CRIMLAW1 Reviewer - Esguerra Notes PDF
CRIMLAW1 Reviewer - Esguerra Notes PDF
CRIMLAW1 Reviewer - Esguerra Notes PDF
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
CRIMINAL LAW I
I. DEFINITION AND SOURCES
A.
DEFINITION
2.
3.
/liz@/ viv
Page 1
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Sec. 19. Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
nor cruel degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Sec. 20. No person shall be imprisoned for
debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Sec. 22. No ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted.
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 115
Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to
the following rights:
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary
is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him.
(c) To be present and defend in person and by
counsel at every stage of the proceedings, from
arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The
accused may, however, waive his presence at the trial
pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his bail, unless
his presence is specifically ordered by the court for
purposes of identification. The absence of the accused
without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had
notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be
present thereat. When an accused under custody
escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to
be present on all subsequent trial dates until custody
over him is regained. Upon motion, the accused may be
allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently
appears to the court that he can properly protect his
rights without the assistance of counsel.
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but
subject to cross-examination on matters covered by
direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner
prejudice him.
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a
witness against himself.
(f) To confront and cross-examine the
witnesses against him at the trial. Either party may
utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness
who is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be
found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise
unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding,
judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, the adverse party having the
opportunity to cross-examine him.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to
secure the attendance of witnesses and production of
other evidence in his behalf.
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the
manner prescribed by law.
Civil Code, Article 2
Penal laws and those of public security and
safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 2
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
BASIC PRINCIPLES
/liz@/ viv
a.
c.
(2)
Page 3
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domain including the
territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of
the internal waters of the Philippines.
The provisions of the RPC are enforceable to all
crimes committed within the limits of Philippine territory
but it may also apply outside of the Philippine
jurisdiction against who:
1. should commit an offense while on a Philippine
ship or airship;
2.
3.
4.
5.
/liz@/ viv
UP
1.
Page 4
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
2.
3.
UP
3.
4. Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege
Art. 3. Definitions. Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed.
No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.
There is no crime when where is no law punishing it.
The phrase punished by law should be understood
to mean punished by the Revised Penal Code, and not
by special law.
Bernardo v. People (1983)
Facts: The accused were charged and
convicted for violating PD No. 772 for possessing and
squatting on a parcel of land owned by Cruz.
Held: Conviction is null and void. PD No. 772
does not apply to pasture lands because its preamble
shows that it was intended to apply to squatting in
urban communities. It is a basic principle of criminal law
that no person should be brought within the terms of a
penal statute who is not clearly within them nor should
any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly
made so by the statute.
D.
/liz@/ viv
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Page 5
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
/liz@/ viv
UP
3.
be
Definition of terms
ACT must be overt or external (mere
criminal thought or intent is not punishable)
OMISSION failure to perform a duty
required by law ex. Failure to render assistance, failure
to issue receipt, non-disclosure of knowledge of
conspiracy against the government.
Page 6
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
A. HOW
COMMITTED
Classification of felonies according to the means by
which they are committed (IN GENERAL ONLY)
1.
INTENTIONAL / DOLO
(by means of deceit, malice)
- the offender in performing the act or incurring the
omission, has the intention to cause an injury to
another
- the word deceit in par. 2 of Art. 3 is not the
proper translation of the word dolo. Dolus is
actually equivalent to malice which is the intent
to do an injury to another.
2.
CULPABLE
(by means of fault or culpa)
- an act performed without malice but at the same
time punishable though in a lesser degree and with
an equal result
imprudence - lack of precaution to avoid injury,
usually involves lack of skill
negligence
- failure to foresee impending
danger, usually involves lack of foresight
1. DOLO
REQUISITES OF DOLO OR MALICE
1.
2.
3.
/liz@/ viv
act
INTENT V. MOTIVE
MOTIVE is the moving power which impels
one to action for a define result.
INTENT is the purpose to use a particular
means to effect such result.
Motive is not an essential element of a
crime, and, hence need not be proved for purposes of
conviction.
Motive is essential only when there is doubt
as to the identity of the assailant. It is immaterial when
the accused has been positively identified.
Proof of motive alone is not sufficient to
support a conviction but lack of motive may be an aid in
showing the innocence of the accused.
There is no felony by dolo if there is no
intent
People v. Temblor (1988)
Facts: Cagampang and his wife were
conversing in the store adjacent to their house when
Temblor arrived and asked to buy cigarettes. Temblor,
then, shot Cagampang and demanded the wife to bring
out her husbands firearm. Months after, the wife was
summoned to the police station and there she identified
the accused. The accuseds defense was alibi and lack of
motive.
Held: The knowledge of the accused that
Cagampang possessed a firearm was enough motive to
kill him as killings were perpetrated by members of the
NPA for the sole purpose of acquiring more arms and
ammunition. Their group is prevalent not only in Agusan
del Norte but elsewhere in the country. It is known as
the NPAs agaw armas campaign. Moreover, proof of
motive is not essential when the culprit has been
positively identified.
People v. Hassan (1988)
Facts: The accused, an illiterate, 15-year-old
pushcart cargador, was convicted of the crime of murder
for the death of Ramon. The lone eyewitness claimed he
saw the accused stab Ramon only once at the back. He
identified the accused alone at the funeral parlor without
being placed in a police line-up.
Held: The testimony of witness was weak. It
conflicted with the findings of the Medico-legal officer
who identified 2 stab wounds which were inflicted while
assailant was in front of the victim. The manner by
which the witness was made to identify the accused was
pointedly suggestive and activated visual imagination
when there was none. The method of identification
became just a confrontation and was made in violation
of the constitutional right of the accused.
The court noted the total absence of motive
ascribed to the accused for stabbing Ramon who is a
complete stranger to him. While as a general rule,
motive is not essential for purposes of complying with
the requirement that a judgment of guilty must stem
from proof beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of motive
on the part of the accused plays a pivotal role towards
his acquittal. This is especially true where there is doubt
as to the identity of the culprit as when the identification
is extremely tenuous as in this case.
Page 7
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
/liz@/ viv
UP
or
lack
of
Page 8
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 9
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
applied for probation while the wife appealed arguing
that the RTC erred in finding her criminally liable for
conspiring with her husband as the principle of
conspiracy is inapplicable to BP Blg. 22 which is a special
law.
Held: B.P. Blg. 22 does not expressly prescribe
the suppletory application of the provisions of the RPC.
Thus, in the absence of contrary provision in B.P. Blg.
22, the general provisions of the RPC which, by their
nature, are necessarily applicable, may be applied
suppletorily. The court cited the case of Yu vs. People,
where the provisions on subsidiary imprisonment under
Article 39 32 of the RPC to B.P. Blg. 22 was applied
suppletorily.
The suppletory application of the principle of
conspiracy in this case is analogous to the application of
the provision on principals under Article 17 in U.S. vs.
Ponte. For once conspiracy or action in concert to
achieve a criminal design is shown, the act of one is the
act of all the conspirators, and the precise extent or
modality of participation of each of them becomes
secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.
The Court in this case however ruled in favor
of Ladonga(wife) as the prosecution failed to prove that
she performed any overt act in furtherance of the
alleged conspiracy.
People v. Bustinera (2004)
Facts: Bustinera was convicted by the trial
Court for qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised
Penal Code for the unlawful taking of the taxi cab driven
by him which is owned and operated by Cipriano and
was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
Held: The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is
now covered by the anti-carnapping law (RA No. 6539)
and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery.
The trial court having convicted Bustinera of qualified
theft instead of carnapping, erred in the imposition of
the penalty. While the information alleges that the crime
was attended with grave abuse of confidence, the same
cannot be appreciated as the suppletory effect of the
Revised Penal Code to special laws, as provided in
Article 10 of said Code, cannot be invoked when there is
a legal impossibility of application, either by express
provision or by necessary implication.
Moreover, when the penalties under the special
law are different from and are without reference or
relation to those under the Revised Penal Code, there
can be no suppletory effect of the rules, for the
application of penalties under the said Code or by other
relevant statutory provisions are based on or applicable
only to said rules for felonies under the Code.
The court cited the case of People v. Panida
which involved the crime of carnapping and the penalty
imposed was the indeterminate sentence of 14 years
and 8 months, as minimum, to 17 years and 4 months,
as maximum, this Court did not apply the provisions of
the Revised Penal Code suppletorily as the anticarnapping law provides for its own penalties which are
distinct and without reference to the said Code.
Bustinera was sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of 14 years and 8 months as minimum, to 17
years and 4 months, as maximum for the crime of
carnapping under RA 6539, as amended.
Art. 4. Criminal liability. Criminal liability shall be
incurred:
/liz@/ viv
UP
PUNISHABLE CONDUCT
1.
WRONGFUL ACT
DIFFERENT
FROM
THAT
INTENDED
a.
b.
c.
Page 10
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
OMISSION
/liz@/ viv
Page 11
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed
highway robbers or brigands.
Persons found guilty of this offense shall be
punished by prision mayor in its medium period to
reclusion temporal in its minimum period if the act or
acts committed by them are not punishable by higher
penalties, in which case, they shall suffer such high
penalties.
If any of the arms carried by any of said
persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed
that said persons are highway robbers or brigands, and
in case of convictions the penalty shall be imposed in
the maximum period.
Art. 340. Corruption of minors. Any person who
shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption
of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall
be punished by prision mayor, and if the culprit is a
pubic officer or employee, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall
also suffer the penalty of temporary absolute
disqualification.
Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony are two
different acts or felonies: (1) conspiracy to commit a
felony, and (2) proposal to commit a felony.
GENERAL RULE: Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
felony are not punishable
EXCEPTION: They are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty therefore.
RATIONALE: 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.
CONSPIRACY
- exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felon and
decide to commit it.
The RPC specially provides a penalty for mere
conspiracy in treason, coup detat, rebellion or sedition.
Treason, coup detat, rebellion or sedition must not
actually be committed or else conspiracy shall no longer
be punishable because it is not a separate offense from
the felony itself.
INDICATIONS OF CONSPIRACY
- for a collective responsibility among the
accused to be established, it is sufficient that at the time
of the aggression, all of them acted in concert, each
doing his part to fulfill their common design to commit
the felony.
REQUISITES OF CONSPIRACY
a.
UP
c.
-
b.
/liz@/ viv
Page 12
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
behind. The brother of the victim also testified that he
positively identified Valdez as the one carrying the gun
and that it was Orodio who was running with him.
Held: If conspiracy is proved to exist in the
commission of the felony, it is not necessary to prove
that participation of each conspirator of all are liable as
any act of a co-conspirator becomes the act of the other
regardless of the precise degree of participation in the
act. The evidence is more than adequate to show
conspiracy between two accused even if prosecution
failed to show who actually pulled the trigger of the
shotgun; the act of one is the act of all.
People v. Escober (1988)
Facts: Alorte, Escober and Punzalan were
convicted of having killed the children of spouses Chua
while robbing Bee Seng Electrical Supply owned by the
spouses. Abuyen was the former security guard of the
store while Escober was the present one. Punzalan is a
friend of Abuyen. Escober and Punzalan were charged as
principals by indispensable cooperation.
Held: Escober was acquitted. Escober being on
duty that fateful night and opening the gate to persons
who turned out to be robbers and killers make him an
easy suspect. However, the fact that accused was at the
scene of the crime is not by itself sufficient to establish
his criminal liability. To hold the accused as co-principal
in the crime charged, the existence of conspiracy
between the accused and the actual killers must be
shown and the same degree of proof required for
establishing the crime is required to support a finding of
the presence of the conspiracy.
Punzalan, on the other hand, is guilty as
principal. His participation is to act as a look-out and
even if he did not participate in the actual killing, he
cannot evade responsibility for the crime.
People v. Elijorde (2003)
Facts: Hierro and Visbal went to the sari-sari
store where they encountered Elijorde, Punzalan and
Menes. Menes reacted to a comment made by Hierro by
punching him in the face followed by Elijorde who also
boxed him, and Punzalan who kicked him in the back.
The two victims ran away. Another confrontation
ensued. Punzalan kicked Hierro at the back and the
latter ran away but pursued by Elijorde. Elijorde, then.
Stabbed Hierro at the back with a knife resulting to his
death. Elijorde and Punzalan were charged with murder.
Held: No conspiracy between the 2 because
there is no evidence to show unity of purpose and
design in the execution of the killing. Punzalan only
kicked Hierro twice after which he did not cooperate with
Elijorde in pursuing and killing the victim. Mere kicking
does not necessarily prove intent to kill. Thus, each of
the accused is liable only for his own acts. Punzalan is
acquitted.
People v. Fabro (2000)
Facts: Petitioner Fabro together with her
common-law husband Pilay and Irene Martin was
charged with the crime of "violation of Section 21 (b)
Art. IV, in relation to Section 4, Art. II of Republic Act
No. 6425 as amended, for selling to PO2 Apduhan, who
acted as poseur buyer, one kilo of dried marijuana
leaves. Fabro contends that her guilt was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt as based on the testimony of
the NBI, the real possessor of the confiscated properties
was her co-accused Martin.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 13
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
lower court held that there was conspiracy in the
present case
Held: The existence of conspiracy should be
ruled out. Sangalang was the main actor in stabbing
Arugay to death. As Li was incapacitated or probably
unconscious at the time Sangalang stabbed Arugay, it
cannot be assumed that Sangalang did what he has
done with the knowledge or assent of Li, much more in
coordination
with
each
other.
Based
on
the
circumstances, the Court is hard put to conclude that
Sangalang and Li had acted in concert to commit the
offense. In fact, the stabbing of Arugay could very well
be construed as a spur-of-the-moment reaction by
Sangalang upon seeing that his friend Li was struck on
the head by Arugay. From such a spontaneous reaction,
a finding of conspiracy cannot arise.
Proving conspiracy is a dicey matter, especially
difficult in cases such as the present wherein the
criminal acts arose spontaneously, as opposed to
instances wherein the participants would have the
opportunity to orchestrate a more deliberate plan.
Spontaneity alone does not preclude the establishment
of conspiracy, which after all, can be consummated in a
moments notice through a single word of assent to a
proposal or an unambiguous handshake. Yet it is more
difficult to presume conspiracy in extemporaneous
outbursts of violence; hence, the demand that it be
established by positive evidence. A conviction premised
on a finding of conspiracy must be founded on facts, not
on mere inferences and presumption.
People v. Bagano (2002)
Facts: Jeremias and his wife Merlinda were
sleeping in their home when they were awakened by
someone repeatedly calling Jeremias' name. Jeremias
went to the window to see who it was and thereafter left
their room to go outside. Merlinda remained in their
room, but peering through the window she saw Caete
suddenly embrace Jeremias as the latter was opening
the gate. Thereupon, Bagano with ice pick in hand
stabbed Jeremias on the chest. Jeremias struggled to
free himself from Caete's clasp and ran, but Bagano
gave chase. Jeremias died upon arrival at the hospital.
Held:
Conspiracy
is
attendant
in
the
commission of the crime. For conspiracy to exist, it is
sufficient that at the time of the commission of the
offense the accused had the same purpose and were
united in its execution. Proof of an actual planning of
the perpetuation of the crime is not a condition
precedent. From the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated, and as can be inferred from
their acts, it is evident that Bagano and Caete were
one in their intention to kill Jeremias. Hence, in
accordance with the principle that in conspiracy the act
of one is the act of all, the fact that it was Bagano who
delivered the fatal blow on Jeremias and Caete's
participation was limited to a mere embrace is
immaterial. Conspiracy bestows upon them equal
liability; hence, they shall suffer the same fate for their
acts.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 14
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
a.
b.
a)
c.
d.
1.
2.
3.
ATTEMPTED FELONY
Elements:
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 offenders act is not stopped by his own
spontaneous desistance;
/liz@/ viv
Page 15
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
of imposing penal sanction to make an assumption that
the act was in preparation for the commission of
robbery. There is no logical and natural relation between
the act of entering and robbery. Thus, he should be
guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling.
People v. Dio (1984)
Facts: The appellant and his companion tried
to divest Crispulo of his Seiko wrist watch but Crispulo
resisted their attempt and fought the robbers. The
victim was stabbed and later died. The Seiko watch was
still strapped to his wrist. The lower court convicted the
appellant of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
Held: The decision of the lower court was
erroneous. The accused were unsuccessful in their
criminal venture since the watch was still securely
strapped to the victims wrist. The crime of robbery was
therefore not consummated. The killing may be
considered as merely incidental to the plan to carry out
the robbery. The accused must be convicted of
attempted robbery with homicide.
People v. Trinidad (1989)
Facts: Deceased Soriano and Laroa together
with Tan were inside a Ford Fierra Trinidad asked for a
ride. The accused shot the two deceased. Tan got off the
Fierra and rode a jeepney which just passed by. When
he saw the accused riding at the back of the jeep, he
tried to run but when the jeep started driving away, he
clung to its side. The accused fired two shots at Tan, one
hitting him on his thigh. The lower court convicted him
of frustrated murder.
Held: The accused can only be convicted of
Attempted Murder because the accused was unable to
perform all acts of execution which would have produced
the murder. The victims wound in the right thigh was
not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound
is inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his
death, the crime is only attempted murder.
People v. Campuhan (2000)
Facts: The mother of the 4-year-old victim
caught the houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost
raping her daughter. The hymen of the victim was still
intact but since in previous Orita ruling, entry into labia
is considered rape even without rupture of hymen and
full penetration is not necessary, question arises
whether
what
transpired
was
attempted
or
consummated rape.
Held: Attempted rape only. Mere touching of
external genitalia by the penis is already rape. However,
touching should be understood as inherently part of
entry of penis into labia and not mere touching of the
pudendum. There must be clear and convincing proof
that the penis indeed touched the labia and slid into the
female organ and NOT MERELY STROKED THE
EXTERNAL SURFACE. Some degree of penetration
beneath the surface must be achieved and the labia
major must be entered. Prosecution did not prove that
the Campuhans penis was able to penetrate victims
vagina because the kneeling position of the accused
obstructed the mothers view of the alleged sexual
contact. The testimony of the victim herself claimed that
penis grazed but did not penetrate her organ.
There was only a shelling of the castle but no
bombardment of the drawbridge yet.
/liz@/ viv
UP
2.
Page 16
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
ATTEMPTED OR
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
FRUSTRATED
The evil intent of the offender is not accomplished
The evil intent of the The evil intent of the
offender is possible of
offender
cannot
be
accomplishment
accomplished
The evil intent cannot be The evil intent of the
accomplished because of offender
cannot
be
the intervention of certain accomplished because it is
cause or accident in which inherently impossible of
the offender had no part
accomplishment
or
because
the
means
employed by the offender
is
inadequate
or
ineffectual
People v. Eria (1927)
Facts: The victim of the crime was a child of 3
years and 11 months. There are doubts whether the
accused succeeded in penetrating the vagina before
being disturbed in the timely intervention of the mother
and sister. The physician found a slight inflammation of
the exterior parts of the organ, indicating an effort had
been made to enter the vagina but it is doubtful whether
the entry had been effected.
Held: Though complete penetration is not
necessary, penetration of the labia is sufficient.
However, since there is no sufficient evidence of such
penetration, the act is merely frustrated.
Dissent: It is consummated rape.
People v. Orita (1990)
Facts: The victim was a 19-year old college
student. She arrived at her boarding house early
morning coming from a late-night party. The accused
suddenly held her and poked a knife to her neck. They
entered a room and the victim was ordered to lie down.
The accused made the victim hold his penis and insert it
in her vagina. Because of their position, the accused
cannot fully penetrate her. Only a small part of his penis
inserted her vagina. The victim was able to escape and
report to the police what happened. The lower court
convicted the accused of frustrated rape.
Held: Perfect penetration is not essential for
the consummation of rape. Entry of the labia or lips of
the female organ without rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant
conviction. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the
moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim,
he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment
also all the essential elements of the offense have been
accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the
offender, because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is
consummated rape.
Taking into account the nature, elements and
manner of execution of the crime of rape and
jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how
the frustrated stage in rape can ever be consummated.
People v. Caballero (2003)
Facts: As Eugene walked by the gate of the
Mondragon Compound, Armando Caballero suddenly
grabbed Eugene towards the compound. Eugene
resisted. Spontaneously, Armandos brothers Ricardo,
Marciano, Jr. and Robito joined Armando and assaulted
/liz@/ viv
UP
CONSUMMATED FELONY
Requisites:
1. All the acts of execution are present
2. The result is achieved.
Every crime has its own elements which must all be
present to constitute a culpable violation of a precept of
law.
How to determine whether the felony is
attempted, frustrated or consummated?
1. the nature of the offense
ex. In arson, it is not necessary that the property is
totally destroyed by fire. The crime of arson is
therefore consummated even if only a portion of the
wall or any other part of the house is burned.
2. the elements constituting the felony
ex. In theft, the mere removal of the personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain is
sufficient to consummate the offense. In estafa, the
offended party must actually be prejudiced or
damaged. (Adiao case vs. Domiguez case)
3.
a.
formal
crimes
those
which
are
consummated by a single act (ex. Slander,
adultery)
There can be no ATTEMPT in a formal crime.
Page 17
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
b.
c. felonies by omission
There can be no attempted stage because the
offender does not execute acts. He omits to
perform an act which the law requires him to do.
UP
- There
US v. Adiao (1955)
Facts: Adiao is a customs inspector. He
abstracted a leather belt from the luggage of a Japanese
and secreted the belt under his desk in the Customs
House where it was found by other customs employees.
Adiao was convicted of frustrated theft.
Held: Since the defendant performed all the
acts of execution necessary for the accomplishment of
the felony, he is guilty of consummated crime of theft.
The fact that he was under observation during the entire
transaction and was unable to get the merchandise out
of the Customs House is not decisive; all the elements of
the completed crime of theft are present.
People v. Hernandez (1925)
Facts: The accused, a 70-year-old man was
convicted by the trial court of frustrated rape for having
intercourse with his granddaughter who was at that time
only 9 years of age. The lower court claimed that there
can be no consummated rape without a complete
penetration of the hymen.
Held: Finding the hymen intact is not always
proof that no rape has been committed. The law may
now indeed be considered as settled that while the
rupturing of the hymen is not indispensable to a
conviction, there must be proof of some degree of
entrance of the male organ within the labia of
pudendum. In the present case, the physician found the
labia and the opening of the vagina inflamed together
with an abundance of semen. Child even testified that
defendant succeeded partial penetration. The accused is
guilty of consummated rape.
D. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Art. 9. Grave felonies, less grave felonies and light
felonies. Grave felonies are those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in
any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art.
25 of this Code.
/liz@/ viv
b.
Page 18
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
b.
has
REQUISITES:
1.
been
a.
/liz@/ viv
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
REQUISITES:
felony
c.
That an intentional
committed; and
a.
b.
2.
3.
Page 19
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
b. the means employed is either inadequate
or ineffectual
- example: when one tries to poison another but
the quantity of arsenic added in his substance was
not sufficient to kill a person
- but where the means employed is adequate
and the result expected is not produced, it is not an
impossible crime, but a frustrated felony.
4. That
the
act
performed
should
not
constitute a violation of another provision of
the RPC
- example: A pointed a gun at B to rob the latter
of a watch but B was not wearing a watch. It is
not an impossible crime because As pointing his
gun at B already constituted at least the crime of
grave threats.
Why is an impossible crime punishable?
It is punishable in order to suppress criminal
tendencies. Objectively, the offender has not committed
a felony, but subjectively, he is a criminal.
Urbano v. IAC (1988)
Facts: Urbano went to his rice field and found
his palay flooded with water. Urbano found out that it
was Javier who was responsible for the opening of the
irrigation canal. He got angry and tried to hack Javier
but the latter tried to parry the attack and in the
process, a two-inch incised wound was inflicted on the
right palm of Javiers hand. The wound was treated and
incapacitation was diagnosed to be from 7-9 days. 22
days after, Javier was rushed to the hospital in a very
serious condition caused by tetanus toxin. Javier died
the next day. Urbano was convicted of homicide.
Held: Urbano is acquitted because the infection
was distinct and foreign to the crime. The proximate
cause of Javiers death was due to his own negligence as
he went back to work even if his wound had not yet
healed properly. The evidence on record also shows that
the wound inflicted by Urbano did not exhibit any signs
of being infected with tetanus; at most, it was only
infected with a mild form of tetanus and not the severe
form that killed him.
Intod v. CA (1992)
Facts: Intod et al. went to Palangpangans
house, all armed with firearms. They went the bedroom
and began firing their weapons. However, Palangpangan
was in another city and her home was occupied by her
son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when
the accused fired their weapons. RTC convicted the
accused of attempted murder.
Held: The accused is guilty of an impossible
crime. The factual situation in the case presents a
physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime
impossible of performance.
Quinto v. Andres (2005)
Facts: Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school
pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was about
11 yrs old saw Andres and Pacheco who invited them to
go fishing inside a drainage culvert. Wilson assented but
Garcia seeing that it was dark inside opted to remain
seated in a grassy area about 2meters from the
entrance of the drainage system. Pacheco, Andres and
Quinto, entered the drainage system which was covered
by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 20
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
RESPONSIBILITY
Obligation of suffering the
consequences of the
crime.
Implies that the person
must take the
consequence of such deed.
1. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Those where the act of a person is said to be
in accordance with law, so that such person is deemed
not to have transgressed the law and is free from both
criminal and civil liability.
