Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances.

Circumstances that, if attendant serve to increase the penalty w/o exceeding the
maximum of the penalty provided by law.
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
Generic is generally applicable to all kinds of crime, e.g., dwelling, nighttime or
recidivism.
Specific applicable to particular crimes, e.g., ignominy in crimes against chastity
and Treachery in crimes against persons.
Qualifying changes the nature of the crime, e.g., treachery qualifies killing to
Murder.
Inherent must of necessity accompany the commission of the crime. They cannot
be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty. (Art. 62, par. 2) *
Generic
-

Increases penalty to be imposed w/o exceeding the maximum.

Can be offset by a mitigating circumstance (cancel each other out)

Qualifying
-

Place the offender in no other situation as to deserve any other penalty than
that specifically provided for by law
Cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance
A more serious qualifying

Rule 110, Sec. 8, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

Sec. 8. Designation of the offense The complaint or information (document
proving it is a crime) 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.
Old rule: If qualifying circumstance is not alleged in the information but was
proven during trial, in imposing penalty, court can consider it generic.
Anything not alleged is irrelevant.
New rule: If not alleged, it cant be considered whether established in the trial or
not. All must be alleged, otherwise cant be considered by court.
Pp vs elona in accordance sections 8 and 9, we have ruled that qualifying
and aggravating PP vs. Elona

In accordance with Sections 8 and 9, supra, we have ruled that qualifying and
aggravating circumstances, although proved during the trial, cannot be appreciated
when not alleged in the information. Although the crimes in the cases at bar were
committed in 1999, before the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect on
Dec 1, 2000, the Court shall give its effect
1. Advantage be taken by the offender of his public position.
What is important is that the offender is a public officer and he takes advantage
of his public position to commit the crime.
using the influence, prestige or ascendancy which his office gives him as the
means by w/c he realizes his purpose. (US vs. Rodriguez, 19 Phil 150) *an abuse
of his public position/ crime was committed because he abused his position.
Pp vs. Villamor
To appreciate this aggravating circumstance, the public officer must use the
influence, prestige or ascendancy with his offenses gave him.
US vs Torrida
*was a councilor, told residents that government imposed a new fee, but there
wasnt.
The fact that the appellant was councilman at the time placed him in a position to
commit these crimes. If he had not been councilman he could not have induced the
injured parties to pay these alleged fines. It was on account of his being councilman
that the parties believed that he had the right to collect fines and it was for this
reason that they made the payments.
Pablo vs. Pp
*two policemen stopped a couple of people, charged someone for bringing deadly
weapon, but unless given what they demanded, cant be brought to station
The mere fact that the three (3) accused were all police officers at the time of the
robbery palced them in a position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police
officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding the mobile patrol
car and forced them to hand over their money. Precisely it was on account of their
authority that Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact committed a crime and
would be brought to the police station for investigation unless they gave them
determined.
Pp vs. Magayac

*just because public official and used government issued firearm doesnt mean that
theres abuse
That accused-appellant was a member of the dreaded CAFGU and used his
government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy does not necessarily prove that he took
advantage of his public position to commit the crime.
Pp vs. Fallorina
There is no dispute that the appellant is a policemen and that he used his service
firearm, the 45 caliber pistol.
PP v Herrera Gr. 140557-58
The Court emphatically said that the mere fact that accused-appellant is a
policeman and used his .38 caliber revolver to kill is not sufficient to establish that
he misused his public position in the commission of the crime.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to public
authorities
Basis: On the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by his lack of respect for
public authorities.
Requisites:
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise o said function is not the person
against whom the crime is committed (US v Rodriguez)
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority
4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal
act.
Public Authority sometimes also called a person in authority, is a public officer
who is directly vested with jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has the power to
govern and execute the laws. The councilor, the mayor, the governor, etc., are
persons in authority. The barangay captain and barangay chairman are also persons
in authority.
Not applicable when crime is committed in the presence of an agent only.
Par.2 Art 14 not applied in a case where the crime was committed in the present of
an agent only
An agent of a person in authority is any person who, by direct provision of law
or by election or by appointment by competent authority is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property,

such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person
who comes to the aid of persons in authority. (Art 152, as amended by BP. Blg. 873)
The crime should not be committed against the public authority.
If the crime is committed against a public authority while he is in the performance
of his official duty, the offender commits direct assault (Art 148) without this
aggravating circumstance, because it is not a crime committed in contempt of or
with insult to him, but a crime directly committed against him.
People v Santok
Not followed in this case, where it was held that the crime committed was
homicide with the aggravating circumstance of the commission of the offense in
contempt of the public authority, since the deceased was shot while in the
performance of his official duty as barrio lieutenant.
The accused should have been prosecuted for and convicted of a complex crime
of homicide with direct assault (Art 249, in relation to Art 48 and Art 148 of RPC),
without the aggravating circumstance.
Knowledge that a public authority is present is essential.
Lack of knowledge lack of intention to insult public authority. So, if A killed B in the
presence of the town mayor, but A did not know of the presence of the mayor, this
aggravating circumstance should not be considered against A.
Presence of public authority has not prevented offender from committing
the crime.
An offense may be said to have been committed in contempt of a public authority
when his presence, made known to the offender, has not prevented the latter from
committing the criminal act.

3. That the act be committed (1) with insult or in disregard of the

respect due the offended party on account of this (a)rank, (b) age,
or (c) sex, or (2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended
party, if the latter has not given provocation
Basis
Based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the personal
circumstances of the offended party and the place of the commission of the crime.
Four circumstances enumerated can be considered single or together. If four are
present, they have the weight of one aggravating circumstance only.
People v Santos

The aggravating circumstance of sex and age of the injured party as well as
those of dwelling place and night time must also be taken into account.
Applicable only to crime against persons or honor.
>PP v Pagal
Disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age or sex
may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the
commission of the crime, there is some insult or disrespect to rank, age or sex. It is
not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property.
Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against
persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main
purpose and object of the criminal.
with insult or in disregard
It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim
is a woman (or an old man or one of high rank), showing insult or disregard of sex
(or age or rank) in order that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance.
(People v Valencia)
There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused
deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended party.
(People v Mangsant)
Dwelling of Offended Party
Dwelling means a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort. It
may refer to the entire structure or a portion thereof.
Privacy and sanctity of home
It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of
privacy that the law accords to the human abode. He who goes to anothers house
to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere (pp
vs. evangelio)
Pp vs. Alcala, GR No. L-18988
As to whether the crime must be held to have been committed in the dwelling of
the offended party, we take it that although the accused were found with the
deceased at the foot of the staircase of the house, that place must be regarded as
an integral part of the dwelling of that family. The porch of a house, not
common to different neighbors, is a part of the dwelling.
Sufficient provocation by owner of the dwelling

