Criminal Law Book 1: Atty. Mohammad Jamalul J. Giducos

CRIMINAL LAW
BOOK 1
ATTY. MOHAMMAD JAMALUL J. GIDUCOS
[email protected]
09177232179
CRIMINAL LAW
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.) Law
-Rule of conduct, just and obligatory,
promulgated by competent authority for
common observance and benefits.
CRIMINAL LAW
2.) Crime
-Act or omission punishable by law. It is an act
omitted or committed in violation of public law
forbidding or commanding it.
3.) Felony
-Act or omission punishable by The Revised
Penal Code.
4.) Offense
-Act or omission punishable by Special Laws.
5.) Infraction
- Act or omission punishable by LGU Ordinances.
CRIMINAL LAW
5.) CRIMINAL LAW

-Defined as a branch of public or municipal law,
which defines crimes, treats of their nature
and provides for their punishment.
6.) Omission
-Inaction, failure to do a positive duty, which
one is bound to do.
7.) Act
-Any bodily movement tending to produce some
effect in the external world.
BASIC MAXIMS
IN CRIMINAL LAW
1.) Doctrine of PRO REO

-Whenever a penal law is to be constructed
or applied and the law admits of two
interpretations, one lenient to the offender, and
one strict to the offender, the former
interpretation, which is lenient or favorable to
the offender, will be adopted.
BASIC MAXIMS
IN CRIMINAL LAW
1.) Doctrine of PRO REO

• All doubts shall be construed in favor of the
accused.
• Presumption of innocence of the accused.
BASIC MAXIMS
IN CRIMINAL LAW
2.) NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA

SINE LEGE
• There is no crime when there is no law
punishing the same.
• There is no common law crime in the
Philippines.
BASIC MAXIMS
IN CRIMINAL LAW
2.) NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA

SINE LEGE
Common Law Crimes are wrongful
which the community condemns as
contemptible, even though there is no
law declaring the act criminal.
BASIC MAXIMS
IN CRIMINAL LAW
3.) Actus on Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit

Rea
• The act cannot be criminal where the mind
is not criminal.
• Mistake of Fact
MISTAKE OF FACT
• Misapprehension of fact on the part of the person
who caused injury to another. He is not criminally
liable.
-Requisites:
1. The act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believe them to be
2. Intention is lawful.
3. Mistake must be without fault or carelessness by the accused.
BASIC MAXIMS
IN CRIMINAL LAW
4.) Actus me invito est meus actus

• An act done by me against my will is not
my act.
• Applicable to exempting circumstances
particularly paragraph 5 and 6 of Art. 12 of
the RPC. (Irresistible Force and
Uncontrollable Fear.)
PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL LAW
1.) To reform (reformation);

2.) To deter others (deterrence);
3.) To prevent the offender from committing further
crimes (prevention);
4.) To defend the state against crimes (self-
defense);
5.) To set an example (exemplarity).
SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
1.) The Revised Penal Code (Act. No.

3815) which took effect on January 01,
1932;
2.) Acts of the Philippine Legislature,
National Assembly, Congress of the
Philippine, Batasang Pambansa,
Presidential Decrees, Executive
Orders, etc.;
RULES ON CONSTRUCTION
OF PENAL LAWS
• A penal law is liberally constructed in

favor of the offender.
• Quantum of evidence is PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not

mean such a degree of proof, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute
certainty. Moral certainty only is required,
or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
PROOF BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
• Criminal cases are decided not on the

weakness of the defense but on the
strength of the evidence of the prosecution.
• Cases maybe dismissed even in trial in
absentia
LIMITATIONS
in Passing Penal Laws
• The law must not be an “ex post facto” nor a bill
of attainder.
• Must adhere to “due process clause”
• Substantive
• Procedural
• Must not be cruel, degrading, inhuman etc.
PARTS OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
1.) Principles affecting Criminal Liability (Arts.

1-20)
2.) Penalties including liability (Arts. 21 to 113)
3.) Specific Felonies and their Penalties (Arts.
114-366)
EFFECTIVITY
OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE:
January 1, 1932.
THREE GENERAL CHARACTERISITICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW
1.) GENERALITY
• That the law is binding upon all persons who
reside or sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of
age, sex, color, creed or personal circumstances.
(Art. 114, NCC);
Exceptions to GENERALITY:
1. Treaty stipulation
2. Laws of preferential application
3. Principles of Public International Law.
Examples:
• Sovereigns and other head of state.
• Ambassador, minister plenipotentiary, minister
resident and charges d' affaires.
Except…
• But consuls, vice-consuls and other

foreign commercial representatives can
not claim the privileges and immunities
accorded to ambassadors and ministers
THREE GENERAL CHARACTERISITICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW
2.) TERRITORIALITY
• That the law is applicable to all crimes committed
within the limits of Philippine territory, which
includes its atmosphere, interior waters and
maritime zone. (Art. 2, RPC, see Art. 1 of the
Philippine Constitution);
THE NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,
with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the
insular shelves, and other submarine areas.
The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of
the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
Article 2 of the RPC
Binding even on crimes committed outside of the Philippines.

1. Offenses committed while on Philippine ship or airship.
2. Forging or counterfeiting any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or the obligations and securities issued by the
government.
3. Introduction into the country of the above mentioned
obligations and securities.
4. While being public officers and employees, an offense is
committed in the exercise of their functions.
5. Crimes against national security and the law of the nations
defined in title I of Book II
THREE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF CRIMINAL LAW
3.) IRRETROSPECTIVITY OR PROSPECTIVITY

• That the law does not have any retroactive effect
(Art. 4, NCC)
• Except
• If it favors the offender (Art. 22, RPC)
• Who is not a habitual criminal (Art. 62, par. 5
RPC).
OF CRIMINAL LAW
• Penal laws shall not be given retroactive effect.

Acts or omission will only be subject to a penal law
if they are committed after a penal law had already
taken effect. Penal laws operate only
prospectively.
• Exception: If the penal law is favorable to the
accused.
• Exception to the exception:
• If the accused is habitual delinquent.
• If the law say so
OF CRIMINAL LAW
A, was convicted for illegal Possession of

firearm in 1995. The penalty for illegal Possession
of Firearm at that time was 12 years and 1 day to
20 years. In 1998 a law was passed lowering the
penalty to 6 years and 1 day to 10 years. Will the
new law be given retroactive effect to “A” that is
now serving his sentence?
OF CRIMINAL LAW
• Answer:
Yes, the law can be retroactively
applied because it is favorable to the
accused.
• Will your answer be the same if A is
habitual delinquent?
FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
• ART. 3
-FELONIES (Either by dolo or culpa)
ELEMENTS
a.) There must be an act or omission
b.) Such act or omission is punishable by RPC; and
c.) Committed either by dolo or culpa.
FELONIES & CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH
AFFECT CRIMINAL LIABILITY
ELEMENTS OF DOLO ELEMENTS OF CULPA

• Intelligence • Intelligence
• Freedom • Freedom
• Criminal intent • Negligence/Imprudence
• Intent
-the purpose to use a particular means
to affect such result.
• Motive
-the moving power, which impels one to
action for a definite result, e.g. Jealousy,
Revenge.
 Proximate Cause
-That cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces injury,
and without which the result would not have
been committed (Bataclan V. Medina 102 Phil.
181)
 "el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal

causado"
PROBLEM
 A and B, who are brothers-in-law, had a quarrel. At

the height of their quarrel, A shot B with an airgun.
B was hit at the stomach, which bled profusely.
When A saw this, he put B on the bed and told him
not to leave because he will call a doctor. While A
was away, B rose from the bed, went into the
kitchen and got a kitchen knife and cut his throat.
The doctor arrived and said that the wound in the
stomach is only superficial; only that it is a bleeder,
but the doctor could no longer save him because
B’s throat was already cut. Eventually, B died. Rule?
PROBLEM
ANSWER:
The Supreme Court rationalized that what made B cut

his throat, in the absence of evidence that he wanted
to commit suicide, is the belief that sooner or later, he
would die out of the wound inflicted by A. Because of
that belief, he decided to shorten the agony by cutting
his throat. That belief would not be engendered in his
mind were it not because of the profuse bleeding
from his wound. Now, that profusely bleeding wound
would not have been there, were it not for the wound
inflicted by A.
• MALA INSE
-An act mala inse is a wrong act from its

very nature as those felonies punished in
the Revised Penal Code.
• MALA PROHIBITA
-An act mala prohibita is a wrong

because law prohibits it. Without the law
punishing the act, it cannot be
considered wrong.
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita
As to Nature Wrong from its very Wrong because it is
nature prohibited by law
As to use of Good faith is a valid Good faith is not a
good faith as defense; unless the defense.
a defense crime is the result of
culpa.
As to use of Intent is an element. Criminal intent is
intent as an immaterial
element
As to degree The degree of The act gives rise to a
of accomplishment of the crime only when it is
accomplishm crime is taken into consummated.
ent of the account in punishing
crime the offender.
Mala in Se Mala Prohibita
As to mitigating Mitigating and aggravating Mitigating and aggravating
circumstances circumstances are taken into circumstances are generally
and aggravating account in imposing the not taken into account.
circumstances penalty.
As to degree of When there is more than Degree of participation is

participation one offender, the degree of generally not taken into
participation of each in the account. All who
commission of the crime is participated in the act are
taken into account. punished to the same
extent.
As to persons Penalty is computed on the The penalty on the
criminally liable basis of whether that of offenders are the same
principal offender or merely whether they are merely
an accomplice or accessory. accomplices or accessories.
As to what law Violations of the RPC Violations of Special Laws
are violated (General Rule) (General Rule)
How can we prove Criminal Intent?
- Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is
shown by the overt act of a person, so criminal intent is
presumed to exist only if the act is unlawful. It does not
apply if the act is not criminal.
• The presumption of criminal intent may arise from

proof of the criminal act and it is for the accused to rebut
this presumption.
• However, in some crimes intent cannot be presumed

being an integral element thereof; so it has to be proven
(i.e. in frustrated homicide, specific intent to kill is not
presumed but must be proven, otherwise it is merely
physical injuries).
Intent vs Motive
Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to

achieve the desired result; while motive is the moving
power which impels a person to act for a definite result.
Intent is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an
element of deliberate felonies; while motive is not an
element of a crime but only considered when the identity
of the offender is in doubt.
CASE STUDY:
QUESTION:
Motive is essential in the determination of the commission
of a crime and the liabilities of the perpetrators. What are
the instances where proof of motive is not essential or
required to justify conviction of an accused?
1. When there is an eyewitness or positive identification of the
accused.
2. When the accused admitted or confessed to the commission of

the crime.
3. In crimes mala prohibita.
4. In direct assault, when the victim, who is a person
5. In authority or agent of a person in authority was attacked in the

actual performance of his duty (Art. 148, Revised Penal Code).
6. In crimes committed through reckless imprudence.

