Criminal Law Book 1 August Complete

A.
INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
B. HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION
20%
C. CRIMINAL LAW (BOOK 1)
D. CRIMINAL LAW (BOOK 2)
E. EVIDENCE
F. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND COURT TESTIMONY

Is that branch of public law which defines crimes
treats of their nature and provides for their
punishment.
a. Criminal Law
b. Criminal Procedure
c. Evidence
d. Criminal Justice System
Is that branch of public law which defines crimes
treats of their nature and provides for their
punishment.
a. Criminal Law
c. Evidence
Criminal Procedure
is the method prescribed by law for the apprehension

and prosecution of persons accused of any criminal
offense, and for their punishment, in case of conviction.
In other words, it “regulates the steps by which one who

committed a crime is to be punished.
Evidence
is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining

in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of
fact.
Is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in
a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
a. Criminal Law
c. Evidence
Is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining in
a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
a. Criminal Law
c. Evidence
Crime
is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law
forbidding or commanding it
Felony
- is an act or omission punishable by the Revised Penal Code
Offense
-those punishable by Special laws. An illegal act which does
not amount to a crime as defined in the Penal Code.
Infraction
- violation of city or municipal ordinances.
Is an act or omission punishable by the Revised Penal
Code.
a. Misdemeanor
b. Offense
c. Felony
d. Infraction
Is an act or omission punishable by the Revised Penal
Code.
a. Misdemeanor
b. Offense
c. Felony
d. Infraction
The following are example of a felony Except?
a. Homicide
b. Treason
c. Cybercrime
d. Robbery
The following are example of a felony Except?
a. Homicide - Article 249

b. Treason - Article 114
c. Cybercrime - RA 10175
d. Robbery - Article 293
SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW
1. Act 3815 known as the Revised Penal Code
2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission,

Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National
Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines and the Batasang
Pambansa
3. Presidential Decrees issued by President Marcos
4. Ordinances of Municipalities or Cities (LGU's)
5. Executive Orders of President Corazon C. Aquino

1. Revised Penal Code
The Revised Penal Code consists of Book I and II.
Book I covers Article 1 - 113, while book II covers Article

114 - 365.
2. Special Penal Laws
Criminal Laws enacted by Congress to meet the

exigencies of time.
These Penal Laws are the result of exercise of the State of

its police power to regulate and control some activities or
conducts which may be harmful or hazardous to the
society. Such will ensure public order and safety and
promote the welfare of our society.
This is in conformity with the principle in criminal law

that " No crime where there is no law punishing it."
( Nullum Crimen, nulla poena sine lege)
As a general rule, this is referred to as
Mala Prohibita - that is, they are not really wrong by nature
but for the purpose of achievement an orderly society,
they have to be controlled or regulated.
Only Congress under our Constitution has the power to

enact, amend, modify or repeal a (Criminal) law. Hence,
only Congress has the power to define and punish an act.
This power of Congress is referred to as the Legislative
Power.
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON POWER OF
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS
1. The law must observe both substantive and

procedural due process
2. The law must be general in application
3. The law should not impose cruel and unusual
punishment or excessive fines
4. The law should not operate as a bill of attainder or as
an ex post facto
Note:
Ex Post Facto Law

- is a law that makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law and which was innocent when done,
and punishes such an act; it may also be defined as a
law which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it
was, when committed.
Bill of Attainder
- is a law which inflicts punishment without trial.
Presidential Decrees
These are unique laws since these laws were enacted during
the Martial Law era or dictatorial regime of then President
Ferdinand E. Marcos where the power of the Executive and
the Legislative branch of our government were fused or
vested in one person.
4. Ordinances of Municipalities or Cities (LGU's)
Since time immemorial and thru the enactment by Congress of RA.

7160, otherwise known as the "Department of Interior and Local
Government Code" (DILG), Congress has delegated some of its
legislative power to the Sanggunian of the respective Local
Government Units (LGU's) to enact their own local laws in the
exercise of their delagated police power (RA 7160, Section 16). Such
laws shall be applicable only on their respective local territorial
jurisdiction. These laws are referred to as an ORDINANCE. It has the
force and effect of law.
ORDINANCES are necessary to regulate certain activities or conducts

which may be harmful or pose a hazard or threat to the public safety
and tranquility of their respective communities.
Different LGU's have different and varied problems unique
to their own culture, customs, topography or way of life
which only the LGU concern could better understand and,
hence, in a better position to provide the proper
solutions.
Ex.
1. The ordinance providing curfew hours for minors,
providing payment of fines and/or imprisonment for its
violations.
2. Ordinance on Anti-Littering, Jay walking, etc.

5.Executive Orders of President Corazon C. Aquino
All are sources of Criminal Law Except?
a. Act 3815 known as the Revised Penal Code
b. Special Penal Laws
c. Presidential Decrees issued by President Marcos
d. Ordinances of Municipalities or Cities (LGU's)
e. Executive Orders of President Corazon C. Aquino
f. Executive Orders of President Emilio Aguinaldo

All are sources of Criminal Law Except?
a. Act 3815 known as the Revised Penal Code
b. Special Penal Laws
c. Presidential Decrees issued by President Marcos
d. Ordinances of Municipalities or Cities (LGU's)
e. Executive Orders of President Corazon C. Aquino
f. Executive Orders of President Emilio Aguinaldo

Is a law that makes criminal an act done before the passage
of the law and which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act; it may also be defined as a law which
aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed.
a. Ex post facto law

b. Bill of attainder
c. Nullum Crimen nulla poena Sine Lege
d. Dura Lex Sed lex
Is a law that makes criminal an act done before the passage
of the law and which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act; it may also be defined as a law which
aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed.

d. Dura Lex Sed lex
CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW
1.General- criminal law is binding on all persons who live or

sojourn in the Philippines.
2.Territorial- criminal laws are applicable only if the crime

is committed within Philippine territory.
3.Prospective- criminal law cannot make an act punishable

in a manner in which it was not punishable when
committed. See Art 366. (The law looks forward and not
backwards)
Generality
That the law is binding upon all persons residing or

sojourning in the Philippines, regardless of their age, sex,
color, creed, nationality, or other personal circumstances.
Exceptions:
The general application of criminal law does not
apply to those cases so provided by: ,
a. Public International Law like
1. Sovereigns or Heads of State.

2. Ambassadors
3. Ministers Plenipotentiary and Minister resident
4. Charges d' affairs
5. Attache
b. Treaty Stipulations
1. Military bases Agreement executed between the

Philippines and the United States of America with
respect to military personnels working in the
American Military Bases in the Philippines.
c. Law on Preferential Applications or Treatment, like:
1. Domestic servants of a foreign diplomat duly received by the
President of the Philippines (R. A. No. 75).
2. Members of Congress.
a. Members of Congress shall be immune from libel or slander
while they are in the performance of their official function or
in connection thereof or when the same be done within the
halls of Congress.
b. Any Member of Congress may not be arrested while

Congress is in session for the crime committed where the
penalty imposed by law does not exceed 6 years of
imprisonment. However, when the penalty for the crime
committed be more than 6 years of imprisonment such
immunity cease, and the arrest may be made whether or not
Congress is in session.
Which among the following is not considered as the
exception to the Generality of Philippine Criminal law.
a. Public International Law

b. Treaty Stipulation
c. Law on Preferential Application or Treatment, like
d. Treaty of Paris
Which among the following is not considered as the
exception to the Generality of Philippine Criminal law.
a. Public International Law

b. Treaty Stipulation
c. Law on Preferential Application or Treatment, like
d. Treaty of Paris
The general application of criminal law does not apply to
those cases so provided by Public International Law Except?
a. Sovereigns or Heads of State.

b. Ambassadors
c. Ministers Plenipotentiary and Minister resident
d. Charges d' affairs
e. Attache
d. Consul
The general application of criminal law does not apply to
those cases so provided by Public International Law Except?
a. Sovereigns or Heads of State.

b. Ambassadors
c. Ministers Plenipotentiary and Minister resident
d. Charges d' affairs
e. Attache
d. Consul
Consul
An official appointed by a government to

live in a foreign city and protect and
promote the government's citizens and
interests there.
TERRITORIALITY
- criminal laws undertake to punish crimes

committed TERRITORIALITY
within the Philippine territory that is,
as a rule penal laws oflaws
- criminal the undertake
Philippines are
enforceabletoonly within
punish its territory.
crimes
committed within the
Philippine territory that is,
as a rule penal laws of the
Philippines are
enforceable only within its
Extent of the Philippine Territory under the Revised Penal Code.
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the provisions

of said code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters, and maritime zone.
Territoriality comprises four parts, they are:

1. Body of land.
2. Airspace or Atmosphere
- It includes the airspace above all the islands comprising the
Philippine Archipelago.
3. Interior Waters -
It includes the waters connecting the islands from one another.
4. Maritime Zone
- It extends to 12 miles from the outer most coastline.
NOTE:
The body of water beyond the maritime

zone is called the “high seas” or
“international waters” and beyond the
jurisdiction of any country.
AS A RULE, under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, its
provisions Shall be applicable only within the Philippine
territory.
BY WAY OF AN EXCEPTION: Article 2 of the Revised Penal

Code Provides that its provision shall be enforced
outside of the Philippine jurisdiction.
Art. 2. Application of its provisions.

Except as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential applications, the provisions of this code shall
be enforced not only within the Philippine ‘Archipelago,
including it atmosphere , its interior waters and maritime
zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
who:
1. Should commit an offendse while on Philippine ship or
airship;
(Philippine Véssel or aircraft - must be understood as

that which is registered in the Philippines .
*A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as

that which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of
Customs
Thus, any person who committed a crime on board a
Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside of
the Philippine territory can be tried before our civil
courts for violation of the Penal Code.
But when the Philippines vessel or aircraft is in the

territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on
said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that
foreign country. (Luis B. Reyes)
If a crime is committed onboard a foreign vessel and it
is a merchant vessel. There are two rules as
jurisdiction:
1. French Rule
Crimes are not triable in the courts of that country,
unless their commission affects the peace and
security of the territory or the safety of the state is
endangered.
2. English Rule
Crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely
affect things within the vessel or they refer to the
internal management thereof. )
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philipppine Islands;
Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins

(Art. 163) or forges treasury or bank notes or other
obligations and securities ( Art. 166) in a foreign country
may be prosecuted before our courts for violation of Art.
163 or Art. 166 of the RPC.
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these Islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the
preceding number;
The reason for this provision is that the introduction of

forged or counterfeited obligations and securities into the
Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or counterfeiting
of the same, to the economical interest of the country.
4. While being public officers or employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;
The crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public

functions are direct bribery (Art. 210), indirect bribery (Art. 211),
Fraud against the public treasury (Art. 213), possession of
prohibited interest (Art. 216), malversation of public funds or
property (Art. 217), failure of accountable officer to render
accounts (Art. 218), illegal use of public funds or property (Art.
221), and falsification by a public officer or employee committed
with abuse of his official position. (Art.171).
When any of these felonies is committed abroad by any of our

public officers or employees while in the exercise of his functions,
he can be prosecuted here.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security
and the law of the nations, defined in ‘Title One of Book Two
of this Code.
Crimes against national security

1. Treason (Art. 114);
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);
3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and
4. Espionage (Art. 117).
Crimes against the law of nations

1. inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art. 118):
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);
3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art.120);
4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122)
The provision in Article 2 embraces two scopes of
applications:
Which scope of application refers to the application of
the Revised Penal Code outside the
Philippine territory?
a. Intraterrritotial
b. Extraterritorial
c. Internal
d. External
The provision in Article 2 embraces two scopes of
applications:
Which scope of application refers to the application of
Philippine territory?
a. Intraterrritotial
b. Extraterritorial
c. Internal
d. External
(1) Intraterritorial – refers to the application of
the Revised Penal Code within the
Philippine territory;
(2) Extraterritorial – refers to the application of

Philippine territory
Among the following are considered as the extraterritorial
application of Criminal law except?
a. Juan committed murder while onboard Philippine ship

while in the high seas.
b. Pedro a Filipino citizen while in Japan forge or
counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines.
c. Leila a public officer assigned in America accepted a
bribe in relation to his public function.
d. Jerson Murdered Janjan in San Carlos Laguna.
Among the following are considered as the extraterritorial
application of Criminal law except?
a. Juan committed murder while onboard Philippine ship

while in the high seas.
b. Pedro a Filipino citizen while in Japan forge or
counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines.
c. Leila a public officer assigned in America accepted a
bribe in relation to his public function.
d. Jerson Murdered Janjan in San Carlos Laguna.
A Philippine ship while traversing the territorial waters
of China, Pedro a Filipino citizen committed murder while
onboard the said ship. Which country has the right to
prosecute Pedro?
a. China
b. Philippines
c. Either of the above
d. All of the above
A Philippine ship while traversing the territorial waters
of China, Pedro a Filipino citizen committed murder while
onboard the said ship. Which country has the right to
prosecute Pedro?
a. China
b. Philippines
c. Either of the above
d. All of the above
Thus, any person who committed a crime on board a
Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside of
the Philippine territory can be tried before our civil
courts for violation of the Penal Code.
But when the Philippines vessel or aircraft is in the

territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on
said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that
foreign country. (Luis B. Reyes)
This characteristic provides that the law does not have
any retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender,
unless he is a habitual delinquent.
a. Generality
b. Territoriality
c. Prospectivity
d. Nota
This characteristic provides that the law does not have
any retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender,
unless he is a habitual delinquent.
a. Generality
b. Territoriality
c. Prospectivity
d. Nota
3. Irretrospectivity or Prospectivity
That a penal law cannot make an act punishable in a

manner in which it was not punishable when committed.
The law as a general rule looks forward not backward.
This characteristic provides that the law does not have any
retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender, unless he
is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22 RPC)
Rules to be observed in the prospectivity or
irretrospectivity of Criminal law.
1. A penal law does not have retroactive effect.
2. If favorable to the accused, a penal law maybe

given retroactive effect; and
3. Even if favorable to the accused, a penal law cannot be

given retroactive effect if the accused is a habitual
delinquent or the law so provides (Article 22)
A law that makes chewing gum illegal and requires the
arrest of every person who has ever chewed gum, even
before the law existed, would be an example of an?

d. Dura lex Sed lex
A law that makes chewing gum illegal and requires the
arrest of every person who has ever chewed gum, even
before the law existed, would be an example of an?

d. Dura lex Sed lex
Pedro was arrested for the crime of illegal possession
of drugs on June 10, 2022, at that time the old law
provides 10 years of imprisonment for the said crimes
then on June 11, 2022 there is a new law amending the
old law that provides 5 years of imprisonment for the
same said crime. Will the new law apply to Pedro?
a. Yes because it is favourable to the accused.

b. No because he is a habitual Delinquent
c. The old law will apply
d. The new law will apply
Pedro was arrested for the crime of illegal possession
of drugs on June 10, 2022, at that time the old law
provides 10 years of imprisonment for the said crimes
then on June 11, 2022 there is a new law amending the
old law that provides 5 years of imprisonment for the
same said crime. Will the new law apply to Pedro?
a. Yes because it is favourable to the accused.

b. No because he is a habitual Delinquent
c. The old law will apply
d. The new law will apply
RPC took effect on?
a. January 1, 1932
b. December 8, 1930
c. February 11, 1998
d. February 14, 1998
RPC took effect on?
a. January 1, 1932
b. December 8, 1930 - approval
c. February 11, 1998
d. February 14, 1998
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL LAW:
1.Classical (Juristic) Theory. The basis of criminal liability is

human free will and the purpose of penalty is retribution.
Man is a moral creature with an absolute free will to
choose between good and evil.
2.Positivist (Realist) Theory. Man is subdued occasionally

by a strange and morbid phenomenon which constrain
him to do wrong. Crime is a social and natural
phenomenon; it cannot be treated therefore by the
application of abstract principles of law or by the
imposition of punishment.
3.Eclectic Theory. Combination of the good features of
both classical and the positivist theories.
4.Utilitarian Theory. They espouse the idea that the

primary function of punishment in criminal law is to
protect society from potential and actual wrongdoers. The
retributive aspect of penal laws should be directed against
them.
A theory in Criminal law which states that Man is subdued
occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which
constrain him to do wrong. Crime is a social and natural
application of abstract principles of law or by the imposition
of punishment.
a. Classical (Juristic) Theory

b. Positivist (Realist) Theory
c. Eclectic Theory
d. Utilitarian Theory
A theory in Criminal law which states that Man is subdued
occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon which
constrain him to do wrong. Crime is a social and natural
application of abstract principles of law or by the imposition
of punishment.
a. Classical (Juristic) Theory

b. Positivist (Realist) Theory
c. Eclectic Theory
d. Utilitarian Theory
CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
1.Penal laws are strictly construed against the state and

liberally in favor of the accused
2.If there is a conflict between the Spanish text and the

English text, the Spanish text prevails.
History Of The RPC.
The Old Penal Code which took effect on July 14, 1887 until
December 31, 1931.
Administrative Order 94 of the DOJ dated October 18, 1927
Anacleto Diaz, Quintin Paredes, Guilermo Guevarra, Alex

Reyes and Mariano De Joya
RPC approved December 8, 1930
RPC took effect January 1, 1932