The law recognizes the non-existence of a
crime by expressly stating in the opening sentence of
Art. 11 that the person therein mentioned DO NOT
INCUR CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
/liz@/ viv
Page 21
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
The rule now is STAND GROUND WHEN IN THE
RIGHT. So, where the accused is where he has the
right to be, the law does not require him to retreat
when his assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with
a deadly weapon.
The belief of the person may be considered in
determining the existence of unlawful aggression.
Ex. If the aggressor used a toy pistol but the
accused believed it was a real gun, he may claim selfdefense.
b. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it
The second requisite presupposes the existence of
unlawful aggression.
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 reasonableness of the necessity depends
upon the circumstances particularly the time and
location where the aggression took place.
The means employed by the person making a
defense must be rationally necessary to prevent or
repel an unlawful aggression.
The reasonableness of the means used will depend
upon the NATURE and QUALITY of the weapon used
by the aggressor, his PHYSICAL CONDITION, SIZE
and other circumstances, and those of the person
defending himself, and also the place and occasion of
the assault.
*** THE FIRST TWO REQUISITES ARE COMMON TO
THREE KINDS OF LEGITIMATE DEFENSE: 1) SELFDEFENSE, 2) DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE AND 3)
DEFENSE OF A STRANGER.
c. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself
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 giver, 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.
Par. 2 DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
RELATIVES THAT CAN BE DEFENDED
1.
Spouse
2.
Ascendants
3.
Descendants
4.
Legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity in the same
degrees.
/liz@/ viv
UP
5.
Relatives
by
consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree.
Relatives by affinity, because of marriage, are parentsin-law, son or daughter-in-law, and brothers or sistersin-law.
Death of the spouse terminates the relationship by
affinity; unless the marriage has resulted in issue who is
still living, in which case the relationship of affinity
continues.
Consanguinity refers to blood relatives. Brothers
sisters are within the second civil degree; uncle
niece or aunt and nephew are within the third
degree; and first cousins are within the fourth
degree.
and
and
civil
civil
1.
Unlawful aggression;
Unlawful aggression may not exist as a
matter of fact, it can be made to depend upon the
honest belief of the one making a defense. Ex. The
sons of A honestly believed that their father was the
victim of an unlawful aggression when in fact it was
their father who attacked B. If they killed B under
such circumstance, they are justified.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it;
The gauge of reasonable necessity of the means
employed to repel the aggression as against ones
self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the
situation as IT APPEARS TO THE PERSON
REPELLING THE AGGRESSION (the defender).
3.
Page 22
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
BASIS: What one may do in his defense, another may
do for him. The ordinary man would not stand idly by
and see his companion killed without attempting to save
his life.
People v. Narvaez (1983)
Facts: Narvaez was taking his rest inside his
house when he heard that the wall of his house was
being chiseled. He saw that Fleischer and Rubia,
together with their laborers, were fencing the land of the
father of the deceased Fleischer. If the fencing would go
on, Narvaez would be prevented from getting into his
house and the bodega of his ricemill so he asked the
group to stop but they refused. The accused got mad so
he got his shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran towards
the jeep and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, the
accused fired at Rubia as well. Narvaez claimed he acted
in defense of his person and rights.
Held: The court took into consideration the fact
that the 2 deceased were accompanied with three
laborers and that the were using tools which could be
lethal weapons such as nail and hammer, bolo, etc. and
that the jeep the deceased used contained a gun leaning
near the steering wheel. There was aggression on the
part of the victims not on the person of the accused but
on his property rights when Fleischer angrily ordered the
continuance of the fencing.
The third element of self-defense is also
present because there was no sufficient provocation on
the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping when the
deceased where fencing.
However, the second element was lacking.
Shooting the victims from the window of his house is
disproportionate to the physical aggression by the
victims. Thus, there is incomplete self-defense and the
accused is entitled to a penalty lower by one or two
degrees.
Dissent: Defense of property is not of such
importance as the right to life and defense of property
can only be invoked when it is coupled with some form
of attack on the person of one entrusted with said
property. In this case before us, there is no evidence
that an attack was attempted. The utterance, no,
gaddemit, proceed, go ahead is not unlawful aggression
which entitles him neither to a plea of self-defense nor
to a mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense.
People v. Boholst-Caballero (1974)
Facts: Boholst (wife) and Caballero (husband)
are married to each other. But since their marriage was
an unhappy one, they separated. One evening, the wife
went caroling with her friends and she was seen by her
husband standing in a corner of the yard of Barabad.
She accused her of prostituting and threatened to kill
her as he held her by the hair, slapped her face until her
nose bled. He, then, choked her and at the same time
continuously saying that he will kill her. The wife then
pulled out the knife of her husband tucked inside the
belt line and stabbed him. When she was released, she
ran home. The wife is claiming self-defense.
Held: The wife who being strangled and choked
by a furious aggressor had no other recourse but to get
hold of any weapon within her reach to save herself. The
claim that it was not proper for the wife to be standing
in the middle of the night outside a yard giving the
impression that she is prostituting herself, is not
sufficient provocation. All that the accused did was to
provoke an imaginary commission of a wrong in the
/liz@/ viv
UP
sufficient
Page 23
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Facts: Accused was found guilty of homicide
for stabbing and killing Rivera. Prosecution claimed that
Dela Cruz and Rivera had a relationship and that the
accused was madly in love with the deceased and was
extremely jealous of another woman with whom Rivera
also had a relationship. Dela Cruz claimed, on the other
hand, that on her way home one evening, Rivera
followed her, embraced and kissed her and touched her
private parts. She didnt know that it was Rivera and
that she was unable to resist the strength of Rivera so
she got a knife from her pocket and stabbed him in
defense of her honor.
Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife
in repelling what she believed to be an attack upon her
honor. It was a dark night and she could not have
identified Rivera. There being no other means of selfdefense.
People v. Juarigue (1946)
Facts: Amado (deceased) has been courting
the accused Avelina in vain. On the day of the crime,
Avelina and Amado were in Church. Amado sat beside
Avelina and placed his hand on her thigh. Thereafter,
Avelina took out her knife and stabbed Amado in the
neck, causing the death of Amado.
Held: Although the defense of ones honor
exempts one from criminal liability, it must be proved
that there is actual danger of being raped. In this case,
1) the church was well-lit, 2) there were several people
in the church, including the father of the accused and
other town officials. In light of these circumstances,
accused could not have possibly been raped. The means
employed in defense of her honor was evidently
excessive.
US v. Bumaglang (1909)
Facts: Bumanglang was missing 40 bundles of
palay. Later, accompanied by his co-defendants, he
awaited the culprit and caught Ribis so they confronted
him assaulted him with sticks and other cutting and
stabbing weapons. As a result, Ribis died. Defendants
declared that during the fight they only beat the
deceased with sticks and Ribis unsheathed his bolo.
Bumanglang et al were convicted of homicide.
Held: The bolo of the deceased was sheathed
when the body was discovered. There was no unlawful
aggression on the part of Ribis. Thus, there can be no
claim of self-defense.
Separate Opinion: A man who ambushed one
he suspects to be a thief can claim defense of property.
Not only was there unlawful aggression against
Bumanglag, there was also a wrongful invasion of his
habitat and attempt to commit a felony against his
property. With the imminence of danger to his life, he
realized that he had to ask assistance from his friends,
considering Ribis criminal record, character and unusual
strength.
Toledo v. People (2004)
Facts: Toledo saw his nephew, Ricky, and the
latter's friends about 5 m away from his house, having a
drinking spree. He ordered them not to make loud
noises, and they obliged. He then went to his house and
went to sleep. Ricky and his friends also went to sleep
after some time. They had not laid down for long when
he heard stones being hurled at the roof of the house.
Ricky saw Toledo stoning their house and asked him
why he was doing the same. Toledo did not answer but
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 24
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
a fan knife. The latter locked himself in the dark room of
his booth to protect himself but was followed by the
deceased and they ended up attacking each other.
During the scuffle, the scissors which Orlando was able
to grab fell from his hands. He then grabbed the knife
of the deceased who in turn picked the scissors. They
again attacked each other which resulted to the death of
the other.
Held: Conrados act of killilng his brother was
attended by a justifying circumstance of self-defense. It
was the deceased who purposely sought and initially
attacked Orlando with a knife. The act of a person
armed with a bladed weapon pursuing another
constitutes unlawful agression because it signifies the
pursuers intent to commit an assault with his weapon.
There was also lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of Condrado. His act of photocopying the permit of his
brother without the latters permission can hardly be
conidered as provocation to merit so deadly an assault
with a bladed weapon.
Balunueco v. CA (2003)
Facts: Amelia was coddling her youngest child
in front of her house, when she saw accused Reynaldo,
his father Juanito and brothers Ricardo and Ramon, all
surnamed Balunueco, and one Flores chasing her
brother-in-law Servando. With the 5 individuals in hot
pursuit, Servando scampered into the safety of Amelia's
house. Meanwhile, Senando, who was then cooking
supper, went out of the house unaware of the
commotion going on outside. Upon seeing Senando,
Reynaldo turned his attention on him and gave chase.
Senando instinctively fled towards the fields but he was
met by Armando who hit him with a stone, causing
Senando to feel dizzy. Reynaldo, Ricardo, and Armando
cornered their quarry near a canal and ganged up on
him. Armando placed a can on top of Senando's head
and Ricardo repeatedly struck Senando with an ax on
the head, shoulder, and hand. At one point, Ricardo lost
his hold on the ax, but somebody tossed him a bolo and
then he continued hacking the victim who fell on his
knees. To shield him from further violence, Amelia put
her arms around her husband but it was not enough to
detract Ricardo from his murderous frenzy. Amelia was
also hit on the leg. The RTC and CA convicted Ricardo of
Homicide. He now imputes errors to the CA in not taking
into consideration the fact that if indeed he participated,
he had acted in defense of his relatives.
Held: Of the three (3) requisites of defense of
relatives, unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua
non, for without it any defense is not possible or
justified. In order to consider that an unlawful
aggression was actually committed, it is necessary that
an attack or material aggression, an offensive act
positively determining the intent of the aggressor to
cause an injury shall have been made; a mere
threatening or intimidating attitude is not sufficient to
justify the commission of an act which is punishable per
se, and allow a claim of exemption from liability on the
ground that it was committed in self-defense or defense
of a relative.
In the case at bar, petitioner Ricardo utterly
failed to adduce sufficient proof of the existence of a
positively strong act of real aggression on the part of the
deceased Senando.. It was he and his kin who had
inititated the unlawful agression and not Senando.
Further, the natural impulse of any person who has
killed someone in defense of his person or relative is to
/liz@/ viv
UP
1.
Page 25
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Note: The instinct of self-preservation
will always make one feel that his own safety is
of greater importance than that of another.
The greater evil should not be brought about
by the negligence or imprudence of the actor.
The evil which brought about the greater evil
must not result from a violation of law by the actor.
3. That there be no other practical and
less harmful means of preventing it.
General rule: No liability in justifying
circumstances because there is no crime.
Exception: There is CIVIL LIABILITY under
this paragraph. It is borne by the persons benefited by
the act. They shall be liable in proportion to the benefit
which they may have been received.
People v. Ricohermoso (1974)
Facts: The land Ricohermoso cultivated
belonged to Geminiano. When the latter went to the
house of the former, as if by prearrangement,
Ricohermoso unsheathed his bolo and approached
Geminiano from the left while Severo (Ricos father-inlaw) got an axe and approached from the right. Rico
stabbed Geminiano first and while in a helpless position,
the latter was hacked on the back by Severo.
At that same place and time while the killing of
Geminiano was taking place, Juan (son of Severo)
suddenly embraced Marianito (son of Geminiano), who
had a gun slung on his shoulder, from behind. They
grappled and rolled downhill towards the camote patch.
Marianito passed out and when he regained
consciousness, his rifle was gone. He walked uphill and
saw his father. Geminiano died later. Juan invoked the
justifying circumstance of greater necessity in explaining
his act of preventing Marianito from shooting Rico and
Severo.
Held: The act of Juan was designed to insure
the killing of Geminiano without any risk to his
assailants. Juan was not avoiding any evil but his
malicious intention was to forestall any interference in
the felonious assault. He acted in conspiracy with Rico
and Severo.
Ty v. People (2004)
Facts: Ty's mother Chua Lao So Un was
confined at the Manila Doctors' Hospital from October
1990 until June 1992. Being the patient's daughter, Ty
signed the "Acknowledgment of Responsibility for
Payment" in the Contract of Admission. Ty's sister, Judy
Chua, was also confined at the same hospital. The total
hospital bills of the two patients amounted to
P1,075,592.95. Ty executed a promissory note wherein
she assumed payment of the obligation in installments.
To assure payment of the obligation, she drew 7
postdated checks against Metrobank payable to the
hospital which were all dishonored by the drawee bank
and returned unpaid to the hospital due to insufficiency
of funds. For her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the
checks because of an uncontrollable fear of a greater
injury She averred that she was forced to issue the
checks to obtain release for her mother who was being
inhumanely and harshly treated by the hospital. She
alleged that her mother has comtemplated suicide if she
would not be discharged from the hospital. Ty was found
guilty by the lower courts of 7 counts of violation of
BP22.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 26
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
weapon in his hand, which compelled the policeman to
resort to such extreme means, which, although it proved
to be fatal, was justified by the circumstance.
People v. Oanis (1943)
Although an officer in making a lawful arrest is
justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary
to secure and detain the offender, overcome his
resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he
escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm, yet he is
never justified in using unnecessary force or in treating
him with wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous
means when the arrest could be effected otherwise.
Pomoy v. People (2004)
/liz@/ viv
UP
superior.
purpose.
REQUISITES:
1. That an order has been issued by a
2. That such order must be for some lawful
Page 27
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 28
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Dementia praecox
Kleptomania if found by a competent
psychiatrist as irresistible
Epilepsy
Somnambulism sleep-walking
Malignant malaria which affects the
nervous system
In Re MNaghten (1843)
Guidelines
A man who shot someone claimed insanity.
Held: Every man is presumed to be sane. It
must be clearly proved that at the time of committing
the act, A was under a defect of reason that he did not
know the nature of act or if he did know what he was
doing, he did not know he was wrong.
The question to be asked is whether the
accused at the time of doing the act knew the
differences between right and wrong? The emphasis is
on reason or cognition.
People v. Tubogoca (1998)
Facts: Jacqueline, together with her sisters,
lived with their father after their mother died. One night,
she was roused by her father who asked her to scratch
his back but later she was forced to have intercourse
with him. Her sister Jinky also experienced the same
with his father 2 years after. When their grandmother
found out about the incident, they filed charges against
the accused. The accused claim that he cannot
remember anything because he often drinks liquor at
home.
Held: The law presumes every man to be sane.
The accused failed to overthrow the presumption of
sanity. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the
mental condition of the accused when the crime was
performed. His charade of amnesia is a desperate
gambit for exculpation.
People v. Madarang (2000)
Facts: Fernando and his wife quarreled. In the
heat of the fight, the accused stabbed his wife causing
her death. The accused declared that he had no
recollection of the stabbing incident. Further, he alleges
that he did not know where he was that day. Court
ordered the accuseds confinement in a mental
institution where it was found that he was inflicted with
schizophrenia. He was submitted to treatment for 2
years, after which, he faced the charges against him.
Held: The accused failed to prove that he was
completely deprived of intelligence in committing the
act. He did not show any signs of insanity prior to and
immediately after the act. He was only diagnosed of
schizophrenia months after the incident. Also, schizos
have lucid intervals.
People v. Bonoan (1937)
A person suffering from dementia praecox
pleaded insanity as a defense for committing murder. In
dementia praecox, the crime is usually preceded by
much complaining and planning. in these people,
homicide attacks are common because of delusions that
they are being interfered with sexually or that their
property is being taken. During period of excitement,
such person has no control whatever of his acts. An
irresistible homicide impulse was considered embraced
in the terms of insanity.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 29
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
INTENT
Desired act of the person
/liz@/ viv
Page 30
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
If the minor has been committed to the
custody or care of any of the institutions mentioned in
the first paragraph of this article, with the approval of
the Director of Public Welfare and subject to such
conditions as this official in accordance with law may
deem proper to impose, such minor may be allowed to
stay elsewhere under the care of a responsible person.
If the minor has behaved properly and has
complied with the conditions imposed upon him during
his confinement, in accordance with the provisions of
this article, he shall be returned to the court in order
that the same may order his final release.
In case the minor fails to behave properly or to
comply with the regulations of the institution to which
he has been committed or with the conditions imposed
upon him when he was committed to the care of a
responsible person, or in case he should be found
incorrigible or his continued stay in such institution
should be inadvisable, he shall be returned to the court
in order that the same may render the judgment
corresponding to the crime committed by him.
The expenses for the maintenance of a minor
delinquent confined in the institution to which he has
been committed, shall be borne totally or partially by his
parents or relatives or those persons liable to support
him, if they are able to do so, in the discretion of the
court; Provided, That in case his parents or relatives or
those persons liable to support him have not been
ordered to pay said expenses or are found indigent and
cannot pay said expenses, the municipality in which the
offense was committed shall pay one-third of said
expenses; the province to which the municipality
belongs shall pay one-third; and the remaining one-third
shall be borne by the National Government: Provided,
however, That whenever the Secretary of Finance
certifies that a municipality is not able to pay its share in
the expenses above mentioned, such share which is not
paid by said municipality shall be borne by the National
Government. Chartered cities shall pay two-thirds of
said expenses; and in case a chartered city cannot pay
said expenses, the internal revenue allotments which
may be due to said city shall be withheld and applied in
settlement of said indebtedness in accordance with
section five hundred and eighty-eight of the
Administrative Code.
When the minor is adjudged criminally irresponsible
duty of court is to commit him to custody of his family or
some institution.
The allegation of with intent to kill in the information
is sufficient allegation of discernment.
PD 603
THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE
Article 189. Youthful Offender Defined. - A youthful
offender is one who is over nine years but under twenty-one
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
A child nine years of age or under at the time of
the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability and shall
be committed to the care of his or her father or mother, or
nearest relative or family friend in the discretion of the court
and subject to its supervision. The same shall be done for a
child over nine years and under fifteen years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense, unless he acted with
discernment, in which case he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Article 192.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 31
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
chartered city cannot pay said expenses, part of the internal
revenue allotments applicable to the unpaid portion shall be
withheld and applied to the settlement of said indebtedness.
All city and provincial governments must exert
efforts for the immediate establishment of local detention
homes for youthful offenders.
Article 195. Report on Conduct of Child. - The
Department of Social Welfare or its representative or duly
licensed agency or individual under whose care the youthful
offender has been committed shall submit to the court every
four months or oftener as may be required in special cases,
a written report on the conduct of said youthful offender as
well as the intellectual, physical, moral, social and emotional
progress made by him.
Article 196. Dismissal of the Case. - If it is
shown to the satisfaction of the court that the youthful
offender whose sentence has been suspended, has behaved
properly and has shown his capability to be a useful member
of the community, even before reaching the age of majority,
upon recommendation of the Department of Social Welfare,
it shall dismiss the case and order his final discharge.
Article 197. Return of the Youth Offender to
Court. - Whenever the youthful offender has been found
incorrigible or has wilfully failed to comply with the
conditions of his rehabilitation programs, or should his
continued stay in the training institution be inadvisable, he
shall be returned to the committing court for the
pronouncement of judgment.
When the youthful offender has reached the age
of twenty-one while in commitment, the court shall
determine whether to dismiss the case in accordance with
the next preceding article or to pronounce the judgment of
conviction.
In any case covered by this article, the youthful
offender shall be credited in the service of his sentence with
the full time spent in actual commitment and detention
effected under the provisions of this Chapter.
Article 198. Effect of Release of Child Based
on Good Conduct. - The final release of a child pursuant to
the provisions of this Chapter shall not obliterate his civil
liability for damages. Such release shall be without prejudice
to the right for a writ of execution for the recovery of civil
damages.
Article 199. Living Quarters for Youthful
Offenders Sentence. - When a judgment of conviction is
pronounced in accordance with the provisions of Article 197,
and at the time of said pronouncement the youthful offender
is still under twenty-one, he shall be committed to the
proper penal institution to serve the remaining period of his
sentence: Provided, That penal institutions shall provide
youthful offenders with separate quarters and, as far as
practicable, group them according to appropriate age levels
or other criteria as will insure their speedy rehabilitation:
Provided, further, That the Bureau of Prisons shall maintain
agricultural and forestry camps where youthful offenders
may serve their sentence in lieu of confinement in regular
penitentiaries.
Article 200. Records of Proceedings. - Where
a youthful offender has been charged before any city or
provincial fiscal or before any municipal judge and the
charges have been ordered dropped, all the records of the
case shall be destroyed immediately thereafter.
Where a youthful offender has been charged and
the court acquits him, or dismisses the case or commits him
to an institution and subsequently releases him pursuant to
this Chapter, all the records of his case shall be destroyed
immediately after such acquittal, dismissal or release, unless
/liz@/ viv
UP
EN BANC
[A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC. February 28, 2002.]
RE: PROPOSED RULE ON COMMITMENT OF
CHILDREN
RESOLUTION
Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the
Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court
submitting for this Court's consideration and
approval the Proposed Rule on Commitment Of
Children, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the same.
The Rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002 following
its publication in a newspaper of general circulation
not later than March 15, 2002.
February 28, 2002.
RULE ON COMMITMENT OF CHILDREN
SECTION 1.
Objective.
The
objective of this Rule is to ensure that every effort is
exerted to promote the child's welfare and enhance
his opportunities for a useful and happy life. Toward
this end, this Rule seeks to protect the child from all
Page 32
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and
other conditions prejudicial to his development .
SECTION 2.
Interpretation. The
best interests of the child shall be the paramount
consideration in all actions concerning him, whether
undertaken by public or private social welfare
institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities
and legislative bodies consistent with the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
SECTION 3.
Definition of Terms.
(a) "Child" is a person below eighteen years of
age.
(b) "Department" refers to the Department of
Social Welfare and Development.
(c) "Dependent child" is one who is without a
parent, guardian or custodian, or one whose parents,
guardian or other custodian for good cause desires to
be relieved of his care and custody, and is dependent
upon the public for support.
(d) "Abandoned child" is one who has no proper
parental care or guardianship, or whose parents or
guardian has deserted him for a period of at least six
(6) continuous months.
(e) "Neglected child" is one whose basic needs
have
been
deliberately
unattended
to
or
inadequately attended to, physically or emotionally,
by his parents or guardian.
(f) "Physical neglect" occurs when the child is
malnourished, ill-clad and without proper shelter.
(g) "Emotional neglect" occurs when a child is
raped, seduced, maltreated, exploited, overworked
or made to work under conditions not conducive to
good health; made to beg in the streets or public
places, or when placed in moral danger, or exposed
to drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution and other
vices.
(h) "Disabled child" includes mentally retarded,
physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed and
mentally ill children, children with cerebral palsy and
those with similar afflictions.
(i) "Mentally retarded child" is one who is (1)
socially incompetent, that is, socially inadequate,
occupationally incompetent and unable to manage
his own affairs; (2) mentally subnormal; (3)
intellectually retarded from birth or early age; (4)
retarded at maturity; (5) mentally deficient as a
result of constitutional origin through heredity or
diseases or (6) essentially incurable.
(j) "Physically handicapped child" is one who is
crippled, deaf-mute, blind, or otherwise suffers from
a defect which restricts his means of action or
communication with others.
(k) "Emotionally disturbed child" is one who,
although not afflicted with insanity or mental defect,
is unable to maintain normal social relations with
others and the community in general due to
emotional problems or complexes,
(l) "Mentally ill child" is one with any
behavioral disorder, whether functional or organic,
which is of such a degree of severity as to require
professional help or hospitalization.
(m) "Commitment" or "surrender of a child" is
the legal act of entrusting a child to the care of the
Department or any duly licensed child-placement or
child-caring agency or individual by the court, parent
or guardian or any interested party.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 33
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
(2)
The facts showing that the child is
dependent, abandoned, or neglected;
(3)
The facts showing who has custody
of the child at the time of the filing of the
petition; and
(4)
The name, address and written
consent of the Department or duly licensed
child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual to whose care the commitment of the
child is sought to be entrusted.
(d) Summons; Court to Set Time for Hearing.
If the court is satisfied that the petition is sufficient in
form and substance, it shall direct the clerk of court
to immediately issue summons which shall be served
together with a copy of the petition and a notice of
hearing, upon the parents or guardian of the child
and the office of the public prosecutor not less than
five (5) days before the date of the hearing. The
office of the public prosecutor shall be directed to
immediately transmit the summons to the prosecutor
assigned to the Family Court concerned.
If it appears from the petition that both parents
of the child are dead or that neither parent can be
found in the province or city where the court is
located and the child has no guardian residing
therein, summons may not be issued and the court
shall thereupon appoint a guardian ad litem pursuant
to Sub-section (f) below and proceed with the
hearing of the case with due notice to the provincial
or city prosecutor,
(e) Social Worker. After the court sets the
petition for hearing in accordance with Sub-section
(d) above, it shall direct the social worker to submit,
before the hearing, a case study report of the child to
aid it in evaluating whether said child should be
committed to the care of the Department or any duly
licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual. The report shall bear the signature of the
social worker on every page.
(f) Guardian Ad Litem of Child. If neither of
the parents nor the guardian of the child can be
located or does not appear in court despite due
notice, or if the court finds them incompetent to
protect the best interests of the child, it shall be the
duty of the court to appoint a suitable person as
guardian ad litem to represent the child. In making
the appointment, the court shall consider the
background of the guardian ad litem and his
familiarity with the judicial process, social service
programs and child development. A member of the
Philippine Bar may be appointed guardian ad litem.
