CrimNotes Exiled

 Criminal Law - that branch of public substantive law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for
their punishment.
o A law that defines a crime and provides for its penalty – penal law.
o Ex: If there is crime that penalizes slanderous comments on Facebook – if there is a law defining the crime
and provides for its penalties – that is a penal law.

 Difference between Criminal law and Criminal Procedure:

CRIMINAL LAW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 Defines crimes, treats of their nature, and  Provides for the method or process how a
provides for their punishment. person who committed a crime will be tried
and punished.
 It is substantive.  It is remedial.
 Prospective in application.  Retroactive in application.

Exception: If it favorable to the accused.

Exception to the Exception:

1. When the accused is a habitual
delinquent. (Art. 22)
2. When the new law expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions of
existing causes of actions. (Tavera vs.
Valdez)
 Statutory; it is passed by the Legislature.  May be promulgated by the Legislature or the
Judiciary.

 What is crime? It refers to an act committed or omission incurred in violation of a criminal law.

 Sources of Criminal Law:

1. The Revised Penal Code – main source
2. Special Penal Laws
3. Presidential Decrees issued during the Martial Law
4. Ordinances
Spanish law, Canonical law
 Are there common law crimes in the Philippines? No, because the law in our country is: there is no crime if there
is no law punishing it. Legal basis: Art.5 RPC
o Ex: Ulitawo ka, nya lima na kabuok imo gipa-angkan, will you be imprisoned? No, this could be morally
wrong but you could not be held criminally liable because there is no law punishing it.
 Exc: if minor imo naburusan – pwede Child Abuse or no support for the kids – pwede VAWC.
Aquit, but recommend that a penal should be passed. Enrile vs Salazar.
 Are Supreme Court decisions considered a source for penal laws? No, because court decisions merely explain the
meaning and apply the laws.

 Limitations on the power of Congress to enact Penal Laws:

o CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS:
1. EQUAL PROTECTION
Art. III, Sec. 1, 1987 Const. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
2. DUE PROCESS
Art. III, Sec. 14 (1), 1987 Const. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.

Page 1 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 It hears before it condemns and renders judgment only after trial.

3. NON-IMPOSITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT OR EXCESSIVE FINES
Art III, Sec. 19, 1987 Const. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any
death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
4. EX POST FACTO LAW OR BILL OF ATTAINDER
Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Const. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
1. EX POST FACTO is one which:
(1) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such an act.
 Ex: You committed a crime in 1980 and at that time there is no law
punishing it yet – you cannot be convicted of such crime once a law
will be enacted this year punishing that act.
(2) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed;
 Ex: The punishment for libel is example, 6 years but it will be increased
to 12 years. Ikaw na naka-commit ug libel last year, dili ka pwede i-
punish ug 12 years.
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the
offense;
 Ex: Congress will enact a law changing the quantum of proof required
to convict a crime to substantial evidence lang or preponderance of
evidence, pwede siya. Pero dapat dili retroactive.
 Case: Lacson vs Executive Secretary, GR No. 128096
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.[Reyes, The Revised Penal Code citing In re: Kay
Villegas Kami, Inc.]
2. BILL OF ATTAINDER
 A legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the
substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.

o OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS

1. Must not provide imprisonment for non-payment of debts or poll tax. [1987 Const. Art. III, Sec.
19 (1)]
2. Must not restrict other constitutional freedoms, e.g. due process, religion, free speech, and
assembly.

o What are the rights of the accused? Art III, Const. Bill of Rights
1. The right to free access to the courts and adequate legal assistance.
2. The right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have counsel when under
investigation for the commission of an offense.
3. The right against the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiates the free will.
4. The right against being held in secret, incommunicado, or similar forms of solitary detention;
5. The right to bail and against excessive bail.
6. The right to due process of law.

Page 2 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

7. The right to presumption of innocence.

8. The right to be heard by himself and counsel.
9. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
10. The right to have speedy, impartial, and public trial.
11. The right to meet the witnesses face-to-face.
12. The right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf.
13. The right against self-incrimination.
14. The right against detention by reason of political beliefs and aspirations.
15. The right against excessive fines.
16. The right against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
17. The right against infliction of the death penalty except for heinous crimes.
18. The right against double jeopardy.
19. The right against ex post facto law and bill of attainder.

o There are also Statutory Rights provided in the Rules of Court. Examples:
1. The right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
2. The right to cross-examine the witnesses against him.
3. The right to appeal.

 CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW:

1. GENERALITY –
 GR: Our penal laws are binding against all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory.
1. Ex: A Korean stabs another Korean; can you charge him with homicide here in the
Philippines? Yes, because our penal laws are binding on all persons who live or sojourn
in the Philippines, even or including foreigners.
 EXC: Except as provided in the treaties or laws of preferential stipulations and subject to the
principles of pubic international laws.
1. Treaty Stipulations
o Ex: Bases Agreement, Visiting Forces Agreement, Enhanced Defense
Cooperation Agreement between the US and Philippines. The American
soldiers who committed a crime here in the Philippines, we have concurrent
jurisdiction over them with their military court.
2. Laws of Preferential Applications
o Ex: RA No. 75 - Any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State,
authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic
servant of any such ambassador or minister are exempt from arrest and
imprisonment and whose properties are exempt from distraint, seizure and
attachment.
 EXC: Case: Shauf vs CA, 191 SCRA 713 – The doctrine of immunity from
suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is
being sued in his private and personal capacity. A public official may be
liable in his personal and private capacity for whatever damage he
may have caused for his act done with malice and bad faith beyond his
authority and jurisdiction.
o Ex: Members of Congress are not liable for libel or slander for any speech in
Congress or in any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution)
o Ex: Members of Congress are not liable while Congress is still in session and
they committed a crime where the imposable penalty does not exceed 6 years.
3. Principles of Public International Law
o Ex: The following persons are exempt from the provisions of the RPC:
1. Sovereigns and other heads of state

Page 3 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

2. Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary, minister resident and

charges d’ affaires. (Article 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations)
 Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT exempt from local
prosecution. [See Article 41, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]

2. TERRITORIALITY –
 GR: Penal laws of the country have the force and effect only within its territory.
a) It cannot penalize crimes committed outside its territory.
b) The national territory comprises the Philippine Archipelago… [Art. I, 1987
Constitution].
c) The territory of the country is not limited to the land where its sovereignty
resides but includes also its maritime and interior waters as well as its
atmosphere.[Art. 2, RPC]
1. Ex: A husband who is in Saudi committed concubinage there. If he returns to the
Philippines, can you sue him for concubinage here in the Philippines? No, because the
crime was committed abroad. Our penal laws are effective only within our territory. If a
crime is committed outside our territory, it is no longer punishable.
2. Ex: Same facts but after the expiration of the husband’s contract, padayon ug live-in sa
Cebu. Can you now sue? Yes, the crime is already committed in the country.
3. Ex: If ang husband overseas, ang wife nabilin dires Philippines, nangabit. Can you sue the
wife for adultery? Yes, crime was committed in the country.
 EXC: Art. 2 of RPC
PRC mentions of extraterritorial crimes, which are punishable even if committed
outside the Philippine territory.
1. Crimes committed aboard Philippine ship or airship.
 The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the crime is committed while the ship
is treading:
 Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or
 The high seas i.e. waters NOT under the jurisdiction of any State
(extraterritorial)
 NOTE: The country of registry determines the nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS
OWNERSHIP. A Filipino-owned vessel registered in China must fly the Chinese
flag.
 Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels
while in the territorial waters of another country (i.e. a foreign vessel treading
Philippine waters OR Philippine vessels treading foreign waters):
 French Rule: It is the flag or nationality of the vessel which determines
jurisdiction UNLESS the crime violates the peace and order of the host
country.
 English Rule: the location or situs of the crime determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime merely relates to internal management of the
vessel.
 The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH RULE.
 However, these rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on
the high seas when the crime was committed. In these cases,
the laws of the nationality of the ship will always apply.
 When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign
country, the nationality of the vessel will always determine
jurisdiction because war vessels are part of the sovereignty of
the country to whose naval force they belong.
 Cases: US vs Fowler, 1 Phil Rep. 614 - Of all crimes and offenses
committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any country,

Page 4 of 129
CrimNotes Exiled

or within any of the navigable waters of the Philippine Archipelago, on

board a ship or water craft of any kind registered or licensed in the
Philippine Islands in accordance with the laws thereof.
 US vs Look Chaw, 18 Phil. Rep. 573 - Mere possession of a thing of
prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in
any of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable
by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being
considered as an extension of its own nationality, the same rule does
not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the
Philippine Islands, in the present case a can of opium, is landed from
the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of
the laws of the land, with respect to which, as it is a violation of the
penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime, only the
court established in that said place itself had competent jurisdiction, in
the absence of an agreement under an international treaty.
 People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. Rep. 729 – The accused is sued for
illegally smoking opium aboard an English merchant vessel anchored
in our jurisdictional waters (Manila Bay). SC: Mere possession of opium
in such a ship, without being used in our territory is not considered a
disturbance of the public order. But to smoke opium within our
territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is
certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it
causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory.
2. Forging/Counterfeiting and coins or currency notes of the Philippines.
3. Should introduce into the country the above mentioned obligations and securities.
4. When public officers or employees commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions.
 The crimes which may be committed are:
i. Direct bribery (A.210)
ii. Qualified Bribery (A. 211-A)
iii. Indirect bribery (A.211)
iv. Corruption (A.212)
v. Frauds against the public treasury (A.213)
vi. Possession of prohibited interest (A.216)
vii. Malversation of public funds or property (A. 217)
viii. Failure to render accounts (A.218)
ix. Illegal use of public funds or property (A.220)
x. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (A.221)
xi. Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of
his official position (A.171)
xii. Those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign
country.
 The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law:
 to be performed by the public officer;
 in the foreign service of the Phil. government;
 in a foreign country.
5. Commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations.
 Crimes against national security:
i. Treason (A.114)
ii. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (A.115)
iii. Misprision of treason (A.116)
iv. Espionage (A.117)

Page 5 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Crimes against the law of nations:

i. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (A.118)
ii. Violation of neutrality (A.119)
iii. Correspondence with hostile country (A.120)
iv. Flight to enemy’s country (A.121)
v. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine waters
(A.122)
 Note: Crimes against public order (e.g., rebellion, coup d’etat, sedition)
committed abroad is under the jurisdiction of the host country.
 Terrorism is now classified as a crime against national security and the law of
nations. (See R.A. 9372, Human Security Act of 2007).

3. PROSPECTIVITY -
 GR: Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed AFTER a penal law
has taken effect.
 EXC: Penal laws shall have retroactive effect, insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony.
 EXC to the EXC:
1. The offender is a habitual criminal.
2. The new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing cause of
actions. No retrospective application
*Self-repealing law

 Schools of Thought on Penal Legislation Read: Philosophies

Jurisdic 1. Classical Theory – an eye for an eye
 Emphasis is on the act.Crime/offense
 Primary purpose: Retribution which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense.
 Basis of criminal liability: Human freewill to choose between good and evil.
 Endeavored to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between crime and penalty; there is
scant regard to human element. Ex. Murder
Realistic 2. Positivist Theory –
 Emphasis is on the actor.
Offender
 Primary purpose: Reformation; prevention/correction.
 Basis of criminal liability: Man is a social being and his acts are attributable not just to his will but
to other forces of society. The sum of social, natural and economic phenomena to which the
actor is exposed. Imposed on a case to case basis

 NOTE: The RPC today follows a mix of Classical and Positivist philosophy. Although mostly,
classical, ie: heinous crimes should be dealt with in a classical manner; thus, capital punishment.
But there are also crimes based on positivist manner; ie: crimes that are economic and social by
nature should be dealt with in a positivist manner; thus, the law is more compassionate. (Ex:
mitigating circumstances, probation law, and indeterminate sentence law).
3. COMPLEX OR INECCLECTIC- Mix of both
 TERRITORIAL vs. GENERAL:
When you say territorial, that refers to the place of the commission of the crime. The other characteristic is
generality. In generality, you will bear in mind, who committed the crime. Territorial, where is the crime
committed?

In order for our courts to have jurisdiction over the crime, it must be committed within our territory as a rule.

Under article 2, it says, our laws, this refers the Revised Penal Code, it has 2 parts. RPC is just one of the sources of
our criminal laws, we also have those laws we call penal in nature.

Page 6 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Penal Law – defines crimes, this refers to act or omission with a corresponding penalty. It is not only an act, it
could be an omission.
a. Act – you have done something against the law
b. Omission – you haven’t done anything but ought to do something under the law
In our laws, we are punished because of an act or omission, you are not punished of you are just thinking (the
crime you want to commit)

 Example of act or omission

 Art 218-219
In government transactions, you have to issue receipts. If you don’t issue a receipt, you will be penalized. Why are
you being punished when you haven’t done anything? The point is, you have to do what is stated in the law.

One of the sources of our penal laws is the Revised Penal Code,
1. Book One (Arts. 1-113) – It is about criminal liability, the principles and circumstances affecting criminal liability i.e.
aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances and so on, because these affect criminal liability or the
penalty imposable. It does not define crimes, only impossible crime is mentioned (Art. 59, Art.4). It also talks about
penalties and its duration and civil liability
2. Book Two (Arts. 114-365) – talks about crimes, defines crimes and provides the corresponding penalties
Ex. Homicide – unlawful killing of another person which is not parricide or murder and the penalty is, according to
Art. 249, Reclusion Temporal.

BOOK ONE
GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE DATE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS CODE, AND REGARDING THE OFFENSES, THE
PERSONS LIABLE AND THE PENALTIES

Preliminary Title
DATE OF EFFECTIVENESS AND APPLICATION
OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE

Article 1. Time when Act takes effect. — This Code shall take effect on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and
thirty-two.

Art. 2. Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the
provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One
of Book Two of this Code.

Territorial – place of the commission of the crime

In order for the case to prosper, the crime must have been committed within our territory.

 Territory – constitutional definition of territory

By way of exception, there are instances when our laws are given extra-territorial effectivity. Even if the crime is
committed outside the country, the case can prosper as long as the following circumstances are present:

Page 7 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

 Take note that it is not the ownership of the vessel but the registration.
 Ex. The crime is committed on board a Philippine ship but the ship is anchored in Malaysia. Do we have
jurisdiction over the crime committed in Malaysia? Yes, but if the case is already prosecuted in Malaysia
(because take note that the crime is committed in Malaysia, so it is possible that the country will take
jurisdiction). So if the foreign country where the crime is committed on board a Philippine registered ship,
if that foreign country has already taken jurisdiction (there is already a case filed), then we will not
anymore take cognizance over that crime.
For example, a case is file in the Philippines, where will it be filed? In any RTC. So it could be at the place where
that ship anchored, if it anchored in Manila, then the case can be filed in RTC Manila.
For example, the crime is committed in Spratlys (ownership is disputed by China and the Philippines). You can file a
case in the Philippines

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands
 So if you counterfeit money even if you are outside the country, the Philippines has jurisdiction.

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the presiding number

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions
 Ex: you are an employee of the Philippine Embassy in Japan. So you committed there, falsification or
malversation in connection with the performance of you duties, then you can be charged here.

5. Should
While commit
being public officers
any of the crimesor employees,
against national should
security commit anofoffense
and the law nations.in the exercise of their functions
 Ex: treason, espionage
If you committed any of the crimes mentioned in the law outside the country, for example China and
Philippines are at war, and you supported China, then you are liable for treason. If you are in Hongkong, can
you be held liable even if you commit the treasonous act in HK? Yes, because you committed a crime against
national security, treason, or a crime that is considered against the law of nations.
 Ex: Piracy (crime against humanity) – for example, piracy is committed in high seas or in Somalia, and the
authorities chase the pirates, if they are caught in the Philippine waters, they can be charged here in the
Philippines.

These are the exceptions to the characteristics of territoriality.

These are instances when our laws are given extra-territorial effect. Meaning even if that particular crime is committed
abroad, our courts can have jurisdiction.

Title One
FELONIES AND CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Chapter One
FELONIES

Art. 3. Definitions. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

 Felony – that refers to the violation of the provisions of the RPC. They are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.
 Offense – refers to violation of special laws

Page 8 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Crime – generic term for the violation of the law, it could be a violation of the RPC or special penal laws

How are felonies committed:

1. Deceit (dolo) – you have the deliberate intent to commit the crime or to incur such omission
1
2. Fault (culpa) – when the act results from imprudence or negligence
imprudence – lack of skill / deficiency of action [kuwang sa kabang-gaagan]
 negligence – lack of foresight / deficiency of perception [danghag]

In order to be liable, when the crime is committed through deceit, meaning with intent, that person, in order to be liable
must have freedom.

Because if you commit a crime, and you do not have freedom, meaning you commit it through irresistible force, or
uncontrollable fear, you are nor liable.

Crimes committed through dolo, in order to be held liable, there must be:

1. FREEDOM
 Ex: A drunk employer from Mabolo, called out his male helper. He then asked his male helper to rape his female
helper in front of him, with a gun pointed at the head of the male servant. If the male will not rape the servant, he
will die, and if the female will not let the male rape her, she will likewise die. Thereafter, the female servant
escaped and asked the assistance of the police officers. The police officers arrested the drunk employer (no
question as to his criminal liability), there is a question as to the criminal liability of the male helper. Is he liable?
No, because he acted under uncontrollable fear.

In order to be held liable for a crime committed by means of dolo, the person who committed the act must have
freedom.

That is why under article 11 or 12, when the person acted under irresistible force or uncontrollable fear, he is NOT
criminally liable. Why? Because he acted without any freedom.
Take note that the force must be irresistible.

2. INTELLIGENCE
In order to be held liable, aside from having freedom, he must have intelligence. That is why under article 12, a
person who acted when he is insane, or when he is imbecile when he committed the crime, he is not liable.
Meaning there is complete absence of intelligence, he doesn’t know what he is doing.

3. INTENT
The person who committed the crime must have the so-called criminal intent, that is what we call as mens rea (evil
intent). Now, intent is a mind matter.

How do you know if a person has criminal intent? Criminal intent is presumed from the unlawful act. If you killed a
person, it is presumed that you have the intent to kill the person, and its up to you to rebut that presumption.

Criminal intent is presumed the moment the prosecution is able to prove or establish that you committed this
unlawful act.

So if you killed a person, there is a presumption that you really intended to kill that person.

Kinds of presumption (Evidence)

1. Rebuttable – you can rebut the presumption and you can present controverting evidence

1
There are Spanish terms in the RPC because we derived our laws from the Spanish Code.

Page 9 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

2. Conclusive
In this case, the presumption is rebuttable. So intent is presumed from the unlawful act.

Crimes committed through culpa (negligence or imprudence), in order to be held liable, there must be:
1. FREEDOM
2. INTELLIGENCE
3. NEGLIGENCE or IMPRUDENCE (instead of intent in dolo)

 Ex: While driving your car, your phone rang, you answered the call of your sweetie, so you didn’t notice the
stoplight, and you hit the pedestrian. Are you liable? Yes, why, do you have intent? Do you have the intent to hit or
kill the person? No.

 Is there freedom? Yes, you were not pointed with a gun when you did it
 Do you have intelligence? Yes, because you cannot drive if you are insane
 When you say imprudence or negligence, the question asked is, is there a thing ought to be done that has
not been done?

So in this case, if you are driving, you ought to focus your attention to driving, and you should not answer calls or
texts. So in this case, the driver is liable because there was he was negligent, there was an omission.

So theses three elements should be present if the case involves culpa.

If the crime committed is through dolo, the three elements should also be present.
These are the elements in order to be held liable.

 Ex: You are driving at a moderate speed. Suddenly, there was a 2-yr old child who crossed the street since she
slipped the hand of her mother who was busy gossiping about showbiz news. You stepped on the break, still you
hit the child. Are you liable?

 Is it committed by dolo or by culpa? By culpa. Is there freedom? Yes. Is there intelligence? Yes.
 But are you negligent or imprudent? No, so therefore you are not liable, because all the elements were
not present. You were performing a lawful act, driving and you were careful, you did it with due diligence.
But that does not mean that a case cannot be filed against you, because it is only the court who can
determine if you are liable or not.

So those were the requisites in the commission of crimes through dolo or malice, or felonies committed by means of culpa.

Most of the crimes committed through culpa are punished under article 365 but there are crimes committed though culpa
which are not in article 365, for example:

1. Malversation – you can commit it thru negligence, you can also commit it with intent
 Ex: You are a cashier, you have a date at 5:30. You were in a hurry so you did not place the money in the vault. So
when the janitor cleaned the office, he saw the money, so he took it. Is the cashier liable? Yes, by her negligence,
she allowed another person so spent the money, so she is liable under Art. 217, that is what you call as
malversation by negligence.
2. Evasion through negligence
 Ex: You are a jail guard. You called the prisoner and asked him to buy something at the market, but the prisoner
did not return. Is he liable? Yes, through negligence. Your case is evasion thru negligence.

Those cases committed through culpa are punished in Art. 365. You will notice that the penalty is lower.
 Ex: You have an enemy, and you wanted to kill him, so you hit him (gipaligsan) with your car, that is murder. But if
you killed him because you were texting while driving, you have no intent of killing him, only thru negligence your
penalty is lower, it does not even exceed 6 years, prision correctional. Unless if you are drunk. There is a new law

Page 10 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

(Anti-Drunk/Drug and Drive Act) now, that if you are caught drunk or drug driving, the penalty is the same as with
homicide.

As we have said before, there is no crime when there is no law punishing it. You should be able to distinguish intentional
felonies from culpable felonies (felonies committed thru negligence or imprudence).

Repeat, there is no crime if there is no intent or negligence.

 Case: People v. Taneo 58 Phil 255

He was asleep, but he dreamt that he has an enemy. The problem was, he stood up and got himself a bolo, and he stabbed
his own wife who only tried to stop him. He thought he killed his enemy in his dream, when it was her wife whom he
stabbed. Is he liable? The SC said that he is not liable because there was no criminal intent and there was no negligence.

 Case: People v. Ah Chong Phil 488

In Fort Bonifacio, there was a cook. The attacks of akyat-bahay gangs were rampant during those days. When he was about
to sleep, he cannot lock the door because he has a roommate who was still outside. What he did when he was so sleepy
was to place a chair against the unlocked door, in order for him to be alarmed if he will be attacked by the akyat-bahay
gang. When he was asleep, he was awaken by the sound of someone slowly opening the door. Believing that it was the
akyat-bahay gang, he then asked who was it, but there was no answer. He then said that if the person enters the room he
will stab him. When the person entered the room, the accused was hit with the chair, so he stabbed the person, the latter
died. It was found out that that person was only his roommate who was playing a practical joke on him. So the accused was
charged with murder, is he liable?

According to the SC, the accused is not liable because there was so called mistake of facts. There was no criminal intent on
his part.

Requisites for the mistake of fact / ignorance of fact: (to be a valid defense)

1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been what the accused believed them to be
Meaning the act that the offender did would have been lawful if the facts as he believed them to be are true. If the
facts were true as the accused believed them to be.
So for example, in the case, if it was true that a member of the gang entered the room, was his act lawful? Lawful
because it was a valid act of self-defense.

2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful
Meaning, the accused should no have any criminal intent.

3. The mistake should be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
In other words, the accused must not be negligent or imprudent. Has the accused got something to do that he has
not done yet? He already warned the intruder by asking his identity and told him he would stab him if he will enter
without answering the question, does need do anything? No more, so he was not negligent, he was not imprudent.

 Case: People v. Oanis 74 Phil. 257

The victim was playing a practical joke on his friend. He pretended to rob his friend. So what the accused did was to hit
(gipus-pusan) the victim. Is he liable? No.

 Case:
The Chief of Police was directed by the Mayor to arrest a fugitive, meaning a person who has a warrant of arrest. The
person to be arrested is a notorious criminal. Since he was directed by the Mayor, he asked the assistance of one of his
men, and the two of them went to the house of the fugitive. When they arrived at the house, they immediately entered
and saw the accused sleeping in the room. The back of the victim was facing them. So when they saw the sleeping person,
believing him to be the fugitive, they fired shots at the person sleeping, so the latter died (how can he not?) Are they liable?

Page 11 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

And for what crime are they liable for? Murder because there was treachery. The sad thing was, the person they killed was
not the fugitive they were looking for, they killed the wrong person.

They were charged with murder. They said that they cannot be liable with murder because it is committed thru dolo, and
they have committed the crime thru culpa, they said they are liable for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide.

SC said that it was not culpa. Even though if it was a notorious criminal, they have no right to shot him because he did not
resist, he was sleeping.

You try to compare the two cases, PP v. Ah Chong and PP v. Oanis. Is there a difference? Yes.
Ah Chong Oanis
There was no intent, no negligence. There was criminal intent.

Another case: Neighbors gimata ang Barangay tanod because there was a person, who was riding a motorcycle and was
holding/bringing a gun and was shooting. Tanod brought his own unlicensed fire arm and shot the person. Person died.
What was actually happening was there was a shooting for a certain film in their locality. Is the Tanod liable and under what
crime? (May be asked during the exam)

Actus rea is the felonious act.

Mens rea is the intention to commit such felonious act.
- In order to be liable for an intentional felony (dolo), the offender must have intent to commit such felony (mens
rea).

General Criminal Intent vis-à-vis Specific Criminal Intent

GR : A general criminal intent is present in all dolo crimes
EXC : Prosecution is required to prove specific criminal intent. If they fail, the accused cannot be convicted to the crime
charged
e.g. You were shot but you survived. Offender will be charged of Frustrated/Attempted Homicide or Murder.
o In these crimes, a specific intent shall be established = INTENT to KILL
o How to prove INTENT to KILL:
 The weapon used by the offender
 e.g. gun, knife
 But if what was used was the knife of the nail cutter? Doubtful.
 The location of the wound or injury (where the person was shot or injured, body part (vital organ
or not))
 Seriousness of the wound or injury (critical, serious or not serious)
o If for example, someone was shot but survived. Prosecution was not able to prove intent to kill due to
failure of presentation of medical certificate as to the injury sustained, the doctor who treated the
wounds etc.
o He was charged by the Prosecution of Frustrated Murder/Homicide.
 Shall he be acquitted? Intent to kill was not proven.
 No. He shall be convicted only of Slight/Less Serious/Serious Physical Injuries and not of
Frustrated Murder/Homicide
o SLSS PI only requires general intent
e.g. Crime of Theft requires specific criminal intent

Criminal intent is required and relevant for felonious acts or crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code, not in Special
Penal Laws.
- E.g. SPL – Possession of unlicensed firearms
o A is 19 years old. A is a member of Tau Gamma and Bloods at the same time. His brothers got into a fight.
Crips will kill anyone from Bloods if they pass by their territory. A bought his unlicensed gun to school, just

Page 12 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

in case. He did not have any intention to kill, just for self-defense. There was a checkpoint on his way
home. He was asked by the police why he was bringing a gun and told them that it was for self-defense. Is
he liable? He has no criminal intent.
 Is it unlawful to defend yourself?
 Carrying of unlicensed firearm is punishable under a special penal law
 Crimes punishable by special law does not require criminal intent
 Did the offender commit an act which is prohibited by law?
 In this case, he committed an unlawful act. Therefore, he is liable.
o How about if you possess a gun, stored at home. Someone reported to the Police about the gun since you
boasted about it while you were drunk. The police went to your house and searched the place. Is he
liable?
 Still liable under special law.

In felonies committed with DOLO, good faith is a defense.

- E.g. mistake in facts

Usually, good faith is not a valid defense in crimes punishable by special laws.

MALA IN SE – Crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code

- Crimes that are wrong in nature (per se)
o E.g. Murder, Rape
MALA PROHIBITA – Crimes punishable under Special Penal Laws
- Crimes which are not wrong per se
o Considered as wrong since there is a law that prohibits and punishes it
- EXCEPTION:
o There are crimes which are punishable under Special Penal Laws which are considered MALA IN SE
 Violation of Election Code
 Disenfranchised voters due to manual transferring of data in the books (by the teachers)
 They did not have any intent to disenfranchise them (good faith). But prosecution said
that that is not relevant under a special penal law.
 Convicted in the lower court but acquitted after they appealed.
 Even if the said crime is under the Election Code, it is still considered MALA IN SE which
requires criminal intent from the part of the offender.

INTENT vs. MOTIVE

Intent – it is an element of the crime
Motive
- The reason why the offender committed the crime
o A brought B (kabit) to the boondocks, using government vehicle. B wanted to end their relationship
already. Knowing of such, A killed B. subsequently, A killed himself.
 What is his motive? Jealousy (Love Triangle)
o Maguindanao Massacre
 What was the motive? Politics (politically-motivated)
- Not an element of the crime
o Prosecution need not establish motive in the prosecution of the crime
 A was killed. Prosecution was able to establish that B killed A only, without any motive on the
part of B.
 Can B be convicted? Yes. Motive is not an element of the crime
 EXC: BUT there are some instances that MOTIVE becomes necessary in order to convict the
accused:
 Evidence of the prosecution are merely circumstantial
 There are no eyewitnesses

Page 13 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Identity of accused proceeds from unreliable source and testimony given is inconclusive
 Identity of accused is in dispute
 Act brings about variant crimes (which shall depend on the motive)
o Direct Assault
 If an agent of a person in authority, for example, a teacher, is being
attacked while he is in actual performance of duty, motive is not
required.
 E.g. while he is rendering a lecture, Turko (5-6) went inside
and attacked him. Is Turko liable? Yes. The teacher was
attacked while performing his duty, even if it had no
connection with his duty.
 Suppose, while the teacher was on his way home, he was
punched by his student because he failed the latter.
o Is the student liable? Yes. Motive of the attack has
something to do with his past functions.
o Motive is required in this case. If motive is not
proven, accused cannot be convicted of direct
assault. He may be convicted of Physical Injuries.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

- When is a person criminally liable?

o When he commits a felony
o Unintentional felony
 Although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended
 It was the direct, natural, logical consequence when he committed the intended felony.
 A person is criminally liable if he committed a felony, although not the intended felony
(the felony he did not intend to commit) but the unintended felony was committed
while committing the intended one.
 E.g. A shot B, leader of Bloods. A missed the shot. A instead hit C. C died.
o B is the intended victim
o C is the unintended victim
o A is charged with attempted murder (for B) and murder (for C)
o A said that he cannot be held liable of murder since he did not have any intent
to kill C. B was his target. He can only be charged if Reckless Imprudence
resulting in Homicide in relation to C.
o A is wrong. He is liable in relation to C under Article 4.
 Three Kinds
 Aberatio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow)
o 2 victims:
 Unintended
 Intended
o Accuses is liable for both (2 crimes)
o Is he committing a felonious act?
o He may have committed a complex crime under Article 48
 a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other
 will suffer one penalty for both crimes (penalty for the most serious
crime)

Page 14 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Error in Personae (Mistake in the Identity)

o Only one victim but he is the unintended one
o A waits for B on the street. He knows B very well and the latter’s schedules. A
person whom he thought was B was around the corner. He shot said person.
Later on he found out that it was C, his brother, whom he shot. C died. Is A
liable?
 Yes.
 Penalty under Article 49.
 Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime
committed is different from that intended. - In cases in which the
felony committed is different from that which the offender intended
to commit, the following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than
that corresponding to the offense which the accused intended to
commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than
that corresponding to the one which the accused intended to commit,
the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be
applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person shall also
constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law
prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which
case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime
shall be imposed in its maximum period.
 Praeter Intentionem (Lack of intent to commit a grave so wrong)
o The unintended crime is more serious than that intended.
 A was angry at B. B was spying on A’s phone. A punched B. B fell on
the floor head first. B died.
 A’s intention was only to punch B. only to inflict physical
injury
 A is liable.
 A was playing with his gun. He shot B’s cat. Instead, B was hit. Is he
liable?
 Malicious Mischief man if you shoot the cat.
 He is liable in relation to B.
 Article 4 is not applicable if crime is CULPA (imprudence or negligence)
 A was playing with his gun. He accidentally pulled the trigger and hit B. B died.
o A is liable but for Reckless Imprudence
o Article 4 cannot be applied since playing with your gun is not a crime under the
Revised Penal Code. It was you reckless act which resulted to B’s death.
o Impossible Crime
 An offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
 Only applied to crimes against persons and property
 Impossibility of its accomplishment
o It is impossible for the person to commit the crime
o E.g. A took away B’s phone because his phone was lost. Later, A found out that
B’s phone was his phone.
 Is he liable for the crime of Theft? There was intent to gain. But it was
his phone.

Page 15 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Impossible to be charged with Theft because he owns what he took

from B.
o E.g. Groupie planned to gang-up on Orgie. Former were armed with armalites.
Former was informed that Orgie were staying in Room A. They went to Room A
and fired on the said room. Later, they found out that Orgie were not there.
 They were charged with attempted murder and convicted by the
lower court. On appeal, they were acquitted but convicted of
Impossible Crime to commit murder.
 It is not physically impossible for them to do it. There was no one in
the room.
 INTOD vs CA 215 SCRA 52
 You can charge an offender with Impossible Crime to commit ____ if the offender cannot be
liable for any crime under the RPC.
o But in the said case, they could have been charged with Malicious Mischief
 Employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
o A wants to poison B because latter does not give her money during payday,
always gets drunk and hits her. A placed poison instead of sugar in B’s coffee. B
did not die in the first attempt.
 Poison was not enough. It was inadequate.
o On her second attempt, A placed a spoonful of the alleged poison. B did not die
still. Later she found out, it was sugar, not poison.
 Ineffectual means

 Now, we have learned last time, that a person committing a felony, committing a crime is responsible for all the
direct, natural and logical (DNL) consequence of his felonious act. If the resulting crime cannot be considered as
DNL consequence of the felonious act of the accused, the accused is not liable.
 In one case, wherein the accused box the victim and fell down, then suddenly a horse near the area jumped and
landed to the victim which resulted to his death. Is the accused liable? No question if it was for physical injuries
because he boxed the victim, hence he is liable. But since the victim died because the horse landed on the victim,
should the accused be held liable not just for physical injuries? The SC said, NO, because the accused is liable for
the resulting crime if the same can be considered the DNL consequence of his felonious act and according to SC,
the felony committed is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury when there is an active force that
intervene between the felony committed and the resulting injury and the active force is distinct act or fact
absolutely (sic) from the felonious act of the accused.
 Another example, the accused cause slight physical injuries to the victim, he boxed the victim which results to the
opening of a wound in the victim’s eyebrow. The victim while still having that open wound, deliberately immersed
his body into a contaminated pool, hereby causing his injury to be infected and became serious. Is the accused
liable for the later crime? SC said NO, because the felony committed by the accused cannot be considered as the
resulting injury when the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the victim.
 What is proximate cause?
o There was an old case where the driver of a bus is so reckless and runs so fast during 1am. As a result of
being reckless, the bus turtle and four passengers were trapped inside and were shouting and asking for
help. And because during that time it was so dark and without the presence of the moon, the rescuers
brought with them gas lamps without knowing that the gasoline in the bus was leaking and the moment
they came near, the bus was burned, killing the four passengers who were trapped inside.
o Is the driver liable? SC said, LIABLE, because his negligence is the proximate cause of the death of the
victims. That is the proximate cause, there is a connection. There is a rational connection between the act
of the accused and the resulting injury.
 There is a mother who scolded his child upon seeing the failing grades of the latter, the mother didn’t allow the
child to go to school in the next school year and was told to stay in house. As a result, the child committed suicide
and died. Is the mother liable for the death of the child? Is it a crime or a felony to scold a child? Remember that

Page 16 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

the accused is liable or a person committing a crime or felony is liable for all the DNL consequences of his felonious
act. So the act committed must be considered a crime or a felony.

Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in
cases of excessive penalties. — Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and
which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of
legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as
may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions
of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice
and the injury caused by the offense.

 What should the court do when a charge is filed in court but after trial the court finds out that there is no law or
the act that has been complained of is not penalized or is not covered in any penal law, what should the court do?
o Under Article 5, the court is obliged to render decision, of course the decision is acquittal because as what
we have said, there is no crime when there is no law penalizing it. There is no crime if there is no penal
law. And shall report to the president, through the DOJ.
 What about if the court finds out that the penalty is too harsh? What should the court do?
o Again the court is required to render decision.
o There was a case which involves a 7 year old girl who was raped and was killed. So the accused was
charged with raped with homicide. During that time there was still death penalty, it so happened that the
judge was a born again Christian and as such it is against his conscience because his religion teaches him
that it is only God and God alone has right to take away the life of a person. Instead of imposing death
penalty, he only imposed reclusion perpetua. The prosecution objected and files certiorari questioning the
legality of the penalty imposed by the judge. The SC told the Judge to either you resign or you impose the
appropriate law or penalty. The judge chooses to impose appropriate penalty. Remember that case of
Judge Alkisa of Manila. If the court believes that the penalty to be imposed is too harsh, the court doesn’t
have any option, it has to impose the penalty regardless of his personal opinion of the judge because the
work of the judge is merely to interpret the law but the court may furnish the copy of his decision to the
President recommending, for example cases that lies with the president’s executive powers such as the
imposition of the lowering of the penalty or imposing pardon.

Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated
and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is
frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this
own spontaneous desistance.

Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated,
with the exception of those committed against person or property.

 Stages of the commission of a crime.

o When does the crime starts or develops?
1. The crime started in the mind which is called internal acts which is not yet punishable with your
evil thoughts.
2. Then after that are external acts where you are already acting or doing. The external acts has two
classes:
 Preparatory Acts

Page 17 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Acts of execution.
For example you have an enemy and you wanted to that person, what are the preparatory acts that you
will do? For example you wanted to kill your husband, what are the preparatory acts that you will do?
Buying poison in a department store, but such act is not yet punishable because it is still preparatory acts.
Like for example you wanted to stab the person, so your preparatory act is to buy a knife in a store. Will
you be punished for buying a knife? Not yet because it is still preparatory acts. But of you bring it
anywhere and tucked it in, then you can be apprehended for violation for BP 6 for carrying of deadly
weapon but does not include murder because it is a separate crime and no connection with your thought
of killing. Preparatory acts is not punishable.
o Then we go to the Acts of Execution, this has two phases:
1. Subjective
2. Objective.
 Subjective, this is the phase where the acts of the execution wherein the offender has
still control of his acts. For example, you shoot him then you missed, then you still have
the option not to continue to kill him, it is still subjective.
 For example, you wanted to poison your husband, you already mixed the poison to his
coffee and when the husband is about to drink the coffee, you stopped him, then it is
still subjective because you still have control. But if the coffee was already empty, then
you don’t have control with it, then it is objective because you don’t have any control.
 Included in the acts of execution is what we call Overt Acts.
 What is the difference between overt acts and preparatory acts? Preparatory acts are
not punishable, but overt acts, where you already did something, could be punishable.

