Criminal Law 1 Reviewer Bar 2021

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
SYLLABUS BASED (BAR 2021)
I. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
o Definition:
Criminal Law is a branch or division of law which defines crimes,
treats of their nature and provides for their punishment.
It is also an enactment of the legislature which prohibits certain acts

and establishes penalties for their violations (Lacson vs Executive
Secretary, GR No 128096, Jan. 20, 1999)
While it is true that the enactment of penal law or criminal law is

primarily vested in Congress, such power is not absolute. It is still govern
by several limitations. These are the following:
- It must be general in application;
- It must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law;
- It must not partake of the nature of a bill of attainder; and
- It must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive
fines.
1. Mala in se and mala prohibita

The sources of criminal law are the Revised Penal Code and
Special Penal Laws.
Traditionally, violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to

as malum in se, which literally means that the act is inherently evil or bad
or per se wrongful. Contrary thereto, violations of special penal laws are
generally referred to as malum prohibitum.
In general, mala in se and mala prohibita are distinguished as

follows:
- As to basis, mala in se considers the moral state of the offender
while mala prohibita considers the voluntariness of the offender;
- As to nature, mala in se are wrong from their very nature while
mala prohibita are wrong because they are prohibited by law;
- As to intent as an element, intent is an element in mala in se
while criminal intent in mala prohibita is immaterial;
1|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

- As to use of good faith as a defense, good faith in mala in se is
a valid defense (unless the crime is a result of culpa) while in
mala prohibita, good faith is not a defense;
- As to modifying circumstances, mala in se takes into account
the modifying circumstances in imposing the penalty while in
mala prohibita, modifying circumstances are not considered
because the law intends to discourage the commission of the
act being prohibited.
Note however that not all violations of special laws are mala
prohibita. While intentional felonies are always mala in se, it does not
follow that prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala
prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if the act is
one which is inherently wrong, the same is malum in se and therefore,
good faith and the lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, unless, it is a
product of criminal negligence or culpa. Likewise, when the special law
requires that the punished act be committed knowingly and wilfully,
criminal intent is required to be proven before criminal liability may arise.
2. Scope and characteristics

a. Generality
A general characteristic of criminal law simply means that penal
laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine
territory.
This characteristic admits various exceptions, as follows:

- Treaty Stipulations
- Principles of Public International Law
▪ Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
▪ Warship Rule – warship of another country even
though docked in the Philippines is considered as an
extension of the territory of their respective country.
- Laws on Preferential Application – e.g. exemptions of
ambassadors and public ministers as well as their domestic
servants from suits while they are in the performance of their
duties; provisions of bigamy under Muslim law.
b. Territoriality
This principle denotes that penal laws of the Philippines are
enforceable only within its territory.

Like any other rule, territoriality principle allows exceptions
commonly referred to as extraterritoriality principle embodied in Article
2 of the RPC. In here, Philippines has jurisdiction over crimes provided
by law even committed outside the territory.
ARTICLE 2. Application of Its Provisions. — Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced
not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also
outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of
the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued
by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction
into these islands of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code.
Moreover, there are two relative principles under this scope namely
French Rule and English Rule. These rules will govern as to
conferment of jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant
vessels while in the territorial waters of another country. In French
Rule, crimes are not triable in the courts of the coastal state unless
their commission affects that peace and security of the territory or the
safety of the state is endangered. Here, the nationality of the ship is
emphasized. (US vs Bull, GR No. 5270, Jan 15, 1910). On the other
hand, under English Rule, crimes are triable in the courts of the
coastal state, unless they are merely affect things within the vessel or
they refere to the internal management thereof. Here, territoriality is
greatly considered. (People vs Wong Cheng, GR No. L-18924, Oct. 19,
1922).
c. Prospectivity
In accordance with this principle, crimes are punished under the
laws in force at the time of their commission. Moreover, no ex post
facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Nota Bene: BILL OF
ATTAINDER is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial

while EX POST FACTO LAW is one which punishes an act as a crime
which was innocent at the time of its commission)
3. Pro Reo Principle

“In dubio pro reo” means “when in doubt, for the accused.” It is a
doctrine under the RPC which refers to the interpretation favourable to the
accused where a law admits several interpretations (People vs Comadre,
GR No. 152559, June 8, 2004)
4. Interpretation of penal laws

There are other principles governing interpretation of penal laws.
These are the following:
a. Rule of Lenity
This rule is sometimes referred to as the rule on strict construction.
It applies when the court is forced with two possible interpretations of
a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that
is favourable to him. The rule calls for the adoption of an interpretation
which is more lenient to the accused (Intestate Estate of Vda de
Carungcong vs People, GR No. 181409, Feb 11, 2010)
b. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lige.

This latin maxim simply means “there is no crime when there is no
law punishing it.” This rule will only hold water in civil law countries but
not in common law countries. By virtue of this maxim, there is no
common law crime in the Philippines. No matter how wrongful, evil or
bad the act is, if there is no law defining the act, the same is not
considered a crime.
c. Equipoise Rule
The rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is
evenly balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the
scales in favour of the accused. Where the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which
is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test of
moral certainty and is not sufficient to support conviction (People vs
Lanurias, GR No. 207662, Apr 13, 2016).

5. Retroactive effect of penal laws
Generally, criminal laws must be prospectively applies. It must be
noted however that there are several instances where penal laws can be
applied retroactively. These are the following:
a. When the new law is favourable to the accused, provided that
the new law does not expressly made inapplicable to pending
action or existing causes of action or the offender is not a
habitual delinquent.
b. When the new law decriminalizes an act.
c. When the new law expressly provides for its retroactivity.
EXERCISES:
1. Abdulgaffar, a muslim fellow hailed from Jolo, Sulu, is legally married with Sarah,
a Roman Catholic female from Dipolog City. Sarah went to Singapore and there
he met Dirk, a Filipino citizen and a Roman Catholic individual. They fall in love
with each other and they have contracted marriage in Singapore. Is Sarah and
Dirk criminally liable for Bigamy?
2. While in Hong Kong, Lito, Bong and Rudy have manufactured 1000 Peso bill,
Philippine Currency. They were arrested by the joint elements of Interpol Asia
and Hong Kong Police. Philippine government file a case against them. Is the
Republic of the Philippines correct?
3. Fe is an OFW in Taiwan. Thereat, she posted in her FB account calling all

Filipinos in the Philippines to rise publicly for the purpose of ousting President
Duterte. Department of Foreign Affairs in response acted for her deportation.
After which, she was prosecuted in Philippine courts for Inciting to Sedition.
Accordingly, Philippine courts has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 2 of the
Revised Penal Code. Is she criminally liable?

B. FELONIES
o Definition: Felonies are acts or omissions punishable by the RPC.
o Elements:
- There must be an act or omission (there must be external acts);
- The act or omission must be punishable by the RPC; and
- The act is performed or the omission is incurred by means of
dolo (malice) or culpa (fault) (People vs Gonzales, GR No
80762, Mar 19, 1990)
1. CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
a. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
o Felonies according to Manner of Commission:
- Intentional Felonies
- Culpable Felonies
o Felonies according to Gravity or Penalty Prescribed:

- Grave Felonies – those which the law attaches the capital
punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are
afflictive under Article 25, RPC;
- Less Grave Felonies – those which the law punishes with
penalties which in their maximum period are correctional under
Article 25, RPC; and
- Light Felonies – those infractions of law for which the penalty
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding forty thousand
(P40,000.00) pesos or both is prescribe (RPC, Art. 9, as
amended by RA 10951, Sec 1)
b. ABERRATIO ICTUS, ERROR IN PERSONAE, and PRAETER

INTENTIONEM
o Article 4 (1), RPC: Criminal liability shall be incurred (1) By any

person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be
different from that which he intended.
Requisites for Art 4 (1) to apply:

- The accused must be committing a felony;
- The felony must be intentional;
- The felony committed by the accused should be the proximate
cause of the resulting injury (US vs Brobst, GR No. L-4935, Oct
25, 1909)

o Aberration Ictus (Mistake in the Blow):
It is committed when an offender who intends to injure a
person, instead injures another whom he had no intention to injure,
due to a mistake in the execution of the attack.
In aberratio ictus, a person directed the blow at an intended
victim, but because of poor aim, that blow landed on somebody
else. In aberratio ictus, the intended victim as well as the actual
victim is both at the scene of the crime.
This generally gives rise to a complex crime. For this reason,
the penalty for the graver offense shall be imposed in its maximum
period pursuant to Article 48, RPC.
o Error in Personae:
This fact exists when a crime intended against a person is
committed upon another because the offender mistook the latter’s
identity as that of the former.
Here, the penalty to be imposed shall be governed by Article
49, RPC. Said provision provides that if the penalty for the intended
crime is lesser than the penalty for the crime actually committed,
the penalty of the intended crime shall be imposed in its maximum
period. On the other hand, if the penalty for the crime intended is
greater than the penalty for the crime actually committed, the
penalty for the crime actually committed shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
o Praeter Intentionem:
This means unintentional and is committed when an injury
resulting from an act is greater than the injury intended to be
caused by the offender.
This circumstance is considered as a mitigating
circumstance under Article 13 (3) of the RPC (No intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed.)
o Mistake of Fact:
It is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who
caused injury to another. Mistake of fact is a valid defense to
exonerate the accused from criminal liability. On the other hand,
mistake of law is not a defense to absolve criminal liability.

Requisites of Mistake of Fact:
- That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as
the accused believed them to be;
- Intention of the accused is lawful;
- Mistake must be without fault of carelessness on the part of the
accused.
In the most famous case of US vs Achong, GR No. L-5272,

March 19, 1910, Ah Chong being afraid of bad elements, locked
himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. After having
gone to bed, he was awakened by somebody who was trying to
open the door. He asked the identity of the person, but he did not
receive a response. Fearing that this intruder was a robber, he
leaped out of bed and said that he will kill the intruder should he
attempt to enter. At that moment, the chair struck him. Believing
that he was attacked, he seized a knife and fatally wounded the
intruder.
Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would

have been intentional or through dolo, but not when the felony is a
result of culpa. When the felony is a product of culpa, do not
discuss mistake of fact.
o Doctrine of Proximate Cause – such adequate and efficient cause

as, in the natural order of events, and under the particular
circumstances surrounding the case, which would necessarily
produce the event.
Requisites:
- the direct, natural, and logical cause
- produces the injury or damage
- unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause
- without which the result would not have occurred
Proximate Cause is negated by:

- Active force, distinct act, or fact absolutely foreign from the
felonious act of the accused, which serves as a sufficient
intervening cause.
- Resulting injury or damage is due to the intentional act of
the victim.
Proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to

actually touch the body of the offended party. It is enough that the
offender generated in the mind of the offended party the belief that
made him risk himself.