The following are the members of the committee who
drafted Revised Penal Code Except?
a. Anacleto Diaz
b. Joko Diaz
c. Quintin Paredes
d. Guilermo Guevarra
e. Alex Reyes
f. Mariano De Joya
The following are the members of the committee who
drafted Revised Penal Code Except?
a. Anacleto Diaz
b. Joko Diaz
c. Quintin Paredes
d. Guilermo Guevarra
e. Alex Reyes
f. Mariano De Joya
Article 1. Time when Act (RPC) takes effect-
JANUARY 1, 1932
Art. 2. Application of its provisions. Except as provided in the
treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this
Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into
these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an
offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and
the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
Rules On Crimes Committed Aboard Foreign Merchant
Vessel While Within Philippine Waters
English Rule- the crime is punishable in the Philippines,

unless the crime merely affects things within the vessel.
French Rule- the crime is not triable in the courts of that

country, unless their commission unless their commission
has effects on the safety of the coastal state.
A US Warship while traversing along manila bay, An
American Soldier murdered another American soldier
while inside the said warship. Is it triable in Philippines?
a. No
b. Yes
c. Maybe
d. Secret
A US Warship while traversing along manila bay, An
American Soldier murdered another American soldier
while inside the said warship. Is it triable in Philippines?
a. No
b. Yes
c. Maybe
d. Secret
Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the
country to which they belong and cannot be subjected
to the laws of another state. A United States Army
transport is considered a warship.(U.S. v. Fowler, 1 Phil.
614)
FELONIES
Art. 3. Definitions. Acts and omissions punishable by law

are felonies (delitos).
Act- is any bodily movement tending to produce some

effects in the external world.
Ex. Theft (Article 308)
Omission- inaction, the failure to perform an act one is

bound to do.
Ex.
Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. 275, par.1)
Illegal exaction (Art. 213, par. 2(b)
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo)
but also by means of fault (culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate

intent and there is fault when the wrongful act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Elements of Felonies In General are the following except?
a. That there must be an act or omission

b. That act or omission must be punishable by the RPC
c. That the act or omission incurred by means of dolo or
culpa
d. That the act or omission must be punishable by Special
laws
Elements of Felonies In General are the following except?
a. That there must be an act or omission

b. That act or omission must be punishable by the RPC
c. That the act or omission incurred by means of dolo or
culpa
d. That the act or omission must be punishable by Special
laws
Imprudence vs. Negligence
Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action. Negligence

indicates a deficiency of perception.
If a person fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid

injury to person or damage to property, there is
imprudence. If a person fails to pay proper attention and
to use due diligence in foreseeing the injury or damage
impending to be caused, there is negligence.
Negligence usually involves‘lack of foresight. Imprudence

usually involves lack of skill.
Requisites Of Dolo Or Malice
1. Freedom of action
2. Intelligence
3. Intent
1. Freedom.
When a person acts without freedom, he is no longer a

human being but a tool; his liability is as much as that of
the knife that wounds, or of the torch that sets fire, or of
the key that opens a door, or of the ladder that is placed
against the wall of a house in committing robbery.
Thus, a person who acts under the compulsion of an

irresistible force is exempt from criminal liability. (Art. 12,
par. 5)
Likewise, a person who acts under the impulse of an

uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury is exempt
from criminal liability. (Art. 12, par. 6)
2. Intelligence.
Without this power, necessary to determine the morality

of human acts, no crime can exist. Thus, the imbecile or
the insane, and the infant under nine years of age as, well
as the minor over nine but less than 15 years old and
acting without discernment, have no criminal liability,
because they act without intelligence. (Art. 12, pars. 1, 2,
and 3)
3.Intent.
Intent to commit the act with malice, being purely a

mental process, is presumed and the presumption arises
from the proof of the commission of an unlawful act.
All the three requisites of voluntariness in intentional

felony must be present, because “a voluntary act is a
free, intelligent, and intentional act.” (U.S. v. Ah Chong,
15 Phil. 488, 495)
Requisites Of Fault Or Culpa
1. Freedom of action
2. Intelligence
3. Imprudent, negligent, or lack of foresight or
lack of skill
The following are the requisites of Fault Or Culpa Except?
a. Freedom of action
b. Intelligence
c. Intent
d. Imprudent, negligent, or lack of foresight or lack of skill
The following are the requisites of Fault Or Culpa Except?
a. Freedom of action
b. Intelligence
c. Intent
d. Imprudent, negligent, or lack of foresight or lack of skill
Ignorantia legis non excusat-
Ignorantia facti excusat-
Mistake of fact- is a misapprehension of fact on the part of

the person who caused injury to another. He is not liable for
absence of criminal intent.
Requisites Of Mistake Of Fact:
1. The act would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be.
2. The intention of the accused in performing the act should
be lawful.
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on
the part of the accused
U.S. v. Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488)
Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in Ft. McKinley. He was afraid of bad

elements. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his
room by placing a chair against the door. After having gone to bed, he
was awakened by someone trying to open the door. He called out
twice, “Who is there” but received no answer. Fearing that the
intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, “If
you enter the room I will kill you.” But at that precise moment, he was
struck by the chair that had been placed against the door, and
believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife and
struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his
roommate.
Held: Ah Chong must be acquitted because of mistake of fact.

Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of
the person who caused injury to another. He is not liable
for absence of criminal intent. What is the Latin term for
Mistake of fact?
a. Ignorantia legis non excusat

b. Ignorantia Facti
c. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
d. Actus me invito factus nonest meus actus
Mistake of fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of
the person who caused injury to another. He is not liable
for absence of criminal intent. What is the Latin term for
Mistake of fact?
a. Ignorantia legis non excusat

b. Ignorantia Facti
c. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
d. Actus me invito factus nonest meus actus
Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by
means of dolo.
Criminal intent is necessary in felonies committed by

means of dolo because of the legal maxims ~
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, the act itself does
not make a man guilty unless his intention were so.”
Actus me invito factus non est meus actus, - an act done

by me against my will is not my act.” (U.S. v. Ah Chong, 5
Phil. 499)
Mala in se Vs Mala prohibita
Mala in se
1. Those so serious as to call for unanimous condemnation
2. wrongful in nature
3. generally punished by the RPC
4. intent is necessary
Ex. Theft, Rape, Murder
Mala Prohibita
1. Violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more
orderly regulation of societys affairs
2. made wrongful only by statute
3. punished by special law
4. intent not necessary
Ex. Illegal possession of firearms
In acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in those mala Prohibita, the
only inquiry is, has the law been violated?
The following are examples of mala in se except?
a. Murder
b. Theft
c. Illegal gambling
d. Rape
The following are examples of mala in se except?
a. Murder
b. Theft
c. Illegal gambling
d. Rape
Motive- the moving power which impels one to action for a
definite result.
Intent - is the purpose to use a particular means to effect

such result.
Motive is not an element of a crime and need not be proved.

Intent is an element and must be proved.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be
incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although

the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an

offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the

wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
Rationale of Par. 1- el que es causa de la causa es causa del

mal causado- he who is the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused.
One who commits an intentional felony is responsible for

all the consequences which may naturally and logically
result therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
Ordinarily, when a person commits a felony with malice,
he intends the consequences of his felonious act. But
there are cases where the consequences of the felonious
act of the offender are not intended by him. In those
cases, “the wrongful act done” is “different from that
which he intended.”
In view of paragraph 1 of Article 4, a person committing a felony is
criminally liable although the consequences of his felonious act are
not intended by him.
Causes which produces different result:
Mistake in Identity - error in Personae.

- Injuring a person who is mistaken for another.
Ex. Juan, intended to shoot Pedro, but it was Jose whom he shot
because he mistook Jose to be Pedro.
Mistake in the blow - aberratio ictus.
- hitting somebody other than the target due to lack of skill or
fortuitous instances.
Ex. Juan shoot Pedro, but it was Jose who was injured.
Injurious result is greater than that intended - Praeter Intentionem.
Ex. Juan only wanted to box Pedro, but Pedro died when he fell to
the pavement resulting to brain hemorrhage.
Requisites Of Art. 4 (1)
1. An intentional Felony has been committed.
2. The wrong done to the victim be the direct, natural and

logical consequence of the felony committed by the
offender.
3. The felony done must be the proximate cause of the

resulting injury.

offender.

resulting injury.
Juan only wanted to box Pedro, but Pedro died when he
fell to the pavement resulting to brain hemorrhage.
Homicide but mitigated
A magician who ask for a volunteer to his magic trick but

unfortunately killed the volunteer on the course of
performance
Article 365 Criminal Negligence.

arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its medium period.

offender.

resulting injury.
The victim who was threatened or chased by the accused
with a knife, jumped into the water and because of the
strong current or because he did not know how to swim he
sank down and died of drowning.
The victim suffers a non mortal wound in his finger caused

by the stabbing by the offender. But the victim soaked his
finger into the mud to aggravate the wound then died due
to infection.

offender.

resulting injury.
Proximate cause- is that cause which in the ordinary and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause produces the injury.
Efficient intervening cause- are those that break the

relation of cause and effect. The felony committed is not
the proximate cause of the resulting injury when:
a. there is an active force that intervened between the

felony committed and the resulting injury;
b. the resulting injury is due to the intentional act of the

accused.
The victim who was threatened or chased by the accused
with a knife, jumped into the water and because of the
strong current or because he did not know how to swim he
sank down and died of drowning.
There must be a cause and effect relationship
Cause -- Felonious act
Effect -- Injury/Death
The following does not affect the CAUSE and EFFECT

relationship.
1. Pre-existing condition of the victim
2. Concurrent conditions
3. Supervening Conditions
The offender is liable for all the DIRECT, NATURAL, and
LOGICAL consequences of his felonious act.
Examples:
1. Pedro threatened Juan and chased him with a knife.
Fearing for his life. Juan jumped to the river. Juan drowned
because he did not know how to swim. CaER
2. Juan was weak and suffering from tuberculosis. Pedro gave

him fist blows causing internal hemorrhage. Juan died as a
result. PEC
3. Pedro stabbed Juan in the stomach. Juan did not want to

go to the hospital so he just stayed in his house hoping to
recover. Juan died. CaER
The offender is liable for all the DIRECT, NATURAL, and
LOGICAL consequences of his felonious act.
4. Pedro stabbed Juan. Maria saw what happened and

called the ambulance. Ambulance took 2 hours to arrive.
By that time Juan lost a lot of blood and died. CaER
5. Pedro shot Juan. Juan was brought to a clinic but

because of erroneous and unskillful surgical operation by
the doctors. Juan died. CC



accused.
A person struck another with his fist and knocked him
down and a horse near them jumped upon him and killed
him, the assailant was not responsible for the death of
that other person.
The victim suffers a non mortal wound in his finger caused

by the stabbing by the offender. But the victim soaked his
finger into the mud to aggravate the wound then died
due to infection.
Pedro because of jealousy he killed Juan. Killing is refers to
the ___?
a. Motive
b. Intent
c. Capability
d. Opportunity
Pedro because of jealousy he killed Juan. Killing is refers to
the ___?
a. Motive
b. Intent
c. Capability
d. Opportunity
fell to the pavement resulting to brain hemorrhage. The
situation is referring to?
a. error in Personae
b. Aberratio Ictus
c. Praeter Intentionem
d. Ignorantia Facti
fell to the pavement resulting to brain hemorrhage. The
b. Aberratio Ictus
d. Ignorantia Facti
Juan, intended to shoot Pedro, but it was Jose (Juan's
father) whom he shot because he mistook Jose to be
Pedro. The situation is referring to?
b. Aberratio Ictus
d. Ignorantia Facti
Juan, intended to shoot Pedro, but it was Jose (Juan's
father) whom he shot because he mistook Jose to be
Pedro. The situation is referring to?
b. Aberratio Ictus
d. Ignorantia Facti
Juan shoot Pedro, but it was Jose who was injured. The
b. Aberratio Ictus
d. Ignorantia Facti
Juan shoot Pedro, but it was Jose who was injured. The
b. Aberratio Ictus
d. Ignorantia Facti
A magician calls out for a volunteer to stand on the top
of a ladder while he was carrying it. The magician trip
and the the volunteer fell on the ground hitting his head
causing his instantaneous death. Is the magician liable
for Homicide?
a. Yes Article 4 RPC applies

b. No he is liable for 365 Criminal Negligence
c. Yes because he was committing a felony at first
d. No He is guilty for Rape
A magician calls out for a volunteer to stand on the top
of a ladder while he was carrying it. The magician trip
and the the volunteer fell on the ground hitting his head
causing his instantaneous death. Is the magician liable
for Homicide?
a. Yes Article 4 RPC applies

b. No he is liable for 365 Criminal Negligence
c. Yes because he was committing a felony at first
d. No He is guilty for Rape

offender.

resulting injury.
fell to the pavement resulting to brain hemorrhage.Is
Juan liable for the death of Pedro?
a. No he is liable for 365 Criminal Negligence

b. Yes it is Praeter Intentionem
c. No he is not guilty
d. Yes it is Aberratio Ictus
fell to the pavement resulting to brain hemorrhage.Is
Juan liable for the death of Pedro?
a. No he is liable for 365 Criminal Negligence

b. Yes it is Praeter Intentionem
c. No he is not guilty
d. Yes it is Aberratio Ictus
Pedro chased Juan with a knife because of fear the latter
jumped into the water because he did not know how to
swim he sank down and died of drowning. Is Pedro liable
for the death of Juan?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe yes
d. Maybe no
Pedro chased Juan with a knife because of fear the latter
jumped into the water because he did not know how to
swim he sank down and died of drowning. Is Pedro liable
for the death of Juan?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe yes
d. Maybe no

offender.

resulting injury.
Juan stabbed Pedro at the finger causing a non mortal
wound. Inorder to aggravate the wound for the purpose of
charging Juan a high payment, It caused an infection
causing his death. Is Juan liable for the death of Pedro?
a. Yes it is a direct, natural and logical consequence of the

felony committed by Pedro
b. No there is efficient intervening cause.
c. 1-9 days
d. 10-30 days
Juan stabbed Pedro at the finger causing a non mortal
wound. Inorder to aggravate the wound for the purpose of
charging Juan a high payment, It caused an infection
causing his death. Is Juan liable for the death of Pedro?
a. Yes it is a direct, natural and logical consequence of the

felony committed by Pedro
b. No there is efficient intervening cause.
c. 1-9 days
d. 10-30 days
Is that cause which in the ordinary and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause
produces the injury.
a. Efficient intervening cause

b. Proximate Cause
c. Emediate cause
d. Proxima Centauri
Is that cause which in the ordinary and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause
produces the injury.
a. Efficient intervening cause

b. Proximate Cause
c. Emediate cause
d. Proxima Centauri



accused.
Juan was weak and suffering from tuberculosis. Pedro
gave him fist blows causing internal hemorrhage. Juan
died as a result. Pedro states that he is not liable because
Juan has already a disease. Is the statement of Pedro
correct?
a. Yes He is not liable, doctrine of Proximate cause

applies
b. No he is liable Pre existing conditions of the victim
does not affect cause and effect
c. Maybe he is liable
d. He is Partially liable
Juan was weak and suffering from tuberculosis. Pedro
gave him fist blows causing internal hemorrhage. Juan
died as a result. Pedro states that he is not liable because
Juan has already a disease. Is the statement of Pedro
correct?
a. Yes He is not liable, doctrine of Proximate cause

applies
b. No he is liable Pre existing conditions of the victim
does not affect cause and effect
c. Maybe he is liable
d. He is Partially liable
There must be a cause and effect relationship
Cause -- Felonious act
Effect -- Injury/Death
The following does not affect the CAUSE and EFFECT

relationship.
1. Pre-existing condition of the victim
2. Concurrent conditions
3. Supervening Conditions
Pedro stabbed Juan in the stomach. Juan did not want to
recover. Juan died. Is Pedro liable for the death of Juan?
a. Yes there is a Cause and Effect Relationship

b. No there is Efficient intervening cause
c. None of the above
d. All of the Above
Pedro stabbed Juan in the stomach. Juan did not want to
recover. Juan died. Is Pedro liable for the death of Juan?

d. All of the Above
Pedro stabbed Juan. Maria saw what happened and
By that time Juan lost a lot of blood and died. Is Pedro
liable the death of Juan?

d. All of the Above
Pedro stabbed Juan. Maria saw what happened and
By that time Juan lost a lot of blood and died. Is Pedro
liable the death of Juan?

d. All of the Above
Pedro shot Juan. Juan was brought to a clinic but because of
erroneous and unskillful surgical operation by the doctors.
Juan died. Can Pedro invokes it is the fault of the doctor?
a. Yes it is the fault of the doctor

b. No Concurrent conditions does not affect cause and
effect relationship, Pedro si still liable
d. All of the above
Pedro shot Juan. Juan was brought to a clinic but because of
erroneous and unskillful surgical operation by the doctors.
Juan died. Can Pedro invokes it is the fault of the doctor?
a. Yes it is the fault of the doctor

b. No Concurrent conditions does not affect cause and
effect relationship, Pedro si still liable
d. All of the above
Pedro struck Juan with his fist and knocked him down and a
horse near them jumped upon Juan and killed him. Is Pedro
liable for the death of Juan?
a. Yes, doctrine of Proximate cause

b. No, efficient intervening cause
c. none of the above
d. All of the above
Pedro struck Juan with his fist and knocked him down and a
horse near them jumped upon Juan and killed him. Is Pedro
liable for the death of Juan?
a. Yes, doctrine of Proximate cause

b. No, efficient intervening cause
c. none of the above
d. All of the above
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be
incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although

the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended.
2. By any person performing an act which would be an

offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.
Requisites of impossible crime:
1. That the act performed would be an offense against

persons or property.
2. That the act was done with evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that

the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation

of another provision of the RPC.



Felonies against persons are:
a. Parricide (Art. 246)

b. Murder (Art. 248)
c. Homicide (Art. 249)
d. Infanticide (Art. 255)
e. Abortion (Arts. 256, 257, 258, and 259)
f. Duel (Arts. 260 and 261)
g. Physical injuries (Arts. 262, 263, 264, 265, and 266)
h. Rape (Art. 266-A)
Felonies against property are:
a. Robbery (Arts. 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, and 303)
b. Brigandage (Arts. 306 and 307)
c. Theft (Arts. 308, 310, and 311)
d. Usurpation (Arts. 312 and 313)
e. Culpable insolvency (Art. 314)
f. Swindling and other deceits (Arts. 315, 316, 317, and 318)
g. Chattel mortgage (Art. 319)
h. Arson and other crimes involving destruction ( Arts. 320,
321, 322, 323, 324, 325, and 326)
i. Malicious mischief (Arts. 327, 328, 329, 330, and 331)



Since the offender in impossible crime intended to
commit an offense against persons or against property, it
must be shown that the actor performed the act with evil
intent, that is, he must have the intent to do an injury to
another.
A, who wanted to kill B, looked for him. When A saw B, he

found out that B was already dead. To satisfy his grudge, A
stabbed B in his breast three times with a knife. Is this an
impossible crime?
No. A knew that B was already dead when he stabbed the
lifeless body. There was no evil intent on the part of A,
because he knew that he could not cause an injury to B.
Even subjectively, he was not a criminal.



a. “Inherent impossibility of its accomplishment.”
This phrase means that the act intended by the offender

is by its nature one of impossible accomplishment.
There must be either (1) legal impossibility, or (2) physical

impossibility of accomplishing the intended act.
Examples of impossible crimes which are punishable

under the R.P.C. are: (1) When one tries to
kill another by putting in his soup a substance which he
believes to be arsenic when in fact it is common salt; and
(2) when one tries to murder a corpse. (People v.
Balmores, 85 Phil. 493, 496)
(1) “Would be an offense against persons.”
Example: A fired at B, who was lying on bed, not knowing

that B was dead hours before. In crime against persons,
as would have been in this case, it is necessary that the
victim could be injured or killed. A dead person cannot be
injured or killed. Had B been alive when he was shot, and
as a consequence he died, the crime committed by A
would have been murder, a crime against persons.
There is physical and legal impossibility in this example.