(g) Child's Right to Counsel. The court, upon
request of the child capable of forming his own views
or upon request of his guardian ad litem, shall
appoint a lawyer to represent him in the
proceedings.
(h) Duty of Public Prosecutor. The provincial
or city prosecutor shall appear for the State and
ascertain if there has been due notice to all parties
concerned and that there is justification for the
declaration of dependency, abandonment or neglect.
(i) Hearing. The court shall direct the person
or agency which has custody of the child to bring the
latter to the court on the date of the hearing of the
petition and shall ascertain the facts and determine
whether the child is dependent, abandoned, or
/liz@/ viv
UP
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
authority to change the custody of a child it had
placed with any duly licensed child-placement or
child-caring agency or individual if it appears that
such change is for the best interests of the child. The
Department shall notify the court of any change in
custody of the child.
When conflicting interests arise among childplacement or child-caring agencies, the court which
granted the involuntary commitment of the child,
upon motion of the Department or any of the
agencies concerned, shall order the change of
commitment of the child.
(o) Removal of Custody. A motion to remove
custody of a child may be filed by an authorized
representative of the Department with knowledge of
the facts against a child-placement or child-caring
agency or individual to whose custody a child has
been committed by the court on the ground of
neglect of such child as defined in Section 3 (e) of
this Rule. The court shall set the motion for hearing
with notice to the public prosecutor and the courtdesignated social worker. If the court finds after
hearing that the allegations of the motion have been
established and that it is for the best interests and
welfare of the child, the court shall issue an order
removing him from the custody of the person or
agency, as the case may be, and committing him to
the custody of another duly licensed child-placement
or child-caring agency or individual.
In the same proceeding, the court may suspend
or revoke the license of the agency or individual
found guilty of such neglect depending upon the
gravity or frequency of the offense.
(p) Restoration of Parental Authority After
Involuntary Commitment.
(i)
Who may file; Ground. The
parents or guardian of a child committed to
the care of a person, agency or institution by
judicial order may file a verified motion for the
restoration of his rights over the child with the
court
which
granted
the
involuntary
commitment on the ground that he is now
able to take proper care and custody of said
child, provided, however, that the child has
not yet been adopted. HDATSI
(ii)
Notice of Hearing. The court
shall fix the time and date for the hearing of
the motion, which shall not be earlier than
thirty (30) days nor later than sixty (60) days
from the date of the filing of said motion and
cause notice of the hearing to be sent to the
person, agency or institution to which the child
has been committed, the public prosecutor
and the court-designated social worker, at
least five (5) days before the date of hearing.
(iii)
Hearing. At the hearing, any
person may be allowed to intervene at the
discretion of the court to contest the right to
the relief demanded. Witnesses may be called
and examined by the parties or by the court
motu proprio.
(iv)
Resolution. If it is found that the
cause for the commitment of the child no
longer exists and that the movant is already
able to take proper care and custody of the
child, the court, after taking into consideration
the best interests and the welfare of the child,
/liz@/ viv
UP
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
(2) The facts showing that the child
has been neglected by the agency or in
cases where the voluntary commitment was
unjustified, that the parents of the child are
actually capable of taking care and custody
of the child;
(3) The name, address and written
consent of the duly licensed child-placement
or child-caring agency or individual to whose
care the child may be transferred.
(4) The facts showing that petitioner
has exhausted the administrative remedies
available to him.
(iv)
Notice of Hearing. If the petition
is sufficient in form and substance, the court
shall set the same for hearing with notice to the
Department, the public prosecutor, the courtdesignated social worker, the agency or
individual to whom the child has been
committed and in appropriate cases, the parents
of the child.
(v)
Judgment. If after hearing the
court finds that the allegations of the petition
have been established and that it is for the best
interests and welfare of the child, it shall issue
an order removing the child from the custody of
the
person
or
agency
concerned,
and
committing him to the custody of another duly
licensed child-placement or child-caring agency
or individual.
The court, in the same proceeding may, after
hearing the comment or recommendation of the
Department, suspend or revoke the license of the
agency or individual found guilty of such neglect
depending upon the gravity or frequency of the
offense.
(b) Restoration of Parental Authority After
Voluntary Commitment. The restoration of rights
of the parent or guardian over the child who has
been voluntarily committed shall be governed by the
rules of the Department, provided, however, that the
petition for restoration is filed within six (6) months
from the date of voluntary commitment. In case the
Department refuses to grant legal custody and
parental authority to the parent or guardian over the
child who has been voluntarily committed to an
agency or individual, the parent or guardian may file
a petition in court for restoration of parental
authority in accordance with Section 4 (p) of this
Rule.
(c) Jurisdiction for Prosecution of Punishable
Acts. The Family Court of the place where the child
may be found or where the duly licensed childplacement or child-caring agency or individual is
located shall have jurisdiction over the prosecution of
a child who left without prior permission from the
person or institution to which he has been voluntarily
committed. It shall likewise have jurisdiction over the
person who induced the child to leave such person or
institution, except in case of grave actual or
imminent physical or moral danger, to the child. The
same Family Court shall also have jurisdiction over
the prosecution of parents or guardians of the child
who may be held liable under Articles 59 and 60 of
P.D. No. 603 and Sections 9, 10 and 31 of R.A. No.
7610.
/liz@/ viv
UP
SECTION 6.
Petition for Commitment of a
Disabled Child.
(a) Who may file. Where a child appears to
be mentally retarded, physically handicapped,
emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, with cerebral
palsy or with similar afflictions and needs
institutional care but his parents or guardians are
opposed thereto, the Department, or any duly
licensed child-placement or child-caring agency or
individual may file a verified petition for commitment
of the said child to any reputable institution providing
care, training and rehabilitation for disabled children.
The parents or guardian of the child may file a
similar petition in case no immediate placement can
be arranged for the disabled child when his welfare
and interests are at stake. AEHTIC
(b) Venue. The petition for commitment of a
disabled child shall be filed with the Family Court of
the place where the parent or guardian resides or
where the child is found.
(c) Contents of Verified Petition. The petition
for commitment must state the following:
(1)
The facts showing that the child
appears to be mentally retarded, physically
handicapped, emotionally disturbed, mentally ill,
with cerebral palsy or with similar afflictions and
needs institutional care; IADCES
(2)
The name of the parents and their
residence, if known, or if the child has no living
parent, the name and residence of the guardian,
if any; and
(3)
The fact that the parents or
guardian or any duly licensed disabled childplacement or child-caring agency, as the case
may be, has opposed the commitment of such
child;
(4)
The name and written conformity
of the institution where the child is to be
committed.
(5)
An estimate of the costs and other
expenses of maintaining the child in the
institution.
The verified petition shall be sufficient if
based upon the personal knowledge of the
petitioner.
(d) Order of Hearing; Notice. If the petition
filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by
an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix
the date of the hearing thereof, and a copy of such
order shall be served on the child alleged to be
mentally
retarded,
physically
handicapped,
emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, with cerebral
palsy or with similar afflictions and on the person
having charge of him or any of his relatives residing
in the province or city as the court may deem proper.
The order shall also direct the sheriff or any
other officer of the court to produce, if necessary, the
alleged disabled child on the date of the hearing.
(e) Hearing and Judgment. If the court finds
that the allegations of the petition have been
established and that institutional care of the child is
for his best interests or the public welfare and that
his parents, or guardian or relatives are unable for
any reason whatsoever to take proper care of him,
the court shall order his commitment to the proper
institution for disabled children. The court shall
likewise make proper provisions for the custody of
Page 36
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
the property or money belonging to the committed
child.
The expense of maintaining a disabled child in
the institution to which he has been committed shall
be borne primarily by the parents or guardian and
secondarily, by such disabled child, if he has
property of his own.
In all cases where the expenses for the
maintenance of the disabled child cannot be paid in
accordance
with
the
immediately
preceding
paragraph, the Department shall bear the expenses,
or such part thereof as may remain unpaid.
The court shall furnish the institution to which
the child has been committed with a copy of its
judgment, together with all the reports and other
data pertinent to the case.
(f) Discharge of Judicially Committed Disabled
Child. Upon motion of the parent, guardian or
institution to which the child has been judicially
committed under this rule, the court, after hearing,
shall order the discharge of such child if it is
established and certified by the Department that:
(1)
He is no longer a danger to himself
and the community;
(2)
He
has
been
sufficiently
rehabilitated, from his physical handicap or if of
working age, is already fit to engage in gainful
occupation; or
(3)
He has been sufficiently relieved of
his psychological, mental and emotional
problems and is ready to assume normal social
relations.
SECTION 7. Effectivity. This rule shall take
effect on April 15, 2002 after its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation not later than March
15, 2002.
[A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. February 28, 2002.]
RE: PROPOSED RULE ON JUVENILES IN
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW
RESOLUTION
Acting on the letter of the Chairman of the
Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court
submitting for this Court's consideration and
approval the Proposed Rule on Juveniles In Conflict
With The Law, the Court Resolved to APPROVE the
same.
The Rule shall take effect on April 15, 2002
following its publication in a newspaper of general
circulation not later than March 15, 2002.
February 28, 2002.
SECTION 1.
Applicability
of
the
Rule. This Rule shall apply to all criminal cases
involving juveniles in conflict with the law.
A juvenile in conflict with the law is a person who at
the time of the commission of the offense is below
eighteen (18) years of age but not less than nine (9)
years of age.
This Rule shall not apply to an accused who
at the time of initial contact as defined in Section
4(p) of this Rule, or at any time thereafter, shall have
reached the age of eighteen (18), in which case the
regular rules on criminal procedure shall apply
without prejudice to the rights granted under
Sections 36, 37, 38 and 39 of this Rule. (n)
/liz@/ viv
UP
SECTION 2.
Objective.
The
objective of this Rule is to ensure that the justice
system treats every juvenile in conflict with the law
in a manner that recognizes and upholds his human
dignity and worth, and instills in him respect for the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Rule
considers his developmental age and the desirability
of his reintegration into and assumption of a
constructive role in society in accordance with the
principle of restorative justice.
To attain this objective, the Rule seeks:
a) To provide a procedure in the adjudication
of juveniles in conflict with the law that takes into
account their distinct circumstances and assures the
parties of a fair hearing with their constitutional and
statutory rights recognized and respected;
b) To divert from the justice system juveniles
who can be cared for or placed under communitybased alternative programs of treatment, training
and rehabilitation in conformity with the principle of
restorative justice;
c) To deal with the juvenile in a family
environment whenever possible, separate him from
his parents only when necessary for his welfare or in
the interest of public safety;
d) To remove from juveniles in conflict with the
law the stigma of criminality and the consequences
of criminal behavior; and
e) To provide for the care, protection and
wholesome moral, mental, and physical development
of juveniles in conflict with the law.
SECTION 3. Interpretation. This Rule shall
be interpreted liberally to promote the best interests
of the child in conformity with Philippine laws and the
United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the
Child.
SECTION 4. Definitions. As used in this
Rule,
(a) To be in conflict with the law means being
charged with the commission of an act defined and
punished as a crime or offense under the law,
including violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations, and ordinances of local government
units.
(b) Serious offense refers to any offense not
covered by Section 1, par. B, Criminal Cases, of the
Rule on Summary Procedure, to wit: (1) violations of
traffic laws, rules and regulations; (2) violations of
the rental law; (3) violations of municipal or city
ordinances; (4) all other offenses punished with
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not
exceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both,
irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory
or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom;
provided, however, that in offenses involving
damage to property through criminal negligence, the
imposable fine is not in excess of ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).
(c) Youth detention center refers to a
government-owned or operated agency providing
habilitating and rehabilitative facilities where a
juvenile in conflict with the law may be physically
restricted pending court disposition of the charge
against him.
(d) Intake report is a preliminary written report
containing the personal and other circumstances of
the juvenile in conflict with the law and prepared by
Page 37
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
the social worker assigned by the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or local
government unit to assist him as soon as he enters
the justice system.
(e) Case study report is a written report of the
result of an investigation conducted by the social
worker designated by the Family Court on the social,
cultural, economic and legal status or condition of
the juvenile in conflict with the law. It includes,
among others, his developmental age; educational
attainment; family and social relationships; the
quality of his peer group; the strengths and
weaknesses of his family; parental control over him;
his attitude toward the offense; the harm or damage
done to others resulting from the offense; his record
of prior offenses, if any; and the attitude of his
parents towards his responsibility for the offense.
(f) Diversion refers to an alternative childappropriate process of determining the responsibility
and treatment of a juvenile in conflict with the law on
the basis of his social, cultural, economic,
psychological or educational background without
resorting to formal court adjudication.
(g) Diversion programs refer to programs that
the juvenile in conflict with the law is required to
undergo in lieu of formal court proceedings,
(h) Disposition conference is a meeting held by
the court with the social worker who prepared the
case study report together with the juvenile in
conflict with the law and his parents or guardian ad
litem, for the purpose of determining the disposition
measures appropriate to the personal and peculiar
circumstances of the juvenile.
(i) Recognizance is an undertaking in lieu of a
bond assumed by a parent or custodian who shall be
responsible for the appearance in court by the
juvenile in conflict with the law when required.
(j) Probation is a disposition alternative under
which a juvenile in conflict with the law is released
and permitted to remain in his home after conviction
and sentence. The juvenile is subject to conditions
imposed in the sentence and to supervision by the
court and a probation officer who has the duty to
return the juvenile to the court in case of violation of
a condition of his probation.
(k) Suspended sentence is the holding in
abeyance of the service of the sentence imposed by
the court upon a finding of guilt of the juvenile in
conflict with the law who will undergo rehabilitation.
(l) Community continuum is a communitybased group therapy process that provides
continuous guidance and support to the juvenile in
conflict with the law upon his release from
rehabilitation and his reintegration into society.
(m) Age of criminal responsibility is the age
when a juvenile who is nine (9) years or over but
under fifteen (15) years commits an offense with
discernment.
(n) Discernment means the mental capacity to
understand the difference between right and wrong
and its consequences.
(o) Restorative Justice is a principle which
requires a process of resolving conflicts with the
maximum involvement of the victim, the offender,
and the community. It seeks to obtain reparation for
the victim, reconciliation of the offender, the
offended and the community and reassurance to the
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 38
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
(h) Take the juvenile immediately to an
available government medical or health officer for a
physical and mental examination. The examination
results shall be kept confidential unless otherwise
ordered by the Family Court. Whenever treatment for
any physical or mental defect is necessary, steps
shall be immediately taken by the said officer to
provide the juvenile with the necessary and proper
treatment; and
(i) Hold the juvenile in secure quarters
separate from that of the opposite sex and adult
offenders.
SECTION 7. Taking Custody of a Juvenile
Without a Warrant. A peace officer or a private
person taking into custody a juvenile in conflict with
the law without a warrant shall likewise follow the
provisions of Sections 5, 8 and 9 of Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and shall
forthwith deliver him to the nearest police station.
The juvenile shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112.
SECTION 8.
Conduct
of
Initial
Investigation by the Police. The police officer
conducting the initial investigation of a juvenile in
conflict with the law shall do so in the presence of
either of the parents of the juvenile; in the absence
of both parents, the guardian or the nearest relative,
or a social welfare officer, and the counsel of his own
choice. In their presence, the juvenile shall be
informed of his constitutional rights during custodial
investigation.
The right of the juvenile to privacy shall be
protected at all times. All measures necessary to
promote this right shall be taken, including the
exclusion of the media.
SECTION 9.
Fingerprinting
and
Photographing of the Juvenile. While under
investigation, no juvenile in conflict with the law shall
be fingerprinted or photographed in a humiliating
and degrading manner. The following guidelines shall
be observed when fingerprinting or photographing
the juvenile:
(a) His fingerprint and photograph files shall be
kept separate from those of adults and shall be kept
confidential. They may be inspected by law
enforcement officers only when necessary for the
discharge of their duties and upon prior authority of
the Family Court; TADCSE
(b) His fingerprints and photographs shall be
removed from the files and destroyed: (1) if the case
against him is not filed, or is dismissed; or (2) when
the juvenile reaches twenty one (21) years of age
and there is no record that he committed an offense
after reaching eighteen (18) years of age.
SECTION 10.
Intake Report by the
Social Welfare Officer. Upon the taking into
custody of a juvenile in conflict with the law, the
social welfare officer assigned to him by the DSWD
shall immediately under take a preliminary
background investigation of the juvenile and submit,
prior to arraignment of the juvenile, a report on his
findings to the Family Court in which the case may
be filed.
/liz@/ viv
UP
SECTION 11.
Filing
of
Criminal
Action. A criminal action may be instituted
against a juvenile in conflict with the law by filing a
complaint with the prosecutor or the municipal trial
court in cases where a preliminary investigation is
required. In Manila and other chartered cities, if their
charters so provide, the complaint shall be filed with
the Office of the Prosecutor. It may also be filed
directly with the Family Court if no preliminary
investigation is required under Section 1 of Rule 112
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
All criminal actions commenced by complaint or
information shall be prosecuted under the direction
and control of the public prosecutor assigned to the
Family Court.
SECTION 12.
Prosecution
of
Civil
Action. When a criminal action is instituted
against a juvenile in conflict with the law, the action
for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be governed by Rule 111 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
SECTION 13.
Preliminary
Investigation. As far as consistent with this Rule,
the preliminary investigation of a juvenile in conflict
with the law shall be governed by Section 3 of Rule
112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. If
clarificatory questions become necessary, the Rule
on Examination of a Child Witness shall apply.
If a preliminary investigation is required before
the filing of a complaint or information, the same
shall be conducted by the judge of the Municipal Trial
Court or the public prosecutor in accordance with the
pertinent provisions of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure.
If the investigating prosecutor finds probable
cause to hold the juvenile for trial, he shall prepare
the corresponding resolution and information for
approval by the provincial or city prosecutor, as the
case may be. The juvenile, his parents/nearest
relative/guardian and his counsel shall be furnished
forthwith a copy of the approved resolution.
SECTION 14.
Venue. Subject to the
provisions of Section 15, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, any criminal or civil
action involving a juvenile in conflict with the law
shall be instituted and tried in the Family Court of or
nearest the place where the offense was committed
or where any of its essential elements occurred.
SECTION 15.
Recognizance. Before
final conviction, all juveniles charged with offenses
falling under the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure shall be released on recognizance to the
custody of their parents or other suitable person who
shall be responsible for the juveniles' appearance in
court whenever required.
SECTION 16.
When Bail a Matter of
Right. All juveniles in conflict with the law shall be
admitted to bail as a matter of right before final
conviction of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Page 39
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
In the event the juvenile cannot post bail for lack
of financial resources, the Family Court shall commit
the juvenile pursuant to Section 18 of this Rule.
However, where the juvenile does not pose a
threat to public safety, the Family Court may, motu
proprio or upon motion and recommendation of the
DSWD, release the juvenile on recognizance to the
custody of his parents or other responsible person.
SECTION 17.
When Bail Not A Matter
of Right. No juvenile charged with an offense
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment shall be admitted to bail when
evidence of guilt is strong.
SECTION 18.
Care of Juveniles in
Conflict with the Law. The juvenile charged with
having committed a delinquent act, held for trial or
while the case is pending appeal, if unable to furnish
bail or is denied bail, shall, from the time of his being
taken into custody, be committed by the Family
Court to the care of the DSWD, a youth detention
center, or a local rehabilitation center recognized by
the government in the province, city or municipality
within the jurisdiction of the said court. The center or
agency concerned shall be responsible for the
juvenile's appearance in court whenever required. In
the absence of any such center or agency within a
reasonable distance from the venue of the trial, the
juvenile shall be detained in the provincial, city or
municipal jail which shall provide adequate quarters
for the juvenile separate from adult detainees and
detainees of the opposite sex.
SECTION 19.
Case Study Report.
After the institution of the criminal action, the social
worker of the Family Court shall immediately
undertake a case study of the juvenile and his family,
his environment and such other matters relevant to
the proper disposition of the case. His report shall be
submitted within the period fixed by the Family
Court, preferably before arraignment, to aid it in the
proper disposition of the case.
SECTION 20.
Diversion Proceedings
Before Arraignment. Where the maximum
penalty imposed by law for the offense with which
the juvenile in conflict with the law is charged is
imprisonment of not more than six (6) months,
regardless of fine or fine alone regardless of amount,
and the corresponding complaint or information is
filed with the Family Court, the case shall not be set
for arraignment; instead, it shall forthwith be referred
to the Diversion Committee which shall determine
whether the juvenile can be diverted and referred to
alternative measures or services offered by noncourt institutions. Pending determination by the
Committee, the court shall deliver the juvenile on
recognizance to the custody of his parents or legal
guardian who shall be responsible for the presence of
the juvenile during the diversion proceedings.
SECTION 21.
Diversion
Committee.
In each Family Court, there shall be a Diversion
Committee to be composed of its branch clerk of
court as chairperson, and the prosecutor, a lawyer of
/liz@/ viv
UP
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
undertaking describing the program shall be signed
by him, his parents or legal guardian and the
complainant, and approved by the Family Court. The
program, which shall be enforced under the
supervision and control of the Family Court, shall
contain the following terms and conditions:
a) The juvenile shall present himself to the
social worker of the Family Court that approved the
diversion program at least once a month for
evaluation of its effectiveness. Whenever the juvenile
is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction
of another Family Court, control and supervision over
him shall be transferred to the Family Court of that
place, and in such case, a copy of the undertaking,
the intake and case study reports and other pertinent
records shall be furnished the said court. Thereafter,
the Family Court to which jurisdiction over the
juvenile is transferred shall have the power with
respect to the latter that was previously possessed
by the Family Court that approved the diversion and
such other conditions as the Committee may deem
just and proper under the circumstances.
b) The juvenile shall faithfully comply with the
terms and conditions in the undertaking. His noncompliance shall be referred by the Committee to the
Family Court where the case has been transferred for
a show-cause hearing with notice to the juvenile and
private complainant. The court shall determine
whether the juvenile should continue with the
diversion program or his case returned to the original
court for formal proceedings.
The Family Court shall exert its best efforts to
secure satisfaction of the civil liability of the juvenile
and his parents or guardian. However, inability to
pay the said liability shall not by itself be a ground to
discontinue the diversion program of the juvenile.
SECTION 25.
Closure Order. The
juvenile subject of diversion proceedings shall be
visited periodically by the Family Court social worker
who shall submit to the Committee his reports
thereon. At any time before or at the end of the
diversion period, a report recommending closure or
extension of diversion, as the case may be, shall be
filed by the Committee with the Family Court. The
report and recommendation shall be heard by the
Family Court within fifteen (15) days from its receipt
thereof, with notice to the members of the
Committee, the juvenile and his parents or legal
guardian and counsel and the complainant to
determine whether the undertaking has been fully
and satisfactorily complied with. If the juvenile has
complied with his undertaking, the Family Court shall
issue the corresponding closure order terminating
the diversion program. It may, however, extend the
period of diversion to give the juvenile a further
chance to be rehabilitated. In the event the court
finds that the diversion program will no longer serve
its. purpose, it shall include the case of the juvenile
in its calendar for formal proceedings.
SECTION 26.
Duty of the Family Court to
Protect the Rights of the Juvenile. In all
criminal proceedings in the Family Court, the judge
shall ensure the protection of the following rights of
the juvenile in conflict with the law:
/liz@/ viv
UP
The
provisions of Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure shall govern the pre-trial of the
juvenile in conflict with the law. Agreements or
Page 41
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
admissions made during the pre trial conference
shall be in writing and signed by the juvenile, his
parents or guardian and his counsel; otherwise, they
cannot be used against him.
Whenever possible and practicable, the
Family Court shall explore all possibilities of
settlement of the case, except its criminal aspect.
Plea bargaining shall be resorted to only as a last
measure when it will serve the best interests of the
juvenile and the demands of restorative justice.
SECTION 29.
Trial. All hearings shall
be conducted in a manner conducive to the best
interests of the juvenile and in an environment that
will allow him to participate fully and freely in
accordance with the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness.
SECTION 30.
Guiding Principles in
Judging the Juvenile. Subject to the provisions
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other
special laws, the judgment against a juvenile in
conflict with the law shall be guided by the following
principles:
1. It shall be in proportion to the gravity of the
offense, and shall consider the circumstances and
the best interests of the juvenile, the rights of the
victim, the needs of society in line with the demands
of restorative justice.
2. Restrictions on the personal liberty of the
juvenile shall be limited to the minimum. Where
discretion is given by law to the judge to determine
whether the penalty to be imposed is fine or
imprisonment, the imposition of the latter should be
preferred as the more appropriate penalty.
3. No corporal punishment shall be imposed.
SECTION 31.
Promulgation
of
Sentence. If after trial the Family Court should
find the juvenile in conflict with the law guilty, it shall
impose the proper penalty, including any civil liability
which the juvenile may have incurred, and
promulgate the sentence in accordance with Section
6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
SECTION 32.
Automatic Suspension
of Sentence and Disposition Orders. The
sentence shall be suspended without need of
application by the juvenile in conflict with the law.
The court shall set the case for disposition
conference within fifteen (15) days from the
promulgation of sentence which shall be attended by
the social worker of the Family Court, the juvenile,
and his parents or guardian ad litem. It shall proceed
to issue any or a combination of the following
disposition measures best suited to the rehabilitation
and welfare of the juvenile:
1. Care, guidance, and supervision orders;
2. Community service orders;
3. Drug and alcohol treatment;
4. Participation in group counseling and similar
activities;
5. Commitment to the Youth Rehabilitation
Center of the DSWD or other centers for juveniles in
conflict with the law authorized by the Secretary of
the DSWD.