Where there has been an injury inflicted sufficient to produce
death followed by the demise of the person, the presumption arises
that the injury was the cause of the death. Provided: (1) victim was
in normal health and (2) death ensued within a reasonable time
The one who caused the proximate cause is the one liable.
The one who caused the immediate cause is also liable, but merely
contributory or sometimes totally not liable.
c. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
o Article 4 (2), RPC: Criminal liability shall be incurred (2) By any
person performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were in not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
Requisites of Impossible Crime:

- Act would have been an offense against persons or property
- Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code
or of a special penal law
- There was criminal intent
- Accomplishment was inherently impossible; or inadequate or
ineffectual means were employed.
Notes:
1. Offender must believe that he can consummate the intended
crime, a man stabbing another who he knew was already
dead cannot be liable for an impossible crime.
2. The law intends to punish the criminal intent.
3. There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
• Felonies against persons: parricide, murder, homicide,
infanticide, physical injuries, etc.
• Felonies against property: robbery, theft, usurpation,
swindling, etc.
• Inherent impossibility: A thought that B was just sleeping. B
was already dead. A shot B. A is liable. If A knew that B is
dead and he still shot him, then A is not liable.
When we say inherent impossibility, this means that under
any and all circumstances, the crime could not have
materialized. If the crime could have materialized under a
different set of facts, employing the same mean or the same
act, it is not an impossible crime; it would be an attempted
felony.

• Employment of inadequate means: A used poison to kill B.
However, B survived because A used small quantities of
poison – frustrated murder.
• Ineffectual means: A aimed his gun at B. When he fired the
gun, no bullet came out because the gun was empty. A is
liable.
Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts

suggest that an impossible crime was committed, be careful about the
question asked. If the question asked is: “Is an impossible crime
committed?”, then you judge that question on the basis of the facts. If
really the facts constitute an impossible crime, then you suggest that
an impossible crime is committed, then you state the reason for the
inherent impossibility.
If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”,

this is a catching question. Even though the facts constitute an
impossible crime, if the act done by the offender constitutes some
other crimes under the Revised Penal Code, he will not be liable for an
impossible crime. He will be prosecuted for the crime constituted so
far by the act done by him.
This idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, just to

teach the offender a lesson because of his criminal perversity. If he
could be taught of the same lesson by charging him with some other
crime constituted by his act, then that will be the proper way. If you
want to play safe, you state there that although an impossible crime is
constituted, yet it is a principle of criminal law that he will only be
penalized for an impossible crime if he cannot be punished under
some other provision of the Revised Penal Code.
d. STAGES OF EXECUTION
o Article 6, RPC: Consummated felonies, as well as those which are
frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present; and it is
frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of
the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of the felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
10 | C R I M I N A L L A W I REVIEWER for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
Stages of execution are applicable only to Material Crimes.

These stages are inapplicable to both formal crimes and felonies by
omission. Formal Crimes are those which are consummated in
one instant or by performance of a single act of execution (e.g.
Slander, Perjury, False Testimony and Illegal Possession of
Picklocks). On the other hand, Felonies by Omission are those
crimes where there can be no attempted stage because the
offender does not execute acts (e.g. Misprision of Treason).
Moreover, stages of execution are not applicable also in offenses
punishable by special penal laws, unless the otherwise is
provided for. It is also not applicable in crimes committed by mere
attempt (e.g. Attempt to flee to an enemy country, Treason,
corruption of minors) and crimes committed by mere agreement
(e.g. betting in sports, Corruption of Public Officials).
Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal

liability in the attempted stage. Desistance is true only in the
attempted stage of the felony. If under the definition of the felony,
the act done is already in the frustrated stage, no amount of
desistance will negate criminal liability.
The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the

attempted stage but not necessarily all criminal liability. Even
though there was desistance on the part of the offender, if the
desistance was made when acts done by him already resulted to a
felony, that offender will still be criminally liable for the felony
brought about his act
In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or

consummated, there are three criteria involved:
- The manner of committing the crime;
- The elements of the crime; and
- The nature of the crime itself.
Applications:
1. A put poison in B’s food. B threw away his food. A is liable
– attempted murder.[1]
2. A stole B’s car, but he returned it. A is liable –
(consummated) theft.
3. A aimed his gun at B. C held A’s hand and prevented him
from shooting B – attempted murder.

4. A inflicted a mortal wound on B. B managed to survive –
frustrated murder.
5. A intended to kill B by shooting him. A missed – attempted
murder.
6. A doused B’s house with kerosene. But before he could
light the match, he was caught – attempted arson.
7. B’s house was set on fire by A – (consummated) arson.
8. A tried to rape B. B managed to escape. There was no
penetration – attempted rape.
9. A got hold of B’s painting. A was caught before he could
leave B’s house – frustrated robbery.
The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective

phase of execution of a felony. On the subjective phase, it is that
point in time when the offender begins the commission of an overt
act until that point where he loses control of the commission of the
crime already. If he has reached that point where he can no longer
control the ensuing consequence, the crime has already passed the
subjective phase and, therefore, it is no longer attempted. The
moment the execution of the crime has already gone to that point
where the felony should follow as a consequence, it is either
already frustrated or consummated. If the felony does not follow as
a consequence, it is already frustrated. If the felony follows as a
consequence, it is consummated.
Although the offender may not have done the act to bring
about the felony as a consequence, if he could have continued
committing those acts but he himself did not proceed because he
believed that he had done enough to consummate the crime,
Supreme Court said the subjective phase has passed.
NOTES ON ARSON;
The weight of the authority is that the crime of arson cannot
be committed in the frustrated stage. The reason is because we
can hardly determine whether the offender has performed all the
acts of execution that would result in arson, as a consequence,
unless a part of the premises has started to burn. On the other
hand, the moment a particle or a molecule of the premises has
blackened, in law, arson is consummated. This is because
consummated arson does not require that the whole of the
premises be burned. It is enough that any part of the premises, no
matter how small, has begun to burn.

Nature of the crime itself
In crimes involving the taking of human life – parricide,
homicide, and murder – in the definition of the frustrated stage, it is
indispensable that the victim be mortally wounded. Under the
definition of the frustrated stage, to consider the offender as having
performed all the acts of execution, the acts already done by him
must produce or be capable of producing a felony as a
consequence. The general rule is that there must be a fatal injury
inflicted, because it is only then that death will follow.
If the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The

reason is that the wound inflicted is not capable of bringing about
the desired felony of parricide, murder or homicide as a
consequence; it cannot be said that the offender has performed all
the acts of execution which would produce parricide, homicide or
murder as a result.
An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective

phase. The Supreme Court has decided cases which applied the
subjective standard that when the offender himself believed that he
had performed all the acts of execution, even though no mortal
wound was inflicted, the act is already in the frustrated stage.
The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved,

the participants are punished as principals. This notion is no longer
absolute. In the case of People v. Nierra, the Supreme Court ruled
that even though there was conspiracy, if a co-conspirator merely
cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or
minimal acts, such that even without his cooperation, the crime
could be carried out as well, such co-conspirator should be
punished as an accomplice only.
Examples of felonies that cannot be FRUSTRATED:

• RAPE : The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge of
sexual intercourse, not ejaculation. As such, a mere touching
of the external genitalia by the penis capable of
consummating the sexual act already constitutes
consummated rape (People vs Butiong, GR No. 168932, Oct
19, 2011)
Rape in its frustrated stage is a physical impossibility,
considering that the one of the requisites of a frustrated
felony is that the offender has performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony. Obviously, the
offender attains his purpose from the moment he has carnal

knowledge of his victim, because from the moment all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished,
leaving nothing more to be done by him (Cruz vs People, GR
No 167441, Oct 8, 2914)
• Adultery: Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is

consummated and exhausted or completed at the moment of
the carnal union. Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime
of adultery (People vs Zapata, GR No. L-3047, May 16,
1951)
• Indirect Bribery: It is committed by accepting gifts offered to

the public officer by reason of his office. If he does not
accept, he does not commit the crime. If he accepts, it is
immediately consummated.
• Corruption of Public Officers: The offense requires the

concurrence of the will of both parties, such as that when the
offer is accepted, the offense is consummated. But when the
offer is rejected, the offense is merely attempted. (Bar 2019)
• Physical Injury: It cannot be frustrated because the felony

cannot be determined as slight, less serious, or serious
unless and until it is consummated.
• Theft: Unlawful taking immediately consummates the

offense and the disposition of the thing is not an element
thereof (Valenzuela vs People, GR No 160188, June 21,
2007).
It need not be capable of “asportation” which is
defined as “carrying away.” Jurisprudence is settled that to
“take” under the theft provision of the penal code does not
require asportation or carrying away (Medina vs People, GR
No. 182648, June 17, 2015).
e. CONTINUING CRIMES
It is also called as DELITO CONTINUADO. It envisages a
single crime committed through a series of acts arising from one
criminal intent or resolution (Maximo v Villapando Jr, GR No
214925 and 214965, April 26, 2017)

Multiple penalties cannot be imposed for continuing crimes.
Only one penalty shall be imposed on the perpetrator for the reason
that it constitutes only one single crime. However, when the series
of acts constitutes crimes that are entirely different and distinct from
each other, the perpetrator of such acts shall be punished for the
separate crimes.
For Delito Continuado to exist, it is important that there

should be (a) Plurality of acts performed during a period of time, (b)
Unity of penal provision violated, and (c) Unity of criminal intent or
purpose. This means that two or more violations of the same penal
provisions are united in one and the same intent or resolution
leading to the perpetration of the same criminal purpose or aim
(Santiago vs Garchitorena, GR No 109266, Dec 2, 1993)
o Distinction of Delito Continuado from Complex Crime.

