 344.
(3) Property of a third person not liable for the
offense is not subject to confiscation Art. 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party.
and forfeiture. A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal
(4) Property not subject of lawful commerce action except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil
(whether it belongs to the accused or liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is
to third person) shall be destroyed. extinguished by his express waiver.
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification (Art. 30) Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage,
(a) Deprivation of public offices and seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. — The
employments, even if by election. crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted
(b) Deprivation of right to vote or to be elected. except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
(c) Disqualification for the offices or public
employments and for the exercise of The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution
any of the rights mentioned. without including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive,
(d) Loss of right to retirement pay or pension for nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the
any office formerly held. offenders.
1. By conditional pardon;
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while
he is serving his sentence.
than fine which the law those which commission of KIND AMOUNT
attaches the the law which a
129
Article 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light 130
Article 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light
felonies. - Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches penalty. - A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an
the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their
alternative penalty, shall be considered an afflictive
periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
penalty, if it exceeds One million two hundred thousand
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in pesos (P 1,200,000); a correctional penalty, if it does not
accordance with the above-mentioned Art.. exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission 1,200,000) but is not less than forty thousand pesos (P
of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding 40,000); and a light penalty if it be less than forty
forty thousand pesos (P 40,000) or both; is provided.(as thousand pesos (P 40,000). (as amended by RA 10951)
amended by RA 10951)
Afflictive Exceeds One million two Requisites
hundred thousands (P
1,200,000) i. That at least two offenses are committed
Correctional Does not exceed One ii. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary
million two hundred to commit the other
thousands (P 1,200,000)
iii. That both or all of the offense must be punished
but it is not less than
under the same statute.
Forty thousand (P 40,000)
Afflictive Less than forty - No complex crime where one of the offens is
thousand(P 40,000) penalized by a special law.
Illustrative case
Illustrative case Napolis v. CA, G.R. No. L-28865 February 28, 1972
People v. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307 (1950) FACTS: One evening, Mrs. Casimira Lagman Peñaflor , wife
FACTS: Julio Guillen planned to kill the Philippine of Ignacio Peñaflor , the owner of a store heard the barkings
President, Manuel Roxas, and threw a grenade during of the dog nearby indicating the presence of strangers.
a rally in Plaza Miranda, Manila, killing one person and Acting on instinct, she woke up husband Ignacio Peñaflor
injuring four others. He was charged and convicted by who went down the store to take a look. As he approached
the trial court of the complex crime of murder and the door of the store, it suddenly gave way having been
multiple frustrated murder. forcibly pushed and opened by 4 men, one of them holding
ISSUE: WON the trial court is correct in considering and pointing a machinegun. Upon receiving from someone
that the crime in this case is a complex crime a stunning blow on the head, Ignacio fell down but he
HELD: Yes, the case before us is clearly governed by pretended to be dead. One of the men asked Mrs. Casimira
the first clause of article 48 because by a single act, L. Peñaflor for money saying that they are people from the
that a throwing highly explosive hand grenade mountain. Ultimately, the CFI found the accused guilty
at President Roxas, the accused committed two beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery in band.
grave felonies, namely: (1) murder, of which Simeon The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court
Varela was the victim; and (2) multiple attempted convicting Napolis, Malana and Satimbre of the crime of
murder, of which President Roxas, Alfredo Eva, Jose robbery committed by armed persons, in an inhabited
Fabio, Pedro Carrillo and Emilio Maglalang were the house, entry therein having been made by breaking a wall,
injured parties. as provided in Article 299131 (a) of the Revised Penal Code.
In addition, however, to performing said acts, the
b. Complex Crime Proper- when an offense is a necessary malefactors had, also, used violence against Ignacio
means for committing the other. Peñaflor , and intimidation against his wife, thereby
infringing Article 294132 of the same Code, under conditions
131
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the
building or edifice devoted to worship. - Any armed person property taken exceeds 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in
who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public degree shall be imposed.
building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed,
punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property but the value of the property taken fifty thousand pesos
taken shall exceed fifty thousand pesos (P50000), and if: (P50000).
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the
the robbery was property taken does not exceed fifty thousand pesos
committed, by any of the following means: (P50000), they shall suffer the penalty prescribed in the two
1. Through a opening not intended for entrance or egress. next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an
window. inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools. religious worship, the penalties next lower in degree than
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of those prescribed in this article shall be imposed. (as amended
public authority. by ra 10951-before the threshold amount is 250 pesos)
132
Or if - Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or
(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following intimidation of persons - Penalties. - Any person guilty of
circumstances: robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of
1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other any person shall suffer:
kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle; 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by
2. By taking such furniture or objects to be broken or forced reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide
open outside the place of the robbery. shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have
been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
falling under sub-paragraph (5) of said article, which maximum period. This penalty should, in turn, be imposed
prescribes the penalty of prision correccional in its in its maximum period -- from nineteen (19) years, one (1)
maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, month and eleven (11) days to twenty (20) years of
which is lighter than that prescribed in said Article 299, reclusion temporal — owing to the presence of the
although, factually, the crime committed is more serious aggravating circumstances of nighttime.
than that covered by the latter provision. This Court had
previously ruled that where robbery, though committed in Discussion: Simply speaking, robbery has two main
an inhabited house, is characterized by intimidation, this divisions, namely: 1) Robbery with violence against or
factor "supplies the controlling qualification," so that the intimidation of person (art. 294(5)); and 2) Robbery in an
law to apply is article 294 and not article 299 of the Revised inhabited house or public building edifice devoted to
Penal Code. This is on the theory that "robbery which is worship.(art. 299(a)).
characterized by violence or intimidation against the person In this case, the offenders committed not only a single
is evidently graver than ordinary robbery committed by physical act but a series of acts constituting both violence
force upon things, because where violence or intimidation against the person of Ignacio Peñaflor and his wife(294(5)),
against the person is present there is greater disturbance and entry of the house or building by breaking the
of the order of society and the security of the individual." door.(art. 299(a)). Hence, this is not a compound crime,
And this view is followed even where, as in the present but another kind of complex crime, namely, the complex
case, the penalty to be applied under article 294 is lighter crime proper.
than that which would result from the application of article
299. 2. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME
- Also considered as a complex crime but the RPC itself
ISSUE: WON Art 294(5), which provides for the lighter provides for its penalty.