/liz@/ viv
UP
After
promulgation of sentence and upon application at
any time by the juvenile in conflict with the law
within the period to appeal, the Family Court may
place the juvenile on probation, if he is qualified
under the Probation Law.
Page 42
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
SECTION 35.
Credit in Service of
Sentence. The juvenile in conflict with the law
who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall
be credited in the service of his sentence consisting
of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during
which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, if
he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
or similar disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, except in any of the following cases:
1. When the juvenile is a recidivist or has been
convicted previously twice or more times of any
crime; or
2. When upon being summoned for execution
of sentence, he failed to surrender voluntarily.
If the juvenile does not agree to abide by the
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his
sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment.
Whenever
the
juvenile
has
undergone
preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or
more than the possible maximum imprisonment of
the offense charged to which he may be sentenced
and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on
appeal, if the same is under review. In case the
maximum penalty to which the juvenile may be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after
thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.
Any form of physical restraint imposed on the
juvenile in conflict with the law, including community
service and commitment to a rehabilitation center,
shall be considered preventive imprisonment.
SECTION 36.
Confidentiality
of
Proceedings and Records. All proceedings and
records involving juveniles in conflict with the law
from initial contact until final disposition of the case
by the Family Court shall be considered privileged
and confidential. The public may be excluded from
the proceedings and, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 31 of the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness, the records shall not be disclosed directly or
indirectly to anyone by any of the parties or the
participants in the proceedings for any purpose
whatsoever, except to determine if the juvenile may
have his sentence suspended under Section 25 of
this Rule or if he may be granted probation under the
Probation Law, or to enforce the civil liability imposed
in the criminal action.
The Family Court shall take other measures to
protect this confidentiality of proceedings including
non-disclosure of records to the media, the
maintenance of a separate police blotter for cases
involving juveniles in conflict with the law and the
adoption of a system of coding to conceal material
information, which will lead to the juvenile's identity.
Records of juveniles in conflict with the law shall not
be used in subsequent proceedings or cases
involving the same offender as an adult.
SECTION 37.
Non-liability for perjury
or concealment or misrepresentation. Any
person who has been in conflict with the law as a
juvenile shall not be held guilty of perjury or of
/liz@/ viv
UP
1.
A
person
performing a lawful act;
2.
With due care;
Page 43
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
3.
He
causes
an
injury to another by mere accident;
4.
Without fault or
intention of causing it.
Striking another with a gun in self-defense, even if it
fired and seriously injured the assailant is a lawful act.
ACCIDENT something that happen 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.
People v. Agliday (2001)
Facts: The wife of the accused was washing
dishes in the kitchen when her son was shot with a
shotgun by her husband. Conchita claimed that she and
her husband quarreled before the incident and then her
husband left the kitchen got his shotgun and went back
to the kitchen to shoot his son.
Accused claimed that it was only an accident.
He was merely cleaning his gun and the gun accidentally
went off and his sons buttock was hit.
Held: The exemption from criminal liability
under the circumstance showing accident is based on
the lack of criminal intent. In the case at bar, accused
got his shotgun and returned to the kitchen to shoot his
son who had intervened in the quarrel between the
former and his wife. There was clear intent to fire and
not mere accident.
US v. Tanedo (1910)
Facts: The accused, while hunting, saw wild
chickens and fired a shot. The slug, after hitting a wild
chicken, recoiled and struck the tenant who was a
relative of the accused. The man who was injured died.
Held: If life is taken by misfortune or accident
while the actor is in the performance of a lawful act
executed with due care and without intention of doing
harm, there is no criminal liability.
People v. Bindoy (1931)
Facts: The accused, while in a drinking session,
offered some tuba to Pacas wife but she refused so the
accused threatened to injure her if she didnt accept.
Pacas stepped into defend his wife, attempting to take
away from the accused the bolo he carried. In the
course of the struggle, accused succeeded in
disengaging himself from Pacas, wrenching the bolo
from the latters hand towards the left behind the
accused, with such violence that the point of the bolo
reached Emigdios chest who was then behind the
accused.
Held: The accused, in his effort to free himself
hit Emigdio in the chest. There is no evidence that this
was done deliberately. It is merely accidental.
People v. Concepcion (2002)
Facts: Galang got involved in a quarrel at the
town plaza. He was brought to the barangay hall for
questioning by Brgy Captain Capitli. Shortly after,
Concepcion arrived and fired his rifle twice or thrice past
the ears of Galang, who was then sitting, but without
injuring him. After that, however, Concepcion thrust the
barrel of the gun against the abdomen of Galang. Then
there was an explosion. Galang was shot in the thigh. At
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 44
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Before force can be considered to be an irresistible
one, it must produce such an effect upon the individual
that, in spite of all resistance, it reduces him to a mere
instrument and, as such, incapable of committing a
crime.
The irresistible force can never consist in an impulse or
passion or obfuscation. It must consist of an extraneous
force coming from a third person.
A person who acts under the compulsion of an
irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt
from criminal liability because he does not act with
freedom.
People v. Lising (1998)
Facts: Manalili asked Garcia if he could find
someone who could effect the arrest of Robert Herrera,
the suspect of the killing of his brother. Garcia
introduced Lising and they came up with an agreement.
Lisings surveillance group was at the Castanos
residence in the hope of spotting Herrera. The group
saw a man and a woman (the victims) leave the
residence and followed them. Alighting from the car, the
two were accosted. The abduction of the 2 hit the front
pages and two guards told the police that their friends
who were employees of Lising informed them that Lising
killed the 2 victims. Later, the bodies of the 2 were
found. Lower court found that since there was an
agreement among Manalili, Garcia and Lising, they were
all co-conspirators of the crime and therefore liable
principally. Garcia claimed that he acted under
compulsion of irresistible force.
Held: To be exempt from criminal liability, a
person invoking irresistible force must show that the
force exerted was such that it reduced him to a mere
instrument who acted not only without will but against
his will. Garcias participation and presence from the
time the abduction was hatched upto the killing of the
victims is undisputed. Conspiracy has been established.
US v. Elicanal (1916)
Facts: The accused was a member of the crew
of a lorcha and Guiloresa was the chief mate. The latter
mentioned that he was going to kill the captain because
he was very angry with him and asked him to assist
him. The accused took this statement as a joke and he
was smiling only when he made the statement. The
following morning, Guillermo assaulted the captain and
with the help of the crew (except the accused) seized
the captain and tied him with a rope. Guillermo then
struck the captain at the back of the neck with an iron
bar and then, delivering the weapon to the accused
ordered him to come forward and assist. The accused
struck the captain on the head which caused the latters
death.
Held: Before one uses the defense of acting
under uncontrollable fear, it must appear that the threat
which caused the fear was an evil greater than or at
least equal to that which he required to commit and that
it promised an evil of such gravity and imminence that it
might be said that the ordinary man would have
succumbed to it. Evidence fails to establish that the
threat directed to the accused by the chiefmate, if any,
was of such character as to deprive him of all volition
and to make him a mere instrument without will. The
fear was not insuperable.
/liz@/ viv
UP
US v. Caballeros (1905)
Facts: The defendants have been sentenced as
accessories in the crime of assassination of 4 American
school teachers. The defendants took part in the burial
of the corpses of the victims.
Held: The defendant Baculi is exempt from
criminal liability because he only assisted in the burial
because he was compelled to do so by the murderers.
As to defendant Caballeros, there is no proof that he
took part in any way in the execution of the crime. His
confession cannot be accepted as proof on a trial
because it was not done voluntarily.
US v. Exaltation (1905)
Facts: Exaltation and Tanchico were convicted
with rebellion based on documents found in the house of
a certain Contreras, a so-called general of bandits,
which contained the signatures of defendants swearing
allegiance to the Katipunan.
Defendants aver that these documents were
signed under duress and fear of death. They allege
further that they were abducted by thieves and that
these men forced the defendants to sign the documents
Held: The duress under which the defendants
acted relieved them from criminal liability. Prosecution
was unable to prove the guilt of the accused and
testimonies of witnesses for the accused further
corroborated their defense.
Page 45
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
and
remote
fear
is
not
UNCONTROLLABLE
FEAR
The
offender
employs
intimidation or threat in
compelling
another
to
commit a crime.
EXEMPTING
There is a crime but no
criminal. The act is not
justified but the actor is
not criminally liable.
There
is
civil
liability
except no. 4 and 7.
/liz@/ viv
1. ORDINARY MITIGATING
Those mentioned in subsections 1 to 10 of Art.
13.
2.
PRIVILEGED MITIGATING
PRIVILEDGED MC
Cannot be offset by
aggravating circumstance
The effect of imposing
upon the offender the
penalty lower by one or
two degrees than that
provided by law for the
crime.
Page 46
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Art. 13. Mitigating circumstances. The following
are mitigating circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter,
when all the requisites necessary to justify or to exempt
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not
attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of
age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor, he
shall be proceeded against in accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the
part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
5. That the act was committed in the
immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants,
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
7.
That
the
offender
had
voluntarily
surrendered himself to a person in authority or his
agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt
before the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or
otherwise suffering some physical defect which thus
restricts
his
means
of
action,
defense,
or
comm4unications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would
diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of the consciousness of
his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a
similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned.
/liz@/ viv
UP
1.
Incomplete
self-defense,
defense
relatives, defense of stranger
of
2.
of
Incomplete justifying
performance of duty.
circumstance
of
Page 47
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
b.
c.
d.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 48
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
3.
4.
5.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 49
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
/liz@/ viv
UP
a.
b.
VINDICATION
The grave offense may be
committed also against the
offenders
relatives
mentioned in the law.
The offended party must
have done a grave offense
to the offender or his
relatives mentioned in the
law.
The vindication of the
grave offense may be
proximate, which admits of
an
interval
of
time
between the grace offense
done by the offended party
and the commission of the
crime.
Page 50
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
of the roast pig. Patobo replied, There is no more.
Come here and I will make roast pig of you. Later,
while Patobo was squatting down, Ampar struck him on
the head with an ax, causing his death the following
day. The TC appreciated the mitigating circumstance of
immediate vindication of a grave offense.
Held: The offense which the defendant was
endeavoring to vindicate would be to the average person
considered as a mere trifle. But to this defendant, an old
man, it evidently was a serious matter to be made the
butt of a joke in the presence of so many guests. The TC
was correct.
Peope v. Parana (1937)
Facts: The preceding night, Parana and Lamay
were at the house of the deceaseds brother playing
cards when the two had an exchange of words so the
deceased asked them to leave. The accused refused so
the deceased slapped him and ordered him to leave.
The morning after, Parana was about to surprise the
deceased and stab him from behind when the chauffeur
shouted to warn the deceased. The deceased,
defending himself retreated until he fell into a ditch.
The appellant mounted astride of the deceased and
continued to stab him with the dagger. The deceased
was first brought to the hospital but expired 6 days
after.
Held: The mitigating circumstance that he had
acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
committed against him a few hours before, when he
was slapped by the deceased in the presence of many
persons, must likewise be taken into consideration.
Although this offense (slapping) was not so immediate,
the court believes that the influence thereof, by reason
of its gravity and the circumstances under which it was
inflicted, lasted until the moment the crime was
committed.
People v. Diokno (1936)
Facts: The deceased and the daughter of
accused Epifanio eloped. Epifanio and his son, Roman
went to look for them. When they were able to find the
deceased, they stabbed him several times until he died.
Held: The presence of the 5th mitigating
circumstance must be taken into consideration. There
was no interruption from the time the offense was
committed to the vindication thereof. The herein
accused belong to a family of old customs to whom the
elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a
grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance of
the peace of the home. The fact that the accused saw
the deceased run upstairs when he became aware of
their presence, as if he refused to deal with them after
having gravely offended them, was certainly a stimulus
strong enough to produce in their mind a fit of passion
which blinded them and led them to commit that crime.
People v. Torpio (2004)
Facts: While having a drinking spree in a
cottage, Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin
and as the latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with
gin and mauled him several times. Dennis crawled
beneath the table and Anthony tried to stab him with a
22 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran
towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a
knife. He went back to the cottage by another route
and upon arrival Anthony was still there. Upon seeing
Dennis, Anthony avoided Dennis and ran by passing the
/liz@/ viv
UP
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Exempting circumstance
Page 51
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
PASSION
PROVOCATION
Produced by an impulse
Comes form the injured
which may be caused by
party
provocation
Need not be immediate. It
Must immediately precede
is only required that the
the commission of the
influence thereof lasts
crime
until the moment the
crime is committed
The effect is the loss of reason and self-control on the
part of the offender.
People v. Muit (1982)
Facts: Rosario Muit was the Brgy. Zone
President and Torrero was the zone auditor. They used
to meet frequently because they were having an affair
which eventually reached the husband of Rosario,
Delfin. Delfin shot Torrero 3 times at the front yard of
the Muits. Delfin surrendered himself and turned in the
pistol he had used.
Held: Muit is guilty of murder with mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and passion and
obsfuscation. The accused was driven strongly by
jealousy. The feeling of resentment resulting from the
rivalry in amorous relations with a woman is a powerful
stimulant to jealousy and prone to produce anger and
obfuscation.
US v. HICKS (1909)
Facts: For about 5 years, Hicks and Sola lived
together as husband and wife when they separated. A
few days later, Sola contracted new relations with
another negro named Wallace. Hicks went to Wallaces
house and asked the latter to go out. They talked for
awhile and then Hicks shot Wallace
Held: Even if it is true that the accused acted
with obfuscation because of jealousy, the mitigating
circumstance cannot be considered in his favor because
the causes which mitigate criminal responsibility for the
loss of self-control are such which originate from
legitimate feelings and not those which arise from
vicious, unworthy and immoral passions. The cause of
the passion of the accused was his vexation
engendered by the refusal of the woman to continue to
live in illicit relations with him, which she had a perfect
right to do.
US v. DE LA CRUZ (1912)
Facts: The evidence clearly discloses that the
convict, in the heat of passion, killed the deceased, who
had theretofore been his lover upon discovering her in
flagrante in carnal communication with a mutual
acquaintance.
Held: The accused was entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation
because the impulse was caused by the sudden
revelation that she was untrue to him, and his
discovery of her in flagrante in the arms of another.
/liz@/ viv
UP
verifiy the news that the latter mauled and stabbed the
accuseds mentally retarded brother, Rafael. Raymund
was not yet at home and the moment he arrived, the
accused spotted him and shot him.
Held: There is no treachery. Passion cannot coexist with treachery because in passion, the offender
loses his control and reason while in treachery the
means employed are consciously adopted. One who
loses his reason and self-control could not deliberately
employ a particular method or form of attack in the
execution of the crime. Passion existed in this case
because it clearly arose from lawful sentiments or
legitimate feelings. The accused committed the crime
due to the maltreatment inflicted by the victim on his
mentally retarded brother.
People v. Gonzalez (2001)
Facts: Both of the families of Andres and that
of Gonzalez were on their way to the exit of the Loyola
Memorial Park. Gonzales was with his grandson and 3
housemaids, while Andres was driving with his pregnant
wife, Feliber, his 2yr old son, Kenneth, his nephew Kevin
and his sister-in-law. At an intersection, their two
vehicles almost collided. Gonzales continued driving
while Andres tailed Gonzales vehicle and cut him off
when he found the opportunity to do so, then got out of
his vehicle and knocked on the appellant's car window.
Heated exchange of remarks followed. On his way back
to his vehicle, he met Gonzales son, Dino. Andres had a
shouting match this time with Dino. Gonzales then
alighted from his car and fired a single shot at the last
window on the left side of Andres' vehicle at an angle
away from Andres. The single bullet fired hit Kenneth,
Kevin and Feliber which caused the latters death.
Held: The mitigating circumstance of passion
and obfuscation is not obtaining. Andres' act of shouting
at Gonzales son, who was then a nurse and of legal
age, is not sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation.
Dino was shouting back at Andres. It was not a case
wherein Gonzales son appeared helpless and oppressed
that Gonzales lost his reason and shot at the vehicle of
Andres. The same holds true for Gonzales claim of
provocation on the part of Andres. Provocation must be
sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong
committed and that the provocation must be
commensurate to the crime committed. The sufficiency
of provocation varies according to the circumstances of
the case. The aggressive behavior of Andres towards
Gonzales and his son may be demeaning or humiliating
but it is not sufficient provocation to shoot at Gonzales
vehicle.
People v. Lab-eo (2002)
Facts: After being told to go away by the
victim, Cayno, Lab-eo left and returned to where the
victim was selling clothes and then and there stabbed
her at the back with a knife. Thereafter, he surrendered
to the Chief of Police. Lab-eo argues for the appreciation
of the mitigating circumstances of passion and
obfuscation, as well as of sufficient provocation, in his
favor.
Held: For a person to be motivated by passion
and obfuscation, there must first exist an unlawful act
that would naturally produce an impulse sufficient to
overcome reason and self-control. There is passional
obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust
or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so
Page 52
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
powerful as to overcome reason. In asking Labeo to
leave, the victim did not do anything unlawful. There is
an absolute lack of proof that the Lab-eo was utterly
humiliated by the victim's utterance. Nor was it shown
that the victim made that remark in an insulting and
repugnant manner. The victim's utterance was not the
stimulus
required by jurisprudence to be so
overwhelming as to overcome reason and self-restraint.
/liz@/ viv
UP
c.
Page 53
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
spontaneously
/liz@/ viv
Page 54
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
confessed his guilt before the court prior to the
presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. The
following requirements must therefore concur: (1) the
accused spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the
confession of guilt was made in open court, that is,
before a competent court trying the case; and (3) the
confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution. The third requisite is
wanting in the present case.
People v. Dawaton (2002)
Facts: An Information for murder qualified by
treachery and evident premeditation was filed against
Edgar Dawaton. When first arraigned he pleaded not
guilty, but during the pre-trial he offered to plead guilty
to the lesser offense of homicide but was rejected by the
prosecution, hence, the case proceeded to trial. The trial
court sentenced him to death. He avers that he is
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
Held: While the accused offered to plead guilty
to the lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with
murder for which he had already entered a plea of not
guilty. We have ruled that an offer to enter a plea of
guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as an
attenuating circumstance under the provisions of Art. 13
of The Revised Penal Code because to be voluntary the
plea of guilty must be to the offense charged.
Furthermore, Sec. 2, Rule 116, of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor before an accused
may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense
necessarily included in the offense charged. We note
that the prosecution rejected the offer of the accused.
/liz@/ viv
UP
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
QUALIFYING AC
The effect of a qualifying
AC is not only to give the
crime
its
proper
and
exclusive name but also to
place the author thereof in
Page 55
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
upon the accused to the
MAXIMUM PERIOD.
UP
such a situation as to
deserve no other penalty
than
that
specially
prescribed by law for said
crime.
A qualifying AC cannot be
offset by a mitigating
circumstance.
A
generic
aggravating
circumstance
may
be
compensated
by
a
mitigating circumstance.
According to the new rules, generic and qualifying
aggravating circumstances must be alleged in order to
be appreciated.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH DO NOT
HAVE THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE PENALTY
AC 1) which in themselves constitute a crime
specially punishable by law, or b) which are included by
the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty
therefore shall not be taken into account for the purpose
of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 1)
AC which arise: a) from the moral attributes of the
offender or b) from his private relations with the
offended party, or c) from any other personal cause,
shall only serve to aggravate the liability of the
principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom
such circumstances are attendant.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances. The following
are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of
his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or
with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed
in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace
of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties,
or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night
time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band, whenever
such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the
offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors
shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a
band.
7. That the crime be committed on the
occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of
armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
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.
10. That the offender has been previously
punished by an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty.
/liz@/ viv
Page 56
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
People v. Suela (2002)
Facts: Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, and
Edgardo Batocan sporting ski masks, bonnests and
gloves, brandishing handguns and knife barged into the
room of Director Rosas who was watching television
together with his adopted son, Norman and his friend
Gabilo. They threatened Rosas, Norman and Gabilo to
give the location of their money and valuables, which
they eventually took. They dragged Gabilo downstairs
with them. Upon Nerios instructions, Batocan stabbed
Gabilo 5 times which caused the latters death . The trial
court sentenced Edgar, Nerio and Batocan to suffer the
penalty
of death appreciating the
aggravating
circumstance of disguise which was not alleged in the
Information against the three.
Held: Following current Rules on Criminal
Procedure particularly Section 9 of the new Rule 110,
and current jurisprudence, the aggravating circumstance
of disguise cannot be appreciated against appellants.
Inasmuch as the same was not alleged in the
Information, the aggravating circumstance of disguise
cannot now be appreciated to increase the penalty to
death notwithstanding the fact that the new rule
requiring such allegation was promulgated only after the
crime was committed and after the trial court has
already rendered its Decision. It is a cardinal rule that
rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive
application insofar as they benefit the accused.
People v. Mendoza (2000)
Facts: Anchito and Marianito passed by
appellant's house and asked for a drink from appellant's
wife, Emily. Anchito began talking with Emily and they
were about 4 rms-length from Marianito when appellant
suddenly appeared. Appellant hacked Anchito on the
nape, which prompted Marianito to flee out of fear for
his life. Anchito died in a kneeling position with hack
wounds at the back of the neck and body. Appellant
voluntary surrendere. The trial court ruled that voluntary
surrender was "offset by the aggravating circumstance
of treachery.
Held: The trial court erred in ruling that
voluntary surrender was "offset by the aggravating
circumstance of treachery. Treachery in the present case
is a qualifying, not a generic aggravating circumstance.
Its presence served to characterize the killing as
murder; it cannot at the same time be considered as a
generic aggravating circumstance to warrant the
imposition of the maximum penalty. Thus, it cannot
offset voluntary surrender.
Par. 1. - THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE
OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.
The public officer must use the influence, prestige or
ascendancy which his office gives him as the means by
which he realizes his purpose. The essence of the matter
is presented in the inquiry, did the accused abuse his
office in order to commit the crime?
When a public officer commits a common crime
independent of his official functions and does acts that
are not connected with the duties of his office, he should
be punished as a private individual without this AC.
The mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had
army rifle at the time is not sufficient to established that
he misused his public position in the commission of the
crimes (People v. Pantoja)
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 57
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
accused could have perpetrated the crime even without
occupying his position, there is no abuse of public
position. The Court cited the case of People v. Herrera,
where the Court emphatically said that the mere fact
that accused-appellant is a policeman and used his
government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill is not
sufficient to establish that he misused his public position
in the commission of the crime.
Par. 2. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
CONTEMPT OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES.
REQUISITES:
a. That the public authority is engaged in the
exercise of his functions.
b. That he who is thus engaged in the
exercise of his functions is not the person
against whom the crime is committed.
c.
The offender knows him to be a public
authority.
d. His presence has not prevented the
offender from committing the criminal act.
PUBLIC AUTHORITY / PERSON IN AUTHORITY
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, mayor,
governor, barangay captain etc. are persons in
authority. A school teacher, town municipal health
officer, agent of the BIR, chief of police, etc. are now
considered a person in authority.
Par. 2 is not applicable if committee din the presence
of an agent only such as a police officer.
AGENT
/liz@/ viv
UP
IN
THE
Page 58
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
deceased was only about to step on the first rung of the
ladder when he was assaulted, the AC of dwelling will
not be applicable.
DWELLING NOT APPLICABLE:
1. When both offender and offended party are
occupants of the same house.
2. When the robbery is committed by the use of
force upon things, dwelling is not aggravating because
it is inherent to the crime.
3. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is also
inherent or included by law in defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient
and immediate provocation.
5. When the dwelling where the crime was
committed did not belong to the offended party.
6. When the rape was committed in the ground
floor of the 2-storey structure, the lower floor being
used as a video rental store and not as a private place
of abode or residence.
A victim raped in the boarding house where she was a
bedspacer. Her room constituted a dwelling.
Dwelling may be temporary dwelling.
Note: The Code speaks of dwelling, not domicile.
Dwelling is not aggravating in adultery when paramour
also lives in the conjugal home.
Dwelling is not included in treachery.
People v. Rodil (1981)
Facts: Lt. Mesana approached Rodil and
identifies himself as a PC officer. He asked Rodil whether
or not the gun which the latter possessed had a license.
Rodil attempted to draw his gun but was prevented by
Mesanas companions. Rodil was asked to sign a
document attesting to the confiscation of the gun but he
refused. Instead, he drew a dagger and managed to
stab Mesana in the chest repeatedly.
Held: The AC of disregard of rank should be
appreciated because it is obvious that Mesana identified
himself as a PC officer to the accused who is merely a
member of the Anti-Smuggling Unit and therefore
inferior both in rank and social status to the victim.
People v. Daniel (1978)
Facts: 13-year-old Margarita was at the bus
station when the accused, Daniel, started molesting her,
asking her name and trying to get her bag to carry it for
her. She refused and asked the help of the conductor
and driver but they did not help her. She ran to the
jeepney stop and rode the jeep. Daniel followed her to
the boarding house and he raped her.