Delito Continuado or Continuing Crime is a single crime
consisting of a series of acts arising from a single criminal
resolution or intent not susceptible of division.
On the other hand, in Complex Crime, the offender either
performs a single act which constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies (compound crime) or commits an offense which is a
necessary means for committing the other (complex crime proper)
o Examples of Continuing Crimes/Delito Continuado:

▪ The theft of thirteen cows belonging to two different owners
committed by the accused at the same time and in the same
place (People vs Tumlos, GR No L-46428, Apr 13, 1939);
▪ The taking of six roosters from coop is a single offense of

theft. The assumption is that the accused were animated by
single criminal impulse (People vs Jaranilla, GR No L-28547,
Feb 22, 1974);
▪ The three penetrations occurred during one continuing act of

rape in which the appellant was obviously motivated by a
single criminal intent. There is no indication that the
appellant decided to commit those separate and distinct acts
of sexual assault other that his lustful desire to change

positions inside the room where the crime was committed
(People vs Aaron, GR Nos 136300, 136301 and 136302,
Sep 24, 2002);
▪ Accused and his companions intended only to rob one place.

In the process, also took away by force the money and
valuables of the employees working in said gasoline station.
Clearly inferred from these circumstances are the series of
acts which borne from one criminal resolution (People vs De
Leon, GR No 179943, June 26, 2009).
f. COMPLEX CRIMES AND COMPOSITE CRIMES

o Article 48, RPC: 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.
A complex crime is only one crime. In complex crime,

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 (People vs Hernandez, 99 Phil 515).
Complex crime usually referred to as Ideal Plurality or

concurso ideal. It is classified into as:
- Compound Crime or delito compuesto: it exist when a single
act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
(Here, it is necessary that only a single act is performed by
the offender and that single act produces two or more grave
felonies or one or more grave and one or more less grave
felonies or two or more less grave felonies); and
- Complex Crime Proper or delito complejo exists when the
offense committed is a necessary means for committing
another (Here, it is necessary that at least two offense are
committed, one or some of the offense committed are
necessary to commit the other/s, and both or all of the
offenses must be punishable under the RPC).

o General Rules in penalizing complex crimes:
- The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most
serious crime, which constitute the complex crime, the same
to be applied in its maximum period (Art. 48, RPC);
- The different crimes resulting from one single act are
punished with the same penalty, the penalty for any one of
them shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period;
- When two felonies constituting a complex crime are
punishable by imprisonment and fine, respectively, only the
penalty of imprisonment should be imposed. This is due to
the reason that fine is not included in the list of penalties in
the order of severity and it is the last in the graduated scales
in Art 71, RPC.
- When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not
proven, the accused can be convicted of the other (People vs
Maribung, GR No L-47500, April 29, 1987)
o Instances where there is plurality of crime but the rules on

complex crimes in Article 48 is INAPPLICABLE:
- In case of continuous crimes;
- In case of special complex crimes or composite crimes;
- In case of culpable felonies.
Culpable felonies defined and punished under Art 365
are substantially distinct and cannot form part of a complex
crime as defined under Art 48. Art. 48 is a procedural
provision that governs how to penalize an ideal plurality of
offenses. Art 365 however is a substantive provision which
defines a whole separate class of offenses where the law
punishes (1) the mental element behind the act, and (2) all
the injuries that have resulted thus from the same act. Art.
365 punishes the culpable imprudence or negligence behind
the act which may produce several consequences and
prescribes penalties determined by the extent of injuries
caused by that culpability (Ivler vs San Pedro, GR No.
172716, Nov 17, 2010)
Where the law punishes “Reckless Imprudence
resulting to Homicide,” it does not contemplate two separate
felonies with a single punishable intent which call for the

application of Art 48. The law punishes only the reckless
imprudence such that the resultant homicide is material
merely as to the calibration of the imposable penalty. Art 365
is wholly incompatible with Art 48 (Ivler vs San Pedro, GR
No. 172716, Nov 17, 2010).
- In case of real pluralities.
Real Plurality/Concurso Real arises when the
accused performs an act or different acts with distinct
purposes and resulting in different crimes which are
juridically independent.
- When one offense is committed merely to conceal the other.
- When one crime is an indispensable part or an element of
the other offense.
- Where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law.
o SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES / COMPOSITE CRIMES : They are

those which are treated as single indivisible offenses although
comprising two specific crimes and with one specific penalty.
Characteristics of special complex crimes are as follows:

- It offends against only one provision of law, whether of the
RPC or of special penal laws;
- It penalizes two specific crimes and imposes one specific
penalty;
- It absorbs all other crimes committed in the course of the
commission of the crimes.
o Examples of Special Complex Crimes:

- Art 294 on Robbery with Homicide, Robbery with Rape,
Robbery with Mutilation, Robbery with Serious Physical
Injuries;
- Art 320 on Arson with Homicide. (Bar 2020)
However, it must be noted that People vs Abayon,
GR No. 204891, September 14, 2016, clearly provides that
there is no complex crime of arson with homicide. Here, the
court laid down the following rules:
➢ Main objective is burning but death results by reason
or on the occasion thereof, crime is simple arson.
Homicide is absorbed.

➢ Main objective is to kill a person in the building by use
of fire, crime is Murder only.
➢ If the objective is to kill a person and in fact had
already done so, but fire is resorted to cover up the
killing, there are two separate crimes committed,
Homicide/Murder as the case may be and Arson.
- Art 267 on Kidnapping with Homicide, Kidnapping with Rape,
Kidnapping with Serious Physical Injuries; and
- Art 266-B on Rape with Homicide.
o Distinguish Complex Crimes from Special Complex Crimes

(BAR FAVORITE TOPIC):
COMPLEX CRIMES SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

As to composition
The combination is not specified The combination of the
but it is expressed in general offenses is fixed by law.
terms, that is grave and/or less
grave; or the offense is being
the necessary means to commit
the other.
As to penalty
The penalty is for the most The penalty for the specified
serious offense in the maximum combination of crimes is
period. specified.
As to crimes charged
If there is more than one count There is just one composite
of the component crime forming crime to be charged, even if
part of the complex crime, the there is more than one count
first shall be complexed while of the component crime such
the other counts may be treated as several rapes or several
as separate crime. homicides accompanying the
kidnapping.
As to absorption
If a light felony accompanies the If a light felony accompanied
commission of the complex the commission of the
crime, the light felony may be composite offense, such light
subject to separate information. felony is absorbed.
As to governing law
Penalized by two provisions of Penalized in a single provision.
law in relation to Article 48,
RPC.

2. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Main difference among the circumstances affecting criminal liability:
Justifying circumstances serve to exempt the criminal from criminal liability
because the act is justified. Exempting circumstances, on the other hand,
exempt the criminal from criminal liability because the person who committed
the act. Mitigating circumstances serve to decrease the penalty imposed on
the criminal. While aggravating circumstances serve to increase the penalty
imposed on the criminal.
a. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Art 11, RPC)

Justifying circumstances are those circumstances attendant to the
commission of the alleged offense which by their presence negates the
unlawfulness of the acts so committed so that such person is deemed no
to have transgressed the law and is free from both criminal and civil
liability, except in the case of paragraph 4, Art 11 of the RPC. (In para 4,
Art 11, RPC, there is civil liability, but the civil liability is borne by the
persons benefited therefrom.)
o There are seven (7) justifying circumstances. Six (6) are provided in
the RPC while one (1) is provided by RA 9262. These are the
following:
- Self Defense
- Defense of Relatives
- Defense of Strangers
- Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury
- Fulfilment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or Office
- Obedience to an Order issued for some Lawful Purpose
- Battered Woman Syndrome under RA 9262.
o SELF DEFENSE
- The requisites of self-defense are: (URL)
1. Unlawful aggression:
▪ This requisite must a continuing circumstance or must
have been existing at the time the defense is made
(Gotis vs People, GR No. 157201, September 14,
2007).
▪ It is equivalent to assault or at least threatened
assault of an immediate and imminent kind (People
vs. Alconga, GR No. L-162, April 30, 1947)

▪ It is present when the peril to one’s life, limb or right is
either actual or imminent; when there must be actual,
physical force or actual use of weapon (People vs
Crisostomo, GR No. L-38180, October 23, 1981); and
that the aggression must be real and not just
imaginary (People vs. Amante, GR No. 148724,
October 15, 2002).
▪ However, when unlawful aggression which has begun
ceases or is interrupted, because the aggressor ran
away, the one claiming to make a defense has no
more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel

the unlawful aggression; and
▪ The TEST of this requisite: whether or not the means
employed is reasonable and necessary will depend
upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by
the aggressor, his physical condition, character, size
and other circumstances, and those of the person
defending himself, and also the place and occasion of
the assault.
▪ When the accused is suddenly attacked in his sleep,
in complete darkness, and in his paramount fear, he
struck wildly and blindly at his assailant who turned
out to be his wife who died of 15 wounds. His frenzy
was justified by the circumstance (People vs Agripina,
GR No. 72244, May 8, 1992).
▪ When the accused uses a shotgun to allegedly drive
off unarmed persons aggressively trespassing in and
causing damage to his property, the means taken was
neither reasonable nor necessary (People vs
Narvaez, GR No L-33466-67, April 20, 1983)
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending

himself.
▪ This requisite exists when no provocation at all was
given to the aggressor by the person defending
himself; when, even if a provocation was given, but it
was insufficient; when, even if the provocation was
sufficient, it was not given by the person defending

himself; and when, even if a provocation was given by
the person defending himself, it was not proximate
and immediate to the act of aggression.
o DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
- The elements of defense of relatives are: (URN)
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the employed to prevent or repel it; and
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the
one making the defense had NO PART THEREIN.
- What is necessary for the appreciation of this justifying
circumstance is that the defender did not in any way participate in
or induce the provocation of the aggressor.
- Relatives that can be defended under Article 11(2) of the RPC are
Spouse; Ascendants; Descendants; Legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers and sisters or of his relatives by affinity in the same
degree; and Relatives by consanguinity within the fourth civil
degree.
o DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
- Elements of this justifying circumstance are: (URI)
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it; and
3. The person defending was not induced by REVENGE,
RESENTMENT, or OTHER EVIL MOTIVE.
- Strangers referred here are any persons not included in the
enumeration of relatives mentioned in Art. 11(2) of the RPC.
o AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL OR INJURY