penalty than that which would result from the application - -e.g.
of article 299, should be applied due to the presence of i. robbery with homicide (Art. 294, par. 1),
intimidation which "supplies the controlling qualification" ii. robbery with rape (Art. 294, par. 2)133,
iii. kidnapping with murder or homicide (Art. 267, last
HELD: No, when the elements of both provisions are par.)134,
present, that the crime is a complex one, calling for
the imposition -- as provided in Art. 48 of said Code -- of
the penalty for the most serious offense, in its maximum
period, which, in the case at bar, is reclusion temporal in its
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
period to reclusion perpetua, when or if by reason or on reclusion perpetua to death
134
occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. -
penalized in subdivision I of Article 263 shall have been Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or
inflicted. in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more
penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next than three days.
preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period 2. If it shall have been committed simulating public
to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or authority.
intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been
have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if
commission of the crime, or when in the course of its threats to kill him shall have been made.
execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor,
not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries except when the accused is any of the parents, female or
covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263. a public officer.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum The penalty shall be death penalty where the kidnapping
period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases. or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting
133
the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none
reclusion perpetua when the robbery shall have been of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by the commission of the offense.
reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263 shall have detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be
accompanied with rape is committed with a use of a deadly imposed. (as amended by RA 7659)
iv. rape with homicide (Art. 266-B)135 penalty therefor. Hence, what is committed is a
special complex crime of rape with homicide.
Discussion as to robbery with homicide: - In this case, the robbery and homicide are not
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of considered two separate crimes, but a special complex
persons; Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the crime of robbery with homicide.
use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall
suffer: 3. CRIMES WHICH CANNOT BE COMPLEXED; Rebellion
cannot be complexed with any other offense committed on
2. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of commission or as an unintended effect of an activity(on the
homicide shall have been committed. Xxxx occasion) that constitutes rebellion. (Enrile v. Salazar,
- In this case, there are two crimes, robbery and G.R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990)
homicide. Enrile v. Salazar, supra.
- The homicide may either be a means in the FACTS: Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was
commission of robbery (i.e. the robber may kill in order arrested by law enforcement officers. He was charged Senator
to take the property of the victim-this is the classic Enrile with the complex crime of rebellion with murder and
exam of the second type of complex crime, a complex multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the
crime proper under art. 48. Nonetheless, the law period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to
specifically provides a penalty therefor under Art. December 10, 1990; Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the
294(1)).Hence, in such case, the rule which should be petition for habeas corpus herein,alleging that he was deprived
applied is not art. 48, but art. 294(1). Thus, it is of his constitutional rights as he was, among others, allegedly
considered as a special complex crime. denied of his right to bail; He contended that, based on
- But the killing may also be committed when the robber, Hernandez, rebellion should not be complexed with other
after the consummation of the offense by a unlawful common crimes. He was contesting the same since the complex
taking, is already being chase by the police officers. If crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder is
a bystander was killed during the shootout, the killing non-bailable as opposed to simple rebellion which is bailable.
of the bystander is not a necessary means, but the law The return filed by return by the Solicitor General urged that the
consider this as a Special complex crime. This petitioners' case does not fall within the Hernandez ruling
occurs when the killing is not a necessary means for because the information in Hernandez charged murders and
the commission of the robbery, but the killing occurs other common crimes committed as a necessary means for the
on the occasion of the robbery. commission of rebellion, whereas the information against Sen.
o Other example, if the robber is already escaping Enrile et al. charged murder and frustrated murder committed
and someone chased him. As a consequence, the on the occasion, but not in furtherance, of rebellion. Stated
latter was killed by the former. In such case, the otherwise, the Solicitor General would distinguish between the
act would not be a complex crime under art. 48 complex crime ("delito complejo") arising from an offense being
since the killing is not a necessary means for a necessary means for committing another, which is referred to
the commission of murder. Nonetheless, art. 249 in the second clause of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, and is
(1) provides for a single penalty in such case since the subject of the Hernandez ruling, and the compound crime
the killing was done on the occasion of the ("delito compuesto") arising from a single act constituting two
robbery. This this case, the crime is a special or more grave or less grave offenses referred to in the first
complex crime of robbery with homicide. clause of the same paragraph, with which Hernandez was not
o This also applies to rape. Of course, you cannot concerned and to which, therefore, it should not apply.
rape a person who is already dead. If the person The parties' oral and written pleas presented the Court with the
killed the person after raping her, the killing is not following options:
a necessary means for the commission of rape, (a) abandon Hernandez and that rebellion cannot absorb
thus not a complex crime falling under art. more serious crimes, and that under Article 48 of the
48. Nonetheless, art 266-B provides for a single Revised Penal Code rebellion may properly be complexed
with common offenses.
135
Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the "When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim
next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion has become insane, the penalty shall become reclusion
perpetua. perpetua to death.
"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly "When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by
weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death. reclusion perpetua to death.
"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be death. xxxx
(b) hold Hernandez applicable only to offenses committed the offense of rebellion. Such common offenses are absorbed or
in furtherance, or as a necessary means for the inherent in the crime of rebellion. (People v. Hernandez, 95
commission, of rebellion, but not to acts committed in the Phil 515).
course of a rebellion which also constitute "common" crimes CAVEAT: But a rebel who, for some independent or
of grave or less grave character; personal motives, commits murder or other common offenses
- meaning to say, rebellion only absorbs those crimes in addition to rebellion, nay be prosecuted for and convicted of
committed as necessary means for the commission of such common offenses. (People v. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90)
rebellion (e.g. killing of police officers during shoot, Not every act of violence is to be deemed absorbed in the crime
collecting revolutionary taxes), and not those which of rebellion solely because it happens to be committed
occurred during the occasion thereof e.g. killing of a simultaneously with or in the course of the rebellion. If the
bystander during shootout.) killing, robbing, etc. were done for private purposes or profit,
(c) maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion without any political motivation, the crime would be
absorb all other offenses committed in its course, whether separately punishable and would not be absorbed by the
or not necessary to its commission or in furtherance rebellion. But ever then, the individual misdeed could not be
thereof. taken with the rebellion to constitute a complex crime,
- rebellion absorbs whether the other offense is a for the constitutive acts and intent would be unrelated
necessary means or merely committed on the occasion to each other; and the individual crime would not be a means
thereof. necessary for committing the rebellion as it would not be done
ISSUE: WON Rebellion can be complexed with the other in preparation or in furtherance of the latter. This appears with
offenses committed in its course, whether or not necessary to utmost clarity in the case where an individual rebel should
its commission or in furtherance thereof. commit rape; the latter felony could not be said to have been
HELD: NO, rebellion cannot be complexed with any other done in furtherance of the rebellion or facilitated its commission
offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a in any way. The ravisher would then be liable for two
means necessary to its commission or as an unintended separate crimes, rebellion and rape, and the two could not be
effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. Hernandez merged into a juridical whole. (People v. Geronimo, supra.)
remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing - E.g. If a rebel, after going home, surprise his wife
of rebellion.(option c) flirting with another man and killed the other man. In
RATIONALE: There is one other reason-and a fundamental one such case, he will be charged separately for homicide
at that-why Article 48 of our Penal Code cannot be applied in and rebellion since the motive in the killing is a
the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, personal one and not political.
and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that - In the rebellion, the intent and the motive of the rebel is
this could be done), the following penalties would be imposable important. There are some crimes, where motive is not
upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine essential. But in rebellion, motive is important. In People v.
not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding Geronimo, the accused was convicted of rebellion and a
period, depending upon the modifying circumstances present, separate crime of murder.
but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the
crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death (now reclusion perpetua to death), depending upon the 4. CASES WHERE THE OFFENSES ARE NOT PRODUCED
modifying circumstances present. in other words, in the absence BY A SINGE PHYSICAL ACT, NEITHER THE OTHER
of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty (death) OFFENSE IS A NECESSARY MEANS.
could not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said i. STABBING.
penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence Illustrative case
of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if People v. Toling, G.R. No. L-27097, January 17, 1975
construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution, FACTS: Twins Jose and Antonio Toling were charged and
would be unfavorable to the movant. Upon the other hand, said convicted of multiple murder (9 deaths), multiple frustrated
Article 48 was enacted for the purpose of favoring the culprit, murder (6 victims) and triple homicide (3 victims), when
not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than that which they ran amuck in a Bicol-bound train, and stabbed
would be proper if the several acts performed by him were everyone whom they encountered inside the coach. Antonio
punished separately. Toling told the investigators that while in the train he was
COMMENT: In other words, if art. 48 would be applied in cases stabbed by a person "from the station" who wanted to get
of rebellion, the application of the said provision would not be his money. He retaliated by stabbing his assailant.
favourable to the accused thereby defeating the real intention He revealed that after stabbing the person who wanted to
of art. 48. In cases of rebellion, the other offenses are absorbed rob him, he stabbed other persons because, inasmuch as
by rebellion. he "was already bound to die", he wanted "to kill
everybody.
NOTE: Murder, arson, and robbery are mere ingredients of the ISSUE: Whether or not, the stabbings constitute a complex
crime of rebellion, as means “necessary” for the perpetration of crime.
HELD: No, the eight killings and the attempted killing ISSUE: WON the shooting constitutes a complex crime
should be treated as separate crimes of murder and HELD: No. For each death caused or physical injuries
attempted murder qualified be treachery (alevosia) (Art. inflicted upon the victims corresponds a distinct and
14[16], Revised Penal Code). The unexpected, surprise separate shot fired by the accused, who thus made himself
assaults perpetrated by the twins upon their co-passengers, criminally liable for as many offense as those resulting from
who did not anticipate that the twins would act like every single act that produces the same
juramentados and who were unable to defend themselves NOTE: Although each burst of shots was caused by one single
(even if some of them might have had weapons on their act of pressing the trigger of the sub-machine gun, in view of its
persons) was a mode of execution that insured the special mechanism the person firing it has only to keep
consummation of the twins' diabolical objective to butcher pressing the trigger with his finger and it would fire continually.
their co-passengers. The conduct of the twins evinced Hence, it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be
conspiracy and community of design. The eight killings considered as producing several felonies, but the number of
and the attempted murder were perpetrated by means bullets which actually produced them. (Reyes)
of different acts. Hence, they cannot be regarded as
constituting a complex crime under article 48 of the Revised 5. THE SINGLE CRIMINAL IMPULSE RULE.
Penal Code which refers to cases where "a single act Illustrative case
constitutes two or more grave felonies, or when an offense People v. Lawas, GR L-7618, June 30, 1955, 97 Phil. 975
is a necessary means for committing the other". FACTS: Lawas ordered the Moros to be tied in order to be
COMMENT: neither is the stabbing necessary means for the brought to another place. When one of the guards
commission of the other stabbings. approached Datu Lomangcolob, the latter refused,
thereupon, Laws fired his revolver at him and ordered the
ii. SHOOTING. guards to fire; the guards following the instructions fired at
Illustrative cases the Moros including those who tried to escape. After a short
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 611 (1999) time, Lawas ordered his men to “cease fire” and the firing
FACTS: Appellant Rolando Valdez and his companions were stopped.
armed with guns, and Without warning, they pointed their ISSUE: WON the multiple firing constitutes a complex
guns and fired at Montanos group. Rolando Valdez was crime
charged and convicted by the trial court of complex crime HELD: Yes, if the act or the acts complained of resulted
of multiple murder with double frustrated murder and for from a single criminal impulse, it constitutes a single
separate crime of illegal possession of firearms. offense. The evidence positively shows that the killing was
ISSUE: WON the trial court is correct in convicting the the result of a single impulse, which was induced by the
accused of complex crime of multiple murder with double order of the leader to fire, and continued with the intention
frustrated murder. to comply therewith, as the firing stopped as soon as the
HELD: No, the trial court is incorrect. It was clear from the leader gave the order to that effect. There was no intent to
evidence that the four crimes of murder resulted not from fire at each and everyone of the victims separately and
a single act but from several individual and distinct acts. distinctly from each other. Furthemore, it may also be
Each act by each gunman pulling the trigger of their added that there is absolutely no evidence as to the number
respective firearms, aiming each particular moment of persons killed by each and every one of the appellants,
at different persons constitute distinct and so even if we were induced to hold each appellant
individual acts which cannot give rise to the complex responsible for each and every death caused by him, it is
crime of multiple murder. The Supreme Court ruled that impossible to carry that desire into effect as it is impossible
Valdez was guilty, not of a complex crime of multiple to ascertain the individual deaths caused by each and
murder, but of four counts of murder for the death of the everyone. The Court is therefore forced to find the
four victims in this case. In the same manner, Valdez was appellants guilty of only one offense of multiple
likewise held guilty for two counts of frustrated murder. homicide for which the penalty to be imposed should be
COMMENT: neither is the shooting necessary means for the in the maximum period.
commission of the other shootings. NOTE: Art. 48 does not provide for a single criminal impulse, it
CAVEAT; GUNS WITH SPECIAL MECHANISM: Several only provides for a single act producing two or more grave or
shots from Thompson sub-machine gun causing several deaths, less grave felonies.
although caused by a single act of pressing the trigger, are -multiple homicide connotes either separate crimes of
considered several acts. homicide, or a complex crime of multiple homicide.