Held: Although Margarita was merely renting a
bedspace in a boarding house, her room constituted for
all intents and purposes a dwelling as the term is used
in Art. 14(3) of the RPC. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a
bedspacer, the place is his home the sanctity of which
the law seeks to protect and uphold.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 59
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
the public authority is engaged in the discharge of his
duties and (2) he is not the person against whom the
crime is committed. None of these circumstances are
present in this case. In the first place, the crime was
committed against the barangay chairman himself. At
the time that he was killed, he was not engaged in the
discharge of his duties as he was in fact playing a card
game with his neighbors.
People v. Montinola (Supra)
Facts: Montinola boarded a passenger jeepney
driven by Hibinioda. Among the passengers was
Reteracion. All of a sudden, appellant drew his gun, an
unlicensed firearm, .380 cal pistol and directed
Reteracion to hand over his money or else he would be
killed. Montinola aimed the firearm at the neck of
Reteracion and fired successive shots at the latter. As a
result Reteracion slumped dead. Montinola was charged
with robbery with homicide and illegal possession of
firearm.
Held: DIsregard of age, sex or rank is not
aggravating in robbery with homicide, which is primarily
a crime against property, as the homicide is regarded as
merely incidental to the robbery.
People v. Tao (2000)
Facts: Amy was tending a video rental shop
owned by Marina. Tao kept going in and out of the
shop and on the last time he went inside said shop, he
suddenly jumped over the counter, strangled Amy,
poked a knife at the left side of her neck, pulled her
towards the kitchen where he forced her to undress, and
gained carnal knowledge of her against her will and
consent. Before they could reach the upper floor, he
suddenly pulled Amy down and started mauling her until
she lost consciousness; then he freely ransacked the
place. Leaving Amy for dead after repeatedly banging
her head, first on the wall, then on the toilet bowl, he
took her bracelet, ring and wristwatch. He then
proceeded upstairs where he took as well the jewelry
box containing other valuables belonging to his victim's
employer. The trial court appreciated dwelling as an
aggravating circumstance because the incident took
place supposedly at the residence of private
complainant's employer, "which doubles as a video
rental shop.
Held: Dwelling cannot be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance in this case because the rape
was committed in the ground floor of a two-story
structure, the lower floor being used as a video rental
store and not as a private place of abode or residence.
People v. Rios (2000)
Facts: Rios, hurled stones at the house of
Ambrocio and Anacita Benedicto. A few minutes later,
and while the Benedicto spouses were tending their
store, Rios bought cigarettes. Ambrocio confronted Rios
about the stoning incident and an altercation ensued
between them. Having heard the appellant shout at
Ambrocio, Mesa intervened and requested the 2 to part
ways and escorted them to their respective residences.
A few minutes later, appellant went back to the store.
Ambrocio went to the terrace of their house. Appellant
suddenly approached Ambrocio and stabbed his right
stomach. Mesa and his group saw Anacita weeping while
Ambrocio was lying lifeless in the terrace of their house.
Ambrocio died before he was brought to the hospital.
/liz@/ viv
UP
REQUISITES:
That the offended party had trusted the offender.
That the offender abused such trust by
committing a crime against the offended party.
That the abuse of confidence facilitated the
commission of the crime.
Page 60
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
(2) OBVIOUS UNGRATEFULNESS
The ungratefulness must be obvious
manifest and clear.
People v. Mandolado (1983)
Facts: Mandolado and Ortillano, with Erinada
and Simon are trainees/draftees of the AFP. They got to
know each other and had a drinking session at the bus
terminal. The accused was drunk. He got his gun and
started firing. Erinada and Simon rode a jeep and tried
to escape from Mandolado and Ortillano but the two
eventually caught up with them. The two accused shot
the victims to death.
Held: There is no AC of abuse of confidence. In
order that abuse of confidence be deemed as
aggravating, it is necessary that there exists a relation
of trust and confidence between the accused and one
against whom the crime was committed and that the
accused made use of such a relationship to commit the
crime. It is also essential that the confidence between
the parties must be immediate and personal such as
would give the accused some advantage to commit the
crime. It is obvious that the accused and the victims
only met for the first time so there is no personal or
immediate relationship upon which confidence might
rest between them.
People v. Arrojado (2001)
Facts: Arrojado and the victim Mary Ann are
first cousins and lived with her and her father. Arrojado
helped care for the victims father for which he was paid
a P1,000 monthly salary. Arrojado killed Mary Ann by
stabbing her with a knife. Thereafter he claimed that the
latter committed suicide.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of abuse
of confidence is present in this case. For this
aggravating circumstance to exist, it is essential to show
that the confidence between the parties must be
immediate and personal such as would give the accused
some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the
criminal act. The 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.
People v. Silva (2002)
Facts: Accused armed with a gun, a bolo, a
rope and a flashlight abducted brothers Edmund and
Manuel Ceriales while the two were playing a game of
cards inside their house in the middle of the night. They
tied both their hands and feet with a rope and they
brought the brothers at an isolated place. Edmund was
stabbed and beheaded causing his instantaneous death.
Edmund Ceriales was able to escape while the accused
were about to kill his brother. The trial court appreciated
nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.
Held: By and of itself, nighttime is not an
aggravating
circumstance,
however,
it
becomes
aggravating only when: (1) it is especially sought by the
offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it
facilitates the commission of the crime by ensuring the
offender's immunity from capture. In this case, the trial
court correctly appreciated nighttime as aggravating
considering that nighttime facilitated the abduction of
the Ceriales brothers, the killing of Manuel and the
attempt to kill Edmund. Evidence shows that accusedappellants took advantage of the darkness to
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 61
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
enough to constitute the AC. It also applies even if he is
not engaged in the discharge of his duties in the place
where the crime was committed.
But as regards the place where the public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties, there must
be some performance of public functions.
Cemeteries are not places dedicated for religious
worship.
Offender must have the intention to commit a crime
when he entered the place.
Par. 6. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED (1) IN
THE NIGHT TIME, OR (2) IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE, OR (3) BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY FACILITATE THE
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.
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.
These 3 circumstances may be considered separately
when their elements are distinctly perceived and can
subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of
perversity.
Nighttime,
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; or
3.
When the offender took advantage thereof
for the purpose of impunity.
(1) NIGHTTIME
- The commission of the crime must begin and
be accomplished in the nighttime.
- The offense must be actually committed in
the darkness of the night. When the place is illuminated
by light, nighttime is not aggravating.
(2) UNINHABITED PLACE
- One where there are no houses at all, a place
at a considerable distance from town, or where the
houses are scattered at a great distance from each
other.
- TEST: WON in the place of the commission of
the offense, there was a reasonable possibility of the
victim receiving some help.
- The fact that persons occasionally passed in
the uninhabited place and that on the night of the
murder another hunting party was not a great distance
away, does not matter. It is the nature of the place
which is decisive.
- It must appear that the accused SOUGHT
THE SOLITUDE of the place where the crime was
committed, in order to better attain his purpose.
- The offenders must choose the place as an
aid either (1) to an easy and uninterrupted
accomplishment of their criminal designs or (2) to insure
concealment of the offense.
(3) BAND
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 62
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
BY A BAND
(par. 6)
More
than
3
armed
malefactors
that
have
acted together in the
commission of an offense.
/liz@/ viv
Page 63
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
In the case at bar, the accused never voiced
out any objection when confronted with the fact of his
previous conviction for attempted homicide.
People v. Dacillo (2004)
Facts: Pacot stabbed and strangled Rosemarie
leading to the latters death. Dacillo for his part, hold
down Rosemaries legs to prevent her from struggling.
The two men stopped only when they were sure that the
victim was already dead. Dacillo then encase her corpse
in a cement. The trial court imposed the death penalty
on the ground that Dacillo admitted during re-cross
examination that he had a prior conviction for the death
of his former live-in partner. The fact that Dacillo was a
recidivist was appreciated by the trial court as a generic
aggravating circumstance which increased the imposable
penalty from reclusion perpetua to death
Held:
The aggravating circumstance of
recidivism was not alleged in the information and
therefore cannot be appreciated against appellant.
In order to appreciate recidivism as an
aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to allege it in
the information and to attach certified true copies of the
sentences previously meted out to the accused. 26 This
is in accord with Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure which states: SEC. 8.
Designation of the offense. The complaint or
information shall state the designation of the offense
given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions
constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of
the offense, reference shall be made to the section or
subsection of the statute punishing it.
Par. 10. - THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED BY AN OFFENSE TO
WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES AN EQUAL OR
GREATER PENALTY OR FOR TWO OR MORE CRIMES
TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A LIGHTER PENALTY.
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of
mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of
habitual delinquency. Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken
into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing
the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
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 purpose of this article, a person shall
be deemed to be habitual delinquent, is within a period
/liz@/ viv
UP
RECIDIVISM
It is enough that a final
judgment has been
rendered in the first
offense.
It is the requirement that
the offenses be included in
the same title of the Code.
Recidivism is not always to
be taken into consideration
in fixing the penalty to be
imposed upon the
accused.
2.
REITERACTION OR HABITUALITY
3.
MULTI-RECIDIVISM OR HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY
- when a person, within a 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
any of said crimes a third time or oftener. In habitual
delinquency, the offender is either a recidivist or one
who has been previously punished for two or more
offenses (habituality). He shall suffer an additional
penalty for being a habitual delinquent.
4. 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 the
same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
People v. Gaorana (1998)
Facts: Marivel, upon instruction of Rowena
(common-law wife of the accused) went to the house of
Gaorana and saw the couple lying down. Marivel was
asked to come it and Rowena stood up to urinate.
Gaorana covered her mouth and pointed a hunting knife
to her neck and raped her. The second incident of rape
occurred while Marivel was sleeping in the sala with her
brother and sister. Marivel did not shout because she
was afraid of the accused who was a prisoner and had
already killed somebody.
Page 64
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Held: The 2 Information alleged that both
instances of rape were attended by the aggravating
circumstance of quasi-recidivism. The TC made no
express ruling that the appellant was a quasi-recidivist,
and rightly so. During the trial, the prosecution
manifested that appellant had been convicted by the
RTC and was serving sentence for the crime of homicide.
However, the prosecution failed or neglected to present
in evidence the record of appellants previous conviction.
Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and reiteracion,
necessitates the presentation of a certified copy of the
sentence convicting an accused. The fact that appellant
was an inmate of DAPECOL does not prove that final
judgment had been rendered against him.
People v. Villapando (1989)
Facts: The accused was charged before the
RTC with the crimes of murder and of attempted
homicide.
Held: The court does not agree that reiteracion
or habituality should be appreciated in this case. The
appellant was found by the trial court to have committed
offenses prior to and after the incident of Jan. 14, 1979.
In habituality, it is essential that the offender be
previously punished, that is, he has served the
sentence, for an offense in which the law attaches, or
provides for an equal or greater penalty than that
attached by law to the second offense, or for two or ore
offenses, in which the law attaches a lighter penalty.
Here, the records do not disclose that the appellant has
been previously punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater or penalty or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.
People v. Cajara (2000)
Facts: Accused Cajara raped 16-year old
Marita in front of his common-law wife who is the halfsister of the victim and his two small children. The trial
court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to
death.
Held: The records show that the crime was
aggravated by reiteracion under Art. 14, par. 10, of The
Revised Penal Code, the accused having been convicted
of frustrated murder in 1975 and of homicide, frustrated
homicide, trespass to dwelling, illegal possession of
firearms and murder sometime in 1989 where his
sentences were later commuted to imprisonment for 23
years and a fine of P200,000.00. He was granted
conditional pardon by the President of the Philippines on
8 November 1991. Reiteracion or habituality under Art.
14, par. 10, herein cited, is present when the accused
has been previously punished for an offense to which
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that
attached by law to the second offense or for two or more
offenses to which it attaches a lighter penalty. As
already discussed, herein accused can be convicted only
of simple rape and the imposable penalty therefor is
reclusion perpetua. Where the law prescribes a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be applied regardless of the
mitigating or aggravating circumstances attendant to
the crime, such as in the instant case.
Par. 11. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR
PROMISE.
When this AC is present, there must be 2 or more
principals, the one who gives or offers the price or
/liz@/ viv
UP
promise and the one who accepts it, both of whom are
principals to the former, because he directly induces
the latter to commit the crime, and the latter because
he commits it.
When this AC is present, it affects not only the person
who received the price or reward, but also the person
who gave it.
The evidence must show that one of the accused used
money or other valuable consideration for the purpose
of inducing another to perform the deed.
Par. 12. - THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY
MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON,
EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR
INTERNATIONAL DAMAGE THERETO, DERAILMENT
OF A LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE USE OF ANY OTHER
ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN.
Unless used by the offender as a means to accomplish
a criminal purpose, any of the circumstances in
paragraph 12 cannot be considered to increase the
penalty or to change the nature of the offense.
When another AC already qualifies the crime, any of
these ACs shall be considered as generic aggravating
circumstance only.
When the crime intended to be committed is arson and
somebody dies as a result thereof, the crime is simply
arson and the act resulting in the death of that person is
not even an independent crime of homicide, it being
absorbed.
The killing of the victim by means of such
circumstances as inundation, fire, poison or explosion
qualifies the offense to murder.
It will be noted that each of the circumstances of
fire, explosion, and derailment of a locomotive may
be a part of the definition of particular crime, such as,
arson, crime involving destruction, and damages and
obstruction to means of communication.
In these cases, they do not serve to increase
the penalty, because they are already included by the
law in defining the crimes.
Par. 13. - THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH
EVIDENCE PREMEDITATION.
Evident premeditation implies a deliberate planning of
the act before executing it.
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of
the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal
intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm judgment.
Evident premeditation may not be appreciated absent
any proof as to how and when the plan was hatched or
what time elapsed before it was carried out.
REQUISITIES:
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
Page 65
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
-
/liz@/ viv
UP
Held:
Evident
premeditation
was
not
established by the prosecution. Although the facts tend
to show that Camilet might have harbored ill-feelings
towards the Camanchos after they took a portion of the
land he was farming and, as he himself stated to the
police, they also took the produce from his cornfield,
there is no proof that Camilet conceived of killing the
victim. Indeed, there is no evidence of 1) the time when
he determined to commit the crime, 2) an act manifestly
indicating that he has clung to his 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 had he desired to hearken to its
warnings.
People v. Ilaoa (1994)
Facts: The 5 accused were charged for the
gruesome murder of Nestor de Loyola. The conviction
was based on the following circumstances: a) The
deceased was seen on the night before the killing in a
drinking session with some of the accused; 2) The
drunken voices accused Ruben and Nestor were later
heard and Nestor was then seen being kicked and
mauled by the 5 accused; 3) some of the accused
borrowed the tricycle of Alex at about 2 a.m.; 4) blood
was found in Rubens shirt.
Held: Evident premeditation cannot be
considered. There is nothing in the records to show that
appellant, prior to the night in question, resolved to kill
Nestor, nor is there proof to show that such killing was
the result of meditation, calculation or resolution on his
part. On the contrary, the evidence tends to show that
the series of circumstances which culminated in the
killing constitutes an unbroken chain of events with no
interval of time separating them for calculation and
meditation.
People v. Mondijar (2002)
Facts:. In a previous incident, Aplacador had
stabbed Mondijar, his father in law on the knee. A
month after, Mondiijar stabbed and hacked his son-inlaw with the use of a sharp and pointed bolo which
resulted to his death.
Held: There was no evident premeditation. For
the circumstance of evident premeditation to be
appreciated, the prosecution must present clear and
positive evidence of the planning and preparation
undertaken by the offender prior to the commission of
the crime. Settled is the rule that evident premeditation,
like any other circumstance that qualifies a killing to
murder, must be established beyond reasonable doubt
as conclusively and indubitably as the killing itself. In
the present case, no evidence was presented by the
prosecution as to when and how appellant planned and
prepared for the killing of the victim. There is no
showing of any notorious act evidencing a determination
to commit the crime which could prove appellant's
criminal intent.
People v. Torpio (supra)
Facts: While having a drinking spree in a
cottage, Anthony tried to let Dennis Torpio drink gin
and as the latter refused, Anthony bathed Dennis with
gin and mauled him several times. Dennis crawled
beneath the table and Anthony tried to stab him with a
22 fan knife but did not hit him. Dennis got up and ran
towards their home. Upon reaching home, he got a
knife. He went back to the cottage by another route
and upon arrival Anthony was still there. Upon seeing
Page 66
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Dennis, Anthony avoided Dennis and ran by passing the
shore towards the creek but Dennis met him, blocked
him and stabbed him. When he was hit, Anthony ran
but got entangled with a fishing net beside the creek
and fell on his back. Dennis then mounted on him and
continued stabbing him resulting to the latters death.
Thereafter, Dennis left and slept at a grassy meadow
near a Camp. In the morning, he went to Estrera, a
police officer to whom he voluntarily surrendered.
Held: No evident premeditation exist in this
case. There was no sufficient interregnum from the
time the Dennis was stabbed by the victim, when the
Dennis fled to their house and his arming himself with a
knife, and when he stabbed the victim. In a case of
fairly recent vintage, it was ruled that there is no
evident premeditation when the fracas was the result,
not of a deliberate plan but of rising tempers, or when
the attack was made in the heat of anger.
People v. Bernal (2002)
Facts: Appellant, Fernando, Felix, Rey all
surnamed Bernal and the victim Pedrito went to a
pubhouse. Pedrito Rey and appellant went inside while
Fernando and Felix waited outside. Fernando later went
inside and saw the three in a sleeping position.
Fernando then asked Felix to start the trycicle as they
would bring home the three. He first brought Pedrito out
of the pub and had him seated at the passengers seat
inside the trycicle. Fernado then got appellant who was
roused when they reached the trycicle. While Fernado
was fetching Rey, accused positioned himself at the back
of Pedrito who was still asleep and discharged his
firearm twice hitting the latter on the head.
Held:
The Court ruled that there was no
evidence directly showing any pre-conceived plan or
devise employed by accused-appellant to kill the victim.
Accused-appellant did not go to Barangay Dangdangla,
Bangued to kill the victim but to attend to some
important matters. Accused-appellant was just invited
by his relatives, whom he had not seen for a while after
he changed residence, to have a drinking spree. The
probability is that the decision to shoot the victim was
made only right there and then. This should at least cast
reasonable doubt on the existence of a premeditated
plan to kill the victim. Further, the mere existence of illfeeling or grudge between the parties is not sufficient to
establish premeditated killing. Hence, it would be
erroneous to declare that the killing of the victim was
premeditated.
People v. Biso (2003)
Facts: Dario, a black belt in karate, entered an
eatery, seated himself beside Teresita and made sexual
advances to her in the presence of her brother, Eduardo.
Eduardo contacted his cousin, Biso an ex-convict and a
known toughie in the area, and related to him what
Dario had done to Teresita. Eduardo and Pio, and 2
others decided to confront Dario. They positioned
themselves in the alley near the house of Dario. Dario
arrived on board a taxicab. The four assaulted Dario.
Eduardo held, with his right hand, the wrist of Dario and
covered the mouth of Dario with his left hand. The 2
others held Dario's right hand and hair. Pio then stabbed
Dario near the breast with a fan knife. Eduardo stabbed
Dario and fled with his three companions from the
scene.
Held: There was no evident premeditation. The
prosecution failed to prove that the four intended to kill
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 67
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
/liz@/ viv
ABUSE OF SUPERIOR
When
the
committed by
armed
regardless
comparative
the victim.
offense
is
more than 3
malefactors
of
the
strength of
STRENGTH
The gravamen of abuse of
superiority is the taking
advantage by the culprits
of their collective strength
to overpower their weaker
victims.
Page 68
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
was stripped of his service revolver. Ontuca was pursued
by Padilla. The former, with only a piece of plywood as a
defense, was shot by the latter in the head.
Held: The killing was qualified by the AC of
abuse of superior strength which was alleged in the
information and proved during trial. The abuse of
superior strength is present not only when the offenders
enjoy numerical superiority, or there is a notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, but also when the offender uses a powerful
weapon which is out of proportion to the defense
available to the victim as in this case.
People v. Lobrigas (2002)
Facts: Frank, Marlito, both surnamed Lobrigas
and Mante mauled and box Taylaran who was already 76
years old. The victim died caused by severe beating and
mauling on the chest portion on the victims body.
Held: The crime committed was murder
qualified by the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength. To appreciate abuse of superior
strength, there must be a deliberate intent on the part
of the malefactors to take advantage of their greater
number. They must have notoriously selected and made
use of superior strength in the commission of the crime.
To take advantage of superior strength is to use
excessive force that is out of proportion to the means for
self-defense available to the person attacked; thus, the
prosecution must clearly show the offenders' deliberate
intent to do so.
People v. Barcelon (2002)
Facts: Barcleon went inside the house of
Amador. Thereafter, accuded strangled and stabbed the
victim with a knife. Amador died as a result. At the time
the crime was committed, Amador was a 69 year-old
woman and Barcelon was only 29 years old.
Held: Abuse of superior strength was present
in the commission of the crime. The court cited the case
of People vs. Ocumen, where an attack by a man with a
deadly weapon upon an unarmed woman constitutes the
circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex
and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from
which the woman was unable to defend herself.
The disparity in age between the assailant and
the victim, aged 29 and 69, respectively, indicates
physical superiority on appellant's part over the
deceased. It did not matter that appellant was "dark"
with a "slim body build" or "medyo mataba." What
mattered was that the malefactor was male and armed
with a lethal weapon that he used to slay the victim.
People v. Sansaet (2002)
Facts Uldarico was drinking with 15 other men
that include the Sansaet brothers, Rogelio, Leopoldo and
Silverio. Because of a bad joke that cropped up, verbal
exchanges ensued. Thereafter, Rogelio and Uldarico
started hacking each other with bolos. Silverio and
Leopolo positioned themselves behind the victim and
also hacked him. Uldarico retaliated wounding Silverio.
Rogelio then hacked Uldarico a 2nd time. Leopoldo and
Rogelio continued hacking Uldarico when the latter fell.
They then dragged Uldarico towards the river and there
they each twice hacked Uldarico resulting to his death.
Held: "Mere superiority in number, even
assuming it to be a fact, would not necessarily indicate
the attendance of abuse of superior strength. The
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 69
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
ABUSE OF
SUPERIOR
STRENGTH
The
means,
methods
or
forms of attack
are employed to
make
it
impossible
or
hard
for
the
offended
party
to
defend
himself.
The
offender
does not employ
means, methods
or
forms
of
attack; he only
takes advantage
of his superior
strength.
MEANS
EMPLOYED TO
WEAKEN
DEFENSE
The
offender,
like in treachery,
employs means
but the means
employed
only
materially
weakens
the
resisting power
of the offended
party.
/liz@/ viv
cannot
co-exist
with
passion
and
Page 70
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
unexpected, from behind and with the victim unarmed
without any chance to defend himself against the initial
assault, clearly show that treachery was present.
People v. Verchez (1994)
Facts: A team of government agents of the PC
conducted a surveillance on a house reported to be the
hideout of a gang of suspected robbers. The agents
stopped a car coming out of the house. It was driven by
Balane. Balane was prevailed upon into accompanying
the agents into the house. They proceeded to the house
in 4 cars and when the 1 st car approached, they were
met with heavy gunfire. A firefight ensued. 3 of the
agents were hit; one died and two were injured. The
men inside the house later surrendered. Among them
was Verchez.
Held: The two requisites of treachery were not
proven. The lawmen, knowing that they were dealing
with a gang of bank robbers, were prepared to deal with
any resistance that may possibly be put up. Also, Sgt.
Norcio was killed during the gun battle and not during
the first volley of shots fired by the robbers. Thus, there
is no showing that appellants deliberately and
consciously adopted their mode of attack. Neither is
there any showing that they intended to ambush the
lawmen.
People v. Rendaje (2000)
Facts: Lennie was a 15-year old deaf-mute.
Rendaje, on the other hand, was 23 years old and in the
prime of his strength. Rendaje followed Lennie when the
latter was on her way home alone. With the use of a
knife, he then inflicted 8 stab wounds, 5 of which were
fatal on the victims back. Lennie died as a result. Her
body was found in a sugar cane plantation.
Held: Treachery qualified the killing to murder.
To constitute treachery, two conditions must concur: (1)
the employment of means, methods or manner of
execution that would ensure the offender's safety from
any defense or retaliatory act on the part of the
offended party; and (2) the offender's deliberate or
conscious choice of the means, method or manner of
execution.
No one has positively testified on how Lennie
was killed but the victims body shows the manner in
which she was attacked by her assailant. It eloquently
speaks for itself. The injuries established the manner in
which the killing was cruelly carried out with little or no
risk to the assailant. The number of stab wounds, most
of which were inflicted at the back of the child
unarmed and alone shows the deliberateness, the
suddenness and the unexpectedness of the attack,
which thus deprived her of the opportunity to run or
fight back.
People v. Umayam (2002)
Facts: Umayam and the victim, Mendoza were
living as husband and wife in a shanty erected inside a
compound owned by Velasquez. During the couples stay
in the compound, Velasquez would notice them
frequently quarelling and Mendoza on occasions would
run to Velasquez for help for the beatings inflicted on
her by her husband. Velasquez then noticed a foul odor
emanating from the couples shanty which he at first
thought to be that of a poultry feed or kaning baboy.
With the assistance of the police who broke the shantys
walls, the decomposing of Mendoza was found inside.
The trial court found Umayam guilty of murder.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 71
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
appellant's anger because of the victim's refusal to have
a drink with the appellant and his companions.
Par. 17. - THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR
CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD
IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE ACT.
IGNOMINY it is a circumstance pertaining to the
moral order, which adds disgrace ad obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime.
This AC is applicable to crimes against chastity and
persons.