(2) “Would be an offense against property.”
A, with intent to gain, took a watch from the pocket of B.

When A had the watch in his possession, he found out that
it was the watch which he had lost a week before. In other
word: the watch belonged to A. Is this an impossible crime?
It is believed that it may be an impossible crime. The act

performed would have been theft had the watch been the
property of B. But there is a legal impossibility of
accomplishing it, because in theft, the personal property
taken must belong to another.
An employee who, having known the safe combination,
opens the safe in the office for the purpose of stealing
money, but who finds the safe empty, is guilty of an
impossible crime. The act performed would have been a
crime of theft were it not for the inherent impossibility of
its accomplishment. If there is no personal property that
could be taken, it is inherently impossible to commit theft.
b. “Employment of inadequate” means.
Example: A, determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of

arsenic by mixing it with the food given to B, believing that the
quantity employed by him is sufficient. But since in fact it is not
sufficient, B is not killed. The means employed (small quantity of
poison) is inadequate to kill a person.
Where the means employed is adequate.
But where the means employed is adequate and the result

expected is not produced, it is not an impossible crime, but a
frustrated felony.
Thus, if the quantity of poison used is sufficient to kill an ordinary
person, but the intended victim has developed strong resistance to
poison because he has been working in a mine, the crime
committed is frustrated murder.
c. Employment of “ineffectual means.”
A tried to kill B by putting in his soup a substance which

he thought was arsenic when in fact it was sugar. B
could not have been killed, because the means
employed was ineffectual. But A showed criminal
tendency and, hence, he should be punished for it in
accordance with Article 4, paragraph 2, in relation to
Article 59.
A, with intent to kill B, aimed his revolver at the back of

the latter, A, not knowing that it was empty. When he
pressed the trigger it did not fire. The means used by A
is ineffectual.



Juan in order to take the wallet of Pedro he punches him
on the face several times, and succeeded from taking the
wallet of Pedro. But later on he realized that the wallet he
took from Pedro was his own missing wallet. Is there an
Impossible Crime?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe
d. Secret
wallet of Pedro. But later on he realized that the wallet he
took from Pedro was his own missing wallet. Is there an
Impossible Crime?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Maybe
d. Secret
wallet of Pedro. But later on he realized that the wallets
he took from Pedro was his own missing wallet. Is Juan
liable for Impossible crime?
a. Yes he is liable for Impossible crime and will suffer the

penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500
pesos.
b. No he is liable for robbery
c. No he is liable for theft
d. No he is liable for Physical Injury.
wallet of Pedro. But later on he realized that the wallets
he took from Pedro was his own missing wallet. Is Juan
liable for Impossible crime?
a. Yes he is liable for Impossible crime and will suffer the

penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500
pesos.
b. No he is liable for robbery
c. No he is liable for theft
d. No he is liable for Physical Injury.
Pedro poison Juan, the quantity of poison used is sufficient
to kill an ordinary person, but Juan has developed strong
resistance to poison because he has been working in a mine.
Pedro is liable for?
a. Impossible crime of Murder

b. Frustrated Murder
c. Attempted Murder
d. Consumated Murder
Pedro poison Juan, the quantity of poison used is sufficient
to kill an ordinary person, but Juan has developed strong
resistance to poison because he has been working in a mine.
Pedro is liable for?

c. Attempted Murder
A, determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of
arsenic by mixing it with the food given to B, believing
that the quantity employed by him is sufficient. But since
in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed.A is liable for?

c. Attempted Murder
A, determined to poison B, uses a small quantity of
arsenic by mixing it with the food given to B, believing
that the quantity employed by him is sufficient. But since
in fact it is not sufficient, B is not killed.A is liable for?

c. Attempted Murder
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be
repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of
excessive penalties. Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which
it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it
shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief
Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which
induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of
legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through
the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper,
without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict
enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the
degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
“in connection with acts which should be repressed but
which are not covered by the law.”
The 1st paragraph of this article which contemplates a

trial of a criminal case requires the following:
1. The act committed by the accused appears not

punishable by any law;
2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act;

3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by
dismissing the case and acquitting the accused;
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive,

through the Secretary of Justice, stating the reasons which
induce him to believe that the said act should be made the
subject of penal legislation.
Basis of paragraph 1, Article 5. The provision contained in

paragraph 1 of Article 5 is based on the legal maxim “nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege,” that is, that there is no crime
if there is no law that punishes the act.
“in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the
law.”
The 1st paragraph of this article which contemplates a trial of a criminal case requires
the following:
1. The act committed by the accused appears not punishable by any law;
2. But the court deems it proper to repress such act;
3. In that case, the court must render the proper decision by dismissing the case and
acquitting the accused;
4. The judge must then make a report to the Chief Executive, through the Secretary of
Justice, stating the reasons which
induce him to believe that the said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
Basis of paragraph 1, Article 5. The provision contained in paragraph 1 of Article 5 is

based on the legal maxim “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege,” that is, that there is
no crime if there is no law that punishes the act.
“In cases of excessive penalties.”
The second paragraph of Article 5 requires that —
1. The court after trial finds the accused guilty.
2. The penalty provided by law and which the court imposes

for the crime committed appears to be clearly excessive, because
—
a. the accused acted with lesser degree of malice, and/ or;

b. there is no injury or the injury caused is of lesser gravity.
3. The court should not suspend the execution of the sentence.
4. The judge should submit a statement to the Chief Executive,

through the Secretary of Justice,
recommending executive clemency.
Examples of the accused acting with lesser degree of malice:
In a case where the accused maltreated his wife in his inebriated

state, because she prevented him from whipping their negligent
son, and the maltreatment inflicted by the accused was the
proximate cause of her death, the Supreme Court applied Article 5
of the R.P.C., “considering that the accused had no intent to kill his
wife and that her death might have been hastened by lack of
appropriate medical attendance or her weak constitution.” The
penalty of reclusion perpetua, prescribed by law for the crime
committed, appears to be excessive. (People v. Monleon, No. L-
36282, December 10, 1976, 74 SCRA 263, 269)
Example of injury caused is of lesser gravity:
Facts: The victim, a four-year-old child, was brought by the accused to the house
of a certain Juanita Niu. The accused initially denied knowing where the victim
was but the next day, told the victim’s grandmother that the victim was at Niu’s
house. The accused accompanied the victim’s father and police officers to Niu’s
house and found the victim well-dressed and smiling. Accused was convicted of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
Held: We agree with the trial court that a strict application of Article 267 of the
R.P.C. would be too harsh, taking into consideration the minimal injury caused
by the offense. We agree that the accused be recommended to the Chief
Executive for the possible exercise of his pardoning power. Pursuant to Article 5
of the R.P.C., we recommend to His Excellency, the President of the Philippines,
through the Secretary of Justice, the grant to accused of either a
commutation of sentence to an indeterminate penalty of
prision correccional to prision mayor or executive clemency. (People v.
Acbangin, G.R. No. 117216, August 9, 2000)
Example of total absence of injury:
The defendant chief of police altered and falsified the municipal police blotter
and the book of records of arrests and the return of the warrant of arrest and
the bail bond of a person charged with qualified seduction so as to make them
show that the said person was arrested and gave bond on the 13th day of
September 1930, whereas, in truth and in fact, as said records showed before
said falsification, that person was arrested and released on bond on the 6th day
of September 1930; and that defendant justice of the peace conspired and
cooperated with his co-defendant in making said falsification in order to meet
the administrative charges then pending against him. In other words, those
falsifications were committed to make it appear that there was no delay in the
preliminary investigation conducted by the justice of the peace for qualified
seduction. In this case, there is apparent lack of malice and total absence of
injury. (People v. Cabagsan and Montano, 57 Phil. 598)
Stages in the commission of crime. 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 some causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
a. Consumated
b. Frustrated
c. Attempted
d. Formal crimes
Stages in the commission of crime. 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 some causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
a. Consumated
b. Frustrated
c. Attempted
d. Formal crimes
Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.
Consummated felonies as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable.
A felony is CONSUMMATED when all the elements necessary for its

execution and accomplishment are present; and it is FRUSTRATED
when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do
not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
There is an ATTEMPT when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform
all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by
reason of some cause or accident other than this own
spontaneous desistance.
Consummated felony, defined. A felony is consummated when all the
elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
Frustrated felony, defined. 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.
Attempted felony, defined. 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.
Development of crime.
From the moment the culprit conceives the idea of committing a

crime up to the realization of the same, his act passes through
certain stages.
These stages are: (1) internal acts; and (2) external acts.
1. Internal acts, such as mere ideas in the mind of a person, are not
punishable even if, had they been carried out, they would constitute
a crime.
Intention and effect must concur.

Mere intention producing no effect is no more a crime than a mere
effect without the intention is a crime.
Thus, if A intended to commit treason and joined a body of armed
men in the belief that they were Makapilis, when in fact they were
Guerrilleros, A was not liable for treason, despite his intent. (Albert)
2. External acts cover (a) preparatory acts; and (b) acts of execution.
a. Preparatory acts — ordinarily they are not punishable.
Ordinarily, preparatory acts are not punishable. Hence, proposal and

conspiracy to commit a felony, which are only preparatory acts, are not
punishable, except when the law provides for their punishment in certain
felonies. (Art. 8)
But preparatory acts which are considered in themselves, by law, as

independent crimes are punishable. Example: Possession of picklocks under
Article 304. The possession of picklocks is a preparatory act to the commission
of robbery. (Arts. 299 and 302)
The other examples of preparatory acts are: (1) buying poison or carrying a
weapon with which to kill the intended victim; (2) carrying inflammable
materials to the place where a house is to be burned, etc.
For merely doing any of these acts, a person is not liable for attempted
homicide or attempted arson, because they do not constitute even the first
stage of the acts of execution of those crimes.
b. Acts of execution — they are punishable under the R.P.C.
The stages of acts of execution — attempted, frustrated, and

consummated — are punishable. (Art. 6)
The first stage of the acts of execution of a felony is the attempted; the
second stage, the frustrated; and the last stage, the consummated.
In performing the acts of execution of a felony, the offender may reach

only the first stage or the second stage. In either case, he does not
produce the felony he intends to commit. But he is liable for attempted
felony or frustrated felony, as the case may be.
Attempted felony. There is an attempt when the offender
begins the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.
He has not performed all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony.
Elements of attempted felony:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony

directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should

produce the felony;
3. The offender's act is not stopped by his own spontaneous

desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to

cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ARTICLE 6.
1. “Commences the commission of a felony directly by

overt acts.”
When is the commission of a felony deemed commenced

directly by overt acts? When the following two requisites
are present:
(1) That there be external acts;
(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the

crime intended to be committed.
The external acts must be related to the overt acts of the
crime the offender intended to commit.
The external acts referred to in the first requisite must be

related to the overt acts of the crime the offender intended
to commit. They should not be mere preparatory acts, for
preparatory acts do not have direct connection with the
crime which the offender intends to commit.
“Overt acts” defined.
An overt act is some physical activity or deed, indicating

the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a
mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its
complete termination following its natural course,
without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the
voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete offense.
Preparatory acts and overt acts, distinguished.
If A bought poison from a drugstore, in preparation for the killing of B by

means of poison, such act is only a preparatory act. It is not an overt act,
because it has no direct connection with the crime of murder which A
intended to commit. The poison purchased may be used by A to kill rats or
insects. Hence, the act of buying poison did not disclose necessarily an
intention to kill a person with it.
But if A mixed the poison with the food intended for B, and the latter, not
knowing that it contained poison, put into his mouth a spoonful thereof, the
act of A was more than a mere planning or preparation for the commission of
murder. The buying of poison and mixing it with the food of B who later put
into his mouth part thereof to eat it, taken together, constituted the overt
acts of murder. The nature of the external act thus performed by A clearly
indicated that he intended to commit the crime of murder. If for some reason
or another, B threw away the food with poison from his mouth, A is liable for
attempted murder.
Note: Killing a person by means of poison is murder. (Art. 248, R.P.C.)

The external acts must have a direct connection with the
crime intended to be committed by the offender.
At early dawn, A was surprised by a policeman while in

the act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall
of a store of cheap goods. At that time the owner of the
store was sleeping inside with another Chinaman. A had
only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening
another from the wall.
Is there an attempted robbery in this case?

No, because while it is true that the 1st requisite is present, that is,
there were external acts of breaking one board and unfastening
another from the wall of the store to make an opening through which
A could enter the store, yet the 2nd requisite is not present, for such
acts had no direct connection with the crime of robbery by the use of
force upon things.
In case of robbery by the use of force upon things, in order that the
simple act of entering by means of force another person’s dwelling
may be considered an attempt to commit this offense, it must be
shown that the offender clearly intended to take possession, for the
purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging to another.
The crime committed was attempted trespass to
dwelling, because the intention of the accused was
obviously disclosed by his act of making an opening
through the wall, and that was to enter the store against
the will of its owner who was then living there. (People
v. Lamahang, 61 Phil. 703) It is only an attempt, because
A was not able to perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony of trespass to dwelling.
Had A commenced entering the dwelling through the
opening, he would have performed all the acts of
execution.
What is an indeterminate offense?
It is one where the purpose of the offender in

performing an act is not certain. Its nature in relation to
its objective is ambiguous.
In the case of People v. Lamahang, supra, the final

objective of the offender, once he succeeded in entering
the store, may be to rob, to cause physical injury to the
inmates, or to commit any other offense. In such a case,
there is no justification in finding the offender guilty of
attempted robbery by the use of force upon things.
The intention of the accused must be viewed from the
nature of the acts executed by him, and not from his
admission.
The intention of the accused must be ascertained from

the facts and, therefore, it is necessary that the mind
be able to directly infer from them the intention of the
perpetrator to cause a particular injury.
1. “Directly by overt acts.”
The law requires that “the offender commences the commission of the
felony directly by overt acts.”
Only offenders who personally execute the commission of a crime can be

guilty of attempted felony. The word “directly” suggests that the offender
must commence the commission of the felony by taking direct part in the
execution of the act.
Thus, if A induced B to kill C, but B refused to do it, A cannot be held liable

for attempted homicide, because, although there was an attempt on the
part of A, such an attempt was not done directly with physical activity. The
inducement made by A to B is in the nature of a proposal, not ordinarily
punished by law.
But if B, pursuant to his agreement with A, commenced the commission of

the crime by shooting C, with intent to kill, but missed and did not injure C,
both A and B are guilty of attempted felony, because of conspiracy. When
there is conspiracy, the rule is — the act of one is the act of all.
2. “Does not perform all the acts of execution.”
If the offender has performed all the acts of execution — nothing

more is left to be done — the stage of execution is that of a frustrated
felony, if the felony is not produced; or consummated, if the felony is
produced.
If anything yet remained for him to do, he would be guilty of an

attempted crime. (U.S. v. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209)
Thus, as in the case of People v. Lamahang, when the accused, for the
purpose of entering the dwelling of another broke one board and
unfastened another from the wall but before he could start entering
through the opening thus created he was arrested by a policeman,
the crime committed was only attempted trespass to dwelling,
because there was something yet for him to do, that is, to commence
entering the dwelling through that opening in order to perform all the
acts of execution.
3. “By reason of some cause or accident.”
In attempted felony, the offender fails to perform all the acts of

execution which should produce the felony because of some cause
or accident,
Examples:
Cause.
A picked the pocket of B, inside of which there was a wallet
containing 750.00. Before A could remove it from the pocket of B,
the latter grabbed A’s hand and prevented him from taking it. In this
case, A failed to perform all the acts of execution, that is, taking the
wallet, because of a cause, that is, the timely discovery by B of the
overt act of A.
Accident.
A aimed his pistol at B to kill the latter, but when he pressed the
trigger it jammed and no bullet was fired from the pistol.
4. ‘Other than his own spontaneous desistance.”
If the actor does not perform all the acts of execution by

reason of his own spontaneous desistance, there is no
attempted felony. The law does not punish him.
Reason:
It is a sort of reward granted by law to those who, having

one foot on the verge of crime, heed the call of their
conscience and return to the path of righteousness. (Viada,
Cod. Pen., 35-36)
One who takes part in planning a criminal act but desists in
its actual commission is exempt from criminal liability. For
after taking part in the planning, he could have desisted
from taking part in the actual commission of the crime by
listening to the call of his conscience (People v. Viliacorte,
No. L-21860, February 28, 1974, 85 SCRA 640, 654)
The desistance may be through fear or remorse. (People vu.

