http://uplsg.

org/sites/default/files/CrimLaw
2%20Reviewer%20%282007%20BarOps
%29.pdf
http://strivingstudent.files.wordpress.com/
2011/09/criminal_law_ii_notes.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27915867/Crim
inal-Law-UPRevised-Ortega-Lecture-NotesII
Crimes against persons
1. Parricide (Art. 246);
2.Murder (Art. 248);
3.Homicide (Art. 249);
4.Death caused in a tumultuous affray(Art.
251);
5.Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous
affray (Art. 252);
6.Giving assistance to suicide (Art.253);
7.Discharge of firearms (Art. 254);
8.Infanticide (Art. 255);
9.Intentional abortion (Art. 256);
10.Unintentional abortion (Art. 257);
11.Abortion practiced by the woman herself or
by her parents (Art. 258);
12.Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife
and dispensing of abortives(Art. 259);
13.Duel (Art. 260);
14.Challenging to a duel (Art. 261);
15.Mutilation (Art. 262);
16.Serious physical injuries (Art. 263);
17.Administering
injurious
substances
or
beverages (Art. 264);
18.Less serious physical injuries (Art.265);
19.Slight physical injuries andmaltreatment
(Art. 266); and
20.Rape (Art. 266-A).
The essence of crime here involves thetaking of
human life, destruction of the fetusor inflicting
injuries. As to the taking of human life, you
have:
(1) Parricide;
(2) Murder;
(3) Homicide;
(4) Infanticide; and
(5) Giving assistance to suicide.
Note that parricide is premised on the
relationship between the offender and the
offended. The victim is three days old or older. A

stranger who conspires with the parent is guilty

of murder.
In infanticide, the victim is younger than three
days or 72 hours old; can be committed by a
stranger. If a stranger who conspires with
parent, both commit thecrime of infanticide.
Article 246. Parricide
Elements
1.A person is killed;
2.The deceased is killed by the accused;
3.The deceased is the father, mother,or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a
legitimate
other
ascendant
or
other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse, of the
accused.
This is a crime committed between people who
are related by blood. Between spouses, even
though they are not related by blood, it is also
parricide.The relationship must be in the direct
line and not in the collateral line.The
relationship between the offender and the
offended party must be legitimate,except when
the offender and the offended party are related
as parent and child.If the offender and the
offended party,although related by blood and in
the direct line, are separated by an intervening
illegitimate relationship, parricide can no longer
be committed. The illegitimate relationship
between the child and the parent renders all
relatives after the child in the direct line to be
illegitimate too.The only illegitimate relationship
that canbring about parricide is that between
parents and illegitimate children as theoffender
and the offended parties.
Illustration: A is the parent of B, the illegitimate
daughter. B married C and they begot a
legitimate child D. If D, daughter of B and C,
would kill A, the grandmother, the crime cannot
be
parricide
anymore
because
of the
intervening
illegitimacy.
The
relationship
between A and D is no longer legitimate.Hence,
the crime committed is homicide or murder.
Since parricide is a crime of relationship, if a
stranger conspired in the commission of
thecrime, he cannot be held liable for
parricide.His participation would make him
liable for murder or for homicide, as the case
may be. The rule of conspiracy that the act of
one is the act of all does not apply herebecause
of the personal relationship of theoffender to
the offended party.

Illustration: A spouse of B conspires with C to

kill B. C is the stranger in the relationship. C
killed B with treachery. The means employed
ismade known to A and A agreed that thekilling
will be done by poisoning. As far as A is
concerned, the crime is based on his
relationship with B. It is therefore parricide. The
treachery that was employed in killing Bong will
only be generic aggravating circumstance in the
crime of parricide because this is not one crime
that requires a qualifying circumstance.
But that same treachery, insofar as C is
concerned, as a stranger who cooperated in the
killing, makes the crime murder; treachery
becomes a qualifying circumstance.
In killing a spouse, there must be a valid
subsisting marriage at the time of the killing.
Also, the information should allege the fact of
such valid marriage between the accused and
the victim.In a ruling by the Supreme Court, it
washeld that if the information did not allege
that the accused was legally married to the
victim, he could not be convicted of parricide
even if the marriage was established during the
trial. In such cases,relationship shall be
appreciated
as
generic
aggravating
circumstance.The Supreme Court has also ruled
that Muslim husbands with several wives can
beconvicted of parricide only in case the first
wife is killed. There is no parricide if the other
wives are killed although their marriage is
recognized as valid. This is sobecause a
Catholic man can commit thecrime only once. If
a Muslim husband could commit this crime
more than once, in effect,he is being punished
for the marriage whichthe law itself authorized
him to contract.That the mother killed her child
in order to conceal her dishonor is not
mitigating. This is immaterial to the crime of
parricide, unlike in the case of infanticide. If the
child is less than three days old when killed, the
crime is infanticide and intent to conceal her
dishonor is considered mitigating.
Article 247. Death or Physical Injuries
Inflicted under Exceptional Circumstances
Elements
1.A legally married person, or aparent, surprises
his spouse or hisdaughter, the latter under 18
yearsof age and living with him, in the actof
committing sexual intercoursewith another
person;
2.He or she kills any or both of them,or inflicts
upon any or both of the many serious physical
injury in the actor immediately thereafter;