Illustrative case COMMENT OF ATTY. CALICA: Is this a valid decision?
People v. Desierto, C.A., 45 O.G 4542 Ofcourse, it’s a decision of SC. But when do you apply this, when
FACTS: The accused fired his Thomspon sub-machine gun do you know when there is a single criminal impulse, cannot we
at several persons. The first burst of shots hit three take a look of the mind of the shooters? That is the difficulty in
persons. The accused let loose a second burst of shots this ruling. But if you’re taking about a single act, you based it
wounding two others. on Guillen (e.g. a single act of throwing a bomb)
subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing
6. CONTINUED CRIMES AND CONTINUING CRIME offense, the arrest of Rolando Dural without a
warrant is justified as it can be said that he was
a. Continued Crimes (Continuous or continuing) committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of
- a single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit
arising from one criminal resolution. such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
- two or more acts which constitute a single crime as the furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute
acts arose from one criminal resolution direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of
- Only one penalty shall be imposed. continuing crime.
- A continued crime is not a complex crime
Illustrative case Q: When are two or more acts considered as a single crime?
People v. De Leon, G.R.L-25375 and 25376, October A: 1) when two or more acts are necessary means for
8, 1926 committing the other offense (complex crime proper);
FACTS: Accused Vicente de Leon entered the yard of 2) when the law provides for a single penalty therefor
Vicente Magat's house, and without violence or (special complex crime);
intimidation against persons nor force upon things, 3) when it arose from a single criminal resolution (continued
took, with intent to gain, two game roosters which or continuing crime).
were in the yard. Ultimately, the trial court found the 4) when the one act is absorbed by the other (e.g rebellion,
accused guilty of one crime of theft, holding that the treason)
theft of the two roosters constituted but one crime - In treason, giving aid to the enemy, he may perform
ISSUE: WON the taking of the two roosters multiple acts which may constitute separate crimes but
constituted only one crime. are absorbed in treason, the same in rebellion.
HELD: Yes. The act of taking the two roosters, in
response to the unity of thought in the criminal Sanlakas, et. al. v Angelo Reyes, et. al GR 159085,
purpose on one occasion, is not susceptible of being Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Separate Opinion
modified by the accidental circumstance that the article PERTINENT PORTION: Rebellion has been held to be a
unlawfully belonged to two distinct persons. There is continuing crimeand the authorities may resort to
no series of acts here for the accomplishment of warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion, as
different purposes, but only one of which was provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
consummated, and which determines the existence of However, this doctrine should be applied to its
only one crime. The act of taking the roosters in the proper context i.e., relating to subversive armed
same place and on the same occasion cannot give organizations, such as the New Peoples Army, the
rise to two crimes having an independent existence of avowed purpose of which is the armed overthrow of
their own, because there are not two distinct the organized and established government. Only in
appropriations nor two intentions that such instance should rebellion be considered a
characterize two separate crimes. continuing crime. When the soldiers surrendered
Q: What are the examples of continuing crime? peacefully in the evening of July 27, the rebellion or the
A: Rebellion and Subversion are continuing offenses (Umil coup d etat ended. The President, however, did not lift the
v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311(1990)) declaration of the state of rebellion until 5 days later, on
Illustrative case August 1, 2003. After the peaceful surrender, no person
Umil v. Ramos, supra. suspected of having conspired with the soldiers or
FACTS: The Regional Intelligence Operations Unit of the participated in the Oakwood incident could be arrested
Capital Command (RIOU-CAPCOM) received confidential without a warrant of arrest.
information about a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit being
treated for a gunshot wound at a hospital. Upon COMMENT: Rebellion as a continuing offense only
verification, it was found that the wounded person who was contemplates those which are committed by the rebels in the
listed in the hospital records as Ronnie Javelon is actually mountains.
petitioner Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA liquidation 7. TRANSITORY CRIMES
squad responsible for the killing of two CAPCOM soldiers -When some acts material and essential to the crimes and
the day before. He was positively identified by eyewitnesses requisite to their consummation occur in one
as the gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM municipality or territory and some in another, in
mobile patrol car and fired at the two CAPCOM soldiers which event, the court of either has jurisdiction to try the
seated inside. Thereafter he was arrested even without a cases, it being understood that the first court taking
warrant. cognizance of the case excludes the other.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s arrest was lawful.
HELD: Yes. Petitioner Dural was arrested for being a 1. Kidnapping
member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), an outlawed
HYPOTHETICAL FACTS: A Korean was forcefully taken from Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as transitory crimes. A suit
his house in Angeles, brought somewhere in Manila, and then on the check can be filed in any of the places where any of the
brought to Camp Crame in Quezon City where he was killed and elements of the offense occurred, that is, where the check is
cremated. Days after, ransom was demanded by the offenders. drawn, issued, delivered or dishonored. (Rigor v. People, G.R.
When the offenders asked for ransom, the Korean was already No. 144887. November 17, 2004)
dead.