*you are entitled to the sanctity of privacy. But if used against others,
When there is sufficient provocation by the owner of the dwelling, this circumstance
cannot be appreciated.
There must be a close relation between provocation and commission of crime in
the dwelling of the person from whom the provocation came.
US vs. Licarte, GR No. 6784
*not aggravating
In the case at bar the offended party, by calling Filomena vile names, started the
trouble. This vile language was not directed at the accused, but to her daughter.
This was, however, a sufficient provocation to cause the accused to demand an
explanation why her daughter was so grossly insulted. So under these facts, it was
error to hold that the aggravating circumstance of morada existed.
Pp vs. Dequina, GR No. 41040
*accused learned that wife was in relationship; accused attacked lover inside his
dwelling
The provocation was not given immediately prior to the commission of the crime
and had no particular relation to the house of the deceased. If the defendant had
entered the house of the deceased and surprised the deceased and the wife of the
defendant in the act of adultery, the aggravating circumstance of morada would
not exist.
When provocation negates dwelling.
1. Provocation must be immediately prior to the commission of the crime, and
2. There must be a close relation between the provocation and the crime
committed.
Pp vs. Agoncillo, GR No. 138983
Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the
sanctity of privacy the law accords to the human abode. However, in the present
case, Rosalyn was not raped therein. Although she was abducted therefrom,
accused-appellant was not charged with forcible abduction with rape but only with
rape. Considering that she was not raped in her home, dwelling cannot be
appreciated.
4. Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness
1. Offended party trusts the offender
2. The offender abused such trust, and

3. The abuse facilitated the commission of the crime.

Pp vs. Caliso
in the commission of the crime the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of
confidence was present since the appellant was the domestic servant of the family
and was sometimes the deceased childs amah.
5. Palace of the Chief Executive, in his presence, public authorities are
engaged in the discharged of duties or in a place dedicated to public
worship.
Palace of the Chief executive and place dedicated to public worship official or
religious functions need not be held.
Where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties there must
be some performance of public functions.
Intent to commit the crime
There must be evidence that the accused had the intention to commit a crime
when he entered the place.
6. Nighttime, uninhabited place, by band.
it has been held that if the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, uninhabited
place or band concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute one
aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they can be considered
separately if their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently,
revealing a greater degree of perversity. Pp vs. Librando
PP vs. Silva
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 offenders immunity from capture.
The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they intended
to commit the crime in darkness.
Darkness or obscurity
The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the obscuridad afforded by, and
not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime.
Although the offense was committed at night, nocturnity does not become a
modifying factor when the place is adequately lighted and, thus, could no longer
insure the offenders immunity from identification or capture. Pp vs. Carino

Uninhabited place
That there was a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some help in the
place of the commission of the crime.
Pp vs. Rubia
The aggravating circumstance of the crime having been committed in an
uninhabited place must be considered, the incident having taken place at sea where
it was difficult for the offended party to receive help, while the assailants could
easily have escaped punishment
Pp vs. Lumandong
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place under Article 14 (6)
was correctly appreciated against the appellant.
Band
This circumstance is present when more than three armed men acted together
in the commission of the offense.
In other words the four armed men must directly participate in the execution of the
act constituting the crime.
Pp vs. Magdamit
An offense is committed en cuadrilla when more than three armed malefactors shall
have acted together in the commission thereof. In the present case, there were
seven armed conspirators involved in the commission of the composite crime.
Pp vs. Lozano
The Code does not define or require any particular arms or weapons; any weapon
which by reason of its intrinsic nature or the purpose for which it was made or used
by the accused, is capable of inflicting serious or fatal injuries upon the victim of the
crime may be considered as arms for purposes of the law on cuadrilla.
Guns and Knives.
The trial court and the CA correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstance of the
commission of a crime by a band. In the crime of robbery with rape, band is
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
7. On the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or
other calamity or misfortune.
The rule in here is that the offender must take advantage of the calamity or
misfortune in the commission of the crime.

Ex: during a fire (qualifying circumstance)

8. Aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity.
The armed men must not participate in the execution of the felony otherwise they
are co-principals (if you are a co-principal.)
Must be accomplices
Aid of armed men or persons affording immunity requires that the armed men are
accomplices who take part in minor capacity, directly or indirectly. We note
that all four accused were charges as principals. The remaining suspects were
never identified and charged. Neither was proof adduced as to the nature of their
participation. (Lozano)
9. Recidivism. (previously convicted)
A recidivist is one who, at the time of the trial for one crime, shall have been
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title
of the RPC. (No violation of the special penal law.)
Type of repeat order; having been convicted once, and not enough to deter to
commit the crime again.
Recidivism, requisites.
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
(regardless if served sentence)
3. That both the first and second offense are embraced in the same title of
the RPC;
4. That the offender is convicted of the second offense.
Criminal propensity there is no recidivism if the second conviction is for a crime
committed before the commission of the crime involved in the first conviction.
10. Reiteracion or Habituality. (service of sentence)
Requisites:
1. The accused is on trial.
2. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense;
3. The accused is convicted for the new offense.

Recidivism

Offender is convicted by final judgment

The offenses are included in the same title of the RPC
The offenses are embraced in the same title of the RPC, penalty is immaterial

Habituality
-

Offender serves out his sentence in the previous sentence

two or more crimes:
light penalty

11. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.

The price, reward or promise must be the primary consideration of the offender
in committing the crime.
Aggravating if the promise or reward itself (e.g money) is primary
Includes the person who gives the reward.
In Pp vs. Talledo, this circumstance was not considered primarily because there was
no conclusive evidence and the circumstance was not alleged in the information.
Pp vs. Alicanstre (used)
The talledo case is not authority on this question.
Indeed, the established rule in the Spanish jurisprudence is to the effect that the
aggravating circumstance of the price, reward or promise thereof affects
equally the offeror and the acceptor.
Person who gives or who receives, either, is responsible for the crime.
Greater moral depravity
In fact, under certain conditions such as those obtaining in the case at bar the
circumstance under consideration may evince even greater moral depravity in the
offeror than in the acceptor. (Alincastre)
12. By means of inundation, fire, poision, explosion, stranding of vessel or
intentional damage thereto, derailment of locomotive, or any other artifice
involving great waste or ruin.
Aggravating because of the overkill. (creating the extreme means to commit the
crime)
Any of the circumstances in this paragraph must be used by the offender to
accomplish the crime, hence the phrase by means of
(by means of interpreted that intentionally employed to accomplish
intended crime)

Pp vs. Comadre
When the killing is perpetrated with treachery and bymeans of explosives, the latter
shall be considered as a qualifying circumstance. Not only does jurisprudence
support this view but also, since the use of explosives is the principal mode of
attack, reason dictates that this attendance circumstance should qualify the offense
instead of treachery which will then be relegated as merely a generic aggravating
circumstance..
13. Evident premeditation.
Requisites:
1. the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. an act manifestly indicating the culprits determination to commit the crime;
3. a sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution.