3.He has not promoted or facilitated the

prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or
she has not consented to the infidelity of the
other spouse.
Two stages contemplated before the article will
apply:
(1) When the offender surprised theother
spouse with a paramour or mistress. The attack
must take place while the sexual intercourse is
going on. If the surprise was beforeor after the
intercourse, no matter how immediate it may
be, Article 247 does not apply. The offender in
this situation only gets the benefit of a
mitigating
circumstance,
that
is,sufficient
provocation immediately preceding the act.
(2) When the offender kills or inflicts serious
physical injury upon theother spouse and/or
paramour whilein the act of intercourse, or
immediately thereafter, that is, after surprising.
You have to divide the stages because asfar as
the first stage is concerned, it does not admit of
any situation less than sexual intercourse.
So if the surprising took place before any actual
sexual intercourse could be done because the
parties are only in their
preliminaries, the
article cannot be invoked anymore.
If the surprising took place after the actual
sexual intercourse was finished, even if theact
being performed indicates no other conclusion
but that sexual intercourse washad, the article
does not apply. As long as the surprising took
place whilethe sexual intercourse was going on,
thesecond stage becomes immaterial.
It is either killing or inflicting physical injuries
while in that act or immediately thereafter.If the
killing was done while in that act, no problem. If
the killing was done when sexual intercourse is
finished, a problemarises. First, were they
surprised in actual sexual intercourse? Second,
were they killed immediately thereafter?
The phrase immediately thereafter has been
interpreted to mean that between the surprising
and the killing of the inflicting of the physical
injury, there should be no break of time. In
other
words,
it
must
be
acontinuous
process.The article presumes that a legally
married person who surprises his or her better
half in actual sexual intercourse would
beovercome by the obfuscation he felt whenhe
saw them in the act that he lost his head.The

law, thus, affords protection to aspouse who is

considered to have acted ina justified outburst
of passion or a state of mental disequilibrium.
The offended spouse has no time to regain his
self-control.
If there was already a break of time between
the sexual act and the killing or inflicting of the
injury, the law presupposes that the offender
regained his reason and therefore, the article
will not apply anymore.
As long as the act is continuous, the article still
applies.
Where the accused surprised his wife and his
paramour in the act of illicit intercourse,as a
result of which he went out to kill the paramour
in a fit of passionate outburst. Although about
one hour had passed between the time the
accused discovered his wife having sexual
intercourse with thevictim and the time the
latter was actually killed, it was held in People v.
Abarca, 153 SCRA 735, that Article 247 was
applicable,as the shooting was a continuation of
the pursuit of the victim by the accused.
Here,the accused, after the discovery of the act
of infidelity of his wife, looked for a fire arm in
Tacloban City.
Article 247 does not provide that the victimis to
be killed instantly by the accused after
surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse.
What is required is that the killing is the
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming
the accused upon thediscovery of the infidelity
of his spouse.The killing should have been
actually motivated by the same blind impulse.
Illustration: A upon coming home, surprised his
wife, B,together with C. The paramour was fast
enough to jump out of the window. A got the
bolo and chased C but he disappeared among
the neighborhood. So A started looking around
for about an hour but he could not find the
paramour. A gave up and was on his way home.
Unfortunately, the paramour, thinking that A
was no longer around, came out of hiding and
at that moment, A saw him and hacked him to
death. There was a break of time and Article
247 does not apply anymore because when he
gave up the search, it is a circumstance
showing that his anger had already died down.
Article 247, far from defining a felony merely
grants a privilege or benefit, more of an
exempting circumstance as the penalty is
intended more for the protection of theaccused

than a punishment. Death under exceptional

character can not be qualified by either
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
In the case of People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735,
two persons suffered physical injuriesas they
were caught in the crossfire whenthe accused
shot the victim. A complex crime of double
frustrated murder was not committed as the
accused did not have the intent to kill the two
victims. Here, the accused did not commit
murder when he fired at the paramour of his
wife.
Inflicting
death
under
exceptional
circumstances isnot murder. The accused was
held liablefor negligence under the first part,
second paragraph of Article 365, that is, less
serious physical injuries through simple
negligence. No aberratio ictus because he was
acting lawfully. A person who acts under Article
247 is not committing a crime. Since this is
merely anexempting circumstance, the accused
must first be charged with:
(1)Parricide if the spouse is killed;
(2)Murder or homicide depending onhow the
killing was done insofar asthe paramour or the
mistress isconcerned;
(3)Homicide through simple negligence, if a
third party is killed;
(4)Physical
injuries

through
reckless
imprudence, if a third party is injured.
If death results or the physical injuries are
serious, there is criminal liability although the
penalty is only destierro. The banishment is
intended more for the protection of the offender
rather than a penalty.
If the crime committed is less serious physical
injuries or slight physical injuries,there is no
criminal liability.
The article does not apply where the wife was
not surprised in flagrant adultery but was being
abused by a man as in this case there will be
defense of relation.
If the offender surprised a couple in sexual
intercourse, and believing the woman to be his
wife, killed them, this article may be applied if
the mistake of facts is proved.The benefits of
this article do not apply to the person who
consented to the infidelity of his spouse or who
facilitated the prostitution of his wife.
The article is also made available to parents
who shall surprise their daughter below 18
years of age in actual sexual intercourse while
living with them. The act should have been

committed by the daughter with a seducer. The

two stages also apply. The parents cannot
invoke this provision if, in away, they have
encouraged the prostitution of the daughter.The
phrase living with them is understood to be in
their
own
dwelling,
because
of
the
embarrassment and humiliation done not only
to the parent but also to the parental abode.If it
was done in a motel, the article does not apply.
Illustration: A abandoned his wife B for two
years. To support their children, A had to accept
a relationship with another man. A learned of
this, and surprised them in the act of sexual
intercourse and killed B. A is not entitled to
Article 248. Having abandoned his family for
two years, it was natural for her to feel