Pambaya, 60 Phil. 1022) It is not necessary that it be
actuated by a good motive. The Code requires only that the
discontinuance of the crime comes from the person who has
begun it, and that he stops of his own free will. (Albert)
Subjective phase of the offense.
In attempted felony, the offender never passes the subjective

phase of the offense.
Definition of subjective phase of the offense.
It is that portion of the acts constituting the crime, starting

from the point where the offender begins the commission of
the crime to that point where he has still control over his
acts, including their (acts’) natural course.
If between these two points the offender is stopped by any cause outside of his
own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an
attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is
frustrated, provided the crime is not produced. The acts then of the offender
reached the objective phase of the crime.
Thus, if A, with intent to kill, mixes poison in the soup intended for B, and B
begins to take into his mouth a spoonful of it, until this point, A can still prevent
the poisoning of B by voluntarily desisting and telling B to throw away the
substance from his mouth as it contains poison. But from the moment B swallows
it, A has no more control over his acts. The poison is now in B’s stomach and it
will require the intervention of a physician to prevent the poisoning of B.
If because of the intervention of the physician, B did not die, A will be liable for
frustrated murder. The acts performed by A, following their natural course,
passed from the subjective phase to the objective phase of the crime.
Frustrated felony, defined. 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.
Frustrated felony.
Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;

2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES.
1. “Performs all the acts of execution.”
In frustrated felony, the offender must perform all the acts of execution. Nothing
more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime. This element distinguishes frustrated felony
from attempted felony. In attempted felony, the offender does not perform all
the acts of execution. He does not perform the last act necessary to produce the
crime. He merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.
Thus, if A, with intent to kill, fires his gun at B, the discharge of the gun is only an
overt act. If the slug fired from the gun misses B or the wound inflicted on B is
not mortal, the last act necessary to produce the crime of homicide is not yet
performed by A. But if the wound inflicted is mortal, that is, sufficient to cause
death, A performs the last act. If no medical attendance is given, B would surely
die. In homicide or murder, the crime is consummated if the victim dies. If the
victim survives, the crime is frustrated. (See U.S. v. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209)
2. “Would produce the felony as a consequence.”
All the acts of execution performed by the offender could have produced the felony
as a consequence.
Thus, when A approached B stealthily from behind and made a movement with his
right hand to strike B on the back with a deadly knife, but the blow, instead of
reaching the spot intended, landed on the frame of the back of the chair on which B
was sitting at the time and did not cause the slightest physical injury on B, the stage
of execution should have been that of attempted murder only, because without
inflicting a deadly wound upon a vital spot of which B should have died, the crime of
murder would not be produced as a consequence.
The case of People uv. Kalalo, 59 Phil. 715, sustains the above opinion. In crimes
against persons, such as murder, which require that the victim should die to
consummate the felony, it is necessary for the frustration of the same that a mortal
wound is inflicted.
3. “Do not produce it.”
In frustrated felony, the acts performed by the offender

do not produce the felony, because if the felony is
produced it would be consummated.
4. “Independent of the will of the perpetrator.”
Even if all the acts of execution have been performed, the crime may not be
consummated, because certain causes may prevent its consummation. These
certain causes may be the intervention of third persons who prevented the
consummation of the offense or may be due to the perpetrator’s own will.
If the crime is not produced because of the timely intervention of a third person, it
is frustrated.
If the crime is not produced because the offender himself prevented its
consummation, there is no frustrated felony, for the 4th element is not present.
Note that the fourth element says that the felony is not produced “by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.” Hence, if the cause which
prevented the consummation of the offense was the perpetrator’s own and
exclusive will, the 4th element does not exist.
Consummated felony.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary

for its execution and
accomplishment are present.
“All the elements” necessary for its execution and

accomplishment “are present.”
In consummated felony, all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment must be present. Every crime
has its own elements which must all be present to constitute
a culpable violation of a precept of law.
Stages in the commission of a felony 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.
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. Formal Crimes
Stages in the commission of a felony 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.
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. Formal Crimes
Formal Crimes
- are those which are always consumated by a single
act like oral defamation.
Material Crimes
- are those which have three stages of execution
namely, attempted, frustrated and consumated.
In the development of crime it refers to mere ideas in the
mind of a person, are not punishable even if, had they
been carried out, they would constitute a crime.
a. Internal Acts
b. External Acts
c. Preparatory Acts
d. Acts of Execution
In the development of crime it refers to mere ideas in the
mind of a person, are not punishable even if, had they
been carried out, they would constitute a crime.
a. Internal Acts
b. External Acts
c. Preparatory Acts
d. Acts of Execution
Is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense.
a. Preparatory Acts
b. Overt Acts
c. Formal Crimes
d. Material Crimes
Is some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to
commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or
preparation, which if carried to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by
external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a
concrete offense.
a. Preparatory Acts
b. Overt Acts
c. Formal Crimes
d. Material Crimes
Preparatory acts and overt acts, distinguished.
If A bought poison from a drugstore, in preparation for the killing of B by

means of poison, such act is only a preparatory act. It is not an overt act,
because it has no direct connection with the crime of murder which A
intended to commit. The poison purchased may be used by A to kill rats or
insects. Hence, the act of buying poison did not disclose necessarily an
intention to kill a person with it.
But if A mixed the poison with the food intended for B, and the latter, not
knowing that it contained poison, put into his mouth a spoonful thereof, the
act of A was more than a mere planning or preparation for the commission of
murder. The buying of poison and mixing it with the food of B who later put
into his mouth part thereof to eat it, taken together, constituted the overt
acts of murder. The nature of the external act thus performed by A clearly
indicated that he intended to commit the crime of murder. If for some reason
or another, B threw away the food with poison from his mouth, A is liable for
attempted murder.
Note: Killing a person by means of poison is murder. (Art. 248, R.P.C.)

At early dawn, A was surprised by a policeman while in the
act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a
store of cheap goods. At that time the owner of the store
was sleeping inside with another Chinaman. A had only
succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening
another from the wall. What crime was committed by A?
a. Attempted robbery
b. Attempted Trespass to Dwelling
c. Frustrated Robbery
d. Consumated Robbery
At early dawn, A was surprised by a policeman while in the
act of making an opening with an iron bar on the wall of a
store of cheap goods. At that time the owner of the store
was sleeping inside with another Chinaman. A had only
succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening
another from the wall. What crime was committed by A?
a. Attempted robbery
b. Attempted Trespass to Dwelling
c. Frustrated Robbery
d. Consumated Robbery
It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an
act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous.
a. External Acts
b. Preparatory Acts
c. Acts of Execution
d. Indeterminate Offense
It is one where the purpose of the offender in performing an
act is not certain. Its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous.
a. External Acts
b. Preparatory Acts
c. Acts of Execution
d. Indeterminate Offense
A picked the pocket of B, inside of which there was a
wallet containing 750.00. Before A could remove it from
the pocket of B, the latter grabbed A’s hand and prevented
him from taking it. What stages of execution is referring
to?
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. Indertiminate Offense
A picked the pocket of B, inside of which there was a
wallet containing 750.00. Before A could remove it from
the pocket of B, the latter grabbed A’s hand and prevented
him from taking it. What stages of execution is referring
to?
a. Attempted -cause
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. Indertiminate Offense
A aimed his pistol at B to kill the latter, but when he pressed
the trigger it jammed and no bullet was fired from the
pistol.
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. Material Crimes
A aimed his pistol at B to kill the latter, but when he pressed
the trigger it jammed and no bullet was fired from the
pistol.
a. Attempted -accident
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. Material Crimes
Pedro with intent to kill draw his pistol and pointed it to
Juan but remembering their friendship the former
desisted his act and went home. Is Pedro liable for
attempted Homicide?
a. Yes, because he pointed it to Juan

b. No, because of Spontaneous desistance
c. Yes, because Juan has intent to kill
d. Absolutory Cause
Pedro with intent to kill draw his pistol and pointed it to
Juan but remembering their friendship the former
desisted his act and went home. Is Pedro liable for
attempted Homicide?
a. Yes, because he pointed it to Juan

b. No, because of Spontaneous desistance
c. Yes, because Juan has intent to kill
d. Absolutory Cause
Elements of attempted felony:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony

directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should

produce the felony;
3. The offender's act is not stopped by his own spontaneous

desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to

cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
It is a phase of a crime. It is that portion of the acts
constituting the crime, starting from the point where the
offender begins the commission of the crime to that point
where he has still control over his acts, including their
(acts’) natural course.
a. Subjective Phase
b. Objective Phase
c. Frustrated stage
d. No control over his acts
It is a phase of a crime. It is that portion of the acts
constituting the crime, starting from the point where the
offender begins the commission of the crime to that point
where he has still control over his acts, including their
(acts’) natural course.
a. Subjective Phase
b. Objective Phase
c. Frustrated stage
d. No control over his acts
If between these two points the offender is stopped by any cause outside of his
own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an
attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is
frustrated, provided the crime is not produced. The acts then of the offender
reached the objective phase of the crime.
Thus, if A, with intent to kill, mixes poison in the soup intended for B, and B
begins to take into his mouth a spoonful of it, until this point, A can still prevent
the poisoning of B by voluntarily desisting and telling B to throw away the
substance from his mouth as it contains poison. But from the moment B swallows
it, A has no more control over his acts. The poison is now in B’s stomach and it
will require the intervention of a physician to prevent the poisoning of B.
If because of the intervention of the physician, B did not die, A will be liable for
frustrated murder. The acts performed by A, following their natural course,
passed from the subjective phase to the objective phase of the crime.
Pedro with intent to kill fires Juan hitting his head causing
mortal wound. But due to timely medical intervention Juan
survive. What is the stage of crime commission?
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. No crime
mortal wound. But due to timely medical intervention Juan
survive. What is the stage of crime commission?
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. No crime
Pedro with intent to kill fires Juan hitting his finger a non
mortal wound. What is the stage of crime commission?
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. No crime
Pedro with intent to kill fires Juan hitting his finger a non
mortal wound. What is the stage of crime commission?
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. No crime
Pedro with intent to kill fires Juan hitting his head causing a
mortal wound, a sudden conscience enters into the mind of
Pedro, He brought Juan to the hospital and due to timely
medical intervention. Juan survived. What specific crime
did Pedro commit?
a. Attempted Homicide
b. Frustrated Homicide
c. Attempted Physical Injury
d. Consumated Physical Injury
Pedro with intent to kill fires Juan hitting his head causing a
mortal wound, a sudden conscience enters into the mind of
Pedro, He brought Juan to the hospital and due to timely
medical intervention. Juan survived. What specific crime
did Pedro commit?
b. Frustrated Homicide
a mortal wound, a sudden conscience enters into the
mind of Pedro, however a sudden conscience enters into
the mind of Pedro, He brought Juan to the hospital
however Juan still died. What specific crime did Pedro
commit?
b. Consumated Homicide
a mortal wound, a sudden conscience enters into the
mind of Pedro, however a sudden conscience enters into
the mind of Pedro, He brought Juan to the hospital
however Juan still died. What specific crime did Pedro
commit?
b. Consumated Homicide
Art. 7. When light felonies are punishable. — Light
felonies are punishable only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those
committed against persons or property.
Grave Felonies
-Are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their period are afflictive, In accordance
with the article 25 of the RPC.
Less Grave Felonies

- Are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional in accordance with
abovementioned article.
Light Felonies
- Are those infraction of law or the commission of which the penalty
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos
(40,000) or both is provided.
The light felonies punished by the R.P.C.
1. Slight physical injuries. (Art. 266, pars. 2 and 3)

2. Theft. (Art. 309, pars. 7 and 8)
3. Alteration of boundary marks. (Art. 313)
4. Malicious mischief. (Art. 328, par. 3; Art. 329, par. 3)
5. Intriguing against honor. (Art. 364)
6. Disobedience to an agent of a person in authority. (Art. 151, par.
2)
7. Alarms and scandals. (Art. 155)
8. Concealing true name. (Art. 178)
9. Prostitution. (Art. 202)
10. Other forms of trespass. (Art. 281)
11. Other light threats. (Art. 285)
12. Light coercion. (Art. 287)
13. Destroying and damaging paintings. (Art. 331)
14. Slander by deed, not serious. (Art. 359)
1. “With the exception of those committed against persons or

property.”
General rule.
Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated.
Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property, are punishable even if
attempted or frustrated.
Reason for the general rule.

Light felonies produce such light, such insignificant moral and material injuries that
public conscience is satisfied with providing light penalty for their consummation. If
they are not consummated, the wrong done is so slight that there is no need of
providing a penalty at all, (Albert)
Reason for the exception.

The commission of felonies against persons or property presupposes in the offender
moral depravity. For that reason, even attempted or frustrated light felonies against
persons or property are punishable,
Example of light felonies against person:
Article 266 — Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.
Examples of light felonies against property:
1, Article 309, No. 7 ~ Theft by hunting or fishing or gathering fruits,

cereals or other forest or farm products upon an inclosed estate or
field where trespass is forbidden and the value of the thing stolen
does not exceed 500.00
2. Article 309, No. 8 — Theft, where the value of the stolen property
does not exceed 500.00 and the offender was prompted by hunger,
poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood.
3, Article 313 — Alteration of boundary marks.
4, Article 328, No. 3; Article 329, No. 3 ~ Malicious mischief where the
damage is not more than 40,000.00 or if it cannot be estimated.
As a General rule Light felonies are punishable only when
they have been ______.
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. Formal
they have been ______.
a. Attempted
b. Frustrated
c. Consumated
d. Formal
they have been consummated.
Exception: Light felonies committed against ____ or

____, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated.
a. National Security or Public Order

b. Liberty or Chastity
d. Persons or Property
d. Nota
they have been consummated.
Exception: Light felonies committed against ____ or

____, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated.
a. National Security or Public Order

b. Liberty or Chastity
d. Persons or Property
d. Nota
The following light felonies are not punishable unless consumated
except.
a. Alarms and Scandal

b. Concealing true name
c. Intriguing against honor
d. Alteration of boundary marks
The following light felonies are not punishable unless consumated
except.
a. Alarms and Scandal - Crimes against Public Order

b. Concealing true name - Crime against Public interest
c. Intriguing against honor - Crimes against honor
d. Alteration of boundary marks - Crimes against Property
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony.
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are punishable
only in the cases in which the law specially provides a
penalty therefor.
A CONSPIRACY exists when two or more persons come to

an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.
There is PROPOSAL when the person who has decided to

commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit a Felony- are punishable only
in the cases in which the law specifically provides a penalty
therefore.
Cases Where Mere Conspiracy Is Already Punishable:

1. Conspiracy to commit treason (Art.115);
2. Conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136);
3. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);
4. Conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce (Art. 186)
5. Conspiracy to commit terrorism under RA 9372
6. Conspiracy to commit arson under PD 1602.
Cases Where Mere Proposal Is Already Punishable:

1. Proposal to commit treason (Art. 115);
2. Proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection (Art. 136).
Note:
Act of One is Act of All.
General rule.
Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are not
punishable.
Exception: They are punishable only in the cases in which

the law specially provides a penalty therefor.
Reason for the rule. , Conspiracy and proposal to commit a

crime are only preparatory acts, and the law regards them
as innocent or at least permissible except in rare and
exceptional cases.
It exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
a. Formal Crimes
b. Material Crimes
c. Conspiracy
d. Proposal
It exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
a. Formal Crimes
b. Material Crimes
c. Conspiracy
d. Proposal
When the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
this is referring to?
a. Formal Crimes
b. Material Crimes
c. Conspiracy
d. Proposal
When the person who has decided to commit a felony
proposes its execution to some other person or persons.
this is referring to?
a. Formal Crimes
b. Material Crimes
c. Conspiracy
d. Proposal
The following are punishable except?
a. Conspiracy to commit treason

b. Conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection
c. Proposal to commit treason
d. Conspiracy to commit Murder
The following are punishable except?
a. Conspiracy to commit treason

b. Conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection
c. Proposal to commit treason
d. Conspiracy to commit Murder
Are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their
period are afflictive, In accordance with the article
25 of the RPC.
a. Grave Felonies
Are those to which the
b. Less grave Felonies
law attaches the capital
c. Light Felonies
punishment or penalties
d. Nota which in any of their
period are afflictive, In
accordance with the
article 25 of the RPC.
a. Grave Felonies
Are those to which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their
period are afflictive, In accordance with the article
25 of the RPC.
a. Grave Felonies
Are those to which the
b. Less grave Felonies
law attaches the capital
c. Light Felonies
punishment or penalties
d. Nota which in any of their
period are afflictive, In
Purpose accordance with the
- to determinearticle
if it can
25 be complex
of the RPC. or not
- prescriptiona.
ofGrave
CrimeFelonies
and Penalty
Article 9
Grave Felonies
-Are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or
penalties which in any of their period are afflictive, In accordance
with the article 25 of the RPC.
Less Grave Felonies

- Are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period are correctional in accordance with
abovementioned article.
Light Felonies
- Are those infraction of law or the commission of which the penalty
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos
(40,000) or both is provided.
Fine
Afflictive - exceeds 1, 200,000
Correctional - not exceed 1,200,000 but not less than

40,000
Light - less than 40,000

Art. 10. Offenses not subject to the provisions of this
Code. Offenses which are or in the future may be
punishable under special laws are not subject to the
provisions of this Code. This Code shall be supplementary
to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary.
Special Law- a law which defines and punishes act not

found in the RPC
Which of the following statement is correct?
a. Special laws are supplementary to RPC

b. RPC are supplementary to Special law
c. All are correct
d. None is correct
Which of the following statement is correct?
a. Special laws are supplementary to RPC

b. RPC are supplementary to Special law
c. All are correct
d. None is correct
Circumstances affecting Criminal liability. Are those where the acts of
the person are said to be in accordance with the law, therefore he is
deemed not to have transgress the law. There is no criminal and civil
liability except in par. 4.
a. Justifying Circumstances
b. Exempting Circumstances
c. Mitigating Circumstances
d. Aggravating Circumstances
e. Alternative Circumstances
Note:
Imputability- the quality by which a criminal act maybe pinpointed
to another as its doer or author.
Responsibility- is the obligation of an offender in suffering the

consequences of a crime.
Circumstances affecting Criminal liability. Are those where
the acts of the person are said to be in accordance with the
law, therefore he is deemed not to have transgress the law.
There is no criminal and civil liability except in par. 4.
a. Justifying Circumstances
b. Exempting Circumstances
c. Mitigating Circumstances
e. Alternative Circumstances
The circumstances affecting criminal liability are:
I. Justifying circumstances (Art. 11)
II. Exempting circumstances (Art. 12), and other

absolutery causes (Arts. 20; 124, last par.; 280, last par.;
332; 344; etc)
III. Mitigating circumstances (Art. 13)
IV. Aggravating circumstances (Art. 14)
V. Alternative circumstances (Art. 15)

Definition.
Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a

person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such
person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is
free from both criminal and civil liability.
There is no civil liability, except in paragraph 4 of Article
11, where the civil liability is borne by the persons
benefited by the act.
Basis of justifying circumstances.
The law recognizes the non-existence of a crime by

expressly stating in the opening sentence of Article 11
that the persons therein mentioned “do not incur any
criminal liability.”
Self-defense.
Well-entrenched is the rule that where the accused

invokes self defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove
by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted
in defense of himself. He must rely on the strength of
his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecution. For, even if the prosecution evidence is
weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused
himself had admitted the killing. (People v. Sazon, G.R.
No. 89684, September 18, 1990, 189 SCRA 700, 704;
People v. Rey, G.R. No. 80089, April 13, 1989, 172 SCRA
149, 156)
Justifying Circumstances
1. Self defense
2. Defense of relatives
3. Defense of strangers
4. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
5. Fulfillment of duty or lawful exercise of right or office
6. Obedience to an order issued for some lawful purpose
7. Battered woman syndrome under RA 9344 is now added
Part 1 - Self defense
Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,

provided that the following circumstances concur;
Requisites
1. Unlawful aggression.
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.
Meaning of unlawful aggression.
Unlawful aggression is equivalent to assault or at least threatened assault of

an immediate and imminent kind.
There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one’s life, limb
There must be actual physical force or actual use of weapon.
There must be an actual physical assault upon a person, or at least a threat to

inflict real injury.
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack,

or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating
attitude.
It cannot consist in oral threats or a merely threatening stance or posture.
When there is no peril to one's life, limb, or right, there is no unlawful

aggression.
Note:
* When the aggressor flees, there is no more unlawful

aggression
* But when he retreats to take advantage of a better

position, unlawful aggression still exists
* There is no unlawful aggression when there is an

agreement to a fight.
* Rights involved in self defense includes defense of

honor and property.
Retreat to the wall doctrine Stand ground when in the
right
1. An ancient common law
rule in homicide which A rule which states that
made it the duty of a where the accused is where
person assailed to retreat he has the right to be, the
as far as he can before he is law does not require him to
justified in meeting force retreat when his assailant is
with force advancing upon him with a
deadly weapon.
2. No longer followed in the it is currently the rule in the