Q: What did the offenders commit, kidnapping, or In Nieva, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,137 the accused delivered to
murder? Ramon Joven a post-dated check drawn against the Commercial
Q: When the offenders took him in the subdivision in Bank of Manila as payment for Joven's dump truck. Said check
Angeles City, did the offenders deprive him of his was deposited in the Angeles City Branch of the Bank of
liberty? Philippine Islands, joven was advised, however, that the
Q: If yes, was the crime kidnapping, or illegal Commercial Bank of Manila returned the check for the reason
detention? that the account against which the check was drawn is a "closed
Q: Assuming the detention took three days? account." Consequently, the accused was charged with violation
Q: Would it constitute a special complex crime of of BP 22 before the RTC of Pampanga. On the contention of the
kidnapping with murder if he was killed because he accused that said court had no jurisdiction to try the case, the
resisted immediately after he was forcefully taken? Court categorically ruled that such contention has no basis. The
A: First you recognize the facts, the facts indicates that evidence discloses that the check was deposited and/or
the offenders deprive him of his liberty, so it would presented for encashment with the Angeles City Branch of the
constitute illegal detention. Second, the killed the Bank of the Philippine Islands. This fact clearly confers
victim, so murder or homicide defending whether there jurisdiction upon the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga over the
be qualifying circumstances. Now, you determine crimes of which petitioner is charged. It must be noted that
whether the intention of the taking was just to kill, then violations of B.P. Blg. 22 are categorized as transitory or
it would be homicide since the deprivation of liberty is continuing crimes and so is the crime of estafa. The rule is that
merely an incident of the killing. On the other hand, if a person charged with a transitory crime may be validly tried in
they really deprived him of his liberty and on the any municipality or territory where the offense was in part
occasion thereof they killed the victim, then it would be committed.
a special complex crime. We look at their intent by
basing on their actions. (the examiner will not NOTE: A transitory crime is different from and not a continuing
expressly provide for the intent) crime.
Q: Is there an impossible crime in this case since the
ranson was demanded when the Korean was already B. THREE-FOLD RULE
dead? “Article 70. Successive service of sentence. - When
A: No, it is not an impossible crime. One of the the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall
requisites for an impossible crime136 is that the act serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
should have been a crime against persons or property. penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules
shall be observed:
Kidnapping is a crime against personal liberty and
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of
security. their respective severity shall be followed so that they
may be executed successively or as nearly as may be
possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the
In kidnapping, there may be several venues where the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have
information may be filed. It may be filed here in angeles city been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the
because the actual deprivation of liberty took place here. It may
next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the
also be filed in Quezon city, and in the place where he was penalties shall be determined in accordance with the
detained, e.g. in manila. This is what we call a transitory crime, following scale:
where the essential elements of the crime occurred in several 1. Death,
venues. If that is so, then the criminal complaint or information 2. Reclusion perpetua,
may be filed in any of the places where the essential element of 3. Reclusion temporal,
the crime were committed or occurred. 4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
2. Violation of B.P. 22- AN ACT PENALIZING THE 7. Arresto menor,
MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A CHECK 8. Destierro,
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR 9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
OTHER PURPOSES. 10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
136 137
Art. 4(2) G.R. Nos. 95796-97. May 2, 1997
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote QUESTION FROM THE CLASS: The Three-Fold Rule,
and be voted for, the right to follow a profession what penalty shall we reckon? Remember there is a
or calling, and duration prescribed under Art 27. Reclusion Temporal
12. Public censure. is 12 yrs and 1 day to 20 years. And there’s also
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next Reclusion Perpetua. But when the court imposes
preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's penalty, it takes note of the attending circumstances.
sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length First, we have the Prescribed Penalty (what is
of time corresponding to the most severe of the written in RPC or special penal law) then we have the
penalties imposed upon him. Imposable Penalty (after the court has appreciated
No other penalty to which he may be liable shall the attending circumstances)
be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals How do we compute then for Reclusion Perpetua? It’s
the same maximum period. perpetual imprisonment, in the first place, there
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty should be no period for this but then under Art 27 it
years. says 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. But that’s just
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration for reference. You know that it is indivisible penalty.
of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be Under Art 70, if it is reclusion perpetua, it would be
computed at thirty years.” counted as thirty years to be multiplied by 3. But the
maximum is 40 years only.
-pertains to a convict who was imposed several sentences Q: What is the importance of the duration of
-imprisonment can be served simultaneously with accessory Reclusion Perpetua?
penalties A: To be eligible for Pardon and For the application of
the three-fold rule ;
-imprisonment cannot be served simultaneously with other
imprisonment, in such case, the same shall be serve
successively base on severity In the case of Senator De Lima, she argues that the Corpus
Delicti has not been proved. The charged against Senator De
The three-fold rule; taken into account in the service (or Lima is that she is allegedly in trading Dangerous Drugs. And
execution) of the penalty, not in the imposition by the how do you prove that? By the existence of the Corpus Delicti
court. and the Corpus Delicti is composed of two components: (1)
llustrative case Commission of the Crime (2) Who Committed the Crime /
Mejoranda v. Sandiganbayan, Criminal Agencey.
RULING: Petitioner is mistaken in his application of the
three-fold rule as set forth in Article 70 of the Revised Penal
Code. This article is to be taken into account not in
the imposition of the penalty but in connection with Corpus Delicti – translated as the body of the crime; We are
the service of the sentence imposed (People v. not referring to the dead body or cadaver in Murder or Homicide.
Escares, 102 Phil. 677 [1957]). Article 70 speaks of When we talk about the body of the crime, we are actually
"service" of sentence, "duration" of penalty and penalty "to talking about the proof of the commission of the crime. How do
be inflicted". Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned we prove the commission of the crime? If you have been hearing
about the "imposition of penalty". It merely provides that the case of Barrameda in Malabon, she was killed and her body
the prisoner cannot be made to serve more than three times was placed in a drum. Her body was cemented and threw her
the most severe of these penalties the maximum of which body in the ocean. That happened against a wife by a Mayor.
is forty years. She was allegedly killed by the husband and her body was
thrown in the ocean. The body can no longer be found. Does
The Sandiganbayan, therefore, did not commit any error in that mean that just because the body of the crime cannot be
imposing eight penalties for the eight informations filed found, we cannot anymore prove the commission of the crime?
against the accused-petitioner. It can still be proved.
Q: How about criminal agency? A: Yes. If the crime involved, is Murder or Homicide. Then he is
the person who is causing or participating in the killing.
A: By positive identification of the perpetrators. But then for
person who may be held liable there are three.
Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The following are In Robbery, he should be the one taking the personal property.
criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
If he’s not the one who is taking the property, he is not a
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices. Principal by Direct Participation.
3. Accessories.
138
Hence, public censure.
and therefore is guilty of no wrong. The real domination of the accused over the persons who,
culprits in such a case, the only guilty at his orders, killed the deceased was such as to
persons, are those who use the violence, make him responsible for whatever they did in
those who force the other to commit the
obedience to such orders.
crime.