US v The Moro Manalinde; G.R. No. 5392 there is evident premeditation

As to the other circumstance it is also unquestionable that the accused, upon
accepting the order and undertaking the journey in order to comply therewith,
deliberately considered and carefully and thoughtfully meditated over the nature
and the consequences of the acts which, under orders received from the said datto,
he was about to carry out, and that
PP v DUAVIS, 190861 (dec 7 2011) there is premeditation but not evident
(singing contest)
To the mind of the Court, the lapse of time between the decision and the execution
is not sufficient to allow appellant to
*altercation 3:00 pm; assault 5:00 pm
PP v HILARIO 128083 mar162001 (not aggravating)
Evident premeditation, however, may not properly be taken into account when the
person whom the defendant proposed to kill was different from the one who became
his victim. When the person decided to kill a different person and premeditated on
the killing of the latter, but when he carried out his plan he actually killed another
person, it cannot properly be said that he premeditated on the killing of the actual
victim.
Differentiated from Manalinde
The fact that the arrangement between the instigator and the tool considered the
killing

14. Craft, Fraud or Disguise

Craft involves intellectual trickery
(PP V NUNEZ 1124290-30 jul 23, 1997)
Disguise
It is also worth mentioning that while appellant reportedly had a sort of a mask and
was using sunglasses, these clumsy accouterments could not constitute the
aggravating.(PP V REYS, 118649, Mar 9, 1998)
Pp v CABATO L-37400 Apr 15, 1988
(aggravating) Likewise, the Court considers disguise as another aggravating
circumstance. The accused, together with two others, wore masks to cover their
faces. There could have been no other purpose for this but to conceal their
identities particularly for Cobato who was very much known t the offended parties.
The fact that the mask subsequently fell.

PP v CUNANAN L-30103 Jan 20, 1977

The malefactors resorted to a disguise. That circumstance did not facilitate the
consummation of the killing. Nor it was taken advantage of by the malefactors in
the assault.
Disguise, when aggravating.
> Purpose of the offender is to conceal his identity
>TO facilitate the commission of the crime
:>Offender takes advantage of the disguise.

15. Advantage be taken of superior strength or means be employed to

weaken the defense.
PP v Drew, Gr 127368 Dec 3 2001) must show that the accused were physically
stronger than the victim, and that they abused such superiority by taking advantage
of their combined strength to consummate the offense.
PP v Padilla gr 75508 jun 10 1994) 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 offended
party.

Pp v Amodia 177356 nov 20, 2008)(did not take advantage of superior strength in
numbers) To appreciate the attendant circumstance of superior strength, what
should be considered is whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined
strength in order to consummate the offense. Mere superiority
Pp v Ventura 148145046, jul 5 2004) On the contrary, this Court in a very long line
of cawses has consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly
weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of
abuse of that superiority which sex is the weapon.
Means employed to weaken the defense This means must not be of such nature
PP v DUCUSIN 30724 Aug8, 1929) The aggravating circumstance defined in article
10, no.9 of the Penal Code, that is, the employment of weans to weaken the
defense, consisting in this case, in having made the deceased intoxicated, must be
taken into account.-drink wine
16. Treachery
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means methods, or forms in the execution thereof which ten directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offender might make (pp v gidoc)
Essence of treachery
The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim
without the slightest provocation on the latters part. (gidoc)
Pp v yanson, 179195 oct 3 2011) Verily, (appealant) employed means which insured
the killing of Magan and such means assured him from the risk of Magans defense
had he made any. It must also be noted that Magan was stabbed four times in the
back and two of these wounds were the proximate cause of his death. Stabbing him
from behind is a good indication of treacher.
Treachery must be in the presence of inception.
Treachery cannot be presumed
Pp V abdulah) It is not only the central fact of a killing that must be shown beyond
reasonable doubt.
ELEMENTS OF TREACHERY

There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the
time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the
accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or
forms of attack employed by him. (VELASCO v. PP)
Not in a position to defend himself.
In this case, the victim was unarmed; and was attacked from behind and at close
range. The assailant further hid behind the window to mask his presence and
identity. (Pp. v. Dela Pena)
Means must be consciously adopted.
The suddenness and unexpectedness of the appellants attack rendered Inspector
Barte defenseless and without means of escape. There is no doubt that appellants
use of a
Small child
When an adult illegally attacks a child, treachery exists
Baluyot and Canete
If the aggressiron is continuous treachery must be present at the beginning of the
assault.
If there is an interruption in the assault, it is sufficient that treachery be present at
the moment the fatal blow was delivered. It is this interruption that gives the
accused the time to consciously and deliberately adopt the means and method of
execution.
with treachery
That Juan Angel, and not his mother, was apparently the intended victim is not
incompatible with the existence of treachery. Treachery may be taken into account
even if the victim of the attack was not the person whom the accused intended to
kill. (PP v. Trinidad)
Frontal assault.
Hence, it no longer matters that the assault was frontal since its swiftness and
unexpectedness deprived Cesario of a chance to repel it or offer any resistance in
defense of his person. (Pp v. Agacer)
17. Ignominy.
Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order, which adds disgrace and
obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime.

Means are employed or circumstances surround the act that tend to make the crime
more humiliating.
US v. De Leon
There is present also the twelfth generic circumstance of Article 10, proved by the
fact that the deceased, a land owner, was forced to kneel in front of his four
servants drawn up in line before him.
Pp v. Acaya pandanggo
The fact that the crime was committed in a public place and in the presence of
many persons did not necessarily tend to make the effects of the crime more
humiliating or put the offended party to shame.
Pp v. Siao houseboy was acquitted
It has been held that 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.
18. Unlawful entry.
When an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
Entrance through the window (Pp v. Mendiona) case of rape aggravated by
unlawful entry (window)
19. Breaking wall, roof, floor, door or window.
The breaking must be resorted as a means to the commission of the crime.
What distinguishes this from unlawful entry is that in the latter the window or point
of ingress need not be broken.
If crime unlawfully take a property from the other in a building, not aggravating.
20. Aid of persons under 15 or by means of motor vehicle, airships or
other similar means.
The motor vehicle, airship, etc., must be deliberately used in the commission of the
crime. (not enough if use only)
Espejo-go to the place, loaded property, then left (USE)
Use of vehicle to kill (qualifies murder, not agg)

Besides, it has been established during the trial that the accused used the motor
vehicle in going to the place of the crime in carrying away the effects thereof, and in
facilitating their escape. (Pp v. Espejo)
21. Cruelty.
Cruelty refers to physical suffering as compared to Ignominy which refers to moral
suffering, i.e. disgrace or shame.
Ignominy moral suffering
Cruely physical suffering (unnecessary)
Test in appreciating cruelty
whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by
causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased
the victims suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.. the culprit
enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him
moral and physical pain which is unnecessary for the consummation of the criminal
act which he intended to commit. (Pp v. Sitchon)

Art. 15. Alternative circumstances

Alternative circumstances may be considered either as aggravating or mitigating circumstances
according to the (1) nature and effects of the crime and (2) other conditions attending to its
commission.
Alternative Circumstances:
-

Relationship,
Intoxication,
Degree of instruction and education.

Relationship
-

Spouse
Ascendant
Descendant
Brother or sister
Relative by affinity

Other relatives by analogy.

-

Stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter.

Adopted parent and adopted child.

Not included
-

Uncle and niece.

Cousins.
Relationship between a step-grandniece and her step-grandfather is not one of the relatives
specifically enumerated therein.

Generally relationship is
-

Mitigating crimes against property

Aggravating crimes against persons where offended party is of a higher degree than
offender or of the same level.

Exceptions
-

In serious physical injuries relationship is aggravating no matter the degree of relationship.

In homicide or murder relationship is aggravating.
In crimes against chastity it is always aggravating.

Pp v. Orillosa
The alternative circumstance of relationship under Art. 15 of the RPC should be appreciated against
the appellant. In crimes of chastity such as acts of lasciviousness, relationship is considered as
aggravating. In as much as it was expressly alleged in the information
Pp v. Glodo
The information alleges that Maricel was only 15 yrs old at the time of the crime was committed and
that she is the daughter of appellant. However, the prosecution merely presented the oral testimony
and sworn statement of Maricel. It failed to present independent evidence proving the age of the
victim and her relationship with appellant so as to warrant the imposition of death penalty.

Relationship as element of the offense.

Parricide victim is father, mother, child, ascendant, descendant or spouse
Adultery wife
Concubinage husband
In these cases relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating.
Intoxication
Mitigating
(1) not habitual or
(2) Unintentional/ accidental/ not subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
Aggravating
(1) habitual or
(2) intentional/ subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
Mere proof that offender imbibed intoxicating liquor is not sufficient.
Although there is no hard and fast rule on the amount of liquor that the accused imbibed on that
occasion, but the test is that it must have sufficed to affect his mental faculties, to the extent of
blurring his reason and depriving him of self-control.
Absent clear and convincing proof as to appellants state of intoxication, we are unable to agree that
the alternative circumstance of intoxication was present to aggravate the offense. (pp v. inggo)
PP v Bernal> Thus, in the absence of clear and convincing proof that the intoxication was habitual or
intentional, it is improper to consider the same as an aggravating circumstance. But his intoxication
cannot likewise be considered mitigating bec failed to show
Presumption
When the accused is established to be drunk, the presumption is that it was not habitual but accidental
and, therefore, mitigating.
Degree of instruction or education
Mitigatingwhen there is lack of instruction or education. There must be lack of sufficient intelligence.
Exceptions:
-

crimes against property

crimes against chastity
murder

Aggravating when there is high degree of instruction or education when taken advantage of by
offender.
Pp v. Mangsant
Lack of instruction cannot apply to one who has studied in the first grade in a public school, but only to
him who really has not received any instruction.

Persons Criminally liable

The general rule is that an offender is criminally liable for his own actions.
When there is only one felony, he alone is criminally liable.
In case of multiple offenders, criminal liability depends on the degree and nature of participation in the
criminal act.
Concurrence/approved of the criminal act.
Article 16.Who are criminally liable
Grave and less grave felonies:
-

Principals
Accomplices (does not participate
Accessories

Light felonies:
-

Principals
Accomplices
(no accessory bec injury to the state and punishment is not worth to be processes; penalty-

Subjects in a crime.
1.
2.

Active subject (criminal)

Passive subject (injured party: private individual or the State)

Only natural persons.

-

RPC requires that a person act with malice or with negligence.

Juridical persons cannot be deprived of liberty.
Most penalties can be executed by natural persons.

Natural persons actual people

Juridical persons persons by legal fiction
Article 17. Principals
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which
it would not have been accomplished. (indispensable cooperation)
Principal by direct participation.
Requisites:
1.
2.

That they participate in the criminal resolution;

They carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end.

Conspiracy
Participating in the criminal resolution is conspiracy.

DEFINITION: Two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it.
Conspiracy not as a felony but a manner of incurring criminal liability.
Pp v. Reyes
Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among
the accused. When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and
the other performing another part as to complete the crime, with a view to the attainment of the same
object, conspiracy exists.
Conspiracy may be express or implied.
Stated otherwise, it is not essential that there be proof of the previous agreement and decision to
commit the crime; it is sufficient that the malefactors acted in concert pursuant to the same
objective.
Manner of commission of crime
Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or
inferred from the acts of the accused which show a joint or common purpose and design, a concerted
action and a community of interest among the accused. (pp v. Sicad)
Indicators of conspiracy
-

Spontaneous agreement
Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
Contributing positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent
Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support
Knowing the plan and accepting the role assigned and actually performing that role.

Where there is no conspiracy.

Mere silence does not make one a conspirator (Pp v. Gensola)
Mere companionship is not conspiracy. (pp v. padrones)
When there is no conspiracy, each is liable for his own act.
Pp v. enriquez
if a number of persons agree to commit, and enter upon the commission of a crime which will
probably endanger human life such as robbery, all of them are responsible for the death of a person
that ensues as a consequence
Not the object of the conspiracy/necessary or logical consequence of the crime intended.
-

In Umali case (96 Phil 185) robbery is not included/necessary or logical consequence of
sedition;
Where the conspiracy specifically targeted one and only one person, the killing of others would
not affect the conspirators. (De laCerna)

Some rules in conspiracy.

Conspiracy alone does not result in criminal liability (Timbol)

Participation in the criminal resolution must either be before or simultaneous with the criminal act.
(A principal cannot commit an act after commission of the crime)
Applicable only in crimes committed by means of dolo.
2nd requisite.They carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end.
He must be at the scene of the crime personally taking part in its execution.
It is sufficient that the act performed directly tends to accomplish the intended crime.
Ex: holding down the victim in murder or rape; acting as a lookout/guard.
Those who directly force or induce others to commit it. (Principal by Inducement)
1.
2.
-

Directly forcing another to commit a crime;

Using irresistible force;
Causing uncontrollable fear.
Directly inducing another to commit a crime.
Giving price or offering reward or promise
Using words of command.

Requisites of a principal by inducement:

1.
2.

Inducement with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime.

Inducement is the determining cause of the commission of the crime. (without inducement,
crime would not have been committed)

1st Requisite.Intention.
Clear intention to procure the commission of the crime.
In Otadora the promise of pecuniary gain (money and carabaos) and supplying the gun to use in the
commission of the crime.
In Alcontin, the promise of living together once the husband of the inducer is killed.
Does not include
-

Thoughtless expressions;
Imprudent advice;

2nd Requisite. Determining cause.

Must be of such a nature that without it the crime would not have been committed.
*any evidence of the motive would usual negate the inducement of the probable cause. Any doubt is
resolved in favor of the accused.
It must:
1.
2.

Precede the act induced, and

Influential.

Requisites: Words of Command (When would you become a principal by command?)

*in situations where there is complete and actual (evidence?)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Intention to procure commission of crime.

Inducer must have ascendancy or influence.
Words must be direct, so efficacious, so powerful as to amount to physical coercion.
Uttered prior to the commission of the crime.
Material executor has no personal reason to commit the crime.

Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it
would not have been accomplished. (Principal by indispensable cooperation)
Requisites:
1.
2.

Participation in criminal resolution. (they are part of the conspiracy)

Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, w/o w/c it would not
have been accomplished.

Cooperation
-

Cooperation implies that there is a desire or wish in common.

Another act the act must be different from the acts of the principal by direct participation.
The act must not involve the material execution of the offense.

Ex. Dragging a girl to a place where she is to be raped (but person left after bringing the girl
before the actual rape was committed); certifying a check to facilitate estafa .
Three types of principals.
-

Even in case of conspiracy, to be liable as a principal one must fall under any of the three
concepts in Art. 17.
In such case, we apply our ruling in pp v. ubina where we held that when an accused does not
fall under any of the three concepts defined in Article 17 of the RPC, he may only be
considered guilty as an accomplice. (PP v. Carriaga)

Article 18. Accomplices

1.
2.
3.

Cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts

Not a principal
No conspiracy

*there must be concurrence.

Conspirator v. Accomplice
Conspirators and accomplices know and agree in the criminal design.
Conspirators participate in the criminal resolution, accomplices concur in the criminal design.
(There is knowledge and concurrence. Without knowledge, no concurrence. If you dont know of the
criminal itent, you cant be an accomplice.)
Requisites
1.
2.
3.

Community of design
Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts.
Relation between acts of principal and accomplice.

1st requisite.Community of design.

Community of design requires knowledge and concurrence of the criminal design.

Prior to the commission of the act.

Knowledge of a crime different from that actually committed. As long as it is a natural consequence of
the crime intended, an accomplice is liable.
*ex. A jailguard who allows inmates to go outside if he does not know that inmates may commit
crime outside, he is not an accomplice.
*If it is a natural concurrence of whatever criminal intent, then he is still liable as an accomplice even if
it is not the intended crime (Doctrine of Approximate Cause)
2nd requisite.Cooperation by previous or simultaneous acts.
-

The acts of the accomplice must not be indispensable o/w he is a principal

The act must not be due to conspiracy

3rd requisite.Relation between acts of principal and accomplice.

-

The act of the accomplice must have a relation with the act of the principal.

Liable for different crimes.

A attacks B with treachery. Later C and D arrive and take part in killing B.
A Principal in Murder.
C and D Accomplices in Homicide.
*No conspiracy, no knowledge as to the manner A attacked B.

Article 19.Accessories.
(he performs acts after the commission of the crime)
Knowledge in the commission of the crime, not being principals or accomplices, take subsequent part
in its commission by:
1.
2.

3.

Profiting or assisting the accused to profit; (ikay mudawat sa kinawat. You buy or you sell the
stolen one)
Concealing or destroying the body of the crime or its effects/instruments to prevent its
discovery. (not limited to cases when there is a body of a person. Body is the totality of
evidence that will establish the crime corpus delicTE
Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape. With respect to:

Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal. (accessory if:)

1.
2.

Public officer who abuses his public function (any crime)

Private person (treason, parricide, murder attempt against the life of the President, Habitually
guilty of some other crime.)

Accessories
To convict an accused as an accessory, the following elements must be proven: (1) the knowledge of
the commission of the crime and (2) subsequent participation in it by any of the three above-cited
modes. (PP v Wilfredo Tolentino GR. 139179 Apr 3, 2002)

Fencing limited to robbery and theft. (One person to be considered as principal)

*Cant charge with both principal or as an accessory, so choose. In real life, vulnerable are junkshops
and secondhand stores
PENALTIES
Article 22.Retroactive effect of penal laws.
The general rule is that penal laws have prospective effect.
They can only be given retroactive effect if:
1.
2.

It is favorable to the accused , and

The accused is not a habitual criminal.

Prospective effect of penal laws

Applicable to all penal laws.
This rule is applicable even for those serving sentence by final judgment.
Habitual criminal is one who
1.
2.
3.
4.

Within a period of 10 years;

From the date of the last conviction or release;
Of the crimes of serious and less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification;
Is found guilty of any said crimes a 3rd time or oftener. (art. 62, par. 5)

Jurisdiction of the courts

-

It is the law at the time of the institution of the action that determines the jurisdiction of courts
Jurisdiction of the courts is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.

Art. 23. Pardon by the offended party.

-

Pardon by the offended party does not affect the criminal action. Civil liability may be
expressly waived by the offended party.
The exception under art. 344 of the RPC must be made before the institution of the criminal
action.

*whenever a crime is committed, the state is always the injured party. there are crimes where
state is injured, with a private offended party/ private complainant
*in theft, state is public offended party, interested in punishing on the person who committed the
crime.
*technically, a private offenders rights cannot be waived. In practice, if the offended is no longer
willing, criminal prosecution is no longer done. But, use the rule not whats in practice bec BAR
*If rape, however, civil and criminal liabilities are to be pardoned.
Article 25.Penalties which may be imposed
. (list. If not in A25, cant be imposed or punishable in RPC)
Art. 25 is a classification of penalties as to principal or accessory penalties.

This is also a list of the penalties that may be imposed in the RPC.

*RA 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty. The penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed in lieu of death.
Art. 26. Fine when afflictive, correctional or light penalty
Less than 6 yrs mtc
Exceeding 6 yrs rtc
Involving penalty only:
Afflictive Penalty exceeds P6, 000.00
Correctional Penalty does not exceed P6,000.00 but is not less than 200.00.
Light Penalty less than 200.00.
Only if penalty is a fine. If imprisonment and fine, imprisonment will determine the fine.
*This classification should not be confused with Art. 9, which classifies felonies.
Article 27.Duration of penalties.
The amendment giving a duration to reclusion perpetua (20y and 1d to 40y) did not mean that it has
reclassified as a divisible penalty. It remains an indivisible penalty. (Pp v. Lucas)
*you will not be required to memorize how many years (unless you want to be a warden. Heh.)
Article 28.Computation of penalties.
-

If theoffender is in prison, the temporary penalty judgment of conviction becomes

final.
If the offender is not in prison, the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty offender is
placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities.
Duration of other penalties from the day on w/c the defendant commences to serve his
sentence.

Article 29.Preventive detention.

No bail is recommended for murder. Although you are not yet proven guilty, you are to be arrested and
be in jail during trial.
Period of preventive suspension credited fully in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty if the detention prisoner agrees in writing to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed on convicted prisoners.
Exceptions
-

Recidivists and those convicted previously 2 or 3 items of any crime, and

Those who fail to surrender voluntarily when summoned from execution.

Rules
-

If the detention prisoner does not abide by the rules imposed on convicts, he will be credited in
the service of his sentence with 4/5 of the period of preventive detention.

If the detention prisoner has been in detention 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 terminated, he shall be released immediately.
In case, the possible penalty is destierro, he shall be released after 30 days of preventive
imprisonment.
Preventive imprisonment for Reclusion Perpetue 30 years (As amended by RA 10592)

Article 36.Pardon. (by the state)

Pardon remits the principal penalty but not the accessory penalty, unless the pardon expressly
provides otherwise.
Exception: when pardon is granted after the principal penalty has been fully executed.
*each penalty has its own accessory penalty, still attached as it is still possible to be (commuted?) The
accessory always follows the principal.
It is the Chief Executive who pardons.
Pardon
By Chief Executive (to the accessory)
- Extinguishes criminal liability
- Cannot include civil liability
- Given after conviction
By offended party
-

Does not extinguish criminal liability

Offended party can waive civil liability
Given before institution of criminal prosecution (Except: Rape)

Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities order of payment

*Pecuniary something that can be legally tendered; estimated through Peso.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Reparation of damage caused; restitution

Indemnification of consequential damages; use commonly on crimes against persons
Fine;
Cost of proceedings.

*This article is applicable only when the property of the convict is not sufficient to pay all the pecuniary
liabilities.
Art. 39. Subsidiary penalty.
Not an accessory. If the judge does not provide in the decision that subsidiary penalty is to be imposed,
cannot impose. It shall be specifically stated that SP is to be imposed.
If you cant pay the fine, fine will be converted into days.
Under the RPC, subsidiary imprisonment is an additional penalty consisting of imprisonment for a
convict who has no property to pay the fine at the rate of one day for each amount equivalent to the
highest minimum wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the time of the rendition of
judgment of conviction by the trial court (RA. 10159)

Rules under the RPC

-

If prison correccional or arresto and fine subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 1/3 of the
term of sentence and in no case exceed 1 year.
If penalty is only fine subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed 6 months if prosecuted for
grave or less grave;and not to exceed 15 days if for a light felony.
If penalty imposed is higher than prison correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment.

Rules in special laws

-

If court imposes a fine shall not exceed 6 months

If both imprisonment and fine shall not exceed 1/3 of the term of imprisonment and in no
case exceed 1 year
In case imprisonment for more than 6 years and fine no subsidiary imprisonment

Art. 45. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and instruments and tools
in the commission of the crime.
-

Every penalty presupposes that this is an accessory penalty.

The confiscation or forfeiture is in favor of the government.
If a third person owns the property and is not liable for the offense, the property cannot be
confiscated or forfeited in favor of the government.
If the property is not subject of lawful commerce, it shall be destroyed regardless of whether it
belongs to the accused or a third person.

Cellphone lawful ownership; shabu outside legal commerce of men; unlicensed firearm outside
Rules
-

There must be a criminal case otherwise no penalty can be imposed.

If the property belongs to a person not included in the charge, the court cannot order the
confiscation/forfeiture of the property.
If the property was not submitted to the court in evidence, said property cannot be
confiscated.

PDEA v. Brodett (196390)

Art. 45 of the RPC bars the confiscation and forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the commission
of the crime if such be the property of a third person not liable for the offense.
-vehicle owned by mother not liable for the crime; only an allegation that it was used for taking the
drugs
Release of property
Property seized must be returned to the person from whom it was taken or to person who is entitled to
its possession:
-

No criminal prosecution
Unreasonable prosecution

*upon the termination of the case

Art. 46. Penalties to be imposed on principals in general.
-

The penalties provided for in the RPC are the penalties imposed on principals for the
consummated felony.

There are, however, certain provisions where a penalty is provided for a frustrated stage or
attempted stage of a felony.

Generally, penalties for book 2 are penalties for general?

Art. 47. When death penalty imposed.
Must be imposed in all cases under existing laws.
Except:
-

Below 18 years of age;

More than 70 years of age;
Required majority in SC is not obtained.

Pp v. Mateo
If only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment is imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a
review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.
Art. 48 Complex crimes.
In complex crimes at least two crimes are committed but they constitute only one crime, as only one
penalty is imposed upon the offender. This is intended to benefit the offender who is, in the eyes of the
law, less criminally perverse than one who commits two or more separate and independent
crimes.
Less criminally perverse Two kinds of complex crimes:
-

Compound crime a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. Ex;
throwing a hand grenade at a group of people causing death or injuries to several in the group.
Complex crime proper one offense is a necessary means for committing the other. Ex;
falsifying cedulas so as to collect the fees from persons to whom they are issued.
(malversation or estafa, depending on the nature of the crime)

Compound crime.
Requisites:
1.
2.

One single act.

The single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonies.

Ivler v Modesto-San Pedro A48 does not apply to acts penalized under article 365 of the RPC.
(ONLY IN DOLO, NOT CULPA)
Hence, we hold that prosecutions under A365 should proceed from a single charge regardless
of the number of severity of the consequences. X x x In short, there shall be no spiltting charges under
365.
One single act.
-

Throwing a hand grenade into a group of people is a single act.

Placing a bomb in an airplane is a single act.
Firing a gun once is a single act.

(You should know the specific mechanism of a specific weapon)

Two or more grave or less grave felonies.
In case the single act produces light felonies they are either treated as:
-

Separate offenses; or
Absorbed. The rule that light felonies are absorbed should only be applied when there is only
one victim.

Pp v. de los Santos
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
information should have, therefore, been filed.
Several offenders and several victims
Where there are several offenders and it cannot be ascertained who among them killed the several
deceased, there is only one crime committed. This ruling should only be applied when it cannot
be ascertained who among the offenders killed the victims (Sanidad, April 30, 2003; Lawas,
June 30, 1955; Abella, Aug 31, 1979)
Complex crime proper.
Requisites:
1.
2.
3.

At least two offenses;

One or some must be a necessary means to commit the other;
Both offenses must be punished under the same statute.

RPC. You cant have a CCP if one is punishable by a special penal law
At least two offenses.
-

Falsification as a means to commit malversation (barbas; issuance of cedula)

Usurpation of official functions as a means to commit simple seduction.

Necessary means
Necessary does not mean indispensable otherwise the offense would be considered as an element of
the offense and the result would be one felony committed.
The other crime must be a means to commit not to conceal. If the other crime is used to conceal the
other, they are separate offenses.
(Committing a crime to conceal the malversation two different offences)
Applicability of Art. 48.
Art. 48 is applicable only when the RPC does not provide a specific penalty for a Special Complex
Crime. Ex: Kidnapping with Murder or Homicide, Robbery with Homicide, Rape with Homicide.
Forcible Abduction with Rape.

The abduction is a necessary means to commit rape. This should only be applied to the first rape. If
subsequent rapes are committed, they are separate felonies, since the abduction was no longer
necessary for their commission.
The crime is consummated by the time she is taken from the place she was.
Penalty for complex crime (meant to favor the accused)
The penalty is for the most serious crime committed to be applied in its maximum period.
(favorable to the accused as he is to commit only one crime.
Continued crime.
A continued, continuing or continuous crime is not specifically provided for in the RPC. The principles
on continued crime is based on a single criminal impulse and should result in one criminal liability.
The difference in Dela Cruz and Enguero case, is that:

In Dela Cruz there was evidence that there was a general plan to commit robbery in the
vicinity of the eight households.
In Enguero no such evidence was presented.

Art. 49. Penalty when crime different from that intended.

-

This article is only applicable in error in personae.

In Aberratio ictus, two crimes are committed, therefore, Art. 48 (complex crimes) is
applicable;
In Praeterintentionem, the offender is liable for the crime actually committed.

Rules
-

Rule 1
Penalty for felony committed is higher than penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony with
lower penalty imposed in maximum.
Rule 2
Penalty for felony committed is lower than penalty for felony intended: Penalty for felony with
lower penalty imposed in maximum.

Art. 50-57
-

Rules in determining the imposable penalties for accomplices and accessories of frustrated and
attempted felonies.
Degree is one entire penalty.
Period is one of the three equal portions of a divisible penalty.
A period when prescribed by the RPC as a penalty for a felony is considered a degree.

Accomplice one degree lower than principal

Accessory two degrees lower than principal

Art. 60. Exceptions.

-

The rules in Art. 50-57 are not applicable where the law specifically provides for a penalty for a
frustrated or attempted stage of a felony or specifically provides for the penalty of an
accomplices or accessory.

Art. 61.Rules for graduating penalties

Basis for graduation of penalties is the scale in Art. 71.
-

Death
Rec Perp
Rec Temp
Pr Mayor
PrCorr
Arr mayor
Destierro
ArrMenor
Public Censure
Fine

1st Rule. Single and indivisible

The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following.
Death
Reclusion Perpetua penalty
Reclusion Temporal penalty next lower in degree
2nd Rule.Two indivisible penalties or one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their
full extent.
The penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the lesser of the penalties
prescribed.
Two indivisible:
Death

--------- Parricide

Reclusion Perpetua

Reclusion Temporal penalty next lower in degree

2nd rule.One or more divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent.
One divisible penalty to be imposed to its full extent.
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal

- penalty

Prision Mayor

- penalty next lower in degree

Two divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent.

Prision Mayor

------ penalty

Prision Correccional

Arresto Mayor

- penalty next lower in degree

3rd Rule. One or two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of another divisible
penalty
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the medium and minimum periods of the
proper divisible penalty and the maximum period of that immediately following.
Death
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal (max)
Reclusion Temporal (med)
Reclusion Temporal (min)
Prision Mayor (max)

- ------penalty
- ------penalty next lower in degree
-

Prision Mayor (med)

Prision Minor (min)
4th Rule. Penalty is composed of several periods (at least 3).
The penalty next lower in degree shall be composed of the period immediately following the minimum
prescribed and of the two next following either from the penalty prescribed or the penalty immediately
following.
Rec Temp

Max
- Med
- Min
-Max

Pr May

- Med -------- penalty

- Min

PrCorr

- Max -------- penalty next lower in degree

-Med
- Min

5th Rule. Not specially provided for in Rules 1-4.

Proceed by analogy.
-

If the penalty consists of two periods, the penalty next lower in degree is the penalty consisting
of two periods immediately down the scale.
If the penalty consists only of one period, the penalty next lower in degree is the next period
immediately down the scale.

Art. 62. Application of mitigating, aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency.

1st Rule.Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute the crime or are included by law in
defining the crime No effect.
By means of fire not taken into consideration in arson.

Dwelling in robbery with force upon things.

Abuse of confidence in qualified theft.
Taking advantage of public position and committed by a syndicate Maximum regardless of mitigating
circumstances.
Syndicate two or more persons.
Art. 62. Par. 2. Inherent.
When the aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime No effect.
Evident premeditation in robbery and theft.
Art. 62. Par. 3. Circumstances relating to the persons participating in the crime.
1.
2.
3.

Moral attributes of the offender.

Ex:
Evident premeditation (aggravating)
Passion or obfuscation (mitigating)
Private relations of offender and offended party
Ex:
relationships, e.g., father and son
Any other personal cause
Ex:
minority
Insanity
recidivism

In these three instances the aggravating or mitigating circumstance shall affect only those to whom
such circumstance is present.
Art. 62. Par. 4. Circumstances consisting in the material execution of the crime.
Material execution treachery
Means employed poison, fire, etc.
Affects only those who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein.
Art. 62. Par. 5. Habitual Delinquency
Rules on Habitual delinquency
-

Refers only to certain crimes: serious and less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa
and falsification.
It results in an additional penalty not merely an increase in the penalty.
The additional penalty is imposed upon a third conviction.
The 10 years shall always be computed from the last conviction or release.
The subsequent crimes must be committed after conviction.

Art. 63. Indivisible penalties

Single indivisible imposed regardless of the presence of circumstances
Two indivisible penalties
-

One aggravating greater penalty

No mitigating no aggravating lesser penalty
Some mitigating no aggravating lesser penalty

Both offset according to number and importance.

Art 64. Penalties which contain three periods.

Rule 1. No aggravating and no mitigating medium period
Rule 2. Only a mitigating minimum
Rule 3. Only an aggravating maximum
Rule 4. When there are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances the court shall offset those of
one class against the other.
Two or more mitigating and no aggravating
Rule 5.Two or more mitigating and no aggravating circumstance penalty next lower in degree
intheperiod applicable according to the number and nature of circumstance.This is called a
privileged mitigating circumstance.
The mitigating circumstance that constitutes the privilege mitigating circumstance can no longer be
considered in determining the imposable period.
Art. 65. Dividing penalties (divisible) into three equal portions.
Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its entirety by ascertaining the minimum and
maximum.
Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty prescribed by subtracting the minimum from the
maximum. The minimum subtracted from must not include the 1 day.
Step 3. The difference should be divided into three equal portions.
Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day)is the minimum of the minimum period. Add the quotient to
the minimum and you have the maximum of your minimum period.
Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period and you have the minimum of the medium
period. Add the quotient to the minimum (without including the one day) and you have the maximum
of the medium period of the penalty.
Step 6. Add 1 day to the maximum of the medium and you have the minimum of the maximum period
of the penalty. Add the quotient to the minimum (without including the one day) and you have the
maximum of the maximum period of the penalty.
Prisioncorreccional medium and maximum
Step 1. Determine the duration of the penalty in its entirety by ascertaining the minimum and
maximum.
2 years 4 months and 1 day to 6 years
Step 2. Determine the time included in the penalty prescribed by subtracting the minimum from the
maximum. The minimum subtracted from must not include the 1 day.
6 years
-

5 years 12 months
Or
2 years 4 months

2 years 4 months

___________________ _______________
3 years 8 months
Step 3. The difference should be divided into three euql portions.
1 year 2 months 20 days
_____________________
3 ) 3 years 8 months
3 years 6 months
____
Step 4. The minimum (including the 1 day) is the minimum of the minimum period. Add the quotient to
the minimum and you have the maximum of your minimum period.
2 years 4 months
+
1 year 2 months 20 days
3 years 6 months 20 days
Step 5. Add 1 day to the maximum of the minimum period and you have the minimum of the medium
period. Add the quotient to the maximum and you have the maximum of your maximum period.

Art. 66. Imposition of fines.

Wealth or means of the culprit is the primary consideration.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall also be considered.
Art. 67. Penalty when accident is present.
Accident is an exempting circumstance under art. 12, paragraph 4. If not all elements are present then
the offender is punished in the same manner as a person liable for reckless imprudence under art. 365.
Art. 68. Penalty upon a person under 18.
RA 9344
15 years and under no criminal liability (intervention)
Above 15 below 18 exempt unless acting with discernment (diversion)
Art. 69. Crime not wholly excusable.
Some of the elemets of a justifying or exempting circumstance are present.
Majority.
One or two degrees lower. Privileged mitigating circumstance.

Art. 70. Service of sentence.

Simultaneous if the nature of the penalties allow otherwise the penalties must be served successively.
Disqualification, suspension, destierro, censure, civil interdiction, confiscation, and costs are penalties
that may be served simultaneously.
Penalty of imprisonment
Multiple penalties consisting of imprisonment have to be served successively.
The order of severity in Art. 71 must be observed. The most severe must be served first.
Three-fold rule
A convicts sentence shall not exceed more than three times the length of time corresponding to the
most severe of the penalties imposed on him.
Shall not exceed 40 years.
Does not preclude the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment.
Art. 71. Graduation of penalties
Under art. 9346 death has been effectively eliminated from the list of imposable penalties under Art.
71.
This affects not only the consummated stage and the principals but also for the frustrated and
attempted stage as well with respect
Art. 72-74
Art 72. Satisfaction of civil liability is based on the chronological order that they are imposed.
Art 73. Accessory penalties under Arts 40-45 are deemed imposed.
Art 75. Increasing or decreasing fine by one or more degrees.
Fines are increased or decreased by one-fourth (1/4) of the maximum.
There must be a minimum and a maximum for this article to be applicable.
Only the maximum is increased or decreased, the minimum is never changed.
Increasing or decreasing the fine.
Fine of P200-P2,000
of P2,000 = P500
One degree lower would be a fine of P200-P1,500
Two degrees lower would be a fine of P200,P1,000
Art. 76. Legal periods of divisible penalties
The intention of the law is to give the three periods of a penalty equal or uniform duration due to the
ff:

Equal and uniform durations.

Does not require that they be used even when the periods of a prescribed penalty correspond
to different divisible penalties.
Will result in the periods not being of equal and uniform duration.

Arresto Mayor does not follow the general rule.

Minimum 1mo 1 day to 2months
Medium- 2mos 1 day to 4 mos
Maximum 4 mos 1 day to 6 mos
Indeterminate Sentence Law
A penalty with a minimum and a maximum instead of a straight penalty.
Authorizes the release of a convict after having served the minimum of his sentence.
Temp Pr. May Medium Pr. Corr Maximum Arr. May ISL does not apply
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Convicted; death or life imprisonment

Convicted; of treason, conspraicy or proposal to commit treason
Convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, or espionage
Convicted of piracy
Habitual delinquents
Escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
Violated the terms of the conditional pardon
Imprisonment; maximum does not exceed 1 year
Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of the law

Destierro or suspension.