Philippines Philippines
Note:
* The belief of the accused is considered in determining

the existence of unlawful aggression.
* But a mere threatening attitude is not unlawful

aggression.
* Cases where the unlawful aggressor is disarmed
* The defender must not indiscriminately fire his weapon

Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it.
This second requisite of defense presupposes the existence

of unlawful aggression, which is either imminent or actual.
Hence, in stating the second requisite, two phrases are used,
namely:
(1) “to prevent” and (2) “to repel.” When we are attacked,
the danger to our life or limb is either imminent or actual. In
making a defense, we prevent the aggression that places us
in imminent danger or repel the aggression that places us in
actual danger. A threat to inflict real injury places us in
imminent danger. An actual physical assault places us in
actual danger.
In the case of U.S. v. Batungbacal, 37 Phil. 382, the
Supreme Court stated: “The law protects not only the
person who repels an aggression (meaning actual), but
even the person who tries to prevent an aggression that is
expected (meaning imminent).”
The second requisite of defense means that: (1) there be a

necessity of the course of action taken by the person
making a defense, and (2) there be a necessity of the
means used. Both must be reasonable.
The reasonableness of either or both such necessity

depends on the existence of unlawful aggression and upon
the nature and extent of the aggression.
Test Of Reasonableness In Determining Whether There
Is Self Defense
1. Nature of the weapon used by the aggressor

2. Quality of his weapon
3. The physical conditions of both parties
4. Place of the aggression and others
Provocation- any unjust or improper conduct on the
part of the offended party capable of inciting or
irritating any one.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself".
Reason for the third requisite of self-defense.
When the person defending himself from the attack by

another gave sufficient provocation to the latter, the former
is also to be blamed for having given cause for the
aggression. Hence, to be entitled to the benefit of the
justifying circumstance of self-defense, the one defending
himself must not have given cause for the aggression by his
unjust conduct or by inciting or provoking the assailant.
Cases in which third requisite of self-defense considered present.
The third requisite of self-defense is present —
1. When no provocation at all was given to the aggressor by

the person defending himself; or
2. When, even if a provocation was given, it was not sufficient; or
3. When, even if the provocation was sufficient, it was not given by

the person defending himself: or
4. When, even if a provocation was given by the person defending

himself, it was not proximate and immediate to the act of aggression.
(Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of March 5, 1902 and of

April 20, 1906)
Note:
Who has the burden to prove self defense?
The defense (accused)
Determine if The elements of Self defense are Present.
1. Pedro a Robber suddenly attack Juan with a knife. Juan

immediately draw his pistol and shot Juan causing his
death. Can Juan invoke self defense?
2. Pedro a bystander suddenly slap Juan in the face. Juan

immediately draw his pistol and shot Juan to death. Can
Juan invoke self defense?
3. Juan Slap Pedro in the face several times. Because of

anger Pedro draw his knife and stabbed Juan, but Juan
evaded the attack and draw his pistol and shot Pedro
causing his death? Can Juan invoke self defense?
Battered Woman Syndrome
Section 26 of RA 9262 provides that “ Victim-survivors who

are found by the courts to be suffering from battered
woman syndrome DO NOT INCUR ANY CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
LIABILITY NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF ANY
ELEMENTS FOR JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SELF
DEFENSE UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE.
In the determination of the state of mind of the woman

who was suffering from the battered woman syndrome at
the time of the commission of the crime, the courts shall be
assisted by expert psychiatrists/psychologists.
Battery- refers to any act of inflicting physical harm upon
the woman or her child resulting to physical and
psychological or emotional distress
Battered Woman- one who is repeatedly subjected to any

forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in
order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do
without concern for her rights. It includes wives or woman
in any form of intimate relationship with a man. The couple
must go through the acute battering cycle at least twice.
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS)- refers to a scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms
found in women living in battering relationships as a result
of cumulative abuse.
Cycles of Violence in BWS
1. Tension Building Phase- where minor battering occurs

such as verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of
hostile behavior.
2. Acute Battering Incident- characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and death.
3. Tranquil or Loving Phase- The batterer shows loving
caring nurture to the victim.
Note:
In the case of People vs. Marivic Genosa, January 15,

2004, also September 29, 2000, the Supreme Court
speaking through Justice Artemio Panganiban appreciated
the BWS only as mitigating circumstance under “analogous
circumstances” that diminish will power under Par. 10, Art.
13, RPC. However, RA 9262 formally established BWS as
justifying circumstance. Thus, BWS is now a new justifying
circumstance pursuant to this (RA 9262) Special Penal Law.
Part 2. Defense of Relatives Requisites
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,

ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers
or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first
and second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance
are present, and the further requisite, in case the revocation was
given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no
part therein.
Requisites
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 therein.
Relatives that can be defended
1. Spouse
2. Ascendants
3. Descendants
4. Legitimate, Natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity in the same degrees
5. Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
Relatives by affinity.
Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parents-in-

law, son or daughter-in-law, and brother or sister-in-law.
Relatives by consanguinity.
Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers and sisters

are within the second civil degree; uncle and niece or aunt
and nephew are within the third civil degree; and first
cousins are within the fourth civil degree.
Determine if the elements of Defense of relatives are present?
1.Sonny while walking, suddenly stabbed by Pedro incessantly. The

Father of Sonny who saw the incident immediately drew his gun and
shot Pedro causing his death. Can the Father of Sonny invoke Defense
of relatives?
2.Pedro while walking peacefully suddenly punched in the face by

Sonny. Because of anger Pedro draw his knife and incessantly stabbed
Pedro. The father of Sonny who saw the incident immediately drew
his pistol and shot Pedro causing his death. Can the Father of Sonny
invoke Defense of relatives?
3.While walking peacefully, Father and Sonny punched Pedro in the

face. Because of anger Pedro drew his knife went to Sonny and
incessantly stabbed him. The Father immediately drew his gun and
shot Pedro causing his death. Can the Father of Sonny invoke Defense
Part 3. Defense of Strangers
Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a

stranger, provided that the first and second requisites
mentioned in the first circumstance of this article are
present and that the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Requisites
1. Unlawful aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it
3. The person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.
Who are deemed strangers?
Any person not included in the enumeration of relatives

mentioned in paragraph 2 of this article, is considered
stranger for the purpose of paragraph 3. Hence, even a
close friend or a distant relative is a stranger within the
meaning of paragraph 3.
Determine if there is Defense of Strangers.
1.Pedro saw his girlfriend who was being attacked with a

knife by Juan. Pedro draw his gun and shot Juan causing his
death. Can Pedro invoke Defense of strangers?
2.Maria was being attacked by Pedro with a knife. Juan who

saw the incident thought that it is his opportunity to make
revenge to Juan because of stealing his girlfriend. Juan draw
his gun and shot Pedro causing his death. Can Juan invoke
Defense of strangers?
Part 4. Avoidance of Greater Evil
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not

act which causes damage to another
Requisites
1. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;

2. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid
it;
3. That there be no other practical and less harmful means
of preventing it
"Damage to another"
This term covers injury to persons and damage to property.

There is civil liability under this paragraph.
Although, as a rule there is no civil liability in justifying

circumstances, it is only in paragraph 4 of Article 11 where
there is civil liability, but the civil liability is borne by the
persons benefited.
In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the

persons for whose benefit the harm has been prevented,
shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they
may have received. (Art. 101)
Determine if Avoidance of greater evil can be invoke
1. A truck lost its break and leading it's way to Pedro. Pedro
stuck between two choices. If he will stay on his lane the
truck will hit him and if he will swerve to the other side he
will hit the bystander. He chosed to swerved on the right
hitting the bystander causing his death. Can Pedro invoke
Avoidance of greater evil?
2. A fireman Destroy one house inorder prevent other

houses from burning. Can the fireman invoke Avoidance of
greater evil?
Part 5. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or
Office
Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the

lawful exercise of a right or office.
Requisites
1. The accused acted in the performance of duty or in the

lawful exercise of a right or office.
2. The injury caused is the consequence of the due

performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or
office.
1. In a hostage taking situation the hostage taker was about
to kill his captive. The SWAT officer with accuracy shot the
hostage taker to head causing his instantaneous death. Can
the SWAT officer invoke Paragraph 5 for the death of the
hostage taker?
2. Pedro punches the Robber who tries to grab his bag. The
robber sued Pedro for Physical Injury. Can Pedro invokes
paragraph 5?
Doctrine Of Self Help- states that the owner or the lawful
possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. Thus he may use
such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion
or usurpation of his property. (Art. 429 Civil Code)
3. A Surgeon amputated the leg of a patient to save him
from gangrene. The patient sued him for mutilation. Can
the Surgeon invoke Paragraph 5?
Part 6. Obedience to an Order Issued for some lawful
purpose.
Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a

superior for some lawful purpose.
Requisites
1. That an order has been issued by a superior.

2. That such order must be for some lawful purpose.
3. That the means used by the subordinate to carry out said
order is lawful
Both the person who gives the order and the person who
executes it, must be in acting within the limitations
prescribed by law.
Absence of third requisite
The court ordered that the convict should be executed on a

certain date. The executioner put him to death earlier than
the date fixed by the court.
The execution of convict, although by virtue of a lawful

order of the court, was carried out against the provision of
Article 82. The executioner is guilty of murder.
When the order is not for a lawful purpose, the
subordinate who obeyed it is criminally liable.
Asoldier who, in obedience to the order of his sergeant,

tortured to death the deceased for bringing a kind of fish
different from that he had been asked to furnish a
constabulary detachment, is criminally liable. Obedience to
an order of a superior is justified only when the order is for
some lawful purpose. The order to torture the deceased
was ilegal, and the accused was not bound to obey it.
The subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal

order of his superior, if he is not aware of the illegality of
the order.
Exempting circumstances.
1. Definition.
Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of
the crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary or
negligent.
2. 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.
Under the R.P.C., a person must act with malice or negligence to be
criminally liable. One who acts without intelligence, freedom of
action or intent does not act with malice. On the other hand, one
who acts without intelligence, freedom of action or fault does not act
with negligence.
Exempting Circumstances
1. Imbecility; Insanity (unless the latter acted during a lucid

interval)
2. A person under 9 (Repealed by RA 9344)
3. A person over 9 and under 15 unless he has acted with
discernment (Repealed by RA 9344)
4. Accident
5. Irresistible force
6. Uncontrollable fear
7. Lawful or insuperable cause.
In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed
but no Criminal liability arises.
Technically, one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting

circumstances commits a crime, although by the complete
absence of any of the conditions which constitute free will
or voluntariness of the act, no criminal liability arises.
(Guevara)
Burden of proof.
Any of the circumstances mentioned in Article 12 is a

matter of defense and the same must be proved by the
defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
Part 1.Imbecility; Insanity
Imbecile- one who is old but has a mental development

similar to children between the ages 2-7 years.
Insanity- one which exists when there is a complete

deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act,
that is the accused is deprived of reason and acts without
the least discernment.
The insane is not so exempt if it can be shown that he acted

during lucid interval
During lucid interval, the insane acts with intelligence.

Note:
Who has the burden to prove insanity?

Defense (Accused)
Insanity at the Time of the Commission of the Crime vs.
Insanity at the Time of Trial
When a person was insane at the time of the commission of

the felony, he is exempt from criminal liability.
When he was sane at the time of the commission of the

crime, but he becomes insane at the time of the trial, he is
liable criminally. The trial, however, will be suspended until
the mental capacity of the accused be restored to afford
him a fair trial.
Part 2. Minority
A person under nine years of age. (Repealed by RA 9344)
Age of absolute irresponsibility raised to 15 years of age.
Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as “Juvenile Justice

and Welfare Act of 2006,” raised the age of absolute
irresponsibility from nine to 15 years of age.
Part 3. Minority
A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he

has acted with discernment, in which case, such minor shall
be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of
Art. 80 of this Code. (Repealed by RA 9344)
Paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 12 of the R.P.C. repealed by Republic Act No. 9344.
(1) A child 15 years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability.
Under R.A. No. 9344, a child 15 years of age or under is exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subject to an intervention program pursuant to
Section 20 thereof.
A child is deemed to be 15 years of age on the day of the 15th anniversary of

his/her birthdate. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 9344)
(2) A child above 15 but below 18 is exempt from criminal liability unless he/she
acted with discernment.
A child above 15 years but below 18 years of age shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has
acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subject to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil liability,
which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.
Discernment- the mental capacity of a minor to distinguish
between right from wrong and to fully appreciate the
consequences of his felonious acts. It may be shown by:
a. manner of committing the crime;

b. conduct of the offender
c. such other circumstances
REPUBLIC ACT 9344- AN ACT ESTABLISHING A
COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
SYSTEM (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)
Child in Conflict with the Law- a child who is accused or
adjudged of having committed an offense.
Initial contact with the child- refers to the apprehension of a

child in conflict with the law by officers or private citizens.
Status Offense- offenses which discriminate only against a

child while an adult does not suffer any penalty for
committing similar acts. Examples are: curfew violations,
truancy, parental disobedience.
Section 6 RA 9344 says: A child 15 years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
from criminal liability.
A child above 15 years but below 18 shall likewise be

exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to
intervention program unless he has acted with
discernment.
Section 58 of the same law says: Persons below 18 years of

age shall be exempt from prosecution for the crime of
vagrancy and prostitution, of mendicancy under PD 1563
and sniffing of rugby under PD 1619.
Part 4. Accident
Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due

care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.
Requisites
1. A person performs a lawful act;

2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another;
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
What is an accident?
An accident is something that happens outside the sway

of our will, and although it comes about through some
act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly
foreseeable consequences.
If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a

case of negligence. (Albert)
A chauffeur, while driving his automobile on the proper
side of the road at a moderate speed and with due
diligence, suddenly and unexpectedly saw a man in front
of his vehicle coming from the sidewalk and crossing the
street without any warning that he would do so. Because
it was not physically possible to avoid hitting him, the said
chauffeur ran over the man with his car. It was held that
he was not criminally liable, it being a mere accident. (U.S.
v. Tayongtong, 21 Phil. 476)
Part 5. Irresistible Force
Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible

force.
Requisites.
1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force.

2. That the physical force must be irresistible.
3. That the physical force must come from a third person.
Irresistible force- a force which produces such an effect
upon an individual that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces
him to a mere instrument and as such incapable of
committing a crime
Example: In the case of U.S. v. Caballeros, et al., 4 Phil. 350,
it appears that Baculi, one of the accused who was not a
member of the band which murdered some American
schoolteachers, was in a plantation gathering bananas.
Upon hearing the shooting, he ran. However, Baculi was
seen by the leaders of the band who called him, and striking
him with the butts of their guns, they compelled him to bury
the bodies.
Held: Baculi was not criminally liable as accessory for

concealing the body of the crime (Art. 19) of murder
committed by the band, because Baculi acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force.
Part 6. Uncontrollable Fear
Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable

fear of an equal or greater injury.
Requisites.
1. That the threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater

than or at least equal to, that which he is required te
commit;
2. That it promises an evil of such gravity and imminence

that the ordinary man would have succumbed to it.
The exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear
presupposes that the accused is compelled by means of
threat or intimidation by a third person to commit a crime.
Basis:
“ ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS FACTUS”- An
act done by me against my will is not my act.
Illustration:
Liberato Exaltacion and Buenaventura Tanchinco were compelled under fear of

death to swear allegiance to the Katipunan whose purpose was to overthrow the
government by force of arms.
In this case, the accused cannot be held criminally liable for rebellion, because they
joined the rebels under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury. (U.S. v.
Exaltacion, 3 Phil. 339)
The penalty for rebellion, the crime which Exaltacion was required to commit, is
prision mayor, that is, imprisonment for a period of six years and one day to 12
years, and fine. The act which he was asked to commit was to swear allegiance to
the Katipunan and become one of those engaged in overthrowing the government
by force of arms. If he did not commit it, he would be killed. Death is a much greater
injury than imprisonment for 12 years and paying a fine.
But if A had threatened to burn the house of B should the
latter not kill his (B’s) father, and B killed his father for fear
that A might burn his (B’s) house, B is not exempt from
criminal liability for the reason that the evil with which he
was threatened was much less than that of killing his father.
Part 7. Lawful or Insuperable Cause
Any person who fails to perform an act required by law,

when prevented by some lawful insuperable cause.
Requisites.
1. That an act is required by law to be done.