US vs INDANAN (1913)
In Pp vs Kichi Omine, the accused is one of the managers in a
Panglima Indanan is the headman of Parang. He plantation. Then there is an employee who fought with the
ordered the killing of the victim, representing that owner. Accused was present when the crime took place and
he also had orders from the Governor to do so. shouted “Kill him” but the employee was already fighting with
The SC convicted him as principal by inducement. the owner. His statements were not the moving force for the
The evidence demonstrates that Indanan was the employee to strike the owner. Hence, he was not considered as
recognized headman of Parang and it appears a principal by inducement. For instance, in a basketball game,
from the testimony of the witnesses that he had a the players were already shooting the ball in the game. So even
very powerful influence over them; hence, his if you shout “shoot it, shoot it.” The shouting is not a moving
power over them was such that any order issued force for the basketball player to shoot the ball. That’ what
by him had the force and efficacy of physical happened in Pp vs Kichi Omine, he shouted “kill him” but it did
coercion. SC was of the opinion that the not matter. It would matter if that shouting would influence the
139
Joke of Atty Calica: By using his good looks…By the wife who
tells her husband “You know, I want that guy to be killed.”
Principal by Direct Participation, if for instance the employee was inducement or the words uttered. For e.g the
not fighting with the owner. example I gave earlier (see footnote number
2), the wife. If the husband is 200% in love
with the wife, whatever tells the husband.
“You know, we will have a lovely night tonight
if by 6pm Mr. A will be out in this world.” And
PP vs KICHI OMINE
so the husband killed Mr. A. So both of them
will be held liable.
Hilario Pulido and Eduardo Autor were fighting. Pulido’s father
In the case of Us vs Indanan, the first
helped. Pulido’s father, Angel, was wounded. During the scenario given is that he was the headman
confrontation between Angel Pulido and Autor, Omine allegedly and he made a command. That was the first
shouted words of inducement to Autor (“pegale y matale”). SC mode. It was also considered that he may
held that Omine was not guilty as principal by inducement. have use words –to induce his followers. It
may not be a command but he told them “Kill”
and that was the primordial consideration of
the followers to kill the victim.
According to the witnesses for the prosecution, Hilario Pulido
and Autor had already struck each other in the face with their
Requisites for inducement:
fists, and Autor had received a blow in the right eye, and then
struck Hilario with his bolo. Angel Pulido would naturally
1. The inducement be made directly with the
intervene in the fight between his son and Autor, and if he did intention of procuring the commission of the
so, Autor, who had already drawn his bolo, would strike him crime;
without the need of any inducement from Omine. For instance, in the illustration given
earlier – the wife. “I want that guy to be
killed by tonight and we will have a great
night later on.” Of course, for the
Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, even if it husband that is the moving force.
were satisfactorily proved that Omine uttered the words in 2. Such inducement be the determining cause of the
commission of the crime [United States v.
question, we are of the opinion that they would not be sufficient
Indanan, 24 Phil. 203 (1913) and People v. Kiichi
to make him principal by induction, because it does not appear Omine, 61 Phil. 609 (1935)]]
that the words uttered by Omine caused Autor to strike Angel
Pulido. In the first place, Autor had already other reasons for
striking Angel Pulido when Omine is alleged to have uttered the
words of inducement. In the second place, the words in question
were not, in this particular case, sufficient to cause Autor to PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
strike the offended party with his bolo. Although Autor was
working under the direction of Omine, he was being paid by
Angel Pulido. It does not appear that Omine had any particular
The requisites of Article 17(3) are:
influence over Autor.
(1) participating in the criminal resolution, that is, there is
either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately before the commission of the crime
The second way is by consideration or price:
charged; and
The contract assassins – there’s price money
involved. The Principal by Inducement says (2) cooperation in the commission of the offense by
“You kill Mr. A and I will pay you 5,000 pesos”. performing another act without which it would not have been
The assassin is liable as Principal by Direct accomplished.
Participation, aggravated by the circumstance
of consideration of price, reward and money.
The Principal by Inducement is also liable and
his participation will also be aggravated. A person who cooperates in the commission of the
offense by another act without which it would not have
been accomplished is a principal.
Third way is through words or other means: You always think of this person as 1) HE IS ALWAYS
PRESENT AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME. They are
This is where the difficulty lies. The important similar with Principal by Direct Participation in a sense
thing is that the person who induces another that they are present at the scene of the crime. 2) BUT
primarily makes a statement to Principal by THEY ARE PERFORMING DIFFERENT ACTS.
Direct Participation that he wants the crime to The Principal by Direct Participation is consummating
be committed. And then the person who the criminal act, direct performance- killing for
commits the crime is actually moved by the example. How about the Principal by Indispensable
Cooperation? He is not killing the victim but he is In Pp vs Simbra, there were two persons, Berto Simbra
performing a different act which is indispensable to the and Tolibas. They successfully had carnal knowledge
killing of the victim. That happened in the case of Pp with a woman. But before this, the woman was trying
vs Montealegre. In this case, the policeman is trying to
to escape, Simbra got hold of the woman. When the
arrest two persons. One of them is Capalad. And then
Capalad got hold of his knife and stabbed the police woman tries to shout, Tolibas covered her mouth. So
officer. The police officer upon seeing this tries to get she was not able to call the attention of the passersby
his gun but Montealegre held his hands so he was not and then Simbra raped her. While he was raping the
able to get his gun. Montealegre was not trying to kill victim, TOlibas was holding the hand of the woman and
him, it was Capalade. So Capalad was the principal by then prevented her from shouting. Thus, his
Direct participation. As to Montealegre, without his participation to the rape of Simbra was indispensable.
participation, Capalad might not able to successfully kill
And then they reversed roles, there was conspiracy and
Camantigue (the police officer) because Camantigue
might able to get his gun and kill the perpetrators. exchange of participation. In the first instance, Simbra
Montealegre is the Principal by Indispensable was the Principal by Direct Participation and Tolibas
Cooperation and Capalad was the Principal by Direct was the Principal by Indispensable Cooperation. And
Participation. then they reversed. Tolibas now was the Principal by
Direct Particiaption. Simbra was the Principal by
Indispensable Cooperation.
PP vs MONTEALEGRE
PP vs SIMBRA
Police officer Renato Camantigue was trying to arrest
the accused Napoleon Montealegre and Vicente While complainant Gresilda Gonzales was fetching
Capalad who were smoking marijuana inside a water from the artesian well located in the public
restaurant. However, Capalad pulled out a knife and market in the evening, she was grabbed by accused
Montealegre held Camantigue’s hand and restrained Berto Simbra. She shouted for help but co-accused
him, thus, enabling Capalad to stab Camantigue. Sergio Tolibas covered her mouth with a handkerchief.
Camantigue died due to the stab wounds inflicted by Helping each other, Simbra and Tolibas dragged
Capalad Gonzales to a secluded place. Simbra then threw
Gonzales to the ground, while Tolibas held her arms
and covered her mouth. Simbra succeeded in having
carnal knowledge of Gonzales twice. Thereafter,
Montealegre was correctly considered by the trial court
Tolibas had carnal knowledge of Gonzales thrice, with
as a co-principal for having collaborated with Capalad
Simbra helping him by holding the arms of Gonzales.
in the killing of the police officer. The two acted in
concert, with Capalad actually stabbing Camantigue
seven times and Montealegre holding on to the victim’s
hand to prevent him from drawing his pistol and While complainant Gresilda Gonzales was fetching
defending himself. While it is true that Montealegre did water from the artesian well located in the public
not himself commit the act of stabbing, he was market in the evening, she was grabbed by accused
nonetheless equally guilty thereof for having prevented Berto Simbra. She shouted for help but co-accused
Camantigue from resisting the attack against him. Sergio Tolibas covered her mouth with a handkerchief.
Montealegre was a principal by indispensable Helping each other, Simbra and Tolibas dragged
cooperation under Article 17, paragraph 3 of the Gonzales to a secluded place. Simbra then threw
Revised Penal Code. Gonzales to the ground, while Tolibas held her arms
and covered her mouth. Simbra succeeded in having
carnal knowledge of Gonzales twice. Thereafter,
Tolibas had carnal knowledge of Gonzales thrice, with
The requisites of Article 17(3) are: (1) participating in
Simbra helping him by holding the arms of
the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior
Gonzales.Simbra escaped and only Tolibas was
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention
charged and convicted of rape. SC modified the
immediately before the commission of the crime
conviction, by sentencing Tolibas not only to one rape
charged; and (2) cooperation in the commission of the
but to two counts of rape of Gonzales, one for the rape
offense by performing another act without which it
committed by Simbra and another for the rape
would not have been accomplished.
committed by him.
Considering that Tolibas had sexual intercourse with becoming a Principal. And that is being part of
Gonzales against her will by employing force and CONSPIRACY.
intimidation, the crime committed is rape through
direct participation. And when Tolibas aided Simbra
and made it possible for the latter to have carnal
Again, three modes of being a principal under Art 17.
knowledge of Gonzales, also against her will, Tolibas
And then the fourth mode is Principal by Conspiracy.
committed another crime of rape through
We should take a look at this at different perspective.
indispensable cooperation. Thus, Tolibas is guilty of
Because under Art 17, the principals are liable there
two crimes of consummated rape.
ONLY for their personal acts. They cannot be held liable
for the acts of others. But if they are in conspiracy,
they are liable even for the acts of others. So even if
So the participation of a Principal by Indispensable they are just sitting in the sofa and the co-conspirators
Cooperation by its term connotes indispensability. The are committing a crime, they are liable for the acts of
crime wouldn’t have been committed were it not for their co-conspirators who committed the crime even if
the indispensable cooperation. That differentiates they are not in the scene of the crime.
Principal by Indispensable Cooperation to an
Accomplice
Difference between a principal
PP vs DOBLE
Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in
Ten men robbed the Prudential Bank in Navotas, Rizal. They
Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code (e.g. principals), cooperate
rode banca from Manila to Navotas. Cresencio Doble looked for
in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
the banca to deliver the robbers from Manila to Navotas, Rizal,
acts.
while Romaquin was the owner of the banca and was the one
who brought the robbers from Manila to Navotas, Rizal and vice-
versa. However, the SC held that they were not principals in the
In Pp vs Nierra, the wife of the brother was killed. Paciano talked crime. At most, their liability would be that of mere accomplices.
to Doblen and it was Doblen who introduced the Nierra spouses They joined the criminal design when Cresencio consented to
to the killer who is Gaspar Misa. So Doblen was the intermediary. look for a banca and Romaquin provided it when asked by the
They had an agreement and Doblen got the gun and gave it to gang leader, and then brought the malefactors to the scene of
the killer. So the participation of Doble was only to introduced the robbery, despite knowledge of the evil purpose for which
140
People v. Listerio, 335 SCRA 40 (2000 Principals. But if not part of conspiracy and merely concurred
141
This is an issue posed in Pp vs Nierra. But in PP vs Doble, in the criminal resolution, he is considered only as an
SC discussed many cases, the essence of these cases is that if Accomplice.
they were part of conspiracy then they will be considered as
the banca was to be used. It was the banca that brought the simultaneous acts." The Court has held that an accomplice is
malefactors to the bank to be robbed and carried them away "one who knows the criminal design of the principal and
from the scene after the robbery to prevent their apprehension. cooperates knowingly or intentionally therewith by an act which,
Cresencio and Romaquin thus cooperated, but not in an even if not rendered, the crime would be committed just the
indispensable manner. Even without them providing the banca, same."
the robbery could have been committed, specially with the
boldness and determination shown by the robbers in committing
the crime.