When the accused raped a woman after winding cogon
grass around his genital organ, he thereby augmented
the wrong done by increasing its pain and adding
ignominy there to (People v. Torrefiel).
* NOTE: According to Professor Ambion, this is
not ignominy but cruelty.
The means employed or the circumstances brought
about must tend to make the effects of the crime MORE
HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE OFFENDED PARTY TO
SHAME.
ex. When the accused raped a married woman
in the presence of her husband.
People v. Siao (2000)
Facts: Estrella worked as a housemaid of Rene
Siaos family. One day, Rene ordered Reylan, their
houseboy, to bring Estrella to a room. While holding a
gun, Rene forced Reylan to have sex with Estrella (oral
sex, missionary position, and in the manner dogs
perform sexual intercourse).
Held: The accused was held guilty of rape with
the use of a deadly weapon, which is punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. But the trial court
overlooked and did not take into account the
aggravating circumstance of ignominy and sentenced
accused to the single indivisible penalty of reclusion
perpetua. It has been held that where the accused in
committing the rape used not only the missionary
position, the AC of ignominy attended the commission
thereof.
People v. Siao (2000)
Facts: Accused-appellant Siao forced and
intimidated at gunpoint
his household helpers
Raymundo, a 14 year old girl from the province and 17
year old Gimena to have carnal knowledge of each
other. Siao commanded Gimena to rape Raymundo in 3
different positions, pointing a handgun at them the
whole time. Both performed the sexual act because they
were afraid to be killed. Both Siao and Gimena were
charged with the crime of rape but while Gimena was
acquitted, Siao was convicted by the RTC.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of
ignominy is present in this case. Where the accused in
committing the rape used not only the missionary
position, i.e. male superior, female inferior but also the
dog position as dogs do, i.e. entry from behind, as was
proven like the crime itself in the instant case, the
aggravating circumstance of ignominy attended the
commission thereof.
People v. Cachola (2004)
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 72
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
/liz@/ viv
UP
CRUELTY
Refers to physical
suffering.
Page 73
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Calunod seconded by striking the victim with a piece of
wood on the face. When Willy finally collapsed,
Sumalpong picked him up, carried him over his
shoulder, and carried Willy to a place where they burned
Willy. The latters skeletal remains were discovered by a
child who was pasturing his cow near a peanut
plantation.
Held: The N circumstance of cruelty may no be
considered as there is no showing that the victim was
burned while he was still alive. For cruelty to exist, there
must be proof showing that the accused delighted in
making their victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
him unnecessary physical and moral pain in the
consummation of the criminal act. No proof was
presented that would show that accused-appellants
deliberately and wantonly augmented the suffering of
their victim.
People v. Guerrero (2002)
Appellant first severed the victim's head
before his penis was cut-off. This being the sequence of
events, cruelty has to be ruled out for it connotes an act
of deliberately and sadistically augmenting the wrong by
causing another wrong not necessary for its commission,
or inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering. As
testified to by Dr. Sanglay, and reflected in her medical
certificate, Ernesto in fact died as a result of his head
being severed. No cruelty is to be appreciated where the
act constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing was
perpetrated when the victim was already dead.
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
Republic Act 8353
An act expanding the definition of the crime of
rape, reclassifying the same as a crime against persons,
amending for the purpose act no. 3815, as amended,
otherwise known as the revised penal code, and for other
purposes
SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be
known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997".
SECTION 2. Rape as a Crime Against
Persons. - The crime of rape shall hereafter be classified as
a Crime Against Persons under Title Eight of Act 3815, as
amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code.
Accordingly, there shall be incorporated into Title Eight of
the same Code a new chapter to be known as Chapter Three
on Rape, to read as follows:
"Chapter Three Rape"
Article 266-A. Rape: When and How Committed. - Rape is
Committed1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12)
years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present;
2) By any person who, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 74
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Reclusion temporal shall also be imposed if the
rape is committed by any of the ten aggravating/qualifying
circumstances mentioned in this article.
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon - The subsequent
valid marriage between the offender and the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty. Provided,
That the crime shall be extinguish or the penalty shall not be
abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical
overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in
any degree from the offended party, or where the offended
party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving
valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the
prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A."
SECTION 3. Separability Clause.- If any part, section, or
provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional,
the other parts thereof not affected thereby shall remain
valid.
SECTION 4. Repealing Clause.- Article 335 of Act No.
3815, as amended, and all laws, acts presidential decrees,
executive
orders, administrative
orders, rules and
regulations, inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of
this Act are deemed amended, modified or repealed
accordingly.
SECTION 5. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen
(15) days after completion of its publication in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
/liz@/ viv
UP
AND
a. RELATIONSHIP
This is taken into consideration when the
offended party is the:
a. spouse
b. ascendant
c.
descendant
d. legitimate, natural or adopted brother or
sister
e. relative by affinity in the same degree of
the offender
As a rule, relationship is MITIGATING in crimes against
property by analogy to the provisions of Art. 332.
- Under Art. 332 of the RPC, no criminal, but
only civil, liability shall result from commission of the
crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants,
and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same
line; brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
- Relationship becomes actually an exempting
circumstance since there is no occasion to consider a
mitigating or an aggravating circumstance because there
is no criminal liability.
Page 75
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 76
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
indubitably proved. A habitual drunkard is one given to
intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The
habit should be actual and confirmed. It is unnecessary
that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It lessens
individual resistance to evil thought and undermines
will-power making its victim a potential evil doer.
The intoxication of the appellant not being
habitual and considering that the said appellant was in a
state of intoxication at the time of the commission of the
felony, the alternative circumstance of intoxication
should be considered mitigating.
c. 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.
LACK OF INSTRUCTION, AS MITIGATING
- Lack of instruction cannot be taken into
account where the defendant admitted that he studied in
the first grade in a public elementary school. Art. 15
applies only to him who really has not received any
instruction.
Not illiteracy alone, but also lack of sufficient
intelligence are necessary to invoke the benefit of the
alternative circumstance of lack of instruction, the
determination of which is left to the trial court.
Lack of sufficient instruction is not mitigating when the
offender is a city resident who knows how to sign his
name.
Lack of instruction must be proved positively and
directly and cannot be based on mere deduction or
inference.
The question of lack of instruction cannot be raised for
the first time in appellate court.
Ordinarily, LOW DEGREE OR LACK OF INSTRUCTION
IS MITIGATING IN ALL CRIMES.
Exceptions:
(1) crimes against property such as estafa, theft,
robbery arson except theft of large cattle and robbery
with homicide.
(2) crimes against chastity
(3) treason because love of country should be a
natural feeling of every citizen, however unlettered or
uncultured he may be
(4) murder because to kill is forbidden by
natural law which every rational being is endowed to
know and feel.
HIGH DEGREE OF INSTRUCTION, AS AGGRAVATING
Degree of instruction is aggravating when the
offender availed himself or took advantage of it in
committing the crime.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES AND OTHER SPECIAL
SITUATIONS
Absolutory causes are those where the act
committed is a crime but for reasons of public policy and
sentiment there is no penalty imposed.
/liz@/ viv
UP
a.
ENTRAPMENT
Ways and means are
resorted to for the purpose
of trapping and capturing
the lawbreaker in the
execution of his criminal
plan
The means originate from
the mind of the criminal.
INSTIGATION
The instigator practically
induces the would-be
accused into the
commission of the offense
and himself becomes a coprincipal.
The law enforcer conceives
the commission of the
crime and suggests to the
accused who adopts the
idea and carries it into
execution.
A public officer or a private
detective induces an
innocent person to commit
a crime and would arrest
him upon or after the
commission of the crime
by the latter.
The accused must be
acquitted.
Page 77
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
People v. Pacis (2002)
Facts: Atty. Yap, supervising agent of the
Dangerous Drugs Division-NBI, received information that
a Pacis was offering to sell kg of "shabu." A buy-bust
operation was approved. Yap and Senior Agent Congzon,
Jr., were assigned to handle the case. Yap, Congzon
and the informant then went to the house of Pacis. The
informant introduced Yap to Pacis as interested buyer.
They negotiated the sale of kg of shabu. It was
agreed that payment and delivery of shabu would be
made on the following day. The next day, the NBI
agents and the informant went to Pacis's house as
agreed. Pacis handed to Yap a paper bag with markings
"yellow cab". When he opened the bag, Yap found a
transparent plastic bag with white crystalline substance
inside. While examining it, Pacis asked for the payment.
Yap instructed Congzon to get the money from the car.
Congzon returned and gave the "boodle money" to Atty.
Yap who handed the money to the Pacis. Upon Pacis's
receipt of the payment, the officers identified
themselves as NBI agents and arrested him.
Held: The operation that led to the arrest of
appellant was an entrapment, not an instigation.
In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for
the purpose of trapping and capturing lawbreakers in
the execution of their criminal plan. In instigation on the
other hand, instigators practically induce the would-be
defendant into the commission of the offense and
become co-principals themselves. It has been held in
numerous cases by this Court that entrapment is
sanctioned by law as a legitimate method of
apprehending criminal elements engaged in the sale and
distribution of illegal drugs.
b.
EFFECT OF PARDON
/liz@/ viv
UP
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Page 78
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall
enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall
enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while
the same are open.
Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal
liability. No criminal, but only civil liability, shall
result from the commission of the crime of theft,
swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused
mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased spouse before
the same shall have passed into the possession of
another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall
not be applicable to strangers participating in the
commission of the crime.
Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery,
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts
of lasciviousness. The crimes of adultery and
concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if
they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have
consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by the above
named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender
with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him.
The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable
to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after
the fact of the above-mentioned crimes.
d. ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASE OF
EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT
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.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 79
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
/liz@/ viv
Page 80
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Held: Accused Nunag, Mandap and Manalili are
found guilty of 3 distinct and separate crimes of rape.
They being principals by direct participation while the
other 2 accused as principals by indispensable
cooperation since there is no sufficient evidence that the
latter also had sexual intercourse with the victim. The
victim lost consciousness and only assumed that the two
also raped her.
People v. Dela Cerna (1967)
Facts: Rafael filed an ejectment suit against
dela Cernas father wherein the court ruled in his favor.
Later he was shot by the accused while the former and
his family were bringing sacks of corn. He was taken
away by his family to tend his wounds but Dela Cerna
and company followed them and Rafael was shot again
resulting to his death. Maquiling, one companion of Dela
Cerna, shot Casiano, a relative of Rafael.
Held: Dela Cerna cannot be held liable for the
death of Casiano because the conspiracy was to kill
Rafael only. The rule has always been: co-conspirators
are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy;
for other acts done outside the contemplation of the coconspirators or which are not the necessary and logical
consequence of the intended crime, only the actual
perpetrators are liable. Although Maquiling got the gun
from Dela Cerna, the latter only gave it to the former as
per their agreement to shoot Rafael
As to the other companions, facts prove their
active participation in the killing. They are all principals.
People v. Dacillo (supra)
Facts: Pacot stabbed and strangled Rosemarie
leading to the latters death. Dacillo for his part, hold
down Rosemaries legs to prevent her from struggling.
The two men stopped only when they were sure that the
victim was already dead. Dacillo then encase her corpse
in a cement.
Held:. Two or more persons taking part in the
commission of a crime are considered principals by
direct participation if the following requisites are
present: 1. they participated in the criminal resolution
and 2. they carried out their plan and personally took
part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the
same end. Both requisites were met in this case. Further
Dacillos admission that he participated in the
commission of the crime by holding Rosemaries legs
made him a principal by direct participation.
/liz@/ viv
UP
1)
2)
Page 81
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
conceived, much less committed. Clearly, he was the
principal by induction.
US v. Indianan (1913)
Facts: Indianan was the HEADMAN of the
district of Parang. He ordered his subordinates to seize
Sariol (victim) and bring the latter to Indianan. The
victim was detained by Indianan until nightfall, then
Indianan ordered his subordinates to take Sariol to an
isolated place and kill him. Indianan bolstered his
command by claiming that he had an order from the
governor
that
Sariol
be
executed.
Indianans
subordinates took Sariol to a cemetery and killed him.
Held: Indianan had a very powerful
influence over his subordinates based on TRADITION
AND CUSTOM as well as his representation that he had
an order from the governor. Hence, his power over them
was such that any order issued by him had the force and
efficacy of physical coercion. The domination of Indianan
was such as to make him responsible for whatever they
did in obedience to such orders. He is a principal by
inducement.
PAR. 3. PRINCIPALS BY INDISPENSABLE
COOPERATION
Those who cooperate in the commission
of the offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.
REQUISITES:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution,
that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or
unity of criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission of the
crime charged; and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act, without
which it would not have been accomplished.
To be liable as principals, the offender must fall
under any of the three concepts defined in Article 17.
There is collective criminal responsibility when
the offenders are criminally liable in the same manner
and to the same extent. The penalty to be imposed must
be the same for all.
Principals by direct participation have collective
criminal responsibility. Principal by induction, except
that who directly forced another to commit a crime, and
principal by direct participation have collective criminal
responsibility. Principal by indispensable cooperation has
collective criminal responsibility with the principal by
direct participation.
People v. Montealegre (1988)
Facts: Abadilla was eating at a restaurant
when he detected the smell of marijuana smoke coming
from a nearby table. Intending to call a policeman, he
went outside and saw a police and reported the matter.
The police approached the table and held Montealgre
and Capalad. Capalad suddenly pulled out his knife and
started stabbing the police at the back. The police
released the 2 in order to draw his gun but Montealegre
restrained the police so that Capalad may continue
stabbing. The 3 grappled and the police was able to
draw his gun and fired at the 2 assailants. A chase
ensued. Capalad was shot which resulted to his death.
/liz@/ viv
UP
REQUISITES:
1.
That there be community of design; that
is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by
direct participation, he concurs with the latter in
his purpose;
2.
3.
Page 82
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
ACCOMPLICE
Cooperation
is
not
indispensable
in
the
commission of the act.
/liz@/ viv
Page 83
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
/liz@/ viv
BY
PROFITING
THEMSELVES
OR
ASSISTING THE OFFENDER TO PROFIT BY
THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIME
- The accessory must receive the property
from the principal. He should not take it without the
consent of the principal, or else, he is not an
accessory but a principal in the crime of theft.
- When is profiting by the effect of the
crime punished as the act of principal, and not the
act of accessory?
When a person knowingly acquired or
received property taken by the brigands.
2.
Page 84
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
3.
BY
HARBORING,
CONCEALING
ASSISTING IN THE ESCAPE OF
PRINCIPAL OF THE CRIME
UP
OR
THE
2 CLASSES:
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) The crime 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) The accessory is a private person.
(2) He harbors, conceals or assists in
the escape of the author of the crime.
(3) The crime committed by the
principal is either: (a) treason, (b)
parricide, (c) murder, (d) attempt against
the life of the president, or (e) that the
principal is known to be habitually guilty
of some other crime.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies
reveal that there is rampant robbery and thievery of
government and private properties;
WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have
become profitable on the part of the lawless elements
because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known
as fence, of stolen properties;
WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be
prosecuted only as an accessory after the fact and punished
lightly;
WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy
penalties on persons who profit by the effects of the crimes
of robbery and theft.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested in
me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree as part
of the law of the land the following:
Section 1. Title. This decree shall be known as
the Anti-Fencing Law.
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following
terms shall mean as follows:
(a) "Fencing" is the act of any person who, with
intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall
buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article,
item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should
be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft.
/liz@/ viv
ACCESSORY DISTINGUISHED
AND FROM ACCOMPLICE
FROM
PRINCIPAL
Page 85
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
/liz@/ viv
Page 86
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
1.
Must
be
PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING, without however
affecting
the
integrity
of
the
human
personality.
2.
Must
be
COMMENSURATE with the offense different
crimes must be punished with different
penalties.
3.
Must
be
PERSONAL no one should be punished for the
crime of another.
4.
Must be LEGAL it
is the consequence of a judgment according to
law.
5.
Must be CERTAIN
no one may escape its effects.
6.
Must be EQUAL for
all.
7.
Must
be
CORRECTIONAL.
The purpose of the State in punishing crimes is TO
SECURE JUSTICE. Penal justice must therefore be
exercised by the State in the service and satisfaction of
a duty and rests primarily on the moral rightfulness of
the punishment inflicted.
Theories justifying penalty:
a. PREVENTION to suppress danger to the State
b. SELF-DEFENSE to protect the society from
the threat and wrong inflicted by the criminal.
c.
REFORMATION to correct and reform the
offender.
d. EXEMPLARITY to serve as an example to
deter others from committing crimes.
e. JUSTICE for retributive justice, a vindication
of absolute right and moral law violated by the
criminal.
Purpose of penalty under the RPC:
a. RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION the penalty is
commensurate with the gravity of the offense.
b. CORRECTION OR REFORMATION as shown
by the rules which regulate the execution of
the penalties consisting in deprivation of
liberty.
c.
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
NO ex post facto laws
Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. No felony
shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.
This article prohibits the Government from
punishing any person for any felony with any penalty
which has not been prescribed by the law.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 87
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
/liz@/ viv
GIVE
CRIMINAL
LAWS
Page 88
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Rape and were sentenced to imprisonment and death
penalty respectively for the two convictions.
Held: There is no question that the
abolition of the death penalty benefits herein accused.
The subsequent reimposition of the death penalty will
not affect them. The framers of the Constitution
themselves state that the law to be passed by Congress
reimposing the death penalty (RA 7659) can only have
prospective application. A subsequent statute cannot be
so applied retroactively as to impair a right that accrued
under the old law.
UP
Reclusion perpetua,
Reclusion temporal,
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
Prision correccional,
Arresto mayor,
Suspension,
Destierro.
a.
b.
c.
/liz@/ viv
Light penalties:
Arresto menor,
Public censure.
Penalties common to the three preceding
classes:
Fine, and
Bond to keep the peace.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES
Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be
voted for, the profession or calling.
Civil interdiction,
Indemnification,
Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of
the offense,
Payment of costs.
PRINCIPAL PENALTIES those expressly imposed by
the court in the judgment of conviction.
ACCESSORY PENALTIES those that are deemed
included in the imposition of the principal penalties.
Other classifications of penalties:
According to their divisibility:
1. Divisible
- those that have fixed duration and are divisible
into three periods.
2. Indivisible
- those which have no fixed duration.
a.
Death
b. Reclusion perpetua
c.
Perpetual
absolute
or
special
disqualification
d. Public censure
According to subject-matter
1. Corporal (death)
2. Deprivation of freedom
(reclusion, prision, arresto)
3.
Restriction
freedom (destierro)
4. Deprivation of rights
(disqualification and suspension)
5.
of
Pecuniary (fine)
Page 89
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
NOTE: Public censure is a penalty, thus, it is not proper
in acquittal. However, the Court in acquitting the
accused may criticize his acts or conduct.
Penalties that are either principal or accessory.
Perpetual
or
temporary
absolute
disqualification,
perpetual
or
temporary
special
disqualification, and suspension may be principal or
accessory penalties, because they formed in the 2
general classes.
DURATION OF EACH OF DIFFERENT PENALTIES
1. Reclusion perpetua 20 years and 1 day
to 40 years
2. Reclusion temporal 12 years and 1 day
to 20 years
3.
Prision
mayor
and
temporary
disqualification - 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
except when disqualification is accessory penalty; in
which case its duration is that of the principal penalty
4. Prision correccional, suspension and
destierro - 6 months and 1 day to 6 years except
when suspension is an accessory penalty, in which case
its duration is that of the principal penalty.
5. Arresto Mayor - 1 month and 1 day to 6
months
6. Arresto Menor 1 day to 30 days.
UP
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
"Art. 248. Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder
and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua, to death if committed
with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with
the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or
of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an
airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse."
"Art. 114. Treason. - Any Filipino citizen who levies war against
the Philippines or adheres to her enemies giving them aid or comfort
within the Philippines or elsewhere, shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed 100,000 pesos."
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the
testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on
confession of the accused in open court.
Likewise, an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits
acts of treason as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be
punished by reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to
exceed 100,000 pesos."
/liz@/ viv
Page 90
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more
than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public
authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall
have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except
when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death penalty where the kidnapping
or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from
the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances
above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts,
the maximum penalty shall be imposed."
Section 9. Article 294 of the same Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons - Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of
violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason
or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been
committed, or when the robbery shall have been accompanied by
rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua, when or if by reason or on occasion of such
robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision I of
Article 263 shall have been inflicted.
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in
subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding
paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to
reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or intimidation
employed in the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to
a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or
when in the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted
upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the
physical injuries covered by subdivisions 3 and 4 of said Article 263.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its medium period in other cases."
Section 10. Article 320 of the same Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"Art. 320. Destructive Arson. - The penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one
single act of burning, or as a result of simultaneous burnings,
committed on several or different occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the
public in general or where people usually gather or congregate for a
definite purpose such as, but not limited to, official governmental
function or business, private transaction, commerce, trade, workshop,
meetings and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite purpose
such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public
conveyances or stops or terminals, regardless of whether the
offender had knowledge that there are persons in said building or
edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of whether the
building is actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane,
devoted to transportation or conveyance, or for public use,
entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any
appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service of public
utilities.
5. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of
concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law, or for
the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to
collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated
qualifying circumstances, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death
shall likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or committed
by two (2) or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 91
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 92
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
proceeds of the crime including but not limited to money and other
obtained thereby and the instruments or tools with which it was
committed, unless they are the property of a third person not liable
for the offense, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall
be ordered destroyed without delay. Dangerous drugs and plant
sources of such drugs as well as the proceeds or instruments of
the crime so confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government
shall be turned over to the Board for proper disposal without delay.
Any apprehending or arresting officer who misappropriates or
misapplies or fails to account for seized or confiscated dangerous
drugs or plant-sources of dangerous drugs or proceeds or
instruments of the crime as are herein defined shall after
conviction be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten
million pesos."
Section 18. There shall be incorporated after Section 20
of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, a new section to read as follows:
"Sec. 20-A. Plea-bargaining Provisions. - Any person
charged under any provision of this Act where the imposable
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death shall not be allowed to avail
of the provision on plea bargaining."
Section 19. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6425, as
amended, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is hereby
amended to read as follows :
"Sec. 24. Penalties for Government Official and
Employees and Officers and Members of Police Agencies and the
Armed Forces, 'Planting' of Evidence. - The maximum penalties
provided for Section 3, 4(1), 5(1), 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of
Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15(1), 16 and 19 of Article III shall
be imposed, if those found guilty of any of the said offenses are
government officials, employees or officers, including members of
police agencies and the armed forces.
Any such above government official, employee or officer
who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drugs punished in
Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of Article II and Sections 14, 14-A, 15
and 16 of Article III of this Act in the person or in the immediate
vicinity of another as evidence to implicate the latter, shall suffer
the same penalty as therein provided."
Section 20. Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 6539, as
amended, known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. - Any person who is
found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two
of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken,
be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and
eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months,
when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation
of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less
than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty
years, when the carnapping is committed by means of violence
against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed when the
owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed
or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on
the occasion thereof."
Section 21. Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. - The penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be from twenty years and one day to forty years.
Reclusion temporal. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
from twelve years and one day to twenty years.
Prision mayor and temporary disqualification. - The
duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary
disqualification shall be from six years and one day to twelve
years, except when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case, it shall be that of the principal
penalty.
Prision correccional, suspension, and destierro. - The
duration of the penalties of prision correccional, suspension, and
destierro shall be from six months and one day to six years, except
when the suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in
which case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 93
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
of the person under the sentence during the lethal injection as well as
during the proceedings prior to the execution.
/liz@/ viv
The death sentence shall be carried out not earlier than one
(1) year nor later than eighteen (18) months after the judgment has
become final and executory without prejudice to the exercise by the
President of his executive clemency powers at all times."
Sec. 2.
Persons already sentenced by judgment,
which has become final and executory, who are waiting to undergo
the death penalty by electrocution or gas poisoning shall be under the
coverage of the provisions of this Act upon its effectivity. Their
sentences shall be automatically modified for this purpose.
Sec. 3.
Implementing Rules. The Secretary of
Justice in coordination with the Secretary of Health and the Bureau of
Corrections shall, within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Act,
promulgate the rules to implement its provisions.
Sec. 4.
Repealing Clause. All laws, presidential
decrees and issuances, executive orders, rules and regulations or
parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 5.
Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen
(15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two
(2) national newspapers of general circulation, whichever comes
earlier. Publication shall not be later than ten (10) days after the
approval
thereof.
Approved: March 20, 1996
Page 94
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
a. There shall be no discrimination in the treatment of a death
convict on account of race, color, religion, language, politics,
nationality, social origin, property, birth or other status.
b. In the execution of a death penalty, the death convict shall
be spared from unnecessary anxiety or distress.
c. The religious beliefs of the death convict shall be respected.
SECTION 4.
Prison Services. Subject to the
availability of resources, a death convict shall enjoy the following
services and privileges to encourage and enhance his self-respect
and dignity:
a.
Medical and Dental;
b.
Religious, Guidance and Counseling;
c.
Exercise;
d.
Visitation; and
e.
Mail.
SECTION 5.
Confinement.
Whenever
practicable, the death convict shall be confined in an individual cell in
a building that is exclusively assigned for the use of death convicts.
The convict shall be provided with a bunk, a steel/wooden bed or
mat, a pillow or blanket and mosquito net.
SECTION 6.
Religious Services. Subject to security
conditions, a death convict may be visited by the priest or minister of
his faith and given such available religious materials which he may
require.