2. That a person fails to perform such act.
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some
lawful or insuperable cause.
When prevented by some lawful cause.
Example:
A confessed to a Filipino priest that he and several other

persons were in conspiracy against the Government. Under
Article 116, a Filipino citizen who knows of such conspiracy
must report the same to the governor or fiscal of the
province where he resides. If the priest does not disclose
and make known the same to the proper authority, he is
exempt from criminal liability, because under the law, the
priest cannot be compelled to reveal any information which
he came to know by reason of the confession made to him
in his professional capacity.
When prevented by some insuperable cause.
Examples:
1. The municipal president detained the offended party for three days
to take him to the nearest justice of the peace required a journey for
three days by boat as there was ms
other means of transportation. (U.S. v. Vicentillo, 19 Phil. 118, 119)
Under the law, the person arrested must be delivered to the nearest
judicial authority at most within 18 hours (now 36 hours, Art. 125,
R.P.C., as amended) otherwise, the public officer will be liable for
arbitrary detention. The distance which required a journey for three
days was considered an insuperable cause. Hence, it was held the
accused was exempt from criminal liability.
Absolutory Cause
It is that situation where the act committed may be

considered as a criminal offense; yet, because of the public
policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed for its
commission. In other words, they have the effect of
exempting the actor from criminal liability.
Absolutory Causes
1. Art. 6 on spontaneous desistance

2. Art. 20. Accessories exempted
3. Instigation – one which takes place when a peace officer
induces a person to commit a crime. Without the
inducement, the crime would not be committed. It exempts
one from criminal liability.
4. Art 247. Death or physical injuries under exceptional
circumstances
5. Art. 280 (3) trespass
6. Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability
7. Art. 344 (4) Marriage
Mitigating circumstances.
Definition
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the

commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
Basis
Mitigating circumstances are based on the diminution of

either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or on the
lesser perversity of the offender.
Mitigating Circumstances
1. Incomplete justifying or exempting circumstance

2. Under 18
3. No intention to commit so grave a wrong (praeter
intentionem)
4. Sufficient provocation or threat
5. Vindication of a grave offense
6. Passion or obfuscation
7. Voluntary surrender/ voluntary confession of guilt
8. Deaf, dumb, blind and other physical defects
9. Illnesses which diminish will power
10. Analogous circumstances.
Classes of mitigating circumstances.
1. Ordinary mitigating — those enumerated in subsections 1

to 10 of Article 13.
Those mentioned in subsection 1 of Article 13 are ordinary
mitigating circumstances, if Article 69, for instance, is not
applicable.
2. Privileged mitigating —
a. Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a person under
eighteen years of age.
b. Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the crime
committed is not wholly excusable.
c. Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which
contain three periods.
* When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and
no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall
impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in
the period that it may deem applicable, according to the
number and nature of such circumstances.
Distinctions.
1. Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any

aggravating circumstance; while privileged mitigating
cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance.
2. Ordinary mitigating, if not offset by an aggravating

circumstance, produces only the effect of applying the
penalty provided by law for the crime in its minimum
period, in case of divisible penalty; whereas, privileged
mitigating produces the effect of imposing upon the
offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that
provided by law for the crime.
Part 1. Incomplete Justifying or Incomplete Exempting
Circumstances
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.
Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives, and defense of
stranger.
Note that in these three classes of defense, unlawful

aggression must be present, it being an indispensable
requisite. What is absent is either one or both of the last
two requisites.
Part 2. Minority (Under 18)
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. (Correlate with RA 9344)
Meaning of Diversion and Diversion Program under Republic
Act No. 9344
“Diversion” refers to an alternative, child-appropriate

process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a
child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social,
cultural, economic, _ psychological, or educational
background without resulting to formal court proceedings.
(Sec. 4[j], R.A. No. 9344)
“Diversion Program” refers to the program that the child in

conflict with the law is required to undergo after he/she is
found responsible for an offense without resorting to formal
court proceedings. (Sec. 4[j], R.A. No. 9344)
That the offender is over 70 years of age is only a generic
mitigating circumstances
Part 3. Praeter Intentionem
That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a

wrong as that committed.
No Intention To Commit So Grave A Wrong As That
Committed
Note:
How to determine the lack of grave intention to
commit the offense?
Consider the following:

a. the weapon used
b. nature of the injury
c. part of the body targeted
This mitigating circumstance can be invoke only in

felonies resulting in some physical harm like physical
injuries, homicide etc.
Part 4. Sufficient Provocation or Threat
That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the

offended party immediately preceded the act.
Requisites:
1. That the provocation must be sufficient;

2. That it must originate from the offended party; and
3. That the provocation must be immediate to the act, i.e.,
to the commission of the crime by the person who is
provoked.
When the deceased abused and ill-treated the accused by
kicking and cursing the latter, the accused who killed him
committed the crime with his mitigating circumstances.
Part 5. Vindication
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.
Requisites
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing the

felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees;
2. That the felony is committed in vindication of such grave offense. A

lapse of time is allowed between the vindication and the doing of the
grave offense.
The word "immediate" used in the English text is not correct
translation. The Spanish text uses "Proxima". (following)
Illustrations
Being accused by the victim that the accused stole the

former’s rooster which made the latter feel deeply
embarrassed, and the encounter took place in about half an
hour’s time.
Juan killed by Pedro. Jose who's Juan's brother would be

entitled to mitigating circumstances of vindication of grave
offense if they cause serious physical injuries to Pedro
immediately after learning of Juan's death.
Part 6. Passion or Obfuscation
That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as

naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation.
Requisites
1. The accused acted upon an impulse.
2. The impulse must be so powerful that it naturally

produced passion or obfuscation in him.
Rule for the application of this paragraph.
Passion or obfuscation may constitute a mitigating

circumstance only when the same arose from lawful
sentiments.
For this reason, even if there is actually passion or

obfuscation on the part of the offender, there is no
mitigating circumstance, when:
(1) The act is committed in a spirit of lawlessness; or

(2) The act is committed in a spirit of revenge.
Page 308
Illustration
1. The accused killed his wife on the occasion when she

visited another man, this mitigating circumstances was held
to be applicable, having in the mind the jealousy of the
accused and her refusal to return to his house.
2. The accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstances of

passion or obfuscation where he hit the deceased upon
seeing the latter box his four years old son.
Part 7. Voluntary Surrender or Voluntary Confession of Guilt
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.
Two mitigating circumstances are provided in this

paragraph.
1. Voluntary Surrender to a person in authority or his

agents.
2. Voluntary confession of guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
Requisites of voluntary Surrender.
1. That the offender had not been actually arrested.

2. That the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority or to the latter's agent.
3. That the surrender was voluntary.
Cases of voluntary surrender.
The accused, after plunging a bolo into the victim’s chest,

ran toward the municipal building. Upon seeing a
patrolman, he immediately threw away his bolo, raised his
two hands, offered no resistance and said to the patrolman,
“Here is my bolo, I stabbed the victim.” There was intent or
desire to surrender voluntarily to the authorities.
Requisites of plea of guilty.
In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, the three

requisites must be present:
1. That the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;

2. That the confession of guilt was made in open court, that
is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and
3. That the confession of guilt was made prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
Part 8. Physical Handicapped or Defects
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.
In a criminal case charging robbery in an inhabited house,
the accused is deaf and dumb.
Held: He is entitled to mitigating circumstances of being

deaf and dumb.
Physical defect must restrict means of action, defense, or

communication with fellow beings.
Part 9. Other Illnesses
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.
Requisites:
1. That the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise

of his will-power.
2. That such illness should not deprive the offender of

consciousness of his acts.
Illustration
1.A mother who, under the influence of a puerperal fever,

killed her child the day following her delivery.
2.The mistaken belief of the accused that the killing of a

witch was for the public good may be considered a
mitigating circumstance for the reason that those who have
obsession that witches are to be eliminated are in the same
condition as one who, attacked with a morbid infirmity but
still retaining consciousness of his acts, does not have real
control over his will.
Part 10. Analogous Circumstances
And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and

analogous to those above mentioned.
Must be of similar nature and analogous to those
mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 9 of Article 13.
This paragraph authorizes the court to consider in favor of

the accused “any other circumstance of a similar nature and
analogous to those mentioned” in paragraphs 1 to 9 of
Article 13.
Over 60 years old with failing sight, similar to over 70
years of age mentioned in paragraph 2.
Outraged feeling of owner of animal taken for ransom

analogous to vindication of a grave offense.
Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and

obfuscation.
Extreme poverty and necessity, similar to incomplete

justification based on state of necessity.
Aggravating circumstances.
1. Definition
Aggravating circumstances are those which, if attendant in the
commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty without,
however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided by law for
the offense.
2. Basis
They are based on the greater perversity of the offender manifested
in the commission of the felony as shown by:
(1) the motivating power itself;

(2) the place of commission;
(3) the means and ways employed;
(4) the time; or
(5) the personal circumstances of the offender, or of the offended
party.
Aggravating Circumstances
1. Advantage of public position
2. In contempt or with insult to public authorities
3. Disrespect on the rank, age or sex of the offended party; the crime is committed in the
dwelling of offended party
4. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness
5. Palace of the Chief Executive, or in his presence, or place where authorities discharge their
duties, or place of religious worship
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, band
7. On occasion of conflagration, shipwreck etc.
8. Aid of armed men
9. Recidivist
10. Reiteration
11. Price, reward or promise
12. Inundation, fire, poison, etc
13. Evident Premeditation
14. Craft, fraud or Disguise
15. Superior strength or means to weaken defense
16. Treachery
17. Ignominy
18. Unlawful entry
19. Wall, roof, floor be broken
20. Aid of persons under 15, motor vehicle
21. Cruelty
22. Use of unlicensed firearms in the crimes of murder or homicide pursuant to RA 8294
Four kinds of aggravating circumstances.
1. Generic — Those that can generally apply to all crimes.

Example — Dwelling, nighttime, or recidivism.
In Article 14, the circumstances in paragraphs 1, 2, 3
(dwelling), 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20, except “by
means of motor vehicles,” are generic aggravating
circumstances.
2. Specific — Those that apply only to particular crimes.

Example — Ignominy in crimes against chastity or cruelty
and treachery in crimes against persons.
In Article 14, the circumstances in paragraphs (except
dwelling) 15, 16, 17, and 21 are specific aggravating
circumstances.
3. Qualifying — Those that change the nature of the crime.
Example — Alevosia (treachery) or evident premeditation
qualifies the killing of a person to murder.
4. Inherent — Those that must of necessity accompany the

commission of the crime. (Art. 62, par. 2)
Example — Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery,
theft, estafa, adultery, and concubinage.
Part 1. Taking advantage of public position
That advantage be taken by the offender of his public

position.
Applicable only when the offender is a public officer.
The aggravating circumstance that advantage be taken by

the offender of his public position applies only when the
person committing the crime is a public officer who takes
advantage of his public position.
Example
The accused took advantage of his public position. He

could not have maltreated the victim if he was not a
policeman on guard duty. Because of his position, he had
access to the cell where the victim was confined. The
prisoner was under his custody.
Part 2. In contempt or insult of authorities
That the crime be committed in contempt or with insult

to the public authorities.
Requisites
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of
his functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said
functions is not the person against whom the crime is
committed.
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from
committing the criminal act.
Example of this aggravating circumstance:
A and B are quarreling on a street and the municipal

mayor, upon passing by, attempts to separate them to
stop the quarrel. Notwithstanding the intervention and
the presence of the mayor, A and B continued to quarrel
until A succeeds in killing B. In this case, A commits the
crime of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of
“in contempt of or with insult to the public authority.”
Meaning of “public authority.”
A public authority, sometimes also called a person in authority, is a public officer
who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the
power to govern and execute the laws. The councilor, the mayor, the governor,
etc., are persons in authority. The barangay captain and barangay chairman are
also persons in authority. (Art. 152, as amended by P.D. No. 1232, November 7,
1977)
Not applicable when crime is committed in the presence of an agent only.

Paragraph 2 of Article 14 was not applied in a case where the crime was
committed in the presence of the chief of police of a town, because he is not a
public authority, but an agent of the authorities. (People uv. Siojo, 61 Phil. 307,
311, 317; People v. Verzo, No. L-22517, December 26, 1967, 21 SCRA 1403,
1410)
An agent of a person in authority is “any person who, by direct provision of law

or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the
maintenance of public order and thé protection and security of life and property,
such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any
person who comes to the aid of persons in authority.” (Art. 152, as amended by
B.P. Big. 873)
Part 3. Disregard of rank, age or sex
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.
When all the four aggravating circumstances are

present, they must be considered as one
This circumstance (rank, age, or sex) may be taken
into account only in crimes against persons or
honor.
With insult or in disregard of the respect due to the
offended party on account --
1. Of the rank of the offended party.
There must be a difference in the social condition of the

offender and the offended party.
For example, a private citizen who attacked and injured a
person in authority, or a pupil who attacked and injured
his teacher. But the act must not constitute Direct Assault
under Article 148 of the RPC.
2. Of the age of the offended party.
The person killed was very old and very weak
The deceased was 65 while the offender were 22 and 27

years of age.
3. Of the sex of the offended party.
This refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
Example.
1. Direct assault upon a lady teacher.
2. When a person compels a woman to go to his house
against her will, the crime of coercion with the
aggravating circumstances of disrespect to sex is
committed.
That the crime be committed in the dwelling of the
offended party.
Dwelling must be a building or structure, exclusively used

for rest and comfort. A “combination house and store”
(People v. Magnaye, 89 Phil. 233, 239), or a market stall
where the victim slept is not a dwelling.
“The home is a sort of sacred place for its owner. He who
goes to another’s house to slander him, hurt him or do
him wrong, is more guilty than he who offends him
elsewhere.” (Viada, 5th Ed., Vol. II, pp. 323-324)
The evidence must show clearly that the defendant

entered the house of the deceased to attack him. (People
v. Lumasag, 56 Phil. 19, 22; People v. Manuel, Nos. L-
23786-7, August 29, 1969, 29 SCRA 337, 345)
Offended party must not give provocation.
As may be seen, a condition sine qua non of this circumstance, is that

the offended party “has not given provocation” to the offender. When
it is the offended party who has provoked the incident, he loses his
right to the respect and consideration due him in his own house.
(People v. Ambis, supra)
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling.
The provocation must be:
(1) Given by the owner of the dwelling,

(2) Sufficient, and .
(3) Immediate to the commission of the crime.
Part 4. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness
That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or

obvious ungratefulness.
There are two aggravating circumstances in this

paragraph.
Abuse of confidence.
This circumstance exists only when the offended party

has trusted the offender who later abuses such trust by
committing the crime. The abuse of confidence must be a
means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the
culprit taking advantage of the offended party’s belief
that the former would not abuse said confidence.
Requisites:
1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a
crime against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the
commission of the crime.
Example: A jealous lover, who had already determined to kill
his sweetheart, invited her to a ride in the country. The girl,
unsuspecting of his plans, went with him. While they were
in the car, the jealous lover stabbed her. It was held that this
aggravating circumstance was present. (People v.
Marasigan,
70 Phil. 583, 594)
Ungratefulness must be obvious, /.e., manifest and clear.
The other aggravating circumstance in paragraph 4 of Article 14 is that

the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.
This aggravating circumstance was present in the case of the accused

who killed his father-in-law in whose house he lived and who partially
supported him.
The circumstance was present where the accused was living in the
house of the victim who employed him as an overseer and in charge of
carpentry work, and had free access to the house of the victim who
was very kind to him, his family, and who helped him solve his
problems.
Part 5. In presence of President, or place dedicated to
religious worship, or place where authorities do their
duties
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.
Place where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties (par. 5), distinguished from
contempt or insult to public authorities. (par. 2)
1. In both, the public authorities are in the performance

of their duties.
2. Under paragraph 5, the public authorities who are in

the performance of their duties must be in their office;
while in paragraph 2, the public authorities are
performing their duties outside of their office.
3. Under paragraph 2, the public authority should not be

the offended party; while under paragraph 5, he may be
the offended party. (U.S. v. Baluyot, 40 Phil. 385, 395)
Place dedicated to religious worship
The aggravating circumstance “that the crime be

committed xX X x in a place dedicated to religious
worship” was appreciated in a case where the accused
shot the victims inside the church or in a case of unjust
vexation where the accused kissed a girl inside a church
when a religious service was being solemnized.
Part 6. Night time, uninhabited place, band
That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an

uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense.
When aggravating.
Night time, uninhabited place or band is aggravating —
(1) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or

(2) When especially sought for by the offender to insure the
commission of the crime or for the purpose of impunity
(3) When the offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity.
a. Night time
The jurisprudence on this subject is to the effect that

nocturnity must have been sought or taken advantage of
to improve the chances
of success in the commission of the crime or to provide
impunity for the offenders. The bare statement in the
information that the crime was committed in the
darkness of the night fails to satisfy the criterion.
b. Uninhabited place.
That the place is uninhabited is determined, not by the

distance of the nearest house to the scene of the crime,
but whether or not in the place of its commission, there
was reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some
help. Thus, the crime is committed in an uninhabited
place where the killing was done during nighttime, in a
sugarcane plantation about a hundred meters from the
nearest house, and the sugarcane in the field was tall
enough to obstruct the view of neighbors and passersby.
c. By a band
What is a band?
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have
acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall be
deemed to have been committed by a band.
Part 7. Calamity or misfortune
That the crime be committed on the occasion of a

conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune.
Reason for the aggravation.
The reason for the existence of this circumstance is found

in the debased form of criminality met in one who, in the
midst of a great calamity, instead of lending aid to the
afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking advantage of
their misfortune to despoil them.
Example:
An example of this circumstance is the case of a fireman

who commits robbery in a burned house, or that of a
thief who immediately after a destructive typhoon steals
personal property from the demolished houses. The
offender must take advantage of the calamity or
misfortune.
Part 8. Aid of armed men
That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men

or persons who insure or afford impunity.
Requisites of this aggravating circumstance.
1. That armed men or persons took part in the

commission of the crime, directly or indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied

upon them when the crime was committed.
O and L were prosecuted for robbery with rape. It
appeared from their written confessions that they had
companions who were armed when they committed the
crime. It was held that they were guilty of robbery with
rape with the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed
men.
With aid of armed men (Par 8) distinguished from "by a
band" (Par. 6)
By a band requires that more than three armed

malefactors shall have acted together in the commission
of an offense. Aid of armed men is present even if one of
the offenders merely relied on their aid, for actual aid is
not necessary.
Part 9. Recidivism
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one

crime, shall have been previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of
this Code.
Requisites
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense.
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgement of
another crime.
3. That both the first and the second offenses are
embraced in the same title of the code.
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
Part 10. Reiteracion or habituality
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.
Requisites:
1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two
or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that
for the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense.
The four forms of repetition are:
1. Recidivism
2. Reiteracion or Habituality
3. Multi-recidivism or habitual delinquency
4. Quasi-recidvism
being a habitual delinquent and quasi- recidivist, on the

other hand, are regarded as special aggravating
circumstances which cannot offset.
Habitual delinquency
- The offender within the period of 10 years

from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification,
is found guilty of the any of said crimes a third time or
oftener.
Quasi-recidivism
- Any person who shall commit a felony after having

been convicted by final judgment before beginning to
serve such sentence or while serving such sentence
shall be punished by the maximum period prescribed by
law for the new felony.
Part 11. Price, reward or promise
That the crime be committed in consideration of a price,

reward, or promise.
Is this paragraph applicable to the one who gave the price or
reward?
When this aggravating circumstance is present, it affects not only

the person who received the price or the reward, but also the
person who gave it.
The established rule in Spanish jurisprudence is to the effect that

the aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise thereof
affects equally the offeror and the acceptor.
P procured an ignorant man to kill the brother and grandniece of P
for a reward of 60.00. The ignorant man, following the instruction
of P, killed them.
Held. Murder by inducement of a price is committed

In the given case price, was a qualifying aggravating circumstances
Part 12. Inundation, fire, poison etc.
That the crime be committed by means of inundation,

fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional
damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the
use of any other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
As generic aggravating circumstance.
A killed his wife by means of fire, as when he set their

house on fire to kill her; or by means of explosion, as
when he threw a hand grenade at her to kill her; or by
means of poison which he mixed with the food of his
wife. In any of these cases, there is only a generic
aggravating circumstance, because they cannot qualify
the crime. The crime committed is parricide which is
already qualified by relationship.
When another aggravating circumstance already

qualifies the crime, any of these aggravating
circumstances shall be considered as generic aggravating
circumstance only.
Part 13. Evident premeditation
That the act be committed with evident premeditation.

Evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of the act
before executing it.
Requisites of evident premeditation

The prosecution must prove
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime.
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his
determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act
and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
Manalinde illustrates the three requisites of evident premeditation.
First requisite —
On a certain date, Manalinde accepted the proposition that he would
turn huramentado and kill the first two persons he would meet in the
market place. On said date, the offender is said to have determined to
commit the crime.
Second requisite — He undertook the journey to comply therewith

and provided himself with a weapon. The journey and the carrying of
the weapon are acts manifestly indicating that the offender clung to
his determination to commit the crime.
Third requisite — After the journey for a day and a night, he killed the
victims. One day and one night constitute a sufficient lapse of time for
the offender to realize the consequences of his contemplated act.
Part 14. Craft, fraud or disguise
That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.

Craft ( involves intellectual trickery and cunning on the
part of the accused).
Illustration.
The act of the accused in pretending to be bona fide

passenger in the taxicab driven by the deceased, when
they were not so in fact, in order not to arouse his
suspicion, and then killing him, constituted craft
Fraud ( insidious words or machinations used to induce
the victim to act in a manner which would enable the
offender to carry out his design)
Illustrations
Where the defendants induced their victims to give up
their arms upon a promise that no harm should be done
to them and when the latter gave up their arms, the
former attacked and killed them, it was held that there
was fraud.
Disguise ( resorting to any device to conceal identity)
Illustration
The fact that the defendant had his face blackened in

order that he should not be recognized at the time he
committed the crime constitutes the aggravating
circumstance of disguise.
Part 15. Advantage of superior strength or means to
weaken the defense
That advantage be taken of superior strength, or means

be employed to weaken the defense.
To take advantage of superior strength means to use

purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means
of defense available to the person attacked.
illustrations of abuse of superior strength.
(1) An illustration of the cases which fall within this provision is

where, for example, a strong man has ill-treated a child, an old or
decrepit person, or one weakened by disease, or where a person’s
physical strength has been overcome by the use of drugs or
intoxicants. In each of these cases, there is a marked difference of
physical strength between the offended party and the offender.
(2) The aggravating

circumstance of abuse of superior strength is attendant where the
victim who died was an innocent and tender baby, barely six
months old, and the wounded children were aged five and 12 years
old, because of the marked difference of physical strength between
the offended parties and the offender.
Part 16. Treachery
That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the

crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.
Treachery - means that the offended party was not given

opportunity to make a defense.
Requisites of treachery
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a

position to defend himself; and.
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular

means, method or form of attack employed by him.
Part 17. Ignominy
That means be employed or circumstances brought about

which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,

which adds disgrace and abloquy to the material injury
caused by the crime.
Example.
The act of "plastering" mud on the victim's vagina right

after she was raped, is adequately and properly described
as "ignominy"
Part 18. Unlawful entry
That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of a crime a

wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken
Meaning of unlawful entry

There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected is
by a way not intended for the purpose.
Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and
not for escape.
Example: The act of entering through the window, which

is not the proper place for entrance into the house,
constitutes unlawful entry.
Is there unlawful entry if the door is broken and

thereafter made an entry [through] the broken door? No,
it will be covered by paragraph 19.
Application of this circumstance.
It should be considered in rape committed in a house

after an entry through the window. It should be
considered also in murder where the accused entered the
room of the victim through the window. It should be
considered also in robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons, because unlawful entry is not
inherent in that particular kind of robbery. The window is
not intended for entrance into the building.
“As a means to the commission of a crime.”
A broke a window to enable himself to reach a purse

with money on the table near that window, which he
took while his body was outside of the building. The
crime of theft was attended by this aggravating
circumstance. Note that because of the phrase “as a
means to the commission of a crime,” it is not
necessary that the offender should have entered the
building. What aggravates the liability of the offender
is the breaking of a part of the building as a means to
the commission of the crime.
Part 19. Broken wall, roof, floor etc.
That as a means to the commission of the crime a wall,

roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
“As a means to the commission of a crime.”
A broke a window to enable himself to reach a purse with

money on the table near that window, which he took
while his body was outside of the building. The crime of
theft was attended by this aggravating circumstance.
Note that because of the phrase “as a means to the
commission of a crime,” it is not necessary that the
offender should have entered the building. What
aggravates the liability of the offender is the breaking of a
part of the building as a means to the commission of the
crime.
To effect entrance only.
But it may be resorted to as a means to commit a crime in

a house or building.
For example, a murderer who, for the purpose of entering

the house of his victim, breaks a wall or a window of the
house.
The circumstance is aggravating only in those cases where

the offender resorted to any of said means to enter the
house. If the wall, etc., is broken in order to get out of the
place, it is not an aggravating circumstance.
Part 20. Aid or persons under 15 years old or use of
motor vehicle
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.
“With the aid of persons under fifteen years of age.”
A caused B, a boy 14 years old, to climb the wall of the

house of C, to enter the same through its window, and
once inside, to take, as in fact B took, clothes and other
personal property in the house of C. Then B threw them
to the ground where A picked them up. The aggravating
circumstance that the crime was committed with the aid
of a person under 15 years of age should be taken into
account against A.
“By means of motor vehicles.”
Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused

used the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime,
in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating
their escape.
“Or other similar means.”
The expression should be understood as referring to

motorized vehicles or other efficient means of
transportation similar to automobile or airplane.
Part 21. Cruelty
That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be

deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commissions.
What is cruelty?
There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in

making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
unnecessary physical pain in the consumation of the
criminal act.
Requisites of Cruelty
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by

causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution

of the purpose of the offender
Example
Cruelty is present where appellant tied the victim to a

bed, burnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping
her and laughed as he did all these.
Alternative Circumstances
1. Definition or 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.
2. Basis of the alternative circumstances.
The basis is the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission.
The alternative circumstances are:
1. Relationship
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.
Relationship
The alternative circumstances of relationship shall be taken into

consideration when the offended party is the --
a. Spouse
b. Ascendant
c. Descendant
d. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
e. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.
Other relatives included

The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or
stepdaughter is included by analogy as similar to that of ascendant
and descendant.
The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child may also be

included, as similar to that of ascendant and descendant.
When Mitigating and When aggravating?
Relationship is mitigating in the crimes of Robbery (Arts.
294-302), usurpation ( Art. 312), fraudulent insolvency
(Art. 314), and arson (Arts. 312-322, 325-326)
Relationship is aggravating in crimes against persons in
cases where the offended party is a relative of a higher
degree than the offender, or when the offender and the
offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing a
brother, a brother in law, a half brother, or adopted
brother.
When the crime against persons is any of the serious
physical injuries (Art. 263), even if the offended party is a
descendant of the offender, relationship is an aggravating
circumstance.
If the offense of serious physical injuries is committed by
the offender against his child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his legitimate other descendants,
relationship is aggravating. But the serious physical
injuries must not be inflicted by a parent upon his child
by excessive chastisement.
Article 263 provides for a higher penalty “if the offense
(any of the serious physical injuries) is committed against
any of the persons enumerated in Article 246.” Article
246, which defines and penalizes the crime of parricide,
enumerates the following persons: father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his
ascendants or descendants, or spouse.
When the crime is less serious physical injuries or slight
physical injuries, the ordinary rule applies.
But when the offense committed is less serious physical

injuries (Art. 265); or slight physical injuries (Art. 266),
relationship is a mitigating circumstance, if the offended
party is a relative of a lower degree of the offender; and an
aggravating circumstance, if the offended party is a relative
of a higher degree of the offender. Both Articles 265 and
266 do not have provisions to the contrary, as in Article
263.
When the crime against persons is homicide or murder,
relationship is aggravating even if the victim of the crime is a relative
of lower degree.
If the commission of the crime against persons resulted in the death of

the victim who is a relative of a lower degree of the offender,
relationship is an aggravating circumstance. This rule applies when the
crime committed is homicide (Art. 249) or murder (Art. 248),
Thus, the killing of a stepdaughter by her stepmother is attended by

the circumstance of relationship which is considered as aggravating.
(People v. Portento, supra) The crime is not parricide, because the
relationship is not by blood and in the direct line; but the relationship
was considered by the Court to aggravate the penalty, notwithstanding
the fact that the victim of the crime was a relative of a lower degree.
Relationship is mitigating in trespass to dwelling.
Where a son-in-law, believing his wife to be in her father’s

house, attempted to force an entry therein, the relationship
is to be considered in mitigation.
In crimes against chastity, relationship is always aggravating.
In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness (Art.

336), relationship is aggravating, regardless of whether the
offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the
offended party.
In rape, relationship is a special circumstances which makes
the imposition of the death penalty mandatory.
Article 335 of the R.P.C., as amended by Section 11 of R.A.

No. 7659, provides that: The death penalty shall also be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
1. Where the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and

the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civi]
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim. .
Intoxication
a. Mitigating — (1) if intoxication is not habitual, or (2) if

intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a
felony.
b. Aggravating — (1) if intoxication is habitual, or (2) if it is

intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony).
Reasons for the alternative circumstance of intoxication.
As a mitigating circumstance, it finds its reason in the fact that when a

person is under the influence of liquor, his exercise of will power is
impaired.
As an aggravating circumstance, because it is intentional, the reason is

that the offender resorted to it in order to bolster his courage to
commit a crime.
It is aggravating when intoxication is habitual, because the constant

use of intoxicating liquor lessens the individual resistance to evil
thoughts and undermines the will power making himself a potential
evildoer against whose activities, society has the right for its own
protection to impose a more severe penalty.
Degree of instruction and education of the offender.
Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is

generally mitigating. High degree of instruction and
education is aggravating, when the offender avails
himself of his learning in committing the crime.
This has the effect of Mitigating the criminal
liability of the offender.
a. Extenuating Circumstances
b. Justifying Circumstances
c. Absolutory cause
This has the effect of Mitigating the criminal
liability of the offender.
a. Extenuating Circumstances
b. Justifying Circumstances
c. Absolutory cause
Example of Extenuating
Article 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in

Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon
any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua in its maximum to Death

lf the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother
of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall
suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same
purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the
penalty shall be prision mayor.
Among the following are Justifying circumstance except?
a. Self defense
b. Defense of relatives
c. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
d. Person under 15 years old who committed a crime
Among the following are Justifying circumstance except?
a. Self defense
b. Defense of relatives
c. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
d. Person under 15 years old who committed a crime
Among the following are exempting circumstances
except?
a. Imbecile
b. Minority
c. Irresistible Force
d. Passion or Obfuscation
Among the following are exempting circumstances
except?
a. Imbecile
b. Minority
c. Irresistible Force
d. Passion or Obfuscation
Among the following are mitigating circumstances
except?
a. Praeter Intentionem
b. Passion or Obfuscation
c. Voluntary Surrender or Voluntary Confession of Guilt
d. Recidivism
Among the following are mitigating circumstances
except?
a. Praeter Intentionem
b. Passion or Obfuscation
c. Voluntary Surrender or Voluntary Confession of Guilt
d. Recidivism
Among the following are Aggravating except.
a. Taking advantage of public position

b. In contempt or insult of authorities
c. State of necessity
d. Recidivism
Among the following are Aggravating except.
a. Taking advantage of public position

b. In contempt or insult of authorities
c. State of necessity
d. Recidivism
The following are criminally liable for light felonies
Except?
a. Principals
b. Accomplices
c. Accessory before the fact
d. Accessories
The following are criminally liable for light felonies
Except?
a. Principals
b. Accomplices
c. Accessory before the fact
d. Accessories
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.
Rules relative to light felonies:
1. Light felonies are punishable only when they have

been consummated. (Art. 7)
2. But when light felonies are committed against persons

or property, they are punishable even if they are only in
the attempted or frustrated stage of execution. (Art. 7)
3. Only principals and accomplices are liable for light

felonies. (Art. 16)
4, Accessories are not liable for light felonies, even if they

are committed against persons or property. (Art. 16)
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.
illustration of the three types of principals.
A, by promises of price and reward, induced B to kill C, a person

living on an island far from the mainland. D, the owner of the only
motor boat in the place and knowing the criminal designs of A and
B, offered to transport and actually transported B to the island.
Once there, B alone killed C.
Although he did not actually participate in the killing of C, A is a

principal, because he directly induced B to kill C. B is also a
principal, because he took direct part in the execution of the felony
by personally killing C. D is also a principal, because he cooperated
in the commission of the offense by another act (transporting the
actual killer to the island) without which the commission of the
offense would not have been accomplished.
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.
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.
Two classes of accessories are contemplated in paragraph 3
of Article 19.
a. Public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape

of the principal of any crime (not light felony) with abuse of
his public functions.
Requisites:
(1) The accessory is a public officer.
(2) He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the
principal.
(3) The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions.
(4) Thecrime committed by the principal is any crime,
provided it is not a light felony.
b. Private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the
escape of the author of the crime — guilty of treason,
parricide, murder, or an attempt against the life of the
President, or who is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime.
Requisites:
(1) That the accessory is a private person;
(2) ‘That he harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of
the author of the crime; and (3) That the crime committed
by the principal is either: (a) treason, (b) parricide, (c)
murder, (d) an attempt against the life of the President, or
(e) that the principal is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime. “Habitually guilty of some other crime.”
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.
Who Are The Accessories Who Are Exempt From Criminal
Liability?
The spouse, ascendants, descendants, brothers and

sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degree.
(Note: Except paragraph one)
A lens B a bolo, it was used by B to kill C. A is
liable as:
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. nota
A lens B a bolo, it was used by B to kill C. A is
liable as:
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. nota
A stole a lechon Manok then went to the house of
B, his friend and told him that he stole it so that they
will have their pulutan. B also ate it. B is considered
as?
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. Nota
A stole a lechon Manok then went to the house of
B, his friend and told him that he stole it so that they
will have their pulutan. B also ate it. B is considered
as?
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. Nota
A stabbed B. Then A asked C his friend to hide the
knife. C is considered as?
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. Nota
A stabbed B. Then A asked C his friend to hide the
knife. C is considered as?
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. Nota
A person who placed a weapon in one of the hands of the
deceased after he was killed by another person to show that
the deceased was armed and it was necessary to kill him for
having offered resistance to the authorities is what?
a. Accessories by concealing or destroying the body of the

crime.
b. Accomplice by having performed an act without which the
crime would not have been accomplished.
c. Co-principal by direct participation due to conspiracy.
d. Accessory but exempted from criminal liability
A person who placed a weapon in one of the hands of the
deceased after he was killed by another person to show that
the deceased was armed and it was necessary to kill him for
having offered resistance to the authorities is what?
a. Accessories by concealing or destroying the body of the

crime.
b. Accomplice by having performed an act without which the
crime would not have been accomplished.
c. Co-principal by direct participation due to conspiracy.
d. Accessory but exempted from criminal liability
A a Mayor use his influence to hide B his friend
from the arresting Officer . A is considered as?
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. Nota
A a Mayor use his influence to hide B his friend
from the arresting Officer . A is considered as?
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. Nota
A an ordinary person assisted the escape of his
Friend B who committed the crime of Parricide.
A is classified as ?
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. Nota
A an ordinary person assisted the escape of his
Friend B who committed the crime of Parricide.
A is classified as ?
a. Principal
b. Accomplice
c. Accessory
d. Nota
A punched B causing a black eye only. C hide A
from the arresting authorities. Is U Criminally
liable?
a. U is criminally liable for slight physical injuries.

b. U is criminally liable as accessory for less serious
physical injuries
c. U is not criminally liable because U is exempted
d. Is is considered as accomplice in the crime of
slight physical injuries.
A punched B causing a black eye only. C hide A
from the arresting authorities. Is U Criminally
liable?
a. U is criminally liable for slight physical injuries.

b. U is criminally liable as accessory for less serious
physical injuries
c. U is not criminally liable because U is exempted
d. Is is considered as accomplice in the crime of
slight physical injuries.
A stole pieces of Jewelry from B. Then A gave it to his
wife. The wife kept the jewelry to prevent them from
being used as evidence against his husband. The wife
is ?
a. Accessory
b. Accessory but exempted from criminal liability
c. Accomplice
d. co- principal
A stole pieces of Jewelry from B. Then A gave it to his
wife. The wife kept the jewelry to prevent them from
being used as evidence against his husband. The wife
is ?
a. Accessory
c. Accomplice
d. co- principal
Maria stole jewelry and gave it to her mother. Knowing it was
stolen the mother sold the jewelry to buy things. What is the
liability of the mother.
a. Accessory
c. Accomplice
d. co- principal
Maria stole jewelry and gave it to her mother. Knowing it was
stolen the mother sold the jewelry to buy things. What is the
liability of the mother.
a. Accessory
c. Accomplice
d. co- principal
PENALTIES
Penalty- is the suffering inflicted by the State for the transgression

of the law.
Juridical Conditions Of Penalty
1. Must be commensurate with the offense- different crimes have

different penalties under the law.
2. Must be personal- A person should be held accountable for his
own actions. No person should be punished for the crime of
another
3. Certain- No person must escape the penalty.
4. Legal- The penalty must be in accordance with the law
Justification For The Imposition Of Penalty
1. Exemplarity- to serve as an example to others and

deter them from emulating the criminal.
2. Justice- Criminal is punished as an act of retributive
justice.
3. Prevention- To suppress or prevent the danger to the
State of the acts of the criminal.
4. Reformation- Under the modern concept of correction
the criminal is punished in order to rehabilitate or reform
him.
5. Self Defense- To protect the society against the threats
and actions of the criminals.
Classification and Duration of Penalties
Principal Penalties
Capital Punishment
Death
Afflictive Penalties
Reclusion perpetua- 20 yrs.+1 day to 40 yrs.
Reclusion temporal- 12 yrs.+1 day-20 yrs
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification-6 yrs.+1 day to 12 yrs.
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification- 6 yrs.+1 day to 12 yrs.
Prision Mayor-6 yrs. + 1 day to 12 years
Correctional penalties
Prision correctional- 6 mos.+ 1 day to 6 yrs.
Arresto mayor-1 month + 1 day to 6 mos.
Suspension- 6 mos+1 day to 6 yrs.
Destierro- 6 mos. +1 day to 6 yrs.
Light penalties
Arresto menor- 1 day to 30 days
Public censure
Accessory Penalties
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for
Civil Interdiction
Indemnification
Forfeiture or confiscation of instrument sand proceeds of the offense
Payment of cost
1. The penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
for public office produce the following effects:
a. Deprivation of public offices and employments, even if by election.

b. Deprivation of right to vote or to be elected.
c. Disqualification for the offices or public employments and for the
exercise of any of the rights mentioned.
d. Loss of right to retirement pay or pension for any office formerly
held. (Art. 30)
Note: Perpetual absolute disqualification is effective during the

lifetime of the convict and even after the service of the sentence.
Temporary absolute disqualification lasts during the term of the
sentence, and is removed after the service of the same, except (1)
deprivation of the public office or employment; and (2) loss of all
rights to retirement pay or other pension for any office formerly held.
(See Art. 30, par. following No. 3.)
2. The penalties of perpetual or temporary special
disqualification for public office, profession or calling
produce the following effects:
a. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession or

calling affected.
b. Disqualification for holding similar offices or

employments perpetually or during the term of the
sentence. (Art. 31)
3. The penalties of perpetual or temporary special
disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage
produce the following effects:
a. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected to any

public office.
b. Cannot hold any public office during the period of

disqualification. (Art. 32)
4. The penalties of suspension from public office, profession
or calling or the right of suffrage produce the following
effects:
a. Disqualification from holding such office or exercising

such profession or calling or right of suffrage during the
term of the sentence.
b. If suspended from public office, the offender cannot hold

another office having similar functions during the period of
suspension. (Art. 33)
5 Civil interdiction shall produce the following effects:
a. Deprivation of the rights of parental authority or

guardianship of any ward.
b. Deprivation of marital authority.
c, Deprivation of the right to manage his property and of

the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos, (Art. 34)
Note: But he can dispose of such property by will

or donation mortis causa,
6. Bond to keep the peace.
a. The offender must present two sufficient sureties who

shall undertake that the offender will not commit the
offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such
offense be committed they will pay the amount determined
by the court; or
b. The offender must deposit such amount with the clerk of

court to guarantee said undertaking; or
c. The offender may be detained, if he cannot give the

bond, for a period not to exceed six months if prosecuted
for grave or less grave felony, or for a period not to exceed
30 days, if for a light felony. (Art. 35)
Art. 107. Indemnification- Indemnification of
consequential damages shall include not only those
caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his
family or by third person by reason of the crime.
Proceeds or Instrument of a Crime
Every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony

shall carry with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the
crime and the instruments or tools with which it was
committed. They shall be forfeited in favor of the
Government, unless they be the property of a third
person not liable for the offense, but those articles which
are not subject of lawful commerce shall be destroyed.
(Art.45)
Note:
What penalty may be imposed by the state? (Prospective character)
A: No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission (Art.21)
When may penal laws have retroactive effects?