ART. 4 – WHO INCURS
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person:

1.) Committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended; and
2.) Performing an act which would be an offense
against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means (impossible crime – a crime of
last resort).
ART. 4 – WHO INCURS
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
• Error in personae (Mistake in Identity)

• Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in Blow)
• Praeter Intentionem (The act exceeds the
intent)
• Impossible Crime
Mistake of fact
- misapprehension of fact on the part of the
person who caused injury to another. He is not
criminally liable.
Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had
the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful; mistake
must be without fault of carelessness. (United States
v. Ah Chong)
PROBLEM

The accused and his family lived in a neighborhood
that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At one
time past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a
loaded gun to investigate what he thought were
footsteps of an unwanted guest. After seeing what
appeared to him an armed stranger out to rob them, he
fired his gun and seriously injured the man. When the
lights turned on, the man turned out to be a brother-in-
law on his way to the kitchen for some snacks. The
accused was indicted for? serious physical injuries.
Should he be acquitted or convicted, given the
circumstances? Why?

ANSWER:
He should be acquitted. Considering the given
circumstances - - frequent neighborhood robberies, time
was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be a
robber in the dark, the accused could have entertained
an honest belief that his life and limb and those of his
family are already in immediate and imminent danger.
Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he acted out
of an honest MISTAKE OF FACT, without criminal intent.
An honest mistake of fact negatives criminal intent and
absolves the accused from liability.
Causes which produce a different
result:
Mistake in identity of the victim – injuring one

person who is mistaken for another (this is a
complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., A intended
to shoot B, but he instead shot C because he
(A) mistook C for B.
In error in personae, the intended victim was

not at the scene of the crime. It was the actual
victim upon whom the blow was directed, but
he was not really the intended victim.
How does error in personae affect
criminal liability of the offender?
Error in personae is mitigating if the crime

committed is different from that which was
intended. If the crime committed is the same
as that which was intended, error in personae
does not affect the criminal liability of the
offender.

Mistake in blow (aberratio ictus) – hitting
somebody other than the target due to lack
of skill or fortuitous instances (this is a
complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C
were walking together. A wanted to shoot B,
but he instead injured C.
In aberratio ictus, a person directed the

blow at an intended victim, but because of
poor aim, that blow landed on somebody
else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim
as well as the actual victim are both at the
scene of the crime.

Aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a
complex crime. This being so, the penalty for
the more serious crime is imposed in the
maximum period.

A and B are enemies. As soon as A saw B at the distance, A
shot at B. However, because of poor aim, it was not B who
was hit but C. You can readily see that there is only one
single act—the act of firing at B. In so far as B is concerned,
the crime at least is attempted homicide or attempted
murder, as the case may be, if there is any qualifying
circumstance. As far as the third party C is concerned, if C
were killed, the crime is homicide. If C was only wounded,
the crime is only physical injuries. You cannot have
attempted or frustrated homicide or murder as far as C is
concerned, because as far as he is concerned, there is no
intent to kill. As far as that other victim is concerned, only
physical injuries— serious or less serious or slight.
Injurious result is greater than that intended –
causing injury graver than intended or expected (this
is a mitigating circumstance due to lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A wanted
to injure B. However, B died.
• Praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly

covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13.
• In order however, that the situation may qualify as
praeter intentionem, there must be a notable disparity
between the means employed and the resulting felony
PROBLEM:
A thought of killing B. He positioned himself at one corner
where B usually passes. When a figure resembling B was
approaching, A hid and when that figure was near him, he
suddenly hit him with a piece of wood on the nape, killing
him. But it turned out that it was his own father.
A-The crime committed is parricide, although what was

intended was homicide.
CASE STUDY
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a
Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed ten
(10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin
who are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window
and while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of
the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast
moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus.
Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and

Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two
jumped out of the bus? Explain.
CASE STUDY
ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and
Benjamin because of felonious act of running was the proximate
cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a
felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent
danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and
in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the
felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez,
41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
CASE STUDY:
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand,
causing upon him a two- inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack
Anacleto further because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did
not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police at the prosecutor's office
for attempted homicide. Twenty- five days later, while the preliminary investigation was in
progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection on
the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which
developed twenty five days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's
felonious act of causing a two-inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the
proximate cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no tetanus infection could develop
from the victim's right palm, and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have died with it.
CASE STUDY:
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to
concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt
insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding house and
placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon
opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing
Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar's
weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.
Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why?
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without the latter's consent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he placed the rubber
snake. Felipe was already committing a felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they
were part of "plans to get even with Cesar".
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, considering that they are not friends but in fact
rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
CASE STUDY:
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical
injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in
serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that she
had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held guilty of?
CASE STUDY:
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs
criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having
materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Even though B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be
given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
CASE STUDY:
While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the progress of work, began to use abusive language against the
men. B, one of the members of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a display of insubordination
and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently
believing himself to be in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned.
May A be held criminally liable for the death of B?
CASE STUDY:
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the river but because
of the strong current or because he did not know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person against whom a criminal assault is
directed believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide
in case death results by
drowning.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Requisites:
a. Act would have been an offense against

persons or property
b. Act is not an actual violation of another

provision of the Code or of a special penal law
c. There was criminal intent but the

Accomplishment was inherently impossible;
or inadequate or ineffectual means were
employed.
CASE STUDY
OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee, SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance into YO's coffee
thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after he drank the coffee. What criminal liability did
OZ incur, if any? Explain briefly.
ANSWER:
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred 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 on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RFC).
In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law imputes criminal
liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal though objectively, no crime was committed.
CASE STUDY
Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's parents in exchange
for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was
arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received by Carla's parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the
prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for "impossible crime to commit kidnapping" against Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when performed would be a crime against
persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against persons or property, Enrique could not have incurred an "impossible crime" to commit kidnapping. There is thus no
impossible crime of kidnapping.
CASE STUDY
Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. It is customary for the spinster to sleep in the nude because her room was warm. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room, the houseboy would follow and peek into the
keyhole. Finally, when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge, he climbed into the ceiling, went inside the room of his master, placed himself on top of her and abused her, not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. Was an impossible crime committed?
ANSWER:
Yes. Before, the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or property. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. An impossible crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. However, with new
rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons, it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. Note, however, that the crime might also fall under the Revised Administrative Code— desecrating the dead.
2 stages
in the development of a crime:
• 1. INTERNAL ACTS
• - e.g. mere ideas of the mind
• NOT PUNISHABLE
• 2. EXTERNAL ACTS
a. Preparatory acts - ordinarily not punishable except when
considered by law as independent crimes
(e.g. Art. 304, Possession of picklocks and similar tools)
b. Acts of Execution - punishable under the RPC
ART. 6 – STAGES IN THE
COMMISSION OF FELONY
1.) Consummated Felony, A Felony is

consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
2.) Frustrated Felony, A felony 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 cause independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
3.) Attempted Felony, There is an attempt

when the offender commence the crime
directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
Desistance
Desistance on the part of the offender negates
criminal liability in the attempted stage.
Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of
the felony. If under the definition of the felony,
the act done is already in the frustrated stage,
no amount of desistance will negate criminal
liability.
The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates

only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal
liability. Even though there was desistance on the part
of the offender, if the desistance was made when acts
done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender
will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about
his act
CASE STUDY
A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder. But B’s wound
was not mortal. What A then did was to approach B, and
told B, “Now you are dead, I will kill you.” But A took pity
and kept the revolver and left? What crime has been
committed
A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. A had

always been looking at B and had wanted to possess her
but their status were not the same. One evening, after A
saw B at her house and thought that B was already asleep,
he entered the house of B through the window to abuse
her. He, however, found out that B was nude so he lost
interest and left. Can A be accused of attempted rape?
CASE STUDY
ANSWER:
• He crime committed is attempted homicide and not
physical injuries, because there was an intention to kill.
The desistance was with the second shot and would not
affect the first shot because the first shot had already hit
B. The second attempt has nothing to do with the first.
• No, because there was desistance, which prevented the

crime from being consummated. The attempted stage
was erased because the offender desisted after having
commenced the commission of the felony.
CASE STUDY
When a person starts entering the dwelling of another,
that act is already trespassing. But the act of entering is
an ingredient of robbery with force upon things. You
could only hold him liable for attempted robbery when
he has already completed all acts performed by him
directly leading to robbery. The act of entering alone is
not yet indicative of robbery although that may be what
he may have planned to commit. In law, the attempted
stage is only that overt act which is directly linked to the
felony intended to be committed.
In the attempted stage, the definition uses the word
“directly.” This is significant. In the attempted stage, the
acts so far performed may already be a crime or it may
just be an ingredient of another crime. The word
“directly” emphasizes the requirement that the
attempted felony is that which is directly linked to the
overt act performed by the offender, no the felony he
has in his mind.
ATTEMPT AND FRUSTRATION - The difference
between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage
lies on whether the offender has performed all the
acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony.
Marks the commencement of the subjective phase –

that portion of the acts constituting a crime, starting
from the point where the offender begins the
commission of the crime to that point where he still
has control over his acts including their (acts) natural
course, If between those two points the offender is
stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own
voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not
been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not stopped
but continues until he performs the last act, it is
either consummated or frustrated.
The offender, after having taken the object out of the container
changed his mind and returned it. Is he criminally liable?
Do not make a mistake by saying that there is desistance. If the

crime is one of theft, the moment he brought it out, it was
consummated. The return of the thing cannot be desistance
because in criminal law, desistance is true only in the attempted
stage. You cannot talk of desistance anymore when it is already
in the consummated stage.
FORMAL CRIMES
Crimes that does not admit of

attempted nor frustrated stages,
Consummated all at once.
Crimes, which do not admit of Frustrated and
Attempted Stages:
1. OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, unless the law

provides otherwise
2. FORMAL CRIMES – consummated in one instance
(Ex: slander, adultery, etc.)
3. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
4. CRIMES CONSUMMATED BY MERE ATTEMPT
(Ex: attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason, corruption of
minors)
5. FELONIES BY OMISSION
6. CRIMES COMMITTED BY MERE AGREEMENT
(Ex: betting in sports: “ending,” corruption of public officers)
Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated
Stage:
• Rape
• Bribery
• Corruption of Public Officers
• Adultery
• Physical Injury
• Arson
ART. 8 – CONSPIRACY AND
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A CRIME
Conspiracy exists when two or more

persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a
Crime
Conspiracy to commit a Crime
Elements:
1. Agreement among 2 or more persons to
commit a crime
2. They decide to commit it
Examples:
Conspiracy to commit sedition
Conspiracy to commit rebellion
Conspiracy to commit treason
• Proposal, There is a proposal when the

person who has decided to commit felony
proposes it execution to some other person
or persons.
Proposal to Commit a Crime
Elements:
1. A person has decided to commit a crime
2. He proposes its commission to another
Examples:
Proposal to commit treason
Proposal to commit rebellion

Proposal is true only up to the point where the
party to whom the proposal was made has not
yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal
was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is
unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the
other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two
parties.

SEDITION;
Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. But
if Union B accepts the proposal, there will be
conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime
under the Revised Penal Code.
Not Punishable Except:

• Rebellion
• Sedition (only Conspiracy)
• Treason
• Coup d’etat
• Espionage
Kinds:
1.) Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony as a
crime.
Ex.
Conspiracy and Proposal to commit Rebellion
Conspiracy and Proposal to commit Treason
 Conspiracy to commit sedition.
• A, B, C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Their

agreement was to bring about the rebellion on a certain date. Even if
none of them has performed the act of rebellion, there is already
criminal liability arising from the conspiracy to commit the rebellion. But
if anyone of them has committed the overt act of rebellion, the crime of
all is no longer conspiracy but rebellion itself. This subsists even though
the other co-conspirator does not know that one of them had already
done the act of rebellion.
• This legal consequence is not true if the conspiracy is not a crime. If the
conspiracy is only a basis of criminal liability, none of the co-conspirators
would be liable, unless there is an overt act. So, for long as anyone shall
desist before an overt act in furtherance of the crime was committed,
such a desistance would negate criminal liability.
2.) Conspiracy and Proposal to commit felony

as a manner of incurring criminal liability.
(The act of one is the act of all)
OVERT ACTS IN CONSPIRACY MUST CONSIST
OF:
1. Active participation in the actual commission of the

crime itself, or
2. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being
present at the time of the commission of the crime,
or
3. Exerting a moral ascendancy over the other co-
conspirators by moving them to execute or
implement the criminal plan . People v. Abut, et al.
(GR No. 137601, April 24, 2003)
As a general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the
act of one is the act of all. This principle applies only to the crime
agreed upon.

The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a
crime not agreed upon. This happens when the crime agreed
upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are
distinct crimes.

Implied Conspiracy
Conspiracy need not be direct but may be inferred
from the conduct of the parties, their joint purpose,
community of interest and in the mode and manner
of commission of the offense.
The legal effects of implied conspiracy are:

a. Not all those present at the crime scene will be
considered conspirators;
b. Only those who participated in the criminal acts
during the commission of the crime will be
considered co-conspirators;
c. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
commission of the crime, without any act of criminal
participation, shall not render one criminally liable as
co-conspirator.
CASE STUDY:
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and
D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking
a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the
group alighted and after instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot
to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's
lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the
house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily
entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C,
forcing him to flee towards another direction. Immediately after A had
stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from
the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and
motored away. G died. F survived.
Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F?
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A. B, C, and
D was to kill F only. Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot
be held criminally therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since
the former was completely unaware of said killing.
For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be held liable therefore. Even if it was
only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless
liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led to the realization of
a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D,
however, although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene
before A could enter the house where the stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of
the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the execution of the crime by acts which
directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil. 38),
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical
injuries upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F.
CASE STUDY:
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's
son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented
from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and
CC were charged with murder.
In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of
avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing
ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil.
Will AA's defense prosper?
Answer:
No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB,
CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a legitimate defense of
relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB
and CC. ST's act to defend his father's life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is,
in the eyes of the law, a lawful act.
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve
their criminal objective of stabbing FT.
CASE STUDY:
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near
Joel's house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel
when the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come
from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from
behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the
authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned,
he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
liability of Arturo, if any. [5%]
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct
conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a
conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was
pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt
act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of
an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able
to actually participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place where the
crime was committed.
CASE STUDY:
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with
a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result.
Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
ANSWER:
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious
purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly
attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
ART. 9 – CLASSIFICATION FELONIES
ACCORDING TO GRAVITY
1.) Grave felonies

-those which the law attaches a capital punishment
or a penalty which is afflictive in any its periods.
2.) Less Grave Felonies
-those in which the penalties in their maximum
period are correctional;
3.) Light Felonies
-those infractions of law in which the penalty of
arresto menor or a fine of not exceeding P200.00
or both.
DEATH PENALTY
RECLUSION PERPETUA
Grave/
RECLUSION TEMPORAL Afflictive
(12 years and 1 day to 20 years)
RTC PRISION MAYOR

(6 years and 1 day to 12 years)
PRISION CORRECCIONAL
(6 months and 1 day to 6 years)
MTC Less Grave
ARRESTO MAYOR
(31 days to 6 months)
ARRESTO MENOR
(1 to 30 days)
Light
Destierro
ART 11. – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
• JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Those wherein the acts of the actor
are in accordance with law, and
hence, he incurs no criminal and civil
liability.
NO CRIME AT ALL!
ART 11. – JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
1.) Self-defense
Requisites:
a.) Unlawful aggression
b.) Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and
c.) Lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person defending himself.
People of the Philippines vs. Dolorido,
G.R. No. 191721, January 12, 2011).
• Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault,

or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury,
upon a person.
• In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong,
positively showing the wrongful intent to cause
injury.
• It “presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or
imminent danger–not merely threatening and
intimidating action.” It is present “only when the
one attacked faces real and immediate threat to
one’s life”
CASE STUDY
• A and B are long standing enemies. Because of their
continuous quarrel over the boundaries of their
adjoining properties, when A saw B one afternoon,
he approached the latter with a bolo in his hand.
When he was about five feet away from B, B pulled
out his revolver and shot A on the chest, killing him.
Is B criminally liable? What crime was committed, if
any?
CASE STUDY
• The act of A is nothing but a provocation. It cannot be
characterized as an unlawful aggression because in
criminal law, an unlawful aggression is an attack or a
threatened attack which produces an imminent danger
to the life and limb of the one resorting to self-defense.
In the facts of the problem given above, what was said
was that A was holding a bolo. That bolo does not
produce any real or imminent danger unless A raises his
arm with the bolo. As long as that arm of A was down
holding the bolo, there is no imminent danger to the life
or limb of B. Therefore, the act of B in shooting A is not
justified.
Test of Reasonableness

1. Weapon used by the aggressor
2. Physical condition, character, size
and circumstances of persons
defending himself
3. Place and occasion of assault
Which is considered as unlawful aggression?
a. imminent peril to one’s limb

b. belief of an impending attack
c. an intimidating or threatening attitude
d. grave insulting words
“STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE RIGHT”
• The law does not require a person to

retreat when his assailant is rapidly
advancing upon him with a deadly
weapon.
• Choose to fight and the law will protect
you.
ART 11. – JUSTIFYING
CIRCUMSTANCES
-In self-defense the burden of proof

rests upon the accused. His duty is to
established self-defense by clear and
convincing evidence; otherwise
conviction would follow from his
admission that he killed the victim.
(People v. Mercado 159 Phil. 453)
Kinds of Self-Defense
• Defense of person
• Self-defense of chastity – there must be an attempt to rape the
victim
• Defense of property – must be coupled with an attack on the
person of the owner, or on one entrusted with the care of such
property.
• Apply DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP under the Civil Code
• Self-defense in libel – justified when the libel is aimed at a
person’s good name.
• RA 9262 (BWS)
RA 9262 (BWS)
• The law acknowledges that women who have retaliated

against their partners or who commit violence as a form of
self-defense may have suffered from battered women
syndrome (BWS).
• BWS is a “scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.” (Source:
Salient Features: A Guide to Anti-Violence Against Women
and their Children [RA 9262]. Philippine Information Agency
and National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women,
2004. )
• Any victim who suffers from BWS should be diagnosed by a
psychiatric expert or a clinical psychologist.
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
• 2.) Defense of relative

Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the
one making the defense had no part in such provocation.
DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Grandfather
Spouse, ascendants, descendants
Son
Legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, Daughter
or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees
Relatives byGrandson Granddaughter

consanguinity within the fourth civil degree Grandson
CIRCUMSTANCES
3.) Defense of stranger

Elements:
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it.
3. Person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or
other evil motive.
CIRCUMSTANCES
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with

fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab B with a knife.
Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had
earlier challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter
was about to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a
justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%)
CIRCUMSTANCES
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of

stranger since he was not involved in the fight and he shot C
when the latter was about to stab B. There being no indication
that A was induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil
motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par 3, Article 11 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
CIRCUMSTANCES
4.) State of Necessity

-doing an act which causes damage to
another to avoid an evil or injury.
Requisites:
a.) The evil to be avoided actually exists;
b.) The injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it; and
c.) There be no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it.
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF HONOR
One night, Una, a young married woman, was sound
asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man on top of
her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who came home
a day early from his business trip, Una let him have
sex with her. After the act, the man said, "I hope you
enjoyed it as much as I did." Not recognizing the voice,
it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her
husband. Furious, Una took out Tito's gun and shot
the man. Charged with homicide Una denies
culpability on the ground of defense of honor. Is her
claim tenable?
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF HONOR
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping
on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore
when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her.
Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo,who had returned
from fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but
allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to
have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself,
he said "Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did
Osang realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged,
Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to
death. When tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of
honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why?
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF HONOR
• No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because
the aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor.
In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the RPC, It is required
inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful
aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled
by the person making a defense.
• But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party
already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him, as in the case at
bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense. Paragraph 1, Article
11 of the Code does not govern.
• Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse
was finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a
grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
• A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall
of a factory compound which he was guarding, shot
and killed the latter. Upon investigation by the police
who thereafter arrived at the scene of the shooting,
it was discovered that the victim was unarmed.
When prosecuted for homicide, the security guard
claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of
property and in the performance of his duty as a
security guard.
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often

was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past
midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to
investigate what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited
guest. After seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger
looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his gun
seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on, the
unfortunate victim turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way
to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused was
indicted for serious physical injuries. Should the accused, given
the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted?
CIRCUMSTANCES
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
The accused should be convicted because, even

assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of
shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful
aggression on his person is not justified. Defense of
property or property right does not justify the act of
firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the
accused is already in imminent and immediate
danger. Although the accused acted out of a
misapprehension of the facts, he is not absolved
from criminal liability.
CIRCUMSTANCES
5.) Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right of

office.
6.) Obedience to superior order for a

lawful purpose.
CIRCUMSTANCES
5.) Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right of office.

Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, at
about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an
unsavory reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her
bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia
went to a nearby police station and sought the help of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie
Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes
introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and
ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun
continued to run and when he was about 7 meters away, Pat, Reyes shot him in the
right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending
to pass through an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away,
he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought
Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes
was subsequently charged with homicide. During the trial, Pat Reyes raised the
defense, by way of exoneration, that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the
defense tenable?
CIRCUMSTANCES
Fulfillment of duty or exercise of right of office.
No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of

having acted in the fulfillment of a duty requires as a
condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed be
the unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due
performance of the duty (People vs. Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257).
It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty.
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already
crawling, there was no need for Pat, Reyes to shoot him
further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which
brought about the cause of death of the victim.
ART. 12 – EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES
-those wherein there is an absence in

the agent of the crime any of the conditions
what would make an act voluntary and,
hence, although there is no criminal liability,
there is civil liability.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are
those ground for exemption from punishment
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime of
any of the conditions which make the act voluntary,
or negligent.
Basis: The exemption from punishment is based
on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on
the part of the accused.
A person who acts WITHOUT MALICE (without
intelligence, freedom of action or intent) or WITHOUT
NEGLIGENCE (without intelligence, freedom of action
or fault) is NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE or is EXEMPT
FROM PUNISHMENT.
· There is a crime committed but no criminal
liability arises from it because of the
complete absence of any of the conditions
which constitute free will or voluntariness of
the act.
Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances

is a matter of defense and must be proved by
the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
CIRCUMSTANCES
1.) An imbecile or an insane person,

unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval;
IMBECILE- Those whose mental maturity is
between the age 3-7 yrs old.
2 Tests
• In People v. Rafanan, decided on November 21, 1991, the

following are the two tests for exemption on grounds of insanity:
• (1) The TEST OF COGNITION, or whether the accused acted with
complete deprivation of intelligence in committing said crime; and
• (2) The TEST OF VOLITION, or whether the accused acted in total
deprivation of freedom of will.
2.) A person under nine years of age;
3.) A person nine years old and over and under fifteen,
unless he has acted with discernment;
Under RA 9344 (as amended by RA10630) or

the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, a minor
15 years old and below is exempt from
criminal liability.
Above 15-below 18
 With discernment- liable but entitled to
privileged mitigating
 Without discernment- exempt from criminal
liability
CIRCUMSTANCES
Discernment - mental capacity to fully appreciate the
consequences of the unlawful act which is shown by
the:
1. Manner the crime was committed.
2. Conduct of the offender after its commission.
CIRCUMSTANCES
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; (NO
CIVIL LIABILITY)
FORTUITOUS EVENT
• UNFORESEEN, IF FORESEEN, INEVITABLE

• ACTS OF GOD
CIRCUMSTANCES
5.) Any person who acts under the
compulsion of irresistible force;
6.) Any person who acts under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of an equal
or greater injury; and
7.) Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by
some lawful insuperable cause.
Insuperable Cause
Some motive, which has lawfully, morally, or
physically prevented a person to do what
the law command.
Elements:
1. An act is required by law to be done.
2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. His failure to perform such act was due
to some lawful or insuperable cause.

CIRCUMSTANCES
• Other cases of non-liability for a felony:
1.) Prescription;
2.) Relationship in crimes of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief (Art. 332);
3.) Relationship in some accessories (Art. 20);
4.) Pardon by offended party and marriage between
offender and offended party;
5.) Infliction of physical injuries under stated
conditions (Art. 247);
6.) Amnesty; and
7.) Pardon by the Chief Executive.
8.) Instigation
ARTICLE 13. MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
• MITIGATING – (Art. 13) those that have the effect

of reducing the penalty because there is a
diminution of any of the elements of dolo or culpa
which makes the act voluntary or because of the
lesser perversity of the offender.
CIRCUMSTANCES
1.) Those mentioned in the preceding chapter
when all the requisites necessary to justify
the act are not attendant.
• Incomplete self-defense. Unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim is an
indispensable requisite in order to be entitled
from privileged mitigating circumstances (P.
v. Mazo, Oct. 17, 2001)
CIRCUMSTANCES
2.) Under eighteen or over seventy years old.

-above 15-below 18 acting with discernment
-above 15-below 18 acting w/o discernment
(exempting)
-15 and below (exempting)
CIRCUMSTANCES
• 3.) No intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed. (Praeter Intentionem)
• There must be a notable disproportion between the intent and the resulting
crime
CIRCUMSTANCES
4.)Sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.
-This is mitigating only if the crime was committed on the
very person who made the threat or provocation.
- The SC used to lock “immediately” to 1 hour.
- It became 22 hours in one case.
- In PEOPLE V. DIOKNO, a Chinaman eloped with a
woman. Actually, it was almost three days before
accused was able to locate the house where the
Chinaman brought the woman. Sufficient provocation is
present.
CIRCUMSTANCES
5.) Act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave

offense to the one committing the felony.
-The vindication need not be done by the person upon
whom the grave offense was committed.
-The word “immediate” here does not carry the same
meaning as that under paragraph 4. The word “immediate”
here is an erroneous Spanish translation because the
Spanish word is “proxima” and not “immediatementa.”
CIRCUMSTANCES
6.) Having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to
have produced passion or obfuscation.
a. Sufficient Provocation (para 4)
b. Vindication of Grave Offense (para 5)
c. Passion or Obfuscation (para 6)
The three (3) cannot exist at the same time.
CIRCUMSTANCES
7.) Voluntary surrender.
Requisites:
a. The offender has not been arrested;
b. He surrendered himself to a person in authority or agent of a person
in authority; and
c. His surrender was voluntary. (P. v. Gadia, Sept. 21, 2001)
CIRCUMSTANCES
8.) Voluntary confession of guilt. Not
appreciated where accused appellant merely
proposed to the prosecution that he plead guilty
to the crime of homicide during the pre-trial for
murder, which was rejected by the prosecution.
(P. v. Quinicio, Sept. 13,2001)
CIRCUMSTANCES
9.) Offender is deaf and dumb, blind or

suffering from physical defects that
restrict his means of action, defense or
communication.
10.) Such illness of the offender as would
diminish the exercise of the will-
power of the offender without depriving
him of the consciousness of his acts.
Analogous Cases
• 60 years old with failing sight (Pp vs. Reantillo

and Ruiz)
• Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for
ransom analogous to vindication of a grave
offense. (Pp vs. Monaga)
• Voluntary restitution of stolen property is similar
to voluntary surrender (PP vs Luntao)
ARTICLE 14. AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
• AGGRAVATING – (Art. 14) those which serves

to increase the penalty without exceeding the
maximum provided by law because of the
greater perversity of the offender as shown by
the motivating power of the commission of the
crime, the time and place of its commission,
the means employed or the personal
circumstance of the offender.
FORMS
Generic- Applicable to almost all crimes.

Specific- Applicable only to certain crimes.
Inherent- Already inherent in the crime.
Qualifying- It changes the nature of the
crime.
CIRCUMSTANCES
Aggravating when the crime is committed
in any or through the following:
1.) Advantage by the offender’s public
position;
2.) In contempt of or with insult to the public
authorities;
CIRCUMSTANCES
(3. )With insult or disregard of the respect due the offended party
(RANK, SEX, AGE) or if in the offended party’s DWELLING;
-If RANK, SEX and AGE are all together present, appreciate only
1
• Aggravating only in crimes against persons and honor, not against
property like Robbery with homicide (People v. Ga, 156 SCRA 790)
• Dwelling need not be owned by the offended party. It is enough that
he used the place for his peace of mind, rest, comfort and privacy.
CIRCUMSTANCES
4.) With ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE or
OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS;
-This is aggravating only when the very
offended party is the one who reposed the
confidence.
5.) In the palace of the Chief Executive (in his

presence, where public are gathered in
discharge of their duties, or in places of
religious worship);
CIRCUMSTANCES
6.) In NIGHT TIME
- after sunset before sunrise.
1. Nighttime
2. Darkness of the night
3. Purposely sought (must have taken
advantage of the nocturnity)
• UNINHABITED PLACE
• The inability to get help
• by a BAND
• At least four (4) armed male factor (all must be armed)
CIRCUMSTANCES
7.) ON THE OCCASION OF conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune;
8.) With the AID OF ARMED MEN to insure or
afford impunity;
CIRCUMSTANCES
9.) Accused is RECIDIVIST;
10.) Offender has been previously punished by
an offense with an equal or greater penalty
or for two or more crimes with lighter
penalty;
Recidivism (Art. 14,par 9) Repetition (Art. 14. par 10)
- The offender has been previously punished
-The offender at the time of the trial for
for an offense to which the law attaches an
one crime shall have been previously equal or even greater penalty or for two or
convicted by final judgment of another more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
embraced in the same title penalty.
Habitual Delinquency (Art. 62) Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160)