SECTION 7.
Exercise. A death convict shall be allowed
to enjoy regular exercise periods under the supervision of a guard.
SECTION 8.
Meal Services. Meals shall, whenever
practicable, be served individually to a death convict inside his cell.
Mess utensils shall be made of plastic. After each meal, said utensils
shall be collected and accounted.
SECTION 9.
Visitation. A death convict shall be allowed
to be visited by his immediate family and reputable friends at regular
intervals and during designated hours subject to security procedures.
SECTION 10. List of Visitors. A list of persons who may visit
a death convict shall be compiled and maintained by the prison
authorities. The list may include the members of the convict's
immediate family such as his parents, step parents, foster parents,
brothers and sisters, wife or husband and children. The list may, upon
the request of the convict, include his grandparents, aunts, uncles, inlaws and cousins. Other visitors may, after investigation, be included
in the list if it will assist in raising the morale of the convict.
SECTION 11. Interviews of Convicts. Television, radio and
other interviews by media of a death convict shall not be allowed.
SECTION 12. Handling of Inmate Mail. The sending and
receiving of mail by a death convict shall be controlled to prevent illicit
communication. Mail shall be censored in accordance with existing
prison rules.
SECTION 13. Outside Movement. A death convict may be
allowed to leave his place of confinement only for diagnosis of a lifethreatening situation or treatment of a serious ailment, if the diagnosis
cannot be done or the treatment provided in the prison hospital.
SECTION 14. Court Appearance. A death convict shall not
be brought outside the penal institution where he is confined for
appearance or attendance in any court except when the Supreme
Court authorizes, upon proper application, said outside movement. A
judge who requires the appearance or attendance of a death convict
in any judicial proceeding shall conduct such proceeding within the
premises of the penal institution where the convict is confined.
SECTION 15. How Lethal Injection is to be Administered.
The execution of the death sentence by lethal injection shall be done
under the authority of the Director who shall endeavor to mitigate the
sufferings of the convict prior to and during the execution.
SECTION 16. Notification and Execution of the Sentence and
Assistance to the Convict. The court shall designate a working day
for the execution of the death penalty but not the hour thereof. Such
designation shall only be communicated to the convict after sunrise of
the day of the execution, and the execution shall not take place until
after the expiration of at least eight (8) hours following the notification,
but before sunset. During the interval between the notification and
execution, the convict shall, as far as possible, be furnished such
assistance as he may request in order to be attended in his last
moments by a priest or minister of the religion he professes and to
consult his lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and confer with
members of his family or of persons in charge of the management of
his business, of the administration of his property, or of the care of his
descendants.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 95
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
9.
Robbery with homicide
10.
Destructive arson
11.
Rape with homicide
12.
Plunder
13.
Certain violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act
14.
Carnapping
/liz@/ viv
final
Page 96
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Art. 47 provides for cases in which death penalty is
not to be imposed. On the other hand, Art. 83 provides
for suspension only of the execution of death sentence.
RTC can suspend execution of death sentence.
The records of the case shall be forwarded to the
Office of the President, when the death sentence has
become final, for possible exercise of the pardoning
power.
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons
who may witness the same. The execution shall
take place in the penitentiary of Bilibid in a space closed
to the public view and shall be witnessed only by the
priests assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by
his relatives, not exceeding six, if he so request, by the
physician and the necessary personnel of the penal
establishment, and by such persons as the Director of
Prisons may authorize.
The execution shall take place in the penitentiary or
Bilibid in a space closed to the public view.
PERSONS WHO MAY WITNESS EXECUTION:
a. priests assisting the offender;
b. offenders lawyers;
c.
offenders relatives, not exceeding six, if so
requested;
d. physician, and
e. necessary personnel of penal establishment
a person below 18 years of age may not be allowed
to witness an execution.
RPC, Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of
the person executed and its burial. Unless
claimed by his family, the corpse of the culprit shall,
upon the completion of the legal proceedings
subsequent to the execution, be turned over to the
institute of learning or scientific research first applying
for it, for the purpose of study and investigation,
provided that such institute shall take charge of the
decent burial of the remains. Otherwise, the Director of
Prisons shall order the burial of the body of the culprit at
government expense, granting permission to be present
thereat to the members of the family of the culprit and
the friends of the latter. In no case shall the burial of the
body of a person sentenced to death be held with pomp.
The burial of the body of a person sentenced to death
should not be held with pomp.
- The purpose of the law is to prevent anyone
from making a hero out of a criminal.
People v. Echegaray (1996)
Facts: Echegaray was sentenced to death
penalty for raping his 10-yearold daughter. On appeal,
the accused claimed that the penalty imposed by the
court is erroneous under RA 7659 because he is neither
a father, stepfather nor grandfather of Rodessa although
he was a confirmed lover of the Rodessas mother.
Held: Where the accused is a confirmed lover
of the victims mother, he falls squarely within Sec. 11
of RA 7659 under the term common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim. Also, the fact that the victim
referred to the accused as Papa is reason enough to
conclude that the accused is either the farther or
stepfather of the victim.
UP
/liz@/ viv
Page 97
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Art. 27. Reclusion perpetua. Any person
sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be
pardoned after undergoing the penalty for thirty years,
unless such person by reason of his conduct or some
other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief
Executive as unworthy of pardon.
Reclusion temporal. The penalty of
reclusion temporal shall be from twelve years and one
day to twenty years.
Prision
mayor
and
temporary
disqualification. The duration of the penalties of
prision mayor and temporary disqualification shall be
from six years and one day to twelve years, except
when the penalty of disqualification is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case its duration shall be
that of the principal penalty.
Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal; Their accessory penalties. The
penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal
shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or
during the period of the sentence as the case may be,
and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the
offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the
principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory
penalties. The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry
with it that of temporary absolute disqualification and
that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of
suffrage which the offender shall suffer although
pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same
shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
RECLUSION PERPETUA
Duration: 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
Accessory Penalties:
a.
Civil interdiction for life or during
the period of the sentence as the case may be.
b.
Perpetual Absolute
Disqualification which the offender shall suffer
even though pardoned as to the principal
penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.
People v. Gatward (1997)
Facts: The accused was convicted of violating
the Dangerous Drugs Act for unlawfully importing into
the Philippines heroin. The trial court sentenced the
accused to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for 35
years of reclusion perpetua there being no aggravating
or mitigating circumstance shown to have attended in
the commission of the crime.
Held: As amended by RA 7659, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is now accorded a defined duration
ranging from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. The Court
held that in spite of the amendment putting the duration
of RP, it should remain as an indivisible penalty since
there was never an intent on the part of Congress to
reclassify it into a divisible penalty. The maximum
duration of reclusion perpetua is not and has never been
30 years which is merely the number of ears which the
convict must serve in order to be eligible for pardon or
for the application of the 3-fold rule.
/liz@/ viv
UP
RECLUSION PERPETUA
Prescribed under the RPC
Carries with it accessory
penalties
Entails imprisonment for at
least 30 years after which
the
convict
becomes
eligible
for
pardon
although the maximum
period shall in no case
exceed 40 years
RECLUSION TEMPORAL
Duration: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
Accessory Penalties:
a. Civil interdiction for life or during the period of
the sentence as the case may be.
b. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification which the
offender shall suffer even though pardoned as
to the principal penalty, unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Page 98
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
PRISION MAYOR
Duration: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
Accessory Penalties:
a. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
b. Perpetual Special Disqualification from the
right to suffrage which the offender shall suffer
although pardoned as to the principal penalty
unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted in the pardon.
CORRECCIONAL PENALTIES
Art. 27 (4). Prision correccional, suspension, and
destierro. The duration of the penalties of prision
correccional, suspension and destierro shall be from six
months and one day to six years, except when
suspension is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which
case, its duration shall be that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor. The duration of the penalty
of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day
to six months.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty. If the convict has no
property with which to meet the fine mentioned in the
paragraph 3 of the nest preceding article, he shall be
subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate of
one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following
rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correccional or arresto and fine, he shall remain under
confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding
paragraph is satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment
shall not exceed one-third of the term of the sentence,
and in no case shall it continue for more than one year,
and no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only
a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six
months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a
grave or less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen
days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than
prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be
executed by confinement in a penal institution, but such
penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the
period of time established in the preceding rules, shall
continue to suffer the same deprivations as those of
which the principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the
convict may have suffered by reason of his insolvency
shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial
circumstances should improve. (As amended by RA
5465, April 21, 1969).
Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory
penalties. The penalty of prision correccional shall
carry with it that of suspension from public office, from
the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of
perpetual special disqualification from the right of
suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall
exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the
disqualification provided in the article although pardoned
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 99
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. The
penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension
of the right too hold office and the right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence.
ARRESTO MENOR
Duration: 1 day to 30 days
Accessory Penalties:
a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during the
term of the sentence.
PUBLIC CENSURE
Censure, being a penalty is not proper in acquittal.
PENALTIES COMMON TO AFFLICTIVE,
CORRECCIONAL AND LIGHT PENALTIES
FINE
Art. 26. When afflictive, correctional, or
light penalty. A fine, whether imposed as a single of
as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an
afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a
correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos
but is not less than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it
less than 200 pesos.
This article merely classifies fine and has nothing to do
with the definition of light felony.
Fine is:
1.
2.
3.
UP
/liz@/ viv
Page 100
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
office. Moreover, the offender shall not be permitted to
hold any public office during the period of his
disqualification.
Art. 33. Effects of the penalties of suspension from
any public office, profession or calling, or the right
of suffrage. The suspension from public office,
profession or calling, and the exercise of the right of
suffrage shall disqualify the offender from holding such
office or exercising such profession or calling or right of
suffrage during the term of the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office shall
not hold another having similar functions during the
period of his suspension.
Art. 34. Civil interdiction. Civil interdiction shall
deprive the offender during the time of his sentence of
the rights of parental authority, or guardianship, either
as to the person or property of any ward, of marital
authority, of the right to manage his property and of the
right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inter vivos.
Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal; Their accessory penalties. The
penalties of reclusion perpetua and reclusion temporal
shall carry with them that of civil interdiction for life or
during the period of the sentence as the case may be,
and that of perpetual absolute disqualification which the
offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the
principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 42. Prision mayor; Its accessory penalties.
The penalty of prision mayor, shall carry with it that of
temporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual
special disqualification from the right of suffrage which
the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the
principal penalty, unless the same shall have been
expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 43. Prision correccional; Its accessory
penalties. The penalty of prision correccional shall
carry with it that of suspension from public office, from
the right to follow a profession or calling, and that of
perpetual special disqualification from the right of
suffrage, if the duration of said imprisonment shall
exceed eighteen months. The offender shall suffer the
disqualification provided in the article although pardoned
as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have
been expressly remitted in the pardon.
Art. 44. Arresto; Its accessory penalties. The
penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of suspension
of the right to hold office and the right of suffrage during
the term of the sentence.
Art. 45. Confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds
or instruments of the crime. Every penalty
imposed for the commission of a felony shall carry with
it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and the
instruments or tools with which it was committed.
Such proceeds and instruments or tools shall be
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Government,
unless they be property of a third person not liable for
/liz@/ viv
UP
TEMPORARY
ABSOLUTE
Effects:
a. Deprivation of any public office or employment
f offender
b. Deprivation of the right to vote in any election
or to be voted upon
c.
Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension
All these effects last during the lifetime of the convict
and even after the service of the sentence except as
regards paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above in connection
with temporary absolute disqualification.
PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL
DISQUALIFICATION
Effects:
For public office, profession or calling:
a. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession
or calling affected;
b. Disqualification for holding similar offices or
employments during the period of disqualification;
For the exercise of right to suffrage:
c. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected in
an office;
d. Cannot hold any public office during the period of
disqualification
The penalty for disqualification if imposed as an
accessory penalty is imposed for PROTECTION and NOT
for the withholding of a privilege.
Temporary disqualification or suspension if imposed as
an accessory penalty, the duration is the same as that of
the principal penalty.
SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE RIGHT TO
VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, THE RIGHT TO
PRACTICE A PROFESSION OR CALLING
Effects:
a. Disqualification from holding such office or the
exercise of such profession or right of suffrage
during the term of the sentence;
b. Cannot hold another office having similar
functions during the period of suspension.
CIVIL INTERDICTION
Effects:
Deprivation of the following rights:
1)
Parental
authority
2)
Guardianship
over the ward
3)
Marital authority
4)
Right to manage
property and to dispose of the same by acts
inter vivos
Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty to the
following principal penalties:
a) Death if commuted to life imprisonment;
b) Reclusion perpetua
c) Reclusion temporal
Page 101
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
INDEMNIFICATION OR CONFISCATION OF
INSTRUMENTS ORPROCEES OF THEOFFENSE
This is included in every penalty for the commission of
the crime.
The confiscation is in favor of the government.
Property of a third person not liable for the offense is
not subject to confiscation.
If the trial court did not order any confiscation of the
procees of the crime, the government cannot appeal
from the confiscation as that would increase the penalty
already imposed.
PAYMENT OF COSTS
Includes:
a.
Fees, and
b.
Indemnities, in the course of judicial
proceedings.
Costs may be fixed amounts already determined by
law or regulations or amounts subject to a schedule.
If the accused is convicted; costs may be charged
against him. If he is acquitted, costs are de officio,
meaning each party bears his own expense.
E. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTY
RPC, Art. 24. Measures of prevention or
safety which are nor considered penalties. The
following shall not be considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of
accused persons, as well as their detention by reason of
insanity or imbecility, or illness requiring their
confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the
institutions mentioned in Article 80 and for the purposes
specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of public
office during the trial or in order to institute
proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which,
in the exercise of their administrative disciplinary
powers, superior officials may impose upon their
subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations
which the civil laws may establish in penal form.
They are not penalties because they are not imposed
as a result of judicial proceedings. Those mentioned in
par. 3 and 4 are merely preventive measures before
conviction of offenders.
The commitment of a minor mentioned in par. 2 is not
a penalty because it is not imposed by the court in a
judgment of conviction. The imposition of the sentence
in such case is suspended.
The succeeding provisions are some examples of
deprivation of rights established in penal form:
Family Code, Art. 228. Parental authority
terminates permanently:
(1) Upon the death of the parents;
(2) Upon the death of the child; or
(3) Upon emancipation of the child. (327a)
Family Code, Art. 229. Unless subsequently
revived by a final judgment, parental authority also
terminates:
/liz@/ viv
UP
1.
2.
3.
Page 102
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
preventive imprisonment, if the detention prisoner
agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners,
except in the following cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been
convicted previously twice or more times of any crime;
and
2. When upon being summoned for the
execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender
voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of
his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As amended
by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever
an
accused
has
undergone
preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more
than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense
charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is
not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately
without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof
or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under
review. In case the maximum penalty to which the
accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be
released after thirty (30) days of preventive
imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10,
1988).
The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment when
the offense charged is nonbailable, or even if bailable,
he cannot furnish the required bail.
The convict is to be released immediately if the
penalty imposed after trial is less than the full time or
four-fifths of the time of the preventive imprisonment.
The accused shall be released immediately whenever
he has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period
equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment for the offense charged.
Art. 46. Penalty to be imposed upon
principals in general. The penalty prescribed by law
for the commission of a felony shall be imposed upon
the principals in the commission of such felony.
Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a
felony is general terms, it shall be understood as
applicable to the consummated felony.
GENERAL RULE:
The penalty prescribed by law in general terms shall be
imposed:
a.
Upon the principals
b.
For consummated felony
EXCEPTION:
The exception is when the penalty to be
imposed upon the principal in frustrated or attempted
felony is fixed by law.
Whenever it is believed that the penalty lower by one
or two degrees corresponding to said acts of execution is
not in proportion to the wrong done, the law fixes a
distinct penalty for the principal in frustrated or
attempted felony.
The graduation of penalties by degrees refers to
STAGES OF EXECUTION (consummated, frustrated or
attempted) and to the DEGREE OF THE CRIMINAL
PARTICIPATION OF THE OFFENDER (whether as
principal, accomplice or accessory)
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 103
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
PRINCIPAL
S
ACCOMPLI
CES
ACCESSOR
IES
CONSUMM
ATED
0
FRUSTRAT
ED
1
ATTEMPT
ED
2
/liz@/ viv
a.
Page 104
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
/liz@/ viv
of two
indivisible
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
FIFTH RULE:
When the penalty has two periods
Ex. Prision correccional in its MINIMUM and
MEDIUM periods
Prision
correccional
Arresto Mayor
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Page 105
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
- If the penalty is any one of the three periods
of a divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be that period next following the given penalty.
Ex. Prision Mayor in its MAXIMUM period
The penalty immediately inferior is prision
mayor in its MEDIUM period.
SIMPLIFIED RULES:
The rules prescribed in pars. 4 and 5 of Art. 61
may be simplified as follows:
1.
If the penalty prescribed by the
Code consists in 3 periods, corresponding to
different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower
in degree is the penalty consisting in the 3 periods
down in the scale.
2.
If the penalty prescribed b the
Code consists in 2 periods, the penalty next lower
in degree is the penalty consisting in 2 periods
down in the scale.
3.
If the penalty prescribed by the
Code consists in only 1 period, the penalty next
lower in degree is the next period down in the
scale.
EFFECTS OF MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating
or aggravating circumstances and of habitual
delinquency.
Mitigating
or
aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken
into account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing
the penalty in conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime specially punishable by law or which
are included by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefor shall not be taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstance inherent in the crime to such
a degree that it must of necessity accompany the
commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
arise from the moral attributes of the offender, or from
his private relations with the offended party, or from any
other personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of the principals, accomplices and
accessories as to whom such circumstances are
attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act, or in the means employed to
accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of those persons only who had knowledge of
them at the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following
effects:
(a) Upon a third conviction the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided by law for the last
crime of which he be found guilty and to the additional
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods;
(b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be
sentenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of
which he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of
prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods; and
(c) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culprit
shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the last
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 106
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Note:
UP
2.
/liz@/ viv
Page 107
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
- one degree lower (has the effect of a
privileged mitigating circumstance)
NOTE: Art. 64 does not apply to:
- indivisible penalties
- penalties prescribed by special laws
- fines
- crimes committed by negligence
Art. 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all
the requisites of exemption of the fourth
circumstance of Article 12 are present. When all
the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of
Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability
are not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall have
been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods, if of a less grave felony.
Penalty to be imposed if the requisites of accident
(Art. 12 par 4) are not all present:
a. GRAVE FELONY
- arresto mayor maximum period to
prision correccional minimum period
b. LESS GRAVE FELONY
- arresto mayor minimum period and
medium period
UP
COMPLEX CRIMES
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.
When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means
for committing the other, the penalty for the most
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied
in its maximum period.
Art. 48 requires the commission of at least 2
crimes. But the two or more GRAVE or LESS GRAVE
felonies must be the result of a SINGLE ACT, or an
offense
must
be
a
NECESSARY
MEANS
FOR
COMMITTING the other.
In complex crimes, although two or more
crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one
crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience
of the offender. The offender has only one criminal
intent. Even in the case where an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the evil intent of the
offender is only one.
TWO KINDS OF COMPLEX CRIMES
1.
2.
COMPLEX
CRIME
PROPER - When an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other.
COMPOUND CRIME
REQUISITES:
1. That only a SINGLE ACT is performed by
the offender
2. That the single acts produces (a) 2 or
more grave felonies, or (b) one or more
grave and one or more less grave felonies,
or (c) two or more less grave felonies
/liz@/ viv
Page 108
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
/liz@/ viv
RECIDIVISM
There must be conviction
by final judgment of the
committed.
CONTINUED CRIME
1.
A
single crime consisting of a series of acts but all
arising from one criminal resolution.
2.
A
continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set on foot
by a single impulse and operated by an
unintermittent force, however long a time it may
occupy.
Ex. a collector of a commercial firm
misappropriates for his personal use several
amounts collected by him from different persons.
One crime only because the different appropriations
are but the different moments during which once
criminal resolution arises and a single defraudation
develops.
A continued crime is not a complex crime.
A continued crime is different from a TRANSITORY
CRIME which is also called a MOVING CRIME.
REAL OR MATERIAL
CONTINUED CRIME
PLURALITY
There is a series of acts performed by the offender.
Each act performed b the The
different
acts
offender
constitutes
a constitute only one crime
separate crime because because all of the acts
each act is generated by a performed arise from one
criminal impulse.
criminal resolution.
People v. Escober (supra)
Special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. Rule is established that whenever a homicide
has been committed as a consequence of or on the
occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as
principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did no actually take part in the
homicide unless endeavored to prevent homicide. While
it has been established that Punzalans participation in
the crime was to act as a look-out, and as such he did
not participate in the killing of the two helpless victims,
he cannot evade responsibility.
People v. Hernandez (1956)
Facts: Hernandez and others were charged
with the crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons
and robberies. He was found guilty and sentenced to
suffer life imprisonment.
Held: Murder, arson and robbery are mere
ingredients of the crime of rebellion, as a means
necessary for the perpetration of the offense. Such
common offenses are absorbed or inherent in the crime
of rebellion. Inasmuch as the acts specified in Art. 135
constitute one single crime, it follows that said acts offer
no occasion for the application of Art. 48 which requires
therefore the commission of atleast 2 crimes.
Principle of pro reo. Art. 48 is intended to favor
the culprit: when two or more crimes are the result of a
single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than
when he commits said crimes through separate and
distinct acts.
People v. Geronimo (1956)
As in treason, where both intent and overt act
are necessary, the crime of rebellion is integrated by the
Page 109
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes
expressed in Art. 134 of the RPC, and the overt acts of
violence described in the first paragraph of Art. 135.
That both purpose and overt acts are essential
components of one crime and that without either of
them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist, is
shown by the absence of any penalty attached to Art.
134. It follows, therefore, that any or all of the acts
described in Art. 135, when committed as a means to or
in furtherance of the subversive ends described in Art.
134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and
cannot be regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in
themselves.
Not every act of violence is to be deemed
absorbed in the crime of rebellion solely because it
happens to be committed simultaneously. If the killing,
robbing, etc were done for private purposes, the crime
would be separately punishable and would not be
absorbed by the rebellion.
court:
(b)
(c)
(d)
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 110
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Facts: Robert Agbanlog, Wabe, Bullanday,
Camat and Eugenio were having a drinking spree on the
terrace of the house of Roberts father, Jaime Agbanlog,
Jaime was seated on the banister of the terrace listening
to the conversation of the companions of his son. As the
drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed
appellants George and Antonio Comadre and Lozano
walking. The 3 stopped in front of the house. While his
companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed a hand
grenade which fell on the roof of the terrace. Appellants
immediately fled. The hand grenade exploded ripping a
hole in the roof of the house. Robert died while his
father, Jaime, Wabe, Camat, and Bullanday sustained
shrapnel injuries..
Held: Antonio is guilty of the complex crime of
murder with multiple attempted murder under Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code. The underlying philosophy of
complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code, which follows
the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by
imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes
committed. The rationale being, that the accused who
commits two crimes with single criminal impulse
demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes
are committed by different acts and several criminal
resolutions.
The single act by appellant of detonating a
hand grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of
several separate and distinct offenses, yet these
component criminal offenses should be considered only
as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is
imposed because the offender was impelled by a single
criminal impulse which shows his lesser degree of
perversity.
People v. Delos Santos (2001)
Facts: Glenn Delos Santos and his 3 friends
went to Bukidnon on his Isuzu Elf truck. On their way,
they decided to pass by a restaurant where Glenn had 3
bottles of beer. On their way to Cagayan de Oro City
from Bukidnon, Glenns truck, hit, bumped, seriously
wounded and claimed the lives of several members of
the PNP who were undergoing an endurance run on a
highway wearing black shirts and shorts and green
combat shoes. Twelve trainees were killed on the spot,
12 were seriously wounded, 1 of whom eventually died
and 10 sustained minor injuries. At the time of the
occurrence, the place of the incident was very dark as
there was no moon. Neither were there lamposts that
illuminated the highway. The trial court convicted Glenn
of the complex crime of multiple murder, multiple
frustrated murder and multiple attempted murder, with
the use of motor vehicle as the qualifying circumstance.
Held: Considering that the incident was not a
product of a malicious intent but rather the result of a
single act of reckless driving, Glenn should be held guilty
of the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in
multiple homicide with serious physical injuries and less
serious physical injuries.
The slight physical injuries caused by Glenn to
the ten other victims through reckless imprudence,
would, had they been intentional, have constituted light
felonies. Being light felonies, which are not covered by
Article 48, they should be treated and punished as
separate offenses. Separate informations should have,
therefore, been filed
People v. Velasquez (2000)
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 111
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be higher than that corresponding to the
offense which the accused intended to commit, the
penalty corresponding to the latter shall be imposed in
its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be lower than that corresponding to the one
which the accused intended to commit, the penalty for
the former shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding
paragraph shall not be applicable if the acts committed
by the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or
frustration of another crime, if the law prescribes a
higher penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which
case the penalty provided for the attempted or the
frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
Art. 49 has reference to Art. 4 (1). It applies only
when there is ERROR IN PERSONAE.
In Art. 49 pars. 1 and 2, the LOWER PENALTY in its
MAXIMUM PERIOD is always imposed.
In Par. 3, the penalty for the attempted or frustrated
crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. This rule
is not necessary and may well be covered by Art. 48, in
view of the fact that the same act also constitutes an
attempt or a frustration of another crime.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Art. 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of
failure to commit the crime because the means
employed or the aims sought are impossible.
When the person intending to commit an offense has
already performed the acts for the execution of the
same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by
reason of the fact that the act intended was by its
nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the
means employed by such person are essentially
inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the
court, having in mind the social danger and the degree
of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon
him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to
500 pesos.
Art. 59 is limited to cases where the act performed
would be grave or less grave felonies.
Basis of penalty:
1. social danger
2. degree of criminality shown by the
offender
ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR CERTAIN
ACCESSORIES
Art. 58. Additional penalty to be imposed
upon certain accessories. Those accessories falling
within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this
Code who should act with abuse of their public
functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of absolute
perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall
be guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute
temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less
grave felony.
Absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal
offender is guilty of a grave felony.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 112
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
penalties will so permit otherwise, the following rules
shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of
their respective severity shall be followed so that they
may be executed successively or as nearly as may be
possible, should a pardon have been granted as to the
penalty or penalties first imposed, or should they have
been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of
the next preceding paragraph the respective severity of
the penalties shall be determined in accordance with the
following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to
vote and be voted for, the right to follow a profession or
calling, and
12. Public censure
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next
preceding, the maximum duration of the convict's
sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length of
time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties
imposed upon him. No other penalty to which he may be
liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those
imposed equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed
forty years.
In applying the provisions of this rule the
duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua) shall be
computed at thirty years. (As amended).
Outline of the provisions of this Article:
1. When the culprit has to serve 2 or more
penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if
the nature of the penalties will so permit.
2. Otherwise, the order of their respective
severity shall be followed.
3. The respective severity of the penalties is as
follows:
a.
Death
b.
Reclusion perpetua
c.
Reclusion temporal
d.
Prision mayor
e.
Prision correccional
f.
Arresto mayor
g.
Arresto menor
h.
Destierro
i.
Perpetual absolute disqualification
j.
Temporary absolute disqualification
k.
Suspension from public office, the
right to vote, and be voted for, the right to
follow profession or calling, and
l.
Public censure
The penalties which can be simultaneously served
are:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Perpetual special disqualification
3. Temporary absolute disqualification
/liz@/ viv
UP
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Three-fold Rule
The maximum duration of the convicts
sentence shall not be more than three times the length
of time corresponding to the most severe of the
penalties imposed upon him.
The phrase the most severe of the penalties includes
equal penalties.
The three-fold rule applies only when the convict has
to serve at least four sentences.
Page 113
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal
portions of time included in the penalty prescribed, and
forming one period of each of the three portions.
MEANING OF THE RULE
1. Compute and determine first the 3 periods of
the entire penalty.
2.
The time included in the penalty prescribed
should be divided into 3 equal portions, after subtracting
the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) from the maximum
of the penalty.
3. The minimum of the minimum period should
be the minimum of the given penalty (including the 1
day)
4. The quotient should be added to the minimum
prescribed (eliminate the 1 day) and the total will
represent the maximum of the minimum period. Take
the maximum of the minimum period, add 1 day and
make it the minimum of the medium period; then add
the quotient to the minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of
the medium period and the total will represent the
maximum of the medium period. Take the maximum of
the medium period, add 1 day and make it the minimum
of the maximum period; then add the quotient to the
minimum (eliminate the 1 day) of the maximum period
and the total will represent the maximum of the
maximum period.
/liz@/ viv
UP
SECTION 3.
There is hereby created a Board of Pardons
and Parole to be composed of the Secretary of Justice who shall be
its Chairman, and four members to be appointed by the President,
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments who shall hold
office for a term of six years: Provided, That one member of the board
shall be a trained sociologist, one a clergyman or educator, one
psychiatrist unless a trained psychiatrist be employed by the board,
and the other members shall be persons qualified for such work by
training and experience. At least one member of the board shall be a
woman. Of the members of the present board, two shall be
designated by the President to continue until December thirty,
nineteen hundred and sixty-six and the other two shall continue until
December thirty, nineteen hundred and sixty-nine. In case of any
vacancy in the membership of the Board, a successor may be
appointed to serve only for the unexpired portion of the term of the
respective members. (As amended by Republic Act No. 4203, June
19, 1965.)
SECTION 4.
The Board of Pardons and Parole is
authorized to adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary
for carrying out its functions and duties. The Board is empowered to
call upon any bureau, office, branch, subdivision, agency or
instrumentality of the Government for such assistance as it may need
in connection with the performance of its functions. A majority of all
the members shall constitute a quorum and a majority vote shall be
necessary to arrive at a decision. Any dissent from the majority
opinion shall be reduced to writing and filed with the records of the
proceedings. Each member of the Board, including the Chairman and
the Executive Officer, shall be entitled to receive as compensation
fifty pesos for each meeting actually attended by him, notwithstanding
the provisions of Section two hundred and fifty-nine of the Revised
Administrative Code, and in addition thereto, reimbursement of actual
and necessary travelling expenses incurred in the performance of
duties: Provided, however, That the Board meetings will not be more
than three times a week. (As amended by Republic Act No. 4203,
June 19, 1965.)
SECTION 5.
It shall be the duty of the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence to look into the physical, mental and moral
record of the prisoners who shall be eligible to parole and to
determine the proper time of release of such prisoners. Whenever
any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him,
and it shall appear to the Board of Indeterminate Sentence, from the
reports of the prisoner's work and conduct which may be received in
accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed, and from the
study and investigation made by the Board itself, that such prisoner is
fitted by his training for release, that there is a reasonable probability
that such prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the
law, and that such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of
society, said Board of Indeterminate Sentence may, in its discretion,
and in accordance with the rules and regulations adopted hereunder,
authorize the release of such prisoner on parole, upon such terms
and conditions as are herein prescribed and as may be prescribed by
the Board. The said Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall also
examine the records and status of prisoners who shall have been
convicted of any offense other than those named in Section 2 hereof,
and have been sentenced for more than one year by final judgment
prior to the date on which this Act shall take effect, and shall make
recommendation in all such cases to the Governor-General with
regard to the parole of such prisoners as they shall deem qualified for
parole as herein provided, after they shall have served a period of
imprisonment not less than the minimum period for which they might
have been sentenced under this Act for the same offense.
SECTION 6.
Every prisoner released from confinement on
parole by virtue of this Act shall, at such times and in such manner as
may be required by the conditions of his parole, as may be
designated by the said Board for such purpose, report personally to
such government officials or other parole officers hereafter appointed
by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence for a period of surveillance
equivalent to the remaining portion of the maximum sentence
imposed upon him or until final release and discharge by the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence as herein provided. The officials so
designated shall keep such records and make such reports and
perform such other duties hereunder as may be required by said
Board. The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner during his
parole may be fixed and from time to time changed by the said Board
Page 114
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
in its discretion. If during the period of surveillance such paroled
prisoner shall show himself to be a law-abiding citizen and shall not
violate any of the laws of the Philippine Islands, the Board of
Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final certificate of release in his
favor, which shall entitle him to final release and discharge.
SECTION 7.
The Board shall file with the court which
passed judgment on the case, and with the Chief of Constabulary, a
certified copy of each order of conditional or final release and
discharge issued in accordance with the provisions of the next
preceding two sections.
SECTION 8.
Whenever any prisoner released on parole by
virtue of this Act shall, during the period of surveillance, violate any of
the conditions of his parole, the Board of Indeterminate Sentence
may issue an order for his re-arrest which may be served in any part
of the Philippine Islands by any police officer. In such case the
prisoner so re-arrested shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of
the maximum sentence for which he was originally committed to
prison, unless the Board of Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its
discretion, grant a new parole to the said prisoner. (As amended by
Act No. 4225.)
SECTION 9.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair
or interfere with the powers of the Governor-General as set forth in
Section 64(i) of the Revised Administrative Code or the Act of
Congress approved August 29, 1916 entitled "An Act to declare the
purpose of the people of the United States as to the future political
status of the people of the Philippine Islands, and to provide a more
autonomous government for those Islands."
SECTION 10.
Whenever any prisoner shall be released on
parole hereunder he shall be entitled to receive the benefits provided
in Section 1751 of the Revised Administrative Code.
Approved and effective on December 5, 1993.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 115
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
De la Cruz v. CA (1996)
In as much as the amount of P715k is P693k
more than the abovementioned benchmark of P22k,
then adding one year for each additional P10k, the
maximum period of 6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8
years of prision mayor minimum would be increased by
69 years, as computed by the trial court. But the law
categorically declares that the maximum penalty then
shall not exceed 20 years of reclusion temporal. Under
the ISL, the minimum term of the indeterminate penalt
should be within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed b the Code for the offense
committed, which is prision correccional.
Execution of Penalties
/liz@/ viv
Page 116
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
b.
When a person fails to give bond for
good behavior (art. 284)
c.
As a penalty for the concubine in the
crime of concubinage (Art. 334)
d.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Post-Sentence Investigation
The Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) and the submission of the
Post-Sentence Investigation Report (PSIR) are pre-requisites to the
court disposition on the application for probation.
Period of Probation
The period of probation is in essence a time-bound condition. It is a
condition in point of time which may be shortened and lengthened
within the statutory limits and the achievements by the probationer of
the reasonable degrees of social stability and responsibility from the
measured observation of the supervising officer and the exercise
discretion by the court in decisive order.
Probation Conditions
The grant of probation is accompanied by conditions imposed by the
court:
Page 117
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
report to the court within the period not later than 60 days from receipt
of the order of the Court to conduct the said investigation.
Pre-Parole Investigation. The PAROLE AND PROBATION
ADMINISTRATION - (PPA) conducts pre-parole investigation of all
sentenced prisoners confined in prisons and jails within their
jurisdiction. The purpose is to determine whether offenders confined
in prisons/jails are qualified for parole or any form of executive
clemency and to discuss with them their plans after release. Probation
officers submit their pre-parole assessment reports to the Board of
Pardons and Parole.
Supervision of Offenders. The Agency supervises two types of
offenders under conditional release: (1) probationers, or persons
placed under probation by the courts; (2) parolees and pardonees, or
prisoners released on parole or conditional pardon and referred by the
Board of Pardons and Parole (BPP) to PAROLE AND PROBATION
ADMINISTRATION - (PPA) (PPA). The objectives of supervision are
to carry out the conditions set forth in the probation/parole order, to
ascertain whether the probationer/parolee/pardonee is complying with
the said conditions, and to bring about the rehabilitation of the client
and his re-integration into the community.
Rehabilitation Programs. The treatment process employed by the
field officers focused on particular needs of probationers, parolees
and pardonees. Assistance is provided to the clientele in the form of
job placement, skills training, spiritual/moral upliftment, counseling,
etc.
Community Linkages
Probation/Parole, as a community-based treatment program, depends
on available resources in the community for the rehabilitation of
offenders. Thus, the Agency, recognizing the important role of the
community as a rehabilitation agent, involves the community in
probation work through the use of volunteer workers and welfare
agencies.
Presidential Decree No. 968 permits the utilization of the services of
Volunteer Probation Aides to assist the Probation and Parole Officers
in the supervision of probationers, parolees and pardonees
particularly in the areas where the caseload is heavy and the office is
understaff or where the residence of the clientele is very far from the
Parole and Probation Office. As defined, a Volunteer Probation Aide is
a volunteer who is a citizen of good moral character and good
standing in the community, who has been carefully selected and
trained to do volunteer probation work. He is appointed by the
Administrator after successful completion of the Introductory Training
Course for probation volunteers. His term of office is one year but can
be renewed thereafter or terminated earlier depending upon his
performance and willingness to serve.
Further, the PAROLE AND PROBATION ADMINISTRATION - (PPA),
through its Community Services Division, Regional and Field Offices
nationwide,
has
been
tapping
government/non-government
organizations/individuals for various rehabilitation programs and
activities for probationers, parolees and pardonees.
Llamado v. CA (1989)
In its present form, Section 4 of the Probation
Law establishes a much narrower period during which an
application for probation ma be filed with the trial curt:
after the trial curt shall have convicted and sentenced a
defendant and within the period for perfecting an
appeal. The provision expressly prohibits the grant of
an application for probation if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.
Petitioners right to apply for probation was
lost when he perfected his appeal from the judgment of
the trial court. The trial court lost jurisdiction already
over the case.
Bala v. Martinez (1990)
PD 1990 which amends Sec. 4 of PD 968 is not
applicable to the case at bar. It went into effect on Jan.
15, 1985 and cannot be given retroactive effect because
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 118
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
c.
Criminal
liability
is
totally
extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the
personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes
the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as
provided in Article 344 of this Code.
How is criminal liability extinguished?
1. TOTAL
2. PARTIAL
Extinction of criminal liability does not automatically
extinguish the civil liability.
Causes of extinction of criminal liability:
1. BY DEATH OF THE CONVICT
- the death of the convict whether before or
after final judgment extinguished criminal liability.
- civil liability is extinguished only when death
occurs before final judgment.
- death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguished his criminal liability as well as
the civil liability based solely on the offense committed;
except, the claim for civil liability survives if the same
may also be predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
quasi-delicts.
- death of the offended party does not
extinguish the criminal liability of the offender.
2.
BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE
- crime is a debt incurred by the offender as a
consequence of his wrongful act and the penalty is but
the amount of his debt. When payment is made, the
debt is extinguished. Service of sentence does not
extinguish civil liability.
BY AMNESTY
- amnesty is an act of the sovereign power
granting oblivion or a general pardon for a past offense,
and is rarely, if ever, exercised in favor of a single
individual, and is usually exerted in behalf of certain
UP
BY ABSOLUTE PARDON
- It is an act of grace proceeding from the
power entrusted with the execution of the laws which
exempts the individual on whom is bestowed from the
punishment the law inflicts for the crime he has
committed.
Pardon
Includes any crime
Given after conviction
Amnesty
Generally political offenses
Given before conviction or
institution of the action
Looks forward and forgives Looks backwards and
the punishment
abolished the offense itself
Must be proved as a
Being a result of a
defense
proclamation, the court
may take judicial notice of
the same
Do not extinguish civil liability
5.
BY PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
- the forfeiture or loss of the right of the State to
prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain
time.
6.
BY 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.
Requisites: a) that there be final judgment
b) that the period of time prescribed
by law for its enforcement has
elapsed.
7.
3.
/liz@/ viv
Page 119
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
information can no longer be filed on the next day as the
crime has already prescribed.
PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES PUNISHED
BY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
UP
1.
2.
3.
4.
/liz@/ viv
Page 120
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
a.
b.
c.
d.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 121
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
commence to run. Under said provision, it shall
commence to run from the date the felon evades the
service of his sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the
same Code, evasion of service of sentence can be
committed only by those who have been convicted by
final judgment by escaping during the term of his
sentence.
"Escape" in legal parlance and for purposes of
Articles 93 and 157 of the RPC means unlawful
departure of prisoner from the limits of his custody.
Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison
cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.
In the instant case, Torrecampo was never
brought to prison. In fact, even before the execution of
the judgment for his conviction, he was already in
hiding. Now Torrecampo begs for the compassion of the
Court because he has ceased to live a life of peace and
tranquility after he failed to appear in court for the
execution of his sentence. But it was Torrecampo who
chose to become a fugitive. The Court accords
compassion only to those who are deserving.
Torrecampo guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt
but he refused to answer for the wrong he committed.
He is therefore not to be rewarded therefor.
People v. Patriarca (2000)
Facts: Patriarca with the alias of Ka Django, an
NPA, with ten (10) armed companions, requested
permission to rest in the house, of Malto. They had with
them Arevalo who was hogtied. Patriarca asked that the
lights in Malto's house be extinguished. Patriarca then
ordered Arevalo to lie down then shot the latter two
times. The trial court convicted Patriarca of murder.
Patriarca then applied for amnesty under Proclamation
No. 724 amending Proclamation No. 347, dated March
25, 1994, entitled "Granting Amnesty to Rebels,
Insurgents, and All Other Persons Who Have or May
Have Committed Crimes Against Public Order, Other
Crimes Committed in Furtherance of Political Ends, and
Violations of the Article of War, and Creating a National
Amnesty Commission." His application was favorably
granted by the National Amnesty Board
Held: Paragraph 3 of Article 89 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that criminal liability is totally
extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes
the penalty and all its effects.
The Court takes judicial notice of the grant of
amnesty upon Patriarca. Once granted, it is binding and
effective. Hence, the grant of amnesty extinguishes the
liability of Patriarca in the present case.
B. PARTIAL EXTINCTION
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal
liability. Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
1. By conditional pardon;
2. By commutation of the sentence; and
3. For good conduct allowances which the
culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence.
CAUSES OF PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY:
1.
CONDITIONAL PARDON
a)
when
delivered
and
accepted is considered a contract between
the sovereign power and the convict that the
/liz@/ viv
UP
offender
incarcerated
is
rearrested
and
re-
RPC
2.
COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE
a)
reduce degree of penalty
b)
decrease the length of
imprisonment
c)
decrease the amount of
fine
Specific cases where commutation is
provided for by the Code:
4.
PAROLE
- consists in the suspension of the
sentence of a convict without granting
pardon, prescribing the terms upon which
the sentence shall be suspended.
- May be granted to a prisoner after
serving the minimum penalty under the
indeterminate sentence law
- Consists in the suspension of the
sentence of a convict after serving the
minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty, without granting a pardon
prescribing the terms upon which the
sentence shall be punished.
Conditional Pardon
May be given an time
before final judgment is
granted by the Chief
Executive
under
the
Administrative Code
For violation, convict may
be
rearrested
or
prosecuted under Art. 159
Parole
May be given after the
prisoner has served the
minimum
penalty
is
granted by the Board of
Parole and Pardons under
the ISL
For violation, convict can
be rearrested and reincarcerated to serve the
unexpired portion of his
original penalty
Page 122
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
2.
b.
c.
d.
3.
4.
th
/liz@/ viv
Art. 99.
Whenever lawfully
grant allowances
once granted shall
1.
2.
Page 123
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
Civil liability arises from the commission of the felony.
It is determined in the criminal action except:
a.
the offended party waives
his right to file a civil action
b.
the offended party reserves
his right to institute it separately, or
c.
the offended party institutes
the civil action prior to the criminal action.
A reservation of the right to file a separate civil action
only gives the party aggrieved the right to choose under
which body of laws he must bring the civil action, either
under the:
1. RPC where the recovery may be defeated
by proof that the acts on which the action is based do
not exist, or
2. Civil Code where the same proof is
required to preclude recovery, or proof of diligence in
the selection and employment of the employee
Effect of ACQUITTAL:
As a rule, if the offender is acquitted, the civil
liability is extinguished, except:
a)
if the acquittal is on the
ground that the guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt
b)
the acquittal was due to
an exempting circumstance like insanity and
c)
when the court finds and
states in its judgment that there is only civil
responsibility.
SEPARATE CIVIL ACTION
The rule is that when the criminal action is
instituted, a separate civil action cannot be instituted or
if already instituted, it is to be suspended. Said rule
applies only when the plaintiff in the civil action is the
offended party in the criminal action and both cases
arise from the same offense.
Exceptions:
Independent civil actions may be filed for:
a. violations of fundamental rights (Art. 32)
b. defamation, fraud and physical injuries
(Art. 33)
c.
failure or refusal of a member of the
police force to render aid or protection to any
person in case of danger to life or property
(Art. 34)
PERTINENT PROVISIONS
Civil Code, Art. 20. Every person who,
contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 1161. Civil obligations arising from
criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal laws,
subject to the provisions of Article 2177, and of the
pertinent provisions of Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, on
Human Relations, and of Title XVIII of this Book,
regulating damages. (1092a)
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
/liz@/ viv
UP
RULE 111
PROSECUTION OF CIVIL ACTION
1985 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions.
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for
the recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with
the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the
civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately,
or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity
under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the
accused.
A waiver of any of the civil actions extinguishes the
others. The institution of, or the reservation of the right
to file, any of said civil actions separately waives the
others.
The reservation of the right to institute the
separate civil actions shall be made before the
prosecution starts to present its evidence and under
circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunity to make such reservation.
In no case may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the
accused.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil
liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages, the filing fees for
such civil action as provided in these Rules shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment except in an
award for actual damages.
In cases wherein the amount of damages,
other than actual, is alleged in the complaint or
information, the corresponding filing fees shall be paid
by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court for
trial.
Sec. 2. Institution of separate civil action.
Except in the cases provided for in Section 3 hereof,
after the criminal action has been commenced, the civil
action which has been reserved cannot be instituted
until final judgment has been rendered in the criminal
action.
(a) Whenever the offended party shall have
instituted the civil action as provided for in the first
paragraph of Section 1 hereof before the filing of the
criminal action and the criminal action is subsequently
commenced, the pending civil action shall be suspended,
in whatever stage before final judgment it may be
found, until final judgment in the criminal action has
Page 124
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
been rendered. However, if no final judgment has been
rendered by the trial court in the civil action, the same
may be consolidated with the criminal action upon
application with the court trying the criminal action. If
the application is granted, the evidence presented and
admitted in the civil action shall be deemed
automatically reproduced in the criminal action, without
prejudice to the admission of additional evidence that
any party may wish to present. In case of consolidation,
both the criminal and the civil actions shall be tried and
decided jointly.
(b) Extinction of the penal action does not
carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
Sec. 3. When civil action may proceed
independently. In the cases provided for in Articles 32,
33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the
independent civil action which has been reserved may
be brought by the offended party, shall proceed
independently of the criminal action, and shall require
only a preponderance of evidence.
Sec. 4. Judgment in civil action not a bar.
A final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the
defendant from civil liability is no bar to a criminal
action.
Sec. 5. Elements of prejudicial question.
The two (2) essential elements of a prejudicial question
are: (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
Sec.
6.
Suspension
by
reason
of
prejudicial question. A petition for suspension of the
criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial
question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the
fiscal or the court conducting the preliminary
investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in
court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in
the same criminal action at any time before the
prosecution rests.
Cases
Quinto v. Andres (2005)
Facts: Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school
pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was about
11 yrs old saw Andres and Pacheco who invited them to
go fishing inside a drainage culvert. Wilson assented
but Garcia seeing that it was dark inside opted to remain
seated in a grassy area about 2meters from the
entrance of the drainage system. Pacheco, Andres and
Quinto, entered the drainage system which was covered
by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter
wide, with water about a foot deep. After a while,
respondent Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out
of the drainage system and left without saying a word.
Andres also came out, went back inside, and emerged
again, this time, carrying Wilson who was already dead.
Andres laid the boy's lifeless body down in the grassy
area. Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled
from the scene. For his part, Andres went to the house
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 125
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
to pay forms an integral part of the penalty imposed by
law for the commission of the crime. The civil action
involves the civil liability arising from the offense
charged which includes restitution, reparation of the
damage caused, and indemnification for consequential
damages.
Under the Rules, where the civil action for
recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal
action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may
intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
31 Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that, "[w]hen a criminal action is instituted, the
civil action arising from the offense charged shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right
to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action."
Hao did not waive the civil action, nor did she
reserve the right to institute it separately, nor institute
the civil action for damages arising from the offense
charged. Thus, we find that the private prosecutors can
intervene in the trial of the criminal action.
Basilio v. CA (2000)
Facts: Pronebo was found guilty by the trial
court of Reckless Imprudence resulting to the death of
one Advincula. Pronebo then filed an application for
probation. Subsequently, the trial court issued an Order
granting the motion for execution of the subsidiary
liability of his employer Basilio. Basilio now asserts that
he was not given the opportunity to be heard by the trial
court to prove the absence of an employer-employee
relationship between him and accused. Nor that,
alternatively, the accused was not lawfully discharging
duties as an employee at the time of the incident.
Held: The statutory basis for an employer's
subsidiary liability is found in Article 103 of the RPC.
This liability is enforceable in the same criminal
proceeding where the award is made. However, before
execution against an employer ensues, there must be a
determination, in a hearing set for the purpose of 1) the
existence of an employer-employee relationship; 2) that
the employer is engaged in some kind of industry; 3)
that the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act
and found to have committed the offense in the
discharge of his duties (not necessarily any offense he
commits "while" in the discharge of such duties; and 4)
that said employee is insolvent.
Basilio knew of the criminal case that was filed
against his driver because it was his truck that was
involved in the incident. Further, it was the insurance
company, with which his truck was insured, that
provided the counsel for Pronebo, pursuant to the
stipulations in their contract. Basilio did not intervene in
the criminal proceedings, despite knowledge, through
counsel, that the prosecution adduced evidence to show
employer-employee relationship. With the convict's
application for probation, the trial court's judgment
became final and executory. All told, it is our view that
the lower court did not err when it found that Basilio was
not denied due process. He had all his chances to
intervene in the criminal proceedings, and prove that he
was not the employer of the accused, but he chooses
not to intervene at the appropriate time.
Philippine Rabbit v. People (2004)
Facts: Accused Roman, an employee of
Philippine Rabbit was found guilty and convicted of the
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 126
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
/liz@/ viv
of
of
Page 127
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
1.
2.
3.
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 128
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
c.
DEATH results:
INDEMNITY: P50,000
Lost of Earning Capacity
Support to a non-heir
Moral damages for mental anguish
Exemplary damages if attended by 1 or more
aggravating circumstances
D. PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE
/liz@/ viv
UP
Page 129
2004-2005
CRIMINAL LAW 1
College of Law
ESGUERRA NOTES
2004-2005
UP
/liz@/ viv
Page 130
2004-2005