- Elements of this justifying circumstance are: (EIP)
1. The evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
2. The injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; and
3. There be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it.
- Nota Bene: While this justifying circumstance prevents the
attachment of criminal liability, civil liability may still arise even
when the defense is successfully claimed. In these cases, the civil
liability does not arise from the crime but fro law. Art. 101 of the
RPC provide that the persons for whose benefit the harm has been

prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which
they may have received.
o LAWFUL EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE

- Elements of this justifying circumstance:
1. The accused acted in the Performance of a Duty or in the Lawful
Exercise of a right or office;
2. The injury caused or the offense committed was a Necessary
Consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise
of such right or office.
o OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME LAWFUL

PURPOSE
- The elements of this justifying circumstance are:
1. The order has been issued by a superior officer;
2. Such order must be for some lawful purpose; and
3. The means used by the subordinate to carry out said order is
lawful.
- A soldier who acted upon the orders of superior officers, which he,
as a military subordinate, could not question, and obeyed the
orders in good faith, without being aware of its illegality, without any
fault or negligence on his part, is not liable because he had no
criminal intent and he was not negligent (People vs Beronilla, GR
No. L-4445, February 28, 1955).
o BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

- BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME (BWS) - refers to a
scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral
symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a
result of cumulative abuse. This is a novel defense where victim-
survivors do not incur criminal and civil liability (People of the Phil.
Vs. Marivic Genosa, GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
- Sec. 26, RA 9262: The victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self defense under RPC.
- Phases in the Cycle of Violence:
1. Tension Building Phase – where minor battering occurs and the
woman usually tries to pacify the batterer to prevent escalation of
violence.

2. Acute Battering Phase – where there is brutality, destructiveness
and sometimes death and the woman believe it is futile to fight back
based on past painful experience.
3. Tranquil, Loving Phase – where the batterer begs for her
forgiveness and the woman tries to convince herself that the battery
will never happen again.
b. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
These are defenses where the accused committed a crime but is
not criminally liable. There is a crime, there is civil liability but no criminal.
The basis is the lack of any of the elements which makes the act/omission
voluntary, i.e. freedom, intelligence, intent or due care.
These defenses pertain to the actor and not the act. They are
personal to the accused in whom they are present and the effects do not
extend to the other participants. Thus, if a principal is acquitted, the other
principlas, accessories and accomplices are still liable.
The following are the exempting circumstances:
1. Imbecility or insanity;
2. Minority;
3. Accident without fault or intention of causing it;
4. Irresistible force;
5. Uncontrollable fear; and
6. Insuperable Causes.
o IMBECILITY OR INSANITY
- Imbecility is the condition of a person who, while of advanced
age, has a mental development comparable to that of children
between two to seven years of age or an IQ between 20–50.
Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence
or freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime. An
imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal liability but the insane
is not so exempt if it can be shown that he committed the crime
during a lucid interval.
- If the accused is sane at the time of the commission of the crime,
but he become insane at the time of the trial, he is CRIMINALLY
LIABLE (People vs. Opuran, GR No. 147674-75, March 17, 2004).
In this case, imposition of penalty shall be suspended.
- Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears
the burden of proving it with clear and convincing evidence.

- Person suffering from Schizophrenia or Dementia Praecox
considered insane for purposes of exemption from criminal liability.
- Somnambulism or sleep walking can be used as an exempting
circumstance because in here, the acts were not done voluntarily.
o ACCIDENT WITHOUT FAULT

- An accident is fortuitous circumstance, event or happening; an
event happening without human agency, or if happening wholly or
partly through human agency, an event which under the
circumstance is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it
represents.....
There must be a complete absence of negligence and intent. An
accident is an affirmative defense which the accused is burdened to
prove by clear and convincing evidence. To successfully claim the
defense of accident, the accused must show that the following
circumstances are present:
1. A person is performing a lawful act;
2. With due care;
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; and
4. He had no fault in or intention of causing the injury.
(Nieva vs People, GR No. 188751, November 16, 2017)
o IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
- The following elements must concur for this mitigating
circumstance to be appreciated:
1. That the acts were compelled by means of a physical
force;
2. That such physical force must be irresistible;
3. That such physical force must come from a third person.
- The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument
who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force,
fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and
of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded belief in death or
serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is
not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to
leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in
equal combat (People vs Loreno, GR No. L-54414, July 9, 1984)
- in irresistible force, there is violence or physical force to compel
another to commit a crime while in uncontrollable fear, the source

of the fear need not be physical but consist in psychological
intimidation or threat.
o UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
- The following elements must concur for this mitigating
circumstance to be appreciated:
1. The existence of uncontrollable fear;
2. That the fear must be real and permanent;
3. The fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to
that committed.
- The source of the fear must be real and imminent and such fear
must render the actor immobile and subject to the will of another,
making the actor for that moment, an automation without a will of
his own. In other words, in effect, he could not be any more than a
mere instrument acting involuntarily and against his will. He is
exempt from criminal liability since by reason of an unmistakable
fear of bodily harm, he was compelled to act against his will
(People vs Rosario, GR No. 127755, April 4, 1999).
o INSUPERABLE CAUSES
- The following requisites must concur before this circumstance be
considered:
1. That an act is required by law to be done;
2. That the accused fails to perform such acts; and
3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some
lawful or insuperable cause.
- A lawful insuperable cause is some power or reason independent
of the will of the accused, has lawfully, morally and physically
prevented him to do what the law commands....
A mother, who was overcome by severe dizziness and
disorientation from sudden massive loss of blood, and had left her
child in a thicket where she had unknowingly given birth while she
was relieving herself, resulting in the death of the infant, was not
held liable for infanticide because she had been rendered
physically and mentally incapable of taking the child to safety.
(People vs Bandian, GR No. 45186, September 30, 1936)

c. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the
commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from criminal
liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty.
The following are mitigating circumstances enumerated in Art. 13,
of the RPC:
1. Incomplete Justifying Circumstances;
2. When the offender is over 15 years but under 18 years of age
who acted with discernment or when he is over 70 years old;
3. Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed;
4. Sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party;
5. Vindication of a grave offense;
6. Passion or obfuscation;
7. Voluntary surrender or voluntary confession of guilt;
8. Physical defect of offender;
9. Illness of offender diminishing his willpower; and
10. Other similar reasons or analogous circumstances.
If any of these circumstances are present in the commission of the
crime, it will either reduced the penalty by one degree or the penalty to be
imposed shall only be in its minimum period. In fine, mitigating
circumstances may either be PRIVILEGED or ORDINARY.
Ordinary Mitigating Circumstances are those enumerated under
Nos. 3-10 of Art. 13, RPC. They are susceptible of being offset by the
presence of any aggravating circumstance. If not offset, an ordinary
mitigating circumstance has the effect of requiring a court to impose the
penalty prescribed by law for the crime in its minimum period, provided,
the prescribed penalty is divisible. Further, when there are two or more
ordinary mitigating circumstances are present and no aggravating
circumstances are present, the penalty to be imposed is that which is
lower by one degree from that which is prescribed by law (ART. 64, RPC)
Priviliged Mitigating Circumstances are those that cannot be
offset by aggravating circumstances. Rather, it produces the effect of
imposing upon the offender the penalty of lower by one or two degrees
than that provided by law for the crime, or even suspend the imposition or
execution of capital punishment. Privileged mitigating circumstances may
also work to reduce even indivisible penalties. There are only 3 privileged
mitigating circumstances, to wit:
1. The crime committed is not wholly excusable or justifiable;
2. The accused is a minor over 15 and under 18 years of age who
acted with discernment; and

3. The accused is over 70 years of age.
o INCOMPLETE JUSTIFYING/EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE

- It applies when some but not all the requisites necessary to justify
the act or exempt the accused from criminal liability are not
attendant. It is required, however, that majority of the requisites are
present.
- In incomplete self-defense, defense of relative and defense of
stranger, the requisite “UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION” is
indispensable to qualify as mitigating circumstance.
- Accident is only a mitigating circumstance if the accused is
performing a lawful act, the injury caused was an accident and
could not be foreseen but the accused however cannot claim that
he was exercising due care or diligence, the injury was entirely with
his fault, and the injury was unintentional on his part.
o NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG

- It is also called as Praeter Intentionem as discussed in page 7.
- This circumstance is only applicable to offenses resulting in
physical injuries or material harm. It is not applicable to felonies
committed by negligence. The reason is that in felonies through
negligence, the offender acts without intent in the first place.
o SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT

- This circumstance is considered if:
1. The provocation must be sufficient;
2. The provocation must originate from the offended party;
and 3. The provocation must be immediate or proximate to the
act, i.e. to the commission of the crime by the person who was
provoked.
- Provocation is sufficient when it is adequate to exite a person to
commit the wrong and must be accordingly be proportionate to its
gravity (People vs Nabora, GR. No. 48101, November 22, 1941)
o VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

- This can be considered a mitigating circumstance if the following
must concur:
1. That there be a grave offense done to the one committing
the felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,

natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity in the
same degree; and
2. That the felony committed in immediate vindication of
such grave offense.
- While immediate vindication is also construed to include
proximate vindication, still this mitigating circumstance cannot be
considered where sufficient time has elapsed for the accused to
regain his composure (People vs Ventura, GR No. 148145-46, July
5, 2004)
o PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
- There is passion obfuscation when the crime was committed due
to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or
improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason.
For passion and obfuscation to be considered a mitigating
circumstance, it must be shown that:
1. An unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and
obfuscation was committed by the intended victim;
2. The crime was committed within a reasonable length of
time from the commission of the unlawful act that
produced the obfuscation in the accused’s mind; and
3. The passion and obfuscation arose from lawful
sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or
revenge.
However, it is not mitigating when committed: a. in the spirit of
lawlessness; b. in the spirit of revenge; and it cannot co-exist with
a. Vindication of grave offense and b. Treachery.
(Jabalde vs People of the Philippines, GR No. 195224, June 15,
2016)
o VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
- For it to be appreciated, the offender has not been actually
arrested or is about to be lawfully arrested; the offender
surrendered himself to a person in authority or the latter’s agent;
and the surrender must be voluntary.
- For surrender to be considered voluntary, it requires the surrender
to be spontaneous, indicating the intent of the accused to
unconditionally submit himself to the authorities, either because he
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and

expenses necessary for his search and capture (People vs Del, GR
No. 179084, January 18, 2012)
o VOLUNTARY CONFESSION OF GUILT

- For this circumstance to be mitigating, the following must concur:
1. The offender spontaneously confessed his guilt;
2. The confession of guilt was made in open and competent
court to try the case;
3. The confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation
of evidence for the prosecution.
- An offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be
considered as a mitigating circumstance because to be voluntary,
the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged (People vs
Dawaton, GR No. 146247, September 17, 2002)
o PHYSICAL DEFECT OF THE OFFENDER

- The physical defect, which must exist at the time of the
commission of the offense, must be a condition sufficiently able to
materially affect the voluntariness of the accused’ acts.
- It must be shown that such physical defect limited his means to
act, defend himself or communicate with his fellow beings to such
an extent that he did not have complete freedom of action,
consequently resulting in diminution of the element of voluntariness
(People vs Deopante, GR No. 102772, October 30, 1996)
o ILLNESS OF THE OFFENDER DIMINISHING WILL POWER

- Here, the illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his
willpower and that such illness should not deprive the offender of
consciousness of his acts.
o SIMILAR OR ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

- They are circumstances that are seemingly similar to other
mitigating circumstances. These are the following:
1. When the offender is over 60 years old with failing eye sight;
2. When a debtor tried to evade payment of his debt which caused
an outraged feeling on the part of the offender-creditor;
3. Impulse of jealousy;
4. Esprit de corps;
5. Voluntary restitution of stolen property;
6. Extreme poverty and necessity;

7. Testifying for the prosecution; and
8. Manifestation of battered woman syndrome (People vs Genosa)
- Take note that this case was prior to the enactment of RA
9262 or the Anti Violence Against Women and their Children Act of
2004. Hence, BWS was just appreciated as mitigating circumstance
instead of a justifying circumstance.
d. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
These are those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime,
serve to increase the penalty without however, exceeding the maximum of
the penalty provided for by law for the offense.
Under Article 14, RPC, there are twenty (20) aggravating
circumstances, to wit:
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 it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if
the latter has not given provocation;
▪ The store cannot be considered a dwelling or
even a dependency of the family’s home. A
dwelling must be exclusively used for rest and
comfort. A store used only occasionally for rest
cannot be considered as dwelling for the
purposes of appreciating it as an aggravating
circumstance (People vs Joya, GR No. 79090,
October 1, 1990)
▪ When adultery is committed in the dwelling of the
husband, that is, in the conjugal home, it is
aggravating even if it is also the dwelling of the
unfaithful wife because, aside from the latter’s
breach of the fidelity she owes her husband, she
and her paramour violated the respect due to the
conjugal home and they both thereby injured and
committed a very grave offense against the head
of the house (US vs Ibanez, GR No. 10672,
October 26, 1915)
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious
ungratefulness;

5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive
or in his presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties or in a place dedicated to religious
worship;
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or in an uninhabited
place or by a band, whenever such circumstances may facilitate the
commission of the offense;
▪ Nighttime or obscuridad is that period of darkness
beginning at the end of dusk and ending at dawn.
Uninhibited place or despoblado is one where
there are no house at all, a place at a considerable
distance from town, or where the houses are
scattered at a great distance from each other. A crime
is committed by band or en cuadrilla whenever more
than three armed malefactors shall have acted
together in the commission of an offense.
▪ Nightime, uninhabited place and band shall be
considered aggravating circumstance when it
facilitated the commission of the crime, especially
sought by the offender to insure the commission of
the crime and offender took advantage thereof for the
purpose of impunity.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration,
shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune;
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or
persons who insure or afford impunity;
9. That the accused is a recidivist;
10. Offender has been previously punished by an offense to
which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty;
11. Crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward or
promise;
▪ To consider this circumstance, the price, reward
or promise must be the primary reason or
primordial motive for the commission of the crime
(US vs Gamao, GR No. 6492, August 30, 1912)
12. Crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, stranding of a vessel or international damage thereto,
derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin;

13. Act be committed with evident premeditation;
▪ The essence of evident 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 a space of
time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgement
(People vs Alinao, GR No. 191256, September 18,
2013)
▪ Settled is the rule that when it is not shown how
and when the plan to kill was hatched or how
much time had elapsed before it was carried out,
evident premeditation cannot be considered. It
must appear not only that the accused decided to
commit the crime prior to the moment of its
execution but also that this decision was the
result of meditation, calculation, reflection or
persistent attempt (People vs Ala Wig, GR No.
187731, September 18, 2013)
14. Craft, fraud or disguise be employed;
▪ In criminal cases, disguise is an aggravating
circumstance because, like night time, it allows
the accused to remain anonymous and
unidentifiable as he carries out his crimes.xxx.
What is important in alleging disguise as an
aggravating circumstance is that there was a
concealment of identity by the accused. The
inclusion of disguise in the information was,
therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the
accused that in the commission of the offense
they were being charged with, they tried to
conceal their identity (People vs Feliciano, GR.
No. 196735, May 5, 2014, Leonen,J.)
15. Advantage be taken of superior strength, or means be
employed to weaken the defense;
▪ The aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength is present whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the victim
and the aggressor that is plainly and obviously
advantageous to the aggressor and purposely
selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the

commission of the crime. Mere superiority in
numbers is not indicative of the presence of this
circumstance. The appreciation of this qualifying
circumstance in the commission of the crime of
Murder depends on the age, size and strength of
the parties (People vs McHenry Suarez)
▪ There is abuse of superior strength when the
offenders took advantage of their combined
strength in order to consummate the offense
(People vs Torres,et.al, GR No. 189850, September
24, 2014)
16. Act be committed with treachery (alevosia);
▪ Treachery is present when the victim, who was just
casually conversing, had no inkling that his life was in
danger and his defences were down.
Treachery exists when the offender commits any
of the crimes against persons, employing means,
methods or forms in its execution which tend
directly and especially to ensure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from any defense
which the offended party might make (People vs
Roxas, 784 SCRA 47, February 10, 2016)
▪ The essence of treachery is that the attack comes
without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, and
unexpected manner, affording the hapless,
unarmed, and unsuspecting victim no chance to
resist or escape (People vs Camposano, GR No.
207659, April 20, 2016)
▪ When the shooting of the unsuspecting victim was
sudden and unexpected, treachery is present.
The shooting of the unsuspecting victim was
sudden and unexpected which effectively
deprived her of the chance to defend herself or to
repel the aggression, insuring the commission of
the crime without risk to the aggressor and
without any provocation on the part of the victim.
Once there is a qualifying circumstance of
treachery, the suspect is guilty of murder and not
homicide (People vs Berk, GR No. 204896,
December 7, 2016)

▪The existence of treachery is not solely
determined by the type of weapon used. If it
appears that the weapon was deliberately chosen
to insure the execution of the crime and to render
the victim defenceless, then treachery may be
properly appreciated against the accused (People
vs Labiaga, GR No. 202867, July 15, 2013)
▪ A finding of the existence of treachery should be
based on “clear and convincing evidence.” Such
evidence must be as conclusive as the fact of
killing itself. Its existence cannot be presumed.
The unexpectedness of an attack cannot be the
sole bases of a finding of treachery even if the
attack was intended to kill another as long as the
victim’s position was merely accidental. The
means adopted must have been a result of a
determination to ensure success in committing
the crime (Ustelo vs People, GR No 181843, July
14, 2014, Leonen, J.)
▪ The means employed for the commission of the
crime or the mode of attack must be shown to
have been consciously or deliberately adopted by
the accused to insure the consummation of the
crime and at the same time eliminate or reduce
the risk of retaliation from the intended victim. For
the rules on treachery to apply, the sudden attack
must been preconceived by the accused,
unexpected by the victim, and without
provocation on the part of the latter. Treachery is
never presumed (People vs Villalba, Gr. No.
207629, October 22, 2014)
▪ Treachery absorbs the following aggravating
circumstances: Craft, Abuse of Superior Strength,
Nighttime, Aid of Armed Men, Cuadrilla (Band) and
Employing Means to Weaken the Defense.
17. That means employed or circumstances brought about
which add ignominy to the natural effects of the act;
▪ There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and
delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain

in the consummation of the criminal act. The test
is whether respondent deliberately and
sadistically augmented the wrong by causing
another wrong not necessary for its commission
or inhumanly increased the victim’s suffering or
outraged or scoffed sat his person or corpse
(Joseph Scott Pemberton vs Leila De Lima, GR
No. 217508, April 18, 2016, Leonen J.)
▪ Ignominy involves moral suffering while Cruelty
refers to physical suffering.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry;
19. Crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen
years of age or by means of motor vehicles, motorized
watercrafts, airships, or other similar means; and
▪ Use of motor vehicle, etc. Is aggravating when the
accused used it in going to the place of the crime,
in carrying away the effects thereof and in
facilitating their escape (People vs Espejo, GR No.
L-27708, December 19, 1970)
20. The wrong done in the commission of the crime be
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for
the commissions.
There are five (5) classifications/kinds of aggravating
circumstances: Generic, Specific, Qualifying, Inherent and Special.
Generic aggravating circumstances are those that can generally
apply to all crimes. When attendant, they increase the imposable penalty
to the maximum period of that which is prescribed, except when offset by
ordinary mitigating circumstances.
Specific aggravating circumstances apply only to particular
classes of crimes. Nevertheless, they are treated in the same manner as
generic aggravating circumstances.
Qualifying aggravating circumstances are those that changes
the nature of the crime and thus do not merely affect the penalty imposed.
When acts are attended by qualifying aggravating circumstances, they
serve to make those acts punishable under a different provision of law.
Inherent aggravating circumstances are those that must
necessarily accompany the commission of the crime. Thus, they are not
appreciated as aggravating circumstances within the contemplation of
Article 14 and are treated essential elements of the offense to which they
form an integral part. Thus, they generally do not serve to increase the

penalty. Examples are ignominy in rape, fraud in estafa, breaking of a wall
or unlawful entry in robbery with the use of force upon things, abuse of
public position in malversation of public funds and property and deceit in
seduction.
Special aggravating circumstances are those which arise under
special conditions, serving to increase the penalty of the offense and
cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances.
o When there is more than one qualifying aggravating
circumstances present, one of them will be appreciated
as qualifying aggravating circumstance while the others
will be considered as having the effect of a mere generic
aggravating circumstance (People vs Fabros, GR No.
90603, October 19, 1992)
e. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and
effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.
Under Article 15 of the RPC, the alternative circumstances are: 1.
Relationship; 2. Intoxication; and 3. Degree of Instruction and Education of
the Offender.
Relationship is considered as an alternative circumstance when
the offended arty is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, natural or
adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the
offender. However, in several decisions of the Supreme Court, relationship
of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter by analogy to
that of ascendant and descendant can be considered. Further, the
relationship of an adoptive parent to an adoptive child may also be
considered. Lastly, in crimes against chastity, such as acts of
lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating (People vs
Gaduyon, GR No. 181473, November 11, 2013)
Intoxication shall be considered as a mitigating circumstance if the
offender committed the felony in a state of intoxication but his intoxication
is not habitual or was not done before the commission of the felony. On
the other hand, if the intoxication is habitual or intentional subsequent to
the plan to commit a felony, it shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
Lack of Sufficient Education is generally a mitigating
circumstance. However, there are recognized exceptions to this rule

which, although not making it mitigating it also does not make it
aggravating, to wit:
1. Crimes against property such as arson, estafa, theft and robbery;
2. Crimes against chastity;
3. Treason, because love of country should be a natural feeling of
every citizen however unaltered or uncultured he may be;
4. Rape; and
5. Murder or Homicide, as the act of killing is forbidden by natural
law which every rational being is endowed to know and feel.
f. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Absolutory causes are those where the act is a crime but for some
reasons of public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed.
Examples of absolutory causes are:
1. Spontaneous desistance;
“If a conspirator dissuaded his co-conspirator from
committing the crime agreed upon (People vs Nunez, GR No.
112429-30, July 23, 1997), or made an effort to prevent
commission of the crime (People vs Anticamaray, GR No.
178771, June 8, 2011), he is exempt from criminal liability
because he detached himself from the conspiracy.”
2. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability by reason of
their relationship with the offender;
3. Attempted and frustrated light felonies;
4. Slight and less serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances;
5. Trespass to dwelling when such trespass was made to prevent
serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third
person or rendered some service to humanity or justice, or entered
cafes, taverns, inns, and other public places while the same were
open;
6. Persons exempt from criminal liability for theft, swindling, and
malicious mischief by reason of their relationship to the offended
party; (BAR 2019)
- “For purposes of Article 332 (1) of the RPC, we hold that the
relationship by affinity created between the surviving spouse
and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the
death of either party to the marriage which created the
affinity...xxxxx

Under the said provision, the State condones the criminal
responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and
malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its
right to prosecute the offender for the said crimes but leaves
the private offended party with the option to hold the offender
civilly liable...xxx However, it does not apply where any of the
crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another
crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through
falsification.”
(Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda De Carungcong vs
People of the Philippines, GR No. 181409, February 11, 2010)
7. Marriage by the offender to the offended party in cases of
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness – applicable to co
principals, accomplices, and accessories after the fact. In case of
rape, the absolutory cause only applies to the offender who married
the offended party.
8. Instigation.
Instigation is the means by which the accused is hired into
the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him
while entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for
the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. Entrapment is
no bar to prosecution and conviction of a lawbreaker, but in
the case of instigation, the accused must be acquitted.
3. PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION

a. Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories
i. PRINCIPAL
There are three types of principals: Principal by Direct Participation,
Principal by Inducement and Principal by Indispensable Cooperation.
Principal by Direct Participation is one who directly takes part in
the execution of the act or omission constituting the crime. For a person to be
considered a principal by direct participation, he must participated in the
criminal resolution and he carried out the plan and personally took part in its
execution by acts which directly tended to the same end.
Principal by Inducement is one who directly forces or induces
others to commit a crime. He is a principal because although he does not
directly perform the acts of execution, his words of advice or the influence
have actually moved the hands of the principal by direct participation.
Inducement may be by acts of command, advice, influence, or agreement for
consideration. For a person to be considered principal by inducement, it must

be shown that the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring
the commission of the crime and such inducement must be the determining
cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor. Lastly, a
person becomes a principal by inducement by either directly forcing another
to commit a crime through irresistible force or uncontrollable fear and by
inducing another to commit such crime by giving price, or offering reward or
promise, or by using words of command.
Principal by Indispensable Cooperation is one who cooperates
in the commission of the offense by another without which it could not have
been accomplished.
ii. ACCOMPLICE
Accomplice is a person who not acting as principal, cooperate in
the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, which are not
indispensable to the commission of the crime.
Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common: they
know and agree with the criminal design. Conspirators however, know the
criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course
of action. Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have
reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its
execution. Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed;
accomplices merely concur in it. Accomplices do not decide whether the
crime should be committed; they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in
its accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of a crime; accomplices are
merely instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the
offense.
An accomplice can be held liable for a crime different from that
which the principal committed. The accomplice and the principal commit
different crimes whenever there are 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 and
whenever there is attendance of circumstances which consist in the material
execution of the act or in the means employed to accomplish it.
iii. ACCESSORIES
Accessories are those who having knowledge of the crime and
without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take
part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by
the effects of the crime;

b. By concealing or destroying the body, effects or instruments
of the crime to prevent its discovery; or
c. By harbouring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the
principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with
abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the
crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder or an attempt to
take the life of the Chief Executive or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
An accessory, by preventing the discovery of a crime or by

assisting the principal to escape, is exempt from criminal responsibility if
the principal is his spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or
adopted brother, daughter or sister or relative by affinity within the same
degrees. However, those accessories falling within the provisions of
paragraph 1 of Article 19 (a. By profiting themselves or assisting the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime) are not exempted.
b. Conspiracy and Proposal

Conspiracy occurs when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy as felony refers to those acts directly punishable by a law – such
as conspiracy to commit rebellion under Art. 136 of RPC. But when the
conspiracy relates to a crime actually committed, it becomes only a manner of
incurring criminal liability and is not punishable as a separate offense – such
as when rebellion is actually committed, the conspiracy is not a felony.
There are two kinds of conspiracy: mere conspiracy and implied
conspiracy. “Mere Conspiracy” happens when two or more persons have a
mere agreement to commit the acts necessary to produce the offense but not
the actual execution thereof. “Implied Conspiracy” is one established by
circumstantial evidence and may be proved through the collective acts of
the accused before, during and after the commission of a felony, all the
accused aiming at the same object, one performing one part and
another performing another for the attainment of the same criminal
objective (People vs Agudez, GR No. 138386-87, May 20, 2004).
Moreover, there are two structures of multiple conspiracies: Wheel
or Circle Conspiracy and Chain Conspiracy. A WHEEL CONSPIRACY occurs
when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two
or more other persons or groups (the spoke). The spoke typically interacts
with the hub rather than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke
shares a common purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However,

in the instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of the
other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies. A CHAIN CONSPIRACY on
the other hand, exists when there is successive communication and
cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business operations
between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer and then
retailer and consumer (Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 148965, Feb. 26,
2002).
As a general rule, mere conspiracy or proposal to commit a felony
is not punishable because they are mere preparatory acts. However,
exceptionally, mere conspiracy and proposal to commit crimes are
punishable only in the cases in which the law especially provides a
penalty therefor. The law specifically punishes mere conspiracy in the
following crimes: Treason, Coup d’etat, Rebellion or Insurrection, Sedition,
Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trades (all under RPC) and
Espionage, Crimes involving trafficking of dangerous drugs, Arson, Child
pornography, Money Laundering, and terrorism (All under Special Laws.
Proposal to commit a felony is punished only in crimes of Treason, Coup
d’etat, Rebellion or Insurrection.
Conspiracy as a mode of committing a crime is either express or
implied. Conspiracy proved by direct evidence is called express conspiracy.
But direct proof is rarely found for criminals do not write down their lawless
plans and plots. Conspiracy can be presumed from and proven by acts of
the accused themselves when the said acts point to a joint purpose and
design, concerted action and community of interests (People vs Buntag,
GR No. 123070, April 14, 2004) Hence, it is not necessary to show that two
or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting
out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal
objective is to be carried out (People vs Villalba, GR No. 207629, October 22,
2014).
Mere presence at the scene of the crime at the time of its
commission is not, by itself, sufficient to establish conspiracy. Nor does mere
knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act, without the cooperation or
agreement to cooperate, is enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.
There must be intentional participation in the transaction with a view to
the furtherance of the common design and purpose (People vs.
Gonzales, GR No. 128282, April 30, 2001).
When the conspiracy is proved, the conspirators shall incur
collective criminal responsibility such offender shall be liable for all of the acts
committed by his co-conspirators. The act of one is the act of all. However,
the court held that the mere fact that a superior signed a government

transaction does not automatically mean that he is part of the conspiracy of
his subordinates. This is known as “ARIAS DOCTRINE”. – All heads of
offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on
the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies or enter
into negotiations (Arias vs Sandiganbayan, GR No. 81563-82512,
December 19, 1989).
c. Multiple Offenders
i. Recidivism (Article 14(9) of the RPC)
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 the Revised Penal Code. What
is controlling is the time of the trial, not the time of the crime.
The following are the requirements for a person to become a
recidivist:
d. The offender is on trial for an offense;
e. The offender was previously convicted by final judgment of
another crime;
f. Both the first and second offense are embraced in the same
title of the RPC; and
g. The offender is convicted of the new offense.
ii. Habituality (Article 14 (10) of the RPC)

There is reiteracion or habituality when the offender has
been previously punished for 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. The requisites are:
a. The accused in on trial for an offense;
b. That he previously served sentence for another offense to
which the law attaches an:
i. Equal,
ii. Greater penalty, or
iii. For two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter
penalty than the new offense; and
c. That he is convicted of the new offense.
iii. Quasi-Recidivism (Article 160 of the RPC)

Quasi-recidivism is the commission of another felony by the
convict before beginning to serve sentence or while serving the
same. It is a special aggravating circumstance which imposes the

maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new
felony.
There is no quasi recidivism if after conviction for a felony
the second offense is punishable by special law. It must be
remembered always that for quasi recidivism to take place, the
second crime must be a felony.
iv. Habitual Delinquency (Article 62 (5) of the RPC)

A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent when,
within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time or oftener.
Any person who commits the crimes enumerated in para. 5
of Article 62, whether acting as a principal, accomplice of
accessory, will be considered habitual delinquent if the requisites
for habitual delinquency are present.
The imposition of the additional penalty prescribed by the
law for habitual delinquents is mandatory. Meaning to say, the
courts has no discretion whether or not impose the additional
penalties for habitual delinquents.
Article 62 (5) of the RPC provides: 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 guilt and to the additional penalty of prision
correccional it 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.

4. PENALTIES
a. Imposable Penalties
Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the State for the
transgression of a law. As a general rule, only that penalty prescribed by
law prior to the commission of the felony may be imposed. Felonies are
punishable under the laws at the time of their commission. But as an
exception, the penalty prescribed by a law enacted after the commission
of the felony may be imposed, if it is favourable to the offender, except if
the offender is a habitual criminal and the new law is expressly made
inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action.
b. Classification
Under Art. 25 of RPC, penalties are classified as:
1. PRINCIPAL Penalties – those expressly imposed by the court in the
judgment of conviction:
a. Capital Punishment (Death)
b. Afflictive Penalties (reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or temporary
special disqualification, prision mayor)
c. Correctional Penalties (prision correccional, arresto mayor,
suspension, destierro) and
d. Light Penalties (arresto menor, public censure)
Note: Penalties common to all principal penalties except death: FINE and
BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE. A fine, whether imposed as a single or
as an alternative penalty shall be classified according to Article 26 of
the RPC, as amended by Sec. 2 of RA No. 10591)
i. Afflictive Penalty: if it exceeds 1,200,000.
ii. Correctional Penalty: If it does not exceed 1,200,000
but is not less than 40,000.
iii. Light Penalty: if it be less than 40,000
2. ACCESSORY Penalties – those that are deemed included in the
imposition of principal penalties:
a. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification;
b. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification;
c. Suspension form public office, the right to vote and be voted for,
the profession or calling;
d. Civil interdiction;
e. Indemnification;
f. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of the
offense;

g. Payment of costs.
c. Duration and Effects

Under Article 27 of the RPC, the duration of the penalties shall be
as follows: (BAR 2019)
1. RECLUSION PERPETUA
- 20 years and 1 day to 40 years
- Although it has a range of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, by
nature, the penalty remains as a single and indivisible penalty. It
cannot be divided into periods or equal portions.
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 temporary
disqualification is imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration
shall be that of the principal penalty.
4. PRISION CORRECCIONAL, SUSPENSION AND DESTIERRO
- 6 months and 1 day to 6 years, except when suspension is
imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration shall be that of
the principal penalty.
5. ARRESTO MAYOR
- 1 month and 1 day to 6 months.
6. ARRESTO MENOR
- 1 day to 30 days.
7. BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE
- The bond to keep the peace shall be required to cover such
period of time as the court may determine.
d. Application
i. Subsidiary Imprisonment
It is a subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by the convict who
has no property with which to meet 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.
Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty and
therefore, the culprit cannot be made to undergo subsidiary
imprisonment unless the judgment expressly so provides (People
vs Fajardo, GR No. L-43466, May 25, 1938).

Such penalty does not apply when the penalty imposed is higher
than prision correccional; or for failure to pay the reparation of the
damage caused, indemnification of the consequential damages and the
costs of the proceedings; or when the penalty imposed is fine and a
penalty not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution and
which has no fixed duration.
ii. Indeterminate Sentence Law or ISLAW (Act No. 4103)

Application of ISLAW in the imposition of sentence depends entirely
on whether the crime is punished by the RPC or by a special law. The
rule in application is the following:
1. When the crime is punished by the RPC:
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by the
RPC or its amendments, the court shall sentence the accused
to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall
be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
properly imposed under the rules of the said code, and the
minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
- The basis for fixing the minimum term is the
prescribed penalty, and not the imposable
penalty. Prescribed penalty is the initial penalty
provided in the RPC as a general prescription
for the felonies defined therein which consists of
a range of a period of time (People vs
Temporada, GR No. 173473, December 17,
2008).
2. When the crime is punished by a special law:
If the offense is punished by any other law, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by
said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum
term prescribed by the same.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory when

imprisonment would exceed one (1) year, whether punishable by the
RPC or by Special Law. Thus, if the maximum term of imprisonment is
less than one (1) year, the trial court may not impose an indeterminate
sentence but straight penalty of one year or less instead.
However, there are also several circumstances where ISLAW is not
applicable. This law is not applicable to:

1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or
life imprisonment;
- Court has equated the penalty of reclusion perpetua as
synonymous to life imprisonment for purposes of ISLAW.
Hence, a person punished with reclusion perpetua is not entitled
to the benefits of ISLAW.
2. Those convicted of Treason, Conspiracy or Proposal to Commit
Treason;
3. Those convicted of Misprision of Treason, Rebellion, Sedition or
Espionage;
4. Those convicted of Piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
- Only habitual delinquents are not entitled to the benefits of
ISLAW. Thus, other multiple offenders like Recidivists are
entitled to an indeterminate sentence.
6. Those who have escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence;
7. Those who have violated the terms of conditional pardon
granted to them by the Chief Executive;
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed
one (1) year;
9. Those already sentenced by Final judgment at the time of
approval of the law except as provided in Section 5 hereof;
10. When the application is unfavourable to the accused;
11. Those persons who are given non-divisible penalties and
destierro because the said penalties cannot be divided in
accordance with the rules regarding indeterminate sentence.
d. Graduation of Penalties
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty lower or higher by
one or more degrees than another given penalty, the courts will observe
the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal
Code. Here, there are two scales to be observed:
SCALE No. 1:
1. Death
2. Reclusion Perpetua
3. Reclusion Temporal
4. Prision Mayor
5. Prision Correccional
6. Arresto Mayor

7. Destierro
8. Arresto Menor
9. Public Censure
10. Fine
SCALE No. 2:
1. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
2. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for,
and the profession or calling
4. Public Censure
5. Fine
“Death” as utilized in Article 71 of the RPC shall no longer form part of the
equation in the graduation of penalties. The Court held that it cannot find
basis to conclude that RA 9346 intended to retain the operative effects of the
death penalty in the graduation of the other penalties in our penal laws.
(People vs Von, GR. No. 166401, October 30, 2006)
e. Accessory Penalties (See enumeration in Page 45)
5. EXECUTION AND SERVICE

a. Three-Fold Rule
The threefold rule is a law on the service of prison sentence which
provides that a prisoner with multiple penalties shall not stay longer than
threefold of the most severe penalty imposed upon him. This rule is
embodied in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which states
that:
When the convict has to serve at least four (4) sentences, the
following rules shall apply:
1. The maximum duration of the convict’s total service of sentence
shall not be more than three (3) times the length of time (3-fold)
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon
him;
2. In no case shall the duration exceed 40 years; and
3. Subsidiary penalties shall be included in applying the three-fold
rule.
Note however that the subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of
the fine cannot be eliminated so long as the principal penalty is not higher
than six years of imprisonment.

Notwithstanding the three-fold rule, accessory penalties shall be
simultaneously served with imprisonment.
b. Probation Law (PD 968, as amended by RA 10707)

The following are disqualified from availing the benefits of
probation: [BAR TOPIC]
1. Those who have been sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six (6) years;
2. Those who have been convicted of Subversion or any crime against
the national security or public order;
3. Those who have previously convicted by final judgment of an offense
punished by imprisonment of more than six (60 months and one (1)
day and a fine of more than one thousand pesos (PHP 1,000.00);
4. Those who have once been placed on Probation under the provisions
of the Decree;
5. Those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of this decree became applicable pursuant to Sec 33 hereof;
6. Those who appealed;
- Not applicable to minor offenders. A child in conflict with the law can
apply for probation ANYTIME.
7. Those convicted of Drug Trafficking or Drug Pushing;
- Other drug offenses are still covered by the Probation law. Sec. 24 of
RA 9165 expressly provides that any person convicted for drug
trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court,
cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law.
8. Those convicted of Election Offenses under the Omnibus Election
Code.
Rules on granting Probation:

1. Probation law may be granted only when the sentence imposes a term
of imprisonment or a fine.
2. After conviction and sentence is rendered for a probationable penalty,
the defendant may apply for probation within the period for perfecting
an appeal, in which case the right to appeal is deemed waived.
3. The trial court shall then suspend the execution of said sentence and
place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms
and conditions as it may deem best.
4. No application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the
defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.

a. However, when a judgment of conviction imposing a non-
probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such
judgment is modified through the imposition of a probationable
penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation
based on the modified decision before such decision becomes
final.
b. The application for probation based on the modified decision
shall be filed in the trial court where the judgment of conviction
imposing a non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in the
trial court where such case has since been re-raffled.
5. In a case involving several defendants where some have taken further
appeal, the other defendants may apply for probation by submitting a
written application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the
judgment of conviction.
6. An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.
Probation shall be denied if the court finds that: the offender is in

need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his
commitment to an institution; there is undue risk that during the period of
probation the offender will commit another crime; or probation will
depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.
The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to
him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to
totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the offense for which probation
was granted. However, the expiration of the probation period alone
does not automatically terminate probation. Probation is not
coterminous with its period. There must be issued by the court an
order of final discharge based on the report and recommendation of
the probation officer. Only from such issuance can the case of the
probationer be deemed terminated (Bala vs Martinez, GR No. L-
67301, January 29, 1990).
c. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA No. 9344)

A child in conflict with the law refers to a child who is alleged as,
accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine
laws.
The rule on exemption from criminal liability of a child is
embodied in Section 6 of RA 9344 as amended to read as follows:

1. A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission
of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child
shall be subjection to intervention program.
2. A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an
intervention program unless he/she has acted with discernment, in
which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with RA 10630.
Intervention Program refers to a series of activities designed to

address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the
form of an individualized treatment program which includes counselling,
skills training, education, and other activities that will enhance his/her
psychological, emotional and psycho social well being. On those taken
into custody who are 15 years old or below and those above 15 years old
but below 18 years old and found to have acted without discernment are
subject to intervention program.
On the other hand, Diversion Program is the program that the
child in conflict with the law is required to undergo after he/she is found
responsible for an offense without resorting to formal court proceedings. It
applies if the child is above 15 years old but below 18 and who acted with
discernment.
Once the child who is under eighteen (18) years of age at the time
of the commission of the offense is found guilty of the offense charged, the
court shall determine and ascertain any civil liability which may have
resulted from the offense committed. However, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the child in conflict with the
law under suspended sentence without need of application: Provided,
however, that suspension of sentence shall still be applied even if the
juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or more at the time of the
pronouncement of his/her guilt. Upon suspension of sentence and after
considering the various circumstances of the child the court shall impose
the appropriate disposition measures as provided in the Supreme Court
on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law (RA 9344, Sec. 38).
d. Republic Act No. 10951 [See discussion on page 45]
6. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Extinction of criminal liability may be total or partial. Total extinction of
criminal liability includes death of the convict, service of sentence, amnesty,

absolute pardon, prescription of crime, prescription of penalty and marriage of
the offended party. Partial extinction of criminal liability includes conditional
pardon, commutation of sentence and good conduct time allowances which
the culprit may earn while he is undergoing preventive imprisonment or
serving sentence.
o Pardon vs Amnesty
It is likewise clear that there is difference between pardon
and amnesty.
The President may grant amnesty with the concurrence of
the majority of all the members of Congress. This distinguishes
amnesty from pardon because the latter does not need
congressional approval. The other distinctions between amnesty
and pardon are:
(1) Amnesty covers political offenses, while pardon
refers to any infraction of peace and order in the State;
(2) Amnesty is generally addressed to a group or a
community, while pardon is granted to an individual or a
limited number of individuals;
(3) Amnesty is a public act of which the court may
take judicial notice, while pardon is a private act which must
be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned because the
courts take no notice thereof;
(4) Amnesty is granted either before or after
conviction while pardon is given only after conviction;
(5) Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender
from the consequences of an offense of which he has been
convicted. It abolishes or forgives the punishment, and for
that reason it does not work the restoration of the rights to
hold public office, or the right of suffrage unless such rights
be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon, and in no
case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil
indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence (Article 36,
Revised Penal Code).
(6) On the other hand, amnesty looks backward and
abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself so much so
that the person released by amnesty stands before the law
precisely as though he had committed no
offense (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642).
(7) In no case does pardon exempt the culprit from
the payment of civil indemnity imposed upon him by the
sentence (Article 36, Revised Penal Code). Amnesty,
likewise, does not extinguish the civil liability (Article 113,
Revised Penal Code).

The power to extend executive clemency in favor of persons
convicted of public crimes is unlimited. The exercise of that power
lies in the absolute and uncontrolled discretion of the Chief
Executive. The grounds upon which it is exercised are not open to
judicial inquiry or review (United States v. Guarin, 30 Phil. 85).
o Prescription of Crimes vs. Prescription of Penalties

Prescription of crime is the forfeiture or loss of the right of
the state to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time;
while prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture of the right of
the Government to execute the final sentence after the lapse of a
certain time.
Prescription of crimes is embodied in Article 91 of RPC while
prescription of penalties is under Article 93 of the RPC.
The period of prescription [of crimes] shall commence to
run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended
party, the authorities or their agents. It is interrupted by the filing of
the complaint or information. It shall also commence to run again
when such proceedings terminate without the accused being
convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him. Lastly, the term of prescription [of crimes]
shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippines.
On the other hand, the period of prescription of penalties
shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade
the service of his sentence.
Article 90. Prescription of crime. - Crimes punishable by

death, reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall
prescribe in twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall
prescribe in fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall
prescribe in ten years; with the exception of those
punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five
years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall
prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed
shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the
highest penalty shall be made the basis of the application of
the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs

of this article. (As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19,
1966).
Article 92. When and how penalties prescribe. - The

penalties imposed by final sentence prescribe as follows:
1. Death and reclusion perpetua, in twenty years;
2. Other afflictive penalties, in fifteen years;
3. Correctional penalties, in ten years; with the
exception of the penalty of arresto mayor, which prescribes
in five years;
4. Light penalties, in one year.
a. Republic Act No. 10592 [AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94, 97, 98
AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE REVISED PENAL CODE]
Section 1. Article 29 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise
known as the Revised Penal Code, is hereby further amended to
read as follows:
"ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment
deducted from term of imprisonment. – Offenders or
accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall
be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they
have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention
prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing after being informed of
the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel 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 do so in writing with the assistance of a
counsel and shall be credited in the service of his sentence
with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone
preventive imprisonment.
"Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty
of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30)
years.
"Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to 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. Computation of preventive imprisonment for
purposes of immediate release under this paragraph shall be
the actual period of detention with good conduct time
allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is absent
without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court
may motu proprio order the rearrest of the
accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual
delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous
crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case
the maximum penalty to which the accused may be
sentenced is lestierro, he shall be released after thirty (30)
days of preventive imprisonment."
Section 3. Article 97 of the same Act is hereby further

amended to read as follows:
"ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good
conduct of any offender qualified for credit for preventive
imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any
convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or
detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the
following deductions from the period of his sentence:
"1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall
be allowed a deduction of twenty days for each month of
good behavior during detention;
"2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-
three days for each month of good behavior during
detention;
"3. During the following years until the tenth year,
inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good
behavior during detention;
"4. During the eleventh and successive years of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days
for each month of good behavior during detention; and
"5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he
shall be allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in
addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of
study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered.
"An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of
entitlement to the above allowances for good conduct."

amended to read as follows:

"ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A
deduction of one fifth of the period of his sentence shall be
granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive
imprisonment or the service of his sentence under the
circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives
himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the
issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of
the calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A
deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall be
granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of
his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity
or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code.
"This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether
undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving sentence."

amended to read as follows:"
"ART. 99. Who grants time allowances. – Whenever
lawfully justified, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the
Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or
the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall
grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once
granted shall not be revoked."
7. CIVIL LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASE

The civil liability of the accused is anchored in Article 100 of the
Revised Penal Code which expressly provides that “every person criminally
liable is also civilly liable.”
The civil liability established in the RPC particularly in Articles 100,
101, 102 and 103 includes restitution, reparation of damages, and
indemnification of consequential damages. The obligation to make these
(restitution, reparation and indemnification) devolves upon the heirs of the
person liable and the heirs of the person injured may maintain an action to
demand the same.
The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible,
with allowance for any deterioration or diminution of value as determined by
the court. The thing itself must be restored, even though it be found in the
possession of a third person who acquired it by lawful means, saving to the
latter his action against the proper person who may be liable to him. However,
restitution is not applicable in a case in which the thing has been acquired by
a third person in the manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar
an action for its recovery.

In reparation for damages: the court shall determine the amount
of damage, taking into consideration the price of the thing, whenever possible
and its special sentimental value to the injured party, and the reparation shall
be made accordingly.
Indemnification of consequential damages shall include not only
those caused the injured party, but also those suffered by his family or by a
third person by reason of the crime.
-END OF BOOK 1-

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer Bar 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer Bar 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law 1 Reviewer Bar 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the differences between mala in se and mala prohibita?

What are the differences between mala in se and mala prohibita?

What are the general characteristics of criminal law?

What are the general characteristics of criminal law?

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

SYLLABUS BASED (BAR 2021)

I. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

It is also an enactment of the legislature which prohibits certain acts

While it is true that the enactment of penal law or criminal law is

1. Mala in se and mala prohibita

Traditionally, violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to

In general, mala in se and mala prohibita are distinguished as

1|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

2. Scope and characteristics

This characteristic admits various exceptions, as follows:

2|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

3|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

3. Pro Reo Principle

4. Interpretation of penal laws

b. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lige.

4|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

3. Fe is an OFW in Taiwan. Thereat, she posted in her FB account calling all

5|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

o Felonies according to Gravity or Penalty Prescribed:

b. ABERRATIO ICTUS, ERROR IN PERSONAE, and PRAETER

o Article 4 (1), RPC: Criminal liability shall be incurred (1) By any

Requisites for Art 4 (1) to apply:

6|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

7|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

In the most famous case of US vs Achong, GR No. L-5272,

Mistake of fact would be relevant only when the felony would

o Doctrine of Proximate Cause – such adequate and efficient cause

Proximate Cause is negated by:

Proximate cause does not require that the offender needs to

8|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

Requisites of Impossible Crime:

9|C R I M I N A L L A W I R E V I E W E R for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

Whenever you are confronted with a problem where the facts

If the question asked is “Is he liable for an impossible crime?”,

This idea of an impossible crime is a one of last resort, just to

10 | C R I M I N A L L A W I REVIEWER for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

Stages of execution are applicable only to Material Crimes.

Desistance on the part of the offender negates criminal

The spontaneous desistance of the offender negates only the

In deciding whether a felony is attempted or frustrated or

11 | C R I M I N A L L A W I REVIEWER for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

The attempted stage is said to be within the subjective

12 | C R I M I N A L L A W I REVIEWER for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

If the wound is not mortal, the crime is only attempted. The

An exception to the general rule is the so-called subjective

The common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved,

Examples of felonies that cannot be FRUSTRATED:

13 | C R I M I N A L L A W I REVIEWER for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)

• Adultery: Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is

• Indirect Bribery: It is committed by accepting gifts offered to

• Corruption of Public Officers: The offense requires the

• Physical Injury: It cannot be frustrated because the felony

• Theft: Unlawful taking immediately consummates the

14 | C R I M I N A L L A W I REVIEWER for BAR 2021 (Atty. Henrik T. Ageas)