- The offender within a period of 10 years
from the date of his release or last conviction
-Committing a felony after having been
of crimes serious or less serious PI, robo, convicted by final judgment before
hurto, estafa or falsification, is found guilty beginning to serve such sentence or
third time or oftener. while serving sentence.
CIRCUMSTANCES
11.) In consideration of a PRICE, REWARD, OR
PROMISE;
12.) By means of inundation, FIRE, POISON,
EXPLOSION, stranding of a vessel or
intentional damage thereto, derailment of
locomotive, or by the use of any other
ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND
RUIN;
CIRCUMSTANCES
13.) With EVIDENT PREMEDITATION;
• Not to be appreciated where there is neither

evidence of planning or preparation to kill nor
the time when the plot was conceived.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
SUFFICIENT
LAPSE OF TIME
PLANNING (ENOUGH TIME EXECUTION
TO REGAIN
COMPOSURE)
CIRCUMSTANCES
14.) Employing CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE;
15.) Advantage be taken of SUPERIOR STRENGTH, or means
employed to weaken the defense;
Abuse of Superior Strength. Use of excessive force out of
proportion to the means available to the person attacked to
defend himself. The use of force must be deliberate on the
part of the malefactor. (People v. Almendras. Dec. 20, 2001)
CIRCUMSTANCES
16.) With TREACHERY;
Treachery. Exist when the offender commits any of the
crimes against person, employing means, methods or forms
in the execution thereof which tend directly ands specially to
insure its execution with out risk to himself arising form the
defense which offended party might make. (People v.
Perreras Dec. 5, 2001)
Suddenness of the attack does not by itself constitute treachery
in the absence of evidence that the manner of the attack was
consciously adopted by the offender to render the offended
party defenseless (People v. Ilagan, 191 SCRA 643).
CIRCUMSTANCES
17.) Means employed add IGNOMINY to the

natural effects of the act;
Dog style in Rape is ignominy. (G.R. No. L-
36941 June 29, 1984, People vs RAFAEL
SAYLAN)
People vs Torrefiel (1947)
• The novelty of the manner in which the accused raped the victim by
winding cogon grass around his genitals augmented the wrong done
by increasing its pain and adding ignominy thereto.
CIRCUMSTANCES
18.) After an UNLAWFUL ENTRY;
19.) A WALL, ROOF, DOOR, OR
WINDOW BE BROKEN;
20.) With the aid of persons UNDER
FIFTEEN YEARS of age or by mean of
MOTOR VEHICLES, motorized
watercrafts, airships or other similar
means; and
CIRCUMSTANCES
21.) Deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for its commission.
22.) Organized or syndicated crime group
(RA 7659-qualifying)
An organized or syndicated crime group means a
group of two or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one another
for purposes of gain in the commission of a crime.
23.) Use of Dangerous Drugs (RA 9165, sec
25-qualifying)
ARTICLE 15. THEIR CONCEPT
• ALTERNATIVE – (Art. 15) those which are

either aggravating or mitigating according to
the nature and effects of the crime and other
conditions attending to its commission.
• 09177232179
• Jams
• Mohammad Jamalul Giducos
• Relationship. Considered as generic

aggravating circumstances in crimes of
Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness. (P. v.
Toralba, August 9, 2001)
• Intoxication. It is mitigating 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. (People v. Domingo, August 9,
2001)
• Degree of instruction or education of
the offender.
ART. 16 – WHO ARE
CRIMINALLY LIABLE?
1.) Who are liable for Grave and Less Grave Felonies?
a.) Principals;
b.) Accomplices; and
c.) Accessories.
2.) Who are liable for Light Felonies?
a.) Principals; and
b.) Accomplices.
TAKE NOTE…
1. Determine if there is CONSPIRACY.

2. With CONSPIRACY- COLLECTIVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY, disregard
degree of participation.
3. Without CONSPIRACY- INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY, determine
degree of participation.
ART. 17 – WHO ARE PRINCIPALS?
1.) Principals who take direct part in the execution

of the Act;
2.) Principal who directly forces or induces others
to commit a crime; and
3.) Principals who cooperate in the commission of
the offense by another act without which it
would not have been accomplished.
Principal by Induction
1. PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE

2. IRRESISTABLE FORCE AND UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
3. WORDS OF COMMAND
WORDS OF ADVICE IS NOT INDUCEMENT!
WORDS UTTERED IN THE EXCITEMENT OF THE HOUR
People vs Valderrama (1993)
• Ernesto shouted to his younger brother Oscar, “Birahin mo na,
birahin mo na!” Oscar stabbed the victim.
• It was held that there was no conspiracy.
• Joint or simultaneous action per se is not indicia of conspiracy
without showing of common design. Oscar has no rancor with the
victim for him to kill the latter. Considering that Ernesto had great
moral ascendancy and influence over Oscar, being much older (35
years old) than the latter, who was 18 years old, and it was Ernesto
who provided his allowance, clothing as well as food and shelter,
• Ernesto is principal by inducement.
People v. Agapinay (1990)
• The one who uttered “kill him, we will bury him” while the felonious
aggression was taking place cannot be held liable as principal by
inducement.
• Utterance was said in the excitement of the hour, not a command to
be obeyed.
People v. Madall (1990)
• The son was mauled.

• The family was not in good terms with their neighbors. The father
challenged everybody and when the neighbors approached, he went
home to get a rifle.
• The shouts of his wife “here comes another, shoot him” cannot make
the wife a principal by inducement.
ART. 18 – WHO ARE
ACCOMPLICES?
• Those who not being included in Article

17, cooperate in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
ART. 19 – WHO ARE
ACCESSORIES?
1.) Those who have knowledge in the
commission of the crime;
2.) Take part subsequent to its commission
in any of the following manner:
a.) By profiting themselves or assisting
the offender to profit from the effects of
the crime;
ART. 19 – WHO ARE
ACCESSORIES?
b.) By concealing or destroying the body of

the crime or the effects or instruments thereof,
in order to prevent its discovery;
c.) By harboring, concealing, or assisting in
the escape of the principal of the crime if he
acts with abuse of public functions or when
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.
PD 1612
Anti-Fencing Law
FENCING is the act of any person who, with

intent to gain for himself or for another, BUY,
RECEIVE, POSSESS, KEEP, ACQUIRE,
CONCEAL, SELL, or DISPOSE of, or BUYS
and SELLS, 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.
ART. 20 – EXEMPTED
ACCESSORIES
• Spouse, ascendants, descendants,

legitimated, natural and adopted brothers
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees.
ART. 89 – HOW CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS
TOTALLY EXTINGUISHED?
1.) By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties;

and as to the pecuniary penalties, liability therefore 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
Art. 344. RPC
ART. 90 – PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
1.) Death, reclusion perpetua or temporal – 20 years

2.) Afflictive penalties – 15 years
3.) Correctional penalty (except arrestor mayor) – 5 years
4.) Crime of libel – 1 year
5.) Oral defamation and slander by deed – 6 months
6.) Light offenses – 2 months
ART. 91 – COMPUTATION OF
PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES
1.) The period of prescription commences to run from the day

on which the crime is discovered by the offended party,
the authorities or their agents;
2.) It is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information;
3.) It commences to run again when such proceedings
terminate without the accused being convicted or
acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him; and
4.) The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is
absent from the Philippines.
ART. 92 – WHEN AND HOW
PENALTIES PRESCRIBED
1.) Death and reclusion perpetua prescribed in
twenty (20) years;
2.) Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3.) Correcional penalties, in ten years, with the
exemption of the penalty of arresto mayor,
which prescribes in five years; and
4.) Light penalties, in one year
-END-
CASE STUDY:
• A hold order and warrant of seizure and detention were then issued by the
District Collector of Customs. Further investigation showed that Moonglow is
non-existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and
convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful
among others, for public officers to cause any undue Injury to any party,
including the Government. In the discharge of official functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. In their motion for
reconsideration, the accused alleged that the decision was erroneous because
the crime was not consummated but was only at an attempted stage, and that in
fact the Government did not suffer any undue injury.
• a) Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain. (3%)
Art 3. Acts and omissions punishable by law
are felonies (delitos).

Felonies – are committed not only by means of
deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa);
- There is deceit when the acts performed with
deliberate intent and there is fault when the
wrongful acts results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Acts – an overt body movement tending to

produce an effect to the eternal world

Mens rea - is defined as "a guilty mind, a guilty
or wrongful purpose or criminal intent“
It sometimes referred to in common legal

parlance as the gravamen of the offense
(bullseye of the crime).
This term is used synonymously with criminal

or deliberate intent
It does not mean that if an act or omission is

punished under the Revised Penal Code, a felony
is already committed.
For an act to be punishable -
THERE MUST BE A CONCURRENCE

BETWEEN THE ACT AND THE INTENT.
How felonies are
committed?
1. by means of deceit (dolo) - There is deceit when the act
is performed with deliberate intent.
Requisites: (Intentional Felonies)
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. intent
Examples: murder, treason, and robbery.
General Criminal Intent Specific Criminal Intent
An intention to do An intention to do definite

wrong act
Presumed to exist from Existence of the intent is
the mere doing of a not presumed
wrongful act
The burden of proving The burden of proving the
the absence of intent is existence of the intent is
upon the accused upon the prosecution as
such intent is an element
of the crime.
How can we prove Criminal Intent?
- Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is
shown by the overt act of a person, so criminal intent is
presumed to exist only if the act is unlawful. It does not
apply if the act is not criminal.
• The presumption of criminal intent may arise from

proof of the criminal act and it is for the accused to rebut
this presumption.
• However, in some crimes intent cannot be presumed

being an integral element thereof; so it has to be proven
(i.e. in frustrated homicide, specific intent to kill is not
presumed but must be proven, otherwise it is merely
physical injuries).
Criminal intent;
This is shown by overt acts, It
presupposes the existence of the two
subsequent elements
Freedom of action; The lack of freedom

makes one merely a tool
Intelligence - The lack of intelligence

makes one unable to determine
→ The morality of his acts
→ The effect of his actions
INTENT –Determination to do a certain thing;
an aim or purpose of the mind; it establishes
the nature and extent of the culpability.
DISCERNMENT – The mental capacity to

determine right from wrong, it is essential
element of intelligence.
MOTIVE – It is the moving power which impels

a person to do an act; important in robbery,
kidnapping; when the identity of the accused
is unclear; when the evidence to the
commission of a crime is purely
circumstantial; and lack of motive can aid in
showing the innocence of the accused
2.by means of fault (culpa) -
There is fault when the wrongful act
results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack
of skill.
a. Imprudence - deficiency of action; e.g. A
was driving a truck along a road. He hit B
because it was raining - reckless imprudence.
b. Negligence - deficiency of perception;

failure to foresee impending danger, usually
involves lack of foresight
Intentional Culpable
Act is malicious Not malicious
With deliberate intent Injury caused is

unintentional being
incident of another act
performed without malice
Has intention to cause Wrongful act results from

an injury imprudence, negligence,
lack of foresight or lack of
skill
Intent vs Motive
Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to

achieve the desired result; while motive is the moving
power which impels a person to act for a definite result.
Intent is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an
element of deliberate felonies; while motive is not an
element of a crime but only considered when the identity
of the offender is in doubt.
CASE STUDY:
QUESTION:
Motive is essential in the determination of the commission
of a crime and the liabilities of the perpetrators. What are
the instances where proof of motive is not essential or
required to justify conviction of an accused?
•
When there is an eyewitness or positive identification of the
accused.
When the accused admitted or confessed to the commission of

the crime.
In crimes mala prohibita.
In direct assault, when the victim, who is a person
In authority or agent of a person in authority was attacked in the

actual performance of his duty (Art. 148, Revised Penal Code).
In crimes committed through reckless imprudence.