 Stages where acts of execution is concerned?

o Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated.

 ATTEMPTED STAGE
o Attempted stage is on the subjective phase, there is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of the felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other that his spontaneous desistance.
o Here, the offender committed overt acts, not merely preparatory acts. And the overt acts are directly
connected to the intended crime. The overt act to considered to be part on the attempted stage of a
crime, the overt acts committed by the accused should have direct connection to the intended crime to
be called attempted stage.
o For example, where we have a squabble in the parking lot and you overtake me and I was angry and as a
result a take my gun, despite I have no gun. Can you charge me of attempted homicide? This is an overt
act, but can you say I am liable for attempted homicide or attempted murder? Will I be convicted? NO
because the overt act is not yet directly connected to the crime of murder or homicide. It is an overt act
but it was not connected. So that it will be considered as an attempt , then the overt act must have a
connection to the intended crime.
o For example a take a gun, I shoot you and pulled the trigger but you were able to evade. Was there an
overt act? YES, the taking of the gun and pulling the trigger. Is it connected to the murder? YES, then I can
now be charged with attempted homicide or attempted murder as the case maybe. In order to be held
liable in an attempted stage, the accused commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts
but he was not able to perform all the acts necessary for its execution by reason of accident or cause
other than my spontaneous desistance. Y haven’t I killed you? By reason of my act or ducking or swaying
your body which is a cause other than the accused’s spontaneous desistance. For example, you never
duck because you are so brave but when I pull the trigger, the gun never fired. Am I liable? Yes,
attempted. What is the cause? By reason that the firearm malfunction. Is the pulling the trigger has a
connection? YES. If I never pulled the trigger but I pointed it at you? Can I be charged with attempted
homicide? NO because it is not directly connected. Grave threats. The pulling of the trigger whether it
malfunction or not, it is already directly connected in the crime of murder. I shoot you but I only hit the

Page 18 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

ear? What is the crime committed? Still Attempted because it is directly by overt acts but he was not able
to perform all the acts of execution by reason of accident or causes other than the spontaneous
desistance of the accused.
o For example the accused wanted to kill his enemy and went to him but when the accused was already
near his enemy, the accused showed mercy and did not continue on his plan of killing the latter. Is he
liable of attempted murder? NO because there was no overt act.
o For example I shoot you, but you were able to duct but you asked for mercy and was also spared by the
accused. Is he liable? YES, because he already made an overt act which constitute a crime and that is
attempted homicide. But if he was bringing his gun going unto you and was not able to fire the gun and
you are asking for mercy, then he is not liable.
o In order for an accused to be free from any criminal liability, the desistance of the offender must come
before he has committed an overt act which will constitute a crime.
o There is one case, the man was apprehended by the roving barangay tanods, the accused was able to
remove a part of the wall in one house which was transformed in a store (first floor store, second floor
dwelling). He was charged with attempted robbery with forced upon things. Is he liable? Article 6, there is
an attempt where the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but was not
able to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some accident or causes other than spontaneous
desistance of the accused. Can you say that the act of removing a part of a wall already directly connected
to the crime of robbery? SC said NO, the crime is attempted trespass to dwelling.

 If one is charged with an attempted felony – check his overt acts

 If his overt acts are directly connected with the charged felony
 Attempted stage – still in the SUBJECTIVE PHASE – Hence, the accused still has the control over his acts

FRUSTRATED STAGE
 Where the accused was able to perform all the acts of execution in order to produce the crime but the crime was
not produced by some causes independent of his will
i.e. Accused shot the victim in the head, then stomach but was directly rescued to the hospital and through the
expertise of the doctor and timely medical assistance, the victim did not die. The expertise of the doctor and the
timely medical assistance are causes which are independent of the will of the offender. Sa ato pa, walay labot ang
perpetrator mao naluwas and biktima.
 Naay bana, doctor, iyang gihilo-an iyang asawa, hangtod nagbula-bula na ang baba sa asawa. Unya kay
nakonsensya man ang bana nga doctor, mao to nagkuha siya og usa ka botelyang honey og gipainom sa asawa og
unsa pa tong iya gipainom sa iyang asawa. Nabuhi ang asawa. But she charged her husband with frustrated
parricide because he performed all the acts of execution. Natulon na gud tanan which would produce the crime as
a consequence.
 Question: Is the husband liable for frustrated parricide?
 Answer: NO. Because according to the RPC, there is a frustrated felony when the accused was able to perform all
the acts of execution but the crime was not produced by reason of CAUSES INDEPENDENT OF THE WILL OF THE
PERPETRATOR.
In the problem given, the crime was not produced because of the perpetrator himself, because of the will
of the perpetrator. So the husband is not liable for frustrated parricide.
 Then by what crime will he be liable? He could be liable for physical injury for administering injurious substance.

CONSUMMATED STAGE
 When all of the acts of execution are present, when all the elements necessary for the execution or
accomplishment are present
In determining whether the felony is attempted, frustrated or consummated, it is important for you to take
consideration of the following:
1. The nature of the crime;
2. Elements of the crime; and
3. The manner of committing the crime

Page 19 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

NATURE OF THE CRIME

Examples:
1. Arson – mere soaking of the rags with gasoline for the commission of the offense. Imu na gibasa sa gasoline og
nagbitbit na ka og posporo. Wa pay siga.
- Are you liable for any crime? Yes. Attempted arson. Wa pay kayo.
- What about if imu nang nadagkutan ang rags dayun gilabay nimu sa bongbong pero nadali og pawng. What is the
stage? Frustrated, even if no part of the house was “eaten” by fire.
-What if a portion was “eaten” by fire? Even is so small, then consummated.
- Preparatory pa gani – attempted
- gidagkutan na gani bisan wala pay part sa balay nasunog – frustrated
- even if a portion of the building was burned – consummated

ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

Example: Theft
Situation: bar reviewee went to the department store, took a parker pen. When he was about to exit the store, he
was apprehended by the guard. Gikiha siya og consummated theft. He questioned the charge kay wa pa kuno niya
nagamit ang pen, he had no opportunity to use the pen. He argued that he’d be liable only for attempted theft.
Question: Is he liable for consummated theft? YES. Theft is consummated the moment the offender took
possession of the item, the moment the offender gets hold or took control of the item. Opportunity to dispose of
the item is not necessary.
Case: Pp vs. Valenzuela, June 21, 2007
Take note: There is NO frustrated theft.

MANNER OF COMMITTING A CRIME

 look at the manner of committing the crime before you can determine whether it is attempted, frustrated of
consummated
 FORMAL CRIMES – crimes committed in one instance
- no attempted / frustrated
i.e. Libel, defamation, grave threats
 MATERIAL CRIMES –
i.e. murder, homicide

Take note: NO frustrated rape.

XPN: People v. Erina, 50 Phil. 998, 1000 – frustrated rape - this is a stray decision
 Frustated Homicide/Murder vs. Attempted Homicide/Murder
-Jurisprudence tells us that in order for the offender to be liable for frustrated homicide/murder, the victim must
sustain mortal wounds. Meaning, if it not for the timely medical assistance and expertise of the doctor, the victim
would have died.
-so for example, gipusil ka pero naigo ka sa bukton, what’s the crime? Either attempted homicide/murder. Not
frustrated because the victim did not sustain mortal wounds.
 Prosecution must also prove intent to kill. Otherwise, the accused will only be liable for physical injuries.
 Is it possible for a accused be charged with attempted homicide/murder even if the victim did not sustain any
injury? YES. Example, if the accused pulled the trigger pero wala mibuto. Legal basis: by overt acts. Or mibuto pero
wala ka maigo – attempted.

How to prove intent to kill?

 Look at the weapon used. Kung pusil – there is intent to kill.
 Part of the body where the weapon was pointed
i.e. sa head – yes, vital part of the body
 Location of the wounds
i.e. gigamitan og pusil pero sa tiil ra ka gipusil – no intent to kill, not vital part of the body

Page 20 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

- then what is the crime committed? Physical injuries

NO FRUSTRATED STAGES in:

1. Rape
2. Adultery
3. acts of lasciviousness,
4. bribery
5. corruption of public officials
i.e. if accused failed to penetrate his penis into the vagina of the victim – consummated rape
 Present jurisprudence – as long as the penis touched or has the slightest penetration, igo ra mi-kiss, that is
consummated. Full penetration is not necessary but in order to be liable for consummated rape, there must
be penetration, although slight.
 Pero kung wala jud maigo kay nagsige og lihay-lihay, that could be only attempted rape.
 But take note of the slight difference between attempted rape vs. acts of lasciviousness: then convince the
court that the overt acts committed by the accused are directly connected to the crime of rape.
 Example: babae natulog, gihikap-hikap iyang breast sa accused – acts of lasciviousness, because touching the
breast of a woman has no direct connection to the crime of rape.
 What if paghuman og hikap-hikap sa “chocolate hills”, minaog pa gyud sa “loboc river” – still not attempted
rape. But when the accused removed his pants and placed himself on top of the woman – his intent to rape is
now obvious. Hence, attempted rape.

Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light felonies. — Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the
capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of this Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in
accordance with the above-mentioned Article.
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arrest menor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos or both; is provided.

FELONIES CLASSIFIED AS:

 GRAVE – when the penalty is capital punishment or afflictive
Capital punishment – death (art. 25)
Afflictive penalties – from prision mayor up to reclusion perpetua
 LESS GRAVE – arresto mayor up to prision correccional
 LIGHT – fine of 200 or less / imprisonment from 1 day to 30 days
- Punishable only when consummated
Xpn: crimes against persons or property
 Now you might ask what is the effect of the stages of commission of a crime in the imposition of the penalty. In Art. 50
– 57, the penalty to be imposed depends on the stage of the commission of the felony. Hence,
 Frustrated stage – one degree lower than that of the consummated
 Attempted stage – two degrees lower than that of the consummated

Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. — Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable only in
the cases in which the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit a felony proposes its execution to some other person or
persons.

PROPOSAL
 when one who has decided to commit a crime proposes its commission to another person
 Is it necessary that the person proposed to commit the crime agree? No. The mere act or proposal is enough
because if the person to whom the proposal is made would agree, then there is CONSPIRACY.

Page 21 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

CONSPIRACY
 When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decided to commit it
 Conspiracy and proposal are just preparatory acts. Hence, generally, not punishable.
i.e. agreement to commit robbery – not yet punishable
 But conspiracy and proposal could also be a crime itself, provided that there is a provision of law making it a crime.
i.e. conspiracy to commit treason – a crime
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion

BAR: What do you mean by implied conspiracy?

Answer: it is a kind of conspiracy which is inferred or deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of the
crime carried out its execution.
 Conspiracy is committed in private. Example sa pdaf scam, wala man na gi-televise nila Napoles ang ilang panagsabot sa
pag-commit ana. So unsaon pag-prove sa conspiracy?
 Conspiracy is proved by circumstantial evidence – from the acts of the criminals.
i.e. The other accused drove the get away vehicle. The other robbed the bank. The other, stood outside the bank.
Hence, from their acts, one can deduce / infer that there was conspiracy (implied conspiracy).
 Direct evidence – when one of the conspirators talk, eye witness or state witness. Hence, conspiracy may be proved by
direct evidence only when there is a state witness or eye witness. But most of the time, only by circumstantial evidence
– implied conspiracy.
 Conspiracy has to be proven just like the crime itself.
i.e. if offenders are charged with rape with homicide, rape must be proved by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Conspiracy must also be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
 If conspiracy cannot be established, then the accused should be convicted based on their individual acts.
 But when conspiracy is established, then their liability is collective. –act of one is the act of all
i.e. in rape, when one was just a look out – his liability will be the same with the others – act of one, act of all. Once
established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as principals regardless of the degree of participation of each
of them because in the contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all
 Liability of a conspirator:
For example, ang sabot, kung Crips mo, dayun mamira mo og particular person, pero dili patyon. Nangatang mo niya
para tudluan og leksyon. Gikulata, unya kay misukol man, ang usa nimu ka-kauban naigo sa apapangig unya nagdala
diay to siya og kutsilyo, wa siya kaagwanta, gidunggab niya.
Question: What are the liabilities of the others? Their agreement is only to inflict physical injuries but one killed the victim?
What is the extent of the liability of the conspirator?
 Conspirators are liable for the crime agreed upon. They are also liable for such other crimes which could be
foreseen and natural and logical consequences of the conspiracy. So the crime committed by one which was not
agreed upon, if that act is connected with the crime agreed upon, then all of them are liable even if that one act
that was done was not agreed upon.
 Ex: Sabot kay kulatahon lang, isa sa ila stabbed the victim – the act of stabbing is connected to what was agreed
upon.
 Ex: Nagsabot na manulis, sabot na walay patyon, kwarta and valuables lang kuhaon; if nisukol ang victim, isa gi-
stab ang victim; are they all liable for robbery with homicide? All are liable. Why? Because if killing is considered a
logical consequence of the crime of robbery that they have agreed upon.
 Ex: Sabot manulis sa silingan, dili patyon. After the robbery, one suspect returned and raped the victim. All 3 were
charged with robbery with rape, are they all liable? Is rape considered a logical consequence of robbery? NO, only
the one who raped the victim is liable for robbery with rape. The other 2 are just liable for robbery.
BUT: exception – Art. 296 of RPC
 If offenders would constitute 4 or more persons and their purpose is to rob but in the course of execution
of robbery another crime (not agreed upon) is committed, ALL of them are liable for the crime committed
even if the same was not agreed upon if that person is present when the crime was committed but he did
not attempt to prevent the same. (PP vs Navasca, Mar 15, 1997)

Page 22 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. — Offenses which are or in the future may be punishable
under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless
the latter should specially provide the contrary.

 Special Penal Laws

o GR: not subject to provisions of RPC
o Exc: PRC shall be supplementary to such laws
 A crime punishable under Special Law is governed by the provisions of that law penalizing that act. But in the
absence of such provision and if applicable, the provisions of the RPC would apply.
 Ex: Conspiracy is with RPC, but if in special laws, if it would have 2 or more accused will commit the crime, will they
be considered in conspiracy? Yes, conspiracy in the RPC will apply because the provisions of the RPC, if applicable,
can be given suppletory application. (Go-Tan vs Sps. Tan; Sept 30, 2008)
 The provisions of the RPC will also apply if the special laws use penalties that are used under the PRC.
o Ex: Penalty is reclusion perpetua, etc.; the provisions regarding attempted, frustrated may also apply.

Chapter Two
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those consanguinity
within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding
circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was given by the person attacked,
that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this Art. Are present and that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to another, provided that
the following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

 Justifying Circumstances - those where the act of a person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is
deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability. There is no civil liability
except in par. 4, Art. 11, where the civil liability is borne by the persons benefited by the act.

 SIX TYPES of Justifying Circumstances:

1. Self defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoidance of a greater evil
5. Fulfillment of duty
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose.

Page 23 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 SELF DEFENSE
 Includes not only the defense of the person or body of the one assaulted but also that of his rights, the
enjoyment of which is protected by law. It includes: the defense of honor and the defense of property rights.
 Basis: Lack of criminal intent.
 An affirmative defense, hence, the burden of proof rests on the accused who must prove the circumstance by
clear and convincing evidence.
 There is NO crime committed, the act being justified. Thus, such persons cannot be considered criminals.
 Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself

 “unlawful aggression”
 Most important requisite; indispensable; condition sine qua non
 Could be actual or imminent attack or threat
 Ex: Naa kay kalalis, ana siya “maypa patyon tika”, naa ka nakita nag-bulge sa iyang kilid, you thought it’s
pusil. Imo siya gi-unahan ug pusil? Are you liable?
1. Yes, because mere utterance of threatening words does not constitute unlawful aggression. Even
threatening stance.
 Drawing a gun or cocking a gun – NOT lawful aggression.
 But pointing a gun with intent to shoot – already unlawful aggression.
 Insulting or threatening words – NOT unlawful aggression.
 Light push – NOT unlawful aggression.
 Slap on the face - considered as unlawful aggression since the face represents a person and his dignity and
slapping it is a serious physical attack. (PP vs Sabio, Apr 27, 1967); (Rogas vs PP, Jan 14, 2004)
 There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon.
 Ex: Nag-duty ang husband (a call center agent). Ang wife, nabilin sa balay, natulog. Around midnight, naa
nisulod na tao sa balay, the asawa thinking that it was just her husband, dedma lang si ate. Later on, the
wife noticed that the other person was touching her, dedma ra japon, thinking it was her husband. Then
the other person proceeded and had sexual intercourse with her, without any objections (very Scorpio
Nights lang!). After the deed, the man whispered, “Thank you very much. I hope you enjoyed, as much
as I did”. Upon hearing this, she then realized that the man was not her husband. Then she drew the bolo
under her pillow and hacked the victim-neighbor. The wife was charged with homicide, is she liable? She
raised self-defense.
1. Yes. There is no more unlawful aggression.
2. NOTE: Self-defense will ONLY prosper, if at the time the offender claiming self-defense did an act
to defend himself at the time that there was aggression. When there is no more aggression, you
can’t claim self-defense.
3. Defense act must be simultaneous with the attack or should immediately follow the attack.
 Ex: X stabbed Y. Y was able to make ilag and twisted the arm of X, recovered the weapon and he used the
same weapon to stab X. Is Y liable? Yes, there is no more unlawful aggression.
 Ex: X fired at Y. Y was not hit. X fired again but the gun did not fire. X ran away, Y chased him and upon
catching him, Y beat him and Y died. Is Y liable? Yes, no more unlawful aggression. There is already
retaliation.
 Case: A husband (call center agent), nagalin iyang pamati, he went home from work. Upon arriving home,
he saw his wife having sex with the kabit na pulis. Nikuha siya sundang sa ila kitchen. At the time na iya
natigbason ang kabit, gipusil ang bana - patay. Is police man liable?
1. Yes, the paramour-policeman is liable because the attack made by the husband is not unlawful.
In order to claim self-defense, the aggression must be unlawful.
 Same with arresting officers are allowed to use force, which is an aggression, but it is lawful because it is
part of their duty.
 No unlawful aggression when there was an agreement to fight and the challenge to fight was accepted.
Aggression was reciprocal and legitimate between the two contending parties. (US vs Navarro, 7 Phil 713)

Page 24 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 “reasonable necessity of the means used to repel or prevent the attack”

 Rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression
 Means used must be more or less equal to the weapon of the aggressor.
1. Ex: fist was used – fist ra sad imo.
2. Knife – you can use gun
3. Batuta - knife
4. PERFECT equality of weapons is not necessary
 Test of reasonableness - The means employed depends upon:
1. nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor
2. aggressor’s physical condition, character, size, and other circumstances and those of the person
defending himself
3. the place and occasion of the assault
 Case: (PP vs Narvaez, Apr 20, 1983). Narvaez was taking his rest inside his house when he heard that the
wall of his house was being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer and Rubia, were fencing the land of the father
of the deceased Fleischer. He asked the group to stop but they refused. The accused got mad so he got his
shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards the jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the
accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he acted in defense of his person and rights.
Held: There was aggression by the deceased not on the person of the accused but on his property rights
when Fleischer angrily ordered the continuance of the fencing. The third element of self-defense is also
present because there was no sufficient provocation on the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when
the deceased where fencing. However, the second element was lacking. Shooting the victims from the
window of his house is disproportionate to the physical aggression by the victims. Thus, there is
incomplete self-defense.
 If civilians – required to repel the attack. BUT if law enforcers: not required to give equal fight to attacker,
not only required to repel the attack but must also arrest the violator to answer for his crime. Law
enforcers may use superior arms.

 “lack of sufficient provocation”

 Ex: Imo gi-ingnan imo silingan ug kawatan, nalagot nimo gipuspusan ka. While ni-duol siya nimo, imong gi-
stab. Complete self-defense? NO, because although there was unlawful aggression and the means used
was reasonably necessary, there was lack of sufficient provocation.
 When there is lack of provocation?
1. No provocation at all was given to the aggressor by the person defending himself.
2. If there is provocation, the same is not sufficient.
3. When even if a provocation was sufficient, it was nit given by the person defending himself.
4. Even if a provocation was given by the person defending himself, it was not proximate and
immediate to the act of aggression.
NOTES: Never confuse unlawful aggression with provocation.
Mere provocation is not enough. It must be real and imminent. Unlawful aggression is an indispensable
requisite.
If there is unlawful aggression but one of the other requisites is lacking, it is considered an incomplete
self-defense which mitigates liability.

 US vs. Laurel
Laurel planted a stolen kiss on the cheeks oh his neighbor. The boylet of the girl who saw the incident pursue him
but wasn’t able to catch him. Two days thereafter they (Laurel and boylet) met in a party. B1, the friend of the boylet
approached him and told him that boylet wants to talk to him to which he ignored. Comes B2, with the same message
whom he ignored as well. Then finally upon B3’s last invitation Laurel arose and approached boylet to which the latter
asked, “why did you kiss my gf?” and simultaneously hitting him with a stick in the head. Laurel felt dizzy and fell on the
ground in a sitting posture and that as Laurel feared that boylet would continue to assault him, he took hold of the
pocketknife to which he was carrying in his pocket and stabbed boylet. Laurel was charged with frustrated homicide.
The SC acquitted him.

Page 25 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

According to the SC, there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim at the time Laurel made the act of
defending himself. There was sufficient provocation (the act of kissing the girl), but the provocation happened two days
before Laurel and boylet met. At the time Laurel was attacked, he no longer have any sufficient provocation.
There was an ACTUAL ATTACK.

A case that showed IMMINENT ATTACK (on the point of happening)

The accused, together with his companion (mostly women and children, one is still a baby), including the victim
went to a lake for a picnic. The accused was the one steering the boat. Upon reaching a place of great depth, the victim
rocked the boat which started it to take water. The accused asked the victim not to do it. Since the victim paid no attention
and continued rocking the boat, the accused struck him on the forehead with an oar. The victim fell into the water and
submerged, after a while reappear saying that he was going to capsize the boat and begun moving it again. Seeing that the
women and the children start crying, the accused struck him again on the neck with the same oar. The victim died a s a
consequence. The accused was charged with homicide.
He was acquitted.
According to the SC, there was an IMMINENT ATTACK, there was unlawful aggression. SC said that it is not
necessary for the accused to wait for an actual attack in order to defend himself. It is enough that there’s an imminent
attack, meaning at the point of happening because if you’re going to wait that might be too late.

Take note: In self-defense, once the accused raised said defense, the burden of proof is on his part. When he raise self
defense in a way he is admitting the killing and its up with accused must present evidence that all of the requisites of self-
defense are present and the amount of evidence required so that the accused will be acquitted is “clear and convincing
evidence”, that’s next to “proof beyond reasonable doubt”

Indications of Self-defense
1. Number of wounds
 In a certain case the accused raised self defense, while the victim sustained stab wounds. It was not
accepted by the SC.
2. “Did you surrender yourself to the authorities after the commission of the crime?”
 In one case the SC said that if it is true that you acted in self defense you will not fear the law and you
should have surrendered.
3. The weapon used

 Under the Anti-violence against women and their children act (which is applicable to married women or having
sexual relations, sec 26, a woman who is found to be suffering from a battered woman syndrome (there is
repeated act of abuse) is not criminally liable even of NONE of the requisites for self-defense is present. (Read
People vs. Genosa)
-Battered woman syndrome is considered now as a justifying circumstance.

Par. 2 - DEFENSE OF RELATIVES

Relatives that can be defended.
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, natural or adopted Brothers and Sisters, or Relative by affinity (parents-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-
law) in the same degrees
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree (‘til first cousin)

Requisites:
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed;
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making a defense hd no part therein.

Page 26 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

Ex: imong anak mao nanguna ug dungag. Wa ka kibaw, imo lang nakitan imong anak gigukod na, unya imong
gitikbas ang gagukod. Are you liable?
-NO. You can raise defense of relatives.

Even if it was your relative who gave provocation for as long as you’re not part of it, you may still invoke defense of
relatives.
Ex: nagsabot mo sa imong anak, “unahi gud na kay naglagot ko ana niya, unya kung maglagot na sya nimo,
labanan dayon tika”. Unya kay nisugot ang anak, kadtong nagaway na ang imon anak ug kadtong biktima nipakita dayon
ka, imong gipusil. Is the father liable? – Liable

Par. 3 – DEFENSE OF STRANGER

Any person not mention in par. 2 is considered stranger. (pwede uyab, close friend, distant relative)

Case:
The husband and the wife were quarreling. The husband was trying to stab the wife who was able to run. The
neighbor intervened, confronted the husband, and tried to disarm the husband, but in the course of disarming him the
husband was injured. Is that neighbor liable?
-NO, the neighbor acted in defense of stranger. (People v. Valdez, 58 Phil. 31)

*(same facts), pero pananglitan ang neighbor na niintervened ug ang bana kay naa na diay “strained relation”,
nagsinumbagay sa una. Ang gibuhat sa neighbor nikuha ug knife upon seeing na gigukod sa husband ang wife and
thereafter killed the husband. Is the neighbor liable?
-YES, although there was unlawful aggression and the means used is reasonable, the act of defending is induced by
revenge. Ang paglaban diay pretext ra to, ang tuyo gyud ay maniwalos.

TN: the person making the defense must be induced by heroic motive or generous motive, NOT by revenge, resentment or
other evil motive.

Par. 4 – AVOIDANCE OF GREATER INJURY

Bar Q: X and Y attacked Z. R (Z’s son), equipped with bolo tried to defend his father, but before he could do so, A, a
muscled and huge man held and disarmed him. Z was killed by X and Y. X,Y and A were all charged with murder. A’s defense
was that he held R in order to avoid greater evil, that is R might kill X and Y. Is A liable?
A: A is liable. Obviously he was in conspiracy with X and Y. He cannot say he was trying to “avoid greater evil” because
R was just trying to defend his father, which is a lawful act.

Par. 5 – FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE

Requisites:
1. That the accused acted in performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office;
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or
the lawful exercise of such right or office.
*while he was performing his duty he caused injury to other person.

Ex:
The jail guard saw that the prisoner escaped, he fire a warning shot but the prisoner went on running so he shot
directly at the prisoner. Is he liable?
-NO, the guard was performing his duty, and the injury incurred was just a consequence of the performance of
such duty.
*unlawful aggression is not an element of this justifying circumstance. It is enough that the accused was
performing his duty and in the course of the performance of his duty he inflicted injury or he committed a crime.

Case:

Page 27 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

The accused, policemen, were able to arrest a robber and when they brought the suspected robber to the police
station they asked him; “where are the properties you robbed esp. the stereo?”. He said that it was at their house, so they
all went to the house of the robber, but ib their way to the house, the victim grabbed the armalite of one of the policemen
and jumped out of the vehicle. The accused without firing any warning shot fired at the victim and he died. All the
policemen were charged with murder because according to the prosecutor the robber was salvaged. Is the policeman who
shot liable?
According to the SC, NO. (Cabanlig v. Sandihanbayan, 2012). Although it is advisable to fire first a warning shot, in a
situation where in the life of the law enforcer would be in danger in doing so first, said enforcer may not fire a warning shot
anymore. Legal basis: Par. 5, Art. 11.

TN: “Due performance of duty”. If a person performing his duty is negligent then would be liable.
Ex:
Police naggukod ug snatcher, iyang kuyog na police nigukod sad, nipusil, unya ka yang iyang kauban man ang
naigo. Liable?
-Police are mandated not to fire a shot in crowded place if the circumstance would allow. If he caused an injury by
failing to abide with the rule he could be liable for reckless imprudence resulting to example Homicide.

*If the police officer is being attacked, there are two defenses that he can raise. 1. Self-defense; 2. Fulfillment of duty.

Lawful exercise of office or right

Ex: Surgeon who performed amputation of a diabetic patient is NOT liable.

Par. 6 – OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE

Requisites:
1. That an order has been issued by a superior.
2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is lawful

Q: You (as a soldier) and your company were able to catch an Abu Sayaff. Your company commander ordered all of you to
torture said captive to which you obeyed. You were all charged criminally. Can the subordinates raise “obedience to an
order?”
A: NO. (look at the requisites) An order to torture is not lawful.

TN: In Justifying circumstances, there is no criminal and civil liability, XPN, par. 4, avoidance of greater evil. The act is
justifiable, there is no crime and no criminal. It is different in Exempting circumstances because there is a crime committed
but the criminal is not punished, there is a crime but there is no criminal. The accused is not criminally liable but liable
civilly, XPN Pars 4 and 7.

Art. 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. — the following are exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito), the
court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus afflicted, which
he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the provisions of this
and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family who shall be charged with
his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person
mentioned in said Art. 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

Page 28 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.

 Under Article 12 are the circumstances that will exempt the offender from criminal liability.
 In Article 11 -Justifying Circumstances there is no crime and there is no criminal because the act committed or
omission by the offender does not constitute any crime because it is justifiable. In other words his acts are in
accordance with law.
 For example: Self-defense
o If all the requisites of self-defense are present, you do not commit any crime because your acts are in
accordance with law.
 Under Article 12, there is a crime committed but the offender does not incur any criminal liability, he is liable. He
committed a crime but he is not punished, he does not incur any criminal liability and he is not punished. He does
not incur any penalty. But he is civilly liable because there is a crime committed.
What are the circumstances that would exempt the offender from criminal liability?

1) Imbecility or Insanity
 An Imbecile is exempt in all cases or instances
 Insanity will not exempt a person if he acted in lucid interval.
 What is an imbecile?
o Is a person of advanced age but his mental age is equivalent only to person aged between 2-7 years old.
Chronologically he may be old or advanced and his age is like you but his thinking is only that of a 2 or 3 or
4 or 7 year old.
 An insane person is exempt only if he committed the crime outside his lucid interval.
o What is a lucid interval?
o A period of sanity where the insane person regains his sanity and faculties for a period.
 To be exempt from any criminal liability, it must be proven that the offender is completely deprived of his
intelligence.
 He must be ‘COMPLETELY’ deprived of his intelligence.
 The offender either he is imbecile or insane, the common ground is, to be exempt from criminal liability there must
be a complete absence of intelligence at the time or immediately before the commission of the crime.
 If he was deprived of his intelligence after the crime but at the time of the commission of the crime he was still
aware of what he was doing at the time he is not exempt.
 The common ground: COMPLETE ABSENCE of Intelligence immediately before or at the time of the commission of
the crime.
 Remember the elements of a felony (dolo)? There must be FREEDOM, INTELLIGENCE, and INTENT
 Intelligence is a requisite of criminal liability. An imbecile or an insane person is not criminally liable because of
absence of intelligence. There must be a complete deprivation of intelligence because they do not know what they
are doing. They are exempt because of absence of intelligence.
 Who has the burden of proof? Who is obliged or has the duty to present evidence in court that the offender is
insane or an imbecile? The accused or defense, the lawyer of the accused will present evidence.
 What evidence? Present a psychiatrist or doctor. The offender who claims to be insane has to be examined by a
psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist will make a report to the court whether or not there was a complete deprivation.
When he started to be insane or whether he is really insane? If he became insane after the commission of the
crime, he is not exempt but the proceedings will be suspended. When he regains his sanity the trial shall
continue.
 TN: SANITY is PRESUMED.
 He who claims to be insane must prove that he is insane. You are presumed to be sane.
 If the court finds no sufficient evidence to establish that the offender is insane then he shall be convicted. Because
the presumption is that he is sane and that he was sane at the time of the commission of the crime.
 But in a reverse situation, that person has been found to be insane and is confined in an institution for insane
persons then the presumption is that you are insane.
 The court will not order your release until there is sufficient proof that you are no longer insane.

Page 29 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 The only question is whether or not there was complete absence or deprivation of intelligence. In a case the
accused was found to be suffering from a schizophrenic reaction but knew what he was doing, or that he had
psychosis but was found to be aware of what he was doing so he is not exempt. He is not exempt but the penalty
could be lowered, it could be considered a mitigating circumstance.
 Equivalent circumstances:
 Dementia Preacox- so called ‘Irresistible Homicidal Impulse’ covered in the term insanity.

Read the case of People v. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 87:

Facts:
Celestino Bonoan is charged with the crime of murder for stabbing Carlos Guison with a knife, which
caused his death three days afterwards. An arraignment was then called, but the defense objected on the ground
that the defendant was mentally deranged and was at the time confined at the Psychopatic Hospital. After several
months of summons for doctors, production of the defendant’s complete record of mental condition from the
hospital and defendant’s admission to the hospital for personal observation, assistant alienist Dr. Jose Fernandez
finally reported to the court that Bonoan may be discharged for being a “recovered case”. After trial, the lower
court found Bonoan guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The defense now appeals, claiming the lower court made errors in finding Bonoan suffered dementia only
occasionally and intermittently, did not show any kind of abnormality, that the defense did not establish the
defendant’s insanity and finding accused guilty.

Issue:
W/N the lower court erred in finding the accused guilty

Held:
Yes. The Court finds the accused demented at the time he perpetrated the crime, which consequently exempts
him from criminal liability, and orders for his confinement in San Lazaro Hospital or other hospital for the insane.
This ruling was based on the following evidence:
1. Uncontradicted evidence that accused was confined in the insane department of San Lazaro Hospital and
diagnosed with dementia praecox long before the commission of the offense and recurrence of ailments
were not entirely lacking of scientific foundation
2. Persons with dementia praecox are disqualified from legal responsibility because they have no control of
their acts; dementia praecox symptoms similar to manic depression psychosis
3. Accused had an insomnia attack, a symptom leading to dementia praecox, four days prior to act according
to Dr. Francisco
4. Accused was sent the Psychopatic hospital on the same day of crime and arrest, indicating the police’s
doubt of his mental normalcy
5. Defendant suffered from manic depressive psychosis according to Dr. Joson
Dissenting (Justices Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion):
1. The dissenting opinions pose that the accused committed the crime when he was sane, or at
least, during a lucid interval.
2. The legal presumption is always in favor of sanity; no positive evidence of accused mental state
was established
3. Based on expert testimonies, accused was cured of dementia praecox and later manic depressive
psychosis
4. Based on observance of arresting officer Damaso Arnoco, corrobating statement of Benjamin
Cruz, and other witnesses, accused appear sane at the time immediately after commission
5. There is a motive of aggression on part of accused is real and positive fact: deceased’s failure to
pay borrowed money
 Kleptomania – impulse to take things
 Somnambulism – sleep walking
People v. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255:
FACTS:

Page 30 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

On January 16, 1932, in the house of Potenciano Taneo’s parents in Dolores, Ormoc, Leyte,
because of severe stomachache, Potenciano slept early. While sleeping, he suddenly got up, left
the room with a bolo in hand and upon meeting his wife who tried stop him, he wounded her int
eh abdomen. Several others were also attacked, this includes his father, and his guests, Fred
Tanner and Luis Malinao. It was claimed that he was dreaming when the crime happened. The
trial court found Potenciano guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE:
WON the defendant is criminally liable.

HELD:
No. The defendant acted while in a dream and his acts with which he was charged were not
voluntary in the sense of entailing criminal liability. The expert witness claimed that the
defendant was under the influence of hallucination and not in his right mind. The defendant is
not criminally liable however, he was ordered to be confined in an insane asylum.
 Crime committed while suffering Malignant Malaria

2) Par. 2 and 3 has been repealed by RA 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.
 Under RA 9344 the exempting age now for a minor has been raised to 15 yrs. of age. Back then it was
only 9 yrs. and between 9-15 yrs. of age, not exempt unless acted without discernment.
 15yrs. and below are exempt from any criminal liability. Now, exact 15 is still exempt but between 15
and 1 day to 18 yrs. of age is exempt but if it is proven that the minor acted with discernment when
he committed the crime.
 The burden of proof is with the prosecution to prove that the minor whose age is between 15 and 18
(over 15 below 18 yrs.) acted with discernment
 What do you mean by discernment?
 It is ability to determine what is right or wrong or the mental capacity to distinguish right from wrong.
 How can the prosecution prove that the minor acted with discernment if the age of the minor is over
15 and below 18 yrs. of age in order to be held criminally liable?
 The court has to look into the circumstances. For example in one case a minor killed and then the
cleaned the instrument used in the killing, the act of the minor in cleaning or washing the instrument
or weapon is evidence of discernment. In another case, a minor hit with intent another minor.
 Who has the burden of proof? The prosecution
 What age? Over 15 yrs. and below 18 yrs. of age
 If there is no proof of discernment then the minor is exempt.
 Under RA 9344, a minor who is below 15 is to undergo ‘intervention’, while a minor over 15 but
below 18yrs. is to undergo ‘diversion’.

4) Any person who while performing a LAWFUL ACT with DUE CARE, causes and injury by mere ACCIDENT
WITHOUT FAULT or INTENTION
 Ex. Driving:
Driving in the correct lane, but moderate speed is case to case basis, in highway 60kph is moderate but in
cities 50kph is already reckless. Reckless imprudence resulting to homicide when a child crosses the street
without warning, there was contributory negligence but contributory negligence will not exempt you from
criminal liability, contributory negligence only mitigates civil liability.
 TN: Elements:
o Performing a LAWFUL act
o With DUE CARE
o Causes an injury to another by MERE ACCIDENT
o WITHOUT FAULT or INTNETION of causing it
 People v. Abarca

Page 31 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled
th
That on or about 15 day of July 1984 in the city of Tacloban Leyte Philippines, the accused Francisco
Abarca went to the bus station and travel to Dolores Eastern Samar to fetch his daughter in the morning.
Unfortunately, the trip was delayed at 2 pm because of his failure to catch the trip plus the engine
trouble which causes him to proceed at his father’s house, and then later went home. When he reaches
home the accused caught his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with Khingsley Koh in the meantime his
wife and Koh notice him, that makes her wife push her paramour and got his revolver. Abarca peeping
above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away to look for a firearm at the PC soldier’s
house to where he got the M-16 rifle. The accused lost his wife and Koh in vicinity at his house and
immediately proceeded to a mahjong house where he caught the victim aimed and shoot Koh with
several bullets on his different parts of his body causing Mr. Khingsley Koh’s instantaneous death. By that
time, Arnold and Lina Amparado had inflicted multiple wounds due to stray bullets causing Mr.
Amparado’s one and one-half month loss of working capacity including his serious hospitalization and the
latter’s wife who had slighter physical injuries from the incident. The RTC hereby sentenced Abarca to
death for Murder with double Frustrated Murder and must indemnify the Amparado Spouses and Heirs of
Kho.

Held:
The Supreme Court modified the appealed decision of destierro to arresto mayor from the lower
court sentencing four months and 21 days to six months of arresto mayor indemnifying Amparado
spouses for expenses and damages.

Reasoning:
The accused-appellant did not have the intent to kill the Amparado couple. Although as a rule, one
committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, the rule presupposes that the act done
amounts to a felony. The accused-appellant is totally free from any responsibility performing an illegal act
when he fired shots at the victim but he cannot be entirely without fault. It appears that before firing at
the deceased, he uttered warning words which is not enough of a precaution to absolve him for the
injuries sustained by the Amparados. The acts of execution which should have produced the crimes of
murders as a consequence, nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of his will;
nonetheless, the Court finds negligence on his part. He is liable under the first part, second paragraph, of
Article 365 that is less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence. For the separate
injuries suffered by the Amparado spouses impose upon the accused-appellant arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum period to being the graver penalty.

Although you are performing a lawful act, but if you did it negligently you can be held liable: reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property or physical injuries, that is if you were performing a lawful
act with negligence
But if you were performing a lawful act without negligence, with due care and by mere accident then you
are not liable.
o Example: You are a security guard but you are playing with the firearm and hit someone, you are liable.
What if you acted in self-defense and fired at your attacker but an innocent bystander is hit, are you
liable? If there was a crowd or many people, then it would be reckless imprudence resulting to physical
injuries of the bystander did not die.
o You have to take into consideration the circumstances. If you were the lawyer, you have to say it was a
lawful act.
o Keywords: LAWFUL ACT and DUE CARE
o Example: Police fired warning shots aimed in the sky to stop a fight but when fired the third shot low or
near the ground the bullet ricocheted and a bystander was hit. He is liable. He is negligent. What do you
mean by accident?A fortuitive event or an unforeseen consequence
o Basis: LACK of INTENT; lack of criminal intent
o For example: There was a hold-up, and instead of you giving your money, you instead fought for the gun
as you tried to take it, you finger got caught in the trigger and a shot was fired hitting a nearby house. Are
you liable? No, it was an accident.

Page 32 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o TN: Under par. 4 you are exempt from any civil and criminal liability.
o Generally, a person exempt criminal liability is not exempt from civil liability but under par. 4 you are not
civilly liable.

5) Acts under the COMPULSION of an IRRESISTIBLE FORCE

 Compulsion is by physical force, so there is violence. The force must be irresistible.
o Irresistible force means superior force. You don’t have the means to escape. The physical force must
come from a third person.
 Example:
 You went out with your friends but they were shot by their enemies. You pleaded the
gunmen to spare your life as you don’t have to do anything with their quarrel. Instead,
they beat you and forced you with guns pointed at your back to dig their graves. Are you
criminally liable as accessory?
o No, because a person who acts under compulsion under irresistible force. CITE THE LAW!
 What if you also have a gun? Is it Irresistible force? No because you have the chance to
resist. The force must be IRRESISTIBLE.
o Basis: LACK of FREEDOM. The person is reduced to a mere instrument. Lack of free will.
o “An act committed by me against my will is not my act”

6) Any person who ACTS under the IMPULSE OF UNCTROLLABLE FEAR of an EQUAL or GREATER INJURY
o What do you mean by uncontrollable fear?
This refers to threat. Irresistible force is worse as there is violence.
Example: In the mountains, there are rebels and they threatened you to join the rebellion or die. What is
the criminal act? Joining the rebels. What is the fear of an equal or greater injury? The threat of death. Is
it a greater evil than rebellion? Yes.
o The fear must be imminent or real. There must be no opportunity to escape or put up a defense.
For example: X was told to kill his father F with the threat of burning his home. Is X liable? Yes. The fear
threatened is lesser than the crime committed. Life has more weight than property.
The fear that is threatened must be greater than the crime committed.
o You were forced to rape your colleague with the threat to kill both of you with the gun being aimed at you.
Are you liable? NO.
o Basis: Lack of Freedom.

7) Any person who FAILS to PERFORM an act required by law, when prevented by some LAWFUL or INSUPERABLE
CAUSE.
 That cannot be overcome or is insurmountable; a cause beyond his control.
o Example: A law enforcer who has arrested a person who has committed a crime in his presence is
authorized to arrest and is obligated under the law to immediately file a case against the arrested person.
o 12hrs..; 18hr.; 36hrs.
o He arrested the person who committed a crime Friday evening at 6pm but he was only able to file the
case on Tuesday morning because Monday was a holiday because of election. Is he liable? No.
o What is the insuperable cause here? Courts are closed in Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays.
o Basis: LACK of INTENT

ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
o Circumstances where the act committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment
there is no penalty imposed.
o They are like exempting circumstances.
o Most common in the absolutory cause in the bar is INSTIGATION.
o From the word instigate or to induce somebody.

Page 33 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

INSTIGATION – A police officer or a public officer induces another innocent person to commit a crime. And after
committing the crime he arrests him. This is an absolutory cause so dili pwede presuhon katong nadakpan kay kung
presuhon ang nadakpan presuhon pud nimu ang police officer because he is a principal by inducement. The police officer is
the one inducing the arrested person to commit a crime. By reason of public policy dili silotan. Considered defense.

ENTRAPMENT – when the law enforcers uses or result to means or ways to trap a person who is committing a crime or
about to commit a crime. Murag ilaga gi trap nimu. This is NOT an absolutory cause. This is opposite of instigation.

DISTINGUISH:
INSTIGATION ENTRAPMENT
Is an absolutory cause. Not.
The law enforcer induces an innocent person to commit the The law enforcer resulted to means or ways to trap and
offense thereby making the law enforcer a principal by capture the law breaker in the execution of the criminal
induction. plan.

 EXAMPLE. Ikaw run namaligya kag shabu. Gawas ka sa inyo kay naghuwat kag mga buyer unya dihay miduol nimu
kay mupalit siyag shabu, paghuman jud nimug tunol sa shabu, nikuha ka sa kwarta pagdawat jud nimu gidakop
daun siya. This is ENTRAPMENT because he is committing a crime and he is being captured. The law enforcers use
a poseur buyer to capture or arrest the violator. Buy-bust is valid.

 EXAMPLE. Wala gyud siya namaligya, naglingkud ra to siya wala siyay shabung dala, wala pud siya magpa abot ug
buyer. Unya dihay amigo niya nga gigamit sa police, gi galgal jud siya, sa dihang namalit na nya nang gamit na,
gidakop. This is instigation because the person arrested does not have in mind to commit the crime. He was
induced or prodded upon to commit the crime. He could not be punished. Because if siya silotan then katong mga
police officers silotan pud.

 By reason of public policy, dili siya silutan. Instigation is an absolutory cause.

OTHER ABSULOTORY CLAUSES IN THE RPC:

 Art. 332 – In the crime of estafa, theft and malicious mischief and the victim is the spouse, ascendant, descendant,
brother or sister whom he is living with.
 Art. 247 – Death under exceptional circumstances example people vs abarca, a spouse who after surprising the
other spouse having sex with another, kills both or inflicts injuries, doesn’t incur any criminal liability.

Chapter Three
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
 This will not exempt nor relieve the offender of any criminal liability. He is criminally liable however the penalty is
lowered.

 WHAT IS A DEGREE AND WHAT IS A PERIOD

PENALTIES Art. 71. Arranged according to higher or lower. For purposes of increasing or decreasing the penalty
refer to Art. 71. This is called graduating penalty.

Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Destierro

Page 34 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

Arresto Menor
Public Censure
Fine

Kaning entire penalty mao niy gitawag nga DEGREE. When you are asked what is one degree lower than death? Reclusion
Perpetua. What is one degree lower of Reclusion Perpetua? Reclusion Temporal.

Degree means the whole or entire penalty.

Indivisible Penalty Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Public Censure
Divisible Penalty Reclusion Temporal
Prision Mayor
Prision Correccional
Arresto Mayor
Arresto Menor
Destierro
Fine

Indivisible Penalty cannot be divided. Divisible Penalty can be divided into three PERIODS.
DEGREE PERIOD
Divisible Penalty Prision Mayor Maximum (10yrs+1day to 12yrs)
6 years and 1 day to 12 years Medium (8yrs+1day to 10yrs)
Minimum (6yrs+1day to 8yrs)

However dunay period nga mahimung degree. Meaning there are instances by way of exception nga ang iyahang period
will be considered as a degree if the law itself provides that that particular penalty, example, Art. 140. Penalty for sedition is
prision mayor minimum period. The period here is used as a degree kay nay apilyido.
DEGREE PERIOD
Maximum
Medium
Prision Mayor Maximum
Minimum Medium
Minimum

Gawas aning mga nay apilyido sagad ana walay apilyido. Example Art. 249. Homicide. What is the penalty for homicide?
Reclusion temporal. Walay apilyido. This is the general rule. Degree jud ang gigamit. This presupposes that divisible into
three periods. Unsay gamit sa mitigating ug aggravating?
HOMICIDE
Reclusion Temporal Maximum No mitigating. 1 Aggravating.
(17+4+1 to 20)
Medium No aggravating. No mitigating.
(14+4+1 to 17)
Minimum 1 Mitigating. No aggravating.
(12+1 to 14+8)

KINDS OF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

1. Ordinary/Generic Mitigating
o Paragraph 1 to Paragraph 10 of article 13 are considered ordinary mitigating EXCEPT paragraph 2 because
this is now considered privilege mitigating.
o Can be offset by aggravating. Itapak. Duna kay discount

Page 35 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Example. In a case where there is 1 mitigating, 1 aggravating, this is good as no mitigating at all
therefore MEDIUM.
1 mitigating, 0 aggravating = MINIMUM
1 mitigating, 1 aggravating = OFFSET tabla lang MEDIUM GIHAPON
0 mitigating, 1 aggravating = MAXIMUM
2 mitigating, 0 aggravating = 1 DEGREE LOWER
3 or more mitigating, 1 aggravating = MINIMUM
0 mitigating, 3 or more aggravating = MAXIMUM
o The penalty can be lowered only up to the minimum of the penalty. Example. If the imposable penalty is
reclusion temporal if there is ordinary mitigating the penalty can be lowered only up to the minimum of
the penalty imposable which is reclusion temporal. Can be lowered only by one period.

2. Privilege Mitigating
o There are only 3 privilege mitigating. One is minority and the other is Incomplete Justifying or Exempting
circumstances. The third one this is when there are two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances and
there is no aggravating.
o Example. Minority. Kung ang akusado minor his penalty is always lower than that of an adult because
kanang privilege mitigating will always lower the penalty regardless of the presence of aggravating
circumstances.
o The penalty can be lowered only up to the minimum of the penalty. Example. Homicide wherein the
penalty is reclusion temporal and the offender is a minor it can be lowered by one degree which is prision
mayor. This is of course if the minor acted with discernment because if he did not act with discernment
he is exempt. This also presupposes that the minor’s age is over 15 but below 18.
o Mao pud na siya sa incomplete justifying ug incomplete exempting circumstances. The penalty by one or
two degrees at the discretion of the court. NOTE: that unlawful aggression must be always be present to
qualify it as a mitigating circumstance, unya arun mahimung incomplete justifying ug incomplete
exempting circumstances, dapat majority of the requisites are present. So kung nakapatay ka and there
was unlawful aggression, and no sufficient provocation on your part and the only missing element is that
the means you used is not reasonable because for example ang imu kontra gisumbag ra ka unya imung gi
dunggab. So of the 3 requisites, 2 are present and you are entitled to a previliged mitigating circumstance
which is one or two degrees lower not just the minimum.
o If however only unlawful aggression is present (dili majority of the requisites) it is still a mitigating
circumstance but only ordinary.
o Note: That as regards to self-defense, defense of relatives and defense of strangers, unlawful aggression
must always be present. You cannot claim incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives or strangers if
there is no unlawful aggression. Labi na jud kung complete justifying dili jud na pwede nga mawagtang
ang unlawful aggression.

ORDINARY MITIGATING PRIVILEGE MITIGATING

Can be offset by aggravating. Cannot be offset by any aggravating. Can always lower the
penalty regardless of the presence of aggravating.
The penalty can be lowered only up to the minimum of the Can be lowered by one degree.
penalty.

o Sa atong gisulti ganina kung ang ordinary mitigating duha na gani, two or more ordinary mitigating without any
aggravating it can also the lower the penalty by one degree. Mao na siyay gitawag nga muparehog privilege. Basta
WALA lang juy aggravating. Kay kung bisan duna pa nay upat ka buok mitigating unya nay bisag usa ra ka buok
aggravating dili na na pwede. Dili na na maka lower ug 1 degree kutob ra na sa period.
o Two or more ordinary mitigating but without any aggravating, it can lower the penalty by one degree. Imagine
gikan sa prision correccional ari na ka sa prision mayor

Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The following are mitigating circumstances;

Page 36 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt from
criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he shall be
proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony
(delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or that he had
voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however
depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned

DIFFERENT PRIVILEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (burden of proof is with the accused)

o NOTE: Only Minority and whether or not he acted with discernment is required to be stated in the complaint,
other circumstances need not be stated.
o Dunay mga mitigating circumstances nga applicable only to a particular person for example kanang minority, si A
ug si B committed a crime unya si A ray minor, so the mitigating circumstance is applicable only to A. It is personal
only to A and it is not applicable to B.

1) Those mentioned in the justifying and exempting circumstances when all the requisites necessary to justify the
act or to exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not present or not attendant.
o Mitigating circumstance if not the entire requisite to justify an act or exempt a person from a crime is
not present. Of course, exclude here paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 12, these are par. 1 for imbecility and
insanity and par. 2 about minority.
o As regards incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of relatives, incomplete defense of strangers,
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION is an indispensable requisite. If unlawful aggression is not present there is no
nd rd
incomplete self-defense, defense of stranger or relative. Ang wala diha its either the 2 or 3 requisite.
Unya kani silang incomplete self-defense, defense of stranger or relative kung present gani ang duha ka
requisites, of course one of which must be unlawful aggression, that is privilege mitigating.
o If ang present niya is only unlawful aggression that is ordinary mitigating.

2) When the offender is under 18 years of age.

o Be careful of this because this has been repealed already by Republic Act 9344. Under this act if a minor is
over 15 below 18 he is EXEMPT unless prosecution proves that he acted with discernment. If he acted
with discernment his being a minor is considered a privilege mitigating.
o There are two inherent mitigating circumstance here in par. 2 aside from (a) minority. You connect it to
RA 9344. (b) Over 70 years is considered an ordinary mitigating not an exempting circumstance. So bisag
tuod kung tigulang na siyag maau ang iyang pang huna huna mura ug bata that is only mitigating.
o Over 70 yrs Old..so starting sa 70yrs & 1 day.

3) Offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.

 Praeter Intentionem (applicable only to intentional felonies.)
 Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
 He intended the lesser offense but the resulting injury is the more serious. Example ang iyang biktima
iyang gi sumbag, unya natumba, naparok ang ulo sa semento, namatay. Is he liable? YES. because a
person commiting a felony is liable for all direct, natural, logical consequences of his felonious act, as long
as the act has a direct and natural connection to the result. Remember atong kaso nga nay supervening

Page 37 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

cause, katong gisumbag nya nay kabayo nilayat niya mao namatay. Legal basis is Art. 3 but the penalty is
lesser because of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
 To determine lack of intent can be shown by the means he employed. Kung iyaha ra nang gisumbag then
you can say that the mitigating circumstance is present. Pero kung iyaha na siyang gidunggab unya ang
gigamit ana niya sa pag puspos is kining puthaw, dili ka makaingun nga wa siyay intent to kill ana.
Whether or not the accused has not intent to commit such grave offense can be shown by the means
employed and also by the portion of the body to where the attack was aimed.
 This is only applicable to felonies by dolo or those done with intent. Not applicable to culpable felonies.
 The basis of this mitigating circumstance is that the INTENT is diminished. If absent ang intent then can
be acquitted but if only diminished then can be a mitigating circumstance.

4) PROVOCATION OR THREAT
o That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceeded the act.
o The victim here has made sufficient provocation or has provoked the accused maoy naka pa abli nga
buhatun niya ang maong crime. Sufficient provocation here is lesser that unlawful aggression. Nanguna
siya pero ang iyang pagpanguna dili siya ma consider nga unlawful aggression otherwise the act will be
justified as self defense. It is just a provocation but not unlawful aggression.
o Example. When the victim ill-treated the accused by kicking and cursing the latter. The accused who
killed the victim committed the crime with this mitigating circumstance.
o Example. There was sufficient provocation on the part of the victim who hit the accused with his fist on
the eye before the fight.
o Blowing of horns, cutting lanes or overtaking are provocations not considered sufficient.
o IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE ACT means immediately after provocation you committed the crime. So
kung imu pa gipa-abot ug ugma, not anymore mitigating.
o Remember this is only an ordinary mitigating, kung imung mapatay kutob ra ka sa minimum period.

5) VINDICATION OF GRAVE OFFENSE

 That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the
felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
 The victim here committed a grave offense against the:
1. The accused; or

2. Accused’ spouse; or
3. Accused’ ascendants; or
4. Accused’ descendants; or
5. Accused’ legitimate natural or adopted brothers or sisters; or
6. Accused’ relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
 GRAVE OFFENSE concerns more on honor. Grave offense although not a crime, so long as nakapasakit ka.
 IMMEDIATE VINDICATION here is different from par. 4 because here it need not immediately follow. There
could be a lapse of time such as one day or two to three days.
o The grave offense committed need not be unlawful, na ka pa uwaw lang jud.
 “PP vs. DIOKNO” Accused is a father who killed the boyfriend of his daughter ka yang iyang anak gitaban. Kani
adto man gud, di gani ka kahikap anang babay. Unya kung imu gani nang tabanun, this is considered a
disgrace, a grave dishonor atong panahona. Killing the victim for eloping his daughter is an example of
immediate vindication even with the lapse of 2 days
 “US vs. AMPAR” Tigulang na ang nakapatay, 70 years old. During a fiesta, an old man asked the
deceased for some roast beef. In the presence of so many guests, the deceased insulted the old man saying,
“there is none, there’s no more. Come here and I will make roast beef of you.” Later while the deceased was
squatting down, the old man came behind him and struck him on the head with an axe. According to the
Supreme Court, while it may be a mere trifle to an average person, it was evidently a serious matter to an old

Page 38 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

man to e made a pot of a joke in the presence of so many guests. Accused was given the benefit of mitigating
circumstance of vindication of a grave offense.

6) PASSION AND OBFUSCATION

o That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
o Your obfuscation must have arisen out of a lawful sentiment and the crime committed must be
immediate. Tungod sa imung ka pongot or kalagot it confused your mind.
o requisites:
1. that there was an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind which
produce the obfuscation
Example. The victim was creating trouble during the wake of the departed father of the accused.
Scandalizing the mourners and offending the senses of the grieving family. Considering that the
trouble created by the victim was unlawful and considered to infuriate the accused, his guilt was
motivated by passion or obfuscation.
- He was even mmore motivated by passion and obfuscation when the accused saw the victim boxed
his 4 year old son. (kini pwede pud sa paragraph 5)
o “US vs. HIX”
 Passion and obfuscation must arise from lawful sentiments.
 Here, the accused and deceased were living as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage. Afterwards, the woman separated from the accused and lived with another man.
Accused got angry by such conduct killed the deceased.
 According to the Supreme Court, even if it is true that the accused acted with obfuscation
because of jealousy, the mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because the
causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the loss of self-control are such which originated
from legitimate feelings and not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions.
Thus, NOT mitigating.
but in 1 case..
o “PP vs. INGAY” Ang babay ani ang nakapatay, they have been together as husband and wife for more or
less 15 years. And within this 15-year, the woman iyang gipaskwela ang iyang puyo puyo. Unya pag-
human ug skwela gibiyaan sa laki ang babay. Gipatay siya sa babay. According to the Supreme Court,
although it has been held in Hix case that the cause which produce in the mind loss of reason and self-
control and which lessened criminal responsibility are those which originate from lawful sentiments, and
not those which arise from vicious, unworthy, and immoral passions, yet such is not the case here where
the fact that the accused lived for 15 long years as the real wife of the deceased, whose house she helped
and support, could not but arouse that regular feeling of despair in the woman who saw her life broken
and saw herself abandoned by the very man she considered a husband for so long a time and whom she
had made so many sacrifices. MITIGATING circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
o “US vs. DELA CRUZ” Common-law husband and wife gihapun sila, ang lalaki diri was able to catch his
common law wife in the act of sexual intercourse with another man. The Supreme Court here credited
this MITIGATING circumstance of having acted under passion and obfuscation even if they are just
common law husband/wife.
o “PP vs. SANICO” Naglakaw ang accused, ang babay naligo sa tabay gi rape sa accused and raise the
defense that he acted under passion and obfuscation. According to the Supreme Court, not passion and
obfuscation. It is in the spirit of lawlessness that an accused who raped a woman is NOT entitled to a
mitigating circumstance of having acted under an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
passion just because he finds himself in a secluded place with a young ravishing woman.
o NOTE: Obfuscation arising from jealousy is NOT mitigating.
o In the case of ppl vs. marasigan and US vs de la pena SC: cannot envoke if relationship is illegitimate but if
the passion or obfuscation arose from the rivalry for the heart of a woman it is mitigating.
o kanang nagtuo ka nga ungo? pwede. in US vs Macalintal nagtuo siya nga gibarang iyang mama. SC: the
belief entertained in good faith by the accused that the deceased cast upon their mother a spell
witchcraft which caused her serious illness was enough to cause passion or obfuscation.

Page 39 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

7) Two mitigating circumstances mentioned in Par. 7:

o Voluntary surrender
o Voluntary plea of guilty or confession of guilt in court

Voluntary surrender
- The offender must have surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents
o Person in authority
 Example: mayor, governor, brgy captain, judges
o Agents of persons in authority
 Example: members of the PNP, the law enforcers, brgy tanods (Barangay Public Safety Officer)

So if a person who committed a crime voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agent, the
same is considered mitigating. Meaning, mitigating, the same can reduce the penalty imposed on him.

Aggravating/Mitigating circumstances, generic/ordinary and privileged circumstances

 Generic or Ordinary circumstances apply only to divisible penalties

For example, the imposed penalty is death or reclusion perpetua, or public censure (indivisible penalties), generic
mitigating circumstances do not apply.

Illustration:
A person is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, he voluntarily surrendered or pleaded guilty in court, such do
not reduce his sentence. Why? Because the mentioned mitigating circumstances are all generic and generic
circumstances do not affect the penalty imposed if it’s indivisible penalty.
But if it’s privileged mitigating, it can affect or lower the penalty. For example, minority or incomplete
justifying and exempting, they are privileged mitigating and it can lower the penalty by one degree.

So if the person who committed the crime is a minor, or the minor committed a murder, he cannot be
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Why? Because of his being a minor. Minority can lower a penalty, it being a
privileged mitigating.

Voluntary surrender
- Is a generic or ordinary mitigating.
- For it to be appreciated the following requisites must be met:
1. The offender was not actually arrested.
2. The offender must have voluntarily surrendered himself, without any conditions, to a person in
authority or his agent.
 So if an offender surrendered himself to one Leo, a prominent commentator, mitigating? NO!
Because the person to whom he surrendered himself is not a person in authority or an agent.
 What if the offender said that “he will only surrender provided that Angel Locsin will be the one
who’ll convince him to surrender?” Mitigating? NO! Because it is conditional.
 What if he will say upon going to a police station, “I am here because I want to clean my name
because I heard that I was blamed for the death of this person?” Mitigating? NO!

READ: Pp v. Evangelista, 256 SCRA 611

- Where the accused went to the police station to clear himself of any involvement in the crime because he was not
guilty, according to him, and not to give himself up; there is no voluntary surrender.

3. The surrender must be voluntary and spontaneous.

4. The accused must have acknowledged his guilt; whether he surrendered himself or because he
surrendered in order to save them the expenses or troubles necessary to incur in his search and
capture.

Page 40 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

For example, the accused surrendered himself to a police or to the mayor after he learned that a warrant of arrest
was issued against him. Meaning, he surrendered himself only when a warrant of arrest has been issued against
him. Should his surrender be considered a mitigating? YES! Because, according to the Supreme Court, voluntary
surrender should be appreciated even if the warrant of arrest has been issued provided that the same has not yet
been served.

But if you only surrendered because a warrant of arrest was already served on you, that could not be considered
mitigating anymore.

Or you surrendered because you thought there’s no way for you to escape, that could not be considered
mitigating.

In one case, the Supreme Court did not consider the surrender of the accused as mitigating because he
surrendered himself only after 2 and ½ years of hiding.

Voluntary Plea of Guilty

When is voluntary plea of guilty be considered mitigating?

1. It should be made in open court.
 So if you confessed to a police that you killed but in court you pleaded not guilty, your
voluntary plea of guilty would not be considered mitigating because it is required that to
be considered mitigating, the same must be done in court.
2. The same must be made before the trial starts and before the prosecution has presented its
evidence.
 So when?
o You may plead guilty during the arraignment.
o Even if the offender did not enter a plea of guilty during arraignment, for
example, the accused did not enter a plea of guilty during arraignment,
however, he pleaded guilty during pre-trial? Mitigating? YES! Because the
prosecution has not yet started presenting its evidence.
o Another illustration: arraignment, not guilty. Pre-trial, he still did not enter a
plea of guilty. He maintained his innocence. And so after pre-trial, when the
case was called for the presentation of evidence for the prosecution, the
accused stood up and told the court that he would now enter a plea of guilty.
And so he was re-arraigned. Mitigating? YES! Because the prosecution,
although the case was already scheduled for an initial hearing, has not yet
presented its evidence. And so the plea of guilty of the accused is considered
mitigating.
o For example, during arraignment, the accused was charged with murder. And
he said he will only plead guilty of the charge is lower down to homicide. Or the
accused is charged with rape and he said he will only plead guilty if you lower it
to acts of lasciviousness, he pleaded guilty to the acts of lasciviousness, the
prosecution agreed. Is his plea of guilty considered mitigating? NO! because it
is already considered as plea-bargaining or conditional.
3. The plea of guilty must not be subjected to any condition.
o For example the accused was charged with murder, the prosecution after
evaluating its evidence, amended the information. Can the prosecution amend
information? YES! So it was amended from murder to homicide, during
arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty, mitigating? YES, mitigating! Why?
There is no plea-bargaining. It was the prosecution who changed the charges
and amended the information.

Page 41 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o What if the prosecution has already presented its evidence and the accused
pleaded guilty. Can the accused plead guilty this time? YES! But it is no longer
mitigating.

Rationale why voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilty in court is mitigating:
- Act of repentance and respect for the law on the part of the accused

 Judge D: A good lawyer will advise his client to confess his guilt if it is found to be strong. But he must also advise
him the consequences of his act.

8) Physical Defect
“Accused”
o Suffering from a physical defect

 For example, a blind was sued for oral defamation. Is his physical defect mitigating? Is his being a blind mitigating?
No. In order for the physical defect to be mitigating, the same must relate to the mode of committing the crime.

“Physical Defect”
o The same must relate to the mode of committing a crime

 So being blind is not mitigating as regards to crime of oral defamation because his being blind has nothing to do
with the crime oral defamation.
 So what if he was charged with oral defamation and the accused is “bungi,” is his physical defect now mitigating?
Judge D answered TINGALE. Because his defect has not something to do with the mode of committing the crime.
 Or the accused is blind but he was charged with homicide. It is mitigating.

 So the physical defect must have relation to the mode of committing the crime.

9) Illness of the Offender

- Paragraph 8 talks about physical defect; whereas, paragraph 9 talks about illness.
- Such illness of the offender would diminish the willpower of the offender, without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.
- So the accused here is suffering from an illness.

For example, the accused is suffering from a mental illness but he is not completely deprived of intelligence. Dili siya
buang, buang-buang lang, kuwang-kuwang. Is he exempt? NO! He is only entitled to mitigating circumstance.

For example, the accused is found to be suffering from neurosis. Or he is suffering from down syndrome.

CASE in POINT: Pp vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 14, 2004
- Genosa was convicted by the Supreme Court.
- Genosa’s defense in Supreme Court was that she has a battered woman syndrome. But at the time, there was no
law yet. So at that time, she was convicted with Parricide because at that time, there was no law yet making the
Battered Wife/Woman Syndrome an illness.

10) Similar and Analogous Circumstance

- The enumeration under Article 13, mitigating circumstances, mentioned in RPC is not exclusive.
- Meaning there are still other circumstances, not mentioned here, that can be considered mitigating.
- Examples:
o Return of the thing stolen is considered mitigating as it is analogous to voluntary surrender.
o Restitution in malversation: still liable of the crime malversation but is only entitled to mitigating only as it
is similar or analogous to voluntary surrender!

Page 42 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o Extreme poverty: mitigating as regards to crimes against property only, as it is analogous to incomplete
justification based on State of Necessity.

 There are mitigating circumstances that is personal to an accused.

 Like in a crime committed by two or more persons, there are mitigating circumstances that would only affect the
personal liability of one accused and would not affect his co-accused.
Example: Minority – M, who is a minor, and A, of legal age, committed homicide. As regards to mitigating
circumstance of minority, the same would affect only the liability of M and it would not affect the liability
of Mr. A.

 Rationale of mitigating circumstances:

 Less perverse
 Positivist Theory

Chapter Four
CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH AGGRAVATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. — The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt or
with insult to the public authorities.
2. That the act be committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his
rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not given
provocation.
3. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
4. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
5. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
6. Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it
shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
10. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code.
11. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater
penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
12. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
13. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or
international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice involving great
waste and ruin.
14. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
15. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed. 15. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be
employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia). There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
19. There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.

Page 43 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commissions.

Aggravating Circumstances
- Will increase the penalty to maximum period
- If there is aggravating but no mitigating, penalty is increased to its maximum period. But the penalty will not jump
to the higher penalty. In other words, despite the number of aggravating circumstances present, the penalty shall
only be raised to the maximum period of the imposable penalty. It shall not increase the penalty to a higher
degree.
- For example, you were charged with homicide and there are aggravating circumstances but no mitigating
circumstances, the penalty will be raised to maximum period of Reclusion temporal only and not Reclusion
perpetua.
- Unlike aggravating circumstances, the presence of two or more generic mitigating circumstances will lower the
penalty to one degree. Therefore, in the example given, if two or more mitigating circumstances are present and
no aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall be lowered from Reclusion temporal to Prision mayor.
- Basis of increasing the penalty if there are aggravating circumstances:
o Greater perversity of the offender manifested in the commission of the felony as shown by:
 Motivating power;
 The place of the commission;
 The means and ways employed;
 The time;
 Personal circumstances of the offender or the offended party.

Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances

1. Generic – from the word “general”; it applies to all crimes or to any crime (i.e. nighttime, recidivism)
2. Specific – opposite to generic; applicable only to specific or particular crimes. (i.e. treachery does not
apply to crimes against property, it only applies to crimes against persons)
3. Qualifying – will change the nature of the offense
Example: Treachery. If treachery is present in killing a person, it will change the nature of the
crime from homicide to murder. Penalty of homicide is only R. temporal, while murder is R.
perpetua.
If abuse of confidence is present in the taking away of personal property, the crime will be
changed from simple theft to qualified theft. And what is the effect? The penalty will be changed.
Penalty will be increased by two degrees.
4. Inherent – already included in the crime; indispensable element in the commission of the crime
Example: Evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery. The same with adultery.
5. Special aggravating – those which arise under specified conditions to increase the penalty and which
cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Ex. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160, RPC), membership in syndicated group (Art.62, RPC)

Generic Aggravating
- May be compensated/ offset by generic/ ordinary aggravating
For example, you committed theft because you were so hungry and you had nothing to eat. Its mitigating, extreme
poverty. But what if you committed it on occasion of calamity (i.e. flood or fire)? That’s also aggravating. OFFSET. No
more mitigating and aggravating. What will happen now? The medium period of the penalty shall be imposed.

 In order for the aggravating circumstance to be appreciated or considered in the imposition of penalty, whatever
kind of aggravating circumstance, be it generic, specific, inherent, special, qualified, the same must be alleged in
the information. Judge D: TAKE NOTE of this because there are other books that say that only those qualifying
circumstances must be alleged. This is not anymore controlling because criminal procedure has already been

Page 44 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

amended. And under the 2000 amendment of the criminal procedure, it is provided that all kinds of aggravating
circumstances must be stated in the information.
 Aggravating circumstance must be proved just like the crime itself; required proof is proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
 Aggravating circumstances, like the generic mitigating, is not applicable to indivisible penalties. But even if it does
not affect the penalty, still, the same must also be alleged. Why? It might be useful when the President exercises
his pardoning/executive powers.

Different Aggravating Circumstances

1) Advantage taken of public position

 That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.

o The accused here is necessarily a government employee and he committed a crime taking advantage of
his position.
o There must be proof that, indeed, he took advantage of his position. Meaning, he could not have
committed the crime, had it not for his position. Meaning, his position in the government has facilitated
or has helped him in the commission of the crime.

For example, in a case, the SC considered this as an aggravating circumstance when a police officer, who was
assigned as the guard, killed the detainee. His position facilitated him in the commission of the crime. He could not
have committed the crime, had it not for his being a police man.

o The question here is whether the accused used his position in the commission in the crime.
o This is not applicable if public office is inherent or indispensable or in the commission of the crime or is an
element of a crime.
 Example: Malversation. You cannot commit malversation unless you are a public officer. So
taking advantage of public position is considered aggravating in the crime of malversation.
 In the crime of homicide, is public position an element? NO! So it is aggravating.
 Example: The police had an altercation with a neighbor and he used his service firearm to kill the
latter. Aggravating? NO! The mere fact that the accused used his government issued firearm is
not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crime. (Pp
v. Villamor, January 15, 2002)

o Rationale for advantage taken of public position to be aggravating: because he used his position in
committing the crime, the means.

2) Contempt or Insult to Public Authority or Person in Authority

 That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities.

o Public authority or the person in authority is neither the offender nor the offended party
o Requisites:
 That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
 That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person against whom the
crime is committed;
 The offender knows him to be a public authority;
 His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.
o It is applicable even the public authority is exercising his function outside his office.
o For example, a theft offender was already arrested and when arrested the victim slapped him in the
presence of the police officer. Is this aggravating circumstance present? Should the court consider this
aggravating circumstance? NO! Why? Because a policeman is not a person in authority. He is a mere
agent.

Page 45 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o But what if one person was stabbed in front of the brgy. Captain. For example, there was “disco”. TAKE
NOTE: the public authority or person in authority is not necessarily inside his office. So, naay disco. And the
barangay captain went there to supervise the order. And even if the brgy. Captain was there, the offender
stabbed another person, in front of the brgy. Captain, so what are the aggravating circumstances present?
That the crime committed IN CONTEMP OF OR WITH INSULT TO A PUBLIC AUTHORITY. Was it insulting to
the brgy. Captain? YES!
o Why is it aggravating? Because the presence of the person of authority did not deter or did not prevent
the accused from committing the crime.
o The person in authority here is not the one attacked. The crime is only committed in his presence, IN
CONTEMPT OF OR WITH INSULT TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY.
o So the public officer here is performing his duties OUTSIDE his office.
o To be considered as aggravating, it must be proven that the accused knew that that person is a person in
authority.
o What if the offender didn’t know that he was a brgy captain? He was not liable – mistake in fact!
o What if the offender knew that he was a brgy. Captain but didn’t knew that a brgy. Captain is a person in
authority? That is IGNORANCE OF THE LAW! Would that relieve him from any responsibility? NO!

3) Disregard of Rank, Age, Sex or Dwelling or Offended Party

 That the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his (a) rank, (b) age, or (c) sex, or (2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the
offended party.

o Four aggravating circumstances present here:

 Insult or disregard of the offended party with regards to his rank.
 Insult or disregard of the offended party with regard to his age.
 Insult or disregard of the offended party with regard to his sex
 That the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party; provided, that the victim did
not give provocation

o Rank – refers to a high social position or standing as a grade in the armed forces; or to a graded official
standing or social position or station; or to the order or place in which said officers are placed in the army
and navy in relation to others; or to the designation or title of distinction conferred upon an officer in
order to fix his relative position in reference to other officers in matters of privileges, precedence, and
sometimes of command or by which to determine his pay and emoluments as in the case of army staff
officers; or to a grade or official standing, relative position in civil or social lide, or in any scale of
comparison within a position. Therefore it does not only refer to position in PNP or military but also to
high social position.
o For example in one case, this aggravating circumstance was declared present when a victim, who was a
judge, was killed because the accused got angry with him because he was strict. There was disregard of
his rank.
o Age – either the victim was of old age or tender age. And it must be proven that the crime was committed
in disregard or insult of the offended party with regards to his age.
o In one case, this was considered when the victim was octogenarian. What is octogenarian? 80 years old
plus. And the accused was just 45 years old.
o Also this was considered when the victim was just a child, 6 years old and the offender was 30 years old.
o Sex – is not aggravating in the crime of parricide, rape, abduction or seduction because it is inherent. It is
not anymore aggravating in these cases.
o So if a rape victim is a 90 year old woman, there is only one aggravating circumstance, and that is
disrespect or disregard of age.
o Dwelling – Rationale: the offender did not respect the sanctity of privacy which the law accords to human
abode.
o For example you killed the victim inside his own house.
o It is applicable only if the victim did not give any provocation.

Page 46 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o So in one case, the victim was killed after he uttered slanderous words against the offender. After
shouting slanderous words against the accused, the latter went to the offended party’s house and killed
him. Is dwelling aggravating? NO! Because it is required that in order for it to be considered aggravating,
the victim should not give any provocation. The act of the victim in shouting indecent words against the
offender gave provocation to the offender to commit the crime of homicide.
o The house must be exclusively used for rest and comfort. So if you used your dwelling as a “tindahan,”
the same will not be considered dwelling. Or naninda ka sa merkado, and nahadlok ka makawatan imong
store, nagbutang ka didto ug katre ug adto ra kang matulog. In other words, you made your store a
dwelling and didto ra pud ka mukaon ug mulaba, if you were killed there? Would that be considered
aggravating? The dwelling? NO! Why? In order for the dwelling to be considered, the house/ dwelling
must be exclusively used for rest and comfort.
o The victim must own the house or, if not, at least he must be staying there as bedspacer, lessee, border
or guest.
o Dwelling is not aggravating when both offender and offended party live in the same house (except
adultery)
o Dwelling includes garage, foot of the staircase, dependencies and enclosures under the house.
o For example the victim was inside the house and the accused did not enter the house, and the latter shot
the former (naa ang accused sa gawas), aggravating? YES! Even if the accused did not get inside.

4) Abuse of Confidence and Obvious Ungratefulness

 That the act be committed with (1) abuse of confidence, or (2) obvious ungratefulness

o Two aggravating circumstances here:

 Abuse of confidence – “imong giabusaran iyang pagsalig”
 Obvious ungratefulness – “way utang kabubut-on”
o Abuse of Confidence must have facilitated in the commission of the crime. In case the people trusted
you and voted for you, and when you became the mayor, you did not serve them and nangawat pa ka,
malversation. Is abuse of confidence aggravating in malversation? That cannot be considered aggravating
because in order for abuse of confidence be aggravating, the same must be personal and immediate. In
the case given, it cannot be considered personal and immediate.
o CASE in POINT: Pp v. Marasigan, 70 Phil 583
 This is a case where the lover who is determined to kill his sweetheart, kay buwagan na siya. So
he said that before they part ways, ubanan sa siya for the last time, magsuroy-suroy. And while
they were strolling, niabut na sila sa layu layu, the girl trusted her, although buwag na.
Unsuspecting of his plan, the girl went with him but while they were in the car, the lover stabbed
her. The SC said that this aggravating circumstance was present. Abuse of Confidence.
o So it must be proven that the confidence reposed by the offended party to the accused must have
facilitated the commission of the crime.
o Example: nanny killed her ward

o In obvious ungratefulness, the ungratefulness must be obvious.

o This was considered by the Court in one case where the visitor commits robbery in the house of his host.
Gipakatulog sila, unya libre, unya nangawat.
o This aggravating circumstance was also considered when the accused killed his father-in-law, in whose
house he lived and who partially supported him.
o This was also considered when a security guard killed a bank officer and robbed the bank.

5) Palace and Places of Commission of offense

 That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.

Page 47 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

Four aggravating circumstances present in paragraph 5:

a. (1) The crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive
 Palace of the Chief Executive – Malacañang Palace
 Applicable even if the President is not around, as long as the crime is committed in the
Malacanang Palace.
 There was a time when in one of the comfort rooms in Malacanang Palace, there was a fetus
found and it was the result of abortion. If it was proved that there was abortion committed, then
the crime of abortion was committed inside the Malacanang Palace. And so if the offender is
convicted, this aggravating circumstance is considered in the imposition of the penalty.
(2) The crime committed in his (President) presence
 Presence of the President
 The crime need not be inside the Malacañang
 Applicable even if the President does not exercise his duty or function at the time the crime
was committed.
 For example, the President was invited her in USJR because there was an activity. And when the
President was having his speech, somebody was killed, what aggravating circumstance was
present? That the crime homicide/murder was committed in the presence of the President.
Therefore, the presence of the President did not deter nor prevent the accused from the
commission of the crime.

b. Public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties.

 Remember the time when a foreigner killed the lawyer in one of the courts here in Cebu? He was
the accused and gusto niya mapadali iyang kaso. So what he did, he killed the complainant as
well as the lawyer. Although after committing the crime, he committed suicide. If ever he did not
commit suicide, this aggravating circumstance may be appreciated.

Paragraph 2 Paragraph 5
(In contempt or insult to public authority/ (Public authorities are engaged in the
person in authority) discharge of their duties)
- The crime is committed outside the - Here, the crime is committed inside
office the office
- Victim is not the public authority or - Victim could be the person in
person in authority authority

So in one case, the governor was killed inside his office. The governor was shot inside his own
office. So the accused was charged with murder and this aggravating circumstance was
considered, although we learned earlier that considering the penalty of murder is indivisible, the
presence or absence of aggravating circumstance will not anymore matter in the imposition of
the penalty. But before, the penalty of murder was not R. perpetua. Its penalty WAS from R.
temporal to R. perpetua. In other words, if there was aggravating circumstance, R. perpetua. If
none, R. temporal. But the penalty is now changed.

Example: The crime was committed inside an election precinct. This aggravating circumstance
was considered. What aggravatin circumstance? - That the crime was committed in the place
where the public authority or person in authority is engaged in his official duties. For example, a
teacher while supervising the election, there was one person got mad and stabbed her. So the
aggravating circumstance is that the crime was committed in the place where the person in
authority is engaged in the performance of his official function.

c. Place dedicated to religious worship; this could be church, temple or chapel

Page 48 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 If the offender committed the crime in a place intended for religious worship, the penalty is
increased to maximum; aggravating circumstance is present.
 TAKE NOTE that the accused purposely or must have the intention to commit the crime. He
must have in mind to commit the crime in that place.
 For example, while praying in Sto. Nino Church, imung pitaka or bag is gihinay hinay ug kuha,
what’s the crime committed? THEFT. And what aggravating circumstance is present? That the
crime is committed at the place dedicated to religious worship.
 CASE in POINT: Pp v. Jaurigue, 76 Phil. 174
Facts: At the time of the commission of the crime, both the deceased and defendant
were inside a chapel. The deceased placed his hand on the right thigh of the defendant
girl, who pulled out with her right hand a fan knife and stabbed him.

Held: The aggravating circumstance that the killing was done in a place dedicated to
religious worship CANNOT be legally considered, where there is no evidence to show
that the defendant had murder in her heart when she entered the chapel on the fatal
night.
 Cemetery is not a place dedicated to religious worship

6) Nighttime, Uninhabited Place or Band

 That the crime be committed in (1) nighttime, or (2) in an uninhabited place, or (3) by a band,
whenever such circumstance may facilitate the commission of the offense.

o Three aggravating circumstance in paragraph 6:

 Nighttime
 Uninhabited place
 By a band
o To be aggravating , it must be proven that any of the circumstance was purposely sought for or the
offender took advantage of the circumstances in order to facilitate the achievement of his objectives,
prevent discovery or evade capture
o Must be alleged and proven

a. Nighttime
 It is the period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn. Nights are from
sunset to sunrise.
 Just because the crime was committed at night, it is not automatic that the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime is present. It must be shown that it was purposely sought for or it
facilitated the commission of the crime.
 It is only considered as aggravating circumstance if there is no light. So in case a crime was
committed at nighttime but ang suga perting hayaga, no aggravating circumstance.
 The crime must have been started at nighttime. So kung nagsugod ug adlaw and nagabinan, no
aggravating circumstance.

b. Uninhabited place
 It is where no houses at all or if there are houses, they should be at a considerable distance as
long as there was no reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some help.
 Must be purposely sought for or it facilitated the commission of the crime.
 For example, the victim was brought in the open sea.
 It must be proven that it was purposely sought for or that it has facilitated the commission of the
crime.

c. By a band

Page 49 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Band – if more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. Meaning there is at least four
and all of them are armed. Four = armed.
 The four armed men must actually participate in the commission of the crime.
 In the decision of the Supreme Court, “rocks” or “stones” are included in the term “arms.”

7) On occasion of Calamity or Misfortune

 That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic
or other calamity or misfortune.

o What do you mean conflagration? FIRE! In other words, niay sunog.

o So instead of helping the people affected, you committed a crime, that’s aggravating.
o The offender must take advantage of the calamity or misfortune.

8) Aid of Armed Men, etc.

 That the crime be committed with the aid of (1) armed men, or (2) persons who insure or afford
impunity.

o There could be two or more armed men.

o The term armed men includes armed women.
o They must have directly/indirectly participated in the commission of the crime, unlike in band, the four
armed men must directly participated in the crime.
o Presence of the armed men gives impunity to the offender
o CASE in POINT: Pp v. Ilane
 The accused, in order to get rid of her husband, secured the services of other Moros by
promising them rewards and had them kill her husband. In accordance with the plan, they armed
themselves with clubs, went to the house of the victim and clubbed him to death while the
accused held a lighted lamp. In this case, the accused committed parricide “with the aid of
armed men.”
o If there is band, aid of armed men is absorbed.
 NOTE: if there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in employment of a band. If
there are three armed men or less, aid of armed men may be aggravating.

9) Recidivism
 Presupposes that the accused is a repeater. He is not a first-timer
 Basis: his personal character
 Repeater – he already committed a crime before.

 There are four kinds of repeaters or repeat offenders, and you should know them:
1. Recidivism – par. 9, Art. 14
2. Reiteracion or habituality– par. 10, Art. 14
3. Habitual delinquency or multi-recidivism – Art. 62
4. Quasi – recidivism – Book 2, Art. 160

RECIDIVISM
 When at the time of trial, so the reckoning point is trial, for one crime, the accused has been previously convicted
by final judgment of another crime falling under the same title as with the present crime that he is under trial.
 Gihusay siya karon, pero kana siya, nakonbikto na kaniadto. Miingon gani na previously, way time limit. It could be
last month, it could be the other year, it could be several years before. So way time limit, as long as the accused
has been previously convicted. That’s one requisite. And that the previous crime to which the accused has been
convicted by final judgment, should fall under the same title with the crime under which he is under trial.

Page 50 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Example, like he is under trial for the crime of theft, now previously he has been convicted, also of theft - he is a
recidivist. Why? Because the crime, dili gani falling under the same title but the same crime; or he is under trial for
the crime for theft but previously convicted of robbery. Robbery and theft as what you have learned are under the
same title, naa na sa crime against property. In order for you to know is the accused is a recidivist, necessary that
you memorize the crimes under the same title (because in the bar, it is not open book).
 Supposed the accused has been previously convicted of a crime penalized under the RPC, but not under the same
title? He is not a recidivist.
 For example the accused has been previously convicted of a crime under a special law? He is not a recidivist.
 Or the accused has been convicted of a crime under the RPC, but presently he is charged with a crime under the
special law. He is not a recidivist.
 Now what about that in order to be considered recidivism, the second crime must have been committed… all right
now the first crime for which the accused has been previously convicted must have been committed prior to the
second. Example, if the accused committed theft (nang-snatch) but wala madakpi, the second year, nadakpan na
jud siya kay nangsnatch na pud, arraigned, angkon siya, pag-angko niya, his previous crime gihusay pud dayon siya
kay nadakpan naman, so, at the time of trial – he has been convicted for his first crime. Is he a recidivist? No.
Because in order for you to become a recidivist, the first conviction has to be the crime you first committed. It has
to be simultaneous. Because if nauna ang later crime pagkakonbikto, naulahi katong prior crime, you will not be
considered a recidivist.
 So you are under trial for the crime of theft, you were convicted before, so if you are convicted for your crime for
which you are under trial, the court will give you the maximum, if there is no mitigating circumstance. Now take
note, what we know, basic, that the aggravating circumstance, in order to be appreciated or considered, must be
alleged and must also be proven. Meaning, the prosecution has to present evidence.

10) REITERACION
 The accused here is also a repeater. Paragraph 10 is about reiteracion.
 Ex: the accused is charged with serious physical injuries. Previously, he has been convicted and served his
sentence for the crime of forcible abduction. Is he a recidivist? No, because forcible abduction and serious
physical injuries do not fall under the same title.
 The accused is not a recidivist, but there is another aggravating circumstance present in the case – reiteracion,
or habituality. Why? Because the accused has been previously convicted and has served the penalty of the
crime wherein the law provides a greater penalty than the present crime. Ang tawag sa aggravating
circumstance mao kanang reiteracion or habituality. In order to appreciate and understand, the penalty for
serious physical injuries is prision correccional, whereas in forcible abduction, the penalty for this is reclusion
temporal. The penalty for forcible abduction is more serious than that of serious physical injuries.
 Another, for example the accused is presently charged with serious physical injuries and previously he has
been convicted and served for the crime of direct assault, now under Article 148 of the RPC, the penalty for
direct assault is also prision correccional; more or less the same with serious physical injuries.
 Is he a recidivist? No. Direct assault and Serious Physical Injuries do not fall under the same title.
Therefore, he is not a recidivist.
 But is the aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion present? Yes. Because under par
10, there is reiteracion when the accused, who is presently charged of a crime, has previously
served his sentence or has been previously punished of a crime wherein the law provides a
greater or equal penalty.
 In the example given, the penalty for direct assault is equal or the same with serious physical
injuries. And so the aggravating circumstance of reiteracion is present.
 Now, supposed the accused is presently charged with *serious physical injuries, and he was previously
convicted of theft of small value.
- Is he a recidivist? No. Not under the same title.
- Now is there an aggravating circumstance of reiteracion? No, because under par. 10, in order for
aggravating circumstance of reiteracion to be appreciated, the accused must have been previously
punished of a crime which has a greater or equal penalty.

Page 51 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Now if the accused has been previously convicted of a crime wherein the penalty imposed is lesser than the
present charge, he is not considered as habitual offender. However, if the accused has been previously
convicted of two or more crimes, which the law provides a lesser penalty, the aggravating circumstance of
reiteracion is present.
 Example: Pananglitan if he has been previously convicted of another case nga ginagmay, sued for unjust
vexation, aside from being previously convicted of theft, he is also convicted of unjust vexation. Now, you
notice that the accused now in our example has 2 previous convictions of small crimes, although ginagmay
ang penalty, mas gamay ang penalty, but considering there are already 2 convictions, the aggravating
circumstance of reiteracion is present. If he is convicted of this *serious physical injuries, then the penalty
shall be higher, the penalty shall be increased.
 So there is reiteracion where the accused, who is tried for one crime, has been previously punished (take note
of the word punished, meaning he has already served his sentence), then the penalty of that crime, for which
he has already served the penalty, should be more serious or greater or equal. If the previous crimes to which
he has been convicted, if the penalty is lesser than the present crime he is charged, there must be 2, if only 1,
he is not habitual. The habituality is not present.

HABITUAL DELINQUENCY / MULTI-RECIDIVISM

 The accused here has committed or has been convicted of at least 3 crimes. Under the last paragraph of
Article 62, it does not mean that if you are convicted at least 3 times, you are a multi-recidivist. There are
those so-called habitual delinquency crimes, that if you commit these said crimes, you will be called multi-
recidivist.
 What are these?
1. Parricide;
2. Falsification;
3. Estafa;
4. Robbery (robo);
5. Theft;
6. Serious and Less Serious Physical Injuries
 If an offender, if a person would be convicted for at least 3 times of any of the same or combination of these
crimes, he is a multi-recidivist or habitual delinquent. Or the aggravating circumstance of habitual delinquency is
present.
 Requisites so that a person who is a repeater, can be called a multi-recidivist?
1. The offender must have been convicted for at least 3 times for the same or combination of habitual
delinquency crimes. At least 3 convictions.
2. The interval of his conviction or release must be 10 years or less.
st nd nd rd
 The period of interval between the 1 and the 2 must be 10 years or less. 2 and the 3 and so
on, must be within 10 years. 10 years from conviction or release. So the accused must have
nd
committed a crime for the 2 time, within 10 years from conviction or release. From release of
st rd
the 1 crime that he committed, and when he committed the 3 crime, he committed the same
nd
within 10 years from his conviction or release of the 2 crime and so on. Kung naka 4 na siya,
rd th
then the interval between the 3 and the 4 must be within 10 years, kung naka 5 na, the period
th
of interval between the 4 and the 5th must be within 10 years. And the reckoning point when
you count the 10 years, either from date of conviction or release.
nd st
3. The 2 crime must have been committed after he has been convicted of the 1 .
 In other words, in order to be considered as a multi-recidivist, it is necessary that when the
nd st
accused was convicted of the 2 , he must have been previously convicted of the 1 crime that
rd
he committed. Kinahanglan magsunod. If he has been convicted in the 3 , he must have been
nd nd
convicted in the 2 crime, because if it was otherwise, like if he was convicted for the 2 prior to
st
being convicted to the 1 , he is not a multi-recidivist.
 Example:
Crime Committed Conviction
Theft June 1995

Page 52 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

Theft September 2004

Theft June 6, 2014

 Multi-recidivist? Yes. The 3 convictions, the 3 crimes to which the accused has been convicted is considered as one
st nd
of the habitual delinquency crimes, theft. The interval of his conviction between the 1 and the 2 is 9 years
nd
(WITHIN 10 years or less ang interval), if mulapas na 10 years, dili na pwede. What about between the 2 and the
rd
3 ? 9 gihapon. Within man sa 10, then he is a multi-recidivist.
 You notice that the accused, the crimes for which he was convicted, the same crime, nya necessarily falling within
the same title. The accused here, aside from being a habitual delinquent, is also a recidivist. In other words, there
are 2 aggravating circumstances here: recidivism and multi-recidivism. These are 2 different aggravating
circumstances.
 The accused says: hey, you can’t put the aggravating circumstance of recidivism because you already considered
me as a habitual delinquent. The crimes that I have committed, which are the same, is already considered as
habitual delinquency.
o SC says: you are wrong. Recidivism and multi-recidivism are different.
 Example, June 1995 was his release for the crime of theft but was convicted 1990, is he a multi-recidivist or not?
Multi-recidivist. Because the law says, within 10 years (not at least) from conviction or release.

Crime Committed
Falsification
Serious Physical Injuries
Theft

Multi-recidivist? Yes. Because all these crimes are considered habitual delinquency crimes. It would be the same or
combination of these crimes.
 What is the effect if the accused is considered as habitually delinquent? Art. 62. He shall suffer not just an increase
in the penalty for the present crime, but he should be imposed an additional penalty. It is as if he committed
another crime. He will face 2 penalties. Additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
rd
period, for the 3 conviction. Why is he given an additional penalty? Because of his being a multi-recidivist. He is
th
convicted for the 4 time, how much is added? Prision mayor in its minimum, in addition to the penalty of the
th
present crime. 5 , reclusion temporal.

QUASI-RECIDIVISM
 The accused before serving his sentence for another crime has committed a crime. Or while serving sentence for
another crime, he committed a crime.
 For example, while serving the penalty for another crime, he committed a felony. The accused is serving his
sentence for the crime of malversation, then he killed – committed homicide or murder. Now, he is a quasi-
recidivist. Why? Because while he is still serving the penalty imposed for another crime, he committed a felony.
nd
Meaning, the 22 crime must be penalized under the RPC even if the first crime is not under the RPC.
So there are 2 possibilities. Either he is serving his sentence, or before he will serve his sentence, but although
he has not yet served his sentence, but his conviction is already final. Like he was sued for theft, he posted
bail. But during promulgation he did not show up, sukol xa pag issue sa warrant, nakapatay xag pulis or kung
wa xa kapatay, gikiha xag direct assault, so he committed a crime before he is serving the penalty for the
crime of theft. What is the aggravating circumstance present, if any? Quasi-recidivism. Why? Because the law
provides that quasi-recidivism occurs when a person commits a felony before serving his sentence or while
serving for another crime, he committed a felony.

11) Committed in consideration of a prize, reward or promise.

 An increased penalty is imposed upon both the giver and the person who actually committed the crime.
 Example: Mr. X gives a prize or reward to Y so that Y would kill Mr. A, then there is this aggravating
circumstance of prize, reward or promise, and the increased penalty shall be imposed on the giver and the
one who received.

Page 53 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 In order for this aggravating circumstance to be appreciated or to be considered, the prize, the reward or
the promise being given must be the primary consideration, must be the main reason why the crime was
committed. Because if the accused who actually committed the crime has his own reason to commit the
crime, with or without the reward, then this aggravating circumstance cannot be considered.
 Example X told Y, stab A, I’ll give you 5k if you kill him, nya si Y diay daan na naglagot ni A, ingon si Y, even
if you don’t give me, I will still kill him, and he did, is there an aggravating circumstance of giving a prize,
reward or promise? No, because in order to be considered as aggravating, the giving of the prize, reward
or promise must be the primary consideration for the commission of the crime. If the person who actually
committed the crime has his own personal reason to commit the crime, then the aggravating
circumstance is not present.

12) Committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of vessel or intentional damage thereto,
derailment of locomotive, or by the use of any artifice involving great waste and ruin.
 Difference between paragraph 12 and paragraph 7?
Par. 7 Par. 12
On occasion By means

 If any of the circumstances is used or is resorted to, to kill a person, the crime is murder under art 248. So if
you poison a person, you killed him by means of poison, which is murder. The nature of the killing is changed
from homicide to murder. (Cockroach joke dayon)
 In the case of People v Malngan 503 SCRA 294, this is about the use of fire. Now, according to the SC in that
case, if the main purpose of the accused in burning the building is just to burn the building, then the crime is
arson even if somebody dies. Not arson with homicide, just arson. For example the siblings argued as to who
owned the ancestral house, the youngest said it’s mine because I’m the youngest, while the eldest says it’s
mine because I’m the oldest. The youngest say, ah no one’s going to own this, I’m going to burn this house
down and he did, and his older sibling was in the house and was burned, what’s the crime committed? Arson
only. If for example, he knows that the sibling was inside and his intent was to kill by fire, is it still arson? The
crime is murder. If the main purpose is to kill, so you have to check the purpose, murder. If the main purpose
is to burn and somebody is killed, arson. Then what about if he killed first the person and in order to hide the
killing he burned the building together with the corpse, what is the crime committed? In that case there are
two crimes committed, either murder or homicide depending on how the killing was done, and arson.
 These circumstances, inundation, fire, explosion may also constitute crimes by themselves, except poison

13) Committed by evident premeditation.

 Premeditation? Meditate. Maghinuktok ka. Sa to pa, duna kay gihuna-huna. Duna kay gi-reflect. So
meditation, meaning deliberate planning. Lawom imo huna-huna. Naa kay plano. So meditation prior to the
commission of the crime. Unya kanang magmeditate ka, unsa may gikinahanglan ana aron maayo imo
pagkaplano?
 You must have time. Sufficient lapse of time. How can you think if you are not given time? In other words,
when we say premeditation, there was sufficient lapse of time from planning up to the actual commission of
the crime. So there was sufficient lapse of time from the time he decided to commit the crime up to the time
that he actually committed the crime.
 And the same must be evident. Meaning, there must be proof, there must be overt acts to show that the
accused has clung or has stuck to his plan to commit the crime. So for example, you plan to kill a person, what
would be the possible acts in order to show that from your plan until you commit such, that mao gyud nay imo
gihuna-huna? Nagbaid ka sa imo sundang, imong kutsilyo, does it show your determination? Yes.
 So evident premeditation, there is deliberate planning before committing the crime of the method, means and
time.
 Prerequisite: there must be a sufficient lapse of time from the time that you decide or resolve to commit the
crime up to the actual commission of the crime.
 When can you say that the time is sufficient for you to reflect on the consequences of your acts? According to
the SC, at least 3 hours or less. SC is not consistent, there is a case where the lapse is 1 hour. SC said there is

Page 54 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

evident premeditation because there was a lapse of 1 hour. In another case it was 2 hours, but it was not
enough. Then came that case of People v Causi (?), SC said 3 hours, or less. But if only minutes, dili ra man
tingali.
 SC: the fact that there is sufficient lapse of time by itself would not be sufficient to rule that there is evident
premeditation. So a finding of evident premeditation cannot be based solely on mere lapse of time that he
actually committed the crime. The prosecution must produce clear and convincing evidence as to when and
how the felony was planned and _ before it was effected(?). The fact that there was lapse of time is
insufficient to rule that there is evident premeditation. The accused must have committed overt acts.
 Evident Premeditation – there must be deliberate planning on the method means and time. Essentially the
accused must have sufficient time to meditate and reflect on the consequences of his act.

US vs Manalili.
- The accused here went to the town which is far from the town he has to walk one night and one day before
reaching the town proper. His mission was to kill whomever he will meet. The first two persons that he will
meet he shall kill. And if he does this, a certain Mupok who is his neighbor, promised that if he does this he
would receive a prize of a very beautiful woman. So he travelled, and reached the town proper bringing his
bolo. Upon reaching the town proper he met a Spaniard, then thereafter a Chinese. He was charged with two
counts of Murder. And according to the Supreme Court, there was evident premeditation as there was
sufficient lapse of time. There was an act indicating that the culprit has clung to his plan. The fact that he
walked one day and one night bringing his bolo, that period of time is sufficient for the accused to reflect on
his act.

 Evident Premeditation is also a qualifying circumstance. This can change the nature of the crime. If it is a crime
against person it can change the nature of the crime from homicide to murder.

 When there is error in personae, is evident premeditation appreciated? What if you planned to kill your enemy,
in the nighttime, and it so happened that you killed the wrong person. As regards the wrong victim, can this
aggravating circumstance be considered?
o As a rule, the answer is NO. It cannot be considered. However, if the offender premeditated the
killing of any person like the case of Manalili, then this aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation is present.
 Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery. It is no longer considered in imposition of penalty.

14) Craft, fraud and disguise is used.

 Craft - refers to an act done by the accused in order not to arouse suspicion on the part of the victim. An
intellectual trickery used by the accused. Example, the placing of sleeping pills on the soft drinks or coffee of
the victim, or the giving of an innocent looking candy which did not arouse the suspicion of the victim that the
same contain deleterious drug.

 Fraud – deceitful words or machinations that would induce the victim, or the direct inducement through
deceitful words or machinations. For example, the incident involving the father of the present chief of staff,
General Bautista. Said the group of the MNLF that they will surrender and will meet on a particular place. And
requested that no arms will be brought by the general during the surrender. General Bautista agreed. During
that day, the MILF killed them. There was used of deceitful or insidious words.

 Disguise – refers to the use of device to conceal or cover the identity of the accused. The use of bonnets or
covering the face using the shirt. The use of device to conceal the identity. For example, wearing of mask, face
paint.
o One of the accused shouted that they want to buy cigarettes, which induced the victim to open the
door. And one of them said that they wanted to drink some water that paved the way for their
entrance into the house. Once inside they committed robbery with rape. What is the aggravating
circumstance? There if CRAFT (PP vs Mapili)

Page 55 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

15) Advantage be taken of superior strength.

 When is there superior strength?
1. It may mean superior in number.
2. Superior in force, like when you kill a child, or if your enemy is unarmed, and the accused has a gun.
3. It could also mean superior in arms.

 Use of means to weaken the defense.

o For example, in order to kill the victim so that he would be weaken you drunk him and subsequently
killed him. Or when before killing him you sprayed teargas.

o Going back to superior in strength in order to be considered it has to be proven that the accused has
purposely took advantage of his or their superior strength. This cannot be considered when the
attack was made with passion and obfuscation. Because to be considered as aggravating it has to be
proven that they purposely took advantage of their strength. If the act was done out of passion and
obfuscation, it is not appreciated. This does not also apply when the quarrel arose unexpectedly.

16) Treachery (alevosia)

 Treachery – applicable only to crimes against persons. There is treachery when the offender commits any
of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods and forms to execute his plan. The accused
used methods, employed means or forms in order to ensure the commission of the crime, without
considering the risk that the victim might put up during the attack. The attack is sudden, unexpected and
deliberate.
 For example, there was a disagreement with the neighbor. You didn't know that you’re arguing with someone
who has a knife. And after the argument you were stabbed. You did not know of the knife. Is there treachery?
No. There was no treachery, because it was not unexpected. There was already a heated argument. One of the
parties can expect an attack. It must be sudden, it must also be unexpected and deliberately adopted. That is
the essence of treachery. Thereby giving no opportunity for the victim to put up a defense.
 For example, the victim is sleeping and then was stabbed by the accused, was there treachery? Yes. It was
unexpected. Because the attack was sudden, the victim failed to put up a defense.
 There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crime against persons employing methods, means or
forms in the execution thereof which would ensure the commission.
 If the victim is attacked from behind, is treachery automatically present? If you are stabbed in the back, is it
automatic that there is treachery? No. Why? Because treachery is absent even if the wounds are in the back.
Because it is possible that you were stabbed at the back because when you saw him you ran. In fact, you had
the opportunity to put up a defense the fact that you were able to run. Treachery presupposes that the victim
does not have the opportunity to put up a defense.
 What if the attack is frontal? Does it roll out the aggravating circumstance of treachery? No. because its
possible that you did not expect a stabbed when you greeted your friend. It was unexpected and sudden that
you did not have the opportunity to put up a defense.
 Now killing of a child of tender years. For example the child is four years old or six years old, there is always
treachery, even if there is no proof as to how the killing was done. The fact the victim was a child would be
enough to consider that there was treachery.
 For example, X and Y quarreled. And in the course of their exchange of blows, since Y was armed with a knife,
the moment Y was at a disadvantage, he stabbed X. Is that treachery? No. there was no treachery, because
although the attack was sudden the attack cannot be considered sudden because there was a quarrel, there
was exchange of blows. And then X ran, because he was injured, then he fell and lost his consciousness, then Y
stabbed him, is there treachery? No. There is no treachery when at the start of the attack the same was
absent. In order for treachery to be considered the same must be present at the start of the attack. It must be
shown that treachery was present at the start of the attack. (US vs Balagtas)
 Another case, the governor was attacked while in his office. The accused went inside the office of the
governor, the governor did not now that he was to be killed by the accused. When the accused noticed that
the accused was unarmed. He fired at the governor and was hit at his shoulder. The governor ran. The accused
followed him at the lobby of the Kapitolyo, until the governor reached a dead end, where he found a cabinet.

Page 56 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

He went inside, and while inside he held firmly the door of the cabinet so that the accused cannot open it and
kept of shouting for help. The accused at that time was standing in front of the cabinet, paused for a while
listening to the voice of the governor while discerning where is the head of the governor and shot him. Was
there treachery? No. there was no treachery, because the governor was given the opportunity to put up a
defense, in fact he was able to run away. But according to the Supreme Court, the attack could not be
considered continuous. The previous decision presupposes that the attack must be continuous from the start
up to the end. In this case, the attack was not continuous because the accused stopped/paused for a while in
order to determine the location of the head of the governor. At the second phase of the attack there was
treachery. Because at that time, the governor was not given the opportunity to defend himself. (US vs
Baluyot)
 Now earlier when we discussed evident premeditation we made mentioned that the same would not apply in
error in personae. Except when the accused intended to kill any person. But if the accused is intending to kill a
particular person, evident premeditation would not be appreciated if he killed a different person. It is different
in the case of treachery, because in treachery the same would apply even if there is a wrong victim.
 For example, you hid in a post, because you want to kill the victim. And when the supposed victim drew near,
you stabbed him, and it turned out that he was not the same person you intended to kill, there is treachery.
And the treachery as regards the wrong victim would be appreciated.
 Treachery would be considered in error in personae and in aberatio ictus. So if the victim was present, but
another was killed, and there was treachery, this will be appreciated as regards the second victim. The crime
would be Murder with Attempted Murder.
 This aggravating circumstance of treachery can absorb several aggravating circumstances. It can absorb;
a) nighttime, no need to allege nighttime
b) aid of armed men
c) band
d) means to weaken the defense
e) craft
f) age
g) sex (refers only to female)
h) oison

17) Ignominy.
 This refers to moral suffering. That the accused in the commission of the crime employed means or
circumstances which brought about ignomy aside from the natural effects of the crime. Ignominy refers to
moral suffering.
 For example, one of the popular case of ignomy is that notorious case of Maggie dela Riva (PP vs Jose et al.)
Maggie was abducted and before he was gang raped she was made to dance in front of the accused for about
two minutes. The act of the accused to force her to dance in front of them before the rape is considered
ignominy. This adds disgrace to the material injury caused by the crime.
 When the rape case was committed against a married woman in front of her husband. The case of comfort
women in the Japanese era, there were Filipinos who were against the Japanese and in favor of the Japanese.
There was this case of a wife of a Guerilla who was raped by the Japanese in front of the Guerilla husband.
 (Pp vs Saylan) Wherein the victim was raped not using the usual position, but an attack from behind, doggy
style, this is ignominy.
 In order for this aggravating circumstance to be present, the victim must still be alive when he or she is
subjected to acts which adds disgrace to the material injury caused by the crime. If dead, there is no ignominy,
because no one suffers.
 For example, after killing the girl, he was raped, there is no more ignominy because you cannot say that he
was subjected to moral suffering. Ignominy refers to moral suffering.

18) That a crime be committed after an unlawful entry.

 Meaning the accused entered in the house though an opening which is not intended for entry/entrance. Went
through the window for example. And the window must not be broken. Because if it is broken, then that falls
under the next paragraph. That the window, wall, floor are broken in order to gain entrance.

Page 57 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 For example, an accused went inside an open window, it was nighttime, and when he saw the victim sleeping,
he stabbed the victim. What are the aggravating circumstances present? 1) treachery 2)determine and explain
others (will come out in the exam)

19) That the means in the commission of the crime, a wall, window or floor was broken. So for example, the window
was closed, it was broken in order to gain entrance; the aggravating circumstance is paragraph 19.
 If window is not broken par 18, if window is broken par 19.

20) That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of motor vehicles,
motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
 If a minor is being used in the commission of the crime that would be aggravating, especially now that minors
are no longer liable. Minors are no longer liable but are exempt.

 The crime is committed by means of airships, vehicles and other similar means. For it to be aggravating it must
be used in the commission of the crime, it must have facilitated the commission of the crime, as well as the
escape.
o Q: you have a quarrel with another motorist in a parking area, you shot him then speedily escape
with your motor vehicle. Is the aggravating circumstance of using a motor vehicle present?
A: NO, the motor vehicle was only used for the escape and not used in the commission of the crime.
Use of motor vehicle must have facilitated in the commission of the crime. Due to the use of the
vehicle it was easier for the accused to commit the crime. E.g. riding In tandem. It must be proven
that the vehicle was used in the commission of the crime as well as the escape but if only used in the
escape that is no longer aggravating. When you say vehicle that excludes bicycle, so use of bicycle is
not aggravating, however if there is an engine on the bicycle then it will be included in the term
vehicle.

21) Cruelty
 that the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other wrong
not necessary for its commissions.
 related to ignominy, which refers to moral suffering, but this one refers to physical suffering.
 The victim is subjected to further physical suffering. E.g. before killing the victim, you let your dog maul the
victim. E.g. torturing the victim before killing him.
 There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly, forcing unnecessary
physical pain in the commission of the criminal act.
 However stabbing someone with the use of the sharp file on the nail cutter or use of a ball pen is not cruelty,
in order for this to be appreciated, it must be proven that the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim
suffer slowly.
 There is cruelty when the accused beheaded the victim but for it to be appreciated the victim must be alive
before beheading because if the victim was dead during the beheading there is no cruelty. Just like ignominy,
when the accused inflicted other injuries to make the victim suffer, the victim must still be alive. Removing of
finger, fingernails the victim must still be alive but if done when the victim is dead then it will no longer be
cruelty, however in relation to Art. 248 that would make another aggravating circumstance, scoffing at or
outrage of the corpse.

 There are aggravating and mitigating circumstances that are personal to the accused. Eg. Minority. When a
minor conspires with adults in the commission of robbery, only the minor can enjoy minority.
 Same with aggravating circumstances, there are aggravating circumstances that are personal to the accused
and does not affect co-accused. E.g. relationship: when a wife conspires with her paramour in killing her
husband, then the wife faces parricide and the stranger does not face parricide because the aggravating
circumstance of relationship only affects the wife.
 E.g. evident premeditation: Joseph orders Remfel to kill Eric john but Joseph did not stipulate on how Remfel
should kill Eric John, when Lor killed Eric John while Eric John was asleep, the aggravating circumstance of

Page 58 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

treachery applies to Lor but not to Joseph because aggravating circumstances only applies to the offender that
had knowledge of the circumstances, that is the ruling in the case of Pp. vs Gamao 23phil 81
 So there are aggravating circumstances that are personal to the offenders and there are aggravating
circumstances that applies only to those offenders who have knowledge of said circumstance.
 The list of aggravating circumstance in Art. 14 is not exclusive.

 One of the aggravating circumstance that is provided in the special law is the commission of crime while under
the influence of drugs, it is a qualifying aggravating circumstance. So when you killed a person and was known
that you were under the influence of a drug during the commission then you would commit a crime of
murder.
 Repeat reminder: Whatever kind of aggravating circumstance, it must be alleged in the information and
proven during the trial, however there is one exception. If the presentation of evidence, if the purpose of
presenting the evidence to prove aggravating circumstance is merely to collect damages, the same can be
allowed in the court.
o E.g. failure to allege in the information of treachery, however they present evidence only for the
purposes of collecting moral damages such is allowed by the courts but the same cannot be used to
increase the penalty. Pp vs katubig 300scra 621

Chapter Five
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

Art. 15. Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or
mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission. They are
the relationship, intoxication and the degree of instruction and education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the spouse,
ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the
offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances when the offender has
committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony
but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

 Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according
to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.
- Mura ug tortol, pwede sa air ug pwede sa outerspace.
 Relationship, intoxication and degree of instruction and education of the offender.

 Relationship- the RPC does not specify where it is mitigating and when aggravating unlike intoxication and
education.
o alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended party in the
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in
the same degrees of the offender.
o It is determined by jurisprudence when we shall treat the aggravating circumstance of relationship as
aggravating or mitigating circumstance.
o Under jurisprudence, Relationship is aggravating as regards in crimes against persons. Killing your father,
raping your daughter, relationship becomes aggravating.
o Relationship is mitigating in crimes against persons. Stealing from the wallet of your mother or husband,
you are exempt. So you can steal from the wallet of your parents.

 Intoxication can be considered aggravating or mitigating depending upon the circumstances.

o Aggravating if:

Page 59 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

1. habitual, if it is proven that it is habitual it is considered as aggravating. When is it considered

habitual? In a SC case it was considered habitual when before the commission of the crime it
was found out he drank 12 times.
2. when it is done subsequent to the plan of the commission of the crime. In order to embolden
himself, after he decided to kill the victim that is when he put himself in the state of
drunkenness then considered as aggravating but if being drunk after the commission of the
crime to celebrate then not aggravating.
o Mitigating when:
1. when it is not habitual
2. when it is not done subsequent to the plan to commit the crime
So if it is merely incidental that he was drunk when he commit the crime, it is not aggravating but mitigating.
Take note to be considered mitigating, aside from the fact that it needs to be established that the accused is not a habitual
drunkard nor drunk subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It must also be proven that he has taken the amount of
liquor that would blur his intelligence, it really affected your thinking but if you merely drink then not mitigating.

Degree of education:
o in order for it to be mitigating, it must be proven that the accused is completely devoid of education, not
have schooled nor received any instruction. In one case, lack of education was considered mitigating
st
because it was proven that although he was enrolled in 1 grade but he was not able to finish it.
Remember that lack of education must be coupled with lack of intelligence. There are some people that
are uneducated but are cunning. Mere illiteracy is not mitigating according to the supreme court.

o High degree of instruction would be aggravating, so if you are a lawyer and you committed a crime and
you used your lawyer knowledge that would be aggravating. E.g. committing estafa.
Or doctors committing the crime of abortion. 1.46.18

Title Two
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

Art. 16. Who are criminally liable. — The following are criminally liable for grave
and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.

The following are criminally liable for light felonies:

1. Principals
2. Accomplices.

 Who are persons criminally liable in the commission of the felony.

 Backt to art. 9 what are grave and less grave offenses?
 Grave felonies are those which the law attaches the capital punishment or afflictive
penalties(prision mayor- reclusion perpetua)
 Less grave (arresto mayor – prision correccional)
 Light offense (arresto menor and fine 200)
 As regards to grave and less grave, there are 3 kinds of offenders that could be liable, namely;
principal, accomplice and accessories.
 As regards to the light offense only principals and accomplice which are liable, the accessories
are no longer punished.
 Why is it important to know the degree of participation?
 Under art. 50-57 imposing the penalty to the criminal depends on the degree of participation. If your
participation is only of an accomplice, your penalty is 1 degree lower than the principal. So if the

Page 60 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

principals penalty is reclusion perpetua and applying the 1 degree lower your penalty as an accomplice is
only reclusion temporal. What about the penalty of the accessory, the accessory’s penalty is 2 degrees
lower than the principal. Except if there is conspiracy but if there is no conspiracy you will have to look at
the individual participation of the accused.
 In the commission of the crime, there are two parties, the active which is the offender and the passive
which is the offended party. Corporations as a rule cannot be an accused but can be an offended party. By
way of exception, there are instances where the corporation can be liable because usually only the
officers are penalized ‘but when corporations are penalized, the penalty is fine.

Art. 17. Principals. — The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would not have been
accomplished.

3 types of principal:
1. Direct participation- he must have participated in the execution of the crime, he must be present at the crime
scene. You cannot be a principal by direct participation if you are not present at the crime scene and must
personally take part in the execution of the crime. You cannot execute an SPA to let someone commit the crime to
be liable as a principal by direct participation. If there are more than one of them, there must be conspiracy.
o Take note on the rule of conspiracy, the conspirators are liable for the crime that they have agreed upon
and for all other crimes that are considered logical and natural consequence of the crime that they have
agreed upon.
o The principal, accomplice and accessory are only relevant when there are two or more accused but if
there is only one accused then there is no problem. Just the same with the different classes of principals,
you only take into consideration when there are more than two accused. But if there is only one, you have
no problem even if you close your nose/eyes.
o E.g. Reuvelle, Bernard, Joseph and Edhona have planned to kill Isagani but when they were nearing the
home of Isagani, Edhona complained to the group that her tummy was upset so she notified the group
that she would be excused for the time being but promised to return, unbeknownst to the group, her
conscience was bothering her. So she left the group but went home directly. So the 3 others proceeded
with the plan and killed Isagani.
o What is the liability of Edhona? No liability. Why? Because a person who is in conspiracy with others who
has desisted before the crime was committed by the others is not criminally liable. Edhona cannot be
considered as a principal by direct participation because she was not present at the crime scene. Ok? She
cannot also be considered as principal by inducement because she did not induce the others.

2. Inducement- the principal by induction is the one who forces another or induce another to commit the crime, so
there are two ways to become a principal by induction
st
o 1 if he forces another to commit the crime a) either by irresistible force or b) uncontrollable fear. Here
there is no conspiracy between the principal by direct participation and the principal by induction because
the principal by direct participation committed the crime without his freedom so he is not liable only the
principal by direct participation.
nd
o 2 induces another to commit the crime either a) by giving rewards, prize or promise or b) by words of
command. When we talked about aggravating circumstance of giving a reward, prize or promise they
have the same concept in inducement. In order for one to be considered as principal by inducement, the
giving of rewards, prize or promise must be the primary consideration, must be the moving force why the
principal by direct participation has committed the crime because if the principal by direct participation
has his personal reason why he committed the crime then the giving of the prize, reward or promise will
be disregarded. In other words, the person who gave the reward is not liable as principal by induction.

Page 61 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o e.g. Eric John wants to kill Kurt, so Eric John asked Kristel to kill Kurt for the consideration of 50,000.00 but
Kristel said “I am also angry at Kurt and even if you don’t give me money for killing kurt, I will do it
anyway, he wont live long enough to watch the sunset.”
o So is Eric John liable? No.
o but he gave a reward or prize to kristel or induced her to commit the crime by giving a prize, reward or
promise; Eric John has no liability because for the giving of a reward, prize or promise to be liable as
principal by induction, the giving of reward must be the determining cause of the commission of the
crime. Meaning it must be the primary reason why the crime was committed. When the principal by
direct participation has her own reason then the giving of the prize is disregarded.
o The same with making or giving of words of command, you did not give a reward, prize or promise but
you ordered another person to stab somebody. What is your liability? You are a principal by inducement
because you induced him to commit a crime by giving words of command. Just like giving of a prize,
rewards or promise, the words of command must be the primary cause because if the principal by direct
participation would have committed the crime just the same, even without the words of command then
the person giving the words of command has no liability.
o e.g. In one case, when Joseph Paul the father of Bernard, upon seeing his son stabbing Marjo, before
Bernard could deliver the second strike, Joseph Paul shouted “come on Son! Kill her!” then Bernard
delivered the second blow, Marjo died afterwards. Joseph and Bernard were charged with homicide with
Joseph as principal by inducement. Is Joseph liable? According to the supreme court, NO because in order
for the giver of words of commands to be liable it must be proved that the principal by direct participation
must have committed the crime primarily because of the words of command but if he has his own reason
to commit the crime then the giver of words of commands cannot be considered as principal by by
induction.
o e.g. In the early morning of Tuesday, Cleo complained to Ileen Mae, her neighbour, the habit of her
husband during payday to fritter his wage on alcohol and Ileen Mae in her reply said “if I were in that
position, I would poison him!” since it was still early in the morning and Ramon Isagani, Cleo’s husband,
was still asleep, she returned home and woke him up and offered him some coffee with poison as the
secret ingredient. Now Cleo is charged with parricide and Ileen Mae was also charged with murder as
principal by inducement.
o Is Ileen Mae liable? No, the Supreme court said that the mere giving of thoughtless expression without
the intention to produce the result is not considered as inducement or imprudent advice does not
constitute sufficient inducement.
o Take note: the inducement must precede the act induced or the commission of the crime and must be so
influential in provoking the criminal act.
o A principal by inducement is liable only if the person whom he induced indeed committed the crime.
o If there is a principal by inducement, this presupposes that there is a principal by direct participation.
o The crime committed by the principal by direct participation should be the same crime that the principal
by inducement has induced.
o So if the crime committed is not contemplated in the order given, then the one who induced is not liable
for the crime committed.
o Some years ago, nay gisugo og papatay unya gisuhulan kuno. Ang gisugo pagpapatay, wa mipatay sa
target, instead iya gitulis kay naluoy. Question, ang kadtong nisugo og papatay ma-liable ba og robbery?
Ang recent jurisprudence is that the principal by inducement may be liable only if the principal by direct
participation committed the crime that was intended to be committed by the principal by inducement.

3. Indispensable cooperation- he is not a principal by inducement nor a principal by direct participation but he
participated an act in relation to the commission of the crime without being a principal by inducement nor a
principal by direct participation but he performed an act without which the crime could not have been committed.
o e.g In the case of rape, the two accused, only one was actually penetrating the vagina while the co-
accused merely held the hands of the victim, according to the supreme court the co-accused, who merely
held the hands, is a principal by indispensable cooperation. Pp vs Fernandez 183 scra 511
o without his cooperation, without his act the crime would not have been committed.

Page 62 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o e.g. so Eric John ordered Bernard to kill Reuville, who lived on a faraway island, and there is only one boat
that could travel to that island. Bernard told Joseph Paul, the owner of the boat, of the circumstances and
borrowed the boat then proceeded to kill Reuville.
o What are the liabilities? Eric John is a principal by induction, Bernard is a principal by direct participation,
joseph paul is a principal by indispensable cooperation because if without joseph paul then Bernard could
not have travelled to the island.
o How about if there are other owners of motorboats? Then Joseph paul wont be liable as principal by
indispensable cooperation because his cooperation is dispensable, even without his cooperation the
crime would have been committed. So what is his liability in that situation? His liability is that of an
accomplice. If the act committed is not indispensable or can be dispensed with then he is an accomplice.

Take note of the different kinds of principals.

The liability of principals is collective.
 Ex: The principal by inducement would induce another, the principal by direct participation to kill another person,
so their liability is collective. Meaning, they would have the same liability, they would have the same penalty.

Art. 18. Accomplices. — Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17, cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

 Ex: Mr. X wanted to kill Mr. Y and since he wanted to do it easily, he asked Mr. A to lend him the latter’s firearm.
Mr. X told Mr. A that he wanted to borrow Mr. A’s firearm because he will hit [birahan] his enemy. Now Mr. A lend
his firearm. Using the firearm, Mr. X killed Y. There is no problem as to the liability of Mr. X, what about the liability
of A, what is his liability in lending his firearm to Mr. X?
 Is he considered principal by inducement? No, because he did not induce Mr. X.
 Is he considered principal by direct participation? No, because he was not present at the crime scene. He did not
participate in the killing of Y. We have learned that to be liable as a principal by direct participation, he must
necessarily be present, he must directly take part in the execution or in the commission of the crime. So in the
problem given, since Mr. A was not present at the crime scene and he did not personally take part in the killing of
Y, then he cannot be considered as principal by direct participation.
 What about principal by indispensable cooperation? What do you mean by indispensable?

Suppose Mr. A did not lend his firearm to Mr. X, had Mr. X, just the same committed the crime? What would Mr. X probably
do if Mr. A had not lend him the firearm? It is possible that he will go to another friend, or he will just stab Mr. Y. In other
words, Mr. A cannot be considered as principal by indispensable cooperation, because his cooperation is merely
dispensable. So what is his liability?

 The liability of Mr. A is that of an accomplice. He is liable as an accomplice.

 An accomplice is the one who does not take a direct part in the commission of the act, or in the commission of the
crime, who does not induce or force others to commit it, or who does not cooperate in the commission of the
crime by another act, without which, it would not have been accomplished or committed. Yet he cooperates in the
execution but by previous or simultaneous act.
 In short, an accomplice is a person who cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts.
 The liability of the accomplice is quasi-collective, not collective. His criminal responsibility is considered quasi-
collective. Quasi-collective in the sense that there is no conspiracy between him and the principal, because if there
is conspiracy between the principal and the so-called accomplice, then both are considered principals.

In our example, if X and A agreed, or if there is conspiracy to kill Y, then the liability of A is that of the principal, they are
both principals, not merely that of an accomplice.

Requisites to be considered as a mere accomplice:

Page 63 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

By PREVIOUS ACTS:

1. There must be no conspiracy between him (the accomplice) and the principal.
 If there is conspiracy, then he is not merely an accomplice but a principal.

2. The accomplice must know the criminal design or the criminal purpose of the principal.
 Ex: You have a friend, and you own a motorcycle. Your friend asked you if he could borrow your motorcycle
because he has to go somewhere else. So you lend your motorcycle to your friend, you did not know that he used
the motorcycle in snatching or robbery. Your motorcycle was caught, what is your liability as the owner of the
motorcycle, which was used in the robbery?
 You do not incur any criminal liability. Why? Because you did not know the criminal resolution or the criminal
design or the criminal plan of the principal, because of the important requisites is that, the accomplice must know
the criminal design, the criminal plan of the principal.

Let us twist the facts a little:

 Ex: Suppose you know that your friend will use your motorcycle in committing the crime, such as in killing
somebody. You know that the motorcycle will be used to kill your friend’s enemy; you even suggested that the
plate number of the vehicle be covered. The vehicle was caught, what is your liability?
 You are an accomplice, because you cooperated in the commission of the crime by previous act.
 Meaning prior to the commission of the crime, you have cooperated in the commission of the crime, you
are an accomplice.
 Why are you not considered as principal by indispensable cooperation? Because your act of lending your
motorcycle to your friend cannot be considered as indispensable, because with or without your act,
considering that your friend is already determined to kill his enemy, even without your act, just the same,
the crime would have been committed.
 How would the accomplice know of the criminal design/purpose/plan of the principal? The principal will tell him of
the purpose, if you agree, then you become an accomplice.

3. The act of the accomplice must have relation/connection to the crime committed.
 In other words, there must be a relation between the act done by the principal and the act attributed to the
accomplice.

 Ex: A friend borrows your firearm because he has to kill somebody, you lend him the firearm, he killed the person.
 What is your liability?
 Accomplice

 Ex: You lend a firearm to a friend because he has to kill somebody, but upon arriving at the house of the intended
victim, the latter as sleeping. Thinking that in using the firearm he might be heard by the neighbors, he stabbed the
victim. What is the liability of the owner of the firearm?
 Is he a principal by direct participation? No.
 Is he a principal by inducement? No.
 Accomplice? No.
 None of the above.
 Why? Because there must be a relation between the act done by the principal and act attributed to the
accomplice.
 In the problem given, the act of lending the firearm does not have any relation to the killing, because the
accused/principal did not use it in the killing. So the owner of the firearm does not have any criminal liability as
regards the killing.

Page 64 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

In these circumstances, the person to be considered an accomplice cooperated in the commission of the crime by a
previous act.

You can also be considered an accomplice without performing a previous act, or an act prior to the execution of the crime,
but simultaneously with the commission of the crime.

By SIMULTANEOUS ACTS:

 Ex 1: S (son) strangle his enemy X or he boxed him. When his father F saw what his son did to X, he sided with S,
and stabbed X. Even after stabbing X, S continuously strangle X until the latter died. It was however found out that
the cause of death of Mr. X was the stabbing.
 What is the liability of S? There are no questions as to the liability of F, his act caused the death of X, the
question is the liability of S.

 Ex 2: S boxed X, and when F saw it, he stabbed X. Even if S saw that F was stabbing his enemy X, he continuously
boxed X until X died. It was found out that the cause of death was the stabbing.
 What is the liability of S?
 S is considered an accomplice.
 He is considered an accomplice because when he continued boxing X after he knew that his father
has stabbed X, that shows that he concurred in the act of his father, he approves the act of his
father, he concurred in the act of his father of killing X.
 When he continued boxing X after he knew that his father has stabbed X, it shows that he
concurred in the criminal design of his father.
 So he is an accomplice because he cooperated, applying Art. 18, he cooperated in the execution of
the crime of homicide by simultaneous act, because he continued boxing X even after he knew that
F had stabbed X. The liability of S is quasi-collective.

 Ex 3: Suppose S stopped boxing X upon knowing that his father had stabbed the latter.
 What is the liability of S?
 This time, his liability is separate. He will have a separate liability.
 In the previous example, his liability is quasi-collective, in the present example his liability is
separate.
 What do you mean by separate liability? Meaning his liability is not that of an accomplice to the
crime of homicide or murder, but his liability would just be that of slight physical injuries.
 He has a separate criminal liability if he stopped boxing. His criminal liability is separate from that
of his father.
 If he didn’t stop boxing, he is an accomplice TO (remember the term) the crime of homicide. If
the case is murder, then he is an accomplice to the crime of murder.

 Ex 4: F first stabbed X, when S saw X stabbed by F, he kicked X and throw stones at him.
 What is the liability of S?
 He is an accomplice.
 He is an accomplice, because by kicking and by throwing stones the enemy of his father, after his
father stabbed his enemy, that means that he concurred in the criminal design of his father, do
he is an accomplice.

 Ex 5: Suppose S, upon seeing that his father stabbed his father’s enemy, X, S likewise grabbed a piece of wood
(2x2), and stuck the head of X. It was found out that the cause of death was the stabbing, as well as the injuries in
the head, caused by the act of S.
 What is his liability?
 His liability not anymore accomplice, but principal by direct participation.

Page 65 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

4. The injury that you have inflicted must be lesser than that of the principal.

 If the injuries that were inflicted (in crimes against persons) is as serious or more serious than that of the
principal or the injuries inflicted by the principal, then you are liable as a principal, not just a mere
accomplice.

Summary of the Rules applicable to an accomplice:

1. He must not be in conspiracy with the principal, or an accomplice should not be part of the conspiracy.
2. The injury that he inflicted must not be as serious as that of the principal, because if it is equally serious or even
more serious than that inflicted by the principal, then he is not an accomplice, but a principal by direct
participation.
3. He must have knowledge of the criminal purpose or design of the principal.
4. The act of the accomplice must have relation/connection to the crime committed

 So an accomplice approves or concurs the act of the principal by direct participation and performs other act showing his
conformity to the act of the principal by direct participation.
 So the act/acts of the accomplice must be lesser than the act/acts done by the principal by direct participation.
 Meaning, the acts must not be greater or equal than the acts done by the principal by direct participation.
 The act done should not be indispensable. Meaning it is merely necessary but not indispensable. (like the indispensable and
necessary parties in civil procedure)

Art. 19. Accessories. — Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts
with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or
an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

The act of the accomplice could be prior to the commission of the crime or simultaneous with the commission of the crime.
That is why there are books (authors and commentators) call the accomplice as accessory before the fact.

Article 19 deals with accessories after the fact.

 Ex: There was a husband who was drinking with his friends in his house. His wife on the other hand, went to the
market. In their drinking spree, the husband had a heated argument with one of his friends, then right there in his
house, he killed his friend. Minutes thereafter, his wife arrived. The wife asked what happened and so she was told
that the friend was killed in a heated argument. He asked his wife to clean the mess in their house, while he buried
the person he killed. Eventually it was found out that he had killed the victim since he was the last person who was
seen with the victim.

 What is the liability of the wife? When she arrived, the victim is already dead.
 Principal by inducement?
 No.
 Principal by direct participation?
 No, since she did not participate in the killing.
 Pricipal by indispensable cooperation?
 No, since the victim is already dead when she arrived.
 Accomplice? Did she perform an act previous to the killing? Did she perform an act simultaneous with
the killing?
 No.

Page 66 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 She performed an act after the killing, so her liability is that of an accessory.

What is an accessory?
 It is the one who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated
therein, either as principal or accomplice, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manners.
 So in other words, in order for one to be liable as an accessory, he must have knowledge of the
commission of the crime.

In the example, does the wife have knowledge regarding the commission of the crime? Yes.

Requisites to be an accessory:
1. He must have knowledge of the commission of the crime.
2. He must not have participated in the crime as principal or accomplice.

 If he is already a principal and performs an act that of an accessory, his liability is not merely of an
accessory, but of a principal.
 If he has perform an act pertaining to an accomplice, his liability is not merely that of an accessory, but
that of an accomplice.

Acts that can make one liable as accessory:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
You assist the principal to profit by the effects of the crime.

 Ex: Your friend snatched a cellphone, and you sold the cellphone, you have assisted your friend who is a principal
of the crime of theft to profit by the effects of the crime.

 Ex: You were a given a percentage of the sales. Not only that you assisted the principal to profit by the effects of
the crime, you yourself has profited from the effects of the crime. So you are an accessory TO (remember the
term) the crime of theft.

 Ex: You yourself bought the stolen item, what is your liability? You are an accessory because you assisted the thief
to profit by the effects of the crime and you yourself has profited (because it is cheap, you have saved money).

 Take note that your liability is not limited to an accessory, you can also be held liable for violation of a
special law, PD 1612, or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law.
 This law is only applicable to the crime of theft and robbery. In other words, the Anti-Fencing Law is not
applicable if there is no liability of robbery or theft committed.
 This law was promulgated because many people buy stolen goods by reason of their low prices. So in
order to discourage or deter other persons from buying properties, which are proceeds from the crime of
theft and robbery, PD 1612 was promulgated.

 Ex: You did not know that it was a stolen item, are you liable? Take note that there is a presumption in Anti -
Fencing Law. But if the price of the item is so low, as you can already determine that it is stolen, then you are liable
as an accessory.

 Ex: You have eaten a stolen chicken, and you did not know that it was stolen. You are not liable because you have
no knowledge that the chicken was stolen. But if you were told that the chicken was stolen before you have eaten
it, then you are liable as an accessory.

 Ex: You stole items and you gave them to the poor, what is the liability of the poor? What is your liability when you
did not earn? Your satisfaction is considered as intent to gain, you are liable.

Page 67 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 If the poor people know that the money you gave them is the proceeds of the crime, then they are liable
as accessory.
 P.S. So don’t ask if you are given an item, because your knowledge can make you liable as an accessory
(haha)
 If the price is too low, it is already enough to give you suspicion that the property is stolen.

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its
discovery.

In our first example wherein the wife was not present during the killing, but she helped her husband by cleaning
the floor from blood stains, by arranging the things inside the house so that if their neighbors get inside, the latter
would not know that there was an incident or that somebody was killed, then the wife has a committed an act of
an accessory. Although later on, she is exempt from any criminal liability under Art. 20.

 Ex: You helped your friend dig a grave for the person he killed, then you are liable as an accessory because you
conceal or destroy the body of the crime or the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its discovery.

 Body of the crime (not the body of the victim) – refers to the facts of the commission of the crime. It does
not merely refer to the dead body of a person, but it refers to the facts of the commission of the crime, or
to the elements of the crime.

3. By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime.

 Ex: Your classmate is wanted for the crime of malversation, and she arrived at your house, you are liable as an
accessory to the crime of malversation. Why? Because you harbor, conceal or assisted the escape of the principal.

Two liabilities:
a. Public officer
 If the public officer, meaning government employee is the one who committed this act, with abuse of his
public function, he is liable as an accessory regardless of the crime committed by the principal.
 The only requisite is that he abused his public function.

 Ex: A police officer, instead of apprehending the criminal, he harbors him, he is liable as an accessory
regardless of the crime committed by the principal.

b. Private person
 If the person who harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal is a private person, in order
for such private person to be held liable as accessory, the principal must have committed only the
following crimes:
1. Murder
2. Parricide
3. Attempt in the life of chief executive
4. Treason
5. The person is liable of some other crime (repeater)

 If the person who conceals, harbors, or assists in the escape of the principal is a private person, he is not
liable at all times.
 He is only liable when the principal committed the crime of murder, parricide, attempt in the life of chief
executive, treason, or if the principal is a habitual delinquent.
 For example, you have a friend, from Bohol, who was charged with Robbery in Bohol. You harbored,
concealed and assisted in his escape. You are not a public official. What is your liability under the law?
 Not an Accessory to the crime of Robbery under Article 13 (3)

Page 68 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 But you may be held liable under PD 1829 (PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND
PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS )

PD 1829 (PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS )

Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:
(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any
offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or
threats;
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair its
verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings
in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to
believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest
prosecution and conviction;
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a
judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing
proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
(f) making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent
to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or
impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or
that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in
order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending
the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered
in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.
If any of the acts mentioned herein is penalized by any other law with a higher penalty, the higher penalty shall be imposed.

Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official or employee, he shall in addition to the penalties
provided thereunder, suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

 So even if you are not liable as an Accessory since you are a private person, you can still be held liable under this
law.
 But if your friend committed murder?
 You will be liable as an Accessory to the crime of Murder under Article 13, paragraph 3
 Case : A's carabao was stolen. He saw his carabao with B. A wants to get them back but B told him that he
bought the said carabao from someone else. B will return them if A pays him half the price B bought them. A
went home to get his money. When he came back, the carabaos were gone and were returned to where B
bought them. What is the liability of B?
 Accessory. Knowledge of the crime acquired subsequent to the acquisition of the stolen property.
 GR: As a rule, if a principal is acquitted, the accessory is also acquitted.
 If it is proven that there is no crime
 EXC: A Principal may be acquitted and an accessory, on the other hand, may be convicted.
 e.g. Principal is minor, hence exempt from criminal liability
 Can the accessory be tried even if the principal is still at large?

Page 69 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Yes. Prosecution shall prove that there was a crime committed.

PD 1612 ANTI-FENCING LAW

 Applicable to the crimes of Robbery and Theft
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean as follows:
(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
(b) "Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other organization who/which
commits the act of fencing.

Section 3. Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder indicated:
(a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding
22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may
be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion temporal and the
accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or
stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000 pesos.
(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property involved is
more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
(d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of
the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding 200 pesos.
(e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50
pesos.
(f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.

Section 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. If the fence is a partnership, firm, corporation or association, the
president or the manager or any officer thereof who knows or should have known the commission of the offense shall be
liable.

Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has
been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.

Section 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. For purposes of this Act, all stores, establishments or
entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article item, object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed
dealer or supplier thereof, shall before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or permit
from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such store, establishment or
entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director General, Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules and
regulations to carry out the provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by
this section or who violates any of the provisions of the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction
be punished as a fence.

 What is the penalty of the Accessory?

 2 degrees lower than that of the Principal
 e.g. Murder – P: Reclusion Perpetua; Acce: Prision Mayor
 But under the Anti-Fencing law, the penalty is high even if you just bought or received it. It is more or less the
same with the Principal (the one who stole the item)
 Mere possession of the stolen item gives a presumption that you are committing the act of fencing.
 If someone admits that they stole the item you are possessing, you are presumed as a fence.
 Or even the one who stole it under the Rules of Court (Rule 131)

Page 70 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 You may be charged with Accessory to the crime of Theft or Robbery and in violation of PD 1612 as Principal.
 There is no double jeopardy
 Two acts are governed by two different laws (RPC and SPL)
 Only applicable to the crimes of robbery and theft
 i.e. Kanang makadawat ka og butang nga kinawat or proceeds sa tinulis, you could be held liable for the violation
of this law as an accessory for the crimes of robbery or theft.
 Sec. 6 requires that all stores or establishments dealing in the buy and sell is required to secure the necessary
clearance from the PNP
 So kanang imung item nga imung gipalit or kinumpra sa dealer nga dili lisensyado, kinahanglan mukuha usa siya og
permit gikan sa PNP, otherwise, he could be charged with violation of PD 1612.

Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be
imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories
falling within the provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding article.
 Exempt from being an Accessory:
 Spouse, Bro/Sis (Legit/Illegit), Ascendants, Descendants, relatives by affinity within the same degree
 If Spouse helped husband bury the body of A (killed by husband: Murder), she is an accessory but she is not
criminally liable.
 But spouse may be liable under PD 1829 Section 2 (c)
 If there are two or more principals, A is an accessory and only one of the principals is her relative, she may avail of
the exemption.
 Article 20 does not apply to Article 19 (1); By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects
of the crime.
 A steals cellphone. A's spouse sells it. A's spouse is liable as Accessory.
 BASIS for exemption : You will side with the Principal because of family relations
 BASIS for exclusion of Article 19 (1) : You helped Principal because of greed

Title Three
PENALTIES
Chapter One
PENALTIES IN GENERAL

PENALTIES IN GENERAL
 What is a penalty?
 The suffering that is inflicted by the State for the transgression of a law.
 Penalties are in Book 2
 Purpose/s: THREE - FOLD
 RETRIBUTION – vengeance for the wrong done; you will be punished
 REFORMATION - to change him
 SOCIAL DEFENSE – to deter other persons from committing the same crime and following the footsteps of
the criminal
 e.g. Habitual Delinquent – the more crimes; the heavier the penalties
 Congress is prohibited from enacting laws that provides for penalties which are harsh cruel (unnecessary) and
unusual.
 Reason why Death Penalty was suspended
 Considered harsh, cruel, unusual

Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. - No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to
its commission.

Page 71 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 There is no crime if there is no law punishing it

Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons
guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at
the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

 GR : Penal laws shall not be given a retroactive effect

 EXCEPTION:
 if favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent
 or the law provides for its retroactivity

Article 23. Effect of pardon by the offended party. - A pardon of the offended party does not extinguish criminal action
except as provided in Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured party is
extinguished by his express waiver.
 Effect if the offended party forgives the accused/offender
 Theoretically, pardon shall not extinguish the case
 EXCEPT : cases involving private crimes (Article 344)
 Seduction, Concubinage, Adultery, Acts of Lasciviousness, Abduction
 Rape is not a private crime anymore
 Must be pardoned by the offended party before a case is filed in court
 If a case is already filed in court, court's discretion on its disposal
 But in real life, if you agreed to settle the case for monetary consideration
 Agreeing that you will not appear in court or participate in the case
 The case will be dismissed due to 1. Violation of right to speedy trial or 2. Insufficiency of evidence
 Civil Liability (for damages) is extinguished and not the criminal liability

Article 24. Measures of prevention or safety which are nor considered penalties. - The following shall not be considered
as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of insanity or
imbecility, or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes specified
therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary powers,
superior officials may impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil laws may establish in penal form.

 Not considered as penalties

 Temporary detention of accused persons (Preventive Detention)
 Why is he arrested when he is not yet convicted?
 In order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over his person
 Includes detention by reason of insanity or imbecility or illness requiring confinement in the hospital
 Article 12 on person who is insane; will not be allowed to be released unless there is a certification
that he is sane
 Commitment of a minor who acted with discernment
 To a separate detention facility; “Second Chance”
 Preventive suspension of Public Officials during trial or in order to institute proceedings
 Fines and other corrective measures (exercise of administrative disciplinary powers by superiors)
 Fines may be considered as a penalty or just an administrative penalty
 e.g. LTO – administrative Courts – penalty

Page 72 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Deprivation of rights and reparations established by civil code in penal form

 e.g. Parent who BUGAWS daughter – removed of parental authority; not considered a penalty

Chapter Two
CLASSIFICATION OF PENALTIES

Article 25. Penalties which may be imposed. - The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and their
different classes, are those included in the following:

Scale

Principal Penalties
Capital punishment:
Death.
Afflictive penalties:
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:
Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.

Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the offense,
Payment of costs

 Penalties are classified as:

 Principal (Main)
 Must be expressly stated in the judgment of conviction
 On perpetual/temporary absolute/special disqualification
 Applicable to public officers in relation to their public duties
 Aside from imprisonment, this is included
 Perpetual – for life; Temporary – during service of penalty
 Disqualification may be principal penalty (226 to 228) or accessory
 Suspension
 Principal or Accessory

Page 73 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 If as principal, the one who committed is a public officer (236)

 Bond to keep the peace
 No crime under the RPC which punishes bond to keep the peace
 But there is a bond for good behavior (for Grave/Light Threats) which is different from bond to keep
the peace
 If you cannot post bond to keep the peace: you may be detained
 If you cannot post bond for good behavior: you may be punished with Destierro
 Public Censure = PANGASABA
 Remember: Court cannot impose a penalty which is not provided by law
 Must impose the CORRECT penalty
 e.g. imposing hard labor aside from imprisonment by the lower court
 NOT VALID
 imposing 5 years of imprisonment
 on Reclusion Perpetua and Life Imprisonment: CANNOT BE INTERCHANGED

Reclusion Perpetua Life Imprisonment

12 years and 1 day to 20 years No specific period
Under Revised Penal Code Under Special Penal Laws
With Accessory penalties (Article 41) No Accessory penalties
Civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence
as the case may be, and that of perpetual absolute
disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though
pardoned as to the principal penalty

 Accessory
 Penalties that are deemed included with the imposition of the principal penalty, even if not mentioned in
the decision of the Court
 Civil Interdiction
 deprived of parental authority, capacity to enter into a contract etc.
 May also be classified into:
 Indivisible – Death, Reclusion Perpetua, Public Censure, Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
 Divisible – the rest

Article 26. When afflictive, correctional, or light penalty. - A fine, whether imposed as a single of as an alternative
penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed
6,000 pesos but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it less than 200 pesos.

 Fine is classified into (whether imposed as a single (FINE ONLY) or alternative (IMPRISONMENT OR FINE))
 Afflictive – exceeds Php6,000 (Php6,001 and above)
 Correctional – does not exceed Php6,000 but not less than Php200 (Php200 to 6,000)
 Light – less than 200 (Php199 and below)
 If the law uses OR, the court has discretion or choice whether to impose imprisonment or fine
 e.g. Arresto Menor or Fine – either imprison him with a period of Arresto Menor or impose fine
 If the law uses AND, no choice but to impose. If he does not impose, that amounts to grave abuse of discretion.
Judge may be cited with ignorance of the law.
 Imprisonment of 10 days or fine. VOID. Judge must choose which is which to bge imposed.

Chapter Three
DURATION AND EFFECTS OF PENALTIES

Page 74 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

Section One. — Duration of Penalties

Article 27. Reclusion perpetua. - Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after
undergoing the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason of his conduct or some other serious cause shall be
considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon.
Reclusion temporal. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one day to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. - The duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary
disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification is
imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. - The duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension and
destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty,
in which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. - The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six months.
Arresto menor. - The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days.
Bond to keep the peace. - The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such period of time as the court may
determine.

 People vs. Lucas May 25, 1994

 Divisible ang Reclusion Perpetua BUT RECALLED
 Reclusion Perpetua remains Indivisible

Article 28. Computation of penalties. - If the offender shall be in prison, the term of the duration of the temporary penalties
shall be computed from the day on which the judgment of conviction shall have become final.
If the offender be not in prison, the term of the duration of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty shall be
computed from the day that the offender is placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities for the enforcement of the
penalty. The duration of the other penalties shall be computed only from the day on which the defendant commences to
serve his sentence.

 Preventive detention is not a penalty

 But your period of detention will be credited under Article 29
 Period of computation for your penalty
 Starts at the day when the judgment of conviction shall become final
 If he is not in prison, then computation will start on the day he is placed at the disposal of the judicial
authorities for enforcement of penalty (when he is arrested)

Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. — Offenders who have undergone
preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the
full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he
shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same
is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released
after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).
-

Page 75 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

PREVENTIVE DETENTION (Sec 29 amended by RA 10592)

 Refers to the time wherein the accused is detained or placed in jail while his case is pending. Accused is called
detention prisoner.
 Preventive detention underwent by the accused shall be deducted from the period of his sentence if he is convicted.
 Why or when is a person detained?
1. If he is charged with a non-bailable crime (i.e. crime punishable with Reclusion perpetua or life sentence and the
evidence of guilt is strong – he is not allowed to post bail)
2. If the accused is charged with a bailable offense but he is unable to put up bail
i.e. homicide (bail 12,000) but he has no property

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10592]

AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94, 97, 98 AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
REVISED PENAL CODE

“ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. – Offenders or accused who have
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty,
with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees
voluntarily in writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:
“1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and
“2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.
“If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he
shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths
of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.
“Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30) years.
“Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same
is under review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this paragraph shall
be the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is absent
without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the accused:
Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded
from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is lestierro, he shall
be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.”

Deduction from term of imprisonment:

 Full time credit – if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing after being informed of the effects
thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners
 4/5 – if he does not agree
 Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) - Under this law, he is also entitled to service credit, kung magbinuotan ang
akusado sa sud sa prisohan. Also called Time Allowance for Good Behavior. This is a deduction from the term of
sentence
 It is necessary that the accused is in prison in order that preventive detention be credited from his sentence
 So if you have been in preventive detention for 6 years and you are sentenced for 12 years imprisonment, you only
have 6 years left to serve.
 Take note last paragraph: if preventive detention period si equal to the penalty to be imposed if charged, then he must
be released immediately.
 i.e. homicide (penalty imposable is 6yrs) – then detention prisoner has already served for 6yrs by preventive detention,
he shall be released. But this does not mean that he is acquitted, the proceedings shall continue until the termination
of the case. If he is found guilty, then the period of his detention shall be deducted from the period of the sentence.
Tabla na.

Page 76 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 if maximum penalty imposable is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of preventive imprisonment
 Penalty Imposable vs. penalty imposed
 penalty imposable – one stated by the law
i.e. murder – reclusion perpetua
 penalty imposed – could be different from the penalty imposable
i.e. the offender is a minor – reclusion perpetua cannot be imposed, instead reclusion temporal (penalty imposed)
 if the period of the detention is equal to the maximum period imposable, the accused should be immediately released
without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings of the case
 in criminal procedure, if the detention is only equivalent to the minimum period imposable, he cannot be released but
he can be entitled to reduced bail.
 Take note that the rule that detention shall be deducted from the sentence is applicable only if the accused is
sentenced consisting of deprivation of liberty.
 Hence if fine is the penalty, then preventive detention does not apply.
 Destierro – (SC) consist of deprivation of liberty, hence, rule on preventive detention applies.

Section Two. — Effects of the penalties according to their respective nature

Art. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or
temporary absolute disqualification for public office shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held even if conferred by
popular election.
2. The deprivation of the right to vote in any election for any popular office or to be elected to such office.
3. The disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
In case of temporary disqualification, such disqualification as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article
shall last during the term of the sentence.
4. The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held.

Art. 31. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification. — The penalties of perpetual or
temporal special disqualification for public office, profession or calling shall produce the following effects:
1. The deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected;
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or employments either perpetually or during the term of the
sentence according to the extent of such disqualification.

Art. 32. Effect of the penalties of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage.
— The perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the offender
perpetually or during the term of the sentence, according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to vote in any
popular election for any public office or to be elected to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to
hold any public office during the period of his disqualification.

Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from any public office, profession or calling, or the right of suffrage. — The
suspension from public office, profession or calling, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall disqualify the offender
from holding such office or exercising such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office shall not hold another having similar functions during the period of his
suspension.

Art. 34. Civil interdiction. — Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights of
parental authority, or guardianship, either as to the person or property of any ward, of marital authority, of the right to
manage his property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter vivos.

Art. 35. Effects of bond to keep the peace. — It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond to keep the peace,
to present two sufficient sureties who shall undertake that such person will not commit the offense sought to be

Page 77 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

prevented, and that in case such offense be committed they will pay the amount determined by the court in the
judgment, or otherwise to deposit such amount in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee said undertaking.
The court shall determine, according to its discretion, the period of duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be detained for a period which shall in no case
exceed six months, is he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if
for a light felony.

Articles 30 – 35 = effects of the penalties according to their respective nature

 Perpetual or absolute disqualification
2 natures:
1. As principal penalty
2. As accessory penalty
 If the accused is a public officer, if convicted may be penalized with absolute disqualification as principal
penalty.
 Temporary absolute disqualification vs. perpetual absolute disqualification
- Perpetual – for life one cannot hold a public office (elected/appointive) even after serving
sentence
- Temporary – prohibited only during the service of sentence
 Cannot vote or run public office
 Detention prisoners can vote? YES. Because they have not yet been convicted.
 In case of temporary absolute disqualification – par. 2 & 3 shall last during service of sentence
 Retirement benefits – shall be forfeited in favor of the government
Xpn: accrued leave credits (can be turned to cash during retirement)

Article 31
 Disqualification to exercise profession/calling

Article 32 (perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage)
 Right to vote and be voted
 Perpetual – for life
Xpn: in a plebiscite

Article 33 (effects of suspension from any public office, profession, right of suffrage)
Preventive suspension (administrative case)
– not yet convicted same as preventive detention
– charge administratively and the maximum penalty is dismissal
– period not longer than 6 months
– reason: aron di makapadayon og pangawat or aron dili maka-influence labi na kung taas ka og rank, or to prevent
obstruction of justice, dili makatago og evidence
– given not as a penalty
– if one is acquitted, entitled to reimbursement of benefits
Suspension (criminal case)
 RPC (Art. 236 Anticipation of duties of a public office) – penalty is suspension if convicted

Article 34 (civil interdiction)

 Effect is it shall deprive the person during the term of his sentence of the rights of
1. Parental authority
i.e. kung naa kay anak nga kaslonon, dili na ka makahatag og concent
you cannot anymore act as guardian as to the properties of the ward
2. Marital authority
Wa na kay katungod sa imung asawa (see family code)

Page 78 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

3. Right to manage one’s property and of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any conveyance inter
vivos.
-because it is as if you are civilly dead
-but you can still execute a will (donation mortis causa)
 Civil interdiction is an Accessory penalty to the sentence of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal or death.

Article 35 (Effect of bond to keep the peace)

 Bond to keep the peace
 if you look at the entire RPC, there is no crime imposing this penalty
 but there is a crime penalized with bond for good behavior – in grave threats and light threats (art.284 rpc)
 Reyes did not distinguish bond for good behavior and bond to keep the peace (see annotation of the book of
reyes)
 But Boado distinguish one from the other
 Judge D – same ra daw ang duha
 Should the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he shall be detained for a period which shall in
no case exceed 6 months

Art. 36. Pardon; its effect. — A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right of
suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.

PARDON by the President

 In a criminal case, the victim is called private offended party because ang tinuod nga offended party is the state
because you have violated the law of the state
 Private offended party would be reduced to a mere witness
i.e rape case - witness ang victim, hence People of the Philippines vs. X (accused)
 Will erase the criminal liability of the accused, he shall be released from jail
 But reverse, will not erase the civil liability

 Accessory penalties
GR: will not be erased
XPN: Unless the terms of the pardon expressly provides that the criminal liability of the accused as well as the
accessory penalties shall be erased
 Pardon is only applicable of the judgment of conviction is final and executory (not during the reglementary
period to appeal or when the case is pending in appeal)
 Case of Estrada, convicted of plunder with sandiganbayan, sentence was reclusion perpetua, appeal with
Supreme court. Later he withdrew his appeal. Why did he withdrew? Kay gi-offeran man siya ni Pres. Arroyo
og pardon.
 Question: can Estrada still run for public office? Murag gi-dismiss sa comelec. Gi-raise nasad pagdagan niya og
mayor. Comelec- still qualified. Still pending in the SC. If in the conditions of the pardon expressly states that
the accessory penalty of disqualification is also erased then he would be qualified for public office but if not
expressly stated, then it is deemed excluded. What is erased then only the criminal liability of imprisonment.
 Limitations of Pardon:
 Cannot extend to impeachment cases
 Case: a person is pardoned after he served his sentence of imprisonment. Necessarily, one is being pardoned if
he is detained but in this case, he already served his sentence. What is the effect then of the pardon? SC
interpreted it as a pardon extended to his accessory penalties. (Pelobello vs. Palatino, 72 Phil. 441)

PARDON by the offended party

 will not erase the criminal liability of the accused
 what is erased is just the civil liability
 will not cause the dismissal of the case (theoretically)

Page 79 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 kay if the private offended party will lose interest of the case, ma-dismiss ra ang case either by violation of the right of
the accused to speedy trial or speedy disposition of case of insufficiency of evidence

2 kinds of Pardon:
1. Absolute pardon – not subject to any condition
2. Conditional pardon – usual condition is that he must not commit any crime during the remaining period of his
sentence
th
i.e. 20 years sentence – 15 year was pardoned, during the remaining 5 years, he must not commit any crime
Case: Monsanto vs. Factoran Jr. 170 SCRA 191 – absolute pardon merely extinguish his criminal liability, remove his
disqualification, restore his eligibility for appointment of office he once held but he has to apply for such position under the
same procedure for new appointment unless there is an express statement restoring his right thereto.

Art. 37. Cost; What are included. — Costs shall include fees and indemnities in the course of the judicial proceedings,
whether they be fixed or unalterable amounts previously determined by law or regulations in force, or amounts not
subject to schedule.

COST
 last part of decision
 does not mean gasto sa case
 rule 43 under the rules of court
 pwede ra dili tun-an

Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. — In case the property of the offender should not be sufficient for the
payment of all his pecuniary liabilities, the same shall be met in the following order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused.
2. Indemnification of consequential damages.
3. The fine.
4. 4. The cost of the proceedings.

PECUNIARY liabilities
 refers to the monetary liabilities of the accused
 examples:
- fine
- civil liability – moral damages
- i.e. libel – imprisonment plus fine
- damages – automatic kwarta
- actual damages – reimburse hospital bills
 costs are part of pecuniary liabilities
 art. 38- order of payment – applies only if the accused is insolvent
 insolvent – when offender does not have sufficient money or property to satisfy his pecuniary liabilities

Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. — If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the paragraph 3 of
the nest preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each eight pesos,
subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until
his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of
the term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be
counted against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the
culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed upon the
culprit.

Page 80 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of fixed
duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same
deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him,
from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).

RA 10159 - AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLE 39 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL
CODE

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Article 39 of Act No. 3815, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“Art. 39. Subsidiary Penalty. – If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of the
next preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of one day for each amount
equivalent to the highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of judgment of
conviction by the trial court, subject to the following rules:
“1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correctional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under confinement until
his fine referred in the preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the
term of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or part of a day shall be
counted against the prisoner.
“2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if the
culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a fight felony.
“3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correctional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed
upon the culprit.
“4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of
fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same
deprivations as those of which the principal penalty consists.
“5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him
from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve.” (As amended by Republic Act No. 5465, which lapsed
into law on April 21, 1969.)

SUBSIDIARY PENALTY (Sec 39 – amended by RA 10159)

 important! (one star)
 if the convict has no property with which to pay the fine, he shall be subject to subsidiary penalty at the rate of the
HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE at any part of the Philippines
 highest minimum wage – NCR (420 pesos)
 situation:
 Fine – 1000 php ÷ 420php = 2 days kapin
 Reckless Imprudence resulting in damage to property (Art. 365)
Fine equal to the value of the property damaged or three times the value
Fine = 8 million ÷ 420 = 19,047 days = 52 years
 Take Note: subsidiary imprisonment does not exceed 6 months (par.2)
 Shall not exceed 6 months - If the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony
 shall not exceed fifteen days - if for a fight felony.
 If the convict does not have money or property to satisfy the payment of fine, he shall undergo subsidiary
imprisonment/penalty, subject to the following RULES:
1. Subsidiary imprisonment will not apply if the accused is sentenced to imprisonment more than prision
correccional. Meaning, if the accused is sentenced of prision mayor or over, he does not anymore
undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency

Page 81 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

2. If the penalty imposed is prision correccional or lower as well as a fine, he shall remain under
confinement until his fine is satisfied but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of
the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than 1 year.

 If the imprisonment is more than 6 years or prision mayor, the accused is excused from serving subsidiary
penalty.
 If the sentence imposed is prision correccional and below, the accused shall undergo subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency BUT the imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 nor more than 1 year.

3. If the penalty is ONLY fine, he shall go subsidiary penalty but the period shall not be lower than 6 months.

Q: What about if the penalty imposed is Suspension and Fine, and the accused is insolvent. Shall he undergo subsidiary
penalty or subsidiary imprisonment?
A: YES, he’ll suffer penalty but not imprisonment. His suspension shall only be EXTENDED. Duration depends on the
computation. (same goes for destierro)
EX: the accused was imposed with suspension and to pay fine, and he is insolvent, his
suspension shall be extended .
 Par 4. “If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal
institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time
established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of
which the principal penalty consists.”

 Subsidiary penalty which a convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall not release him from his
responsibility to pay the fine in case his financial capacity improves.

Ex: If the convict who was imposed with fine made to serve subsidiary imprisonment (subsidiary penalty),
and after his release he won lottery, he would still be made to pay the fine.
 Par 5. “The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of his
insolvency shall not relieve him from the fine in case his financial circumstances should
improve.”

 The subsidiary imprisonment shall be expressly stated in the decision of the court, because if the court
imposes fine but there is no provision that the convict, in case of insolvency shall undergo subsidiary
imprisonment, then the convict shall be required to suffer subsidiary imprisonment.
Example of court’s decision: wherefore, the court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of ______ and hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment, and to pay a fine of 500 pesos with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.

 Principal penalties shall be stated in the decisions while accessory penalties need not be stated in the decisions.
They are deemed included.

Art. 40. Death – its accessory penalties.- The death penalty, when it is not executed by reason by commutation or pardon
shall carry with that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction during thirty years following the
date of sentence, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

*Commutation – sentence reduced by the President as one of the executive power. (According to Sir, this no longer that
relevant because of the suspension of death penalty)
Ex: In the crime of murder the penalty imposable is death (before), the Pres. may commute it to Reclusion
Perpetua but the accessory penalties remain, that of perpetual absolute disqualification and that of civil interdiction. So the
convict may NOT hold public office unless such accessory penalties have been remitted in the pardon.

Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal – Their accessory penalties. – The penalties of reclusion perpetua and

Page 82 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

reclusion temporal shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or during the period of the sentence as the case
may be, and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the
principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

 Accessory penalties are:

 interdiction for life (Reclusion perpetua) or during the period of the sentence (reclusion temporal)
 perpetual absolute disqualification (Applies to civilian. Disqualified to hold or run for public office for life.)

Art. 42. Prision mayor – Its accessory penalties. – The penalty of prision mayor shall carry with that of temporary
absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification form the right of suffrage which the offender shall
suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

 Accessory penalties are:

 temporary absolute disqualification
 perpetual special disqualification form the right of suffrage

Art. 43. Prision correccional – Its accessory penalties. – The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it that
suspension from public office, from the right to follow profession or calling, and that of perpetual special disqualification
from right of suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the
disqualification provided in this article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.

 Accessory penalties are:

 from public office, from the right to follow profession or calling
 perpetual special disqualification from right of suffrage (if the duration shall exceed eighteen months.)

Art. 44. Arresto – Its accessory penalties – The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension of the right to hold
office and the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.

 Accessory penalty::
 suspension of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage

Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the crime. – Every penalty imposed for the
commission of a felony shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or tools with
which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government, unless they be
the property of a third person not liable for the offense, but those articles which are not subject of lawful commerce shall
be destroyed.

*This is a ONE STAR provision.

 The confiscation and forfeiture shall be EXPRESSLY provided in the decision, otherwise the proceeds, instruments
or tools shall not be confiscated.
– However, under art. 25, confiscation and forfeiture are considered accessory penalty, and as a rule,
accessory penalties are deemed included. (according to sir, this is an exception to the rule on accessory
penalty—follow nalang daw sa SC :p)

 Application of this article:

– If you use a firearm in killing another person, the same shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the
government if you get convicted.
– If you use car in the commission in the commission of the crime, then your car shall be confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the government.

Page 83 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 If the car belongs to an innocent third person, it shall be returned to him. (According to sir, the
remedy of the real owner is to petition the court for its return after the termination of the
proceedings)
 But if the car belongs to a third person involved in a case (ex. Accessory), then it shall be
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government.
– Same rule apply with regard to the proceeds of the crime. Ex. Plunder.
 But if extorted from a PRIVATE person, the same shall be returned.
– If the articles are not subject of lawful commerce then they shall be destroyed.

Chapter Four
APPLICATION OF PENALTIES

Section One. — Rules for the application of penalties to the persons criminally liable and for the graduation of the same.

Art. 46. Penalty imposed upon principals in general. – The penalty prescribed by aw for the commission of a felony shall
be imposed upon the principals in the commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a felony I a general terms, it shall be understood as applicable to the
consummated felony.

 In book 2, penalties for different felonies are provided. Said penalties are to be imposed upon principals. Same also
applied to consummated felonies.
– For the penalties of Accomplices and Accessories, the SC gave the duty to the Court to fix the penalty. Ex:
lowering by one or two degrees (arts. 50-57)
– For frustrated and attempted stages refer to arts. 50-57.
Penalty imposed to Accomplices in consummated, frustrated, and attempted crimes (arts. 52,
54, and 56)
-the penalty NEXT LOWER IN DEGREE than that prescribed by law.
Penalty imposed to Accessories in consummated, frustrated, and attempted crimes (arts. 53,55,
and 57)
-the penalty LOWER BY TWO DEGREES than that prescribed by law.

XPN: When the law itself specifically provides for the penalty of an accomplice or accessory, even if said law provides
one and the same penalty regardless of the participation.

 Art. 47 is already obsolete. About death penalty.

Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when
an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in its maximum period.
*important provision
*Class of Plural crime called formal or ideal
o 2 kinds of plurality of crimes
1. Formal or ideal plurality
2. Real or Material plurality

Complex Crime – when a single act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary
means of committing a crime.

 Two ways of committing complex crime

1. when a single act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies
 Complex crime proper
Ex: a. nipusil ka, 2 ang naigo, namatay. b. nipusil ka, ang naigo kay dili ang intended person.

Page 84 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

- There are 2 crimes committed here, a. 2 counts of homicide, b. homicide with attempted homicide.
(depends on the qualifying circumstances.
Ex: nanghawan ang mayor sa sidewalk, unya gisumbag sya sa vendor, misuffer ug slight physical injury
ang mayor. What was the crime committed?
A: the vendor committed only ONE crime, Direct assault.
-the slight physical injury is NOT considered grave or less grave offense, it is ONLY light felony (would not
make the crime complex). Therefore as a rule, the light felony may be absorbed or treated as a separate
offense.
-usually, light felonies are committed by means of violence but considered as a separate crime in those
cases wherein they are not committed by violence

Ex: same facts. pero ang mayor gipusil sa vendor pero wa naigo. What was the crime commited?
A: Direct assault with attempted homicide or attempted murder

EX: Accused fired a shot and hit the victim, then fired another shot hitting another victim again. What
was/were the crime/s committed?
A: 2 counts of homicide/murder depending on the presence of the qualifying circumstances.
-Complex crime will Not apply because accused committed the crime NOT through single act. Ergo 2 or
more crimes are committed.

 Several shots from a Thompson sub-machine gun causing several deaths, although caused by a single act of
pressing the trigger, are considered several acts.
 People vs. Desierto, C.A., 45 O.G. 4542
The accused fired his Thompson sub-machine gun (at one press of the trigger with several bullets
produced) at several persons, killing 5 people. Is the accused liable for a complex crime?

Held: Each death caused corresponds a distinct and separate shot fired by the accused , who thus
made himself criminally liable for as many offenses as those resulting from every single act that
produced the same.
Although each burst of shots was caused by one single act of pressing the trigger of the
sub-machine gun, in view of its special mechanism the person firing it has only to keep pressing
the trigger with his finger and it would fire continually, Hence, It is not the act of pressing the
trigger which should be considered as producing the several felonies, but the NUMBER OF
BULLETS which actually produced them.

 Art. 48 regarding complex crime will NOT apply in crimes committed through negligence or imprudence under art.
365 of the RPC.
 Ivler vs. San Pedro G.R. No. 172716, Nov. 17, 2010
Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was
charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MTC), with two separate offenses: (1)
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent
Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property for the death of respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage
to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.
Petitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases. On 2004, petitioner
pleaded guilty to the charge on the first delict and was meted out the penalty of public censure.
Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to quash the Information for the second delict for
placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.

Held: The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself
and not merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-
offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its various

Page 85 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

resulting acts, undergirded this Court’s unbroken chain of jurisprudence on double jeopardy as
applied to Article 365.
These cases uniformly barred the second prosecutions as constitutionally impermissible
under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article 365 charge a stronger and
simpler protection of their constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. True, they are
thereby denied the beneficent effect of the favorable sentencing formula under Article 48, but
any disadvantage thus caused is more than compensated by the certainty of non-prosecution for
quasi-crime effects qualifying as "light offenses" (or, as here, for the more serious consequence
prosecuted belatedly)

Compound crime – when a single act results in a two or more crimes.

- this covers aberration ictus. (mistake in the blow)
- there are two victims here.

2. When an offense is committed as a necessary means of committing another crime.

Ex: A gov’t cashier who falsify a receipt in order to make the transaction she’s handling look correct,
afterwards misappropriate the money. What was the crime committed?
A: malversation THROUGH falsification.

TN: The first crime committed must be necessary for the commission of the ultimate crime. It should NOT be
absorbed.

Ex: Same facts above, but the cashier misappropriate first the money afterwards falsify the receipt in
order to hide the crime committed. What is the crime committed?
A: (2 crimes, NOT complex crime) Malversation AND falsification.

TN: In complex crime, 2 crimes are committed, and these crimes are grave or less grave, but the offender is
only imposed with ONE penalty and that it is for the penalty of the MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE, and the penalty
shall be imposed in the MAXIMUM period regardless of the presence of generic mitigating circumstances.

 Art. 48 does not apply when the law provides one single penalty for special complex crimes.
 Special Complex Crime (Bar Q)

Ex: biktima gitulis after gipatay. What crime is committed?

A: Robbery with homicide/murder (defined under the law)

Ex: gi-rape tapos gipatay. What crime is committed?

A: Rape with homicide/murder (defined under the law)

COMPLEX CRIME SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME

Single act Several acts
offense is committed as a necessary means of committing offense is NOT committed as a necessary means of
another crime committing another crime
the penalty of the MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE shall be imposed The penalty is FIXED (specific)
2 or more crimes are committed One single offense (ex. Robbery is just a component of the
crime)

 Continued (continuous or continued) offense

-Is a single crime consisting of a series but all arising from one criminal resolution

Page 86 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed. Hence, only ONE penalty shall be imposed.
(Single Larceny Doctrine)
Ex: Accused nanguha ug mga hinigtan (referring to fighting cocks) from different owner.
-there is only one crime committed, one count of theft.
Ex: Tulisan sa jeep. Taking items from different victims/passengers.
-only one crime committed. One count of robbery.

 COMPLEX CRIMES - there are two or more crimes committed but in the eyes of the law the accused is liable only
for 1 crime because the law considers the accused to have only 1 evil or criminal intent.

2 kinds of complex crimes:

1. One is when a single act results in two or more crimes. (WITH)
Ex. Accused throws grenade to a group of people. Naturally, a lot will die. Let’s say 5 died, 10 got severely
wounded and others got scratches. Now the crime committed is multiple murders with multiple frustrated
murders and attempted murders. These crimes will only be considered as one. And so the accused will only have 1
penalty. And which penalty shall be imposed? The penalty of the most serious offense. In our example, it would be
the penalty for murder.

2. Second is when the accused or offender commits a felony as a necessary means for the commission of another
crime. (THROUGH)
Ex. The accused, in order to commit malversation, falsified public documents such as official receipts. After
falsifying, he spent for his personal use the public funds. What crime did he commit? The crime called malversation
of public funds through falsification of public documents.

 The penalty to be imposed - penalty of the most serious offense and the same shall be imposed in the maximum
period. Because it is the law that expressly provides for the maximum, so the same shall be imposed regardless of
the generic/ordinary mitigating circumstances.

 Rule on complex crime applies only when the two or more crime committed are all punishable by the Revised
Penal Code. If one of the crimes committed is punishable by special law, there is no complex crime.

 Crime of rebellion, common crimes are absorbed. In other words, there is no such crime as rebellion complexed
with murder. In rebellion, it is expected that you will kill, so there is no such crime as rebellion complexed with
murder. How about rebellion complexed with robbery? The only crime committed is rebellion. Those crimes
committed by the rebel in furtherance of rebellion, they are absorbed.

 Continuing, continued, continuous or delito continuado (they are the same).

o Different from complex crime because in a complex crime, there is only one act although the single act of
the offender resulted in two or more crimes.
o But in the case of a continuing offense, the offender has performed several or series of acts but he is
liable only for one crime.
o So considering that the rule on complex crime will not apply in continuing crime, the rule on the penalty
for the most serious to be imposed and the same shall be imposed in the maximum does not apply. So
what is the penalty of a continuing crime? It is just like an ordinary crime.
o Example, a jeep was robbed. The accused is only liable for one case of robbery and the penalty of the
robbery will not be imposed in the maximum.

 Special complex crime.

o The rules of complex crimes under Art. 48 does not also apply.
o A special complex crime is considered only as one case. Then it is considered as a single indivisible
offense.

Page 87 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o So for example, offender robbed and killed thereafter the victim, he committed the crime of a special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. The rule in Art. 48 will not apply. If it will, then the penalty to be
imposed is the penalty whichever is more serious between robbery and homicide. So, you will have to
compare which is more serious. But based on Art. 294, when robbery-homicide is committed, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua. So it’s not the penalty of either. It is the law itself which provides for a
particular penalty. The penalty for special complex crimes is specifically provided by law. Compare it with
complex crime under Art. 48, the penalty depends on the more serious one and the same shall be
imposed in the maximum period.
o Whether it be complex crime or special complex crime, the accused will only be charged of 1 information.
So the example the throwing of grenade, the accused is liable for multiple murders with multiple
frustrated and attempted murders, all of these resulting crimes shall only be alleged under 1 information.
Or if accused liable for direct assault with attempted homicide, 2 resulting crimes, only 1 information
shall be filed against the accused and the same information must allege the elements of direct assault as
well as that of attempted murder/attempted homicide. So allege the elements of the 2 crimes and in
order to convict the accused, the same must also be proved.
o So for example, in the course of the trial, what was proved is only attempted murder/homicide, the
accused would not be convicted of the complex crime of direct assault with attempted homicide. Why?
Because the crime of direct assault was not proven. But he will still be convicted of the other proven
crime. The same is with special complex crime.
o For example, the accused is charged with rape with homicide, so elements for both should be alleged in
the information. But during trial, prosecution fails to prove that there was rape and what was proven was
only homicide or the murder of the victim, then the accused would not be convicted of the crime of rape
with homicide but only of the crime proved which is homicide or murder.

 Ivler vs. San Pedro. Now in that case, according to the Supreme Court, Art. 48 will not apply as regards crimes
committed thru negligence or imprudence. The rule on Art. 48 states that if the single act of the accused produces
2 or more grave or less grave felonies there would only be one penalty to be imposed upon the accused and shall
be in the maximum(penalty of most serious offense). The light felony shall be considered either absorbed or a
separate offense. But if the crime committed by accused was thru negligence, the rule under Art. 48 will not apply.
But accused shall be charged only with 1 information and all resulting crimes should be included be it grave, less
grave or light felony.

To summarize, the rule on complex crime will not apply in the following:
1. When the offense is committed to hide/conceal the other crime
2. Other crime is an indispensable part or an element of the other offense (Complex crime applies when
crime committed is a necessary means to commit another)
3. When one of the offenses is penalized by special law
4. In continuing crimes
5. In special complex crime
6. When the law provides for the so called two-tiered penalty

 TWO-TIERED PENALTY?
 It is when the law provides that a penalty to a particular crime or felony is in addition to the penalty
imposable for another crime which results from the commission of such particular crime.
 The law mandates that the penalty for a crime committed by the accused, while committing another
crime, should be suffered by the accused in addition to the other crime that he committed.
 Example, accused bribed jail guard to kill another inmate, what are the crimes committed? The jail guard
has committed the crime of direct bribery at the same time he committed the crime of murder/homicide.
Now he committed two crimes, the law says that the jail guard shall suffer the penalty, if convicted, for
the crime of direct bribery as well as for the crime of homicide or murder. The rule on direct assault(?) (i
think he meant complex crime) will not apply. When the law expressly provides that the accused/offender
shall suffer the penalty for that crime and this crime results from the commission of another crime. So if
the law says that he should suffer the penalties for both crimes then the rule on complex crime will not

Page 88 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

apply. That is the Two-tiered penalty. The law itself orders that penalty for both crimes should be
imposed. That offender should suffer the penalty for each crime that he committed.

Question (ate kring2): going back to continuing/ued/uous crimes. Under Boado, he distinguished between continuing and
continuous crimes wherein a continuous crime is defined as “committed a series of overt acts at about the same time in
about the same place while a continuing crime is defined as an offense which was committed in different localities”.

Answer: he is referring to the so called Transitory Crime. For example the crime of kidnapping is committed in Mandaue
then subsequently brought to Bohol. That is what we call transitory crime. The accused can be charged in any place he
passed thru. He equates continuing crime to transitory crime. Although some authors interchange the two, there are crimes
we call Moving Crimes. Just like kidnapping.

For more understanding about continuing crime or delito continuado, you read the case of Santiago vs. Garchitorena (228
scra 214). Miriam here was charged with 32 counts of violation of anti-graft, Supreme Court said that she should only be
charged with 1 information. Meaning to say, SC just considered, although Santiago allegedly committed series of acts, to
have committed only 1 crime.

Complex crime actually is favourable to the accused. Because Although the accused has committed 2 or more crimes, the
law states that he should suffer only 1 penalty although the penalty to be imposed shall be the penalty for that most
serious offense and the same shall be imposed in the maximum. Art. 48, if you remember especially the single act which
resulted to 2 or more crimes, that is what is called Aberatio Ictus (mistake in the blow).

Art. 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the principals when the crime committed is different from that intended. — In cases
in which the felony committed is different from that which the offender intended to commit, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be higher than that corresponding to the offense which the accused
intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed be lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused
intended to commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person
shall also constitute an attempt or frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the
latter offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period.

 Error in personae
o When the penalty of the intended crime is different from the penalty for the resulting crime, the penalty
of the lesser offense shall be imposed upon the accused and the same shall be in the maximum period.
o Example, the accused intended to kill someone but when he was about to execute the crime, it so
happened he killed his own father. What was the intended crime? Homicide. But the resulting crime was
parricide. Now there is a difference in the penalty for homicide (intended crime) and the penalty for
parricide (resulting crime). Which shall be imposed? Under art 49, the penalty for homicide shall be
imposed and the same shall be in the maximum. So he will be liable for parricide but the penalty for
homicide shall be imposed and the same shall be in the maximum period. What’s the difference between
Art. 48 and Art. 49? This is the opposite of Art. 48. Art. 48 talks about the penalty of the more serious
offense while in Art. 49, it’s the penalty for the lesser offense.
o Example, he wanted to kill his father but killed a stranger instead. So he is liable for homicide, although
intended crime is parricide. The penalty for homicide shall be imposed and in its maximum period. Art. 49
will not apply if the intended crime and the resulting crime have the same penalty. In Art. 48, we said that
the penalty of the more serious offense shall be imposed, what if both crimes have the same penalty?
There is no “more serious offense”. According to SC, it shall be the penalty of either offense and the same
shall be imposed in the maximum period.

Page 89 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

Art. 50. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.

Art. 51. Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes. — A penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony.

Art. 52. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law for the consummated shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a consummated
felony.

Art. 53. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a consummated felony. — The penalty lower by
two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the
commission of a consummated felony.

Art. 54. Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than prescribed
by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony

Art. 55. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the commission of a frustrated
felony.

Art. 56. Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime. — The penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law for an attempt to commit a felony shall be imposed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the
felony.

Art. 57. Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime. — The penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the attempted felony shall be imposed upon the accessories to the attempt to commit a felony.

 These articles are all about the penalties for frustrated felony, attempted felony, penalty for the accomplice and
penalty for the accessory. So to summarize, regarding the imposition of penalty, as far as penalty imposed is
concerned. We have already distinguished the difference between penalty imposable and penalty imposed. So
what do we need to take into consideration? What is our basis for the penalty imposed? We have:

1. The stage (frustrated, attempted, consummated)

2. The participation of accused (principal, accomplice, accessory)
3. The presence or absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Then remember what is a Degree (art 71). This refers to the entire penalty.
Ex. Death, Reclusion Perpetua, Reclusion Temporal, etc.

Divisible penalties are divided into three equal portions and each portion is called Period.
Ex. Prision Mayor – 6yrs 1day to 12yrs

6yrs 1day to 8yrs 8yrs 1day to 10yrs 10yrs 1day to 12yrs

minimum period medium period maximum period

Now, Look at Art. 249 Homicide – Reclusion Temporal (1degree)

There are crimes in book2 wherein penalties imposed are periods, not degree.
Ex. Art 140 Sedition – Prision Mayor in its Minimum Period (considered degree)

Page 90 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

So... 6yrs 1day to 8yrs

Minimum medium maximum

What’s the difference between Art. 249 and Art. 140? In Art. 249, its exactly 1 degree. But in Art. 140 although there is
period, it is considered as a degree. So when the court imposes the penalty, the period which is considered as a degree will
further be divided into three more periods (min, med, max). There are cases wherein there are periods which are used as a
degree and considering that it is used as a degree and considering further that it is divisible, it shall be divide further into
three more periods.

Art. 58. Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories. — Those accessories falling within the terms of
paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the additional
penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave
felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave felony.
rd
 Remember accessory? What are the three acts for one to be considered as an accessory? Do you remember the 3
act? Concealing the criminal. There are two categories of accessories, either public officer or a private person. If
you are a public officer and you abuse your function, you are liable for any crime as accessory if you conceal the
criminal (harbouring, concealing). But if you are a private person, you are only liable as accessory if you harbour,
conceal the principal if the crime committed by the principal is murder, parricide, attempt on life of president,
rd
principal is habitual delinquent. Under Art. 58, the public officer who committed the act of accessory (the 3 one)
shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification, if the principal is guilty of a grave felony,
and absolute temporary if less grave.

Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims sought
are impossible. — When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the acts for the execution of
the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one
of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are essentially inadequate to produce the
result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and the degree of criminality shown by the offender,
shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.

 This is the penalty for impossible crimes. This is the only crime mentioned in Book1. You know, impossible crime is
not really a crime. But why is it that the offender is being punished? Because he is a potential criminal, social
danger and at the same time the degree of criminality shown by the offender that is why he is being penalized
under Art. 59. The penalty is Arresto Mayor or fine ranging from P200-P500. And by way of reminder, an
impossible crime should only be charged if accused cannot be charged with any other crime.

Art. 60. Exception to the rules established in Articles 50 to 57. — The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive,
of this Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or
attempted felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.

 Under Articles 50-57, we learned that the penalty for frustrated states shall be 1 degree lower, attempted- 2
degrees lower, accomplice- 1degree lower than that of principal and accessory-2 degrees. That is the general rule.
However it is provided under Art. 60, that if there is any provision of law which specifically states/provides the
specific penalty for an accomplice, accessory, frustrated or attempted then that penalty which is specifically
provided shall be followed.

Art. 61. Rules for graduating penalties. — For the purpose of graduating the penalties which, according to the provisions
of Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the following rules shall be observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degrees shall be that
immediately following that indivisible penalty in the respective graduated scale prescribed in Article 71 of this Code.

Page 91 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of two indivisible penalties, or of one or more divisible
penalties to be impose to their full extent, the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the
lesser of the penalties prescribed in the respective graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of one or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of
another divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of
the proper divisible penalty and the maximum periods of the proper divisible penalty and
the maximum period of that immediately following in said respective graduated scale.
4. when the penalty prescribed for the crime is composed of several periods, corresponding to different divisible
penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum
prescribed and of the two next following, which shall be taken from the penalty prescribed, if possible;
otherwise from the penalty immediately following in the above mentioned respective graduated scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for a crime in some manner not especially provided for in the four preceding rules,
the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall impose corresponding penalties upon those guilty as principals of the frustrated
felony, or of attempt to commit the same, and upon accomplices and accessories.

This is about the lowering of penalties by 1 or 2 degrees. Rules for graduating penalties. Refers to the lowering or increasing
of penalties by 1 or 2 degrees. For purposes of applying Articles 50-57, you have to refer to Art. 71.

 when the penalty prescribed for a felony is single indivisible, the penalty next degree lower shall be the
immediately following that indivisible penalty.
ex. murder (reclusion perpetua) = penalty next lower in degree is reclusion temporal
death = next lower in degree is reclusion perpetua.

 two indivisible penalties = next degree lower of the lesser penalty

ex. reclusion perpetua to death = reclusion temporal

 one divisible = next lower divisible penalty immediately following that divisible penalty
ex. frustrated homicide (1 degree lower than consummated which is reclusion temporal)
= prision mayor

 two divisible penalties = next divisible penalty lower of the lesser divisible penalty
ex. prision mayor to reclusion temporal = prision correctional

 5 one divisible and one indivisible

ex. (a) reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death

death
reclusion perpetua (a)
reclusion temporal max
med
min this shall be the penalty next lower in degree
prision mayor max (PM max to RT min, med)
med
min

Page 92 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

(b) prision mayor in medium to reclusion temporal minimum

reclusion temporal max

med
min
prision mayor max (b)
med
min
prision correccional max next degree lower
med
min

(c) prision correccional minimum and medium periods

prision correccional max

med (c)
min
arresto mayor max
med next degree lower
min

(d) prision mayor in its minimum period

prision mayor max

med
min (d)
prision correccional max next degree lower
med
min

Section Two. — Rules for the application of penalties with regard to the mitigating
and aggravating circumstances, and habitual delinquency.

Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual delinquency. — Mitigating or
aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose of diminishing or
increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are included
by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it
must of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
relations with the offended party, or from any other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability
of the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means employed to accomplish it, shall
serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and

Page 93 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which
he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in
conformity herewith, shall in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period of ten years from
the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

 These are now the effects of and the attendance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

1. Par. 1 aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which are
included by law in defining a crime, the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing
the penalty.
 So for example, committing a crime by means of arson, arson will not anymore be considered in
increasing the penalty for the crime committed because the same is included. Use of fire is already
absorbed even though fire is aggravating. It is an indispensable element or is included in the definition of
the crime.
 Another is the use of poison. Poison is another aggravating circumstance. But in murder, when you killed
a person using poison, the use of poison there is not anymore used to increase the penalty.
 Another is about advantage. When in the commission of a crime, advantage was taken by the offender of
his public position, the penalty to be imposed shall be in the maximum period regardless of the mitigating
circumstances.
 This is what we call special aggravating. Cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating. So maximum it is.
 Maximum penalty shall also be imposed if the offense was committed by an organized or syndicated
crime group. This is another special aggravating. Cannot be offset because the law itself says that the
penalty shall be in the maximum.
 What do you mean by syndicated? Refers to the number of offenders. When the aggravating
circumstance is inherent in the commission of the crime, the same is not also considered to
increase the penalty.
 So for example, evident premeditation is inherent in the crime of robbery. You cannot commit
robbery without planning. So evident premeditation is not anymore used to increase the penalty
in the crime of robbery.

3. Par. 3 is about aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise from the personal relation or moral attributes
of the offender.
 The same shall mitigate or aggravate the liability of the principal, accomplice, accessory as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.
- So for example, the wife conspired with her paramour in killing her husband, the wife is liable for
parricide but stranger liable only for murder or homicide. The aggravating circumstance of
relationship will not affect the stranger.
 The same is with minority.
- For example, Mr. M conspired with an adult, minority will only be considered as to M and not to
his co-accused. The same with the means to commit a crime.
 The circumstances which consist in the material execution of the acts wherein the means employed to
accomplish the crime shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them.
- So for example, Mr. X induced Mr. Y to kill Mr. A but did not mention on the means of execution.
Y employed or used treachery in the killing of A. According to the SC, treachery will only affect
Mr. Y but not Mr. X. As regards the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the same will only
affect as regards the accused who has knowledge of such aggravating circumstance.

Page 94 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

5. Par. 5 is habitual delinquency. This is very important. (See notes about habitual delinquency)

Art. 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. — In all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible
penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the greater penalty shall be
applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser
penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act, the court shall reasonably
allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and importance, for the purpose of applying the
penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to the result of such compensation.

- These are the rules for the application of indivisible penalties as regards the presence of mitigating and
aggravating. Although this is not useful anymore, this might be asked in the bar.
Ex. penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua to death.

1 mitigating no aggravating = reclusion perpetua

1 aggravating no mitigating = death
1 mitigating 1 aggravating = offset, the lower penalty (RP)

That’s the rule as regards indivisible penalty. If single indivisible (murder), mitigating and aggravating are of no use. We are
talking about ordinary/generic mitigating, because privileged mitigating will always reduce the penalty.

2 kinds of privileged:
 minority/incomplete
 justifying/exempting.

So if you have a client charged with murder, pleads guilty and voluntarily surrenders, it will be the same reclusion perpetua
because penalty is indivisible. But if homicide, that would be another story because reclusion temporal is a divisible penalty.

Art. 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. — In cases in which the penalties prescribed
by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or composed of three different penalties, each one
of which forms a period in accordance with the provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the
application of the penalty the following rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating
circumstances:
1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in
its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class
against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the
number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater

Page 95 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.

7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to the number and
nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser extent of the evil produced by the
crime.

1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed by law in
its medium period.

 No aggravating and no mitigating – Medium Period

o Example:
 Homicide – Penalty is Reclusion Temporal
 No mitigating and no aggravating – Penalty is Reclusion Temporal in its medium period
 We are talking about divisible penalties – a degree is divided into three periods
Illus.:

Maximum

Art. 249 –Homicide – Punishable by Reclusion Temporal Medium

Minimum

Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.

Prision Mayor Medium – [8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.]

Minimum – 6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.

 Example: Prision Mayor- no aggravating and no mitigating – so medium.

o The judge can impose and choose the period within the bracket. Since it is medium (8 yrs. and 1 day to 10
yrs.) it’s within the judge’s discretion to choose to apply the maximum 10 yrs. or the minimum 8 yrs. and 1
day or between.
o It should be within the range.

2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
minimum period.
 Only mitigating – Minimum Period
o No aggravating

Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum – [6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.]

o Since there is no aggravating and there is a mitigating circumstance, the penalty imposed will be in the
minimum (6yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.). The maximum penalty could be 8 yrs. or minimum would be 6 yrs.
and 1 day or 7 yrs. and 1 day or 1 month.

3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty in its
maximum period.

 Only aggravating – Maximum Period

o No Mitigating

Page 96 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

Maximum – [10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.]

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum –6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.

o When an aggravating circumstance is present and mitigating circumstances are absent, the penalty
imposed will be in its maximum period. The Judge may impose upon the offender 12 yrs. or 11yrs , 11
months and 29 days. or a minimum of 10 yrs. and 1 day at his discretion.

4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one class
against the other according to their relative weight.
 Offset – when there 1 mitigating and 1 aggravating
o 1 mitigating 1 aggravating - Offset
o Medium period

Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.

Prision Mayor Medium – [8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.]

Minimum – 6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.

 2 Mitigating and 1 Aggravating circumstance

o 1 mitigating 1 aggravating - offset
o 1 mitigating left
o Minimum Period - the mitigating circumstance left lowers the period from medium to minimum

Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum – [6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.]

 2 Aggravating and 1 Mitigating circumstance

o 1 aggravating 1 mitigating -Offset
o 1 aggravating left
o Maximum period – the aggravating circumstance left raises the period to its maximum.

Maximum – [10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.]

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum –6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.

5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable, according to the
number and nature of such circumstances.
 When there are 2 or more mitigating circumstances and NO aggravating circumstance present, the penalty is
LOWERED to the next DEGREE.

Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum –6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.
Maximum – 4 yrs., 2 months and 1 day to 6 yrs.
[Prision Correccional] Medium – 2 yrs., 4 months and 1 day to 4 yrs. and 2 months
Minimum – 6 months and 1 day to 2 yrs. and 4 months

o Prision Correccional in its medium

Page 97 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

 When there are 3 mitigating and 1 aggravating circumstances

o 1 mitigating 1 aggravating -Offset
o 2 mitigating left
o No lowering of penalty
o Only Minimum because there is aggravating circumstance present
o There should be NO aggravating circumstance to warrant lowering to the next degree

Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum – [6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.]

 We talked about a period used as a degree –

o Example: Article 140 - Penalty for sedition. — The leader of a sedition shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 10,000 pesos.

Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum – [6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.]

o The period here is used as a degree. The minimum is used as a degree.

o Because it is presumed as a degree, you have to divide it into three (3).

Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum – [6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.] Max – 7 yrs., 4 months and 1 day
to 8 yrs.
Med – 6 yrs., 8 months and 1 day
to 7 yrs. and 4 months
Min – 6 yrs. and 1 day to 6yrs. and
8 months

o The minimum period is further divided into three (3)

o You divide it into three.
o If there is mitigating then it becomes minimum, so 6 yrs. and 1 day to 6yrs. and 8 months.
o If there is aggravating then maximum, so 7 yrs., 4 months and 1 day to 8 yrs.

 e ordinary mitigating circumstances can only lower the penalty either to the minimum or the next lower in degree
if the penalty imposable is DIVISIBLE. If it is not divisible, the presence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances
will have no use. Referring to generic or ordinary mitigating circumstances.

6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not impose a greater
penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.

 Example:
o Prision Mayor – there are four (4) aggravating circumstances and zero (0) mitigating circumstances, what
is the corresponding period?
o Prision Mayor in its Maximum

Maximum – [10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.]

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum –6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.

Page 98 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o No matter the number of aggravating, the maximum period will be applied. No increase to the next
degree.

 The rules on the presence of aggravating and mitigating, the same does not apply to criminal negligence or
culpable felonies in Art. 65.

Art. 65. Rule in cases in which the penalty is not composed of three periods. — In cases in which the penalty prescribed
by law is not composed of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained in the foregoing articles, dividing into
three equal portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period of each of the three portions.

 When the penalty is NOT composed of three periods, you divide into three (3) equal portions of time the penalty
prescribed and each portion shall become a period.
o Example: The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.
Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.
Minimum – [6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.] Max – 7 yrs., 4 months and 1 day
to 8 yrs.
Med – 6 yrs., 8 months and 1 day
to 7 yrs. and 4 months
Min – 6 yrs. and 1 day to 6yrs. and
8 months

o The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods

Maximum – 4 yrs., 2 months and 1 day to 6 yrs.

Prision Correccional Medium – 2 yrs., 4 months and 1 day to 4 yrs. and 2 months
Minimum – 6 months and 1 day to 2 yrs. and 4 months

o he minimum and medium period shall be divided in three equal parts.

o *** Please refer to book for computation***

Art. 66. Imposition of fines. — In imposing fines the courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law; in
fixing the amount in each case attention shall be given, not only to the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, but
more particularly to the wealth or means of the culprit.

 The court in the imposition of fines, should consider the means of the culprit as well as the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances present.
 It should be within the limits prescribed by law.

Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all the requisites of exemption of the fourth circumstance of Article 12 are
present.— When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt from
criminal liability are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.

 This article tells the penalty to be imposed when if the crime is committed through negligence.
 Remember Art. 12, Par. 4

”4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.”

Page 99 of 129
 CrimNotes Exiled

o That is an exempting circumstance. In order to be exempt he must be performing a lawful act and with
due care without fault on his part.
o But if he is performing a lawful act but with negligence and because of that a crime has been committed,
then he shall suffer the penalty.
o But the penalty is not the same as that of an intentional felony, it is much lower.

 If the resulting felony is a grave felony had it been intentional then Prision Correccional in its minimum. If les grave
then Arresto Mayor in its minimum and medium periods.
 Art. 67 is similar to Art. 365 – Penalty for causing damage or injury through negligence.
o When you killed someone by accidently hitting them with your car, you will not be penalized with
reclusion temporal or perpetua because the crime committed was not intentional. There was no intent to
kill the victim. The penalty is lesser. It is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum.
o Question: what is the next degree lower of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum?
Arresto mayor minimum to arresto mayor medium.

Art. 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. — When the offender is a minor under
eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this
Code, the following rules shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of the court
having declared that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two
degrees at least than that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall
be imposed, but always in the proper period.

 Art. 68 tell us about privileged mitigating circumstances.

 Par.1 has been repealed -privileged mitigating of minority
 This presupposes that the minor committed a crime with discernment
 And the minor is between the ages of 15 and 18 (over 15 but below 18)
 Par.1 no longer applicable because that refers to over 9 but below 15 under the old law.
 Par.2 is the only applicable provision
 How much is the deduction if over 15 but below 18? One (1) degree lower
o So if the minor committed murder- reclusion perpetua, 17 yrs. old with discernment
o Penalty is reclusion temporal
 Minority being a privileged mitigating circumstance will ALWAYS LOWER the penalty by a degree
o Minor plus the mitigating circumstance of surrender plus voluntary plea of guilty

Art. 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not wholly excusable. — A penalty lower by one or two
degrees than that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the lack of some of
the conditions required to justify the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several cases mentioned in Article
11 and 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty in the period
which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.

One (1) privileged mitigating lowers it to one degree (reclusion temporal) plus the presence of two (2) ordinary or generic
mitigating without aggravating circumstances lowers the penalty to another degree – Prison Mayor in its medium
 This is about incomplete justifying and exempting circumstances
 Incomplete justifying because not all requisites to justify the crime or to exempt the offender from the crime is not
present
 But as regards to self-defense, defense of strangers, or defense of relatives – UNLAWFUL AGRRESSION must be
present. What is absent is only the second or third requisite.
 Incomplete justifying and incomplete exempting can become privileged or generic. If majority is present,
privileged. If only one, like unlawful aggression – then generic.
 How much degree will be lowered?

Page 100 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

o By one or two degrees will be lowered than that prescribed by law.

 Who has the burden of proving the element of self-defense?
o It is the accused.
 What is the amount of evidence?
o Clear and convincing evidence

Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective severity shall be followed so that they may be executed
successively or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty or penalties first
imposed, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall
be determined in accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10. Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be
more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other
penalty to which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed equals the same maximum
period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty
years. (As amended).

 This is about the service if sentence

 This is the concern of Jail guards
 When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties he shell serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will permit otherwise he will serve them successively
 SIMULTANEOUS and SUCCESSIVE service of sentence
 For example:
o In what instance can the penalty imposed can be simultaneously served?
 The accused is sentenced ti imprisonment and pay fine – can be done simultaneously
 He committed two (2) crimes; he is convicted in one to imprisonment while in the other to pay
fine.
 What if he is convicted in 2 crimes and he is sentenced to imprisonment on both?
 It cannot be served simultaneously
 it will be served successively as the sentence imposed does not allow the simultaneous
service of sentence
 How will the accused serve the sentence? Which sentence has to be served first?
 He has to SERVE SERIOUS the MORE SERIOUS
o In Art. 70 is listed the penalties in order of severity
o Serve the most serious sentence first

Page 101 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

 Case: He was convicted of four (4) crimes; He was convicted of homicide and sentenced to suffer
a maximum of 17 yrs., 4 months and 1 day. In another case of homicide he was sentenced to
suffer 14 yrs. and 8 months, and next still convicted of homicide 14 yrs., 8 months and 1 day and
for frustrated homicide, 12 years max.
Homicide - 17yrs., 4months and 1 day total= 59 yrs.,8 months and 2 days
Homicide - 14 yrs., 8 months
Homicide - 14 yrs., 8 months and 1 day three-fold rule: 17 yrs., 4 months and 1 day x 3= 52y
Frustrated Homicide - 12 yrs.
 How long will he stay in ‘bahay ni kuya’?
 59 years, 8 months, and 2 days? Wrong.
 He will not serve all the sentence
 Under article 70 - in the event that the accused is required to serve his sentence
successively the total number of years he is to serve should not be longer than three
times (3x) the total length of time or the most severe penalty
 But it should NOT be longer than 40 years.
 40 years is the maximum
o Most severe penalty is 17 yrs., 4 months and 1 day x 3= 52 years and 3 days
o It exceeds 40 years should it be lowered to 40 years
 It is called the ‘three-fold rule’ – three times the most serious penalty but not to exceed forty (40) years if there
are so many sentences.
 For the three-fold rule to apply the convict has to have at least four (4) sentences
 He has to serve successively and serve first the most severe.
 In article 70 is arranged in order of severity
 While article 71 is about the graduation of penalties. Compare Destierro and Arresto Menor.
o Arresto Menor is more severe than destierro because you are imprisoned
 What if there are equal penalties or the penalties are equal?
o The phrase most sever e penalties include equal penalties
o In computing using the three-fold you include equal penalties
o The three-fold rule only applies if the convict has to serve at least 4 sentences
o If the sum of all the penalties does not exceed the most severe penalty multiplied by three then the three-
fold rule will not apply
o If the accused is convicted of 4 counts of murder which is 30 years imprisonment each, he will only serve
in reality 1 count (30 yrs.) plus 10 years.

Art. 71. Graduated scales. — In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more degrees
than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is comprised the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following graduated scales:

SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine

SCALE NO. 2

Page 102 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,

2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.

 Art. 71 is about the graduation of penalties

 Destierro is the next penalty lower in degree from arresto mayor
 Only MTC can impose destierro

Art. 72. Preference in the payment of the civil liabilities. — The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more
offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order of the dates of the judgments rendered against him,
beginning with the first in order of time.

 Payment of civil liabilities

 If the convict doesn’t have enough money or property to satisfy the civil liability
 Chronological order of the dates of judgments; first come, first serve

Section Three. — Provisions common in the last two preceding sections

Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties. — Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty
which, by provision of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of
this Code, it must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed upon the convict.

 Accessory penalties are presumed to be included in the imposition of the principal penalty
 Remember the accessory penalty of reclusion perpetua?
o Civil interdiction; and
o Perpetual absolute disqualification

Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases. — In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher
than another given penalty, without specially designating the name of the former, if such higher penalty should be that
of death, the same penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be considered as the next higher penalty.

 Death cannot be imposed unless it is expressly or specifically provided.

 Accessory penalty will be according to Art. 40 – that which would correspond to death
 Example:
o By qualified theft which raises the penalty to two (2) degree higher
o If reclusion temporal is raised by two (2) degrees then it will result to death but death cannot be imposed
as it is not expressly and specifically provided – only reclusion perpetua
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees. — Whenever it may be necessary to increase
or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, b y
one-fourth of the maximum amount prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum.
The same rules shall be observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made proportional.

 This is about the imposition of fines with the same to be lowered by one or two degrees or increased by one or
two degrees.
 For example
o The fine imposed is 200-2000 and is reduced by one degree.
o Just look at the maximum and deduct ¼.
 If it is reduced by one degree, just reduce by ¼.
o ¼ of 1000 is 500 so just add or subtract 500
o So fine will be the 200-1500

Page 103 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

o Or if 2 degrees lower will be 200-1000

Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties. — The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall be
considered as divided into three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the
manner shown in the following table:

TABLE SHOWING THE DURATION OF DIVISIBLE PENALTIES AND THE TIME INCLUDED IN EACH OF THEIR PERIODS

Penalties Time included in the Time included in its Time included in its Time included in its
penalty in its entirety minimum period medium period maximum

Reclusion temporal From 12 years and 1 day From 12 years and 1 day From 14 years, 8 months From 17 years, 4 months
to 20 years. to 14 years and 8 months. and 1 day to 17 years and and 1 day to 20 years.
4 months.

Prision mayor, From 6 years and 1 day to From 6 years and 1 day to From 8 years and 1 day to From 10 years and 1 day
absolute disqualification and 12 years. 8 years. 10 years. to 12 years.
special temporary
disqualification
Prision From 6 months and 1 day From 6 months and 1 day From 2 years, 4 months From 4 years, 2 months
correccional,suspension to 6 years. to 2 years and 4 months. and 1 day to 4 years and 2 and 1 day to 6 years.
anddestierro months.

Arresto mayor From 1 month and 1 day From 1 to 2 months. From 2 months and 1 day From 4 months and 1 day
to months. to 4 months. to 6 months.

Arresto menor From 1 to 30 days. From 1 to 10 days. From 11 to 20 days. From 21 to 30 days.

 Divisble penalties shall be divided into three (3) parts forming the minimum, medium, and maximum periods.

Art. 77. When the penalty is a complex one composed of three distinct penalties. — In cases in which the law prescribes
a penalty composed of three distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest of them shall be the minimum
the next the medium, and the most severe the maximum period.
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be
distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.

 What is a complex crime Art. 48? Remember?

 Is complex penalty the penalty for a complex crime?
o No.
 What is a complex penalty?
o Three distinct penalties
o Example:
 Reclusion temporal to death
 It encompasses three (3) penalties
 Three (3) different degrees forming just one (1) penalty

ACT NO. 4103

(As Amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203 [June 19, 1965])

Page 104 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR AN INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN
CRIMES BY THE COURTS OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; TO CREATE A BOARD OF INDETERMINATE SENTENCE AND TO
PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Section 1. Hereafter, in imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code, or its
amendments, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be
that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the
minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if
the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum term prescribed by the same.

Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to
those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who have
escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief
Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one
year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5
hereof.

Sec. 3. There is hereby created a Board of Pardons and Parole to be composed of the Secretary of Justice who shall be its
Chairman, and four members to be appointed by the President, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments
who shall hold office for a term of six years: Provided, That one member of the board shall be a trained sociologist, one a
clergyman or educator, one psychiatrist unless a trained psychiatrist be employed by the board, and the other members
shall be persons qualified for such work by training and experience. At least one member of the board shall be a woman.
Of the members of the present board, two shall be designated by the President to continue until December thirty,
nineteen hundred and sixty-six and the other two shall continue until December thirty, nineteen hundred and sixty-nine.
In case of any vacancy in the membership of the Board, a successor may be appointed to serve only for the unexpired
portion of the term of the respective members.

Sec. 4. The Board of Pardons and Parole is authorized to adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary for
carrying out its functions and duties. The Board is empowered to call upon any bureau, office, branch, subdivision,
agency or instrumentality of the Government for such assistance as it may need in connection with the performance of
its functions. A majority of all the members shall constitute a quorum and a majority vote shall be necessary to arrive at
a decision. Any dissent from the majority opinion shall be reduced to writing and filed with the records of the
proceedings. Each member of the Board, including the Chairman and the Executive Officer, shall be entitled to receive as
compensation fifty pesos for each meeting actually attended by him, notwithstanding the provisions of Section two
hundred and fifty-nine of the Revised Administrative Code, and in addition thereto, reimbursement of actual and
necessary traveling expenses incurred in the performance of duties: Provided, however, That the Board meetings will not
be more than three times a week.

Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Board of Indeterminate Sentence to look into the physical, mental and moral record of
the prisoners who shall be eligible to parole and to determine the proper time of release of such prisoners. Whenever
any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence, from the reports of the prisoner's work and conduct which may be received in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed, and from the study and investigation made by the Board itself, that such prisoner is fitted by his
training for release, that there is a reasonable probability that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty without
violating the law, and that such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of society, said Board of Indeterminate
Sentence may, in its discretion, and in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted hereunder, authorize the
release of such prisoner on parole, upon such terms and conditions as are herein prescribed and as may be prescribed by
the Board. The said Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall also examine the records and status of prisoners who shall
have been convicted of any offense other than those named in Section 2 hereof, and have been sentenced for more than

Page 105 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

one year by final judgment prior to the date on which this Act shall take effect, and shall make recommendation in all
such cases to the Governor-General with regard to the parole of such prisoners as they shall deem qualified for parole as
herein provided, after they shall have served a period of imprisonment not less than the minimum period for which they
might have been sentenced under this Act for the same offense.

Sec. 6. Every prisoner released from confinement on parole by virtue of this Act shall, at such times and in such manner
as may be required by the conditions of his parole, as may be designated by the said Board for such purpose, report
personally to such government officials or other parole officers hereafter appointed by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent to the remaining portion of the maximum sentence imposed upon him
or until final release and discharge by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence as herein provided. The officials so
designated shall keep such records and make such reports and perform such other duties hereunder as may be required
by said Board. The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner during his parole may be fixed and from time to time
changed by the said Board in its discretion. If during the period of surveillance such paroled prisoner shall show himself
to be a law-abiding citizen and shall not violate any of the laws of the Philippine Islands, the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence may issue a final certificate of release in his favor, which shall entitle him to final release and discharge.

Sec. 7. The Board shall file with the court which passed judgment on the case, and with the Chief of Constabulary, a
certified copy of each order of conditional or final release and discharge issued in accordance with the provisions of the
next preceding two sections.

Sec. 8. Whenever any prisoner released on parole by virtue of this Act shall, during the period of surveillance, violate any
of the conditions of his parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may issue an order for his re-arrest which may be
served in any part of the Philippine Islands by any police officer. In such case the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the
remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence for which he was originally committed to prison, unless the
Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion, grant a new parole to the said prisoner.

Sec. 9. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair or interfere with the powers of the Governor-General as set forth
in Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code or the Act of Congress approved August 29, 1916 entitled "An Act to
declare the purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political status of the people of the Philippine
Islands, and to provide a more autonomous government for those Islands."
Sec. 10. Whenever any prisoner shall be released on parole hereunder he shall be entitled to receive the benefits
provided in Section 1751 of the Revised Administrative Code.

 Minimum service of sentence entitles the convict to parole

 The Indeterminate Sentence Law mandates the courts in the imposition of penalty, the penalty imposed must have
a minimum and maximum.
 “Minimum” and “Maximum”
 2 Rules:
o ISL Rule for crimes under RPC
o ISL Rule for crimes under SPL
 Under the RPC:
o In order to determine the minimum you have to lower the penalty by ONE DEGREE.
o For example:
 Homicide – Reclusion Temporal

Maximum – 17yrs., 4 months and 1 day to 20 years

Reclusion Temporal Medium – 14 yrs., 8 months and 1 day to 17 yrs. and 4 months

Minimum – 12 yrs. and 1 day to 14 yrs. and 8 months

Maximum – 10 yrs. and 1 day to 12 yrs.

Page 106 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

Prision Mayor Medium – 8 yrs. and 1 day to 10 yrs.

Minimum – 6 yrs. and 1 day to 8 yrs.

 In order to get or know the minimum you have to lower the penalty by one degree.
 When you say ‘Imposable Penalty’ it is the penalty provided by law. When you look at art. 249 it says the penalty
for homicide is reclusion temporal
1. So the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal
 So here is a person charged with homicide and is convicted
 So what will the judge do? What is the penalty to be imposed?
 First, the judge has to know the minimum
 The ISL provides that in order to know the minimum of the sentence should be taken
from the penalty next lower in degree
 The next lower degree from the penalty is Prision Mayor
 The judge has the discretion or leeway to choose which will be the minimum
 As long as it is within the range of prision mayor
o 8 years or 12 years or 11 years or 6 years and 1 day as minimum
 Maximum
1. To know the maximum you have to take into consideration the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
2. If there is no aggravating or mitigating then medium (14 yrs., 8 months and 1 day to 17 yrs. and 4 months)
3. You can only give WITHIN THE BRACKET of Prision Mayor in its Medium Period

 Determining the maximum penalty for indeterminate sentence, you must take into consideration the mitigating
and the aggravating.
1. No mitigating or aggravating -medium.
2. The bracket is discretionary with the court. Since you already have given the minimum penalty, 6 years
and 1 day, then you give the lowest of 14 years, 8 months and 1 day as maximum.

 You want simple computation? You give 7 years minimum, 15 years maximum.
1. Then when you will be convicted, the court will state that: wherefore the court find the accused guilty of
homicide and hereby sentence him of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum (sentence) to 14
years, 8 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum.
2. You must state the name as reclusion temporal or prision mayor because if you only provide for the years,
then THERE WILL BE NO ACCESSORY PENALTY. So there is a need to name it.
3. For example, there is mitigating (voluntary plea of guilt) - mitigating and no aggravating
 12 years and 1 day.
 can also give a minimum of 6 years and 1 day and 12 years and 1 day.
 you can give 7 years and 13 years.
 Is seven years within the bracket of minimum? YES. You can also give 14 years, since it is still
within the bracket. Then it will be 7 year to 14 years depending on the discretion of the judge
and this cannot be questioned.
4. Example, there is aggravating but no mitigating;
 accused is known to be bad, then the judge will give him 20 years. Is the imposition still within
the bracket? YES.
 accused doing good while inside prison, he will get 6 years and 1 day but if he will not, he will be
given 20 years as maximum.

 Purpose for giving minimum and maximum?

1. After serving the minimum, the accused could be released and that is what we call parole.

Parole - means to have the convict a temporary release.

 Effect if the accused is in parole?

Page 107 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

o The accused will be released, then he will not finish his sentence and after his release and during the entire
remaining period of sentence, he does not commit any violation, the remaining period shall be deemed
served, but if he commits another crime or whatever infraction, he shall be recommitted to prison and shall
serve the entire remaining sentence. P
 Purpose of parole?
o save the valuable human resources and of course to save government expenses. This is the purpose of
Indeterminate Sentence as regards crimes penalized under the RPC.

 Example: Homicide, minor, who is entitled to privilege mitigating of minority.

 Highest penalty to be given is not reclusion temporal. You will lower it by one degree. But the imposable
penalty is also reclusion temporal. Then you will lower by one degree in order to determine the minimum
which is provided by Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provides that in order to determine the minimum,
you are going to lower down by one degree from the penalty imposable. What will happen now if you follow
it, the maximum and minimum will be the same. So there is a little difference, earlier we determine first the
minimum which is lowered by one degree, then maximum by considering the mitigating and the
aggravating. Now if there is the presence of privilege mitigating, you need to determine the maximum first
and follow the minimum. So what will be the maximum? Prision Mayor because the accused is a minor,
then you go to medium which is 8 to 10 years. Then you can choose within this bracket and you can give a
maximum of 10 years, then you lower by one degree to get the minimum, which is anywhere in the prision
correctional. So 6 months and 1 day to 6 years, then you can give 6 months and 1 day, since it is still within
the range. So it will be 6 months and 1 day to 10 years. Thus you need to know first the maximum and lower
by one degree in order to get the minimum.
 For example a minor who voluntary surrendered and voluntary plead guilty.
 That would be another degree lower, so you cannot give him prision mayor but now you will give prision
correctional. So you will go to the medium of prision correctional, and in order to get the minimum, it could
be arresto mayor. What is the range of arresto mayor? One month and 1 day to 6 months, medium to
prision correctional.
 Question: voluntary surrender, voluntary plea of guilty, they are both ordinary mitigating. Then why is it we
lower it to one degree? Because if two or more ordinary mitigating in the absence of aggravating, the same
can be lowered by one degree, so from prision mayor, because he is a minor and prision correctional,
because there are two ordinary mitigating and no aggravating. Then why from prision correctional, it was
lowered to arresto mayor? In order to get the minimum.

 It would be easier if it will be SPL. For example, Drugs, RA 9165, Sec. 11, the lowest penalty is 12 years and 1 day to
20 years. This is the same period with reclusion temporal but it is not reclusion temporal, they only have the same
range of sentence. That is why when a crime is punishable under the RPC, the sentence imposed should be
provided with last name (reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, etc.) to determine that it comes from RPC
because if you don’t and only years then there will be no accessory penalty that will be imposed. Let’s go back, the
accused was convicted under the SPL, the ISL, if it is a special penal law, minimum should not be lower than the
minimum and the maximum should not be higher than the maximum. For example, he has been convicted, the law
says, “the minimum of the sentence should not be lower than the minimum penalty imposable. If I gave 13 years
minimum, is it correct? Yes, because 13 years is not lower than 12 years and 1 day. If I gave, 18 years as maximum,
is it proper? Yes, because 18 years is not higher than 20 years which is the maximum imposable penalty.
Wherefore the court finds the accused guilty of violation of Sec. 11, RA 9165, and hereby sentenced him to suffer a
penalty of 13 years to 18 years. Ok for example, you are kind-hearted, can you give a penalty of 12 years and 1
day? Yes because that is the minimum. 14 years? Yes because it is not higher than 20 years. Can you give him 12
year only? No, because it is lesser than the minimum imposable penalty.

 Why is called Indeterminate Sentence?

1. Because you could not determine whether he is going to serve the entire sentence and you could not
know whether he can commit a crime or not, that is why it is called Indeterminate.

 Indeterminate sentence law will not apply if: (Based in Boado Book)

Page 108 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

GR: It is basic law that the application of the ISL is mandatory where the imprisonment exceeds 1 year, except only
the following case:
1. Offenses punished by death, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua (indivisible);
2. Those convicted of Treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion sedition, or espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Habitual delinquents;
6. Those who escaped from confinement or those who evaded sentence;
7. Those granted conditional pardon and who violated the same;
8. Those whose maximum period of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
9. Those who are already serving final judgment upon the approval of the ISL.

 The opposite of Indeterminate is straight penalty.

 Disposition that the convict shall be released after serving the minimum period? PAROLE
o under DOJ, the Board of Pardon and Parole and an office of Parole and Provision.
o They are the ones who determine if the convict is now fit to be under parole.
o It is their duty to look into the physical data and moral requirement of the prisoners who shall be eligible
for parole to determine the proper time for release of such prisoners whenever the prisoners serve the
minimum penalty imposed. It shall appear in the Board of Determinate Sentence the prisoners work and
conduct.
o Parole also is under a temporary release.

 Parole is the suspension of sentence after serving the minimum of the IS under Sec. 5 of the same law.
 Robin Padilla vs. CA 269 SCRA 402- the case here is that, what Robin had violated is a Special Law. And as a rule
when it is a special law, it cannot be lowered by one degree unlike in RPC where it can be lowered by one degree.
SC said, when it is Special Law but that Special law is using the terms and penalties under the RPC, then the rule
shall be the same with the RPC will apply.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968

ESTABLISHING A PROBATION SYSTEM, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

WHEREAS, one of the major goals of the government is to establish a more enlightened and humane correctional
systems that will promote the reformation of offenders and thereby reduce the incidence of recidivism;

WHEREAS, the confinement of all offenders prisons and other institutions with rehabilitation programs constitutes an
onerous drain on the financial resources of the country; and .

WHEREAS, there is a need to provide a less costly alternative to the imprisonment of offenders who are likely to respond
to individualized, community-based treatment programs;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following:

Section 1. Title and Scope of the Decree. — This Decree shall be known as the Probation Law of 1976. It shall apply to all
offenders except those entitled to the benefits under the provisions of Presidential Decree numbered Six Hundred and
three and similar laws.

Sec. 2. Purpose. — This Decree shall be interpreted so as to:

(a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment;
(b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a
prison sentence; and

Page 109 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

(c) prevent the commission of offenses.

Sec. 3. Meaning of Terms. — As used in this Decree, the following shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be
construed thus:
(a) "Probation" is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions
imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer.
(b) "Probationer" means a person placed on probation.
(c) "Probation Officer" means one who investigates for the court a referral for probation or supervises a probationer or
both.

Sec. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a defendant and upon application at any time of said defendant, suspend the execution of said sentence and
place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An application for
probation shall be filed with the trial court, with notice to the appellate court if an appeal has been taken from the
sentence of conviction. The filing of the application shall be deemed a waver of the right to appeal, or the automatic
withdrawal of a pending appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.

Sec. 5. Post-sentence Investigation. — No person shall be placed on probation except upon prior investigation by the
probation officer and a determination by the court that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as well as
that of the defendant will be served thereby.

Sec. 6. Form of Investigation Report. — The investigation report to be submitted by the probation officer under Section 5
hereof shall be in the form prescribed by the Probation Administrator and approved by the Secretary of Justice.

Sec. 7. Period for Submission of Investigation Report. — The probation officer shall submit to the court the investigation
report on a defendant not later than sixty days from receipt of the order of said court to conduct the investigation. The
court shall resolve the petition for probation not later than five days after receipt of said report.
Pending submission of the investigation report and the resolution of the petition, the defendant may be allowed on
temporary liberty under his bail filed in the criminal case; Provided, That, in case where no bail was filed or that the
defendant is incapable of filing one, the court may allow the release of the defendant on recognize to the custody of a
responsible member of the community who shall guarantee his appearance whenever required by the court.

Sec. 8. Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. — In determining whether an offender may be placed on
probation, the court shall consider all information relative, to the character, antecedents, environment, mental and
physical condition of the offender, and available institutional and community resources. Probation shall be denied if the
court finds that:
(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an
institution; or
(b) there is undue risk that during the period of probation the offender will commit another crime; or .
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

Sec. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:
(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years;
(b) convicted of any offense against the security of the State;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one
month and one day and/or a fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos;
(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to
Section 33 hereof.

Sec. 10. Conditions of Probation. — Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring that the

Page 110 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

probationer shall:
(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as may be specified in
the order within seventy-two hours from receipt of said order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said officer.
The court may also require the probationer to:
(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;
(b) meet his family responsibilities;
(c) devote himself to a specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior written approval of
the probation officer;
(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and enter and remain in a specified
institution, when required for that purpose;
(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;
(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on probation;
(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;
(i) permit the probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place of work;
(j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written approval; or
(k) satisfy any other condition related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly restrictive of his liberty or
incompatible with his freedom of conscience.

Sec. 11. Effectivity of Probation Order. — A probation order shall take effect upon its issuance, at which time the court
shall inform the offender of the consequences thereof and explain that upon his failure to comply with any of the
conditions prescribed in the said order or his commission of another offense, he shall serve the penalty imposed for the
offense under which he was placed on probation.

Sec. 12. Modification of Condition of Probation. — During the period of probation, the court may, upon application of
either the probationer or the probation officer, revise or modify the conditions or period of probation. The court shall
notify either the probationer or the probation officer of the filing of such an application so as to give both parties an
opportunity to be heard thereon. .
The court shall inform in writing the probation officer and the probationer of any change in the period or conditions of
probation.

Sec. 13. Control and Supervision of Probationer. — The probationer and his probation program shall be under the
control of the court who placed him on probation subject to actual supervision and visitation by a probation officer.
Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction of another court, control over him shall
be transferred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of that place, and in such a case, a copy of the
probation order, the investigation report and other pertinent records shall be furnished said Executive Judge. Thereafter,
the Executive Judge to whom jurisdiction over the probationer is transferred shall have the power with respect to him
that was previously possessed by the court which granted the probation.

Sec. 14. Period of Probation. —

(a) The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year shall not
exceed two years, and in all other cases, said period shall not exceed six years.
(b) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, the period of probation shall not be less than nor to be more than twice the total number of days of
subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate established, in Article thirty-nine of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. .

Sec. 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequent Disposition. — At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant
for the arrest of a probationer for violation of any of the conditions of probation. The probationer, once arrested and
detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing, which may be informal and summary, of the
violation charged. The defendant may be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such a case, the provisions regarding
release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under this provision. If the

Page 111 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

violation is established, the court may revoke or continue his probation and modify the conditions thereof. If revoked,
the court shall order the probationer to serve the sentence originally imposed. An order revoking the grant of probation
or modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall not be appealable.

Sec. 16. Termination of Probation. — After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon finding that
he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated.
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspend as a result of his
conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted.
The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.

Sec. 17. Confidentiality of Records. — The investigation report and the supervision history of a probationer obtained
under this Decree shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly to anyone other than the Probation
Administration or the court concerned, except that the court, in its discretion, may permit the probationer of his
attorney to inspect the aforementioned documents or parts thereof whenever the best interest of the probationer
makes such disclosure desirable or helpful: Provided, Further, That, any government office or agency engaged in the
correction or rehabilitation of offenders may, if necessary, obtain copies of said documents for its official use from the
proper court or the Administration.

Sec. 18. The Probation Administration. — There is hereby created under the Department of Justice an agency to be
known as the Probation Administration herein referred to as the Administration, which shall exercise general supervision
over all probationers.
The Administration shall have such staff, operating units and personnel as may be necessary for the proper execution of
its functions.

Sec. 19. Probation Administration. — The Administration shall be headed by the Probation Administrator, hereinafter
referred to as the Administrator, who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines. He shall hold office during
good behavior and shall not be removed except for cause.
The Administrator shall receive an annual salary of at least forty thousand pesos. His powers and duties shall be to:
(a) act as the executive officer of the Administration;
(b) exercise supervision and control over all probation officers; .
(c) make annual reports to the Secretary of Justice, in such form as the latter may prescribe, concerning the operation,
administration and improvement of the probation system;
(d) promulgate, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, the necessary rules relative to the methods and
procedures of the probation process;
(e) recommend to the Secretary of Justice the appointment of the subordinate personnel of his Administration and other
offices established in this Decree; and
(f) generally, perform such duties and exercise such powers as may be necessary or incidental to achieve the objectives
of this Decree.

Sec. 20. Assistant Probation Administrator. — There shall be an Assistant Probation Administrator who shall assist the
Administrator perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the latter and as may be provided by law. In the
absence of the Administrator, he shall act as head of the Administration. He shall be appointed by the President of the
Philippines and shall receive an annual salary of at least thirty-six thousand pesos.

Sec. 21. Qualifications of the Administrator and Assistant Probation Administrator. — To be eligible for Appointment as
Administrator or Assistant Probation Administrator, a person must be at least thirty-five years of age, holder of a
master's degree or its equivalent in either criminology, social work, corrections, penology, psychology, sociology, public
administration, law, police science, police administration, or related fields, and should have at least five years of
supervisory experience, or be a member of the Philippine Bar with at least seven years of supervisory experience.

Sec. 22. Regional Office; Regional Probation Officer. — The Administration shall have regional offices organized in
accordance with the field service area patterns established under the Integrated Reorganization Plan.

Page 112 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

Such regional offices shall be headed by a Regional Probation Officer who shall be appointed by President of the
Philippines in accordance with the Integrated Reorganization Plan and upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Justice.
The Regional Probation Officer shall exercise supervision and control over all probation officer within his jurisdiction and
such duties as may be assigned to him by the Administrator. He shall have an annual salary of at least twenty-four
thousand pesos.
He shall, whenever necessary, be assisted by an Assistant Regional Probation Officer who shall also be appointed by the
President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice, with an annual salary of at least twenty
thousand pesos.

Sec. 23. Provincial and City Probation Officers. — There shall be at least one probation officer in each province and city
who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the Administrator and in accordance with
civil service law and rules.
The Provincial or City Probation Officer shall receive an annual salary of at least eighteen thousand four hundred pesos.
His duties shall be to:
(a) investigate all persons referred to him for investigation by the proper court or the Administrator;
(b) instruct all probationers under his supervision or that of the probation aide on the terms and conditions of their
probations;
(c) keep himself informed of the conduct and condition of probationers under his charge and use all suitable methods to
bring about an improvement in their conduct and conditions;
(d) maintain a detailed record of his work and submit such written reports as may be required by the Administration or
the court having jurisdiction over the probationer under his supervision;
(e) prepare a list of qualified residents of the province or city where he is assigned who are willing to act as probation
aides;
(f) supervise the training of probation aides and oversee the latter's supervision of probationers;
(g) exercise supervision and control over all field assistants, probation aides and other personnel; and
(h) perform such duties as may be assigned by the court or the Administration.

Sec. 24. Miscellaneous Powers of Provincial and City Probation Officers. — Provincial or City Probation Officers shall
have the authority within their territorial jurisdiction to administer oaths and acknowledgments and to take depositions
in connection with their duties and functions under this Decree. They shall also have, with respect to probationers under
their care, the powers of a police officer.

Sec. 25. Qualifications of Regional, Assistant Regional, Provincial, and City Probation Officers. — No person shall be
appointed Regional or Assistant Regional or Provincial or City Probation Officer unless he possesses at least a bachelor's
degree with a major in social work, sociology, psychology, criminology, penology, corrections, police science, police
administration, or related fields and has at least three years of experience in work requiring any of the abovementioned
disciplines, or is a member of the Philippine Bar with at least three years of supervisory experience.
Whenever practicable, the Provincial or City Probation Officer shall be appointed from among qualified residents of the
province or city where he will be assigned to work.

Sec. 26. Organization. — Within twelve months from the approval of this Decree, the Secretary of Justice shall organize
the administrative structure of the Administration and the other agencies created herein. During said period, he shall
also determine the staffing patterns of the regional, provincial and city probation offices with the end in view of
achieving maximum efficiency and economy in the operations of the probation system. .

Sec. 27. Field Assistants, Subordinate Personnel. — Provincial or City Probation Officers shall be assisted by such field
assistants and subordinate personnel as may be necessary to enable them to carry out their duties effectively.

Sec. 28. Probation Aides. — To assist the Provincial or City Probation Officers in the supervision of probationers, the
Probation Administrator may appoint citizens of good repute and probity to act as probation aides.
Probation Aides shall not receive any regular compensation for services except for reasonable travel allowance. They
shall hold office for such period as may be determined by the Probation Administrator. Their qualifications and

Page 113 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

maximum case loads shall be provided in the rules promulgated pursuant to this Decree.

Sec. 29. Violation of Confidential Nature of Probation Records. — The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months
and one day to six years and a fine ranging from six hundred to six thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who violates Section 17 hereof.

Sec. 30. Appropriations. — There is hereby authorized the appropriation of the sum of Six Million Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos or so much as may be necessary, out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
to carry out the purposes of this Decree. Thereafter, the amount of at least Ten Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos or
so much as may be necessary shall be included in the annual appropriations of the national government.

Sec. 31. Repealing Clause. — All provisions of existing laws, orders and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with this
Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 32. Separability of Provisions. — If any part, section or provision of this Decree shall be held invalid or
unconstitutional, no other parts, sections or provisions hereof shall be affected thereby.

Sec. 33. Effectivity. — This Decree shall take effect upon its approval: Provided, However, That, the application of its
substantive provisions concerning the grant of probation shall only take effect twelve months after the certification by
the Secretary of Justice to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that the administrative structure of the Probation
Administration and of the other agencies has been organized.

 Probation?
1. A disposition under which a defendant/accused after conviction and sentence is released subject to
conditions imposed by the court and under the supervision of a probation officer.
2. ISL is about parole. PD 968 is about probation.

 The most important under probation law is Sec. 4 which states that:
1. The trial court may after it shall have convicted and sentenced the accused and upon application, the
accused within the period of perfecting appeal suspend the execution of the sentence and place the
accused on probation for such period and upon terms and conditions it may deem best.
2. No application for probation will be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected the appeal from
judgment of conviction.

 Probation is not a matter of right.

 Convict must apply and will only apply after conviction.
1. Within what period? Within the period to appeal; within the period of 15 days,
2. NOTE: Probation and appeal are mutually exclusive.
 If the accused has filed an appeal, he cannot apply for probation and vice versa.
 The order granting or denying the probation is not appealable but it could be question through
petition for certiorari.

 Can all convicts can apply for probation? No,

 Requisites:
1. ONLY those who has been convicted of a crime wherein the sentence imposed is not more than 6 years.
 The accused who is convicted has to apply for probation, meaning he should file an application
because it is not a matter of right, he should apply.
 After applying, the court will require the Probation Office to conduct an investigation on whether
or not the accused is qualified to apply for probation.
2. You must not be convicted in the past or a recidivist or a repeat offender, because you will be disqualified
from applying.

Page 114 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

 Maybe the accused will lie and apply for probation and escape their sentence, the court shall
require the probation office to conduct an investigation and submit a report or recommendation
whether the applicant is qualified.
 What is the period given? Within 60 days from the receipt of the order.

 When you apply for probation, the sentence is no longer appealable, that will become final but not executory.
 What will happen now since the decision is final? The accused will be imprisoned.
o If he is under bail while the case is still pending, while waiting for the report of the probation office, he
can be released under the same bail bond.
o Suppose he was not able to post bail because of insolvency, what will happen? He can still be released on
recognizance.
 Recognizance is a mere promise that the accused will be present whenever his presence is
required by the court. All the accused shall do is just to present in court a reputable member of
the society such as barangay captain. Then the accused shall be released while waiting for the
report.
 If the report is favorable, then the court will grant the probation.

 How long is the probation period? It is not the same with the sentence. The probation period could be longer but
not more than 6 years.
 What will happen during that probation period? Within that period while under probation, he will be released and
one of its conditions is to report once in a month in the Probation Office or Probation officer who supervises him.
And the other is that the accused must not commit any crime and must comply all the conditions set by the court.
And once the probation is granted, the service of the sentence is suspended. What if you violated your probation?
You are going to serve your entire sentence the same with parole.

 Who are qualified to avail of probation? Sec. 9 of the same law.

1. Sentence to serve maximum of 6 years or less;
2. The crime must not be crime against public order or national security;
3. As a rule a repeater cannot apply for probation except if the previous conviction of the accused was
only 1 month or less or fine of 200 pesos or less;
4. Probation can be availed once;
5. Not have started serving his sentence;

 Upon the end of probation period, the probation will not automatically end. You have to wait the court order
formally terminating the probation.
o One case where the convict already finished his probation period and went abroad. His probation was
cancelled and ordered to serve his sentence because you have to wait for the order of the court directing
the termination of your probation. You cannot also change your address while on probation, if you change
your address you need to inform the probation officer or the court. The same rule applies in going abroad.
o There is one court where the court imposed a condition to the accused who is a teacher, not allowing him
to teach because when he committed a crime while teaching so that the crime will not happen again. The
accused question such condition. SC said, the condition is arbitrary, the court cannot impose a condition
which would prohibit the accused from engaging his usual work. (Baclayon vs Mutya)

 Can a person who was sentenced to 10 days imprisonment apply for probation? Yes, because it is not more than 6
years.
 The expiration of the probation does not automatically terminate probation. There has to be an order of the court.
(Balad vs Martinez 189 SCRA 489)
 Take note that probation only terminates the criminal aspect or liability of the case just like pardon. His civil
liability still exist, thus he still needs to pay the civil liability of any.
o There is one case, someone filed 10 cases of BP 22 against the accused. He was convicted in all the cases.
He applied for probation which was later denied because the total number of years will exceed 6 years, 10
years (1 year per case). Is the court correct? In the case of Franciso vs CA 243 SCRA 284, according to the

Page 115 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

SC, multiple prison terms imposed against the accused found guilty of several offenses in one decision
should not be added up and their sub-total should not be determinative of his eligibility to apply for
probation. SC stated that the law uses MAXIMUM not total. In this case, only one decision although there
are many, it is a joint decision. But for example two cases were filed against you, for example the first case
convicted for BP 22, you applied for probation, then the second case you are also convicted, can you still
apply for probation? No. (Franciso vs CA)
o The accused, who is a barangay councilor, was convicted for unlawful arrest or arbitrary detention. He
applied for probation. Terminated, and run as barangay captain right after the termination his probation.
His opponent filed a case against him because under the Local Government Code, a person who has been
convicted of a crime is not qualified to run for election within 2 years after serving sentence. COMELEC
disqualified him. Is he qualified to run? SC said, No, because he has not served his sentence. He has not
served his sentence even for one day, thus Qualified. (Moreno vs. COMELEC, August 10, 2006). Take note
that a person who is under probation, its sentence including the accessory penalty as deemed suspended.
Then the barangay councilor is qualified because it is deemed suspended.
o A convict who has filed an appeal is not qualified to apply for probation. There is one accused who has
been charged for frustrated homicide, penalty is Prision mayor before the RTC. He was convicted as
charged. Is he qualified for probation? No, because the penalty is more than 6 years. He appealed up to
CA, then SC, the SC decided that there was no intent to kill. Thus, he should not be convicted because
there was no intent to kill and thus he was only convicted of serious physical injuries and was sentenced
to not more than 6 years. Can he apply for probation? SC said he can apply for appeal because it is not his
fault, why he was not able to apply for probation when the case was decided by the lower court. The
General rule is, mutually exclusive is the appeal and probation. If the accused has filed for probation, he
cannot file for appeal and vice versa, an accused who file for appeal, cannot also apply for probation,
provided that the opportunity to apply for probation is available. In this case, SC said the accused does
not have any opportunity to apply for probation without fault on his part but on the fault of the trial
court. Thus he was allowed to apply for probation within 15 days from the receipt of the decision of the
court. (Colinares vs. People, December 13, 2011)
o The rule is still that those who will appeal from judgment of conviction when they have the option to
apply for probation forfit to apply that privilege. However if at the time they file the appeal, there have
no opportunity to apply for probation, but on appeal, the sentence is probationable, the accused can still
apply for probation. (Colinares vs. People, December 13, 2011)
 Rationale of this Probation Law: To save the valuable human resources.

Chapter Five
EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES

Section One. — General Provisions

Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed. — No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or
incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the government of the institutions in which
the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the character of the work to be performed, the time of
its performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the relations of the convicts
among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the sexes in different institutions, or at least into different
departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.

 Penalty imposed by the court shall be executed once the decision becomes final and executory. A decision
becomes final and executory after the lapse of 15 days if there is no appeal. If there is an appeal the same shall
become final once the appellate court has reached a decision. No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of
final judgment. Once the decision will become final, then the accused or convict will serve the sentence.

Page 116 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

 In the Philippines, you can’t postpone your service of sentence unlike in America, there is no jurisprudence that
would support such postponing of sentence.
 Then the penalty should be persecuted in the form prescribed by law. A penalty may not be executed in any other
form than that prescribed by law. In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations prescribed for the
government of the institutions in which the penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the
character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance, and other incidents connected therewith, the
relations of the convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which they may receive, and their diet.

 Our 2 classes of prisoners:

o Insular prisoner- a sentence of more than 3 years.
o Local prisoner- sentence of 3 years or less.

Art. 79. Suspension of the execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity. — When a convict shall become
insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only
with regard to the personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being
observed in the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have
prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict is
serving his sentence.

 The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or imbecility occurs while the convict
is serving his sentence.
 When a convict shall become insane or imbecile afer the final sentence has been pronounced, the service of his
sentence shall be suspended and he shall be confined in a mental hospital.
 What is suspended is just the service of the sentence or imprisonment but the civil liabilities are not suspended, so
his civil liabilities should be satisfied from his property. If he shall recover his reason then his sentence shall be
executed unless the same has already prescribed. The prescriptive period of your sentence runs while you are
confined in a mental hospital.
 The rule if you are insane immediately before or at the time of the commission of the crime: exempt
 If a person who has committed a crime becomes insane while the case is pending: the proceedings is suspended.
 If a convict becomes insane while service of sentence or after the decision has become final: the service of
sentence is suspended.

ART 80-85 repealed.

Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor. — The penalties
of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and
served in the places and penal establishments provided by the Administrative Code in force or
which may be provided by law in the future.

 Insular prisoners(sentenced to more than 3years) are brought to the National Bilibid Prison as per Administrative
Code.
 Below 3years- local prisons

Art. 87. Destierro. — Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in
the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers
from the place designated.

 The convict is prohibited from entering a certain place within a certain distance, which shall be not more than 250
and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
 Violation of the 25kilomter- 250 kilometer radius is committing another crime which is evasion of service of
sentence.

Page 117 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

 Cases where destierro is imposed:

1. Concubinage. The concubine is sentenced to destierro
2. When the penalty imposable is arresto mayor and the penalty is lowered by 1 degree pursuant to ART 71.
3. Death under exceptional circumstance, when the spouse catches the other spouse conducting sexual
intercourse with another and kills the unfaithful spouse along with the concubine. The spouse who killed
the unfaithful spouse shall be sentenced to destierro, not a penalty but for the protection of the spouse
who killed the unfaithful spouse because that is an exempting circumstance.
4. Art 284- grave threats. When the court imposed the convict to put up a bond for good behaviour and he
failed to put up the bond. He will be sentenced to destierro.

Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the
defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into
consideration the health of the offender and other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.

 Where shall it be served? Served in the municipal jail or in the house of the accused itself but the same shall be
stated in the decision. If there is no such provision in the decision that it be served in the house then it shall be
served in the municipal jail. There must be guards in the house for it to be possible.

Title Four
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Chapter One
TOTAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished
only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.

 This presupposes that the accused has been convicted.

1. as to the death, the penalty of imprisonment is extinguished but the pecuniary liability(money) is only extinguished
when the offender dies before final judgment.
o As to the civil liability: when the accused dies before final judgment such as when the case is pending
appeal, his civil liability is extinguished also. If the convict dies after the decision has become final and
executory, the civil liability survives.
o Pp vs bayotas; civil liability of the convict when the convict dies while the case is pending appeal, as a rule,
the civil liability of the convict is extinguished if he dies before final judgment. By way of exception,
according to the SC if the civil liability of the accused arose out of other sources of obligation the same
shall survive.
o Sources of obligation; delict, quasi-delict, contract, quasi-contract.
o So if the civil liability of the accused is purely based on delict or crime then the same is extinguished if the
convict dies before the finality of the decision but if the civil liability of the accused arose out of the other
sources of obligation then his civil liability survives despite his death.
o e.g. accused Ileen receive pieces of jewelry from Cleo and as agreed by the two, Ileen would sell the
pieces of jewelry within 30days. If sold Ileen will remit the proceeds to cleo, if not sold, ileen will have to

Page 118 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

return the jewelry. After the lapse of 1 month despite demands, Ileen failed to remit the proceeds of the
jewelry and also failed to return the jewelry if not sold.
o Their transaction is a contract to sell. In case of breach, the obligor will incur criminal liability, Ileen is
liable for estafa. Ileen was convicted by the trial court and was ordered to pay the value of the jewelry but
appealed, during pending of appeal Ileen died. What happens to the civil liability of ileen? It survives
despite her death because her civil obligation arose out of contrat. It does not purely come from
delict/crime but other sources of obligation which is contract.

2. Service of sentence.

3. Amnesty- completely extinguishes the penalty and its effects.

o Difference between amnesty and pardon

Amnesty Absolute Pardon

Blanket pardon to classes of persons, guilty of Includes any crime and is exercised individually
political offenses
May still be exercised before trial or The person is already convicted
Investigation
Looks backward- it is as if he has committed no Looks forward- he is relieved from the
Offense consequences of the offense, but rights not
restored unless explicitly provided by the terms of
the pardon
Public act which the court shall take judicial notice Private act of the President and must be
Of pleaded and proved by the person pardoned
Valid only when there is final judgment Valid if given either before or after final judgment
Both do not extinguish civil liability

So unsa man consequence ana?

o If a convict has been extended pardon and he commits another crime which falls under the same title, he could be
considered as recidivist.
o Whereas a person who has been granted amnesty and he commits the same or another crime which fall under the
same title, for example he committed rebellion, he is granted amnesty then later on he committed sedition,
sedition and rebellion falls under the same title, he is not a recidivist because amnesty erased the crime as if he did
not commit any crime.

4. Absolute pardon.
o There are 2 kinds of pardon, the absolute pardon and the conditional pardon.
o Absolute pardon meaning there is no condition.
o Conditional pardon meaning there is a condition and the usual condition is the convict should not commit
any other infraction during the remaining period of his sentence/

5. Prescription of the crime

o refers to the loss of the right of the state to prosecute, nawala iyang right to prosecute the criminal

6. Prescription of the penalty

 What’s the difference between prescription of the crime and prescription of the penalty?
o Prescription of the crime refers to the loss of the right of the state to prosecute or to file a case against
the criminal whereas prescription of penalty, this refers to the loss of the right of the state to execute the
final sentence
o Prescription of penalty presupposes that the accused has already been convicted and the decision has
already become final and executory but the convict has escaped the service of his sentence.

Page 119 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

o So after a certain period of time, the penalty is prescribed if the govt or the state fails to recapture the
convict then the right of the state to execute the final sentence shall prescribe or may prescribe.

7. Marriage of the offended woman, this refers to the private crimes.

o Although rape has already been classified as a crime against person and not anymore a private crime but
under the amendment of the rape law.
o Still marriage between the accused and the victim would extinguish the crime or the liability.
o Bisan pa kung mausab na ang balaud sa rape, dili na siya private crime kundi crime against person or
public crime na siya.
o Ang rule kung magminyo ang akusado ug ang iyang gi-rape, ma-erase ang crime or ang criminal liability
naa lang gihapon.

Art. 90. Prescription of crime. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in
twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those punishable by arresto
mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the
rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19,
1966).

o This is applicable to crimes under the revised penal code because special laws, crimes under special laws have their
respective prescriptive period as provided sa kanang balaud nga nag define ana nila.
o Kung wala man gibutang kung pila ang prescriptive period kanang maong crime ng gi-state sa us aka special penal
law, nay laing balaud nga naghatag ug prescriptive periods para sa mga crimes penalized or defined under special
laws

o Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in 20 years.
o Crimes punishable by other affected penalties shall prescribe in 15 years.
o Prision mayor15 years.
o Correctional penalty, presyon correctional?.... 10 years
o What about distiero? Distero is a correctional penalty. Tanawa to ninyo sa article 25… that is 10 years
o Arresto mayor which shall prescribe in 5 years
o Libel or similar offences?... 1 year libel.
o Oral defamation and slander within 6mos. Now by the way, kaning 6mos diri … there are 2 kinds of oral
defamation, grave oral and light oral.
o Grave oral - 6mos period refers to grave oral
o Light oral defamation is only 2mos because it is punishable only by arresto menor and
o Light offences prescribed in 2mos.
o Light offences are those offences under article 25, are punishable only by arresto menor or fine 200 pesos
or below.
o Compound kana bitaw duha.
o For example giingon nga presyon correctional to presyon mayor then the higher penalty will be the basis
of prescription or miingon ang balaud nga imprisonment, arresto mayor and fine so the basis kung asa
mas taas.
o Now when the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, the crime could no longer be
filed on the next working day. We are talking here on prescription. So ayaw paabuta nga mo lapas.
o Ang mga special laws dubay kaugalingon nga prescriptive periods.

Page 120 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

o Ang prescriptive period sa mga crimes punishable by special laws naa mismo sa balaud nga nag define
anang maong crime. So for example the anti terror act, the human security act, naa diha sa maong balaud
kung pilay prescriptive period sa crime nga terrorism.
o Just in case ang maong balaud nga special law wala nag provide kung pilay prescriptive period, ang karang
balaud, act no 3763 provides penalty or prescriptive period.

Art. 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the
filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.
The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago.

 Prescriptive period of the crime shall commence to run from the day of which the crime was discovered of the
offended party the authorities order agents.
 So as a rule the prescriptive period of the crime will start to run on the very day that it is committed provided that
the same is discovered by the private offended party or by persons in authority or by their agents.
o e.g. eric john killed Reuville in an isolated place. Super mingaw kaau. After killing reuville, he buried the
dead body. Eric john did not know that at the time of the killing, kristel joy saw the incident, which is a
10yr old minor, which was afraid to tell anybody what he saw. When kristel joy was already 40yrs old, she
went to the police and narrated to the police when he was 10 yrs old. Based on the declaration of kristel
joy, the police filed a murder case against eric john. Eric john filed a motion to quash in court arguing that
the case has already prescribed, he argued that murder is punishable by reclusion perpetua and under art.
90 of the RPC crimes punishable by Rec Perpetua have the prescriptive period of 20 yrs only, consider that
the crime was committed 30yrs ago then the same has already prescribed. If you are the judge, would you
grant the motion? NO!
 Under the RPC that prescriptive period will start to run only upon the discovery by the offended party, by persons
of authorities or their agents. In the problem given, the crime was discovered by agents of persons of authorities
just recently when kristel joy decided to report to the police, therefore the prescriptive period only started to run
when the crime was reported to the police and not when the crime committed.
o e.g. Ramon isagani killed edhona then abandoned the corpse of edhona with several stab wounds. The
next day the police discovered the corpse of edhona, they were not able to file a criminal case because
there were no witnesses, the place was isolated and nobody came forward that witnessed the incident.
30 years after, Joseph paul came to the police station declaring that he saw the incident. Based on the
declaration they filed a murder case against ramon isagani. Ramon Isagani filed a motion to quash in court
arguing that the case has already prescribed. Is the motion meritorious? YES! No further explanation by
judge DI.
 Under the RPC that prescriptive period will start to run only upon the discovery by the offended party, by persons
of authorities or their agents . The same shall be interrupted upon the filing of the complaint or information before
the prosecutors office or in court. In connection with crim pro, under Crim Pro, the filing of the complaint before
the prosecutors office or in court shall interrupt the running of the prescriptive period. In other words, even if
despite how many years the complaint is stagnant in the prosecutors office or in the court the crime will not
prescribe. Why? Because the prescriptive period will stop to run while the case is pending before the prosecutors
office.
 The same shall commence to run when such proceedings terminate without the accused being acquitted or
convicted or unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused. Kung ma dismiss without his fault
mu dagan nasad.
o e.g. the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, it can be refiled but the fiscal was delayed in refiling then
the prescriptive period will start to run. Why prescribe? Because the prescriptive period will run again
after the case is dismissed without the fault of the accused.
 The term of prescription will not run when the accused is absent from the Philippine archipelago.
 Case: falsification of public docus. Ang nahitabo ani, ang yuta gibuhat buhatan ug deed of sale aron ang title
matransfer niya. If titled, has to be registered with Register of Deeds. Now, the owner, did not know nga

Page 121 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

natransfer na diay tungod atong fictitious sale. He discovered this more than 15 years after. Nahibung siya sa title
sa iya yuta din a iya. He found out in the RD na gibalgya daw niya to another person. Filed falsification of public
docu against the accused, the one who falsified a deed of sale. Accused raised prescription. Private complainant:
Dili ui kay bag-o pa siya kahbaw although 15 years ago gifalsify. RPC provides to start to run on the day discovered
by offended party.
o Held: SC said that the crime has already prescribed. Because the private complainant has constructive
notice. Registration of deed of sale is a notice to the whole world. So there is constructive notice. (Cabral
vs. Puno)

 NOTE: prescription for continuing crimes does not run

 Bar question: The accused commited slight physical injuries (aresto menor, a light offense). Prescribe in 60 days or
2 months. Ni-prescribe na. So gicharge niya for higher offense, attempted homicide. which has a penalty of
presion correccional. So, wa pa prescribe. Now, Court said that crime committed only slight physical injuries.
 Question: Should the Court acquit or convict the accused?
Answer: So, accused cannot be convicted of lesser office if the lesser ffense has already prescribed. If prescribe na
jud, wa na jud! (Francisco vs CA)

Art. 92. When and how penalties prescribe. — The penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows:
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which
prescribes in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.

 PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
o This presupposes that there has been a sentence and the sentence has become final and executory, the
decision has become final and executor. Aside from that, one thing that you are going to take note is that
the convict must already been serving his sentence and escaped because if the convict has escaped
before serving his sentence, even if the decision has become final and executor, the prescriptive period
for the penalty will not run.
o EXAMPLE. The accused has filed bail, on the case that his case is scheduled for promulgation of judgment,
shall we say, the crime for example is homicide, reclusion temporal, the prescriptive period under Art. 92
is 15 years, on the date the judgment is promulgated, the accused did not anymore appear, example he
was granted bail because the evidence against him is not strong. However, on the date of promulgation
of judgment, he did not appear, he did not appeal the decision after 15 days has become final and
executor. The convict after 30 years, he was arrested. The penalty has not yet prescribed. When he
escaped or evaded his sentence he was not serving his sentence yet.
o The accused must be committing the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence in order that the penalty
must start or the prescriptive period must start to run.
o Look at the prescriptive period of light felonies, it is 1 year. This is different from light offenses.
You notice that the prescriptive period for light offenses is only 2 months but if the accused has already
been convicted and imposed of the penalty of light penalty, such as arresto menor, the prescriptive
period for that is 1 year, it is longer.

Art. 93. Computation of the prescription of penalties. — The period of prescription of penalties shall commence to run
from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant
should give himself up, be captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no extradition
treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.

o EXAMPLE: The accused while serving sentence for arresto mayor, escaped. Unya after 4 years, 11 months, and 29
th
days, inig ka ugma ika 20 years na jud, nagsadya na siya kay mu prescribe na iyahang sentence. Nahubog,

Page 122 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

nakasumbag, nadakpan. What will happen to the prescriptive period? It stops to run. It did not prescribe,
because the prescriptive period interrupted from the time he committed a crime before the expiration of the
prescriptive period. Ang mahitabu ana, he will be serving the remaining portion of her sentence and the sentence
imposed upon him on the latest crime that he committed.
o In the case of PANGAN vs. GATBALITI, January 21, 2005, the SC reiterated Art. 93 of RPC by saying that prescription
of penalty starts to run when the accused is serving his sentence. Art. 93 of RPC applies only to those who are
convicted by final judgment and are serving sentence which consist in deprivation of liberty.
o The period of prescription of penalty begins only when the convict evades service of sentence by escaping during
the terms of his sentence.

o INFANTE vs. WARDEN

 The accused here is granted conditional pardon. Does the grant of conditional pardon stop the running of the
prescriptive period? Because the accused raised the defense of prescription when he was arrested, kay matod pa
niya, ni prescribe na oy. In this case, according to the SC, the grant of the conditional pardon stops the running of
prescriptive period, meaning to say the prescriptive period will not run during the time the accused is granted
conditional pardon.

Chapter Two
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. — Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.

 There are 2 KINDS of PARDON:

 Absolute Pardon
 Conditional Pardon
o Absolute Pardon means there is no condition. Conditional pardon means the pardon is extended with
condition and the usual condition is the convict should not commit any other crime.
o Commutation of Sentence is one of the power of the President to commute sentence. Commute means
to reduce the penalty.
o While serving sentence, dili ka magpabadlong didto, duna kay ma earn nga gitawag ug GCTA or good
conduct time allowance this is found in Art. 97.
o This is not automatically granted. This is granted by the Director of Prisons, dili ang warden nato diri.
o This GCTA, gamit pud ni sa Parole, as what we have learned, those who can serve the minimum period f
their sentence is qualified of parole.
o If the convict is granted parole that can decongest our jail.

Art. 95. Obligation incurred by person granted conditional pardon. — Any person who has been granted conditional
pardon shall incur the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed therein otherwise, his non-
compliance with any of the conditions specified shall result in the revocation of the pardon and the provisions of Article
159 shall be applied to him. (evasion of service of sentence)

o Basta ang sentence become final and executor, pwede na ka matagaan ug pardon. Naa ran a sa President. Maka
serve na gani ka sa at least 1/3 sa imu sentence, pwede na ka e recommend sa Board of Pardon and Parole.

Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. — The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length
and nature shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former.

o The original is considered as substituted. New sentence that is given by the President. EXAMPLE. Death,
gihimu nalang ug reclusion perpetua.

Page 123 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle him to the
following deductions from the period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of 20 days for each
month of good behavior;
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of 23
days for each month of good behavior;
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of 25 days for each month of good behavior; and
4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of 1
month for each month of good behavior.

Art. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. — A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentence shall be granted to
any prisoner who, having evaded the service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 58 of this
Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the
passing away of the calamity or catastrophe to in said article.
o During calamity, for example, gibagyo or linog or the penal institution caught fire. After 48 hours when
the announcement was made that the calamity is already gone, mubalik gani ka didto duna kay deduction
1/5 sa imuhang sentence. If dili ka my give up or surrender, pun-an pod ug 1/5 sa sentence loyalty award
na siya. Kung wa gyud ka mudagan bisag nahugno na ang building you will be entitled to 2/5.

Art. 99. Who grants time allowances. — Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for
good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.

o Under the new law the jail wardens may also be able to give GCTA.

Title Five
CIVIL LIABILITY

Chapter One
PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

Art. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

o If the court finds that you are guilty of a crime, you could also be held civilly liable, especially if there is a
private complainant. Wala manay problema if walay private complainant.
o EXAMPLE. Nadakpan kag shabu. Wala manay private complainant. So, dili ka pabayron civilly ang imu ra
jud is sentence or multa (fine) Kining civil liability lahi ni siya sa fine. Kay kanang fine part na siya sa
sentence.
o If there is a private complainant, for example, in a case of frustrated murder you are going to pay the
damages incurred, the expenses in the hospital, then the loss income. In fact, in addition, you are also
liable to his sleepless nights or moral damages.
o Are there instances that the accused is acquitted but nevertheless he is ordered to pay civil liability? YES.
o EXAMPLE. 1. If the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt. It is not also automatic because there are
instances wherein the accused is acquitted based on reasonable doubt but the court did not award civil
liability because the fact from which the civil liability of the accused may arise did not exist.
o EXAMPLE. 2. When the acquittal is due to EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE. That the accused is acquitted,
exempted from a crime, he can be held civilly liable. Of course there are circumstances wherein you
cannot be held civilly liable. Example in an uncontrollable fear and irresistible force, the co-accused being
used is not civilly liable but the inducer is liable.
o Then another is acquittal on criminal action for NEGLIGENCE. It does not also preclude the party in filing a
separate action especially if the civil action could be based on quasi-delict.

Page 124 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

o Another is when the court rules that the liability of the accused is plainly civil in nature. EXAMPLE. The
accused is charged with estafa pero after trial the court found out that the liability of the accused is purely
civil in nature. Necessarily the court will acquit the accused and direct to pay civil liability.

 DAMAGES THAT A VICTIM MAY RECOVER IN A CRIMINAL CASE:

o in crimes against properties- return of the property if possible, if not, its value
o in crimes against persons – reimbursement of expenses for hospitalization, medicine, lost income, loss of
earning capacity of the deceased, for death 50k, burial, wake and other expenses (must be supported by
receipts to be entitled)

Art. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. — The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions
1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liabilit y,
which shall be enforced subject to the following rules:

First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile or insane
person, and by a person under 15 years of age, or by one over 15 but under 18 years of age, who has acted without
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that
there was no fault or negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if
such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall respond with their own property, excepting property
exempt from execution, in accordance with the civil law.

Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented
shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may have received.
The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when the liability also attaches to
the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been
caused with the consent of the authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by
special laws or regulations.

Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or causing the fears shall be
primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons, those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the
latter that part of their property exempt from execution.

o This is the rules regarding civil liability, in certain cases. The exemption from ciriminal liability, as
discussed in subdivisions 1,2,3,5 of Art. 12 and paragraph 4 of Art. 11, does not include exemption from
civil liability. Meaning to say the accused can be held civilly liable.
o Then is subdivisions 1.2.3, those persons, insane or imbecile or minors. Those persons having custody
over them or their parents or guardians are civilly liable UNLESS it appears that there is no fault or
negligence on their part. Kung wala silay guardian, the insane, imbecile, or minor then their own
properties.
o Suppose a person who is civilly liable cannot pay due to insolvency, can they be subjected to subsidiary
imprisonment? You answer that question.
o In cases falling in subdivision 4 of Art. 11, this is avoidance of greater evil. The persons for whose benefit
the harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable.
o Then, there respected shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately or when the liability
also attaches to the government. INDEMNIFICAION shall be made in the manner prescribed by special
laws.
o In cases falling within subdivision 5 and 6 of Art. 12, the persons using violence, I discussed it,, shall be the
one civilly liable.

Page 125 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of establishments. — In default of
the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly
liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or
some general or special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses
from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have
notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within
the inn; and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may
have given them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of
robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.chan

o There are persons, although wala silay labot sa pag commit sa crime but they can be held civilly liable if
the accused himself cannot pay, mao ni siya ang gitawag ug SUBSIDIARY CIVIL LIABILITY.
o In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and any other persons or
corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments, in all cases where a
violation of municipal ordinances or some general or special police regulation shall have been committed
by them or their employees.
o Meaning to say, the owners may be held liable if there employees cannto pay. Mao nay concept sa
subsidiary civil liability.
 Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses
from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified
in advance the innkeeper himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and
shall furthermore have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them
with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
o Robbery here means robbery with force upon things. not for robbery with violence or intimidation on
persons UNLESS ilang employees ang robber.

Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall
also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by
their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

o Any kind of industry. Example those engaged in transportation business. So, duna kay taxi drivers, nya
ang imung taxi driver nakaligis kay reckless kayo nipadagan, na convicted. For example of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide, wa makabayad, kinsa man pabayron anan civil liability nga gi-award
ngadto sa heirs of course the operator because he is considered as an employer.
o Or driver of the department store who ran a pedestrian, the employer here must have engaged in some
kind of an industry or business.
o In one bar exam: Distinguish subsidiary liability from subsidiary imprisonment.
o The employer is liable or subsidiary liable when there employee committed a crime while in the
performance of their duties. So, if the employee committed a crime not in the performance of his duty,
the employer is not subsidiarily liable.
o In criminal proceedings, there is no need to implead the employer in the complaint. In fact in the decision
of the court there is no express statement that the employer is also civilly liable. Is this not in violation of
the right to due process of the employer? The answer is NO, because when the civil liability is not
satisfied after the court issued a writ of execution against the employee, there should be a motion for
subsidiary liability. In this motion during the hearing, the employer shall be called to court and be
notified.

Art. 104. What is included in civil liability. — The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code
includes:
1. Restitution;

Page 126 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

2. Reparation of the damage caused;

3. Indemnification for consequential damages.

 WHAT IS INCLUDED IN CIVIL LIABILITY

 Restitution – for crimes against property. So if the subject of the crime is the taking of the property, then the
property itself must be returned. If restitution is not anymore feasible then:

 Reparation of the damage caused. This is repair. EXAMPLE. Imu laptop gikawat, wala na mauli, pero kung naa pa,
marecover, it should be returned, whoever is in possession except if the present possessor has acquired the same
in a public sale, but not if not in public sale then he must return it.

 Indemnification for consequential damages. So either dunay restitution or reparation, the accused, in addition to
that shall also be required to pay indemnification or indemnity.

Art. 105. Restitution; How made. — The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance
for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by
lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be liable to him.
This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person in the manner and
under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.

o EXAMPLE. Mr. A stole the gold of B and sold it to C. Now, Mr. A is charged with theft. Can the court
order that C should return the gold to B? YES. Because under Art. 105, the restitution of the thing itself
must return whenever possible even if the same is in possession of the third person. Thus, C can run after
A for the price he made to A.
o Pananglitan ang laptop, ok si accused, gi prenda unya ang laptop ngadto sa ahensya, the laptop is owned
by B. After the conviction of A, the court in its decision likewise ordered the pawnshop to return the item
stole. Can the pawnshop ask the court to likewise order A to pay the amount that the pawnshop gave
when A pawned the item? NO. Because the pawnshop is not a party to the case. The remedy of the
pawnshop is to file a separate action.

Art. 106. Reparation; How made. — The court shall determine the amount of damage, taking into consideration the price
of the thing, whenever possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and reparation shall be made
accordingly.

o Reparation if restitution is not possible. In a rape case wherein the accused was made to pay the value of
the torn garments. US vs. YAMBORO.

Art. 107. Indemnification; What is included. — Indemnification for consequential damages shall include not only those
caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a third person by reason of the crime.

o Indemnification is different from moral damages. Exclusive ra ni siya sa RPC. This includes not only those
suffered by the injured party but also include the family and third persons by reason of the crime. The
indemnification here has the same concept as actual damages. But ang concept ani niya lahi sa moral
damages.
o EXAMPLE. Nakapatay ka, the moment the prosecution proved that homicide is committed or murder is
committed, automatic na nga nay P50T. In rape, once rape is proved, automatic na P50T e-award ngadto
sa victim.
o Dunay kaso, miabot didto sa SC. The accused is charged with or found guilty of 10 counts of rape for
having carnal knowledge over the same woman. In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, he was
ordered to pay indemnity in the amount of 50T for every count. On appeal, the accused questioned the
award of civil indemnity of each count arguing that the victim is the same woman. Ngano pabayron man

Page 127 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

ko sa kada kaso, usa ra man ang victim. The same woman. It must be only 50T not 500T. Is the
contention correct? NO. because according to Art. 100, it is not per victim, it is PER CRIME.
 So, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable since each count charges different felonious act and all must
be punished differently. The concomitant civil indemnity or each delicto or every criminal act should be adjudged.
 Since, said indemnity is mandatory upon finding the fact of rape it is distinct from and should not denominated as
moral damages which is based on different moral foundation. PP vs. JALOSJOS, November 16, 2001.
 IT IS NOT PER VICTIM, IT IS PER CRIME.
 Rape – 50T
 Incestous rape – 75T
 Imu gipatay – 100T (automatic)
o Aside from that, kana sa criminal case. Indemnification, pwede sad ang court mo award in addition to
that, mo award pa jud ug moral damages. Unya, what is the basis in awarding moral damages? Naa na sa
Art. 2219 of NCC.
o And from moral damages, the court will award exemplary damages. Kining Exemplary damages as far as
criminal cases is concerned, can be awarded if in the commission of the crime, there is one or more
aggravating circumstances.
o EXAMPLE. Nag rape ka, you are sentenced to reclusion perpetua, una aside from that automatic
indemnification of P50T, unya kanang kaso nga rape under Art. 2219 of the NCC, usa sa mga kaso pwede
mo award ang court ug moral damages, so pwede pud ka sentensyahan to pay moral damages. Amount?
Depende sa court.
o Nang rape unya diha may aggravating circumstance nga attack from behind, ignominy. Or like the case of
Maggi dela Riva, she was made to dance naked. The court may award, aside from moral damages,
exemplary damages due to the presence of aggravating circumstance.
o If the penalty imposable is indivisible penalty. Such as reclusion perpetua, we have learned that ordinary
mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances wala nay gamit, as far as the increase or decrease
of the penalty is concerned. The court should still make findings whether duna bay mitigating or
aggravating gamit ra gihapun na siya for future purposes, such as for granting pardon or parole, or in
awarding exemplary damages.
o So, mu make gihapon ug findings ang court if duna bay aggravating ug mitigating. Then, kanang sa actual
damages ang gasto didto sa hospital, that must be proven with proper evidence or supported with
evidence.

Art. 108. Obligation to make restoration, reparation for damages, or indemnification for consequential damages and
actions to demand the same; Upon whom it devolves. — The obligation to make restoration or reparation for damages
and indemnification for consequential damages devolves upon the heirs of the person liable.

o Kung patay na ang mga akusado ang iyang mga heirs pud ma liable. Hinumdumi to inyong civil law sa
succession. That the heirs is only liable up to the value or amount of the properties left by the decedent.
 The action to demand restoration, reparation, and indemnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person
injured.
o Restoration, reverse pud ni siya. Kadto sa victim ug mga heirs pwede pud makapangayo.
o EXAMPLE. Gipatay ang papa. Ang mga heirs, ang kadtong mga anak or asawa maoy makadawat sa award
sa indemnification; automatic na, murder or homicide, P50T, of course, excluding moral damages,
exemplary damages ug loss income, kung siya nagtrabaho, kwentahon to siya up to the age of 70. There
is a formula for loss income. Example 70, pila iyang age pagkamatay shall we say 40. 70 minus 40 equals
30, kada month pila madawat? Kung dako to siyag sweldo, dako ug loss income. That is still a nature of
indemnification, consequence na siya sa crime.

Art. 109. Share of each person civilly liable. — If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, the courts shall
determine the amount for which each must respond.

o Kung dunay principal, accomplice, dunay accessories, the court has to determine pila.

Page 128 of 129

 CrimNotes Exiled

Art. 110. Several and subsidiary liability of principals, accomplices and accessories of a felony; Preference in payment. —
Notwithstanding the provisions of the next preceding article, the principals, accomplices, and accessories, each within
their respective class, shall be liable severally (in solidum) among themselves for their quotas, and subsidiaries for those
of the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first against the property of the principals; next, against that of the accomplices,
and, lastly, against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment has been
made shall have a right of action against the others for the amount of their respective shares.

o Each class shall be solidarily liable, pananglitan dunay duha kabuok principal unya gi adjudge sila nga silay
principal unya pabayron ug 50T, dili gani to makabayad ang usa automatic liable ang usa. Solidarly.
o Whereas ang kadtong sa laing grupo, accomplice, subsidiarily, if the principal cannot pay, the accomplice
shall pay subsidiary. Sa same class solidary, sa sunod na class subsidiary.

Art. 111. Obligation to make restitution in certain cases. — Any person who has participated gratuitously in the proceeds
of a felony shall be bound to make restitution in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.

o What is the liability of a person who have benefitted from the proceeds or effects of the crime? If you do
not know, for example, roasted chicken stolen, you are not liable as accessories because one requisite to
become accessory of the crime is knowledge of the commission of the crime. However, under Art. 111,
you can be ordered to pay or make restitution equivalent to the extent of such participation.

Chapter Three
EXTINCTION AND SURVIVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY

Art. 112. Extinction of civil liability. — Civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and 103 of this Code shall be
extinguished in the same manner as obligations, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law.

o What are the modes of extinction of civil liability? PALOREMECONO

1. payment
2. loss
3. remission
4. merger
5. compensation
6. novation

Art. 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. — Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as provided in the next
preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed
by him, notwithstanding the fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or
has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or any other reason.
.
- Despite service of sentence, his civil liability shall subsist or even if the accused is granted amnesty, pardon, etc.,
probation or parole, his civil liability subsists. Meaning he is still civilly liable.

Page 129 of 129