To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements
must be present:
RULE: If you just concur with the criminal resolution, you are
only a mere accomplice (Pp vs Vera)
ACCESSORIES
Conspirator vs Accomplice
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated
The Revised Penal Code provides that a conspiracy exists when
therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part
"two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
commission of a felony and decide to commit it." To prove
conspiracy, the prosecution must establish the following three
requisites: "(1) that two or more persons came to an agreement,
(2) that the agreement concerned the commission of a crime, 1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to
and (3) that the execution of the felony (was) decided upon." profit by the effects of the crime;
Except in the case of the mastermind of a crime, it must also be
shown that the accused performed an overt act in furtherance
of the conspiracy. The Court has held that in most instances, 2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or
the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent
direct proof of a previous agreement need not be established,
its discovery; or
for conspiracy may be deduced from the acts of the accused
pointing to a joint purpose, concerted action and community of
interest. 3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts
with abuse of his public functions or whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide,
On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code defines accomplices murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
as "those persons who, not being included in Article 17, Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or other crime.
the killing of the father. The mother told the daughter not to tell
who killed her father. The wife was held to be guilty as an
For instance in the movies, the police officers Accessory. She knew who killed the husband. She is liable for
are depicted as like this, that they arrive after (b) and (c) of Art 19. She hid the body of the crime and she also
the crime has been committed and all the
assisted in the escape of the principal.
criminals had been killed by the bida. The
police comes and profited from the bida. So
accessories are like this, they come to the
scene of the crime after it had already been
consummated already. So that’s the first thing In Pp vs Vino, (Atty Calica is quite confused daw because the
you should remember. killing happened when the accused were riding a bicycle) Vino
Next, the accessories must also know that the was caught but Salazar (the gunman) went into hiding. Vino
crime has been committed. They arrived late only participated after the commission of the crime, he only
but they know that a crime has been assisted in the escape of the Principal. He was charged as a
committed and despite that they profit from
Principal. The first question is if he was charged as a Principal,
the effects of the crime. For e.g a robber and
can he be convicted as an accessory? Yes. The lesser degree of
he said to his BFF, hey we robbed PNB today
and got 1 million. So BFF says, how about participation is included in the higher degree of participation.
me? Penge balato. Oh sama ka na lang The next question is, the case against Salazar, the Principal,
mamaya maghappy happy tayo. proceeded separately. Can the case of an accessory proceeded
They assist by concealing or destroying the independently form the case of the Principal? Yes. As long as
body of the crime. For e.g there is a body in the commission of the crime has been established. You
a pool of blood, then the accessory conceals
differentiate this in the case of Pp vs Ong Chiat Lay. Atty. Calica
the body so as to prevent the discovery of the
body of the crime. does not agree with the decision of Ong Chiat Lay. He was of
They harbor, conceal or assist in the escape the opinion that Pp vs Vino is a better decision. Salazar was
of the principal of the crime. Take note that acquitted on the abiss of reasonable doubt. So the enxt query is
the accessory here is either (1)Public Q: Can the accessory be held liable when the principal was
Officer – who acts with abuse of his public acquitted? A: SC said Yes. There may be various reasons for th
function and (2) the author of the crime acquittal of the principal. But once it has been established that
is guilty treason, parricide, murder, or an
a crime has been committed, the degree of participation of the
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive.
(Only four crimes. So if the principal is guilty participants may (traverse142) from each other. The case may
of Kidnapping. Then he cannot be an proceed independently from each other. Even though one may
Accessory) and is known to be habitually be acquitted, it doesn’t hinder the prosecution of the another.
delinquent. Good case according to Atty. Calica.
There are only limited situations when an
Accessory may be punished that’s why we
have PD 1829 or the Obstruction of Justice
Law.
PP vs VINO
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
Roberto Tejada was shot on the street. His father, Ernesto, went
It covers not only assisting in the escape of the
out of the house, along with another eyewitness, when they
principal who is guilty for the crimes of treason,
parricide or murder or an attempt to take the life of the heard the gun shots and subsequently saw Lito Vino and Jessie
Chief Executive. Salazar riding a bicycle. Vino was driving it while Salazar was
Any crime punishable by RPC, if a person assists in his carrying an armalite. Upon reaching the house of Tejada’s
escape. Then he can be liable for obstruction of justice. father, Ernesto, Vino and Salazar stopped to watch Roberto.
So if he’s not covered under Art 19 , then he can be Salazar pointed his armalite at Ernesto and his companions. But
covered under PD 1829.
then, they just left.
142
Transcriber’s note: not sure with the word used by Atty.
Calica. But in my understanding, what he meant was “the
case may proceed independently”
resulted in his acquittal because his guilt beyond reasonable offense had been proven in the separate case against Salazar
doubt (specifically his identity) was not proved. who was charged as principal. However, Salazar was acquitted
on the ground of reasonable doubt which held that the identity
of the assailant was not clearly established.
A corporation cannot be arrested and imprisoned; hence, The complication comes when there is Privileged
cannot be penalized for a crime punishable by imprisonment. Mitigating Circumstance, so there is one degree lower.
However, a corporation may be charged and prosecuted In the example above of Reclusion Temporal, one
for a crime if the imposable penalty is fine. Even if the degree lower that will be Prision Mayor but the rule
statute prescribes both fine and imprisonment as penalty, a under ISLAW with respect to the minimum is the
corporation may be prosecuted and, if found guilty, may be prescribed penalty. So the maximum and minimum
fined. will be the same. So you will drop one degree lower for
the minimum sentence. Otherwise, it’s very simple you
just get the maximum penalty which is the penalty
imposable after considering all the circumstances. The
ATTY. CALICA: if this is asked in the bar exams, and minimum is one degree lower prescribed. (In the Bar
you are not sure if the bar examiner is knowledgeable
Exam, the examiner shall always indicate the
of this, take it easy. The bar examiner may be shocked.
Prescribed Penalty)
You start your answer that while as a general rule, a
corporation cannot be held criminally liable, because
willful malice is required and a corporation is not
capable of malicious intent. But the case of Ching vs
Sec of Justice provides that a corporation may be held For Special Penal Laws:
liable if there’s an imposable penalty of fine. Even if
the statute prescribes both fine and imprisonment as The law in Anti-Graft provides a penalty of
penalty, a corporation may be prosecuted and, if found imprisonment not less than one year and not more
guilty, may be fined. than ten years. What is the minimum? Not less than
one year. What is the maximum? Not more than 10
years. So it’s everything in between from one year to
POINTERS FOR THE MIDTERM EXAMS:
ten years.
Read everything in Book I
Know the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the
Probation Law considering that the Midterm exam
Know the persons disqualified under Indeterminate
covers everything in Book I
Sentence Law:
Extinction of Criminal Liability and Civil Liability
143
If destierro, Atty. Calica said it is excluded in the list.
4. convicted of piracy;
5. habitual delinquents; (note that recidivists are
entitled to ISL, PP vs Jaranilla)
6. those who escaped from confinement or those
who evaded sentence;
7. those granted conditional pardon and who violated
its terms;
8. those whose maximum period of imprisonment
does not exceed one year
Note: ISL applies even of the penalty is a result of
plea bargaining