Art. 4. Criminal liability shall be
incurred:
1.By any person committing a felony, 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 on
account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Mistake of fact
- misapprehension of fact on the part of the
person who caused injury to another. He is not
criminally liable.
Requisites:
1. that the act done would have been lawful had
the facts been as the accused believed them to
be;
2. intention of the accused is lawful; mistake
must be without fault of carelessness. (United States
v. Ah Chong)
Causes which produce a different
result:
Mistake in identity of the victim – injuring

one person who is mistaken for another (this
is a complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., A
intended to shoot B, but he instead shot C
because he (A) mistook C for B.
In error in personae, the intended victim was not

at the scene of the crime. It was the actual
victim upon whom the blow was directed, but
he was not really the intended victim.
How does error in personae affect
criminal liability of the offender?
Error in personae is mitigating if the crime

committed is different from that which was
intended. If the crime committed is the same
as that which was intended, error in personae
does not affect the criminal liability of the
offender.

In mistake of identity, if the crime committed
was the same as the crime intended, but on a
different victim, error in persona does not
affect the criminal liability of the offender.
But if the crime committed was different from
the crime intended, Article 49 will apply and
the penalty for the lesser crime will be
applied.
In a way, mistake in identity is a mitigating
circumstance where Article 49 applies.
Where the crime intended is more serious
than the crime committed, the error in
persona is not a mitigating circumstance
Mistake in blow (aberratio ictus) – hitting
somebody other than the target due to lack
of skill or fortuitous instances (this is a
complex crime under Art. 48) e.g., B and C
were walking together. A wanted to shoot B,
but he instead injured C.
In aberratio ictus, a person directed the

blow at an intended victim, but because of
poor aim, that blow landed on somebody
else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim
as well as the actual victim are both at the
scene of the crime.

Aberratio ictus, generally gives rise to a
complex crime. This being so, the penalty for
the more serious crime is imposed in the
maximum period.
Injurious result is greater than that

intended – causing injury graver than
intended or expected (this is a mitigating
circumstance due to lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong under Art. 13) e.g., A wanted to
injure B. However, B died.
Praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly
covered by paragraph 3 of Article 13.
In order however, that the situation may qualify

as praeter intentionem, there must be a notable
disparity between the means employed and the
resulting felony
Since in Art. 3, a felony is an act or omission
punishable by law, particularly the Revised
Penal Code,
• it follows that whoever commits a felony

incurs criminal liability
• it is important to note that if the criminal

liability arises from an omission , such as
misprision of treason or abandonment of
helpless persons,
• there must be a law requiring the

performance of such act.
In par.1 of Art. 4, the law uses the word “felony,”
that whoever commits a felony
incurs criminal liability. • A felony may arise not
only when it is intended, but also when it is the
product of criminal negligence.
What makes paragraph 1 of Article 4 confusing is

the addition of the qualifier
“although the wrongful act be different from what
he intended.” This is called
transferred intent.
The 2nd par. of Art. 4 makes a person liable even

if the accomplishment of his crime is inherently
impossible.
CASE STUDY
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a
Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed ten
(10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin
who are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window
and while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of
the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast
moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus.
Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and

Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two
jumped out of the bus? Explain.
CASE STUDY
ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and
Benjamin because of felonious act of running was the proximate
cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a
felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent
danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and
in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the
felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez,
41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
CASE STUDY:
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand,
causing upon him a two- inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack
Anacleto further because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did
not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police at the prosecutor's office
for attempted homicide. Twenty- five days later, while the preliminary investigation was in
progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection on
the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which
developed twenty five days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's
felonious act of causing a two-inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the
proximate cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no tetanus infection could develop
from the victim's right palm, and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have died with it.
CASE STUDY:
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to
concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt
insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding house and
placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon
opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing
Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar's
weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.
Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why?
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without the latter's consent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he placed the rubber
snake. Felipe was already committing a felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they
were part of "plans to get even with Cesar".
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, considering that they are not friends but in fact
rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
CASE STUDY:
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical
injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in
serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that she
had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held guilty of?
CASE STUDY:
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs
criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having
materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Even though B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be
given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
CASE STUDY:
While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the progress of work, began to use abusive language against the
men. B, one of the members of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a display of insubordination
and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently
believing himself to be in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned.
May A be held criminally liable for the death of B?
CASE STUDY:
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the river but because
of the strong current or because he did not know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person against whom a criminal assault is
directed believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide
in case death results by
drowning.
Which is not an impossible crime?
a. Wife not dying because poison used by her husband

was in fact sugar
b. Wife not dying because she has immunity to poison
used by her husband
c. Wife not dying because the quantity of poison used by
her husband was not enough
d. Wife not dying because the gun used by her husband
was empty of bullets
Art. 6. 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 by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Stages of Commission of a Crime
Attempted
· Overt acts of execution are started
· Not all acts of execution are present
· Due to reasons other than the spontaneous desistance of
the perpetrator
Frustrated
· All acts of execution are present
· Crime sought to be committed is not achieved
· Due to intervening causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator
Consummated
· All the acts of execution are present
· The result sought is achieved
Stages of a Crime does not apply in:
1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws
unless the otherwise is provided for.
2. Formal crimes (e.g., slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt.
Examples: attempt to flee to an enemy
country, treason, corruption of minors.
5. Felonies by omission crimes committed by
mere agreement.
Examples: betting in sports (endings in
basketball), corruption of public officers.
Desistance
Desistance on the part of the offender negates
criminal liability in the attempted stage.
Desistance is true only in the attempted stage of
the felony. If under the definition of the felony,
the act done is already in the frustrated stage,
no amount of desistance will negate criminal
liability.
The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates

only the attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal
liability. Even though there was desistance on the part
of the offender, if the desistance was made when acts
done by him already resulted to a felony, that offender
will still be criminally liable for the felony brought about
his act
CASE STUDY
A fired at B and B was hit on the shoulder. But B’s wound
was not mortal. What A then did was to approach B, and
told B, “Now you are dead, I will kill you.” But A took pity
and kept the revolver and left? What crime has been
committed?
A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. A had

always been looking at B and had wanted to possess her
but their status were not the same. One evening, after A
saw B at her house and thought that B was already asleep,
he entered the house of B through the window to abuse
her. He, however, found out that B was nude so he lost
interest and left. Can A be accused of attempted rape?
ATTEMPT AND FRUSTRATION - The difference
between the attempted stage and the frustrated stage
lies on whether the offender has performed all the
acts of execution for the accomplishment of a felony.
Marks the commencement of the subjective phase –

that portion of the acts constituting a crime, starting
from the point where the offender begins the
commission of the crime to that point where he still
has control over his acts including their (acts) natural
course, If between those two points the offender is
stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own
voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not
been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not stopped
but continues until he performs the last act, it is
either consummated or frustrated.
A and B are husband and wife. A met C who was willing to marry
him, but he is already married. A thought of eliminating B and to
poison her. So, he went to the drugstore and bought arsenic
poison. On the way out, he met D. D asked him who was sick in
the family, A confided to D that he bought the poison to poison
his wife in order to marry C. After that, they parted ways. D went
directly to the police and reported that A is going to kill his wife.
So the policemen went to A’s house and found A still unwrapping
the arsenic poison. The policemen asked A if he was planning to
poison his wife B and A said yes. The police arrested him and
charged him with attempted parricide. Is the charge correct?.
ANSWER:
No. Overt act begins when the husband mixed the poison with
the food his wife is going to take. Before this, there is no
attempted stage yet.
CRIMES WHICH DO NOT ADMIT OF A
FRUSTRATED STAGE:
1. RAPE
2. ARSON
3. BRIBERY
4. CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
5. ADULTERY
6. PHYSICAL INJURIES
7. THEFT
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially provides
a penalty therefore.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an

agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to commit
a felony proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a
Crime
Conspiracy to commit a Crime
Elements:
1. Agreement among 2 or more persons to
commit a crime
2. They decide to commit it
Examples:
Conspiracy to commit sedition
Conspiracy to commit rebellion
Conspiracy to commit treason
Proposal to Commit a Crime
Elements:
1. A person has decided to commit a crime
2. He proposes its commission to another
Examples:
Proposal to commit treason
Proposal to commit rebellion

Conspiracy is punishable in the following
cases: treason, rebellion or insurrection,
sedition, and monopolies and combinations in
restraint of trade.
Conspiracy to commit a crime is not to be

confused with conspiracy as a means of
committing a crime. In both cases there is an
agreement but mere conspiracy to commit a
crime is not punished EXCEPT in treason,
rebellion, or sedition. Even then, if the treason
is actually committed, the conspiracy will be
considered as a means of committing it and
the accused will all be charged for treason and
not for conspiracy to commit treason.
Proposal is true only up to the point where the
party to whom the proposal was made has not
yet accepted the proposal. Once the proposal
was accepted, a conspiracy arises. Proposal is
unilateral, one party makes a proposition to the
other; conspiracy is bilateral, it requires two
parties.

SEDITION;
Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. But
if Union B accepts the proposal, there will be
conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime
under the Revised Penal Code.
Composite Crimes
Composite crimes are crimes which, in substance,
consist of more than one crime but in the eyes of
the law, there is only one crime. For example, the
crimes of robbery with homicide, robbery with
rape, robbery with physical injuries.

In case the crime committed is a composite crime,
the conspirator will be liable for all the acts
committed during the commission of the crime
agreed upon. This is because, in the eyes of the
law, all those acts done in pursuance of the crime
agreed upon are acts which constitute a single
crime.
As a general rule, when there is conspiracy, the rule is that the
act of one is the act of all. This principle applies only to the crime
agreed upon.

The exception is if any of the co-conspirator would commit a
crime not agreed upon. This happens when the crime agreed
upon and the crime committed by one of the co-conspirators are
distinct crimes.

Implied Conspiracy
Conspiracy need not be direct but may be inferred
from the conduct of the parties, their joint purpose,
community of interest and in the mode and manner
of commission of the offense.
The legal effects of implied conspiracy are:

a. Not all those present at the crime scene will be
considered conspirators;
b. Only those who participated in the criminal acts
during the commission of the crime will be
considered co-conspirators;
c. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
commission of the crime, without any act of criminal
participation, shall not render one criminally liable as
co-conspirator.
CASE STUDY:
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and
D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking
a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the
group alighted and after instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot
to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's
lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the
house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily
entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C,
forcing him to flee towards another direction. Immediately after A had
stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from
the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and
motored away. G died. F survived.
Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F?
CASE STUDY:
ANSWER:
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A. B, C, and
D was to kill F only. Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot
be held criminally therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since
the former was completely unaware of said killing.
For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be held liable therefore. Even if it was
only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless
liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led to the realization of
a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D,
however, although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene
before A could enter the house where the stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of
the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the execution of the crime by acts which
directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil. 38),
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical
injuries upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F.
CASE STUDY:
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's
son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented
from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and
CC were charged with murder.
In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of
avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing
ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil.
Will AA's defense prosper?
Answer:
No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB,
CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a legitimate defense of
relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB
and CC. ST's act to defend his father's life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is,
in the eyes of the law, a lawful act.
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve
their criminal objective of stabbing FT.
CASE STUDY:
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near
Joel's house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel
when the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come
from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from
behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the
authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned,
he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
liability of Arturo, if any. [5%]
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct
conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a
conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was
pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt
act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of
an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able
to actually participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place where the
crime was committed.
CASE STUDY:
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with
a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result.
Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
ANSWER:
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious
purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly
attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
Art. 9. Grave felonies - are those to which
the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their are afflictive, in
accordance with Article 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 the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or
both is provided.
Art. 10. 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.
Circumstances affecting criminal
liability

1. Justifying circumstances;
2. Exempting circumstances;
3. Mitigating circumstances;
4. Aggravating circumstances; and
5. Alternative circumstances.
(JEMAA)
There is entrapment when: ___?
a. The accused is lured into the commission of the

offense in order to prosecute him
b. The accused had no intention to commit the offense
c. The law enforcement officials facilitate the
apprehension of the criminal by schemes
d. Both the inducer and the offender are private
individuals
Instigation Entrapment
Instigator practically The ways and means are
induces the would-be resorted to for the purpose
accused into the of trapping and capturing
commission of the the lawbreaker in the
offense and himself execution of his criminal
becomes co-principal . plan.
Accused will be NOT a bar to accused’s

acquitted. prosecution and conviction.

Absolutory cause . NOT an absolutory cause.

Justifying Mitigating
The circumstance affects the act, The circumstances affect the actor, not
not the actor the act
The act complained of is The act complained of is actually
considered to have been done wrongful, but the actor acted without
within the bounds of law; hence, voluntariness. He is a mere tool or
it is legitimate and lawful in the instrument of the crime
eyes of the law
Since the act is considered lawful, Since the act complained of is actually
there is no crime, and because wrongful, there is a crime. But
there is no crime, there is no because the actor acted without
criminal voluntariness, there is absence of dolo
or culpa. There is no criminal
Since there is no crime or criminal, Since there is a crime committed but
there is no criminal liability as there is no criminal, there is civil
well as civil liability liability for the wrong done. But there
is no criminal liability. However, in
paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 12, there
is neither criminal nor civil liability
Art. 11: Justifying
Circumstances - those wherein
the acts of the actor are in
accordance with law, hence, he is
justified. There is no criminal
and civil liability because there is
no crime.
Self-defense
Article 11
Defense of Relative
Defense of Stranger
State of Necessity
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a
Right or Office
Obedience to a Superior Order
Which is considered as unlawful aggression?
a. imminent peril to one’s limb

b. belief of an impending attack
c. an intimidating or threatening attitude
d. grave insulting words
Self-defense
Reason for lawfulness of self-defense: because
it would be impossible for the State to protect
all its citizens. Also a person cannot just give
up his rights without any resistance being
offered.
Rights included in self-defense:
1. Defense of person
2. Defense of rights protected by law
3. Defense of property:
Defense of rights is included in the
circumstances of defense and so is defense of
honor.
Self defense is not present when: ___?
a. Pedro shoots Juan when the latter tried to stab

him after he accepted Juan’s challenge to fight.
b. Pedro shoots Juan when the latter assaulted
him with a knife after a heated argument.
c. Pedro shoots Juan while the latter was
retreating to take a more advantageous position.
d. Pedro punches Juan after the latter slapped him
on the face due to a misunderstanding over a
girl.
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression - is a physical act
manifesting danger to life or limb; it is either
actual or imminent.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it;
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself.
In justifying circumstances, the most
important is self-defense. It is the element of
unlawful aggression that is in issue. Never
confuse unlawful aggression with provocation.
Mere provocation is not enough.
Defense of Relative
Elements:
1. unlawful aggression
2 reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the attack;
3. in case provocation was given by the
person attacked, that the person making
the defense had no part in such
provocation.
Relatives entitled to the defense:
1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters
5. relatives by affinity in the same
degree relatives by consanguinity
within the 4th civil degree.
If the person being defended is already a second
cousin, you do not invoke defense of relative anymore.
It will be defense of stranger. This is vital because if the
person making the defense acted out or revenge,
resentment or some evil motive in killing the aggressor,
he cannot invoke the justifying circumstance if the
relative defended is already a stranger in the eyes of the
law. On the other hand, if the relative defended is still
within the coverage of defense of relative, even though
he acted out of some evil motive, it would still apply. It
is enough that there was unlawful aggression against
the relative defended, and that the person defending
did not contribute to the unlawful aggression.
Defense of Stranger
Elements:
1. unlawful aggression
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel the attack;
3. the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.
State of Necessity
Art. 11, Par. 4 provides:
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does an 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; and
Third. That there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it.
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful
Exercise of a Right or Office
Elements:
1. that the accused acted in the performance of
a duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office;
2. that the injury caused or offense committed

be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of the duty, or the lawful
exercise of such right or office.
The accused must prove that he was duly
appointed to the position he claimed he was
discharging at the time of the commission of
the offense. It must be made to appear not
only that the injury caused or the offense
committed was done in the fulfillment of a
duty, or in the lawful exercise of a right or
office, but that the offense committed was a
necessary consequence of such fulfillment of
duty, or lawful exercise of a right or office.
A mere security guard has no authority or

duty to fire at a thief, resulting in the latter’s
death.
Obedience to a Superior Order
Elements:
1. there is an order;
2. the order is for a legal purpose;
3. the means used to carry out said order
is lawful.
The subordinate’s good faith is material here.
If he obeyed an order in good faith, not being
aware of its illegality, he is not liable.
However, the order must not be patently
illegal. If the order is patently illegal this
circumstance cannot be validly invoked.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are
those ground for exemption from punishment
because there is wanting in the agent of the crime of
any of the conditions which make the act voluntary,
or negligent.
Basis: The exemption from punishment is based
on the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on
the part of the accused.
A person who acts WITHOUT MALICE (without
intelligence, freedom of action or intent) or WITHOUT
NEGLIGENCE (without intelligence, freedom of action
or fault) is NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE or is EXEMPT
FROM PUNISHMENT.
· There is a crime committed but no criminal
liability arises from it because of the
complete absence of any of the conditions
which constitute free will or voluntariness of
the act.
Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances

is a matter of defense and must be proved by
the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
Art. 12
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY. The following are exempt from
criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or insane person, unless the latter has

acted during a lucid interval.
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 article 80 of this
Code.
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 acts under the

compulsion of an irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse

of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act

required by law, when prevented by some
lawful or insuperable cause.
IMBECILITY OR INSANITY
Basis: complete absence of intelligence, and element of
voluntariness.
Definition : An imbecile is one who while advanced in age

has a mental development comparable to that of children
between 2 and 7 years of age. An insane is one who acts
with complete deprivation of intelligence/reason or without
the least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of
the will.
• There is complete absence of intelligence. Imbecile has
an IQ of 7. The intellectual deficiency is permanent.
There is no lucid interval unlike in insanity.
• The insanity that is exempting is limited only to mental
aberration or disease of the mind and must completely
impair the intelligence of the accused.
ACCIDENT
Basis: lack of negligence and intent
Elements:
a. A person is performing a lawful act
b. Exercise of due dare
c. He causes injury to another by mere
accident
d. Without fault or intention of causing it.
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Basis: complete absence of freedom, an

element of voluntariness
Elements:
a. That the compulsion is by means of
physical force
b. That the physical force must be
irresistible.
c. That the physical force must come from
a third person
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Basis: complete absence of freedom
Elements:
a. that the threat which causes the fear is

of an evil greater than, or at least equal
to that w/c he is required to commit
b. that it promises an evil of such gravity
and imminence that the ordinary man
would have succumbed to it.
LAWFUL OR INSUPERABLE CAUSE
Basis: acts without intent, the third condition
of voluntariness in intentional felony
Elements:
a. That an act is required by law to be done
b. That a person fails to perform such act
c. That his failure to perform such act was due
to some lawful or insuperable cause
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
- are those where the act committed is a

crime but for some reason of public policy
and sentiment, there is no penalty
imposed
- exempting and Justifying circumstances

are absolutory causes
Which of the following cause is absolutory?
a. ignorance of the law

b. error in persona
c. impossible crime
d. mistake of fact
Other examples of absolutory causes:
1. Art 6 – spontaneous desistance

2. Art 20 – accessories exempt from criminal liability
3. Art 19 par 1 – profiting one’s self or assisting offenders
to profit by the effects of the crime
Which of the following circumstances will be considered mitigating?
a. The offender is a blind lawyer

b. The offender is a deaf jeepney driver
c. The offender is a mute protitute
d. The offender is a half-insane law student
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
These are circumstances which reduce the

penalty of a crime
Effect: Reduces the penalty of the crime but

does not erase criminal liability nor change
the nature of the crime
To be considered as a mitigating circumstance,
voluntary surrender must be__?
a. Done before the presentation of prosecution

evidence
b. Done before the issuance of a warrant of arrest
c. Accompanied with voluntary confession of guilt
d. spontaneous
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. — The
following are mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter,
when all the requisites necessary to justify or
to exempt from criminal liability in the
respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age
or over seventy years. In the case of the minor
he shall be proceeded against in accordance
with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the
part of the offended party immediately
preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the
immediate vindication of a grave offense to
the one committing the felony (delito), his
spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation.

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.

Mitigating circumstances are those grounds which if
present in the commission of the crime serves to reduce or
lower the penalty. It is based on the lesser perversity of
the offender, or reduction of either intent, freedom of action
or intelligence. They are generally classified as ordinary
mitigating and privileged mitigating. Ordinary mitigating is
at risk of being offset by an aggravating circumstance
while privileged mitigating is not susceptible to be
counteracted by an aggravating circumstance.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Those circumstance which raise the penalty for
a crime without exceeding the maximum
applicable to that crime
Aggravating circumstances are those which if

present in the commission of the offense serves
to increase the penalty. It is based on the
greater perversity of the offender seen in the
commission of the crime as manifested by: the
motivating power, the place of commission, the
ways or means employed in its commission, the
intent or the personal circumstances of the
offended party or of the offender.
Basis: The greater perversity of the offense as shown by:
a) the motivating power behind the act

b) the place where the act was committed
c) the means and ways used
d) the time
e) the personal circumstance of the offender
f) the personal circumstance of the victim
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.
3. 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.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace
of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or
where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties, or in a place
dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime,
or in an uninhabited place, or by a band,
whenever such circumstances may facilitate
the commission of the offense.
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. 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.
11. That the crime be committed in consideration
of a price, reward, or promise.

12. That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
stranding of a vessel or international damage
thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the
use of any other artifice involving great waste
and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evident
premeditation.
14. 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).
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. That as a means to the commission of a
crime a wall, roof, door, or window be
broken.

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.

Classification of aggravating circumstances:

Inherent – Refers to those that must of necessity
accompany the commission of the crime. E.g.
evident premeditation in cases involving theft,
robbery concubinage and adultery.

Generic – They are those circumstances which
can generally apply to all crimes. E.g. recidivism,
nighttime, dwelling.

Specific – Refers to those aggravating
circumstances that apply only to particular
crimes. E.g. Treachery and cruelty in crimes
against persons, ignominy in crimes against
chastity.

Qualifying – Refers to those circumstances
which if present changes the nature of the
crime. E.g. use of superior strength which
qualifies the killing of a person to murder.
Art 15. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES. 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.
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.
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.
1. BY DIRECT PARTICIPATION Those who are
liable:
a. materially execute the crime
b. appear at the scene of the crime
c. perform acts necessary in the commission of
the offense
Why one who does not appear at the scene of the
crime is not liable?
a. His non-appearance is deemed desistance
which is favored and encouraged;
b. Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless
the law specifically provides a penalty therefor.
c. There is no basis for criminal liability because
there is no criminal participation.
BY INDUCTION - Inducement must be strong
enough that the person induced could not
resist.
• This is tantamount to an irresistible force
compelling the person induced to carry out
the crime.
• Ill-advised language is not enough unless he
who made such remark or advice is a co-
conspirator in the crime committed.
When does a principal by induction becomes

liable?
• The principal by induction becomes liable only
when the principal by direct participation
committed the act induced.
What are the effects of acquittal of principal by
direct participation upon the liability of principal
by inducement?
a. Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of

co-defendant.
b. One cannot be held guilty of having instigated

the commission of a crime without first being
shown that the crime has been actually
committed by another.
BY INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION
What is the essence of being a principal by
indispensable cooperation?
• The focus is not just on participation but on
the importance of participation in committing
the crime.
• The basis is the importance of the cooperation
to the consummation of the crime.
If the crime could hardly be committed without
such cooperation, then such cooperation would
bring about a principal.
If the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened
the consummation of the crime, this would make
the cooperator merely an accomplice.

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.
When is one regarded as an accomplice?
Determine if there is a conspiracy. If there is, as
a general rule, the criminal liability of all will be
the same, because the act of one is the act of all.
Exception:
o If the participation of one is so insignificant
o such that even without his cooperation,
o the crime would be committed just as well,
o then notwithstanding the existence of a
conspiracy, such offender will be regarded
only as an accomplice.
What are the other traits of an accomplice? does
not have a previous agreement or understanding;
or is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct
participation
REQUISITES:
1. That there be community of design;
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the

offense
3. That there be a relation between the acts done

by the principal and those attributed to the person
charged as accomplice.

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.
When are accessories not criminally liable?
1. When the felony committed is a light felony

2. When the accessory is related to the principal as
a. spouse, or
b. an ascendant, or descendant, or
c. brother or sister whether legitimate, natural or
adopted or
d. where the accessory is a relative by affinity within
the same degree,
unless the accessory himself profited from the effects or

proceeds of the crime or assisted the offender to profit
therefrom.
When is an accessory exempt from criminal
liability?
• when the principal is his:

1. spouse,
2. ascendant,
3. descendant,
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother,
sister or relative by affinity within the
same degree.
When is an accessory NOT exempt from criminal
liability even if the principal is related to him:
• if such accessory:
(1) profited by the effects of the crime, or
(2) assisted the offender to profit by the effects of
the crime
Other instances when one becomes an accessory:
• Accessory as a fence
• Acquiring the effects of piracy or brigandage
• Destroying the corpus delicti
• Harboring or concealing an offender
• Whether the accomplice and the accessory may
be tried and convicted even before the
principal is found guilty

Art. 20. Accessories who are exempt from
criminal liability. — The penalties prescribed for
accessories shall not be imposed upon those
who are such with respect to their spouses,
ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural,
and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees, with the single
exception of accessories falling within the
provisions of paragraph 1 of the next preceding
article.
Art. 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 absolute pardon
4. By prescription of the crime
5. By prescription of the penalty
6. By the marriage of the offended woman, as
provided in Art 344 of this Code

Art. 90. Prescription of crime. —
Prescription of the crime refers to the forfeiture

or loss of the right of the state to prosecute the
crime after the lapse of a certain time, while
prescription of the penalty is the forfeiture or
loss of the right of the state to execute the final
sentence after the lapse of a certain time.
Note: 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.)
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
Crime or Penalty Period of prescription
Crime punishable by Death, 20 years

Reclusion Perpetua or
Reclusion Temporal
Other Afflictive Penalties 15 years
Correctional Penalties 10 years
Arresto Mayor 5 years
Libel and Similar Offenses 1 year
Oral Defamation or Slander 5 months
by Deed
Light offenses 2 months

PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTIES
Penalty Imposed Period of Prescription
Death or Reclusion 20 years

Perpetua
Other Afflictive Penalties 15 years
Correctional Penalties 10 years
Arresto Mayor 5 years
Light Penalties 1 year

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.
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.

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.

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.
Conditional pardon – contract between
the sovereign power of the executive and
the convict
Convict shall not violate any of the penal
laws of the Philippines
Violation of conditions:
-Offender is re-arrested and re-
incarcerated
-Prosecution under Art. 159
Commutation – change in the decision of the
court by the chief regarding the
(1)degree of the penalty;
(2)by decreasing the length of the
imprisonment or fine
- Commutation allowed when:

a) person over 70 yrs old
b)10 justices fail to reach a decision
affirming the death penalty
- Consent not necessary in commutation

- Prisoner is also allowed special time allowance
for loyalty w/c is 1/5 deduction of the period of
his sentence.
Parole – consists in the suspension of the sentence of a
convict after serving the minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty, without granting pardon, prescribing the terms upon
which the sentence shall be suspended. In case his parole
conditions are not observed, a convict may be returned to the
custody and continue to serve his sentence without deducting
the time that elapsed.

Criminal Law Book 1: Atty. Mohammad Jamalul J. Giducos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Book 1: Atty. Mohammad Jamalul J. Giducos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW

5.) CRIMINAL LAW

1.) Doctrine of PRO REO

1.) Doctrine of PRO REO

2.) NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA

2.) NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA

3.) Actus on Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit

4.) Actus me invito est meus actus

1.) To reform (reformation);

1.) The Revised Penal Code (Act. No.

• A penal law is liberally constructed in

• Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not

• Criminal cases are decided not on the

1.) Principles affecting Criminal Liability (Arts.

• But consuls, vice-consuls and other

Binding even on crimes committed outside of the Philippines.

3.) IRRETROSPECTIVITY OR PROSPECTIVITY

• Penal laws shall not be given retroactive effect.

A, was convicted for illegal Possession of

ELEMENTS OF DOLO ELEMENTS OF CULPA

 "el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal

 A and B, who are brothers-in-law, had a quarrel. At

The Supreme Court rationalized that what made B cut

-An act mala inse is a wrong act from its

-An act mala prohibita is a wrong

As to degree of When there is more than Degree of participation is

• The presumption of criminal intent may arise from

• However, in some crimes intent cannot be presumed

Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to

2. When the accused admitted or confessed to the commission of

3. In crimes mala prohibita.

4. In direct assault, when the victim, who is a person

5. In authority or agent of a person in authority was attacked in the

6. In crimes committed through reckless imprudence.

Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person:

• Error in personae (Mistake in Identity)

Mistake in identity of the victim – injuring one

In error in personae, the intended victim was

Error in personae is mitigating if the crime

In aberratio ictus, a person directed the

• Praeter intentionem is mitigating, particularly

A-The crime committed is parricide, although what was

Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and

a. Act would have been an offense against

b. Act is not an actual violation of another

c. There was criminal intent but the

1.) Consummated Felony, A Felony is

2.) Frustrated Felony, A felony is frustrated

3.) Attempted Felony, There is an attempt

The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates

A has a very seductive neighbor in the person of B. A had

• No, because there was desistance, which prevented the

Marks the commencement of the subjective phase –

Do not make a mistake by saying that there is desistance. If the

Crimes that does not admit of

1. OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, unless the law

Conspiracy exists when two or more

• Proposal, There is a proposal when the

Not Punishable Except:

• A, B, C and D came to an agreement to commit rebellion. Their

2.) Conspiracy and Proposal to commit felony

1. Active participation in the actual commission of the