A: Penal laws shall have retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty
of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal (Art. 22)
What is the effect of pardon by the offended party?

A: A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action except as
provided in article 344. But civil liability with regard to the interest of the injured
party is extinguished by his express waiver (Art.23)
When is fine afflictive, correctional or light in character?

A: 1. It is afflictive if it exceeds P6000.
2. It is correctional if it does not exceed P6000 but is not less than P200
3. It is light if it is less than P200.
Explain the concept of preventive imprisonment.
A: Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive

imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they
have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner
agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners.
Except:
1. when they are recidivist, or have been convicted previously twice
or more times of any crime;
2. when upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence
they failed to surrender voluntarily.(Article 29)
[Note: An accused undergoes preventive imprisonment
when the offense charged is non bailable or even if bailable
he cannot furnish the required bail. Now if an accused does
not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service
of his sentence with 4/5 of the time during which he has
undergone preventive imprisonment.]
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES
Proper Order Of Payment Of The Pecuniary Liabilities Of

The Offender
1. Reparation of the damage caused

2. Indemnification of consequential damages
3. The fine
4. Cost of the proceedings (Art.38)
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT/PENALTY
It is a personal liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property to pay

the fine at the rate of one day for each eight pesos. (Art. 39)
Rules To Be Observed In Subsidiary Imprisonment
1. When the principal penalty is higher than prision correctional no subsidiary

imprisonment shall be impose.
2. If the principal penalty be prison correctional or arresto and fine, his
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence, and
in no case shall it continue for more than one year
3. When the principal penalty is only fine, subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed six months, if the offender is prosecuted for grave or less grave felonies,
and shall not exceed 15 days if for a light felony.
4. The subsidiary penalty which he may have suffered shall not relieve him
from the fine in case his financial circumstances should improve. (Art.39)
Article 71 RPC. Graduated Scale
SCALE NO. 1
1. Death
2. Reclusion Perpetua
3. Reclusion Temporal
4. Prision Mayor
5. Prision Correctional
6. Arresto Mayor
7. Destierro
8. Arresto Menor
9. Public Censure
10. Fine
SCALE NO.2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Temporary absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the
right to follow a profession or calling
4. Public censure
5. Fine
Article 62 Revised Penal Code
Paragraph 1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves

constitute a crime especially punishable by law or which are included
by law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty therefore shall
not be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
a. When in the commission of a crime advantage was taken by the

offender of his public position, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed regardless of mitigating circumstances.
b. The maximum penalty shall be impose if the offense was

committed by any person who belongs to an organized/syndicated
group. An organized or syndicated group means a group of two or
more persons collaborating, confederating, or mutually helping one
another for the purpose of gain in the commission of a crime.
Examples:
1. Which in themselves constitutes a crime.
That the crime be committed "by means of fire" (Art. 14,

par. 12), is not considered as aggravating in arson; and that
the crime be committed by means of “derailment of a
locomotive” (Art. 14, par. 12), is not considered as
aggravating in the crime described in Article 330 known as
“Damages and obstruction to means of communication.”
Article 330 punishes the act of damaging any railway
resulting in derailment of cars.
2. Which are included by law in defining a crime.
That the crime was committed in the dwelling of the

offended party is not aggravating in robbery with force
upon things (Art. 299); abuse of confidence is not
aggravating in qualified theft committed with grave abuse
of confidence. (Art. 310)
Neither can the aggravating circumstance that the crime

was committed by means of poison (Art. 14, par. 12) be
considered in the crime of murder committed by means of
poison, since using poison to kill the victim is included by
law in defining the crime of murder. (Art. 248, par. 3)
When maximum of the penalty shall be imposed.
The maximum of the penalty shall be imposed in the following cases:
1. When in the commission of the crime, advantage was taken by the

offender of his public position;
2. If the offense was committed by any person who belongs to an

organized/syndicated crime group.
What is an organized/syndicated crime group?
An organized/syndicated crime group means a group of two or more

persons collaborating confederating or mutually helping oné another for
purposes of gain in the commission of any crime.
Paragraph 2. The same rule shall be apply with respect to
any aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to
such a degree that it must of necessity accompany the
commission thereof.
Example:
Evident premeditation is inherent in robbery and theft.

(U.S. v. Castroverde, 4 Phil. 246, 248)
Paragraph 3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
arise from (1) the moral attributes of the offender, or (2)
from his private relations with the offended party, or (3)
from any other personal cause, serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and
accessories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
Examples:
1. From the moral attributes of the offender:
A and B killed C. A acted with evident premeditation, and

B with passion and obfuscation.
The circumstances of evident premeditation and passion
and obfuscation arise from the moral attributes of the
offenders. Evident premeditation should affect and
aggravate only the penalty for A, while passion and
obfuscation will benefit B only and mitigate his liability.
Note: The states of their minds are different.

2. From his private relations with the offended party:
A and C inflicted slight physical injuries on B. A is the son

of B. C is the father of B. In this case, the alternative
circumstance of relationship, as aggravating, shall be taken
into account against A only, because he is a relative of a
lower degree than the offended party, B. Relationship is
mitigating as regards C, he being a relative of a higher
degree than the offended party, B.
Also, if A assisted the wife of B in killing the latter, only the

wife is guilty of parricide and A for homicide or murder, as
the case may be. (People v. Bucsit, 43 Phil. 184, 185;
People v. Patricio, 46 Phil. 875, 879)
(3) From any other personal cause:
A and B committed a crime. A was under 16 years of age

and B was a recidivist.
Paragraph 4. The circumstances which consist (1) in the
material execution of the act, or (2) in the means
employed to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act
or their cooperation therein.
Examples:
(1) Material execution of the act:
A, as principal by induction, B, and C agreed to kill D. B and C killed D with

treachery, which mode of committing the offense had not been previously agreed
upon by them with A. A was not present when B and C killed D with treachery.
The aggravating circumstance of treachery should not be taken into account

against A, but against B and C only. (People v. De Otero, 51 Phil. 201) But if A was
present and had knowledge of the treachery with which the crime was
committed by B and C, he is also liable for murder, qualified by treachery.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery should not be considered against the

principal by induction when he left to the principal by direct participation the
means, modes or methods of the commission of the felony. (U.S v. Gamao, 23
Phil. 81, 96)
(2) Means to accomplish the crime:
A ordered B to kill C. B invited C to eat with him. B mixed

poison with the food of C, who died after he had eaten the
food. A did not know that B used poison to kill C. In this
case, the aggravating circumstance that the crime be
committed by means of poison is not applicable to A.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the

penalty provided by law for the last crime of which he be found
guilty and to the additional penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sentenced to the

penalty provided for the last crime of which he be found guilty and
to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and
medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit shall be

sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which he be
found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, the total of the two
penalties to be imposed upon the offender, in conformity herewith,
shall in no case exceed 30 years.
For the purposes of this article, a person shall be deemed to be

habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of
his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa, or falsificacion, he is found
guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. (As amended by
R.A. No. 7659)
Penalty To Be Impose Upon A Person Under 18 Years Of
Age (Art. 68)
1. 9-15 . A discretionary penalty is imposed but always

lowered by 2 degrees than
that prescribed by law for the crime he committed
2. Over 15 but under 18. A penalty next lower than that

prescribed by law but always in the proper period.
Rule On Successive Service Of Sentence
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he

shall serve them simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will permit so, otherwise the order of their
respective severity shall be followed so that they maybe
executed successively or as nearly as may be possible,
should a pardon have been granted as to the penalty first
imposed or should they have been carried out (Art. 70).
Proper Order Of Severity Of Penalty From The Highest To The Lowest
1. Death
2. Reclusion perpetua
3. Reclusion temporal
4. Prision Mayor
5. Prision Correctional
6. Arresto mayor
7. Arresto menor
8. Destierro
9. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
10. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
11. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for,
profession
12. Public censure
Three (3) Fold Rule In The Service Of Sentence
According to this rule, the maximum duration of the

convict’s sentence shall not be more than threefold the
length of time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he
may be held liable shall be inflicted after the sum of those
imposed equals the said maximum period. Such maximum
period shall in no case exceed forty years.
COMPLEX PENALTY
It is a penalty prescribed by law composed of three distinct

penalties, each forming a period, the lightest of them shall be
the minimum, the next the medium, and the most severe the
maximum period. (e.g. Reclusion Temporal to Death)
Note:
Articles 81-85 are provisions that have something to do

with the death penalty. These provisions have no longer
any significance except for academic purposes by reason of
the enactment of RA 9346-An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of the Death Penalty.
Destierro Is Imposed In The Following
1. Death or Serious Physical injuries inflicted under

exceptional circumstances
2. When a person fails to give a bond for good behavior (Art.

284)
3. Penalty for concubine in concubinage ( Art. 334)

Art. 88. Arresto menor. — The penalty of arresto menor
shall be served in the municipal jail, or in the house of the
defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the
law, when the court so provides in its decision, taking into
consideration the health of the offender and other reasons
which may seem satisfactory to it.
Note:
Under Art. 83, RPC, the death sentence shall be suspended when
the woman is pregnant and within one year after delivery. Also the
death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a person over 70 years of
age. Under article 85 it is prohibited to bury the dead body of a person
legally executed with pomp, otherwise the offenders are liable under
article 153 on tumults and disturbances. But again, these provisions
no longer have any application. In retrospect it used to be that the
Supreme Court automatically reviews the decision of lower courts,
whenever they imposed the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment. However on July 7, 2004 in the case of People vs.
Mateo, the Supreme Court said that such review should be
undertaken by the Court of Appeals first in pursuant to the hierarchy
of courts doctrine. There must be a court statement that the accused
serve the sentence in his house. The grounds could be for health
reasons, and others (humanitarian).
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
1. Total Extinction
2. Partial Extinction
Modes Of Total Extinction Of Criminal Liability (Art. 89)
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; as to pecuniary

liabilities, it is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final
judgment.
2. By service of sentence;
3. By amnesty-an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or a general pardon

for past offense, and is rarely exercised in favor of a single individual, and is usually
exerted in behalf of certain classes of persons who are subject to trail but not yet
convicted.
4. By absolute pardon
5. Prescription of crime- the forfeiture or the loss of the right of the state to
prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time.
6. Prescription of Penalty- the loss or forfeiture of the right of the Government to

execute the final sentence after the lapse of a certain time.
7. Marriage of the offended party under Article 344 RPC

Pardon- is an act of grace proceeding from the power
entrusted with the execution of the laws which exempts the
individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the
law inflicts for the crime he has committed. A pardon may
either be a conditional or absolute.
Limitations On The Pardoning Power Of The President
1. Pardon can be exercised only after conviction;

2. This power cannot be extended to cases of impeachment
3. No pardon involving violations of elections laws, shall be
granted without the favorable recommendation of the
Comelec.
Note:
What is the effect of pardon (by the President)?
A: A pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to
hold public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights
be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. It shall
also not exempt the culprit from the payment of the civil
liability imposed upon him by the sentence.
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.
Note:
* 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. It shall
not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines (Art.91)
Note:
* 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 the government has no extradition
treaty, or should commit another crime before the
expiration of the period of prescription (Art.93)
*To be operational, the prisoner must escape. One who has

not been committed to prison cannot be said to have
escaped therefrom.
Modes Of Partial Extinction Of Criminal Liability
1. By conditional pardon- a contract between the president and the

convict the former will release the latter upon compliance with certain
conditions.
2. By commutation of sentence- it is the reduction of the period of

imprisonment of the offender or the amount of the fine.
3. For good conduct time allowance (GCTA)- are deductions from the
term of the sentence for good behavior of the convicted prisoner.
4. Parole- consists of the suspension of the sentence of a convict

after serving the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty.
Note:
Who gives good conduct time allowance?
A: Director of Prisons.
Pursuant to Section 5, RA 105921,Chief of the BJMP and

Wardens of Provincial, District, City and Municipal Jails are
also empowered to grant GCTA.
Note:
Pursuant to Section 4, RA 105921, Special Time Allowance

for Loyalty is already two fifth (2/5) of the sentence.
Likewise even those inmates who stay in prison during the
period of calamity is entitled to special time allowance for
loyalty.
CIVIL LIABILITY
Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code
It provides that: ” every person criminally liable for a

felony is also civilly liable.
Art. 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern keepers and proprietors of
establishments- In default of persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeeprs,
and any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in
their establishments, in cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some
general or special police regulations shall have been committed by them or their
employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiary liable for the restitution of goods taken by
robbery or theft within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment
of the value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the
innkeepers himself, or the person representing him, of the deposit of such goods
within the inn, and shall furthermore have followed the directions which such
innkeepers or his representative may have given them with respect to the care and
vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the innkeepers’ employees.
Art. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons- The
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article
shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and
corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.
Art. 104. What is included in civil liability-
1. Restitution
2. Reparation of damage caused
3. Indemnification of consequential damage
Art. 105. Restitution how made- The restitution of the
thing itself must be made whenever possible, with
allowance for any deterioration or diminution of value.
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be

found in the possession of a third person who has
acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action
against the proper person who may be liable to him.
Art. 106. Reparation- The court shall determine the
amount of damage, taking into consideration the price of
the thing, and its special sentimental value to the injured
party.
EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Modes of Extinction of Civil Liability- Civil liability is

extinguished in the same manner as other obligations, in
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code namely:
1. Payment or performance
2. Loss of the thing due
3. Condonation or remission of the debt
4. Confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and
debtor
5. Compensation
6. Novation and others (See Art. 1231 Civil Code).

Criminal Law Book 1 August Complete

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 August Complete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.

INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

B. HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION

D. CRIMINAL LAW (BOOK 2)

F. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND COURT TESTIMONY

is the method prescribed by law for the apprehension

In other words, it “regulates the steps by which one who

is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining

a. Homicide - Article 249

1. Act 3815 known as the Revised Penal Code

2. Special Penal Laws passed by the Philippine Commission,

3. Presidential Decrees issued by President Marcos

4. Ordinances of Municipalities or Cities (LGU's)

5. Executive Orders of President Corazon C. Aquino

The Revised Penal Code consists of Book I and II.

Book I covers Article 1 - 113, while book II covers Article

Criminal Laws enacted by Congress to meet the

These Penal Laws are the result of exercise of the State of

This is in conformity with the principle in criminal law

Only Congress under our Constitution has the power to

1. The law must observe both substantive and

Ex Post Facto Law

Since time immemorial and thru the enactment by Congress of RA.

ORDINANCES are necessary to regulate certain activities or conducts

2. Ordinance on Anti-Littering, Jay walking, etc.

a. Act 3815 known as the Revised Penal Code

b. Special Penal Laws

c. Presidential Decrees issued by President Marcos

d. Ordinances of Municipalities or Cities (LGU's)

e. Executive Orders of President Corazon C. Aquino

f. Executive Orders of President Emilio Aguinaldo

a. Act 3815 known as the Revised Penal Code

b. Special Penal Laws

c. Presidential Decrees issued by President Marcos

d. Ordinances of Municipalities or Cities (LGU's)

e. Executive Orders of President Corazon C. Aquino

f. Executive Orders of President Emilio Aguinaldo

a. Ex post facto law

a. Ex post facto law

1.General- criminal law is binding on all persons who live or

2.Territorial- criminal laws are applicable only if the crime

3.Prospective- criminal law cannot make an act punishable

That the law is binding upon all persons residing or

a. Public International Law like

1. Sovereigns or Heads of State.

1. Military bases Agreement executed between the

b. Any Member of Congress may not be arrested while

a. Public International Law

a. Public International Law

a. Sovereigns or Heads of State.

a. Sovereigns or Heads of State.

An official appointed by a government to

- criminal laws undertake to punish crimes

Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the provisions

Territoriality comprises four parts, they are:

The body of water beyond the maritime

BY WAY OF AN EXCEPTION: Article 2 of the Revised Penal

Art. 2. Application of its provisions.

(Philippine Véssel or aircraft - must be understood as

*A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as

But when the Philippines vessel or aircraft is in the

Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins